Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney said Friday that if his government could not successfully negotiate a suitable trade pact with the Trump administration, he was prepared to wait for a new American president; one that Canadians would approve of.

Asked if that meant he would hold out for a new American president; the prime minister answered in the affirmative. “We’ll have to, if that’s what it takes,” Carney told POLITICO

Within the interview Carney also emphasizes the risks from AI (SI) and underlines how the AI frontier labs are requesting a slowdown and regulation upon them.  Carney says he agrees with the AI leaders on this issue and government regulation is a best approach.

In my opinion the reason Canada and the EU want AI slowed and regulated is simply because they are so far behind on their ability to generate their own models.  They have a self-interest to stop AI (SI) development in the USA.

The transcript for the interview below:

(0:00) Prime Minister, thanks for speaking with Politico today.

(0:02) Thanks for having me.

(0:03) You’ve just wrapped up the 21st Kennedy EU summit here in Montreal. Um, this is a milestone meeting. You’re eager to deepen transatlantic ties. Um, but there is, we know, some dispute about how to characterize and name the Canada EU relationship. How would you describe the relationship status with the EU in one word?

(0:30) Tight. I don’t I mean I think that’s a little too clever of a question quite frankly uh for relations between jurisdictions as complex and uh multifaceted as Canada, the European Union. The uh what’s clear uh and I think what’s important is to recognize the ambition and the reality uh and the reality filling in with the ambition. And as we’ve made clear, the pres president Vanderline, President Costa, uh, (1:01) Chancellor Mets, uh, I saw a statement from him the other day. He and I speak regularly. Uh, this is (1:09) going to be the closest association between any country in the European Union in the world and the ambition around the closest association possible without being a full member of the European Union. So that is tight, but it’s broad. It’s multifaceted. Uh and it’s designed to do several things. (1:31) affordability for our families, uh, opportunity for our students, our people, our businesses, our researchers, and reinforce our sovereignty, our independence by bringing together our complementary strengths in a wide range of areas, energy, critical minerals, AI, space, uh, and beyond so that we can withstand shocks, so that others can’t leverage against us because of certain choke points or critical supply. And in that regard to continue to ensure that our citizens have the freedoms that they enjoy, that they can live their lives as they choose.

(2:08) Prime Minister, you said that you speak with the chancellor of Germany, Mertz, frequently. Have you expressed some frustration to him about this impasse over associate membership? Because we do know that he is he’s blocked it from the joint declaration and Germany is still against the use of that term.

(2:26) I think it’s uh well, I I I’ll make a couple of observations. one is that uh the in terms of frustrating we have a very constructive relationship so we focus on uh what we’re working on together a variety of global issues uh he’s in Asia at the moment maybe he’s just made it back home uh so we’ve been talking about a variety of other uh elements uh number two in terms of uh again the the titles I can slightly understand why you ask it but I’m not sure the best use of our time is to ask multiple questions is about one term. When what is this is about is a deep cooperation across technology, across trade, across culture, across research, across education uh working together on common problems with very specific agreements that are that are going to move uh to address them.

(3:22) But given that do you understand Germany’s objections? I well the issue the issue is a very uh internal European issue which relates to uh terminology around countries that are in Europe and could ultimately become a member of the European Union and nomenclature that’s applied to those countries. It’s not a Canadian issue. It’s a internal broader European issue and given where you are and Politico’s considerable resources I’m sure you can research and discover uh the details around them.

(3:56) Your government also in Montreal announced a new national security strategy. It (4:01) yes (4:01) uh identified frontier AI as a real threat facing Canadians. I’m curious how concerned you are about the enormous political the enormous economic power wielded by a handful of global tech executives.

I think the any time so thank you for that. The any time that there is a single point of risk or a couple of points of risk uh or points of failure uh you should be concerned in terms of and that those relate directly to the core economy. So let me draw that out and to be more specific. So what’s been happening over the course of the last several months is frontier AI models have been better able to identify holes in cyber defenses uh which run the risk of financial institutions seizing up uh power systems or other core systems in our economies uh stopping functioning because they need cyber defenses all the time. U it is not a good idea to have only one solution to that problem. It is a good idea to have multiple solutions to those problems and to have some of those solutions within your control either through partnership, direct ownership, direct development. And what our national security strategy does is it identifies (5:21) not countries per se, but it identifies the type of areas where there is that deep strategic risk. Critical minerals is another, energy is obvious, food security is a third. uh various aspects of AI, space technology. Increasingly what will happen is a variety of systems in our economies will run will be connected to space to satellites in some form. Well, if you’re connected to a satellite system that a billionaire almost trillionaire decides to turn off at one moment or not, uh that’s not a good idea either. So having the redundancy. So what’s one of the things that we in Europe are doing which is cooperating pooling our space assets some of our space assets Europe as you know has Iris squared, we have some leadership in low earth or orbit satellite um some other technologies can come together which creates some parallel systems (6:14) redundancy independence sovereignty and then there is not that uh that risk that that you just described

(6:22) But you alluded to what Elon Musk did with Starlink and Starshield. That was a huge problem for Ukraine on the battlefield. It took days to resolve. It still has exposed the extent to which Ukraine is vulnerable. And there’s nothing, as far as I can tell, that Canada, that Europe can do to replace that capability. (6:41) Well, I mean, instantaneously, you can’t instantly. (6:44) How long would it take?

(6:45) It takes, look, I what our LEO constellation will be operable in 2028. uh Europe’s uh a few years later I I’ll say roughly u we can help bridge to Europe’s constellation or and or we can help scale and pool those two constellations. Those are the types of things you can do if if you’re deliberate about them and and and focus on them and and accelerate and that’s exactly what we’re doing. So uh the the there are there are risks. Uh now we are not we have not uh hooked our dependencies to that system our our defenses to that system. Uh nor would we given the track record.

(7:28) Do you think the CEOs are doing enough when you consider the risk from AI? I mean you’ve identified it as a big threat to humanity. I mean the idea of slowing down gets re mentioned and then shut down are the tech company CEOs who you speak to do you feel like they’re taking the risk seriously and preventing it?

You know uh I don’t know if this is a contrarian view but uh the ones I speak to Demis would be an example Nobel laurate at Google deep mind uh Dario Amadai others they they do take it seriously and in many respects they’ve been at the forefront and very well informed and from an early stage in other words going back several years uh warning about the risks on cyber on recursive AI uh other aspects biohazards and things. So they have been it is exceptionally difficult (8:24) if not impossible I never I should never say something is impossible but it’s exceptionally difficult for uh industries to regulate themselves to truly regulate themselves uh on a much lower scale. I’m very familiar with what happens in finance and banks know that they shouldn’t stretch too far, but to quote uh Chuck Prince, when the music’s playing, it’s hard to stop dancing unless somebody is regulating the music, overseeing the music, providing guardrails in and around. That’s why so much was done in the financial sector. It should have been done before the financial crisis. Uh we did a lot after the financial crisis. It’s why Canada is advocating a technology stability board bringing together the safety institutes some of which are resident here in Montreal uh the MA we made an announcement at MA uh the other day uh where a lot of that expertise is a lot of that expertise is in Europe some of it’s in the UK of course some is in the US but pooling that providing getting common approaches making sure that you know we go back and apply it this is something we should be doing to be absolutely clear we should be doing at the G7. We should be doing at the G20. It’s not happening. It’s not moving fast enough. So, what do you do in that circumstance? If you’re the European Union, if you’re Canada, some other like-minded countries, is you come together and you do that together to the best extent you can. It’s not as good as it happening globally, but it’s far better than nobody doing it. And it does potentially create the momentum or at least the nucleus uh for broader solutions. And that is one of the examples of what we will be doing with the alliance for the future.

(10:01) I’m glad you put your central banker hat on because I want to ask you a question on that because obviously so much of the global economy now is being built on the potential of AI to boost productivity. (10:14) What happens if it fails?

Well, if you’re asking me from a central banker perspective, uh, back back to the old days, I mean, this is one of the issues is that (10:24) if the productivity benefits, if and when the productivity benefits come from AI that are widely spread, they have to be widely spread to affect the economy and and to bring wages up and and and growth up for for everyone. Um, then economies can grow faster without inflationary pressures. What you can’t do as a central banker is take that for granted and start to adjust monetary policy lower interest rates or have interest rates lower than they otherwise would be because you think that’s going to happen. You have to see it happen because the inflationary process works in a very short period of time. And so one of the issues for central banks is is teasing out when that’s going to happen. It’s (11:10) I personally I think it’s less tricky for them (11:15) because they need to see it in the actual performance um and then respond uh at that time

(11:22) on a personal level. How do you use AI day-to-day?

(11:25) How do I use AI? I use it well I use it not as much as I would like uh because much of what I receive is secret or top it it’s government uh information um and so I have to be accept you know I have to be very careful about uh what’s applied to that and our systems I’m speaking just openly are not well set up uh in terms of using data information across various systems it’s just there’s series of silos the way they’re designed. So what we’re doing as a government is uh we are embedding AI. We we brought Patrick Pette in a former CFO of Google very experienced in the area across the board and we’re transforming how government works and that’s going to be part of what I’m able to do. I can see what I would like to do with a series of agents in terms of uh managing my information flow and pulling things out. Uh but we need to restructure rapidly internally uh how we work as a government. Uh so that’s the that’s the longest short answer to how I use AI. Look, I mean recreationally I’ll use uh uh some um GPTs to uh to you know inquire about certain issues or others, but that’s uh it’s not as much as I would like it to be the case.

(12:49) I want to take you back to national security. Yeah. Um, I have a question on Golden Dome, the the US potential US missile shield.

(12:56) Yeah.

(12:57) Uh, in I’m going to quote you. We can see the geoic dome from here. (13:01) [clears throat] Buckminister Fuller’s dome right there from 1967.

(13:05) I’m going to have to go check it out.

(13:06) You can check it out. You just look over your [laughter] shoulder. You know, it doesn’t look much difference when you get that close. Sorry.

(13:11) Uh, in a

(13:12) You can edit all that out, Nick.

(13:13) No, we should keep it because Brussels has the automium. So, it’s like a dual Okay. bubble situation.

(13:19) All right. I’ll go uh next time. Next time when you’re in Brussels, I’ll take you to the UK and then Yeah. Okay.

(13:26) Um in a recent interview. Sorry, we’ve run out of time with the Times, [laughter] the New York Times. Um I’m going to quote you said hypersonic missile defense coordination with the United States will be and then you were interrupted. You didn’t get to finish the sentence.

(13:39) I can’t remember what I was going to say.

(13:40) What would you say now?

(13:42) What what’s just reflecting on on Golden Dome and uh Canada’s I guess potential? Well, there’s look there are there are a series of areas where um you know Canadian continued Canadian US cooperation are is the most effective way to defend Canada my interest um defend the United States as well. Uh and so what’s changed is uh and changing rapidly is the risk of hypersonic missiles uh circumpolar if I can put it that way or over polar uh missiles uh coming towards the United States or hitting Canada. Uh and so a coordinated approach there uh is of interest. We are we are investing in some of the components of that defense over the horizon radar. uh for example the Australian purchase that uh we we we’ve started to put in place which literally does looks over the horizon uh in order to give that extra period of time to uh provide that defense. So we’re making some of those investments. Uh there’s clear line of sight, you know, with us in the United States in terms of what we’re doing and and how uh how that potentially could fit into a broader solution.

(14:53) But do you think at this point that Golden Dome is is tangible? Is something that could actually happen that’s worth talking about participating?

(15:02) Uh the could being the operative word there.

(15:05) Um we’ll move to to Trump and and the trade war. Couple questions. Occasionally you’re asked about this. (15:13) Yeah. Um midterm elections are next week. Is it acceptable to you to never get the chance, never seal a new trade deal with Donald Trump while he’s in office?

(15:27) What I I would I would flip the question around. Um we will conclude a deal that’s in Canada’s interest when one is available and uh uh we will we can do it this afternoon. Uh we know the broad outlines of that. That’s a mutually advantageous uh trade deal with the US and Canada. By the way, the most mutually advantageous trade deal with US and Canada is our existing trade deal uh which they call USMCA. But if in an environment of the new trade policy of the United States, there are still things where uh given the starting point uh they’re very much win-win uh for the two countries uh and we can conclude that rapidly, but we’re not going to conclude uh something for the sake of concluding it. We’re not going to lock in something that’s not in Canada’s interest. We have agency. We have options. We are building this economy domestically at home. We’re deepening partnerships with the European Union, represented by your colleague. Um we are uh we’re we have free trade access to one and a half billion consumers around the world and we’re likely to double that in the next six months. Uh so yes, there’s a deal uh to have with the US. we can do that quickly, but if there’s not something that’s in Canada’s interest, uh we will we’re not, as I say, we’re not going to do it just for the sake of it.

(16:48) So, another way of asking it would be you’re willing to wait for the next US president if that’s what it takes.

(16:54) Well, we’ll have to if if that’s what it takes. Yeah. And you know, and uh American families, uh American businesses will also lose out because of that. They’re not winners in this circumstance. Um, but what is happening is that every month that goes by, Canada grows stronger, our options increase, uh, ultimately we’ll be a better partner for the United States. That’s not why we’re doing this. Uh, we’re doing this to create more opportunity for Canadians.

(17:28) I wanted to ask you about some of the comments that have come from the US Ambassador Pete Herstra and others who’ve been accusing Canada of election meddling ahead of the midterms. I mean, are you tired to borrow an expression of the US poking the bear?

(17:44) Uh, well, not a bear. Am I the bear in this metaphor?

(17:47) I think Canada’s the bear. Uh, I think Canadians are tired of it. I think that’s very clear.

(17:53) Have you raised it with Trump? raised uh the fact that you know that these accusations keep flying.

(18:00) Uh I think that might encourage more. Um look, we call out uh we call out the issues I call out specific issues with the United States. Uh there are a wide range of uh wide range of them. Unfortunately, um what what I focus on with uh in my interactions with President Trump are yes, trade uh and trying to push and encourage uh towards something that’s in their interest but very much in our interest, mutually advantageous deal. Uh there are a series of global challenges. We we all know them. Ukraine, uh, Iran, uh, Gaza, um, Sudan, uh, a series of, uh, areas where the United States has, uh, tremendous influence and and can be part of the solution, where Canada can do some things to help, and so to try to encourage outcomes that are that are going to make things better.

(18:57) Did you change any of the way in which you spoke about the EU Canada summit, anything that you did here this week with a view to what Donald Trump might say about it?

Absolutely not. That that way lies madness. I and I be absolutely clear about that. We do I what I speak for Canada. I speak in Canada’s interest. I can’t remember if I’m trying to manage my words so that uh it doesn’t offend this country there or that country there. It’s far better just to be absolutely clear what we’re doing. This is a very positive association. The bilateral relationship between Canada and Europe, the tightest uh one to go back to where we started, the tightest one uh that exists and a very positive alliance. So that that’s and it’s much better and it’s very much the mood of the country of of Canadians. Canadians want to build. Canadians want to move forward. Canadians want to do things. They want to solve problems. They don’t want to react to things. They don’t want to break things down. They don’t want to it’s it’s we’re uh we have challenges. There’s no question. Uh but people are in a good place. They want to come together. They want to build. And so we’re not adjusting for other what the US might think, what China might think, what uh what certainly what Russia might think.

(20:26) Might you adjust for what happens in Europe? Because the EU is moving towards the far right. The French election is coming up. Marin Le Pen is polling first. The AFD has won two consecutive regional elections. So, is there a worry that you have that this union that’s built on tight values on aligning on all of these things might actually look very different once those elections happen?

(20:51) Well, look, part of having values and valuing uh democracy and freedom and rule of law is that you have elections and the people decide which direction they want to go. Uh so that’s part and parcel of the European Union, certainly Canada. what we have I’ve yet to find a country that uh in a world that’s more dangerous and divided does that doesn’t want to be more sovereign more independent a better able to withstand shocks you quickly learn if you haven’t figured it out yet if you’re in one of these roles that to be sovereign is not to be alone that you need like-minded partners nobody is self-sufficient the United States is not self-sufficient. United States discovered that when China uh made restrictions on critical minerals. There’s lots of other areas uh where the United States relies on other countries for certain critical uh aspects. Um and so governments coming in within Europe. There are issues in Europe, but there are advantages within Europe. And and Europe itself gives more sovereignty to countries that are in Europe. Canada gives more sovereignty to Europe. Europe gives more sovereignty to Canada. Would you work with a president Le Pen across the (22:10) My look my uh my responsibility is to work with uh whether it’s provincial premiers or leaders of other countries in the best interests of Canada. Now working with and having agreement on are two different things but my experience is best to look to work together. Could the could the could the range of cooperation in Europe for Europe and and the way it its priorities change with democratic different democratic outcomes? Absolutely. Uh but that’s that’s the way it should be. Is there more than enough in terms of deepening our cooperation in the areas that we’ve set set out? Absolutely. As well and and both both are compatible.

Next month you’ll be the only NATO leader um aside from Donald Trump to attend the the Apex summit in China. You’ve said that if you hadn’t thought about that, but that’s true. Yes. And you’ve said that if you see Vladimir Putin, you will tell him to to get out of Ukraine, similar to one of your predecessors, Steven Harper. But do you do you plan to seek a meeting with Putin while there?

(23:14) Uh no, I I don’t. Uh but uh I mean that that’s my message to him. Um uh my message to him would be we’re going to tighten sanctions. Get out of Ukraine. Stop your war crimes.

Um we had some some breaking news today just shortly before we we sat down here. Uh Russian hockey teams likely let back into international tournaments. Canada is hosting the under20 championship we call in Canada of course the world juniors. Yeah. In Alberta. Um what do you make of the idea that that Russian teams will be competing once again?

(23:49) Uh wasn’t aware of it. It’s unwelcome. Yeah. Do you consider I’ll think about it. I’ll think about it. Yeah.

(23:58) I wanted to ask you about the four shirts from Brooks Brothers that Donald Trump gifted you. [laughter] Yes. Did they fit?

(24:07) I haven’t tried them on yet. I haven’t tried them on. I’m going to I’m going to wear If we have a trade deal, why I’ll put them on. Uh but it was uh you know, I thank the president for sending the shirts. Ask my shirt size.

Uh but and uh yeah have why did he send those shirts like what is I do know does it say anything more broadly about crossber relations or is it just your personal relation [laughter] uh did you I don’t want to go I don’t want to I don’t want to read too much into it.

Did you send him something back?

(24:39) I didn’t actually. I said thank you. I said thank you. Uh but uh yeah, no, I haven’t had occasion to put on the shirts cuz uh we don’t have a mutually advantageous uh trade deal. I look forward I look forward to the day that I am wearing uh the Brooks Brothers shirt as you say. I’m not going to wear all four at once. [laughter] Uh but they are Yeah, they’re sitting in my closet.

(25:01) What’s the last gift you gave the president?

(25:07) Can’t remember. Uh come on, Nick. [laughter] Well, there was a there was an Olympic hockey bet. Uh I heard some sort of gentleman’s wage.

No, there wasn’t a bet. We didn’t bet on the hockey. We talked about it and we talked about the World Series as it was going through. Uh I am trying to remember. I know what I gave. Uh which was for the um 250th uh anniversary of the United States. Uh we did a series of things uh as Canada. We lit up this was to the American people, president included. Uh we lit up various bridges, crossber bridges uh with the American flag. Nice touch I thought. uh we sent uh 250 maple trees to be planted across border states and then we had some commemorative uh coins uh that were made which had on them uh two two-sided uh one was the American eagle because as you know you know uh the American there’s lots of American eagles in Canada uh bald eagles uh in Canada as well of course as being the symbol of the United States and then on the other side his favorite monarch who happens to be king of Canada as well as the United States, Prince King Charles, I should say. Yeah.

(26:22) Uh, we have to ask you about Nathan Fieler, uh, Vancouver’s own. Nathan Fielder, his his documentary, Elizabeth Holmes, um, you can see everything. Canada’s latest. I can see everything, but I haven’t seen the documentary. So, [laughter] would you let him, knowing maybe a little bit about his style, make a documentary about you?

(26:38) I I don’t uh I mean, I know I have no idea. How’s that? How’s that?

(26:45) Well, let’s shift then to a cultural icon in Canada you certainly love, which is Heated Rivalry season 2 is coming. Well, I certainly Yeah. Okay. Yeah. Well, you’ve posed for photos quite warmly with one of the stars.

Um, it just happened.

Do we get a Carne cameo? Did we get Do we get a Carne cameo in season 2?

(27:03) I don’t I boy that would I think the business model of heated rivalry I mean apart from entertainment is uh to have as many people watch as possible and I think having a car carne cameo might drive down ratings so I wouldn’t hold my breath but of course Ottawa does play an important role in season two doesn’t it yeah look forward to it.

(27:23) I did want to ask about something you said in your uh press conference earlier you were asked about the support for Ukraine you mentioned how long is this interview like a [laughter] month.

We We get a year. Okay. That’s what we’ve been told. All right. You said press conference yesterday. You mean? No. No. Cuz it was yesterday. We’ve been here for 20 years. Oh, God. [laughter] Yes. Of course. Because you got the heated rivalry. Well, you look great for someone who hasn’t changed. I wanted to ask about the 500 million uh uh contribution to the Ukraine loan that you mentioned. You said that was the start. What is the sort of headroom you’re talking about?

(27:56) Well, I think that I mean that is that’s the essence. I think we recognize that’s the agreement and that’s within the maybe I didn’t choose the words exactly uh clearly enough. Uh you have the 90 billion as you know euros uh of that loan. Um we’re we’re taking 500 million euros of that. The question unfortunately back to the Putin point um is how long this continues to go on. this uh the suffering continues to go on um and the additional um needs that may be there for Ukraine. So, sorry, I was imprecise. I was more alluding to we’re going to stand by Ukraine uh and be there uh both for uh reconstruction um and ongoing support uh for their defensive purposes.

(28:49) Do you think there is a wavering in the global consensus around how to treat Putin? because it feels like lately a lot of leaders are picking up the phone and talking to him. Just recently we heard about the phone call between the uh and store. Do you think that’s the right approach?

(29:09) I think it depends on the message uh and whether previous messengers were clear enough about what the message uh and and the resolve for example for those members of the coalition of the willing the resolve of uh European Union uh resolve of European member states I should I mean clearly um and uh and countries like Canada uh sometimes it’s better to have uh those direct leader to leader conversation. So in that regard it’s fine. um uh and maybe constructive I don’t think that u well there has been some variance in terms of US actions uh with respect to restrictions on you know sanctions on Russia um provision of defensive capabilities to Ukraine that’s been unhelpful um I don’t think there’s been a wavering of uh resolve of other members. Clear there has not been a wavering of resolve. If anything, there’s been a hardening of resolve of members of the coalition of the willing Canada included. Um I the uh the atrocities continue. Uh h ballistic missiles being fired into the equivalent of uh old Montreal. Um in Kev, Russia lost uh another 35,000 plus soldiers in the last month. Um it’s a pointless slaughter uh that’s going on. Uh so the resolve the resolve continues.

(30:50) Prime Minister. Okay. Thank you very much for the full day you gave us all of our questions. [laughter]

Okay. Thank you.

You’re welcome.