Carney refuses to chase ‘small deal’ with Trump | Exclusive

Prime Minister, so we are almost, you know, one day shy of a year and it's kind of

So close.

been a lot.

How do you think you're doing?

How do I think? Well, it's not really for me to grade myself. How am I finding it? It is all-encompassing. It's exhilarating in many respects because the issues are so important. I get to meet Canadians across this great country all the time and I'm reminded constantly of the responsibilities that come with it.

And so in many respects the year has flown by. If I look back at it as well, a lot has happened in the year and so time's elastic. It feels both like a long period of time and a very short period of time.

So today was an interesting day, right? So you announced this sovereign wealth fund for Canada. It's new. It's an opportunity for Canadians if they have a little extra money, as you said, to invest effectively in Canada. So that is new. But what about for the Canadians who don't have a little extra money hanging

around? Is there anything new coming? Yeah, so I'm glad you asked the question because it actually starts the other way around. What it is, is it's for all Canadians. It's the People's Fund. And so what we're doing is we as a country are building again. We're making the country stronger, more independent, more resilient, better future for our kids. And so whether it's a new port in Churchill, Manitoba, or a clean energy development off Nova Scotia, or carbon capture in Alberta, all these big projects that we're making happen and make it happen quickly, they're going to make the country stronger, as I say,

more independent. We'll all benefit somewhat from that in different ways. Some people will work directly, others will get the benefit of a stronger economy. Okay. But at the core of all these, there's businesses, there's private money that's going to make money, as they should. And what we're saying is that all of Canada, all of Canada, you don't have to have money

to put aside, all of Canada, the government of Canada, will invest alongside the private sector in this sovereign wealth fund. It's called the Canada Strong Fund for the benefit of us and really our kids and their kids so for the next generation.

So that trajectory is important.

So that's, exactly, it's that trajectory and what we're saying in addition, if you want to put, if you have a bit of money to put aside, we'll make it, you'll make it able that you can put the money into that. But Canadians own this fund, regardless of whether they put money in, and that's what's exciting about it. And one thing, we talked a second ago about the last year,

and I said what's exhilarating, and that weight of responsibility. You know, you would feel this, you go across the country, Canadians are involved, they're looking to do their bit to come together and build the country.

There's a duality there though, right, so that they are interested in getting involved, but here we are, I mean we're sitting here talking at the end of a month, they have bills to pay right now. Absolutely, yeah. So is there anything new for economic relief right now for the Macau?

100%, 100%. Yeah. No, that's the thing. So when we get up, I mean, in government you have to do multiple things at the same time. And the first thing we're thinking about is the pressure on Canadians in affordability. And those pressures have built up over time. And so what we're looking to do is provide a boost today and a bridge to a better tomorrow. So the bridge to the better tomorrow is building more homes, building us, you know, new partnerships around the world,

making the country stronger, more independent, and we're doing all of that. But what about the boost for today? So the first thing we did 364 days ago when we came into government is to cut taxes. We cut taxes for 22 million Canadians.

The first thing we did when I first became Prime Minister before the general election was to cut the consumer carbon tax. We have introduced this year something called the groceries and essential benefit. June 5th, those watching, 12 million Canadians on June 5th who need it the most will get a check for over $500 as part of that benefit. We've just introduced, we just cut the federal tax, fuel excise tax on gasoline,

which when you combine with the consumer carbon tax is taking 28 cents off a liter of gasoline. Now, it's high because of the war, but it's lower than it would otherwise be. So when you put everything together, what we're doing, so we're thinking about the everyday,

the everyday affordability, a series of measures to give Canadians more now that they need to get through as well as being really disciplined as a government to protect things like health care, like child care, like dental care, pharma care. All of those measures, you add those up for a family of four, the average family of four in Canada, depends which province you're in, but it's somewhere between 20 and $27,000 a year of support that the federal

government alone is giving to help Canadians through a difficult patch.

I hear what you're saying and we've talked about all of that. I guess my core question is, tomorrow we get a special economic statement, is there something more additional, new in there that represents economic relief right now? Because without a new thing, some people might be left with the impression that you feel like you've done what you can.

We're constantly looking for ways to support Canadians to provide that boost today and the bridge to tomorrow. There will be a series of things, you have to have some news tomorrow, so I've got to leave some for my Minister of Finance rightly so. But one of the things, one of the focuses of the statement tomorrow and the strategy of the government, it doesn't matter specifically in the statement, is we're building, building, building.

We're building community centers, we're building hockey rinks, we're building these big projects. Well, how do we get Canadians, as many Canadians fully involved in that? I'll give you two examples.

One, we need young people to go into the trades, to choose to go into the skilled trades in order to build it. More than 100,000 new over the course of the next few years. We need as a country, it's a great career if your country is building. We are going to build. Now, we need to make it easier for people to go into the trades, young women and men

to go into the trades. You are going to see something pretty dramatic in that statement which is going to address exactly that issue. We need as well, you know, community centers. We're trying to spend less time online, of course, obviously we want to watch the National, but then once we've done that we want to move out. We want community centers, but we also need sports programming at those community centers. And it can be, of course, it's hockey, it can be ringette, tennis, swimming, just a host of things.

So really having a strategy that's playground to podium to get people through. So there's a lot to come. We're just getting started. I mean, one of the messages I would say, yes, I do feel like we have turned a page. We're getting control under spending on our borders. And we're building.

We're building again in this country at scale. But we're just getting started.

So can I hold you to tomorrow there will be news on something new and more that represents

economic relief right now? Well we have, look, we have just put in place big economic relief measures that groceries and essentials benefit coming through, as I said, June 5th. We've just put in place in the last two weeks the gasoline and diesel moves. So we have measures. I'll say one other thing if I can about this. What's crucial is that we have a government

that is managing the expenses. You'll see more than half of our spending is supporting Canadians, new spending is supporting Canadians because of the pressures that are there. We have to control other expenditure in order to make sure that that's viable. We have the strongest position of the major economies,

the G7 economies. It's our job to keep that position. We're gonna keep that position because it makes us sovereign. It makes us independent. It means we can help Canadians when we need to,

and it means that we can build a better tomorrow.

So you're dealing with realities here that contribute to affordability issues, like the war in Iran, the trade dispute with the United States, that you're trying to deal with. I'm curious on the war in particular. What do you make of the President's explanation or rationale for this war?

Well, let's maybe give our perspective on a few facts. One is that the Iranian regime has been the biggest exporter of terror in the world. It's responsible for hundreds of Canadians' deaths from Iranian terrorism directly, exporter of terrorism across the Middle East, Israel directly but more broadly across the Middle East. It's been an active, consistent over decades pursuit of a nuclear weapon and a regime that I think by temperament, at least by past temperament, would not hesitate to use such extreme measures if it were.

So destabilizing force and reasons, and there's been many efforts to limit the risk from Iran to not just its neighbors but to the world. So there's justification for action, whether that was justification for the action that was taken, we weren't consulted on those, whether that is consistent for the action that was taken. We weren't consulted on those. Whether that is consistent, the actions taken consistent with international law. It's for those who took the actions to justify that.

It doesn't appear to be consistent with international law. But in terms of some of the motivations for, at a minimum, containing Iran. And this is before one gets to its treatment of its own citizens, which is horrific, but containing Iran. And this is before one gets to its treatment of its own citizens, which is horrific, but containing Iran, there's justification for efforts to contain them,

whether it's diplomatic or otherwise.

Have you shared how you feel about it with the president?

Yes.

How did that go?

I mean, we have regular episodic dialogues.

I mean, we don't call each other every day, but we speak about things. We have regular episodic dialogues.

I mean, we don't call each other every day, but we speak about things. I'll say this about the President with respect to this issue. The first time I went to the Oval Office, and just for your viewers to set the scene, what happens in those meetings is you get out of the car,

you shake your hand, you walk into the Oval Office, and you're in a press conference. So it's during that press conference, which goes on for 45 minutes and covers a wide range of issues, that you're trying to get an assessment of, I wonder how this meeting is going to go. Normally, you have the meeting, then you have the press conference afterwards, so you have

some sense. But after that, let's call it a press conference, the spray or whatever they call it in the Oval Office. You go and have a lunch with the President, Vice President, Secretary of State, and various secretaries. And at the lunch, the first question the President asked me was about Iran and what I thought he should do about Iran. So this is an issue that has been on the mind of this President and I would suggest every other one of his predecessors

stretching back over five decades, more than five decades around that. So now, as I say, we were not consulted, nor were any of the other allies about the specific measures that they took or the timing or the nature.

And I would say that the extent to which in the run up to the hostilities, there were negotiations and there appeared, and we have broader contacts obviously, that there was some progress that was being made.

What do you think, how do you assess the cost to Canadians of this war?

Well, the cost to Canadians is, I mean, there's a direct cost in terms of the energy cost. There's a cost in terms of, look, there are, can I take a bigger step back, which is a cost to Canadians?

But I mean, I'm going to be transparent about it.

No, no, of course you can.

Yes, of course. Because I think one of the challenges, one of the things that we face as a country and many of our allies face is the changing nature of the world, the changing nature of the alliances, whether it's within NATO, the support which is not officially NATO but the support that would be given to Ukraine, the nature of the risks in the broader Middle East. There is a cost to us as a nation.

Yes, there's a cost, very real cost in terms of higher gasoline prices. There's a cost in terms of higher fertilizer prices for our farmers. I mean, many of them have purchased fertilizer before, but if you haven't, fertilizer has gone up tremendously. So there's a cost there. There will be other costs that come through.

But there's a deeper cost, which we're addressing, which is in terms of security for Canadians. The world is, I say this all the time, but I say it all the time because it's true, the world is more dangerous and it's more divided. In other words, the divided bit,

there's the alliance structure that we had that helped to protect us, the system that helped to protect us. That is, those are fundamentally changing. That brings a cost in terms of risk. That's one of the reasons why while we're spending on affordability,

while we're focused on Canadian's affordability, we are building up our military. We are focused on protecting our Arctic. That's one of the reasons why we're spending so much time with allies, allies in the Nordic country, allies in Europe, Australia, others, to build deeper relationships with other allies because it's necessary. And look, the United States is saying, with some justification,

that countries in NATO, for example, haven't shouldered their fair share of the burden. Canada now is. We, this government, brought our military spending to the NATO target of 2% this year. Just a month ago we achieved it. And that was the first time since the fall of the Berlin Wall that the Canadian government had met its responsibilities. Now, the world's more dangerous, so we're going gonna have to do more. It's not mission accomplished. But that gives a sense of,

that's a cost for Canadians, if I can put it that way. It's the right cost because it's protecting Canadians. But money we're spending on the military, money we're spending on defending ourselves, absolutely necessary. But that's money we don't have for other purposes.

I do want to bring it back to this moment though. So in Saudi Arabia we met with a lot of Canadians who had fled many regions in the Gulf, right? They were trying to get out and get home. Their impression was they would only be leaving for a little while. This wouldn't go on for very long.

They could go back to Kuwait or wherever. It's still going on. So is there an obligation for Canada to in some way try to help end this and if so, how?

Yes, there is an obligation. Where we can play a role, we have to be realistic or humble about the scale of our role. We are not a superpower, but where we can play a role in conflict in any part of the world, we should try to play that role constructively. So what are we doing with respect to this conflict? Well, with all respect to our Navy, we're not going to send our 21, I told the President this, I said we could send our 21 icebreakers to the Gulf, I don't think that's going

to help the Gulf Harbour.

What about demining?

Demining. We have some demining expertise. So yes, we can provide that. Actually, before I list what we could do, let me give the context in which we could do it. So what we're doing is with France, with the United Kingdom, with 50 other countries effectively, part of an informal coalition, coalition of the willing, which is putting together our assets, our chief of defense staff is involved in this, putting together our military assets and naval assets for what can be done once hostilities cease, once there is a ceasefire that has some durability to help clear the straits and maintain the

clearance of the straits. So that's something we can do.

Did the president ask you, when you said to the president, I could send 21 icebreakers, not going to help, did he call and say, Prime Minister, we could use some help, or did you call him?

He hasn't had, we had a conversation, I can't remember if I called him or he called me, to be honest, but it wasn't a call where he was demanding something for that. But it is reasonable that we're providing support where we can to resolve the situation. There's a tremendous human cost in the region, extending into Lebanon and beyond, and reestablishing peace, or a form of peace,

a cessation of hostilities, to use a broader, you know, simpler term, and what can we do? And so we're working as part of that. And if I, can I make a,

Sure, if I do, I wanna move on a little bit,

You can edit this bit out, you can edit this bit out, okay? But I'll just make a broader point, which is one of the things that this government has done over the past year is we've been broadening our relationships, both with allies and deepening, but also with countries that we wouldn't normally talk with as much or we hadn't historically talked with as much.

Because the fact is, in a conflict such as this, there are a wide range of countries that are relevant to helping resolve it. And if you don't even have their phone numbers, if you've never spoken to them, if you can't engage, your influence is much reduced.

Who are you talking to you've never spoken to before?

So in this, well, I will say who I have spoken infrequently is a better way to put it. So the Sultan of Oman would be an example. Our relationships more broadly in the Gulf, whether it's with Saudi Arabia, with UAE, with Qatar, with the President of Turkey, President Erdogan, who was virtually any situation in the Middle East.

Turkey is influential, it also happens to be a NATO partner, but Canada had not been engaged. That does not, just to be clear, and I'm not saying about any of those specific countries, that doesn't mean we endorse everything

that happens in these countries, of course not. We don't endorse everything that happens in our closest allies either. But it does, it's a more pragmatic approach to these situations because it means that we can work to help resolve things.

You talked a few times about having conversations with President Trump. So it was interesting that the US Trade Representative, Jameson Greer, not that long ago, he was on a Capitol Hill hearing, and he said that when it comes to sectoral tariff relief, that is a personal decision for the President to make. How does that sit with you?

Well, I obviously defer to Ambassador Greer in terms of exactly how those decisions are made. It doesn't, I didn't see the actual testimony, but I'll comment. It doesn't totally surprise me. I mean, the President has very strong and very long held views in certain areas, certain sectors. Automobiles and steel is two examples.

There are more than that. Where his view is, I'm gonna simplify, but basically should be produced in the United States. Now, our view, the view of the Mexicans, the view of most businesses in those areas and workers and unions is, well actually the combination of our three countries makes those industries, the US industry more competitive.

We're all better off together. There's obviously there's a tension there. Do I think- You're talking about a logical thing though. You're talking's a tension there. Do I think-

You're talking about a logical thing though. You're talking about a rational explanation.

No, I'm saying the president has a view, then I'm giving the rational. I'm not saying they're not the same, but might be. But is the president going to be the decision maker on major trade issues? Absolutely.

I think the president is the decision maker on, well, he's the decision maker, full stop, on these issues and all other issues.

I guess what I'm curious about though is if the rational conversation and explanation for why they should be removed isn't landing, do you see it as your personal responsibility to convince him personally that Canada deserves some sectoral tariff relief? Because this country needs a deal on that quick.

We need a good deal in the right time. We need a good deal in the right time. And what we don't need is chasing a deal or chasing a small deal that disadvantages us for the bigger deal. And we're ready to sit down. We could sit down this afternoon and hammer the whole thing out over the course of the

next 10 days if the U.S. side, which has other things to do, I acknowledge that, had the bandwidth and the inclination to go through it. We could hammer it all out. We know exactly what the issues...

On tariffs.

Yep. We know, you know, it takes two, but it takes two to negotiate it through, and they're not all the way there.

Is the setback just at the Oval Office? I mean, if these, if you're ready to sit down right now and hammer out.

Yeah, we've been ready. Look, we have, we exchange ideas, there's engagement, there's engagement this week, there's engagement today actually at a very senior level, not me and the President, but a very senior level. So these conversations are going on.

But there's a, you know, in the end there's going to need to be a real sprint, if you will, for the deal. And when that firing gun is set, if I can use the analogy, it remains to be seen. We don't have the starter pistol. What we are doing though, again go back to earlier, we got to do more than one thing, we got to do multiple things, we got to focus on affordability, we got to deepen those relationships

abroad. Some of that is about security, but a lot of it is about economics, a lot of it is about economics and building new partnerships abroad. All of that puts us in a better position as a country. All of the building at home, being masters in our own home, that puts us in a better position. So we're doing all of that at the same time.

You're doing all of that, but I guess I come back to a question about a president who has a very notoriously thin skin and any hint of criticism has effect. How hard is it to navigate in that space?

Look, how we have a, the president and I have a relationship. It's built up over time. I can speak to him directly. He's the President of the United States. He has a lot on his plate. So you have to pick your spots in terms of focusing

on what are our priorities. Here's the thing, Adrienne. In the end, we would go back to the deal that we would like to ultimately have with the United States, United States and Mexico. One of the lessons I'm afraid we have to take of the last year, 15 months of US behavior

is unless the deal is aligned and bought into by the United States, it's not clear they will respect it. I mean I said the other day, it was talked about trade irritants, things that Canada is doing. These strategic tariffs, the 232 tariffs for the aficionados of this stuff, none of them

are allowed under our agreement, existing agreement. Now it's not going to do us a lot of good to sit and sue the United States on these issues. We gotta hammer out their priorities of change, we gotta work through. But it reinforces that it has to be a process, you talked a moment ago about logic or rational

and a belief that what are the areas where we are stronger together? And yes in autos, yes, in steel, yes, in forest products, yes, in aerospace, yes, in a host of other areas. It's no accident, in my view, that we do still have effectively the best deal of anybody with the United States.

But that's Kuzma.

But that's not what you negotiated.

But that's, but no, but that's not what you negotiated. That's a choice. If you just follow what's actually going on, auto, steel, that's all under Kuzma. That's all covered under Kuzma. They decided in those areas, for certain reasons, aluminum would be another example, pharma, that they globally have a strategic imperative which is different than what the terms are of KUSMA.

In a series of other areas, they've decided, let's just keep the agreement. That shows the value of the integration of the economy. What the negotiation, it's not exclusively about this, but a big part of it is around these strategic sectors, which as Ambassador Greer, the testimony you referred to, and as the President has said, they want a fundamentally different arrangement.

And the question for us is, well, where is that arrangement? What's in the best interest of Canada? Where else can we cooperate that can improve those arrangements? That's what a negotiation is. You have a variety of things on the table. That's what we're working through.

I really want to understand something about what it has been like for you to navigate that space with President Trump. Because I know you understand the man and you've studied him and you've watched him. That's one thing. It's different being right in front of him,

seeing him react to ads out of Ontario or, you know, provinces not pulling booze. Seeing, you know, seeing the effect of those criticisms, not liking your Davos speech. How do you navigate that?

Well, I think a couple of things. One is you're straight with him. I don't want to antagonize anybody. I don't want to insult people. I don't want to press a button that causes anybody to be upset. Maybe one or two film ads, but you know what I mean. I don't want to... But I also don't want to say something I don't believe to them, right? I don't... There's no value, this has been my judgment from the start, there's no value in misrepresenting your position, sugarcoating things unnecessarily, not being clear about where you're going to stand up. We've been very clear about standing

up, whether it's on supply management, standing up for the auto sector, standing up for steel, standing up for steel, aluminum, he certainly respects strength, and lots of people like to be flattered, but he can see through obsequiousness, to use a fancy word for it. And so it's, I think the best way to deal with the president is to be straight with him, and he's, in the end, he's a businessman and who is president and there's a way to

find an arrangement that works for both countries.

Well, you have the grace of time now, but it's not indefinite.

Well, we have, we never have indefinite amount. We will only take as much time as is necessary. But rushing into something, you know, a lot of countries rushed into deals with the US. They weren't really worth the paper they were written on. Like which ones? There's a lot of buyers, well, you can, well, I'll put it back to you and tell me which country you've bumped into that's pleased with their deal with the US.

You don't think there are any?

Well, certainly not in private.

Okay. Prime Minister. Prime Minister. Thank you.