PM Mark Carney Speaks with Reporters at G7 Summit

Analytical Studies
Summits > 2025 Kananaskis Summit | Road to the 2025 G7 Kananaskis Summit

June 17, 2025, Kananaskis, Canada
Unofficial transcription by Madeline Koch of CPAC video

Good evening, everyone. Thank you all for sticking around. Look, we have a hockey game to go watch, pour tous l’équipes canadiens, l’équipe des Oilers. Thank you all for being here. Thank you for your coverage, and thanks for you at home.

As I said, I guess, yesterday morning, were reminded that it was 50 years ago that the G7 or the leading advanced nations that became the G7 got together amidst economic upheaval, stagflation, conflict in the Middle East – sounds familiar – and they formed what became the G7 with a mission when they met in Rambouillet, France. It wasn’t a mission to preserve the old order, but to build a new one, one that could withstand shocks, deepen integration and cooperation, and deliver prosperity for all citizens. It’s a reminder that nostalgia isn’t a strategy. We have to change. And at this moment of transition we must turn the many challenges into change. We know there can’t be security without economic prosperity, no true security without economic prosperity, but also prosperity without resilience. We’re in a world where shocks are flowing across borders, whether it’s through climate change, whether it’s through conflict. We know that resilience built by a combination of tough choices at home and with smart cooperation with likeminded countries abroad. And that in a small way but building from that is part of the objective of these meetings, this G7, is to begin to build that new era of cooperation, one that promotes long-term resilience over short-term efficiency.

[Translator:] This is not the end of our work; rather it is merely the start. We’ve had conversations over the last couple of days that were highly productive. We had 21 leaders from all continents. [Now, le progrès réalisé à Kananaskis ne marque pas le fin de notre travail, mais plutôt son commencement. J’ai eu des échanges pendant les deux dernières journées, des échanges productives avec 21 dirigeants de tous les continents.]

Over the past few days, Canada has worked with our G7 partners to determine where we can cooperate, build resilience and lasting prosperity. That’s the approach that Canada is taking as we negotiate a new economic and security partnership with the United States, and I’ve stressed repeatedly, we will take all the time necessary to do that, but no more. Yesterday, President Trump and I agreed to continue to pursue those negotiations, intensify them towards a deal in the next 30 days. The president and I as well as our respective cabinet ministers and officials will remain in close contact in the coming days to deliver on that timeline.

Over the past days I’ve also met with global leaders who will help determine what is success in the new global system that will emerge over time. Underpinning each of those discussions was, I stressed, Canada’s readiness to work to create new international partnerships, to promote a world that is more secure, prosperous, just and free. We are looking to deepen alliances with stable democracies who share our interests, our values, our principles and who look to lead, we look to lead with many of the resources including human resources and human capital that world wants and the values to which so many aspire. It’s those values of freedom, of democracy and of justice that are behind Canada’s unwavering support for a secure, a free and sovereign Ukraine. This morning I shared with President Zelenskyy and G7 partners what Canada is doing moving forward in multiple respects with measures to support Ukraine in its struggle in Russia’s unjustified and barbaric war. With our international partners we are launching a major new package of sanctions on individuals, on companies, on vessels – the shadow fleet – to exert maximum pressure on Russia. We are also sending over $2 billion in funding for drones, ammunition, armoured vehicles to help Ukrainians defend their territory, as well as a $2.3 billion loan to help rebuild the infrastructure in that country. And I take a moment to reiterate our condolences given the barbarism witnessed overnight in Kyiv caused by Russia.

G7 leaders also reiterated our commitment to the pursuit of peace and stability in the Middle East. We made clear that Iran is the principal source of regional instability and terror, and we have been consistently clear that Iran can never have a nuclear weapon. We urged that the resolution of the Iranian crisis leads to a broader de-escalation of hostilities, including ceasefire in Gaza.

[Translator:] Throughout this summit we have also brought countries together to face up to the most urgent challenges that require international cooperation. Canada is in a prime position to play a leading role in that process. [Tout au long de ce sommet nous avons également rassemblent des pays autours des défis et des opportunités les plus urgents de notre époque. Ce sont des domaines qui exigeant une coopération internationale et dans laquelle le Canada est bien placé pour jouer un rôle de chef de fil.]

I’m pleased to share that G7 nations in the two days agreed move to forward in cooperation on several key priorities. We are going to work with our partners in the G7 and beyond – a number of the countries are here today – to develop critical metals and minerals in order to build independence from non-market economies. To that end we will create a critical minerals production alliance, a G7-led strategic initiative to stockpile and develop critical minerals needed for defence and technology, including a range from germanium, gallium, graphite, rare earths. We also struck several agreements, accords, from the aforementioned critical mineral supply chains to adapting, powering and sharing artificial intelligence, to collaborating on quantum technologies, to preventing, fighting and recovering from wildfire – something we feel here intensely obviously in the prairies, tackling foreign interference and transnational repression, countering migrant smuggling by dismantling transnational organized crime.

Next week we will shift from addressing threats to economic security to addressing threats and addressing issues with respect to global defence and security at the NATO summit and at the Canada-EU summit. We recognize that our leadership will be defined not just by the strength of our values and the value of our strength. With that, why don’t I take the opportunity to again thank you all very much and open it up. Merci beaucoup, je suis prét à vos questions.

Moderator: [Nous allons procéder a la conférence de presse.] We will proceed to the press conference. The format will be as follows: one question, one follow-up. [Excuse-moi, juste une question. Le format sera une question par journaliste.] First question, première question.

[Translator:] Fannie Olivier, Radio Canada. What was the problem with the US position? What was it that prevented you signing a declaration on Ukraine? [Quel était le problème avec la position américaine qui a empêché la signature d’une déclaration commune sur l’Ukraine?]

[Translator:] There was no problem, no problem at all. We did have a declaration, a declaration from the president of the G7. It does exist. Yesterday evening, of course, certain tragic events took place in the Middle East. So it was more important, if you like, for us to have a G7 declaration on the situation in Iran, and right now there is some language here in my declaration – I think I have the French version here, just bear with me and I can read it out for you – [Aucun problème. Il n’y avait aucun problème. Il y avait une déclaration qui est au sein de ma sommaire du présidence du G7. Ça existe, ça existe. Il y avait pour un moment hier soir parce que, you know, il y avait des évènements tragiques, intenses, au Moyen Orient et à ce moment-là c’était, il y avait un sens que c’est plus important d’avoir une déclaration du G7 en ce qui concerne la situation iranienne. Mais il y avait – il y a des phrases dans ma déclaration qui indiquent – j’en ai la version je croix en français, je peux la chercher, je peux la lire -- ]

Olivier: Not in the US, Mr. Carney. [Mais ce n’est pas signé des États unis, M. Carney.]

“Leaders expressed support for his efforts” – this is a G7 declaration. We all agree with that declaration. That is the case. [Ah non, c’est “Les dirigeants du G7 ont exprimé le soutien aux efforts du président – ” Nous sommes tous d’accord avec cette déclaration. Point final, c’est correct.]

[Translator:] Mélanie Marquis de La Presse. Mr. Trump’s departure from the summit. What did that change in terms of the summit, and what does that say about the summit, the fact that Mr. Trump would rather go and manage this crisis in the Middle East in the situation room rather than here with his partners? [Que’est ce-que le départ de Président Trump a changé au sommet, et par extension qu’est-ce que ça dit sur le G7 le fait que Mr Trump préférait aller gérer la crise au Moyen Orient dans la Situation Room plutôt qu’avec ses partenaires?]

It’s difficult. It’s difficult to manage a military crisis. It’s rather exceptional, of course, we’re here in Kananaskis in Alberta, but in that situation, it’s a serious situation, it’s a military situation and it’s also a very fluid and volatile situation. That was Mr. Trump’s opinion. Mr. Trump felt it was better for him to be in Washington. I can understand that. I totally understand the decision he took. The situation really was, is exceptional right now. [C’est difficile de gérer une crise militaire – c’est exceptionnelle ici à Kananaskis en Alberta, mais dans cette situation, cette situation grave, une situation militaire, une situation très fluide, très volatile, c’était l’opinion de M. Trump que ça vaut mieux d’être à Washington et je comprends absolument sa décision, et je le comprends bien. C’est un moment exceptionnelle, ici.]

[Translator:] Émilie Bergeron, La Presse Canadienne. Mr. Carney, you’ve just said that mentioned Ukraine in your declaration as chair of the leaders’ summit, but I would expect a joint declaration on the war in Ukraine. That didn’t happen. With the USA, they did not sign such a statement. So what does that mean in terms of consequences? [M. Carney, je sais que vous venez dire que vous mentionnez l’Ukraine dans votre déclaration autant que président du sommet, mais vous, il y avait avez des négociations pour avoir une déclaration conjointe entièrement dédiée à la guerre en Ukraine et ça n’y a pas y lieu. Les États unis, de ce qu’on a entendu, n’ont pas signé, alors qu’est-ce que ça signifie au sujet de l’unité du G7?]

No, no, nothing at all. [Non, non, rien.]

Bergeron: Why? [Pourquoi?]

The declaration, the chair’s summary, I refer you to that – [Parce que c’est la déclaration, donc le résumé du président – ]

Bergeron: But – [Mais –]

I was there! I was there, madam. I am the chair. I was there with President Trump and we discussed every single word in this summary. [J’etait là. J’étais là, madame. C’est moi, le président, j’étais là avec Président Trump. Nous avons discuté chaque mot de ce résumé.]

Reporter: Can we just get you in English on the lack of a… it’s just because – the joint statement specifically on Ukraine, or the presidential statement, or your chair’s statement but it is not signed by the seven leaders, specifically on why it is the case. What happened with the United States?

Mon dieu. As I said in French, it means rien. Nothing. Okay? This was discussed with all seven leaders – well it’s more than seven leaders because we have the president of the European Commission and the president of the European Council – last night, at dinner, these exact words and they’re in my chair’s summary. We had, as I said in French, we had a declaration given the exceptional and fast-moving events in Iran, we concentrated on that, and as a specific one I held this for my chair’s summary. Honest, look, there would be – if you want a nuance, or if you want a sense, there would be things that some of us, Canada included, would say above and beyond what was said in the chair’s summary, but the recognition of the importance of initiative of President Trump to achieve a lasting peace, absolutely agreed. That we are resolute in pursuing all options to maximize pressure on Russia, including financial sanctions, agreed. That we recognize that Ukraine alone has committed to an unconditional ceasefire, agreed, and that we all agreed that Russia must do the same.

Reporter: I appreciate the detail on that. I’m going to ask you my question now.

I didn’t think that was your question! This was the equivalent of en anglais.

Reporter: I’d say that was en anglais plus, but I appreciate that. In your meeting with Prime Minister Modi, what did you say to him about the murder of the Canadian Sikh activist Harjit Singh Nijjar?

We have had a discussion, the prime minister and I, about the importance of having the law enforcement dialogue, not just dialogue, cooperation directly, the importance of transnational repression, as I noted, including when we met, and obviously there is a judicial process that is under way and I need to be careful about further commentary.

[Translator]: In French now, we had a chat about cooperation and we talked about stepping up the fight against transnational repression, so there is a legal process underway right now, and so I have to be careful with my words. [En français nous avons eu une discussion en ce qui concerne la coopération qui continue de l’enfoncement de la loi, la lutte contre la répression transnationale et il y a un processus de la loi qui déroule maintenant et je dois être garder avec mes mots.]

Reporter: I just want to be clear: did you bring up the murder?

I refer to my previous answer.

JP Tasker: Hi, Mr. Carney, how are you?

I’m great, JP. How are you, JP?

Tasker: I’m just fine. Couldn’t be better. President –

Sorry, that was your question.

Tasker: Not so fast. President Trump says tariffs are simple and what you’re proposing to resolve the trade dispute is complex. What is he talking about? What have you pitched that’s complex?

Complexity is in the eye of the beholder, sometimes. Look, we have mutual interests in security, in border security, in military security, in commercial prosperity and we have a variety of paths of those discussions. The government of Canada is going to agree only to those things that are fundamentally in the interest of Canada. In many cases there is alignment with the United States but not all. The discussions are continuing. They are productive discussions but they have more to go, and as I say all the time that’s necessary but no more. Thank you.

Justin Ling, freelance: Good evening … I’m wondering if you can comment on whether or not President Trump and the American delegation pushed to water down the language on Ukraine in the joint declaration, the joint declaration on Ukraine, and on top of that I wonder what you make of his comment suggesting that it was personally offensive to Vladimir Putin to kick him out of the G7 after the invasion of Crimea.

The answer to the first – and I will speak – as you may appreciate, Justin, at these events I speak with President Trump and his equivalents, not the delegations. The language that is in my declaration, directly with Trump, no adjustments, no adjustments from my fellow leaders, so the consensus around that language. With respect to was it personally – it was personally offensive, to put it mildly, to the citizens of Ukraine and the inhabitants of Crimea when Russia invaded in 2014, which was the cause of their rejection from the G8.

Christopher Nardi, National Post: Good evening, Mr. Prime Minister … Canada sent mixed messages in the past on our willingness to supply energy to allies, particularly LNG to our allies in Europe and Asia. So what are you telling our G partners now about what Canada can do to secure supply and is it very different from your predecessor’s message?

I’ll just look forward. As you know, or I believe you would, most Canadians do, we view that Canada has a unique opportunity to become an energy superpower. That’s in all forms of energy. That would very much, to go to your specific question, that would very much include LNG. We are seeing the opening, we just had the opening of one of the major LNG projects, partially Indigenously owned as you know. LNG Canada is about to be functioning, the largest LNG investment that we’ve seen. There is more that is possible. There have been a number of discussions including here about potential LNG partnerships, and we look forward to those. As well, there have been a number of discussions, and I will refer back to one of the decisions at this summit, around Canada’s immense potential to be a supplier of critical metals and minerals, rare earths – there was my point to bring out my prop, which can you see, this, you can’t, but this is the magnet that President von der Leyen circulated, which is formed in Estonia by a Canadian company, and is the only such magnet made outside of China right now. Building that out with rare earth materials in Canada, this is one of many examples that we can supply. So being an energy superpower, it’s conventional, it’s critical minerals, it’s clean energy, it’s nuclear, it’s hydro. It’s all those aspects. I would say there is tremendous interest in that. My government alongside the provincial governments but at the core the private sector is looking forward to developing those in the interests of shared prosperity.

Diana Smith, The Logic: Yesterday President Trump, after leaving the summit, told reporters that you and discussed Canada’s participation in the golden dome defence system.

Yes.

Smith: He raised the price to $71 billion or zero, if Canada were the 51st state –

Was that in Canadian dollars or…? He was in Canada…

US dollars, I believe. So that he’s not the only sharing that, he said it would be a separate deal from a new tariffs deal. What can you share about that discussion and where your thinking is now on that project?

Well, look, a couple of things. In part of the spirit unfortunately of these discussions is the world is dangerous place and the threats that face Canada, face other countries, have shifted quite dramatically. We can see exactly, unfortunately in very tragic respects, what’s happening in the Middle East as we speak, in terms of threats from ballistic missiles, the necessary to have ballistic missile defence. Canada – our geography is less and less of a shield, of a natural shield in those respects. And Russia is an aggressor. Other hostile states are in prospect, terrorist organizations as well. We need to protect ourselves. That’s part of the reason why – those are the reasons why we started with the over-the-horizon radar scheme with the Arctic, which is one component of a broader protection that needs to be put in place. There are many reasons why partnering in this case – in this case, not all cases, but in this case – partnering with the Americans would make sense. We certainly do already in NORAD, and this is a potential extension of this. But these are live, ongoing discussions. And we will continue to pursue them as long as they make sense for Canada.

[Translator]: Guillaume Saint-Pierre, Journal de Montreal: Now, has Trump returned to this fantasy, this idea of the 51st state and what does that have to do with the state of negotiations and about this idea of the respect, perhaps, that you have for one another. [Est-ce que M. Trump est revenu encore une fois sur son phantasme de la 51ieme état dans vos conversations privées avec lui, et si oui, qu’est-ce que ça dit sur l’état des négociations et sur le respect, le respect des dernières semaines, ou le respect qu’il vaut au Canada et à vous-même?]

No, there was a great deal of respect for Canada. [Non, et il y en a beaucoup de respect pour le Canada.]

Saint-Pierre: So he didn’t mention it at all. [Donc il n’a pas le mentionner de tout.]

No. You’re disappointed obviously. [Non. Vous êtes dessus évidemment, mais …]

Brian Platt, Bloomberg: I wanted to ask about this 30-day window that you’ve set up with President Trump? Can you explain, was this your idea for a 30-day window? Are you trying to put a deadline in place? Are you, is retaliation still – I mean, do you move to retaliation if this 30 days expires without a deal? What’s the rationale here, and what happens if you don’t get to a deal?

Look, there are many aspects with the relationship with the United States and many of your good questions have touched on them, from security, border security, commercial, financial, otherwise. We don’t want to … with respect to the specifics around specific tariffs, there’s a certain amount of information that’s necessary, there’s certain decisions that can be taken given that information, given the relative perspectives, and quite often in negotiations, having a form of deadline is helpful to concentrate the mind, and that can be the case here. The teams are working well, this exchange of information, exchange of ideas, and having that focus will be helpful. What was the second part of your question?

Platt: Retaliation. You have not retaliated on the doubling the tariffs on steel and aluminium.

No, we have not yet. We retain the flexibility in order to do so, and we are looking – but I will say one thing which is related to that, which is we are looking very actively about the risks from third-party, or third-country flows of steel, mainly steel but possibly aluminum, into Canada and the need to provide protections from that. So we’re looking at the modalities and ways of doing that. We are very alive to that. That’s the first. We’re also looking to provide liquidity and other support to the firms. So, look … we have consistently responded in the best interests of the Canadian industry and Canadian workers when there have been these illegal and unjustified tariffs put in place. We do so in a way tailored to each situation. We have multiple tools with which we can respond and some of those, as this evolves, relate as much to other countries’ potential dumping of steel, excess steel, into to Canada as it does the US. So we are looking to calibrate appropriately and we will do what’s necessary, and, you know, in the short term, and I wouldn’t necessarily look to a 30-day window in that response.

Mark Remelle, Globe and Mail: On the 30 days, are we expecting to see a full deal announced in 30 days, a blueprint of a deal, and has Donald Trump ever given you any indication of a willingness to remove all tariffs on Canadian goods, as the Canadian delegation and yourself have requested?

It’s a negotiation. That’s our position. At present the United States may have a slightly different position, but we will pursue one that is in the best interests of certainly Canada and aligned with the US. Thanks.

Remelle: Blueprint versus a full deal?

On verra. Look, it’s – we have a full deal, it’s called USMCA, CUSMA here.

Moderator: Last question.

Gaurav Sawant, India Today. Good evening, Prime Minister. My name is Gaurav Sawant, I work for India Today in Delhi. Your meeting with Prime Minister Narendra Modi, how would you describe that, and what are concrete steps that you and the prime minister of India discussed to take this relationship forward that it reaches its full potential, sir?

Well, I think the – several things, if I may say, I would say the meeting, the fact of the meeting – let me say a few things. First, just in terms of Prime Minister Modi’s attendance at the G7. Prime Minister Modi has attended every G7 since 2018. That is a reflection of the size of the Indian economy, the dynamism of the Indian economy, Indian technology, the leadership position India plays in a host of venues from G20 and beyond. So as chair of the G7, hosting the prime minister in that context is entirely natural, entirely consistent. I fully expect the prime minister of India will be in attendance at the G7 in next year, for example, in France. First thing. Secondly, in terms of the bilateral relationship, which is your question, I think the meeting today was important, but I would describe it as foundational, as a necessary first step, an exchange of views, frank, open exchange of views around law enforcement, transnational repression, as two examples, an agreement to provide the necessary foundations to begin to rebuild the relationship based on mutual respect, sovereignty, trust and that begins with what was agreed – you asked for concrete – which is we will move to appoint high commissioners again. Let me just finish by putting that in context. There are very deep ties of people and businesses between Canada and India – it’s well known, and it’s part of your point about where the relationship could go – and they are not served at present by consular services in effect, certainly by high commissioners, and it’s necessary to have that that level of service as a basis on which to build out, again in the context of respect for sovereignty and to begin to realize the potential of the relationship and we will, we’re both committed to work towards that, but there’s a lot of work that needs to be done. Okay, thank you very much.

I’m going to close – I’m going to make one final comment if I may. This is an ad lib to the question you didn’t ask. What was it like in the room? And, I’ll just say this, having been at a number of G7 and G20 summits, just to give a bit of a flavour. The advantage of particularly the G7 is that there are only, oddly, nine people in the room because of the two extra European – not extra Europeans, there’s the right number of Europeans but there are two other Europeans – and there’s nine people in the room, and they’re the principals, they’re the leaders, and there is a great amount of direct dialogue and discussion, very frank exchanges, very strategic exchanges, differences of opinions on a number of issues, but from an effort to find common solutions to some of these problems. And that is particularly valuable, in my opinion – and I’m a new leader I this context – I have been around these things but a new leader in this context – where we had several other new leaders, G7 leaders, because you’re building those relationships, you’re building those trusts. It will be very valuable, for example, next week when the core of the G7, which is the core of NATO, is together making major decisions on defence and security partnerships. And so the fact that at a time when multilateralism is under great strain, and I’m absolutely clear it is, that we got together and we agreed on a number of areas, the six related statements, we agreed on the perspectives on Iran, despite the impressive minutiae questions, if I may, on the detail of words around Ukraine, agreed on that aspect, that aspect of maximum pressure and variable ways of using financial sanctions. That’s important and that’s valuable and so I want to give you a bit of that favour.

And the last, last thing is I want to pay tribute to our sherpa, Cindy, for leading this great effort under challenging circumstances in terms of global events and just the nature of bringing it all together.

So now, it’s probably about 6:30, so I’m hoping when I walk off this stage the Oilers are up by one, or at least – no? No? Please, keep me in the zone for a minute! Down by one? Wow! Okay. Well, it’s a long game, it’s a long game. We’re going to go. Thanks for indulging my little soliloquy at the end. Merci beaucoup, thank you very much.

[back to top]

—	This Information System is provided by the University of Toronto Libraries and the G7 Research Group at the University of Toronto.
	Please send comments to: g7@utoronto.ca This page was last updated June 20, 2025.