THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS AND INTERNATIONAL TRADE
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Wednesday, April 19, 2023
The Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade met with videoconference this day at 4:04 p.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 Boehm. I am a senator from Ontario and the chair of the Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade.
[English]
Before having the members introduce themselves today, I wish to point out that our clerk, Chantal Cardinal, could not be here with us today, so we are joined by Angus Wilson, who will assist us today in an acting capacity.
I now wish to invite committee members participating in today’s meeting to introduce themselves.
[Translation]
Senator Gerba: Amina Gerba from Quebec.
[English]
Senator Ravalia: Mohamed Ravalia from Newfoundland and Labrador.
Senator M. Deacon: Marty Deacon, Ontario.
Senator Woo: Yuen Pau Woo from British Columbia.
Senator Richards: Dave Richards from New Brunswick.
The Chair: Thank you very much, colleagues. Welcome to all of you, as well as those who are watching us on Senate ParlVu from across Canada.
Today, we continue our study of Canada’s foreign service, the objective of which is to evaluate if Canada’s foreign service and the foreign policy machinery at Global Affairs Canada are fit for purpose and ready to respond to the global challenges today and in the future.
[Translation]
To discuss the experiences of diverse groups of individuals in the foreign service and their recommendations regarding the future of the foreign service and conditions of foreign service, we are pleased to welcome, all from Global Affairs Canada, Vikas Sharma, Executive Director, Andean Region Division and Champion for the Persons with Disabilities Network.
[English]
And we also have Stewart Wheeler, Chief of Protocol of Canada, Director General of the Summits Management Office and Champion of the 2SLGBTQI+ Network. Also, I will add that he is the former Chief of Protocol of Ontario and former Ambassador to Iceland. By video conference, we’re joined by Sandra McCardell, who has been a frequent witness at this committee. She is Assistant Deputy Minister, Europe, Arctic, Middle East and Maghreb and Champion of the Women Network. She is joining us from New York City. We also welcome Ayesha Rekhi, Canada’s Ambassador to the Czech Republic. She’s joining us from Prague. It’s very late in Prague, ambassador, but we thank you for joining us.
I’d like to also acknowledge that during this period of introduction, we’ve been joined by Senator M. Deacon of Ontario; Senator Coyle of Nova Scotia; Senator Harder, the deputy chair, from Ontario; and Senator Boniface from Ontario as well. They were a little late, but that’s okay.
Welcome, everyone.
I wish to note that Global Affairs Canada also has an Indigenous Peoples Network, but it does not currently have a champion. However, the network has been invited to submit a written brief to us, which we will circulate when we receive it.
Before we hear remarks and proceed to questions and answers, I wish to ask members to please refrain from leaning in too closely to their microphone or remove your earpiece when doing so. That will avoid any sound feedback that could negatively impact the committee staff and our interpreters who are wearing earpieces for interpretation purposes.
Ms. McCardell will open up with general remarks for up to 10 minutes about the various networks, and then we will go to questions. Indeed, all the champions will be invited to respond to questions.
Ms. McCardell, live from New York, the floor is yours.
Sandra McCardell, Assistant Deputy Minister, Europe, Arctic, Middle East and Maghreb and Champion of the Women Network, Global Affairs Canada: Mr. Chair, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss equity, diversity and inclusion at Global Affairs Canada.
Your study on the Canadian foreign service comes at an important moment. It provides a unique opportunity to shape Canada’s future diplomacy through the values we represent and the image that reflects the diversity of Canadians.
I’m the champion for women at Global Affairs Canada, and I’m joined today by three of my fellow champions, whom you have already introduced. I’d like to acknowledge that while Ambassador Rekhi and I are currently outside of Canada, our colleagues address you from the traditional, unceded territory of the Algonquin Anishinaabe people.
[Translation]
As in other departments, Global Affairs Canada’s efforts to create a diverse and inclusive workforce that is representative of Canada’s population is rooted in laws such as the Canadian Human Rights Act, the Canadian Multiculturalism Act, the Employment Equity Act and the Accessible Canada Act. As the face and representative of Canada around the world, Global Affairs Canada is in particular responsible for meeting higher standards that reflect our dynamic and multicultural society, which values diversity in Canada and abroad.
We have to represent the best of Canada and of our values, and adapt them in a way that is relevant to the global cultural context. We must ensure that the principles of diversity and inclusion are as effectively reflected in our missions and among locally hired staff as they are in Ottawa.
Equity, diversity and inclusion are essential to create a work environment in which each person, whoever they may be, feels valued within the department. We have the collective responsibility to foster a workplace that reflects Canadian values and promotes a respectful atmosphere at home and around the world.
[English]
It might be helpful to explain the role of those of us appearing before you today — the role of champions in advancing diversity and inclusion at Global Affairs. Champions work to raise awareness, increase understanding, bring new perspectives to ongoing initiatives and advance diversity and inclusion goals, all with the aim of driving cultural change in the department. We work closely with employee networks, which include the women’s network, Indigenous peoples, 2SLGBTQI+ persons, persons with disabilities, young professionals as well as visible minorities, which now includes three subgroups of Black, Latin American and Arab-speaking employees.
Each of the six employee networks has official representatives or chairs who work in collaboration with their champion to fulfill the department’s equity, diversity, inclusion and anti-racism mandate. Both champions and network representatives, as well as other departmental stakeholders, are members of Global Affairs’ diversity and inclusion council, which provides strategic advice and direction to the department.
I’d like to add that this work and the efforts of all our employees in employment equity networks are volunteer-led and are taken on in addition to their regular workloads.
[Translation]
While Global Affairs Canada has been working to address employment equity for many years, it was the death of George Floyd and the subsequent call to action from the Clerk of the Privy Council to fight racism and promote equity and inclusion that brought new energy and determination to those efforts.
Since 2020, the department has taken a number of steps including the development of an anti-racism strategy and a performance management framework to monitor progress; the implementation of an action plan on reconciliation with Indigenous peoples; and the launch of a pilot program sponsored by the deputy minister to help underrepresented groups in the department. The first candidates selected through that program are now at the EX level.
In addition, most branches in the department and missions abroad have implemented more detailed action plans to support efforts relating to equity, diversity and inclusion and fighting racism in their specific workplace.
Last January, the deputy ministers and members of the executive council reaffirmed their commitments and priorities with regard to equity, diversity and inclusion, or EDI, specifically: finalizing and launching the EDI plan and the department’s accessibility action plan; fully achieving the objectives of the anti-racism action plan and strategy: and supporting the EDI plan and interracialism in the sectors and offices.
Over the past decade, we have made major strides towards gender equity, which is of concern to me personally. Half of Canada’s ambassadors are now women and there are as many women as men in all management positions in the department. Global Affairs Canada actually achieved gender equity in the appointment of mission heads in 2018, a visible and symbolic sign of success for a foreign affairs department.
In view of Canada’s commitment to a feminist foreign policy, we are responsible for applying these feminist principles and putting words into action to ensure that competent women in our organization have the opportunity to lead.
[English]
As a tangible and practical support to employees working abroad, the Global Affairs pride community put great efforts into creating and updating a detailed spreadsheet with critical information for 2SLGBTQI+ employees and their families who are considering postings abroad. That information, which includes details on the types of accreditation host countries are willing to provide to 2SLGBTQI+ employees and their dependants as well as general living conditions for the community in their host countries, helps employees make considered decisions about their future assignments abroad.
The pride network has also developed and delivers a popular and accessible series of workshops and training sessions under the Positive Spaces Initiative. This initiative helps strengthen the inclusion of all employees and client groups regardless of sexual orientation, gender identity or gender expression, which in turn helps build healthy and welcoming work groups and teams, helps demystify the use of inclusive language and promotes mental health and wellness in the workplace.
In our missions abroad, our heads of mission are called upon to consider diversity and inclusion not just in Canada’s context but in that of their host country where religious, ethnic, tribal or linguistic differences might define and separate.
[Translation]
While we recognize our accomplishments, much remains to be done to fully reflect Canada’s values and interests which we represent abroad. We have a duty to be the voice of Canada’s diversity, particularly of Indigenous, Black, racialized and disabled persons, too few of whom are in management positions.
The face of Canada’s foreign service is also evident in our diplomatic missions abroad. We continue to strive to make them welcoming and inclusive, whether by displaying pride flags or ensuring that they are fully accessible to employees, clients and guests. Important work must continue to update staff policies that reflect the current concepts of family and equitable treatment.
Determination is also required to close the gap between our aspirations, such as those set out in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, and the measures needed to achieve them. We have indicators of success that help us measure progress, identify obstacles, and support career development opportunities for underrepresented employee groups.
Last year, Global Affairs Canada launched the Future of Diplomacy: Transforming Global Affairs Canada initiative, whose objective is to strengthen Global Affairs Canada’s ability to mobilize internationally.
One of the key pillars of the review is to ensure that we are able to hire, retain and train a diverse workforce with the values and competencies needed to meet the global challenges of today and tomorrow. The results of this review will go hand in hand with our policies to make Global Affairs Canada a more equitable, diverse and inclusive workplace.
[English]
In conclusion, Global Affairs Canada is stronger because of our diversity. We deliver our foreign policy objectives better in an increasingly complex and interconnected world. As the face of Canada across the globe, we bear a particular responsibility to be equitable, diverse and inclusive.
At Global Affairs, we still have much to do, but we are confident that our continued commitment and sustained efforts in collaboration with champions and employee networks will ensure that we reflect Canada’s values at home and abroad.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. My colleagues and I would be pleased to address any questions you have.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Assistant Deputy Minister McCardell.
Colleagues, I wish to advise that you will each have a maximum of four minutes for the first round, which includes questions and answers. I would call upon you to be as precise and concise as you can be, especially with your preambles. We are going until 5:30, so I suspect we will have time for a second round and maybe more.
I’d also like to acknowledge that Senator MacDonald of Nova Scotia has joined the meeting as well.
Just to remind senators, we have two witnesses in the room and two who are joining us virtually. Let’s not forget that. They all have specific functions, so I would ask that you direct your questions accordingly.
Senator Ravalia: Thank you to all our witnesses.
Let me begin by acknowledging with gratitude the work that each of you are doing on behalf of our country.
My question is directed to Mr. Wheeler. Could you elaborate further on measures that are being taken to support and encourage Canadian diplomats to develop in-depth knowledge and regional or cultural expertise?
Furthermore, how does Global Affairs Canada’s strategy or approach to training and support compare to foreign ministries of some of our key allies?
Stewart Wheeler, Chief of Protocol of Canada and Director General of the Summits Management Office and Champion of the 2SLGBTQI+ Network, Global Affairs Canada: Thank you very much, senator, for the question. I will endeavour to answer to the best of my abilities.
My answer will be rooted in my own experience in the foreign service, of course. I’m not currently in a position where I oversee the Foreign Service Institute or the training, but I do know a little bit from my own experience. As it relates to the topic of diversity and inclusion, we can also touch briefly on those.
When one joins the foreign service, there’s a robust road map of training, whether you’re joining in the rotational foreign service or joining Global Affairs Canada. The Foreign Service Institute, working with our human resources branch, sets out recommended and expected training modules in a variety of fields to ensure people are prepared both for the skill sets that they need and the kinds of activities they will be doing, but also addressing knowledge gaps and bringing people up to what they need to succeed.
In the specific area of cultural knowledge, from my own experience, every time I’ve been posted, there have been a series of intercultural training courses and a series of cultural and language-specific courses that have been offered through the foreign service language school through the Foreign Service Institute. As well, I’d say there is a lot of informal mentoring and training among the members of the foreign service to ensure that people who are arriving at a mission benefit from the wisdom of those who have been there before and who can refer them to reading material, both academic and fiction, in order to get to know a culture that they perhaps have never experienced before.
When it comes to our work in the diversity and inclusion area, there are now a series of training programs both to understand Canada’s approach to human rights and Canada’s approach to diversity and inclusion in general and then specific courses that are offered through the Canada School of Public Service and the Foreign Service Institute to understand how Canada views some of the specific areas that we focus on ourselves as representatives of historically marginalized or equity-seeking groups within our own society.
That helps us to understand the diversity of the face of Canada that we’d like to project abroad.
Senator Ravalia: That’s very helpful.
[Translation]
Senator Gerba: I want to welcome our witnesses to the committee today.
My question is for Ms. McCardell, Champion of the Women’s Network, and perhaps also for Ms. Rekhi, Champion for the Visible Minorities Network. I am very interested in the position of Black women in the machinery of policy and government and at Global Affairs Canada, which we are focusing on today, and in Canada’s public service. I would like to know the position of Black women. What is being to done to promote Black women to positions of responsibility, to senior management?
There are 7,000 senior management positions in the public service. It is estimated that Black people hold just 2% of those positions. Do you know the proportion of Black women in management positions at Global Affairs Canada? What steps are you taking to improve access to senior management positions for those women?
Ms. McCardell: I would like to respond and then hand it over to my colleague, Ambassador Rekhi.
That is exactly the kind of issue that is very important to us. Global Affairs Canada’s efforts to promote women in the workplace began more than ten years ago, with the goal of achieving gender equality in ambassador positions. You are pinpointing one of our challenges, one that we have to continue working on: intersectionality.
We had made efforts to identify objectives for the women’s champion or the Women’s Network. We identified the importance of having women in leadership positions to provide a model for the future of what women’s leadership can look like in our organization.
Following the death of George Floyd, we recognized that racism is an important part of what we do specifically for women. Special attention is needed in the case of groups that could be marginalized because of their identity, and also because of a second aspect of their identity.
What I can tell you is that, in our Women’s Network, we chose someone from the employee network to serve as liaison with the other employee networks; you can directly contact the Visible Minorities Network, the Indigenous Peoples Network or the Persons with Disabilities Network to better understand the issues affecting employees with dual identities and who are at risk of being marginalized.
As to what you asked us to provide, we are encouraging the department not only to obtain the data, but also to look into that data for dual identities in order to understand the root of the obstacles and develop policies to encourage the promotion of Black women.
I wanted to offer some brief clarifications before handing it over to my colleague. The networks are there to highlight this issue, to encourage the department to change or develop more thorough policies on these issues. It is the department and the human resources divisions that are responsible for establishing and meeting the public service diversity requirements.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Ms. McCardell, the time for this question is up. My apologies to the ambassador; perhaps later on.
[English]
Senator Woo: Let me then direct the question to Ambassador Rekhi, who didn’t have a chance to respond to the previous question. Mine is not unconnected.
My question is the extent to which any progress made in greater diversity at Global Affairs Canada translates to cognitive diversity. I’m referring to taking not just the individuals with their different ethnic and skin-colour backgrounds, but appreciating, valuing and encouraging the expression of views that come from the deep historical, geographical and cultural backgrounds they come from.
It would seem to me that having diversity at the first order, which is just different representation of backgrounds, doesn’t really improve the performance of the department, necessarily. I’d be interested to know how the department might be providing some way for a second or third order of improvement of diversity.
Ayesha Rekhi, Ambassador to the Czech Republic and Champion for the Visible Minorities Network, Global Affairs Canada: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, and thank you, senator, for the excellent question.
Let me also say thank you for the opportunity to join you today. I think the signal you are sending to the employees in the networks within which we work as champions is really important. It is a signal that you value these issues of equity and inclusion that are so important to them and so important to the next generation of diplomats as well.
I think this question of diversity of thought is an important one, and I think the perspective of the department is that, actually, it is not just about getting representation right and getting representation right so that it reflects the diversity of Canada today and tomorrow, but leveraging that diversity. In leveraging that diversity in addressing racism and discrimination and removing some of the barriers to participation and advancement, we get the cultural competencies, the languages, the diverse perspectives and the diversity of thought.
I think, senator, some of what you are getting at is this need, which many of us who have been talking about the future of the foreign service, we often talk about the need for courage in our foreign policy processes. The openness now to a more diverse, representative foreign service and diplomatic corps allows for more of that courage, more of that cognitive diversity that you referenced.
The openness, I think we get there through the senior management commitment to the training — which my colleague Mr. Wheeler referenced as well — that creates more open spaces for employees to speak truth to power when they need to, to offer up that policy advice without fear of discrimination in some circumstances.
Again, I think we are a work-in-progress, but this issue of representation isn’t only for representation’s sake. It is about improving foreign policy processes, getting to more innovative, creative solutions to the problems that confront us as a country.
Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
Senator Coyle: Thank you very much to all of our witnesses who are with us in person and online today, and thank you for the work that you do as champions. It is a wonderful idea to have champions and point people for this work.
I am curious. We want a foreign service that represents, looks like Canada and is effective, obviously. When we were visiting the U.S. Department of State on our visit to Washington before Christmas, our State Department host talked about how one of the things they really needed to do — of course, they were looking at having more African Americans, in particular, but I thought it was an interesting point that they were moving away from strictly recruiting from the usual northeastern U.S. universities, for example, into their foreign service and looking at going west, going to the central U.S., et cetera.
I am interested in all of Canada. You have mentioned Indigenous in particular, but I am interested in rural Canada. I am interested in Western Canada. I am interested in Eastern Canada.
I know it is easy to hire from Carleton University; they have great programs. There are probably great programs at the University of Toronto, McGill University, Queens University or wherever, they are very good people from those schools, and some of them tick the diversity boxes.
I understand there has been a change over the years where when you were hired, you would be offered, for instance, French training if you were a sole anglophone. That is not, as I understand, necessarily the case anymore. Are there barriers that actually inhibit certain groups from entering our foreign service, and are there things that are being done, carrots that are out there or creative approaches that are reaching beyond the usual places of recruitment that would help with this diversity?
Whoever would like to answer that, I would be happy to hear from you.
The Chair: A minute and a half. Who would like to take that one on first? Mr. Sharma has not spoken yet.
Vikas Sharma, Executive Director, Andean Region Division and Champion for the Persons with Disabilities Network, Global Affairs Canada: Thank you very much for the question, and I will actually answer from a couple of different perspectives: One being a visible minority and also as someone who has participated in the recruitment process of numerous foreign service officers in my career, and then in my capacity as champion for persons with disabilities.
The issue of recruitment and finding — and I think it goes to Senator Woo’s question as well — it is really a qualitative approach to make sure that we have a diversity in where we recruit, but also who is doing the recruiting. I think this starts expanding our capacities, especially when we have different persons recruiting because we will come in with different perspectives on the type of people we think could be good foreign service officers.
Let me just put on my hat as champion for persons with disabilities. That is not always easy. Most disabilities aren’t visible, and there is a fear in demonstrating your disabilities because there is a perception that you are less than.
I do not know how to square that circle yet. I do believe that there are many approaches that were taken in the department to identify and correct that issue. But in terms of the recruitment piece, it is very much that the more we have diversity in the recruitment, the more we are going to have diversity in our intake.
The Chair: Thank you very much. We will move on. I am sure we will come back to that topic.
Senator M. Deacon: Thank you all. We are very honoured to have you here in the room in person and virtually to carry on with our study.
I have heard a few times about the policy supporting families. I am looking at how we, as you said, have the best, keep the best and retain the best folks you need.
We have heard a few times about the policy supporting families posted abroad and that it might be a little bit outdated or not as relevant and sharp as it could be. The reality is that the majority of Canadian households are now looking at two incomes or two income earners, and this can be tricky in the world of diplomacy.
I am wondering how the department can encourage people to take postings abroad when it would be difficult for a partner to pack up and go without abandoning a job at home? Are there some examples — because it could be a policy setting or it could be on the ground — from any one of you that could point us to where the diplomatic corps have successfully adapted to this and had success?
Ms. McCardell: Mr. Chair, maybe I could take that on because that is certainly something that we hear a great deal about from our women diplomats. Quite frankly, if you look back not long ago in our past, women were required to resign from their posts when they got married because it was impossible to imagine that a man would follow a woman in her career, so this is a real struggle.
I think there is a lot more that we can do. There are efforts to create employment opportunities for spouses. There has been discussion about picking up pension contributions over the years for spouses when they accompany abroad.
This is not easy, and it is now essentially as difficult for men as it is for women for exactly what you have said. There are two-career families, and women also expect to be able to pursue their career in a way that might not have been the case 30 or 40 years ago. I think there is work that needs to be done on that.
We are hoping that your study and the work that our own department is doing on the future of diplomacy are going to look at some of the policies that can support us keeping the right people in this modern context. And you can add onto that, as well, some of the work that is increasingly the case where adults are expected to support their elderly parents. Therefore, the definition of family is expanding beyond what the children and spouses are living; it is also now what the parents are living.
The Chair: Do either of the other witnesses wish to speak to that?
Mr. Sharma: The foreign service is very interesting and different in that, in any other job in Ottawa, you are talking about your concerns and those of the employee. When a person moves abroad, there are dependents we have to consider as a department. As a parent with a son with disabilities, that is a part of my mix. We have to work that into that element of how we would accommodate that family member.
That is a really important point that we as a department need to grapple with to make sure the best and brightest continue to go abroad and do not feel that the obstacles are too high or that it is not possible because of education or accommodation. We really think with intentionality about the needs of all of the different employees going abroad.
Senator Harder: Thank you to our witnesses.
I wanted to follow up on Senator Deacon’s last question. If we have time, I will I ask it of each of you; I hope we have time for that. If not, the answer to this would be interesting to have it in writing for our study: To what extent do the foreign service directives, or FSDs, need to be adjusted to accommodate the specific concerns that are special to the groups you are representing?
In other words, we have the general FSDs, but that is probably for the general workforce. Are there specific reference points for the groups you are championing that we ought to be encouraging change in? Let’s start with Mr. Wheeler and then go around the room.
Mr. Wheeler: Thank you very much, senator. Thank you for raising that question because I think the foreign service directives — I gather the committee is familiar with them if you have been studying our department for some time — are things that affect the family a lot when we go abroad.
Many of us have felt, over the years, that they have not kept up with the challenges of modern society. Comments from the community I represent suggest that while people of my generation perhaps feel as though the modernization of the definition of family to include same-sex partners, non-binary children and partners, the health needs of people with HIV — those are all things that I think that we would look and understand that they make sense. Those have been good definitional changes.
If you asked younger members of our community who have come into the foreign service at a time when, maybe in their entire life, they have never seen a world that didn’t have gay marriage or a world that cared who you loved. For them, they see FSDs that sound like they were written for a heteronormative family 50 years ago. So I think that the younger generations would like to see a lot more flexibility and more employee input into future updates of them.
I will leave some space for others.
The Chair: There is time for one more speaker. I would suggest, with Senator Harder’s agreement, that we flip this into round two and hear then from the other two witnesses. Maybe we will go to Mr. Sharma here in the room.
Mr. Sharma: The short answer is “yes.”
FSDs require modernization. The working group B which reviews the directives — there is a view that the FSDs and the working group belong to the department. They don’t. We need to identify people who have an appreciation for not only the rotational life, but also the issues that we, as champions, are representing. I do not believe those interests are adequately represented, especially for persons with disabilities. Too often, I think a narrow, restrictive view is taken.
I have more comments, and we can continue, but I will let my colleagues add to that.
Senator Harder: It would be very helpful to our study to have a more detailed response from you with respect to the specifics of the groups you are representing because the more we can reference that, the more expeditiously change can come.
Senator Boniface: Thank you all for being here.
This is perhaps a continuation of Senator Harder’s question. I would like to talk about what you are learning from retention in terms of the groups you are championing.
My second question is really around the model of a champion versus not embedded into the work of one or two people. That really connects to how you measure your success as you move forward. So I would be interested in how you picked that model over other models as an organization.
Perhaps he Assistant Deputy Minister could start, and then anyone else may jump in. It is an important question in terms of the decision on which way they go.
Ms. McCardell: Thank you.
I will pick up the point around the champions and just say that the champions were created back in the days of the employment equity legislation. It was originally those four groups. The idea was that we needed a focal point in the department that would connect management and employees together to work on these critical elements. What was then employment equity, we now talk about equity, diversity and inclusion, or EDI, issues. That was to bring cooperation and collaboration to what we were doing and push the department to go further.
There is a triangle we are a part of right now. The human resources deputy’s responsibility is to make sure we are meeting EDI targets. There are the energy and expectations of the employees most affected by them. We are essentially a bridge to bring those two together. It has been really effective in our department, one, because we bring a lot of visibility to it, and two, because each one of us engages our network to have activities that are really providing opportunities.
I will link it maybe to the retention question before I have to pass it to another champion.
We are talking to our networks, finding out from them what the issues are that they think are an obstacle to them achieving what they would like in their careers and then we put together events, activities, workshops and training to address those. For example, we will do a speed mentoring event where we connect employees with mentors across the department. We’ve done it virtually since COVID so we could bring in folks from abroad, including our locally engaged staff, or LES. It gives them an opportunity to talk to senior managers to ask more. That can help create the energy for retention or identify the issues we need to work on.
We also recently did “courageous conversations” where we had a fertility specialist come in and talk to the women’s network about what it is to be a professional woman and find yourself at a point later in life where you want to have children. So it can be practical or career-oriented, but the goal is that we talk to the networks, understand what their concerns are and bring some resources, energy and our understanding of the department and government to bear on those.
I will stop there because I know everyone will be as enthusiastic as I am.
The Chair: Being aware that the clock is ticking, Ambassador Rekhi, would you have a comment?
Ms. Rekhi: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I will jump onto that point about retention. The department is probably the best placed to provide that data, but I would say that for the Visibility Minorities Network and the subgroups with whom I interact quite regularly, career advancement is a key concern — getting stuck in the system.
Where we are seeing some of the fruits of the department’s labours when it comes to work on anti-racism, equity, diversity and inclusion are when we see, for example, our heads of mission last year reached close to 17% visible minorities when it was 3.7% in 2018.
You can start to see the difference. That is an important point. It will be interesting to see that impact on retention.
I would say, perhaps to close out and to speak quite personally, when I get asked about my journey to becoming a head of mission, my honest answer is that, for many years, I did not consider it a possibility because you cannot be what you cannot see. That is now changing.
Thank you.
Senator MacDonald: I wanted to pick up on something that Senator Coyle ventured into.
Canada is a big country, a big federation, ten provinces, 3,000 miles wide. I first worked in Ottawa in 1978. I worked here in the 1980s and have been back here the last 14 years. One thing that I always notice is that there are all kinds of people who work in the federal government who have been all over the world. But in Canada, they’ve never been east of Quebec City.
I am just curious. How much geographical diversity is there in the civil service? How much geographical diversity is there in Global Affairs? What are the opportunities for Maritimers and people from Atlantic Canada to get a job and a career in the Government of Canada, if you know? If you don’t, should you?
The Chair: Well, we go always to the most senior person on the panel, and that would be Ms. McCardell, please.
Ms. McCardell: I speak to you as a graduate of the University of Alberta, so not from the east, but I would say certainly from west of Carleton, which is one of the points raised earlier.
I will link those two questions together. I will say that we understand diversity in all of its senses.
To the earlier questions around recruitment, we need to go to universities across Canada. We need to be able to offer the official language training that will give access to these jobs to those who may be unilingual. That takes resources, and that is something that we hope is addressed through your work and through the future of diplomacy work because it is meaningful and important.
Right now — we will be doing it in a couple of weeks — we take new recruits on a cross-Canada tour. We take them from east to west to make sure that they do know their country. You are absolutely right; you cannot represent Canada unless you have seen it and know it from coast to coast to coast.
To the point about bringing creativity and a broad understanding to our foreign policy issues, we spoke of that in the context of EDI diversity, but it matters in geographic and linguistic diversity as well. You do better and understand the world better when you have a lot of different perspectives to bring to it. It is important and it matters, and I would argue that it is worth investing the resources.
Mr. Sharma: I think that the department could provide the stats, if they had them, about representation. What I can tell you anecdotally is my experience among my peers, it crosses all across Canada, west coast, east coast — perhaps not enough of a view from Ottawa, where I am from. But it is quite diverse. That is an issue that I do not think that I have encountered, “Gee, we wish there were more Newfoundlanders,” because I know quite a few from out east, but that is anecdotal.
Senator MacDonald: Do you have any numbers on that?
Mr. Sharma: We will go back to the department to see if they have it, sir. Thank you, senator.
The Chair: I would be grateful if you could get us some numbers because we had a first data package from the department, and that aspect was not included. It is one that very much interests this committee.
My question is for Mr. Wheeler. Reflecting on some of the work I did some time ago when I was in the department, one of the jobs was to put together for ministerial perusal and approval the proposed heads of mission lists, so our ambassadors and high commissioners who would go abroad.
Of course, when you project for a head of mission, you have to get the agreement of the country that is receiving. In some cases, we were looking, at that time, at sending ambassadors — heads of mission — who were gay, who were in a same-sex couple and, in a few instances, the receiving country demurred or would say that your spouse would not get a diplomatic visa but instead we could give them a servant visa because your spouse would be in the residence with you.
Looking around at the diversity that we have in our heads of mission at the moment, it seems to me that some of these challenges have been overcome. But I would be very grateful for the committee to hear your perspective on whether that is really the case.
Mr. Wheeler: Thank you, senator. I appreciate the question. I could tell you a little bit about my own career where I have certainly seen big changes in that area. I joined the department in 1994, and I have gone from being a closeted employee who worried about coming out, worried about being out in my workplace because my security clearance might be at risk — this was a time when we were still feeling the effects of the systemic discrimination of the purge or machine — whatever you want to call it — of the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s. At the time, my partner was not recognized by the department. I went away on my first posting to an embassy that you were also posted to at the time, Mr. Chair.
Not only did my employer not recognize my partner, neither, of course, did the receiving country, which meant my partner had no visa, no health care and was not included in my family configuration. I had no benefits for him. We were living on a frozen salary at the time, because of government cutbacks, of $32,000 Canadian dollars for the two of us to live in Washington, D.C.
It wasn’t an easy choice to do that. But you have joined the foreign service and this is what you want to do, and so you find workarounds and you do what you can.
In the course of my career, I have seen us get official recognition. Our dependents are now covered under the foreign service directives. We have a very inclusive set of policies in our own department.
As I have gone to further postings, I have been surprised in some places. I was posted in Colombia where, on a day-to-day basis on the street, one might have suggested that that was not a friendly environment. However, as a country and a legal system, very welcoming and very progressive. That wasn’t a problem.
Cross-posted to London, because we were not married, he went back to not being recognized, therefore, not invited to the Queen’s ball, not included on the diplomatic list and no diplomatic status. Now, living in London, one makes life work, and that is perfectly fine. There was no ability to work outside of the high commission. That certainly has an impact.
All the way to the end of my career, or more recently, on my last posting, I was Canada’s ambassador to Iceland and by happenstance I happened to be the first out, gay ambassador posted ever to Reykjavik from any country despite there being many out, gay diplomats, perhaps, in Iceland before. At the time, when I was there, Iceland was led by the world’s first openly lesbian prime minister, which gives me the curious distinction of being the first openly gay ambassador on the planet to present credentials in a country led by an openly gay head of government.
So, yes, progress can be seen in the arc of one person’s career. But that is choosing where I go, self-selecting not to apply for postings in some places. Before going to Iceland, we had the opportunity to be posted to Turkey. We made the hard decision that the only way we would do that was for my partner to be listed as my houseboy. It is still a challenge in many parts of the world.
The Chair: Thank you very much for your candour. I think that that is an important point.
We are going to go to round two. I would like to start with this question on the foreign service directives where two of our panellists have responded, and two have not.
I would like to go to Ambassador Rekhi first and then to Assistant Deputy Minister McCardell as well. Ambassador, you have the floor.
Ms. Rekhi: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I am happy to go back to the networks and to provide more information to Senator Harder’s question.
I would say that issue of family, which Ms. McCardell raised and other champions raised, comes up again and again — the modernization idea of what the family is.
For example, in many Asian families, aging parents remaining with their children as they get older is a challenge. They’re not included in the idea of family, or it can be quite difficult to add them. As children who have left the home and then come back to the home, the FSDs don’t actually make a lot of space for that. That’s something that’s come up with some colleagues as well.
I’m certainly happy to come back with more.
I think it comes back to something that my networks are very keen on. We talk about Gender-based Analysis Plus, and we are very keen on the “Plus” part and making sure we apply the “Plus” lens to FSDs and other areas that impact foreign service life. Thank you.
Ms. McCardell: Whatever challenges there are around the FSDs, in terms of the question of EDI, you’ll find it comes to all those personal issues around the individual, and that leads a lot into families. Very quickly, those concerns are eldercare, support for spouses abroad, career support for spouses abroad, and in my network, children, children with special needs or children who are past the age you would typically expect to be with their family. Those are a lot there.
If you’ll permit me, Mr. Chair, I’d also interject the idea the Women Network is working on, which is how that applies to our locally engaged staff. There is a lot of work that needs to be done to ensure we are providing, within the local labour context, the kind of support to our women employees at key moments in their lives. Maternity leave comes to mind.
The Chair: Thank you very much. I think with the subject of the foreign service directives, we will get back to that in our study. It’s an ongoing concern. Of course, as we’ve heard, the Treasury Board is quite involved in that and there are discussions that go on. Your experience is quite helpful in that regard.
We’ll move further into our second round.
Senator Ravalia: This question is for Ms. McCardell.
During his appearance before the committee on March 9, John Baird, a former Minister of Foreign Affairs, underscored the importance of creating a climate at Global Affairs in which employees felt free to express diverging views, in part, to avoid what he described as groupthink. He believes that decisions made after discussion and debate that include varying perspectives are invariably better.
Would you agree with Mr. Baird or do you feel that we’re still perhaps caught in a policy of groupthink and that individuals may be reluctant to speak out?
Ms. McCardell: Thank you.
One of the overall themes that all of the champions here today agree upon is that we will do policy better if we have a broader range of experience and we bring different ideas to the table. With that, one of the common phrases in this is that employees are able to bring their whole selves to the workplace. Bringing your whole self — who you are, your belief systems, your experience, your history, your culture — into a foreign ministry, above all other places, helps you to assess what’s taking place and make the right decisions.
On the broader question of people being willing to share their views, it’s incumbent upon all of us in Global Affairs around the table today and our managers to ensure that our employees feel comfortable to bring that whole self to offer their views and for all of us to consider them thoughtfully. We’ll do better as a government and a foreign ministry that way.
Senator Ravalia: Thank you. Did anyone else care to comment on that?
Mr. Sharma: It’s a good question.
One of the roles of the champions is that we can bring back, for both sides, the different views. Clearly, our different networks have very strong views on the various issues. It’s our responsibility to have those views brought forward in different forums with senior managers because they might not otherwise have had an opportunity to air those views.
[Translation]
Senator Gerba: I would like to thank all the champions in your respective areas at Global Affairs Canada, or GAC.
The difference and the current changes are noticeable, and one of the changes I noticed when I was in Africa was that there were more Black heads of mission. That leads me to a question for Madam Ambassador, who is the minorities champion.
In a brief submitted to the committee, members of 1834 Fellowship Project indicate that one of the criteria for the advancement of GAC officers is whether or not they serve at large missions. Black officers are reportedly doubly affected since they are posted to smaller missions and, because of their identity or origin, are regularly transferred to missions in Africa or in the Caribbean.
On page 4 of that brief, the members state that those nations are nonetheless still subject to stereotypes and negative perceptions in Canada and its public service. What do you think of that statement by the members of the 1834 Fellowship Project?
My second question is the following: Does the posting of Black officers to missions in Africa or the Caribbean limit their advancement at GAC?
The Chair: Is that question for Madam Ambassador?
Senator Gerba: Yes.
Ms. Rekhi: Thank you for the questions. That is an important and interesting issue.
[English]
I would say that the Black Employees Network, which is a subgroup of the Visible Minorities Network and a dedicated space for Black employees, would be best placed to speak to those lived experiences. What I do hear — and I think the data bears this out, but, again, the department can provide more detailed data — is that the experiences of Black employees at Global Affairs Canada require more attention and action. We had spoken earlier about Black representation. You had asked the question about Black women in the department. Black representation at the executive level in our department is going up, but it is slow, frankly. It was 0.8% in 2018, up to 1.1% in 2022. It is heading in the right direction, but it is slow.
Regarding specific barriers for Black employees, they absolutely exist. When I speak to the networks, network members and individuals about those key issues — which generally fall into the baskets of representation, career advancement, harassment in the workplace and issues around mental health and well-being — the experiences of the Black employees are very specific.
Regarding the question of stereotyping or being limited to certain postings, again, I think that Black employees in our department are best placed to speak to those specific experiences. But it is quite clear that it is one area where we have a lot of work to do. It is an area where the department is committed to do more.
When speaking to our Federal Anti-Racism Secretariat and our deputy ministers, the groups where there are gaps are Black employees, Indigenous employees and employees with disabilities. When we look at targeted action, that’s where senior management is looking in a focused way.
The Chair: Thank you. I would imagine, ambassador and Ms. McCardell, that there are receiving country issues, too, if you’re sending diplomats out to certain countries.
I mentioned the heads of mission before, but it’s certainly the case, I think, for more junior levels as well, if I’m correct on that.
Senator Coyle: I’ll be much more precise in my questions, and I have two questions.
The first one is following up on what Assistant Deputy Minister McCardell mentioned, which is that there is, I believe, currently gender parity with heads of mission, and that’s a good thing. It’s a very recent thing, and I suspect there was quite a bump in a very recent period that got it there.
I’ll put two questions out there: What is required, other than political will, to sustain it? Is there something else that can be done beyond political will to sustain that? I guess the same question for the diversity numbers that we have heard.
The second question is about official language training and whether that, in fact, is or is not offered now to new recruits and the importance of that, if it is not.
Thank you.
Ms. McCardell: Mr. Chair, on the question of parity in ambassador appointments, I say “parity,” but it is between 48.5 and 50%, so we’ll call it near parity. That was a long time coming. It’s been like that since about 2018, and what it was, it was the will to do it.
It draws an important distinction between when you have the will because you can nominate heads of mission at equal percentage, which is distinct from the whole pipeline of a career, which is recruitment, promotion and acting assignment opportunities. That track is a more complex one, and I don’t want to take away from the importance of the symbolism of fifty-fifty, but there’s a lot of work — as I think you’re acknowledging — on the career track below just the simple nomination level.
But it’s important, and I would say that there are only a couple of countries in the world where we have not sent a woman ambassador. Our ambassador to China this year was the first woman in China. We currently have a woman Chargés d’affaires even in Saudi Arabia right now, so the number is getting smaller and smaller.
On the official languages, for the last recruitment exercise, employees who were brought in are being trained in official languages. What you’re getting at is that has not always been the case because of the resources required to train official languages, but in the last recruitment exercise, and I believe going forward, every effort is being made to find the funding for official language training.
The question of representation from the breadth of Canada requires us to be very attentive, and it has also been an issue raised in our representation of visible minorities when we recruit people who may speak two, three or four languages, but they may not speak both of our official languages.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
Senator M. Deacon: My questions have been mostly covered by your question and Senator Coyle’s. I was really looking at trying to understand official languages and travelling to other countries that might not have the same focus on diversity, values and LGBTQ that we talked about.
That is sufficient. Thank you.
Senator Boniface: I’ll be brief in terms of the question.
As you know, often the expression goes, “Culture will eat policy any day of the week.” I’m interested, as champions, how you’re trying to address any cultural issues.
I’ll give you the example we were given. Someone at the Global Affairs Canada’s Young Professionals Network, I think, indicated there is this notion that you have to stay so long in certain positions before you go to the next, and the opportunity opens as you go. Given that you have a generation of young people coming up who will have other opportunities given the current market, I’m wondering if you’ve been able to or have had to address the cultural issues within the organization itself?
The Chair: Who wants to take that?
Mr. Wheeler, your mic is on.
Mr. Wheeler: By default, my little red light came on.
If I understand the question correctly, have we had to deal with the need for cultural change or how do we face those challenges?
Obviously, from what I mentioned before, my own career has seen a cultural shift in our department. What’s interesting is that many people of my generation may look back and say that on our set of issues, generally — discrimination against LGBTQ2+ people — the world has changed.
However, what we are also coming to realize, as some of the big milestones of that movement has achieved goals, is that we’re a very diverse community within the community. One of the interesting things that we’re finding — and senators have heard some of the positive trends that are happening in the numbers that we’ve been able to see — the pride community, and I’m just going to call it the “pride community” because I always get the alphabet soup wrong, is a community that’s not an officially recognized employment equity community, so we’re not covered under the legislation. There is no data.
It would be hard for me to say how we are measuring success on representation in the pipeline at the senior levels because we have nowhere to start to compare, no data to use to identify gaps. We’re certainly looking at how modernization and reform of employment equity legislation will give us the tools to be able to address that in the future.
The other area where we do have some data that has been helpful for us to refocus our energies is around perceptions of public servants as a welcoming, inclusive environment, and that can be judged by their answers on the Public Survey Employee Survey on things around have they felt aggression, harassment or discrimination.
A couple of years ago, we started receiving, as champions, to the extent that it’s possible, some disaggregated numbers from the overall dashboard the department gets. Because people can self-select, even though it’s not an employment equity requirement to keep that data, there is now enough data to look.
What we found is that on those questions which I would say refer to how people feel as being able to bring their authentic selves to work, gays and lesbians do very well. We have largely similar rates of those same questions around aggression, harassment and discrimination. The rest of the alphabet soup doesn’t feel so well with a marked 10% or 15% lower rate of response.
That said to us that we need to do some work to put our arms around the entire community, so we have added a trans adviser to our steering group. We have put a lot of energy into what we call “positive space initiative training” where we’re trying to help people understand all of the facets of diversity and demystify that so that people are more comfortable with difference, even just navigating pronouns and navigating the diversity of the people that they work with.
There’s still work to be done on culture change regardless of how far we’ve come.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
Senator Woo: Is there a backlash from non-equity-seeking groups in the department, say, straight, White European men who are in their forties or early fifties who feel they’re being passed over for senior positions because they don’t belong to the right groups?
The Chair: I’m not sure anyone wants to touch that question, Senator Woo, however, we always go to the most senior person, and that is the assistant deputy minister.
Ms. McCardell: Thank you, in particular, Mr. Chair.
Change isn’t always comfortable.
It isn’t always comfortable at Global Affairs, in the public service or in Canadian society. Change can be uncomfortable for some people, and it can be perceived as undermining their position or their sense of or a nostalgia for a past that might never have been.
It’s important in the work we do and in the women’s network to bring along the broader society and to talk about allies. I’m not saying that’s going to solve the concerns of some; I don’t know if there is anything that could, in some cases. But I think there is a real need to explain and to be focused, determined and unrelenting in doing the things that need to be done in the face of what might be resistance.
Certainly within Global Affairs Canada and in the broader public service, the Clerk of the Privy Council was really clear about what her goals were, and folks need to get on the page with that.
[Translation]
Senator Gerba: I would like to go back to what Ms. McCardell said. In her brief, she cited the examples of Germany, the United Kingdom and Sweden, which allow public servants who are posted abroad to share the position with their spouse.
Can you elaborate on this practice? What diplomatic best practices would you recommend to us in this regard?
Ms. McCardell: Thank you for the question, senator, and thank you for the opportunity to present certain options and practices from around the world.
I believe you are about to embark on a more in-depth study of other countries’ practices. On one hand, the report presents the views of the Women’s Network as a whole, insofar as they explored those options. We say we want to give women more opportunities, but what does that mean? So we provided examples from countries that already have those practices.
Our department is driving efforts to look at the future of diplomacy in Canada and to explore options. We are not necessarily in favour of a single example, but I think the facts are there. We often heard how Canadian society has undergone profound change in recent years. Global Affairs Canada must reflect that change and develop practices consistent with it.
That is an example of work sharing, yet there are other cases of ambassadors who are based in Ottawa, while being responsible for distant countries. This opens the door to an ambassador position for someone, for instance, who has experienced family breakdown or whose children and spouse could not follow them.
There are some creative approaches to examine as to how Canada can further its foreign policy objectives while considering the needs of its employees and of today’s society.
[English]
The Chair: For my last question, I’m afraid I’m going to go back to the foreign service directives. My question is for Mr. Sharma.
One part of it is self-identification. Self-identification is an issue that pertains to all groups, but I’m particularly interested in how you see that working in the disabled community.
The second question is around privacy. In my own experience — and Mr. Sharma and I shared an experience because we both have disabled children — getting working group B action on our various needs when abroad was not easy. It was difficult, and, in some cases, I found it particularly humiliating. I did not feel we were getting much privacy in terms of the supports we needed for our autistic son at the time.
First of all, there’s the question of self-identification, and second, are measures there to at least ensure some dignity and privacy for the employee and the employee’s family?
Mr. Sharma: Self-identification is a really good topic. I don’t want to take up — Mr. Wheeler was talking about the public service survey. Next to Black public servants, the level of fear and discrimination felt by persons with disabilities is the highest.
While you cannot really hide your visible minority status, you might be able to hide your disability. There’s a great fear of coming out to self-identify because there’s a fear that your career prospects will be very limited.
The concept of neurodivergence is becoming more of a public discussion. However, I had a conversation this morning with somebody who received the diagnosis of autism and he was effectively worried that it not get out because he did not know what that would mean for his career. We need to face that issue.
For persons with disabilities, it’s a wide spectrum. Sometimes, it’s hard to say we’re all in one box. We need to really work on creating an environment and culture, as you said, senator, that allows that. A lot of managers don’t know what to do with it. They feel personally responsible for fixing it and they therefore don’t want to take it on. Before you can have policy or will, you need to have a culture that wants to change that. We need to get there.
On the issue of FSDs and working group B, you’re absolutely right, chair. You have to almost prove that you’re not trying to game the system and not trying to get something extra for yourself. It works for some when you’re a good advocate and when you can make your case more effectively, but not everybody can do that. It shouldn’t have to be the case that you have to reprove yourself each time, as Mr. Wheeler mentioned, in terms of whether your spouse is your spouse or whether your son has a disability. To a certain extent, if you have the capacity to advocate, speak and get along, it’s easier for some. But I’ve seen and I’ve dealt with other cases where they’ve lost their resilience to be diplomatic. They end up being their own worst advocates because the system has really worn them down.
To get back to Senator Boniface’s question about retention, there’s retention, but there’s also rotationality. If you feel that it’s just not worth it to go through that fight every time, you’re just going to lay low, and I don’t think you’re going to get your best people abroad. I’ve had very good experiences with FSDs, and I’ve had not-so-good experiences. It changes. The defining issue for us is really identifying that culture that allows people not to have to prove themselves every time for FSDs, senator.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
It’s going on midnight in Prague, so I’d like to thank Ambassador Rekhi for her perseverance in being with us. Thank you, Assistant Deputy Minister McCardell, as always; Executive Director Vikas Sharma; and Chief of Protocol Stewart Wheeler, for being with us today. Thank you very much. We’ve been very enriched by your contributions to the meeting and discussion today.
Colleagues, regarding tomorrow, there are two parts. We will be reviewing the draft report on sanctions legislation, and in terms of furthering this study, we will be hearing from the Honourable Lloyd Axworthy, a former foreign minister, who will be joining us tomorrow.
If there are no other comments or questions, thank you.
(The committee adjourned.)