The Agenda with Steve Paikin (Audio) - Can Canada Stand Tall in a Changing World Order?

Episode Date: May 27, 2025

Over the past decade, there's been much debate around whether Canada's presence on the world stage has diminished. As Canada prepares to host the upcoming G7 summit in Alberta, along with attending next month's NATO Summit in The Hague, is there an opportunity for a Mark Carney led Canada to take on a more prominent role in a shifting global order? Host Steve Paikin asks: Richard Fadden, Former Director of CSIS - the Canadian Security Intelligence Service; Former National Security Adviser to Stephen Harper, and Former Deputy Minister for the Department of National Defence. Adam Chapnick, Professor of defence studies at the Royal Military College of Canada and Co-author of: "Canada First, Not Canada Alone: A History of Canadian Foreign Policy." Kerry Buck, Former Canadian Ambassador to NATO and Senior Fellow at the University of Ottawa. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

As we prepare to host the upcoming G7 Summit in Alberta, along with attending next month's NATO Summit in The Hague, is there an opportunity for Canada to take a more prominent role in a shifting global order? Joining us now to help unpack what opportunities may arise for our nation, we welcome Richard Fadden. He's former director of CSIS, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, and former national security Advisor to Stephen Harper. He's joining us on the line from the nation's capital. And with us here in studio, Kerry Buck, former Canadian Ambassador to NATO

and Senior Fellow at the University of Ottawa, and Adam Chapnick, Professor of Defence Studies at the Royal Military College of Canada and co-author of Canada First, Not Canada Alone, A History of Canadian Foreign Policy. Good to have you two in this studio. Carrie, I think for the first time, you've always been on satellite before.

And Richard Fadden, thanks for being there for us in the nation's capital. Let's start with this quote here from Avi Ben-Lolo, who was published in the National Post last month. He's the founding chair and CEO of the Abraham Global Peace Initiative, and here's what he had to say. Over the past decade, Canada's presence on the world stage has diminished considerably.

We were once known as peacekeepers, moral leaders, and champions of justice, human rights, and international cooperation. Today, we are more likely to be asked, what happened to Canada? In capitals around the world the question echoes where is your country's voice? Let's start there. Richard, agree or disagree with the premise of that statement? Basically I agree and I think there are two big reasons for this. One, Mr. Trudeau's ministry was not particularly interested in foreign affairs, defense, and national security.

And that shows after a while. And their particular approach to deal with foreign policy through values as opposed to interest has had an impact. And secondly, I think over the past several decades, the fact that we have not maintained any semblance of hard power through either defense or to some degree through development have come together to mean that We have not anywhere near as much influence as we could have I think it's possible to shift but it's going to take a little while it can't be done from one day to the next And I think we also have to recognize that the world has changed significantly from the time when we were a middle power And in fact that I'm not so sure that the concept of middle power is as valid as it used to be. Okay, lots of things to unpack there, which we will over the course of our half hour together.

Carrie Buck, your view on that statement. Well, I agree-ish. I would roll it back at least 20 years. I remember I was in New York substituting for one of our foreign ministers at a foreign ministers dinner under Prime Minister Harper and one of our close Nordic foreign minister friends came up to me and said where's Canada we miss Canada. I think the same thing applied under Prime Minister Trudeau's leadership as well. I agree with Dick Fadden that you know there was a little less interest in the international level. I don't see any signature initiatives coming out of either Prime Minister Trudeau or Prime Minister Harper's era. We've been missing in action. And that's not necessarily our fault.

When the international architecture was created, there's been a fivefold increase in the number of states. So of course, your voice is harder to be heard. There are new emerging leaders, new emerging middle states in the global south who want a greater say at the table, want an equal voice, so your voice is going to be harder to hear. And then an unpredictable US. And we used to be able to draft off the US power and use that internationally for our own ends. That's harder to do now. But some of the things are in our control. I agree with Dick entirely. We have radically under invested in both diplomacy and defense over at least the

last two decades and we've got to fix that. Adam. I'd go back even further. When Paul Martin became Prime Minister the first thing he said was Canada's back. To suggest that we hadn't been there. Stephen Harper came in and he went to Afghanistan and said, we're back. And then Justin Trudeau came in and he said, Canada's back. So there's always been this impression

in the last 30 odd years that Canada's influence has withered in the world. It's somewhat true, I think Kerry's right, that the world's gotten bigger and we haven't gotten that much bigger, so that's part of it. The other part is certainly underinvest investment in every which way shape or form as well as less boldness in terms of how we've pursued international issues which can be good or

bad it's just the way it's been. Everything's relative of course and Richard Fadden let me just throw a couple of other names of so-called middle powers out there and maybe you tell us how we're doing relative to them. India, Brazil, Turkey so-called middle powers out there, and maybe you tell us how we're doing relative to them. India, Brazil, Turkey, they're all middle powers. Do they punch above their weight in ways we don't? I think they punch above their weight in their own region. And in fact, I think you could even argue

that they are major powers in their own region. I continue to think that the idea of a middle power isn't one that we should place as much emphasis on as we used to. And I agree with Kerry that the fact that there are more countries make a difference. But I also think the main reason we have not had as much of an impact is not that it's because we haven't really wanted to. You've got to wanna, and then you have to articulate the national interests, prioritize them, and sustain them over time. And one of the things that I remember from the time I was working in the various jobs you've mentioned, you know, I'd go to a country, they were all happy to see me, but over a

beer later on, they would say, you know, the last time we had a Canadian federal minister visit, your head of government has never visited, you don the last time we had a Canadian federal minister visit, your head of government has never visited, you don't stay the course. And I think that characterizes our relations with a lot of countries over the course of the last several decades. Not our closest allies, but anybody else with whom we would have to develop relationships and alliances to leverage our influence around the world. If our Prime Minister's, and I'm gleaning from the table literal and figurative

here, that this is not simply a case of Mr. Trudeau, but this goes back further than that, if the Prime Minister of the day reflects the mood or desires of the country, is it possible, Kerry, that we don't want to be a middle power and have a big role in the world? We're very content just sort of minding the store at home as a population. I don't know if that's true. I think it's less true now. I think Canadians are starting to realize that the world

has fundamentally shifted. There are threat vectors hitting Canada that people are starting to feel in their day-to-day lives. COVID, one example. Ukraine grain disruption of supply chains and spikes in food prices. So I think Canadians are starting to realize that the world actually is in Canada. We don't have that luxury of geographic distance that much. Maybe we had it more in the past but we certainly don't now. So there's a realization and at the same time I think that leadership matters.

I personally think it's time for a foreign policy review. We haven't had one for decades. Why a review? To engage Canadians in recrafting a narrative about what Canada is in the world. Do Canadians want to play a bigger role in the world? I think that Canadians at a surface level always say Do Canadians want to play a bigger role in the world? I think that Canadians, at a surface level, always say that they want to play a greater role in the world. But the question is the trade-offs

that they're willing to accept. And I think for the last 20 or 30 years, there's been a difference between wanting to play a role in the world and needing to. And we really haven't needed to. And as a result, when the trade-offs came, the choice was, well, we want to at another time when it's less expensive. I agree with Kerry that today we can't rely on the Americans to keep the system the way we

want it to be. As a result it's not just a matter of want now and there's a necessity that wasn't there before and I think Canadians are more willing to pick up the cost than they have been in quite a long time. Well as Kerry alluded, the world has changed somewhat since the 20th of January of this year when somebody new went into the Oval Office and dealing with President Trump has been job one for the new Prime Minister Mark Carney, which he talked about in speaking to reporters last month. Let's play a clip of that. Sheldon, if you would.

Canada is ready to take a leadership role in building a coalition of like-minded countries who share our values. We believe in international cooperation. We believe in the free and open exchange of goods, services, and ideas. And if the United States no longer wants to lead, Canada will. So he says, OK, Richard Fatten, come in on this. When it was obviously Trudeau and Obama or Trudeau and Biden, it was a pretty different situation

than it is now for Carney and Trump. Is that going to make it more difficult for us to play a leadership role in the world in your view? I think it absolutely will. I think the first thing we're going to have to do is stabilize our relationship with the United States. And I think the Prime Minister has got that. But there's still a great deal left on this planet that we can play on. I think we're going to have to accept that we're not going to make a great deal of difference in the relationships between the United States

on the one hand and Russia and China on the other. We're simply not going to. But there are all sorts of files where we could play a useful role. The pandemics, climate change, regional institutions, trying to work more effectively with various regional groupings. But I come back to what I said earlier, this is going to take some conscious decisions, some allocation of resources and the utilization of ministerial and prime ministerial

time. I wonder if I could just add a thought to what Kerry said a minute ago. I agree at one level that we need a foreign policy review, but if we're going to be an effective foreign, an effective influencer in the world, I think we have to use all the tools that we have available. So whether we have a foreign policy review or not, we need to marshal our foreign policy and operations, defense, security, trade, and economics. It's one of the things we've not done particularly well. We've frequently sort of said, well, there are these few countries in Asia, we want to

trade with them. But we've forgotten that they often move like a strategic relationship. So I think we're going to have to change our mindset in how to deal with countries. And this is going to require us to, I think, use all the tools that we have available in a coordinated way. Well, fair enough. But, Kerry, in an era of Trump, what does that mean for Mark Carney right now as he tries to figure all this out? Well, at the beginning, some people said that Trump would be isolationist, and I don't think

that's the case at all. What he's done is reinforced American exceptionalism to a degree that I think is unprecedented for the US, using US power in a way that is more of a club and coercion and unpredictable. So with an uncertainty engine like that at the helm of the US, what can we do? Well I'd love us to be able to first focus on stabilizing our relationship with the US. Having seen President Trump up close and personal in the first term, I don't think that's feasible. I think he'll keep changing the goalposts. So we have to diversify. We have to diversify to the extent we can our trade and our

defense relationships. But as we do so, can we lead? the extent we can our trade and our defense relationships. But as we do so, can we lead? Yeah, we can lead some time we have in the past. We usually in the past have led with ideas. We create tables and we create cross-regional alliances. And as Dick said, we can do it on things where we have an edge. We have something that the rest of the world wants and where there's a gap to fill. Disarmament, the

nuclear threat is rising. We've been very good at that traditionally. Democracy and stabilizing democracy and countering disinformation. Critical minerals, you name it, but we have to do so in a way that is joined up. When I called it a foreign policy review as shorthand, but I meant an integrated international policy review that does exactly what Dick just suggested, brings together the various levers. Can we do all these things if our relationship with the United States is as uncertain as it apparently is?

I think that we have to pay close attention to the United States at all times, but we can walk and chew gum at the same time. My concern is this obsession with leading. I'm very comfortable with the idea that Canada should do more. Canada has to step up when other people step back. But stepping up doesn't mean stepping up to the front. Right now, we're in the back. Stepping up to the middle is an improvement from where we are.

And I think that telling the Canadian public that we're going to lead builds expectations that, generally speaking, we can't actually fulfill. When you're only spending 1.3 in a bit, the percent of your GDP on defense, and leading means tripling your defense budget. We're never going to do that. So how about let's, we're going to do more,

and we're going to try to replace some of the challenges that America has left for us. Well let me find out from all of you whether or not doing more involves something that President Trump brought up on the weekend, as he took a little shot at Canada, which he likes to do. He announced this plan for a Golden Dome missile system and it's valued at $175 billion American dollars. And he said about Canada, they want to have protection also, so as usual, we help Canada. And I don't think he said it as a compliment.

Richard Fadden, should Canada agree to be part of this? I think it's far too early to agree or to disagree, but I think we have to take it seriously. If we're going to do something on the defense side with the United States seriously, it has to relate to the defense of North America. It may or may not be the Golden Dome. It may be something else. But I think to say off the bat, you know, we're not going to take this seriously at all, it would be a mistake. We've declined to participate in these sorts of things over the last

several prime ministers. That doesn't mean we should do so right now. I'm no great expert in Golden Domes, but I have a suggestion of a thing done with Mr. Trump's term, getting it done within the budget he suggests, and whether we can do it as effectively in North America, given the size of North America, as the Iron Dome operates for Israel, which I think is one of the models the president has in mind. So I think we should study it, we should talk about it, and if we don't do the Iron Dome, we have to up our contribution to North American defense in another way. That has to be central to what Mr. Carney is trying to do. He keeps talking about we're going to lead on the economy.

We're going to develop new relationships on the economy and security. On the security side, I would suggest we have to start with North America. Kerry Buck, you want to send on this? On Golden Dome? The challenge is that I don't think there are detailed plans on what the Golden Dome is. And I think that some of the technology doesn't exist yet. The challenge is that I don't think there are detailed plans on what the Golden Dome is and I think that some of the technology doesn't exist yet. And so the three-year timeline and the price tag I think are wildly unrealistic.

That being said, missile technology has really, really improved over the last few years since the last time we talked about SDI in Canada. We should just say, because this is an acronym-free zone, strategic defense initiative that came out in Ronald Reagan's time. Apologies, exactly. And we didn't leap into that one either. No, we didn't. But the fact is that both cruise missiles and intercontinental ballistic missiles can

hit North American territory. And unless we do something to cooperate with the US, then they're going to do it for us without asking our permission and there goes our sovereignty. But how we participate, there are many different ways we can do it. We need to bolster NORAD. We're already looking at bolstering eyes and ears to understand what's coming towards our territory, but we're going to have to talk in Canada about how much we might want to participate in intercepting those missiles. But again, this is a conversation that's going to take a few years to come to fruition, so I think tactically the Prime Minister has been very wise keeping the door open to the

US, to our participation, without predicting what kind of participation that might be, and leaving the conversation going without committing too far. So if this happens in Donald Trump's third term do we get it do we hop on board then? I think even if you didn't even smile at that it was a little joke and you didn't even smile. I was thinking of whether I should or not. I think the issue here is even in the third term this thing wouldn't get done that quickly and therefore we should avoid making the mistake we made last time which was saying no to something we hadn't been asked about yet. We didn't have to say no back in 2005-2006 because

there wasn't a formal ask we said no anyway it hurt the Canada-U.S. relationship. If the president wants to muse about this dome that would take decades probably to put together the last thing we need to say is we're out. We can we can say we're looking to cooperate and work together on the defense of North America and we can see where that takes us. Can they do it without us? Yeah, they can. That's the problem. I mean, if there is an ICBM or cruise missile heading towards North American territory, they will do it. Better that we get in in some form or the other

so we can affect the shape of it, the shape of the defense, and have some say in what kind of response there might be and where. Some say. If we don't join this, what do you think about the risks to our sovereignty, gaining or losing? I don't know how big a risk it is in this very case because I don't think the thing will get built all that quickly. And if we don't join now when they get more serious there may be another opportunity to join so I don't think there's a risk to our sovereignty there but I do think there's a risk to our relationship with the Trump administration if we start saying no to

things that are not even difficult to say yes to I don't I think that would be a big mistake. Let's pursue that a little bit more here because we just heard Mark Carney say in that clip if the United States no longer wants to lead Canada will Okay, good sound bite, but let's see what that actually means and we've got a couple of events coming up in the not too distant future At which Canada may or may not Road test out some of its theories on this the g7 summit Richard fadden I'll start to you start with you on this we have the g7 coming up in Alberta in June What kind of opportunity,

in your view, does that present for Canada to make a mark on a world stage? Well, I think to call a spade a shovel, a spade, we have to acknowledge that it's going to depend how President Trump behaves. Remember what happened the last time we had a summit, a G7 in Canada. He totally threw it off track. So if he's in that kind of mood again, it's going to make it very, very difficult for us to lead on anything. I tend to think that having a successful summit this time around with President Trump there and President Zelinsky there, it will simply be to have the meeting proceed, produce a reasonable communique without a blow-up.

I know that sounds like a fairly low bar, but I think we have to be reasonable. Given the unpredictability of Mr. Trump and some of the other issues, if the prime minister manages to do that and inject a couple of ideas, I think it will be a success. Is nobody, Adam, able, in a circumstance like this, when Donald Trump starts getting particularly disruptive and unhelpful, is there nobody around that table of the seven biggest countries in the world who can say, would you mind acting like an adult in the room for a change?

Is that possible? I don't think so at all. At the same time, there are other opportunities at the G7 that do not require the entire G7 to get along. Mr. Carney has an opportunity to meet with five other G7 leaders, either one at a time or in groups of two and three, and to do a whole bunch of different things in terms of long-term Canadian commitments

to diversifying our relationships. So even if the G7 itself doesn't get much done, the long-term Canadian strategic posture can be improved by the access that the Prime Minister will have to these other heads of government during that period. Do you think that should be, Kerry, on our agenda, namely, isolating Donald Trump and Canada trying to make common cause with the other five powers?

Yes and no. Diplomacy is the art of letting somebody else have your way. So I agree entirely with Dick. Say that again. Diplomacy is the art of letting somebody else have your way. Have your way. Right. And both the G7 and NATO depend on consensus.

The strength of the communiques and strength of the action for both of those bodies depends on consensus. So it doesn't make sense to go to the table and pick a fight, face direct fight with Donald Trump. Why would it? You'd end up wrecking the things, the institutions, worst case scenario, or the initiatives that you want to carry forward. Not a fight, but is there a way to sort of marginalize, let him feel like he's a part

of the party, but marginalize him and the other five serious countries get their business done. Absolutely, but not at that table. Not at that table. So working with other middle powers, other members of the G7, for instance, to change our trade and investment flows so that we mitigate against the damage that his terrorists will cause, absolutely. But quiet diplomacy is the order of the day here, particularly for us.

If we're seen to be directly orchestrating something that runs against Trump's interest, he'll take a run at us and try some retaliation. Why would we want to court that? So I think it's quiet diplomacy and at the table. Head for a light G7 and seek to obtain the most you can. And there's a lot that can be obtained on issues that the G7 has worked on for a while critical minerals

support for Ukraine but don't die in a ditch over you know seeking to have the hardest language about Russia in the communique and then if you lose that you've actually moved the goalposts back. Although you know Richard Fadden I did hear Donald Trump on the news this morning saying some pretty tough things about Vladimir Putin, maybe some of the harshest language he's used about Putin yet. Having said that, if he shows up at this thing and wants to misbehave, is there a way for Canada to do its business with the other five and somehow marginalize the United States? I think it would be a mistake to try and marginalize the United States? I think it would be a mistake to try

and marginalize the United States. I think it will be immediately obvious to them. And I don't think we need to give them any opportunity to criticize us or to accuse us of acting improperly with the very, very close allies. But we don't need to be at a G7 to do that. I mean, the prime minister's already started dealing with the United Kingdom and France.

I think we should continue this sort of thing. He should go to Asia. He should talk to Japan and a few other countries. Well, let me pick up on that because the NATO meeting is coming up at the end of June. You're our former NATO ambassador. It's over in The Hague. What should our approach be at that thing? Well, the main menu item will be, of course, defence spending. Canada's still still the latest NATO figures has a still in what I call a quadrant of shame

in that we're hovering with Belgium as the last two who are both below 2% of GDP on defence spending and below 20% of our defence budget on R&D and equipment. So we've got a lot of catching up to do. We're talking now about how much sooner we can reach the 2 percent, but I expect the Hague Summit at the end of June to reach agreement at around 3.5 percent of GDP on defense spending plus an additional 1.5 percent of non-defense but defense-related spending on things like infrastructure. So, and it is not in our interest either tactical or policy strategic to part company with NATO on this. NATO is important for us, right?

So that's where we're going to have to focus and we have to be ready and we have to start to shift the conversation in Canada closer to that 3 or 3.5% of GDP. It's in our interest. It's not just about placating Donald Trump. The world is fundamentally more dangerous and we have rusted out, as I said, both our defense and our diplomacy. So we got a lot of catching up to do

and again we're behind the curve. And we're behind the curve of all of our NATO allies. And NATO really matters to us for reasons much beyond kind of pure defense and much beyond European security of course. It's transatlantic. Adam, NATO summit, June, what do we do? I think part of the issue here is not to embarrass ourselves. We really are a laggard when it comes to commitments to NATO.

We have a long way to go. The worst thing you can do in a situation like that is tell other people that you know better. We really are a laggard when it comes to commitments to NATO. We have a long way to go. The worst thing you can do in a situation like that is tell other people that you know better in terms of how the organization should go and do its business or how the alliance should function. I think we should be helpful. I think we should be clearer that we're going to do more. And I think that's plenty for this meeting.

Richard Fatten, how do we walk in there, given the laggards that we are, with our head up, trying to be constructive, when no doubt everybody's looking at us saying, you guys are in no position to tell us anything? I think we have to convince our NATO allies, all of them, not just the United States, that there's a new sheriff in town with new priorities and a commitment to increase our spending to the 2%

as soon as we can, whether we like the 2% or not. We have to do that if we're going to have any credibility at all. Gotcha. Let me talk about foreign aid here because according to Global Affairs Canada, we spend $12 billion a year on foreign aid. And I don't know if that's a lot, but I don't know whether it's an appropriate amount for a country of our size. What do you think?

It's not. It doesn't meet the benchmarks that were set way, way back when by Lester Pearson. It doesn't keep company with some of our other kind of like-minded middle power countries. And in an era where the US is pulling back on aid and the horrific impacts that's causing in terms of starvation, deaths, lack of education. You know, using development assistance, it's not just, you know, Boy Scout. It's about pushing your interests out, building your soft power brand, and helping build the world that will actually make it easier for us to avoid conflict and to increase trade. So it doesn't make sense to me that we would be pulling back

in this era, especially with the US pulling back on aid. Development assistance, I think, should be increased. Richard Fedden, your view on that? I entirely agree with what Caria said, and I would only add we should take this as an area where we can show some international leadership. We should work with other countries. We have to rethink whether or not it's going to be delivered

bilaterally or through multilateral institutions, and we should just find a way to maximize its impact while we're increasing what we do and getting others to do the same. But it's a good area for us to show leadership. Adam, what about if we have to pick up our defense spending a lot, and most Canadians are not that thrilled with the notion of increasing our foreign aid

spending, is there a way to divert defense spending, excuse me, foreign aid spending, to defense spending, and in some respects, kill two birds with one stone? I think that would be a big mistake. I think the real solution is to level with Canadians about what foreign aid really is. Canadians have been taught to believe

that foreign aid is charity. If that's what it were, there would be a very good case to make that that money should be spent at home. It's not. It's an investment in international stability. It's an investment in new markets for Canadian goods and services producers.

It's an investment in international security. If Canadians understand why we're doing this, I think they'll be less likely not to be willing to do it in the first place. Carrie. And this walks back to our national narrative on international, what Canada is on the world stage. We have a history

of seeing whatever we do with the US as being existential and the rest of it is kind of optional. We're in a crisis now with the US, double down with our relationship with the US and try to avert tariffs. Sure, absolutely, but if we don't diversify and build up the rest of our presence internationally, we will lose both on security and on our economic health. So I'll go back to Dick's first answer talking about too much focus on values instead of interests. I think the world we want to build would be consistent with Canadians values and in our interests. I think it's a false distinction.

I think we need to rewrite the Canadian narrative on who we are in the world and understand that we give something to the world and we get something back from the world when we invest in that kind of international presence that we've stepped away from for the last few decades. Richard Fadden, you want to come back on that? Every country doing that, it's how we do it and how we balance it with promoting our interests. And I think over the past little while,

we've pushed values a little bit too much. And we've assumed, or I would say the previous government assumed that some of the values they were pushing internationally, they were assuming they were accepted across the board in Canada totally and entirely. And I don't think that was the case. So there's a balance to be had,

and the manner that we advance our interests, I think, need to rethink. Adam, I wonder if you could help us understand, because I don't know, but I suspect, if you ask Canadians about foreign aid, they would say charity begins at home, and we should be spending less of that money overseas and more of it at home.

Why do you think successive governments have not been able to make the case that you just very eloquently made a moment ago, which is this is in our interest, international stability is in our interest as well. Why have they not done well making that point? I think because it's a whole lot easier to make the other point that international aid is just about helping when there's a tsunami and you don don't need $12 billion to help with tsunamis. You can probably do that with two or three. It's a very simple case to make. There are no votes in foreign aid.

And so politicians have made that easy case and moved on to something else. Much harder to explain that when people get out of poverty, they can buy your stuff. And when they're in poverty, they can't. When people are in poverty, they tend to resort to things that disrupt the rule of law. When they're stable and happy they don't. That's a good thing. It's just it's a longer conversation. No one's wanted to have it.

We are down to our last minute here and I know Anita Anand, the new foreign minister, is watching right now and will want some good advice from you Carrie Buck. So give it to her. Stay in your job for long enough to create relationships with your counterparts so you have that credibility and you can show up in a more consistent fashion. We've had a revolving door of foreign ministers and talk to Canadians about why it matters that we engage internationally. Sounds like very good advice. It's really not in her hands to be in that job for a long time. Yeah, I know. It kind of depends on the guy at the top of the ticket. Well, if Mark Carney is watching now,

maybe he'll take that advice, but yes. I'm reliably advised that he watches every night as well. OK. Richard Fadden? I think the main bit of advice I would give her is prioritize. Pick two or three things that you need to do. Insist that the department and the rest of the government follows those priorities and be consistent. We cannot be all things to all people in this new environment so

prioritize, prioritize, prioritize. And Adam, what advice would you give her? Let your people speak. I think Canadians need to hear more from diplomats. They're extremely bright people, they're almost universally well-spoken. And I think it will look good for you if you let your diplomats actually speak to Canadians publicly themselves. You don't have to vet everything they say. You can trust that they'll make you look good. I want to thank you three for joining us here on TVO tonight. Kerry Buck, our former Canadian ambassador to NATO, senior fellow at the University of Ottawa. Adam Chapnick, professor of defense studies at RMC. Canada First, Not Canada Alone is his book.

And Richard Fadden, former director of CSIS and the former national security advisor to Prime Minister Stephen Harper. It's great to have all three of you on our program this evening. Thank you. Thanks so much. Thank you.