In the last few weeks, there's been a lot of talk of Canada getting closer, having a rapprochement with Europe. How do you intend to integrate our pesticide regulatory regime, which your government has been kind of gutting, with the more stringent European measures?
Well, I'll say a couple of things. One is that it follows from the previous question. The world wants to do more with Canada. And there's a tremendous opportunity that is being created with an alliance for the future with the European Union. That's an alliance that will make us stronger, make us more independent, and really, in our view, and I think the view of the European Union, provide an example for the world. What comes with that is high standards. Now, the specific aspects, specific pesticide standards or phytosanitary or other standards, it depends on the nature of the partnership, and you will hear more about the nature of the partnership at our summit, a Canada-EU summit in Montreal at the end of October.
That's Georgie Smyth, CBC. Is phase two of LNG Canada going to be built with Chinese steel like phase one, or will it be built with Canadian steel?
It's a great question for the proponents of phase two. They've taken their first investment decision. The process runs for the next five to six years. I'll leave it to them on the precise timing in the early 2030s when it's expected to be operational. There will be full opportunities to buy Canadian steel, and we'll continue to invest in the Canadian steel industry to make sure that's the case, but it'll be for them to decide.
Follow up. President Trump said yesterday he thinks Canada will apologize in the next three to four weeks and say we're going to get rid of all the tariffs. Mr. Navarro today told Canadians lobbying in Washington to get the hell out of the country. What do you say in response to this?
I take note of both comments. How's that? No response to either.
Next question. Okay, I'll just say this on trade. It continues to be the case that Canada stands ready to negotiate in good faith. What is there which is a mutually advantageous trade arrangement that respects both our countries' sovereignty?
First of all, regarding LNG 2, it is the largest project and the most efficient project in terms of greenhouse gases around the world. The level of greenhouse gases in this process is the lowest level. First point. Second point: the partners of this project will most likely use the LNG to reduce or cease the use of coal. So it's a question of the energy transition. We know that it is the most efficient project in an environmental sense among the major LNG projects in the world.
We saw you make an important announcement at the beginning of the election campaign in Quebec, Christine Frechette, accompanied by David Eby, provincial... Not at all. Point of clarification: your question during the election campaign in Quebec was before the official start of this process, and it was the largest investment in the shipbuilding sector in Quebec's history in Canada. Okay. So it's a big project. Regarding today's announcement, the LNG 2 announcement was determined by the five partners of LNG 2, private sector partners. The Government of Canada made a lot of efforts to reach this point for the second-largest private sector investment in Canadian history. Okay. So it's appropriate for the Prime Minister of Canada to be there, but final point: at the same time, we're making an announcement, probably over time. Today's announcement is this afternoon, and the Force of Nature strategy will be more important for future generations in Canada.
Can you get that answer in English, please?
Which part? Sorry.
Well, how do you respond to the... in the election...
Oh, that, yeah, sorry. The...
Well, the first is the announcement at the Davie shipyard, which is the biggest investment in shipbuilding in Quebec's history, was made prior to the start of the campaign. And it's natural that, of course, I would be there and other officials would be there. Today's announcement, the timing of it, was determined by the five private sector partners for LNG 2. The Canadian government made major efforts over the course of the last year to get to this point, to help them get to this decision point for what is the second-largest private sector investment in Canadian history. So it's an enormous investment. And the final point that I made was that I think that we're able to do multiple things at one time. We have to protect as we build, and that the ocean conservation efforts that we're taking today, as part of a much bigger nature strategy, and what will follow from this, will be bigger determinants for future generations of this country. Thank you.
Next question. Question Cassio.
Mike Hager, Globe and Mail. Lots of new information has come to light since the 2024 federal government's review of what happened to Canadian diplomats in Havana. The Globe and Mail has reported that Canadian and American intelligence were collaborating during that time when Canadian and American diplomats began to experience symptoms. The US just reported acquiring a directed energy weapon they're testing that could be responsible for Havana syndrome. And they've deemed their findings serious enough to brief the House and Senate Intelligence Committees. Former CSIS and national security officials are calling for you to open an investigation into what happened. Will your government open some sort of independent investigation or refer this to NSICOP for review?
I expect to be briefed on the situation. There's some new information, as you say, that's come to light. And I'll take a determination after that's happened.
Follow up, Krystal Tsui.
Thanks. So, do you think the government owes these diplomats to look into the new information and to Canadian diplomats around the world who could be at risk for similar exposures?
Let me answer this fundamentally. We owe a responsibility and we discharge a responsibility, a duty of care for Canadian diplomats who serve on the front lines on behalf of Canadians. And those front lines, the fact of that service can change very rapidly in a variety of jurisdictions and circumstances, and we take those responsibilities seriously. Issues of national security and ongoing investigation, there are appropriate ways and times to pass that on. As I've said, I expect to be briefed. I haven't been briefed in more detail about the latest revelations, and I commend you for raising them. And I expect to be briefed and take action from there. Thank you.
Next question, Krystal Tsui.
Hi there. Braden Owen with the Canadian Press. So, BC's Attorney General, I'm sure you're aware, has asked the federal government to make changes to the Criminal Code to hold AI companies accountable following new details about the conversations between the Tumbler Ridge shooter and ChatGPT. So, is this something that you are considering?
Thank you for the question. Independent of the BC Attorney General, our government has been looking at and consulting on issues around a series of issues around safe social media, extending related but different, extending to AI, the responsibilities, the various responsibilities these providers have, and any liabilities that they may have. This will be one of the issues that will be addressed in Parliament in the session.
Follow up. Question suivante.
Thank you. So, yeah, the American bans on Canadian alcohol and other imports is kicking in today. The clock is ticking down to the US midterms. Are you considering applying new trade pressure at this time, or have you ruled out further escalation?
Never rule anything out. I'll stand by my earlier comments and the position of the government, which is, look, the reality is that the cost of living is very high in the United States. And there's things that Canada can do to help lower that cost of living. The reality is there's a number of industries that are under medium-term pressure, competitive pressure in the United States, related industries in Canada. And those industries were stronger together. The reality is the world's more dangerous than divided, and that energy security, food security, information security, financial resilience and security, all of those are fundamental issues that are best addressed through reliable partnerships. Canada is a reliable partner, and we're ready to work in any or all of those areas. Our timing isn't dictated by any specific aspect of the US calendar. The resources are there. That said, today's events, today's announcements, I think demonstrate something. Canada has what the world wants. There is a host of strong partners around the world who want to do more with Canada, and Canada is going to build in the right way. We're going to build in full partnership with Indigenous peoples. We're going to build sustainable. We are going to protect before we build. And we're going to build for the benefit of all Canadians. This country is getting stronger, is getting more independent, is getting more resilient, and we're a better partner, which is better for Canadians, all of that. And in the end, we're a better partner for whoever we do deeper trade relations with. Thank you.
I thought this question was... get at all.
Next question. Prochaine question. Mark, la question National Observer. In the last few weeks, there's been a lot of talk of Canada getting closer, having a rapprochement with Europe. How do you intend to integrate our pesticide regulatory regime, which your government has been kind of gutting, with the more stringent European measures?
Well, I'll say a couple of things. One is that it follows from the previous question. The world wants to do more with Canada, and there's a tremendous opportunity that is being created with an alliance for the future with the European Union. That's an alliance that will make us stronger, make us more independent, and really, in our view, and I think the view of the European Union, provide an example for the world. What comes with that is high standards. Now, the specific aspects, specific pesticide standards or phytosanitary or other standards, it depends on the nature of the partnership, and you will hear more about the nature of the partnership at our summit, a Canada-EU summit in Montreal at the end of October. But so it depends on the breadth and the depth of that. It's not clear that those specific areas would necessarily come to pass and be included given all the other opportunities that are there.
Follow up. Question suivante.
Thank you. You've been asking Canadians essentially to make a trade-off to some degree between development and, you know, to build Canada strong and environment. Just yesterday, the Canadian Energy Regulator announced that it will be approving a lower toll rate for the Trans Mountain pipeline, which over 20 years will amount to about 22.5 billion dollars of lost revenue. Are we actually benefiting from these, essentially this business-friendly approach, or are these handouts to corporate...
No, I agree with virtually everything you said. What we're creating in building Canada strong, first and foremost, is the independence, the sovereignty that we need to live our lives as we choose. To not have another country, a trade partner, you can guess which one, that dictates what we watch on our streaming, what language we speak, what environmental rules we have in our country, how we prepare our food, all these aspects. We're taking our future into our own hands and making ourselves strong. Now, if you go specifically to the issue around Trans Mountain, the Trans Mountain pipeline feeds about 2 billion dollars, more than 2 billion dollars a year now into the federal government, which helps support, and it will continue to do that year in year out. On top of that, it's directly from the pipeline itself. But then there's a series of other benefits in terms of higher prices for our products, more diversification that comes from that. And that provides the strength that we need, or more strength, I should say, again to live our lives as we choose, to support our social programs, to move forward as a country. So, look, I'm not familiar with the specific what the Canadian Energy Regulator... I've got a lot of things on my mind. I didn't follow up. I'll go back and read it. I suspect it's probably something as basic as the change in the cost of capital that they have and that flows through, and that's what happens with rate-based regulation, but that's a guess. I haven't looked at the detail. But the general point is what we're doing. And let's just go to, and I'll pan back, but to what we're talking about today is whether it's LNG 2 or the potential expansions of Roberts Bank. A Roberts Bank terminal or a Port of Vancouver, which is going to be at full capacity by the end of the decade, which is already at such tight capacity, and we're so inefficient in moving goods from this port to the rest of the country that if you go beyond Stanley Park, there's a bunch of ships idling out there, polluting out there because they can't just come in and drop and leave. Right? So, part of the expansion of the capacity, the very expansion of the capacity itself helps address some of these issues that we have. But then it creates the ability for us to trade more with different partners, to diversify, to reinforce our sovereignty. But the only way we're going to do that is if we make these big investments now to protect our ecosystem. And the only way we're going to build it is if we build in the right way. We build with partners. We use the knowledge that is here and build in the right way so that construction literally stops when there is the beginnings of threat to the, as of today, 74 southern resident killer whales as one very important example of that. And we do all of those things because we're Canadian, because we value, yes, the growth, but we value our natural heritage and the environment, and we believe in building in partnership. So, it is connected, not a trade-off. That's the core point. And, you know, it's a message... Well, I'll leave it at that. I've probably gone on too long. You're not at very... that I should leave it at that. Yes, sorry.
We'll have time for one last question. Thank you. My...
Hi Premier Horgan, Sarah McDonald, Global News. Kind of along actually the same lines as that last question. On phase two, energy announcements obviously always garner a lot of strong response on either end. There's protesters downstairs right now. What do you say to the environmental groups and the critics who say that your government is handing taxpayer money to foreign gas giants and on top of that to expand a facility that we now know burned off more methane than any other LNG export facility in the world last year? Your response?
A couple of things. One, in terms of the tax regime, and one of the things we've been doing with the tax regime is to equalize broadly the tax... This is the productivity mega deduction, if I can put a plug in for that, which is to equalize the incentives for tax for investment that's going to grow the economy irrespective of the type of investment that's going to grow the economy. So, whether it's in the energy sector, it can be in tech, can be in traditional manufacturing, precision manufacturing, agriculture, etc. All of that treated the same way so that we're creating that level playing field. So, that's the first part of that. The second is, you know, it is a fact that this is a facility and a train which is the lowest GHG... it's top decile GHG in terms of scope one, scope two. So, that's the answer to that. And look, there is transition fuels, and natural gas is one of the core transition fuels, and that's the role there.
Okay, a question on...
And maybe the other thing I would add, which is an important thing, is to look at the entirety of what the government is doing on energy. So, it was six weeks ago, two months ago maybe, that I was at the other coast announcing the largest ever investment ever in North American clean energy, 14 gigawatts in Churchill Falls. An investment made possible by the federal government and demonstrated by the fact that through the process of getting that agreement, the new agreement between Newfoundland and Labrador and the province of Quebec, an additional four gigawatts of clean energy was found, and the federal government will be an equity participant in that. That's great for Quebec, it's great for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. It is a big step to our very clear goal, which is to double the grid, electricity grid, which is the biggest return to emission reduction that this country has, and a huge, huge competitive opportunity Canada has, and that's why we're pursuing it so aggressively.
Can I follow up?
An unrelated question on the Stelco news that we heard yesterday. Can you outline what kind of financial support the feds were willing to give to Cleveland Cliffs to avoid steel layoffs in Hamilton, and is your government considering legal action to make the company respect its agreement with the government to not have any layoffs?
Yeah, I will make a couple of observations. One, we were very disappointed at this decision by Stelco. Our, my personal and our thoughts are with the workers and the families who have been betrayed by the company. Let's put it like this: there's money on the table from the federal government, number one, and the company made representations and has legal obligations for employment. We intend to use all powers that we have and pursue them to the full standard of the law. And I would just take note that this situation is caused by the US tariffs, and that the ultimate owner of the CEO of the ultimate owner of Stelco, Cleveland Cliffs, applauded President Trump for putting those tariffs on.
Thank you. This will be the end of the press conference.
