Canadian foreign service and other elements of the foreign policy machinery at Global Affairs Canada

Bloggers note: Its worth studying" Where are we going and who's driving.....

In the Senate of Canada: 

AEFA
44-1
THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS AND INTERNATIONAL TRADE

EVIDENCE

OTTAWA, Thursday, June 8, 2023

The Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade met with videoconference this day at 11:29 a.m. [ET] to examine and report on the Canadian foreign service and elements of the foreign policy machinery within Global Affairs Canada.

Senator Peter M. Boehm (Chair) in the chair.

[Translation]

The Chair: My name is Peter M. Boehm. I am a senator from Ontario and the chair of the Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade.

[English]

Before we begin, I invite committee members participating in today’s meeting to introduce themselves.

Senator Ravalia: Thank you, chair. Good morning and welcome to the minister and your team. We are delighted to have you here. I’m Mohamed Ravalia from Newfoundland and Labrador.

[Translation]

Senator Gerba: Welcome, Madam Minister. Amina Gerba from Quebec.

[English]

Senator Coyle: Mary Coyle, Antigonish, Nova Scotia.

Senator MacDonald: Michael McDonald, Cape Breton, Nova Scotia.

Senator M. Deacon: Marty Deacon, Ontario. Welcome, everybody.

Senator Greene: Steve Greene, Nova Scotia.

Senator Harder: Peter Harder, Ontario.

Senator Boniface: Gwen Boniface, Ontario.

Senator Woo: Good morning. Yuen Pau Woo, British Columbia.

Senator R. Patterson: Good morning. Rebecca Patterson, Ontario.

Senator Richards: David Richards from New Brunswick.

The Chair: Thank you, senators. I welcome all of you, as well as those across our country who are watching us today.

Today we are continuing our study on Canada’s foreign service, the objective of which is to evaluate if Canada’s foreign service and foreign policy machinery are fit for purpose and ready to respond to global challenges today and in the future.

To discuss the matter, we are honoured to welcome The Honourable Mélanie Joly, P.C., M.P., Minister of Foreign Affairs.

Minister, welcome to the committee. Officials from Global Affairs Canada or GAC, accompanying you today are: David Morrison, Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs; Alexandre Lévêque, Assistant Deputy Minister, Strategic Policy; Vera Alexander, Associate Assistant Deputy Minister, Human Resources; Stéphane Cousineau, Senior Assistant Deputy Minister, People and International Platform; and Anick Ouellette, Assistant Deputy Minister and Chief Financial Officer, Corporate Planning, Finance and Information Technology and Chief Financial Officer. Ms. Ouellette, that is quite a title.

[Translation]

Madam Minister, before we hear your statement and move on to questions and answers, I would like to ask the members and witnesses present in the room to refrain from leaning too close to their microphone or removing their earpiece when doing so. This will avoid any feedback that could have a negative impact on committee staff and others in the room wearing earpieces.

[English]

Minister, we are ready to hear your opening remarks. As per usual practice, this will be followed by questions from senators. You have the floor, madam minister.

[Translation]

Hon. Mélanie Joly, P.C., M.P., Minister of Foreign Affairs: Thank you, Mr. Chair — thank you, Peter, it’s a pleasure to be here.

[English]

It is a pleasure to be with all of you today.

I last spoke to you about a year ago, two months after Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine. Of course, a lot has happened since then. While Ukrainians continue to fight for their freedom, Canada stands firmly with them in their struggle. Our extensive support for Ukraine is possible in large part thanks to unprecedented multipartisan support; for that, I want to thank you and all of your colleagues.

[Translation]

You’ve been studying the Canadian foreign service and other elements of the foreign policy machinery at Global Affairs Canada for over a year now. It’s a very important topic, of course, everyone around the table will agree with that, but it’s one that’s very close to my heart.

At Global Affairs Canada, we’re grappling with many of the same issues and challenges. While our efforts run in parallel with yours, we are following very closely the expert testimony provided at your meetings. It is with great pleasure that I will finally be able to make my own contribution to your considerable work; thank you for your invitation. I look forward to studying the final report resulting from this study, as it will be an essential tool for advancing our own work.

[English]

Yesterday, I provided staff at Global Affairs Canada with an initial update on the Future of Diplomacy Initiative. I will do the same with you today, then I am happy to answer all of your questions.

We are at a pivotal point in our history. I am certain that everyone in this room understands that and can feel the weight of it.

The world is experiencing unpredictability, uncertainty and geopolitical disruption. The rules-based system that has kept us safe is cracking, and the very institutions built upon it are under strain. Putin’s illegal invasion of Ukraine offers clear proof.

However, this turbulence started well before February 24 of last year and it has repercussions well beyond the borders of Ukraine, or even Europe.

Around the world, we see growing boldness by authoritarians; the weaponization of information; democracies under threat, even under attack; countries, big and small, grappling with the impacts of climate change; crisis in places like Haiti, Afghanistan, Sudan, Venezuela and Myanmar and a global refugee crisis. This is a stark picture. Of course, it is only one side of the story.

We know that, in the face of these challenges, there is also light; it can be found in the faces of Ukrainians who refuse to stop fighting for their freedom, but also for ours; women and girls in Iran taking to the streets to defend their rights and human rights defenders, activists and journalists who are shedding light in dark corners of the world.

[Translation]

Before us lies a great challenge that comes only once in a generation. How we respond will define us for decades to come. We need to ensure that we have a modernized diplomacy that is well adjusted to the goal of the 21st century, and this work, this challenge, must be overcome because this work is paramount. Achieving this reform is an absolute priority for our government and for me personally.

A year ago, around the same time as you, we launched this major departmental transformation; we had to look in the mirror and be humble, and we had to ask ourselves the real questions. We’ve had good discussions by organizing over 80 consultations with the Ottawa team, with missions around the world and also with various stakeholders.

We have also worked with an external advisory board that was also conducting its own consultations. In addition, we’re interested in what’s happening elsewhere in the world because, at the same time as we’re looking at this work, there are other foreign ministers who are also doing the work of reforming their own department.

[English]

After a year of broad and diverse engagement, I have been struck by how so many of the conversations really coalesced towards the same conclusion: Canada needs Global Affairs to be strategic and influential, and agile and responsive.

Given the increasing rate of global changes, it must be a modern, 21st-century department capable of anticipating, analyzing, understanding and managing emerging foreign policy challenges. We need it to draw on the wealth of talent, as well as the breadth and depth of foreign policy experience, available in Canada and globally. It must be able to effectively articulate, coordinate and deliver on a full global agenda. It must do so coherently and sustainably across the whole of government and based on established priorities. This is because, more and more, we will see other departments turning to Global Affairs Canada to understand some of the international dimensions of so many domestic files.

Finally, it needs to be open, modern and connected, both to the world and to the people we serve: Canadians.

Most critically, I have heard that we need to invest in our workforce. Our people are our ears and eyes on the ground. More than that, they are the heart and soul of our diplomacy. Staff and their families have dedicated their lives to serve our wonderful country. In return, we need to make sure that they have access to the tools and resources they need to succeed.

We need to build a workforce that is skilled, bilingual, healthy and dedicated to excellence. It must also represent a diversity of thoughts, lived experiences and backgrounds, which will benefit both our foreign policy and the foreign service itself.

To use a very Canadian metaphor, hockey, we need to skate where the puck is going. To do so, there are four main courses of action that we’re looking at. The first one is people, the second is policy expertise, the third one is presence and, finally, processes.

For people, we need to make sure that we improve the department’s workplace culture by ensuring staff are valued, heard and feel supported.

We will, firstly, revamp recruitment and training, increase diversity and strengthen knowledge of our official languages, as well as foreign languages.

[Translation]

This is important for the Official Languages Act. Francophones within Global Affairs Canada have had concerns about this reality for too long.

[English]

We also need to provide greater support to our staff and families abroad, including, of course, in times of crisis. We must also keep our locally engaged staff top of mind. They are at the core of our missions abroad. We need to do better to support them. So many heads of missions on the road have told me how much they see their own work and their own team as a big family, and that, of course, includes locally engaged staff.

[Translation]

Secondly, we will increase our public policy expertise in certain key areas, including climate change, energy and critical minerals, and all things digital and artificial intelligence.

Thirdly, we will increase our presence abroad, especially in certain key multilateral missions, starting with the United Nations, but also in some G20 countries and other strategic countries.

Finally, we’re going to make sure that the department has the tools, procedures and culture of priorities that are needed in order to work effectively and to defend ourselves against the rise in cyber threats.

[English]

Of course, we are not waiting until then to get started. You have seen our Indo-Pacific Strategy, which was the biggest investment in a generation in our foreign policy and our increased diplomatic footprint. We are opening six new embassies and appointing eight new ambassadors.

[Translation]

Since I was sworn in as Minister of Foreign Affairs, our government has opened embassies in Estonia, Lithuania, Slovakia, Armenia, Fiji and Rwanda.

Earlier this week, we appointed a new permanent representative to the African Union. We’ve also strengthened the department’s consular capacity and given a boost to climate change financing, and we’re working very hard to build a diverse and healthier workplace.

[English]

To conclude, I can assure you that as we move forward on this journey of transformation we will tackle these issues with the seriousness and ambition that is required in the circumstances. After all, diplomacy is part of our security architecture. Of course, more and more Canadians know that diplomacy is core to our interests but also to our well-being and to our security and prosperity.

Now is the time that we meet the moment and that we invest and adapt.

[Translation]

I’ll be happy to answer your questions. Thank you for your work.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Madam Minister.

Respected colleagues, I’d like to point out that, in the first round, you have four minutes of speaking time, including questions and answers.

[English]

To members of our committee and to our witnesses, please be concise. We can always go to a second round if we have time. The minister has a hard stop at 12:30 but her deputy, David Morrison, has agreed to stay longer if and as required.

Colleagues, I would also ask you, please, to stay on the topic of this particular hearing.

Senator Harder: I endorse the four priorities that you have identified but I want to put it in the broader context of what is going on in other foreign ministries.

You know that the State Department in the United States has made a significant infusion in the early Biden years of both personnel and in ensuring that the overseas element of their State Department is strengthened.

France just made an announcement of 700 new foreign service officers, which is 20% of its workforce — a dramatic increase.

In the work that you have under way, I’m sure there will be an element of reallocation but there must also be, as you have referenced, new investments.

I wonder if you could give us some insight into where those investments would take place, but, almost more importantly at this stage, the transparency of making those adaptations of presence and having some public reporting on a regular basis of this process of transformation. I do not think that it will happen with the switch of a light but it needs to be seen to be working so that the strengthening of our recruitment process, the investment in foreign languages and the insurance that official languages policy is not only adhered to spiritually but is actually in place.

I would like to see where we will come out. My final point of reference is that we spend less per capita on the foreign service than the countries we wish to compare ourselves to — even less than Australia, let alone about 60% of what Germany does. Surely reallocation cannot be the only way. We have to reallocate to be credible but invest to be functional.

Ms. Joly: Thank you. We could have an entire conversation for hours on this.

I will answer your question, but I will also let my deputy minister add anything that is linked to operational issues.

The idea was to present the Future of Diplomacy document to heads of missions and staff for discussion to ensure that everybody agreed on the analysis of what we have heard and also where we were heading and, therefore, the priorities. We got really good feedback yesterday, and in the coming days, of course, the committee’s work will be important.

The other aspect I did not mention in my speech, but was key, is that I announced yesterday that this plan would be supported by Assistant Deputy Minister Antoine Chevrier. Antoine and his team have until September 1, 2023, to come up with an implementation plan taking the different ideas and strategies and putting them into action.

That will help us to address the issue of investments, how we can reallocate and also how much more funding is required.

I hope that we can all work together to ensure that this is an area of investment that Canadians value and that they would prioritize. Canadians know that the world has changed. As with France or in the U.S., they recognize that. Therefore, they can support us as we’re embarking upon this journey of transformation.

It is the first time that we are undergoing such an important reform. The last one was at the beginning of the 1980s with Barbara McDougall. The time is right, but it needs to be done well, to your point. Indeed, it needs transparency and clear updates. That will also be part of the work that Antoine will be doing.

The Chair: Thank you, minister.

Senator MacDonald: Thank you, minister.

I have a question about how we manage risk levels, and what criteria we use. There are four risk levels. I know level 2 includes countries like Belgium and the United Kingdom, which I’m surprised to see there. I’m surprised to see it is not level 1. I’m also surprised to see that China is included with Belgium and the United Kingdom in level 2. We have seen the conduct of China regarding the two Michaels. Why would China have a level 2 categorization, the same as the U.K. and Belgium? I’m curious how they fall into the same category.

Ms. Joly: If I may, Mr. Chair, what do you mean by risk levels?

Senator MacDonald: There are four risk levels that the department applies for travel.

Ms. Joly: Do you mean for consular advice, not for human resources and hardship?

Senator MacDonald: For Canadians travelling to other countries. And I am curious to see that countries like Belgium and the United Kingdom and France, have a level 2 as opposed to a level 1, but I’m also very surprised to see China at level 2. I’m curious how we apply these criteria.

Ms. Joly: David Morrison, my Deputy Minister, can answer that question, and I will react to it as well.

David Morrison, Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs, Global Affairs Canada: Thank you for the question.

I think you are referring to the travel advice that appears on our departmental website. That advice is composed of many different factors. Some of it would be political risk — you mentioned the two Michaels — and some of it is just plain criminality.

I can come back to you with all of the elements that go into the level of risk that we put on our website in advising Canadian travellers and how the final rating is achieved, if you will.

In larger countries, it is also regionalized. It might be dangerous to go to one part of the country and not to another part of the country.

I certainly accept that, at times, there will be counterintuitive results. I suspect that could be because of petty theft and criminality — those kinds of risks to Canadians — rather than risks like those faced by the two Michaels. We can certainly come back to you on the formula.

The final thing I would say is that we regularly assess the risks and change the formula as circumstances warrant.

Ms. Joly: This is a decision that is taken based on recommendations coming from the department; therefore, we rarely get involved in changing any form of advice coming from the department because we want to make sure we respect the independence of the process.

Senator MacDonald: I find some of the countries surprising in some categories. Some of those that are grouped together I find surprising. Thank you.

Mr. Morrison: We are happy to come back to you.

The Chair: Deputy minister, if you would get back to us in writing through the clerk on that point, that would be great.

Senator Boniface: Thank you, minister, for being here, and thank you to your staff who have been here many times. We appreciate how they have assisted with this study.

I want to zero in on issues relating to proficiency in foreign languages, which is an issue facing us. According to the information provided by GAC, one third of the positions outside of Canada require proficiency in a foreign language, and the foreign-language training is provided prior to deployment. The information also notes that only 70% of individuals achieve the requisite level of language proficiency during the language training period.

Does GAC have information on how many foreign service officers master the foreign language rather than meeting the requisite level of proficiency? What languages are the most challenging in terms of that? What efforts are being made to recruit individuals who might already have that proficiency in the foreign language?

Ms. Joly: Thank you, senator.

This issue is certainly something that was identified by GAC as being an issue that we need to work on. That is why it is part of our first priority when thinking about the people and the investments required, which is foreign-language proficiency.

As to how we do that within the department — how we operationalize that — maybe David or Alexandre can add to that.

Mr. Morrison: I will take a swing at it, but our head of HR is here.

You asked a question about what languages are the hardest. Those would be Chinese, Japanese, Arabic and Russian. That is the original set of languages that seem to require a much greater investment than Spanish or Portuguese, for example.

It is partly driven by cost; it costs a great deal. I met someone at our head-of-mission meeting yesterday who has been in one‑on-one German training. For reasons that you can imagine, that is very expensive. That person is having a year of language training and then going to Germany.

I’m very confident that best efforts are being made throughout the year; if that person doesn’t achieve full mastery, the department still sends them. It is partly on a hope and a prayer that, while they are there, they will continue to work on their mastery of the language.

The bottom line is that we don’t insist they hit the full target before they go.

I have been associated with the department for a long time and this is much better than it used to be. I was given six weeks of Spanish training before being sent to Cuba, where nobody spoke English. It was sink or swim; I learned Spanish on the fly, and it has stuck with me. So things now are much better than they used to be.

There are some statistics circulating out there that compare us unfavourably with other foreign ministries. I think we have a denominator problem. The best foreign ministries out there, or the ones with the highest scores, are still in the 50% range of where they would like to be, and we are at around 35% or 36%, so I think there is a math problem. But overall, I think we are much better than we used to be.

Perhaps Vera Alexander could add to that.

The Chair: I am sorry, Ms. Alexander, to cut you off, but we have reached that four-minute mark, and I want to keep going. This subject could come up again, if that is all right.

Senator M. Deacon: Thank you. There are so many questions, and there is so little time. I am going to ask the minister a question. Thank you all for being here.

In the past, we have been fortunate to have some of our predecessors speak to us, specifically Mr. Axworthy and Mr. Clark. Not surprisingly, they shared much information and their perspectives, but they both expressed the importance of making sure that foreign affairs does not get shuffled around too much and that this has been an issue with multiple governments with multiple leaders over the last 15 years or so. The numbers were actually quite startling.

With that in mind, I have two questions for you today. One, do you share those concerns, and, if so, how do we make longer‑running tenure more the norm, taking into account what you opened with — the political realities and pressures over the course of a single government?

Ms. Joly: When I was first appointed Minister of Foreign Affairs, I talked to many former ministers, from Joe Clark, to Pierre Pettigrew, Jean Chrétien and John Baird. We all had, at the time, the same conclusion, which was that having a longer tenure is actually helpful. Why? Because there are many countries that are not necessarily democracies, and they tend to have longer tenures.

Also, it is a very demanding department, where the sun never sets. Right now, particularly, it is dealing with a crisis every month. I remember they all told me that you will be defined by your first crisis. The war in Ukraine was not part of my mandate letter. At the same time, there has been, since then, a lot of attention when it comes to the Indo-Pacific, the Sudan crisis and Iran. Crises are happening all of the time. Stability is helpful.

Senator M. Deacon: Thank you.

Quickly, I will bounce to the report and recommendations. There was a good article in the Financial Post this morning. I wonder more about the review and the fact that we are getting near the end of our study now. How do you plan on incorporating our findings from this study with the work that your department has been doing? How will they complement each other? I heard implementation is planned by September 1. We would be just finishing our study then. I just wonder what your thoughts are on that.

Ms. Joly: A lot of the folks who have been working on the future of diplomacy have been in contact with you. If you already have recommendations, that would be helpful. Of course, we will take your report into account. It’s extremely important.

The goal is for this reform to be non-partisan and to be informed by the best minds. We’ve reached out to many former heads of missions, academics and, of course, you, senators. I think it’s worth it for you to be in contact with my office, with Caroline Séguin who works with me and also with Alexandre Lévêque and Antoine Chevrier. That would be a good idea. In the end, the implementation plan will be ready for September 1, but we can also tweak some of the recommendations based on certain things that, for example, you would like to highlight.

Senator Woo: Thank you, minister. Based on recent trends, it seems to me that the future of diplomacy, as you call it, is going to be less diplomacy and more coercive measures: more use of sanctions, finessing sanctions, more minilateralism rather than multilateralism, more rule of alliances — that is, a rule of friends rather than a rule of law as traditionally understood — and more focus on military projection rather than diplomatic projection.

I would like you to react to that. While I agree that we need to think of the future of the diplomacy and have a department that can deliver that future, I wonder if we are straying away from diplomacy and moving in a different direction.

Ms. Joly: I don’t agree with that premise for different reasons. First, Canada’s ultimate objective, as with the vast majority of countries in the world, is to have stability and peace. That’s what we’re aiming for.

Right now, the rules that have kept us safe for the past 75 years are being challenged by different countries through multilateral organizations, or bilaterally, in different contexts. We need to make sure that we defend them in a diplomatic way and that we address the risks of geopolitical tensions. That’s why, when you look at Canada’s presence at the UN, where all these conversations are happening and where we defend our positions on international norms, or where new norms are being developed, particularly when we think about digital and artificial intelligence, or even linked to climate issues, we need to be more present. When you look at the data, Canada has a lower footprint by far than other countries. I’ve said that because we are committed to multilateralism, we need to increase our presence within the UN not only in New York but also in Vienna, Rome, Nairobi and in the different headquarters of different sections of the UN.

We also need to be able to address the fact that, yes, the G7 is important, but we need to recognize that there is a growing frustration on the part of countries that are not part of the G7 regarding these rules. We need to hear their call for change. In that sense, that’s why we need to invest in some G20 countries and key strategic countries. You will see me opening embassies — the Prime Minister is as well — and also going on bilateral visits across the world.

I visited more than 35 countries in the past 18 months, on all the continents. We absolutely need to do that because I profoundly believe that diplomacy is the best way, in the end, to keep our security.

Senator Woo: Thank you.

Senator Ravalia: Thank you, once again, minister. My question is in the context of the long-term strategy of Global Affairs Canada in the Middle East, particularly in the context of climate change, migration and energy dependence.

Canada has recently restored diplomatic relations with Saudi Arabia after a five-year feud. Can you comment how this development might enhance or impact our presence in this critical region given the ongoing volatility and conflicts in regions such as the recent Sudanese crisis; the ongoing issues in Yemen; more broadly, Saudi’s increasing contact with Iran and, in a wider sense, what’s happening in Libya and other countries in the Middle East?

Ms. Joly: Your question is obviously very relevant. We’re seeing that the tectonic plates of geopolitics are moving. That’s certainly a place on earth where that’s the case.

On the question of Sudan per se, I have had some conversations about with my Saudi counterpart. When I went to Kenya, my goal was to make sure we could find a way to be helpful in providing a civilian voice to the Sudanese people, while the U.S. and Saudi Arabia were working much more on a ceasefire and a peace process. We’re trying to contribute to peace in the region, particularly as we didn’t want the Sudanese conflict to become a second theatre of a much more internationalized conflict. That is why we worked together on this very issue.

My Kuwaiti counterpart was here recently. It was the first time in 20 years that Kuwait’s Minister of Foreign Affairs was here. We’re working with them on the issue of maritime borders. I have also been having numerous conversations with my Gulf counterparts and, of course, with my Israeli and Palestinian counterparts.

The Middle East is an important region for us. Right now, what we’re seeing is a battle of influence between the West and China and Russia. The different battlefields, the diplomatic ones, are Latin America, Africa, Asia and the Middle East. That’s why we need to engage and show up. We have lots of allies and friends in the region. You can count on me to make sure that these relationships are being fostered and nurtured.

Senator Ravalia: I guess some of the criticism that has come up in terms of Global Affairs is that we have tended to be Eurocentric and very much allied towards our historical alliances, and rather anemic in our presence in Africa and all the connotations of the Middle East and Africa such as the huge migration, climate migration and individuals trapped in various places. Is some of the strategy going to be specifically to address this very critical area?

Ms. Joly: Yes, we have been focused on Europe for years and the U.S. as well, but we have turned west recently with the biggest investment in foreign policy since the fall of the Berlin Wall, which is the Indo-Pacific Strategy.

When it comes to Africa, we have just appointed for the first time a permanent representative at the African Union. We’re also opening an embassy for the first time in Rwanda and more will be announced. Thank you.

[Translation]

Senator Gerba: Thank you, Madam Minister.

Thank you and welcome to the whole team who are already used to this committee.

Madam Minister, I’ll start by applauding your various visits to Africa recently. We haven’t seen that in a very long time.

I also applaud the appointment of Ben Marc Diendéré as the first Canadian observer to the African Union. This demonstrates an imminent return, we hope, of our country to that continent, especially to the African Union, which represents the 55 African states that are members of this pan-African organization.

My question is going to be about employees who work locally, who are engaged locally in our embassies around the world.

I’m delighted to hear that your plan’s priority is staff. We know the role played by locally engaged staff, LES, in embassies. These LES account for 80% of our staff in embassies and are sort of the backbone because they’re rooted, they know the context, they speak the local languages, and so on.

However, these same resources have demonstrated that their status is precarious. Their conditions are not the same as those of expatriate employees. Reports have shown that there is racism.

In this plan you are announcing today, Madam Minister, how do you intend to improve the attractiveness, retention and promotion of these resources?

Ms. Joly: That’s an excellent question, senator. We had to manage the impact of our traditional approach at Global Affairs Canada with locally engaged staff when the time came to evacuate people from Kiev, during the first days of Russia’s illegal invasion, and also in Sudan. We decided to take a new approach, which was essentially to evacuate people, to give locally engaged staff the choice to leave the country, which was not the case before.

Moreover, the obligation that Global Affairs Canada usually has towards these staff is not the same as for diplomats. The duty of care does not technically apply to locally engaged staff. I decided to change this approach in times of crisis, and that’s why we evacuated the staff in question.

With regard to the precariousness of staff employment, this is one of the points we have identified, which we will be working on. There are a number of very innovative ideas that we’re looking at, inspired in particular by what’s happening in the United States or elsewhere in Europe, in terms of the ability of these people to eventually come to Canada, to work, but also so that we can offer them decent wages and benefits. This is certainly something that my deputy minister, David Morrison, has at heart and is working on.

As a final point, I could tell you that, when I met the Ukrainians or the Sudanese who were evacuated, whether when I was in Poland or Kenya, in both cases I think their reaction was extremely positive. I think this is part of a new philosophy, a new approach that we can adopt to ensure that every human being who works for us is not taken for granted and is well supported.

The Chair: Thank you, Madam Minister.

[English]

Senator Coyle: Welcome back to you and your colleagues.

I have a question but I want to understand first your answer to Senator Deacon about how you will be using our study. If I understood you correctly, you said it would be great if we could get you some interim observations and recommendations before you start — actually, probably starting right now if you have a deadline of early September for putting out your road map. That’s the first thing.

My question is about your first two areas of action — people and public policy expertise — which, of course, are intimately connected and so important. Your talent is everything. I have a question about expansion, retention and attraction. Expansion is something that has been touched on here. We know it’s key. We have to. We need a robust workforce, and so my question related to expansion is the political appetite for that. On retention, we know there is quite a turnover. You have talked about culture. Are there other things you are going to do about retention? Finally, on attraction, how are you going to approach that in new and different ways in terms of the young workforce you want to bring in, but also to complement that public policy expertise area bringing in more senior professionals from across Canada, from other sectors and from other departments?

Ms. Joly: Thank you, that’s a good question. I will answer and then hand it over to Mr. Morrison.

On expansion, if there is a political appetite, then yes, because we’re opening new embassies. You can see it is already ongoing, and in the Indo-Pacific Strategy there are new employees who will be hired in the region and also in Ottawa. We’re also creating a China desk, which is a way for us to understand much more how China analyzes issues and how it is acting, not only in Ottawa but also across the diplomatic network as we do for the U.S. We think we have the best U.S. desk in the world and we want to upgrade our knowledge.

As for retention, Mr. Morrison will address that.

When it comes to attraction, in our approach we want to make sure that we open the windows and, to what Senator MacDonald asked about on the question of risk, we are able to deal with risk and we become less risk-averse; we are creating an open policy hub to get the feedback of different academics who are working in different fields of foreign policy across the country.

Mr. Morrison: On retention, we have a very complex workforce. For the foreign service part of the workforce, our attrition rate is considerably lower than comparators across the public service.

For the traditional workforce, which is more comparable to the broader public service, it’s slightly higher. That’s why you have seen media articles about people leaving Global Affairs. The trick is going to be creating meaningful career paths and meaningful employment for people who are not in the public service because that’s where the retention problem is; Vera Alexander, Associate Assistant Deputy Minister, Human Resources, is here; we have diagnosed the problem and are into solving it.

Senator R. Patterson: I had another question pop into my head but I will focus. It is related to the ambassador for Women, Peace and Security, Jacqueline O’Neill, and her office. It’s a fairly recent office, and as she was appointed for a second term, it has been about where that office goes and the permanent funding that will be attached to it. It’s a two-part question. The first question relates to what your vision is in terms of this evolution of keeping that office as a permanent structure regardless of where governments sit on timelines. The second piece will link into Canada’s third National Action Plan on Women, Peace and Security. Where are we with that? It ties into your Future of Diplomacy update. Canada is a leader in women, peace and security; as you’re moving forward into people, policy and presence, how will that be better integrated into your foreign service in terms of representation?

Ms. Joly: Our goal is to make sure that Ambassador O’Neill’s work and her team are part of a permanent structure. Also, we are always working on bettering our feminist foreign policy.

Now, when it comes to linking it to the future of diplomacy, I’ve talked about a culture of prioritization. The question of the feminist agenda and Women, Peace and Security is a part of these priorities, so in that sense, we want to make sure that we continue to show leadership on this issue.

We want to make sure that we increase the data component to be able to have strong data to support the policy objectives. That is certainly something that I have discussed with Mr. Morrison and Cindy Termorshuizen, who is his deputy, when it comes to dealing with the operations of the department. In that sense, by increasing our knowledge of data and being able to make sure this data is made public, we’ll be able to continue to show the importance of having such an important feminist agenda.

Thank you.

The Chair: Minister, I want to ask a question in line with some of the others that have come along.

You attend many meetings. You have bilateral visits, and a lot of that, as I recall, involves sitting and waiting for some things to happen, without putting too fine a point on it.

Ms. Joly: I wouldn’t say a lot of that.

The Chair: I know, but you’re sitting beside colleagues who represent countries and governments who are going through similar reviews.

Do you have an occasion — and I’m thinking particularly of the G7, because that is something I know a little bit about — where you can speak to your colleagues about some of these demographic, structural and HR-type issues? Everyone is going through it, and you have had a lot of meetings over the past year, particularly on the Ukraine issue.

I am just curious if you have a comment on that.

Ms. Joly: Of course, it depends on where the different foreign ministers are in their mandates. Some of them have been there for a long time and have a tendency to do fewer reforms in terms of their own foreign ministry. Those that arrive have a tendency to want to change things to better the structures and to make it much more relevant.

Yes, I have had conversations with my French counterpart, for example. The reform was started under another foreign minister, and she is now implementing it but also working directly with Le Quai d’Orsay and Les Champs-Élysées, so it’s a mix of foreign departments and the leader’s office.

I have had a conversation with Antony Blinken about it. When I was first appointed at the end of October 2021, Antony Blinken gave a speech a month later about how he would be modernizing his own department following the Trump administration. We are now 18 months after my appointment and a year after I’ve launched this work, and I think it would be in line with the timeline that other ministers are actually following, because it takes time, and if you want to do things, you have to take the time needed.

Germany has gone through a reform, but that was some years ago — maybe five years ago — and I think the foreign ministers right now are really trying to deal with the issue of what is happening in the world. Doing both at the same time is actually an extreme sport.

As a foreign minister, I have many priorities. I have to decide where I allocate my time and energy, including being an MP and making sure that I represent well Ahuntsic-Cartierville. But at the end of the day, as foreign minister, I also believe that we need to do this work. We have the opportunity and we need to seize it, and that’s why there’s a lot of political willingness on my part to make sure that this reform comes to fruition.

The Chair: Thank you very much, minister.

We are about three minutes away from when the minister has to leave, so I would propose that we go into the second round with Deputy Minister Morrison, if that is agreeable to the committee, rather than stacking up the questions now and making it a little difficult. Is that agreed?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

The Chair: Minister, on behalf of the committee, I really want to thank you for being with us today.

Ms. Joly: Thank you.

The Chair: You and your team are the last major witnesses that we will be seeing. I think there are various points of commonality as we go towards the writing of our report and your internal work, and I know that we will have occasion, as Senator Deacon and Senator Coyle said earlier, to ensure that you get inputs from us. We’ll work on that.

Ms. Joly: Indeed. And if I may, senator, I wanted to say thank you for doing this work. It is important. It is hard work. That’s why people don’t usually do it, but in the end, I think it will benefit Global Affairs Canada and, in general, Canadians. If I can count on your support, of course, it helps me to have an even better pitch to my own boss and system, so thank you so much.

The Chair: Thank you, minister.

We will move into our second round of questions.

Senator M. Deacon: I want to elaborate on something from earlier, if I could.

We started talking about the staff and how we can retain and value staff. One of the things we heard during our last meeting was the common theme that various departments are siloed — it was described differently, but that was basically the concern — and that we need a better understanding of what each other is doing.

One of the suggestions from our foreign services officers is that we would be well served to look at serving in different departments. I wonder what you think about that sentiment. There is energy to it, of course. Is this something that Global Affairs can do to help improve communication and the sharing of expertise with other government departments?

Mr. Morrison: I think that is a great idea. I truly believe that the era when foreign ministries had a monopoly on Canada’s international engagement is long gone. If I look at where the action is in Canadian foreign policy right now, it is on critical minerals. The lead department on that is Natural Resources Canada.

Another hot area of foreign policy is anything to do with climate change. The lead on that is Environment and Climate Change Canada.

At Global Affairs, we absolutely need to be promoting interchange with other government departments.

I will point out that I am, in a certain sense, a lateral entry to the government. Cindy Termorshuizen started at the Department of National Defence. She is my number two. She was not a rotational foreign service officer when she joined Global Affairs Canada. She went on to become our deputy ambassador in Beijing and now she is our number two. She was recently named by the Prime Minister as his new G7 sherpa.

I do think that the kind of career path that Cindy has had — and, to a lesser extent, that I have had — should not be the exception in the future.

Senator M. Deacon: That will be the piece, then, with cross‑pollination and use of skills across different areas.

The other part of this is looking at spouses. Households are now looking at dual incomes. It is a reality that has evolved over time, with both spouses working and having careers of their own. We have spoken a bit about this. If we want to attract the very best, how can we do that and ensure we are supporting spouses who may be leaving local jobs? We also want them as a team.

How can we coax these families to ask one spouse to make a sacrifice like this one, if there is a way to support the other? What are you thinking about that?

Mr. Morrison: I would say that we have thought about that a great deal. It was the same when I joined the foreign service 30 years ago. There was the reality of the need for a dual-income family, even back then.

I once had the chance to ask a question to the U.S. military about the biggest policy issue they were facing. It wasn’t a two‑front war; it was spousal employment, because of how often they move folks around. It is a very hard thing to square.

I think that we have the best opportunity in a generation because of COVID. Remote work has been shown to work. In my personal experience, I find the federal government to be a very family-friendly employer. We have an increasing number of employees abroad — if both spouses work for the public service — who get permission from the trailing spouse’s home department to telecommute from wherever they are in the world.

I discovered the other day that our desk officer for Norway lives in Washington, D.C. I learned that from the Norwegian ambassador. I thought: How does that work? It turns out that person is married to somebody else who works at our embassy in Washington, D.C., and those are the arrangements that were made.

There is no silver bullet, but there are better prospects now than in the past.

Senator MacDonald: I want to return to a question that Senator Boniface raised earlier about language training for the Foreign Service.

I certainly understand why you would want somebody in the Foreign Service who could speak the language of the host country. That is certainly understandable.

There are about 1,300 Global Affairs Canada positions outside of Canada, and one third are designated as requiring proficiency in the language of that country. There are so many language communities now in this country.

Wouldn’t it be more efficient and less expensive to recruit from these language communities in Canada as opposed to taking somebody and trying to train them from scratch in these languages, especially the difficult languages?

Mr. Morrison: Absolutely.

Senator MacDonald: Are you making efforts to do that?

Mr. Morrison: Yes. It is in the report. That is what we will do, for the reasons that you suggested.

Canada is an extraordinarily diverse country linguistically. Anyone who has been in the diplomatic business knows the huge advantage you have by speaking the language.

This is related to the question we just answered on career paths that take you from Global Affairs to other departments and back. There was a time when Global Affairs — as it then was, Foreign Affairs or External Affairs — was a kind of priesthood. There was one way in, and it was at the bottom. People trained. That is just not feasible or advisable now.

Our report suggests that Global Affairs needs to be open by default — not only to interchanges with policy experts but also to lateral entries, including mid-career and those from non‑traditional backgrounds. It does not make sense to spend huge amounts of money bringing people up to a level of proficiency in Chinese that, frankly, is not fluency. So the answer is yes.

[Translation]

Senator Gerba: I’d like to hear you talk a little about the place of black women in management positions. During our study here, witnesses we have met, including your diversity champions, indicated that GAC was among the world leaders in gender equality.

However, women from visible minorities do not have the same opportunities. In fact, it is estimated that they make up only 2% of the institution’s 7,000 senior managers. What will be done, as part of this plan, to ensure that more black women reach senior management positions?

Mr. Morrison: Thank you for your question, senator. We have a lot of work to do. I think Canadians want a department that represents Canada and all its diversity. We’ve made progress in recent years, but there’s still a lot of work to be done.

[English]

I will switch to English, because I think it is important that the committee understand the seriousness with which we are approaching the issue you spoke of.

The priesthood that I talked about was largely male, White and anglophone. That has changed over time. We have our Global Heads of Mission meeting right now, where 53% of the ambassadors going out this year are women and 36% are francophone. I am going from a speech I gave yesterday, but I think that 16% identify as visible minorities, 6% as persons with disabilities and none as Indigenous. It would have been very different a decade ago; let me put it that way.

You have raised the unique concern about people who — well, African-American women, and African women. That is not a category that we track independently, but I bet our statistics are not where they need to be.

I will say one thing, though: We have a program that was piloted last year to elevate people at just below the executive level. With the deputy minister’s sponsorship, we just graduated the first 10-person African-American cohort. Two of them are going out as ambassadors this year and we are re-upping the program for a second year. It is at least partly building the pipeline, which we are very committed to doing. I am not certain whether either of those two is a woman.

Vera Alexander, Associate Assistant Deputy Minister, Human Resources, Global Affairs Canada: One is a visible minority female, the other a visible minority Black male.

Senator Boniface: Thank you again for being here. We appreciate your candour.

Particularly around your report, my interest — and I think that we had this discussion the last time that you were here — is around a risk-averse culture, at least from reporting in the National Post yesterday. There is some notion that this issue will be addressed in your report, and, certainly, it has been discussed here.

In part, it is a bit about how institutions feel a little bit under siege at the moment, no matter where you are across government.

I wonder, from a cultural shift, how you will address that issue; I assume that the reporting is accurate. More specifically, it is a bit of a cultural shift, which is a huge undertaking within an organization. Can you elaborate on that? Where do you find yourself now at this point?

Mr. Morrison: Thank you for the question. It is an excellent one.

Let me get into it by saying that you will notice that we did not announce any organizational changes yesterday. I think we need some. We have 16 branches, which I think is too many for an organization our size.

I was counselled and ultimately convinced that if you start with organizational change, people think that’s it. You have just done the change program.

Senator Boniface: Exactly.

Mr. Morrison: We are starting with cultural change. I spoke a lot from the podium yesterday about how hard this is. It involves leadership. It involves signalling from the top. It involves establishing cultural norms and considering those norms your true north, which means rewarding behaviour that models the norms and holding folks accountable who stray from those norms.

Trying to become less risk-averse — or becoming less risk-averse — will make us a much more nimble, responsive, agile and learning organization, which is my answer to your questions about how your findings will fit into — I don’t want to wait 40 years to do another study. The world is going to have changed so much by the time we’re finished implementing this that if we do not come out of it as a learning organization, we will have wasted our time. The bedrock of it is culture.

We have some language in the document that we need to be less risk-averse in terms of both our approvals — there are too many layers of people who need to sign off on innocuous things — as well as our inclusiveness in consultations when it actually simply slows us down.

Those are really hard things to pull off. We do know what needs to change. I find that there is a huge appetite for this at the top and huge appetite for it at the bottom and something in the middle is not quite there yet. That is where we’re going to work.

Senator Harder: Thank you for your candour. I find it refreshing to hear the journey that you are on.

I want to explore. You talk a lot about lateral entry or lateral recruitment. I want to narrow it, though, to not outside the department, but the Foreign Service versus non-Foreign Service. It seems to me that when we say “Foreign Service,” for too many people in the department, it is an occupational group, not a departmental workforce.

How are you going to overcome the barriers the occupational group imposes — and I’m not saying the Foreign Service Union; I’m saying just the cumbersome nature of occupational groups — and the reality that you have so-called non-FSDs — Foreign Service Directives — doing the same work sitting beside an FSD, and there are differentials in culture, pay and expectations?

How do you break that, and how far are you prepared to go?

Mr. Morrison: Thank you for the question. I was chuckling because when two senators in a row thank me for my candour, I think maybe I should adopt some risk aversion.

Senator, you have highlighted what I personally believe is one of our most urgent challenges. It is the thing we heard the most about in the extensive consultation period — the notion of folks feeling that they are second-class citizens because they are not part of the proper Foreign Service, but here in Ottawa, you have the Guatemala desk officer sitting next to the Argentina desk officer, and they are in different occupational groups.

We first looked at why that is so, and it is because of a failure to recruit into the Foreign Service for a period of roughly a decade, but the work still needed to get done. We essentially hired students in terms, and then they were bridged into permanent employment, but the desk officer for Guatemala was no longer a Foreign Service box. They just needed a person there, and the person did a good job.

What we are doing on a crash basis — and this is what keeps Ms. Alexander up at night — we are going to fill up the pools. You will all know that we have a pool-managed system for the Foreign Service. We are going to fill up those pools until they are overflowing so that managers can choose people from the Foreign Service to put into Foreign Service work. That should cut down appreciably on the sense that there are two classes.

I used to run the trade part of the department. I feel very strongly that most of our trade policy people, for example, are not rotational, but we need their expertise in Washington, Geneva and the EU. I have no issue at all with sending those folks on single assignments. They do not need to join the Foreign Service. They do not need to sign something every year that says that they are rotational, but they can still serve abroad. Where else it makes sense in the department, we will do the same thing.

The final thing that I will say, though, is that whilst everyone thinks that they want to join the Foreign Service, if we actually make it a Foreign Service — meaning that you go where we want to send you — people may have some pause. I hope that I am left in this job for a good long time, because that is my intention, and we are already sending out letters of offer to new recruits that say, “One of your first two postings will be to a hardship level 3, 4 or 5 country as a condition of employment.”

My standard line on this is when we say, “Congratulations, your first posting is Guatemala,” it is not the beginning of a negotiation. That is where your first posting is. That is what it was like when I joined. It was a service. You went, largely, where you were asked to go. That is what I would like to get back to.

The Chair: Thank you, Deputy Minister Morrison. You are making me very nostalgic. That first assignment when you are told, “Guess where you are going” — oh, I’m going to love it — is a great moment.

Senator Woo: I think you may have answered my question, but let me try to crystallize it more.

You said that the cutting edge of international work today is in climate change and in critical minerals. I would add finance and many other areas resident in other departments. It means that young people who want a career in international stuff can get it by joining Environment and Climate Change Canada — ECCC— or Natural Resources, and so on.

Young people come to me fresh out of graduate school and want a career in international affairs. They ask, “Should I join the Foreign Service?” Often, I say to them, “If you are really interested in climate change and doing something internationally, maybe you should consider ECCC.” What would you say to young people who ask you that question? What is the value proposition left for being a core Foreign Service officer?

Mr. Morrison: It’s great. I had never thought of it in those terms.

If someone came to me looking for career advice, I would say that if your personal passion and commitment are to fighting climate change, which I would totally understand, you should work for ECCC. Part of that should involve going to lots of international conferences and working with other countries, because this is the consummate global issue that we are trying to deal with in an international system.

If your passion is living and working for Canada abroad, in a broader range of issues — which will undoubtedly touch climate change because I do not know of many jobs that won’t — then I would say join the Foreign Service. There is a crucial distinction there which has to do with how you counsel anyone coming out of graduate school, and it’s, “Where do you want to live?” Do you want to join a service which involves some of the highest highs and the lowest lows in terms of living abroad? Or do you want to have a quite nice public service life in Ottawa, doing interesting work and becoming a real expert in critical minerals or climate change? Those involve two very different lifestyles, particularly when you involve families in the mix.

Senator Woo: Thank you.

Senator R. Patterson: Deputy minister, I thought that you were describing the Canadian Armed Forces and the Department of National Defence in your first statement.

I am going to talk about recruiting and retention as it relates to people with disabilities or children with disabilities, because families are the people who serve foreign affairs or public service.

One thing I do know from my previous work is that when we send Canadians out of country to represent Canada, and we’re looking at health care in particular, it can actually be a barrier not only to recruiting people to work in the foreign services but also if their families cannot access health care. We often think that going to places like the United States is not a problem and that you can have a child with a disability or a cancer diagnosis early on and you will be fine. However, my previous work has shown me that the health care plan that covers a number of federal departments does not do that. I will use the United States, but we know it exists elsewhere. They’ve actually turned people away at the door for care that is required.

When you are trying to recruit a truly diverse group of people, you have to make sure that the benefits that exist for them and for their families are adequate. Is there any thought about looking into things such as medical coverage and insurance for your teams who go out of country?

Mr. Morrison: I am going to turn to the real expert, Ms. Alexander, because she is the person who looks after these things.

The package of benefits and, frankly, incentives for Canadians serving abroad — not just for Global Affairs but also Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship — IRCC — and others and Canadians serving in embassies — is called the Foreign Service Directives. That package is negotiated by bargaining units periodically. We are going into a new negotiation beginning in August. I have become personally involved in this because it is the thing that makes the difference to families serving abroad. The entire package, in my view, needs to be modernized. I am taking this up as a thing that will lead to a healthier workforce.

More specifically on medical insurance and families with a member who has disabilities serving abroad, I will turn to Vera Alexander.

Ms. Alexander: Thank you very much. Those are good questions. We are covered by the government health insurance plan and we have supplementary health insurance when we go abroad.

My personal experience, as a parent of someone with a disability, has been very good in terms of timely reimbursement of costs associated with health care.

Parents also need to do their research carefully about what schools are available for their children and what sort of support systems their children or other family members might need. There is a lot of onus on that. We, as an employer, are getting better at providing these answers for parents in a way that is easily accessible for them so that they can do their research and we can help support them. For example, we have our missions proactively providing research on schools to be able to provide lists and information to parents who need that or who request it so that they are not having to do all the research themselves.

The deputy spoke of the Foreign Service Directives and the package. These are also extremely helpful to parents. We rely on them. They are based on the premise of comparability in Canada and where you are living. In the province where you are living, what sort of supports does your child have in the school system? This is what the Foreign Service Directives are based on. There is that analysis.

Senator Richards: Thank you for being here.

This is a quick question but I do not know if you can answer it: How does this government’s moral imperative of feminism and gay rights impact the association or policy aspects when dealing with other countries? Is there any pushback that was unforeseen when this was started or do you generally get along well with the countries that you are in?

Mr. Morrison: Thank you for the question. I would say that we have a feminist foreign policy, and a document will be coming out on that in the not-too-distant future. I think the government’s position on all LGBTQIA+ issues is very clear.

Part of diplomacy is celebrating the things with partner countries where you agree and being able to respectfully discuss those issues where you do not necessarily see eye-to-eye.

Uganda has been in the news a lot recently. From the Prime Minister on down, Canada’s views on a recent piece of legislation there have been made very clear.

I believe that Canadian foreign policy and all foreign policies are based both on a country’s core interests but also on its values. That’s what I think partner countries expect from Canada and from Canadian diplomats, and that’s who we are and we don’t make any secret about it.

Senator Ravalia: Thank you once again. Given your potential recent expansion, how will the foreign service leverage new technologies and digital tools to advance Canada’s diplomatic objectives? I’m thinking in particular of the mushrooming of areas such as artificial intelligence. Do you have the expertise? How do you intend to use it? Is there a plan?

Mr. Morrison: There is no plan yet, but I think anyone in the position of running an organization, in the private or public sector, is asking his or herself those questions right now. The chair will appreciate the challenges of negotiating G7 communiqués at 2 o’clock in the morning. Recently, in a warm‑up round in Kobe, Japan, we were stuck on an issue that we all agreed on. We just couldn’t agree on how to word our agreement. It went around and around and around, and finally I downloaded ChatGPT in the room, and I said, “What would G7 leaders say on question X?” I got four brilliant paragraphs. We didn’t quite adopt those four paragraphs but it did help us along.

I think that for traditional diplomatic reporting, and some aspects of how we run the ministry, this could be totally revolutionary. But like all organizations, it has caught us by surprise and we are only now beginning to look into it both for our own operations but also for — there are at least potentially pretty far-reaching uses, for example, in international negotiations. If you are negotiating with 16 countries and you are wondering where the sweet spot is, there are potentially pretty dramatic implications of the technological advances.

Senator Ravalia: Just in follow-up, how closely do you collaborate with academia and Canada’s broad research organizations? A constant criticism for us has been the inability of Canada in the last 10 years to keep up with scientific research, that our funding has remained static, that the other G7 and OECD countries have gone ahead of us and as a result we are losing a lot of our potential future brains to the U.S., Europe, the Middle East, et cetera. Do you collaborate with some of these organizations?

Mr. Morrison: My colleague Alexandre Lévêque had to leave, sadly, as he is the head of the policy branch. One of the recommendations of our Future of Diplomacy report is that we create an open policy hub. And the reason that we say it should be an open policy hub is because the sense in all of our consultations was that we needed to be much more open to academia and think tanks and anyone with smart ideas anywhere. I cannot think of an issue area where that is more important than on some of the high-tech issues that we were just talking about.

So I don’t think we’re there yet, but the report does signal that we recognize the importance of being more open to policy communities in Canada but also around the world.

Senator Ravalia: Thank you.

The Chair: I want to ask Deputy Minister Morrison and his team whether they would take a couple more questions.

Mr. Morrison: I’m very happy to continue. Not all of my recent committee experiences have been as pleasant as this so please continue to ask questions.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

[Translation]

Senator Gerba: Thank you very much, Mr. Morrison, for your generosity, which enables us to continue some very interesting discussions.

Witnesses before this committee have drawn our attention to the centralization of GAC officers in Ottawa rather than outside. The officers are based here, and experts say this means that decisions are centralized. What do you think of this phenomenon?

Mr. Morrison: Thank you for your question. It’s a very important question and one we think about a lot.

[English]

Currently, 26% of our staff is rotational. That’s less than it used to be, but I don’t know what the number should be. So we needed to look into why it used to about 50% and now it’s 26%, and here is what we found: The high point of people abroad was in 1990. And the reason that there were more Canadians serving abroad in 1990 than at any point in history, if you think about when that was, is that was before the advent of the internet. There are entire occupational groups, as the chair will recall — because I followed the chair into Havana after a couple of turns — such as Foreign Service secretaries and Foreign Service communicators who coded telexes that we wrote. Those occupational groups either don’t exist, or they don’t exist in as great a number.

The merger with CIDA — the Canadian International Development Agency — in 2012 also changed the denominator. CIDA was not a foreign service; they were an Ottawa-based organization that did single assignments abroad.

The growth of the Trade Commissioner Service and, in particular, of its regional offices across the whole country to better serve the Canadian business community also reflected growth in largely non-rotational Canada-based jobs.

A fourth example is the $1.6 billion or $1.7 billion of duty‑of‑care spending to better protect our personnel serving abroad. That led to the creation of more headquarters-based positions.

So the story behind the statistics is very important.

The low point was in 1997, following some post-Cold War cuts, and it has gradually crept up so that we’re only about 20 people shy of where we were in 1990. So the misleading headline can be they had more people abroad in 1990 than now, but I think it’s very important to look at what those people are doing. In the same time as it has crept up — it’s not linear — since the low point in around 2007, the number of missions abroad — embassies, high commissions, consulates — have increased from around 140 to about 180 right now, and I can get you the exact figures.

So you really need to look at what the people are doing. The statistics will show you that we have more embassies but fewer Canadians needed to run them, which just makes us like most other organizations.

What is often behind the question, though, is this: Shouldn’t Canada have more people abroad? It’s hard to argue. I was trying yesterday, at lunch with some of my ambassadorial colleagues who are in town, saying, “Well, justify that position to me.” It’s hard to disagree with the overall notion that more Canadians abroad should translate into more Canadian influence abroad.

But I will say technology offers us some unprecedented examples. We did quite well with hybrid trade missions during COVID, and the Women, Peace and Security example is a very good one. I think it helps Canada punch hard in that issue area, and yet that is an Ottawa-based position with travel. So for this notion of having a digital ambassador; or a Women, Peace and Security ambassador or a climate change ambassador — which we do have, and that person serves out of Europe — there are different models. It is about physical presence. It’s about people within the buildings but there is also some innovation that we can use.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Senator MacDonald: I want to ask a question that I asked a previous panel. I’m glad you’re here now, because it’s a great question for you as you know this better than anyone. When it comes to criteria for recruitment, I reflect on my different years of working in Ottawa. I worked here when I was 23 in 1978 and I worked for the Mulroney government in the 1980s for two ministers. One thing that always struck me was the number of people I met — middle-aged people who work in the civil service, and I interacted with the civil service a lot in those years — who had never been east of Quebec City. When it comes to the diversity in hiring, how much geographical diversity is happening in the country? Is it more difficult for somebody from the Maritimes to get a job in the Foreign Service?

Mr. Morrison: You should try being from Lethbridge, Alberta and trying to meet the bilingualism requirement.

There was a time when recruitment into the foreign service part of Global Affairs Canada — and I’m going to continue to insist that we know when we’re talking about the Foreign Service specifically or the wider enterprise — used to be via an exam and a deliberately national recruitment. Ms. Alexander would know more than I do, but they used to go out to universities across Canada to have folks sit the exam, as well as at embassies abroad. I personally started my career in the Foreign Service and I took the exam and did the interviews in London, England.

I missed it the first time, as well. You need to persist.

Frankly, that’s how kids from Lethbridge, Alberta, or Miramichi joined the Foreign Service. The compact was that if you didn’t speak the other language, you would have a fixed amount of time, and I think you had to sign something that said you couldn’t go abroad until you attained some degree of proficiency in both official languages. That was the equalizer. We gave up some time ago doing a specialized departmental recruitment, which, as I said, was done nationally; that is a way to get recruits from communities that are not as well represented in Global Affairs as they need to be, including from the North and rural communities.

We gave up on it for financial reasons, and we have been recruiting largely from a small number of universities where folks tend to be bilingual, and those universities are in Montreal and Ottawa.

Ms. Alexander: In recognizing that this is an issue, in 2019 we partnered with the Public Service Commission and restarted the cross-Canada recruitment, and we’ve done that since then as well. What we are doing as well to ensure our candidates have the knowledge of both official languages is we put them on ab initio status, during which time we pay for their official language training with the expectation that they achieve the required level, and then we formally offer them the position of joining the Foreign Service. We have started that. There are questions of how we can do it better but we have in recent years been able to start that.

Senator M. Deacon: Thank you for the great diversity in responses in a somewhat relaxed atmosphere in an ever-changing environment.

I will direct this question to Mr. Cousineau. As you have sat and listened to us and your colleagues the last few hours, is there anything you are hearing that you want to make sure you emphasize that we get today? Is there something we haven’t touched on but that you are ruminating on in your work and you want an opportunity to share with us?

Stéphane Cousineau, Senior Assistant Deputy Minister, People and International Platform, Global Affairs Canada: First of all, Mr. Chair, thank you for offering me the opportunity to say a few words.

Obviously, I have been working closely with my colleagues and supported the development of this report that is being brought to your attention. Today you are hearing about the Future of Diplomacy initiative. We talked about four themes and one thing I can assure you — and I think it was reflected in what you heard from the deputy minister — is that the leadership is there. If there is one word or one theme that I would leave with you, it is this engagement with leadership. We talked about language and the culture especially, and I’m a firm believer that everything starts at the top. In the context of the Future of Diplomacy, I see the work that Ms. Alexander and I will be doing together on the HR pillar as supercritical. I guarantee you that, through the Future of Diplomacy initiative, we will be improving a lot of things, whether it’s governance, tools and process, but I think you will all agree with me that it’s people that make things work. The leadership that I was just talking about is very strong on taking care of those people as we transform and introduce this new strategy.

That’s my message to you. The leadership is there, the engagement is there and we will be working together to make that transformation very successful. Thank you.

Senator M. Deacon: Thank you.

The Chair: I will ask the last question.

It’s either for Deputy Minister Morrison or Mr. Cousineau, and it goes to the whole question of bricks-and-mortar establishments. The minister announced that more embassies and missions are being established. We have also gone through a period of COVID where the discovery was made that one can meet virtually in certain ways, although that’s not a substitute for human interaction.

Also, I recall that at one point, at least when I was still in the department, we were actively looking at co-location with like‑minded countries to save money on real estate and other costs. I was thinking particularly of the United Kingdom with regard to our embassy in Port-au-Prince in Haiti, and in some discussions I had with the German government we were thinking about co‑locating in certain countries in Africa.

Is there active thinking going on as to, in modernization for the 21st century, that perhaps there could be a different way or a hybridized way of looking at traditional mission establishments?

Mr. Morrison: Thank you for the question, Mr. Chair. It’s a thing that I have personally thought a lot about, and your senatorial colleague Ian Shugart has thought a lot about it because it’s a real conundrum.

You get your influence from presence. I don’t think anybody would question that. But we opened our first proper embassies in the late 1920s and early 1930s, and we built a building called a chancery and we had an ambassador’s residence. That’s still the model, and that doesn’t really make sense to me and it didn’t make sense to Senator Ian Shugart. Four or five years ago, when he was the Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs and I was his associate, we embarked upon a project called Mission of the Future to really look at that question: How could you have a presence overseas and how could you have influence overseas in ways that were less heavy in terms of bricks and mortar? Once you go the bricks-and-mortar route, you can be very path‑dependent and you can be very susceptible to sunk‑cost thinking.

Canada’s interests change. What our report tries to say is that if you only have $100, you should invest it in the multilateral system or in rising G20 countries, because those will the tables you want to be at in the future. Investment projects, however, often have a decade-long planning and building phase. It’s a hard thing to get right.

I will turn to Stéphane in a moment, who is in charge of the overall investment plan, but what we’re trying to bring to it is some overall foreign policy sense. Where are you going to invest, and do you really need to follow that late 1920s, early 1930s model? Co-location is one thing that probably could be made greater use of and, generally, making common cause with our most like-minded, even if that isn’t pure co-location.

Mr. Cousineau: Thank you very much for the question. To give you some stats, it is true that we need to rethink how we are moving forward, especially when it comes to bricks and mortar. We actually have 2,374 buildings around the globe, to be very specific, and we own around 40% of those.

You have talked about co-location. We are absolutely considering co-location. In fact, we are co-located in 11 locations with three countries — the U.K., Australia and the Netherlands — and we actually do have other countries that are co-located with us. That idea of co-location is certainly something we are looking into.

As we’re developing this investment plan so we can be strategic about where we are investing and things like that, we have a process that allows to talk not only to GAC, but to all of our government departments, like IRCC, where we develop what I would call business cases. We do option analysis and look at how we are going to set this up and what our options are. I will be honest, the tendency of going bricks-and-mortar is still there, but there are discussions right now about how we can use and actually leverage technology. Can we talk about virtual offices? There is also the option of fly-in and fly-out.

I would like to offer that those discussions have started. We have to do more, and we will continue to work with our colleagues as we develop this investment plan that we share with the central agencies.

The Chair: Thank you very much. On behalf of the committee, I would like to express my thanks to Deputy Minister David Morrison, Senior Assistant Deputy Minister Stéphane Cousineau and Associate Assistant Deputy Minister Vera Alexander for staying behind. I know you thought this was a one-hour gig for you, but we appreciate very much your staying behind after the minister left. I won’t use the word that unnerved the deputy minister earlier, but your openness in speaking to us is very useful. You’re the last witnesses in our study. We will be doing some further study work, including a mission to look at other comparator countries and governments, so we appreciate this very much. It has been very enriching.

Colleagues, before we adjourn, I wish to explain that due to the latest security developments in Ukraine, the Ambassador of Canada to Ukraine Larisa Galadza, who was supposed to be with us today, had to cancel her appearance, but it is our intention to welcome her back at a later date.

(The committee adjourned.)