THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS AND INTERNATIONAL TRADE
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Wednesday, November 30, 2022
The Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade met with videoconference this day at 4 p.m. [ET] to examine and report on the Canadian foreign service and other elements of the foreign policy machinery within Global Affairs Canada.
Senator Peter M. Boehm (Chair) in the chair.
[Translation]
The Chair: Honourable senators, 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. Before we begin, I wish to invite committee members participating in today’s meeting to introduce themselves, starting on my left.
Senator Woo: Yuen Pau Woo from British Columbia.
[English]
Senator Ravalia: Mohamed Ravalia, Newfoundland and Labrador.
Senator Greene: Stephen Greene, Nova Scotia.
[Translation]
Senator Gerba: Amina Gerba from Quebec.
[English]
Senator Coyle: Mary Coyle, Antigonish, Nova Scotia.
Senator Harder: Peter Harder, Ontario.
Senator M. Deacon: Marty Deacon, Ontario.
Senator Richards: David Richards, New Brunswick.
Senator Boniface: Gwen Boniface, Ontario.
The Chair: Thank you very much, senators. Welcome. I’d like to welcome all of you as well as all Canadians who are watching us today on ParlVU.
Today, we continue our study on Canada’s foreign service, the objective of which is to evaluate if Canada’s foreign service and foreign policy machinery are fit for purpose and ready to respond to global challenges today and in the future. While Global Affairs Canada plays a leading role in defining, advancing and representing Canada’s interests abroad, it often draws from and collaborates with other federal departments and agencies to fulfill its responsibilities. You will recall, colleagues, that in October 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 five departments and agencies appear as witnesses. Today, we welcome one more government entity that plays an international role, to put it mildly, because the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces are, of course, global in their scope and we are grateful for what they do.
From Department of National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces, we welcome Major-General Blaise Frawley, Deputy Vice Chief of the Defence Staff, and Major-General Greg Smith, Director General, International Security Policy, Assistant Deputy Minister for Policy. Welcome, and thank you both for being with us today.
Before we hear your remarks and proceed to questions and answers, I wish to ask members of the committee and witnesses in the room to please refrain from leaning in too closely to your microphone or removing your earpiece when doing so. This will avoid any sound feedback that could negatively impact the committee staff and others in the room who might be wearing an earpiece for interpretation.
We are ready to hear your opening remarks. I gather you will be splitting the time, which is great. That will be followed by questions from the senators.
[Translation]
Major-General Blaise Frawley, Deputy Vice Chief of the Defence Staff, Department of National Defence and Canadian Armed Forces: Mr. Chair, senators, on behalf of the Canadian Armed Forces and the Department of National Defence, thank you for the invitation to discuss issues related to the committee’s study on Canada’s foreign service.
I am joined today by Major-General Greg Smith, Director General, International Security Policy, and Assistant Deputy Minister, Policy.
[English]
As Deputy Vice Chief of the Defence Staff, one of my responsibilities is to oversee the Directorate of Foreign Liaison, or DFL for short. DFL’s mandate is to build, maintain, sustain and nurture enduring defence relationships with foreign nations to support Canada’s strategic defence interests. This is enabled through the exchange of timely and valuable information on defence issues, which supports the establishment of new defence relations and strengthening existing key defence partnerships. DFL includes both the Foreign Liaison Office as well as the Canadian Defence Attaché, or CDA, programs.
The Foreign Liaison Office program focuses on the foreign service attachés here in Canada and the VIP section, which coordinates foreign defence and military visits to and within Canada. Unlike the Foreign Liaison Office, the CDA program focuses on Canada’s permanent military presence globally. Specifically, CDAs provide advice and support to achieve greater interoperability and enhanced delivery of defence capabilities for ongoing, contingency and potential operations.
In country, the CDA and CDA office staff are responsive to the Canadian High Commissioner, ambassador or designated head of mission through the provision of military advice, appropriate support and assistance, as required. All members of the CDA office are members of Canada’s diplomatic mission and act under the guidance of the Canadian head of mission in all matters, except for those of a specific Department of National Defence or Canadian Armed Forces nature.
[Translation]
As underscored in Canada’s defence policy — Strong, Secure, Engaged — military diplomacy is vital in supporting the government’s foreign policy priorities. It is critical to the success of Canada’s global engagement, and it is key to our ability to protect and defend our nation, citizens, and our values and interests.
[English]
Working side by side with Global Affairs personnel as members of Canada’s diplomatic missions, our defence attachés build and strengthen relationships that are essential to our ability to adapt in the ever-evolving security environment and make meaningful contributions to the international community.
[Translation]
I am privileged to be a part of such a dedicated team of Canadian Armed Forces members and public service employees that form the Directorate of Foreign Liaison and Canadian Defence Attachés.
[English]
With that short overview of the Directorate of Foreign Liaison, Major-General Smith will also now provide brief remarks. We then look forward to answering your questions. Thank you.
Major-General Greg Smith, Director General International Security Policy, Assistant Deputy Minister (Policy), Department of National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces: Good afternoon senators and distinguished guests. I am happy to join my colleague, Major-General Frawley, in speaking to you today and answering your questions regarding our role in collaborating with Global Affairs Canada and Canada’s Foreign Service. In my role as Director General for International Security Policy, I am responsible for National Defence’s bilateral and multilateral relationships internationally. We also provide policy support to emerging international issues, as well as Canadian Armed Forces operations. The linkage with Global Affairs Canada is well established and integral to the Department of National Defence’s and Canadian Armed Forces’ support to overall Government of Canada strategic objectives. This is captured in the Minister of Foreign Affairs’ introductory letter in Canada’s defence policy — Strong, Secure, Engaged — where she states that:
A highly capable, flexible military with the ability to operate closely with allies and partners is an invaluable instrument of Canada’s foreign policy.
[Translation]
And as that instrument, National Defence requires strong lines of communication between those that develop and engage internationally on our foreign policy, and those that are responsible for implementing operations and engagements under that foreign policy.
[English]
In this respect, the Department of National Defence’s various policy development mechanisms work in collaboration with Global Affairs by providing defence perspectives and advice and by looking for opportunities to engage in activities that align with already established government policy and priorities.
[Translation]
This is done through formal boards, meetings and task groups, both internally to government departments, such as interdepartmental task forces, as well as with our allies and partners, through various strategic dialogues and military-to-military and policy-to-military staff talks. For example, the Canada/U.S. Permanent Joint Board on Defence —
[English]
— or PJBD.
Also augmenting those efforts is the support that National Defence provides to the Foreign Service through our network of defence attachés. Building further on the remarks of Major-General Frawley, the defence attachés offer support to our missions and embassies abroad, provide defence advice to the heads of missions and deliver valuable atmospheric and situational understanding to our policy teams at home.
[Translation]
In their work, the defence attachés focus on activities which seek to build, sustain, and nurture enduring defence and military relationships with the host nations. This is done so that timely and relevant information relating to Canada’s interests is available to support strategic and operational decision-making.
[English]
These combined venues for discussion, strengthened by informal communication at all levels, from policy officers to executives, allow for a collaborative relationship between National Defence and Global Affairs. This in turn fosters a positive environment to resolve differences of opinions and ultimately provide better policy advice for the Government of Canada.
I look forward to contributing to this discussion today and to answering your questions on the Department of National Defence’s role in the support of the Foreign Service and policy development.
[Translation]
The Chair: Thank you very much for your presentation.
[English]
Senator M. Deacon: Thank you both so much for being here in person this afternoon. I think you have a very good understanding of the work we’ve been trying to do over the past months. It’s partly about learning the structures and how it all operates and also thinking about how we can be better together.
In that vein, as both of you describe different parts of your work, could you talk about whether there are structures or functions that slow down, duplicate or are redundant in the work of your delivery? Could any formal structures that you see in your work be streamlined in order to do more efficient or more timely work with Global Affairs Canada?
MGen. Frawley: Thank you for the question, Mr. Chair. When it comes to structures and being right sized, I would say that from a defence diplomacy perspective, we are right sized in the sense that we very carefully look at where exactly we put our limited amount of resources in the out-of-Canada locations and make sure we don’t overstaff or understaff. Our footprints are relatively small compared to the embassies, high commissions and organizations that we’re part of.
So I would say that our structure is right sized, but we’re always evaluating whether or not we need to adapt, whether we need to grow or shrink in given areas.
Senator M. Deacon: From what you just said, there is a lot of turnover. It may not be turnover in your cohort, but there’s turnover around you. Could that be a factor in some of your work, too?
MGen. Frawley: Again, thank you for the question, Mr. Chair. The turnover is always a challenge in the sense that it’s always a question of finding the balance between — for us — a tour length that is too short or too long and what exactly that right tour length is. Our Canadian defence attachés are in position normally for three years, which gives them enough time to build relationships, understand the work they need to do and actually achieve that work — understanding that the folks around them may change either more or less rapidly.
However, identifying exactly what that sweet spot is, especially given that some of these folks are moving to locations they have never been to before and are building relationships that are not as long-standing as some of the other relationships — for us, the three-year mark works well.
MGen. Smith: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I was scratching my head on how we can improve. Of course, every organization can improve, and we try to do so. The way I’d characterize our particular relationship with Global Affairs Canada is that it has both formal and informal structures. Formally, we have structured meetings from time to time, every few months, and that occurs more frequently at lower levels. Equally, we have daily and hourly interaction.
I don’t want to make it sound like I’m characterizing two different groups that don’t talk. I have a colleague over in Global Affairs Canada under the International Security and Political Affairs Branch, or IFM, that I sent five or six emails to today. It’s a constant interplay as we work together toward the same thing. I’m a director general, but equally down at the coalface, if I can call it that, or out in different countries, that kind of interaction is happening constantly. They live and work together. While relationships can always be better and you can always work better, I think I would characterize it as a very good current relationship, both formally and informally.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
Senator Harder: Thank you, again, for being here. It’s appreciated. One aspect of the relationship that you didn’t comment on, which was part of my experience, is the cross-fertilization of talent. I benefitted when I was at Foreign Affairs from having seconded Department of National Defence, or DND, officers, and I know that Foreign Service officers have been recruited into the policy branch. I think that might be something you could comment on.
My other question is a little broader. As we work through our Afghanistan deployment, I think we all saw lessons learned in terms of how to work — I’m not saying it was hostile — in better symmetry and better pacing. Can you comment on lessons learned in Afghanistan, which was my most recent kinetic and policy challenge organization?
MGen. Smith: Mr. Chair, I will take that initially, and then maybe my colleague would like to explain some of what I said better. I hope not.
Cross-fertilization — absolutely. Indeed, in my group, I have six directorates — 40 people, broadly. One quarter might be military. The rest are my public servant colleagues. Particularly, the public servants have a very active posting lifestyle whereby they go to Global Affairs Canada, Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada and central agencies. As much as I hate to see them go, it is tremendously powerful, actually, to have somebody come back who can give you the actual information, like “This is how it works there, so let’s do better and help collaborate better.” There’s definitely cross-fertilization, as we called it. I’d say that as much as it is unfortunate because you are always looking for good people, it is tremendously beneficial, particularly with those who have been in the Privy Council Office and other central agencies — really useful.
About Afghanistan and lessons learned, it came as a strategic surprise to most of the Western world when Afghanistan collapsed as quickly as it did. I spent 22 months of my life there. It was a surprise to many of us the way that went. But once we got past that initial strategic surprise, I would characterize the operations that occurred — Op AEGIS — as quite successful between the different parts of government that worked tremendously hard to get Canadians and Afghans out of that country. They collaborated with numerous countries in the area of the Gulf, particularly, as a hub to move those people out.
As much as it was a tragedy — we all saw the news — I think it was a tremendous success for the collaboration that was required. There are things we need to learn from it, but I think overarchingly, for the amount of surprise that occurred, it went very well.
MGen. Frawley: Mr. Chair, recognizing your direction regarding concise answers, I will comment, but I’ll keep it very short.
Cross-pollination, as I call it — or cross-fertilization — is less of a thing for our defence attachés. Most of them are very experienced in the Canadian Armed Forces — probably in the 30-to-35 years of service time range. Therefore, a lot of them do one or two of these very important OUTCAN, or Outside of Canada, positions, and then a lot of them retire out of the defence attaché role. Certainly, we would want to take advantage of the experience they’re getting by bringing them back into Canada or into the Canadian Armed Forces in Canada once they do come back. But that’s not to say there isn’t or wouldn’t be huge benefits to people who decide they want to move across to Global Affairs Canada, to that type of job. What they would “bring to the fight” would be very beneficial.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
Senator Ravalia: Thank you, gentlemen. My question refers to the recent Indo-Pacific Strategy. How would you describe the relationship between the Department of National Defence and Global Affairs regarding development of this strategy given the potential threats that may exist in that part of the world? Do you feel that you have sufficient personnel to actually position within the Indo-Pacific to respond to crises in a surge capacity element?
MGen. Smith: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I will try to be brief as I answer that good question. The Indo-Pacific Strategy, yes, done very collaboratively with Global Affairs Canada. Obviously, there are numerous ministries involved. We have a part to play in that, and it was developed with Global Affairs Canada.
To go to your second question, it was equally done with — you have heard of reconstitution, the challenge we have of the numbers are lower in the Canadian Armed Forces right now. As we developed the Indo-Pacific Strategy and had to put back into Global Affairs Canada what part we want to do, it was done deliberately with the air force, the navy, the army and other elements to ensure we right-sized what we were willing to do or what we were ready to do.
Indeed, as we continue to have this challenge of reconstitution, bringing our numbers back up, I still think it’s very important that, number one, this is a tremendously important mission and strategy to support and, equally, brings young Canadians around the world to do tremendous work and see what they can do to support those Global Affairs objectives.
MGen. Frawley: Mr. Chair, insofar as how it relates to our Defence attachés, especially in that region, we undertook a defence diplomacy review — started roughly eight months ago, so before the release of the strategy — to do exactly as Major-General Smith mentioned: to look at our footprint globally. Are we right-sized? Are we right-sized in the NATO area of responsibility, or AOR? Are we right-sized in the United States Indo-Pacific Command, or INDOPACOM? Are we right-sized in what we consider the rest of the world when it comes to how we group them?
We’re in the middle of that study, and clearly it will be shaped by the Indo-Pacific Strategy. But what I can tell you is our CDA footprint in that part of the world is actually quite healthy, if you will. We’re in 12 different countries, and we’re cross-accredited to a total of 24 countries in the Indo-Pacific. So the Canadian Armed Forces and the department are already well represented in the Indo-Pacific region.
The Chair: I will add a supplementary question. On the Indo-Pacific Strategy, as the government and several departments are involved, including DND and the Canadian Forces, as you are ramping up, are you looking at more hires, foreign language training or more local hires to support on the foreign language side, given that the attaché might not have enough time rotating out of another position to study a very difficult language?
MGen. Smith: Thank you, chair. Let me answer initially because there is an element of expansion of the workforce to do that, although I am sure my colleague will have some wiser things to say. Part of the Indo-Pacific Strategy includes us placing policy officers in certain strategic locations around the Indo-Pacific region. We are still working through that and, obviously, we have to talk to those countries to make sure they are completely good with the idea. So there is an expansion. Doing more with the same would be a challenge. I would expect to see a bit of expansion within the headquarters but particularly out in the field, if I can call it that. That’s an important element so that we are out there and we’re more available.
MGen. Frawley: For my part, Mr. Chair, as we come to a conclusion on the defence diplomacy review, if we determine that, in fact, we do need to add a few more locations — Canadian Defence attachés in other locations — the follow-on effort would be to determine what training they require, language training. We do language training with a number of our defence attachés right now, and we would look at that to determine what is the prevalent language of business in those countries or what exactly they need. We do train our defence attachés quite robustly, if you will, before they go out the door to make sure they understand all the nuances of this responsibility.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
Senator Woo: Generals, good afternoon. Just a mental note for the committee to track the defence diplomacy review so that when it comes out we can get a copy of that and use it to the benefit of our study.
I would like to get back to the question of cross-fertilization, or as you call it, General Frawley, cross-pollination, and ask if there is more that could be done in terms of uniform personnel finding places in other parts of the bureaucracy, not just Global Affairs but across the civil service.
I make this point only because I have a casual observation that in some of the countries, particularly our G7 partners, there is more interchange between their militaries and public administration, and they seem to do very well for that. I am thinking of the Americans, in particular, and, to a lesser extent, the Brits.
Could you comment on the opportunities for this kind of deeper cross-fertilization across the civil service and whether you think that has benefits for the Canadian public service broadly and also for the Armed Forces?
MGen. Smith: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I will take an initial shot at that and then see if my colleague wants to expand on it.
Yes, cross-fertilization is tremendously important. Here in Ottawa, I think we’re doing fairly well. We have a number of individuals in PCO, which is very useful for us to understand from a military perspective what’s going on and be beyond the transactional, to actually have a relationship with central agencies like that.
Further, we have a large number of big, coordination hubs, be it the Canadian Defence Liaison Staff (London), a very large joint delegation; Canadian Defence Liaison Staff (Washington), an equally large group there led by a Major-General; our joint delegation in NATO is joint — the public service Global Affairs Canada and the military work together, led by a Lieutenant-General or a Vice-Admiral right now with the ambassador; and down in New York again is a joint delegation where we have military, public servants from Defence as well as the ambassador. So I think we have a number of very important nodes around the world with critical allies where we have already built those cross-fertilized locations.
MGen. Frawley: If I may, Mr. Chair, to pile onto what Major-General Smith has mentioned, we do have a fairly robust footprint in other government departments and in some critical areas. The challenge for us right now — and Major-General Smith mentioned it — is Canadian Armed Forces reconstitution. We are short by, I think, it quotes about 10,000 people, but, of course, that number changes probably daily. So we’ve got to be very careful as we move forward. While some of these areas are incredibly important to us, we cannot spread ourselves too thin.
That doesn’t mean we can’t understand better the lay of the land and where we should put these folks. But it would be challenging for the Canadian Armed Forces, at least right now, to create new positions that we in turn would have a challenge to fill. But it’s something that moving forward we will continue to evaluate.
[Translation]
Senator Gerba: Thank you to our witnesses. We greatly appreciate your information and the work you do on the ground. I actually met some of your officers in Africa.
Your department has worked with Global Affairs Canada on Canada’s feminist foreign policy. The Canadian Armed Forces are part of the Elsie Initiative, which aims to promote the participation of women in peace operations. How did that collaboration come about? Could it be improved?
MGen. Smith: The minister thinks that the feminist foreign policy is very important. As previously mentioned, the women, peace and security agenda is an important part of our work, as is Canada’s new Indo-Pacific Strategy. Our initiatives include four components for National Defence. Some components focus on capacity building, and a sub-component is the women, peace and security agenda. It is an initiative that we will be undertaking specifically in the Indo-Pacific region.
I can also say that Canada plays a leading role in these initiatives, namely the Elsie Initiative and the women, peace and security agenda. I work internationally, so I travel a lot. The women, peace and security agenda is one of the initiatives we are often involved in, at the request of our international colleagues. I know it’s an initiative we value very much; it’s an important part of our day-to-day activities.
Senator Gerba: Is there a way to improve your collaboration in this program, particularly with Global Affairs Canada?
MGen. Smith: We continue to work. It is a relatively new initiative for me, but in my office, we now have a director who only deals with the women, peace and security agenda. He is also in charge of other activities. He is also responsible for the Elsie Initiative. We continue to improve our work. Our allies and international partners are very interested in working with us more on this.
Senator Gerba: Do I still have a minute left?
The Chair: Yes.
Senator Gerba: As I mentioned in my introduction, I have just returned from an African country where I met one of your officers. He told us that he covers 13 countries. Do you think it is reasonable for a single officer to cover 13 countries in French-speaking Africa?
MGen. Frawley: That is a very good question. In Africa, we have fewer defence attachés compared to other countries in the world. It’s a specific case. I think he is the only officer who covers so many countries. It’s a lot of work for one person. Unfortunately, the situation will have to remain as it is until our study is completed, to determine how many defence attachés we will need in Africa.
However, as I said, we will have a better idea in February or March of how many attachés we will need in Africa.
The Chair: Thank you.
[English]
Senator Richards: Thank you to our guests. Senator Gerba just touched on this a bit, and it’s about cross-fertilization. In all security sectors in Canada, there seems to be at the moment a lack of morale and recruitment. Does this cross over to the public service in the Global Affairs ministry, and how do we rectify this? Can we fulfill our overall military obligations?
MGen. Smith: Thank you. I have a large number of public servants that work for me, and I wouldn’t characterize any type of morale problems amongst them. It is a very hard-driven, motivated group. If anything, I’m trying to kick them out at the end of the day rather than saying, you’re supposed to still be working here. They’re adrenaline-driven. I do what I call “policy-current operations,” so if we have to get some speaking points to the minister or something like that — It’s a very motivated group. I’m amazed by their skills, education and their fluency in English and French. I can only speak to my little part of the world, but I am tremendously impressed with them. I have not seen any problems with morale.
It’s the same with my military group. They tend to be more senior people, but they’re a tremendous group of very motivated, educated and experienced people who are just trying to work for Canada.
Senator Richards: I am not at all questioning our military members who are in the military. I’m saying that we seem to have trouble with attracting young, capable men and women to the military. I don’t think we’re a full division in our military, and I’m just wondering how we can offset that and get more young people interested in a military career or a Global Affairs career.
MGen. Frawley: Absolutely, that is a concern. It’s not just a concern for the department or the Canadian Armed Forces. Competing for the talent of our youth is quite a challenge.
Part of CAF reconstitution — the Canadian Armed Forces reconstitution program or plan — we are looking at reinvigorated our recruiting and the processes that we use. We are looking at modernizing the processes and reintroducing more of the human factor into our recruiting. We went somewhat more online, and now we’re getting back to putting more people into this process so that when someone comes in the door, they actually see another human being. It’s not just virtual; it’s about talking to someone face-to-face.
In addition to that, we are expanding where we’re going out to look for the young individuals to bring them into the Canadian Armed Forces, and we’re expanding it in such a way that, ultimately, we want the Canadian Armed Forces and the department to look more like Canada. Where we go to attract young individuals is evolving and changing to make sure we’re going to the demographics to ensure we look more like the demographic that is Canada.
Senator Richards: Sir, I think it would be a wonderful career, and that’s why I asked the question.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
Senator Coyle: Thanks again to both of our guests for being with us and for sharing your information. We do look forward to the results of your own internal study. That will be very helpful to us.
You have described already a couple of — and I may have the term wrong — CDA configurations, one being larger concentrated hubs like the NATO hub, the Washington hub, the U.K. hub and the UN hub in New York. Those are well-resourced, integrated bodies. We’ve heard from another end of the spectrum where you have one person handling three countries.
Could you describe for us what it looks like in between those two extremes in terms of the presence of the Canadian military within Canada’s missions abroad?
MGen. Frawley: Absolutely. Thank you for the question. To give you an understanding of the magnitude of our defence attaché footprint globally, we have about 110 defence attaché personnel, and that includes the actual defence attaché, an assistant attaché — and not every location has an assistant — and a Canadian defence administrative assistant, who is a senior non-commissioned member who supports that location. The exact size and footprint varies depending on the location and the level of work. Of course, the bigger ones would cover more countries. So 110 individuals in 45 countries around the world, but they cover off roughly 145 countries.
That gets back to a previous question. We have an individual in a country — I believe you’re actually talking about South Africa, but please correct me if I’m wrong. West Africa. South Africa is the same. There is a significant number. Those individuals are cross-accredited to other countries. We’re actually covering off other countries and they travel to those countries.
That gives you an understanding of how things work. In most of the countries there are anywhere from two to four individuals covering off both the country they’re in and normally two to three other countries, and in some cases, they cover a few more countries.
In the U.K. and the U.S., we have bigger offices, which are not actually our defence attachés. They’re called CDLS — Canadian Defence Liaison Staff — Washington and London. Because of our relationship and actual footprint in those countries outside of the defence attaché program, they’re significantly larger and we have more people in those defence attaché-type offices. That kind of gives you an understanding of the general layout globally.
Senator Coyle: You mentioned that your defence attachés are often late-career people and people who have come up the ranks and are very experienced. In fact, they are maybe at the very end of their careers, although you’d like them to come back in.
Obviously, not everybody gets to be one of those. What is the desirability among your personnel to pursue those positions? Who finds those desirable, why do they find them desirable, and what do you look for from those you choose to place in those very important positions?
MGen. Frawley: Thank you for that question. It’s an excellent question. I think I’m going to attack the second question first very briefly.
How do we select individuals? First of all, the services themselves — the army, navy, air force and special operations — are responsible for selecting individuals for key positions within the Canadian Armed Forces. Those services give us the names of the individuals who have shown an interest in those positions. We look at their military career, their deployed experience, whether they have command experience, and we also we look at other issues, personal issues — not too personal — like health and family relationships. Because these individuals, when we send them out the door, they are not solely representing Canada. In a lot of cases, the member and their spouse represent Canada, and the training is actually for the member and in a lot of cases we include the spouse.
The selection process is very rigorous to make sure we’re sending the right individual. Because of what I just described, it normally points towards our significantly more experienced individuals, and it takes a certain type of individual to — not everybody is good at building relationships or is good at interacting at the higher levels with our sometimes very senior members of our defence counterparts. It has got to be individuals who understand how to build relationships and have those personality characteristics to do so.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
Senator Boniface: Thank you to our guests for being here, and thank you for your service to our country.
I wanted to just come back to the recruitment challenges that you have and retention issues. In terms of how that impacts the particular areas that we’re focused on, is there a specific strategy around that? This is the context in which I ask the question: If you’re not successful in terms of recruiting to fill the vacuum that exists, is there a plan B to be able to look at how these very significant positions that are important to Canada would be dealt with?
MGen. Frawley: Thank you, senator. I appreciate you phrasing it in such a way that I can focus on the defence attaché program. As Deputy Vice Chief of the Defence Staff, retention and recruiting are not in my lane, but I have some knowledge of it. How it impacts the defence attaché program is quite important, so thank you for that question.
In the Canadian Armed Forces, we designate positions using a category system: category A, B and C. Category A positions are operations out of Canada and high priority operations in Canada, and they’re normally staffed at 95% and above. Then the other two fall below that. The defence attaché program falls in category A. So when you ask how we make sure that we are filling these positions, we do so by applying a category system, and in this case it is the highest of the categories.
It is a relatively low number. When you look at the size of the Canadian Armed Forces, which is well over 60,000, 100-plus people in these locations is a relatively small number. Also, they’re of a rank level that is not as much of a concern in our reconstitution effort. In other words, it’s more the middle rank areas where we’re having troubles: the captains, majors, sergeants and warrant officers — the folks who do a lot of the work for the Canadian Armed Forces. We fill the positions by prioritizing, because we do understand just how important the out-of-Canada mission is.
Senator Boniface: Switching topics, if I may. Looking at the challenges that are in the Arctic, in particular Russia and China claiming their space, so to speak, can you describe how DND works with Global Affairs Canada to help develop our presence and defence in the North?
MGen. Smith: Thank you. That’s an interesting question. Of course, we have been working with Global Affairs Canada for some time. NORAD modernization was recently announced. That is done hand in and with Global Affairs Canada. We talk to colleagues over there frequently about it, and we will continue to do so. There is $38.6 billion of investment going there in the next 20 years. That will need to be continually done with our partners at Global Affairs Canada and, frankly, so many other parts of the government as well to make sure that’s done properly and coordinated adequately. I would say it’s a success story. It’s going to take a long time, but it’s working together.
Senator Boniface: Thank you for your answers.
Senator MacDonald: I want to go back to the recruitment issue. We’ve talked quite a bit about recruitment here, but we haven’t heard why there are so many problems with recruiting. Compared to 20 or 30 years ago, is it worse today than 20 years ago and why? There must be obvious reasons why recruitment is so difficult. Could you elaborate on that?
MGen. Frawley: Thank you for the question, Mr. Chair. As mentioned, in my job as Deputy Vice Chief of the Defence Staff, I don’t specifically deal with recruiting and retention. The Chief of Military Personnel command is actually responsible for that. Certainly, if I don’t give the detail or the level of detail that you’re looking for, we can go back and get you more information.
However, I can comment. COVID hasn’t helped the Canadian Armed Forces over the last number of years. Of course, COVID has hurt a number of different organizations. It has definitely lowered our numbers and seemingly slowed our ability to bring people into the organization. Also, a lot of the issues surrounding the senior leadership and the culture change of the organization has maybe made young Canadians question whether this an organization that they want to be a part of. Then, of course, there is the competition with other organizations who are looking for similar types of individuals, young, very capable individuals.
I can tell you when it comes to the second part, the culture change aspect, as I’m sure you’re totally aware, the Chief Professional Conduct and Culture was stood up well over a year ago, and we are on the path to becoming a significantly more diverse, inclusive and respectful organization, and it is an iterative growing process.
As we move through and we improve in those areas, I believe the Canadian Armed Forces will become a more palatable or a good option for our young Canadians.
MGen. Smith: Hopefully you can hear the passion. We want to recruit. We’re tremendously biased. We think it’s a wonderful organization, and we would like to see young Canadians join. I’m a person that gets to interact with other parts of government internationally quite frequently, and I would say that, as much as this is a challenge we’re trying to overcome, there are challenges throughout government. Other departments are equally having their own challenges to bring people in. Also, in my international travels I see that the “Great Resignation” has occurred worldwide to a certain degree, and there are a number of militaries that are trying to fill their ranks back up and compete for young people. It’s something we’re trying to fix but it’s not a uniquely Canadian Armed Forces problem.
Senator MacDonald: Recruitment is a problem, but if people are already recruited and they’re in the military, attrition seems to be a problem as well. I would think that a military career, from the people I know, a military career can be a very good career, a very rewarding career, an entire career. So why so much attrition? Why are so many people leaving?
MGen. Frawley: Thank you very much again for the question, Mr. Chair. We’ve seen an increase in releases as we entered into COVID and certainly an uptick in the releases, but we are working on a number of programs. Again, there is a long list, and I would like to be able to maybe provide that in writing at a later date. There is a long list of things that we are doing to make sure that we make the Canadian Armed Forces an option that people want to continue to pursue over time as opposed to releasing and looking for other options.
Again, I’d like to provide that in writing.
The Chair: Thank you. We’re at the end of the first round, but I would like to lob another question out there.
As you interact with Global Affairs Canada, do you interact on the preparatory and the training side? For example, there is a Canadian Foreign Service Institute that provides courses, everything ranging from foreign language training to cross-cultural training to how to deal with your head of mission and how to negotiate and the like. If you’re looking at a larger footprint in terms of the Canadian Forces attaché network across the world, are you availing yourself of that or do you do your own in-house training?
I would add, of course, training on how to interpret the Foreign Service directives.
MGen. Frawley: Thank you for the question, Mr. Chair. We do absolutely liaise with Global Affairs Canada, not so much in delivering the same training, but the training we deliver is very much based on the training that Global Affairs Canada gives.
It’s a three-month course, and then we also tack on languages at the beginning of that.
We train about 30 new personnel a year. It’s not a huge bill, but it is a big enough bill. We do absolutely work with Global Affairs Canada, or GAC, to make sure that what we’re delivering prepares a person to take up a position within one of our Canadian embassies, absolutely.
MGen. Smith: The only thing I would add is, I’m responsible for the military training and cooperation program, which means I know a little bit more about military education. Of course, we have a great institute in Toronto, Canadian Forces College. Two of its better-known courses are longer ones: the joint command and staff program — this course takes a major lieutenant commander and brings them up to the level of a commander or lieutenant colonel — and the national security program, which takes colonels and drags them up to the general officer level. And we do actually have some interaction with the public service there as well.
Indeed, when I did my national security program, quite a few years ago now, there were actually three members of the public service there with me and we, I think, learned a lot either way. There are not a tremendous amount that do that, but we do actually have interactions like that, and it’s equally challenging on the military side to make sure we know how to interact with our Global Affairs Canada and other government colleagues as well.
The Chair: Thank you very much. We’ll move into round two.
Senator Coyle: So you mentioned, I forget which one of you mentioned, I think it was perhaps you, Major-General Frawley, that you want recruits to look more like Canada, resemble the Canadian population. I’m curious, right now in your defence attaché group, the actual attachés themselves, how many of them are women? I’d be curious to know that and whether you see barriers or incentives for women to be in that position. And then, are you looking to bring people up through the ranks — that’s how you do it, clearly — who are Canadian but also represent the populations where you have placed these attachés? So not just looking like Canadians but actually looking like Canadians in those countries where they’re going to be placed.
MGen. Frawley: Thank you for the question, Mr. Chair.
So I can tell you that of the roughly 100 that we have out of Canada right now in our defence attaché program, 21 are female. And the challenge, as you rightfully pointed out, is that we draw from a demographic that currently exists within the Canadian Armed Forces, which is about, I believe, around 20% female. The remainder are male.
Of course, because that demographic already exists, the people we pull come from those numbers and so it looks very similar to that demographic.
Ideally as we move forward, that demographic in the Canadian Armed Forces writ large will get better, and then the demographic of our out-of-Canada folks will get better.
As far as looking like the locations that we’re sending them, that is more challenging, absolutely, and I would say that we don’t currently do that, but it’s something that certainly we could consider.
There are a few cases. For example, the attaché in Paris is almost invariably French Canadian. It is much easier for that individual to work in that environment. But it’s something certainly that we can look at.
Senator Coyle: Thank you.
The Chair: I think we’ve come to the end of panel one. On behalf of the committee, I’d like to thank Major-General Frawley and Major-General Smith for their presentations, for answering our questions. I think you’ve enriched our deliberations. Thank you for being with us.
[Translation]
Colleagues, we will now move to our second panel.
[English]
Continuing on the foreign service theme, we will now take a deeper look at the concept of “separate agencies,” to which some of our past witnesses have alluded in their testimonies.
To help us with that, first we welcome Doreen Steidle, a former career Foreign Service officer, who among other posts, was Canada’s High Commissioner to Singapore from 2000 to 2003 and also Chief Executive Officer — I think the first Chief Executive Officer — of Passport Canada as it was then constituted. Welcome.
Next, from the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat, we welcome Marie-Chantal Girard, Senior Assistant Deputy Minister, Employee Relations and Total Compensation; Aline Taillefer-McLaren, Senior Director of the Union Engagement and the National Joint Council Support, Employee Relations and Total Compensation Sector; and by video conference, Simon Crabtree, Executive Director of Pension Policy, Programs and Total Compensation, Employee Relations and Total Compensation Sector. I think I have those titles right. Thank you for bearing with me.
We also have, last but not least, from the Privy Council Office, Allen Sutherland, Assistant Secretary to the Cabinet, Machinery of Government and Democratic Institutions.
Welcome and thank you all for being with us. We are ready to hear your opening remarks, which will be followed as usual by questions from senators and your answers. Ms. Steidle, you have the floor.
Doreen Steidle, Ambassador (ret.), as an individual: Thank you very much for inviting me to appear today. As you know, my brief is about the opportunity that might be provided to Global Affairs by obtaining separate agency status and the positive impact this may have on the management of the Foreign Service.
At the outset, I should note that I am not an HR expert, and I relied on online sources for my information. As a result, I may have made some errors of fact or interpretation and, if so, I apologize for that in advance.
I approach this subject as a career Foreign Service officer for 34 years, now retired, two years as a head of mission, former CEO of Passport Canada, ADM Corporate Services and CFO of the former Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade. I specialized in finance and resource management for much of my career while in Canada.
I have listened to the testimony of the expert witnesses at this committee and have come to the conclusion that our foreign ministry needs to take advantage of every creative authority it can to redesign our organizational structure with a corresponding HR management regime. This would be far better than continuing to implement change at the margins or making promises for change that might not be delivered.
If Treasury Board is still open to creating new separate agencies — and I don’t know the answer to that — then I wonder if this might not be a golden opportunity to rethink the Foreign Service and Canada’s representation more broadly and fundamentally than past and current exercises allow.
First, let me say that I am supportive of the Future of Diplomacy project launched by Minister Joly earlier this year. It’s good to survey staff and to launch working groups to make recommendations on short- and medium-term changes. But will it truly be transformative?
I was struck by the testimony of Marissa Fortune, an analyst on the project who appeared as a witness before this committee on September 28. She said when conducting staff surveys that:
. . . what we heard was a rearticulation of the same problems and preoccupations that staff were working to address 15 years ago.
I was really disheartened to hear that. In a time of unprecedented global challenges and pressures, this young diplomat and her colleagues were experiencing the same issues apparently unaddressed by the existing HR management regime from 2007 to 2022.
The committee has heard from other retired and current employees that echo this observation so I will not repeat their testimony.
But I come back to my question: Does it have to be this way? If we can and could have the authority to do so, why not embrace the opportunity and, with the future in mind and the inspiration of a blank canvas, start again? We are a quarter of the way through the 21st century and yet we are continuing to graft, add, subtract and reclassify employee groups onto what is essentially the postwar foundation of the old External Affairs.
I note that 27 departments, agencies and secretariats are now separate agencies. They must, therefore, have taken advantage of expanded authorities and, at minimum, redesigned their human resources regime. If their management and employees can devote the time, intellectual capital and human resources for this very fundamental undertaking, would this not be appropriate for Global Affairs and central agencies to consider?
Could we not examine best practices and lessons learned from these separate agencies, several of which have many times more employees than Global Affairs? Is this the time to look holistically at alternative service delivery models, at classifications, layers, compensation and who and how we recruit? If so, what would be the timelines for the implementation of separate agency status at Global Affairs? If not, why not?
I believe we can reform and revitalize the Canadian Foreign Service and rethink the fundamentals of Canada’s representation abroad. We can do this in parallel with the work of the Future of Diplomacy exercise and ask ourselves the really hard questions about the future and nature of Canada’s engagement with the world, and who and how best to deliver it. We have heard about the problems; perhaps now it’s time to think of creative solutions.
I believe we can arrive at a new structure, a purpose-built, made-in-Canada, modern and agile foreign ministry that can inspire its employees and position ourselves and our country for the remainder of this century.
And this might give hope to young employees that there might just be a new way to look at representation abroad so that 15 years from now some young officer isn’t looking at the report from 2022 and saying that nothing has changed.
Thank you for your time today. I would be happy to answer any of your questions.
The Chair: Thank you. We will now hear from Marie-Chantal Girard followed by Allen Sutherland.
[Translation]
Marie-Chantal Girard, Senior Assistant Deputy Minister, Employee Relations and Total Compensation, Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Before I begin, I would like to acknowledge that I am speaking to you on the traditional unceded territory of the Algonquin Anishinaabe people. You mentioned my title earlier; I would add that the sector is within the Office of the Chief Human Resources Officer.
The Office of the Chief Human Resources Officer, or OCHRO, is the centre of expertise for human resource management in the federal public service. We develop the broad policy direction and standards that enable deputy heads to fulfill their responsibility for effective people management within their organization.
[English]
The Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat, as the administrative arm of the Treasury Board, provides guidance so that resources are soundly managed across government.
It is important to note that, in the context of separate agencies, the Treasury Board is not the employer. We are operating in a coordinated approach with separate agencies regarding collective bargaining and the establishment of terms and conditions of employment for the federal public service. In this approach, all separate agencies must obtain their collective bargaining mandates from the President of the Treasury Board, including the objectives to be pursued and the limits to be observed prior to engaging in collective bargaining.
Collective bargaining mandates are provided within the context of the Government of Canada’s global negotiation strategy to avoid the risk of horizontal pressures when establishing terms and conditions of employment and salaries. Separate agencies must also consult the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat with respect to any new or modified terms and conditions of employment that are not covered by the collective bargaining process.
The Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat provides ongoing support to separate agencies throughout the negotiation process but at arm’s-length in order to preserve the separate agency’s independence in the process.
I will endeavour today to answer questions you may have in this area of activity, but I would like to take a minute to explain that there are certain limitations. In particular, I am not in a position to comment on matters that pertain to the machinery of government or other decisions that would ultimately fall under the Prime Minister’s prerogative. However, I can provide information about human resources policies under the Office of the Chief Human Resources Officer’s purview and, to a certain extent, explain the different implications of those decisions from a human resources perspective.
Hopefully, that will be useful to the work of the committee. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you.
Before we go to Mr. Sutherland, I want to remind colleagues to indicate your interest in asking questions to our clerk, Ms. Lemay, or to me. I just have one name on the list, so I had an early sense of panic.
We will now go to Mr. Sutherland, please.
Allen Sutherland, Assistant Secretary to the Cabinet, Machinery of Government and Democratic Institutions, Privy Council Office: Thank you. I am pleased to appear before the committee in support of your study of the Canadian Foreign Service and elements of the foreign policy machinery within Global Affairs Canada.
To maximize my use before you, I hope to frame the discussion a bit. I will provide a brief overview of machinery of government and how decisions are made and some of the key considerations, including how it might relate to separate agencies. Then I think the discussion will flow from there.
The Prime Minister is responsible for determining how the federal machinery is organized to advance policy priorities, to serve ministers in their capacity as part of our system of responsible government, to deliver services to Canadians and to implement the government’s agenda, more generally. That includes what institutions are needed, along with their roles, responsibilities and relationships among them.
As honourable senators will have observed, a machinery change can take many shapes. In fact, the term “machinery” is often misused, like the term “globalization.” Sometimes people attribute it — in fact, I’m not sure whether your title attributes it quite exactly right, but we will pass by that. But it can take different shapes. It can involve the creation, elimination and restructuring of organizations and government entities, and it can also affect the powers, duties and functions of those who are in leadership positions.
The Financial Administration Act, the FAA, sets out the Government of Canada’s institutional frameworks, including departments, Crown corporations and everything in between, of which there are many things. One of the things I like to argue is that every organization is unique. If you read the legislation carefully, each one is slightly different than another, and it is in those differences that we see some of the really interesting parts of the world of machinery.
As mentioned, each organizational form has unique features that are designed to meet specific goals and deliver on policy objectives. The basic forms are on a spectrum that determines how directly the relevant entities fall under the control of their responsible minister. Often, it is the relationship with the minister that determines the form of organization.
In addition to identifying each institution’s organizational form, the FAA schedules also indicate whether the institution is subject to the Treasury-Board-led administrative regime. I believe that’s what Doreen Steidle was saying, as well as Marie-Chantal Girard; they were speaking to that point.
Let’s talk about separate agencies. Whereas most federal institutions, including departments, are subject to the Treasury-Board-led rules — the frameworks from Treasury Board — separate agencies have the flexibility and the associated obligations to develop their own people-management regime, representing the Crown as employer for human resources and labour relations purposes. Generally speaking, separate agency status is conferred when a separate human resources management regime is considered necessary to meet particular operational needs. That could, for example, include national security, and you will see that in the list of 26 agencies that I believe Doreen Steidle mentioned. It could include operational requirements or the ability to set terms and conditions of employment to attract a highly technical or specialized workforce. That is seen in the list as well.
The guiding principle in machinery advice is that form follows function, with a clear sense of the problem to be addressed and the policy objectives to be met. Put another way, what an organization does helps to determine its organizational type and key features.
While we look to issues of precedent — what has occurred in the past — and some of the principles that underlie machinery, it’s very much a case-by-case basis. That is often a crucial consideration, as is how different machinery elements could impact an organization’s capacity to deliver on its mandate and any implications for the rest of the federal family.
Advice related to organizational form, including the applicability of the Treasury Board’s human resources management regime, is guided by a range of questions and considerations about whether and the degree to which a desired outcome could be achieved without machinery changes. I would submit that is a crucial question in your deliberations.
While a machinery change has the potential to be transformative, it is also almost invariably disruptive. It involves trade-offs and can come with significant transaction costs. For instance, it generally takes a significant amount of time and resources to fully implement a machinery change and for that change to bear fruit, for the organization to get to the place it needs to go.
Global Affairs Canada has evolved over time, as has Canada’s representation abroad. For instance, the recent evolution from DFAIT, the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade, in 1995, to DFATD, the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development, in 2013, and then to Global Affairs Canada in 2015 spoke in part to the desire for greater horizontal integration across the international portfolio.
Evolution of the institutional form is quite natural and consistent with the change we see more broadly across federal machinery as institutions adapt, for example, to shifts in the societal context, policy objectives or operational requirements. In this regard, a quick look at Canada’s diplomatic presence through time shows that the evolution of foreign affairs very much parallels the evolution of the country as a whole. It’s quite an interesting historical track when you see a statement from colony to nation.
As with all machinery matters, there is much to consider both within Global Affairs Canada and with respect to the overall federal machinery. Once again, thank you for the opportunity to appear today. I look forward to the discussion.
The Chair: Thank you very much. Colleagues, we have a lot to reflect on from these presentations, so I will start the question round. I will remind you that we are looking at four minutes each for the question and answer.
Senator MacDonald: I will direct my question first to Ms. Steidle. You were good enough to submit a study to our committee, and I thank you for that. I want to speak to you about that. In that study, you recommended that the committee study the operation of separate agencies. You also argued that the government should consider moving Global Affairs Canada toward separate agency status. You suggest this would allow for a comprehensive redesign of the department’s human resource regime, including in the areas of recruitment, employee classification and the terms and conditions of service.
Could you elaborate on that? What would you see the benefits and potential drawbacks being?
Ms. Steidle: I mostly see benefits, to be honest. The challenge we have at foreign affairs is, as Professor Chapnick said, a lot of churn. We have a lot of layers and a lot of churn. There’s rotationality, non-rotationality, lots of different classifications of people all working together and MOUs that glue together Global Affairs and other departments. So it’s really challenging, almost a kaleidoscope of human resource management. To that, you then add the responsibility of responding to international events. It’s a very complex package to manage.
I’m convinced that with a new agency, you could take a completely different look — a step back — and say, “What do we need to position ourselves to work in the international environment? Whom do we need to recruit and why?” Because recruitment — and I know the committee has asked a lot of questions about recruitment — is just a continuum of an obligation to an employee through the course of their career and similarly their obligation to you as the employer. Foreign affairs and foreign service work is very different than other work. For example, it is more like the military. Once you commit and are sent overseas, it’s not just you. It’s you and your spouse, it’s the education of your children and it’s your safety. Then you come back to Canada and need to be integrated.
I do believe that if we had a separate agency, through the development of it, the policy work and thinking through these issues, we could come up with a better incentive for recruitment and retention. That’s another issue at foreign affairs. Retaining people once they get to a certain point is very difficult. We have quite a bit of turnover. With recruitment, retention and issues raised in the public service survey, we can just take a holistic approach. We can look at it completely differently. We can see who we can and need to attract and what we would do with them once we got them.
Senator MacDonald: Are there potential drawbacks, and if so, how do you avoid them?
Ms. Steidle: People might say that it is more expensive than the current arrangement, and I would argue that we should probably take a look at how much the current Global Affairs department lapsed each year. In other words, how much didn’t it spend each year of its 100% total allocation? Perhaps there is a little spare money at the end of the year that could be directed in the moment to HR activities, language training or other training. I would think that perhaps the department could make a commitment that in designing a new, separate agency, the cost would not be greater than what it is now.
If you de-layered to a certain extent — and remember, we have five layers of executives before we even hit the deputy ministers. There are deputy ministers, five layers of executives, both rotational and non-rotational, four layers of foreign service officers, six layers of PMs and it goes on and on. It is a very layered department. We could take a fresh look at that. We could look at having fewer layers, categories and classifications. Surely we should be able to do that within the existing salary envelope.
The Chair: Thank you. That’s the end of that segment. I know there’s an eagerness to respond to that. It will probably come up in the following questions.
Senator Coyle: Thank you. I am going to ask Ms. Steidle a question, and others can also come in if you like.
I’m going to quote Mr. Sutherland in asking you my first question. Mr. Sutherland’s advice was to make sure that the form follows function and ask ourselves about those desired outcomes and the changes that clearly have to be made. I don’t think anybody is arguing that there doesn’t need to be some transformational change, as opposed to strictly incremental tinkering around the edges, because clearly there are a number of problems.
Can those desired outcomes be achieved without changing the machinery? These are two things I have taken from Mr. Sutherland. Having heard these points of view and advice from Mr. Sutherland, how would you respond to those now, given the recommendations that you are putting on the table?
Ms. Steidle: I happen to agree with the expression “form follows function.” What we have to look at is the question of what the function is. What do we want to do abroad? What do we want to do in Canada? What is the work that needs to be done and who best should do it? What are the skill sets we’re looking for, whether it’s specialists or generalists? What are we looking for in that modern world that we’re trying to engage with? I would go that way, working backwards as opposed to having an idea at the front end of what I would like to see.
There are some baseline assumptions I would make in starting a redesign, which would be to ask whether we can do it at the same cost and with fewer layers and categories and, somehow, with some kind of incentive structure that allows us to recruit and retain. Then we would ask some very fundamental questions about the foreign service, like, “Is this a career for life?” When I joined in 1977, it was. Thirty-four years later, it really was my life. We have to be really conscious of that because perhaps now it’s not for life, and if it isn’t, why not? If it is, what are we doing to help families and people as they go through that part of their lives?
So form does follow function, but I would start with those fundamental questions at the front end.
The Chair: I am going to interrupt and suggest, Senator Coyle, with your permission, that one of the other witnesses also respond.
Senator Coyle: Could you speak to cases where it has made sense and has worked — where a new agency was created out of a former department or something like that? Can you give us a good example of a dramatic change where those desired outcomes actually did cause the machinery to change?
Mr. Sutherland: The classic example, and it’s in Doreen Steidle’s paper, is the Canada Revenue Agency, or CRA, which in 1999 became a special agency. I would tell you, though, that the CRA is a very unique creature. It’s a bit like a platypus. Do you remember I mentioned that every organization is unique? Well, this CRA is especially unique in that the commissioner, who is a kind of permanent secretary — the deputy minister — has joint reporting relationship to the minister but also to a board made up of both federal and provincial officials. It’s Bob Hamilton, and for the purposes of part of the organization, he is serving the minister, and then for the other part, he is serving the commission. And in turn, he serves the policy agenda of the day in serving the minister, but when it comes to HR management, which is what the special agency is part of, he is operating in almost a corporate function.
One of the things I would point out to you is that no department is a special agency. While there are 26 agencies, if you look at the list, they tend to have very defined mandates and tend to do one thing very well. That’s why most of them are departmental corporations. They tend not to have a broad range of HR requirements but a very narrow and specialized range of requirements.
I would say that you would need to think it through very carefully if you wanted to apply that model to something like Global Affairs, which is a full-service department serving a minister on a day-to-day basis, with a large amount of interdepartmental coordination and a large number of roles across three ministers.
It’s not that we should dismiss out-of-the-box ideas, but this would be a highly unique situation.
Senator Ravalia: Thank you to our witnesses.
My question is for Ms. Steidle. Thank you for your enlightening brief. With your vast experience, are there any international comparators that you can give us with respect to a foreign service that works in the kind of model that you envisage?
Ms. Steidle: No, not at all. That’s what I think is so intriguing. We could actually not look to other countries for how they’re doing their foreign service. We could start again on our own. Let them look to us with what we design.
All of the cautionary notes that my colleague Mr. Sutherland has raised just makes me think that this is a wonderful challenge. I would love to work through it, to think through the issues. Can we not take a department that has that diversity and simplify it and give it a new structure and new HR responsibilities? Even if it isn’t implemented, we should at least look at it and see if there are off-ramps, if there are things that are not negotiable.
When we look at other foreign services, we often look at the United States, for example, and one of the things that we look at and value quite a bit, and always have, is that their foreign service officers all go through consular training and a two-year consular assignment, because a consular visa is a cone, as they call it. That is something that’s quite attractive because it gives everyone a common base. You can call them in an emergency. You can use the resources of the mission for, as I say, a consular crisis because everyone has had that basic training. Some might like to stay and specialize in that work and others may not.
There is some merit in that. It’s not impossible to do in a separate agency. It’s how you design the training program. There is a lot of flexibility. It all depends upon what you want to do.
Senator Ravalia: You earlier referenced, Mr. Sutherland, the Canada Revenue Agency and some of the potential — functioning separately, but still kind of a unity within government. If we were to create a separate agency with more independent powers in the model that Ms. Steidle has suggested, do you envisage that’s doable, or do you think it would be contrary to basic government policy?
Mr. Sutherland: I mentioned the evolution and the names going from DFAIT to DFATD to Global Affairs Canada because this speaks to a change, and a very important one, in our Foreign Service posture about integration across the international portfolio and broader integration with government.
I would wonder if you would you lose that by creating a separate agency. We’ve worked very hard to try and bring integration to our development, diplomacy, defence and trade posture. So by creating separateness, are you losing something?
Similarly, by creating more separateness within the international portfolio, are you creating a barrier between the rest of the public service and your foreign affairs department? In particular, would you create a barrier to the movement of staff into and out of the international portfolio?
I’m someone who has benefitted from a stint at Foreign Affairs and moved into domestic responsibilities after that, but the movement back and forth is an enriching experience for our foreign policy and also for our public service, both on the domestic and international side. One of the things I would worry about is making sure you’re not doing anything that would impair that.
Senator M. Deacon: My head is spinning. Thank you all for being here today.
We’re sitting here and we’re having a review, and it’s really important. We all are perhaps learning about where foreign affairs and everything is right now, what we want to be, to whom and how we measure that. That’s the sense of the lens, and yet you’ve got, on the one side, the sense of being really creative, and on the other, the sense of not disrupting the machinery.
In all of that, I’m still reflecting on a couple of things that my colleagues have already started to ask. I’m going to leave that, and I’m going to try something different.
Obviously, in our committee, you look around the table here, there are people who are more well versed in the structures of public service than others. You’ll probably see quickly which camp I’m in, but if Global Affairs was to become a separate agency, what would that mean for something — I don’t want to say fundamental — as core as the Minister of Foreign Affairs and her role at Global Affairs? Does it change anything in the policy direction level, or what does it mean to something we all know about, the appointment of ambassadors, for example? Could you give me a little bit of a one-on-one on that first?
Mr. Sutherland: I can take a part of it.
You asked about the role of the minister. Certainly, if we were considering a machinery change, part of the consideration would be whether the department, and in particular, senior leadership — the deputy minister for sure, but potentially the minister — is ready to lead a change management exercise of this nature.
We haven’t talked yet about the extent of the change. Would it be for all of Global Affairs? For Foreign Service officers? Just those people who are abroad? Does it include people on domestic assignment? Does it include trade officers? Does it include development officers?
Part of the assessment that would underline advice to the Prime Minister would need to include whether change management circumstances are in place and if the leadership is capable of undergoing this change. One of the things I have mentioned is machinery is disruptive. It creates a lot of uncertainty among staff. You don’t know where you stand, and people care about and want to know what it means. Whom do I report to? How does it affect my job security? How does it affect my income? How does it affect my benefits?
It would be a major change-management exercise.
Senator M. Deacon: We also have, as you know, prime ministers and ministers. We’ve had nine in a fairly short period of time, that part of the hierarchy. I just wanted to say that before Marie-Chantal Girard got in.
Ms. Girard: If the Prime Minister were to give direction, it would include how the transition is managed. It would cover the governance structures, the duties, the responsibilities, and I can give you an example of the suite of functions and elements it would cover.
It would cover the powers. As Ms. Sutherland just explained to the committee, the following things would need to be determined: What would be the scope of the change that would affect the functions within the current settings in government? Who would be responsible for what? Following that, we would draft the consequential legislation and all of the directives, policies and programs that could be affected.
We know that it is a unionized environment, so all of this would need to factor in a number of employees that could be non-unionized, exempt or unionized. Having the same bargaining agents representing them as those that are in the public service right now would mean they need to receive directions on how, as a total compensation approach, they would want these employees to fall under the current arrangements or to have separate arrangements. I can elaborate on that later, but it would touch pensions and benefits programs, so health, dental and disability. It would also touch the salary levels, the classifications and the terms and conditions of employment.
Mobility would also need to be discussed and clarified because there are some separate agencies that cannot deploy their employees within the federal public service automatically.
We would need to receive a number of directions to build a new construct based on the governance that the Prime Minister would decide to give to this organization.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
Senator Woo: Thank you to the witnesses. Ms. Steidle, you’ve identified a number of problems with the current structure at GAC and offered some solutions such as narrowing the different levels and bands, overlapping responsibilities, and so on. Why can’t these things be done under the current structure?
Ms. Steidle: I think for all the reasons Ms. Girard said. We have a regulatory HR regime that governs the Public Service of Canada. Global Affairs and its employees are in that regime with unions, classifications, levels, et cetera. You can’t just say we don’t want that group any more. That’s not really possible to do.
I joined the foreign service of what was then the Department of Manpower and Immigration in 1977. Through that, I was transferred in and out of all of these different names and titles of what was eventually Foreign Affairs. Changing groups and bringing them in and out of Foreign Affairs is something that is done fairly frequently.
The integration across the broader portfolio really is the key. What if the portfolio is integrated? What if it’s in the tent? The question is really how big is the tent that is the foreign ministry? Is it only the Foreign Service, the old external affairs, and political and public affairs officers? Or is it a much bigger, more robust entity designed a different way, inspiring its employees, hiring differently, incentivizing? I just think there is a new way to look at this and a different way to do it.
Senator Woo: You would have to sort out massive legacy issues transferring from one system to the other. You don’t have to answer that question, but that would be part of the challenge.
Ms. Steidle: I’m retired, Senator Woo.
Senator Woo: Yes; it’s not your problem.
I would like to ask Mr. Sutherland a bit of a philosophical or symbiotic question. You didn’t mean it in a bad way, but you took some exception to the word “machinery” in the title of our study. I want to hear what your reservation is because it might help us to clarify what we really should be looking at.
Mr. Sutherland: My apologies if I created offence.
Senator Woo: No. This would be very helpful.
Mr. Sutherland: It’s a reflex because the term is often used.
There is a lot of dynamism within the rules. I would take exception to the idea that you always need to change an organization in order to get a different outcome. If there are problems with issues around morale in an institution, then maybe some hard questions need to be asked within the rules so that there can be dynamism within the administrative rules to improve them and to get more dynamism out of your organization. You don’t always need to take a machinery hammer and change your organization.
I guess what I find is people reach for the machinery hammer, not understanding that it is a very disruptive thing. It takes many years to come out the other end of a machinery change, when, in fact, dynamic leadership and dynamic interpretation of existing rules can get you some of the outcomes that you’re talking about.
The Chair: Thank you.
Ms. Girard: Senator Boehm, if I may, a one-liner on this. The Office of the Chief Human Resources Officer provides guidance. Each departmental head is accountable and responsible for their department. As the CHR likes to say, we try to implement a model where there is freedom within the box. Each organization is unique. There are no two coast guards. There are no two space agencies. Each of them needs to look at their specific challenges and how they can approach them in a creative way.
The Chair: Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Gerba: Thank you to our witnesses. Thank you very much, Ms. Steidle, for your testimony and for the brief that you submitted. It is very informative.
You indicated in your own opening remarks that you are discouraged because it has been 15 years, and the changes have not happened yet at Global Affairs Canada. It could even be said that some go back even further.
You have a lot of experience in management. How would you explain these barriers? Is there an internal reluctance to change? If so, what will change by adopting your proposed solution?
[English]
Ms. Steidle: That’s a very good question, and I thank you for that.
The reason that testimony from the young officer was so moving for me is that I was on the senior management group that studied the HR issues in the department in 2007. I was so disappointed to hear that in 2022, officers were finding that nothing had changed. That’s very disappointing to me.
It comes back to the following questions: What were we recommending at the time, and what were the problems that we foresaw? Again, the problems are the same. They are not paying enough attention to the issues that concern officers. I’m talking here about foreign service. What are those issues? Well, it’s spousal employment. Where do my children go to school? It’s terms and conditions of service. For cost-cutting reasons, have we diminished some of those benefits that encourage you to go abroad? These are the kinds of things that need to be considered. The world is a much more dangerous place. Perhaps the terms and conditions of the foreign service have not kept pace adequately with that. The definition of “spouse” has changed; partnerships have changed. The family definition is very different than it was 15 years ago.
We have to be proactive and move forward. Our employees expect that. It’s not just diversity and inclusion. It’s looking after an employee for the duration of their career and, hopefully, providing them with the conditions that allow them to perform at the highest level they can, to aspire to the position that they want to and can accommodate if they’re able to do so. There’s nothing wrong with not being promoted up to deputy minister. That’s fine. If you can make it to the level that you want to be at, we will support you if you are willing to work with us on your career.
Enhanced career management, more focused management, looking after the individual — I think all of that comes back to what we said we would do.
When we talk about a new agency, human resources must be central in the redesign.
The Chair: Does anyone else want to comment on that? There is a bit of time.
[Translation]
Ms. Girard: Thank you very much for your question, Senator Gerba. On this point, I am hearing a call for modernization, a fine alignment between very diverse realities around the world and what the employer can offer.
I have two comments on that. First, in our discussions on the renewal of collective agreements, we retain, within the overall mandate to negotiate, a portion of the resources to meet the specific needs of the organizations with which we negotiate on behalf of employees. So there are improvements in each of the collective agreements that will meet these needs cycle after cycle.
Further to the comment by my colleague, Ms. Taillefer-McLaren, who manages the National Joint Council, the Foreign Service Directive is also negotiated and modernized on a regular basis.
Ms. Taillefer-McLaren: Thank you for your question, Senator Gerba. As for terms and provisions of employment, the National Joint Council is a forum of choice in which several directives are negotiated. These are directives that apply to all unions that choose to include certain directives in their collective agreement.
In the case of foreign service, there are Foreign Service Directives that mention various elements, such as the definition of “spouse.” That definition has evolved. It no longer refers just to a spouse, but also to homosexual and heterosexual common-law spouses. There is also reference to conditions that affect education, such as the provisions available to employees for their children’s education when they are abroad, whether it be education abroad or education in Canada, in some cases.
So, the changing needs of employees serving abroad are negotiated as part of a cyclical review of Foreign Service Directives, which have taken into account changes or evolved over the years.
Senator Gerba: What prevents that from being done in the current context, and what would change if special agency status were adopted?
The Chair: I am sorry, Senator Gerba. The time for questions has ended. I will add you for the second round, if you wish.
[English]
Senator Boniface: Thank you for being here. It’s such an interesting issue.
Ms. Steidle, when I read your report, I keep thinking of the term “fit for purpose” and thinking that fit for purpose then flows from it all. Can you help me understand why that couldn’t be done in the current context?
Ms. Steidle: You know, there’s nothing worse than a retired employee.
Senator Boniface: Oh, I know.
Ms. Steidle: I want to be a bit careful, but again, I with anchor my comment on Professor Chapnik’s observation. There is a churn in the minister and the minister’s office. In Global Affairs there are three. You have deputy ministers who rotate through the government public service. You have associate deputies, assistant deputy ministers, directors general and directors. Half of them are non-rotational. They’ll be in the job and then they will apply for another one, and then they leave. But then you have the rotationals working side-by-side, and in the summer, they go on posting and you wait for their replacement to come in. At any one time, multiple layers of senior people are moving. There’s tremendous churn.
In a separate agency, you could say everyone is rotational. You could say whatever you wanted, but you could also say there are fewer layers. You could say we don’t need to have directors general; we only need the equivalent of the directors and ADMs. There are all sorts of design possibilities, but I think churn is one thing that is really difficult to manage. And I must say, when you have both the churn internally and the churn of external events for which you are providing foreign policy advice — doing trade negotiations, responding to activities and actions of other countries both bilaterally and multilaterally and offering services to travelling Canadian businessmen and consular passport services — it is a huge mishmash. It’s a kaleidoscope of activities and people always in motion. There has to be a better way to deal with this.
Senator Boniface: I’ll turn to the officials. One of the pieces of feedback I get and what we have heard here at the table — although, I happen to have somebody who works in Global Affairs and it’s something that Ms. Girard spoke about — is that it’s up to the managers to manage, given the framework you’re given. I wonder, when you reflect on what you hear from employees and what we heard at this table, is there an issue around managers learning to manage differently and better, or is it a policy framework that doesn’t fit what the managers need to deliver?
Ms. Girard: Capacity is always a consideration and an issue. In an organization that is structured around a model that rotates so quickly, it has to be a consideration. I would offer that if we look at the other side of the coin, if the Prime Minister was de-linking, what we have observed and the conversations that we have had as an employer are about transition and the risk of loss of capacity. There would be some who would absolutely refuse to leave and operate within the new governance and the total compensation package that could be offered.
So it’s capacity, yes. It is a challenge for all organizations. It is a challenge of our times, with the crisis that we face, with the speed of information and pressures coming from every direction, I would say that we should reflect on how we can, as an integrated model — as Mr. Sutherland has highlighted — build that capacity.
The Chair: I’m going to cut you off here. You’re well over time. Sorry, senator. In fact, we’re not going to even have a round two, because I want to ask a question.
We are going to be looking at other jurisdictions as well and what they do with their foreign ministries, and I think this is a very good discussion we’ve had today. In my previous life, when I joined the foreign service, it was the department of external affairs. Mr. Sutherland, add another one to your — how old am I?
I entered the public service in 1981, and that very year there was a fusion with Industry, Trade and Commerce. In fact, Industry, Trade and Commerce was disbanded. So the trade function came in, hence DFAIT. Later on, in 2013, the Canadian International Development Agency, or CIDA, was also absorbed or amalgamated. We’ve had all of these things happen; however, when we go back to 1981, it was the only time that there was a Royal Commission on Conditions of Foreign Service, the McDougall Commission.
Many of the things that were highlighted there have come up in the conversation today and subsequently. I’m so glad that Ms. Taillefer-McLaren had a chance to speak because the most elaborate, comprehensive and, I would add, confusing document is, in fact, the document that contains the Foreign Service directive. Good luck in your negotiations and the triennial review.
I would ask the last question to you. Does it look like there is a way to simplify all of that? Anyone serving abroad, including from other government departments and agencies, are covered by that. There has to be a way to make this simpler, easier to understand and easier to administer. You have the final word.
Ms. Taillefer-McLaren: Thank you, I think. I suggest that during the last cyclical review, there was a valiant effort by both parties. We have to remember that the cyclical review of its directives does not involve simply the employer; it also involves the bargaining agent side. In one particular section, for those who speak FSD — Foreign Service Directives — there is one particular directive, FSD15, which talks about relocation. In FSD15, we made a clear effort to simplify it and to take it down from 60 pages to 27. It contains the same information, and it simplifies the administration; it does both of those things. I think that’s very much on the mind of both parties, so the employer’s side and the bargaining agent’s side, to try to make sure it is a document that can be read — and read entertainingly and not as a put-me-to-sleep kind of document on your bedside table.
The Chair: Thank you very much. I’m afraid we have come to the end of our session. As we move forward in this study, we might want to have you back for more elucidation.
All witnesses, thank you for your contributions today. We appreciate it very much.
(The committee adjourned.)