THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS AND INTERNATIONAL TRADE
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Wednesday, October 19, 2022
The Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade met with videoconference this day at 4:01 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: I welcome all of you.
My name is Peter Boehm. I am a senator from Ontario and the Chair of the Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade.
[English]
Before we begin, we’re going to do something we haven’t done in a while, and that is to allow each senator to introduce themselves, since we are all physically present.
Senator Ravalia: Mohamed-Iqbal Ravalia, representing Newfoundland and Labrador.
[Translation]
Senator Gerba: Hello. My name is Amina Gerba. I have been a senator for one year and I represent Quebec.
[English]
Senator Greene: Steve Greene from Nova Scotia.
Senator Woo: Yuen Pau Woo from British Columbia.
Senator Harder: Peter Harder, Ontario.
Senator Boniface: Gwen Boniface, Ontario.
Senator Coyle: Mary Coyle, Nova Scotia.
Senator M. Deacon: Senator Marty Deacon, Ontario.
The Chair: Thank you very much, colleagues. I wish to welcome all of you as well as people across Canada who may be watching us.
Today, we are continuing our study on Canada’s foreign service. The objective of the study is to evaluate if Canada’s foreign service and foreign policy machinery is fit for purpose and ready to respond to the global challenges today and in the future.
While Global Affairs Canada plays a leading role in defining, advancing and representing Canada’s interests abroad, it often draws from and collaborates closely with other federal departments and agencies to fulfill its responsibilities.
You will recall that, two weeks ago, the committee began to look at how the mandates and work of Global Affairs Canada, the foreign service and other government departments intersect. We had officials from CSIS, the RCMP and IRCC as witnesses. Today, we welcome more government entities that play international roles.
For the first part of our meeting, we are pleased to welcome from Environment and Climate Change Canada, or ECCC, Stephen de Boer, Assistant Deputy Minister, International Affairs Branch, who is also our former ambassador to the World Trade Organization in Geneva and who was also ambassador to Poland. We also welcome Jeanne-Marie Huddleston, Director General, Bilateral Affairs and Trade. From Switzerland, where it is rather late, we welcome our Ambassador for Climate Change, Catherine Stewart, who is probably into her ninth or tenth year of negotiations on climate change on behalf of Canada. From the Canada Border Services Agency, or CBSA, we have Natasha Manji, Director General, International Policy and Partnerships Directorate.
Welcome, and thank you for being with us. We are ready to hear your opening remarks, which will be followed by questions from senators, as is the usual practice.
Mr. de Boer, the floor is yours.
Stephen de Boer, Assistant Deputy Minister, International Affairs Branch, Environment and Climate Change Canada:
Good afternoon. It is a pleasure to join you today to provide an overview of how the mandate and work of Environment and Climate Change Canada, or ECCC, intersect with Global Affairs Canada and the Canadian foreign service, and to answer any questions you may have.
ECCC is the lead federal department for a wide range of environmental issues. The department takes action through science-based research and monitoring, policy and regulatory development, and the enforcement of environmental laws. The department’s programs focus on minimizing threats to Canadians and their environment from pollution; equipping Canadians to make informed decisions on weather, water and climate conditions; and conserving and restoring Canada’s natural environment.
[Translation]
In the international realm, Environment and Climate Change Canada is front and centre for the Government of Canada in dealing with the triple crises of climate change, biodiversity loss and pollution, which are widely viewed as foreign policy issues.
[English]
This is reflected in the mandate letter for the Minister of Environment and Climate Change, where he has been tasked to, in collaboration with the Minister of Foreign Affairs, continue Canadian leadership in international efforts to combat climate change; work with the Minister of International Trade to continue Canada’s leadership on the global effort to phase out coal-powered electricity, the mining of thermal coal and ban thermal coal exports; and work with the Minister of International Development to mobilize and provide climate finance to support developing country adaptation, mitigation and resilience, including support for small island states at particular risk of climate-related emergencies.
More broadly, Canada is a signatory to a number of multilateral environmental agreements, including on climate change and biodiversity; and ECCC has bilateral relationships with a number of countries in the areas of climate change and environmental protection, and through the negotiation and implementation of environment chapters in Canada’s free trade agreements.
On the development and policy side, a key area of intersection is on climate finance. Global Affairs Canada, or GAC, implements the vast majority of Canada’s $5.3 billion climate finance envelope, with policy advice from ECCC.
Building on lessons learned from the first tranche of $2.65 billion, we now have a governance structure to better coordinate initiatives and the development of Canada’s climate finance investment plan across government. Even though ECCC implements a small portion of the finance envelope, we advance many climate finance policy discussions, including work on a climate finance delivery report with Germany, and we engage with developing countries in climate finance discussions.
ECCC has also worked with GAC and its network of missions abroad to gather intelligence and deliver démarches ahead of key multilateral meetings such as, for example, those under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. ECCC works with missions so they can help advance our objectives under initiatives such as the Powering Past Coal Alliance, Just Energy Transition Partnerships, and the forthcoming negotiations toward a new international treaty on plastic pollution.
ECCC also has significant relationships with GAC to coordinate G7 and G20 positions, ensuring that climate and environment issues are well coordinated across government.
[Translation]
Similarly, ECCC works closely with Global Affairs Canada and its missions to support high-level engagement or visits to advance Canada’s priorities, and provide intelligence to inform ECCC’s engagement with international partners on important issues.
[English]
Finally, ECCC works closely with international trade officials to achieve Canada’s ambitious trade agenda, including through negotiating and implementing robust environmental chapters in Canada’s FTAs and environmental cooperation agreements, or ECAs, that seek to ensure that environmental protection is upheld as trade and investment are liberalized. The number of trade negotiations and agreements has increased exponentially over the last few years, and Canada is currently negotiating trade agreements with India, the United Kingdom, Indonesia, and the Association of South East Asian Nations.
In collaboration with GAC, ECCC also play a role in promoting Canadian clean technologies in the global market. ECCC helps identify and resolve barriers to the deployment and scale up of clean technologies, and finds new opportunities for Canadian exporters by leveraging cooperation under Canada’s FTAs and ECAs.
In closing, ECCC has a broad mandate for the environment and climate change internationally. We work closely with GAC and other key federal departments, as well as international partners to advance ambitious outcomes through multilateral, bilateral and regional efforts. I hope this information has been helpful, and I am happy to answer any questions. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. de Boer.
[Translation]
Natasha Manji, Director General, International Policy and Partnerships Directorate, Canada Border Services Agency: Thank you for the opportunity to speak to you today and provide some clarity and background on the roles and responsibilities of the Canada Border Services Agency on the international stage.
[English]
As mentioned earlier, I am Natasha Manji, the Director General of International Policy and Partnerships Directorate at the Canadian Border Service Agency, or CBSA.
As you well know, the CBSA facilitates the free flow of legitimate trade and travel across Canadian borders while also working to ensure the safety and security of our citizens. Managing trade and travel is a complex and fluid business that requires we adapt quickly to rapidly changing environmental factors and emerging risks both at home and abroad.
To help carry out our mandate, the CBSA deploys officers abroad as part of our efforts to push the border out. This not only allows us to better understand and collaborate with our international partners, but it also lets us effectively assess and address trade and traveller risks early before they reach our shores.
The agency currently has 59 CBSA employees who are posted to 40 missions in 35 countries around the world. We also have 49 locally engaged staff who serve as liaison officer assistants. The international network is divided into three regions managed by four regional directors, with two for the Americas region. Each regional director is supported by international network managers who in turn lead their respective teams of liaison officers. Typically, each liaison officer is posted in a specific country and will be accredited to a number of countries.
Our overseas staff engages in several key activities that are important to the agency, to the broader Government of Canada and to the security and prosperity of Canadians. We work with a wide range of national and international partners to deter and prevent unauthorized trade or travel before the persons or goods hit Canada. This includes illegal migration. On the other side of that coin, we facilitate legitimate travel and goods, such as personal protective equipment during the pandemic.
We report on international border management information, touching on significant political, economic, migration and social developments. This reporting informs our operational and strategic decision-making here at home. And we contribute to Canada’s responses to crises including the pandemic, and international emergencies, such as Afghanistan, Ukraine, Syria and other conflicts or disasters requiring facilitation and evacuation, and in some cases, repatriation. Our liaison officers and executives also act as the primary liaison point for international and regional customs and border control authorities, participate in allied security networks and examine and recommend opportunities to explore arrangements and agreements that advance CBSA priorities.
Not only are we working abroad to strengthen our own border management capacity, we are also helping other countries strengthen their own. To this end, our officers are providing training and assistance in select countries and establishing strong communications networks on the ground with like-minded partners. These kinds of activities proved especially important during the pandemic in our efforts to support repatriation flights and facilitate the movement of vaccines to Canada. The work we are doing around the globe is strongly supported by headquarters here in Ottawa, which provides regular policy guidance and human resources support to our international network.
In closing, the CBSA has a broad and diverse mandate in the international region, and it is work that we cannot do alone. We work collaboratively with other government departments, such as our Public Safety Portfolio partners, IRCC, Global Affairs Canada and Transport Canada, as well as airlines, foreign border authorities and international partners to ensure that we are able to identify and interdict threats bound to Canada.
At every level, our CBSA officers and executives are proud to be an integral part of team Canada in our foreign missions, providing value added to the agency, the Government and our country and citizens. I hope this information has been helpful, and I am pleased to answer your questions.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Ms. Manji.
[Translation]
I wish to inform members that you will each have a maximum of only four minutes for the first round. This includes questions and answers.
[English]
Therefore, to members and witnesses, please be as concise as you can, and we can always go to a second round if we have the time to do so.
Senator Coyle: Thank you to the witnesses with us here today. We’re learning a lot about Canada’s global workforce, and you’re talking about the workforce that has international aspects within your departments.
I’m particularly interested in the processes of recruitment of your workforce. Could you speak a little bit about how you recruit those who are involved in your international work? Could you tell us whether you look within the department, or whether you already have people that you train up for that international work and/or do you recruit externally? If so, how do you do that recruitment? What sort of profiles of professionals are you looking for internally or externally? And has that changed at all with the changing world and the changing mandate that you have?
Ms. Manji: Thank you very much for the question. At the CBSA, our international workforce is sourced internally, and we fill our positions on an assignment basis. That’s part of a system that we have been establishing at the CBSA within the strategic policy branch to provide for the movement of employees within and outside of Canada.
Every two years, we do recruitment drives to do a call-out across our experienced border officers to apply for and put their hands up for interest in an international posting. This is a pretty robust process at that takes the better part of a year to accomplish, so in that way that recruitment process is evergreen. We use that inventory to staff positions every year, alongside doing a mix of cross postings with people who have already been posted to our network. In selecting candidates we look at individual experience, language skills, the threat environment, personal suitability skills, and then we also try to make sure that our workforce abroad reflects the demographics of Canada.
You asked if that recruitment process has changed over time. Certainly, over the course of the pandemic, our liaison officers and our network have been put to the test in terms of resilience and the kinds of conditions that might require officers to spend long durations of time alone, away from family. One of the pieces that we have started to add into our recruitment process is a success profile, enabling potential officers to consider all of the facets of being posted and to ensure that they’re going into that process with eyes wide open, we would say.
Once that recruitment process is done and we have made selections to staff our positions, officers go through a 10-week training process where they spend time with each other, learn together and build on the extensive knowledge they have as officers and learn about how to implement the CBSA mandate abroad. That’s a 10-week process.
Senator Coyle: Thank you. Anybody from ECCC?
The Chair: I’m afraid we’re out of time on that one. We’ll chalk that up to the second round, Senator Coyle, if you don’t mind.
Senator M. Deacon: Thank you for being here. As my previous colleague said, we are learning a lot about your operations over the last month. My first question is for Environment Canada.
What is the link between your department and the GAC when organizing the meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change? It’s so big. What areas you have found work in common, strengthening your presence at COP meetings, and what areas can we improve upon?
Mr. de Boer: For something like the conference of the parties, senator, it is a large undertaking. The lead on the negotiations comes from Environment Canada, and most of the technical expertise comes from Environment Canada. However, a substantial portion — as I indicated in my opening remarks — on climate finance comes from Global Affairs Canada. The technical expertise on financing is from Global Affairs Canada.
Some of the formalities around attending such a conference, getting accreditation, these types of things, go through Global Affairs Canada, signed off by the Minister of Foreign Affairs. For any of these meetings, we engage with the mission that happens to be in that particular country. For example, our mission in Egypt is working hard with us to deliver and support the work at the UNFCCC Conference of the Parties which is being held in Sharm el-Sheikh. Every time we travel abroad; every time we engage in international activities, we engage with the Global Affairs Canada mission network who then provides support for us, for the ministers, to facilitate those meetings.
Senator M. Deacon: Do you think pieces of this that could be even better aligned or do you find challenges? Although it’s a robust event, is it a pretty good set-up?
Mr. de Boer: I don’t have any issues around alignment, but every bureaucrat will tell you that they need more people. That would always be welcome, but it is absolutely aligned.
The Chair: If you don’t mind, senator, maybe Ambassador Stewart has a comment on that because she’s been doing this for quite some time.
Catherine Stewart, Ambassador for Climate Change, Environment and Climate Change Canada: I’m happy to chime in.
I’ve been running the overall coordination of COP for the past five COPs. I think we’re a pretty well-oiled machine in terms of coordinating ourselves across government and preparations for COP. A lot of briefings happen at the ADM level across government where we communicate what we’re working on in terms of our priorities for COP. This gives GAC, and other government departments, the opportunity to weigh in, collaborate and coordinate. We’ve had many years of running COPs, doing the main coordination out of ECCC. I think it’s a pretty well-oiled machine in terms of our ability to work closely together and pull off a successful COP for Canada.
The Chair: Thank you, Ambassador.
Senator Woo: Thank you to the witnesses. I would like to give ECCC an opportunity to answer Senator Coyle’s question, but, to put a twist on it for Mr. de Boer and Ambassador Stewart. Could you tell us a bit about your personal career trajectory? You were an ambassador and Ambassador Stewart is currently representing us on climate issues. Did you start in the foreign service, for example? Were you a foreign service officer? Whether you were or you weren’t, what was it in your career development and training that made you such excellent candidates for ambassadorial positions?
Ultimately, this committee is not just about how do we have a foreign service that’s fit for purpose but, in my opinion, it’s about how we find the right people to represent Canada internationally in all the spheres of work. This is for both of you and perhaps other witnesses may want to chime in as well. Can you give us a sense of your career perspective on what made the difference and how you might change things?
Mr. de Boer: I did not anticipate this question, but I do think that your question lends itself, somewhat, to a response to Senator Coyle’s question, in that there is a fair bit of movement between Global Affairs Canada and Environment Canada employees. I’m one of those cases. This is now my second time at ECCC having moved from GAC to ECCC, then gone on to a posting and then come back to it. In this, I’m not alone.
In terms of our own recruitment, and also in terms of my own career, there needs to be an absolute interest in international issues. Also, a certain sensibility and sensitivity are required when you’re working on international issues, a discretion that’s required, that I see in my own organization with those employees. I don’t want to overstate this, but I don’t think that diplomats necessarily are that different from anyone else in the bureaucracy except for the fact that they may have this overwhelming interest in some of these more international aspects or issues.
With respect to our own recruitment within the international affairs branch, we use regular recruitment processes, as every other department does, but we tend to attract those candidates who are very interested in international issues and those candidates who are very interested in environmental issues. There is a bit of a self-selection, I would say, within those processes.
I’m not sure if my other colleagues wish to answer.
The Chair: I think Ambassador Stewart was asked as well, and you have about a minute.
Ms. Stewart: Definitely, I’ve had a strong international interest through my career, but I have never worked at Global Affairs. For me, this demonstrates that there are a lot of really interesting international jobs you can do outside of Global Affairs. I started my career at the Department of National Defence supporting the Minister of Defence in NATO ministerials, for example, in a managerial position at that time. However, I enjoyed supporting bilateral meetings, working closely with Global Affairs to be able to support the defence minister at the time. It then turned into other opportunities, including the last eight years, where I’ve worked in International Affairs at Environment and Climate Change.
Senator Woo: Mr. de Boer, you didn’t rise through the ranks of the FSO track, or did you?
Mr. de Boer: I was never a foreign service officer. I joined Global Affairs Canada mid-career from the Government of Ontario. My career doesn’t necessarily follow a normal Global Affairs Canada trajectory, although my case is becoming more the norm.
The Chair: Thank you. We’re out of time in that segment.
We still have room in the first round. We’ll go to Senator Ravalia and then I might have a question if no one else puts up their hand. I encourage you all to think of questions.
Senator Ravalia: Thank you to our witnesses. My question is for Mr. de Boer and Ambassador Stewart.
Current evidence suggests that the potential of increased climate migrants is a reality that many nations, including ours, will have to prepare for. Would you be able to summarize for me the key strategies that you are applying in the most vulnerable nations to ensure food security and potentially reduce the risk of a large climate migratory pattern? In particular, could you elaborate on your department’s information sharing and collaboration with GAC and other agencies?
Mr. de Boer: I’ll kick off, but I will definitely turn to our climate ambassador as well.
There are a number of approaches that Canada is taking, particularly in the negotiating context. One is to ensure that we all follow the mitigation commitments we’ve made under the UNFCCC. The second stream of work is on adaptation, which is incredibly important, so that people can adjust to the reality of climate change. Our $5.3 billion in support for climate change follows both tracks — mitigation and adaptation — to help countries to try to mitigate and then to adapt to climate change.
So there’s the rule-making aspect, and there’s the financial support aspect to that. What you’re talking about, senator, is something that, thankfully, more and more people in the world are beginning to appreciate and realize: The global crisis is real, and the impacts of climate change are real and extend beyond what we had originally thought, such as migration, food security and those types of issues. It’s becoming more and more urgent.
We’re gathering our own information within the Canadian context, and we’re feeding a lot of that information into the international context, so the information is generally available. The Canadian information is publicly available, and it feeds into international processes, including the intergovernmental committee that is under the UNFCCC. That information is not a secret. You see on TV, as well, where reports will come out, so we’re all admonished to do more.
I’ll now turn to our ambassador, if there’s anything more to add.
Ms. Stewart: I think that’s absolutely right — pointing to climate finance and the work that we do there as an example of a strategy on how we’re supporting the most vulnerable.
I would also just point to the role of the climate change ambassador. I am jointly appointed by the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Minister of Environment and Climate Change. In this role, I am drawing the linkages between not only the two departments but also across government, because there are so many cross-cutting issues.
I would highlight biodiversity, as an example. The climate and biodiversity nexus is an important one that we’re talking more about now. Health is another, as is climate migration and so on. So this position alone suggests that there’s a greater collaboration happening between departments.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
[Translation]
Senator Gerba: Thank you to our guests today. For the 2021-26 period, Canada announced that it is doubling its international funding for the climate solution. This is an increase from $2.65 billion to $5.3 billion. Of this, I understand that $300 million is earmarked to fund nature-based solutions (NBS) to support the poorest countries, such as those in sub-Saharan Africa. I would like to know: are you working with GAC on this program, and how are the countries chosen? Is GAC involved in the selection of these countries? What criteria are used to help the countries that are most affected? Thank you.
[English]
Mr. de Boer: It’s more than GAC being involved; GAC is in the driver’s seat with respect to climate financing. It’s part of the overall development financing package that GAC puts together. ECCC very much provides advice and works very closely with Global Affairs Canada, but Global Affairs Canada almost exclusively manages the climate finance envelope. There’s a small portion that is held back for bilateral programming and some multilateral programming from Environment Canada, but it’s a very small part of that funding.
I don’t have a clear line of sight on exactly how that is allocated and how countries are selected, but I know we prioritize certain countries. Small island states are one such grouping and the most vulnerable.
There are streams of work on food security and adaptation, for example, and those streams of work align with the priorities we have identified as a government — for example, powering past coal, finding sources of energy, and on the mitigation side, reducing methane emissions.
I would defer, again, to our ambassador.
Ms. Stewart: Thank you. Yes, I would note that 20% of Canada’s climate finance envelope will go toward nature-based solutions and biodiversity co-benefits. I didn’t hear your amount exactly, senator, but I just wanted to make that clear.
As Stephen De Boer mentioned at the beginning, we have a governance structure set up that brings government departments together to talk about the climate finance envelope and the allocation of funding. There is a lot of coordination there, and we could follow up on further details.
Senator Harder: Thank you to our witnesses. My questions are for Natasha Manji.
I’d like you to give us a little bit more colour, and context to the locally engaged staff. I think they are a hidden aspect of our workforce, internationally. How do you recruit them? Are you concerned about security issues? Are there linkages to other locally engaged staff within our embassies? Could you give us a little more detail on the management of locally engaged staff that are servicing your department?
Ms. Manji: Absolutely. Thank you for the question.
As you said, the locally engaged staff are an important part of the work we do, and I’m sure I’m speaking for my other government partners, as well, who are posted at missions abroad.
Our locally engaged staff are recruited locally through competitive processes, posted advertisements and sometimes also through already existing locally engaged staff within missions and embassies. We’re looking for people who can help us carry out the scope of our mandate where we are posted.
They are a big part of making sure we have a pulse on local culture, language and relationships. Our LESs play a key role in navigating that space. But because we have people on assignment and then we have rotation every year at different times, those locally engaged staff also play a really big role in the continuity of our work and ensuring that when our new officers come in, they have a pretty good foundation already for success in establishing partnerships, navigating the embassy or the mission and getting up to speed quickly.
While a duty of care for locally engaged staff is the responsibility of the head of mission, we take a keen interest in the well-being of our locally engaged staff. We want them to very much feel a part of team CBSA. To that end, we take time to include our locally engaged staff in meetings, understanding how we’re doing, and every year each of our regions has an annual regional meeting. Each region takes a turn when all of our locally engaged staff in that region join for the regional meeting and have a parallel program to support them in their work supporting the CBSA.
You also asked if there are links to other teams, and I would say there is. In my experience when I was posted, our locally engaged staff, especially in the public safety portfolio, would sometimes work in one area and then take on responsibilities in another area, which we found really helpful not only for their own development and breadth of experience, but it served each of us because their relationships got stronger and their ability to connect dots and see a broader picture of the work that we’re doing became that much stronger and deeper as well.
Senator Harder: In striking how many locally engaged versus how many postings — do you think you have the balance right? It’s so much cheaper to have locally engaged staff. Are you at all looking at how you can move up the value chain, if I can put it that way, for locally engaged staff?
Ms. Manji: Right now our balance is almost exactly one-to-one with our liaison officers. That balance is working for us, because all of those supportive roles and relationships really help facilitate the law enforcement role and authority that we have. Some of those authorities and activities are not able to be done by locally engaged staff. However, I think that the ability for us to have our locally engaged staff take on what they can to do a fuller scope of the role does help us do more of our role, too. It is definitely a big boost to our ability to carry out our role.
Senator MacDonald: Regarding the issue of climate change, there seems to be a significant disconnect between rhetoric and reality. Climate change is always said to be an urgent priority, yet the Government of Canada has never met a single climate change target. I’d like to know, is there frustration amongst officials that the rhetoric never seems to match the reality, or is there an understanding amongst the officials that this rhetoric is fundamentally meaningless?
The Chair: You know what I’m going to say. It goes a little bit beyond the mandate that we’re looking at in terms of Global Affairs Canada. Mr. de Boer, if you want to respond to that, or ambassador, you might want to as well.
Mr. de Boer: I think it’s important to note that it’s not International Affairs Branch that is responsible for Canada meeting its climate change targets or its international commitments, but I would say, for our part, there’s a great deal of optimism that Canada will make its international commitments.
Ms. Stewart: I would add that yesterday the Prime Minister spoke to this exact issue in a conference called 2030 in Focus. He’s very confident, and we’re confident, in the plan that’s been developed, the Emissions Reduction Plan, and all the work that’s gone into climate change action since 2015 and that we’ll meet the target.
Senator MacDonald: Again, this is more rhetoric. What variables are we applying to think this is true now and is achievable? What new evidence is there that makes this achievable?
Ms. Stewart: I would just repeat that we do have a climate plan. We have the Emissions Reduction Plan that was released in the spring, and it’s a sector-by-sector approach to addressing climate change and helping us meet our target of 40% to 45% by 2030.
Senator MacDonald: It is what it is.
The Chair: I have a question I wanted to direct to Ms. Manji. CBSA is a relatively new government department or agency. When I joined the foreign service a long time ago, we had some customs officers stationed abroad. So you have grown, and there were circumstances that really impacted this, 9/11 being, I think, the most obvious one.
As you have grown and putting people abroad, are you availing yourselves of any of the services provided by the Canadian Foreign Service Institute, including foreign language training, negotiation skills training and those sorts of things? Do you do that in-house? Do you feel that in foreign language terms you’re well prepared to function abroad, or is this where the reliance on locally engaged staff comes in? I’m assuming you fall under the Foreign Service Directives, or FSDs. That’s a three-part question there.
Ms. Manji: Thank you for your question. You’re right, we are newer, but we have been carrying out our mandate abroad since 1989, originally as a network of citizenship and immigration Canada’s immigration control officers. So, that is still a generally good history abroad.
We do make use of the foreign service training. We do a certain amount of training on our own in that ten-week program for new recruits on documentation, procedural fairness, recommendations to air carriers, and all of those core duty elements. We also rely on the training institute for some of the other pieces, like preparing psychologically for postings abroad, caring for elderly parents, personal security and all of the support that is offered to ensure that our locally engaged staff understand the Foreign Service Directives and how to navigate them.
We also make use of language training. We ensure that our officers, sometimes as part of the recruitment process, have language skills for the area in which they are going, or at least the ability, to liaise with partners and stakeholders appropriately. We do rely on our locally engaged staff to support in that area as well, but certainly, we have a broad mix of languages spoken across our network and by our officers. Can you remind me of the third part of your question?
The Chair: I think you answered it. It was about the Foreign Service Directives, and I’m presuming you would feed into any reform or renegotiation of those directives as a client department.
Ms. Manji: That’s right, we do work with Global Affairs through the MoU, similar to our partners. Our MoU was renegotiated in 2019, and we enjoy a very good relationship with our Global Affairs colleagues in carrying out that MoU. I am also very proud that we have a really strong group that we call international client services, that supports our network abroad on the operational front and working with Global Affairs Canada to make sure that any extraordinary circumstances — and that navigation of the MoU and the FSDs keeps all of our people well supported. Hopefully, we support taking some of the burden of questions and follow-up off of our Global Affairs colleagues who are trying to support many departments.
The Chair: Thank you very much. We will go to the second round. We have ten minutes and we have five senators who want to ask questions. I’m going to cut the question period a bit shorter, and encourage you to be very concise in your questioning and preambles.
Senator Coyle: Mr. de Boer, going back to your workforce again, you mentioned interest in international issues and environment, sensitivity and discretion, and workforce representative of Canada’s population. What about specific areas of expertise that you’re looking for in your recruitment? Where do you source external applicants? Are there any new areas of expertise that are emerging as you work to meet the demands of the future work for Environment and Climate Change Canada?
Mr. de Boer: Our recruitment is typical of recruitment from within other departments. The expertise that we’re looking for, formally, is the expertise that we’re looking for, depending on the generic job descriptions and levels across government.
However, we find that the people who are interested and the most attractive candidates are those who have demonstrated an interest in international issues and have demonstrated some area of expertise in some environmental issues. That is not necessarily a requirement, but it seems to be almost a self‑selection process.
We recruit within the department and across the Government of Canada. We also recruit from universities, we use bridging programs and we have students.
We are very cognizant of factors, and we do recruit in ways that we think will meet the employment equity mandate. We try to have a workforce in the International Affairs Branch that reflects Canada. I should also point out that the IAB is a small organization of 120 people. They are very dedicated, hard‑working and perhaps overworked staff. So it’s hard to generalize everything we do with such a small number of candidates.
With respect to the areas of expertise —
Senator Coyle: Any new ones.
Mr. de Boer: — new areas of expertise, not specifically.
The Chair: Let’s stop it right there. We’ll move on.
Senator M. Deacon: My questions were addressed, so I pass.
Senator Ravalia: I, too, will defer.
Senator Woo: My question is about subject-matter expertise and the division of labour on detailed subject matter between GAC and ECCC. I don’t know how to formulate the question, but I’m trying to get a view from you regarding the appropriate division of labour, particularly given that so much of our international work today, compared to 30 or 40 years ago, rests with aligned departments.
I’ll put it this way: For a young Canadian, fresh out of university, who is interested in international issues and also the environment, would it be better for that person to joint ECCC or to join GAC in a generalist Foreign Affairs career? It’s not about putting one over the other but helping young Canadians think about career paths, what best suits them and which direction to go. It’s a tough question. This is a recruitment opportunity.
Mr. de Boer: It is a tough question, but it also speaks to why it is that my branch is engaging in the work we’re doing and why that resides within Environment and Climate Change Canada. Because the domestic regulatory regime is so intense on these issues, and because the work being done and the expertise in so many areas — with respect to mitigation, methane emissions, plastics, biodiversity, protection of the environment, protection of park lands and wildlife within Canada — all of that is within Environment and Climate Change Canada. So the international interface most logically follows within ECCC.
Your question in terms of where you should go if you want to have an international career is an interesting one, because the Environment Canada experience doesn’t necessitate but invites a certain level of expertise in the international area that, perhaps, a career at Global Affairs does not, but that depends, as well.
So I don’t really know how to answer that question except to say that there is movement between the two departments. Not everyone spends their entire career exclusively at one department or the other. Not to repeat, but I am an example of someone who has moved back and forth. Perhaps this is my final move — I’m not sure — but I’ll leave it there.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
[Translation]
Senator Gerba: I just wanted to get some clarification. The ambassador mentioned that 20% of the aid goes to programs that promote nature-based solutions. I would like to know how this aid is allocated, because I don’t think I got the answer. Also, is there a monitoring mechanism to ensure that the aid is actually going to these countries and that it is being used properly? Are there any liaison officers or external officers from Global Affairs Canada who are making sure that this aid is getting there?
[English]
Ms. Stewart: Thank you very much for your question.
To clarify, Canada’s climate financing is a $5.3-billion envelope and 20% of it will go toward nature-based solutions and biodiversity co-benefits. It’s specifically related to the climate finance envelope.
As I mentioned, we allocate this funding collaboratively with Global Affairs. That five-year envelope requires a lot of discussion between branches and other government departments, as well, in terms of where it would go.
As Mr. de Boer mentioned, Global Affairs has the technical expertise on climate financing. They implement the vast majority of that climate financing, so we rely upon them a lot and upon their technical advice on the allocation of the financing and the follow-through.
We report annually on our climate finance contribution to the UNFCCC through biannual reporting, so we try to be very transparent in terms of the amount of money we are contributing to climate finance and where it is going and being delivered. We distribute a lot of our funding through multilateral banks, for example, including the Green Climate Fund as the main UNFCCC finance mechanism. Those institutions or entities also report to us on funding requirements and performance indicators.
I’m happy to follow up more on this topic of climate finance. It is a very important one; it is important for our developing-country partners as well.
Senator Gerba: Thank you.
The Chair: I’d like to thank Stephen de Boer, Jeanne-Marie Huddleston, Catherine Stewart and Natasha Manji for appearing today.
[Translation]
We will move on to the second part of our meeting. We have representatives from Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency here by videoconference.
[English]
With us today is Kathleen Donohue, Assistant Deputy Minister and Vice-President, International Affairs Branch; and Marie-Noëlle Desrochers, Acting Chief Agriculture Negotiator and Director General, Trade Agreements and Negotiations.
Ms. Donohue, I want to note that you are wearing two hats today — I’m sure that doesn’t mean two salaries, however — as you are also representing the Canadian Food Inspection Agency and you are accompanied by Nathalie Durand, Executive Director, Horizontal and Strategic Initiatives.
Ms. Donohue, the floor is yours.
Kathleen Donohue, Assistant Deputy Minister and Vice-President, International Affairs Branch, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada and Canadian Food Inspection Agency: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
I appreciate the opportunity to speak to the committee members today on Canada’s Foreign Service and to contribute to your study, that is well under way.
As was noted, I do represent both Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency.
Before I begin, I would like to acknowledge that I am addressing you from Ottawa, on the unceded, unsurrendered territory of the Anishinaabe Algonquin Nation. I think that’s important, particularly at this time of the harvest season and the fall.
[Translation]
Two of my colleagues are with me today: Nathalie Durand, Executive Director, Horizontal and Strategic Initiatives, Canadian Food Inspection Agency, and Marie-Noëlle Desrochers, Acting Chief Agricultural Negotiator and Director General of Trade Agreements and Negotiations, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada.
[English]
Today, I will provide an overview of how Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, or AAFC, and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, or CFIA, collaborate with Global Affairs Canada at various policy and operational levels to drive work and achieve goals through Canada’s Foreign Service. But first, some broader context.
[Translation]
Canada is the world’s fifth-largest exporter of agriculture and agri-food products. Last year, our sector — which supports more than 2.1 million Canadian jobs — exported over $82 billion in products.
About half of our production is exported — meaning that Canada’s agriculture and agri-food sector is export-reliant.
[English]
AAFC, CFIA and Global Affairs Canada work together to advance the Government of Canada’s agriculture and agri-food market access and trade agenda, specifically, the goal of increasing Canada’s agriculture trade to $95 billion by 2030. We pool our efforts and expertise to strengthen the sector’s ability to export, seize international opportunities and respond to global pressures impacting stable trade in agriculture.
AAFC leads on maintaining and opening markets, conducting advocacy work on behalf of the sector and industry engagement. AAFC’s international mandate includes market access, market development, negotiation of free trade agreements in terms of the agriculture chapters of those agreements and providing supportive programs to our exporters.
CFIA leads on the technical aspects of market access, providing needed regulatory and technical expertise leading to these technical negotiations and also conducting import as well as export certification. This work is critical to our sector’s ability to trade, and it only be undertaken by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency as the sole competent authority in Canada.
Of course, as you know, Global Affairs Canada is the department that has the overall leadership of Canada’s foreign policy, including its trade agenda. To support the Government of Canada’s trade agenda, Global Affairs Canada manages the Canadian Trade Commissioner Service, or TCS, with a presence in over 150 markets and approximately 120 positions that work on agriculture files as part of their overall portfolio.
AAFC and CFIA have positions embedded into the Trade Commissioner Service in certain key markets such as the United States, Europe, China and Japan to complement the Trade Commissioner Service and to support the sector’s overall trade interests. Our resources work full time on agriculture and agri‑food files. They facilitate and advance market and trade negotiations, advocate for Canadian agricultural interests and support the sector’s ability to export and tap into new markets.
Agriculture Canada has embedded staff, as I mentioned. We refer to them as the Agriculture and Agri-food Trade Commissioner Service, or AFTCS. This service was created in 1994 and it now has 40 full-time positions that are embedded into the Trade Commissioner Service.
This AFTCS takes on both trade policy and market development duties. They undertake advocacy work in‑market — that’s on the ground in various embassies and consulates — to positively influence decision makers as well as to facilitate in-market promotions and business-to-business connections to support the sector’s trade growth.
The CFIA’s Technical Specialist Abroad, or TSA program as we like to call it, was created in 2004. That was to respond to market closures that resulted from confirmed cases of bovine spongiform encephalopathy, or BSE, at that time.
The original investments back in 2004 provided for the deployment of four veterinary experts in key markets. The program today has since grown. We now have 11 positions abroad, and the scope has evolved beyond the original mandate to include market access of all commodities from the full range of programs that CFIA looks after, which includes animal health, plant health, as well as food safety.
A key element of our trade strategy is to support the principles of science and risk analysis in international standards, guidelines and recommendations that are formulated, but are what we refer to as international standard-setting bodies. These bodies include Codex Alimentarius, which looks after food safety and fair trade practices in food; the World Organization for Animal Health, which looks at animal health and zoonosis; and the International Plant Protection Convention, which looks after plant health. The CFIA has technical experts embedded in each of those international standard-setting bodies.
Taken together, dedicated resources of AAFC, the CFIA and GAC, working within the Trade Commissioner Service at missions in Canadian embassies, provides a competitive advantage in key markets by providing Canada’s agriculture and food sector and its companies with market knowledge, intelligence and key contacts through the relationships that are fostered with various government authorities, decision makers and local businesses in-market. Our resources abroad also provide invaluable insight and intelligence, I would add, to our headquarters operations at both AAFC and the CFIA, as well as Global Affairs, which in turn help to inform our overall trade strategy, policy development and programming.
The value of this approach, I think, is apparent in terms of the results that it has generated. The agriculture-focused parts of the TCS have delivered over 23,000 services in the last three fiscal years, and our exporters and international buyers pursued a yearly average of 310 of these market opportunities that were identified and developed by the trade commissioners. Of the identified agriculture, fish and seafood market opportunities, on average, 223 produced successful economic outcomes for our Canadian agricultural exporters. Further, the agriculture trade commissioners and the technical specialists abroad have advanced the resolution of 76 market access issues. In the most recent fiscal year, the agriculture and food process sector trade commissioners received an over 90% client satisfaction rate from Canadian companies who have tapped into that service.
To give you an example, of some of the work and difference that our AFTCS have done or have achieved, our team in Indonesia recently played a key role in significantly growing our soybean exports in that particular market. They engaged Indonesian buyers on the ground to raise awareness and interest in Canadian soybeans. They shared commercial opportunities with Canada’s soybean sector. They also identified the interested Canadian suppliers and brought them together to facilitate business. During this time, Canada’s soy bean exports have grown from $3.4 million in 2017 to $202 million in 2021. That’s an increase in market share from 0.3% to 13%.
Our teams have also played similar roles in other markets, such as the Philippines, where we have seen our Canadian pork exports grow from $94 million to $304 million between 2017 to 2021. Similar results are in such areas as our wheat and oyster exports to Thailand, our beef and berries export to Vietnam, salmon to Indonesia and cherries to Korea. To give you examples of the type of success that has been achieved.
Over the last year, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency’s technical resources abroad have also expanded Canadian meat exports. They have supported the achievement of full access for Canadian beef exports into Singapore and Brazil, as well as enhanced and expanded access for meat derived from cattle, sheep and goats going to Kuwait, and for chilled pork to Colombia.
In the U.S., our technical specialists abroad have proved essential in obtaining full access for meat from Canadian sheep and goat. Our technical specialists provided real-time expertise and facilitated negotiations on the ground with foreign authorities to achieve this success. We do believe that by having those technical specialists at mission we’re able to engage regulator-to-regulator in discussions to be able to facilitate market access and deliver guidance and intelligence to our sector when it’s most needed.
Of course, as you know, Global Affairs Canada is the operational lead of the Trade Commissioner Service and the manager of the platform and the Foreign Service Directives. Agriculture and Agri-food Canada and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency have MoUs in place with Global Affairs Canada that formalize the management of the partnership. These MoUs cover a range of areas, from the roles and responsibilities, to human resources, to more nitty-gritty things such as office space allocation at the missions.
We always seek to evolve and improve where we can. We have regular meetings across the three organizations to look at how we can evolve the partnership and make improvements, but we do feel that this approach of having embedded staff in the Trade Commissioner Service has been very successful and very valuable. We feel it’s allowed us to leverage a well-developed infrastructure along with the tools and resources, and it has enabled the Government of Canada to maximize our resources and our value proposition to the agriculture sector while minimizing the associated costs of supporting the Government of Canada’s foreign policy and trade agenda.
[Translation]
Once again, I thank you for this opportunity and look forward to your questions.
[English]
The Chair: Thank you very much, Ms. Donohue. I allowed you to go over the five minute statement time because you are, after all, representing a department and an agency. So we just multiplied it by two to allow you to make your statement.
Colleagues, as per usual, it’s a four-minute question and answer period. I encourage you to keep your preambles short so we can maximize the time.
[Translation]
Senator Gerba: I would like Ms. Donohue to explain the collaboration between Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada and the trade commissioners. Are they trade commissioners from Global Affairs Canada, or are they directly attached to Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada?
Ms. Donohue: I will hand over to my colleague Nathalie Durand.
Nathalie Durand, Executive Director, Horizontal and Strategic Initiatives, Canadian Food Inspection Agency: Good morning, Mr. Chair and members of the committee. I am pleased to be with you this afternoon and to answer this question.
With regard to our trade commissioners, we have our own trade commissioners abroad. This is a group of over 51 trade commissioners. Of this number, some of the delegates are LES, or locally engaged staff. I unfortunately do not have the French translation. Of these, 33 are locally engaged and 18 are posted abroad. These are staff who are selected to be sent abroad.
In addition, all of these employees are employees of Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency. They complement the Global Affairs Canada trade commissioner network. The employees do not need to be in a dedicated agriculture position, probably because there are not necessarily many opportunities in that market.
Global Affairs Canada trade commissioners deal with several sectors. Agriculture is part of their mandate, but they do not deal with agriculture 100% of the time. In addition, there are a few positions within Global Affairs Canada that are strictly for agriculture. We work with Global Affairs Canada to decide on the priorities of these trade commissioners who are posted abroad.
I’ll leave it at that, but if you need more details, I’d be happy to add them.
Senator Gerba: I have a follow-up question. I’d like to understand if Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada trade commissioners are stationed in the same premises as Global Affairs Canada, i.e., trade missions, Canada’s diplomatic missions in the countries concerned. Or are they working in other countries where we don’t have a mission? Is there not a duplication of services between your experts who are posted in the countries concerned and the trade commissioners who are also locally recruited in general?
Ms. Durand: I’ll clarify. Basically, the people we have abroad are part of the Global Affairs Canada mission. They are in the same countries where Global Affairs Canada is present, and we use Global Affairs Canada services to send our staff abroad. We have a memorandum of understanding for office space, as Ms. Donohue mentioned.
There is no duplication, because the trade commissioner positions that we have are strictly agriculture positions for which agricultural expertise is required.
The Chair: Thank you. The interpreters can correct me, but I believe “locally engaged staff” would be personnel recruté sur place in French.
Ms. Durand: Thank you.
[English]
Senator Coyle: Senator Gerba already asked my initial question but I’ll go into my probing question. It may seem a bit off the wall, but I’m curious.
In the old days of development assistance, agriculture was very much part and central to what Canada was involved with in terms of development assistance partnerships overseas under the former CIDA and then under GAC. With the expertise that is resident, not only in terms of the technical aspects of agriculture but also in terms of agricultural trade that is resident in Agriculture and Agri-food Canada, is there much permeability, or transferability, or cooperation between the expertise in your department and that of GAC, where GAC’s focus is development assistance, not specifically Canada’s international trade. Is there much going on there?
Ms. Donohue: With regard to development assistance, yes, Global Affairs Canada has the lead for that. We do have a small capacity to support in terms of regulatory cooperation. That’s specifically on the Canadian Food Inspection Agency’s side where, from time to time, we will get involved in a specific project that is generally funded by Global Affairs Canada. We may provide technical assistance, for example, looking at issues such as food safety. We have done that in the past and continue to do that.
Again, back to Global Affairs Canada and its overall mandate, from time to time on a certain subject we may have some collaboration at AAFC to support Global Affairs Canada, but we don’t have a program to engage in terms of development assistance in this area.
Senator Coyle: Do your staff move between Global Affairs and Agriculture and Agri-food Canada or the Canadian Food Inspection Agency?
Ms. Donohue: We do have some movement of staff between AAFC and Global Affairs Canada; really none for the Canadian Food Inspection Agency. There’s some interchange specifically with the Trade Policy Branch of Global Affairs Canada. We work extremely closely with them. That’s where we see some movement between my branch and the trade policy branch at GAC.
Senator Coyle: Is that a helpful thing?
Ms. Donohue: Extremely, yes. I would describe us as being attached to the hip. We need to be. There needs to be close collaboration and coordination in terms of strategy and so forth.
Senator M. Deacon: Thank you to the three of you for joining us today. I don’t think these questions have been touched on, but this is an interesting area because there are a limited number of folks working in this area and posted around the world.
My question is for Agriculture Canada. It concerns your representatives posted abroad. How do you determine where these individuals are posted? Is it based on the biggest export markets for our food products or potential, breaking into new markets, or a mix of both? Can you help me with that first?
Ms. Donohue: I’ll pass that to Nathalie Durand.
Ms. Durand: In determining where we post our trade commissioner abroad, we do an assessment. Again, we work closely with Global Affairs Canada. The model they have that’s been in place for many years uses different criteria to determine where the most benefit from posting employees abroad would be. In terms of criteria, this is based on opportunities that may be available based on a number of issues we have with that country and other factors. It’s also based on what resources currently exist with respect to GAC, and whether we need to have more sector expertise coming from AAFC and CFIA.
As Ms. Donohue indicated, our trade commissioner program started with only a few positions back in 1994 and 2004, depending on whether you’re talking about AAFC or CFIA. Over time, we have grown this presence. Its growth was based on needs and opportunities that we were seeing in some markets where we were not present at the time.
Senator M. Deacon: Thank you, for that response. I want to look now more specifically at the situational aspect. This question is for the Canadian Food Inspection Agency. What is the chain of events when it’s decided that a food import presents a risk? We can all recall the cattle imports from the U.K. during the foot-and-mouth outbreak.
Who also makes the determination of how the message is delivered, especially when it’s a valued trading partner and where there might be some conflict or pushback? Is there any insight you can share with me today on that?
Ms. Donohue: Thank you for that question. All food, whether produced here in Canada or imported, has to comply with our regulations. Specifically, when it comes to food, it is the Safe Food for Canadians Regulations. So whether it is imports or exports of food, the same set of regulations apply.
Senator Boniface: Thank you very much. Welcome, witnesses. Some of the questions I was going to ask have been covered, but I wanted to go back to what I think was a reference from the Canadian Food Inspection Agency that there’s an MoU in place with GAC. Can you give us a better sense of what that MoU covers, particularly from a staffing perspective?
Ms. Durand: I can answer that question.
We have two MoUs with Global Affairs Canada. Those are MoUs that are done between GAC, AAFC and CFIA. We have an MoU that we call the MoU on operations and support at missions, which covers the procurement of overseas office space, goods and services, and real property in support of the diplomatic and consular missions. I think there’s one other department where they provide that service to their employees. With respect to our own trade commissioner program, that service is being provided by GAC, and we have an MoU for that purpose.
We have a second MoU, as well, that we call the international commerce for the agriculture and agri-food sector. It covers a broad range of areas in terms of the relationship between our roles and responsibilities between GAC, AAFC and CFIA can intersect. Areas where we cooperate with GAC and the two organizations include international business development and trade promotion, investment, science and technology, and information sharing and systems.
We updated the MoU not so long ago. Part of the reason for that is that we didn’t have CFIA as part of that MoU. Now we have CFIA included in the MoU, and we are quite pleased with that.
In terms of your question with respect to staffing, that is another area where we collaborate very effectively with GAC. As part of the MoU, all the ag positions that are strictly 100% ag positions, whether at GAC, AAFC or CFIA, are being offered to the staff of the three organizations. That allows for potential opportunities for development of all the employees within the three organizations.
The Chair: You have another minute.
Senator Boniface: Very quickly, as a follow-up, if I were considering the well-being of staff who are posted overseas, does that fall within the MoU, or would that be dealt with back here?
Ms. Durand: I would say it’s a combination. In terms of the duty of care and ensuring the health and safety of employees abroad, that is something that falls under the responsibility of the head of mission. But they continue to be our own employees, and we have the program in place such that we do a follow-up with the employees if they are missing anything, if there are situations where they may not agree with, for example, the Foreign Service Directive or there could be issues with that. We are the interface with GAC to address some of those situations, so it’s really a combination of both.
Senator Harder: Thank you for being here, witnesses.
I want to follow up on Senator Boniface’s questions with Nathalie Durand. It’s very good to see the mobility between AAFC, CFIA and GAC with respect to the development opportunities. Could you tell us a bit about your recruitment in terms of where you recruit, what you are looking for, are language opportunities available before postings abroad, and how separate is this from the recruitment for the Foreign Service?
Ms. Durand: Thank you very much for your question.
I have quite a few things to say about recruitment. It won’t come as a surprise, but we take the recruitment of our staff, whether in Canada or abroad, very seriously. They are the face of Canada when being posted in other countries. They are posted for a certain number of years, so we need to have a good confidence that we have selected the right candidate.
We don’t have recruitment specific to international positions. It’s a bit similar to what other organizations that have appeared before the committee have mentioned in that we do our recruitment from the junior level into our organization through competitive staffing across the public service. It is open to the public in some cases as well.
We take to heart, as well, our diversity objectives, and we’ve increased our focus on that in recent years. We are getting a pool of candidates that come from diverse backgrounds.
That’s how we start in terms of recruiting our employees into the organization.
The opportunity of being posted abroad is something that we advertise in order to try to bring people into our organization. They grow into the organization, and then they apply to those positions later on in their career, once they’ve had some experience.
In terms of the qualities or competencies that we are looking for, they are interpersonal skills. The diplomacy angle is very important and something that we take to heart. Then we want people who will be autonomous, given that they are posted abroad. Often, they report to a manager in the mission, but often, they are the only ag-sector specialist. They also report to our manager here in Ottawa. But they need to be able to manage on their own to a certain extent.
We are looking for candidates who have had some exposure to trade. The language skill is something that is a key component. For Canadian officers abroad, we need to have bilingual candidates for our positions, and they sometimes need to have some knowledge of the language of the country. With respect to that, language training is something that is sometimes shared between GAC and AAFC. We try to provide that training as much as possible in advance of being posted, depending on the level of competency that is being required.
The Chair: Thank you, Madam Durand. We’re well over the four minutes. I know this is a topic that is close to your heart.
Senator Ravalia: Thank you to our witnesses.
My question is an extension of Senator Deacon’s earlier line of questioning. To what extent do political tensions between Canada and some of our trading partners impact on your roles specifically? I was going to direct this question to Ms. Donohue.
Ms. Donohue: Over time, we have seen an increase in what we call non-tariff barriers. Some of them may be based in science, but other times there may be other reasons for those barriers. I think that is part of any market access issue that we manage. We need to be able to do the analysis in terms of whether there is any kind of scientific or risk-based merit to the issue at hand, or whether there may be some other reasons for the issue that we’re trying to resolve. It certainly is a consideration.
Senator Ravalia: If the issue is non-science-based and is felt to be purely punitive on the basis of a political action, what sort of remedial action can you take or what recourse do you have in those instances?
Ms. Donohue: That’s another excellent question. When that sort of issue unfolds, we have constructive discussions with our colleagues at Global Affairs to look at the options that the Government of Canada has at its disposal. There may be some opportunities to raise concerns, for example, at a multilateral forum such as at the WTO, or there may be other opportunities to look at engagements bilaterally.
Senator Ravalia: Thank you very much.
The Chair: I’m going to ask a question using my privilege as chair. In my previous career, at various times, comments were made to me by representatives of other countries, let’s say, about how incredibly tough our negotiators are in trade agreements. I always took that as a compliment. Often the focus was on agricultural products and dairy, in particular.
Do you have a program for negotiating skills training? Do you do that with Global Affairs Canada — the Canadian Foreign Service Institute does offer negotiation courses from time to time — or is that something that just comes along with on‑the‑job training as you negotiate trade agreement, which, obviously, you do very well. I’m thinking, in particular, of previous work on the CETA, where I was on the margins there; the CPTPP; and the ongoing negotiation options right now with the United Kingdom to go beyond the continuity agreement that we have to a fully baked program. One always reads about cheese and how tough we are and the like.
I would be very grateful to hear any comments you might have on how you develop this remarkable skill set. In fact, I’d like to know what you’re working on right now.
Ms. Donohue: Maybe I’ll kick things off. I do think it’s a combination of things in terms of recruits and drawing from some of the excellent graduate schools that we have across Canada, particularly in the trade policy realm. Some of it is on‑the-job training, but we work closely with Global Affairs and take full advantage of some of those training opportunities that you’ve mentioned in terms of, for example, negotiating skills and what not.
For a more precise response, I’ll turn it to our chief ag trade negotiator, Marie-Noëlle Desrochers.
Marie-Noëlle Desrochers, Acting Chief Agriculture Negotiator and Director General, Trade Agreements and Negotiations, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada: Thank you for having us on this meeting tonight. To complement the answer that you’ve heard, there’s definitely a component of learning on the job.
Within our team, we have had a tradition of bringing our recruits to the table, when the opportunity was made available, for them to see negotiators in action and contribute to building instructions and building strategies. That, in combination with additional in-class training, has been relatively successful for us. Also, working alongside our colleagues at Global Affairs Canada is also a great way for our trade specialists at Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada to learn the diplomatic aspect of the job.
In terms of the additional question that you’ve asked, currently, the government has an ambitious trade negotiations agenda. In addition to engaging at the World Trade Organization, we have ongoing negotiation with the U.K. As you mentioned, we’re working toward a new trade agreement bilaterally with the U.K., but we’re also working with our CPTPP partner countries on the accession of the U.K. to that agreement. We’re also negotiating with Indonesia, India, countries of MERCOSUR in South America, countries of ASEAN and other potential CPTPP accessions. We are working on many fronts.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
Senator Harder: Ms. Durand, I believe you spoke of the locally engaged staff within your component. Again, I would like to ask you how you recruit locally engaged staff. How do you determine the balance between where you place Canadian-based personnel and how you use locally engaged staff? How is that balance achieved?
Ms. Durand: In terms of the recruitment of our locally engaged staff, it’s similar to what another colleague from another department mentioned earlier in that we are using our local channels in the country to staff those positions. Sometimes, we obtain staff from other missions in the region. The staffing is undertaken in the region by our staff at AAFC, in GAC and CFIA.
In terms of the balance, it goes back to the question earlier in terms of how do we determine our footprint. It’s a complement between our Canada-based staff, or CBS and our locally engaged staff, or LES that we want in the country most of the time. The benefit of having LES is that they do know the culture; they know the language. Sometimes this is lacking with our staff and it’s harder to obtain, depending on the language. The LES staff gives us the opportunity to have some continuity in terms of our program, because our CBS staff will go abroad for two, three or four years. Having that kind of stability in the market is extremely important and valuable.
Regarding what was mentioned by another colleague before, we really integrate our LES into the team. They participate in meetings. Prior to the pandemic, we were managing to have them come to Ottawa at least once a year — not all of them, because it’s extremely expensive, but at least enough to have a rotation. They are a full, integral part of our program abroad.
The Chair: Thank you very much, and as there are no other questions, I would simply like to thank our witnesses for their comprehensive answers to our questions today. Thank you Kathleen Donohue, Marie-Noëlle Desrochers, and Nathalie Durand for being with us.
Colleagues, I just want to remind members about tomorrow’s meeting at 11:30 a.m. The first hour will be devoted to the foreign service study, and we will be hearing from two academics, Professor Roland Paris, and Professor Adam Chapnick. The second hour is a very special hour, we have one sole witness, and it’s Professor Timothy Snyder of Yale University who is probably, I would say, the leading expert on Ukraine, at least in the English-speaking world. We’re fortunate to have him; he’s hard to get, and I expect a very interesting discussion.
(The committee adjourned.)