Savoie: Shaving department budgets won’t be enough to rein in federal spending 

Agree. Full-scale program review, as per Chrétien/Martin, best approach:

…The Ottawa-based bureaucracy is loaded with policy and program evaluation units. One would think that they are always at the ready to identify which programs are failing and those that are long past their best-by date. Program evaluation units, found in all government departments and most agencies, have been missing in action, unwilling or unable to report that programs fail to deliver what they promise, for fear of casting the government in a negative light. 

The units report to the government, not Parliament, as they deal with access to information legislation and other transparency requirements. No minister wants to stand before the House of Commons or the media to explain why departmental programs are missing the mark or should be eliminated. Whatever the reason, the units are still kept busy turning a crank not attached to anything.

Instead of announcing reduction targets from above that generate countless meetings with the objective of identifying possible cuts that stand to cause minimal damage to departments, the Cabinet could go with a different approach, one that would have a longer lasting impact. The government could, for example, eliminate two management layers. There are, at the moment, anywhere between six and nine management layers in the federal government, which are costly, slow down decision making and, all too often, generate non-productive work. The Treasury Board could also eliminate 90 per cent of “associate” positions attached to senior management jobs, which have mushroomed in recent years, in part to get around wage freezes or to award promotions that would not otherwise exist.

The federal government is home to hundreds of organizations and programs. Rather than try to shave a 7.5-, 10- or 15-per-cent cut to existing spending with uncertain success, Cabinet should review all organizations and all programs to see which ones no longer meet expectations or could be eliminated with limited impact on Canadians. 

Government organizations and programs are the product of political decisions and it is incumbent on Cabinet to decide whether they should continue. The exercise would enable Cabinet ministers to ask pointed questions about government programs and operations. Decisions to establish and eliminate organizations and programs belong to politicians, and not to anyone else. If the goal is to restructure the expenditure budget, this is where they need to look.

The Carney government has unveiled new spending commitments to strengthen the national economy, soften the blow of U.S. tariffs and boost defence spending. Mr. Carney’s planned cuts will not generate the required savings to support the various new spending commitments. The government can increase taxes, such as the HST, or it can take a close look at its organizations and programs and decide which ones still square with its policy agenda. This calls for a genuine political review of programs, not a process of trying to shave spending on selected activities which, history shows, only offers temporary savings. 

Source: Shaving department budgets won’t be enough to rein in federal spending

Krauss: Trump’s War on Science

Hard not to agree on the medium to long term impact. The age of ignorance…:

…The economic and military interests of the nation are best served by supporting a vibrant research culture in STEM fields like physics and biology. We need materials science and aerospace engineering research to develop new batteries and hardened materials for use in the military, as well as theoretical work in areas like quantum physics—which is vital not just for quantum computing but also for encoding sensitive messages. We need biological research in areas like immunology and genomics to protect against future pandemics. In short, the best and brightest scientists in the country need to be supported and encouraged to conduct curiosity-driven research—which produced almost half the current GDP of the nation within a single generation.

To do all this, we will also need to recruit the brightest minds from all over the world. Instead, the current administration seems bent on disallowing talented foreign scholars and students from studying and working in this country. In the past, many of these students—including Elon Musk—chose to stay in the United States after their studies ended and have created innovative technologies that have bolstered the US economy in myriad ways.

The culture wars in higher education have hurt both teaching and research, but the current policy of dismantling the government–science partnership that has helped drive US leadership in science and technology is worse. Leadership in these fields may soon pass to Europe—or, worse, to China. A great deal of damage has already been done, and it may soon be too late to fix it, as laboratories close down and first-rate researchers either leave their fields or move abroad.

Curiosity-driven science and research are crucial to the economic success of our nation. They must not be made subservient to political goals. It is worth remembering the words of Robert Wilson, the first director of the Fermi National Laboratory, which houses the nation’s largest particle accelerator. In 1969, when Congress asked him whether the particle accelerator would aid in the defence of the nation, Wilson responded, “It has nothing to do directly with defending our country except to make it worth defending.”

Source: Trump’s War on Science

Carney’s plan to cut tens of billions in spending is tough but doable, experts say

Always interesting to listen to the assessments of previous clerks on some of the lessons learned:

….Mel Cappe, who served as clerk of the Privy Council from 1999 to 2002, a position that includes heading up the public service, said meeting those targets will be tough but doable.

“There’s somebody in the public who’s going to be outraged by the cuts,” he said. “This is going to require all ministers holding hands, saying prayers together.”

…But previous clerks of the Privy Council say it will be difficult for the government to avoid cutting staff because wages, benefits and pensions are such a large part of the operating budget.Leaning on attrition

In 2023-24, excluding one-time payments like back pay made after a new collective agreement was signed, the federal government spent $65.3 billion on salaries, pensions and benefits. That was a 10 per cent increase over the previous year.

“In 1995, the wage bill was so high that it was necessary to invest some money to facilitate people to leave by giving them cashouts,” Cappe said.

“If you are going to do that on a massive scale, you have to be prepared to see those costs up front. Because it will save you a lot of money in the long run.”

Michael Wernick — the clerk of the Privy Council from 2016 to 2019 — told CBC News that relying on attrition “doesn’t make any sense as a management strategy.”

“What happens if your absolute key cybersecurity expert retires next week? You’re not going to replace her?” he said. “If your aspiration is a serious compression of the numbers, then you have to be more mindful about it and you have to do layoffs and buyouts.”

Where you cut — rather than how much

One of the ways the prime minister has said his government will cut operating expenses is by looking for ways to employ artificial intelligence and automation.

Wernick says that approach will require investment in training and technology and that, like buyouts for public servants, comes with an upfront cost.

But both former clerks say the Liberal government can hit its targets and they have a suggestion for how it can be done.

“Stop doing some things, rather than an across-the-board cut,” Cappe said.

By going this route, staff no longer carrying out a given function can be moved to work on other government priorities. Wernick says cutting entire lines of business also prevents spending from creeping back up.

“If you don’t kill the program entirely, the pressure to restore it will come in almost immediately from the clients, from the mayors, from the caucus,” Wernick said.

Donald Savoie, an expert in public administration and governance at the Université de Moncton, said the government can be downsized without hurting service delivery.

“Let’s look at programs that we don’t need anymore, let’s look at organizations that we don’t need anymore,” Savoie said.

He said there is also room to cut the use of consultants and outside contractors, but Wernick warned doing so would cut off access to expertise. That can be mitigated, he said, by training public servants — but that comes with an upfront cost.

Trying to emulate Chrétien and Martin’s fiscal success

Savoie said Carney has two things in common with Chrétien that bode well for his cost-cutting ambitions.

The first is that unlike Brian Mulroney, Stephen Harper and Trudeau, both Carney and Chrétien had experience working in government well before securing the country’s highest office.

Savoie said that means Carney, like Chrétien before him, knows which levers to pull.

The other thing both men share is a mandate to respond to a national crisis. In the 1990s, Canada’s federal debt was so large compared to the economy that a third of every dollar collected in tax went just to service its interest payments.

“I think what helped Chrétien immensely in 1994-95 is Canadians were seized with a real crisis,” Savoie said.

“So Canadians said: ‘we got a problem’ and so [Chrétien] could draw on public support. And in the same vein, Carney can draw on public support because Canadians see that dealing with Trump, dealing with tariffs, is very tough and some tough decisions have to be taken.”

For that reason, Savoie said, Canadians will be much more open to suffering through cuts than they were five to 10 years ago, which may be just enough political licence for the expenditure review to bear fruit.

Source: Carney’s plan to cut tens of billions in spending is tough but doable, experts say

Clerk letter to Public Service

Good letter with three priorities, focus, simplify, accountability. Clear test for both political and official levels:

Dear Colleagues,

Today marks the third time in my career that I have joined the federal public service. The first was a long time ago when I was fresh out of school. More recently, I rejoined about five years ago as the Deputy Minister of Finance. And here I am today, in a new role.

So, you might well ask, why? Why am I here? Of course, the most direct answer is that the Prime Minister asked me to take this on. I am grateful to him for the opportunity to do this job at this point in Canada’s history.

Why does this period present such a compelling opportunity for all of us?

First, the federal public service is one of Canada’s great institutions. I have believed this for decades. It has a long-distinguished history of advising successive governments through challenging periods. And, over time, it has shown its ability to evolve and become more diverse to reflect the country itself. For all those reasons, the public service plays an integral part in our system of government – in our democracy. If we have learned anything from the turbulent world we live in, it should be to never take for granted our democratic system of government, and the institutions that support it and make it work.

Second, I believe that we are at a particular moment in our history. The world is changing fast. And in some fundamental ways. While the changes we are living aren’t easy, they give us, as a country, the opportunity right now to make decisions that will put Canada’s economy on a more resilient path; that will make us a more prosperous and fairer country; and that can strengthen our national unity in the face of an increasingly divided world. That is a tall order. It will only be accomplished with a lot of hard work inside government and across the country. It is an opportunity that we cannot miss.

Third, I am convinced that the public service has an indispensable role to play in ensuring we seize this opportunity. As public servants, if we are to deliver on that goal, we need to keep three words in mind.

· Focus: the Government’s priorities are very clear, as set out in the missions that the Prime Minister has launched. Our job is to be disciplined and concentrate on those. By staying tightly focused on priorities, we can help them become realities faster.

· Simplify: Our internal processes have become quite complicated. When that happens, there is always the risk that following the process is so time-consuming that everything slows down – at a time when we need to speed up because the world is moving as fast as it is. Windows of opportunity open and close. The world waits for no one. When processes get too onerous, they can also obscure what really matters most and why we are all here: to have an impact for the benefit of Canadians. Trying to simplify processes is going to be a priority. I know it is easier said than done. But it has to be addressed.

· Accountability: From the advice we give ministers to the decisions we take in running departments and programs to the services we provide to Canadians – from national defence to issuing a passport – we need to have a sense of personal accountability for what we do. Accountability is about commitment. It is about initiative – it is about taking that extra step that no one may have asked you to take, but that is often needed to make something a success. Successful organizations always have two characteristics. Formal accountabilities have to be clear – it’s the job of senior management to ensure that they are. And people need to feel and act in a personally accountable way. Helping to build those accountabilities and a culture of personal accountability will be key priorities for me.

In my experience, leadership is a lot about listening. Listening to the open and honest debates we need. In these uncertain times, when the standard operating procedures just don’t work anymore, rigorous debate is the best path to the best decisions. In this, our diversity is a continuing source of strength. With diversity comes the differing perspectives that make those debates even more worthwhile.

A final point: be proud. Proud of the work you do. Proud of serving Canada and Canadians.

I look forward to working with all of you.

Michael Sabia

Source: Clerk letter to Public Service

Cabinet ministers asked to find ‘ambitious’ spending cuts as Carney government prepares first budget

To watch, significant targets:

Federal cabinet ministers are being asked to find “ambitious” internal savings this summer ahead of the 2025 budget as Prime Minister Mark Carney’s government decides how it will pay for the billions of dollars in new spending that it recently announced.

Specifically, ministers must find ways to reduce program spending by 7.5 per cent in the fiscal year that begins April 1, 2026, followed by 10 per cent in savings the next year and 15 per cent in the 2028-29 fiscal year.

Program spending refers to the costs related to services provided directly by Ottawa. It excludes large categories such as federal transfers to the provinces and territories for health and social services, debt payments, and direct transfers to individuals such as seniors benefits. 

Finance Minister François-Philippe Champagne sent two letters to all cabinet ministers Monday informing them of plans for a “Comprehensive Expenditure Review” as well as a new pre-budget process related to minister requests for new funding.

“You will be expected to bring forward ambitious savings proposals to spend less on the day-to-day running of government, and invest more in building a strong, united Canadian economy,” Mr. Champagne wrote in one of the letters.

Source: Cabinet ministers asked to find ‘ambitious’ spending cuts as Carney government prepares first budget

The Functionary: New clerk expectations

More notes of caution but I wish them well:

But are they too alike? That’s the worry. Both bring a Goldman Sachs-style mindset with big ambition that prizes speed and outcomes, which could drive them to barrel ahead — not listening, not slowing down, ignoring red flags.

Would deputies raising alarms about a Phoenix-style pay disaster get heard? Or would they be dismissed as risk-averse and stuck in public-service inertia?

As one long-time deputy minister said:

“Neither Carney nor Sabia has worked in the parts of government that actually deliver services. Finance manages crises — it doesn’t build systems. Fixing immigration or modernizing service delivery isn’t about reacting fast. It’s about designing complex programs, managing risk, and building IT that actually works. That’s not their wheelhouse.”

Goldman pace, Ottawa reality. The kind of style that works at Goldman Sachs — where there’s a deep bench of talent ready to step in — doesn’t translate easily to the public service, where replacements aren’t so easy to find or groom. Burnout here carries real risks, and losing top talent isn’t as simple as hiring the next in line.

Tellier and Sabia also came up in a different era. Barking orders and command-and-control leadership were the norm in the 1990s. But that style is now widely seen as outdated.

These days clerks prioritize wellness and mental health. And many public servants are tired. They haven’t a breather since the pandemic. There’s been Trump’s trade war, the federal election, two government transitions, and new crises keep coming – wars, fires.

Can the public service handle a hard-driving, two-year push for massive changes – with the chaos of layoffs? And can Carney stay focused to get his big things done?

The new guard is, well, older. Carney and his lieutenants — Sabia, chief-of-staff Marc-André Blanchard, and principal secretary David Lametti — are all white, male Boomers or Gen Xers leading a millennial-dominated public service that’s 58-per-cent women. 

Many public servants have only ever worked under the Trudeau government, where wellness, DEI, values and ethics, and work-life balance were top priorities. Money flowed and the public service grew. Gears are now shifting to high performance, speed, outcomes, spending and job cuts. That’s a culture shift.

The real leadership test may be less about what gets done — and more about how.

Source: New clerk expectations

Gearey: In the federal public service, simple gender parity isn’t enough

Remarkably limited in scope. It’s not just gender parity but representation of visible minorities and Indigenous peoples, along with the intersectionality with gender.

The overall public service record has become much more representative over the years, as any cursory reading of employment equity reports and related data tables demonstrates.

Women visible minorities are slightly greater than the overall percentage of women: 57.8 percent, while Indigenous peoples women are much more strongly represented, 63.4 percent compared to 56.9 percent.

To put departmental diversity variation in context, out of the 31 departments with over 1,000 employees, only 6 do not have gender parity:

Partnership is collective; it doesn’t “give” women anything but rather frees everyone. True gender partnership is architectural — it’s not just paint on the walls. Partnerships must create space for trans women too, whose representation is even more marginal. Broadening partnerships in this way, even beyond binary gender lines, creates more durable and valuable culture change.

This kind of partnership culture-building is especially needed in portfolios such as National Defence, Innovation, Science and Economic Development, and STEM-related departments such as Natural Resources — areas where women remain under-represented and influence is unevenly distributed.

Departments that prioritize inclusion will not only improve productivity and retention, but also align more closely with the values of younger generations entering the workforce.

Still, not all mechanisms for achieving equity have kept pace with the progress they helped achieve. Some public service job postings continue to include criteria restricted to equity groups that include women. If true equity had been realized, women wouldn’t need to tick a box to be counted.

Not all equity groups have progressed at the same pace, so we’re not at a one-size-fits-all approach. Equity must begin with presence before it can refine process.

Tying this up, the risk card — “Diminished Male Relevance” — wasn’t just hypothetical. It captured a fear that progress must come at someone’s expense. Real partnership, however, isn’t subtraction, it’s about choosing to evolve together. If that feels uncomfortable, it likely means we’re getting somewhere.

Source: Gearey: In the federal public service, simple gender parity isn’t enough

Treasury Board reports gains on diversity and equity in public service, but will cuts hamper progress?

Good question:

The federal public service continued to increase the number of women, Indigenous people, visible minorities, and people with disabilities in its ranks between 2023 and 2024, according to the latest report on employment equity. But as the federal public service now begins to shrink for the first time in over 10 years, some have raised concerns that job cuts will hamper progress for equity-seeking groups….

Source: Treasury Board reports gains on diversity and equity in public service, but will cuts hamper progress?

TBS publishes some rich infographics and infographics: Employment Equity Demographic Snapshot 2023–2024

Figure 33: Representation trends for members of visible minorities by subgroup – percentage

Text version below:



Public service shrinks by nearly 10,000, with tax, immigration hit the hardest

Interestingly, core public administration, the basis for employment equity reports, only shrank by some 3,000 (CRA not included in core public administration, meaning that IRCC had the vast majority of cuts). The 2023-24 EE report shows an increase, but as I go through hiring, promotion, and separation data, hiring has started to decrease. Real issues, as others have flagged, with cuts disproportionately affecting younger workers. More to come:

The federal public service shed almost 10,000 people last year, with the Canada Revenue Agency and Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada losing the most employees.

The last time the public service contracted was in 2015, when the number of people employed dropped just slightly from 257,138 to 257,034.

The number of public servants employed by the federal government fell from 367,772 to 357,965 over the last year.

The CRA lost 6,656 employees between 2024 and 2025, dropping from 59,155 to 52,499. The size of the Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada workforce fell from 13,092 to 11,148, a loss of 1,944 employees.

The Public Health Agency of Canada lost 879 employees, Shared Services Canada dropped 608 employees, Health Canada lost 559 and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency lost 453.

Some departments and agencies saw their workforces expand over the past year. The RCMP hired another 911 public servants, Elections Canada hired another 479, National Defence hired an extra 381 and Global Affairs Canada took on another 218.

The data does not include employees on leave without pay, locals employed outside of Canada, RCMP regular force and civilian members, Canadian Armed Forces members, employees of the National Capital Commission and those who work for the Canadian Security Intelligence Service.

Most of those who lost their jobs were “term” employees — people hired for a limited period of time. Between 2024 and 2025, the public service lost almost 8,000 term employees.

The government also dropped almost 3,000 casual employees — people who can’t be employed by any one government department or agency for more than 90 days — and 1,750 students.

The number of permanent federal public service employees increased by about 2,700 last year.

More than three-quarters of the people who left the federal public service last year were under the age of 35.

Of those who lost their jobs, 4,413 were between the ages of 25 and 29, another 3,354 were between the ages of 20 and 24, 563 were aged 30 to 34 and 246 were under 20.

Lori Turnbull, a professor of political science at Dalhousie University, said it’s not surprising that most of the positions eliminated were term positions — short-term positions that don’t have to be renewed.

“These contract positions are often vehicles for entry into the public service,” Turnbull said.

David McLaughlin, executive editor of Canadian Government Executive Media and former president and CEO of the Institute on Governance, said term employees and younger staffers are the easiest people for governments to cut.

“If you’re paying people out, they don’t require big packages, so they are the easiest, cheapest employees to let go,” he said.

But by dropping younger employees whose careers are just beginning, he said, the government risks missing out on the kind of cultural change and innovation the public service badly needs.

“You run the longer-term risk by letting go younger people who may be dedicating their careers and to public service,” he said. “You are simply reinforcing the older sub-performers that may exist in the public service.

“I would not recommend this as an approach to resolving public service spending.”

The government spent $43.3 billion on public servants’ salaries in 2023-24, according to the parliamentary budget officer. It spent a $65.3 billion on all employee compensation, including pensions, overtime and bonuses.

PBO data also indicates that, in 2023, the average salary for a full-time public servant was $98,153.

The Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat said it could not provide an average salary for public servants for 2024 or 2025.

Public service employees have been braced for layoffs since the previous Liberal government launched efforts to refocus federal spending in 2023.

In the 2024 budget, ­the previous government said it expected the public service population to decline by around 5,000 full-time positions over the subsequent four years.

It also said that, starting on April 1, 2025, departments and agencies would be required to cover a portion of increased operating costs with existing resources.

Prime Minister Mark Carney has vowed to cap, not cut, the federal public service, though his government has given little indication of what that might entail. The prime minister also has promised to launch a “comprehensive” review of government spending with the aim of increasing its productivity.

Hundreds of workers in the Canada Revenue Agency, Employment and Social Development Canada and Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada have been laid off recently.

Those organizations also saw their numbers increase during the pandemic years.

Turnbull said that, with the pandemic over and immigration numbers being scaled down, the federal government sees this downsizing as “logical.”

McLaughlin, meanwhile, warned that downsizing only offers “episodic savings” and wondered whether service delivery can keep up with demand.

Source: Public service shrinks by nearly 10,000, with tax, immigration hit the hardest

Nicolas: De Los Angeles à Kananaskis

Discomforting possible parallel. We will see this upcoming weekend:

….Ce qui se passe à Los Angeles représente un tournant, sur deux principaux aspects.

Premièrement, sur le fond, soit la violence politique envers les personnes immigrantes. Les agents de contrôle de l’immigration (ICE) arrêtent des parents sur leurs lieux de travail pendant que leurs enfants sont à l’école et tentent de se déployer dans des écoles primaires pour y interroger des enfants. On a vu d’autres enfants être privés de leur droit à être représentés par un avocat et être interrogés seuls par les autorités. On a déjà vu aussi, un peu partout au pays, des gens être « déportés » vers des prisons du Salvador et à Guantánamo. J’utilise le mot « déportés » entre guillemets, puisqu’il n’est pas question de retourner les gens vers leur pays d’origine : il s’agit plus de kidnappings. Dans une ville comme Los Angeles, s’en prendre à la population immigrante au statut irrégulier, c’est s’en prendre au tissu social, économique et communautaire de la métropole. La population résiste, parce que les personnes qui sont ciblées par ICE sont indissociables de la population même.

Si l’on considère que les personnes qui ne possèdent pas la citoyenneté d’un pays n’ont pas de droits fondamentaux, la démocratie est déjà mise à mal.

Deuxièmement, sur la résistance politique qui se déploie face à ICE. Lorsque des citoyens décident de dénoncer le fait que des parents soient séparés brutalement de leurs enfants, ou que des enfants soient séparés brutalement de leurs parents, ils exercent leur liberté de conscience politique, leur liberté d’expression et leurs droits civiques. En déployant des agents militaires sans le consentement du gouverneur de l’État, et sans que la situation le justifie, Trump franchit encore une autre ligne. La question grave qui se pose désormais, c’est : existe-t-il dorénavant une possibilité que les élections de mi-mandat ne soient pas des élections libres ? Parce que lorsqu’on commence à gérer le débat politique par l’intimidation armée, où et quand s’arrête-t-on, et pourquoi ?

Revenons au Canada, et à la tentation, qui remonte par soubresauts, de « normaliser » nos relations avec États-Unis. Bien sûr, vu que notre économie est en jeu, ça se comprend tout à fait. Mais il existe un risque sérieux, vu le rythme où Washington s’enfonce, que nos liens avec nos voisins nous entraînent aussi vers l’abysse avec eux. Et par abysse, j’entends ici une forme d’abysse morale. Si la démocratie est précieuse pour les Canadiens, on ne peut s’attacher aussi intimement à un régime déterminé à la fragiliser, chez nous comme chez eux.

Alors que le G7 s’ouvre à Kananaskis, en Alberta, j’ai certaines appréhensions. L’Histoire ne se répète jamais, mais je crois que l’on peut tout de même tirer certaines leçons de l’échec monumental des Accords de Munich de 1938. J’espère que les chefs d’État seront plus rapides, cette fois-ci, à reconnaître en leur sein l’acteur qui affiche un mépris ouvert pour la règle de droit.

Source: De Los Angeles à Kananaskis

…. What is happening in Los Angeles represents a turning point, on two main aspects.

First, on the substance, either political violence against immigrants. Immigration Control Officers (ICE) arrest parents at their workplaces while their children are in school and try to deploy to primary schools to interview children. Other children have been deprived of their right to be represented by a lawyer and questioned alone by the authorities. We have also seen, all over the country, people being “deported” to prisons in El Salvador and Guantánamo. I use the word “deported” in quotation marks, since there is no question of returning people to their country of origin: it is more about kidnappings. In a city like Los Angeles, attacking the irregular immigrant population is attacking the social, economic and community fabric of the metropolis. The population resists, because the people who are targeted by ICE are inseparable from the population itself.

If we consider that people who do not have the citizenship of a country do not have fundamental rights, democracy is already being damaged.

Secondly, on the political resistance that is unfolding against ICE. When citizens decide to denounce the fact that parents are abruptly separated from their children, or that children are abruptly separated from their parents, they exercise their freedom of political conscience, their freedom of expression and their civil rights. By deploying military agents without the consent of the governor of the state, and without the situation justifying it, Trump crosses yet another line. The serious question that now arises is: is there now a possibility that midterm elections are not free elections? Because when we begin to manage the political debate through armed intimidation, where and when do we stop, and why?

Let’s go back to Canada, and to the temptation, which is rising by ups, to “normalize” our relations with the United States. Of course, since our economy is at stake, it is quite understandable. But there is a serious risk, given the pace at which Washington is sinking, that our links with our neighbors also lead us to the abyss with them. And by abyss, I mean here a form of moral abyss. If democracy is valuable to Canadians, we cannot be so intimately attached to a regime determined to weaken it, both at home and at home.

As the G7 opens in Kananaskis, Alberta, I have some apprehensions. History never repeats itself, but I believe that we can still learn some lessons from the monumental failure of the 1938 Munich Agreements. I hope that the Heads of State will be quicker, this time, to recognize within them the actor who displays an open contempt for the rule of law.