law, indian legal program for arranging this event. to the heart museum for hosting the event. thank you all for coming tonight. we hope we'll see you many times. [applause] ♪ >> next, and evaluation of relations between the u.s. and canada. and issues including the keystone xl pipeline, climate change and security.

after that, another chance to see the discussion focusing on horse -- sports mascots and other instances of african -- indian american stereotypes. on the next washington journal trevor burrus of the cato instituvte review the supreme court oral argument in king v. burwell, challenging whether congress intended to provide a tax benefit for us earned -- for certain exchanges. molly o'toole examines the various ways of the republicans are challenging the white house on foreign policy and military issues. as always, we will take your call. you can join the conversation on twitter and facebook as well. washington journal -- life at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. >> he would see desk when i used

to call as a kid -- a stick bulk that. -- a stick ball set. washington was a large man. very robust, terrific natural athlete. medicine is a skinny little guy. >> this sunday on q&a, even stewart on coming father james madison and the partnerships unite in the fledging nation. >> i write most about his ability to remarkable partnerships with the great people of his era. it also alludes to his get to the country of his talents and what he was able to do to help create the first self-sustaining constitutional republic. >> sunday night at 8:00 eastern and pacific on c-span's q&a.

>> canada's cable public affairs channels hosted a discussion this week on u.s.-canadian relations. the 90 minute debate focused mostly on the keystone xl pipeline debate, climate change and domestic security. see packs peter van dusen -- c pacs. the senate fails to veto the pipeline bill. this discussion is an hour and a half. ♪ >> hello and welcome to washington dc. it is a chilly evening.

fitting, since we came to the american capital to talk about u.s.-canada relations. and they are a little bit frosty these days. is been a long relationships of respect, cooperation, and real friendship between two of the world's greatest neighbors. but now it is marked by friction. we are life this evening at the museum on pennsylvania avenue for our latest cpac townhall. tonight we present keystone xl pipeline and beyond -- the future of u.s.-canada relations. >> and the executor user of cpac public affairs channel in canada. special welcome to our viewers watching on c-span in the u.s. over the next 90 minutes we will drill down on the state of the relationship between u.s. and canada. to look at the trouble spots the bright spots, and the road ahead. we will take questions from the audience. you can join the conversation on the social media using the hasta g cpactownhall.

bill owens is a strategic advisor. he stepped down in november as the credit for presenters for new york's first congressional district. it runs up to the canadian border, so he is familiar with these issues. ryan bernstein's staff for the center of north dakota. welcome mr. bernstein, we hope the senator is feeling better. he has been ambassador to the u.s. since 2009. is a former premier of the province of manitoba. she directs the canada program. she has worked in both canada and u.s. on the environment and climate change. with us, as always, political editor from the plane, and louisa savage. she will take up a new position

at politico in washington. in a moment, we will be in the conversation on u.s.-canada relations. to let me take a view minutes to set the scene. >> we would never treat our friends so badly. >> the fact that open export is being made of the u.s.-canada relationship these days is telling. -- open export. -- open sport. no one expects things will always flow smoothly. but the list of irritant is is piling up, and so is the resentment. >> a president who simply has not got it that canada is important to the prosperity of the u.s. it is frustration with the white house that clearly doesn't want to engage canada, two promote a healthy economic relationship. >> we are supposed to be the best runs and the closest

neighbor, instead we keep getting hit with these things. it causes people a lot of frustration. >> nothing has caused more frustration than the keystone xl pipeline. the $8 billion by check -- $8 billion project will deliver oil across the nation. the latest -- a veto by the president to kill legislation congress to authorize the project. despite the impassioned pleas from barack obama's opponents. >> of the fair to our canadian friends. they allowed us to build a pipeline across their land. we should allow them to do the same in hours. they are our best allies, our greatest neighbor, was today pass this bill and build the keystone xl pipeline. >> there is a global oil market. >> for the president just isn't sitting on a decision. he openly and repeatedly undermined the value of the on -- opf tjhehe pipeline to america.

>> it will not even be a nominal benefit. >> a former senior adviser on canada, economic issues for the state. >> even if he doesn't like the pipeline, he is disparaging about canada. the harper government has been disparaging about the u.s. >> president obama has said climate change is a top priority for him. he has taken steps to put the u.s. on its way to meeting its international climate commitments. however, under current policies, canada will fall short. canada's pipeline in washington might have been strengthened if the canadian government has introduced long promised greenhouse relations for the industry. prime minister harper is making it clear that will be happening anytime soon. >> frankly, under the current circumstances, it would be crazy economic policy. >> then there is the project to

build a second bridge linking detroit, michigan, and windsor ontario. the busiest trade crossing between the two countries. not only is canada playing the $4 billion upfront cost of the bridge and the access roads in both countries, canada is also putting the $250 million upfront cost of the u.s. cost on american soil. because the obama administration refused to. >> the government of canada is fabulous. i think the u.s. government needs to a better job. >> as an american, it is embarrassing that we can't fund our own infrastructure. it is equally embarrassing that we are asking canada to foot the bill. and when it is all over and paid for, we want half of it. >> at least the bridge project seems to be going ahead. not so for a plant upgrade of a very terminal in prince rupert, british columbia. is on canadian soil.

but it leads to the state of alaska. alaska wanted to upgrade the terminal using only american steel. in keeping with "buy america" rules. canada said no way and threatened legal action. when the two sides couldn't reach a couple nice, alaska canceled the project. -- a compromise. if they can't settle these squabbles, what about the big stuff? and there's a long-running dispute over canadian and mexican and pork sold in u.s. stores. u.s. laws require those cuts meet to be labeled with details on where the animal was born where it was raised and slaughtered. canada says that cost producers and billion dollars a year. the wto has twice ruled the mandatory labeling is discriminatory. the u.s. is appealing for a third and final time. canada is threatening retaliation.

it is true that the u.s.-canada relationship is envied by most countries in the world. and overall, it is a good one. there" operation on border security while try to speed up the good of people has been slow. canadians and americans did fight side-by-side in afghanistan and our allies again in the fight against the islamic state. but with the two countries august on dispute, it is hard to imagine on so-called vision items -- make ideas that the net conversation, cooperation, and trust. >> our willingness to put aside domestic sovereignty concerns in favor of larger cooperative vision. i don't see that vision anymore. not in the canadian government and not in the u.s. government. >> at the end of the day or has to be a personal relationship. -- there has to be a personal relationship between the two leaders. we just haven't seen it for the

last six years. >> who can forget the sense of promise in both countries went barack obama was first elected? now, some suggest better relations would only happen if the change at the top, maybe in both countries. >> already, so that such a scene for our conversation. we have a lot of ground to cover. we will work these issues we have raised over the next 80 minutes. and we will allow for your questions as well. let us start our panelists at the same spot. what is, in their view, the state of the relationship? we saw this primer that says of one view, others may disagree. let's start there. in your view, what is the relationship tween the u.s. and canada? >> peter, the relationship between u.s. and canada is fine. i'm going to philadelphia after my stop here. i expect to be well treated by my captors. [laughter] billions of dollars trade back.

there countries are working in parallel in russia and ukraine against isis, against ebola, but the relationship at the top is frumpy. the ambassador says he's never seen the relationship between the two governments as cool as it is today. some people would say that is just about the pipeline and the relationship is bigger than that. but there are more things. canada, u.s. and mexico used to meet every year. 2000-2009. once it was harper's attorney to host that summit, he canceled. barack obama has visited canada twice in his six years as president. the last president to visit canada that really was nixon, who decided one trip to see him was enough.

there's a lot of evidence that this relationship is not functional. it is too easy for people to say that it is harper's fault because he is a right-winger, or people to say that obama is lost in his own little world. they are actually similar. they are loners, they don't pick up the phone. they don't have colleagues internationally that they get along with. that similarity of style and diversions of ideology is costing us. > i think it is interesting to segregate what is happening in the relationship with the $700 billion a year trade relationship, the intelligence cooperation, the security cooperation, everything that goes on -- to segregate that from what is happening at the top, two leaders who aren't rushing into each other's embrace. my question is what does that mean for the broader relationship? when i ask around, what i hear

is they are not meeting. what does that mean? it means that they are not setting priorities for the relationship. they are not looking forward to the future and saying, what should articles be going forward? which usually happens at this summit. it typically kickstart bureaucracies to deliver things i can be announced trying to set the next agenda for the next few years. perhaps it is more a question of what is not happening in the relationship than what is happening. >> mr. bernstein, let us get review. -- get your view. >> overall, we think it is a good relationship. coming from a border state, we see it firsthand. good is really the local people and the people between canada and the u.s. that get along very well culturally and everything else. but what we are worried about is possibly the frosty relationship

we have with canada based on the keystone xl pipeline. we think this could jeopardize the economic relationship that the u.s. has with canada. it is a global market out there. the u.s. needs to compete globally and what better friend and ally than canada to work with? we know canada has other options or its economic vitality. so why not happen partnership with the united states? i think unfortunately, what we have gone through in the u.s. with keystone xl pipeline we don't want it to affect the relationship, but i think long-term we have to put things back together. >> with your view -- let's get your view. >> i don't think america has any better friend than canada. we have people across the order every day, $200 million in economic growth between the two countries every day. we the shared border, an extremely long history of fighting together, working together, working across together on a number of issues

for decades. but friends need to be able to talk about issues, friends need to be discussing what matters. one thing we have to think about is that last year was the hottest year on record. 16 of the last hottest years on record happened since 1997. we are now confronting change. we are dealing with blistering droughts, rising seas, floods, that there is just a tremendous impact that we are experiencing because of climate change. the reason we are experiencing that globally is because of fossil fuels. we are having a difficult conversation about fossil fuels. that conversation is likely to continue. but the opportunity for the two countries to talk about how to confront that problem is really where the future u.s.-canada relationship can go.

canada has a clean energy revolution going on. in the last five years, there has been a doubling of renewable energy, there has been a 37% growth in jobs, we seen doubling electric vehicle sale. those same things are happening in the u.s. you have these clean energy economy that are growing. this gets to the heart of the relationship, because that is where our administration is right now -- that clean energy opportunity. how can we together confront this comment problem, how can we together confront clean energy? i look forward to the 'beyond keystone'part of the discussion. that is where we need to go from the u.s.-canada effective. -- perspective. >> what is your view of the relationship? >> living an hour from montreal, i don't see any change in how

the citizens interact with one another. this is not a situation that really comes down, if you will, to the grassroots. we have some governmental issues. we have some irritants that are going on. the trade is increasing consistently, so it tells you that is this is largely ignoring that -- business is largely ignoring what the media and politicians are storing up. for most people, this is not an issue. the relationship continues to be very strong. people are working together more and more. we are seeing increasing trade in our communities. from my perspective, i see this as something we are focusing on at the political level, but when you down to business and people come up people are very comfortable that we are still friends. >> ambassador? you are doing clean up your.

what is your view? >> don't take your canadian sweater into the philadelphia region. just a nomadic bit of advice. -- diplomatic bit of advice. both countries are can-do countries. i think we see, especially in the united states, it is a bit of a can-do government from time to time. i'm on my six crisis on shutting the border down in the last few years. i think the country and the decisions that are made are very positive. i look at the scene center, -- scene setter, but there are different levels of government that the deal with canada. it is not all the president. i'm frustrated with him on the keystone xl pipeline. i am disappointed in nebraska.

because we had about three setbacks in nebraska as well. i also believe that some of the comments in the scene center art inaccurate -- are inaccurate about his comments on the pipeline. to say that all of the oil is short of being supported is wrong. was wrong to say it. to say that it was all coming from canada, who knew that north dakota and montana had been bequeathed from the president to canada? we are very disappointed with those comments. we will continue to do what we have always done. we are not a surrogate for the company. it is our job to get the act out about this proposal. -- the facts out about this proposal.

i thought the president to be helpful in most ways. i found the biggest blockage to be both with the private owner of a bridge blocking in the michigan house senate, and with the michigan delegation, appropriation of money. we had to use a different model to get a financing agreement which is paid back by the users both capital and interest. we got a presidential permit with a lot of cooperation from the white house. we got a waiver on the u.s. steel covered under "buy americ a" that goes back to the good old days. we got a waiver from candidate u.s. steel through the white house. yes, the process should have been paid for by the taxpayers on either side of the border. but we couldn't get that through

the michigan delegation. we had to then go back and get the solution, because this bridge has been talked about ever since 9/11. it is the biggest choke point between our two countries in terms of trade and security. sometimes you need to have a can-do attitude to get these done. otherwise it may be a decade before someone gets it done or appropriation becomes for the taxpayers opposed to a ppp. we did get cooperation from the white house on operating cost of the bridge. you could have keystone, and then you could have the president after the horrible shooting on october 22, reaffirming his solidarity with canada, reaffirming his commitment to working with border security and to mystic 30 threats, reaffirming the great cooperation we have between our

two countries. are rubber after 9/11 there was an urban myth that all the terrorists involved came to canada. that myth still remains today. i am thankful that the president stood strong with canada in that time. it helped us deal with threats on the border and it was a strong statement. if you could just approve the pipeline, i would be happier on this panel. >> we need to start on the pipeline. that is what the chief issue is. it is what is making news in the relationship. brian, i will start with you. we have the president has vetoed this legislation in coming from congress. what is the next move for republicans? when will we see another moves to try and legislate and push this pipeline through? >> you don't have to wait long.

tomorrow we will vote on the veto override. we of the first vote tomorrow. we will get that then move forward. that it says of the veto override. we need 67 votes and are working hard on it. we are a little short at this point. we still have a good commitment from the democrats that joined us. we had 63 joining us, one republican missing. we are working out a few others. the president said one of the main reasons he was vetoing this legislation was that we were cutting the process short that

is after six years he is claiming we're cutting the process short. we will continue to go back to the democrats that said this process needs to play out. this process has played out. we have had several environmental impact statements are coming back saying there is no environmental impact, that it lowers greenhouse gas emissions. we will make that argument and see how it goes. after that, it has been clear from the majority leader that we will continue to push this project and look at other legislation, probably appropriations, maybe the transportation bill. we got close last time. this is an infrastructure project. it supports 42,000 jobs. it could be appropriate to put it in the highway bill. >> who wants to jump in? where do we go with this debate and process? are we going to get a pipeline approval under this president or a decision? let's start there.

>> repeat the question. >> is barack obama going to end up having to say, in effect, allow this pipeline because of what happens in congress, or we risk not getting a decision at all? >> right now the process has been going on for a number of years. >> who wants to jump in? >> we will see if we get the veto override. the president was cryptic in recent comments saying it might take me a few weeks, might take me a few months. a lot of people predict he will not decide it all before the end of his term, and so now there is a lot of pressure on hillary clinton.

to me it is interesting both the bridge story and this pipeline story raise a bigger issue which is how canada as a foreign country build infrastructure in the united states. if we look back at the 1980's , the big thing was signing free trade agreements. how do we build that infrastructure? you mentioned alan gottlieb who came to washington and said we are all dealing with the state department and white house. he changed the way that canada conducted diplomacy focusing on going after senators and congressmen. to build real

objects, it is not about sitting down with the president or the congress but dealing with landowners, whether ranchers in nebraska or a private bridge owner in detroit and then dealing with local governments state legislators, campaign contributors, nongovernmental organizations whether the in our d.c. or in the case of the detroit windsor bridge the tea party. you have all these players. it is regionally diffuse there are a lot of proposals on how we manage this. we need a binational commission on infrastructure or some kind

of development bank. i understand the state department is looking at its own process for prioritizing spending on cross-border infrastructure so that the most important trade ports are getting the money and not just the ones where a border congressman is able to get his project into a bill and get it funded. with the case of the pipeline, how do we deal with these issues before we are into a specific project where you're having public meetings in nebraska and people from all over the country come in and focus on this one project to play out a much broader national discussion. i see this as a broad challenge.

>> i think just -- >> sure, and then congressman. >> we have not talked about the power of money and the ability to raise money. there is a lot of money against the bridge in michigan, a lot of money. there is a lot of money moving around for and against the pipeline. that is the broader discussion. it is quite different than it was ten years ago. it takes six years to get a transmission line between one state and another state. one lawyer per megawatt to get a transmission line approved. when we are dealing with these two proposals with clean energy, it taken us four years. these take a lot of time. the ability to work and the public interest for and against something is really, really slow and not just a foreign government. it takes that much time. even in canada there is no national grid. all the transmission lines go north and south.

on the pipeline the state department said, and has been correct that the pipeline is not built, the oil will come down on rail. they made that prediction three years ago, and last year, and they have been right. a million barrels a day extra since barack obama has been president, more than any other president. it has come from canada to the united states. it is just getting there in the wrong way, in my view. the state department said that if it is not built it will be coming down on rail. rail has higher emissions, higher safety risks. when you look at those three liabilities, one of them is to

canada, the cost. the second safety issue is to the americans. they just had a horrific accident in west virginia. the oil went through chicago. the third issue is higher emissions. if the president says no, you are actually going to have higher emissions. i would argue strongly that the united states is taking two of the three liabilities by saying no. it is the president's right to

do that, but we have over 63 votes in the senate and 61% of the house voting for that pipeline. >> we will come back to you in a second. i think the question everyone wants to know is, while barack obama is president, one way or the other, we will this pipeline -- will this pipeline get approved? >> it is less and less likely as time goes on. it is unlikely that he will approve it. whether or not the congress can put together a peace of legislation and attach it to it so that he has no choice may be a road forward. i would argue that what would be far more sensible here would be to come

to an agreement where we have a trade-offer, if you will. i would talk about the senate immigration bill, why not construct a deal that gets the senate bill acted on ? something we clearly need and also allows the pipeline to go go forward. when you talk about the safety issues, we have many pipelines. there is very little risk or increased risk in building another pipeline. the argument that environmentalists take is that by doing that we enhance the likelihood of continuing to use fossil fuels. the fact of the matter is, i am a proponent of moving forward with renewable energy. i

strongly supported the biofuels plant at fort drum which is taken fort drum off the grid. an excellent result, created jobs, and is a clean energy project but we have to do things in ways that make sense. one of the issues i talked about is what do you need to do to educate the american public and american legislators about what is going on in their state relative to canadian business, that has to be done in the legislative office, not necessarily in dc but district offices where people who work for canadian companies or have relationships with canadian companies are coming in and talking to those legislators. >> danielle, let's give you a chance to weigh in. suggesting that it is less and less likely. for some people there may never be. what is your view on what

you are hearing? danielle: well, i mean, i would agree with the congressman about the likelihood. the reason is not political. there has been a strong case made on a number of issues which includes the climate impact. tar sands actually sinks in water and does not act like conventional oil. as americans have come to learn more and more, it is not in keeping with the type of energy where we want to go it has risks. it has risks to water, to the climate. i disagree on the rail issue. there has been an argument made. we know the industry is pursuing both real and pipeline. the us oil industry is moving oil by rail, but there was a projection made a projection made that there will be 200,000

barrels a day of tar sands that will move by rail if keystone did not move ahead. guess what? only 40,000 barrels a day are moving. it is not pipeline versus rail. pipelines are cheaper. that is what the industry wants. rail will be used for balkan crude, certain types of destinations. so we don't want the public to be misled into it will be either/or.

>> you want to jump in? >> at the risk of not being particularly helpful, i want to express astonishment that it has taken this long. the president expects to make a decision in the next weeks or months. i remember before the end of his first mandate, i ran into a colleague in the congress. she said, don't you worry. this will be passed as soon as the 2012 presidential election is behind us. if it is mitt romney, he will approve keystone on his first day. if it is barack obama, he will approve it a few weeks later. scotty was not wrong at the time. the entire weight of conventional wisdom was the

same, that this was something that would be settled in the first part of 2013. we are now toward the middle of 2015, and everyone has their fingers crossed. that is an indication to the extent of which this one decision around which so much is happening but this one decision has caused the bilateral relationship to fester. >> i think it is not our finest hour. there is no question about it. i strongly believe it is and not -- it is in not only canada's best interest but also the greatest respect to danielle oil by rail continues to go up. you mentioned water. the whole the whole issue of having a pipeline is much safer. i agree with the scientists in the state department. there was a battle between oil and the environmental industry in washington, and i believe the state department widely assessed a certain way.

one year ago in january. i think it should of gone ahead. i would not want to be a decision-maker into have to be when you are a environmentalist. i think that is a false choice sometimes. and have a report that says 25 people will die if this report is not proceeded with. i have never heard anyone talk about safety and the environmental industry. even the apa does not comment at all about safety issues when they issued a letter a couple days ago. if i were making a decision into a got a report about a comparison on safety and i got a political report about safety, i

am going on safety all the time. >> will the president take this to court under the nafta rule? >> they cannot make a decision until after the delay. i'm not going to speak to someone above my grade and some of my friends would say. >> would your advice be, if this gets rejected let's take him to court? tags my advice would be let's continue to work to get it passed. we have the senate, 63 votes. we have the house about 13 short. let us keep at it. again, how do you make a decent vision when you have a report that says this is an unsafe action? if something happens then all

those people who got this report, the secretary of state the president, i hope it does not happen like it happened in canada but i can tell you the media and the public will go back and told people accountable for having a red flag and a goring at. this is the biggest red flag i have seen on any court the president has to deal with. and i would not reported on my unbiased view. [laughter] >> the obama administration approved the alberta clipper taking oil into the united states. they already a proof that. in 2011, secretary clinton road us are about concerns about a delay. this pipeline should be decided by the end of 2011.

i think the administration is starting down the that course. you can see the state is already headed down the route with their decision. they said look, this is an environmentally friendly. i think the environment has changed within the administration. not on the public side. that has showed 60-70% approval. it has changed in the administration. >> if you believe would canada said it is not a question of if but of when. it will. >> canada will continue to build deep brine, build the rail. >> i think the longer this is delayed in the second term, the less likely the president will up of it. tags what about the next president? >> i think the next president

could very easily take care of this issue. but i go back to my republican friends and say make a deal on something the president wants for his legacy and present this for an option that is appealing and a win-win. turn it from a negative conversation into something that is a positive. there are things the president wants for his legacy. let's make a deal. >> danielle, you would be happy with that? >> i think it is interesting because there has been a lot of talk about deals around keystone. let us keep in mind the broader issue is climate. it is easy to reduce the narrative to environmentalists and keystone catering to an environmentalists. that is a narrative that plays well to the public but the narrative is about the administration that wants to create a legacy around climate. there is a community of people,

nobel laureates, scientists who have come in and said this pipeline represents increasing and expanding in industry in canada and that product is coming to the united states. we should have a say about where we get our products, where we get our oil, what type of products we source. this will increase that sort of oil considerably. this is really about a broader conversation about what we can do around climate and any deal around a pipeline does not -- this is canada's saying "we promise you in exchange for letting us have this industry which actually causes some more climate problems, we will make promises for climate."

that does not make any sense. >> let's have this conversation around a pipeline and climate change. we know michael bloomberg and u.n. for -- u.n. ambassador for climate change says this should be explored. in exchange for a climate pact between the united states and canada to do better. is that how we move forward? essentially, canada has more on climate change. >> there cannot legally be a quick quote. but i do agree with the mirror. we have proposed a similar table to deal with oil and gas regulations. considering the methane proposal that just came out a few weeks ago, it makes sense for canada and the united states to have one table to deal with these

regulations. we are doing it with these ships on the great lake. we are doing it with heavy vehicles. we have worked together with the state department on black carbon. we think there should he won table on oil and gas. we did it years ago with a ronald reagan. it makes good sense. you cannot have 1 -- we already have higher costs in the alberta on the climate initiative versus california thermal. why don't these sit down with the heavy crude coming in from venezuela, from canada, in california, we are not afraid. we like the way we did vehicle emission standards. we have the benefit of reduced

ghd's? -- we have the benefit of reduced ghd's. >> we're not saying that, it is illegal. bet you can't say up in canada. they know it is illegal. you can say that. [applause] >> you may not be as aware as we are in canada about the opposition of the democratic party dead set against the pipeline project. the only one they like is energy east, which would snake pipelines in to vastly expand in new brunswick. and the opposition party leader who is leading the polls, just intrude oh said he supports keystone but the reason he is

not is because it is not good enough to fight climate change. he has got a shot at being prime minister and he would increase carbon pricing. put a national carbon price which would reduce emissions and that would make americans is so grateful that they would accept it lickety-split. sometimes i am skeptical that would work. [laughter] >> i want to talk to the ambassador because those of us in washington keep hearing -- kept hearing canadian officials saying we are working on the regulations. we are working on it. then we would go back and ask them and they would say they were working on it. then the ambassador says it would be crazy. so i am actually not sure where this is going in canada. >> we would want to work -- i

forget the exact wording, it makes sense to work together in this continent on some of these issues. he has consistently said that in this interview and others. as part of that, they are doing a lot of work to bring to a table, if we could get a table so we could have in approach like we did with light vehicles. it is not an either-war. it is not like we are not getting ready. >> because the united states relies is so much on call energy and is able to shift on that to natural gas, they are able to get to their targets more cheaply the and canada can in they are given the presidents plan to get there. the projections are they can get there. canada will get half way from

what i understand and part of that way is because of the oil sands. there are not oilsands in the united states. what are we waiting for canada to do before we can get that? >> we have gas in pennsylvania and ohio. we have vehicles being constructed in ontario and vehicles being instructed in michigan. the way we handle the vehicle issue is because we have -- we have one cable. there would be no economic advantage for not doing something. it would be equal in terms of the economy and better for the economy. that is the way we have proposed we deal with it. we would take, for example, and yes, canada has a lot more heavy food. and oilsands has a 50-ton innovation fee.

d. see. has a so-called tax. ---- d.c. has a so-called -- if we can do both, if we can have an equal playing field and have higher standards as we do with light vehicles to get better results. bags by your saying is more canada to regulate emissions from the oilsands, you want to do that in harmony with the u.s. putting regulations on heavier types of oil in the united states? >> gas oil, and methane gas. >> are their active discussions? >> we do not have a table. we had a table on the whole issue of ozone-depleting material. >> what happened? >> we had a table working on

black carbon with the state department. >> are you saying the administration is not willing? [laughter] >> we can find you a table. >> i mean a couple of things. i think we are going to get to simplify this a little bit. we have two countries. what is the u.s., the problem is cool. we have to go after call. the obama administration has not done anything. now we can say the united states is finally moving ahead on coal. if the regulations are implemented, we can do that. the u.s. can mean it's target under copenhagen. the reason canada is projected to miss its target from d.c. and atlantic canada is because of

the oilsands are. that is rapidly growing. that is why the oil and gas regulations or some other policy like a price on carbon across canada will be needed in order for canada to meet its climate promise. right now, canada is set to break its climate promise internationally. it does not make sense for canada to point to the united states and say we are not going to live at on oil and gas because you are not. it makes sense for canada to put together a plan and the two countries to meet the copenhagen agreement and work together to go as a pair in north america. north america should be going to the world stage together to say they are going to meet the international agreement. >> is this going to happen? the president's climate plan, auto the republicans going to

let it happen? there is a lot of talk of the republicans blocking it in the senate. >> we're going to have a vigorous debate about that no doubt in the senate and house of representatives. we will be looking very closely at the rules. we are going to try to approach this on technology. talking beyond regulation. one thing i would like to point out about the oil sand, he united states department of energy is investing in the oil sand. they recently announced a $500,000 loan that too shallow to work on a project to help reduce carbon dioxide in the air. they are going to take that carbon dioxide, sequester it. up to 100 million tons a year. so the united states is working with canada. we'll bring in the debate on the

president's climate agenda and looking at technology, not necessarily regulation. >> it is going to be an interesting debate. what i do with my rents in the cool states is invite them down to saskatchewan. -- my constituents in the coal states. we will take american electrical generation from coal from 38% to 30% i-20 30, if those regulations pass. if they do not, it will still bump around based on the market. when gas went from $11 down to wonder three, there was a loud of substitution of gas into the electrical grid. it was a market-driven decision. all of you are right about: in

the united states. if last winter is factored in, if we have a another increase in the gas price without regulations, are going to have no change on coal and a difficult time. they have done better in canada so far since we signed to the copenhagen agreement in 2010. i think he do need a common table on oil and gas regulations because in the morning, we compete with each other. db.c. gasket compete with gas in california. having one table like we do on light emission i think it mayor bloomberg proposed in and canada is willing to do it. >> if we could push you just a little, what is the stumbling?

>> we have not got a table. >> i got my answer right there. >> maybe we might have to bring someone down to put an ikea table up. [laughter] >> is this where we need to get the prime minister and president to get along? >> it is tougher than i say because there are a lot of states that do not want the president to deal with gas regulations in and a lot of people in the administration or are nervous about getting in the middle of the fracking debate with regulations. if you look at colorado, you have a democratic geologist, the governor, coming up with a proposal on getting the agreement of coming up with gas in colorado. he has the environmental up in and on one side -- he is like the bear in the arcade.

he is getting shot from both direct and's. >> is so we have the headline, canada is willing to move forward on taking greater steps to deal with simon change but so far the united states does not want to talk. [indiscernible] >> alberto wants to work with canada and the united states to up our game on oil and gas regulations. >> i am pretty sure i know the answer, but i want to say this. we are going to miss our greenhouse emissions by half in 2012. let's say we get our act together through better consultation with americans and carbon hits it's in emissions targets in 2020. will keystone be ok?

>> i think it comes down to understanding the broader issues around the industry. we have an existing industry of 2 billion barrels a day. that is existing. you have not seen anyone trying to shut those down. the concern is with the expansion. the proposal is to aaa hand quintupled that in. i do not see how canada can do all of that and to meet climate targets. if anything, we have to wretched down. -- ratchet down. there is a concern that to alberto wants to pursue massive expansion. that is not keeping with climate

issues. we need to address aboriginal issues. proposals like type lines, that would actually and able that growth, it does not seem to make sense of you are going to be combating climate change. >> are there any circumstances under which you would support the keystone pipeline. >> not likely. >> no matter what we did. this is the advice i have given. i think there was a proposal in alberta that was getting some traction for people in the environmental movement and all of a sudden it went from x dollars per ton to $100 a ton and everyone said oops,they are supporting our up as a.

every organization i know in washington will not approve it under any circumstances. >> there is a huge conflict here. this is saying, we would like to increase our oilsands industry and in return we will protect the environment. it is not compatible. we need to be working on climate, a deal with clean energy. that is where the opportunities are. [indiscernible] >> as we have this debate, i think you put the issue on the table. this is really about the argument of how quickly can we get to an oil renewable fuels energy environment. we are beyond keystone. and by the way, i would accept the deal that was climate-based as well as and the immigration deal.

i just want you to know that. [laughter] >> while you are jumping in here, i do not want to break you from your thought. [laughter] >> but you have done it. i see it as complicated. we have treaties we have entered into. it does not seem like canada will get there. i think they are struggling with that in the same way we are as we go through the debate about coal, fracking relative to gas and oil. unfortunately, we are at a place where for the foreseeable future we need fossil fuels. the question is, is that oil? isn't gas? is it cold? you cannot say no to oil and expect to have an economy. you need to figure out what is if you well, the lesser evils and move in that direction.

as the united states increases its production of oil and gas that may be the biggest threat to keystone. it may be, if you will, that no need. i think that is a little bit of a type dream because i do not think that happens for minimally 50 years, but as this occurs, and this has happened under the obama administration, we have had the greatest upsurge in oil and natural gas productions in the history of the country, so to be critical of him when he is , in my view, balancing issues related to coal fire plants and substituting natural gas seems wholly inconsistent and ideological. i think this is a balancing act. it is one that requires us to take these things into account and we have the environment

clearly as an issue. the economy is an issue. somehow it has to come to a balance. it is a shifting mosaic. >> can i get a sense of how many members of the audience -- five or six people. ok. danielle, do you want to jump back in on that? danielle: on the idea of where we're headed, there is no doubt we have a certain amount of fossil fuel we rely on. he question is what is the mosaic look like? how are we going to prioritize that? what the bush administration, we are not paying enough attention to clean energy and renewables and energy efficiency. with the obama administration, we have seen investment and focus.

janet -- there is a wonderful clean energy technology that is moving forward. but a lot of that happens at a provincial level. there is not a central signal that has been sent. that is really what we want to see happen. we're pushing the obama administration every single day and we think that is the way to go. believe me we spend a lot of time advocating with that administration. i think that will do a lot for the relationship. >> two years ago we had a panel like this and talked about keystone and one of the issues we kept hearing was if the pipeline is reject that this is going to go to china because we are building a pipeline to the west coast.

can you update us on how that is going? >> the prime minister gave an extraordinary interview at the end of 2011 to one of our television networks. he said i hear from people in washington we can make this keystone project work. i told him, that is fine but we are going in a now their direction now. the direction was westward towards china. he made the biggest official visit of his time as prime minister. they brought to back can do, it was lovely. then they discovered a couple things. first of all, if we buy things in china, they expect us to buy things in canada. including alberta. the conservative base of canada which is very leery about doing what is -- doing business with

what is still a communist government. the president was slow to implement a bilateral investment treaty will stop his great ambition to increase imports to asia has not gone away. in fact, imports to other countries has increased. but to china, does not work. >> you mentioned president bush. i think we had 600,000 barrels a day in his eight years come from canada to the united states. we are -- we are at one million barrels a day with obama. the issue is how it is getting there. on clean energy, we are all for that idea, too. we have proposed faster, more decisive transmissions for clean energy.

sometimes we get certain states that supports hydro being defined as renewable. in some states, if it is small it is renewable but if it is bigger it is not renewable. what is your position on hydro being defined as renewable. >> it is renewable energy by definition. that is a part of the conversation that we need to be spending more time on. there is quite a bit of hydro coming down from canada to the united states. there is an interest in sending more. hydro is more of a complicated issue than wind or solar. if there is existing can pass at the that can be ramped up there is opportunity there. those are issues that can be worked through. that is the transition we need to go. where is the infrastructure and

-- opportunities. it will likely be canada. there may be some from the united states back to canada but mostly it is from canada back to the united states. it is not going to be easy because it is not automatic for some of these. what is renewable, what is not. the power plants, there is an opportunity there. i want to talk about having that conversation which is really about expanding that clean energy portfolio. we're going to have difficult conversations of a fossil fuel but they do not have to be wrapped up together. >> so they consider hydro power renewable? >> it is generally considered renewable. >> i know, but sometimes we have some saying that hydro is not renewable, that only wind and solar is renewable.

[laughter] [inaudible] >> let's talk about the vision thing. we may not all except that there are more irritants the end of what we have seen in the past. i would argue there seems to be a consensus that times are tough between the two countries. what is being lost the cousin of that? so much focus is on keystone what has been planted to the side. i know you have been thinking about this. let's start with you. what opportunities are we losing in the relationship to make a more powerful north america? >> i think there is a few things. the canadian council, for

example, it has a paper with proposals they would like to see the two countries work on. it was planned for earlier in the year in did not happen. now they are sitting on that. we will have an election soon in canada and there will be one here. during that time things freeze. i think we're going towards a more frozen moment. in terms of another opportunity we are not talking about, one danger i see is this has become such a partisan issue. notwithstanding some democrats like congressman owens, it has become a big political issue. i do not know that it is healthy for canada to be a partisan issue. because, sure you get strong allies on the hill. you get republicans on your

side, but the harder they advocate and push you are suddenly stuck. you get pushed into a corner. -- the president gets pushed into a corner and the pressure on him is enormous. we are now in the political fray. how do we get out of there. >> it has become polarized and politicized. unfortunately, it the conversations have been about this foreign corporation or this foreign country. what are we doing for this foreign country? we are unfortunately looking at the border and putting ourselves in that. you have to look at it more broadly. the united states and canada has a unique opportunity to be a political player in the world.

if we combine our resources, it will change the dynamics. in the middle east, we are somewhere in the world we do not want to be. there is an opportunity to change the dialogue. what cannot north america do as a powerhouse around the world? we look at canada as something they are trying to do for themselves. not something we are doing together and how it will benefit the united states. look at the world and how it will be viewed through the eyes of united states and canada working together. we could be energy-secure soon and that would change the world dynamics on much more than it just energy. bags anyone who wants to ask a question, make your way to the microphone. >> i think when you talk about understanding what we have nafta countries represent the 5%

of the world's gdp. that is a significant and important fact. we have lost the opportunity to push ahead he yawned the border. it has lost some steam. the regulatory counsel may be more important than the beyond the border program because that would reduce the cost to companies on both sides of the border. get, if you will, standards aligned. we have become focused on this issue and it has taken attention away. it has taken dollars over they. it has become a political talking point. each side uses it in the best of caucus politics to drive home their point of view but it is not constructive and and it is seriously taking away from our ability to drive this north

american that juggernaut that we have. when we think about what is going on in the ukraine. the ability crisis. the middle east. -- the ebola crisis. the middle east. we have to help become self-sufficient. what are we missing? we're missing the opportunity to improve our ability to trade amongst ourselves. >> the gdp will be interesting when we get to it. when we deal with republicans and democrats who support us on proposals, sometimes the majority of them are republicans and sometimes the majority of who we are dealing with on the bridge are the democratic administration. so, we have to mix it up with everybody in the public interest

of canada and it changes. but, the longer we hear the conversation on water policy and clean energy and some of the other things we're going to have to deal with in the future are very important. when the prime minister in the president get together, they spend about 80% of the time on how we keep the world safer in tal we keep our neighborhood safer. they spend a few minutes on the pipeline, it it is important but they spend most of their time about how do we keep this world safer and how do we continue to work together effectively as allies. how do we make sure we are coordinating our efforts at issa with the pentagon, the white house, and the state department. our government in ottawa, on the border the credibility we have

with the law enforcement agency is not only working together, but training the staff. i think in five years we will be described in very positive terms because we went from an agenda to a plan. it won't make the news, it won't be twittered her tweeter door whatever, but it is really going to be slow and deliberate. a regulatory reform, even little things like and agricultural mishap or a situation with the help of some animal on this side of the border, we used to have a policy in place where we closed down the border on both sides. now we contain it locally. those are substantive differences. i think the biggest opportunity or challenge we're going to have between our two countries is in water. we have 20% of the water in the great lakes alone. we have three oceans we share.

we have waterfront opportunities and disputes every day going east to west. that will be interesting when we are on the panel in five years we will be talking about water. >> keystone? [laughter] >> it will be keystone k freestone? [laughter] >> maybe that is an obvious reason why safety trumps trade. >> you sought with the horrible tragedy october 22 in quebec. that is what they get up every morning talking about. after the fort hood murders that took place, we talked about domestic terrorist threats in both of our countries at every meeting we had. that consumes most of our time.

not an immediate time. that is mostly on the pipeline. in die enjoy it. [laughter] -- and i enjoy it. [laughter] >> danielle, what is being lost aaron terms of the big picture? a wider vision for the future of america. our two countries. and possibly mexico. in terms of the focus on some of the irritants that we have had for the last six years. >> i am going to do a little repeating here but hopefully cover some new ground. if we're going to look at the relationship between obama and harper, obama is focused on climate. climate as one of the key legacies this president wants to carry on. not just keystone. there is a whole lot of things the obama administration is pursuing.

the package will put us back in place as one of the worlds power as a leader in cleared -- as a leader in clean energy. we have to look for that common ground. i think there is common ground in clean energy. president harper and obama signed this clean energy dialogue. i would like to say it is robust on clean energy and ccs. the opportunity is much greater they are in the dialogue is currently pursuing. we're rolling up our sleeves and looking at it more intensively. delegating it to groups of people below the two leaders said they do not have to worry about it being about them but the epa and environment canada working together. that is where we have a future. before he and, i want to make

sure i acknowledge there is some really important clean energy work going on in canada with the provinces. there has been concerns with the federal government, but truly ontario, quebec, bc.c. are clearly the best compared with some of the united states. there's certainly a lot going on there. because of that, i think it has barely gotten us conversation going. the federal government actually steps up a end we have that relationship across canada and with the united states. >> you mentioned the provinces. introduce yourself and tell us who you are. >> i am rob mayfield. i represent alberta. we just had our premier here a couple weeks ago. he wants to take the dialogue a

lot prouder than just keystone. if you are in the oil business you are also in the environment business. we are recognized by the world bank as first in class in reducing methane. first in class, we put about $300 per man woman and child in alberta in carbon capture. no place has a price on carbon that goes into reducing greenhouse gas emissions. the oil sands of alberta just announced the addition of fresh water. i do not see any of that coming from other places that has higher emissions than alberta or canada. i do not see any kind of restrictions on energy from any of the middle east or african

countries that we bring oil into. so here we are, america's largest friend and ally feeling like we should be your enemy because your enemy gets a good much better than your ally and it does not make sense. this is a ridiculous position because there and we should be and get that into an environmental liking a lot when we should work on being first in class in the continent and energy independent as the entire north american economy that would be the envy of the world and exports and best in class to the world, to our allies instead of our enemies. i'd like to ask a question as to -- yeah -- i get the

comments from -- from the panel on exactly, you know, whether they see it the same way whether -- >> some of them are and some of them aren't. >> my venezuelan issue is not attacked the same way. >> the oil from keystone was replaced and we reject that and we don't agree with that argument that there's more -- right now we know that venezuelan oil is on a decline so it's not real estate placement. so getting to the broader issue is what is alberta's environmental record. i used to live in alberta for five years. i know -- i know there are policies up there. right now alberta does not have a good record on environmental stewardship. there have been a number of plans that are not being implemented. they have grown to the size of washington, d.c.

so you know, there are a lot of legacy issues in addition to the kriman issues. all these issues about the issues we are raising of where is the source to the united states? it's that massive oil source in keeping the economy and stewardship. and the record in alberta the answer's no. >> i'd like to say from our side you know, we -- we trust canada more than we trust venezuela, nigeria and others. if someone's going to do it right, canada will do it right. there's a transparency issue. canada is transparent. if we want to know what canada is doing, they represent well. we know what's going on in canada. let's do business there. let's do business with somebody we know what's going on and how they're doing this and what

their plan is for the future. we're not holding panels like this for venezuela. we're holding it with canada and we're having an open dialogue with it. and that's beneficial. this is the table. we keep talking about tables. this is the table. we're not having a table with venezuela. this is the real table that we're having discussions with. >> i gather that you change your minds -- >> go ahead. >> three minutes left. >> 750,000 barrels a day from venezuela. i theard it was all going to disappear from people close to the pipeline. the state department puts in a report it will displace venezuelan oil. it will if you're look at 7,000 barrels from the ball can and 730 from the proposals from the oil sands despite the venezuelan oil. it bumps about 750,000 to 800,000 barrels a day. >> the environmental protection agency doesn't agree with that.

>> this is stats in the u.s. department of energy produced last week. >> we can agree to disagree. >> those aren't opinions. those are facts. >> we went beyond keystone. >> just to wrap up here, we secureyed over a couple of the other things. we don't have time to delve into it in great detail. those are things we can deal with. maybe we should have gone another half hour. i think we should have gone another half hour. >> you know, when you talk about country of origins we've lost now a couple of times in various world -- third appeal. seems to me that the solution to that is to simply indicate on the packaging that we have beef made or coming from canada and the united states. solve the problem? resolves the cool issue if you

will. but does give the consumer knowledge about where the product is coming from. and that's a big piece, i think of what our responsibilities are in the united states. you know, when you look around at the issues we've been talking about, we're looking for tables. i agree with the ambassador. >> next panel's going to have a table -- >> you know, much of what happens -- at the top of the pyramid is the security issue and it is paramount. i think that's a fair discussion for the prime minister and the president to be having. you know, we have lots of other groups. you mentioned the council of c.e.o.'s in canada. we have the canadian american business council. we have other groups that could be handling these issues if, in fact some of it was pushed down. i think many of us believe that that's where these proposals should come from because they will get the proper amount of attention. >> do you want a quick country of origin label. we continue to