I just wanted to ask, the 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 . Its a priority for the American Public as well. Its got 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 inhouse 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 have oil on and in a pipeline than on rail. Since it has been delayed, oil is coming down to the United States from north dakota and montana to the gulf coast but its coming down on rail. 900 increase on Oil Shipments by rail. When you look at it, 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 energyefficient 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, its yes. If its made on politics, its 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. Its 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 dont 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. When you look a year ago and the president s speech at Georgetown University with no impact on 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 2840 two percent when you compare to the mode of transportation is being used now and thats rail. We just want science to be the 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 its 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. We have lots of cases in the 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. He can use science not politics. This has been such a heavy diplomatic priority for the canadian government for several years now. At the same 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. Were also spending our time on trying to improve the balance between efficiency at the border and risk. A lot of time that we spend is on the life and death areas where we are working together which is generally very constructive. This is an area, obviously, going from 8485 pipelines between our two countries, we dont think i never thought this was a major environmental issue just because somebody says it is and it does not make it so. Host there are existing pipelines between the two countries. Canada just approved a gas pipeline in the last couple of years because that is the canadau. 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 thats what pipelines are. There are 84 of them already. Host cant these other companies build pipelines or have greater capacity . Why keystone xl . Its 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. Then it went to the aquifer and 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. Also the Prime Minister has said 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 reject this, 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. Im 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. The report said in dealing with another pipeline, it makes more sense to have oil in a pipeline because if you dont, 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. It also includes other oil and 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 ninemonth 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 its quite exciting what is going on in the United States to begin with on energy. It starts with Energy Efficiency. In canada and the United States, the same Energy Efficiency standards has been worked on for cars. The president worked on this and 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 of oil in texas and oil from canada, we think it provides all of us the opportunity to have less dependence on the middle east. And thats 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 again that canada is more reliable as a provider in the middle east. Given that the white house or the state department puts the 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 ghds because its 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 its labor that wants to get this thing going. I just think that if i make a 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 . Host the state department scientists. 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. It has been years in the making but when do you anticipate those regulations finally coming forward . Guest we went ahead earlier with coal regulations. We are down to close to 10 of electrical generation from coal right now. I think the United States is up at 38 and planning to be at about 30 by 2030. We worked together on what we 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. The oil goes across the border 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 Ministers 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 didnt 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. We will 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. We prefer to do it with the 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 thats an interesting term. We did that with coal because we could. Obviously, for us, we have the example we did Light Vehicles together because its 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 a 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. Thats what we would like to do. We did that with ozone depleting materials a few years ago and thats still the best and preferred way for canada to work with United States. Host we have about five minutes left. With russia 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