THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS AND INTERNATIONAL TRADE
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Thursday, March 9, 2023
The Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade met with videoconference this day at 11:30 a.m. [ET] to examine and report on the Canadian foreign service and elements of the foreign policy machinery within Global Affairs Canada; and, in camera, to study a draft agenda (future business).
Senator Peter M. Boehm (Chair) in the chair.
The Chair: Welcome, everyone.
My name is Peter Boehm. I am a senator from Ontario and the Chair of the Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade.
Before we begin, I wish to invite committee members participating in today’s meeting to introduce themselves.
Senator Housakos: Senator Leo Housakos from Quebec.
Senator Ravalia: Senator Mohamed-Iqbal Ravalia from Newfoundland and Labrador.
Senator Greene: Senator Stephen Greene from Nova Scotia.
Senator MacDonald: Senator Michael MacDonald from Nova Scotia.
Senator Harder: Senator Peter Harder from Ontario.
Senator Boniface: Senator Gwen Boniface from Ontario.
Senator Busson: Senator Bev Busson from British Columbia.
Senator Coyle: Senator Mary Coyle from Nova Scotia.
Senator Woo: Senator Yuen Pau Woo from British Columbia.
The Chair: I wish to welcome all of you, as well as the people across Canada who may be watching us today on Senate ParlVU.
Today, we continue our study on Canada’s Foreign Service — the objective of which is to evaluate whether Canada’s Foreign Service and foreign policy machinery are fit for purpose, and ready to respond to global challenges today and in the future.
To discuss the matter, we are very honoured to welcome by video conference today the Honourable John Baird, the former minister of foreign affairs — he is the former minister of many things at both the federal level and the provincial level, but he is speaking to us today as the former minister of foreign affairs. Welcome, Mr. Baird. You have 10 minutes for an opening statement, and then we will proceed to the routine that you are so familiar with: questions from senators and your answers. Mr. Baird, you have the floor.
Hon. John Baird, P.C., Former Minister of Foreign Affairs, as an individual: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. Let me thank you for the kind invitation to be with you today, and congratulate you and the committee for undertaking this important effort.
I can say that Senator Boehm and Senator Harder were two of the best public servants that I had the pleasure of working with — and also my friend Senator Housakos, who’s been a friend for more than 35 years. I’m thrilled to be here.
I have some comments to make, and then I’ll turn it over. The role of the department should be, chiefly, to do two things: The first is to promote Canadian values, including freedom, human rights, pluralism and the rule of law. The second is to promote Canadian interests, and those are increasingly about two things: peace and security — and, especially, Canada’s economic interests.
One American business group — before I became the foreign minister — had awarded Hillary Clinton and named her the best Secretary of Commerce ever in American history, which shows you the extent to which our friends and allies around the world are pursuing economic interests as a higher priority than they might have 25 or 50 years ago.
I think we need to create a new vision for a truly integrated team, whether it’s foreign policy, trade or development. The vision of integration, in my opinion, hasn’t lived up to its potential — and that’s both before and after I became the foreign minister.
First, with the trade file, and then later on — when I was the foreign minister — with the development file, I think there is still too much of a patchwork of bureaucratic stitching together. Too many of the fiefdoms, I think, remain in place; we need to streamline things, and have a bold machine where hard-nosed policy reaches the minister and the government.
In foreign policy, for a country like Canada, it is absolutely essential that we have priorities. I don’t think we can play on every field, and those priorities will change over time. For me, between 2011 and 2015, the three big priorities were as follows: The first priority was the Five Eyes, especially the relationship with the United States. The second was the Middle East and North Africa, where we had the conflicts in Libya and Syria, the threat of Iran, the Israeli-Palestinian question, the challenge posed by Da’ish in Iraq and rebuilding relations with the Saudi Arabian states. And the third was China and the Asia-Pacific region, including Japan, Korea and especially the ASEAN nations, which I saw as a particular priority when I was the foreign minister.
I do feel that all too often — over the years — we have tried to spread ourselves way too thin, and that’s one of the comments that I want to leave you with here today.
I think, at times, in the department, there is too much “groupthink” — too many people who think the same way — and we need a diversity of views. I would find regularly that in a cabinet meeting — where we had a robust discussion of a particular proposal, and where people could relay different views — almost inevitably, what would rise to the top to become a government policy would be a better result given the diversity of views. And that’s something I would like to see more of in the department. I know that this, among some diplomats, was not always treated with great fanfare, but the prime minister that I served had a line which was “Canada shouldn’t go along to get along.” That is a concern that I had, particularly when we were at foreign conferences and summits.
I want to give you two examples: I attended the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting when Australia hosted it in Perth some years ago. Canada had been fighting to have in the communiqué a reference to combat early and forced marriage for young girls. This made some countries in the room uncomfortable, and I was pulled aside and asked, “Would Canada — for the good of the unity of the Commonwealth, and for the success of the meeting — simply withdraw the request to have this be put in the statement?” It had been in the draft communiqué for weeks. I thought, “If Canada is not prepared to stand up for this, then who is? And if people have objections, let them speak to them at the table.” Growing over time — our mission in New York, and the work that was done at headquarters — we made substantial progress on this issue, even if it was a bit controversial at first.
The second issue is related to religious freedom. I was at a G8 Minister of Foreign Affairs, or MINA, conference, and I was one of three G8 foreign ministers who showed up. We had put under the declaration, which was in the draft, one sentence highlighting the importance of pluralism and religious freedom — and, at the last minute, one of our Arab friends had convinced the French presidency to pull it out, and I simply wasn’t prepared to sign on to the communiqué. Canada showed up. We had presented this idea in a draft program, and I think we need to be more ambitious in bringing the views of Canadians and Canadian interests to the table.
Those are just two short examples.
I thought about, practically, a number of points. These aren’t big picture items, but, Mr. Chair, here are a number of points: The internet and video conferencing are changing diplomacy in the conduct of foreign policy in a major way — as is social media. When I was the foreign minister, the department did some really phenomenal work — with the Munk School at the University of Toronto — on Iran and the space for Iranian dissidents to have a place to talk. This type of effort is extraordinarily efficient and extraordinarily productive. And, I think, we need to look at more of these types of initiatives. I know there have been a number of initiatives under this government who have done the same thing, and that pleases me.
There has been a huge increase in travel for the minister and for senior members of the team. There are a growing number of international summits, conferences and organizations, and, at the ministerial level, you see your colleagues regularly. There would be times where I would see the U.S. Secretary of State or the U.K. Foreign Secretary four or five times in a month — so you do establish a much closer relationship, where you can advance Canadians’ interests on the sidelines of those meetings. And I think that’s tremendously important.
When you look at how things have evolved in the last 40 or 50 years — for example, in our most important relationship with the United States, virtually every minister in the cabinet has a bilateral relationship with their counterparts, and this really usurps the Department of Global Affairs and even the embassy. We need to accommodate that, and ensure that we are all speaking with one voice.
I liked specific ambassadors for specific issues — I served as the Minister of the Environment twice, and we had a public servant who was the Minister for Climate Change — because that was an extremely valuable asset for the government and public policy, where we had someone who could speak for us, as an ambassador-level appointment, at international climate change negotiations. I thought that was very successful. We also had the Ambassador for Religious Freedom, which basically entailed promoting pluralism around the world, and I thought that was a great success as well.
Finally, one challenge that the department has to meet is young people today; they want immediate professional gratification. They want to re-evaluate their career progression based on their abilities and merit rather than their tenure. My dad had 2 jobs throughout his entire life — I do worry that young people today are going to have 5, 10 or 15 jobs in their lifetime. Some of the best and the brightest may not be interested in staying around for 20 years to get their dream job. That’s something that, I think, the department has to confront. People are much more mobile, and much more ambitious, than they were even a few short years ago.
Finally, I do think you should have ambition in your report. I want to encourage all of you to look at the big picture, and not simply have a long list of managerial issues and complaints about the need for more money. I think the composition of this committee is very impressive, and can present some non-partisan ideas to the department and to the government as a whole. I’m excited that you are undertaking this study and report, and I’m excited to review it. The expectations are going to be very high given the membership of the committee. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Baird, for your comments. Before we proceed to questions, I wish to remind members of the committee 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 may be wearing an earpiece for interpretation.
We will now proceed to questions, and, as per usual, I just want to advise members that you will have a maximum of four minutes for the first round — that includes both your question and the answer. Concision in questions is appreciated, as that will allow Mr. Baird more time to answer the question. We can always move on to a second round if we have enough time.
Senator Housakos: Thank you, Mr. Baird, for being with us this morning, and thank you for your thought-provoking ideas that you have shared with us. My question has to do with parliamentary diplomacy: The executive branch of government is the driving force when it comes to foreign policy, as it should be, but I believe there is an important place as well — especially on behalf of democracies like ours — for parliamentary diplomacy. Of course, you are Canada’s greatest foreign affairs minister and a long-time parliamentarian — we haven’t discussed this before, so it’s not a lob ball that I’m sending to my good friend and former minister. I’m just wondering if you can share your views on this: What place does parliamentary diplomacy have, parliament to parliament, and what can we do to adapt Foreign Affairs in order to leave space for parliamentary diplomacy to take on a bigger and more significant role?
Mr. Baird: I think it can play a very important role in some countries, especially countries with a robust legislative branch. I recall when I was the Minister of Transport, Rob Merrifield was the Minister of State for Transport, as well as the head of the Canada-United States Inter-Parliamentary Group for many years. He had extraordinarily good contacts and access to some of the senior members on Capitol Hill — that was a great benefit to the Government of Canada and to Canadian public policy. I also remember the late Gord Brown had similar relationships in Washington.
I was involved in an International Democrat Union, or IDU, group of young Conservative elected officials in my first term, in my twenties, and I made a relationship with the then leader of the opposition in the U.K., William Hague — when I became the foreign minister years later, in my sixth term, he was my counterpart. So I already had a pre-existing relationship that was very successful for me and for Canada. I think that these things can be very positive. I also think, unfortunately, for some, they just see it as a parliamentary junket — rather than a meaningful opportunity to engage at different levels. And I would encourage — certainly with some countries, especially the United States and the United Kingdom, who are two of our closest friends and allies — that it would be phenomenal if they could take advantage of those relationships. Rob Merrifield could get in to see any committee chair on Capitol Hill at a moment’s notice, and I think, perhaps, that was underutilized by the department over the years.
Senator Housakos: The Department of Foreign Affairs, I find, sometimes, views parliamentary diplomacy as an obstacle. What are some practical things — administrative things — that we can recommend to Foreign Affairs, where they can utilize parliamentarians in both chambers in order to build on some of the practical relationships and examples that you have just given, Mr. Baird?
Mr. Baird: They can identify people who have influence and access, and try to take advantage of that. Even having someone from the embassy involved with meetings would be a great help, and it would also help diplomats build relationships where they can have access to key committee chairs and key leading members in both the Senate and the House. I think, in foreign policy, Gary Doer tried very hard to put more influence, effort and focus on the legislative branch in Washington, for example, but we still pray at the altar of the White House and the executive branch — we could certainly do more. It’s gone in the right direction, but we could do more, and parliamentarians could be part of that.
Many of the issues that cause Canada grief are not emanating from the administration, but rather emanating from the legislative branch — and the access that members of Parliament’s global budgets have in order to allow them to travel to Washington is, frankly, money well spent.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Baird.
Senator Ravalia: Thank you very much, Mr. Baird, for your wisdom and insight. We have heard from witnesses that the Foreign Service needs expertise in international security, cyberwarfare and disinformation, as well as climate change. In your opinion, how should Global Affairs Canada balance its need for personnel with soft skills in diplomacy and its need for personnel with specialized skills? And furthermore, how, if at all, could the use of cross-postings with other departments help the Government of Canada better meet the many foreign policy challenges that it currently faces?
Mr. Baird: Thank you. That’s a great question. I think, as we confront the issues on peace and security, cybersecurity is an issue which corporate Canada is seized with at the management level and at the corporate governance level. With respect to our security, there is a much greater focus that needs to be put on cybersecurity, and, obviously, with foreign influence in our electoral process, that’s something that’s a great concern. We should be honest; many countries engage in foreign election interference. I’m reading the autobiography of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel, and he talks about a congratulatory call he received — from former President Clinton — when he was first elected, where former President Clinton conceded that he had done everything he could to defeat Bibi when he was running against Shimon Peres — and that’s among two close friends and allies. We’ve got to be mindful of that. Obviously, we have seen former President Obama endorse Prime Minister Trudeau’s election campaign not once, but twice — and that’s foreign interference as well.
Senator Ravalia: Thank you.
Senator Harder: I was going to call you “Minister Baird”; it’s good to see you, and I appreciate your comments. I particularly endorse a number of points, such as bureaucratic fiefdoms and the diversity of views, but I want to focus on your call for priorities. We can’t play on every field — that has been the theme of every foreign minister with whom I have spoken — and, yet, the field that they have chosen, or the priorities that they suggested, weren’t always the same. It’s the obligation of the department to anticipate where the priorities might come. For example, when Afghanistan happened, we didn’t have any capacity, really, to understand Afghanistan’s history, geography or experience, let alone the language.
The department has an obligation to invest in not only our priorities, but also where the world might need Canadian expertise. How do you balance, in your mind, your set of priorities versus what the department and the Government of Canada have to have as a residual fount of knowledge in order to advise ministers on what they don’t anticipate?
Mr. Baird: Well, I can’t criticize the departmental officials for not anticipating how big of a priority Afghanistan would become to Canada in the aftermath of 9/11. I think one of the things they may want to do is develop practices and processes, and have funding in place that allows them to be very agile to confront new challenges. I’ll use the example of the Arab Spring. While we had an embassy, and had reasonably good relationships on the ground in Tripoli in Libya — and we had a great ambassador in Sandra McCardell — obviously, when we went to war in Libya, we had to step up our game, and I think we did.
I think the humanitarian tragedy in Syria is another example. Syria was not a priority before the Arab Spring and Bashar al-Assad’s war against his own people, but when we closed the embassy, we had a good number of resources available that we were able to deploy in order to deal with that challenge.
I think what it really requires is agility, and you have to make priorities. Sometimes when you make a priority, it means that other countries aren’t a priority, and that’s actually the case.
For example, Haiti has been a priority for successive governments of both parties — because it’s the poorest country in the western hemisphere, and because of its large francophone population. It’s a country that I visited twice. I would attend meetings regarding Haiti on the sidelines at the UN every year with the United Nations Special Envoy for Haiti, former President Clinton, and with my counterparts.
There will be some that won’t change as priorities, but there will be others that will emerge. I think the department has to be a lot more agile, and maybe have a set of resources that they can deploy on a moment’s notice to those priority areas.
Every government is going to have priorities, and that’s a good thing. I still think, though, there are some governments in the past 50 years that try to make everything a priority — and then nothing is a priority, and you really can’t accomplish much. When I was the foreign minister, we were very active in North Africa and the Middle East, just because there were so many conflicts and so many priorities in that region — and I felt that it was important that Canada had a strong voice, and was at the table in those discussions.
Also, I had a parliamentary secretary, Deepak Obhrai, who was from Sub-Saharan Africa, so he picked up some of the pressure there. I had a junior minister of state who took responsibility for the Americas, which was helpful. You have to make priorities, and I think, too often, we just try to be all things to all people, and that’s not a partisan statement either way; it’s just a desire to do too much.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Baird.
Senator MacDonald: Good morning — I almost said “Minister Baird” again. It’s good to see my old colleague.
Mr. Baird, when you were the foreign minister, Canada’s relationship with Russia was quite different. We had a relatively cooperative relationship with Russia in the Arctic, for example, and certainly our relationship with China was different. The world has changed remarkably, and both of these authoritarian — arguably totalitarian — countries have now emerged as dangerous threats, not only to democracies like Ukraine and Taiwan but to the West in general.
What actions do you think Canada should be taking today — diplomatically, militarily and in conjunction with our allies — to respond to this, apparently, growing threat?
Mr. Baird: Our relationship with Russia was very good for the first two years that I was the foreign minister. Sergei Lavrov is the Russian foreign minister — you may not agree with his opinions or pronouncements, but he is an incredibly intelligent and incredibly active foreign minister with more experience than the last, probably, 10 Canadian foreign ministers combined. You have to work with people with whom you don’t share their values.
It all really changed, not only with the invasion and annexation of Crimea and the Donbas, but also with their deteriorating human rights policy, particularly with respect to the LGBTQ+ community — and that’s why, I think, we began to diverge paths with Russia. Their values were simply not consistent with the other G7 and other G8 members.
I think China has changed demonstrably in recent years. The Harper government got off to a bit of a rough relationship with China, but, between 2009 and 2015, it got demonstrably better. While agreeing to disagree on a good number of issues, we were able to accomplish a lot of things for the benefit of Canada, the Canadian economy and Canadians in general, and I think that’s a good thing.
Obviously, the policies that they have been pursuing have been demonstrably more of a challenge. We have had a challenging relationship, even before the arrest of Meng Wanzhou. The decision to ask for a progressive trade deal the night before the announcement of Canada-China free trade discussions, the non-approval of the Aecon construction company sale and then, finally, the poison pill in the renegotiated North American Free Trade Agreement, or NAFTA, all really hurt our relationship with China. Then it, obviously, went demonstrably worse after Madam Meng was released.
This is not new, though, for Canada. Some days, people are better friends and allies, but that can change quickly — it has over the decades and decades, and this isn’t any different.
I think we do need to recognize — and it’s hard for many Canadians — that a majority of countries in the world don’t share our values, and have different systems of government. Someone said to me once, “Why are we letting China host the Olympics? We shouldn’t allow that.” And I said, “Well, there are 193 countries recognized at the UN, and they are not going to let the 36 that are liberal democracies make all the decisions.” You have to work with people with whom you may disagree, or with whom you may have strong disagreements, as long as you are professional about it.
Senator Boniface: Thank you to the witness for joining us. Mr. Baird, it’s good to see you again.
One of our witnesses, Doreen Steidle, who is a retired Canadian ambassador, recommended to the committee that we look at studying the operation of separate agencies in the public service. She argued that the government should consider moving Global Affairs Canada into a separate agency status.
I would be interested in your comments in relation to that, and how that may, or may not, fit with your notion of what a new vision would be for Global Affairs Canada.
Mr. Baird: Well, not so much for how it’s organized, but can it operate as one team where we have — I think when we had the Canadian International Development Agency, or CIDA, operating independently of Foreign Affairs, CIDA was, in my opinion, off and running its own foreign policy that was different from what was being engineered at the Lester B. Pearson Building. One of the first things Stephen Harper did was bring trade back into Foreign Affairs, which I thought was a good move.
I guess I’m less concerned about whether it’s a separate agency than if they can be agile, break down the fiefdoms and operate as an efficient agency that reflects the different environment that we’re in.
I worked at Foreign Affairs — or External Affairs at the time — very briefly, during the Kim Campbell government — all four months of it — as a special assistant to the minister, and we used to rely entirely on cables to receive information about what was going on abroad. I remember getting an email and saying, “Well, why would this person — on the same floor — email me when we can just walk down the floor and talk about it?” I think, in many respects, some people have changed the department; for others, it still operates the same way that it used to.
We sold the ambassador’s residence in Ireland. It was located, I’m told, outside — in the far suburbs — of Dublin. Simply speaking, people in downtown Dublin, government officials and the like, were not interested in going for a two-hour or three-hour dinner, where it would take 45 minutes to get there and 45 minutes to get back. People now have life partners who are working professionals, and they have families, and the system has to change to respond to that.
Senator Boniface: I lived in Ireland for three years, and I heard about that after it was sold.
Perhaps, in terms of the fiefdoms, it kind of ties, I think, to your comment that the next generation — or the generation coming in — is, maybe, not going to sit around for 20 years. Do you think the combination of more flexibility — in terms of being able to move around Global Affairs and expecting people to move out — may break down some of those fiefdoms, if the vision was strong and straightforward?
Mr. Baird: I would hope so. What I don’t want to see is a really sharp, bright 33-year-old or 35-year-old get frustrated and leave public service. We had a few diplomats who were much younger than most of their counterparts, and they were extraordinarily good contributors to the department. By saying, “You can’t reach to this level unless you have served 20 years,” many young people are simply not going to wait.
The second issue for young people is their spouse. How can the department work on making it easier for families and spouses? I recall one senior ambassador telling me that when he first joined the department, he had to request the permission of the department to get married in the late 1960s. Now a lot of our high-level diplomats have spouses who are equally as talented and accomplished, and we have to figure out a way to make that work. The department has done it well on some occasions, but has definitely fallen short on other occasions.
For example, in China, when I was the foreign minister, one of our consulates general brought his same-sex partner who had to be labelled “household help,” and that’s tremendously difficult for some families, as it should be.
Senator Boniface: Thank you.
Senator Woo: Thank you, Mr. Baird, for appearing before our committee. I want to pick up on your comment about the value of diversity of thought, and how to avoid groupthink in the department.
How do we do that? How do we promote cognitive diversity in a department where there must be huge pressure on individuals with contrary views to conform lest their career prospects are jeopardized? Could we, for example, set up some kind of organized dissent group within the department? Do we have something like a Skunk Works department within Global Affairs? I’m saying all this seriously because big corporations do these things, and they do it with some success.
The U.S. Department of State has a “policy ideas channel,” which is a nice term for allowing lower-level officers to, basically, think outside of the box, and offer ideas that may challenge the current doctrine and dogma of U.S. foreign policy. What thoughts do you have on how we can do the same at Global Affairs?
Mr. Baird: That’s a great question, senator. I just can’t see a young diplomat — when there was a conversation going on about Canada’s relationship with Israel — speaking up against the groupthink. They just wouldn’t do it — for the exact reasons that you just said — even, for example, now on China. It may become all too fashionable to be in the critical lane rather than the constructive lane. I think you need to create an environment where all people feel free to speak up.
I often wish that people could see the discussions that we would have in the cabinets that I served in, especially the federal cabinet. We would always have big discussions and debates on issues where people would bring different perspectives, being from Atlantic Canada, Quebec, the West or Ontario. Almost always, a better decision, or a better policy, would float to the top. I think we need to encourage that in the department.
I do think the application process, and the Foreign Service test, does whittle it down to people who are too like-minded and think a lot. There were a good number of ambassadors. I remember Elissa Golberg, who was at the UN in Geneva, would regularly challenge my view; I respected that. I think we need to create an environment where people feel comfortable to offer a different view.
We have to realize that, over the years, countries have gone from being friend to foe, and foe to friend. I remember being on the chancellery balcony overlooking the German parliament with former chancellor Angela Merkel and former Prime Minister Harper, and thinking, “My grandfather came to war in this country, and now they’re one of our closest friends and allies.” These relationships will always change depending on circumstances.
Avoiding the groupthink, I think, is important. I think it’s more of a cultural issue, and coming back to hiring only people with the same talents and skill sets.
Also, I don’t have a problem, whatsoever, with us having ambassadors or diplomats serving abroad who, perhaps, are not from Global Affairs Canada, but from other departments — or, frankly, eminent Canadians who are experienced, capable and could serve as heads of mission in countries. I look at Gary Doer, Gordon Campbell and John Prato, our former consulate general in New York. When I was in government, they were, probably, three of our best heads of mission, which I think served Canada well.
Senator Coyle: Welcome, Mr. Baird. It’s good to hear from you. You’ve given us a lot of food for thought.
Canada, as you’re probably very much aware, has had 15 foreign ministers over the last 22 years. Some of our witnesses have expressed concerns that some foreign ministers did not have, frankly, the time or the power to provide Canada’s diplomats with real leadership, especially because, as we know — and you’ve highlighted this — diplomacy is so dependent on building relationships.
You were the foreign minister for, I believe, almost four years, so I’m interested in hearing what you think about this issue of the tenure of our foreign ministers, and its impacts on the performance of our Foreign Service. Do you share any of the concerns of some of our witnesses? What might you want to offer in terms of your comments?
Mr. Baird: I wholeheartedly agree with you. I think that’s the best comment made this morning.
It takes relationships to be a successful foreign minister, and I think when you’re changing them too often — sometimes they’re by choice, and sometimes they’re by necessity. I do think that the prime minister of any party, when they make a decision on who their foreign minister will be, should be thinking for the full term, at minimum.
The relationships that I was able to build, I think, I could use for Canada more effectively in order to get things done. I think switching it up too often is just a bad idea. That’s not a partisan comment against this Prime Minister — I was former Prime Minister Harper’s fifth foreign minister. I do think they should look at that position as one that’s longer term.
Generally speaking, that is the case with finance ministers. I think incoming prime ministers and incoming clerks of the Privy Council should hammer that home during transition periods and cabinet shuffle time. It really is important; you can’t establish those relationships and that trust unless you’re there for a long time.
The challenge is people in other systems of government. The Emirati foreign minister was there when I arrived and is still there today. He’s one of the best foreign ministers in the world because he knows his files, and he has been able to build the relationships. I talked about Sergei Lavrov, the Russian foreign minister; he’s been there a long time — you certainly get more experience. We won’t ever go to that length of time, but I look at, for example, Mr. Joe Clark being the foreign minister for six or seven years — or me for four years. I think those are better models. I think Lloyd Axworthy was there for quite a bit of time as well.
Senator Coyle: Thank you.
Mr. Baird: That’s an easy recommendation to make, in my opinion.
Senator Coyle: The relationships established with our international counterparts are so critical to having the period of time to do that.
What about the reflection back into our Canadian Foreign Service? Are there any impacts that you would like to speak to regarding the issue of the relationship between the tenure of the foreign minister and the performance and adaptability of our Foreign Service itself?
Mr. Baird: I think, too often, there are shuffles within the public service at Global Affairs where people would become the director general or assistant deputy minister, or ADM, for China when they don’t have a background in China or Asia. I think we should promote skills and expertise in certain areas — where we can take advantage of someone’s long-standing service, and focus on a particular area or region. I think that’s important.
Too often, we appoint a really qualified ambassador to an area where they have no skills or experience. We need to also put our best diplomats in the places where they’re needed. Every diplomat wants to be the Ambassador to Italy. In my time, as an observer of the department, we’ve put people who are really smart and capable where, I think, their talents can be used. We have a great relationship with Italy — we deal with trade out of Brussels, not out of Rome, so I think we need to put some of our best and brightest in the tougher roles where they’re needed most. It may not always be a place where they want to serve, but I was called in to be the environment minister twice, so sometimes we have to take on tough assignments — particularly for our best and brightest diplomats.
Other than being in a significant hardship post, shifting ambassadors around after a year or two is costly and a bad idea. It takes a lot of time on the ground for ambassadors to build relationships with the people they need to in order to be effective.
Senator Busson: Thank you, Mr. Baird, for being here, and for sharing your incredibly valuable time and outstanding insights with this committee.
My question is around the merger that took place between the Department of Foreign Affairs and CIDA back in 2013. You served as the Minister of Foreign Affairs, and oversaw the change to what is now Global Affairs Canada. In hindsight, do you have any thoughts of the benefits or the drawbacks of that merger? Was there anything that surprised you or disappointed you as a result of that merger?
Mr. Baird: I certainly supported it then, and I support it now. I don’t think we realized the full potential of it. I would hope that we could break down the fiefdoms — and get the maximum benefit of trade, development and foreign policy all working in tandem.
Too often, as I said earlier, CIDA was engaging in its own foreign policy that was counter to the department’s policy. I’ll give an example: There was some international government funding for groups against mining — and the Government of Canada was promoting Canadian mining in South America and, at the same time, fighting in opposition to it, which I think is ridiculous and a significant waste of money.
If you have one team, for example, on Haiti who can deal with the foreign aid, trade and foreign policy at the same time, and you can get more skills and expertise — I’m not even commenting on what that foreign policy is. I think you can say the same for the International Development Research Centre, or IDRC; it operates in separate offices, even in foreign countries, and we would get better value for our money if it were integrated. I don’t think the integration took place to the extent that I would like to see it.
It often doesn’t work out to have more than one minister in the department. For example, I had the pleasure of working with Ed Fast for four years when I was the foreign minister; we worked hand in glove together. When you do that, it’s so much easier and so much more effective. It was the same with Diane Ablonczy when she was the Minister of State. If you can work as a team, it’s really important. Too often, irrespective of politics, you do find that when you have two ministers in one department, they tend to step on each other’s toes and annoy each other.
The Chair: Thank you. I’m going to use my privilege as the chair to ask Mr. Baird a question.
Mr. Baird: The chairman was my associate deputy minister — a very capable fellow.
The Chair: I appreciate the introduction, sir. In 2015, in that very long election campaign at Global Affairs Canada, we were developing transition books: One was blue, one was orange and one was red. It wasn’t clear, of course, who was going to win the election, so the analysts went back to party conventions, party statements and the like — and, more or less, sketched out a way that the bureaucracy thought the government would go.
I think it’s probably become much more complicated now, with greater attention devoted to social media, and perhaps parties staking positions that might be difficult to realize when they are in power based on realpolitik and world events.
I’m wondering if you have any thoughts on that. It goes back to your earlier point about risk in the public service, and the willingness to challenge orthodoxy.
Mr. Baird: The avoidance of risk in the public service — and this is not unique to Global Affairs — has led to becoming far too risk-averse. Where there’s been problems or scandals with whatever party, they just make more and more rules, and people become more risk-averse. That’s a real problem for the public service. It’s certainly been aided and abetted by politicians who want to raise the accountability standards.
I’ll give the example of the Infrastructure Stimulus Fund: We did 23,500 projects. There were only concerns with about 35. I call that a home run. The public service did an extraordinarily good job on the infrastructure stimulus. I said, as minister, “We will be moving fast and quickly, and we won’t hit a home run on every single grant,” but I would be there to defend them, even if I left the department. I think that’s important.
I also think there needs to be greater engagement, not just from the Lester B. Pearson Building, but also to our embassies abroad. If you’re writing a transition document on a relationship with the European Union, or EU, you should make sure you’re involving our Ambassador to the European Union because they’ll have a lot more knowledge. I can’t say the number of times I would ask, “What does our ambassador say on the ground?” And I would hear, “We haven’t talked to them.”
There is the benefit of video technology; I never used it at all when I was the foreign minister. I can only imagine the huge opportunities to have the ambassador give their own briefing to the minister in a boardroom, or to have international meetings quickly on certain issues.
Regarding social media, technology should be embraced as an opportunity, not as a problem. Obviously when you’re in opposition, you don’t want people taking different positions. One of the benefits of our country is, given you serve in the legislative and the executive branch, to look at the rhetoric that comes out of the House and the Senate on a lot of foreign policy in Washington. The difference is that either party leader that informed governments in the past will have to work with these countries. It’s easy to go on an intellectual joyride, bashing people you disagree with, but, at the end of the day you’re going to have a relationship with them that Canadians will need — whether it’s reaching journalists that were imprisoned in Turkey that I was able to help get out, or there were two individuals arrested in Egypt that I was able to help get out.
Like I said, there are countless ambassadors and consular affairs people who need that too. Hopefully, we can avoid becoming too much like what we see in the United States.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Baird. We’ll proceed to the second round.
Senator MacDonald: Mr. Baird, I want to talk about Canada and Australia for a few seconds here. Over the last number of years, we’ve seen Australia make major investments in military capabilities — actively engaged with the U.S. and the U.K. in “AUKUS,” and engaging with India and Japan in the Quad group of countries. They seem to have more engagement in the Five Eyes than we do at present. These are natural allies of ours. I’m curious about this: What’s your opinion on the present circumstances compared to the relationship that we had when you were the foreign minister? How do you think we can improve it?
Mr. Baird: I should disclose that I am the Co-chair of the Canada-Australia Economic Leadership Forum, and I see Canada-Australia relations as a huge priority. It was the first priority of the Five Eyes. I was just with former prime minister Kevin Rudd in recent days.
There is no doubt that Australia has been more forward leaning. You see their engagement with the Quad — with India on the submarine deal, and with the U.S. and the U.K. We’ve been left behind. That’s a real concern.
I’m thrilled that the government has moved forward with the announcement on the F-35 — it’s a great measure — but we’ve been left behind on some of these other areas. Let’s hope that we can regain that momentum.
There are very few countries that we are more aligned with than Australia. They’re not a G8 country, but they’re pretty close to the size of our economy, and they fundamentally share the same values and interests. Working with allies like Australia is very important.
We should look at what they’ve done well, and where they’ve gotten into problems as well. The thing about Australia — and it’s the same with the United States — is the difference between Labor and Conservative in Australia, or Republican and Democrat in the United States; the big picture of things isn’t that great gulf.
Senator Housakos: We’re living in a period of disruption, Mr. Baird, as we all know. The world is facing economic challenges that we haven’t seen in a long time. There is cultural disruption going on around the world. We have geopolitical turmoil in various parts of the world simultaneously, and there seems to be an erosion of trust when it comes to multilateral organizations by the public.
If we look at the United Nations, or UN, the World Health Organization, or WHO, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, or NATO, and the World Economic Forum, or WEF — I can go on and on. In the minds of the public opinion, particularly in our liberal democracies, they are questioning these multilateral organizations.
Is multilateralism dead? What can we do to bring back confidence to these multilateral organizations that I believe are important? Certainly, public trust has been eroded over the past few years.
Mr. Baird: The negative ones get more attention than the positive ones. Obviously, the UN General Assembly and the Security Council have had big challenges in effectiveness over the last 25 years. When you look at the World Health Organization, it does a pretty good job. I thought that NATO was in decline when I was the foreign minister, but if you look at the American leadership with respect to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, it is demonstrably more relevant than it was 10 years ago, which is a great thing.
We also have to be prepared to go it alone, or develop ad hoc groups. There was an ad hoc group called Friends of the Syrian People, which took up the effort of Syrian humanitarian assistance and support for the Syrian people. If we look at the mission in Libya to prevent Muammar Gaddafi from slaughtering his own people, we were able to work well with countries like the United Arab Emirates and other Sunni Arab Gulf states. Sometimes it requires an ad hoc group to get things done, and that’s important.
Fundamentally, we have to work with our friends and allies. Often that can be a challenge, so it is important that we do our best to keep those partnerships.
Senator Coyle: I’ve been following you, Mr. Baird, and I know that you’ve had — and have — a significant career, and various interactions with the private sector domestically and internationally. Of course, a very important part of what our Foreign Service does is it interacts with the private sector here and internationally.
From that perspective, from the people whom you interact with on a regular basis — the leaders in Canada’s private sector and international private sector entities — do you have any reflections from them on their sense of the strength of Canada’s Foreign Service? Could you speak a little bit about that interaction?
Mr. Baird: I must tell you that I was always supportive of the Trade Commissioner Service at Global Affairs, but, being in the private sector, I’ve seen a number of examples where they’ve done an extraordinarily good job at promoting Canadian commercial interests abroad. The skills, the experience, the advice and, indeed, the active support they have are demonstrably more important than I would have thought. It’s the same with the Canadian Commercial Corporation and Export Development Canada — in the private sector, those are demonstrably more important than I would have gathered when I was in government. Those are compliments to all three of those institutions.
Senator Coyle: There are no complaints about anything? Should I, instead, say areas of improvement?
Mr. Baird: I think that when we get into bilateral disputes unnecessarily — I think of the dispute we have had with Saudi Arabia, or the dispute we had with the Prime Minister of Japan and the Prime Minister of Australia over the Trans-Pacific Partnership, or TPP — we’ve got to be more cautious about stepping into hornets’ nests because they could have significant negative interests toward Canada. I’m not saying the Conservative governments didn’t step in a few hornets’ nests.
I’m very proud of having been — and still being — very pro-Israel. I’m a strong advocate for the State of Israel and anti-Semitism now, but that didn’t prohibit us from having a phenomenally good relationship with the Sunni Gulf states. Our relationship with Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and, especially, with the United Arab Emirates, which has become one of Canada’s best friends and allies — that’s continued under this government. I think that’s a great thing. You need to put in the time on building the relationships and the trust. That can work for Canadian educational institutions as well.
Senator Coyle: Thank you.
Senator Woo: I want to ask you about a constituency that should be central to the work of Global Affairs, but, I think, is neglected. You may well count yourself as part of that constituency, which is the 4.4-plus million Canadians who live overseas. This set of our fellow citizens, of course, have the right to vote, but they are not factored — if I can put it that way — into public policy more broadly. The extent to which they are considered just as important for our Foreign Affairs Department seems to be, to me, when they get into trouble. In other words, they are principally a consular issue, rather than seen as an asset for the country.
Do you have any thoughts on how we can better engage with Canadians abroad for their benefit, but also for the benefit of foreign policy, national interest and economic and political security priorities?
Mr. Baird: Well, it’s a two-edged sword. I think of the 350,000 Canadians who live in Hong Kong. They can be a real asset to Canada, but also a huge challenge when there’s conflict between their roles as non-Canadian residents and Canadian citizens. The number of Canadians who expect that foreign governments have to obey the Charter of Rights and Freedoms — when they get in trouble — is always a challenge for the department. The media and public assume that every Canadian charged abroad is 100% innocent and the government is not doing enough to bring them home. I think the department has to do a better job on that. For so many Canadians, that may be their only impression of the department when I know that, behind the scenes, they are doing so much to support citizens who get in trouble abroad.
There are many examples of Canadians who are successful in private or public life abroad, and have been able to assist Canadians. It should, perhaps, be a better mission for our missions abroad to strengthen those relationships. There are a huge number of Canadians in the U.S.; there are a huge number of Canadians in London, Israel and other places abroad. That’s an untapped resource. I don’t have specific recommendations that I’d like to make on that other than reflecting on it as your committee moves forward.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Baird. We’ve actually come to the end of our time. It’s amazing how quickly it went. On behalf of the committee, I really want to thank you for your comments today — I think we’ve been enriched by them. As we continue our study, we’ll certainly bear them in mind. Again, thank you, and it’s good to see you again.
Mr. Baird: I want to thank you, Mr. Chair, and all the members of the committee for the opportunity. Good luck with your deliberations.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
(The committee continued in camera.)
(The committee resumed in public.)
The Chair: Honourable senators, is it agreed that the budget application for travel to Europe — London, Oslo and Berlin — for a fact-finding mission for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2024, be approved for submission to the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Thank you, senators.
This budget will now be submitted to the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration, to be reviewed by the Subcommittee on Senate Estimates and Committee Budgets at their next meeting.
(The committee adjourned.)