Mark Carney
Role at the time: Prime Minister of Canada, addressing the European Parliament
Statement summary
Addressing the European Parliament the day after the proposal, Carney said Canada welcomes the ambition and cited polling showing majority Canadian support for closer ties with Europe. He attributed the associate-member phrase to von der Leyen rather than using it of his own position, said he was not proposing a rival power bloc, and framed the aim as resilience against outside control of markets, sovereignty and territorial integrity.
“Yesterday, President von der Leyen spoke of moving beyond CETA to an alliance for the future – opening the door to Canada becoming the European Union’s first associate member. Canada welcomes this ambition – polling shows an overwhelming majority of Canadians support much closer ties with Europe.” … “I want to be precise about what I am not proposing. I am not proposing a third bloc in order to become a great-power rival – only with better manners.” … “We are pursuing resilience so that no one can control our open markets, impair our sovereignty, threaten our territorial integrity, or undermine our freedoms, our democracies, our rule of law.”
The Prime Minister's Office transcript of Mark Carney's address to the European Parliament in Strasbourg on 17 September 2026, the day after von der Leyen's proposal. Carney attributes the associate-member phrase to von der Leyen rather than adopting it, and the separate PMO readout of their meeting avoids the term entirely. Wire copy rendering his sovereignty passage as "no country could control Canada's markets" does not match this transcript, which reads "no one" and "our", and omits his references to territorial integrity, democracies and the rule of law.
Why we used this label
Relative to whether Canada should become an associate member of the European Union, Carney welcomes the proposal and commits his government to pursuing it, which supports the proposition. The closest competing label is “Mixed or conditional”, and it is a genuine question here, because he welcomes von der Leyen's “ambition” rather than the label itself, his office's readout of their meeting avoids the term, and he has promised a parliamentary vote on the final structure. Those are qualifications about scope and process rather than conditions on his own support, which is why this stays a defence. An editor may reasonably disagree.