Yeah, critical

minerals.

Yeah, to bring the critical minerals to the European market.

We speak about that since so many years.

Now it's time to see investments coming and to help to... to transport them, because the transportation will not be done by truck or by train.

We need to have ports that are effective, and all of this will require a lot of investment.

So that's very good.

So are those things that are, you would say, concrete, or are they still, like, to be determined?

What's one thing you think we could stop relying on the U.S. for and start doing with Europe instead?

Our prime minister gave to Canada the goal to double our exports outside the U.S. over the next 10 years, from 2025 to 2035.

This cannot be succeeded without Europe.

Of course, the Indo-Pacific will be key, Africa, South America.

But the big economy after the US and the Chinese one is the EU.

And if you add to that the UK, Norway, Switzerland, and so on, you have a very, very impressive economy.

economic force in Europe.

What effect do you think this is likely to have?

Ça ne doit pas être bienvenu d'entendre ça dans le Parti libéral.

Il y a beaucoup de ministres qui veulent des résultats aussi.

Une des difficultés que nous avons vient de l'Union européenne, parce que nos négociateurs à Bruxelles, après, doivent se retourner devant les 27 pays membres et leur dire « êtes-vous d'accord ? ».

Et là, pour protéger un peu leurs arrières, ils disent « Écoutez, on fait simplement dire qu'on va continuer à continuer.

» Alors, si on a toutes sortes de préfaces de ce genre-là et qu'on n'arrive pas avec des résultats, ça devient frustrant à la longue.

Alors, l'année dernière, on a signé ce partenariat.

On s'est engagé à des résultats concrets.

Est-ce qu'on est prêts à tout, nous, au Canada, pour des ententes commerciales avec des pays qui sont presque des pays voyous? Vous savez,

Ça ne doit pas être un bienvenu d'entendre ça dans le Parti libéral ?

Il y a beaucoup de ministres qui veulent des résultats aussi.

Une des difficultés que nous avons vient de l'Union européenne parce que nos négociateurs à Bruxelles, après, doivent se retourner devant les 27 pays membres et leur dire « êtes-vous d'accord ? » Et là, pour protéger un peu leurs arrières, ils disent « Écoutez, on fait simplement dire qu'on va continuer à continuer.

» Alors, si on a une sorte de préface de ce genre-là et qu'on n'arrive pas avec des résultats, ça devient frustrant à la longue.

Alors, l'année dernière, on a signé ce partenariat.

On s'est engagé à des résultats concrets.

des ventes de Canadair par Dave Avedon.

Est-ce qu'on est prêts à tout, nous, au Canada, pour des ententes commerciales avec des pays qui sont presque des pays voyous?

But can you control a never-end-em?

I think the lesson we need to understand is that it's not only to be against separation.

It's to be against separation blackmail.

Because if people have the sense that, oh, there's a province, Quebec, that receives so much because they are blackmailing the country with separation, we should do the same.

And so Albertans, many of them thought that, oh, we'll do like Quebec.

But the reality is that for Quebec, it has been very detrimental.

You have a society that has been divided.

And when it stops, I don't

What would it, what would be, within a legal framework, the vote that we would need to see in order for the PQ to go back and say, "Well, okay, based on this, uh, we think we have a mandate to separate"?

The, the Supreme Court of Can- In, in other countries, they came with a threshold.

The, some of these countries.

Uh, in Latvia, in Slovenia, uh, in, uh, in, in Iceland, uh, when they had a referendum ab- about bui- building a new country, they came with a threshold that was more than one vote more than the other guy.

Uh, but the Supreme Court of Canada said, "Don't make a, don't choose a threshold in advance.

Wait for seeing the result of the referendum and then make a qualitative assessment of the majority you have.

Is this majority strong enough to justify a, a so huge existential and irreversible decision? Is this majority strong enough to hold during the difficult and long negotiations that would be needed before having a separation agreement?" So that's a question that needed to be answered, not in advance, but in the context of a referendum by the political authorities.

Are you more concerned this time around than you were then, or is that even a fair question to ask?

So let's start with that and explain what you mean by double election.

Thank you, Aaron.

Bill, ladies and gentlemen, Madame Robin, I was removed by the sentence you mentioned.

I strongly believe in it.

Other Canadians need to care about Quebec, and as a Canadian in Quebec, I need to care about Alberta, of course.

A double election, ladies and gentlemen.

A normal election is when you cast your ballot, you have in mind which would be the best candidate, the best party, the best leader, the best program to govern the province or the country.

I don't see how this will ever work.

Stéphane Dion?

Yep.

Yes.

In fact, we don't start from scratch though.

We have a strong partnership with the EU.

We have a trade agreement, CETA.

And last year, June 2025, in Brussels, at the last summit Canada-EU, we concluded a very, very compelling strategic partnership, including defence and security, that is very unique already.

Have there been any advancements or changes since? Stéphane?

Do you get the sense at this stage that officials, Canadian officials, are maybe caught off guard by the language in this overture?

I suspect they are a bit surprised and the leaders of the member states as well.

I'm not sure the President of France, the the Chancellor of Germany, were aware that this offer to be the first associate member was framed by Madame von der Leyen during her speech.

But the key point for all of us, I think, it's not the way we will call it.

It's the need to have a stronger relationship between Canada and the EU for the long haul.

We have a lot of tools already in our hands with our free trade agreement, that we don't use enough.

Our very comprehensive partnership that has been signed in June 2025, that we need to see what kind of result it gave.

When you were in your previous role, could you have imagined this level of closeness or that we would be discussing this sort of thing at this moment?

[risas]

Exaggeration because it's not a level, uh, that it's clear, and it's not a level that Canada, and it seems the leaders of the member states were ready to endorse.

Uh, when, uh, uh, after that, the, the prime minister, Prime Minister Carney, met the president of the EU Parliament, they have been very careful facing the media to avoid the expression "associate member." So it's an exaggeration, but it's a friendly one because sh- it shows how much she's willing to have close links with us.

Uh, the other way around would have been a problem.

She would have been a bit c- c- cold with, uh, our prime minister.

To the contrary, she was too enthusiastic in some ways.

But, uh, uh, indeed, as the ambassador has said, uh, Mr. Wilkinson, the key point now is to stop to only talk and to come with, uh, declarations and to have concrete results in terms of, uh, the investments, contracts, um, cooperation, scientific cooperation, military cooperation.

Yep

On aurait pu régler des, des, des choses incroyables.

Sur le plan financier, vous avez raison, mais dans la vie de tous les jours, les caméras de surveillance, la détention préventive, c'est devenu facilité, la possibilité de, de faire des écoutes électroniques sans que les gens le sachent.

Euh, toutes ces mesures de sécurité se sont abattues sur nous parce qu'il fallait mieux protéger la population.

Alors, tant qu'on a des gouvernements résolument démocratiques, avec de fortes valeurs libérales, ça peut aller.

Mais dès lors qu'on est dans des régimes de dictature ou que dans nos pays, on a des dirigeants qui aspirent à devenir dictateurs, vous voyez bien à quel point ça peut, ça peut glisser.

Euh, par exemple, on a sorti des lois antiterroristes.

Donc, il faut définir le terrorisme et ça peut être défini d'une façon— c'est pas facile à définir.

Mais c'est vrai que c'est absurde.

On aurait pu régler des, des, des choses incroyables.

Sur le plan financier, vous avez raison, mais dans la vie de tous les jours, les caméras de surveillance, la détention préventive, c'est devenu facilité.

La possibilité de, de faire des écoutes électroniques sans que les gens le sachent.

Euh, toutes ces mesures de sécurité se sont abattues sur nous parce qu'il fallait mieux protéger la population.

Alors, tant qu'on a des gouvernements résolument démocratiques, avec de fortes valeurs libérales, ça peut aller.

Mais dès lors qu'on est dans des régimes de dictature ou que dans nos pays, on a des dirigeants qui aspirent à devenir dictateurs, vous voyez bien à quel point ça peut, ça peut glisser.

Euh.

Mais c'est vrai que c'est absurde.

And I just wondered if you could talk a little bit about the Clarity Act and the relevance that it has here today in Canada.

Thank you, Pam.

Thank you for the invitation.

What happened at that time is that Canada had two referendums on secession, one in 1980 and one in 1995.

And in 1995, the view of the separatist leaders, Mr. Parizeau and Mr. Bouchard, was that if they have more votes for the yes than for the no, right away they have the right, the National Assembly of Quebec and the Premier of Quebec, to declare themselves an independent country.

That was the international law.

It was indisputable.

What advice do you have, Stefan?