Reform of Global Affairs Canada: Version 2023

Reform of Global Affairs Canada: Version 2023
Pierre5018, CC BY-SA 4.0, via Wikimedia Commons


If the stars align in proper fashion, the year 2023 promises to be key for decisions about Global Affairs Canada and the Canadian foreign service.  Two studies are now under way:  in the Senate Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade, launched in February, 2022;  and in Global Affairs itself, the latter announced by the Minister and Deputy Minister on 30 May.


Both studies will address an issue that has been ignored for two decades and which should have been an item addressed by the Trudeau Government early after 2015.  What kind of foreign ministry does Canada need in order to run the type of foreign policy we are now pursuing? Or, to put it another way, how does the government make GAC “fit for purpose”, not only now but for decades to come?

Neither study was launched with a public announcement as to its rationale.  But its motivation should be obvious to anyone observing the under-performance of Canada’s foreign service over the past few years.  Simply put, years of tinkering, including the merger of GAC and CIDA, have created a costly, massive, and excessively bureaucratic department, with diminishing expertise and low-quality output, led by people who know relatively little about foreign policy or international affairs.

Recent events can only add to the urgency of the need to reform GAC before it becomes a laughing stock.  A rotating cast of ministers in the Trudeau era has meant inexperience and the problems of a steep learning curve. The performance of deputies brought in from domestic departments has been predictably poor.  The sad saga of Canada’s irresponsible abandonment of locally-engaged employees at the embassy in Ukraine has been appalling.  Give credit to three foreign service officers who brought this atrocity to public light.     

The GAC-CIDA merger was perhaps the straw that finally broke the back of old “External Affairs”

The GAC-CIDA merger was perhaps the straw that finally broke the back of old “External Affairs”.  It mixed the two agencies in a blend that doesn’t work.  Development folks in GAC complain that the development vocation has all but disappeared from sight;  External folks complain that CIDA bureaucracy has taken over.  Divisions have been created so that one part of the Department can watch the other.  The Trade Policy Branch still works because the vocation is clear and the lines of authority are well established.  Although the Trudeau government announced a “feminist international foreign policy” early on in its mandate, that policy has proven to be a thin reed that can’t cover the absence of serious policy work in many areas of foreign policy, including China and Eastern Europe. 

The issuance of two studies in 2023 will not guarantee that a reform effort will ensue.  The government has ignored a valuable Senate study of 2019 on Canada’s international cultural relations.  It could conceivably do the same with the Senate study on the foreign service.  Nor is there any reason that these two exercises, which will take time to gather material and arrive at recommendations, should slow down work on other essential reforms that are already inching forward, like re-constructing an annual recruitment exercise for all streams of the foreign service.  Clearly, remedial work in some areas, like how to treat our locally-engaged staff abroad, cannot wait until next year.  

Both reports will probably accept the requirement for a “global” Canadian foreign service.  This means embassies or high commissions in about 125 countries, as well as good-sized missions at multilateral organizations, in all about 180 missions abroad.  This may sound like a lot of missions, but it places Canada at the low end of our G7 peers. GAC should caution against the closure of embassies, just as care should be exercised about new missions where closure in the future will be problematic.  

Both reports have to address the central problem bedevilling the foreign service, namely, the decline in its expertise (subject matter expertise, like development and international security issues, as well as linguistic expertise and expertise on regional subjects like Russia and China).   One reason is obvious:  there are too many foreign service officers at home and not enough abroad, where they could be learning their trades and acquiring the expertise needed for useful policy formulation.  

Redressing the balances between headquarters and the field is tricky and needs deft management (with foreign service experience).  It also needs new resources.  To make missions abroad work effectively. However, several changes are necessary:  programs in the information and cultural affairs area have to be reconstructed;  the program that supports Canadian studies abroad has to be refunded;   the Canada Fund for Local Initiatives has to be widened, with its resources increased;  and representational budgets have to be bolstered.  It bears repeating, even though it’s been said many times, that Canada simply isn’t doing enough with respect to development spending

The resources for some of these reforms could come from internal reforms in GAC.  It could easily slash its huge senior management complement, down-size bureaux and divisions that duplicate work done elsewhere, and take advantage of IT solutions to streamline work.  Its outmoded administrative and personnel structures are long overdue a complete re-vamp.   

What is needed in both reports is absolute clarity of purpose.  GAC needs to re-build a career structure for the foreign service with a weightier presence abroad.  If well done over the long term, reforms will give GAC the expertise required to offer governments sound advice on foreign policy.  It provides no assurance that future governments will be interested in foreign policy;  nor is it a guarantee against the gaffes that have characterized foreign policy thus far in 2022.  But a well-conceived, well-structured foreign service is a necessary condition for a sensible, rational, long-term approach to Canadian foreign policy.

Foreign policy is about having the international influence to help shape global events in support of our values and interests.  The foundational instrument for attaining that goal is a capable, effective Canadian foreign service, empowered with the right tools.  These two reports should provide the government with the recipe for change.  Let’s hope that recent events have made it clear that a serious reform effort is badly needed.   


This blog was first posted on the The McLeod Group


 

Related Articles

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

The CIPS Blog is written only by subject-matter experts. 

 

CIPS blogs are protected by the Creative Commons license: Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0)

 


 

[custom-twitter-feeds]