at some of the cases decided by the supreme court in its most recent term.

we will hear discussion on the technology that could be used to build consumer drums. -- consumer drones. >> this week on "newsmakers," the canadian ambassador to the dates and in studio, we have josh letterman of the associated press and ben geiman. ask, the wanted to keystone pipeline has been such a contentious and prominent topic. i want to give the viewers a sense and ask you why this pipeline is so important and such a priority for the canadian government? >> it's a priority for the american public as well. support, labor, business, war veterans supporting it. so we have great support here in the united states. we have had senate votes in favor of it in-house votes in favor of it.

all we have to get now is a license from the state department and the president. we think it makes more sense to pipelineon and in a than on rail. delayed, oilbeen is coming down to the united states from north dakota and montana to the gulf coast but it's coming down on rail. on oil shipments it,ail. when you look at rail has a purpose in transporting some energy products, the smaller refineries, we believe. for a large shipment of oil, we believe that rail is less energy-efficient and has higher greenhouse gases and the safety comparisons are pretty stark in the state department report and it has higher costs. we thank on the basis of

science, if the decision is made on science, it's yes. if it's made on politics, it's delay and god knows what after that. host: why is it important to the canadian people? the people who said it was stay on the ground of the pipe is not approved, the statements of fallen like a house of cards with the 900% increase on oil by rail.

it's a pretty straightforward message. >> your government has been vocal in pushing the united states to approve this pipeline. despite the efforts, it has been 5.5 years and it has not been approved. the state department has jurisdiction over this because it crosses the international border. how much of a diplomatic risk to join the united states and canada has this ongoing delay cost? >> we just don't like the goalpost changing. there are comparable greenhouse gases and that it was supposed to deal with the sandhill portion of the aquifer in nebraska. that has been amended. ago and thek a year president's speech at georgetown university with no impact on graham had -- greenhouse gases -- the state department on the basis of science basically states that when the president says no to the pipeline, he is saying yes to higher greenhouse

gases between 28-40 two percent when you compare to the mode of transportation is being used now and that's rail. be the want science to determining factor. >> you mentioned the nebraska issues. the obama administration says the most recent delay has nothing to do with politics or the midterms or not wanting to make his decision but it's about the legal maneuvering and in nebraska, that could affect decisions in the future. or you buy that? >> there is always legal maneuvering going on. there is a little more in the united states. sometimes you have one lawyer behind every cherry blossom in washington. we believe the international border between canada and montana -- montana has already agreed to this. cases in theof southern portion of the pipeline that the president and curis that the red tape the reduced in

the southern portion of the pipeline be approved. there are court cases all over but if all of them were dealt with in handled and managed and now the pipeline is open -- we would have less congestion in cushing, oklahoma north america. >> is this a political delay? >> we think the border is in montana and therefore we would believe strongly that the jurisdiction is on that border and we think the president can act accordingly as the person in charge. science not politics. >> this has been such a heavy diplomatic priority for the canadian government for several years now. time, the view among the industry and others is that this oil is going to get to market one way or another and is going to be extracted from alberta one way or the other and

get to market. if that is indeed the case and if you are going to be able to sell this oil anyway and get it to market, why spend so much diplomatic capital on this project? >> i spend a lot of diplomatic capital answering questions of the media. that takes the most much of our time. as a diplomat working with the united states and the white house, we are working on -- we have been allies since the war of 1812 so we are working on a lot of situations together whether it was libya a few years ago, transitioning out of afghanistan in an orderly way and working together on sanctions with iran, being together on the ukraine in the crimea, the invasion that took place from russia. we're also spending our time on trying to improve the balance between efficiency at the border and risk.

isot of time that we spend on the life and death areas where we are working together which is generally very constructive. this is an area, obviously, going from 84-85 pipelines between our two countries, we -- i never thought this was a major environmental issue just because somebody says it is and it does not make it so. existingre are pipelines between the two countries. >> canada just of rude the gas a gasne -- just approved pipeline in the last couple of years because that is the canada-u.s. trade agreement. it treats this as a commercial trading relationship. we have actually displaced with pennsylvania gas some gas coming from alberta and a pipeline to ontario because it is more affordable for our consumers. having approved pipelines myself

as the equivalent of a governor, it would make sense to have a safer route, savor method of transportation and that's what pipelines are. there are 84 of them already. host: can't these other companies build pipelines or have greater capacity? why keystone xl? >> it's a pipeline that was intended by the private market to displace venezuelan oil on the gulf coast because that was considered not to be as reliable as canadian and north dakota and montana oil. this is not just canadian oil on this pipeline. it was canadian oil that was considered to be a little more dependable than some of the situations in the middle east. that was the original business case for this pipeline. and it went to the aquifer the second set of goalposts we had to take the ball through and now we are into no impact on ghd

- a check on that from the state department scientists. everybody talks about climate change and science. all we want is the decision to be made on science and merit and not on hyperbole and hype. >> this decision am of this pipeline has been under review at the state department for years and years. saidthe prime minister has that if the white house were to reject this been he said even that it is not the end of the topic and there would be an effort to work with another administration. if this administration were to , if there is no decision made, have you begun reaching out at all to either hillary clinton or some of the potential republican white house candidates to see where they are on this? guest: i think she has been very artful and having questions being posed and not interfering

with her success at the state department. i'm not even going to begin to suggest that we would want to get into the middle of what mayor may not happen in 2016 and before then. the answer is no, she is -- she ran the state department for four years and the scientists that worked for her and work for secretary kerry - the scientists wrote a report that says greenhouse gases without a pipeline will be higher and higher risk without a pipeline and higher cost. just recently, there was another report in minnesota. the president was there and i hope he read the report. in dealing with another pipeline, it makes more sense to have oil in a pipeline because if you don't, it will go on rail -- this is the minnesota report to their public utilities commission -- not only is it higher emissions on rail in the state of minnesota but it is also crowding out the

transportation of grain, minerals, and other goods in minnesota on rail. i hope everybody emma when they were in minnesota last week in air force one landed there, they read the minnesota report actually considers just which actually concurs with their own report. host: how would you describe environmental groups in the united states? guest: they put a lot of stock -- it is a big industry in washington -- a lot of people raising money all the time. they basically asserted or claimed that if the pipeline was not approved the oil would stay in the ground. well, three years later, has anybody asked them they are wrong? they will not confirm the reality that by the pipeline being delayed in canada, in north dakota, and in montana --

this is not just a canadian pipeline. oil andincludes other they put it onto rail. the unintended consequences of their opposition has been higher greenhouse gases and higher risk. those trains going through your community in the united states or in canada, there is a link between delaying and denying a pipeline and the 900% increase in crude oil on rail through your city or your community. i wanted to ask about north american energy independence more broadly. with the situation in iraq right now and brent crude prices at a nine-month high, how much does some of this instability in the middle east play into our deliberations here on this continent about our energy security? guest: i think it's quite exciting what is going on in the united states to begin with on energy. it starts with energy efficiency. states,a and the united

the same energy efficiency standards has been worked on for cars. this anddent worked on in canada we get higher energy efficiency standards for vehicles. that is number one for being more energy independent in north america. number two is renewables. canada has about 63% renewables for electrical generation. we believe that is very important. number three is the development in a safe way of gas, shale gas and we think we have some technology in canada with some of the companies that are doing that successfully. we know this controversy in the united states and we respect the sovereign debate going on. and fourthly, the amendment of the constitution to mexico just recently, a courageous decision by their leader, the development in texas and oil from

canada, we think it provides all of us the opportunity to have less dependence on the middle east. and that's exactly what the scientists at the state department stated. when you look at iraq coming back to your question, the five years of state department reports, they have said this over and over and been -- -- over and over again -- that canada is more reliable as a provider in the middle east. >> given that the white house or puts the department review on hold for a while why the legal issues about the rapid nebraska are sorted out, from a tactical standpoint or from a logistical standpoint, are you still making the case to the white house and the state department? are they still reaching out to your government? or has everything gone completely on

ice? guest: the only thing that has not stood still is the fact that are contained in the state department report written by scientists that said clearly that would come down on rail. so every month, there is a delay in the white house, there is an increase in oil by rail. and every month there is a delay in the white house, there is, by definition, an increase in ghd's because it's higher than pipelines on rail. every month we lose an opportunity to hire more workers to build the pipeline. nothing stands still in terms of real people. the political debate does not stand still because the facts keep changing consistent with the scientific reviews that have been conducted in the united states.

canada does not have to make up arguments in the interim because we have the state department report. i am using u.s. government state department scientists as my " talking points" not something that comes from canada. host: the environmental groups in the united states keep fighting this. is the administration too beholden to environmental groups? guest: it's labor that wants to get this thing going. if i make a that claim in three years later it proves to not be correct, i should be held accountable. if you make a claim that the oil will stay in the ground however sincerely you make that claim, and three years later it just comes down a rail, somebody has to have a backbone to tell it like it is. host: should that be the president? hostthe state department scient. guest: the president says he will use scientist to determine

the policy and climate change and energy development in the united states. we say hallelujah. use the scientists that provided those reports. >> you mentioned greenhouse gases -- for a long time, the canadian government has been planning to have some kind of new federal regulations on greenhouse gas emissions in the oil and gas sector. the making years in but when do you anticipate those regulations finally coming forward? we went ahead earlier with coal regulations. 10% ofdown to close to electrical generation from coal right now. i think the united states is up at 38% and planning to be at about 30% by 2030. on what weogether call black carbon with secretary clinton in the past to deal with some of the vulnerabilities in the arctic region of the united states and canada. and we work together on light

vehicle emission standards and on heavy vehicles like trucks. we believe we should have one table for oil and gas regulations with the u.s. border goes across the to canada, montana, north dakota, manitoba, saskatchewan -- gas is being developed in pennsylvania and ohio and other places in the united states. we have gas in canada. we have proposed in writing to secretary kerry, i reconfirmed the prime minister's statement that we would like to work with one oil and gas regulation table like we did on light vehicle emission standards. we are not sure the u.s. is going to do that. they may just keep it at the state level. that is their sovereign right to do. we have over to work together with the u.s.

we didn't want to have one energy efficiency standard for for an once of the border and another standard made by ford on the side of the border. proceed as we must. it is a challenge for us. we have succeeded quite well as i say on the coal and renewable energy side but we recognize that we cannot stand still on oil and gas regulations. with the to do it assets we have across both sides of the border with the united states. are you going to wait for an answer first from the u.s. about the proposal about a joint regulation or are you going to ultimately plow ahead with your own sector specific regulations? guest: that's an interesting term.

we did that with coal because we could. us, we have the example -- we did light vehicles together because it's across the border. cars are manufactured on both sides of the border. oil is on both sides of the border. policies are on both sides of the border. land reclamation policies for oil extraction and gas extraction can exist on both sides of the border. we prefer to have -- the best way to do it this is an partnership like we did -- we announced the light vehicle emissions standards by working together. we announced them the same day, the same hour, in the segmented as the white house. that's what we would like to do. with ozone depleting materials a few years ago and that's still the best and preferred way for canada to work with united states. knots.e have about five

-- about five minutes left. having interest in china and russia sending in surveillance teams and flyovers, how confident are you that canada is capable of defending its claims to that territory? guest: canada and the united states are part of norad together and we have a perimeter defense security agreement and have had for 55 years. we have joint exercises in the arctic. we are both on the arctic council. canada is chairing it now and the united states takes over in april 2015. have a very positive and constructive working relationship with the arcticstates in terms of

sovereignty. there is a disagreement about sea but there is a technical group assigned to map out the sea as part of the arctic. we strongly maintain our sovereignty on the northwest passage in the arctic but we sierra cells is partners with the united states and partners on perimeter security. when you raise questions about countries like russia that are on the other side of the arctic ocean but very much a part of the arctic region. >> when you look at russia and some of their actions in ukraine and the region, are you concerned they could set their sights on the arctic next? guest: i think there are countries that reside in the arctic in countries that don't. you mentioned china. in the arcticns so i think it is important to work together with united states on the norad perimeter security

technicalwork on delineation of the border issues because the united states is not a signatory to the law of the sea which canada is in terms of arbitrating disputes. we can resolve it together bi laterally. host: what do you make of the cease-fire being over in ukraine? what do you make of the united states'actions to try to stop presidentputin? guest: we are with the united states and/or other european friends on sanctions. i think canada and the united states actually have more ability to provide capacity to do it some of the sanctions because of our energy situation. compared to some other countries that are more dependant on russian energy.

we are very much working together daily with the state department, with the pentagon, and the white house encore knitting our efforts. host: you think they are doing enough? guest: well, when you look at sanctions with iran, eventually they brought iran to the table. we will see where the sanctions as to what comes out on july 20 on the negotiations and we hope we are successful in reducing the capacity to build a nuclear weapon and that country. -- in that country. it's too early to say but we are participating together with the u.s. and our other allies on financial sanctions. host: do you agree with the president's decision in iraq to send back in advisers? guest: we were part of the effort in kuwait.

we were with the united states in kuwait. we were with united states together and afghanistan. we did not go to iraq. oft: there is this threat terrorism coming out of iraq that could impact many different countries. do you think it was right for the ministers and to go back in? guest: i'm not going to second-guess the administration. to all of these situations, there is no easy door to go through. we were working with united states and other allies on syria and we still have to get the accounting for the reduction of chemical weapons and we are putting in money to the humanitarian efforts including over $200 million into jordan for all the refugees that are there regrettably. i'm not going to second-guess the president on this and nor would canada. host: thank you very much for being part of "newsmakers." host: we are back with our

reporters. what is going on between the canadian government and this white house over the keystone pipeline? >> this is a big point of tension between the two countries. the ambassador tried to separate the two and say we have a disagreement over this issue but on a whole close to the issues, we are getting along just fine. wehuman beings, we know sometimes compartmentalize like that. what was interesting about the argument the ambassador made is he kept going back to the state department's own scientific research that they produced, trying to say that don't take it from us, taken from your own guys. what he's trying to do is to put rusher on the president. -- to put pressure on the president. president obama laid out a clear

metric of what he would use which is basically that this increases greenhouse gases and we will say no to it. he is trying to set your own guys have said it meets your and you have no excuse not to approve it. host: he said someone needs to have a backbone. >> he did say that. host: who was he talking about? >> he was probably talking about the u.s. more generally but also the president. this is the decision that technically is housed in the state department but those of us who cover this issue and who are involved in the environmental community's realize this is a decision that will be made in the oval office. host: what are the environmental groups say about the state department's review? way, theyoadbrush fundamentally disagree with the idea that these products will get to market regardless. for example, one of the canadian companies is seeking to build a pipeline west to the british columbia coast and that's part

of the argument we heard today that one way or another, these barrels will come out of the ground and be burned and make it to market. they say that is not a sure thing. you are singer pledged to fight other pipelines. seeing a pledge to fight other pipelines as well as this one. as far as the state department report, i also think the view among environmentalists is that to say that we're just going to burn and use a lot of oil anyway is sort of a lack of vision as to how they would look at it. what they want to see her much more aggressive national and global efforts to control greenhouse gas emissions. in a carbon constrained world, their view is that you would not have this rush to develop sources like the oil sands which letmore carbon intensive alone other types of green energy sources. host: and congress says what? >> the house of representatives

has voted repeatedly to approve the keystone pipeline which is a fairly easy thing for them to move through that chamber. senatorenate, you have mary landrieu from louisiana facing a difficult reelection campaign and senator hoben of north dakota and some others trying to get the vote on the senate floor. in a sense, this is about political pressure and optics more than forcing the president to actually sign a bill. i think they are a little bit shy of even the 60 votes needed to overcome a filibuster. reid tocan convince bring something to the floor, what you would see is a majority of the senate and a number of democrats saying that we want this pipeline and that creates political pressure on the white house for sure. host: any idea from the white house as to when they want to make this decision?