Conservative Leader Stephen Harper makes a point during the English Leaders' debate Monday, Jan. 9, 2006 in Montreal. (CP / Chris Wattie) Liberal Leader Paul Martin makes a point as Conservative Leader Stephen Harper listens during the English leaders' debate Monday, Jan. 9, 2006 in Montreal. (CP / Tom Hanson) NDP Leader Jack Layton makes a point during the English leaders' debate Monday, Jan. 9, 2006 in Montreal. (CP / Tom Hanson) BQ Leader Gilles Duceppe makes a point during the English leaders' debate Monday, Jan. 9, 2006 in Montreal. (CP / Chris Wattie)

Transcript of Jan. 9 English Leaders' Debate

Updated Mon. Jan. 9 2006 10:23 PM ET

Canadian Press

Moderator Steve Paikin: Good evening, everybody. From Montreal, I'm Steve Paikin of TV Ontario. This is the second round of leaders' debates organized by Canada's major television networks. We're in English tonight, French tomorrow night. In this debate, I'll be asking all questions crafted with the help of producers at CBC, CTV and Global Television.

The party leaders were given a list of broad themes, but, of course, they were not given the actual questions. They will hear them for the first time over the next two hours as you do. The format of the debate includes time limits on all the answers and an agreement by the leaders that they will not interrupt one another. They have also agreed that I should enforce those rules. And we will start with opening statements. Their order was determined by draw. Gentlemen, Happy New Year, good to be with you this evening.

Mr. Paul Martin, leader of the Liberal Party of Canada starts.

Paul Martin: Good evening. Tonight's debate will be about choosing the kind of Canada you want. Mr. Harper has made a promise a day in this campaign. Many of these promises are tax breaks that will give more to those who have more. How will he pay for all of this? We already know he'd take away the tax cuts that we brought in on January the first, tax cuts for low-income and middle-class Canadians. We know this because Mr. Harper said so. But even then, he'd need to find money to pay for all his promises. I know how budgets work. Mr. Harper would need to cut them more. He would cut many more programs to balance the books. I believe in tax cuts, but I don't think we should cut taxes by cutting the services that working families rely on. Mr. Harper has already said that he would cancel the national child-care program. What you need to ask yourself is this: What else will he cut? He needs to tell us.

Moderator: Thank you, Mr. Martin. Mr. Stephen Harper, leader of the Conservative Party of Canada.

Stephen Harper: Thank you. Good evening. Tonight I want to talk to you about the direction I will take this country. For the past 13 years, party operatives and government insiders have done well, but too many ordinary Canadians are not enjoying the benefits of our economy. They're working harder and harder. Their taxes have gone up, their savings have gone down. Worse yet, our senior citizens who have given so much have seen their real incomes fall. That's just not good enough. We need a government that will be on the side of the people who work hard, pay their taxes, and play by the rules. We have five priorities. We'll get past the scandals and establish accountability in Ottawa. We'll reduce taxes starting with cutting the GST. We'll crack down on crime. We'll work with our provinces to establish a wait-times guarantee for health care, and we'll provide choice in child care to Canadian parents. It's time. It's time for a new government that will work for ordinary people and their families. It's time for positive change for all Canadians.

Moderator: Thank you, Mr. Harper. Mr. Gilles Duceppe, leader of the Bloc Quebecois.

Gilles Duceppe: Good evening. Both Mr. Martin and Mr. Harper will try to convince you that they can really fulfill the aspirations of Canadians and of Quebecers. However, by taking aim at the Bloc Quebecois over Canadian unity, they are ignoring the real issues. Mr. Martin is trying to deflect attention from the Liberals' sponsorship scandal. Now with Option Canada, Quebecers are more than ever looking for honest representatives whose only loyalty is towards Quebec. On many issues, when it's time to defend Quebec's interests, the Bloc has battled against you, Mr. Martin, and against you, Mr. Harper. I have always promoted dialogue and respect between Quebec and Canada. That's why I'm here to talk about the real issues and demonstrate why in Quebec people should vote for the Bloc. Thank you.

Moderator: Thank you, Mr. Duceppe. And Mr. Jack Layton, leader of the New Democratic Party of Canada.

Jack Layton: Good evening. In 14 days, we have a real opportunity to make a real change in politics and put working people first. I ask you to join me in saying that enough is enough with Liberal arrogance and scandals and enough to the vote-buying promises of the Conservatives. There's a better choice, a third option, the NDP. We'll make politicians in Parliament accountable to you, and we'll work day in and day out, not for the well-connected, but for working families. We'll put the public back in public health care. We'll ensure dignity and respect for seniors. And we'll make sure there's opportunities for young people, training and education they need. We'll make sure you get the services that you pay for with your hard-earned tax dollars. You can make this change a reality. In 14 days, we can change politics for the better and put working families first.

Moderator: Thank you, Mr. Layton. Those are the opening statements. Gentlemen, as you know, we have sort of divided tonight in to four overarching themes and we're going to start with the first theme tonight which is government and ethics, and Mr. Layton, you get the first question. One of the major stories brewing over the week is the RCMP investigation into whether there was an improper leak from the government on how it would handle the issue of income trusts. You have demanded the resignation of the finance minister, Ralph Goodale. What evidence do you have, if any, that there was, in fact a leak of information?

Jack Layton: First of all, let me say that we're in a very sad time in Canadian politics because of the ethical standards that have not been set properly by the government. First we had the Gomery Commission, and now we have the income trust issue, and most recently the Options Canada story. It's time that we had a real focus on change, and that's why we have emphasized the need for new legislation and new electoral reforms so that we can sweep the Parliament clean of this ethics strategy. Now, it's not for us to show whether there's a particular scandal that the RCMP has begun to investigate. We simply noticed what happened to people's savings, and some people benefitted. We drew it to the attention of the RCMP. You know, actually, the finance minister should have done this or the prime minister, and it's sad that they chose not to do so. It shows they don't understand the concept of ministerial responsibility in parliamentary democracy. The RCMP says there's something worth looking into. We'll respect their decision.   

Moderator: Mr. Harper, you've also called for the resignation of the finance minister. Do you have any evidence there was a leak?   

Stephen Harper: Well, it's the RCMP that's investigating the evidence that's available, and we know what that evidence is. It's high trading on stocks, often stocks closely connected with this government in the days preceding the reversal of what was in the first place a very bad decision. This was a decision, let's forget about whether it was even a scandal, this was a decision that cost millions of ordinary people literally billions of dollars in their portfolios. It was a terrible decision. It should never have been made in the first place. And the fact was that this prime minister and this finance minister were asked repeatedly questions about the trading in the House of Commons, and they denied there was any problem and swept it under the rug. It's now the RCMP investigating, and that's the problem. It always has to get to the point of an RCMP investigation or some kind of an investigation before we get any answers. We've learned in this campaign about the RCMP investigation into the income trusts. We're hearing about investigation in Options Canada. We've got the Toronto waterfront. Mr. Martin should tell us tonight; will you tell us, Mr. Martin, how many criminal investigations are going on in your government?

Moderator: In fact, Mr. Martin, it's your turn to respond.    

 Paul Martin: My view of ethics in government is straightforward. It's honesty, it's integrity, but it's also telling the truth when you're, in fact, making a challenge. The income trust is an opposition allegation. That's all it is. In fact, the RCMP have said there is not a shred of proof that supports it. Obviously they're going to respond because, in fact, when they're asked to do so by a member of Parliament, they will do that. But to impugn the reputation of the minister of finance, who is one of the most honest people I know, because there has been trading which goes on all the time, I just think is fundamentally wrong. And I must say, and we may talk about this, but Mr. Harper, I can't believe it, you raise the issue of Options Canada? Options Canada was, in fact, an organization with all the federalists in Quebec, leading Conservatives were part of it it as well as Liberals and may well be NDPers. For you to raise the issue either shows you don't understand what was going on. I can tell you one thing, it was not an attack on Confederation. What it really was was meeting the PQ on their ground.

Moderator: Mr. Duceppe, can I get your response on that?   

Gilles Duceppe: The least we can say was it was not very prudent or wise for Mr. Goodale to meet with investors on the morning he was to announce an important decision. The announcement of that decision and that meeting that occurred the same morning, we know what happened at the Toronto Stock Exchange. When you're in office, the question is not to be only in conflict of interest, but also that there's no appearance of conflict of interest, and in that case, obviously at least what we can say is that there's an appearance of conflict of interest. In the past, the Liberals have asked Mr. Wilson to resign because of something like that and less important that than what happened with Mr. Goodale. I think this is what Mr. Goodale has to do to respect not only his function internally but also internationally.   

Moderator: OK, thanks, Mr. Duceppe. The rules now provide for a 30-second rebuttal for you, Mr. Layton, since you got the first question on this, to anything you've heard so far.   

Jack Layton: Well, I'm hoping that we will hear a response from Mr. Martin because I do believe that you need to tell us whether you believe in the concept of ministerial responsibility. It's an important parliamentary concept fundamental to our democracy, and I hope that during the discussion this evening, we'll be able to hear whether (a), you believe in the concept, and (b), if you do, why you wouldn't ask a minister to step aside while an investigation is under way. Because the fact is the buck has to stop somewhere, and the question is do you understand that it needs to stop with you?    Moderator: One of the things we heard after the first debate was the public wanted to hear more exchanges amongst the four of you, so to that end, let's have one of our spontaneous follow-ups right now. Mr. Harper, during the course of the campaign, you accused Mr. Martin of essentially evading taxes because his ships with C.S.I. were running under Liberian flags instead of Canadian flags. Mr. Martin, you were accusing Mr. Harper of not loving canada as much as you because he wouldn't say the words "I love Canada." Are these personal attacks constructive?   

Paul Martin: Well, of course personal attacks are not constructive. If you don't mind, i'm going to respond to Mr. Layton first. The fact is absolutely I believe in ministerial responsibility, and I believe in ministerial accountability. The simple fact is, of course, that at no time was Ralph Goodale under any investigation. The fact is there isn't even any proof that there was a leak. Now, I do not believe there should be personal attacks. I think what we should be able to do here is discuss, in fact, the fundamental issues facing Canadians, whether it be the economy, the protection of our social programs, and that's I think what people want to have happen today.

Stephen Harper: Well, I would hope that we can avoid personal attacks. Mr. Martin's repeatedly questioned my patriotism. I've merely pointed out the fact that Mr. Martin in his business career paid his taxes outside of the country at lower tax rates. Mr. Martin operated his business under the flag of Liberia, Barbados, whatever. I'm just pointing out that somebody in a glass house shouldn't throw stones, and quite frankly, I can tell the people of Canada as prime minister, I'll live under the Canadian flag and pay my taxes.

Gilles Duceppe: This is not a personal attack. When you're the prime minister of Canada and your company, Canadian Steamship Lines, most of the ships are showing convenience flags. This is a fact, and when Mr. Martin came with a law in 1998 retroactively to 1995, the exact date when Canada Steamship Lines went from Liberia to Barbados, I think those are facts, and this is responsibility and to explain why he did that. Moderator: I'm going to let him explain in a second, but Mr. Layton, you've still got to get a kick at this. Jack Layton: I think a lot of Canadians find these personal issues quite distressing, and I do believe there are some solutions though, and I hope we get a chance to talk about them when it comes to democracy and accountability and respect in Parliament. I think a big part of it has to do frankly with having more women in Parliament. I think the whole tone of the debate would change. I'm very proud of our party for having 108 women candidates, 36 per cent of our candidates. We've got a long way to go. Proportional representation would take us there. I urge people to choose that option and clean this up.

Gilles Duceppe: I think that was the situation with most of the government most of the time. The Liberals were elected, I remember, in 1993 with 38 per cent of the vote with a huge majority in the House. This is how our system is working. I mean, there is certainly a problem, but the fact is that if we're representing Quebecers in Ottawa, it is certainly because Quebecers have good reasons to choose members from the Bloc. We won the election in '93, in '97, in 2000, in 2004, and I'm very optimistic, even though I don't take anything for granted, that we'll finish first this time around. Why is it so? It's because the other parties have nothing to offer concretely to Quebecers, and I mean, we're working with the system. I mean, we're not the one who invented that system. The same situation for all parties, for all parties.

Moderator: Mr. Martin, do you think the current system of electing members is fair?

Paul Martin: Well, we've already set up a commission that will be reporting in the spring that is really taking a look at how this can be done, and I think that it's very important. There are a number of very important experiments that are going on in the provinces. British Columbia is an example, Ontario is looking, and I believe that we can learn a great deal from this. There is no doubt that people are turned off by politics. There have to be structural changes, but I've got to say that I think that the lack of civility, the lack of intelligent debate, what happens in Question Period really does turn Canadians off, and I think that we have got to really set a much higher example and I think it should be done by the leaders. I also share the view that was said by Mr. Layton earlier. I believe we need far more women in politics. I think that they bring a wealth of experience that would be very important, that would certainly, I think, play well in the way that the House of Commons deals with major issues and government does, but do I think the current system needs fixing? Yes, I absolutely do. 

Paul Martin: Here's the problem with the debate. People state what are facts. They are not the facts. The bulk of the company ships fly the Canadian flag. Over 500 employees, the head office is in Montreal, they pay their taxes in Montreal. They have also expanded around the world. You know, I just don't want to see foreign companies coming and incorporating in Canada. I want to see Canadian companies from head office in Canada expanding around the world. We can do it. I feel very good about our country and I believe that's the kind of proof that we need.

Moderator: Thank you, Mr. Martin. We're going to move on to our second question in our government and ethics question and that goes to you, Mr. Harper. You have run a campaign very strongly based on the notion that the present government has been corrupted by a sense of entitlement and that a Conservative government would be cleaner. However, when you were a Reform MP, for example, you said your party would never accept MP pensions, but most of them did, said that the leader would never live in Stornaway, but he did. Said your party wouldn't take government cars, but they did. So doesn't history tell us that the opposition always runs on cleaning things up but often doesn't?

Stephen Harper: Well, I won't deny there's some truth in that. However, I can point out that I never did opt back in to the pension plan that I opted out of in the first place. I still will have to serve an awful long time before I'm entitled to a pension. What we're planning to do is bring in something called the federal accountability act. We're actually going to make changes that will hold our government more accountable and future governments more accountable. We're going to end corporate, union, and individual contributions over a thousand dollars to political parties. We're going to make sure in future, people can't leave ministers' offices, former ministers, former senior civil servants will not be able to lobby our government for five years after they leave office. We're going to provide real protection to whistleowers, people like our candidate in Ottawa South, Allan Cutler, who had the courage to say no to Chuck Guite. He won't be run out of the government when we're in office. He'll have legislative protection. We'll give more power to the information commissioner, the ethics commissioner. The auditor general auditing not just ...

Moderator: Mr. Duceppe on that, please.

Gilles Duceppe: Mr. Harper said during the campaign that he's inspired by Rene Levesque. It's one thing to be inspired by Rene Levesque, it's another thing to govern yourself like Rene Levesque was governing himself. I'm asking Mr. Harper, and i think if he's different from Mr. Martin, Mr. Harper should tell us who contributed to his leadership campaign. We don't know how many money he received. We don't know who gave that money. We don't know if Conrad Black gave money. We don't know if the rich oil companies in Alberta gave money. You're naming Rene Levesque and you're saying you're inspired by Rene Levesque, you have to live at the level of Rene Levesque. And Rene Levesque wouldn't have accepted such a situation like Mr. Harper did, but he still have the chance to answer that question and shows he's different from Paul Martin.

Moderator: Mr. Layton, you're up next on this question.

Jack Layton: I notice Mr. Harper chose to mention lobbyists in his remark and we certainly know the Liberal Party has very close relationships with lobbyists, but I think Mr. Harper, what you're saying would be a lot more credible if your war room and your campaign weren't filled with corporate lobbyists as they are. That's something that you're going to have to explain as well as the issue of why you don't reveal the donations that you've received from the three parties that you've led, all the donations, so we know what your background is in terms of support. We think it should be illegal and we will propose a law to require all leadership candidates for political parties to make those donations public because you see, behind the scenes, I think people have a lot of suspicion about what's going on. Transparency, openness, that's what's required now, and we propose a series of measures to open politics right up so that the accountability will be the fundamental policy of the Canadian people in the Parliament.

Moderator: Mr. Martin, can I hear you on this one?

Paul Martin: Yes, you can, but I'm going to try to take it to a different level. The personal attacks are interesting, but I'm not sure they're as interesting to the people out there. I want to talk about governance and how you treat people fairly. I want to talk about the Charter of Rights if I might because I think it's part of this. Unlike most Canadians, Mr. Harper has said the Charter of Rights has serious flaws. His justice critic has said we should use the notwithstanding clause to take away the rights of Canadians. They criticize our courts for enforcing Charter rights. I think that's wrong, and I just want to say within the debate of governance, I think the Charter defines Canada, it protects our linguistic freedoms, and within the context of a governance debate, the first act of a new Liberal government is going to be to strengthen the Charter, and we're going to do that by removing by Constitutional means the possibility for the federal government to use the notwithstanding clause, because quite simply, I think governance says that the courts shouldn't be overturned by politicians.

Moderator: Rules provide Mr. Harper, for you, to have a 30-second rebuttal.

Stephen Harper: First of all, I have revealed the contributors to my leadership campaign. Even though I was not required by law to do so, and no, I never received a contribution from Mr. Conrad Black. In terms of lobbying, anybody who is a lobbyist in our campaign is paid by the campaign, not private interests. Lobbyists can be involved in politics, but they can't get privileged access to contracts. I think the Charter should be strengthened. I think there should be property rights protection in our Charter.

Moderator: Can I do a quick follow-up with you, Mr. Duceppe. Your eyebrows raised when he said he did reveal his contributors.

Gilles Duceppe: I'm surprised tonight to know that Mr. Harper revealed who contributed to his campaign because that question has been asked in the House quite a few times. So if it's the case, I'd like to have the names. We still have time before January the 23rd.

Jack Layton: (Canadians) don't hear their voices in the debate. They don't see their voices represented in the results, either electorally or in the policies affecting their lives. And this system was invented before the telephone, for heaven's sakes. I remember, Mr. Martin, we talked when you were writing your speech from the throne and I asked you to include electoral reform in that speech. You put the words in, but I have to say, you haven't followed through. We were supposed to have had a report from a parliamentary commission already in front of us so Canadians could be discussing this, and you dragged your feet. It will mean that more women get elected, more immigrants will get elected. We'll have more aboriginals in the House of Commons. This can increase voter turnout. It does all over the world. Let's make that change in canada now.   

Moderator: Mr. Duceppe, you're entitled today a 30-second rebuttal if you want.  

Gilles Duceppe: I remember the last campaign when Mr. Martin was talking about the democratic deficit. Exactly what we've seen in the House in the last month, a lot of decisions were taken by committee in majority, and the government refused to apply them. Motions were decided and vote the in majority in the house, and the government refused to apply them. When Paul Martin is talking about the democratic deficit, I think he's a living democratic deficit.   

Moderator: Thank you. We're now going to move to the second segment of our debate which is about social policy, and Mr. Harper, the first question is to you. As we know, crime has been a huge issue in the campaign. After the Boxing Day shooting in Toronto, you said that crimes such as these were the result of 12 years of lax criminal justice law enforcement by Liberals. Tell us this: if your policies had been in place for the past 12 years instead of Liberal policies, do you believe the four Mounties in Mayerthorpe, Alberta would still be alive or that the police officer in Laval, Quebec would still be alive or a teenaged girl in Toronto would still be alive?  

Stephen Harper: Well, I can tell you in the case of the Mayerthorpe Mounties, unfortunately, if there had been mandatory minimum prison sentences for some of the crimes that particular perpetrator was convicted of, that individual would not have been out at large the day he committed those murders. I'm not going to, and I said at the press conference, I'm not going to point fingers at individual politicians for individual acts of criminals. We ultimately hold criminals responsible for criminal action, but that's the kind of criminal justice system we need, that we haven't been having in our country. What our party's going to do, what I've proposed is we're going to first of all have mandatory minimum prison sentences for serious, violent, repeat offences. We're going to put more policemen on the street. We're going to deal with smuggling and flow of guns at the border. And we're going to have crime prevention programs for at-risk youth. Make no mistake, a Conservative government is going to crack down on crime in this country.    

Moderator: Mr. Duceppe?  

Gilles Duceppe: While giving priority to rehabilitation, the Bloc Quebecois has acted concretely on various occasions to better protect all citizens. The anti-gang act was a Bloc Quebecois proposal. The reversal of burden of proof was also a Bloc Quebecois proposal. We are also looking to improve security at the regions and borders, and we're supporting the creation of ombudsman office allowing victims to appear before parole boards showing consideration of victims' needs in parole proceedings. Having said that, I think we have to target the root of the problem with dealing with the causes of delinquency in violence. The roots are poverty, equality, exclusion, that creates the fertile ground for the emergence of criminal behaviour. We have to address the roots, otherwise we miss the boat.   

Moderator: Mr. Layton.   

 Jack Layton: Well, we've all been shaken by the incidents that you mentioned, Steve, and in particular, young people being shot in cities, it leaves us all aghast and wanting answers and wanting solutions, and that's why we need to see a two-pronged approach here. We have to be tough on crime, we have to be tougher on the causes of crime, and that's why our party is proposing concrete steps, not more press conferences, something that will produce real results. And that would include tougher penalties and sentences, particularly for possession and sale of handguns and assault weapons. We've got to deal with sale of weapons over the Internet, doubling the maximum penalty for importing illegal arms as well, and arm the officers at the border so they can be safe and do their job. But we also have to strengthen witness protection so people can come forward and help the police as well as respond to the needs of victims. And, you know, it's important to get addicts off the street with programs that help them. It's important to get to the inequality that lies at the root of it with housing child care and other investments.   

Moderator: Mr. Martin on this, please.  

Paul Martin: We all agree on the need for tougher sentences, mandatory minimums. We all agree on the need for more police and to stop the smuggling. And it would appear that some of us agree that there has to be a major effort in terms of prevention dealing with the communities, the causes, dealing with poverty and exclusion. But there is a very big difference between Mr. Harper and myself. The fact is Mr. Harper says we must crack down on gun crimes, and he would do everything except, of course, deal with handguns. And I'm saying that we have to ban handguns. We have to take handguns away from criminals. We have to get them off our streets, and we have to put criminals behind bars. The fact is the Canadians deserve safe streets. They deserve safe communities. Toronto isn't Detroit. Vancouver isn't south Los Angeles, and we are not going to allow our cities to fall in to mindless violence, but we have to choke off the supply of handguns. Those are the things that kill.  

Moderator: Mr. Harper, you've got a 30-second rebuttal on this.  

Stephen Harper: Couple of things. First of all, Mr. Martin's government does not agree with mandatory minimum sentences. They've had 13 years to do it and they did not do it. Even yesterday the justice minister indicated his opposition to that. I support the handgun ban. We've had a handgun ban enacted for decades in this country. This is the first government that couldn't control the flow of guns. Even Mr. Goodale and Ms. McLellan, Mr. Martin's own ministers, admit his proposal will make no difference whatsoever.   

Moderator: I sense there is more desire to discuss this, so I'm going to go back at you one more time on this, Mr. Harper. Presumably if you want to bring in mandatory minimums and increase the number of police officers, this will cost more. Have you costed this yet?

Stephen Harper: Yes, we've costed it. We have put in substantial new resources for additional law enforcement. I don't subscribe to the view that having tougher laws, justice costs will skyrocket. There are deterrent effects to having real laws and real law enforcement in this country, and we hope to see the benefit of some of those things, and we will as well. Also I should say having crime prevention programs, but being soft on the causes of crime cannot prevent us from being tough on crime, and that's what a government must do.

Moderator: Can I understand the Liberal position on this? I know your attorney general said he was against mandatory minimums and you're in favour on this.

Paul Martin: The fact is the government is for mandatory minimums. We wanted to bring them in. We had legislation prepared and the government fell. The Conservatives defeated the government before we could bring it in. The second point I would like to raise is there are 500,000 handguns in the hands of collectors. They are one break-in away from being used in a crime. The mayor of Toronto has pointed out it is handguns stolen from homes that are killing people. We've got to stop that. We've got to ban handguns.

Gilles Duceppe: In countries where they have a mandatory minimum, statistics show that doesn't improve the situation. It's not by putting more people in jail. It's not by having an officer on every street corner that we'll resolve that problem. I'm working with the police officer in my riding, and they have a very different attitude, community work with people, with the young people trying to address the roots, and the roots are I repeat poverty and the feeling of being ...

Moderator: Even the CNP has come up for mandatory minimums which surprised a lot of your supporters.

Jack Layton: We believe that has to happen for gun crimes, and it's a step that can hopefully prevent some of the people who have decided they're going to use guns on the streets of cities, that it would reduce the impact of this. But I also have to say that we have to invest in youth at risk. I met with young people in Toronto after some of the shootings, and what they spoke about was the need for options for young people. Let's be sure we're including that. We've put $100 million to invest every year in youth at risk programs. Maybe that will help.

Moderator: Thank you, Mr. Layton. In the area of social policy, let's go to health care, which, of course, many Canadians want to know a lot about, and Mr. Duceppe, this question is for you. Provinces including Quebec have increased the role of the private sector in the delivery of health care. Would you support a federal ban on private for-profit health clinics?

Gilles Duceppe: I mean, I don't want people to have to use their credit card to go to hospital, but the thing is, it is a provincial jurisdiction. It is a Quebec jurisdiction, and a main problem is the fact that the federal government cut in the payment transfers for health since 1994. Recently, they put more money, but not at the level it was in 1994. Just consider that in Ottawa, in the health department, there's 10,000 civil servants, and they're not managing a single hospital. Five years ago, there were 506 employees for promotion, like against cancer or smoking, thing like that. Today nowadays, we have 4,561. We don't need inspectors. We don't need statisticians, we need doctors and nurses. I'm confident the province of Quebec will be able to settle that problem and make sure you go with your health card and not your credit card.

Moderator: Mr. Martin, do you support a federal ban on private for-profit health clinics? Paul Martin: I support the Canada Health Act. The fact is the federal government, any money the federal government puts in to the health-care system is going in to the public health-care system to support it, and the fact is that you can do wonders. If you take a look at what we have now done in arriving at the benchmarks, the reduction in waiting times with the provinces as a result, and I say this, Mr. Duceppe, we are a country, and in a country, the opportunity for us to operate hospital networks, for the opportunity for us to have best practices, the opportunity for our great medical schools to provide people right across the country is a great asset in this country, and for you to say that we should operate in silos just simply makes no sense. The fact of the matter is the federal government and the provinces as a result of the $41 billion that we have transferred to the provinces have made a significant improvement, and now with our patient guarantee, I believe that -- and the new doctors that we will be creating in residencies in hospitals across the country, I believe we're going to continue in the public system to make considerable progress.

Moderator: Mr. Harper, how about you? A federal ban on private for-profit health clinics?

Stephen Harper: I support the Canada Health Act and our universal system of public health insurance, and I should say it's the only system I've used and every provincial government in the country including Quebec has agreed they will operate under that system. It links us to most democracies in the world. The United States obviously doesn't have this kind of system, but we do. We will not solve the problems of the health care system by going out and deciding we'll try and ban this service and that service. The problem we've got is making sure the people who belong to the public health insurance plan can get the service they need when they need it. That's why we've taken up the call of the joint bipartisan committee of the Senate to create the health-care wait times guarantee. What that means is if your public health insurance plan isn't providing you with the service it promised you in your own jurisdiction, you should be able to go outside that jurisdiction and have it paid for by public health insurance. We're not going to get there and solve the wait times problem if we start banning services. We've got to make sure we provide them to people on a publicly accessible basis.

 Jack Layton: Have you ever bought a product and it said, terrific guarantee, lifetime guarantee, you can trust this guarantee? Well, the guarantees being offered by these two party leaders aren't worth the paper they're written on and that's because they're willing to allow public health dollars to increasingly go to for-profit providers of health care services instead of to the nurses' training that's needed in order to reduce the wait times, something we've proposed, the medical professional training, helping those immigrants who have come with medical degrees to be able to work in our system, we're funding that in our proposal, home care and long-term care so people currently in beds in hospitals can move out of the beds and be cared for at home or in a long-term facility that so many seniors need. These are the real solutions. A pharmacare program that would help people with the cost of drugs. These are the steps that should be taken to reduce the pressure on the waiting lists. This so-called guarantee is not worth the paper it's written on and Mr. Martin is letting for-profit medicine grow. It's got to stop.

Moderator: Third question under the theme of social policy and it goes to you, Mr. Layton. We had a lot of talk in the campaign about values. Last month, the Supreme Court said that swingers' clubs were legal because no one was being harmed. The minority on the court disagreed. It said some Canadian social values deserve protection. Now, the specifics of that case aside, do you believe there are some Canadian social values that should be protected even if it means using the notwithstanding clause of the Constitution or are you with Mr. Martin who came out this evening and said he's not a fan of that clause anymore and wants to get rid of it?

 Jack Layton: There may be some of those values that should be protected, for example, keeping our public health care system public and making sure that all Canadians have equal access to services across the country. Sometimes this could be a very important feature to be considered. And when courts, for example, in the Chaoulli decision open the door to the privatization and ultimately the dismantling of our public health care system, this is something that all Canadians should be very, very concerned about, and that's why we've suggested, the court, of course, was right to point out that people should have the care that they need, and they were raising a red flag there, but, of course, the fact is that the solution would be the types of proposals that we have recommended. So there's a case where a Canadian value, our public health care system, is one that does need to be addressed, and the court has sent up a signal. It's time now for Parliament to act. It's only unfortunate that you, Mr. Martin, were unwilling to respond when I offered you the specific recommendation to reinforce our health laws so we could stop for-profit medicine and you refused to act.

Moderator: He's going to get a chance to respond in a few minutes. Mr. Harper, same question to you. Any Canadian social values that should be protected even if it means using the notwithstanding clause?

Stephen Harper: First of all, let me talk about the decision in question. I think a lot of Canadians were troubled by that decision on swingers' clubs, and I will come back to that in a second in terms of values. I think it's important to recognize this was not a Charter decision made by the Supreme Court. This was an interpretation of a provision of the Criminal Code. In Canada, and the government of Canada can look at that provision and provide new legislation if it thinks there's a way to plug that loophole, and our government will take a look at what we can do with this and it in no way involves the notwithstanding clause. The question raises the important point which is that I think there is a danger in saying that the courts will always, regardless of the decision, will always be supreme. Just as I think there would be a danger in saying that Parliament and politicians would always be supreme regardless of their opinion. Our Charter and our Constitution sets up the dialogue where there's a balance between parliamentary supremacy and the supremacy of the courts, that's the balance I support.

 Paul Martin: I think you're really getting down to it now. We are talking about values and you can't determine social policy unless you know really where people are coming from. Mr. Harper and I have a very, very deep chasm between us on this. Mr. Harper has described Canada as a northern European welfare state in the worst sense of the term. Mr. Harper spoke to a U.S. Conservative group and said that they were a light, an inspiration for canada. That's a sense -- that's speaking to values. He told the Americans that a country like Canada will never have a national identity as great as theirs. He told those same Americans that we were second rate. This is the issue that we've got to talk about. The basic value gap that exists between us, and quite simply, I don't believe that Canada was built on american conservative values. It was built on compassion, on generosity, on sharing and understanding. I guess the only thing I would say to Mr. Harper in this discussion is that America is our neighbour. It's not our nation, and we have our own set of values, and that's why we're so strong in this country, and they apply to the debate we're now having.

 Moderator: I am going to give you a chance to respond, but first, Mr. Duceppe.

Gilles Duceppe: I would say that democracy is about choosing on what kind of value is based our society. I think it would be very dangerous to say one day for once and forever that value won't be changed. If it had been the case, imagine that homosexuality was a crime before 1968. I mean, there's something called evolution in life, and we have to take that into account, and I think the world is evolving, and that doesn't mean that you're accepting anything, but it means that you have certainly to have principles and offer those principles to the people, and the people are deciding. We're the one representing the population, and we have to face that situation, address those issues, and look at the situation in what people want, and things, I repeat, are evolving in our society. Moderator: Mr. Layton, 30 seconds to rebut anything you've heard so far. Jack Layton: I think what's key here is how can we make sure that the values of Canadians, working families, are represented in the decisions made by both government and the courts. And I think that what we need, and if i can be very blunt about it, is an option that recognizes that the needs of working families should be the first thing that get talked about in the House of Commons. And that's the way to address some of these issues. It's an ethical issue that we have child poverty rising, that pollution is rising. These are important ethical issues of values. We want to see action on those things. Moderator: Mr. Harper, I'm going to give you a chance to follow-up to Mr. Martin who accused you of representing the Republican views in Canada.

Stephen Harper: My forefathers have lived under the flag of this country for six generations. I have friends and relatives across this country and I have children growing up under the flag of this country, and my business, our family business, always operated flying the flag of this country. What I say to Mr. Martin is the values of ordinary Canadians are honesty, hard work, integrity and accountability, and your government, Mr. Martin, has not represented those values in parliament. Paul Martin: I never attacked Mr. Harper's patriotism. If he's prepared to say he never described Canada as a northern European welfare state in the worst sense of the term. He went to the U.S. conservative movement and said they were an inspiration to canada. If he didn't say that, if he never said that we'll never have a strong national identity as the United States, if Mr. Harper never said that we were second rate, I'll obviously take it back, but the fact is he is on record as having said that and that represents a value judgment, and a value judgment ...

Moderator: Mr. Layton.

Jack Layton: Briefly, both of these leaders have supported and taken us down the road, in the case of Mr. Martin, of ever and deeper integration with the United States, and the free trade agreement that isn't working is one that the Liberals were responsible for carrying through, and we've seen with softwood lumber, we've seen with some other issues that we're not treated fairly, Mr. Martin, on these trade deals. I've got to ask you, of course at election time, the language is over the top, but in between elections, you're actually much closer to Mr. Harper on this in terms of trade.

Gilles Duceppe: I would say on many issues, I see the Tories and Liberals on the same side. I just gave you the example, and we've been proposing that measure since 1990. When we had those votes, and the last time around, we lost by 14 because the cabinet took the same side as the Tories. Paul Martin voted just like Stephen Harper on that even if some members of his party voted with us. It's a shame. There is a situation where it's still in Quebec, but we don't have the same rule in Ottawa.

Moderator: Fourth and final question in the area of social policy and we want to talk, Mr. Martin, this one goes to you, it's on social justice. The new year began with the TSE reaching a record high, we have half a million millionaires in this country -- what do you think can be done about the gap where the rich seem to be getting richer and the less rich can't seem to get out of the hole?

 Paul Martin: Fundamentally, our tax system has got to make sure that, in fact, we take the money from the well off and that we redistribute it to those who don't have it, but we redistribute it in terms of services. That's why I don't agree when Mr. Harper said he would cancel our tax cut and put more money in the pockets of working-class Canadians in order for him to benefit the richer Canadians because we want that money. What are the kinds of things we want to do? Child care, early learning is an essential part of dealing with child poverty because what you're doing is you're taking children from whatever income stream at all and giving them a chance at a very, very young age to be able to go to school to learn earlier and then when they leave school be able to succeed. The child benefit, which we introduced, close to $10 billion is going to deal with poor children. The fact is there is a fundamental value shift here in the country that we have got to deal with the causes of poverty. Aboriginals, that's the reason we had our major conference. There are so many areas where they should be dealing with.

Moderator: Mr. Layton?

Jack Layton: It's interesting to hear Mr. Martin speak about this, and once again, it's election time. You can always tell the way he approaches the issues with all this passion. Why only a few months ago when he brought his budget forward did he propose a $10 billion corporate tax cut supported by Mr. Harper, I might say, these two leaders, who wanted to give money to the big oil companies and the big banks and not a cent was added for things like aboriginal housing, for child care that was fundamentally needed over the long term, the basic needs that people needed to see addressed. It was the NDP that brought in a change and said, no, public transit issues, affordable housing, post- secondary education for young people including aboriginal people. The NDP got results for working people, and this is one of these cases where you have a third alternative, someone who's going to stand up for working families right at the heart of our social values.

Moderator: Mr. Duceppe.

Gilles Duceppe: There's another example of the fact the values of the Tories and the Liberals are the same. I think the example of the employment insurance, the Bloc came with a proposal supported by the NDP I have to admit that. Because we just couldn't admit that the Liberals took away $48 billion out of the pocket of the unemployed. This is what they did to pay for the deficit. Paul Martin should say at the international level that the unemployed and the provinces and Quebec paid for its deficit. But when we propose to change the employment insurance, well, we saw that Stephen Harper and Paul Martin were on the same side voting against that. When they're talking about poor children, I think they should realize that if there's poor children, it is certainly because their parents are poor, and when you're cutting by $48 billion the employment insurance, you're putting in place the conditions to make poor parents, thus poor children.

Moderator: Mr. Harper?

 Stephen Harper: I've said repeatedly that there's far too many people not getting the benefit of our wealthy economy. We have huge surpluses. People ask me, where's our surplus been? That's why we propose a series of tax cuts, one of the centrepieces is the cut to the GST, the only tax that every Canadian pays. Under Mr. Martin's plan, 30 per cent of the lowest-income Canadians get zero tax break whatsoever. We're going to pay a child care allowance to families of children under 6, every family regardless of income, will get $1,200 a year. That's in addition to the national child benefits and other programs that go specifically to lower income people. We're going to make sure people have trades education. We're going to make sure that people who don't necessarily have the opportunity go to university can also get some training for their kinds of -- get some funding for their kinds of education and job opportunity. We've agreed to with the other parties, I've said to the Bloc and NDP. Repeatedly, we want to see independent ... management of employment insurance so the fund is never raided again.

Paul Martin: First of all, the GST benefits the wealthiest before it benefits the poorest. Ninety per cent, Mr. Layton, of our tax cuts went to middle income and low-income Canadians. We gave $5 billion to aboriginals because that's one of the root causes of poverty in our country. We increased the guaranteed income supplement because we recognized the poverty among senior citizens in this country. We've created -- we're creating a new caregiver lead. Who is really poor? The people who can't afford to take care of themselves, people with disabilities --

Moderator: There's lots more to say on this, so let's do another go-around starting with Mr. Harper. It has emerged that you would cancel the Liberal tax cut program, which would see the lowest income earners tax rates go from 15 to 16 per cent. How come you're doing that?

 Stephen Harper: First of all, that's not correct. I've said this from the beginning, we're going to bring in our tax package, not the Liberals' tax package. It includes a GST tax cut and selective income tax measures for students, for families, for seniors, for trades people, for all kinds of people. The fact of the matter is the Liberal tax cut is exclusively designed for people in the top two-thirds of income brackets. We will cut taxes for those people, but our plan is more generous to cut taxes for everyone.

Moderator: I think we want to take another kick at this because there's still confusion out there. Are you not raising income taxes on the lowest income earners in this country?

Stephen Harper: The lowest income earners don't pay any income tax. That's why they don't benefit from simply an income tax cut. That's why our package includes a combination of GST tax cuts, admittedly the largest, and selective income tax cuts and I name groups that will benefit, seniors, student, people who ride public transit will get a tax break, trades people, all kinds of people will get a tax break. Our tax package is larger. People will pay lower taxes and the national anti-poverty organization says the only way to cut taxes for low-income people is cut the GST.

Moderator: Mr. Layton?

Jack Layton: People work very hard to pay their taxes. They deserve to get the services that they should have from these taxes. And we know that there will be service cuts under Mr. Harper's plan. There's no other way to balance it out. And certainly we've seen Mr. Martin's priorities supported by Mr. Harper which are corporate tax reductions. We don't believe that taxes should go up. The federal government has enough of your money. But we think that the priorities now are investments in seniors' care, in young people and education, in training, in the environment, and that's where we'll go.

Moderator: Thanks, Mr. Layton. Last word, Mr. Duceppe.

Gilles Duceppe: We didn't see the plan as a whole. It's funny to hear they wanting to reduce the GST they created, hearing Paul Martin on the GST when he campaigned against it in previous campaigns. Mr. Martin is campaigning like an NDP. But when he's in power, he's acting like a Tory. There's no difference between those two parties.

Moderator: OK. That brings an ends to the second segment of our debate tonight on social policy and now we go to the third segment which is about the economy. A lot of people are urging me to ask questions about agriculture so here comes one and Mr. Martin you're up first. Canada's farms produce more than $30 billion a year in agricultural products. It's very important to our economy. But Statscan says that net cash income on farms is lower than at any time since 1978. There are fewer farmers in the country every year and fewer young farmers in the country every year. Many farmers have said to me you don't care enough about their problems. What's your response to that?

Paul Martin: Well, the fact is that if you take a look at virtually every year, the $755 million last year being simply one example that we put in to the grains and oilseeds sector essentially as a recognition of what's happening. Our farmers are very efficient. They are very competitive. The problem is they're being hammered by unfair subsidies from the United States. And that's why the ... the trade negotiations, was so important where we, the Liberal government, protected supply management which protected our poultry industries, protecting our egg industries, our dairy industries and, at the same time, we are able to protect the wheat board which I happen to think is very, very important. Now, I do believe that we've got to do a lot more. There's something called the CAIS program that farmers would know about. Wayne Easter has said we're going to review the entire thing. The CAIS program isn't working. We're prepared to put more money in but we want it to flow much more quickly. We're going to make it. We're going to deal with horticulture. But we've got to get more money in to the hands of the producers. We demonstrated --

Moderator: Mr. Layton, you on that, please? Jack Layton: I met with farmers down in Essex County, and here's a young farmer 28 years old baring his soul to us in front of national media. He's losing money producing the food that you and I eat, people watching this program. They'd be shocked to know how our farmers are struggling under the policies of this government, and they're asking for help. They've asked for help constantly. Our agricultural critic, Charlie Angus, one of our candidates, Nettie Wiebe, the former president of the National Farmers' Union, urging action. This CAIS program simply doesn't work and they've been talking about reviewing it for ages. We need real income stabilization. We're proposing a billion dollars for the grains and oilseeds sector and it's got to happen now because they don't know if they can put anything in to the ground. As to to the protection of the wheat board and marketing systems, Mr. Martin, you are failing at the WTO, and Mr. Harper doesn't even support concepts like the Wheat Board. He would undermine them.

Moderator: Monsieur Duceppe?

Gilles Duceppe: The situation is very critical. There's a farm disappearing, closing each week in Quebec. This is why we came a week before the election was launched in the House with a motion supporting the supply management in WTO negotiations. That was supported by the Tories and by the NDP. But all day long, the Liberals tried to reduce the motion so the mandate given to the Canadian negotiators at the WTO. Negotiations was to be reduced. We had to fight all day long to convince -- the other parties were convinced and the Liberals were ashamed of voting against. So they didn't have a choice. They supported finally unanimous motion taken by the House on the initiative of the Bloc. But all day long, the Liberals tried to reduce that, and the farmers in Quebec know that pretty well.

Moderator: Mr. Harper?

Stephen Harper: Well, first of all, the CAIS program has been a disaster. Anybody in the agricultural business has known this for years now. We're going to replace the CAIS program with a separate income support program separated from disaster assistance. We're going to put a half a billion dollars more annually in to that to make sure it functions. The government talks now it's willing to spend three quarters of a million dollars more. We'll deliver that. But this government's best proposals are always the ones that never actually took place. Let me just outline some other things we'll do. We're going to continue to defend supply management in the international bodies and the three pillars of supply management. This is the one sector of agriculture that has actually been from time to time making a profit in the last few years. We want to defend it. We want to make sure that our farmers get market access. We're going to fight for that in trade negotiations. I should just add about the wheat board. Prairie farmers have been arguing for dual marketing options and that's the system we want to see.

Moderator: Mr. Martin, you've got a 30-second rebuttal.

Paul Martin: I come from a farming family. Essex County where I was born, the fact is that you can no longer make a living and we have to work very closely with the farm community. In this discussion, I think that Mr. Duceppe's a little bit of mythology about what happened. We voted very strongly for supply management. In fact, there was only one party leader who did not show up to support supply management, and that was Mr. Harper, and he was in town that day. The fact is that we owe an enormous amount to our farmers, and we've got to make sure that we can transmit land to the next generation.   

 Moderator: That's our time on that one. Let's move to the second question under this theme of the economy. You folks are in the business where you know that a week is a lifetime in politics so we have two lifetimes still left to go in this campaign. The indications so far are that the next government of Canada is going to be another minority government. Perhaps Mr. Layton, this question to you. Perhaps with you holding the balance of power. If that were to happen, what two things would have to be in the next government's budget to win your support?   

Jack Layton: First of all, let me just say this; we're going to work for the Canadian families, the working families, the seniors and the young people every single day in that Parliament. And we're going to look at any budget proposal, and we will advance our own budget proposals focused on those priorities. And then we'll evaluate what has come forward. Now, that's not just a theory. That's what we've done as New Democrats. And I'd ask you to consider what would happen if we had more New Democrats, the third choice that you have in this election, a better choice, in the house. Last time, Mr. Harper teamed up with Mr. Martin in a rather peculiar alliance in order to put together a support for a budget with a huge corporate tax cut. We said that's not the right priority for Canadians right now. Not for banks and oil companies. We want money for post-secondary education and cities and kids and young people. We're saying now seniors, young people, health care and clean up Parliament. Those are our priorities.   

Moderator: Thanks Mr. Layton. Mr. Harper, a couple of things in your budget you think Mr. Layton could sign on to?   

Stephen Harper: I won't speculate and I don't think it would be helpful to engage in negotiations on a debating set. We're obviously seeking a mandate from the Canadian people to pursue our priorities, and that's what we'll do in the next Parliament. We'll also do what we did in the previous Parliament, and that's frequently try and work with the other parties on issues of common ground, on issues where we have common ground, I can assure the Canadian public that the Conservative party doesn't think it has a divine right to rule, and we're certainly going to listen to what other parties have to say. It doesn't mean, though that, we don't have to make tough decisions, and I just want to respond to one thing that Mr. Layton has said repeatedly. He objected to the fact that we supported tax cuts for business as well as some of the tax cuts Mr. Layton talks about. We believe large employers need a tax cut. When I see job losses happening in the auto sector and in some of the big employers in this country, I think they need tax relief as well to stay competitive.

Moderator: Mr. Martin ... a couple of things the NDP might sign on to?   

Paul Martin: What are the two most important things? Number one (is) child care. The Bank of Canada would support that. The most important economic tool is to allow young people to be able to get in to school ready to learn at the earliest possible age, let them be in a caring and nurturing atmosphere while it happens. The second thing is clearly education. We have said we want to put up to $3,000 to pay half the tuition of anybody going to university in their first year and half their tuition in their last year. We'll do the same thing for community colleges. We'll also provide the full 3,000 for four years if you come from a low income family. This country is rich in natural resources but it is not going to make it unless, in fact, we understand that our greatest talent is the people who walk on the ground and that's our young students, and we cannot allow them to graduate from university hugely in debt. We've got to fund education. We've got to get money in to the students' pockets so that they can afford that education.

 Moderator: Mr. Duceppe?   

Gilles Duceppe: The Bloc will have the same attitude. We're supporting what's good for Quebec and opposing what's not good for Quebec. We don't have that blind, stupid partisan attitude of saying it comes from the red, we're blue, we're against. The population is expecting more from the elected people than that. We have to look at each proposal and make a decision in the best interests of Quebec. This is how we're acting in Ottawa. Having said that, I think we have to solve the fiscal imbalance. That's the most important problem between Quebec, the provinces, and Ottawa. And I would say employment insurance. We have to come back on that. We just can't accept that the Liberals stole something like $48 million out of the pocket of the unemployed. The post-secondary education, the plan by the Liberals was denounced by almost everyone in Quebec. They cut the payment transfer concerning education.   

Moderator: Mr. Layton?   

Jack Layton: A quick response to some of the comments. You've got political games going on here. Unfortunately the Conservatives and Mr. Harper saying small business need. He voted against a budget that voted for a reduction in small business. When we consider Mr. Martin on child care, he's been promising child care since 1993. And it hasn't been delivered until a minority parliament with more New Democrats. What we're saying is that with New Democrats you're going to get a budget that reflects your needs. We need more MPs in the house.

 Moderator: Can I make a follow-up with Mr. Layton. Mr. Harper did at his press conference a week or so ago and then again today said he thought he found some common ground with you to work with the New Democrats in the house on issues of particularly cleaning up government, that kind of thing. Do you believe you have common ground with the Conservatives on that issue?   

Jack Layton: It's not apparent to many Canadians and it's not apparent to me. We're not giving blanket support to anybody. There's a third option in this campaign, it's actually a better selection. It would produce better results for people. We're standing up in the next Parliament for seniors, for their dignity, and their respect with long-term care and home care. We're standing up for kids with investments in child care, in training and post-secondary education. Those are our priorities.

Moderator: Thanks, Mr. Layton. Mr. Harper, this is twice you've extended that olive branch and i'm not sure it's been grasped. What do you infer from that?

Stephen Harper: Obviously all of us are running on the ideas we want to put forward. I have said in the past that I have a lot of respect for the work that Ed Broadbent did on ethics and accountability. I believe our package on that is stronger, but, quite frankly, there's nothing in there that i see incompatible with what Mr. Broadbent has suggested. There are other things that other parties may share in common. Obviously what we're all trying to do right now is get support for our ideas.

Moderator: Let's go to the next question in this our economy section of the debate. Do I have to do that right now or can i do it later? I've got to do it now? Okay, rules are rules, Mr. Martin. You're entitled to a follow-up on this issue if you want. Paul Martin: I was finance minister for a long time, and I can tell you cannot have a strong economy unless you have very, very strong social programs. Unless your education is strong, unless people know that when they retire their retirement system is going to be there for them, unless your health care system is strong, that you're not going to make it. I don't know a country right now that can touch Canada in what we're doing but it is very important for us to understand that, in fact, we have a huge opportunity but we've got to be generous and compassionate with each other and then nothing will stop us.

Gilles Duceppe: It's funny to hear Paul Martin talking about being generous with people. When he took $48 billion out of the pocket of the unemployed. When he created the fiscal imbalance and the provinces and Quebec are facing huge needs in education, in health, in supporting the poorest with programs, social programs. He's the one who cut the payment transfers. Every one is denouncing that in Quebec, federalists, sovereigntists, the ADQ, everyone unanimous in the national assembly.

Moderator: You have the floor so I'm going to stay with you for this next question. You have been campaigning for rebalancing the financial arrangement between Ottawa and the provinces, saying there is a basic fiscal imbalance in the country. I'm wondering how willing are you to see the equalization formula renegotiated even if it means Quebec might get less?

Gilles Duceppe: Well, I would say that with the situation now, what we're proposing -- and on that I think that most people in Quebec are supporting that. We think we have to come back to the rule of the 10 provinces instead of only five provinces. This is a demand made by Quebec. This is a demand made by Mr. Seguin, the former finance minister in Quebec. We have also to address the fiscal imbalance. I think in a first step, it has to be made by increasing the payment transfers of the provinces on a four-year basis, and, after that, we have to start a negotiation and I think a negotiation should be based -- concerning both the equalization payment and also the fiscal imbalance, and I think the best proposal has been made by Mr. Seguin with his report on the fiscal imbalance, and it is strongly supported in Quebec. Getting part of the GST and income points back to Quebec, back to the jurisdictions that are the provincial jurisdictions.

Moderator: Thank you, Mr. Duceppe. Mr. Martin?

 Paul Martin: Fiscal imbalance is defined differently in every province. It depends whether you receive equalization or whether you give equalization. The fact is, therefore, what I just simply want to do is I want to deal with the issues. That's why we transferred the $41 billion to the provinces for health care. That's why in terms of equalization we have set up a federal panel that is looking at the equalization system which is parallel to the provincial panel which is also looking at equalization, and these will be reporting in the spring. We're very open. We want to see a more rational system in terms of the way the transfers to the provinces take place. But you've got to understand that, in fact, you've got to get the provinces and there's got to be a coming together. We also believe in transferring the gas tax and the GST to the municipalities that that's also an important part of dealing with the problems of the country because we think the three orders of government have got to be able to work very closely together. The fact is we're succeeding at this. And we're going to continue working as hard as we can on it.

Moderator: Mr. Harper?

Stephen Harper: I don't think we can talk around the issue of the fiscal imbalance. There is a fiscal imbalance in this country. The federal government has for years now been rolling in multi-billion dollar surpluses, usually hidden surpluses that weren't told to us at budget time, and no matter how much money is wasted, mismanaged, or stolen, there's still billions of dollars in surpluses in Ottawa. At the same time, all of the provinces, with the exception of Alberta, all of the provinces are having trouble in municipalities, trouble meeting core service needs, particularly for provinces, core social service needs, without struggling with the possibility of going in to deficit and debt. At the same time, ordinary Canadians as I've seen have not seen their standard of living increase in the past decade. These are real fiscal imbalances that we have to tackle head on. I want to seek a long-term, comprehensive agreement with the provinces to deal with that. It's not going to be easy, but we have to admit it exists and has to be done. Equalization will be part of that discussion. There's no reason that any province should see its equalization decrease in whatever the outcome is.

Moderator: Thanks, Mr. Harper. Mr. Layton, please.

Jack Layton: Equalization sounds like a very complicated sort of a topic. But let's boil it down to what it means to families. In Atlantic Canada, it means their kids have to leave home because there aren't the jobs and economic opportunities that they would want to see there because federalism isn't working fairly. In Saskatchewan, it means that their resource revenues aren't counted properly or fairly. That's why Saskatchewan residents right now are standing up and raising the flag for fairness, as they should be, and Lorne Calvert's on a mission on that and good for them. The minister of finance, who comes from there, hasn't been very helpful. In British Columbia, it means communities having to shut down because raw logs are being exported without the work being done in Canada, don't have the resources they need. With the unemployment insurance program, it means it's being raided by the federal government. All these things are wrong. That's why -- with the cities, of course, we hear that there's promises of gas tax. They should get their five cents per litre of the gas tax right now to match their imbalance situation. We propose all of those concrete actions.

Moderator: Monsieur Duceppe, you get the final word on this.

Gilles Duceppe: Mr. Martin said the fiscal imbalance is recognized differently, defined differently in each province. This is the first time Mr. Martin is using the word "fiscal imbalance" and recognizing the existence of the fiscal imbalance. I'll tell him that it's pretty well defined in Quebec and supported unanimously by the national assembly in Quebec. Supported by the three opposition parties in Ottawa. Supported by the subcommittee of the finance committee who was chaired by Yvon Loubier, the finance critic for the Bloc Quebecois. If he wants more information ...

Moderator: Thank you. Let's go to our fourth and final question in this segment of our debate on the economy, and it goes to you, Mr. Harper. We are told that Canadian cities need about $45 billion to deal with failing infrastructure. The most significant economic promises you've made are tax cuts, of course, for example, cutting the GST or a tax break for transit users and so on. Question is how would a tax cut build a bridge or buy a new subway car or a bus for one of the country's transit systems?

Stephen Harper: Well, these are not necessarily the policies that will have that objective. The objective of tax cut is to make sure we put money in people's pockets and that's why we propose the tax cut beginning with cutting the GST that will benefit every single Canadian. There are other policies to deal with some of the issues that have just been raised. When you talk about infrastructure problems, our party supported -- proposed the idea of gas tax transfers, federal gas tax transfers to provinces and municipalities to deal with the infrastructure deficit there. We're going to fulfill those commitments, and we're going to work also on a broader national infrastructure fund, particularly for highways. There are things that have to be done for infrastructure, thing that have to be done to assist with the building of municipal infrastructure for transit, for environmental reasons, but we believe that when it comes to dealing with our environment and building public transit, there should be rewards go to people actually use public transit. That's why we're proposing a federal tax credit for monthly transit passes for all users in all transit systems.

Moderator: Mr. Duceppe?

Gilles Duceppe: That was an idea put forward by the Bloc, the income credit for using public transportation. But I have to say that we have, first of all, to be clear on one thing. Municipalities are a provincial jurisdiction. And the province and Quebec should be the sole decision maker in that area. Obviously there's a need to have more money, but in that frame, and it means that we think that the proportion of investment within the cities should be based on a 10-year plan, a billion a year, in the first four years, 2.3 billion, and the percentage should be the following one, 50 per cent by the federal government, 35 per cent by the provincial government, and 15 per cent by the cities because they don't have the same resources than the federal government has and even the provinces have.

Moderator: Mr. Layton?

Jack Layton: Well, I had the opportunity to serve as a city councillor for 20 years, and, as president of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities representing 1,000 municipal governments all across the country large and small, and I witnessed through the '90s and the early part of this century the decline in federal support, the abandonment of the needs of cities and communities alike. We heard a lot of talk, and after time finally the beginnings of some action. Again, when the choice was available to Mr. Martin this past February, what did we see? We saw a budget that didn't put money directly in to transit. It was the NDP amendment that did so, that didn't put money in to affordable housing. We forced that choice instead of corporate tax cuts. When we hear Mr. Harper talk about the gas tax transfer, he voted against that very budget and also against his very own measure now that he talks about in terms of a tax credit. So he's just playing games. There's a better choice that gets results for you. Make that choice.

Moderator: Mr. Martin?

Paul Martin: Before answering the question here, Mr. Harper has said there is no problem with the fiscal imbalance. He recognizes it in Ontario. He recognizes in Quebec. He recognizes it everywhere else. Therefore, what I would ask him if there's no problem of definition, I am sure that in his reconciliation, the costing of his program, which is going to come out hopefully this week, that he will provide -- he will set out the amount of monies he is going to transfer to each province. I believe we have to deal with the fiscal pressures. I simply realize the reality in which it's going to be done. Mr. Harper, it's up to you to respond. The fact now is I'm very proud of the new deal for our cities and communities. I'm very proud that we have recognized that they have 21st century responsibilities and, in fact, we ask them to deal with 19th century funding. That's why we did bring in the longer term predictable funding. It's why we're prepared to extend it. It's why we recognize that the quality of life that you have depends on the transport systems in the city in which you live. Our cities, small towns and big cities are where, in fact, we make our lives.

Moderator: Mr. Harper, you are, in fact, entitled to a 30-second rebuttal here.

Stephen Harper: Let me say the fiscal imbalance is a difficult problem, and we're going to have to negotiate that with our provinces. The Conference Board of Canada has looked at our fiscal plan, and we will pay down debt and still have surpluses left over to be able to sit down and have those discussions with other levels of government on. I've got to say tonight, Steve, I'm reassured to see both my friends in the Bloc and my friends in the NDP are clear that they support federal income tax relief for transit users. That should make it easier for us to work on that measure in the next parliament.

Moderator: Thanks, Mr. Harper. We are through three sections of our debate. One more section to go. This is the section on national unity. Monsieur Duceppe, we start with you for this section. During the Vancouver leaders' debate, you said same-sex marriage as an issue had been decided and, therefore, there was no need to revisit it. For example, with a new free vote in parliament. However, Quebecers have twice said no to sovereignty, and you would like a third referendum on the issue. Why is it OK to revisit that issue?

Gilles Duceppe: Because there's a difference, an important difference between individual rights and collective rights. Collective rights basically are the decision making by a nation, and Quebec is a nation. This is why in Quebec the parliament is called the National Assembly. It was named like that by a federalist party. So the nation of Quebec has the right to decide of its own future. This is quite different from individual rights, and I think the evolution of a society as a collective rights are concerned is quite different. And we simply call that democracy. The day Quebecers are taking a decision, that decision has to be respected just like the sovereigntists respected the decision taken. We're still respecting the Constitution, and we're asking the same thing for the federalists to do when a decision will be made in Quebec if Quebecers decide to give themselves a country.

Moderator: Mr. Martin?

Paul Martin: No prime minister has a greater responsibility than the unity of the country. Nearly 150 years ago we came together and we recognized that we would be a far greater nation if we could pull together than if we pulled apart. I am a Quebecer, and I certainly recognize that Quebec is entitled to respect for its place in Confederation, recognition of its specific character, its language, and its culture, and this is a huge asset for our country. I want to take the debate, in fact, one step further because it is a very different debate today, very different than it was obviously at the time of Confederation. We are a nation of 32 million people. We face huge countries ... China, India, the United states, and our ability to be able to compete with those countries is going to totally depend upon our ability not to divide, our ability to pull together, our ability to work together to recognize that, in fact, the great riches of the country belong to all of us, the access to the east and to the west. That's fundamentally what i believe Quebecers understand, their deep love of the country and how strong we are when we work together.

Moderator: Mr. Harper?

Stephen Harper: We know that we have a problem in Quebec. We know that the sponsorship scandals and the other corruption problems of the governing party have created a serious image, a seriously tarnished image for the face of federalism in the province of Quebec. One of the things I want to do is respond to the legitimate demands of the provinces, in particular the legitimate demands of Premier Charest who is probably the strongest federalist leader we have ever seen in the premiership in Quebec, at least in my lifetime. I want to respond positively to his demands. We've prepared -- we've said we're prepared to deal with the provinces on the fiscal imbalance. The provinces have asked for their jurisdiction in international affairs where it affects their provincial jurisdiction to be recognized and have a collaborative relationship. We say we're going to work with the provinces on that. We say we'll work specifically with the government in Quebec on its demands to have its jurisdictions recognized in UNESCO. We have a national unity problem here and we should take concrete measures to deal with it. That's what we'll do.

Moderator: Mr. Layton?   

Jack Layton: Well, I was born and raised in Quebec, and I am asking you to join with me to create the winning conditions for Canada in Quebec. It's time. We've got an opportunity here that is so important, and I think Canadians want to work on it. Now, supporting the Liberals with their corruption and the way they've treated Quebecers will not help. Of course the Bloc, we know where they stand. They have a different strategy regarding the future of the country. Mr. Harper doesn't share the values of most Quebecers. We've seen that on so many issues from peace to environment right on through. The New Democrat Party is the choice that most is in tune with Quebec values. That is working on a path with reconciliation. How are we going to create these winning conditions? First, stop the corruption and the arrogance. Second, give people the services they need in seniors care and health care. Respect Quebec and let's move towards creating the conditions for the national assembly to sign the Constitution.   

Moderator: Monsieur Duceppe?   

Gilles Duceppe: The answer is no. We came in the federation as a whole. The international policy of Canada concerning federation is to keep the situation like it is if it split. If it's the policy of Canada at the international level, it has to be the policy of canada internally also.   

Moderator: Mr. Layton? Do you want to follow?   

Jack Layton: Instead of talking, as Mr. Duceppe is, about the steps we would take to break up this country, it is time for all of us to pull together and talk about creating that situation where all Quebecers can become excited about Canada once again. It's true that the actions of the Liberal party have, to use the old expression, turned a lot of people off. But all is not lost. We can move down a path of reconciliation. Let's create a way to make it acceptable for all Canadians to have the national assembly sign that Constitution.   

Moderator: Thank you, Mr. Layton. Mr. Martin, how about that question?   

Paul Martin: Mr. Duceppe said the reason we should join the United States, the fact is we will not because we have a different value system. What Mr. Duceppe does not understand is that Quebecers and Canadians, the rest of Canada do not have different value systems. We have the same value systems of generosity, of compassion, of understanding, and the fact is that Quebecers built Canada. This is their country. Why would anybody want to say to the generation of Quebecers who explored this whole land, who invested in it and built it, why would you want to say that those people should not participate in the building of this country?   

 Moderator: Tell him why.   

Gilles Duceppe: There's a difference. We're not a better nation. I don't think there's such a thing as a first nation or a first country. It's very dangerous to think like that. We're different. Everyone common in Quebec knows Quebec is quite different from the rest of Canada. Not better, not worse. Plain different. Instead of fighting each other on things that are dividing us, we should be talking equal to equal and, as a nation, to talk equal to equal means having our own country, exactly what Quebecers want.   

Moderator: Mr. Martin, nation to nation?   

 Paul Martin: I'm a Quebecer, and simply don't tell me that my values are different. My values are the same values as somebody who lives in Nova Scotia, Ontario, or western Canada. The fact is that Quebecers have this same feeling. They want to build a great country. Quebecers feel the possibility; (speaking french) why don't you -- i'll tell you one thing. Quebecers are also polite. They understand in a debate. The fact is that we have an opportunity as a country to build a great country, and Quebecers are part of it.   

Moderator: I've got to get Stephen Harper in here by rules.   

Stephen Harper: First of all, Quebecers -- I believe Quebecers want to be both Quebecers and Canadians, and a federal system allows them to have both identities, and we now proud Quebecers are of their language and their culture and their special history. I have to say this is the second time where Mr. Martin has turned and tried to have a personal debate with Mr. Duceppe. Mr. Martin, after the last debate, Mr. Duceppe challenged you to a debate and you refused to accept that challenge. I wanted to accept that challenge but you refused. I tell you that the prime minister of Canada must always be prepared to meet the separatist leader and debate this country when and wherever.   

Moderator: That's your time, Mr. Harper, thanks. And I'm over here now. OK, let's go on with the second question on national unity. Who's getting this one? Paul Martin, you're getting this one. You have maintained that the Liberal Party is uniquely qualified to preserve Canadian unity, and I'm wondering is the country so fragile that it cannot survive a change in government?   

 Paul Martin: Well, the country has had changes of government. They occur. I do believe, however, that the value difference between Mr. Harper and myself is very large, and I think this is one of the things that Quebecers are going to have to understand. When Mr. Duceppe says to Quebecers, well, look, you can vote for us and we'll defend your interests, understand the prime minister has huge power, and so if, for the same of discussion, a prime minister with Mr. Harper's values said I'm pulling out of Kyoto, there's nothing the Bloc can do about it. If that prime minister says I'm going to invade Iraq at the time that the Americans did a number of years ago, as Mr. Harper would have, the Bloc can do nothing about that. If they say I'm going to support ballistic missile defence, the Bloc can do nothing about that. If they decide to pull out of the child care agreement as Mr. Harper has said, renege on a payment to Quebec as well as all of the other provinces, the Bloc can do nothing about that. So fundamentally what I'm saying to Quebecers is you've got to vote for somebody who shares your values, and I share those values, and I've got to tell you something else, all Canadians share Quebecers' values.   

 Moderator: Mr. Layton, you're up next.   

Jack Layton: Clearly, Mr. Martin doesn't share all the values of Canadians or Quebecers when it comes to what's been going on with the Liberal party and all of the scandals that we've been hearing about. And that's one of the problems. In fact, I would have to say, Mr. Martin, that your party has been one of the biggest recruiting agents for the Bloc and the Parti Quebecois. Their support has risen dramatically because of all your actions. So we've got to take a new direction here. Going down that old path is not going to work this time. That's for sure. Now, we also offered the opportunity to address the fiscal imbalance facing Quebecers as well as other parts of the country. And I was sad to see that the leader of the Bloc Quebecois chose to vote against the NDP budget amendment with money for housing and post-secondary education, with money for key issues like public transit. Of course when it comes to the Conservatives, they also voted against that very amendment, one that corresponds to the values of Quebecers, one that delivers federal funds to needs they have and the needs right across the country. It's that positive approach we want to bring to parliament.   

Moderator: Monsieur Duceppe?   

Gilles Duceppe: When Mr. Martin's telling us that the Bloc Quebecois can do nothing in the House of Commons, he should wonder why Quebecers are supporting the Bloc since 1993 and again in 1997 and 2000 and 2004 and this year again I'm pretty optimistic because they know we're the only one representing Quebec's interests in Ottawa. And when Mr. Martin's saying we're not doing nothing at all, luckily the Bloc was there to make light on the sponsorship scandal and also on Option Canada. You deny the very existence of that program, but I want to come back to the question I've asked Paul Martin. He's recognizing the Acadian nation, and I do too. He is recognizing the First Nations. I do agree also. I'm just asking him why he doesn't recognize the Quebec nation. I'd like him to say Quebec is a nation. I never heard something from him on that point, on that issue.

Moderator: Mr. Harper?   

Stephen Harper: Let me just say I think there are many Quebecers who want to see a child care program that actually happens, where people actually, in case of one aspect of our program, we create spaces, and the other aspect, we actually support parents directly. I think lots of Quebecers want to see that. I think lots of Quebecers take pride in our national defence and the role that our troops, particularly our peacekeepers play around the globe. I think a lot of Quebecers want to see an environment program that would actually work, that would actually achieve some results which we haven't seen from this government. Mr. Martin was asked a question about national unity and values. The Liberal Party has caused us enormous difficulty in the last few years in Quebec because of its scandals. It doesn't mean the Liberal Party hasn't in the past been an agent of national unity, just as the Conservative party can be and the New Democratic Party has been. But what's important is we not confuse the issue of national unity with the issue of our support for Canada. This is not a partisan issue which is why Quebecers need an alternative national party so they can choose between corruption and separation.  

Moderator: Mr. Martin, you get a rebuttal on this.   

 Paul Martin: First of all, I've never had any difficulty with the word "nation." We've talked about the Metis nation. I've never had any difficulty with it in terms of the Acadians. I normally referred to Quebec as a (speaking french)  -- I've had no problem in making a reference in the way we're talking about. The fundamental issue is how do we build the country? The fundamental issue is what is the relationship between us, what is the responsibility of the national government which is, in my opinion, to speak for the nation, to set great national objectives that we can all work behind. That's what we're really talking about, and rather than going off on tangents.  

Moderator: I see greater appetite for follow-up. Monsieur Duceppe.

Gilles Duceppe: A few minutes ago he recognized the fiscal imbalance, using the word for the very first time and now he came almost to say Quebec is a nation. But he's saying the Metis are a nation. I agree. The Acadians are a nation. I do agree. The First Nations are a nation. I also agree. Rene Levesque was the first one to recognize the existence of the First Nations. But he's still refusing to use the word concerning the people of Quebec. The people of Quebec are a nation, sir, and you should admit that.   

Moderator: Jack Layton?   

Jack Layton: We're hearing the same old debates in many ways with Mr. Martin and Mr. Duceppe. I've got to pick up on this child care issue. Mr. Martin has shown he doesn't understand child care and Quebec because he has cited child care in this whole context. The Quebec child care system is one of the best in the country. We propose that such a child care system be available right across Canada with 200,000 new spaces now and 25,000 more faces afterwards. That's the way to begin to build the conditions for Canada winning in Quebec.   

Moderator: Mr. Harper, you want in on this?   

Stephen Harper: Quebecers have an institutional day care system. It's all the more reason why they'll find a different kind of program that actually gives some money to parents attractive. The rest of the country -- what the rest of the country does with day care, I don't think is really what Quebecers are focused on. This is an old debate we've seen between Mr. Duceppe and Mr. Martin that will go on forever. The fact of the matter is the federal government doesn't define Quebec. Quebec has the powers in our Constitution to define itself, and we'll work with Quebec collaboratively on that.   

 Moderator: Mr. Martin, one last word to you on this one. You just heard Jack Layton say you're responsible for the success of the Bloc Quebecois in Quebec. Do you think that's a fair shot?   

Paul Martin: Of course I don't. I think we've had enough of this. The fact is we're trying to discuss real issues and what's happening with my colleagues is they keep referring to something that Judge Gomery, as a matter of fact, has made a final report on. I think what we should do now is get on to the other issues. I'm not very happy -- in fact, I think -- and I apologized for it, but I also dealt with it, and I've also dealt with the issue that you've raised. I have no problem describing what Quebec is all about. I have no problem using the word nation. I've always used that. The fact of the matter is ...   

Moderator: That's our time I'm afraid. Let's move on to the third question in this national unity phase. Mr. Harper, this is a question for you. A year and a half ago, many observers say that the Liberals won because you asked voters to give you a majority government in the last days of the campaign, and that spooked a few people and, as a result, many of them rushed back to the Liberals and, as you know, you didn't win. So let's try to go at this question again. Would it not be better -- tell me this; would it be better for you to win a majority government rather than a minority so you wouldn't have to make deals with the Bloc to stay in power?   

Stephen Harper: First of all, let me just say that I dispute what occurred in the last election but I will say this; I'm certainly not going to be drawn in to any questions that can be used to have me making predictions. My role here is not to be a political analyst. My role is to explain to Canadians why we need a new government, a new government that will bring in accountability, and a new government that will deal directly with their concerns. What I tell Canadians is that I will be respectful, I will accept whatever wisdom they deliver at the polls. If, through that wisdom, they happen to give us a mandate, we'll accept the mandate that they give us. That requires us to work with other parties on an issue-by-issue basis, of course we will work with other parties. We're not naive. We have three national parties here. They have different platform planks. We have one party that's not a national party. That party may sometimes agree with us. We know when they do agree with us, even when they do agree with us, it's for entirely different reasons. We're not naive about that. We will govern this country in the interests of Canada as a whole.    

 Moderator: Mr. Duceppe?    

Gilles Duceppe: I'm optimistic we'll have a very important number of seats in Quebec. Having said that, we'll respect the choice of Canadians, and I'm pretty sure Canadians will respect the choice of Quebecers. It's like that in democracy and we'll work in any situation, being a majority government or minority government and independently of which party will be in government. Because, I repeat, we're supporting what's good for Quebec and opposing what is not good for Quebec. As a matter of fact, the Bloc Quebecois a lot of times organized common fronts on very specific issues with other federalist parties. I remember having once said to two federalist leaders that it took a sovereigntist to make sure two federalists were talking to each other because we want to make things better. The policy of the worst is the worst of all policies. So we'll act like we did in the past, a responsible way.

Moderator: Mr. Layton?

Jack Layton: You know, Steve, your question essentially boils down to this; what would make the best government and the best results for Canadians? I'd like to take the opportunity to answer that question. The Liberals, of course, want a Liberal Party Canada, that culture of entitlement such as we've seen, more broken promises, more of the arrogance. The Conservatives, they want a more American Canada, and they've had 12 years in the House under three different party names but basically zero results. The Bloc doesn't want a better Canada. That's not where they're headed. They have their own particular agenda. The NDP not only wants a better Canada, we've been building it. We've been working in the House of Commons to produce the results for working families, for people out there who are hoping to see some results in their lives, and we have this option now, and you can see from this debate you have those choices in front of you. You can actually help to change politics, and the new democratic party and our candidates right across the country will work for you. We're not going to play political games. We'll deliver results for working people.

 Moderator: Mr. Martin?

Paul Martin: Canada is doing very, very well. If you take a look at our economy, our unemployment rate is at one of its lowest levels in history. Our balance sheet is stronger than almost any other country. We have great natural resources, and we have huge talent. If you take a look on the West Coast, we're closer to Japan and China than is Australia. On the East Coast, we're closer to Australia -- sorry, to Europe. We've got the United States to the south. The fact is we're in a phenomenal position, and I want to be able to build on that, and I want to be able to now put in place the strong social programs, the best education, the strongest research and development that will enable us to compete with the rest of the world, and that's really what the next mandate has got to be about. It can't be about all of this fighting. It's going to be about what kind of a country are we going to build? And that means stay out of deficit. It means cut your taxes. But it also means invest in health care and education. Those great priorities. Now, I can tell you that if we do that, there is not a country in the world that is going to be able to come close to us, and that's more important than anything any of us are saying.

Moderator: Mr. Harper, you get a rebuttal on this. Stephen Harper: Thank you very much. I'll pick up on something Mr. Layton said. Once again I think it's unfair to categorize -- other than Mr. Duceppe who runs a separatist party, any party as not Canadian simply because you disagree with some elements of its platform. We all have our different views on where this country should be headed. I will just say this. Mr. Layton suggests that we've not had the results. There's a limited number of results you can have, any party can have in opposition. If you want to hold the government accountable, punish them for their scandals and institute a new system of accountability, you have to change the government. That's what the Conservative party offers.

Moderator: Let me follow up on that. Monsieur Duceppe, do you care which one of these two men is prime minister on the 23rd? Gilles Duceppe: No, because I said we'll have the same attitude. We'll look at the situation, and each proposal they will make we'll evaluate each proposal has its own value. I repeat and we acted like that in the past years, and what is good for Quebec, we're supporting it. Otherwise we're opposing it. A lot of times the Liberals needed us to win a majority in the house concerning some of their proposals. It was the same thing with the NDP. And the Tories. So we want have that blind, stupid attitude of being against because we're not ... Moderator: I didn't mean to leave you out of this, Mr. Layton, but at the same time I've never heard you say you're running to be prime minister of Canada. Jack Layton: The consequence of Canadians voting for more New Democrats would have us be that third alternative. That's what we're running to do. We're trying to generate results for Canadians. I'm very disappointed with Mr. Harper's excuse, rather lame comment here being in opposition for 12 years. We were able to produce results for Canadians in the last budget and we intend to produce results for Canadians. That's what we're there for. There are choices in this election and, Canadians, you can make them.

Moderator: Mr. Harper?

Stephen Harper: If I look at some of the things some of the parties are running on in this election, we have the New Democrats and Liberals toughening up and bringing in mandatory prison sentences in our justice system. We've got parties talking about tax reduction. We've got the governing party now talking about bringing in a wait times guarantee for health care after wait times have doubled. It's easy in a sense to get other parties to steal your policies, but if you actually want to change things, you have to have power. You have to be in government. We offer the alternative of defeating this government and providing a new accountable government.

Moderator: Mr. Martin, another word on this?

Paul Martin: The fact is that as finance minister, I brought in the largest tax reduction in Canadian history. I believe in tax reductions, but, more than anything else, I believe that the role of the national government is to set great national objectives and then to build the national will behind them, and I would really hope that regardless of the kind of government that is formed we can work together to achieve that because I think that desire is out there among the people. I think what they're asking is that their Parliament should reflect their desire to see us work together and make it happen.

Moderator: Mr. Layton, if it is another minority Parliament, you've already been in a minority Parliament. You've played a significant role in a minority Parliament. Which of these two men, Mr. Martin or Mr. Harper, would you prefer to deal with?

Jack Layton: First, we don't give blanket support to anyone. We get down and get the job done. Secondly, we're running against the Liberals in ridings all across this country because we think they keep breaking their promises and we're running against Conservatives because they're wrong on the issues. So Canadians have that choice. Mr. Martin, I'll give you the chance. Why did you break your promises? Why don't you answer some questions? Why did you break your promises on foreign aid, not a single AIDS medication, affordable gone to africa as a result. Broke your promises on ...

Moderator: That's your time, Mr. Layton. We do have time for you to answer it.

Paul Martin: We've kept all of our promises. We're lowering interest rates. The economic update dealt with that. We're going to be giving students $3,000 more to pay for their first and their last year tuition. The fact is child care is a promise made. It's a promise that we have kept. Cities is a promise made. It is a promise we have kept. I don't think i want to go through the whole list but i can tell you, Mr. Layton, I am quite prepared to put our record and show you exactly what we said we would do in five years and we did it in 17 months. We keep our promises and we will continue to do that.

Moderator: Monsieur Duceppe, I know you want in but we're out of time. We've got to go to the last question. I apologize. This is our final question in the national unity section which is our last section of the debate. Mr. Layton, it's a question for you. A lot of talk during this campaign about how it's been dominated by scandal or at least allegations of scandal. The overall message most voters are getting isn't about how good your policies are. It's about how bad the other guy is. If that continues for two more weeks, is that good for the country?

Jack Layton: Well, we think people should be talking about the positive alternatives. In fact, that's what we are talking about. That's what needs to happen in Parliament. We've taken the view that the Liberal party doesn't deserve your support this time around, and I think we've explained why, and many Canadians are increasingly coming to that conclusion. We've also said that we disagree with the Conservatives. We don't hold the same perspective on the key issues. So what we've done is lay out an agenda, a set of priorities that if you sent more New Democrats to the House, we'll be able to deliver. People can have some confidence in that because they've seen what we did in the last house. What are those priorities? First, seniors. They deserve dignity and respect. Long-term care, home care. They built this country. Our grandparents, our parents. Children, with a real child care program, 200,000 more spaces, and as well, help for them as they embark on -- trying to spread their wings without a great debt over their shoulder through education. Protecting health care and cleaning up government. That's what we'll get down to.

 Moderator: Mr. Harper?

Stephen Harper: I'll start by saying I believe the government's record is a valid topic for discussion. When a government is defeated, not just by opposition parties but by two members of parliament who are elected because of a string of scandals and a judicial report on corruption, I think that's a legitimate record. That's why we talk about the things we need to do to deal with accountability in the future. That's why I'll bring in the federal accountability act with some of the measures I've talked about tonight. That's why we'll bring in choice in child care. We're not promising a grandiose national child care program that would cost at least $13 billion that hasn't been delivered in 13 years. That's why we'll make real progress on wait times in health care when they've doubled in the past few years. That's why we'll reduce taxes for everybody starting with the GST and it's why we'll tackle crime and build our national defence. Every day of this campaign, I put forward an affordable, doable policy that's in the interests of Canadians. That's what we'll do.

Moderator: Thanks Mr. Harper. Mr. Martin?

Paul Martin: This election is very clearly about values, and let me pick up on what Mr. Harper has said. His child care plan is essentially, after taxes, to give somebody a dollar a day. Now, that's not a child care plan. That's not a strategy. That money may be very helpful, but I'm telling you at a dollar a day, it's going to be very hard for anybody to find spaces or to be able to afford it. Let me just -- I just want to tell you one example. Just think, if at the time that Tommy Douglas, my father, and Lester Pearson and others were talking about medicare they had said let's give somebody a dollar a day and we'll call it medicare, would we have the system we have now? No. This is the first new social program of our generation. It is an opportunity for us to make a huge leap ahead, and I believe that for us to miss this opportunity now that all 10 provinces have signed on is just -- would be -- it would be criminal and we should not do it. Let's not just simply throw money at a problem. Let's build a child care system, an early learning system of which future generations will take benefit.

Moderator: Monsieur Duceppe?

Gilles Duceppe: I would say the biggest danger in Canada and in Quebec also is not talking about corruption. The biggest danger is -- it is not talking about corruption. The fact is that government was defeated because he didn't have the necessary moral authority to govern. So we're discussing the sponsorship scandal of course. And it's important to do so because the worst thing in democracy is certainly corruption, and now we're discussing Options Canada. If the sponsorship scandal was a Liberal scandal, I'm saying that the Option Canada is a federal scandal because it involves people from parties other than the Liberal party. The national unity funds was created by Brian Mulroney, and a lot of important people are members of the Tory party and members of the Council for Canadian Unity.

Moderator: Thank you. Mr. Layton, you've got a 30-second rebuttal on this.

Jack Layton: I'm saddened to hear Mr. Duceppe say this has become a federal scandal in his view. I think it's tragic and I think it's wrong. There are parties in this country that want to build, as I said earlier, the winning conditions for Canada in Quebec. We have that opportunity if we can head down a path so that as Canadians we can address the issue of national unity and begin to discuss bringing Quebec right into the Constitution.

Moderator: Thank you, Mr. Layton. That is the last answer to the last questions. We are going to finish with closing statements and by the luck of the draw it has been determined that Mr. Martin you are up first. Go ahead, sir.

CLOSING STATEMENTS

Paul Martin: Thank you very much. I believe that the things we do to help each other out and help each other up offer a window on the kind of country we are. I believe we give ourselves the best chance to succeed as a nation when we rally behind the conviction that we must leave no one behind. But achieving that goal requires national leadership. A prime minister who believes not in a fend-for-yourself society, but a prime minister who believes in identifying a destination down the road and doing what it takes to ensure that we get there together. It's a question of values. Everyone for himself or herself or everyone coming together, standing side by side in pursuit of the common good. Because it's that faith, it's the faith that we are stronger together than we are alone that has come to define the Canadian way, and that's a way of fairness and generosity, and when you think about it in these terms, you understand that it matters who Canadians choose to be their prime minister. And what that person believes. Thank you.

Moderator: Thank you, Mr. Martin. Mr. Harper?

Stephen Harper: Thank you. In these debates, I have attempted to plainly spell out our agenda for change. My strengths are not spin or passion. I know that you know that. But my policies are clear and my intentions are straightforward. I want to clean up government by passing the federal accountability act. I want to reduce your taxes and help individuals, families, and entrepreneurs who are trying to get ahead. I want to protect the Canadian way of life by cracking down and dealing seriously with crime. I'll work to redeem the cause of federalism in the province of Quebec and to make our country stronger and more united. But in order to move Canada forward, we first need to deal with a government, replace a government that's been preoccupied and plagued by scandals, a government that is still under investigation. We need an accountable government that will move us forward and address your priorities. Some people believe that this is as good as it gets. But I believe that for Canada, the best is yet to come. On January 23rd, stand up for accountability, stand up for change and stand up for Canada.

Moderator: Thank you, Mr. Harper. Mr. Layton?

Jack Layton: Well, thank you for watching. Tonight we've seen Mr. Martin and Mr. Harper playing the well-rehearsed games, trying to outbid each other with your money. Your choice isn't between corruption and Conservatives. There's a third option, a better choice, today's NDP. Now I ask you to join me in the next 14 days to change the way we do politics in Canada. Imagine the difference with more NDP MPs speaking up for seniors, young people, and working families. We can do it in the next 14 days. When you elect an NDP MP on January 23rd, you help make that change a reality. The opportunity is here and now. Your vote matters. And I'm asking for your support. Let's change politics for the better and put working families first.

Moderator: Thank you, Mr. Layton. Monsieur Duceppe?

Gilles Duceppe: The Option Canada scandal has now been revealed despite the Liberals' and Conservatives' opposition to a Commons investigation in to the $4.8 million Option Canada received. It's not surprising. The Liberals and the Conservatives share the same attitude. The sponsorship scandal may be a Liberal scandal, but Option Canada is a federal scandal. The Liberals and the Conservatives control the Council for Canadian Unity and thereby Option Canada. The Council for Canadian Unity developed the methods used in the sponsorship scandal; propaganda and misappropriation of public funds. When Quebec's aspirations are at stake, the Liberals and the Conservatives have the same approach; no holds on bar to undermine the exercise of democracy in Quebec. That's why in Quebec people should vote for the Bloc. Thank you.

Moderator: Thank you, Monsieur Duceppe.

That brings to an end tonight's leaders' debate. I really want to thank all four party leaders for coming to Montreal tonight and I want to thank you for being with us.

A reminder that you can see tomorrow's debate on Radio Canada or translated in to English on CTV Newsnet and Newsworld. Let us remind you that the advance polls are open this Friday, Saturday, and Monday and election day is January 23rd, two weeks from tonight. So please vote. I'm Steve Paikin. Good night from Montreal.

 

Top Stories