if you missed any of our coverage, it'll be reaired in the its entirety at 8 eastern here on c-span2. ..?>ñ> this weekend on booktv. bill kristol discusses his late

father's essay is on the knee of conservative movement with david brooks. 52 women look back at the works of the civil-rights movement and former prime minister gordon brown and cutting back from the economic downturn. find a complete schedule at booktv.org and signed up to get our e-mails to your in box with booktv alerts. >> i have to practice staying alive and preparing to die at the same time. >> our guest is author and vanity fair columnist and atlantic monthly contributing editor christopher pigeons. >> it is a tantalizing time to have. there are treatments that i can see there are just out of range. which is both encouraging and annoying. >> sunday on c-span's q&a. last night at the museum in washington a panel examined u.s./canada relations.

topics include trade. elimination issues. we will hear from gary dorr and white house speechwriter david from. canada's public affairs channel and queens magazine hosted this event. >> i am peter van deuce and and welcome to our viewers watching us tonight and our american friends watching us on c-span this evening. this is a chance for us to bring together an impressive group of people to talk about the current state of canada, u.s. relations. we will be covering all those topics you think we should cover. trade, security, the border, energy and the environment, social policy, attitudes towards each other. all those things we need to talk about and something else we need to get settled this evening. how come the washington capitol has a way better hockey team? there are canadians playing on

the senators and the capitals, americans playing for the senators and the capitals so i have come to the conclusion it has to be a russian thing. but that is for another show. for this show we brought together a group of people who can shed tremendous light of the issues we're talking about this evening. they have a deep knowledge of canada/u.s. relations because they spend a lot of time on both sides of the border. so let me tell you who we have with us this evening. david is a citizen of canada and the united states. born in toronto of living in washington. best-selling author, the journalist and conservative commentator. he is widely read in the united states and canada. a former speechwriter for president george w. bush and was once briefly arrested by a guard who did not believe that canadian national was permitted to have a job in the white house. he is also editor of the web site -- he is senior fellow at the hudson institute where he

specialized labs in u.s./canada relations with during at the school of advanced international studies and an adjunct professor in government at the american university school of public affairs. he is awful bread and visiting scholar with the norman versus school of international affairs at in ottawa. scotty is a senior managing director at the law firm in the washington office. shea specializes in trade publications on both sides of a border and is executive director of the canadian american business council. she was appointed by president clinton to serve as chief of staff. pamela is a conservative senator from canada, chair of the committee on national security and defense and serves on the senate committee on foreign affairs and international trade. she was the consul general in new york from 2002 to 2006, former broadcast journalist and also senior advisor on

canada/u.s. relations at the american society and counsel of the american and new york and washington and gary dorr was appointed in 2009. for ten years he was the premier of manitoba and worked with u.s. governors on cross border issues like trade, climate change. a water protection and the agriculture. in his new role he is too and all those things canadian doctors have to do in washington, including protectionist sentiment in some circles and from time to time dispelling the myth that 9/11 terrorists entered the u.s. from canada and as always the national editor of mcqueen is with us this evening and the senior columnist. welcome back to all of you. let me bring in we set to get the discussion started and give us a sense of where the relate to this state of relations are between a two countries. louise and has been a reporter in washington for seven is the personal five as bureau chief.

where is canada on washington radar? >> it is a very small blip and that is not necessarily a bad thing. the countries that take up all the oxygen when you have a discussion is china, north korea, iraq, iran. these are those that worry the white house about what we spend most attention on but canada has a $6 billion trade relationship with the united states and it is generally assumed everything is fine and we get along fine and nothing to worry about here. >> so much is always made of the personal relationship between the prime minister and the president. they are getting along well, chances are relations are good. if not it can be a rocky road. do we make too much of that personal relationship? >> we tend to -- from the too close? close enough? are they happy? how many times did they pass each other in all way but in

washington power is so divided and congress is incredibly important not just a passing legislation that affects americans' but canadians and a lot of the issues canada has been dealing with in recent years weather it was a the passport requirement of the border or american legislation those things come of congress and that is a big part of what canada has to deal with. not just weather they're getting along. >> one of the issues being discussed between the two countries besides the continental security perimeter, where does that stand? >> there are discussions between the two government and the whole idea has been around of securing the airport of north america so that we can have an easier flow of goods and people inside north america but so many issues have barred the down. weather is issues of information sharing and privacy and how much information about travelers coming in to canada does canada want to give the u.s. or

harmonizing policy on the outside of north america when we have different requirements for different countries and different immigration policies and who is a refugee and who isn't. those are the kinds of very delicate issues that need to be discussed so the two governments have been working on them and we hope to see something in the near weeks or months but i think it is very much an ongoing negotiation. >> let's finish on the issue of energy to get our discussions started. we heard a lot of dirty oil coming in to the united states from various politicians. where does that issue stand now? is sentiment still with same? >> there is a big debate in washington and united states as this issue gets more attention. you have a pipeline proposed to be built from alberta into the united states as far as taxes that could potentially double the oil exports from canada into

the united states. some critics on the democratic side predominantly say this is birdie oil. we don't want more. we want to lessen our dependence on hydrocarbons in general and supporters say we would like to get more oil from canada and less from the middle east and a lot of american jobs involved in this project so the state department is reviewing it and is under a lot of pressure from congress to either slow down that review and take more time to look at the environmental aspects or speed it up. we recently had an election and a new congress came and in the house we had a chairman of an energy committee who is committed to opposing the oil exports into the united states. and relax and of california. he is replaced by a republican who calls himself a fan of oil and has written to hillary clinton saying let's move this faster. we can't wait.

this is a big economic and energy issue. what is interesting is after 9/11 all the attention was on security but now we have had a recession with unemployment at 9-1/2% and the issues are starting to be framed in terms of jobs and in terms of the economy. we are seeing a renewed focus on how we get the -- in addition to keeping it secure and how do we use this energy relationship to help the economy in both countries? that is where canada despite the little bit of attention it gets on an average day is able to get the attention now of the white house and congress on these issues canadians have been talking about for quite some time. >> thanks for getting us started. now we will broaden the discussion. if you watch our town hall conversation, they will not be seeing eye to eye on this topic as they don't see eye to eye on any other topic which is why we

have them here. best friends or perfect strangers? >> you are listening to luiza ch. savage, i felt nostalgic for the good old days when canada's relationship with the entire country racked with controversy. that was great. week after the attacks against the world trade center and the pentagon when president bush addressed congress with tony blair sitting next to mrs. bush and mentioned all the friends who were great allies of the united states he did mention canada. it got edited from an earlier draft. and our american friends would not believe the extent to which this caused introspection and panic on the canadian side and we had been a friend of the americans.

a decade before that we fought an election on whether to have free trade with the united states. one of the nastiest election campaigns we ever had. tv commercials that if we took the step of a free-trade agreement at the border the two countries would be raised and we would be assimilated. the only reason i feel nostalgic for those days is in the last decade there has been a surprising amount of drift in the relationship. i ran into a former u.s. ambassador on the way down here, he said no one talks about that anymore. yet we have the world's most-active commercial trading relationship. we have what used to be the longest undefended boulder believed -- border -- thinly defended border. canadian trade with non-u.s. porter's has grown faster than any year since 2000.

i can't name a large project the two countries are undertaking together except the afghanistan war in which i believe canadian involvement is winding down. it seems there is a drift to the relationship. >> that is the difference between you and me. where you see darkness i see light. where you see discord i see harmony. where you see drift i see peace. if you go back on the issue of the military, think of the discord between khrushchev of and kennedy, the kinds of arguments that took place, we have troops in the largest military operations in korea involving our two countries. in the 80s and nineties we were constantly talking about trade disputes and conflicts. now is down to a couple things.

a tiny fraction of overall trade. when obama came in we were excited because he was going to renegotiate nafta at. the relationship within jeopardy. that didn't prove to be the case. you have a relationship that is working well. the neuroses of canadians have much diminished over the years and that is a contributing factor. we are not as defensive as we used to be. that is a good thing. that is progress. that is contributing to further progress in the future. >> let's go to our panelists now and get their opening comments. >> i agree with lisa who gave our introduction. in terms of our relationship, i want to say that this week, president hu is visiting washington and the crawl on the bottom of the screens in many newscasts is a long lines of are we best friends with china or are we rivals? it seems to me that that is a

kind of simplistic question if you will. i do agree the relationship is strong between canada and the united states. i do believe over the last number of years before i was ambassador and creamier and during the time i have been in washington and around the united states there's a lot of confidence in canada. we are dealing with an extraordinary time in the united states. if you go back to the trade disputes in the 80s canada's unemployment rate was 11%. the unemployment rate we hear was 7-1/2%. we had a protectionist act. here we have an unemployment rate lower than the united states. too high in both countries. we didn't go through the a year and questions of accountability they have gone through with the banking sector and i would say we have lots of issues that popped up but they are very manageable and we have a constructive relationship with the united states. that doesn't mean to say it is

perfect, but we buy more goods from the united states than any country including the total european union. we sell more energy including clean energy from hydro and traditional fossil fuels for other places in canada. we have more people visiting the personal twenty-five million visits a year to the united states from canadians to a country of thirty-five million people. that is a lot. even the olympics where we have a lot of trash talking in washington little bit and thank god we won the final hockey game -- [talking over each other] [applause] >> they canceled the stanley cup parade in washington last spring. i am a diplomat so i won't mentioned that. even in the olympics the cooperative security for air and shipping and original border cooperation was done out of norad in colorado springs with canadian and american military

personnel working together. lots of work everyday ledges is a constructive, mature relationship. we don't have our hand on the horn every hour. we try to get things done. >> i was going to say the best thing that happened to the relationship until the hockey, and, is gary doer. spectacular ambassador and canada is very lucky. we talk about the differences between canadians and americans and some say a canadian is just an unarmed american with health care. not sure about that but there are lots of differences you don't realize that first. kind of like carbon monoxide. you can see it or smell it but it is deadly.

the sensilie are different. in canada the question is about public policy. what has the government done for us? in the united states the question of public policy is what has the government done to us? there's a distrust in the way people view policy. for example americans might be surprised to learn that in canada one of the big debates of the last year had to do with the federal government deciding to take away the long form senses. to me as an american i thought it makes sense. they don't need that information. the reaction was really striking. a big controversial issue in canada. we need this information because we have all these people we have to help and that was surprising. in canada canadians might be surprised to know that with the united states, around to getting health care for most of our people the first thing the new congress does is a vote to repeal it in a symbolic vote. there is a distrust of government here and it

illustrates to me a real difference. the other thing i would say. we speak the same language but don't understand each other. we need a new vocabulary. sometimes ministers come to town. no offense to ministers in the audience. they complain about border thickening. for a canadian you know immediately a thicker borders a bad thing because of the relationship. to american ears, they say thickening like it is a bad thing. our border is our last line of defense. we mean the same thing. we want a smart workable border but it needs to be secure. >> i will start with the old adage. canada is america's best friend weather they know it or not. we are their best -- they are our best friend weather we like it or not. it is still a little true.

although i agree with andrew that the chip is lifted slowly but surely off of the shoulder, i am grateful for that because my time spent in the united states when i was in new york after 9/11, we got so many things to be proud of why are we running around always complaining that big brother is beating up on us? i remember having dinner with grace kelly, commissioner of the new york police force who excused himself from the table to answer his blackberry phone and came back and apologized for leaving the table. i said not a problem. just glad we could help. he looked at me and i said we invented those things. and he said no kidding, i just assumed it was the japanese. we sometimes don't make our own case. the way we are an answer to people's problems but that is starting to change. in the last few years of george

bush and the first two years of barack obama we are getting to the point where that relationship is maturing where we can disagree but do so agreeably. just had a grown-up conversation. we can't lose sight of the importance of this trade relationship. despite the focus on china in, but u.s. economy in terms of activity is still three times larger than that of china. it is 4% of our gdp, 60% of our investment in china. we care what goes on here. a bad day for america is a bad day for canada. we need to be concerned about that. looks like we are starting to fix a bad call we made ten years ago when we started having the conversation about perimeter security and protecting north america. canada was concerned about its sovereignty. we are now grown-up enough to say let's put that border around

our country and try to -- we do see it as an issue because of the trade and the people and because of the security issue. >> i agree with that. one thing that is underlying a lot of these comments is in a lot of ways washington is the same old story. contesting issues in the public, nasty etc.. this is the way we are. canada has changed. canadians's self-confidence about themselves. where they fit in the world is stronger. there is a better sense of who canadians are. not the little brother syndrome worried about the shadow we cast. it stands up for itself. that shows. it is funny because the disconnect a lot of canadians feel is in their relationship with american they feel like = but in the canada/you as relationship it always seems to be symmetrical disparate relationship in which canada is

a smaller dog. we are starting to have these conversations as equals and the diplomatic level which is reflecting the reality of canada/you as relations. that more than anything else is changing the way we solve problems or handle issues and it is bringing us closer together. the other thing in a weird way that has been beneficial in recent years is the transition to the obama administration. many of the things that came after 9/11 were shocking to canadians because it was such a change and americans reacted, always a more security minded people and canadians. you probably remember when george bush was running against al gore in 2000 both men were for more police, less gun control, more prisons and a bigger military but in 2000 it wasn't clear against whom we needed these things but it is part of the psyche the united states has and it was disturbing for canadians to see this side

so upfront and direct. what happened with the obama transition is canadians had a chance to see not the change but the continuity. weather it is on homeland security, al gore in afghanistan, a number of free trade policies that have stayed. the obama administration followed the same lines and that reflects an american desire for how the relationship managed and hopefully for canadians takes a step back from the george bush is a mean evil hitler, he is just another american politician as obama is and the consensus in the united states is a little to the right of where canada is but canadians see that as normal. they just policies and less friction as well. >> when barack obama was elected i was worried about a series of very specific challenges to the canadian relationship. heat did have a campaign against

nafta and for reopening it. that was worrying. and he endorsed an idea floated by john kerry about rewriting the corporate tax system of the united states to be discouraging to investment in other countries. there was a question about the oil sands. the democratic view is barack obama jettisoned almost all -- the campaign commitments and brought clinton administration 3.0. it is bad for democrats because they thought -- democrats were hoping for a transformation. this was going to be an administration that was going to -- if you are a democrat remember how unhappy democrats were in the last years of clinton. he had not fulfilled the potential and so much was going

on in the 2008 primaries, referendum in the clinton years. so many democrats say we don't want to go back. we want something different. they got something contiguous which the canadian point of view is reassurance. the question you wonder about is how this goes forward. a lot of those anxieties -- there are reasons for them to occur. it was amazing to me that there was so little protectionist reaction to this extremely severe employment crisis. i wonder if that will continue. unemployment remains at high levels. the second order problem, as the u.s./china relationship becomes more tense and is bound to become more tense, manipulation of currency and energy, canada has a strong interest in a stable, calm, commercially oriented u.s./china relationship. i don't think that kind of relationship is in the cards for

the future and one of the areas that make the area that is quite new is disagreement between the two countries or how to manage them. >> so that we are not trying to grab too much we will break in 2 categories. i will be the traffic cop. let's dig deeper on trade and security. let's start this way. the united states wants continental security are they not going to get it? >> you are asking the question. the bottom line is we have a cooperative relationship for 53 years now. it is a cooperative system that has evolve and modernize as those threats changed including gone from the alleged threat of the soviet union or actual threat to other potential threats. there is a joint command in colorado springs in the american military. as recently as the olympics they

worked together to provide the outer circle of protection, shipwright program, security. i think we have to modernize that approach. every year to make it more relevant. on the issue of post 9/11, premiers discussing issues of sharing information at the border to deal with crystal meth and other issues that were a threat before 9/11. this is not a new thing although 9/11 made it much more serious emotionally and in real terms. where we have a difference with of the former administration particularly not tom ridge but secretary chertoff, security security security security on the border and i believe you can have security and economy in a more balanced approach. it was difficult with secretary

chertoff on those issues. we are trying to get recognition of the economy as much as we acknowledge the safety of our own citizens and the safety of americans is important. one of the biggest challenges if i have one, the issues of security is to speak at canadian audiences and let them know it is not a human right to cross the border. that is part of the job of ambassador to communicate canada's concern about the economy and trade to the united states and also that ceos have to be part of the solution. >> do you think canadians have come because of how fluid movement was across the border? canadians have come to believe it is a human right to go to the united states? >> we all want to cross the border to play baseball or soccer. it is different from 20 or 30 years ago. it is different. >> it is one of those things

that is lost in translation because after 9/11 when paul said security becomes trade, what he was doing is sending a message which is understanding this was the biggest relationship in the world and will continue to the. we have to put a security emphasis on that because we did think we could just go back and forth and people were doing it. our borders were getting whacks at that point and we misunderstood and the language wasn't always clear. we would have cabinet ministers say trade is the ultimate question here. if we can't let security stand in the way of trade the americans are going a units? of course we want trade. we are the biggest trading partner but if that border is not secure we can't do this. it was a little like this. we are closer to speaking the same language in part because canada has been educator too. canadians have been educated. we have homegrown terrorists. we have some of those issues we

didn't think we were dealing with in 2001 and we are in 2011. .. >> andrew and then scotty. >> do they think we get it on the security because it is going to be crucial to be put in addition to any kind trimeter if anybody is going to trust us to come up with our part of the deal. if there's an eater reality or perception we don't get it, that we are not as price of security as americans, not prepared to do the steps necessary to secure those borders, then we are not going to be able to -- >> i think we are getting into the sea that we are getting it, and the thing that is why we are actually even having the discussion again to get it off the table. >> to that point, andrew, i think the debate on the border perimeter security has to be argued in canada first. because i really believe in canada puts it mind at something, it can get almost never it once with the united states particularly with the leadership in washington. drexel, the canada-u.s. relationship for years was viewed through a prism of

softer, and the narrative in canada was poor canada, the big bet american coalition is so well connected in the southern senators are always going to trump so we are never going to have the politics. the truth of the matter was canada didn't have a coherent position with all due respect among external b.c., internal b.c., the mayor times aligned with new england, quebec, and so all of the lumber producers couldn't get it to get there in canada and on the u.s. side of the state your position to read this is the number-one issue. and honestly come to the credit of the current government, you had a collision. there's a little bit of problem in d.c. right now. and harper asked and bush said you've got it. so, the truth is on the border delete and on the continental security, have the debate in canada, and if this is the thing you want from the united states -- if you can stand up and say this is our number one priority, this is what we want to collaborate on, the u.s. and the apparatus of the government wants to help you got to have one priority and you have to

speak with a single voice on it. >> this is exactly right. this body is exactly right about the way in which the process is managed. there is a will to resolve these kind of things, but you're also right, peter, that the united states on security is going to ask regardless, and i think one of the great disconnects has come from political leadership in canada that has been unwilling to be direct with the canadian people about the national interest. when the perimeter was proposed by george w. bush it made sense for americans why? we underestimated for decades. the canada u.s. border looks like it did in the 1950's. it was beaten up, it was understaffed. we moved one-third of the personal to the southern border to anticipate nafta and we didn't replace them until 2000. we had been derelict and neglect and ourselves, we had a very big test to upgrade that security and a parameter would allow us to skit that step and just reinforce the military side of the border, deal with the external and shift the resources. it was a good solution.

the canadiens seemed that might be a little too hot. step back, and we did concentric. we are going to reinforce the border and we are going to have a perimeter and their relationships with allies are not of the world. this is the challenge today because i hear canadians talk about sending the border as a result of parameter the new can't get rid of those bodies. you can't get rid of the personnel, the club med, facilities now on the border so it's going to remain more fortified the and the canadiens were used to back in the old days. that is the cost of not having made them, not having made the commitment when it was first stopped. >> if i could follow -- >> [inaudible] debate over the security versus trade in canada before we can make progress bilaterally. you've been out of iowa for a while. the odds are great. we've only heard of the existence of these strategic leaks. there is no appetite for a nationwide conversation about these things because this government is in a minority situation every to fall and

therefore afraid to have these debates and it's too bad because secretary napolitano says a thick border sounds like a good thing on like me she doesn't come from sarnia which is one of the greek border cities, one of the - border cities on the can of the u.s. border. >> [inaudible] >> it used to be there would be a sign of the quarter mile away from the border say and look out here is the border. now says ten models that because many days that is how far the traffic backs up and the traffic is carrying rolling stock for american factories, goods for american stores, its carrying prosperity for both of us and the its back to the border to be a >> what i am saying this for a good big idea in the bilateral relationship to succeed it's got to come from canada. it just has to. now maybe the reason there isn't a debate you're talking a that is what the ambassador said which is canadians think the if a constitutional right to go to the united states any time they please and they don't realize the hour guests or visitors but i think that it's actually something else that's important.

that is we need to look not just of security but traditional security, defense and security. we need to look at economic security, and if we look at our -- if you look at cyber warfare it's shutting down business networks, shutting down wall street. so if we start to think about economic security there is no better partner than canada. also by the way on the sense of security, norad, the border, etc., but if we can get homeland security to get their heads around the mission isn't just to stop bad guys and correct duties but to figure out how to be smarter about this commerce so that we are more competitive with our -- we are more competitive with the people abroad that we are competing against that would enhance our were security in an economic way which i think it's material to our general security. >> it is a tree the security. they are connected. >> it's interesting what comes up in the discussion is that canadians need to have control over their sovereignty of the border and a lot of canadians are saying we don't want

americans to have the same sovereignty over control of their own border. >> one of the reasons the border thickening is such a concern and goes back to scott d., it is very characteristic of americans to think of the border as the ultimate line of defense. but in fact the order is a terrible place to do security. one of the reasons the americans focus on the order is because the american position is very uncomfortable with dealing with the internals base of the united states as a security issue and this is one of the reasons for the simple white american immigration enforcement is so ineffective. the rule is if you or any illegal immigrant there's a massive militarize the presence on the southern border to stop it. but if you can get past it it is all yolly oxen free. there is no reliable method of

testing whether people are legally in the country. social security cards don't have pictures on them never mind some prints and ret maaskant and other things would have on an e card to suggest the idea the country would have an id card is so shocking it can't be considered but it's in dispensed with. so that's how you get things very outrageous measures like this one in arizona which is a real concern where the police are authorized to stop people who look like they might be illegal immigrants to check their papers but nobody else. now it would be rational to say every time an employee, a prospective employee goes to an employer must prove they have an entitlement to work but that is anathema in the united states seek the militarist border enforcement. so yes, canada needs to have a attitude towards sharing security with the united states and canada needs to make the i would argue for its own reasons canada needs to make getting a

wide open a refugee policy a priority. that said, the americans also need to understand the border cannot be the primary focus of the security. you have to have the interior space of the country with a method learned from countries in europe and australia and canada. >> i would agree first of all from my perspective we do not want to have an incident in canada where anything we didn't do lead to the debt as a citizen in our country or a citizen in the united states, so it's important to have an honest debate about the risk in letting people see that everyday. taught at sarnia, i don't know how many were on the plane landed in detroit last year or windsor, it's not just american landing on plants and plants from the united states only flying over the united states. so we have got to point out all of the potential risks to be able to take action to correct it. our discussion with homeland security have been more than

just the security that security is the safety of people is going to be a priority for canadians and americans and we are working on ways of working much further away from the border to keep citizens safe and i think that is an extremely important in terms of what we are doing. on refugees that was one of our perceived weakness is in canada, the fact that it took up to five years to add to the cade a refuge case in canada and they are not necessarily be known whether they were after a couple of years and in a minority parliament there was a law passed in canada the americans are very impressed over which has a much shorter time frame than for agitation, which on the left i guess if you oversimplify is faster and on the right is more secure because you are tracking more effectively and that is why three of the four parties in parliament voted for the bill that the minister fashioned together in a very

effective way and it is a step forward again on canada saying we care about fairness for the refugees. we've always cared about that, but we also care about the length of time the was completely undefined and raising questions of, legitimate questions. >> i wonder what the attitude david was trying in america or changing before a big part of for the original intent the parameter didn't succeed to read it wasn't just canada, it was also this over insistence of the americans for sealing the border as the first security which is like a fool's errand and i wonder whether with the status the economy and raising the economy relative to the security in the next particularly the need to be competitive with the chinese and the need to have an open border with north america for that purpose with a deficit and cost, the need to get the control cost and the emergence of the homegrown terrorist threats in the united states all of that simply adds up to much less emphasis on the border, the

border is our salvation and much more opening their for a more cost-effective approach that treats canada as a part of the solution rather than the problem. >> you both had that experience which is why the nature of the conversation is different. >> we focus a lot of securities and have a few minutes left in this area. we talk about some of the irritants the personal care and one of them is the legal length in the country of origin labeling and, and some of the comments, sometimes you get -- that's important to understand the difference with the system works you will have bills coming forward all the time that could have an impact on canada that never go much further than being tabled. let's talk about that issue and then the country of origin labeling and whether that is a threat on the road. >> i think food safety is an opportunity and a potential threat in agriculture. it is a very important issue and

the canada has to have cable competent sciences and we do in our departments to ensure that there is no trojan horse under the kind of cover food safety to stop goods from moving back-and-forth in the agricultural sector so we have got to make sure our capacity on science is first and top shelf and i think we have that i have to work out of the new farm bill. the new food safety belt. secondly, the country of origin legislation was negotiated with the congressional committee that interpreted by a cabinet secretary in a way that in the short run as hurt farmers in canada in terms of live animals and the integration back and forth. ironically in the long run will probably end up more with that agriculture being processed in the value-added jobs in canada, some in the short term it is a real hit on producers in canada,

that in the medium term this was going to happen if to get going, too, the would end up driving more production to canada in terms of the vow to add than an unintended consequence of these issues in agriculture have got to be watched, but having said that, it is $32 million across the borders and it's really interesting to 16 million or billion, 32 billion both ways, jury integrated agriculture system and we may find kashmoula kuran other product there, but i would suggest that it hurt a lot. we are going to the worst trade organization in the medium term will hurt them more and that's the point we are trying to make in washington. you are going to lose jobs in the packing industry in five years because of this action. >> i think there is a congressman who has a bill to label country of origin on all fuels and the united states so

americans can know what they're putting in. >> good local labeling of the electrons. the good things there is a misunderstanding about the way that the economy works, and particularly about the way how integrated in our economy was if canada and the united states and there is a dispute that had to do a glamorous topic that you remember that had to do with hawk and how the and on the country of origin labeling if you are beaten or sausage is american, product of america, and having a common sense approach that says this is a product of the united states and canada. they were trying to figure out how to use the decide as it is american or canadian. is it where the pay was born, is it where the pig was weaned? is where the piglet is aware it was slaughtered, it gets gross, is it where it was processed? the trick is to go back and forth across the border several times as do most things in north

america before they reach the marketplace, as we have to make sure things like the country of origin labeling don't meet our border a disadvantage for the north american businesses and do just need common sense and you have to have a well and from time to time stand up to a particular narrow interest that doesn't understand the broad economy. >> it's just understanding the difference in the politics scott and i were at a meeting together. this is probably nine years ago and there was legislation post-9/11. there were canadian businessmen on the stage and american businessmen asking questions, and the americans said has the legislation been tabled and he said that canadian smiling of course it's all going to happen. and the americans were looking crestfallen and it was kind of a who's done first and finally be set to a former ambassador will you please stand up and explain this because tabling legislation

in the united states means it's bad tabling legislation in canada means it's going forward. sometimes we are just missing the obvious when we are having the conversations with one another. >> also sometimes in the united states we have a tendency to react. sometimes we change our minds very quickly. one minute we love the matter and i and the next minute we hate. this sometimes doesn't lead us -- >> koln down, sit down. >> i don't do it but at least it is overreacted and then have a second but later. we never succeeded with canada by surprising canadians. it doesn't go well. we propose to the government we would have free trade decades before we got it because we cannot defend their and we had a perimeter of the time it made sense to us it was a shock to the system.

we might have done better in that regard. the second thing i would say is now in washington because we are concerned about jobs it's not so much the economic cost of the border. i can we are starting to realize there is a compliance cost of about fossilization. we know that to follow the rules that takes a lot of people work and the jobs in the trade if you look at what it was that we lost in the volume of the trade a lot of that is small and medium businesses. the same who don't want to fill out tax forms or be harassed by more government regulation and just walk away from trade with canada because it has become too much of hustle and there are canadian small businesses that have done the same command tourists who don't want to get a passport for the kids in the back of the minivans of the desire to go to disney and the u.s. and of canada wonderland and so on. we need to think about the compliance cost. we do believe in regulation that we need to make sure we are being reasonable and thinking about the cost of doing what we are doing. >> let's move to the next topic of energy and environment. we touched a little bit on

doherty wheel and climate change and both are hot topics and both countries, so i guess just as a general question where are we headed on the issue of, a unit of canadian energy experts to the united states and on climate change because we know we in canada the government in canada said that they want to move in lockstep on the issue with the obama administration. david, do you want to start off? >> canadians are bumping of the gates of incoherence of the american approach and the total lack of an energy i wouldn't say policy, but set of priorities. nancy pelosi famously said she wanted energy to do three things, energy the was clean, secure and cheap. anybody that has looked at the issue knows you can maybe get to of the three but you cannot get three and it's one of these cycles where abc, bbc, where you have radical determinants and

policy and a complete round of wage 3g boardwalk. the united states really needs to first leaders need to be forthright with the public about two of free but one party takes one side, almost like shirts and skins. sign randomly. one party takes one side and another party takes the other and then you see which one wins and you give it that way because in the ordering of the three would produce a better result. there is no rancor ordering of the street. if you decide that when you want is time limits that's your top priority and the security for example is your last priority than the oil sands don't look so good. they are very secure but comparatively expensive and not clean. but americans are not at that level of trade off yet and so canadians are going to be waiting for a fundamental

american understanding. not first that they must choose and what choices will be. >> in the term to play pollyanna i am going to say that there has been a great degree of convergence the last few years on the broad question of climate change, call it what you will. if you go back eight, ten years, canada within the process, americans were out. we were lecturing the americans out why weren't they playing ball and the were adopting the traditional superiority position on this even though we were not coming anywhere close to hitting our own targets. now you have it processed the americans are engaged in, it's a different process, it is post kyoto, one more to the liking of canada as well, and the current government of canada is saying we are going to target our policy with the americans decide what they are going to do. so where you have a lot of discord and finger-pointing back-and-forth in the past is much more convergence now whether you agree with where the converged is a different matter that is less of what it seems to me if friction between the two

countries. islamic to listen carefully it starts to become a recurring theme. we agreed after years of arguing and having difficulties had to not do much and then so everyone is fine with it. but whether it was fine with not doing much it is true that after about two years of arguing canada should have a made in canada climate change policy which meant rejecting kyoto steven harper realized the main chance lay in claiming to want to billy climate change policy with the americans which essentially meant bidding on obama's inability to get much done. in so many things harper turned out to be why is better. so now that he's serious, cap-and-trade scheme is dead in congress and we are happy to have a climate change partnership with the americans. it's been a companion of the climate change partnership with the americans?

there isn't a giant wall, where we have a different climate on either side. >> we plan to have partnership with the americans and the rest of the hemisphere in the world. last time i checked we don't have a climate parameter from canada and the united states either. you know, so either everyone does something to get your or each country does its part -- >> i think that's where we are headed. [inaudible] >> we did have an acid rain agreement between the two countries and all the predictions about how much it would cost proven to be wrong, the health benefits have proven to exceed that. canada and the united states is involved in the montreal protocol and started with 16 countries on the ozone depleting the materials and it's on to 185 countries and its decrease more and kyoto in the world. i know that fact isn't used because it's not understood a lot and it doesn't lead the news and we are obviously think that is a good vehicle. it does make sense to have the

same reduction target as the united states and will not be easy to reach anybody that says 17% by 2020 is going to be easy to reach and is just a well it's nothing. i was involved in trying to reduce the amount. that is not going to be an easy target to reach. now it does make sense to have the same vehicle emissions standard with trucks and vehicles because we have the same auto industry and people say why should you go -- people say you should lead instead of follow or have the same policy on cars. thousands of people working in the car industry it's good for the air and it's good for the economy to have a harmonize regulation approach which actually exceeded california because it spoke in air-conditioning. we are going ahead in some areas on our own. the regulations tabled by the minister of the coal plants are way beyond the draft standards

that it interpreted in different ways by the media way beyond what is being proposed here in the united states. now the united states may go further with the epa and by not sure they will but i think in some areas we are going to be down 50 present of the coal emissions in canada and not only good for the ghg but other things. >> i just heard we can't do that. >> why can't we? >> well, that's my question to the estimate we can do it by regulation council, and here the -- >> it is the actual example -- >> we signed an order in council. we tabled, worked together with the epa and announced the new regulation change on the same day and it was good for the auto industry and it was good for the clean air. >> khanna doubles as a the coal-fired emissions quicker than the united states because you've got this natural abundance of queen hydro and less of an entrenched shall we

say coal lobby. what i want to say about energy though is that it tends to invert the traditional a summitry. when you think about energy, canada really is the superpower. canada has got it and we needed and whether it is traditional fossil fuels or queen hydro or uranium ore the electricity grid, canada is in the driver's seat might not realize it, but it is worried about things like low carbon fuel standards which 20 or 40 of the united states are proposing which would disadvantage the canadian crude if they don't get enacted properly and the question i have about that is why are we always talking abut carvin as the only measure of whether or not fuel is good or bad? carbon is an important element to be we all want to get to a lower carbon economy but what about the low conflict standards? why don't you look at the debate, canadian diamonds are considered the most strategic to get in the world because they are the blood is the same

democratic so when you look at something that you can just carbon which is important that ad where do you want to get your next beryl's oil as long as you are addicted to leal would you rather get from a bad guy who hates the united states or get it from canada which is a great partner and by the way the dollars it recycled into the economy? like it needs to be retrained. >> some of the issues on the oil sands go right to that. to david's point, a lot of the pictures people have on their mind of the open mining that you see and northern alberta, a lot of that stuff and a lot of the new activity in the oil sands is now in a statute which isn't massive mining operations and big scars on the land and take a true and go straight down and you can hardly see it from the air it is such a small footprint. and a lot of the clean technology for the extraction is

coming out of it as a whole new industry that is developing around that. so we need to educate canadians about that but also make that point so there is the two points on the so-called dirty oil that it's not so dirty on the carvin side and also not so much in terms of taking it out. >> as a job as a former politician pointing to one of the differences of political debate and policy which it obscured because we now have 24 or news cycle and the internet and everybody is an amateur convent and some people are amateur think tank and we are trying to shed light but what happens in the the date is the ends obscure the means to be the focus that nafta is going to create hundreds of jobs, some people losing their jobs and to find jobs in other sectors. the promise is there but people don't see the details and that are disappointed at the results. we talk about canadian oil and what scotty astelin this is there are this and you were mentioning, all of that is a model obscure. they want a corrine climate or

cheap gas because i've got to get to work tomorrow, so i think that we sometimes suffer from having a shallow debate at the level of those ends and not really talking more about how we get the means going together and respecting the fact that it is complicated and it is just the only way it is complexgh and ris help in that regard with a little more focus on secure and cheap oil rather than the environmental concerns where people are weighing the balance. some actors the macrofuels' brought into the debate some people that basically say we should go to copenhagen in a kayak and therefore not go on an airplane and fossil fuels so that is part of the debate in every country including here.

and i would say so i don't what the cost is the issue one, the oil sands have got to be as on the emissions so we totally reliant on the energy reliability and security and not told the story of the emissions 80% higher than the conventional wheel 15 years ago and down to 18% said they are actually below california servile oe alana venezuela so it's got to continue to improve. it's a work in progress so that is part of our challenge. secondly, where the pipeline is having a discussion in washington there's >> in montana, in north dakota,a dakota, in kansas, not nebraska, oklahoma, texas, they all support it.k and we've also worked with the d company to get oil from north dakota, south dakota, saskatchewan and montana onto that pipeline which actually improves the situation.ne

the other thing the oil companies have to do in canada is make sure the people understand the jobs that are connected, not just the direct construction jobs. we finally, it's taken us about a year, but there's 4 00 companies in the united statesee that supply materials to oil inp canada. finally, i think it was governor schweitzer from montana thatlly, said it best: i don't send my mo national guard to risk their lives to ft. mcmurray orhe edmonton, they're in the middle east.to and has a strong argument. but that's not the only argument weme can make. it's got to be jobs, it's got te be improvement in the emissionso and i think that's veryth important. >> the same question about transition. >> yeah. >> a lot of people would like to be post-fossil fuel. we're going to move in this direction, but we're going to need oil for at least the next 20 years for a lot of practical reasons. so that's where the question of where should we get it from. the reality is we can't go cold turkey off oil.

>> let's move on to foreign policy and defense, and let me start with a foreign policy question. canada claiming sovereignty over the arctic. the united states doesn't agree. is that a useful debate to have for these two countries, paul? >> the prime minister campaigned on it originally because the conservatives have a legitimate longstanding, honorable interest in developing the north andndin aearthing the canadian civilization goes right up to the north pole.h that's all real good. but to make it picturesque and attractive to voters, he asserted, a, that there were, you know, pressing threats against canadian sovereignty inn the north, b, that canada could ever defend unilaterally against those threats. quietly, that silly position has been modifying in the five years the prime minister's been the prime minister, and american sailors are on canadian navy boats patrolling the north.he n even the vicious norwegians are sometimes invited in and the

terrifying russians get -- >> but not the danes. [laughter] >> yeah. but the real work going forward, the arctic can and probably by the powrs force of necessity will become a fascinating andd x exciting place for cooperation between our two countries and others in the future. now that our government is g getting over its claims that we can stop nuclear subs in the arctic. >> well, i just -- you really have a thing about this. you really have a thing about how -- >> [inaudible] >> me too. >> about how the prime minister is somehow, had to change his policy on this. the conservatives do have a longstanding history going back in a very vocal way on this. therel are threats. i don't think they're the traditional threats. we've been doing some studying on this at the defense and national security committee. we, you do have russian incursions. everybody's testing their. equipment. probably one of the biggest

concerns that people have outcoc there is the presence of thee of chinese in incredible numbers.ri they're not an arctic nation, they're not a literal nation, they're doing all sorts of activity there.ure we need cooperation to figure that o out. there's a relatively small point of dispute between canada andn t america on this, and i think we're going to continue to actually work cooperatively. act we're going to take over control, canada, of the arctic council shortly, and that'sgo going to be followed by several years of americans taking control over that.t. so we're on the right trajectory on this discussion. it doesn't mean we don't have issues to deal with, and we'reoe starting to see other issues emerge. the chinese, human smuggling, other questions like that thatot weren't on people's minds when we were talking about simpleg sovereignty and that, you know, we would plant a flag and send our ships. these issues are real because the globe is shrinking,ing and we have think that we are on a corporative

path, and every time we sort of move from something that was a war or a battle or you know some other approach to something that works, i think actually people who are involved in making that happen should be given some credit as opposed to criticize for it. it is not like you know we have some stupid position and -- these things have to be worked out and we have to have that discussion and we had to know what was real and people had to put resources on the ground to figure it out. >> senator -- [inaudible] >> we can't depend on the the to line for northern. the technologies change. there is going to be a different thing than it used to be. >> if what canada is after in the arctic is environmental protection and surveillance, why

make the issues of sovereignty? are the americans interested in the same thing? >> well yeah but we can have sovereignty if you are going to cooperate with americans. i actually think everybody wants to spend a lot more time in the arctic has it is nothing and in the next couple of decades it is going to be navigable and there are huge issues that are really expensive up there. we rent halifax -- not only have we not mapped it and the russians and others trying to figure it where the resources are in all of that and a precious part of the planet, but also you have to start to navigate by the stars when you get out there. we need a constellation of satellites up there and we needed not just for the military and the coast guard protection that we needed for commercial purposes and we also needed are the way it seems to me when you start talking about things like communications or remote

communities in the north in canada. there are a lot of very expensive things that need to be done that require public credit partnerships, that require canada-u.s. collaboration and ingenuity. blackberries are a fantastic canadian invention, but they partnered with intel for the parts in the early days. canada in and the u.s. if we work together, and if we get public-private collaboration, can do a lot of amazing things. search-and-rescue, absolutely. >> when you talk to people in american military even though the impression is the u.s. military is the the biggest and as all of these resources, they have a lot of missions around the world in places like afghanistan, iraq and the south china sea. although the arctic mission is important and president bush to put us on a path to having a stronger presence there and be able to take on these functions and president obama pick that up and has continued it, there are only so many dollars to go-round and at a time in capitol hill talking about budget cuts we are going to have to be smart about the investments we make and

isn't this an area where bilaterally we can get more done together and share the cost, share the burdens were the benefit of taxpayers rather than wasting money fighting. >> i think we are going to try to work on the -- see together brown the broader issue we may agree to disagree and the united states doesn't look at waterways as a one off. they are making decisions on the other the straits of hormuz making decisions on waterways in a much broader security environment. so a lot of us would like to have just this one unique challenge on our sovereignty and how we manage it. but it is mark obligated for the united states because they have greater geosecurity issues and more places and i don't like having a one-off position that may prejudice and hurt them in other places. as far as i can tell in my short involvement here. >> as much as canada and u.s..

is a understand that virtually nobody else in the world agrees with our position. >> yeah that is right. >> as long as we don't claim sovereignty on it. [inaudible] >> we have lots of agreements and lots of various and this is one where we don't have one. >> let's talk about defense and canada's role in afghanistan because that is a role that senator wallin is very familiar with and she worked on the commission advising the government on how to proceed with the mission. we have lost 154 canadian soldiers. it seems to me that is one area where the americans are very aware of the role canada plays or is played from a time when i think the u.s. had pretty much given up hope on the capabilities of the canadian military to now hold them in relatively high esteem. what does that do for the

relationship? >> i think we have earned enormous credit for what we have done so far. i think we were in jeopardy of sacrificing a lot of that goodwill by the abrupt decision of the prime minister in the middle of the campaign to adopt the position on this which was we were going to go home and 2011, exactly the arbitrary deadlines he has rejected before. it is fortunate that i accommodation of circumstances he has been browbeaten, shamed and pressured into at least extending the mission beyond 2011 in a training capacity. but i hope that we will step it up the on that. i think there is hard work still to be done there and the americans don't get to go home so i'm not sure why we get to unilaterally decide we are going home. >> afghanistan should open a much better discussion in canada. canada needs to make a generational commitment to return as a security power. there is something weirdly lopsided and -- with the way canada deals with the world. i remember when i was a while

ago in the days before modern computers i was working at "the wall street journal" and i would have canadians visit me all the time who would say none of the media and the united states pay any attention to anything that goes on in canada. what you would see are the dow jones wires originated in canada. granted oath of them worked -- [laughter] but canada has this on arms role in american finance and american trade and commerce. about what canadians want to be consulted also on the security aspect of the relationship where canada has to bring more to the party if it is to carry the weight the canadians expect and that they deserve this of their importance and all of these other areas. that is something that has to be really adopted as part of canadian political culture. i remember going back a long time is a high school student

writing a paper on the canadian decision to downgrade the world and germany and the late 60s. the cable cross in the library of book passionately denouncing this idea which was written by a democratic member of parliament. there was this kind of lost civilization in which they were, he was a veteran of course and there were new democrats who has young people fought on those battlefields and who were as people of the left wanted to nationalize the banks and all that but when it came time to defend canada and its allies they were on the same sight. this is something that has to be read soared across the canadian political spectrum. canada once a voice in the world. it is paid the blood price in afghanistan. what is kind of shocking now has to paid in cash prize rebuilding afghanistan. >> i think we we are really saying that. at the beginning there was a may think there was a lot of

politics around this decision if we weren't going to iraq and we would go to afghanistan and it was the good war and iraq was a bad war and it was all that sort of thing. >> what if we win the bet for? >> exactly. but we went in i think what increasingly happened is we started to appreciate that we had sent our men and women ill equipped and those stories started to filter home and it was not for lack of enthusiasm and it is still true today. you stand on these forward opera and bases in the middle of afghanistan and you ask how many people are on their third, or their fifth tour in almost all of the hands go up. we don't have a mandatory two or duty in afghanistan. people at the volunteer or that in the canadian military. so they are there and they are there not for the good weather. they are there because they actually think they're making a difference. and that is translated back home, and we have started to provide as one of the things the

independent panel recommended as we had to get our men and women some air support to get them up off the ground so they were having their legs blown off by going down these ied written roads. so we made some progress. we are about to have that debate again about the f-35, that you can't just say okay we are going to do our bit in afghanistan and then we are going to go home on some arbitrary date. i certainly have disagreed with that position. if you are there you are there until a job is done that now we are the other side of it as we are starting to see a commitment that we don't know what tomorrow's fight will be our next year's fight will be and we need to have a military that is properly equipped because i think what people have come to appreciate is something david was alluding to. we all have this memory of the canadian image in world war ii, and we became peacekeepers somehow although the numbers didn't actually substantiate whether or not we really were peacekeepers of the world. we didn't break that high amongst the world and now we are seeing a guinness people who

have somehow merged the two fierce warriors and humanitarians, and that is something canadians have truly -- virtually comfortable with now, that we can do both and i think we have on the backs and men and women in afghanistan put ourselves back at the table of people who are considered serious players when it comes to security and that is amazing, given how the numbers are so low >> let me pick up on something you talked about. we focus on much on the hardware aspect of this debate. all of the new equipment that the soldiers had, have been given which as been great but the software side is just as important. the united states has changed its counterinsurgency doctrine. we are very different than we were in world war ii or korea to fight alongside. almost no one fights alongside as well as the canadians do because you have been in the trenches with us. you have learned how we fight now, and now by taking on a training role, by continuing to

be involved in afghanistan you can give to the danes, the dutch, the germans and other real insight. >> but i think there is a feeling in a lot of canadian societies that when it comes to something like afghanistan, canadians can't say no if there is pressure on the americans because there will be consequences. >> is not just america. this is a nato mission, u.n. endorsed at the end invitation of the u.n. government. the americans weren't there in great enough numbers although certainly much larger than ours, but even talking to senior americans to your very point about learning to work with each other, a senior american general saying to us sitting in a meeting room over in the kandahar airfield, you know, if i could put every single american soldier under canadian command i would, because you guys have actually figured out how to work this on the ground.

the problem for american soldiers it is, because you are often unpopular in places that you go, you travel in larger numbers for self protection, for force protection. canadians when you are talking about a clear and hold strategy and going into villages to protect it we put down our arms and go in and stay there for two or three days or a week or a month or whatever it takes. everybody strategy has evolved and we really have worked together. now the question is, you know what do you have? it is not just the canada-u.s., it is what is nato and the future? what do we respond to? who decides these issues and what is going to their be our overall level of commitment? >> peter, we have said no to vietnam. we have said no to iraq and we did say yes right at the initial stages -- i wasn't trying to be a politician. but thank you very much.

it was tough. iraq was tough because the brits and the americans ran and i know is emotionally very difficult. it was difficult and people would have different views on the wisdom of that decision here in the room. i can say one thing. the canadian soldiers that i know, not just in the embassy by people i know and the 17 wing or other members of the military i know just as friends, they did not want to go in with everyone and leave ahead of people. for a number of reasons, to complete the mission with their allied team and secondly, in honor of those people that did die in afghanistan. i just think that is something to consider because those people that are -- risking their lives to care about completing the

mission. >> when chris sands talked about hardware and software, i thought chrissy meant maybe a little bit more than just different military doctors and counterinsurgency versus software. also having eyes and ears in different parts of the world where next year's fight might be coming. in june in 2000 her and i were here and june 2001 andrew and i were here in washington where people talked about, i don't know if you were here andrew people talked about the threats ahead in henry kissinger was in the room and brzezinski. there was a shooting war in georgia a couple of years ago. there is no canadian democracy promotion agency with an office in georgia. we were blind, deaf and dumb. there is a scurrilous attempt by the government of belarus to steal yet another election. that canada's ambassador in warsaw has a credit haitian because our policy is we don't

talk to the belarusian government which means we have, we have no capability there. our american friends have learned you never know where the next flight or the next opportunity is going to come from so your diplomatic corps has to be present and active and have freedom of maneuver around the world, and our last few governments i think have deluded themselves into thinking you can shrink the world into productive will threats and opportunities. it just ain't so. >> very quickly. >> as quickly i think it is really clear that in the question of afghanistan, the way canada has served in that has an incredibly important for canada and on principles that is at a benefit to the canadian relationship with the united states. and you contrast that very is very serious and very real contribution on the world stage with a different political decision it a different day in canada. in canada have the opportunity to be a partner with the u.s.

with ballistic missile defense at no cost to made -- canada and canada were to us as we so. so i think when you take something seriously and you take a position whether not the united states agrees or disagrees, we respected. and i think the challenge is to have a very serious debate about the global threats and make a decision that way. i think the united states has to respect whatever candidate does if that is the way it is presented. >> but we also have to understand there are consequences and there are -- there were two the ballistic missile defense. >> their work consequences. >> howden norad had to split into different. >> we have time for one last topic. it might be interesting as well and that is just sort of attitude. what do canadians think the americans and vice versa? who would like to start? >> i will start without. with that. my favorite subject.

okay, so when i was appointed to go to auto was during the second term of the clinton administration i bought a tour book because i wasn't sure what the capital of canada was. of the canadians can joke about american ignorance to canada. i was ignorant, and wind and loved it, fell in love with the country. is spectacular but what shocked me was the level of anti-americanism that was there. and that was during the clinton years. i can imagine what u.s. diplomats and the americans that serve during the bush years must feel. i just think that there is a serious anti-americanism. now in contrast in the united states there may be some ignorance but we have done a lot of polling and survey research in the canadian american business council and the truth is as worried as canadians are about not respected enough, americans to the extent they know anything about canada, they love it and if they don't know anything they're willing to give

canada the benefit of of the dow. >> i don't think i've seen a poll that is that canada is the u.s. best friend. >> i don't know about best friends. were not sure about best friends but we love canada and would love the place and we think they are nice and all of that. canadians don't really play that up enough. there is a huge beneficial art fair in american public opinion that i think canadians are surprised about. >> it is too simple to say that it is anti-americanism. it depends which question you ask. i think it is very conflicted. we are in a very productive period of confusion right now. because for the longest time we in canada particularly were basing our sense of nationhood on artificially embellished differences. we relied upon characters of ourselves and the americans and in themselves americans with a free-market country were more a big government country when in fact up until the early 60s we were the smaller government

country. it is a recent self-image of ourselves of the suite of north america. so now we are in a state where we have had a couple of very interesting debates happen in the last two years. what is in canada. we had this big fight over the long gun registry where i think a lot of people were shocked to discover the remains of gun overs -- gunowners in canada so the notion that we left their doors unlocked at night in those michael moore stuff complete fiction. >> gesture border patrol. >> similarly to come the americans to talk about universal or near universal health care which if you invested a great deal of your sense of self and the idea that would make the difference in the markets as they don't have universal health care we are shocked at that kind of nationalist but i think with those things going on and what the state of our economy and things like the olympics i do think there is a much more growing sense of innate self-confidence and canadians that doesn't locate itself in drawing the artificial things that is an threatened by the idea that maybe we have a lot in common with our northern

neighbors. actually think things are improving in that regard. >> i want to have a meeting with the state governor at one point to say, because there was a big phase of by american and bistate only in a post-9/11 time and going in and saying look, this is going to cost your state hundreds of jobs and you buy canadian products and there are canadian plants and you have got jobs at stake and all the rest. he looked at me really puzzled and couldn't figure out why, display and what i was talking about. he said no, no the legislation is -- foreigners. i said yeah and we are a foreign country. he said well we didn't mean you. and sometimes you are often caught in the net because they don't mean us. >> i have an exact opposite story. i hope this proves retailing but i'm hoping my friend had it right. my friend was in kuwait in 1994 when the iraqis a mass troops on the border for the second time

in people thought there was going to be a second more. canadians who were there were issued by the embassy as a buzzer device like you get when you go to the cheesecake factory. the instructions they were given were existing buses, don't pack a bag, just get a toothbrush and get your family go to the embassy compound. there you will be picked up by a helicopter lifted to an aircraft carrier. canadice and have helicopters and certainly doesn't have aircraft carriers and of course it was completely taken for granted. it was the americans job to do this for canada. i tried to explain that there were two absolutely unforgivable mistakes that you can make in dealing with canadians and one is to forget that canada is an independent, sovereign foreign country and the other is to remember. [laughter] >> i hear this thing about every bill on the hill we have to clarify that over and over and over again. but the pew research report

recently came out and said you know that the americans preferred to trade with canada 76% higher than any other country and you will notice in the midterm elections there was lots of anti-trade ads in terms of jobs. mostly focused in at the person who has just left for chicago today in his country. i think that is very positive. i actually think from the time i have come here, used to like a little bit of the american swagger that i used to see here as premier and certainly i saw -- i am actually going to american businesses and saying, you know, it would be bad to get a little bit, the bit of your swagger back because really when you look at the american economy and the entrepreneurs and the universities and the creativity and the inventions and they products, i think american business has to get a little bit more positive in the public arena. i actually think more quietly, actually think there is benefit benefit of a cross here in terms of canadian confidence quietly

and american swagger that has been reduced in the less period of time and a little bit of that is not phony bravado but a little bit of confidence in getting that message out to the american public is good for america but it is also good for those of us who want to sell to america. so i want american business to get a little bit of their swagger back. i think it is good. >> there is a dimension and to some extent this brings us back to where we started. there's a dimension to this which has to do with nationalism. canadians remember the days when they were dealing with the québec nationalists who were pushing back. when you define a nation, you draw a line around us and then there is is the them. when americans were nationalist after 9/11 you were us, we were them and it made it harder to manage the relationship. and canadians became nationalistic around the olympics and they have been pushing back a little bit of makes you more confident but it makes you them and us or us dumb and you are us i think. [laughter] >> we know what you mean.

so i think they're going to be these periods in our relationship where we are both pushing a little bit and getting on the other sinners by reminding each other we are different in a way that doesn't, isn't intended to be insulting but sometimes seems that way. >> as we summa wikileaks lately lately -- [inaudible] some of our tv shows depict his swaggering america's to take over the police investigation. it sounds from what i'm hearing is that there is a back-and-forth and sometimes it is an priority complex and sometimes it is a security complex. >> it is a manifestation of the inferiority complex. >> here is what i think it is. i think we need some metaphors in the relationship and i'm glad we are going to bury the elephant in the mouse and it doesn't apply to more. the metaphor i think we have with a great deal of respect to the media because i'm

outnumbered appear, is i think we suffer from what i would call binocular center and the binoculars syndrome is i am canada, you were the united states. i'm looking at you through these for not lears and you were looking me through the same set of binoculars. when canada was with the united states everything seemed eager and closer than it really is. at the other looked through innocuous backwards everything seemed smaller and fuzzier. the binoculars, you are never going to invite me back a miss the canadian media. we need to get rid of the binoculars and see each other for who we really are and not suffer from too far away and too blurry or two up in your face because it is really and i think you started the discussion this when ambassador it is a great partnership and a great friendship. i don't know for your best friends but we are definitely not perfect strangers and we just need to be realistic about what it is all about. >> the canadian people and american people are pretty good friends i think most of the time and what we are starting to realize this week i'll hate washington.

[laughter] >> back with you here at the newseum in washington on c-span in the united states talking about a relationship p between canada and the united states.t h our topic tonight is canada/u.s., best friends or perfect strangers? it's been an interesting fr discussion, now it's time to hear from some of our members og the audience. hear from our members of the audience. >> bureau office for the canadian manufactures and exports so i spent a lot of time watching what is happening in washington. two observations in one question. my first observation is after 20 years of being in washington d.c. i've never heard the canada-u.s. relationship in terms of carbon monoxide. i don't know what to do about that. i just took note of it.

and the second one is, smart border come efficient border, it is a border. it is an oxymoron and i think we need to have a healthy debate about border rather than a smart border and efficient border might make us feel better to talk in those terms but a border is a border and third, getting back to jobs, let me just repeat that. let's get back to jobs. i haven't heard much about manufacturing on today's panel. my manufactures, small and medium-size, they are doing a very brisk dialogue with their key west business partners. that conversation is brisk, it is dynamic, a lot of mojo, a lot of swagger, thank you very much. we are very bullish on north american manufacturing. the conversation is all about right now growth, product growth, job growth in the s. export growth. so while canadian exports abroad

to third countries may be rising in contrast to the united states, it might be the commodities. it might be by value, but components, widgets, auto parts, electronic parts. it is going north from the united states from alabama and north carolina. is going south from ontario to alberta. >> you have a question for a panel? >> so my question is. you can say is spent a lot of time thinking about this. my question is things are moving rapidly. the president of china's income. $74 billion in contracts announced. minutes two or three years, this panel, what i would like to hear, where's the competitive advantage that canada and the united states will enjoy and who will enjoy it? >> i think you can say manufacturing is a competitive and one of the challenges we have is how we perceive it. u.s. manufacturing output is up but manufacturing employment is down, so we tend to think of it

is a declining sector. everyone wants a high-tech job or a green job and it in a fracturing still employs a lot of people. it has just become more automated than it has been and what that is created is not a tension with the service sector but a whole new service sector managing supply chains. the logistics, the quality and assurance up and down the supply chain that dozens of companies in the production of a product that you know from the name brand that is on it when you buy it. that is the reality of our economy that most of us don't perceive and at one of the strength of of the canadian american relationship is in the management of supply chain. that is why we are so competitive. canadians who speak their language know the way we like to build things and can come to american supply chain to look for efficiencies, ways we can become more productive and americans can teach some canadians business is a thing or two as well. this is a home area and don't talk about the mag's jobs versus the good old-fashioned blue-collar jobs. they are much more white-collar, green green educated job, high

tech jobs while at the same time they are a lot more invisible than they used to be. >> brigid you asked about in two years where rarity in this conversation and i think some of that has to do with the conversation we haven't talked about it all yet which is mexico. and canada-u.s. relations there is often a question about whether or not you trilateral eyes and how do you work that? that is an active conversation even now and where we go in manufacturing will depend upon how our border policy goes, whether supply chains can become more efficient and as david pointed out order policy and interior in the united states difference in the northern border and the reason i point out mexico tonight is if you look at the figures that have come out, the mexican auto sector has outpaced the canadian auto sector this year in growth. a great canadian company magnet which sells auto parts has 48 plants in mexico whereas in 2001 they had every single one.

i do think we have to figure out without trilateral icing the relationship because i don't want to do that, we have to figure out what the deal is a north american how they want to compete economically in the space versus the rest of the world. >> just a quick note on how differences and tensions have diminished over time. you talked earlier about what is a product becomes difficult is things are made both side of the border supply chain and one interesting consequence of that is here we have the canadian dollar now that is above parity with of the american dollar and it is not -- that it would have in the past. even as they are taking a hit on the sales side they are saving money on the input side and it just shows you the degree to which those economies have become so much more tightly integrated over time. speech is a quick thing on what the canadian product, great canadian company has a new jet called the c series. it is manufactured in the back

but it is 55% american parts, so is it a canadian plan because it was made there or an american plane because it is mostly our stuff? it has also got some chinese parts in there. >> i think the u.s. created and manufacturing test scores led by think mr. bloom who was also involved in a bilateral relationship on the ongoing history. we were quite frankly very worried with what would be in that report and it was actually quite fair in terms of dealing with the manufacturing jobs on both sides of the border. if you go out the door here you will notice there is a flyer from winnipeg that is also completed in st. cloud because of the buy america provision back in 82 and notwithstanding. >> by american works. >> we of the jobs in winnipeg and a few in st. cloud and it is perfect. they got quickly to the low emission buses because california actually buys more buses that all of canada and for

aerospace. again if you get there quickly and you train your workforce you are going to be, to have the agility and as you know, to be on the leading edge of building products and therefore having the jobs. i think the dollar used to be an advantage. it is not any more. i think most workers knew that was happening slowly. sometimes it happen much typically. the corporate tax rate when you compare it with the united states is now lower in canada. when the dollar goes up that is very important factor. the training, we are getting more people graduating from the out of her college's post-secondary facilities, not just the traditional universities but also on the scope side. we have to continue to do that in my view. the r&d incentives are very positive as well. but we won't be able to compete with the united states or integrate with united states or compete in the world unless the worker today is using computers

and designs right on the shop floor and we have got to make sure our education system is absolutely the best they can be because otherwise we will not have those manufacturing jobs. >> is going to continue to be a relationship with united states. one of canada's largest trading relationships is between home depot head office in atlanta georgia and home depot and canada. one of our largest trading relationships. >> candidate does more business with home depot than it does with france. [laughter] absolutely. >> you get better service from home depot. [laughter] >> my name is medea benjamin and i work with the human rights group called global exchange and appease group called code pink. is part of my work i traveled all around the world and i wonder if you could guess the one country that i have not been allowed in? >> you are here in the u.s..

>> i have been rejected in the last two years three times, every time i've tried to go to canada and i have been told canada is sharing a database called the national criminal investigative database, it and cic and that my name appears as having been arrested three times for non-violent civil disobedience processing these wars. this is happened not only with myself but to many colleagues and impact we went to your lovely embassy here to complain and they were given an 18 page process to try to go through that is not only time-consuming but practically in my case impossible, and it was to get rehabilitated so that we would then be able to go back to canada. so i wonder what it is about using this database. i heard that this is the only country right now sharing this database but the plans are to share it with other countries meeting will be not be able to go to these other countries and what can we do to not have this

happen to people like myself? >> ivan had a situation, or a case like this brought to my attention so i can't give you a good answer to your specific question. i have had lots of people and lots of senators raised the issue of people that have had convictions for drinking and driving, and even after long period of time, there is still that prohibition and that information of sharing so i don't know about the situation of peaceable protests and where that fits so i can't give you good answer. >> do you think this database and they say that you have no misdemeanor so whatever is a misdemeanor here gets bumped up in canada and is a reason not to let people in? i just wonder about the sharing of this and why should you even having canada information about my arrest in the united states for a misdemeanor? >> even before 9/11, we did share information about potential arrest. but i do know the people -- make

the biggest number of cases we get as they say are drinking and driving cases that happened a long time ago when people are arguing there should be an appeal. it is still on their criminal records so i can't answer your specific question and i'm not going to try to have been an answer but i will look at the specifics of what what you have asked. >> tiberian i grew up in port huron. byplay travel a hockey so i was there for a week. my question is, suppose you watched over the last year our debate on the health care issue in the united states. we spent an entire year where we were not even allowed to discuss universal health care or the public option. and then finally, there was a vote and we finally got some type of health care program. now, yesterday, the opposition party that came into power suddenly decided for political

reasons to take that away from us. now, i wonder how canadians see this, seeing as how you do have a system of health care that everybody is able to enjoy, whether everyone likes it or not or, but everyone is able to enjoy that particular system. my other quick question is, what i hear from you on this panel is that you seem to be fighting in a war in afghanistan that has been chosen by the united states and that you you are sending your children off to fight a war and you were spending money on a war that really is the united states choice and you seem to be swept up into it. and i'm wondering, since over two-thirds of americans today do not want to be in this war in afghanistan, and i am sure it must be equally as much in canada, why are governments not listening to us and getting us out of these crazy wars?

>> lets deal with health care first. >> i will answer the first question. watching the american health care debate i have to say, i thought what could be more canadian than to be having a massive nervous breakdown about some imagined threat to your health care system? the only difference was in the united states the threat was the public option and in canada we go bananas over private option. but in both cases you know i think cooler heads eventually prevailed on those. what was striking me also was how little currency actually the canadian option and they american debate. we have a lot of work to be done on it and anyone who and america thinks we have the perfect system i'm telling you we don't. is a great system but it needs a lot of work. you don't have universal coverage but more or less people get treated where is in canada we have universal coverage but you been a long time to be treated. those stories are not just myths. each country has its own health

care system and we are both working to achieve what i think is the best of both worlds which we universal coverage and yet efficiency and competitive dynamics within that system so you were getting the best bang for the buck. >> you know know i think obviously we wouldn't want americans telling us what to do in canada on our health care system and i was very aware that coming here. what surprised me is that fact in canada we built this system piece by piece over a long. of time including the proposal that that came in and was paid for right up front in terms of hospitalization because farmers are losing their farms if they didn't have a room in saskatchewan. senator wahlen's problem. and another things were added piece by piece by piece by piece. and it is the end result and one of the issues the canadian system was defined by people who are opposed opposed to all health care in this country but what shocked me is that there wasn't a more gradual approach to dealing with preexisting

conditions for kids, preexisting conditions for laid-off workers, cost affordability on state plants across states to save money. if i was giving advice i would go to items on access and two items on cost. tort reform was not even -- it was not even touched and so here in canada you talk about competitive advantages. and i'm saying nobody has a perfect system, but the cost of gdp in canada is about 11.5% and it is rising over 18% in the united states. that is huge, huge issue particularly when you look at the imploding entitlement of the demographics in this country versus hours. that will be in it bandage for the manufactures. >> that cost differential points to one area. one of the reasons -- don't think it is 18% but it is

moving. maybe it was 17 when -- [inaudible] one of the reasons the american system cost much more and there are many reasons is that providers and i don't just mean doctors and nurses but all elements of the system are much more expensive in the united states. one example is the pharmaceutical industry. as the american titan the bolts there are going to be pressures to squeeze providers including pharmaceutical companies. the pharmaceutical company will say wait a moment yes it is true we do charge a lot in the united states because this is where we can recover our tacoma cost and we can't have if they're going to be drugs for the world almost all of which are in the united states, and if american companies companies are not allowed to recover all of their costs inside of the united states which the campy, they will have to be recovered somewhere else. and this is a think i see a real area of future aberration.

>> one of the things i was fascinating about the health care debate here was the extent that canadians got dragged into it. we were talking with you about health care and we were talking about you. it is funny because the united states and if the -- past couple of years is ideological. at present somewhat by the utopian on the other side's disaster. ordinary commonsense people want to say well, in between all of those dire and utopian predictions what is going to happen? in canada, it is similar enough for americans and no insult intended, that they feel it to work there why can't it work here? of the debate had to get into the details of the canadian system. people want to know, canadians haven't turned communist. they haven't gotten sick or. there are issues but i want a practical demonstration of how some of these theories really work. we are going to have more shoes like that. we are going to be looking to canada as a laboratory reform much as california's or other u.s. states are and you may turn

around and turn to some of our states and look and see a laboratory as well. we have to learn to learn from each other and not get too worked up about the fact we are talking about each other behind their backs. >> paul on health care? >> a change of pace. it is true that if you ask in a poll, public opinion poll, you get majorities in canada calling for a quicker withdrawal than a later withdrawal. and i would hate to see canada's foreign foreign-policy effort to find is what is the next war we can get into? that being said i get a little hot when i hear it argued that this was america's war and we got dragged into it. this was a sovereign choice candidate made to help a friend. [applause] and since we have a point of evidence senator wahlen's party that called usually, for a longer and more robust involvement in afghanistan has increased its advantage over every other party in every election since 2001.

>> i agree. i were to say it mean something to be an ally in that mean something to be in nato and our countries have collaborated for decades. if you want to have the benefit of the nato alliance for example, and you have got to be willing to be an side-by-side, shoulder-to-shoulder and nobody is a better example of that in canada. i think candidate doesn't for its own reasons and the alliance and the friendship is valued here. >> microphone here. >> i am a media consultant and we work in both canada and the united states. >> how are we doing gary? how are we doing laura? >> i was interested in the amount of information that flows across the border. it is a one-way information flow. canadians receive all the american media and the americans receive very little canadian media and i think that creates a certain barrier of information. one of the problems is americans

actually will readily tell you they don't know a lot about canada very specifically and perhaps the upper part for canada is they think they know more. and they form opinions based on that. so my question then, first of all i want to say that this forum here tonight is a wonderful example i think of helping to break that down. i think the millions of viewers and c-span and cpac watching us, think we will start to create -- i think it is a positive step forward all kidding aside. i think we need a lot more of that kind of -- how do you get across the border whether it is in media, whether it is the internet or new media and i wonder if there any thoughts or concerns that the media could be doing a lot better job across different bottles of telling the mutual stories? >> i just want to say i thought this last year was particularly great for canada because of the olympics and the timing of the olympics and the coverage that does place in the united states but that is unusual. it doesn't happen obviously every year. there some mention of canada and

the financial papers dealing with banks. there was some mention about canada's post-secondary graduation rate again covered by some of the television stations. some coverage of canada being third behind shanghai and finland on public education test results. so, there is not a lot of coverage. i talked to a fairly prominent journalists, american journalist, who is very aware of canada and he made a point to me that our cameras, the last two times or cameras moved out of our studio to an embassy here in washington. one was covering the tragedy of haiti and the second time was covering the shootings in juarez to an embassy. so a lot of what happens in this town with the media is very much focused on american issues but when it goes international, it is not always what you would prefer to have in terms of getting attention. >> there should be a lot more

for this reason. notches because you know canada is a neighbor and candidate is terrifically important. here is i think the thing that we need so much to teach each other. as societies they are the two most similar societies on the planet, more even i would argue that in germany and austria. and yet they consistently produce very different results. why is that? that is because through accidents there have been two different sets of very different kinds of political institutions laid upon them which produce radically different results. and both countries can be inoculation to the other. the things that happen in the country happened because of the nature of the people or the deep culture. a friend of mine who studies both countries close to me made this wonderful.. canadians believe candidate is a left-leaning country and america's a more right-wing country but if the united states were governed by the canadian constitution to the 1980s the reagan years that would have been governor i prime minister

tip o'neal. and that is an important thing for both americans today and they can't do the same way. if canada have direct elections of its chief executive officer, think canada would have had a conserved conserved of chief executive officer for most of the period since world war ii and not a liberal chief executive officer. >> i agree with everything you said but that is not going to lead the news. >> a very short answer over here. >> i do think part of the problem is just simply the size of the canadian market. we are 30 million people versus 300 million people. our media world is much smaller and so we consume and we use. all canadian telogen -- television networks have the remotes with american television networks to use the reports that they do because we have that overriding interest. we are constantly watching american news. the american media does not need

to do that. they don't need to buy a ctv or cbc story so it is just a case of the size of the market. >> is also true that we need to disintermediate this relationship a little bit more. i grew up in detroit and for most of you who haven't grown up in detroit you would imagine it is a war zone like living in baghdad because all the news out of detroit is dismal. but bad news leads. the united states is always putting out a phony image of ourselves. we don't have car chases all the time and we are not all having sex with everybody we meet and we are not as funny as we are on tv and ultimately we are not as if noxious on a panel as bill o'reilly and keith olbermann. [laughter] on that note, that will do it for questions and answers but we have time quickly to have pauline andrzej give us their final thoughts before we say good night. >> off the top by since in your comments a nostalgia for a day

when we took on these great big projects together like the free trade agreement like norad and nato etc.. the problem i think we are facing is our success. you can only strike the world's largest free trade agreement once and then you live with that. i think the success of that says that the issue now is much smaller. i rarely quote -- but i think in a situation where you manage one fall of the that may not be as exciting or glamorous but it is good news colin all. >> you sound like the guy that quit the patent office in 1905 because everything had been invented. [laughter] i have a hard time believe that two of the most blessed countries under the eye of god are going to say we don't know that, we built nafta, -- did a lot to bring the warsaw pact into nato. on 911 the air lakers gathered and now we are done. i would like to think there was work ahead.

>> there is. >> alright, well on that note i want to thank you all. thanks to her audience in canada and watching on cpac in our audience in the united states watching on c-span and our audience here at the newseum. thank you for coming folks. good to have you here. [applause] appreciate you joining us. and of course we will continue to watch for the candidate u.s. relationship takes us and we will be watching more closely in canada then you might not -- here. it has been a good discussion tonight and the chance to air some different points of view and we appreciate you showing up to participate. i am peter van dusen in washington and from all of us at >> a couple of live events to tell you about today on the c-span networks. at 12:15 eastern today, c-span will bring you the final day of

the three-day annual winter meeting, business officials from sprint, nextel and starbucks on the u.s. economy and job creation. also speeches by u.s. trade representative ron kirk and housing secretary shaun donovan. that's live starting at 12:15 eastern, again, on c-span. and live right here on c-span2, president obama will make remarks at a general electric plant in schenectady, new york. he'll be joined by the company's ceo who was just named to be the chair of the president's new council on jobs and competitiveness. we'll have the president's remarks starting at 1:05 p.m. eastern here on c-span2. >> this weekend on american history tv on c-span3, the first age of terror, domestic terrorism of the late 19th and early 20th centuries. learn of the century-old traditions of preparing for presidential and military horse-drawn funeral quezons and

howard university professor greg carr explains how former slaves escaped and started new lives. experience american history tv on c-span3 all weekend, every weekend. see the complete schedule online at c-span.org/history or you can press the schedule alert button and have our schedule e-mailed to you. >> tuesday, president obama delivers the state of the union address to a joint session of congress. c-span's coverage begins with our preview program followed by the president's speech at 9, then the republican response and your phone calls live on c-span, c-span radio and online at c-span.org. you can also watch the president's address on c-span2 followed by reaction from member of congress from statuary hall. >> up next, european commission president jose manuel barroso

takes questions from the members of parliament who represent the 27 countries of the european union. in his first question hour of the year, he answered questions on a range of issues affecting europe including the strength of the euro and the emergency sport support fund which was eyes used to aid the irish government. he is responsible for setting the policy and the legislative agenda of the european union. this lasts about an hour. ..

>> should be an additional question, 30 seconds with a reply of 30 seconds. and third, heads are representatives of groups will speak with the president of the commission. the first to take the floor is our colleague, corien wortmann-kool, on behalf of the european people's party. [speaking in native tongue] >> translator: thank you, president. i would like to ask a question

about the european emergency fund. two underscore the importance that you attached to that, the european emergency fund after all, and here's my question, what is your position on extending the fund? you have some thoughts on that? and how can it be strengthened over time? the situation on the state bond, that can change. what is your vision on extending the emergency fund, please? >> thank you very much, president barroso. >> thank you very much, mr. president. in fact, it's not on my position is the position of the commission, it is that the commission considers the

financial capacity must be reinforced under the scope of its activity widened. we consider this a part of a response. this is not all the response of course. with all these documents, there's only one sentence. it's also about reform, fiscal, measures but, in fact, it is important for the stability of your area to increase the lending capacity. because as you know the ffs is currently endowed with 40 million year old. i am not living to increase the euro now but we know that conduct land this if need be. and this is due to the need to secure the fsf. so the minute we can do is of course to increase the funding capacity of the fun. and i think it is a very constructive proposal that should be adopted sooner rather than later, as a part of a

response. >> thank you very much. >> additional question? >> yeah. [speaking in native tongue] >> translator: you are saying rather sooner than later. what exactly do you mean by rather sooner than later? there's a degree of urgency when all is said and done in my view. when it comes to ensuring financial stability on the markets over the coming months. how we can strengthen that, we are seeing debates amongst government leaders and finance leaders at the moment so could you please be more specific about sooner rather than later. >> rather than later means precisely that that. not to procrastinate. meaning analyst in the market are acting more than reacting.

we have to handle the curve as soon as possible. and, in fact, seems that the meeting yesterday and today, made some progress. we are protecting our member states. i think it would be wise since we have european to address these issues. we are ready, the commission is ready to address these issues. >> thank you very much. >> thank you very much, mr. president. president barroso, i know it has raised strong objections about the detailed interference by the commission and the greek and irish, writing roughshod over collective bargaining and social dialogue. your new annual growth promises more of the same. your officials are calling for a revision of indexation, the promotion of work, review of

employment benefits and the reduction of overprotection of workers. do not agree the commission should be looking to promote social dialogue and collective bargaining rather than undermining it? and as the issue appears specifically excluded from the tree from the social chapter of the tree, what legal basis is the commission using to interfere in national collective bargaining systems? also, the fiscal consolidation as called for is going to choke off any possibility of achieving the 2020 process. what is your answer to that? >> i can play without any and and dignity we fully support social balance. we do it at all levels, but afterwards we had to do it at all levels. i've been promoting all the social balance. we have had leaders and relevant partners. but, in fact, we are of the opinion that we should now create more to work.

yes, we have a situation in our labor markets. i think it's responsible to create this. >> yes, please, additional question. >> why is it, president barroso, the all of the oka singh seems to be a labor markets but what about the other labor markets we need to deal with, the financial markets, commodity markets? all of these focus seems to be on labor markets. why should the least well off, why should workers be carrying the cost of this recession and they need to repair it? >> is not only on the labor market. i'm sorry. we are being, i'm certain we are making reform. we are discussing at length they need to deepen the market reform as well. we are discussing a specifically the energy markets, but the labor market is also part of the reforms needed to increase,

especially in those countries that are in no most vulnerable. >> thank you, mr. president. mr. president, guy verhofstadt on behalf -- >> mr. president, i know that in a private conversation with president medvedev you've conveyed your concerns over the case of -- when you look to the case, it was a gift? no, then we have to say that death failed. on top of that, on the 31st of december boris was arrested. where normally article 31 of the russian constitution is guaranteeing the free assembly. so as you know, the opposition is every month on the 31st organizing a protest meeting,

and there are in my view seven months in 2010 where there are 31 days in the month. so that means there is a chance this continue that in 2011 more of this can happen as what happened with boris. so what is the common action that the e.u. institutions can develop on this? >> russia is member of the, member of oc, member of the j., potentially member, and i think urgent action that european institution is needed. >> thank you. as you said, we have been with our russian partners and, in fact, the european union has publicly reacted to the proceedings. we believe that independence and the right of each and every defendant to the right of a fair trial, are of crucial importance

to the steady partnership between european union and russian confederation. rule of law is cornerstone of policy. we are now developing with russia. will continue to closely follow this and meetings with russia, and hence decided to meet with russia in brussels. and also to respect the rule of law. >> simply a comment is i think that this house also, the most urgent as possible has to deal with this problem. it cannot continue like this going now. in the russian federation. and i think it's not because we have many important commercial links, that we have to stay side on this issue. >> thank you, mr. president.

[speaking in native tongue] >> translator: thank you, president. the freedom of the press and the media in russia is a major concern, and if you want to be particular about this, mr. president, i think really what's happening right now and hungry. i am wondering why the commission is being so lax about this hungarian media star because it all feels, it clashes with pretzels which apply and europe and will be on. we've had a legal experts being drawn up in terms of infringements from helsinki, the directives on the media, the unesco convention, copenhagen criteria, criteria. basically, the charge of fundamental rights and so on and so forth, i just leave it at that. but i am wondering when you're going to take adequate steps in

hungary? what is your timing? why have we still got no infringement procedure? >> we have to implement with hungary, european law in an objective manner. and we have to look at it very cautiously from a legal point of view. so we need to follow a clear methodology. that's what we're doing. we have been doing, vice president, she formed a committee. and, in fact, we have some concerns with hungary. and we intend to send a letter to the government of hungary not later than this week. such language hungarian authorities should respond. i repeat. we have to follow clear objectives and partially legally

based procedures because hungary has the right to this kind of impartiality. i can reassure you that we will be following this method very, very well. [speaking in native tongue] >> translator: well, i would ask them that all documents which have been made available to the commission by hungary should be made available to us as well because we would also like to be able to assess it. it needs to be assessed. we also suspect that maybe hungary hasn't even provided the full text of the law. they may be playing for time. so i would request that you provide us with these documents. also, i feel it is really, really difficult in terms of the negotiation, with turkey. and in those discussions talking

about copenhagen criteria, but a country which is are we a member of the e.u. >> as i said earlier, the vice president yesterday, at the same time you understand those are issues, that we have to follow very clear objective way. commissioners are very good reputation and ability. certainly we don't want to make a mistake. and i assure you that we have full matter with great attention and concern. we have already expressed the concern. i addressed this issue with their prime minister. tomorrow he is coming to this parliament. we can discuss a daily but we also have to follow the clear procedures for this matter. >> thank you very much, mr. president. michal tomasz kaminski.

[speaking in native tongue] >> translator: president, a few days ago the interstate committee that works in moscow published its report concerning the course of the most disaster of the 10th of april last. the public was amazed at the results of the report, and treats it as a document that is biased. over the past several days, it has been proven that the report conceals facts that are uncomfortable for russia, and the whole report is geared at shifting the guild on to the other side. no one in the right mind made mistakes in our part and the whole process of preparing and performing the visit of the late

polish president. yet, the russian report has all the bearings of political ploy, which is designed to detail any charges on the russian site. how does the commission evaluate this report what does the european commission came to do anything to clarify this with ahead of the state of the e.u. or any country died, including many members of the political elite? >> thank you, mr. president. nobody will ever forget this terrible tragedy. neither england or elsewhere. it was felt deeply for the polish president and all those that were killed that tragic day. i am also aware of polish reactions to it. for which i have a lot of

understanding, even as i mentioned of this tragedy. this being said, the commission can act on this only when we have derived legal basis, but we have never been approached by the polish authorities to intervene on that matter. and, of course, we are always ready to do whatever is in our legal has to do in case there is this kind of question. [speaking in native tongue] >> translator: president, have i understood you correctly? because so far the polish government has not asked the commission with this address, if the polish government would ask for assistance, with the european commission act on that? >> as i said, we have to see the legal. according to the information it was military plane. so from regulation, was entered

into force after this terrible accident. so from a legal point of view, seems that there are not many, let's say, arguments on the commission to intervene. but, of course, we can always discuss this matter formally with the polish authorities or other authorities that may request it. >> mr. president, lothar bisky. united left. [speaking in native tongue] >> translator: i'm sure we all know how important is to ensure the stability of the euro in that regard, there's one thing that i haven't totally understood. and this is when we were debating the bailout plan where she said stop when you're trying to move forward. my question is, well, do you have a coordinated advance?

i mean, this isn't the first time something like this has happened. it's not the first time i've gotten this impression, the media certainly reports on it. it's not an easy marital dispute between you and mrs. merkel its. now, i'm sure you can imagine i'm the question agreement with mrs. merkel is a, but the issue here is are we helping the financial speculators with her such a clear sign a division? >> in european union, institution, it governs its own responsibilities. the european commission has separate response those to present what it believes for euro area and for european union. and so in documents regarding the annual gross survey we express our opinion. i think we now don't have the right, we have to do. so this is what we have done,

and i think, in fact this was are received by the markets. we've seen before because they understood that least now there was a willingness to move in this light in all aspects. including on efsf. we need to do more on that matter. this is not only the opinion of the commission by the way, it was expressed in terms fix i hope that member states will come to agreement. [speaking in native tongue] >> translator: mr. barrasso, i fully accept that you have your own opinion and have the right to express it. but my request remains open. on such an important issue when the people spike lee about the euro, which is very important point of time, how could it be

that you have open discord with mr. sarkozy or mrs. merkel? you're going out in public with conflicting statements. >> they do not need the permission of state. proposal was made very much in mind where member states have stated they were ready whatever is necessary to protect financial stability of the euro area and they've addressed specifically the efsf. they said they were ready to reinforce the efsf. so that there was a contradiction and i cannot comment of the. i can tell you what his position of commission, it is positioned of the central bank, the position of other relevant institutions that are following with great contention, financial stability.

so i think that we have to highlight our issues about the way we communicate. >> thank you. and madame marta andreasan. >> thank you, president. last week a member of the european court who recently retired after 15 years of service made allegations in the media. the allegations came no surprise to the point essentially to the lack of independence which affects the level of transparency in the report. the clarification led to establish yesterday, there's nothing more and the commission's power of the auditors and put into question the basis of which this parliament has been could discharge from the last 15 years. it is now time for this parliament to dismount that the cancer audit by truly independent body and external to the u.n. institutions. without this independent audit,

there are no position to continue discharge and european commission. will you, mr. barroso, allow an external auditor to review the accounts and tell us the truth about how european taxpayers money is being spent? thank you. >> i need to recall that european court is so independent body. commissioners have absolutely no influence over its matters or priorities. nor would we seek to add that kind of responsibility or it is in commissions own interest to respect independence of external auditors. i never make negative comments about the accord. the constitutional court's, court of audit, and that's very -- i mean, principle of democracy. respect of law. soviets i would give of course is commission has audited and

court has auditors. it is normal and necessary to ensure the process works well. such a dialogue is fully in accordance with all international standards, and i should probably also recalled, commission has extremely critical reports. so i think we should respect our institutions and our independent institutions. >> thank you, president. i disagree with your response. in response to the criticism made by the european court of auditors in the last 10 years the commission has turned to the auditors, and this is recalled by me. asking them to change the methodology of work so that the reports on e.u. expenditure would show up. in my 30 years of professional experience in the area of the county, i know this. i have never seen the auditing instructed auditor out how to do its own work.

how can now we know if our reduction in the area is due to the change in methodology requested by the commission, or to the improvement in the economy? thank you. >> the commission like european parliament has right to express its opinions on audit process. you are now expressing an opinion. you are entitled to a. the commission is also a body. we have been elected by the parliament, but we have a matter of opinion. this is no way to pressure. this is, in fact, an exercise of transparency. once and for all we expect auditor. we try to do our best to implement accommodation of independent auditor. >> thank you, mr. president.

[speaking in native tongue] >> translator: thank you, mr. president. jerusalem is the one indivisible capital of a state official. from east to west it will always be in israel territory and must remain so. the european union has a right to be pride about israel, but the other democracy in the middle east within a sea of regimes. in the fight against the islamic jihad israel as not only defending itself, but also europe and everything we stand for in our christian values. and so defense of israel should be self-explanatory. the opinion you to get the international community is clear now because after the dramatic presentation we don't have its proper place in jerusalem. you will agree with me that our diplomatic representation should be new to the council of israel,

jerusalem. the future e.u. embassies that should include one of jerusalem. if you're going to have one, have one in jerusalem. thank you. >> you know the position of the omission regarding israel. we fully support the existence of israel and as you said, it's a democratic state in a very difficult environment. and before recognize rights of israel, at the same time we would like israel to respect the rights come and we believe the best solution is for two states, israel and palestinian state, to exist enforcement of each other and of international law. regarding the issue as a change of capital for our representation in israel, we don't want to change it. >> well, yes, please.

[speaking in native tongue] >> translator: of course i'm rather disappointed with that reply. you mentioned jerusalem. israel should move their settlement. where are they supposed to go? its jerusalem. there are arabs and jews there. what you said last week is you've got to discriminate in east jerusalem because that part of the city is one single community. what are you going to do with those israelis in east jerusalem then? they want to build and are entitled to build. >> i think the position of european union has been fully in line with international community, including the closest allies of israel regarding

settlement. we believe the way of the settlements issue has been dealt by current government has not i've been helpful in terms of current efforts for peace in that region. and precise comments given are a reason why. we should not have a reputation in jerusalem because such a difficult situation in the important city for israel and for all of us. so let's keep our commitment to peace. let's support israel, and at the same time let's not forget the people. i think they also deserve our attention and support. >> thank you, mr. president. now we're going to be specific, it's innovation and energy. second part of question. devoted for innovation and energy.

alejo vidal-quadras, one minute, please. [speaking in native tongue] >> translator: president, commission, the commission is driving innovation in very different fields. second generation biofuels for example, fusion, fourth generation, intelligent, renewable forms of energy in general terms, general energy efficiency and also catching, transporting and storing co2 electrical vehicles, so on and so forth. there's also the few and far between, mr. president, and an awful lot of citizens are expecting concern which i'm going to put you today. they are asking, of all of these, where it is present difficult circumstances, where is the commission going to put

the emphasis? what are the priorities for the commission? >> that's a very difficult question because, in fact, all priorities are linked. so we need to complete the energy market. we need to work with energy market. there's also a way to have renewables and energy efficiency. energy efficiency is certainly a priority, but we need to also invest in low carbon technologies because there's also another dimension and we need to pursue that. so speak as much as possible tonight with our partners in that field. so i think these are the four priorities. completion of the energy market and implementation of all the rules of into the market. energy efficiency, low carbon technologies, and accepting common effort. those four priorities. >> thank you very much.

madame jordan cizelj romana. [speaking in native tongue] >> translator: president barroso, the european union has to decrease its greenhouse gas emission by 20% by 2020. as political level we are already discussing a more ambitious goal. it is a well-known fact that the biggest burden would have to be carried within the energy sector and other sectors, including in the etf. i like to hear your personal opinion on when the conditions will be appropriate to make more ambitious goals. what tangible measures should we take in the field of energy in the e.u.? is one of those measures the measures that have highlighted when you have answered the question of my colleague? >> this is also a global process upon european process.

at least he was able to keep alive, this is good. but, in fact, it was not enough from our point of view. for our steps to go forward, and commit to binding targets, i think we should ask others, namely biggest polluters, developers and emerging economies to make it comparable effort. and so far they are not doing it. so that's why we have to find the right way to make the move. at the same time, those countries that are read to go forward and make more commitme commitment, they can and should do it. and a concrete way than going to propose to european council first of february is to achieve more in terms of energy solutions. they are we are below where we should be. on renewables, i think we are on target to meet our target for our goal on 2020 but not energy solutions.

but that is an area where we can make more improvements. >> thank you, president, and thank you president barroso. to ensure energy security on low costs for consumers in the future, europe must use all kinds of low carbon energy, and this includes clean coal technology, now that the government has been very, very slow. therefore, can the president of the commission give an assurance that support for research into carbon capture on storage will continue into the future? >> thank you. i can give an assurance that we try to attribute, but the answer, we have underfunding or reserves.

and that's a matter that we're going to be discussed when we present multi-financial perspectives. but i hope that member states will give priority to invest in renewables, low carbon technologies. and focus on the technology priorities established in the european energy technology plant. we are in the proposing this for the next european council. >> you said just now that member states were achieving less than half what they set out to achieve on the 20% target for energy savings by 2020. so why is the commission not pushing hard to make that target binding on member states? >> we are, in fact, pushing, that's why we tried to push this

for the next european council. energy efficiency is still lagging behind him as you said. i'm not happy with the situation, and commission intends to revert. first of all, energy efficiency is now an integral part of their target. at present we are in dialogue with other states to establish national targets to achieve these objectives. we have already estimated that existing policies and measures saving by 2020 will be no more than 20%. however, combined target emerging and european 2020, this is far ambitious than this. but still, they will be loaded tool -- it will be well below the 20%. first, the focus on national targets is fine in 2020, european 2020. and through this progress in the 2013. if this review shows our target

of 20% is unlikely to be achieved, commission will consider proposing legally binding national targets for 2020. >> thank you. reinhard butikofer. [speaking in native tongue] >> translator: mr. president, president barroso. i have a question for you with regard to the harmonization of feeding in charges within europe, fitting into the net. now, he has pursued an approach which suggests the most successful innovation program in the area of renewable energy, that would have in be destroyed. so what are you going to do to try and prevent harmonization eventually leading to the bonus is four feet into the energy

come into the net? i mean, how are you going to try and ensure that mr. irving there is going to work on the issue of energy efficiency, will not be simply playing time, read he needs to something by 2012. what you said now was you are already starting to see that the nonbinding goals are not going to be enough. how are you going to hurry that up? >> first of all, let me say that commission is the one proposing this approach to energy efficiency. and i apologize, he is doing his best to achieve that goal. we tried to put this energy also link to other policy objectives like fight against climate change. having said this, we believe it's not just about setting targets but it's also about member states. so we believe that it is better that member states establish their own national target, and then see if they are on track,

great. if not, we will come with binding legislation. at least we will propose a. but, you know, to achieve success sometimes is better start with a kind of voluntary target. at least that's what we've done in the past, and it has proven the right approach. but we don't exclude that we need a binding target for each country. that let's give the member states also ownership of this policy and see how they are developing this strategy. >> thank you very much. mr. trent 12. [speaking in native tongue] >> translator: thank you, present on the fourth of february we have the energy council, and we have two directives on the division for the discussion. the water frame and also the environmental assessment. we have to think how we can reconcile these two on a

sustainable basis. we're talking about the environment and energy. the approval procedure shouldn't last anything over a year in this case. the committee is currently suggesting five years. that's a whole list agreed. and i'm sorry, we can't have that anymore. with the commission the prepared to reduce that period of time and adapt the water framework directive in such a way that's in the future. the storage plants can bridge the gap between solar energy on the one hand and when energy on the other. >> in general, the commission wants to reduce as much as possible, the time for adoption and implementation. the question is that member states have a realistic delay so that it can be implemented as much as possible, avoiding

destruction to the markets, or what we should be -- what we believe is the internal market. some progress has been achieved. on the fourth of february the communications that we have done present efficiently, and there's also a storm. i think we can say historic climate and energy package presented some years ago, my previous commission. so we are open to reduce time gap, but suppose up and agree with member states so that they do it more unless in time to avoid this problem of distortion insight into market. >> thank you very much. >> research and innovation is vital to drive the competitiveness of our economies. and lashing for the first time a european university top the world tables for scientific

research. it was cambridge university base in the region i represent. at the university, but also many less well-known institutions and businesses large and small, i have seen cutting edge research funded by the e.u. to the 50 billion pounds -- sorry, year old framework program. sadly though this framework program also has a reputation are being the most complex and bureaucratic in the world. last autumn this parliament voted unanimously on a series of recommendations to simplify this bureaucracy. what is the commission doing to implement those reforms? >> first of all, congratulations to can bridge university and to your region. secondly, i hope to have your support of your group while to discuss multi-financial framework for an appropriate commitment for technology and innovation at european level.

can bridges with the most developed universities in the world, but there are other universities in europe that are fortunate don't have the same. 30, one of our priorities for energy and innovation, namely in this case for research. it is also part of european council that will discuss innovation it is certainly one of our priorities and they're very happy to have support of european parliament for the. we hope participants, it is important to understand how important it is for scientists that they lose not so much time in paper and that they have more time to concentrate on what they do best, which is research. >> thanks. madame ilda figueiredo. [speaking in native tongue] >> translator: thank you, president. in the name of financial

consolidation, programs are accompaniaccompanied existing divergences within the european union at promoting antisocial policies. they are undermining labor rights and cutting public investment, particularly in innovation and energy. now, that means that should these continue, the same policies and the same pressure is applied to other countries with weaker economies will lead to a worsening of our level of the virgins. and the situation will get ever worse because of a lack of solitary for the european union. the issue which arises then is to establish what measures are going to be taken to change the situation in such a way as to ensure that there will be effective support for innovation in countries such as portugal, and others who have not planned adequate amounts of public investment in these areas. and also to guarantee access for people and industry to energy

coming given the high prices of being applied at present, and the difficulties that are therefore being felt in many quarters. thank you. >> she probably knows our position very well. we know a situation like portugal faces issues like sovereign debt. but in the document which we just published, we tell the member states that is possible they should not be reducing investment in education, research, or the energy sector. there are countries which are doing this with a great deal of success. there are countries which are falling policy but their increasing the funding available to research and for energy. but it's also important to remember cohesion, solidarity.

so, there's a european plan for cohesion which covers territorial cohesion and social cohesion. all these reasons, if you allow me, we need to operationalize that plan. >> judith merkies, one minute. [speaking in native tongue] >> translator: thank you, president. in innovation, we have to change our economy, as society we're going to be losing more jobs. so we need e.u. to take the initiative. can't we have a more integrated approach in your commission, together with the various the use. we see that only one dg is getting involved. i think we need a more holistic approach, and so i also think that the funds need to work together more as well. we have to avoid the fragmentation of funding.

and so what about creating a major financial strain for innovation? and then energy, in relation to innovation, everyone is going for large capital but very often innovation should be found in small-scale. i think that's where we can find citizens. so my constituency and other college here think in terms of combining targets. thanks. >> you are rightly concerned with this problem, the lack at european levels. that's what i expect european council to address. in fact, a european innovation of partnerships are a goal to create an instrument to create signatures in existing programs

at european national and regional levels. i bringing them together under this umbrella i believe we can tap innovation potential for deploying european white solutions for addressing also challenged. so one of the goals is to speed up the time between research to market, market oriented innovations. market oriented products and services. this will create necessary for all participation. this is why we try to the commission, and now member states, this approach to innovation going beyond dts, portfolios or even countries of origin. >> thank you very much. [speaking in native tongue] >> translator: thank you, president. scientific research is published an international press, looking

particularly at israel, then showed our large amounts of natural gas and oil to the south of greek. and also there is great wealth on continental area of the european union. bearing all this in mind, i would like to ask how the european commission intends to extend and further research asked ration and expectations of a new reforms of energy, and how can be, be better applied in the du moving beyond the idea, and i would also like in your presence to state that i think that you have looked at obviously implementing the treaty of lisbon, and at the same time

managing and economic crisis, major economic crisis in europe. you have done very well in that. i think that you have actually focus on that direction, and then also there's the american method as well when you could produce more money. >> mr. president. >> thank you. they were saying something nice to me. thank you very much for the common. but regarding, regarding the first part of your intervention, i mean, we don't have the means and it's not our priority now to make exploration, support exploration of other sources of energy in europe. our priority in fact in terms of infrastructure is for interconnection. because it is a critical european dimension.

in nevada we're going to make proposals to european council. something has been achieved already and suspended for the parting country. now we're also working to work to establish north-south interconnection, echoing well. and just that, a new let's a possible way of bringing energies in this case, gas. this is widely european union can make restructure for energy. >> thank you very much. one minute. >> president barroso. [speaking in native tongue] >> translator: president barroso, the committee has brought out their welcome in my view initiative on improving energy efficiency across the european union, both the electricity grid and the gas

networks with these connections. the expenditure involved will be something on the lines of 200 million euro, and these are to be completed by 2020. now, also know that half of this is supposed to come from the private sector. my question to you is the following, from what remains from the 100 million euro need for the european networks, up to 2020, where are these funds actually to come from? from community funding? or will there be some of the financial source? thank you. >> microphone. >> sorry. as you said, the 200 billion year old are needed for

investment. [inaudible] >> it will be delivered on time by the market alone. further, it will require public actions on permitting and leveraging and private capital. that's why we are now proposing and bundling. we are proposing many measures that will make this a private investment more, let's a rational and more useful. we will take also closer look at statutory and/or to deliberate. the remainder of the gap, the commission will propose a new financial instrument after 2013. beyond grants, opening markets solutions may be the pros such as adequate participation,

guarantees and public-private loans. and i already spoke about this, european fund, project bonds. >> thank you. [speaking in native tongue] >> translator: 200 2001 aside te definition of new reforms of energy before it then establishes which it is open to public incentives. now, obvious let's look at the question nonbiodegradable nature of ways. italy has increased the energy bills to citizens and has boosted the building of incinerators, which are bad for health. it's not an answer for of ways. there have been two infringement

speeches, and despite formal legislative intervention in italy, incineration of waste is still being driven, as we have seen. obviously, i think it might be difficult remember the details of the situation, and that's why i have provided a question in writing. it's not possible to encourage incineration of nonbiodegradable waste, and there are no delegations like this in that direction. also, i think it's a bit inconsistent that the waste directive, the question of incineration, as one facility of using of getting rid of the waste. >> thank you, madame. >> this is, me, this is a question i cannot know the detail of all the infringement procedures. let me tell you i think, just don't energy and enter the market for energy, we have now

77 infringement procedures from member states in general, and 55 on into the markets. so issues provide that question in writing, i will be more than happy to since an answer in writing. >> thank you very much. [speaking in native tongue] >> translator: thank you, president. climate change every noble energy, we can see all of these things in the european, my believe in that the e.u. took all of these things seriously. but if you look behind the façade of a vibrant protection, you quite easily find a different strategy that atomic energy is supposedly an environmentally friendly energy. they took a position what i ask of my questions, he said it's a very important to reducing carbon emissions. and important for the future. well, the european commission is

not planning a directive for the maximum running time of nuclear plan. on the 26th of april, we are celebrating anniversary of chernobyl, 25 years now. so do our citizens really think that atomic energy is a clean environmentally friendly solution? can you really sell that? >> you know the position of commission regarding nuclear energy, with full respect for that matter to some member states have, some don't have. no one is forced to have nuclear energy. but, in fact, it's true that nuclear energy, in terms of climate change, less polluting than other sources of energy. having said this, commission have some obligations under the treaty. at the beginning of european union there was other community.

and commission has not only the right and duty to provide citizens of member states that require it safety for nuclear matter for research for that matter. and it certainly is what we intend to do. >> thank you very much. >> you are bring an optimistic message. the only shortage is figures. i understand that at this stage you could not fix the figures in terms of millions of cubic's meters of gas. but does the commission have any estimates or expectations? august a nonbinding, which will be a kind of answer where they will be able to fill the southern corridor which is providing 31 quadrillion years. thank you. >> from this visit to

turkmenistan, i came with a clear commitment to those countries to support fully to your opinion in terms of seven quarter. in fact, i joined with the president and publicly the president of turkmenistan, said he was ready to supply enough gas for europe. and even more that what we needed at cremona. ..