'We Will Only Accept...': Mark Carney Delivers Firm Message To Trump Over Tariffs In Explosive PC

[0:00] Hi, a question for the Prime Minister, Matthew Skates of the Globe and Mail. [0:03] Going off a rough translation from an earlier question, you said funding requirements for [0:07] the streamer's decision wasn't connected to Washington, but it wasn't an irritant for [0:11] Washington and a change the Trump administration wanted. Your government has capitulated on [0:16] revenue splitting for Forty Howe Bridge, digital service tax, and removing funding for American [0:19] streamers. What has Canada gotten in return for these concessions? [0:24] Well, let's do a couple things. Sorry, I'm going to do a little premise [0:28] surgery for your question. Let's be clear about the bridge. The bridge, first off, the bridge is open. [0:35] The bridge is open in a region, a narrow economic region that has $300 billion of economic activity [0:42] that goes across land connections between the United States and largely the province of Ontario. [0:49] $300 billion of economic activity. $6.5 billion cost of that bridge. An agreement that's less [0:59] than 5% of that amount, less than 5% of that amount. That is then reinvested in support, economic [1:07] support, for that economic activity to enhance that economic activity. So we put that in perspective. [1:15] That's being pragmatic and moving forward. And we've got to bridge this open. We've got [1:20] opportunities open. And in terms of where we are as a country, we still have the lowest tariff [1:27] rate of any country on an average basis. We still have north of 80% of our trade, 85 as we speak today, [1:36] but north of 80% of our trade is tariff-free with the United States. And we're engaged in discussions [1:42] with them. Now, we're engaged with discussions, working to have a more permanent or more stable [1:49] is a better way to put it. Nothing's permanent, but a more stable relationship, a trading relationship [1:54] with the U.S. that addresses issues in some of our largest industries. And that recognizes the new U.S. [2:05] approach to trade. So we're starting from a strong position. And I'm going to go back to one other [2:10] thing and I'll head back, which I said at my prepared remarks. And we're stronger than we were [2:16] when this started. We are stronger than we were when this started. Jobs twice, we're growing jobs [2:22] twice the rate of the U.S. Our FDI is twice the rate of our nearest competitor. That's the United [2:28] States. It's twice the rate of the U.S. We're the best country in the world judged for infrastructure [2:33] investment. We're focused on the right things, affordable housing, community, becoming an energy [2:38] superpower. Diversify. Everybody wants to do more with Canada, except the United States. Everyone [2:45] wants to do more with Canada. So we're engaged in all these trade negotiations and we're delivering [2:50] them and we're on track to have access, free trade access to three billion consumers. That's what we got. [2:56] Follow up? On the streaming decision, how should Canadians [3:01] interpret that decision when Minister Le Bonk and Canadian officials are at an event yesterday, [3:05] co-sponsor? We made that decision two months ago. That's how they should. We made that decision [3:11] with a focus on affordability right out of the gate. It's not the time. You know, Canadians [3:18] are under, sorry, I should let you finish your question. You finish it. Canadians have been under [3:26] great pressure since COVID from overall inflation, price of groceries, housing costs, price most recently [3:36] because of the war in Iran, price of energy. And we have taken, as other governments have, but we have [3:43] taken a series of decisions. First thing we did was to cut the consumer carbon tax. First thing we did [3:49] after the election was to cut income taxes for 22 million Canadians. We cut GST on for first-time home [3:55] buyers up to a million. We implemented pro-competitive decisions in broadband. People didn't notice it, [4:02] but last summer we made a pro-competitive decision in broadband. We went along with the CRTC in that case [4:09] because it improved competition and has helped reinforce the fall in broadband prices. But when [4:15] we see costs increase because of a decision from the federal family, broadly speaking, arms-length [4:23] regulator, but from the federal family, for something that, you know, most Canadians have one or two or so [4:29] of these streamers. And it's real hard. This stuff adds up. And there's a better way to do it. We took the [4:35] judgment there was a better way to do it. Made the investment in culture. And we'll give the direction [4:40] accordingly. That's how, that's, it's that focus on affordability. I'm sorry. Can you say what we're [4:44] getting in return from, from the U.S. right now in terms of the trade negotiations? We have these [4:48] lists of things that are happening right now. The best trade deal in the world right now. Thank you. [4:52] Next question. Question, Kassian. Yeah. Hi, Jordan Canagan with CTV News. Thank you for taking my questions. [4:57] The first question is for both the Prime Minister and for the Premier. As we move towards the referendum [5:02] in October, some of the separation angst, if you will, is driven by concerns over equalization [5:07] payments and the feeling and the belief that Albertans are being taken advantage of. Certainly, [5:11] there's some disinformation when it comes to equalization. But do you think that the program [5:16] should be reviewed before its renewal in just a few years? Well, thanks for giving me the opportunity [5:21] to lobby the Prime Minister on this. I've lobbied my fellow premiers at the table. And you can imagine [5:26] that those who are benefiting from equalization want to keep the program as it is. But it's not fair, [5:32] because the growth in the program grows with the size of the economy, which is kind of [5:37] counterintuitive. Because if the economy is growing and everybody is doing better, [5:41] they should be less reliant on the equalization program. In fact, we've calculated that there's [5:46] overcompensation to the Have Not provinces of $7 billion over the last five years. So, [5:51] my pitch to my fellow premiers and now my pitch to the Prime Minister is let's just get rid of that [5:56] escalator. Let's equalize to the point of need. And then let's take the excess that's in that fund [6:03] and distribute it back to the provinces on an equal per capita basis. That'll help us with our [6:07] funding pressures. And I think it will be a demonstration that just because there's extra [6:11] money, you don't just cut a check to Ontario, who clearly doesn't need it. They're a powerful economy. [6:16] They shouldn't be getting equalization from smaller provinces. So, that's been my consistent position. [6:22] We think, ultimately, we should change the equalization program so that we look at per [6:27] capita spending as well. We shouldn't be over-equalizing provinces so they can pay for more [6:32] generous social programs than we're able to afford here ourselves. I haven't made much headway yet with [6:37] my fellow premiers who are the recipient provinces, but I can tell you that the ones who are kind of [6:43] the net contributors, I feel as well that we've got to get a bit more fairness into the program. So, [6:48] I don't know if the Prime Minister wants to respond to that, but thanks for the opportunity to put our [6:51] position on the table. Thank you. There you go. Well, [6:56] he did say it was for both of us. And he just, you know, sort of nice little softball straight [7:03] across the plate there, telegraphed. No. Look, these are important – these are hugely important [7:08] issues, all seriousness, whether it's equalization, whether it's health funding, other federal programs. [7:14] And one of the things that underpins the country is a sense of fairness. And then you move into the [7:25] interpretation of that fairness and how it's applied. And at the heart of fairness, and this is [7:32] true within a province, it's true across the country, is that Canadians have accessed reasonably [7:39] comparable services, whether it's health, education – reasonably comparable. It doesn't mean it's [7:45] exactly the same, but it's reasonably comparable. And they have reasonably comparable resources in [7:51] order to do that. Now, that – the second part of that equation, the reasonably comparable resources, [7:59] the calculation of that and how that – that changes over time. Some provinces do better, others do, [8:05] you know, things. There are shocks. The trade stuff can be an element of that if it's more persistent. [8:12] And that's why the program is reviewed on a – on a regular basis. It's not reviewed every year. And that [8:18] is a – that's a, you know, cooperative and engaged process. And we have a review of that coming up. And, [8:25] of course, we'll be – we'll be looking hard at that. The other element, of course, is delivering services [8:32] right here and now and making sure that we are, again, in that spirit of cooperative federalism, that we're [8:38] delivering – we – when I say we, the federal government – is delivering, recognizing the [8:44] differences in – in the capacities, the needs, the capabilities of the various provinces. And that's [8:50] what you're seeing today. [8:51] Follow up. [8:52] Thank you. Yes. And for the Prime Minister, again, we're three weeks away until new [8:56] President Trump's tariffs coming into effect. Are you willing to use Canadian energy as a bargaining chip [9:01] in trade negotiations with the United States, yes or no? [9:04] Well, the – we are – yeah, we're three weeks away from the October – or sorry, the August deadline. [9:12] My colleagues, Janet Sherratt, who's our chief trade negotiator, and Minister LeBlanc, [9:19] the relevant minister, are both in Washington now, so they're engaging with their counterparts. [9:25] Look, we will – first and foremost, we're engaged in those negotiations to look to find a mutually [9:31] beneficial solution, and we're only going to accept a solution that works for Canadians. [9:36] We have lots of options of what we would do if that's not there, both positive in terms of [9:42] supporting the economy and also addressing other issues, but I'm not going to be drawn on what [9:47] we're going to do. We're going to focus now on – on – on building – building towards an agreement, [9:54] if – if an agreement is possible. Thank you. Thank you. [9:57] We'll have time for one last question. Go ahead. Hi, thank you for taking my question. Will Vassar [10:01] with the Western Standard. This one's for the prime minister, and it kind of builds upon the last [10:05] part of the previous question. But in Alberta, specifically talking about Alberta oil, [10:12] to what degree does the risk of really inflaming the independence sentiment here weigh into that [10:18] decision of whether or not to put Alberta oil on paper? [10:21] I think one of the things – let me answer this. Thank you for following up with it. I was – I [10:27] wanted to give a broader answer to the way we're looking at the trade negotiations, but you're coming [10:32] back to this core thing. It's important – being a reliable supplier is important. Canadians are reliable. [10:40] Canadians can be trusted. One of the things that you see in the world, one of – we have many exports and [10:46] commodities. One of the biggest commodities, arguably the best, is trust. People trust us. And so when [10:51] you're supplier of a key commodity, key service, you've got to think really hard about not supplying. [10:59] So that very much colours it. So look, we have – this is an incredibly diverse country economy. We [11:07] have many things we can do. First and foremost is to work towards an agreement. That's what we're [11:11] going to do. But there's other things we can do if we needed to address the situation that was there. [11:16] And the issue you're raising that was raised previously, it's not – I don't see the value of – I mean, [11:26] I can understand conceptually, but I don't see the value of it. So it doesn't enter in – I guess, to [11:31] put a fine point on the way you asked the question, the referendum, the calculator, that doesn't enter [11:37] into the calculus. It's a bigger – it's a bigger issue, a more fundamental issue. [11:41] Last follow-up. Go ahead. [11:44] The independence question takes up a lot of the air with the referendum, but other questions [11:48] on it address immigration. And the Premier's talked about wanting to seek more provincial control [11:53] over immigration. And so my question would be, what's your willingness to work with Alberta on that, [11:58] if Albertans vote, they want to seek more provincial control? [12:01] I think – I'd say a couple of things. First, we had a discussion of this just a few days ago [12:07] amongst First Ministers. I thought it was quite a productive discussion because it was a well-informed, [12:12] well-grounded stock take of where we are and a commitment to – and this Premier has her [12:21] perspectives and views and represented them well. But all of the Premiers, including territorial [12:26] Premiers, raised issues around this. And let me put immigration in context and I'll finish and [12:32] maybe give Madame a very quick – I'll just – I'll finish this though. We have taken back control of [12:38] immigration. The government's been in place for 16 months. We came in where immigration had been far [12:44] too high. We'd lost control, you know, of levels and foreign students and temporary workers. The [12:51] level of asylum seekers is down a third or the flow. The temporary foreign workers down by a half. [12:57] Foreign students down by two-thirds. So we've taken control. We're on top of the numbers. We're [13:02] now – now it creates the opportunity and as First Ministers, Premiers, Prime Minister, governments, [13:10] we need to discuss where we go from here. Do we still need to – because the overall levels still [13:17] are putting pressure on housing others. So is it still – we still need a few more years of [13:21] restraint. There's a good argument for that, but we need to discuss that. And then, at the same time, [13:27] to talk about as economic migrants come in, as the term is used, well, what skills should they have? [13:36] And do the provinces have a better perspective on what those skills would be? And how do we engineer [13:41] a system for that? That was the spirit of the discussion. And we're very open to that discussion. [13:46] That doesn't require any tick on any box in a vote, because that's working, again, to get things [13:54] right. And I think this is going to be – the good news is, because we've taken back control on [14:02] immigration, it creates the possibility to have that discussion. If the whole thing were – we still [14:07] were having overshoots by half a million, a million people relative to what we expected at any given time, [14:13] we wouldn't have – we didn't have the space for that discussion. Now we've created the space, [14:18] as we should, and that's what Canadians deserve.