Canadian and Australian Leaders Debates 2025

Thank you for listening to Depictions Media Radio. Welcome to Policy and Rights. We'll show up back. Welcoma Policy and Human Joy.

This is a special edition of Policy and Rights. Un Kill, I'm going to be doing a special report on both the debates of the Australian Debate and the English edition of the Leader's Debate. As you know, the Canadian politics are going onto the polls and dealing with the Canadian election happening this coming April, whereas Australian's federal election that will be happening in the first week of May. So

Live from the atrium of Maison Radio Canada in Montreal, four federal leaders will debate for your vote. The leaders are here and ready to go, Mark Carney, Pierre Paulieve, If Francois Blanche and jug Meat Singh. They will debate the major challenges facing our country, from tariffs, to the cost of living, public safety, energy and leading in a crisis. Good evening, everybody. I'm Steve Pagan, your moderator for tonight's debate. Each leader has agreed to the following no notes, answer

Well, first, Steve may I thank you and also thank fellow leaders for their service to Canada people at home for taking the time to watch. I just want to underscore the premise here question because I think the relationship that we've had with the United States, relationship over the course of almost the last four decades, which has been one of steadying increasing integration, has fundamentally changed because the President is looking to fundamentally restructure trading system. So the

Mister Pauliev, would you do anything differently?

Well, first of all, thank you Steve, and thank you to our fellow contestants here today. It's an honor to be here. What would I do different Well, I'll start by what I would do the same? I think we do need to counter the American tariffs with our own to deter this economic aggression. We must make clear that we will always be sovereign and independent. What would I be doing differently? We all we need to be in

Mister Singh, you get the next question. Can we trust the United States to work with us on matters such as Arctic sovereignty and defense policy?

I think we've seen first of all, good evening, everyone, and thank you for tuning in.

Thanks for the question, Steve.

We've seen what for a lot of people feels like I've betrayal when we look at the United States.

I grew up in a bordertown.

I grew up in Windsor, and we saw how connected we were as a city and as a community. People lived on one side of the border, worked on the other. People traveled back and forth all the time. We're in the automotive capital of Canada, and we knew how important it was to be able to build cars in Canada, but we saw that those cars went back and forth across the border. Seeing what Donald Trump did to attack Canada in this unprovoked way without any justification, really felt

Mister Blanchet, for you, what supports would you want to see for industries affected by tariffs, many, of course of which are in.

Quebec, many of them. First, we all will come in Quebec and Montreal. You have me because I try not to speak English in Montreal. However, I think you should never underestimate the threat that mister Trump poses on Quebec economy and Canada economy and Mexico economy. But we must acknowledge the fact that the economy of Quebec is built differently, the challenges are not the same. The necessity for Quebec to have at least partly its own voice in the

Vaccimos brochet. Okay, we now move into open debate, and I'll start off, mister Kearnie with you, and then we go from there. Do you still support dollar for dollar tariffs and if they ultimately threaten Canadian jobs and businesses?

No, and in fact we've already moved off from dollar tariffs. You know, we have to recognize, and I think we all do, the United States economy is more than ten times the size of the Canadian economy. And the principle in terms of our counter tariffs is to have maximum impact in the United States, as I said a moment ago, minimum impact here. So we have to think about the impact on Canadian businesses. I'll give you one example, if

Last point.

I know you're pressed for time the Canadian autoparts sector so that it can remain competitive with the United States. We're focused on maximizing Canadian jobs, maximizing the harm in the US, so that we get them where we need.

Mister Pullet, who went in then, mister Sick, mister Kearney.

You claim that you want our country to respond with strength, but after the last decade, half of which time you've been justin Trudeau's economic advisor, our economy is weaker than ever before. It's been the worst growth in the G seven. We've lost a half trillion dollars of investment south of

Let mister Conry respond and mister sure, yes, So let's go to my record.

My record is a month long as Prime minister, and this goes to the heart of coming to the Americans with strength, but doing the right thing for Canada. Within the first week as Prime Minister, I sat down with all the premiers of the provinces and territories as well as the leaders of the indigenous peoples. Got an agreement with all the provinces and territories doesn't happen very often. Got an agreement for them to have one Canadian economy

Yes, it is possible. It is possible on our system.

It is the impact of sixty It is agreed under the Impact Assessment Framework, and we have a cooperation agreement with British Columbia already. We're looking forward to them with the other problems is we will move forward.

Of course, of course we agree around having a strategic response to the United States. But what I'm concerned about is what we're doing here in Canada. We are already seeing threats to our country in that just the threats alone of the tariffs have met Canadians have lost their jobs, the threats of the tariffs that are in pace right now, the threat the impact of those tariffs is that we've.

Lost jobs and steel aluminum.

In the auto sector for people are already losing their jobs. And while mister Carne, you had time, as you mentioned, not very long time, but as Prime minister, you showed us your priorities.

The first thing you did is you had traveled.

You made a tax cut for millionaires, which was reversing on the capital gains. So you give a tax cut to millionaires, but you didn't have time to increase the amount of workers get on EI. Right now, workers who are struggling and wondering what am I going to do my job? Workers who've lost their job are saying, how do I pay my bills when EI only covers half

We have not heard from Monsieur Blanchet yet in this segment, so please.

Yeah, Monsieur Cannie, you are becoming a real Canadian leader saying one thing in French and an nuntherer one in English. You said in British Columbia in February that you would force oil and gas through pipelines through Quebec, either we wanted it or not. You would use emergency powers in order to do so, and two days later in Montreal you said that you would never do that without the approval of Quebec. What's the point of using emergency powers

Let's get from mister Poliev and then a response from mister Kearney.

Well, mister Kearney refused to answer the question about pipelines.

Just the other day.

He said that he doesn't necessarily think we need to build pipelines. Let me tell you what that means. Right now, the Americans get ninety seven percent of our oil one hundred percent of our natural gas exports at big discounts. We have to send Canadian oil from Western Canada through the States just to get it back to Quebec because we don't have a pipeline.

And now there's this law, liberal law C.

Sixty nine, what effect which effectively bans pipelines. The fourteen biggest energy and resource companies say it has to go if we're ever going to build another project. And I asked mister Carney, why he would keep in place this anti pipeline law that effectively empowers Donald Trump to have a total monopoly on our single biggest export.

Why would you not repeal this liberal law?

Isn't it because you are exactly the same in the same line as Justin Trudeau and the rest of the liberal team that is now making up your cabinet.

Let's get a response.

Well, let's let me pick up a couple of points that have been made. The first thing I did as Prime Minister was to cut the carbon tex. That's the first thing. Second thing is made a commitment, made a commitment that all proceeds, all proceeds from our tariffs will go to workers, and those questions most effects. There were several points, if I may, mister Steve, if I may address, I'm trying to do it quickly because several points raise all proceeds go to workers and the firm's most effective,

And here's how you do it.

And we've already moved in the first in the first month cooperation agreements with the province is guess what we are a federation. You need to cooperate with Quebec. You need to cooperate with the provinces. You need to get First Nations and Indigenous people buy and you can do that through the one project, one review window that we put in place at that first Minister's meeting, as well as, if necessary, using emergency powers to fulfill the federal responsibility, but not the unique Pulley.

Ever, you want to come back on that.

What you're saying, mister Kearney, with respect is a total contradiction. The no New Development Law C sixty nine guarantees there will not be one stop shop because it requires the Government of Cana to actually duplicate.

Regulation, have one.

We just gott let's just let them finish the sentence.

That is not true.

In fact, mister sing The reality is we should have strong rules enforced once. We shouldn't have multiple levels of ealth that takes it takes now seventeen years to get a major project approved in this country. That is why in the last ten years we've had the worst economic growth in our in the entire pipeline and built not

While these two can be about who's more pro pipeline, I think what we need to do is I mean, it's clear the Liberals bought a pipeline, that built a pipeline.

I don't know what Pierre is complaining about. That's what they did.

I think what we need to do if we're talking about energy in our country, we need to build an East west grid. Let's use our power as a nation to build a national project that creates good jobs, that strengthens us for the future, where we connect the low cost energy from jurisdictions and provinces across this beautiful land and have low cost energy for businesses, for people, so we can build a stronger economy.

That's the energy of the future that we need.

Mister Carney, three quick points. First, the pipeline built, Yes, TMX built. That's why oil exports up fifty percent.

Over the course last few years.

Secondly, I don't think mister Singh is absolutely right about the East West grid grid interconnections, which is part of the energy corridor. Huge opportunities for this country. We have to be able to do more than one thing. Third point, fundamental point. We can give ourselves far more than Donald Trump can ever take away if we have one Canadian economy.

Not thirteen.

And if we just look at that agreement we got with the provinces. Look at what Ontario and Nova Scotia have just announced in terms of their steps towards this.

This is within our graph.

Mister Blanche, What should we be prepared to concede in our negotiations with the United States.

I want to be back to something that mister Carnis said. You can't do something and deposit and you can't fill people's mind with nonsense. Quebec as by law its own environmental review institution, and you cannot through a federal decision, even through a Quebec government decision, over go over the BAP as we call it. If the BAP says no, she said, it's no. I know, I would I know, But this is the mind.

This is the point.

This is if I may, this is the point the federal government can do the following, which is to take the decision to abide by the decision of the Quebec BAP that is within the federal government's power. That is known as cooperative federalism.

That's what we need to do. One other point, this is what we need if we I mean, this is what need to do in a crisis.

We have more you see.

And then mister Pelly, Yeah, the building of those pipelines will take at least at least ten to fourteen years. Mister Trump will be ninety years old, not president no more, and somebody of course less terrible will be there before you can even dream of having oil through this pipeline of yours.

We're less than a minute ago, mister Pelly, I have I promised you next.

So after the last ten years of liberals blocking pipelines and killing jobs, we actually actually need to get things done. We need to change, and our conservative plan for change will repeal the no New Pipeline's law. It will create a true one stop shop, set up shovel ready zones with pre permitting so that we can approve LNG liquefaction export plants, mines, pipelines, nuclear plans, and also hydro electric

Last quick word to mister Carney.

Okay, quick word bringing it back to what we're talking about, which is tear us the threats to Canada. How to negotiate. We need these options. We need these options to build domestically, to build one Canadian economy.

We need to act. We need to diversify our trade partners.

And that give us.

That is our time. Okay, you know my job tonight. I got to be the heavy guy here every now and then making sure everybody comes to time. And I'm creeping an eye as well on making sure that everybody gets rough justice over here. That concludes our first section and our first debate. Up next, affordability and the cost of living.

Our goal is to double the pace of housing construction.

Will lower your bills and build homes you can actually afford.

These needs.

Ay, big powerful, bring it home. Tax cut on work, investment, energy and home building.

Okay, leaders, same idea. One on one questions followed by open debate format and mister Pauliev, you get the first question this time. Many provinces, including some provinces with conservative governments, have ambitious housing targets, none of which have been met. Why do you think your housing plan will be any different.

Let me start by talking to the young people of the nation and those who are aspiring to home ownership. And it was only ten years ago you could buy an average house for four hundred and fifty thousand dollars. But in the last lost Liberal decade, housing costs have doubled, rising faster than in any country in the G seven and so now our youth cannot afford a home and our seniors are worried about being evicted. We can't afford a fourth Liberal term of rising housing costs. We need

For a change.

Also on the issue of affordability, mister Singh, you get the next question how do you bring down grocery prices in the midst of a trade war.

I appreciate the I appreciate the question. This is a big concern.

When I talk to Canadians, they tell me they're really feeling squeezed from the cost of living. That's one of the top things that people tell me about. People are saying, I can't afford to buy groceries. Every time I go to the grocery store. It's just ongoing worry and this feeling of anxiety that can I actually afford the things that my family needs. On top of that, people are worried about the cost of homes. I think those are the two biggest things I hear. So we can do

France has done it. Greece has done it to great success.

It's brought down the cost of food significantly in both those jurisdictions. We can also ban corporate landlords from buying up the affordable homes to keep homes that are affordable affordable. We can make things better for Canadians, but it requires having the courage to take on the powerful corporations that are ripping you off, that are price gouging you. And we know that price gouging is one of the major

Seeing that time. Mister Bilche, I want to ask you about old age security, which will soon cost this country one hundred billion dollars annually. We understand you would like to expand it. How would you pay for that?

We would want it to be just for everybody because the liberals I've created the discrimination against elders which are sixty five to seventy five years old, I having ten percent less income from federal government than those who are

Crimes blanchees and that's time for this one, Miss Carney, want to ask you about housing, which over the past decade has gone from a problem to a crisis while the Liberals Will were in power. Is your policy on getting homes built any different from your predecessors and.

How This is one of the reasons why I enter this contest because of the housing crisis, the cost of living crisis, the housing crisis, and the Trump crisis.

To help fix it.

And I would say, look, the housing approach is fundamentally different because we need a fundamentally different approach. We need to build housing at a rate that we haven't seen since the end of the Second World War.

We do need a fundamentally different approach.

And with the fundamentally different approach, we can build an entirely new industry. So the question is how now, mister Paulyev and I agree on some things. I agree as well on reducing the tax on first time home purchases

Mister Kearney, that's time we now moved to open forum here and mister Sing, you got the first comment. Many of you have pledged to cut the GST on many aspects of buying a home, and mister Sing, I want to ask you, would you cut the GST on anything else in order to make life more affordable?

Absolutely.

In fact, I'm the only one on this stage that fought to give people a GSC holiday. Interestingly, while that GSC holiy helps working class folks middle class folks by taking off the GSD off essentials, the.

Conservatives under Pierre Polier have voted against that.

They oppose the idea of giving people actual folks that need help a tax break and would rather give millionaires a tax break, which shows you whose side he is on, which is not surprising. But what is surprising that mister Carney also said that giving people a break on their GST is a bad idea. Mister Charney, why do you think giving a tax break to capital gains folks that earn more than a million dollars is a good idea?

Is a bad idea.

But giving a tax break to people who really only earn over more than one point four million dollars, that's somehow a good idea.

Okay, you went after, that's your numbers.

You went after miss Polly of first. So I'm going to give him the first shot to respond, if you.

Will, mister Carney.

The reality is that housing costs doubled under the Liberal government, while Justin Trudeau made exactly the same promises that you are now repeating today. He promised that he would double home building, In fact, home building went down. He promised that he reduced the cost in fact it went up. And how we here we are? Mark Kearney is asking for a fourth Liberal term, repeating the exact same Liberal

For a change, mister Kurney, they're coming at you from both sides.

Is okay. I know it's maybe difficult. Mister Polyev.

You spent years running against Justin Trudeau and the carbon tax, and neither they're both gone. Okay, they're both gone, and we're we're in a new person and we're within a very different look. I'm a very different person from Justin Trudeau. Focus is on you, and so how to drive results in the housing market. You've got to change the model of building. You've got to increase the financing for housing developers.

You claim to be very different from mister Trudeau. Now the point is to show that you are any better than mister Trudeau. You claim to have a lot of experience in many things, and you know things. Last time we had somebody saying that they knew things, it was a senators and they killed a law that protected supply and management because they knew better than us and were elected by nobody, exactly like you are today. You say that you are a great crisis manager, which one I

Yes, returning to the topic of housing, now this is very important. Obviously, we need to build homes that people can afford. Mister Paul have had the opportunity to show us what he could do. He was the Minister of Housing under Stephen Harper and during that time, guess how many homes he built. He built six homes during that entire time. This is not something you can trust to build homes. He built homes. This has been confirmed again and again. He were six homes.

That's it. Now.

The problem though with mister Karney as well, He's laid out a plan. The problem is is that when he was the share of Brookfell Investments, this is a company that made a strategic decision to buy up affordable homes and cities like Toronto where people were paying a decent rent, and they purposely bought those homes, kicked out the tenants and jacked up the rents.

That is not someone you can trust, sadly to deal with the.

Housing crisis when mister Karney, you're profited off of it.

We're going to get responses here, mister Paulia, first, mister Carney.

Second.

First of all, mister saying all the Toronto Star, the Toronto Star debunked your fall six homes. And I appreciate neither Liberals or MNDP are very good with math. But in that year, the year I was, which is great, the year of the year, the year I was saying, in the year I though, the year I was minister, we had two hundred thousand homes built. And guess what the average price of a home was at the time, four hundred and fifty thousand dollars.

Guess what happened.

One one bedrooms randed out for nine hundred dollars, and that since that time, housing costs have actually doubled under the Liberals double we have. Now we have mister Carney making tens of billions of dollars of spending promises that will ultimately as well continue to build bureaucracy. We don't need more bureaucracy in Ottawa. We tried that for ten Liberal years. Mister Carney.

What we need is to build homes. In communities.

So that means acting taxes on home building and getting the government out of the way so that builders can actually build. Can I pick you are on housing we need to change and user are not a change market party.

I'm going to pick up on I thought that answer was quite revealing. The first thing is that it's an attitude towards housing that absolutely ignores affordable housing, deeply affordable housing issues with vulnerable people, ignores the rental market, ignores all other aspects of it. So the six are the relevant. Mister Singh is absolutely right. The six are the relevant.

Two hundred thousand.

The two hundred thousand are a different part of the housing market. There are many Canadians. There are many Canadians of different income levels. The second thing it reveals is a misunderstanding, or well a misunderstanding, i'll be polite, of how the government's balance sheet can catalyze enormous private investment. And that is what we need to do to solve

Miche Blanchet, Yeah, you have spoken much more than I have, so I won't ask a question. I will make a statement instead. I'm not saying no, I'm not saying that you cannot do what you pretend that you are able to do. We just have no proof so far. I'm saying quite clearly that you cannot be entitled to do it alone. You cannot be entitled to hold all the power in your two hands. You cannot go out there and fix things for Canada and Quebec without being seriously

Let me get mister, at this point, can you tell us what's the first thing you would do to make life more affordable for Canadians.

There's a lot of things that we can do, and I've laid out some of those things I think fundamentally, I'm the only person on stage that not only fought for real relief for people in terms of affordability, I'm the only one that fought for pharmacare that actually makes life more affordable at giving people medication coverage, dental care that gives people more affordability by letting them access their

A track record of making life more affordable for people. But we do.

So vote for a new Democrat and will continue this work to make life more affordable for you. While the Conservatives and the block have voted against those measures to make life affordable because that's not who they care about.

You.

Democrats are in it for you, pure pellef.

The number one expense for families today is taxes, more than they spend on food, clothing, and shelter. Combined this after ten years of liberal tax increases, we can't afford a fourth term of high liberal taxes. That's why conservatives have a plan for change, and that plant against.

A measure to help people.

Could cutting income taxes by fifteen percent for the average worker and senior, saving a working couple up to two thousand dollars, rewarding hard work again, because hard work out is actually being punished. US is actually being punished because of the very high taxes. Now the Liberals promised ten years ago they would lower them, they actually raise taxes

You want to see it would say three dollars, and that's what we youre want to say people two thousand dollars, but cut their dental care which is thousands of dollars, cut their childcare which is thousands dollars, cut farmercare coverage was just.

Thousands of dollars. That's not a very good math deal right there.

You're gonna cut You're gonna say people two thousand, but cost them tens of thousands of dollars. That's why you cannot afford conservatives, and you certainly can't. You need new Democrats, Mark Arney.

I'm going to reinforce that point and then I'll respond to mister Blanche. Childcare in this country three thousand to ten thousand dollars a year for a family, depending on where you live, province, depending on where you live. That's that's what's been saved there. Eight hundred dollars per trip to the dentist.

We've expanded dentalents, million million Democrats, farmercare.

These are fundamental issues for affordability. We're talking about affordability and taking them off in order that tax.

Quebec what I've said, and in terms of income working with Quebec for Canadian yes, absolutely.

Throughout the short time I've been Prime Minister, working directly with the Premier of Quebec, our Minister of Foreign Affairs, our Minister of Finance are from Quebec.

Quebec and Quebec issues. Whether it's to.

Answers, it goes a letter. He asked five things in the letter. He read us his expectations we're talking about, and you did not even and swer him. And tonight you are so much in love with Quebec.

Steve. The question that Canadians have to ask.

Why he's got mister saying sorry, he is the floor.

The question you have to ask is, after a decade of liberal promises, can you afford food? Is your housing more affordable than it used to be? What is your cost of living like comppared to what it was a

Five seconds left in this segment for you to respond to that.

Look, I do my own talking points, Thank you very much.

The biggest risk we have to affordability, the biggest risk we have to this economy is Donald Trump. So first and foremost, we've got to get that right. Secondly, we need to do it in a way that brings everyone along together. That means preserving pharmacare, dental care, childcare, reinforcing healthcare, spending, our.

Intrusion, intrusion, intrusion, intrusion, and Quebec jurisdiction over and again. I like, any better than we are? Is there one thing Canadians can do that Quebecers cannot do. You are doing intrusions in our jurisdiction with our money, pretending you are better, and most of the time you try to copy what we did with our own money against us. What's that as a policy? Don't you have your own things?

Gentle about that? That really is time for this segment. I wanted to be polite and let everybody finish their.

Point, but far we got to move by the liberty.

Thank you. Okay, that ends Section two. Up next, public safety and security.

Fight crime to protect Canadians and to build communities that are safe, secure and strong.

Keep crime, drugs, stolen cars, and other illegal substances out of our country.

We're going to invest in our borders and that means hiring more border officers.

Resources are in short supply, not enough staff.

This is not the nice way to treat people who come to our border.

Okay, same format, one on one questions and then open debate, missieur blanche, you get to go first in this one public safe and security for a lot of people. That means the fentanyl crisis. I'd like to know what you could contribute to ending that crisis in this country.

The fentannel crisis is a very serious issue, which is a bit less important than Quebec than it is in British Columbia. I think the old border thing is the real issue. Immigration is a very important issue for Quebecer's. Immigration has to be dealt with in an orderly fashion. Our borders are not dealt with in an orderly fashion. The rules are not respected, the rules are unclear. Some rules even invite people to eye for two weeks illegally

Mischion Blanche. We can of course return to the immigration issue during open debate few years too. Mister Carnie, question for you. The liberal gun buyback policy, not considered a success by many people. Reviving it is in your platform. Why would it work this time?

Yeah?

I think well, what we've seen with that policy is some success at the commercial level, but not at the individual level because it hasn't been my opinion, it hasn't been organized properly, and it needs to be organized properly and instructed the Minister of National Security and Public Safety in order to do that.

So part of this is a different focus of.

Government, a focus on results, a focus on clear milestones in the short term. Let me make a broader point though and gun, which is that we have a problem with guns coming over, which is why we've tightened our borders. We have an issue though with a gun industry that is continually coming up with new forms of assault rifles, mass killing machines. We banned over two thousand of these. Every single time there has been a vote in the House of Commons on gun control, mister Polyev has voted

You can come back on that in the open debate if you want to. But my question for you in this segment is Indigenous people are statistically overrepresented in our correction system. Are you concerned that your tough on crime platform will make that worse.

I'm concerned that Indigenous people are disproportionately the victims of crime. I give you the example of a wonderful group of Indigenous people who came under attack in Saskatchewan, and many of them were murdered. Killer was out of jail after sixty prior convictions. This is the result of ten years of liberal laws that allow the same offenders to be released dozens and dozens of times, even when it's known they are danger We can't risk a fourth liberal term

Mister Peliev. That's time. Mister sing your question is about the RCMP, because you've got OURCMP reform in your platform. What in your view is the problem with the RCMP.

Well, some of the basis for this is the concern that's been raised in more rural communities, in northern communities that there have been some serious concerns about violence or inappropriate use of force when it comes to the execution of their duties. We want to make sure that we've got a top tier police force that provides security and safety too with those communities in a way that's sensitive

And that's something I'm committed to.

And the other area that I'm focused on when it comes to public safety is making sure we prevent crime before it happens. And that's why we want to see increased investments in our border security. We saw under the Conservatives they cut eleven hundred border officers in one day, so that prevented our ability to keep our border safe.

That stops those.

Materials come in that time. Munch Or was wealthy RCMP. But maybe we can get back to that during the open debate segment which we go to right now, when mister Polly, have you get the first word on this one, and it's sort of dovetails on the last answer you gave, which is you have pledged to be the first prime minister in this country to use the notwithstanding clause setting aside Charter rights of as you call them, multiple murderers. Why do you think that's necessary?

To be clear, I want to uphold the Charter rights of Canadians under Section seven to life, Liberty and Security of the person. Right now that right is violated by multiple murderers who are given discounts. The case in question was a gentleman who went into a mosque and shot dead six innocent worshipers. He got, according to this ruling, only one twenty five year sentence, meaning he can be

They will only come out in a box.

We will also pass tough new laws that prevent repeat offenders from getting out. If you commit three offenses under the three strikes law, I propose you will not be allowed out of jail until you prove that you are drug free, that you are behaved perfectly, and that you've learned an employable skill and you've served a ten year sentence. We cannot allow liberal crime and chaos to go on

Let me get mister Carney to respond to you that you think that's an appropriate use of the Notwithstanding clause.

Of the Charter.

I think that the one of the core responsibilities of the federal government Prime Minister is to defend the fundamental rights and liberties of Canadians, and those fundamental rights and liberties of Canadians are outlined in our Charter. Rights and Freedoms, which is forty three years old. Literally today, I think it's a very dangerous slope to override judgments of the Supreme Court of Canada. In fact, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms exists to protect Canadians from.

People like us on the stage.

Politicians who may use their power to override fundamental rights in the issue in using by the federal government.

I'll stop here is not where you start.

Where will you stop, mister Poll, I should get mister pollyev on that is it a slipper?

I must say I would be quite interested too, because mister Carney said that he didn't want us to use the notwithstanding cause claus before adopting a law, and yesterday he said that he felt that it was wrong to use the notwithstanding clause after a law is adopted. So if we cannot use it before and we cannot use it after, it means that mister Commy believes that we should never use it. But it is very important and

Well, let me just start by saying, first of all, yeah, thank you. I just started by saying, let's not let mister Paulyev get away with making this Ludacro's claim that anyone on this stage thinks that violent crime should get a less severe penalty. Obviously, that is not a special position that he's taking. Everyone agrees that horrible crimes should have horrible sentences. Judges are equipped to do that, So

Mister Pierre Pouliev, when he was in power in the Conservatives, they cut the number of border officers. Okay, reduce the number. Let's speak inting our border, trust them.

Let's take this Pauliev on the issue of whether in using or not with clause under these circumstances would be a kind of a slippery slope and encourage politicians to use it more.

No, we will use it to protect the Charter rights of law abiding Canadians. I'm interested in the rights of victims. Mister Carney seems to be very interested in the rights of criminals. He says that it's dangerous for me to ensure that mass murderers stay behind bars for life. You know what's dangerous turning them loose on our streets. I don't think you appreciate, sir, the chaos that is unfolding

That is the right that I'm fighting for for a change.

I'm fighting for that as well. And let me be specific about two things that have been raised. The first is with respect to these issues of car theft, home invasion, and I'll use the greater the GTA area where there has been SARP increase.

How do you attack that? You attack it several ways?

One, you increase the criminal penalties for that happening, particularly if you're part of a gang, particularly if you use the firearm, and you will do that, and we have doing so, we've committed to doing so. You put in place a reverse onus in terms of bail, so that it has to be proven that there's not a which we've also committed to. And then you go to what mister Singh was talking about, which is we have to reinforce our frontiers. That's why we're committing to an extra

In federal meeting, thank you very much.

I want to talk about one of the issues that has come up is the idea of the public safety concerns around the overdose crisis and how this is devastating our communities. We're seeing so many lives being lost in that we know that one of the ways to address that is by investing in some of the solutions like mental health services and rehabilitation services. Services keep our communit

I've met with Mom Stopped.

The Harm, an organization of moms that have lost their children to this opioid over those crisis. They've literally had their children have died because of this, and they they're saying, we need to do everything possible to save lives, to stop this death from happening. And I think we need to listen to those moms, and that's my commitment.

Mich Blanche two things as rapidly as possible. First, we believe that we should act on crime, gangs and organizations, defining them as we do for terrorist organization. We have to protect our kids from the violence of those gang from the drugs being sold by those gangs, from the guns and whatever else being so sale being by those gangs told and not so being you know, we purchased

Also, Miss Polly, if you wanted to work.

I speak to families all the time.

We're terrified by the scourge of drugs and illegal guns, and we know those guns are not Grandpa Joe's hunting rifle. So when the liberals try to ban hunting rifles, they're really going after the wrong people. Ninety percent of guns that come in that are used in crime are smuggled illegally over the porous liberal run borders the border. That's

Makes this quick intervention, mister Carney. Then I got a question for each of you before this segment's out.

Okay, we absolutely fully support hunting rights of hunters and Indigenous Canadians. But I want to I'm going to raise an.

Issue which is a serious issue about safety.

Uh, there are people we're in Montreal, in Montreal, in Toronto, across this country who fear going to their synagogue, fear going to their community center, fear taking their children, leaving their children' school.

And this has to stop. This is on. It's totally unacceptable.

So what we're proposing is to make it a criminal offense to threaten or to impede anyone from being near or going to their place of worship, their school, their community center. It pains me that when we have to do it, because this is not what we should be doing as Canadians, of course, but we will put that in place.

Let me get back, and this is a fundamental issue with me.

Get these ten seconds from each of you before this segments out on what you perceive to be the biggest security threat to Canada right now ten seconds each, mister Poulief.

The physical security threat to our country is the rampant crime wave that is running out of control. After the last decade, we had one hundred and sixteen percent increasing gun crime. A large second criminals.

I got a holder of the ten seconds, mister Carney.

Uh, well, we're in a security section. I think we didn't have a chance to talk about anything internationally. I think the biggest security threat to Canada's China.

China, you say, mister s biggest security threat legal guns and drugs coming across the border and cuts the services that would make our public safety and security even worse.

Last words, the fact that neither Quebec or Canada is able to protect itself and that we are still dependent and entirely dependent on American to protect us.

Okay, that is the end of that section, gentlemen. Up next, Energy and climate.

Improving pipelines, getting things filled, unleashing production.

We are unlocking major infrastructure projects, including in conventional energy, oil and gas.

We're speaking thousands of dollars a year for each family to pay for the damages of climate change.

We can absolutely build important projects like an East West energy.

Grid energy and climate change. I know how much all of you love talking about pipeline, So here we go, mister Singh. Do you first, should Canada build new pipelines to get our oil and gas to market?

Well, it's not an approach I favor with public money. There's not any projects that are on the table, so it's not a specific project to look at. I favor when it comes to the environment, building an East West energy grid that connects low cost energy and allows for families to reduce their electricity costs. But let's put this all in context. We're talking about what our energy solutions are in the context of a climate crisis, and we're not just talking about a climate crisis in the far future.

We're living it right now.

I remember I met a mom a couple years ago before I had kids, who told me she was worried about taking her kids out on some days because of the forest fires in BC. It meant that it was unsafe for kids to go outdoors. Fast forward to when I became a parent just a couple years after that, and I literally worry about the same thing. The forest fires we saw a couple years ago meant that many places that didn't see this before saw days where there was such smoke in the air that.

It was dangerous for kids.

We see extreme weather, forest fires, heat, domes, floods impacting us.

We've got to do everything we can.

Thank time, mister Sting, that's time, mister Paulyev. Where does fighting climate change land on your list of priorities when it comes to expanding energy opportunities in this country?

It lands within our priorities of bringing home jobs while bringing down emissions around the world. Look, the reality is that if we push production out of our country to more polluting countries, it actually makes the problem worse. But that has been exactly the liberal approach. With the antidevelopment law of C. Sixty nine blocking of fifteen LNG export plants. Over the last ten years, we have seen more of those jobs go abroad. I want to bring them home.

Thank you, mister Pelliev. The next question is for mister Kearney. How would your government fast track pipelines and mining projects while also following the Supreme Court decision that requires consent of indigenous communities.

Well, I think the first thing, and this goes back a bit to where we started, which is recognizing that

What does that actually mean.

It means an ability for them to invest equity in those partners.

Thank you.

Mitell is my clock and my clock is at zero, So that's how it goes. Mister Blanche, do you still oppose pipeline construction in Quebec even though a majority of Quebecer's now apparently say they support it.

We will know about that when we have the debate about that, which has not begun yet. We are just bigoting it first. We are hearing very creative numbers and we are being fed nonsense and we will be back to it in a few minutes. But energy trade commerce is from south to north or north to south, and it's true in Quebec. Also in a little more than three years, Donald Trump won't be in office and there will be not one more pipeline having been built once

We now move to open debate and you all will get a chance or have had a chance to get the first shot at this a Bishop Blanche, it is your turn to get the first shot. Canada has a substantial supply critical minerals which are in high demand. Are you in favor of allowing these minerals to be mined?

Of course, it has to be done properly. Quebec as probably the most important clean phosphat reserves in North America. In Sagney Laxtansion, it is very important. It has to be exploited. This is the best way to use Paul Sagny as an infrastructure that we need. We have Licham, everybody needs. The transportation has to be taken from oil to clean energy. This is what we want to be working on. It is part of the specificities specifics of

We need to let the leader of the Liberals respond, well, Actually, I was going to pick up on the enormous opportunity that exists in Quebec, exists in Ontario, exists in the North of Canada, really exists across this great nation in terms of critical medals and minerals. We are to have one of the biggest resources in this country. And this is it's not just enormous economic opportunity, it is a strategic opportunity for Canada. So we have to make a decision not just to develop it, but how do we

That they go if I may, if I may, finish, and finish, let me finish.

So the opportunity includes in Europe, and includes in Asia as our partner's last point in order to get it done. In order to get it done, we'll put in place a first and last mile fund so these projects are connected to road and rail so they can go quickly to market, and we will have all of the other fast tracking measures in place that I talked about earlier in terms of capital timing approvals, so that we can move quickly.

We can be stronger at home as.

Yeah, I think you should absolutely take advantage of the fact that we've got incredible amounts of critical minerals in our country. And the way we do that is with any energy project or any project of this nature, make sure it's got the local community buy in, it creates good jobs and communities, make sure we are meeting all our environmental needs, and we work with indigenous partnership.

And so I absolutely agree with that.

I want to build on something mister Blanche mentioned about the investments that this country has made. What I find very troubling is that the past number of years, the Liberal government record is one where we have spent the most subsidies compared to any other country in the G seven on subsidizing oil and gas. These are highly profitable companies you vote think that's the wrong thing to do. We fought against it again and again vot and then

Yeah, we talked, I promise mister Paull the next we'll come back and get that question answered, mister Pollev.

Well, mister Kearney, you point out that Donald Trump has a wrongheaded idea of putting attacks on.

Our minds and our industry, and that is wrong.

But so do you.

You want to apply a massive industrial carbon tax on Canadian mines, Canadian steel mills, Canadian aluminlin plant. You want to lot to Canadian oil and gas plan and your idea is to double the tax that Trump is applying by hitting them a second time. This will do nothing for the environment. It will actually ship our jobs south of the border, President Trump.

Once.

My plan is to bring that production home here to Canada. For example, I will give a tax credit to low emitting Canadian industry like Quebec's aluminum for example, or British Columbia's natural gas, so that we not only bring home the production, but we do it below global average levels of emissions the trends that we actually help the environment while bringing home the jobs for our people.

At the same time.

That is, that is a sensible, pragmatic approach that puts us in charge of our economic destiny, so we can stand up to the Americans from a position of strength for a change.

I want to get. I want to give you a chance to speak to mister Singh's criticism about oil and gas subsidies and mister Aliev's criticism about the industrial carbon tax.

Okay, I'm going to make to make three points. I'll make four if you want me to respond to that, but I want to make three. The first is that we answered I answered this question last night, but I think the pucket already dropped in the Canadians games and not everyone heard it. Yes, and to oil and gas subsidiesecon. Secondly, Secondly, but I've done it independently. Secondly, recognizing that the biggest

We need to do my government. My government will move that.

But by definition of subsidy isn't when we buy a pipeline, I'm talking about subsidies. They go to oil and gas companies well dependent separate from the country oil and gas companies.

That's what the figure you quoted last night included the cost of the pipeline.

You want to address dollars are spending. We got to stop spending.

Can we can we get you to address his point how industrial carbon.

How much will the industrial carbon tax added to the price of a car?

So the first thing I want to say is we have I'm going to address the broader point. Well, broader point is the entire absence of a climate plan from mister Polya, which, by the way, is going to put our industry and our country at a disadvantage as we're looking for new trading partners. Guess what most people want to deepen our partnership in Europe, in Asia. Those countries

Mister Carney didn't answer my question. I asked how much would then industrial carbon tax on Canadian steel add to the price of a car. He won't answer because he knows that it will be very expensive because there's lots of steel in cars. Now, well, mister Carney has temporarily, but do you.

Know the hid in the car throw a thousands of dollars. Thousands of dollars, Actually, I actually do.

When you add taxes to steel, you raise the price of everything that uses steel.

When you add everything.

Taxes, when you add, when you add, when you add the carbon tax onto the price, for a example, fertilizer, you increase the price of food. So while mister Carney has temporarily hidden the Liberal carbon tax at the pumps, while keeping the tax fully in law and planning to raise it after the election, he's also going after a tax on our industry that will ultimately be passed on to you. After a lost Liberal decade of rising costs,

We got just a little over three minutes left in this segment, So mister Singer, want to ask you, do you think climate change is still a priority from Canadians. You're out there, what are you hearing.

Absolutely, you speak to any young person and they think we're seeing climate crisis in front of us happening right now. Speak to seniors who say, you know, we used to be able to live in our homes without air conditioning. And now we're seeing heat crises in communities that never had worries about extreme weather. We're seeing flooding, We're seeing forest fires like never before. We're living in a climate crisis.

Monsieur Blanche. On the issue of whether or not people still care about climate change.

I think people should be kept very informed about climate change because we are in a very strange denial situation about climate change, which still exists and is very expensive. And I'm sorry to crash your party, guys, but you are telling fairy tales clean oil and gas is a fairy tale. Large scales carbons sequestration. Sorry, I'm French, is a fairy tail. It does not exist. If Albert I wanted to exploit oil and gas and it were not a matter of pollution, I wouldn't mind at all. That's

Let me give I will get to you because I said I would. But you've taken a couple of hits here and I want to give you a chance to respond to some of the things that people on this side of the stage have said.

Thank you well.

First of all, we do support protecting the environment banning. We want to ban the dumping of ross sewage into our waters. We want to hold large corporations to high environmental standards to protect our water and air. But we cannot do that by raising taxes and sending jobs overseas. As mister Carney is proposing to do that has been the approach of the last ten years of the Liberal government.

Thank you very much.

You know, I was born in for Smith in the Northwest Territories, just north of what the oil sands became. When I was born and when I was growing up in Edmonton early days, it was a fairy tale quote unquote, But you know what happened, Canadian ingenuity, Canadian engineers, Canadian governments, both the federal government and the Alberta government got together and created converted this.

If I may, I finish ten more seconds to finish place, let them finish this point.

That's the opportunity we have. That's the opportunity we have in carbon capture. That's the opportunity we have in small modular reactors.

That's the opportunity we.

Have in hydrogen Beyond this country can be a clean energy superpower.

My government will help deliver.

And that is time for this segment. Gentlemen, let us go to our final theme, which is called leading in a crisis.

Canadians know how to weather a storm. Canadians know how to get through a difficult time.

If at the end of the day we end up with the about in some of power, Quebec is safer than it could be in any utter scenario.

Now is not a time for weakness. Now is the time to take back control.

Canadians are always ready when someone else drops the gloves.

Okay, Leading in a crisis is a pretty broad theme that allows us to explore many different avenues here, So let's get to it. Mister Carne, you get the first question this time. We haven't balanced a budget in this country in seventeen years, and ten of those years were under your party. You have pledged to get us to a balanced budget in three years.

Question is how.

So let me put this in the context of leading in a crisis, which is, in a crisis, you've got a plan for the worse. Worse is that the US actually does want to take us over. Secondly, you've got to have a plan a plan to build, and I include a fiscal plan and I will get to that in a second. The third thing is you need to respond in a crisis with overwhelming force. You need to

We'll slow that to two percent.

We will focus on a small amoun out of capital spending by the federal government in order to drive enormous private investment up to half a trillion dollars by five years.

Thank you, mister Kearney. Ukraine surely constitutes a crisis leading in a time of crisis. Mister POLLYV question for you, if the United States withholds support from Ukraine going forward, do you believe Canada should commit more to assist.

I believe we should continue to support Ukraine. Our party supported donating missiles that the Canadian military was decommissioning. We supported funds and other armaments to back the Ukrainians in the defense of their sovereignty. We also need to rebuild our own Canadian military because the Russians want to make incursions into our waters. We'll be buying four massive Arctic ice breakers. I'll be opening the first Arctic base since

I may come back to that one in the open forum, because I'm not sure we got an answer about Ukraine on that one. But okay, well, going on, mister Blanche, the answer was yes, we'll get more details perhaps as we go forward. Mister Blanche, given the US trade war, should any talk of a referendum on Quebec independence be put on pause.

That one is easy. It will happen only after the negotiation is over, and that's a good thing. I want to say. I support the idea. We must help Ukraine, but we also must help the civilians of Gasa, and we must destroy Hamas, which is a terrorist organization.

You know what.

I don't want to be the leader of Canada. You will understand that I don't want to be Prime minister. But I can offer to be a partner, a responsible partner,

This is what I am offering. Respect us, mister Singh. I watched last night's debate. You seem very eager to talk about healthcare. So let's talk a little more healthcare right now. You have made many promises on healthcare. If a province says to you, We'll take your money for health care, but not your conditions on how to spend it.

What do you do.

We've got to negotiate. We can't be giving away money without clear conditions. We're in a healthcare crisis right now, and a crisis that is hurting people across this country. People are waiting desperately in line in emergency rooms.

For hours and hours.

Seniors are waiting for years and years to get the care that they need for surgeries that would remove pain or help them deal with mobility issues.

We're in a serious crisis.

Healthcare workers are burnt out, they are overstretched, and what we're seeing is more and more privatization and that is hurting our public universal healthcare system.

So we've got to fight back against it.

We cannot allow our public money to go to a for profit private clinic lining the pockets of a rich CEO or investors instead of going towards care. We need to make sure that we are investing in solutions where care gets to people, not profiting those at the very top.

And so that's my commitment.

I'm going to fight to metion we defend our healthcare against the threats of American position and privacy.

Okay, we now go to open forum, debate and Prepsmister Pauliev, you get the first word here. This might be a good time to put a little more flesh on the bone of what you think Canada could do for Ukraine and see us backs out.

Yes, And what my answer is that we should continue to support Ukraine. We don't need to follow the Americans and everything they do. When they're wrong, then we will stand on our own and with other allies, and with respect to Ukraine, that course includes support with intelligence, equipment, armaments, but it also includes defunding Putin. Right now, Vladimir Putin has a monopoly on the European energy market because frankly, the Liberals blocked exports of Canadian natural gas off the

Just current you wanted to add, well, I want to go to the situation in Ukraine because's very important. We've been a steadfast. Canada has been a steadfast ally and Canadians have stepped up welcoming Ukrainians into their homes and supporting them in other ways. You know, my first month as Prime Minister, we joined the Coalition of the Willing to support Ukraine as the US step back, so led by France, the United Kingdom with Ukraine, number European nations, Australia, ourselves,

New Democrats absolutely support standing with Ukraine and will continue to do that. But I appreciate the opportunity in talking about leadership and crisis, talk about many of the crises that were up against, and one of the crises were up against in our country with the threat of Donald Trump, with the threat of the trade war and with the privatization and americanization of.

Our healthcare system. Is the healthcare system.

And what we have learned today. You know, mister Carney mentioned slowing operation spending. That's a cut to services.

He set his plan.

He has a plan to balance the operating budget within three years. That's going to require massive cuts to spending. We calculated that at forty three billion dollars in cuts. In fact, Rose Murray Barton when he was on the show in February sixteenth, he said he would cut spending. He said it would be in operations. He defined it as transfers in health and finally, longtime liberal and former House Leader Krina Gould.

Said that mister Carney's plans would mean massive cuts. That's the only way to achieve it.

So, mister Karney, you think it is LEADLeadership to cut healthcare at a time when it is in crisis.

I think it is wrong.

We can't do that.

We will not cut transfers for healthcare. We will not cut healthcare spending full stop.

But we'll happen to retail if I mean, what do we believe if mister Carney today or the one he spoke at on Rosemarry Barton showing every sixteen I did not one that.

Repeated again that he would cut spending by what do we believe.

If I may consistently said, we'll preserve all transfers to the provinces, including the increases. We will preserve all the transfers to individuals include I won't detail them all, but they're so. We're looking at addressing an operational spend which is about one hundred and fifty billion dollars. We will address that. We will make it more efficient, and we will do it in three years and we'll balance that budget.

I am six minutes behind mister Carney, so I will speak a little bit longer. First, I will support any initiative with will which will bring Canada aligned with your ROPE and NATO in order to be stronger and facing new treats. I believe that two persons won't be enough. I'm not more in favor of war than anybody else. But we have responsibilities and our main alle is removing himself from the stage, so we have to step up.

Is that something you could get behind.

I look forward to meeting with everyone. You're welcome to come, Steve if you'd like. We have choice, but better respectful. But I'm coming, Okay, I will I come to the court. Okay, I'll come to the court. But in a crisis, yes, you need a team UH and you need to bring UH the country along.

With you.

So what I did in the first week was to bring the premiers together, meet with all the indigenous leaders, uh and move forward in that context. Now the question is who's going to lead out of this. Whoever leads out of this, if I may, mister Blanche, whoever, thank you, whoever's going to lead out of this is going to need to work with all the provinces, work with labor, work with Indigenous leaders, work with all Canadians to bring them forward in a united front.

And one of make this last.

Point, one of the things that has happened, which is a credit to those people at home, is that Canadians are coming together and it's our responsibility to meet the strength of Canadian unity.

A small point to make. You will be elected if you are elected in the parliament where they are are their leaders. I don't know if he called you, or mister Poe, I don't know if he called you. But before yesterday, you have not spoken to me once, even if I proposed it so many times. But you say I speak to provinces leaders. You're not elected in provinces.

I'm going to jump in here because I'm noticing what the clock is saying. And you brought up Gaza earlier, and I think our audience would be interested in hearing your views on the other major international crisis facing the word.

We want to get speak before we get that. Just finish up on the healthcare.

I just want to speak to healthcare workers right now who are deeply worried about the status of our healthcare system, to Canadians who believe and love our universal public healthcare system, to patients who are stressed out. If you're worried about wish mister CARNEI to believe the one today or the one who spoke on Freebious shows that said he would talk, I goe for new Democrats and we will fight to defend our healthcare.

I thank you.

Really like to hear what you have to say about this question, and we have less than five minutes for it here. What role should Canada play in the other major international crisis in this world, in the Middle East and the world Gaza pure Poliev. Would you start us off on that? What rule can Canada play well?

First?

Of all, we must condemn Hamas and more importantly, the terror sponsors in Tehran who initiated the attacks, the horrific attacks of October seven. We need to defeat the terrorists so that all the peoples of the world can live in peace and defend the right of Yes Palestinians to have their own lives free from the oppression of Hamas dictators and Iranian intervention, while Israel has the ability to

And that's not People come from countries from around the world and they care deeply about where they come from, and they should be able to do so. That's a part of being in our country to have that freedom. Your treatment of Palacidians has been frankly discussing, Your treatment of people who provide care and service of people in

Mister Carney.

We need to work to go to your question.

We need to work with our international partners, maximum pressure, maximum encouragement for an.

Immediate cease fire.

Those first thing encourage the return of all of the hostages, resumption of humanitarian aid. My government put in place hundred million dollars of humanitarian raid which is ready to go. With respect to where this ultimately goes, Yes to state solution, but it has to be a viable and free Palestinian state living side by side in peace and.

Security with the state of Israel.

I will underscore one other thing, mister Paulyev rightly mentioned Iran.

The Iranian sponsors in this region.

We have to be clear eyed about the fundamental risks of Iran and do everything with our international partners to check it and.

Turn it mis blanche. If we are to work together, we will have to be consistent. The Jewish community in Quebec and Canada is arressed by a very little minority of radical Islamists, and we don't don't do so much to the law in Canada says that somebody may invite people to be violent, to propose genocide against another people if they can be hidden behind a religious motivation. They are in agreement with that. They are in agreement with that,

Last minute in the segments Polief, this is.

About crises and leadership, and one crisis we have is in immigration. Because of this liberal government's commitment to a radical policy called the Century Initiative, which seeks to bring our population up to one hundred million people. They have allowed massive overcrowding in our communities. That is called housing shortage's job shortage, immigration.

For the government.

And if I could, I didn't interrupt you. I did not. I did not interrupt you don't.

I do not blame you.

Let them finish.

I do not blame immigrants. I blame the Liberal government which brought this policy on. And mister Carney wants to continue with the Century Initiative.

This is crazy.

We have to get back to normal levels of immigration, get rid of the fraud in the temporary immigration system, and ensure that the people who come here can be arrive in numbers that we can house, employ and care for. That's how it always was and that's how we're going to restore.

Thank you, mister Polyev. That is our time for the segment. Those are our five themes. But we are not done yet. We are entering the next section of our debate tonight, what we're calling the Leader's Choice, something a little bit different. Each of you will get the chance to ask a question, any question of any other leader. You can then debate the answer and each one on one will last for three minutes. So mister Singh, you have the first option here. Who do you want to ask your question of.

Mister Karney, Go for it, Miss Kearney.

As chair of Brooklyn Investments, your company is one of the biggest tax dodgers in Canada. As chair, you prove decisions where Brookville Investments bought up affordable homes, kicked out the tenants and jacked up the rates. As Prime Minister, one of the first things you did was a tax cut that helped out mostly millionaires. And you have a plan to cut services for people. Now I expect that of mister Pierre Poliev and the Conservatives. That's very much

Thank you, thank you very much for that question.

Mister sing I'm in the side of Canadians. I'm in this for Canadians. I work for Canadians. But you know I have to show that though no well, I have a track record of public service for this country. Go back to something mister Blanche referencedat earlier, which is have I resolved any crisis?

We're in Quebec.

If you ask anyone in the finance industry, if ask anyone in government in Quebec in two thousand and eight, they'll know that I resolved the biggest prices.

He'll do that in Quebec. Yeah, you want to have fun, but.

Is fairness too with mississions for these two Yes, I have had a long career in the private sector. I'm proud of that career. I've always acted with integrity and it brings me with experience that I can apply.

A moment of christ.

And you certainly have served the country, But the problem is who have you served. You've served to benefit those at the very top. You jacked up the price of homes for people living in affordable home as a strategic decision, you dodge taxes, and then your decisions at the Prime Minister show you're not prioritizing people, but you're probably saying big business, the billionaires.

So the what what have we done as a government directly? So we've gone directly to workers, using all of our proceeds from the teriffs, committing all of them.

For workers, the workers most effective.

It is unlike others, unlike others who to use them, use them to cut taxes.

We are focused on.

Yeah, it's not high enough, though you have to accept that right now.

There will be additional programs.

I am fully confident that the next government, whatever government is formed to certainly if I'm in the next government, we will make additional programs.

But you did do for those works? Well, I can't. You could couldn't. You couldn't given them were an election could have increased I may I make a.

Core point here, if I may, which is that when you think about workers here today and people watching it at home, particularly younger people, there is an enormous opportunity in the trades, in the skilled traits. We are going to build this country in a way that has not been seen before. We are literally talking about hundreds of thousd not jobs, but careers, and that's why we're investing in apprenticeships and mid career And.

I thin people are worried, misus Karney.

If new Democrats aren't there to force liberals to make sure they remember about people, they will forget.

Gentlemen, that is time. Thank you for that, mister Blanchet. You have the next question to whom would you like to put it.

Mister Karney, You avoided quite quite, I would say skillfully the questions of mister mister Singh. But first let me correct something. In two thousand and eight, not so much by your decision, ten billions of dollars were given to car industry in Ontario, while sixteen millions, not billions of dollars were lent to lumberwood throughout the whole of Canada. I don't believe that's the right way to manage a crisis. Since you did not recoup the money from the car industry.

Let's let them matter.

Well, the first thing is I want to say a word about uh. I'll say word about broken. You know, this is a Canadian success story. It is the largest infrastructure investor and developer in the world. It is one of the largest, if not the largest developer of renewable power in the world.

And who benefits from that.

That's Canadian pensioners, That's Quebec pensioners, that is teachers, that fire fighters.

It is.

A series of people, including individuals, including individuals on the.

State, benefit from that.

Now, always acted with integrity, serve the shareholders of Brookfield.

When I was there, I have left that. I have followed all the rules well in advance, all like we all did, and working for the people of Canada.

What do you own why don't.

Time is time?

But do you own Blanche.

We're moving on to mister Pouliev now, who has his opportunity to ask the question of whomever he'd like here, and that will be mister Carney.

But if I could book him again by starting by setting the stage. The choice in this election is, after a lost Liberal decade of rising cost and crime and a falling economy under America's thumb, do we want to elect them to a fourth term or do we want to change. Change that you can afford food and homes, Change that you can be safe on your street, and you're changed so that your paycheck grows faster than your cost of living. Change with a new Conservative government, because

You know it's.

I said earlier, but I'm going to say it again. I know you want to be running against Justin Trudeau. Justin Trudeau isn't here.

Are you denied?

I'm here, economic advisor. I did not provide any of that advice. I did not provide any of that.

I'm sorry.

Are you accusing your Liberal Party of lying about your roles? It says today you can go to the Liberal Party website now and it says that you are.

The way the way you judge.

The way you judge someone, in my view, is how they act, what they do when they have responsibility.

Twice I was a central bank governor and in both cases.

If I may, if I may, in both cases when I was responsible for inflation, inflation was less than two percent. I'll add that when I was here responsible for the bank ac candidate was less than two percent.

Our dollar was at parody.

That is the kind of success that I can deliver for this country coming on this crisis.

And what.

Is that stake? What is that stake.

We have had?

I'm a generation because the bringing back of the MPs that are.

To the fallow Canadians crisis, which the last ten years has been about the liberals, the next ten years should be about you.

And that's time, mister Kearney. Good news is the next question is yours.

Well, I'm going to ask myself a question.

Uh.

Actually, I'm going to ask a question which has been troubling me. And uh it's troubled me because you know, we are in a a very dangerous and divided world.

Who is a two I'm gonna ask a question, mister Paulia.

Why not?

We're in a dangerous and divided world.

We talked earlier about the challenges in the Middle East, the threats from Iran, threats from Russia, Russia's aggression in Ukraine.

We have the threats from.

China, which I raised. We have the United States, which is fundamentally changing. It's security relationships, it's commercial relationships. We have all this, and in the context of that, every one on this stage, mister Blanche, mister Singh, myself, we have our top secret security clearance. We have our top

Act.

And mister Poliev, it is now nine hundred and fifty days, if my numbers are right, Since you've had the opportunity to get your top secret security clearance and you've refused, why.

Well, first of all, I have got my security clearance when I was a minister. I got top secret clearance at the time, so there's no problem getting that. But when the government made this recent offer, they said that if I got the secret security security clearance briefings that I would be gagged under the security law and I could be prosecuted if I spoke freely about matters of

Threatened by a foreign government.

And I was able to speak freely on that matter because I refused the gag order that the Liberal government attempts.

Let them responsible.

Well, you know this a couple of interesting things. I think people at home have seen, you know, robust debate here, and it's been a robust campaign and it has not stopped mister Blanche or mister Seeing a time during his campaign by making challenges with respect to these issues. So one can address it, I will observe, as someone with the top secret security clearance that China is not the only country that is accused of foreign interference.

And gentleman, that is to leave it a segment. That's our time now. Closing statements are still a f few minutes down the road, so we have a little bit of time for some quick hit Q. And as for each of you right now, short questions forty five seconds please on the answers, and we're going to go left to right. As I look at you right now, Miss Paullyev,

Miaim will be to twenty thirty.

That said, when we renegotiate our trade to deal with the US, I know it's their priority to see us increase our military budget. One of the things I will say to the Americans is the more free trade, tariff, free free trade we have, the faster we can rebuild

Thank you, mister Poliev. Miss Carney, your question. You have cut both the consumer carbon tax and the capital gains tax increase that you inherited from your predecessor. Is that an admission that the Liberals made life less affordable for Canadians?

I think the Let me give you the rationale behind both of those changes. First, with respect to the consumer carbon tax, in effect, it'd become too divisive for Canadians. Canadians received rebates on the whole, they received more than the tax actually was, but some had represented that it was a tax without a rebate. It became divisive, It didn't serve its purpose. It made a relatively modest contribution to overall climate goals. I got rid of it first

I'll be quick.

This is a fundamental issue. We need to build this country. Builders, innovators, entrepreneurs need to be rewarded.

That's why I brought it back.

And that's time. Thank you, mister Singh. Would you change the existing cap on immigration?

I've said that the level of immigration. First of all, we need immigration. It's fundamentally important to our country. And we speak to any small business owner, We speak to people here in Quebec, you speak to farmers.

It's fundamentally important.

A couple of things though, we know we need to be able to set the amount of folks that we welcome to our country at a level that it meets our needs. So I would ensure that we've got an expert panel that makes that determination based on our economic needs. We also know that we should be very clear that the lack of investment from liberals and conservatives resulted in the fact that we have a shortage in housing. That's

Thank you mister saying that's time, mister Blouche. Quebec I believe is now the only province with a carbon tax. Do you think that's fair.

It's not entirely true. It's not a tax. What Quebec as is a system by which we invite big, big emission companies I don't knowder to translate that to reduce their emissions. If they do not, then they have to pay. It goes into a fund which is invested then in reducing emissions. Our partner is California, which makes this a huge deal about reducing emissions. This is what we do. This is to be compared to what Europe does. And by the way, Europe would impost tariffs on Canadian oil

Time We're going to do another set of quick hits here left to right again and thirty seconds this time, Mischie Pollie, if you've previously promised to defund the CBC as one of your very first acts as Prime minister, is that still the plan.

Yes, CBC will continue to operate as a self funded, Canadian owned and controlled non for profit that raises money like other media organizations through sponsorships, subscriptions, advertising, licensing fees and countless other things that will ensure Canadians who still want to listen and view its content, we'll be able to do so, and at the same time will allow freedom of the press so that everybody has their voice heard and they can make their own decisions.

Thank you, mister Carney. The next question to you thirty seconds would you remove some of Canada's legal tax avoidance loopholes that companies that you have worked for have used.

Look, I think that what we need to do is undertake a comprehensive review of our corporate tax system and do that on the base of the right principles. We've got to have fairness, transparency, sustainability and competitiveness, so we need a tax system. A corporate tax system including being part of a international minimum corporate tax through the OECD.

And that is time.

Mister Sing. The question for you is, if you hold the balance of power after this election is over, what would your price be to support another party.

We've laid out our priorities.

We want to make sure we bring down the costs of groceries, built homes that people can afford. I can also tell you that we would defend CBC unlike mister Polyeffory wants to cut it, and we would close tax loopholes and offshore tax evens, even though mister Carney didn't respond to that. And selling stocks and shares to make profits and then having less taxes on that is not

Thank you, mister Sing. Misie Bloche kind of the same question. If you hold the balance of power in the next minority parliament, if it is that, what would be the price of your support.

Respect for Quebec. That's quite easy. I don't want to go against what Canada wants to do for itself, but I don't want Canada to impose an economic vision or a multiculturalist vision on Quebec which is different in terms of language and values and secularity and equality between people. So I want to be a partner, and if Quebec is respected, Canada has nothing to fear from the block because we vote for what is good for Quebec, it only has to be good for Quebec.

Thank you, mister Blanche. Now we have one last question for each of you. Will go right to left this time as I look at you, a bit of an offbeat question, mister Blanchet, what is your biggest regret during this campaign?

That's a very good question. I'm not very fond of regrets, I would say, but we should have started sooner to see that we had to create the environment and for a deal in which Quebec and Canada would be one bigger than the other, but partners to be stronger in front of mister Trump and showing that maybe nobody here is the partner to let go alone without being surveyed or controlled or supervised by a chemic voice.

Thank you, mister Bloche. Same question, mister Singing, your biggest regret of this campaign.

Not being able to meet as many people as I would love to have. It's a short campaign and so I can't get to as many communities that I wanted to. I think one of the honors of my job is to be able to meet people and to hear their stories, and then to take their stories and concerns and bring

We make my life more affordable.

That's my commitment to you, even if I didn't get to see you, that's my commitment.

Thank you, mister Singh, mister Kearney. Same question, biggest regret of.

The campaign, I'm to be honest, it was. It's the same answer. This is an astonishing country. It is an amazing country, and the opportunity and the responsibility that comes with it of being with Canadians, hearing their stories, their challenges, drawing strength and ideas from them, and being working to be part of the solution is the greatest honor of my life.

But the regret is that it is also a big country and it is a short period of time.

Mister Paulieth, less word deal.

I actually agree with these two gentlemen. I had a rule that at all my rallies, even when they're really big, I would stand in front of a flag and greet every single person and hear their stories and learn their struggles. And that was always touching to me that they would put their faith in me or in any of us. But we've been in such a rush because we have to get off to the next event, so we haven't been able to stop and do that. And I want you to know out there I haven't forgot about yet.

Mister Polyev. It is time now for closing statements, and prior to the debate you drew lots as to which order we would go in, and mister Singh, you get the first word on a closing statement.

Certainly, thank you.

Because you've voted for New Democrats, we were able to build this country that we love, universal health care and pensions because you voted for us. Because you voted for New Democrats, we were able to fight to bring in dental care, pharmacare, and childcare.

Because you've voted for us.

Because you supported us, you have the power with your vote to send more new Democrats to Ottawa to continue that fight to make sure that no government cuts the things that we hold dear, like our healthcare, to show that we can do everything possible to make life more affordable by making it more affordable to buy your groceries

Thank you, mister saying mister Carty.

We are facing the biggest crisis of our lifetimes. Donald Trump is trying to fundamentally change the world economy, the trading system. But really what he's trying to do to Canada, he's trying to break us. So the US canonas they want our land, they want our resources, they want our water, they want our country. We're all going to stand up against Donald Trump.

I'm ready.

I've managed crisis over the years. I've built strong economies. We will fight back with counter terriffs. We will protect our workers in those businesses, and we will build the strongest economy. We will build Canada strong. I'm asking for your support the honor of doing so.

Thank you, Thank you, mister Carney, Monsieur Blanche for.

Two hundred and sixty years and a little bit more. Leave Francie new d Canezier d Canezien, Francis if nude the Quebequa. You have tried to have them become Canadians like all Canadians, but to no avail. We are different. So let's be economic partners. Let's have a voice chosen by and for Quebecers and a lie for Canadians as equals. In front of mister Trump.

Monsieur Poiliev.

Only in Canada could someone start where I began and get to the stage. I was born to a single mother and adopted by school teachers who raised me to believe in the incredible Canadian promise that anyone who worked hard could do anything. That promise feels broken today. Many of you worried about paying your bills, feeding your families wherever, even owning a home. You're worried your kids are in danger. But I'm here to say doesn't have to be this way.

We can do it with hope for a change.

Gentlemen, thank you for a very spirited debate tonight. Two quick points before we go. Number One, one of you celebrated your sixtieth birthday yesterday on this stage here Francois Blanche Bonneni Versaergoon. Secondly, you'll notice we didn't have to change the time of this debate because the Leafs already clinched the Atlantic Division title, and therefore we didn't need

I thank you enjoying that.

Let the need that s Yeah, I've got a question for alban easy question for Peter Dutton.

I've got a question for both leaders.

Prime Minister, what are you going to do to help my children own a home in the future? How will his government will support new businesses?

So my question is when are you going to lower the cost of living for young people?

Wanting to know how people can believe you about your energy policies.

How are the federal government cardless solutions regarding health and education in Central Australia.

Are you seriously going to hang on to your nuclear plan?

How we can help the world to be a better place so that we can have a less war or even no war in this world.

How are we going to move forward maintaining the democracy and the type of life that we have living in Australia.

That's what you're going to do with the situation with Donald Trump and his charge.

It's the halfway mark of the election campaign and tonight's the two men who want to run the country after May three face off. Live at a critical moment in this contest, Anthony Albanezi and Peter Dutton are running out of time to make their case. We've been listening to your questions and in the moment that's enhancewers. Welcome to the ABC News Leaders Debate. Good evening from the ABC's new Paramatta Studios in Sydney's West.

It's terrific to have your company.

I'm your moderator David Spears, and you've just heard from some of the Australians whose voices have helped inform me as I've prepared for tonight's debate. My goal is to help you understand the plan these two leaders have for Australia's future. Because we meet tonight at a time of great global uncertainty. Who has the vision to help chart a course through these tumultuous times We're about to find out. So let's get started. I want to welcome to the

Beyond that, I.

Don't really want to be running a stopwatch on every word that's spoken tonight. We do want to have a genuine, free flowing debate. My goal is to try and make sure you both have equal time. We also want this to be a productive conversation that does help Australians better understand your competing visions, not just an opportunity to attack one another. Mister Dutton, you won the coin toss and will speak first over to you.

Well, David, thank you very much. Firstly, thank you to the ABC for hosting tonight, thank you Anthony for being here, and thank you to every Australian who's taking an interest in what I think is an incredibly important election. As we approach the third of May, many Australians will be asking themselves are you better off today than you were

Well, thanks very much, David, and thanks to the ABC, and thanks Peter for agreeing to a second debate. I'm really optimistic about Australia's future if we seize the opportunities that are right in front of us because of the hard work that Australians have done over the last three years,

Thank you both for those opening statements. Now, housing is where I'd like to begin. It's one of the biggest issues that voters have been raising. And look, you both have put forward ideas in the past few days that we'll see more homes built, boost supply, but you've also put forward ideas that a lot of experts and economists

Well, we need to do both.

We need to give people a fair crack, particularly young people. But we have a comprehensive forty three billion dollar Homes through Australia plan making sure whether it's about increased social housing, increase private rentals or increased home ownership as well throughout help to buy a scheme that will all assist. The key, of course is supply and that's why only Labor is offering a plan at this election to increase supply of housing.

Mister Dutton, you have plans to let first home buyers take up to fifty thousand dollars out of their superannuation to buy a home. That will push up house prices, won't it.

Well, David, Firstly, I think it's important to understand why do we find ourselves in this position as a country. Over the last two years, the government's brought in a million people, all of whom want homes, and all of whom are competing against young Australians for that rental property or to purchase a home. That's a million people, which is seventy percent higher than any two year period in our country's history. So the demand that the Prime ministers

The question about your plans that will boost demand even more.

We have five elements to our plan.

The first element is a five billion dollar fund where we work with councils and we identify where they've got land releases that are being stalled at the moment simply because they just can't afford the sewerage or the water or the road upgrade. So that will bring on five hundred thousand new home lots. That is on the supply side, a very significant benefit. The second part is that we reduce migration by twenty five percent so that we can

It'll be a lot more for high income earners won't it than low income earners. This is regressive. It helps wealthier investors.

It provides for an average taxpayer about eleven or twelve thousand dollars a year, which is one thousand dollars a month, which for it.

Serves two more on high incomes.

Well, it serves two purposes.

One is when you go to the bank, you've got a higher level of disposable income, so you're more likely to get the loan. Secondly, it helps you service alone, David.

Look, neither of you seem willing to touch the negative gearing or capital gains tax breaks at this election. You've both been property investors over the years. Can you understand younger Australians locked out of the market that it is people like you who are to blame for the fact the systems rigged against them, mister Albinez, Well.

Could I make this point David Peter's suggestion that this has been a problem that's developed in the last two years as a nonsense and everyone watching this program knows that this has been developing for a long period of time. We have not had enough homes being built, and indeed the former government didn't bother to have a housing minister for half the time they were in office. What we've done since we came to office is looked towards the big issue, which is supply.

But can I ask you to come to the question which is about the tax breaks for investors, negative gearing and the capital gains tax discount. Why an't you willing to touch those?

Because the experts say that what that potentially would do is diminished supply, not increase it. And that's why the key to fixing the housing issues is supply. That's why

Back to the tax treatment of housing investment, Mister Dutton, do you have any problem with investors using tax breaks to buy multiple properties four five, six properties?

Let me come to that.

And your government has modeled negative gearing changes NCGT changes. The Treasurer has done that.

That's not right.

Well, it is a public service.

Well under our public service, we actually value the public service and we value them coming up with the ideas and doing assessments.

That's what's happened. I have been very clear.

I have been very clear about what our position is and why that is the case. Was it modeled It certainly wasn't commissioned by us to do so.

It was modeled by the government.

It was publicly it's publicly available that this Prime Minister has a problem with the truth. And it's not just in relation to this debate. There are many aspects that you could pick up during the course of this campaign.

The printers question David Meister's multiple properties, all these tax breaks, no problem with that.

I have stated very clearly that we want a sustainable housing market which includes rental stock. Now, if you want to cut out negative gearing, as the Labor Party in the Greens would love to do. You will stop investment taking place for properties which ultimately are rented by young Australians. Now all of us started out renting somewhere and the dream was to buy a home, and for young Australians.

They've lost that dream.

No need for any limits on.

If we stop negative gearing, we will drive up the cost of rents. Rents are already up by eighteen percent under this government. So I want to make sure that we've got an investment class, which is an asset class which is able to be invested in. The Greens, who likely could form a minority government with the Prime Minister if he's successful at this election, they have as a stated policy that they want to abolish negative fury.

We talked about rest. Now, rent in capital cities has gone up a lot more than incomes over the last few years since COVID, about five times more than incomes have gone up. Many renters have been contacting us raising concerns about what's in this election for them. They can't afford a crippling mortgage in Sydney or Melbourne. Are either of you willing to give rents more rights. One of their concerns is the instability they face. They can only

But in terms of trying to find out balance and protect the rights of renters and the rights of landlords, yes, I mean you want a sensible position adopted. You want so you'd support longer rentals a bit to support sensible reforms, But as you point out, it's a matter for the States. The focus, I think in this election is on who is best able to fix the housing crisis that the

The same question to you, mister Alberanezy, would you put pressure on the states to give renters more certainty?

Well, we've delivered it.

We're delivered a render's rights program in agreement with states and territories, so they've improved the rights of people who are renting. In addition to that, we've increased maximum rendal assistance by forty five percent in this term. And in addition to that. In addition to that, Peter has just

I want to move on because you've talked about your plans in housing. This is just part of the spending plans that you're taking to the people at this election. But we do have all this spending despite the fact that we're in deficit. I want to show you this. This is spending versus revenue over the last fifty years, so it covers both sides of politics, and spending has continued to remain above revenue, which is the bottom line there in Orange. For most of that last fifteen years.

I say to them that we are the only government in the last twenty years that have produced consecutive budget surpluses, and we've harved the deficit this year as a direct result of the responsible economic management that we have. Then, debt is one hundred and seventy seven billion dollars less. We have improved the bottom line by two hundred and

And yet your spending continues to be higher than your revenues right for the foreseeable future, for the next four or even ten years. And at this election, you are offering spending that goes to high income owners. Things like the energy rebate, the battery rebate, the tax cut, the wiping HEX debt, the first home buyer incentive, none of its means tested.

Why not measures like the HEX deet take for example, that's opposed by the coalition. The HEX debt is about intergenerational equity. We spoke before about young people I think young people deserve a fair crack and issues like taking twenty percent of everyone's tax stet free TAFE, but six thousand.

Means testing these things. Why to high income people when we're in deficit, Why to high in commanders get this stuff?

Well, David, if you get sick or I get sick, we can get access to medicare and access to a public hospital. Every child, Peter's or mine will get access to a public education of public.

The rebates and so on that you're offering at this election, the high in coommerners.

Energy rebates, if you had two choices because of the way that it's being delivered through the energy companies, you'll either give it to everyone or you just give it to concession cardholders. We understand that a whole lot of working people need that assistance in cost of living, and that's why this is our third increase in energy rebates that we're put forward.

And that's why we've done it.

Mister Duttan, you've made a lot of big spending promises in this campaign too, and you're talking up even more to come on defense. Are your cuts to the public service going to be enough to cover it all?

Well, David, A couple of things.

I've what the Prime Minister hasn't mentioned there is that most of the outcomes that he's talking about are because of variations in commodity prices, not because of decisions the government's made or the growth that they've put into the economy. That's just not the reality, and I think the Prime Minister constantly telling people that they're much better off now

Let's come back to it. So we need to make sure your cuts to the public service going to cover all of your spending in this election.

The short answer is no, we're not going to achieve all of the savings that we need to achieve through our changes to the public service. But what you want to save is it seven million dollars a year through savings in the public service.

I've just finished this point, David.

I mean, what we've done in relation to our twenty five per cent a leter cut for fuel excise that happens from day one. It helps pensioners, it helps delivery truck drive, it helps families. It's an economy wide benefit and it brings down the cost of doing business and the costs across the community which are ballooning under this government. So that is a one off hit to the budget of about six billion dollars. It's not a recurrent or a structural spend in the budget. This is the important point.

So that just happened to coincide with an election.

My question, though, they happen to coincide with the fact that families are doing it tough, and there are many families at the moment right across the country we've spoken to that I can't afford to pay their bills.

On your public service cuts, it's seven billion dollars a year. You haven't yet said where those cuts will occur. Can you tell us tonight at least one area of the public service you had cut.

Well, David, there's been a three fold increase in the expansion of the public service compared to the rogular years. We have the highest per capita rate of public servants in the world. And our argument is that if you've got families at the moment who are working their guts out, working second third jobs, paying tax I want to make

Be having trouble saying where you would cut, You've said a lot of areas where you won't. What about foreign aid when you cut foreign aid?

We've said in relation to the public service that we will protect frontline positions, which I think is important, incredibly important, and we've an outmore funding for GPS into general practice and there are many other areas when you get so this is a question where we find inefficiency data and there's not something you can do from opposition to redesign

We've heard about spending just quickly.

That's before they get to the six hundred billion dollars they need for their nuclear reactors.

I mean, there you go.

It looks like it's true.

There are agreements that they have. Well, he won't say where the cuts will be. It's both for me and just trust us. We'll tell you after the election. Well, we know what happened last time the cuts came to health, they came to education. Fifty billion dollars out of hospitals, thirty billion dollars out of schools. That's why a decade later, we're still trying to fix and repair the damage that was done by that twenty fourteen budget.

Let me ask you both a question here. A lot of people say, where's the serious reform keeping floating the dollar Howard's gst, Mister Albanezi, what's the one big change you'd like to be remembered for.

Affordable childcare is one of the things that we're doing. We've already put measures in place, including in this term we'll get rid of the activity test, a three day guarantee for childcare, boosting infrastructure for childcare.

We want the universal provision of affordable.

Childcare so that it is as a natural to have your child have access to childcare as it is to have access to old public what's your one big reform?

Well, energy is the economy, David. Everything we use, everything around us is either running or has been created because of the use of energy, farming.

Fertilizer, cold storage.

Everything that we rely on in our society, in a modern society like OS, relies on energy. And what we've said is that we want to create an East Coast gas reserve, so that will bring gas that we're exporting at the moment beyond the foundation contracts back into the domestic market. If we do that that increases supply, It addresses Labour's disastrous energy policy, and it will help bring

Well is that nuclear?

Just to check the reality on that, there are some other G twenty economies that don't have nuclear.

Well the is one.

I think that the ABC side before and you've seen the comments from the Indonesian president that they.

Are fully on board with nuclear.

If you have a look at what's happening in the UK, Kiyas Starmer says the Labor Prime minister there says that they can't achieve their net zero by twenty fifty targets without the use of nuclear I just want to come to this point, David, because it's a substantial one. In relation to this six hundred billion dollar figure at the Prime Minister, we'll Keith thrattling out, which is completely and utterly uncrue.

You have a different figure.

I get it.

I think mister, it's only contesting. The top twenty economies are all using you.

I'm a friend of Kiirs Starmer, and what Kiirs Starma is having to deal with is the blowout in the costs of the Hinckley nuclear plant. It's now up to ninety billion dollars for one plant. It is coming in fourteen years late, and it's been built in a country that does have a nuclear industry. It's being built by the world's largest nuclear energy company from France. That shows

So that's the future.

So nuclear clearly is one of the big differences on the table at this election, and a lot of people want more detail about your plans, mister Dalton. One of the concerns is water. Nuclear power needs a lot more water than coal fired power. Where will the water come from?

Well, David, there are already water allocations to each of the seven sites that we've located. So coal fire generation uses a lot of water. Now you need more for you We've looked at the water allocation for each of those sites.

I don't think you need any more of that.

We're comfortable with the analysis that we've done. But just just to put this into perspective, So Frontier Economics is the most pre eminent economist on energy in this country used by the Labor Party, says, and this hasn't been questioned or hasn't been disputed by Cris Bowl or Anthony Alberanesi or Jim Charmers.

The independent analysis says.

That our model, our energy model which includes nuclear out to twenty fifty, costs three hundred and thirty one billion dollars. It is two hundred and sixty three billion less. Well, just let me finish this point, two hundred and sixty three billion less than the government's own model. So that makes the government's model roughly six hundred billion. Where's that

You have competing costs. But just to be clear, you're saying no additional water is required. All those experts who say you'd need more for nuclear, well.

A couple of points. I mean, we could spend all night on what I think is really improve.

Yes, but but there are different depending on the small modular reactor as well, and obviously the size of the actor. As to as to the amount of water that's required of.

The large reactor. Is you're talking and you've got one plan for Cali one fit's wrong. They'd be large nuclear reactors.

We have looked at each of the sites and we've done the analysis on the water allocations that are there.

Now are you saying they'd be small modular reacting.

I'm saying that there is a mixers we've said, which starts in twenty thirty five to thirty seven. Now the Prime Minister whispers out the side of his mouth that nuclear is not safe. He signed us, he signed up to nuclear power for our sub mariners, and the Prime Minister again, it's another example of just complete this honesty in a debate, which I think is worth having between adults.

I'm just trying to get you one clarity on your plans here, mister Dutton, just a moment. If local communities, be they local farmers or local communities where you've ear marked these nuclear plans to go, they say no, and if the state government say no, which in Queensland the LNP government isn't on board, what happens? Do you override them?

Well, David, the comweth obviously has powers and we can exercise those powers if need be, but we can work with the state governments.

In South Australia.

The South Australian Premier has been very clear of his support for nuclear as many figures within the Union movement and in the Labor Party have as well. So we you don't override them, well, will work to find can census is commonwealth? If we can't find consensus, then we'll do what's in our country's best interests. The Prime Minister conveniently in his talk to the Prime Minister well, he dropped out the word green hydrogen.

Right.

This used to be the underpinning the base load requirement, which now of course not a commercial reality. So in terms of timing, I think the PM's plan has unraveled somewhere.

Let me ask you, mister Albineze, about your plan. There are local concerns too about some elements of the renewables roll out, particularly offshore wind in places like the Hunter in New South Wales. What do you say to those locals and those local community concerns you overriding them as well?

Well, that's why you need proper community consultation and environmental approvals.

Some of the concern is not real. Whales are being.

Unable to steer their way around in the vast specific ocean around a wind tower is not right. They've been extended further out as a result of that community consultation process.

But can I make this point, David, that Peter.

Won't say the fact every every every, every single state and territory government none of them will support it, Not just the l and p the Liberal Party here in New South Wales, the Liberal Party in Victoria don't support it.

But that's not what's important. The most important thing is the private sector won't back it.

That's why it has to be your plans now, mister Abenezy, you and Chris Bowen keep saying that renewables are the cheapest form of power. When will we see our power bills come down?

They are Well, what we know is that renewables are the cheapest form of power, not because of what we say, but because of what the Australian Energy Market operator says come down and what and what the market is delivering. See, Peter has to have government state taxpayer funded. We stick with your taxpayer funded, taxpayer funded proposals.

What we're dealing with here.

During the former government, twenty four out of twenty eight coal fire power stations announce their closure. We need to get supply and certainty in energy security. We can't wait till the twenty forties a nuclear and.

Just stick with your plan, mister Albinezi. When will the bills come.

Down under our plan?

We know that renewables are the cheapest form of power and that is why we are doing that rolling it out, including through gas. Peterraet's gas gas is now thirteen dollars. It was thirty dollars and when we came off, thirteen is cheaper than thirty.

When do we see the bills come down?

Well, what we need to do is to roll out renewables, make sure there's energy security, make sure it's backed up by batteries, by hydro and by gas. That is what all of the private sector is backing and investing in, not using taxpayers money to fund something that they never put forward time they are in ours. Meanwhile, coal fire powerstations, including the one in Callide at the moment, which is one of these NECRO sites, is broken down and isn't in operation.

Well, some states are extending the life of these cold fired powerstations.

That is, that is what is causing the increase in prices is because of the uncertainty created.

By saying they shouldn't be doing it.

No, they need to ensure energy security. But what shouldn't have happened was twenty four out of twenty eight coal fire power stations announced their closure and no support for energy security. Let me during that time, and we can't afford to wait for the twenty forties.

Okay, let me ask you both a question about climate change. We get a lot of questions about the concerns that people have over more intense weather events, be it storms, fires, floods, particularly in your home state Queensland. Mister Dutton, do you accept that we are already seeing the impact of climate change?

Well, David, there's an impact of QUI is what we can do about it? As a population of twenty seven million people, so we should be good corporate citizens, good international neighbors, etc. But at the moment, China is building two coal fire power stations a week. India obviously is burning a lot of fossil fuel. And what the government's doing and Chris Bowen gave us.

Can we stick with your plans again? He mister Dutton, I understand the propensity to get stuck into each other. You're agreeing we are seeing the impact of climate change.

I think you can see that there's an impact, David, but I don't in my home state. You made reference to floods and natural disasters events. We were out in Targetminda the other day. That has been a part of the history of our state, of this country, and.

We need too is getting worse.

Well, I'll leave others you think, I'll let scientists and others past that judgment, but really not.

Willing to say this is climate change happening right now?

Well, as the Prime Minister refused to do the other day to make comment in this regard as well, I don't know, David, because I'm not a scientist, and I can't tell you whether the temperature has risen in Fargaminde as a result of climate change, or that the water levels are up in Fargaminder's latest flood as a result of climate change. And I think the honest answer for most people is that they don't know, and there are

To help families.

We need to transition, and we've spoken about that with our zero missions technology. But in relation to power costs, which I think is a really important issue before we move on, the Prime Minister promised too hundred and seventy five dollars reduction per year at the last election. It

From the impact of climate change a little there. But mister Albinezi, we do know that people in a lot of these areas where we're seeing more severe impacts are really worried about the impact on their insurance premiums. One of our audience members, Ross lives in Balana. Three years ago, his premium was less than three thousand dollars. Now it's more than six thousand dollars. I mean, that's unaffordable for many. What's the role of government here to help people? In that stage?

Can I talk about science and be a prime minister who backs it out up? The science is very clear. Doesn't mean that every single weather event is because of climate change. It does mean that the science told us that the events would be more extreme and they'd be more frequent, and that is what we are seeing playing out, whether it be increased bush fires, increased flooding, these extreme

Severe Okay, I want to move on. Let's turn to the global outlook and an issue that certainly fled in the last couple of days. Mister Dutton, yesterday you jumped on reports that Russia had asked to base some of its military aircraft in Indonesia. You suggested this would represent a catastrophic failure of the Albanesi government for not seeing this, not knowing that it was coming. You said the Indonesian president had publicly announced this Russian request when he had not.

Well, David, the reference I was making should have been to the president. That was in relation to sources from the Proboo government.

So was that a mistake.

It was a mistake, and I'm happy to admit what we got from the Indonesian authorities in the reports, and the Prime Minister commented on these reports yesterday as well, was that the sources inside the Proboo government confirmed that that was the case. Now, what we've seen in the last twelve hours or so is that the Russian Envoid two Indonesia has confirmed that there have been discussions, and

Clearly, mister Albanezi, they're expanding defense cooperations going on between Russia and Indonesia. That held some exercises in November, and just yesterday Russia's deputy Prime minister met the Indonesian President in Jakarta.

Does this concern you, Well, that's an extraordinary double down from the alternative Prime Minister of Australia who verbal the Indonesian president yesterday. Indonesia will be the fourth largest economy in the world. They are an important partner of Australia. We have an important defense relationship with Indonesia as well, Proboo, I regard as a personal friend and we have good relations there. And the idea that you just throw out

Well, just quickly on that you said, you pointed out Indonesia is an important partner. You said President Sibianto's a personal friend. Why haven't you been to Indonesia since he became president?

Because I've been here domestically, but the president I have spoken with, and the president was here just before his inauguration.

When did you last speek.

He's a regular visitor.

We speak regularly and spoken about this about their WEE operation with Russia.

Well, I don't broadcast the private discussion, but we had discussions at the senior levels of government. Government to government confirmed that. Peter says, why didn't we know something that didn't exist? And what didn't exist? And Indonesia has confirmed the idea of a base being used by the Russian Air Force in West Papa.

Do you accept that, mester Up, No, I don't.

I don't accept that, And I think the Prime minister's full of bluster here because he knows that he's got it wrong again in relation to national security. This is the government that's tripped eighty billion dollars out of defense, and we've seen the relationship in relation to Indonesia and Russia grow closer.

Now.

Indonesia is an incredibly important partner. I met with the President elect when he was out here, and I had a very good relationship with him as Defense Minister when we were both in that portfolio. I had a lot to do with the previous with the previous president in Indonesia as well. So we have a stable, solid relationship. But that means that if there is to be some change in the security settings in our region, that if

Peter suggesting that there should be a response to something that isn't happening. And this is the second of the failures that we've seen of diplomacy and of mature responses

Ok, we've made it forty minutes and finally Donald Trump's name gets mentioned. He's not in this room, but he of course has a big influence on the future of Australia and the world. He has hit Australia with the ten percent tariff, he started a trade war with China. He's treating friends and allies with disdain. Mister Dutton, to you first, do you trust this president?

Well?

David I said in relation to President Trump that I thought the scenes that we saw coming out of the White House, the treatment of President Zelenski was a disgrace, that it was appalling, and I stand by those comments and we need to have a very strong working relationship with the United States.

Of course we do. Do you trust him?

Was the question, Well, we trust the United States and I don't know the President.

I've not met him.

Prime Minister obviously has been able to but I'm not wanting to say you trust I don't know Donald Trump?

Is my point.

My point is that who I trust is the Australian people. In My job is to stand up for our country's interests, which is what I did when we negotiated the orcan still with President Biden.

Mister Albinezi, do you trust Donald Trump?

Yeah, I have no reason not to. I've had a couple of discussions with him. In the last discussion we agreed on a series of words that he would give consideration. Great consideration was the words that he used, and he did that. In the end, he made a decision as part of the US administration to put these tariffs on every country. We got the lowest amount, but we made it very clear that that was an act of self harm by the United States. The United States enjoys the trade surplus with Australia.

All this will do.

All this will do is put up costs for American consumers.

Just what we're at it. Do you trust China's president? She did big.

I have no reason not to either.

In terms of the discussions that we have had as one on one discussions have been important. China's our major trading partner. One in four Australian jobs depends upon trade. Is in Australia's national interest to have a good economic relationship with China. We have different political systems and that means different values, and we have very different values with China. But what I've said is we'll cooperate where we can, We'll disagree where we must, but we'll engage in our national interest.

Do you trust well?

Again, I don't know the president of China, but I believe very strongly in the relationship that we have because of the reasons of Prime Minister outlines it's important for our economic stability and our sovereignty and government. We negotiated eleven free trade agreements. This government's only been able to negotiate one of the eleven. One was with China. I want to see the relationship grow and I want to see trust in the relationship, but we have to stand up for our sovereignty.

We have to have a respectful relationship.

I had a very good meeting with the premier from China when he was out only a couple of months ago, and we can build the relationship trust in well again, I've spoke to him across the table, so I haven't done business with him and shaken hands and seen whether somebody's honored that deal.

But I didn't have any reason to trust.

Can I make the point In the agreements that I've reached with Premier Lee, they have all resulted in precisely what was agreed on both sides. And now as a result of that, twenty billion dollars of trade with China has been restored.

A lot of people are because of the free trade agreement that we saw it.

It didn't operate for the entire time in which your last turn there were no discussions. Well again there's no contact, no funatraals, no meetings, no trade.

Well there wasn't diplomatic free well in terms of the trade relationship, it was something that we established through the free trade agreement.

It did start well.

There were difficulties in relation to five G David so talk about that period. We took a decision as a government to exclude high risk vendors from five G because we wanted to protect our telecommunications system.

China was upset in relation to that.

If the Prime Minister's suggesting, because it was a bipartisan position at the time, that that was an appropriate step for us to take in our national interests, that he probably should.

So let's come back to Donald Trump. It's a while since you've had a conversation. We how this tariff put on us at ten percent plus the tariff's on steel an aluminium. You've suggested some sort of deal around critical minerals is on the table. The critical minerals reserve, strategic reserve. What is that, mister Albanezi And what exactly are you offering Donald Trump.

Well, we're engaged diplomatically, not through a TV interview, but we have put forward.

A proposition to the United States. The United States have.

Put forward publicly their complaints about Australia. We won't budge on the pharmaceutical benefit scheme, we won't budge on biosecurity issues, we won't budge on the media Bargaining Code. We will stand up for Australia's national interest because that is important. So we'll continue to engage with the United States.

But we hope yourself about hope reserve being put on the table.

That's right. So what is it?

Well, a critical minerals reserve is just that it's a reserve of the critical minerals and rarers which Australia has an abundance of. We have the entire period, you can periodic table here, you can have it, you can have it this.

Well, no, well, we will negotiate.

The United States is very keen to get access to critical minerals and rarers. The trade dispute with China is particularly concerning to many in the US economy, So.

We reserve this for the United States.

No, well, we'll negotiate with the United States rather than with you, David.

Try with respect, mister Dutton. You've said you'd get a deal very quickly with Donald Trump, that he dropped these tariffs. No other leaders manage this. How do you plan to pull this one on?

Well, we did actually in the forty fifth presidency when President Trump was first elected. We were able to negotiate as a government then and outcome where Australia was existing.

How would you do it now? Well, again, as we did olcome termal at the time. Well as we it's a lot harder now as we did last time. We were able to leverage relationships.

Unfortunately, sadly for our country, Ambassador Rudd can't get into the West Wing and can't get a conversation average the relation. It means, as we did last time, David, we look at people with whom we have a relationship, contacts both within the West Wing, within the administration and those external to the administration. The trouble is that Anthony didn't think that Donald Trump was going to be elected and put

And we've got closer ties with the Trump we have.

I think we have the ability, as we demonstrated before, to talk to the administration. And again the mistruth that was spoken before by the Prime Minister about John Howard. The point I make, which is I think accepted by most sensible people, is that it as John Howard agrees with, that we should be doing everything we can to enhance the relationship to make our two countries stronger together. We've been with the United States for the last one hundred years.

It sounds like your answer to this is because you've got closer relationships with the Trump team, you'd be able to get a deal.

We have I think a capacity demonstrated. We've already done that, David, and we demonstrated it in the first president, so that we're able to get an exemption when other countries weren't.

So all I'm saying is that.

Everyone else in the world can't get it.

You would well, as you know when other countries were slapped with the tariff. Last time we were exempt from it under a coalition government.

There were plenty of others. This time, no one's got an exemption. Well, you reckon you could.

We've got an ambassador now who can't get a phone call to the president. We had an ambassador who used to play golf with him. We have people in Washington who have worked for coalition governments, people who have worked for the Australian government. I think there is the ability to do a deal. A point I was making in relation to the events is that the Americans came to our aid in the Battle of the Coral Sea. We've stood with America through every battle. It is an incredible relationship.

A quick one. You're both on a unity ticket when it comes to August. By the sounds of it, you want to stick with it despite the volatility created by Donald Trump. Is there a need for any contingency planning at defense?

Though?

If Elon Musk, for example, advisors Trump that their shipbuilding industry can't cope with sharing submarines with Australia. Mister Albanezi, do we need some contingency planning?

No, because this is in the interests of both Australia and the United States and the United Kingdom as well.

So no contingency plans. All the chips are on August.

This is in the interests of the US.

We have I've been on a US sub there in Wa that's been doctor nuclear powered submarine. They are Australia there are Australian mariners working on that submarine. We have people in the United States, in the United Kingdom working on the Orchest project, and it has a bipartisan support. And what is extraordinary is a questioning of that does

Look, I want to turn to well just on that point.

So when the Prime Minister sneakily says to an audience, when he thinks he's not being watched, that nuclear is unsafe, what does that say to our American partners when we've got our sailors, our sub mariners on submarines on the Virginia.

Suggesting signed I signed. I went to San Diego. I signed with President Biden the agreements.

I'm seeking for political neglec power.

That's what submarines.

What the government hasn't done, which has been noticed by the United States. They have invested into Orcus, and they have invested into Pillar two of UCAS. They've cannibalized Army, Navy and Air Force to pay for some of the firstments. There's no line item.

For complete nonsense we have increased defense spending by fifty seven billion dollars. We had a defense strategic review that found put simply that we need more things that go bang, and that's why we have guided missiles that we're not just buying, We're actually going to make them here in

I want to move on it and we put meat on the bones.

Let me come back to your campaigning. Neither of you have visited an Indigenous community so far in this election campaign, mister Dutton, what are Indigenous Australians to make of that?

Well, I can point to many trips that we've made to East arnham Land, to Alice Springs, to many communities across the country.

David.

The campaign isn't just made up of the last fifteen days or whatever it's been. It's made up of our term over the last three years. We went to Alice Springs and we spoke to a lot of people after the Voice, in particular where people were devastated because the practical assistance promised by the Prime Minister hasn't been delivered and the country was divided or the attempt was made

Where it's leftist. I want to show you this. This is from the latest Closing the Gap data. The suicide rate amongst Indigenous Australians the line on top and non Indigenous Australians the line at the bottom. The gap is getting wider and this is kids in out of home care once again, Indigenous kids the top line, Non Indigenous kids the bottom line. That gap is just not budgeting. It's getting a little worse as well. Mister Albanezi. Neither side of politics has been able to close these gaps.

Neither side of politics has done well enough for First Nations people. That's just a fact and that's something that breaks my heart. But what we did post referendum was I went to Gama. I spoke about economic empowerment of Indigenous people. So we have a series of programs, firstly taking what was essentially a work for the doll scheme, creating real jobs with real training and real outcomes. There's something like forty thousand Indigenous people, for example, have benefited

And in terms of the Ulary statement which called for a voice and treaty and truth telling, have you now moved on from that completely?

Well, I went to Gama and I spoke about what our priorities were, and I spoke to you.

On the day that I gave that speech. We accept the decision of the Australian people.

In that referendum've now moved on from all of that?

Well, we accept the decision that was made, David. We put forward a proposition that was asked for. We took up the gracious request of First nations people made at Uluru in two thy and seventeen and.

Now mister dut you during that voice campaign, agreed that the current system isn't working for Indigenous Australians. If it's not working, how would you fix it?

Well, I think it's heartbreaking to see those figures, and I share the sentiment of the Prime Minister that despite both sides of government over a long period of time we've both been in Parliament over twenty years, there've been in every discussion I've had and every Expenditure Review Committee and government in opposition a desire to invest as much money as is required to see those terrible outcomes improve,

How can we replicate and scale that up?

Look a final one before we hear your closing statements. We do hear a lot from both of you in this campaign about how dire things would be for Australia if the other bloke wins. And maybe that's just the nature of campaigning, but you two have known each other a very long time. I've witnessed you both over the dispatch box in Parliament. You're able to have a chat. You seem to get on.

I just want to ask.

I don't want you to have it stated the kiss of death for Bath.

What I wanted to ask is it would really be a disaster for the country or is this just a bit of political hype if the other guy won. Mister Albinezi, I.

Think there are very different values that we have.

I can have a private discussion with Peter, can call him round to the office, and he does so regularly, and my office is open to every member of Parliament.

But I don't take this personally.

But I have a very different view of Australia, and I think that Peter has taken his party to a more conservative bent than it has ever been and I want very much to be able to continue the work that our government's been able to achieve.

All Right, mister Dunn, Well David.

On matters of national security or issues that are important for our country, the Prime Minister round I can have a conversation and have on a number of occasions to find a bipartisan position to advance that cause. But as Anthony points out, we've got different visions and different pathways and it really hurts me to see young Australians completely locked out out of the housing market. It hurts me to see young families putting off having kids under this government.

Life savings or their job.

And I have a vision where we can run our economy successfully, so we can help people up and provide support to them and to keep our country safe.

All right, time for your closing statements, mister Dutton to you first, well, David, as.

We go to the third of May, people need to reflect on what's happened in our country, in.

Your lives over the course of the last three years.

And as I said in my opening remarks, can you answer the question are you better off today than you were three years ago? And for the vast majority of Australians the answer is no. We have a positive plan for our country. We have a desire to manage our economy and if people vote for the Liberal and National Parties at the next election, will successfully manage the economy

Thank you mister mister Abenezy your closing stake.

This election is a real choice, a choice between Labour's plans to build Australias future and the coalition's plans for cuts. When it comes to education, we have schools, funding childcare, making it more affordable. Our university is accord or a plan to get rid of free Tafe, to cut schools like happened last time with thirty billion dollars of cuts

That is a choice that they have.

On climate change, we've heard tonight no acceptance of the science of climate change. We accept it and we're acting on it with renewables backed by gas batteries and making sure that we deliver on climate change and on renewable energy. When it comes to a gender issues that we didn't confront today, we've had a women's health program, the most significant that we have had.

We have had payper and or leave.

We have had a gender program that puts women at the center about economic and social agenda, and the Coalition have not done anything on any of those issues. On our place in the world, we need to have a considered approach, a diplomatic approach, not the shoot from the hip approach that we've seen during this campaign.

Thank you both very much for joining us this evening. We do wish you well for the remainder of the campaign.

The show has been produced by Depictions Media. Please contact us at Depictions dot media for more information.