Transcription
help. So, thank you very much and I look forward to the discussion.
[Applause]
Well, all right, boss. Bianui, welcome to the United States of America. That's wonder. Sorry, I didn't mean that as a point on sovereignty. I just meant, did you get through customs? Okay. Recognize the Canadian passport. Still still still working. Still working. Excellent.
Let me uh let me pick up on a couple of the uh the points that you made. Um you talked about diversification uh and and the strengths within Canada. Um Canada's been so reliant on the US economy. Uh been so integrated. Something like two-thirds of Canadians live within 100 kilometers of the border. Most of the trade is here. Um you've had some economic headwinds in the last uh several months in terms of economic contraction and higher unemployment. Um how how much can you reorient the Canadian economy both to be more east west than north south or to be more integrated with other economies than than the US given the long history there?
Yeah, it's it's the right question and u the first the answer to the question starts with recognizing the need to do it. Um and one thing I'd impress upon the audience is that Canadians understand the need to as we put it to be masters in our own house. uh the country does not want to wake up and look on with all due respect on true social or acts to see what uh what the latest uh change uh is in US policy uh but wants to get on with what we can control uh and that's a big part of the government strategy.
So uh getting rid of barriers east west as you put it barriers across the provinces you know that alone if it's fully done we've done the federal part but if all our provinces reduce their v their barriers the uh the estimates are that is a bigger return to the Canadian economy than the worst case trade outcome with the US. Now one has a more immediate impact um and the other builds over time but the orders of magnitude are clear and that's before we do what we need to do which is to double the rate of housing. Uh we announced a new approach on housing and lit uh two weeks ago um and the first projects that we have identified there uh scaled to around 50 60 billion dollars of housing investment.
The first major projects uh that I I referenced in in the remarks on uh new ports, new energy corridors uh beyond those are measured in the hundreds of billions. So you start to build all of that out before the defense spending kicks in and we're very focused on dual use defense spending. There's lots of areas where uh we're going to be able to build out our AI, cyber, and other uh capabilities, critical mineral pathways uh as part of that defense build. And it's before we get traction with those new trade uh and defense partnerships with Europe, for example, and in Asia. So, um that's our that's our that's our primary focus. Um and candidly we've been done a favor because we should have been all of these things we could have done before ourselves. Uh so we needed the rupture, we needed the shock it seems in order to do them. Uh but there is a very strong consensus in the country to do that. Um as well um there is a very attractive for the United States for Canada obviously as well and Mexico uh version of USMCA that that can be developed and it's as you know from your previous life we're in the early stages of of that development.
You you mentioned the defense spending uh a couple times you referred to it as dual use. Yeah. Do I first of all it's Canada had been a lagard on defense spending. Trump sort of highlighted that quite pointedly. Um but now you've committed to I believe it's 5% three and a half of military spending and one and a half of infrastructure spending. >> Is when you talk about dual use are you talking about is that in in lie of buying more military equipment per se? Is that the or do you see yourself buying more?
It's a couple things. I mean um uh we We we have a lot of catch up to do. We're not alone in that in NATO. Uh we're resolute that we will catch up. So we we are getting to the 2% level this year. Uh which you can argue we should have been at before, but we're getting there this year. Uh and then you have the ramp up towards 5% by 2035. 5% of GDP by 2035. Um, and for those who don't follow it quite as closely, what we agree to, everyone in NATO agreed to is of that 5%, three and a half is pure defense spending and one and a half is related to defense resilience building that out. So everything in that one and a half effectively is dual use and has other benefits for your economy.
But even if we set that aside and just focused on the three and a half of pure, um NATO is going to be spending a lot more on cyber, a lot more on AI integrating systems. I'm sure you've had lots of discussions here around drone warfare and the integration there. Um, we will be spending necessarily from a military perspective the end uses on some of the critical minerals. I mean literally are militarily critical. So our development of that for our defense purposes first and foremost has direct spillover benefits because AI expertise you know being able to integrate big data lakes and optimize across them. Well that is a skill that is transferable readily transferable to other aspects of the economy. So we see a lot of the way this is part of the advantage. Last point, part of the advantage of coming late, you know, sometimes you go to some emerging and developing economies and have much better cell coverage because they came late. They did it right. This is we're we're coming late to some of the spend. But the at a time when the nature of security and conflict and warfare and what's needed is changing very rapidly and it actually plays to some of our strengths.
Let me ask you to put uh not only your prime minister hat on but uh you've been a central bank governor, you've been an investor, you've been finance. Uh looking looking around the world now, you've got China sort of playing by its own playbook economically, including a lot of excess capacity that's being exported to the rest of the world. >> You have the US playing by its own playbook uh uh ignoring various agreements including at times USMCA. >> What does it mean if the two largest economies of the world are playing by their own set of rules? What does that mean for the rulesbased system for a middle power like Canada? >> Yeah. Well, >> and do you keep on playing by the rules even if nobody else?
Okay, so that that's the key. So who else is willing to play by the rules and can you get critical mass in that? That's that's one of the big questions. So and nobody's perfect in this. Uh, but one of the things about the European Union is it's a rule-based system. Sometimes there's too many rules and they're playing by too many rules, but it is a rules-based system. Uh, we have a free trade agreement uh with the European Union. Um, CPTP newer uh, the US made a decision not to be uh, not to be part of that.
I heard about that. Yeah, we heard about that. Um, and uh, it's not too late. You can come back in. Um, but it's not the European Union obviously to the same degree, but it it's it's you would recognize it as a rules-based multi- plurilateral uh trade deal. It has labor standards, has sustainabilities. There is open discussion. We're part of it. I don't want to overplay it because it's still early days, but of a bridge between the EU and the NCPTP. Well, Canada's in both effectively. Uh, we're deepening with Europe. We're deepening with some of those players there. Then we're in a pretty big system that is rules-based. We would like to think that we will get to a position with the US where we have new rules as part of USMCA uh or a a reaffirmation of these are the rules of conduct uh in USMCA. Uh, and you know, we're re-engaging with China and other uh major economies in terms of developing uh developing the rules bilaterally with them. So there's more to play for it than there appears and you know one of the things that now now I'm going to be a central banker but this is important. Okay, this is really exciting. This is a chance check your phones. um when um but so much of economics is on the margin, right? So, yes, we're heavily weighted to the United States and a big adjustment is going on in big sectors, steel, uh, autos, uh, as examples of are forced products because of the trade shock and we're hoping to make progress in all of those. But on the margin when you grow into very large markets which are represented by the EU and CPTP it makes a big difference. Um, so it's the delta it's the growth that's that's going to impact it.
Previous uh governments in Canada have worked quite closely with the US visa v China and sometimes at a great cost for Canada. How would you assess our joint effectiveness in influencing Chinese behavior, economic strategy, security behavior, etc. And what do you think we ought to be doing differently if you think there's room for improvement?
Uh, there's always there's always room for improvement. Um, that's uh I think one of the things that we can improve on I'll say this from a Canadian perspective with respect to China uh is being clearer about where we engage I alluded to it very lightly but um and it's a general point in variable geometry you have different tiers of engagement depending on how like-minded you are. So with respect to China or any other country that's well any other where do you engage deeply where you comfortable engaging deeply in the commodity space in in aspects of energy for example uh straight uh basic manufacturing where where their guard rails um and what should just be left off to the side >> elements that bridge into national security, privacy other aspects like that. So that's where we can be we can be better number one. Number two, um in my experience with China, um they are amongst other things very sincere and engaged on climate. Uh this is a country run by engineers. This is a country that understands a lot of the engineering solutions to uh issues around emission. They've happened to have built real competitive advantage in a number of these areas as well. So there's a question of how and there is a almost a standing offer from them about how to engage in the global commons in and around climate uh which a country like Canada which is a it is an energy superpower um when we're certainly going to build and uh fully exploit that then we're dealing on and we care about this issue as well. It's still part of our policy. is still part of uh uh and and so there's an opportunity to engage again the United States can choose could choose that lane uh very easily but probably at the moment that's not where the the engagement will be.
Right. Well, probably at the moment. Probably who knows who knows. But that uh you mentioned your chairmanship of the G7 uh the US takes over the chair of the G20 uh later this year'll be an opportunity for the Trump administration to take over one of these organizations and figure out what the agenda is for international cooperation. You and I have been involved in a bunch of >> 20 summits. >> You did somewhat better in your career than I did in mine. Um uh but uh uh what advice would you give to the Trump administration about about where the G20 could be useful and what the scope for cooperation can be going forward?
Wow. Um >> It's called stump the prime minister. >> I didn't see that one coming but that's uh but that's the right question. Um uh look the as you know with these things uh you want to you want to pick three things uh and and focus you do want it because it's a sprawling agenda and you you got to be clear this is what we care about. Um I would um I actually think that I would emphasize I think the infrastructure they won't call it this but I'll I'll use this term but infrastructure for development in in the infrastructure for the global economy the leveraging of limited public dollars into multiples of private dollars. That is an agenda that's good for the world. It's an agenda that plays directly into American strengths, American strengths in finance, American strengths in, you know, just a whole host of energ uh uh industries. It can play a bit complimentary into Chinese and other countries strengths, but more Americas than elsewhere. Um and it's a it's an agenda if really pursued um will grow jobs and you know all good things back in America but also would be enthusiastically endorsed by the by the broader broader group of the G20 and it would um it would give it would reinforce purpose at some of those and this is a question whether the administration wants to but some of the multilateral organizations. So the you know, the World Bank's agenda is effective. It's a big a big part of that agenda. So putting their own frame in and around that I think makes a lot of sense. Um I there should I've got two others but I'm worried that we're not going to have enough time for the audience to ask questions. So.
Very diplomatic. All right. One last question before we open it up to uh uh uh to the group. Um uh I believe yesterday Canada joined u some European countries in recognizing Palestinian statethood. What do you expect that to accomplish?
Well, I think the first thing to say is this is consistent with our policy since 1947. Since 19 every Canadian government, whether of whatever political stripe has supported a two-state solution uh as as many other countries have. Um what we have been seeing first because of the acts of these highness acts of Hamas uh but then other uh in terms of response is that that prospect is receding before our eyes. Okay. So, uh, the idea of waiting until all the conditions are in place for a a free and viable Palestinian state committed to peace and security side by side with the state of Israel, what what I've called a Zionist Palestinian state, which is what we want. um those conditions being in place uh keeping the concept there on the shelf when it is the avowed policy of the Israeli government that there will never be a Palestinian state. That is the policy of the current Israeli government and their actions are consistent with uh with that policy and I can just concentrate on what's going on in the West Bank without touching Gaza. Um so what we what we're looking to accomplish is to is to keep that front and center. Uh to be with a host of influential but not decisive countries. Uh so we're alongside Kingdom of Saudi not in the recognition but as part of this process. Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, France, uh UK, uh Australia, uh Qatar, Egypt, others, um Norway, you know, actively trying to create conditions at minimum for a ceasefire, obviously, and then a peace process. That's as that's part of that. Um, and it's not we're not doing that. We're under no illusions that this is any sort of panacea. Um, but it's necessary in our judgment. Uh, it's and the judgment of most other countries in the world. Uh, that we have to push on this now because as I say the the the possibility in absolute violation of the UN charter and in absolute violation of international law of self-determination for the Palestinian peoples is is is being erased. Um, so this is we're doing what we can but recognizing recognizing the limitations.
All right. Well, I can open up for questions. Uh, this is on the record in addition to the very full room we have here. here. We've got about over 400 people uh 400 CFR members online as well. Please, if recognized, stand up, wait for the microphone, identify yourself, and ask a brief question. Okay. Uh, yes, this gentleman right here.
Okay. Uh, George Raidenberg of the Davos Alzheimer's Collaborative, a successor to Sepave, but focused on aging populations. Um uh so my question is a demographic question. Working age populations in Europe are shrinking. Yeah. >> You know working age populations are supporting a larger population overall. How does one deal with the financial costs of that? How does one deal with how to increase worker productivity uh in the global north?
Um fant are you taking a few or do you want me to do uh look um absolutely right. One of the biggest challenges I think one of the first things you have to do as a as a government we haven't fully done this but we we will in time uh is to actually frame the policy and frame frame Australia does this with their intergenerational reports basically which frames under current trajectories and with demographics what the challenges are that's first the second is um you maximize your labor force participation as much female participation uh older uh participation we uh uh are pretty good on that. We have a bit more to do uh later in later in career and uh but uh in for all countries that's uh that's the next step. Uh clearly uh the deployment of technology deploy I mean AI coming in it's not like AI is going to solve everything but that the multiplier effects there gotten right. Um there's a variety of reasons why we have to get application of AI right. um across uh across our economies. This is this is one of them. Um and it provides some counterweight to that and potentially substantial counter. I mean, okay, I'll I'll be utopian. Not utopian, but optimistic. Thank you. Yeah, I was going to say Panglosian, but then I was like, that's so optimistic. But if you take uh if you take sort of full boore uh productivity estimates on AI application there it's adding one to one and a half percentage points on productivity by let's and I'll I'll push it out to the middle of of the next decade. It actually dovetales pretty well with that bigger demographic crunch. I mean, that is those are big numbers uh in annual productivity. Um, so we have to get that right and and one of the challenges for us of course is to do that um alongside everyone else. Yeah.
Uh Marian White >> microphone coming. Yeah. >> Um thank you and thank you Mark for being with us today. Um I'm Moren White and I'm a senior fellow at the Foreign Policy Institute at SC and I'm also chairman of the board of refugees international and Mark um Canada has had an exemplary role in refugee resettlement for many many years and I know your country and you're not alone in this is backtracking a little bit on this commitment to refugee assistance. Um could you just elaborate a little bit on what the Canadian policy on refugee resettlement is will be going forward?
Uh sure. Um yeah I'm not marine now that they've taken the microw microphone away from you. I'm not sure uh I fully recognize the backtracking uh element uh of your of your question. Um and you know let's I'll put in context. Uh let's see the uh Ukraine uh pin on the previous questioner. uh and salute you for it. Uh we we've taken 300,000 uh Ukraine Ukrainian uh families into uh into Canada individuals, I should say, individuals into Canada. Uh we uh we still have have quite substantial uh levels of asylum seekers and and and you know, the the Ukrainian case is a is a is a humanitarian deliberate uh policy. The asylum seeker obviously is uh is is received. uh we like every country uh must control and be deliberate in with respect to our borders um and and manage appropriately and um so the government is the government is very focused on doing that on the border side but also treating asylum seekers treating everyone who comes to Canada uh to the standards they should and that includes processing claims claims in a timely fashion and one thing we have not done well enough is process claims in a timely fashion. So that's that's resources uh and efficiency and so I would say when we look at that's the aspect of your question that I would I would bear down. Yeah.
Let's get to online question. >> We will take the virtual question from Missy Ryan.
Hi. Hi. Hey, this is Missy Ryan from The Atlantic Magazine. Um, I'm hoping you can talk a little bit about um, what you mentioned earlier several times about values based Canada's values-based approach to international relations and as a sort of guiding compass more generally and how you're thinking about um, doing that in a moment where the Trump administration is not talking about a values-based foreign policy um, and more the America first is um, as it's articulated is more about American interests and and sometimes um backing away from some of the values that have been articulated by the United States and its foreign policies. How are you going to do that? Um especially given the United States clout um as a kind of um trends setter on certain issues like the Palestinian state and um and Ukraine, Russia and all of that.
Yeah. Uh, well, thank you Missy. Um, look, I'll give a a couple of examples and I pick up on your Let me let me pick up on on Palestinian state, um, Ukraine. Uh, there are other examples of this where, look, we believe in the UN charter. Um, we believe in self-determination for peoples. Uh, we underscore the importance of territorial integrity. Um, and that drives our approach uh in Ukraine. It drives our approach in uh in in Palestine. uh as well. It it you'll there are other applications but I'll I'll I'll stop there. That is that's a consistent uh consistent approach. it. We welcome I and and I very much welcome his personal uh involvement of of the president uh in uh efforts for example in Ukraine to uh broker ceasefires to uh define paths for peace um uh to provide uh potentially complements to the security guarantee uh security guarantees that the coalition of the willing Canada included uh are prepared to provide uh to Ukraine which is necessary for a lasting peace or lasting security for Ukraine. Um, the situation here's this is no insight. The situation in Palestine uh is both horrific and fluid. Um, and there are multiple efforts very much including by the United States including the United States uh to find a path to uh cessation of hostilities ultimately security in some form of peace. Um, we come at these both those situations from somewhat different perspective but the same ultimate goal. Um, and we have different partners at present in some of the initiatives in both of those initiatives. Uh, but we would hope that there would be uh convergence uh with the United States. Um, and we will certainly support uh leadership of the United States that's leading to outcomes that are consistent with our values.
Some European countries have suggested they would deploy troops to Ukraine as part of a stability force or peacekeeping force. Would Canada be among those?
Well, I uh we'll see what the the structure is. Uh, we are uh, we're very active in the coalition of willing. Uh, we have I'd remind that we have uh we have very large troop presence in Latia as part of our NATO obligations. I visited them uh three weeks ago. Uh, and to underscore the commitment uh to security in the region uh to Latia uh and Poland. Uh, by the way the brigades in Latafia it is not uh they don't do training they it's an operational brigade uh which gives you and that's before the incursions the Russian incursions uh of recent weeks uh and that gives you a sense of uh of both the stakes and and the degree of our commitment. So, we'll see. Uh, in terms of Ukraine, uh, there's a lot to be done still to, uh, to move that first to a cessation of hostility uh, before the guarantees would would come into effect. But what we do know and the United States uh, acknowledges very much is that without given the track record of Putin, we a security guarantee that's written on paper is not uh, that if the signature is Vladimir Putin's is not worth anything.
It's right here in the second round. Luke microphone coming up. >> There you go. >> Thank you. Allison Sander, Planet Action. First of all, just want to start with a thank you for those of us who forget what leadership and diplomacy looks like. We follow you and it reminds us and I think I'm speaking for the whole room. So, start with that. Um, a quick question. I think it's Canadian modesty that you describe yourself as a middle power. I kind of bump you up. And could you paint us a picture in these times where IP, capital, and talent can flow so easily? What is, you're a great strategist. What's the strategy for middle powers to use golden parachutes, different tax laws, and is there a coordinated strategy to just take some of the capital from here that's getting frustrated and attracted?
Well, we would we would never take anything from the United States to be clear. We would >> That's on the record. >> That's on the record. I just want to underscore that we're here to give, not take. Um, and >> not give too much. >> Not give too much. Exactly. No, like on the I I mean I think this is um our our strategy our our core of the strategy is the core like look it's like any organization yours included like the core of the strategy has to be consistent with who you are and what your values are uh and and then you build off of that. So uh the I said in my remarks you know the public square is loud, diverse and free. Um, that's important. It's important to Canadians, but it's important. It be it it's it's it's a rel it's becoming more of a relative thing than it had been in the past. Let's put it that way. Uh, the second is we are look the country is uh it is a very diverse country. It is a very network country uh globally. Um, you know, Toronto, New York, it's impressive. It's one of three born outside of the US. I think it's one of two in Toronto. Okay. And it's not that is not that is a more extreme version, but most many Canadian cities look like New York, not in scale, but in diversity. Um, and that is that is a strength that's there as well. From a tax perspective, uh, I don't think you'll see in Canada, you know, Swiss type tax deals um, for individuals. That's not the nature of the society. It's there is a social model that's consistent. Um, but what is there is those first two components combined with very strong research universities that people can come to a society when people can live in and a country that is connected to everywhere else in the world including through trade and uh trade and investment. Um, and that's something that we'll we will push through combined with which is something that isn't always there in Canada or at least shouted out which is ambition um and the scale of the ambition and that's part of how you people go to where things are happening or where they think they can be part of something bigger and that's that that's an important part of the strategy. Yeah. Thank you. Jane Harman.
Shane, how are you? >> Um Jane Harmon, former member of Congress. Congratulations to CFR and Canada for superb leadership uh which employs uh delightful humor. It's really refreshing. My question is more about Ukraine. and you've answered lots of it, but putting on your banker hat, uh there has been a bill in the United States Congress for a while sponsored by Lindsey Graham uh and Richard Blumenthal to impose secondary sanctions on Russia uh to force uh Putin uh to change his strategy. That bill isn't passing because Trump does not yet support it despite a veto proof majority. But my question is, how potent are secondary sanctions? And should this bill pass, how much difference do you think it would make?
Uh, well, thank and great great to see you, Jane. Um uh the look secondary sanctions can be incredibly uh powerful. Uh and they were very very powerful with respect to Iran. um and the uncertainty around the extent to which what is secondary if I can put it that way particularly in the financial sector is is a powerful weapon. So just for those who don't follow it it's not just what bank so to speak deals directly in this case with Russia but does your bank deal with the bank that deals with Russia. So who's your client's client? Um and once you start asking that question, the risk really does pull in and the isolation goes up orders of magnitude. Uh, the Graham Blumenthal bill as I remember doesn't deal directly with the financial side. It's more of a tariff trade related. Is that correct or am I misremembering? You think it has that financial? I think if it has the finan I think that is power. It is something we have advocated. Canada has advocated. I've personally advocated some of the discussions and I I will say that the the the US um has has raised this issue on several occasions uh as a possibility. I think it is a possibility. I'm not saying the legislation per se, but the use of secondary sanctions and our view, Canada's view and number of European countries would share this uh is that if we that we should go quickly to that uh because that really is the biggest non-military uh uh disincentive. Um, so I'm glad I'm glad you raised it. Yes.
Putting your your former banker hat on, central banker hat on, uh would you worry about the impact of secondary sanctions on the role of the dollar going forward in terms of weaponization of finance?
I I look I think this is um less no I mean I yes I understand the motivation of the question but I think it's this is this is these would be very clear well motivated reasons um and it would be coming in you would delay delivery it you'd say we're going to do it in two months or three months time uh to to uh effectively force Putin to uh to the trilateral table um and it would give time to reorganize um reorganize relationships accordingly. You always have a risk as you know when you uh when you do financial sanctions in terms of uh uh the impact on the dollar but it is also this this is the thing that needs to be hammered home. It is so difficult to transact even in other currencies with ultimately the the chain one step removed not touching a US person financial institution the dollar that that's what gives this such power.
You support using the frozen Russian assets?
When I was a central banker I didn't but now that where you stand depends on where you sit. Where it depends where where you stand depends on where you sit. Let's go to an online question. I'm much more enlightened now.
We will take the next virtual question from Mark Rosen.
Prime Minister, yesterday in recognizing a Palestinian state, you set out a demand that Hamas must be disarmed and excluded from any Palestinian government or elections. Can you explain to us who if not Israel will carry out that disarmament of Hamas? How will that happen? And if se if seems highly possible at least a movement or political party committed to Israel's destruction, whether under the Hamas name or another banner, ultimately wins those Palestinian elections you've called for next year. Won't you have in effect granted Hamas their own state to launch more invasions of Israel?
Um, thanks for the thanks for the question. Um the first is the disarmament um uh and elimination of Hamas as a as as a force uh certainly as a political force, military force first and political force uh is one of is one of the conditions for uh a sustained cessation of hostilities and peace. Um, and when you say who is going to do that um there are many proposals as I'm suspect you're aware uh from variety of Arab states combination of Arab states um and European states uh to which Canada would be party uh if they were to come to pass uh for multinational forces to be uh deployed in Palestine to enforce a peace uh and to uh and to drive uh that process. process uh that process forward. Um, so I think the first part of your question I I I deal with directly that way. The conditions for uh a free and fair election um in Palestine um are many um and the time in order to get to that uh spot is uh is uncertain. uh the conditions uh for any form of self-determination of the Palestinian people uh do not exist at present um and the prospect of them ever being in a position to make decisions in their own land. Um, it is the owed policy of the current Israeli government to ensure that never happens.
Yes. Way way in the back. Thank you. Keith Abel, next experiences, producer of New York Fashion Week in LA Fashion Week.
Wow. The right and uh I I know two two sons at the University of Toronto >> getting a fine education. Thank you. >> Good. Uh, one of them is a data science major and determined to start up his own company and feels compelled, although he loves Canada, he's Canadian, would stay up there if he could, but Canada really doesn't have the opportunities that Silicon Valley offers. You know, your joke about immigration policy in the United States aside, isn't that a problem? uh why drive your brilliant young Canadians to the United States because the capital markets doesn't have the category of capital to support their new ideas and is there a solution?
Yeah, I think well I think the first thing uh thanks for the question. Thanks for sending your kids back home uh if that's right. Um the uh and I I would I would flip it a bit in that how much are we driving people to Silicon Valley and how much is Silicon Valley uh and Seattle for that matter um sucking in and attracting and I don't mean that negative but just the the sheer weight uh of of the opportunity in the United States and this is true whether you're Canadian, Israeli, uh European, Indian, you know, I I this is not a unique phenomena to Canada. That uh you know 50% of our the probably one of the best I'll hedge um places to do computer engineering uh all forms of it is waterlue 50% of the graduating class every year goes to uh uh goes to the United States. Um and we need to retain more of those. Um, part of it, yeah, part of it is, um, the ecosystem, the venture capital ecosystem. I I actually don't think that's the to be honest thing. I'm not saying there aren't things that we shouldn't be doing there. I think it's in part uh it's the demand part of it is the demand for the end uh product. So you can the ability to scale in Canada is more limited has been more limited uh for a variety of reasons. Part of it are companies aren't applying things as as as much as US ones. Um, a lot of that is going to change in in AI crypto uh cryptography um cryptography is when I say crypto I don't mean crypto um and um uh and in quantum uh because We're we're going to we're going to drive a lot of that and there's and spin-offs of that. Doesn't mean we'll keep everybody, but we'll keep more.
I mean, the president just had an interesting visit to the UK. >> Yeah. >> And sign this major technology agreement. UK is going to get hundreds of billions of dollars potentially of of investment into their AI infrastructure. Could Canada cut a similar deal with the United States?
Yeah, we could cut uh we would like to cut a a similar deal. Uh the extent to which it needs to be done with the US government is it's not clear to me it has to be done with the US government. I'm happy to them to come. Um, but we've got So what do you need? What do you need for an AI data center? You need you need power. You need chips. Um, and you know more clean power is preferred. Um uh, you need chips. Uh, wouldn't hurt to have a fiber optic cable that went down to the US. uh, you know, proximity doesn't uh doesn't hurt what and so we that that strategy of of building out the infrastructure that the UK, France others are pursuing that makes sense uh that makes sense for us uh and we've got to make sure that some of our power those big chunks of power they're coming online are there for the overall benefit for Canada goes to the previous question uh and and the productivity discussion that's nice getting that infrastructure the big payoff is actually in the application which means that you want to flow through uh some of that capacity for Canadian companies uh Canadian usage um and actually the education side becomes that much more important.
There's another question way oh right there uh about twothirds of the way back. Yep. Gentlemen looking back. There you go. Hi, Andrew Waters with Morgan Stanley. Uh, Mr. Prime Minister, congratulations on passage of the One Canadian Economy Act this summer.
Congratulations on referencing it. Thank you. >> This is very good. >> I wonder if you could say a few more words and give us a few more details on the projects that you're planning to fasttrack through the approval authorities. Um, what are the size of those projects? When might they be approved and shovel ready? and when might be when might we start seeing those uh show up in GDP? Thank you.
Yeah, great uh great question. Um, so we're going to we're going to layer these uh approvals roughly every four months uh for the course of the next couple of years. Uh we have a series of them uh that were initially proposed uh Canada as a federation. Part of the way you part of the way we have to get things moving. We g we or parliament gave the government uh additional powers to fasttrack approvals. So two-year time horizon and once we designate a project it's presumed approved. Okay. So they something has to kind of go off in order for it not to happen which means that a lot of the engineering and other work drive through. Um, but part of the way to get things done in Canada, I mentioned this in my remarks, is through partnerships. So, we started with the provinces saying, "What are your top priorities?" And they've given us a bunch of their top priorities. Uh, indigenous peoples, indigenous rights holders, what what are some of their top priorities? Bringing those together and making sure that those are front of the front of the line, front of the queue. Um, what you're what you're going to see is a series of things in and you're starting to see them in and around critical minerals in and around energy particular a mixture of conventional and clean. We just uh green lit uh with BC for example, one of the largest uh um you know whatever is it uh one of the largest LNG uh projects uh silosumm um which follows hard on the heels of LG one and potentially LG2 which is this giant consortium. Those those are uh just to give a sense of of sort of blocks these are effectively zerocarbon LNG because the liquification is it's before the scope 3 obviously I'll say that under the control of planet earth um right but the liquefification is done with hydro um very short shipping times uh to Asia tons of demand and displaces coal. Lots of good things about that. You will see a lot of that those types of projects. But in parallel with scale nuclear uh scale nuclear in um Ontario uh where the uh where the actual FID decisions and the capital is starting to flow uh largecale hydro you know 10,000 to 15,000 uh megawatt hydro uh in east um and then big corridors and critical minerals that are opened up. Last thing, sorry this is too long an answer, but the the AI infrastructure leg of that strategy is just being developed. We we referenced it a few weeks ago around a sovereign cloud because we know that we're the offtake for that development for that. Uh and and you'll see you'll see something on that in the next few months.
You've contributed so much to uh the United States, the UK, the globe >> when it comes to climate change and now you're bringing it back to Canada. We are so privileged to have you here. Thank you for spending time with us.
Thank you.