PM Carney speaks with reporters in Ankara, Türkiye – July 8, 2026

We got the early slot this morning.Well, first, actually, first off, before we kind of record, let me thank you all for coming.I know it's an imposition, but it's important.The overall backdrop, let me just say a couple words, overall backdrop, then we'll take questions.And I just said something to the effect, just as I was walking in, you know, big picture, The threats are changing rapidly.The threats that face Canada, the threats that face the alliance, evolution of the technical threats, if I can put it that way, from hypersonic missiles to autonomous warfare, hybrid warfare, the adversaries, Russia as a direct adversary.

So that evolution is there.There's a process of shifting burdens.We've known about that, shifting burdens towards, within the alliance, away from the United States.The United States still, in the alliance without question, but shifting towards Europe and Canada and those burdens being picked up.And the capacities are being built, and you've seen recent announcements.There's more announcements today from Canada in terms of our procurement, building capacity across maritime capacity with the sub -announcement, light vehicles, munitions, the aircraft announcement, which we've now seen endorsed by NATO with the global eye.

And that puts us in a position, last point, and then we'll go to questions, the way we see things is a NATO that is moving towards burden shifting, more regional integration within a NATO umbrella.to Baltic.with the British government on this?Canada and eight other countries at this time.And it's no longer an initiative to supply the United Kingdom, but we can see the concordance between the two, because if we have It's easier to finance small and medium -sized businesses, for example.So there are discussions.

I'm sure the discussions will intensify on this, because it's an alliance, basically.In English, so I'll shorten it.Complementarities between the two initiatives, the MDM, the Initiative of the United Kingdom, is pretty much a procurement initiative, sovereign procurement.There's an obvious complementarity between that and a bank, which is what the DSRB is.If you have more predictable procurement, it's easier to finance against it.I mentioned that I spoke with Prime Minister Starmer about it last night.

There's been discussions amongst our officials.I'm sure those will pick up.It's an alliance after all, and we're all looking for the best ways to move forward as these capacities build up.

the Secretary General.So publicly, can you say what our plan is for farmers?

Well, the first thing is, and this is what the public needs to know, is that the commitment at NATO is 5 % 2035, so it's nine years from now, first point.Second point, in a world where threats are evolving rapidly and burdens are shifting, what is also was agreed at the Hague Summit is that those objectives, those percentages, will be reviewed in 2030.Okay, so those two things are part of the overall environment.That's sensible, and Canadians expect us to be sensible.We have a need to increase our defense spending, increase our resilience spending to protect Canadians first and foremost, and to support our allies.And we have some catch -up to do, without question.

I came into government, we were spending 1 .4 percent of GDP on defense, direct defense expenditure.We got that to 2 % in the first time since the fall of the Berlin Wall.That's going to scale up to 2 .5 % over the fiscal framework over the course of the next four years.And in addition, we're spending 1 .5 % of GDP around resilience.So by the NATO definition, before the end of this decade, we are spending 4%.I'll remind the 5 % is out there.

What's important, what people care about is, I mean, yes, the bond market cares about it and being responsible with taxpayer dollars, that's fundamental.But what matters is those capacities.What are we actually spending the money on?The first thing we spent money on was paying the women and men in the Canadian Armed Forces properly.Payments that match the weight of their responsibilities.In terms of fiscal transparency, I'm conscious of other questions, and we can go into this in more detail.

I'm perfectly happy to.have provision, for example, for the submarines, already provisioned for that within that fiscal track.So the decision that was announced yesterday, contract still to be negotiated, but the decision was out two days ago, I apologize, that will not have an impact on the budget because the money has already been set aside for that.We will lay out in the budget and updated with the decisions we're taking, where the fiscal track is, where the defense spending is, how we're spending the 1 .5 % on defense -related expenditures, resilience expenditures, and that's the right time to do it.Yeah, sure.

Yesterday, Secretary General Ruta announced big new capabilities for NATO, airlift, refueling, area surveillance.But when President Trump arrived, All he talked about was the refusal of the allies to participate in the attack on Iran.Is there a mismatch between alliance leaders who want to talk about what NATO can do and a president who's fixated on what NATO won't do?

The alliance is a defensive alliance.It's not an offensive alliance.And in a world of evolving threats, it's important that we, as your question suggests, that we put ourselves in a position where we can defend our citizens.And that defense, that robust defense, has to be highly, highly credible to deter attacks and prevent the type of suffering we're seeing in Ukraine.Is there more to do in order to be in that position?Without question.

And what Canada looks to in these meetings, and all related meetings and interactions, is to identify where those gaps are and help to close them, and to do so in a transparent way.And that's a process, that's an iterative process.Yes, the President of the United States had a desire for a more offensive response support with respect to the Iran conflict.And it wasn't a direct ask of Canada.We didn't have the capabilities.We're not relevant from a base perspective in that theater.

And that's between him and specific NATO allies.

On the submarines, you've said that the economic benefits were a major part of the decision -making process.What was it that clinched it for the winning preferred bidder?And is there a consolation prize for the prospective loser?They want to sell all kinds of things.

Well, the first thing is that the process was run by the Defense Investment Agency, so there's a series of criteria that are there.Obviously, cost is a component of it.Both bidders, as you know, I think, had met the operational thresholds of the Royal Canadian Navy, so both were, you know, seaworthy from their perspective or would perform the job.One of the, you know, there's a set of related issues, though, such as sustainment.So how do we make sure that these subs are available for decades?Where does that sustainment take place?

How is that expertise transferred from the bidders to Canadians and Canadian businesses so that Canada is doing the sustainment?There's associated industrial and technical benefits.that came with both of the bids, which were evaluated.So it was a series of criteria and matched or assessed on a pairs basis.If you were allocating a score of 10, who do you give it, the 7 -2 and the 3 -2?That's effectively the process that the DIA takes.

To the second part of your question, We have a deep strategic relationship with the Republic of Korea.I had a very productive conversation with President Lee on the weekend to inform him of the decision.Obviously, he was disappointed, but the conversation immediately pivoted.at his initiative to a series of issues around AI and technology risks and how we can continue and deepen our cooperation there.We picked up on that conversation.We had a long bilateral here yesterday.

That's not a consolation prize.That is allies working together strategically on important issues.There's just a host of Is Tom Pitfield's appointment to the Senate a reward for helping you win the election?legislative process, these other things are helpful, but we want some core competencies in there as well, and where the Senate is more deficient and there's people who are willing to serve, I'm very pleased that they are.

It is irresponsible.

They were – I'm sorry, I'll let you finish your question.Sorry.Yeah.There is a ceasefire.It's not perfect, but it exists.And the ceasefire was reinforced by the President of the United States during the funeral of the former leader of Iran for six days.

And during this period, this period of mourning, where Iran is in mourning, Iran attacked Qatar and Saudi Arabia several times.This is irresponsible.It's not correct at all.I mean, that's irresponsible.So there was a response from the United States, and it's not nice, but it's correct.So yes, the situation is fragile.

Canada wants all the parties – yes, all the countries involved to reinforce, reinstate the ceasefire.This is a situation where we had a ceasefire as part of the peace deal that had been reinforced by the U .S.president during the six -day period of mourning for the late Ayatollah Khamenei.And during that period, Iran attacked multiple times.They would call targets.

We would call infrastructure assets in Qatar and Saudi Arabia.threatened shipping again.That's irresponsible.It's not right.And the United States has responded.as appropriate to look to stop this behavior and put in place at least conditions to reestablish the ceasefire.

So, as I said in French, it's evidently a fragile situation.I did, yes.

He was in a good mood at dinner last night as well.I mean, I'm not... you know, I'm going to pull out.Is this performative from your perspective?I'm not asking you to criticize him, but the public sees two very different things, and then you say he's in a good mood and all's fine with the spending.

Well, you added that.You did.Sorry to call you on that.Look, I think the president, as did President Obama, which I just said to someone else, is looking for a shift of the burden within NATO.That's appropriate.That is happening.

That's gaining momentum.That's part of the point I made to President Trump when we spoke a few days ago, is that it's not just he's winning the argument, he's won the argument.Countries recognize that they need to take more responsibility, see the direct threats.Now, the question for NATO and the United States Part of what we will discuss and part of the point I will make in the room with my three and a half minutes of time, which is about a quarter of the length of my normal answer, I know, so I apologize, is that those shifting burdens are going to be, in our view, most effectively done, obviously, with greater capacity.we have to spend more, we have to build these capacities, that's what we're doing, but in ways that recognize the regions in which we operate.So for Canada, North America, obviously, up until now, NATO has said, well, North American security, that's your problem.

Well, North American security, and particularly Arctic security, and remind everybody that we've got 15 % of the world's coastline, Arctic security is not a flank, it's a front.with the shift in the threats, and Russia is a direct adversary.So spending there and coordinating not just Canada, but Canada, the Nordics, Canada, Germany, Canada, France, Canada, the Baltics, that crescent is vital for NATO.So that's where the discussion, in our judgment, needs to go, and that is where the planning is going in our view.I'll take a last question.

Just for the non -bankers among us, could you explain how the bank would make purchases, big -ticket items like submarines in the future, cheaper for the Canadian taxpayer?And is it able to do that as currently constituted, or does it need to grow further and get new members?

Well, I think, so first thing is, you look at the membership of the bank.Let me give a specific example, which I think answers both.parts of your question.And let's look at Ukraine, which is one of the countries that would be a founding member of the bank.I think everybody knows, and it's increasingly understood with a greater degree of specificity, granularity, is that in tragic circumstances, this war since 2014, Ukraine has made tremendous advances in drones and autonomous warfare in the integration of those capabilities.That is relevant for everybody.

They have expertise, they have production capabilities, and we are in the process, Canada included, of partnering with Ukrainian firms.Canadian firms and Ukrainian firms partnering and building up that capacity.Now, that in and of itself creates a supply chain.I've got a firm in Ukraine, maybe several firms in Ukraine, a firm in Canada, maybe somebody in the Nordics as well.And the ability to finance across that supply chain, cost effectively, is tremendously valued.It lowers the cost of it for everybody.

Us partnering with Ukraine not just brings technology, but it's cheaper even in a war theater, to produce many things in Ukraine because of just volumes and other factors.That also saves money for Canadian taxpayers.And what it does as well, and maybe I should end on this since we're at the NATO summit, it also tightens the alliance.It's another mechanism that builds the alliance together.And I think, if I could just make one adjacent point, and this goes to taxpayers, what we don't want to do is we all build up is to all build up in silos.That's very, very expensive.

It's not a true alliance.It can be human nature to do that, say, OK, we need this capability.And so what Canada's been focused on is, and you've heard us say this many, many times, working with like -minded partners.so that we exploit those complementarities.And I mean exploit in a positive sense.And that's part of what we're seeing.

We're seeing it with the Global Eye aircraft.We're seeing it in how we will build out the submarines with the TQMS bid.I talked about this.I talked about this.Thank you.