quorum call:

mr. coons: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from delaware. mr. coons: i ask unanimous consent that the proceedings under the quorum call be vitiated. officer without objection. mr. coons: i ask that the senate proceed to s. 716 introduced earlier today. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: s. 716, a bill to modify the requirements of the under the stock act requiring online steeks certain financial disclosure statements and related forms.

ferraro is there objection to proceeding to the measure? without objection. mr. coons: i ask that the bill be read three times, passed, the motion to reconsider be laid on the table, with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. coons: madam president, i yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call: quorum call:

mr. reid: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent the call of the quorum be terminated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i now ask unanimous consent that all postcloture time on the motion to proceed be yielded back. the presiding officer: without objection, all time is yielded back. the question's on the motion to proceed. all those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the motion is agreed to. the clerk will report the bill. the clerk: calendar number 32, s. 649, a bill to ensure that all individuals who should be prohibited from buying a firearm are listed in the national instant criminal background check and so forth and for other purposes.

mr. manchin: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from west virginia. mr. mampleg in: mr. president -- mr. manchin: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that all postcloture time on the motion to proceed be yielded back. i have an amendment at the desk and i ask for its consideration. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: the senator from west virginia, mr. manchin, proposes amendment numbered 715. mr. reid: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that we now proceed to a period of morning business, senators allowed to speak for up to ten minutes each. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. manchin: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from west virginia. mr. manchin: i ask unanimous consent that on monday, april 15, 2013, at 5:00 p.m., the senate proceed to the executive

session to considering the following nomination, that there be 30 minutes for debate equally divided in the usual form, that upon the use or yielding back of time, the senate proceed to the vote without intervening action or debate on the nomination. further, that at a time to be determined by the majority leader, after consultation with the republican leader, the senate proceed to the executive session to consider the following nominations. that the senate proceed to vote without intervening action or debate on the nominations in the order listed. further, that the following votes on number 21 and number 23, the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate, that no further motions be in order, that any related statements be printed in the record, that the president be immediately notified of the senate's action and the senate then resume legislative action. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. manchin: i ask unanimous consent that when the senate completes its business today, it

junior until 2:00 p.m. on monday, april 15. that following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired be, the journal of proceedings be approved to date and the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day. and that following any leader remarks, the senate be in a period of morning business until 5:00 p.m., with senators permitted to speak thereupon for up to ten minutes each. further, that at 5:00 p.m., the senate proceed to the executive session under the previous order. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mample in: at 5:-- mr. manchin: at 5:30 p.m. on monday, there will be a roll call vote on the confirmation of the o'connell nomination to be u.s. district judge in california. if there is no further business to come before the senate, i ask that it ajunio adjourn under the previous order. the presiding officer: the the presiding officer: the

a number of amendments to the bill are expected including one from democratic senator joe machin and republican senator pat toomey. it would require background checks for sales on the center. when the senate returns live coverage on c-span2. as congresses to continue to debate gun legislation the 2013 congressional direct i are is full 6 information on each member of the house and senate. contact info, direct map, and committee assignment. also information about cabinet members, supreme court justices, and the nation's governors. the directly is $12.95 plus shipping and handling. you order it online at c-span.org/shop. orphaned at age 11 she lives

with her favorite uncle. years later he's president and she's served as first lady. she's the first to be called first lady on the regular basis. she sets trends in clothing. meet harriet lane. the look at her life and her predecessor. along be your questions and comments. first lady monday night live at 9:00 eastern on c-span and c-span 3 and c-span radio and c-span.org. you're watching c-span2. you can see past programs and get our schedule on our website. you can join in the conversation on social media sites. spoke in washington earlier

this week about the oil production. she talked about the proposed keystone x l pipeline and earth to address climate change. it was interrupted by protesters. from the bookings institution. this is just over an hour. [inaudible] [inaudible conversations] good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. we thank you for coming today. we're delighted to have the allison red ford here as our guest today. we're delighted that the ambassador and distinguished member of the canadian government and the albert that government here to join us.

i'm going to introduce who needs no introduction. she is the chairman of our advisory board for the energy security initiative here at brookings. we are delighted he was able to join us today. before doing that, let me just give a note of thanks both to my own staff and the energy security initiative who have been instrumental in getting you all here today. and also the close interaction with had with the albert government in making this happen. we delighted to be hogses today. as i said, the from needs no real introduction. he's one of the most note worthy and notable energy scholars around the world. his two books, "prize" and "quest" are two tenges used by many schools throughout the nation by energy professionals as well. he, of course, for the prize received the put pulitzer

prize. it has been translated to 17 different languages. i remember a first time i saw the copy sitting on someone's book shelf and said i can't read this. [laughter] he also serves on the u.s. secretary of energy advisory board, and chaired the u.s. department of energy's task force on strategic energy research and development. she's a trustee of the brookings institution and on the advisory board at the massachusetts substitute of technology energy initiative. it's with great pride i introduce him. >> thank you. it i pride my association as a trustee and co-chair of your energy security initiative which makes such a contribution. it's under the offices of the energy security initiative we have this discussion today.

i'm pleased to -- of course to have allison red ford. we have two of her ministers with her here today. diana mcqueen administrator of the environment. and of course in addition to ambassador we are pleased that former u.s. ambassador to canada gibson is here as well. the topic specific topic is, of course, is the keystone pipeline, which is the most famous pipeline in the history of the world. [laughter] and all the more so that it hasn't even been built. it's quite an achievement. but it also -- there's a larger energy security aspect to this which is behind that is the scale of albert that as an energy producing country. it's 2.4 million barrel a day of oil output total are e qif lent

to a major opec country. for instance it's the same scwail of venezuela which indicatessic and on top the 1.8 million of day if it was a country to itself would be the largest single source of u.s. import. there's a lot of significance in the discussion we are having today. it's very valuable that we have them to guide us through the suggestion discussion. she graduated with a degree in law. she spent years working in the federal government both as a prime minister and senior adviser to minister for external affairs. is focusing on human rights and worked on human rights, education, policy and legal reform in south africa and mozambique and other countries

and a number of countries in asia. while doing that, she had the opportunity to work long side nelson mandela after the end of appar tide in south africa and representing the united nations she was one of four of the international election commissioners who organized afghanistan's first ever parliament tear elections in 2005. with the broad international experience, she's deeply rooted in alberta she practiced law for a number of years. she is elected to the e legislative assembly in 2008. she served as justice minister for three years and became leader of alberta's conservative party in october of 2011. she's very much at the fore front in her work in seeking the balance and indeed the partnership between energy development and environmental stewardship. so we are pleased to welcome you to brookings today.

thank you. [applause] [inaudible] [inaudible conversations] >> all right. thank you very much for being here today and thank you charlie and dan for hosting this event. which for us is exciting. the brookings institution is a place i have never spoken before. it is certainly an institution that is well known to many of us in canada. it's an honor to be here today with our canadian ambassador. i know, that while there are those of us in the room there's also a web cast. i welcome people that are watching online from the comfort of their own homes. it is a pleasure to be here. to be able to have a discussion in this room, which is truly

representative of one of the morse -- most trusted think tank in the united states. because this institution has a tremendously distin wished record of promoting shared solution and dialogue. with respect to the issues that matter the most to us in north america. not just because of the focus that we might have in our own jurisdictions with respect to the social policy and economic growth, but the fact we share priorities. canada, the united states have had a long relationship. and the priorities of this substitute energy and climate, energy security, global change, growth through innovation, are also the opportunity in the shared values we have in alberta. it's wonderful to be able to think about the opportunities that we have to change the way that we talk about energy, social development, and the environment. and every opportunity that we have to come together to do that, i think allows us to

better understand what our shared goals are and can be. right now the reason we're all here, the reason i'm here in your beautiful city, is because we're involved in witnessing the pretty heated discussions about what progress on those priorities that we've taunted should look like. the debate over keystone x l illustrates this point. this is a dan-u.s.pipe line. as everyone know it is will further build the ties we currently have between the united states and canada. and i want to emphasize that it's a joint canada-u.s. pipeline. pipelines have beginnings, they have ends, they cross borders, they cross jurisdictions. if we talk about the energy infrastructure and the pipeline infrastructure we have in north america, clearly this pipeline is part of that system. we think it's important for all of us as north north americans. it will bring a sizable amount

of new supplies not only to the united states bay sizable amount of new supplies from the backen formation in north dakota to the united states great refining centers. we're seeing divergent views about the project's impact. the benefit it will bring, and the ways it should be given to the needs of the of the environment and the economy. and the supposed cost of tilted toward one or the other. for the most part, i consider this conversation to be a healthy and very worthwhile process. at the end of the day, as citizens in our countries, we all need to be part of the decision making process. and we have to make sure that governments that are making decisions and leading responsible change can do it with a social license to operate. and we only get that from the people that we represent. but to be honest, one of the reasons i wanted to come this week is because the dialogue that is going on right now does suffer some fairly glaring

deficiencies. there are overshadowing certainly -- essential truths. and we need to make sure whatever our perspective might be on this project, we're talking about facts. the most basic truth is that the shark choice, the key keystone opponent put at the heart of the debate is an illusion. too many of the arguments deployed against keystone are far too far from reality. they proclaim that either you stand against the oil stance, or you write off the environment. along with any hope for sustainable existence. and that is completely wrong. i want to address alberta's approach to the environment first. being responsible steward of our natural resource is upper most in alberta's mind. we live in our province in our community just as everyone in north america. we know our quality life depends on the respect for the land we live in.

we accept that we're global citizens with responsibility to the planet we leave blind. and we have to be forthright with respect to that. and i am going to be forthright today. the truth is that alberta is home to some of the most environmentally friendly progressive legislation in the world. and you wouldn't know that from the clam more of the debate. we have nothing to hide, we're a democracy, we're transparent, and we'll talk about the facts. we'll talk about what our record has been. and i'll start by acknowledging the most basic one. energy does come with an environmental cost. since the production and the use, generate greenhouse gases that affect the climate. the oil contribute 21% of alberta's greenhouse gas emissions. 7% of canada's emissions, and less than 0.15% of global

emissions. the canadian in total produced less greenhouse gas emissions than the electricity power plants in ohio, in indiana, and even less than the agricultural state of iowa. and we're bringing our emissions down as far as quickly as possible. in 2008 alberta became the first jurisdiction in north america to require large industry to curve green house gas emissions through legislation. since 1990, alberta's energy industry has reduced greenhouse gas emissions per barrel of oil that is produced by an average of 29% and some facilities have achieved reductions as high as 50 percent. alberta's coal-fired power plant have lowered their emission by an amount e qvc lentd of taking 240,000 cars off the road and close up to a duivesz of our

plants over the next 17 years so we can replace them with cleaner alternative. our renewable fuel initiative mandate that the inclusion of alcohol and biodiesel in all of our fuel that is sold in the province is a requirement. and we're also pushing ahead with plans to capture and store as much of our carbon as possible. the government of alberta is providing 1.3 billion in funding for two large scale carbon capture projects. these are major commitments for a providence of only 3.8 million people. smaller than the metropolitan d.c. area. we're undertaking them because we know they are necessary and it's the right thing to. we're not just limiting pollution. we put a price on it. we've put on a price on carbon. since 2008, alberta's legislative price on carbon has helped to support 49 clean technology projects that include

a biogas project which generates electricity and steam for renewable natural gas formed by digestion of organic waste, reducing greenhouse gas emission, and oil pilot project which using water and electricity to separate oil from sands and clays that nearly eliminate onsite greenhouse gas emissions from oil sands production. of course, our opponents focus has always been on the oil sands. the government and the people of alberta hold producer accountable for every aspect in the oil sands. before any project begins, industry must develop and receive approval for closure plans that outline how effected areas will be reclaimed. then they have to post a reclamation bond as a further guarantee. currently government hold $1 billion in such bonds from industry.

and companies can only get that money back after they meet rigorous standards. reckreclamation uses local plant species to target the return of' cosystem. we test soil and monitor vegetation growth for at least fifteen years. only after we're satisfy nad the technology and ecology is returning to normal, can energy firms apply to receive their bonds back. as part of this, industry is planted 7.5 million tree seedlings. only 0.17% of alberta's total forest has ever been disturbed from oil sands development. and by law, every single inch of that must be reclaimed. and we don't stop there, the alberta government has brought in a plan for the oil sands which sets aside roughly 5 million acre of forest for conservation. total protected land in alberta

is larger than connecticut, rhode island, and d.c. combined. critics still point to the -- the by product of industry chemical separation process are stored. and they point to those as a reason to -- here too their claims simply aren't backed up by the fact. 80 percent of oil sands reserves are eases sai assessable only through methods. which involve separating them from the sand underground and pumping it to the surface. the resulting land disturbance is only 10 to 15% the size of a conventional mining operation. and it produces no -- the company who do use them completely halt growth of fluid tailings by two 2016 and process at the same rate they are produced thereafter. they disappear from alberta's landscape in the near future and

reclamation has begun. all of this is happening under the office of a world crass monitoring system jointly run with canada's federal government. this new system dramatically improves our ability to detect environmental changes and manage the impact of development. by the time it comes fully on stream in 2015, the system will include more site samplings over a larger area, a longer list of parameter and increase testing for by yo diversity for land, air, and water. it will be subject to external peer review by internationally acclaimed scientist and all data gathered will be made publicly available online in real time so that anyone can access the oil sands performance for themselves. this is all part of our integrated approach to resource

management. instead of studying impacts on a project by project basis. we are examining the combined effect of the work that takes place in the oil sands on existing and future development over the entire region. and this is how we will achieve the environmental and economic outcome that alberta people expect and ensure that we maintain our very important social license so we can continue to produce energy responsibly and transport it safely. now i know all of this is a lot to take in at once. but alberta has a strong record to defend. a very persuasive case to make an undenial need make it. the facts need to be on the table during the debate over keystone. we're an responsible energy producer and looking to develop the market and resources in a sustainable and thoughtful way to the benefit of both the buyer and the seller. that's the real story. canada and the u.s. share one of

the most integrated trade relationships in the world. after all, canada, the most important global export destination for thirty five states. over 8 million american jobs depend on trading and investment with dan. despite this country's expanding supply of oil, which i know everyone is excited about as are we. energy will remain a reality far long time to come. now there's much talk in the united states about energy independence. the only realistic way to see this is in terms of north american energy economy. north american energy independence that allows for close integration between our two countries because historically that has what has allowed our partnership to be most successful. almost 30% of u.s. oil imports now come from canada. without canada's almost 2

billion barrels a day from the oil sands there's no prospect of north american energy independence. it makes economic and environmental sense to get that energy from a trusted partner. unlike so many of your suppliers, alberta is part of a democratic nation, so your dollars go to support a free, and open society. and that is when they adopt come back to you. for every dollar that the u.s. spends on importing canadian oil, ninety cents returns to the american products. ..

if it is not canadian audio and the u.s. refinery, it would be venezuelan oil. they have of the environmental policy that we get inoperative to to sustainable energy develop it. imported oil is far less for the economy and u.s. jobs in canadian for. a verdict as have other options besides keystone and i doubt those are always part part of the discussions that go on. we know we can't get our product.

we know we can sell to customers around the world of their several proposals on the table, including each of the atlantic via paid, north via rail, pape's going there and this will allow us to achieve an even higher level of deliverable product to the developing world. this will prove vital to the growing global strategy that will allow for the developing world to get access to the resources be produced. we know that the world is thirsty for our energy, whether it's china or in you, our trading relationship in the investment is going on the time. but it's keystone that offers the most erratic and the most tangible rewards i hope that not

just washington, but americans across the country understand them and recognize the precautions all barda is taking allow for us to produce energy safely in an environmentally way. to that the recent remarks by president obama cannot win all barda but these north americans should never have to choose between jobs, economic growth in and energy security and strong environmental protection. we want to lead in most north american discussions. through our policies and actions past to my present and future, we will continue to demonstrate all barda is the safest, most secure and responsible energy supplier to the united states. when i travel around the world, we see that the best opportunity for us is to partner together, to make sure we are having a full commerce issued with respect to the option that face

us and picture or whatever we decide is based on real information and facts. one of the reasons are so fortunate in alberta to have you, we do is because of historic partnership with industry leaders in the united states boosting the potential of the north american energy economy could be, what is led to our great economic success. we share common values and beliefs that allow us to pull together the same direction and ensure we are building infrastructure that allows us to be sustainable in north america. that is ultimately what canada u.s. energy trade is about. that is what our friendship has been about our whole relationship has been about. we're striving to overcome some of the same challenges around sustainable growth as you are. we have a solution that is a

full accord with our economic, social and environmental values. it's a matter of putting facts to the dialogue. his information available to people who want to understand the choices we need to make in our life. the choices we need to make in order to continue to have the quality of life that has led to her success over the past 50 years. i've been to the head, i look forward to the question-and-answer session in the dialogue. at the end of the day, we have opportunity to change the conversation and i look forward to having that with you. thank you. [applause] >> paradise for just a couple

minutes. [inaudible] >> thank you. natch, premier redford. he sketched out a framework, which sub tens produced in a very fundamental way. the big surprise for many people as has a carbon tax. can you tell us how that carbon tax can about and when and so forth and how it works quite >> its legislative and started in 2007. it is a system that monitors emissions from large emitters and emitters -- [inaudible]

100,000 tons per year pay into a carbon fund, where he said we have a price on carbon. there are over 100,000 tons, which we then used to reinvest in technologies for more sustainable development of resources and were were taken another step planning forward to that investment what we think are important to them which are the technologies for energy efficiencies, public transportation in those castings. it's terribly important for us that we see actual impact from these projects which we invested in for the past two years. they've invested in 49 projects in some of them are not related directly to production, related to water, longer-term sustainability. from our perspective, this seems to make more sense than putting a general revenue.

>> premier, critics of keystone might say the last several weeks have not been particularly good for the oil industry vis-à-vis pipelines with the spells in the pegasus pipeline and of course several road tankers have an accident in minnesota. what do you say to critics who start the pegasus bill on a small-scale example of what might go wrong. >> would have to be honest about the fact that if we do have energy development, there is the risk of running fortunate incidents happening. and it is an unfortunate incident. it impacts people's life. we have the regulatory process and industry that is accountable for what it does. the other thing to take a look at this a pipeline is of course state-of-the-art technology. we want to render communities

and probably don't realize how much pape there is underground. we shouldn't be worried about that because the point is we don't know what they are because overall these are isolated incidents. as often as people might suggest they could. the other comment in the race in the context of railcars. braille is a very important part of the transportation network, the railcars also have risks. as you mention it can happen. without pipelines coming end up with awful lot of railcars come to carry products above ground and the risk of elevated. not to mention the impact on the nation. >> i think this is her fourth trip now to washington as premier. how do you find the discussion -- today you have a lot of discussions already. what strikes you about the nature of the debate going on? >> this is a discussion going on right now. we know the decision is closer

and closer. i'm not sure if that were necessarily talking about a lot of things that are different from what we're talking about in the past year and a half because what we've been talking about has been canada's commitment to environmental sustainability in respect to production. there's a number of people very engaged right now, knowing there's a possibility of a decision coming to share as much information as possible. >> since the first rejection of the pipeline last year -- [inaudible] the boom in u.s. oil production has continued unabated with production estimated to continue rising at the fastest rate in the history this year. from your perspective, how has this urgent production south of the border effect did the debate

around keys down, particularly when it comes to the energy security case for the pipeline? >> it's interesting because we know the united states has always been a loyal customer of canada as we talked about before, 30% of imports are coming here -- experts coming here. i think it's really important that the united states has a conversation with respect to energy security and sustainability. i just don't think anyone benefits from living in isolation. if we take a look at production of resources, you see at the beginning increased escalation with effect to production in some cases there's ups and downs intact knowledge he always different ways to discover resources. there is always talk about self-sufficiency by 2020. there's also the opportunity to

continue to be integrated. in terms of the work we see going on in the united states, there's incredible activity around production and i think you'll continue to see upgrading and refining happening. it's never been successful only within national borders. we see in north america generally an integrated transportation system and integrated refining system that allows for much more economic opportunity. i'm not think anyone should live in isolation. >> in your remarks you talked about up until now the oil is gone south. he talked about it going east, west and north. you give us a sense of are the discussion stands in those projects and do they go ahead whether or 60s don't? >> one thing that's fascinating about industry and market this

industry will always find a market. within the last six or seven months tremendous innovation with respect to transporting products to market them as we talked about earlier, some of that by rail. we pipeline projects while on the go for some time to west coast, to the east coast. there's a pipeline right now almost fully built in canada takes our product through new brunswick and that is a pipeline that's almost completely built with a 100-mile section. they're very engaged in making that happen. they have opportunities to sell existing pipelines going north possibly through alaska. there are different stages. keystone itself is expected to be able to shift for a number of years, so there's still lots of

opportunity for the project to get to market. we got projects in different stages right now that would allow for the export of the products. >> we want to go to the floor in just a second. let me ask another question if i may. after publication of the state department's, their environmental review found the pipeline would have minimal greenhouse gas impacts in emissions and now focusing on the quantitative impact of the pipeline and symbolic dimension. if a president obama should block the pipeline and send a message about climate change and demonstrate the rest of the road the u.s. is taking some actions at emissions mitigations. how do you respond to that? >> green, green jobs!

>> sorry for that promotion. excuse us for the interruption, but i think we see this as a passionate thing. >> i miss the last part of the question. >> sorry. people were saying the president shows the serious about climate change innings to take a bold, dramatic action. >> i think everyone needs to take action. we know in the united states there is an action taken. today on the elders confirmation hearings with respect to possible new secretary of energy and these are exactly the questions being asked. should there be a price on carbon, carbon capture and storage. we keep stats and research placing tremendous progress in the united states. there could be more. even consumers take different

status with respect to their commitment to public transit. but i don't think one particular project is to symbolize the whole piece. it's important to build technologies and be greeting the energy economy. as important to be investing in things that carbon capture and storage and have a price on carbon. you can do all of those things, but still allow the pipe to go ahead because so have such a significant impact on economic development and growth in the united states. >> let me read you one of the questions from the floor. the impact statement by the u.s. state department is building a pipeline will only create 35 full-time jobs in the u.s. how do you rectify this number with a 75,000 jobs decided? had economic benefits and exaggerated in the person concludes, thank you. >> that is a number in the

environmental impact report. that's absolutely true. that's the number associated with the people that would actually be operating the control room that would run the pipeline and monitor the pipeline. that the number was 100, so that you get clarity with respect to statistics. construction jobs you have as a result of this in the midwestern refineries around chicago. 90% of the volume going through this refineries have oil right now. this is not short-term and this is an isolated. is that about a ripple effect on the economy that allows people in communities across the united states to have economic growth and employment and they certainly been the case in alberta. one in six jobs is directly tied to the energy industry. you see the development of what is going on in north dakota,

just how much wealth in activity and economic growth areas as the result of these projects. as i said, the pipeline also supports that activity, that growth and getting that product to market and refineries as well. i think our numbers are closer to the truth of the long-term and we talked about what that to the next 25 years because that is long-term economic growth. >> i'm not sure this is true. but the question is asking you, can you confirm you are looking to raise the carbon levy in alberta? is so, i'll y now? >> well, we think it's important to have carbon. we are very pleased with how to work in the way we been able to use the technology.

we continue to have dialogue. we talk about this essentially a job almost once a month to sit down with the federal government to make sure we are creating a system that allows for real impacts with respect to environmental sustainability and economic growth. we've taken leadership on that and work closely with the federal government committee set of gas regulation that too was part of the dialogue talking about what our carbon price can do for technological development and economic growth. that is part of our ongoing conversation. the second half of the question was what? >> whether the federal government should be taken stronger action. >> our view is the federal government is and they said the discussions we have a regular basis around things like the oil and gas regulation, so far as it is an evolving process. i will say i was getting reports

that some of the confirmation hearings on the hill and one of the questions asked or should there be a price on carbon? the discussion seemed to be going towards him not being considered right now. at all if it will be, but everyone is having discussions right now. we are having a washington is that many people across this country are having a. >> others have questions. the process to select your card and someone will come by and collect it. there's several questions related to energy exporters. one of the questions of some of the keystone accel will be exported, also others have asked about the trade-off between canadian oil and venezuelan oil. >> i will speak more about

venezuelan oil. i think i spoke to at in terms of our concerns with respect to how that is in place around the pure i heard a radio ad this morning that talked about how keystone was going to export oil to venezuela. i've got to think that not likely when you're importing oil from venezuela right now into refineries on the gold coast. silicon, a good example of factual inaccuracy. from our perspective, we think the refineries currently in place has built historically -- am i still on? to actually work fine product, to refine the heavy oil that is produced out of alberta and still have very long lines for continuing economic growth and activity and there's no reason

to presume. some of the will of companies to to make decisions, some of which are produced in the united states and upgraded impossibly exported. i guess that's a possibility, but the experience of what is her kind of event dates has partly been refined and refineries have been built as a domestic function. whether that changes or not, i think would be wise to presume that it would. the thing i do know right now because i refineries that continue to be able to produce this resort, which is only supplied at the moment by the oil. >> is perhaps an interesting question. what prevents a large expansion of refine the in alberta? >> that is going back to the effect that it's made a lot of sense for the product sector to build refineries in the united

state, in communities where people have the skills and the interest in doing the work. we found in terms of how we develop resources that that makes economic sense for us because it is the most effect way to transport a project -- the product. we do some refining canada and will continue to do some of that, but her approach is its most important to provide the product to customers asked for and what we deal with in the united states is tremendous demand for the oil produced for the refinery, particularly on the gold coast. >> you've noted significant investment by asian countries and canadian oil sands. obviously that implies the pipeline routes to the west, to the pacific. can you give us a sense of the nature of the political discussion going on about

pipeline and how you assess prospects? >> one thing i'll say before that his stomach the assumption that fatty pipe last to go to asia. if you're exporting out of new brunswick, is a shorter distance than if you export out of the west coast. we checked it out. it's absolutely true. should be nice doesn't increase the cost of transportation chicken in the product to asia significantly at all. in terms of the west coast pipeline, our sense is there's a guy going on bright on british columbia about a way that is very different than it was a year ago. there is really an appreciation for the fact there's been a regulatory process that the information provided. or so optimistic the product will get regulatory approval and

we think at that time there's going to have to be probably through the next couple of months -- more public discussion about the same issue are talking about here. it's imperative people are part of the conversation. probably slightly delayed, the still opportunity for that. >> if we had a pipeline to the west coast, is there any prospect ironically that the proponents of the pipeline -- is there any possibility that oil could be shipped to refineries in california and have the capability to process. >> i don't know if that would make sense for a company making commitments into a west coast pipeline to go to asia markets. but i guess i wouldn't really want to go too far down that path because i think these are

becoming incredibly strange and complicated scenarios that don't really get us much further ahead. i don't know if they would make economic sense at the end of the day. i just don't know the answer to that. >> were still thinking about the east coast and trying to process. is the debate over keystone effect in the pace of development and will it affect the development, a question that's come up on a couple cars. >> what we are seeing is the continuing growth in one of the things the state department said as if keystone didn't go ahead, we wouldn't really see much of a slowdown with respect to production. that's my senses you mentioned nature investments being made in the oil sands right now. we see capacity ramping up 2022

probably 3 million barrels and i think that's going to continue. we don't see any reason why that is going to slow down. as we said, we know innovative private investors are able to get products to market and we see continuing global demand for the product. we don't for see any drop in production as a result of these successions. >> with several questions here comes tightly different, but they all relate to how a projection affect u.s. canadian diplomatic relations and relations between the business communities? >> i don't know if i can answer that with the ambassadors sitting in the front row. i'd make a couple of comments. i'm glad there's a second part of that question because something else remember that i didn't talk about my speech is

there's economic opportunities and growth in process as a result of interest to u.s. companies have. i think there's a very tight relationships. at a business level, everyone in the business community understands completely with the opportunity solder and they work very closely together. i have someone described to me what they thought of possible outcome could be if there was a decision not to proceed with keystone. they said we shouldn't make the assumption that the decision was not to proceed with keystone, and i would simply made the matter is still on the table. prefix or answer trading partners on issues like softwood lumber, were even know there was a direct dialogue going on with respect to the issue, it's tended to come up again and again in other discussions and

you probably were a premier jury with some of those discussions. it would be a lot more helpful because i think if it didn't come it would end up becoming a part of ongoing conversations and that would be disappointing because there's too many other issues we need to discuss and the ashamed to let that sit the middle of it. >> world price may be over $100 a barrel, but it isn't for alberta or oil being produced in the center of the united states. what is happening with your budget? >> retied challenging times we have coined the phrase and affiliates had an impact on our

revenue. we've expected probably this year alone that because of that differential that we are probably seeing a $6 billion drop in nagano and that's why it is imperative for us. >> for the provincial government. >> our annual budget is $38 million. so $6 billion is quite significant for us. whether you're producing in alberta are the center of the united states can make getting that to world market is very important and must be important for both of us. >> echoes back to the fact and the logistics are connect it. >> poseur statistic and so keystone what i busman 1%.

[inaudible] >> that's why were doing something about it. [inaudible] >> would be delighted if you put a question in writing. >> pass up a question. >> be polite about it. we'll be happy to answer your question. do we have one on the floor? here's one that some other people who may be opposed to the

pipeline might enjoy hearing the previous design. as he talk about shared solutions and shared priorities regarding the economic and if it's at the pipeline project, what is the plan of action regarding the care solutions for any environmental damages that might occur with the transformation of the oil and export of the oil. future research priorities regarding conservation and these concerns. >> is one of the reasons the regulatory process is so important and we have very rigorous regulatory frameworks about how we conduct themselves and build infrastructure and how they need to be accountable for the consequences of adverse circumstances. we think these are really the shared values brd have with the united states and the united states also has very strong

regulatory process and that's one of the reasons for going through all of this right now. in terms of share priority, i think they are already there. there's always work we can do happen in canada and united states about how to continue to enhance the response two cleanups when they need to. we want to make sure we're partnered on not and i know when those circumstances have occurred, that there are systems in place developed in joint partnership, whether it's an emergency response system to do with these issues. >> kalakaua industry has responded -- at about the name of that, that thing people are cooling their intellectual property. >> the acronym i never remember all the words were.

[inaudible] thank you very much. it's really interesting because it was something that started about three and half years ago. industry came together and said we know there's issues we need to deal with that we can afford to be competitive on. if were talking about sustainable development, we don't want to be playing around with adding competing with each other around the stick ologies. said industry has come together and shared their property with respect to the production and approaches and techniques with the sustainable development and extraction of conventional resources that we don't end up competing against each other and have an adverse impacts the environment it's been very important and really was led by industry three or four years ago now.

>> before proceeding, i would just like to say something. brookings institution and i may so personally great pride we are informed whatever the subject matter being discussed at all these have an opportunity to be heard. we do not buy any endorsement of panama we have support or reject the views of our guest speakers, but we would hope, courtesy would allow all people to submit legitimate questions on either side of this debate to us and we will try to get them in the remaining time. let me ask the next question. a questioner says i understand you are one of three premieres on a canadian energy strategy. could you talk about what that made the analogous strategy best dovetail what might be done in the united states? >> is interesting because in canada we have a different jurisdiction and in the united states and canada.

and so for us to come together to talk about energy is very important because as i said before, i don't think any jurisdiction can live in isolation when it comes to integrating an energy economy. a lot of people in some of the first meetings took place in winnipeg, which is the ambassador city he was formally approved the arrest, where people came together to talk about what we were each doing in our prejudices around a number of issues, things like environmental sustainability, the green grid, however quick hydro and develop conventional resources, whether we share technologies to research and how to do with issues around environmental impact survey came together to develop what we think would be concrete examples of how to do a better job and connect them in partnering on energy. we are very preliminary

discussions with respect to how to create investment incentives that would allow for large industry players to come in and investigate and a commercially viable carbon capture and storage. so that's important not only in terms of economic growth, but what we want to do in creating a greener economy. the challenge i guess in the united states from what i've seen in the western governors association's meetings is of course energy is more a federal issue than it is for a state to deal with. what i see from the western governors i talk to is a real drafters wanted to have the same conversation in the same source of opportunity for policy developed in. regardless of who has jurisdiction over the resources, you've got to have both her federal government and also state or provincial jurisdictions at the table to

tack about how to connect these pieces that make sense for people in our communities. >> charlie said hurricanes is about a recent discussion in beit an exchange of views and sharing different is with the emphasis on the word reason. within that context, you laid out but i think to a lot of people here was not really well-known. not just the carbon tax, but the extent of the ricker of the environmental regulation that exists in alberta. does that seem to use strange that's not been heard of -- does not seem to have been much part of the discussion on this topic. >> as we've seen, people get emotional about these issues because they are very close to people's hearts and usually when

that happens, we end up reverting to the most simple information that we have. i remember once when i got involved in politics very early on, someone helping me get ready for a debate told me when you're asked a question, you're never supposed to start answering by saying that the complicated issue. that this is a complicated issue. [inaudible] all of the things we are doing and are part of what we have to do in order to make the economy grow and develop a net in environmentally sustainable way. even the ones who say green jobs are important. our imports into wearies and technology funds to develop alternative renewables to work on wind and solar and even carbon capture and storage is

invested to find better solutions around these issues. so we are doing that they are all interconnected. we have to keep using every opportunity we have detected that these issues. >> we have a question, which asks beyond the impact in canada, what is at stake with respect to keystone pipeline in the oil sands development were generally? >> one of the things were talking about here is that the impact can be and will be on environmental sustainability is. it does a important economic growth. i think as north american citizens that we are fortunate to live where we live, and that we have obligations of leaders in the world to demonstrate we can be thoughtful and forward thinking, but it's also in terms

of overall economic performance of the world. if you look at the contribution we make as global citizens to other countries and the roles we play in diplomatic relations, it's important for us to ensure we have a growing and thriving economy to play that role in the world. so it's a little esoteric, but it is their responsibility in terms of who we are as global citizens. >> the pipeline would carry not only canadian oil, but pick up oil from the formation of the united states for there's been such great growth. do you have a dialogue of the states about this? >> many of us do in different levels. i know the minister of intergovernmental affairs spends

more time traveling along the border than i do. we are always involved in those discussions. i was down here last time, about two months ago, a month and a half ago and we had an opportunity to speak to most of those governors along the borders in terms of not only keystone, but also in terms of pay plans to the east. i think there's a real sense of appreciation that is a pretty notional border in terms of economic infrastructure. in some ways that dialogue has probably been more predominate in even the east-west dialogue for some time. >> we have a question. i'll try to paraphrase it because it's a bit long, but it's essentially asking within the whole production and the transport of oil sands and the refining of oil sands, do we have an estimate of the buses

contribute to climate change by these various processes click >> were starting to be very good work on that and it's an important question and is part of where the dialogue needs to go. it's one of the things we've done in the state department referred to it as we started to do work with respect to land use plans, which means for taking a global on what is happening when impact on water, land and air in the entire production. but if we look at construction products along the path of the pipeline, we need to ask those questions in the context of a regular industrial activity looks like. again, it will have an impact. there is no doubt. it's an impact far exceeded by the economic opportunities we see in the long run. >> i have a long question here.

i think you answered in your speech, but how can develop the tar sands at the same time quite >> we are. they continue to address emissions. we sent a mission targets and place technology funds, a price on carbon. as i said come or investing in carbon tax to make sure we are taking this matter very weak. we are not only able to achieve it, we are taking action to do that and we hope other jurisdictions will do the same. >> you may not feel comfortable answering this because it may be confidential conversation, but we have a question on your visit here and conversations with american officials, what do you hear the remaining reasons for continued delay about making an assessment one way or the other on the pipeline?

>> we know there's a regulatory process in place in the united states and citizens are taken as seriously, governments take it seriously and we are taking it seriously. we are here to make sure the information is available. quite honestly from my desk, i'll sit down and have a detailed back and forth on this issue is with the political representatives were talking to because at the end of the day, fundamentally is a decision that the united states and elect officials. from my dad is very much about the perspective the voices are heard and steps are taken for the decisions are made can be satisfied with where the other. >> with answered all the cars that have given to us.

i want to thank premier redford for discussions to questions from the audience and thank you all very much for coming. one more thing -- two more things also. >> one more final word if there's anything else you want to say? i ask all of you to remain seated while the premiere exits. [applause] >> the president has no doubt whatsoever that the voices of the newtown families and the voices of americans across the country that we raised this week as part of an effort to urge the

senate to move forward and not block procedurally progress on this legislation with a positive effect and may well have been decisive. the president has said all along and you heard him on hartford on monday that congress will do the right thing if the american people speak up, if they raise their voices, if they make their views known. it's not about him. it's about the american people and with the right common sense thing is to do when it's taken action to gun violence. as i said, this is an important milestone, but it is an early milestone and there's no question challenges to be placed in the way of progress on passing legislation that would

reduce gun violence. we are obviously very pleased with today's vote. spin after the president president have real concern about the ammunition clips are things that will not move forward? >> the president believes those are commonsense proposals. reinstatement of the assault weapons ban makes eminent sense. military style assault weapons are not available on the streets of the united states to be a commonsense approach that does not infringe upon the american second amendment rights, limiting the size of the ammunition clip will save lives than it is not an infringement on the second amendment right of the american people. the president strongly supports second amendment rights. he insists is the american people and says of the victims

in tucson and aurora and oak creek on hud's a vote on the aspects of the legislation and do not filibuster or use procedural measures to avoid being held to account. they should vote no on explain why. an of what is really happening. >> he said of the senate passes gun legislation, posada to the judiciary committee, not strictly to the house floor. speaker bonners news briefing this 10 minute.

>> good afternoon, everyone. the president released his budget yesterday and has been talking recently. as we've seen many times now, hope has again become a disappointment. the president calls this his compromise budget. his bottom line is this, my way or the highway. if that's the case, i'm not very optimistic. the president and i weren't able to reach an agreement last year because every offer he made was skewed in favor of higher taxes. this plan is no exception. his opening offer last year and last fall was $1.6 trillion in new revenues and a final offer was $1.3 trillion. this budget would mean a total of $1.7 trillion in new

revenues. that i compromise. it's a step backwards. and you can't portray a budget of compromise when it ignores the spending problem here in washington. the house and senate budget committees have looked at the numbers and found this site only reduces the deficit by around $100 billion over the next 10 years. it's just not serious. rather than cutting spending, this plan in greece as it by nearly a trillion dollars. and i repeat, it increases spending by $964 billion over the current law. but down, i don't think is a serious effort addressing washington spending problem. the president budget calls for more than a trillion dollars. beyond the tax hike. it's not going to cost our

economy more jobs. first of all, the budget never balances. never, ever comes to balance. we spent more money than we've taken in for 55 of the last 60 years. no business in america can survive like that. no household in america can survive like that and our government can't survive if we continue to spend money we don't have. all the budget does this preserve the status quo. it's time to look at the cost drivers and stop the spending here in washington. i encourage the president acknowledged her safety net programs are unsustainable, but only offer a modest reforms. there's nothing close to what we need in order to preserve these programs and put ourselves on a path to balance the budget. and still it's a step back what he agreed to a year and a half

ago. there's no reason we can't make incremental progress where we agree. that's why the president take it or leave it approach is disappointing. as the president himself has said that democrats and republicans agree on something, it should be easy to get it done. let's agree to do what we all agree upon. is that the president's words. now he wants to hold these modest reforms hostage for another round of tax increases. it's no way to compromise, no way to move the country forward and frankly the weight of the. >> he called the obama budget in attack on seniors. we need to rate entitlement spending. are republicans going to run against democrats next year are trying to slow the growth of entitlement spending? >> i've made it clear i disagree with what chairman walden said. he and i have had a conversation

about it and i expect this is the least we must do to begin to solve the problems in social security. [inaudible] >> chairman walden and i have had conversations that will leave it up. >> how now that the senate is moving forward -- [inaudible] >> i've made it clear that if the senate passes a bill, the house will certainly review it. patricia chery kameny said hearings at the energy and commerce committee and the mental illness issue. i would expect of the senate doesn't have it though but i was senate to to the judiciary committee for an open hearing and further deliberations. but we have kameny structure in

the house, regular order is the appropriate way to do this though. i am back >> i've never been purchased a blanket, make a commitment. when i don't know what the product is, i fully expect to the house will act on legislation in the coming months. but i want this to go through regular order and i want the judiciary committee to take the time to look at what the senate does produce, assuming they produce an amen had numbers on both sites review that and make their determinations. >> the same as calling for an down vote. does that have an effect on us at all? >> hearts and prayers go out to the families of these thick gems. i fully expect that the house will act in some way, shape or

form. but to make a blanket commitment without knowing what the underlying bill is, it would be irresponsible in my part. the senate has to approve the bill. when they produce a bill, we will review it and take it from there. [inaudible] >> it's an issue for the 22 years i've been in congress. the thing we have to remember is that laws are only as good as her citizens willingness to obey them. law-abiding citizens to activate them. criminals don't obey them. in addition to that, we've got a system of laws that are not enforced today. i would think before we had marbles and regulations on law-abiding citizens that we at least expect law enforcement

personnel in the department of justice to enforce the current laws, which they are not doing. [inaudible] [inaudible] >> reporting on what the author is. the president now is what made to be done. he knows that we can't continue to spend money we don't have. this year the federal government will bring in more revenue than any year in the history of our country. and yet we will still have a trillion dollars budget deficit. we have a spending problem. we have entitlement programs

that sustainable and our current form. they need to be medications. it's time for us to get serious about it. [inaudible] >> i've never withdrawn it. i don't know where it is. you probably reported on it. >> primary standard speaker of the house, would he think is a more important issue that has realistic action on this congress? immigration or gun control? >> are those the only two options? >> there's a lot of important issues that the american people want us to address. yes, the issues of gun is a hot issue today. so with immigration. i would argue one of the biggest challenges facing us as her long term structural debt product. it's hurting the economy today, holding down wages.

there's a lot of things we need to deal with. >> the house bill on any of those three? >> certainly my prerogative or intention is to always pass those with strong republicans. on the imac's >> there's a number of companies working on issue now. ..