bout de papier, Vol. 17, No. 2 (2000) — Summer 2000 // Été 2000, p. 7
REPRINTED WITH PERMISSION OF HEATH MACQUARRIE. THE FOLLOWING TEXT APPEARED IN THE CHARLOTTETOWN GUARDIAN, JUNE 13, 2000
As I follow the news in the print and electronic media these days, I must fight a tendency towards a feeling of gloom about the state of our public institutions.
In an earlier day, the allegations of massive scandals, blunders and inefficiency might have brought down a minister of human resources development, like the Honourable Jane Stewart. But today, even charges of favouritism and nepotism fail to make an impact.
Does this situation reveal the inefficiency of the opposition in the House of Commons? Or does it reflect a cynicism among our nation’s voters who in our system are the eventual masters of the situation?
Possibly some sixth sense suggests that since at the moment there is only one visible and viable national party it is prudent not to get too worked up about the peccadilloes of politicians and the bureaucracy.
Or are Canadians bemused because today’s media are overwhelming them with glaring negatives and scornful reflections about the people’s representatives and other functionaries in the governmental structure. Perhaps I am atypical in still being shocked by the denigratory charges and assertions flooding the air. Even if I concentrate on but one government department I would be anxious and depressed. Yet, the valour of our people in warfare has been of the noblest.
We Canadians have not tended to be an ardently militaristic power. When their brutal wars were over, Canadian military men won laurels as peacekeepers and peacemakers under the flag of the UN. I have met our people in the far corners of the earth in Cyprus, Syria and Africa. For years, Canada has had a shining reputation in the world. It was well deserved as our officers and men did do a fine job.
Other scare headlines proclaim, “Lack of gear “jeopardized’ Kosovo troops.” Yet another asserts, “Canada’s troops mired in threats and revenge.” Some outrageous disciplinary flaws are described. From top to bottom, there are reasons for anxiety and concern. Are the stories exaggerated? Or is there a serious malaise in the department?
In an earlier day under our parliamentary system, the political leaders accepted responsibility for the actions and performance of their departmental people. In recent years, this stance is little honoured. Scapegoats are found a little further down in the pyramid of power.
I would not presume to have all the answers but I think the present government and some of its predecessors must accept responsibility for not providing proper conditions for military personnel. More simply, a too ardent attachment to cost cutting has helped diminish the morale of our national defence force.
Troubled as I am over things in DND, I’m even more distressed by what is happening in another department with an illustrious history. As long as I can remember, I held the Department of External Affairs in the highest esteem. I was greatly honoured when Prime Minister Diefenbaker called to offer me the post of parliamentary secretary to the secretary of state for external affairs.
In my academic and parliamentary years I had the opportunity to meet many of the giants like Lester Pearson, Escott Reid, Charles Ritchie, Jean Lesage and their illustrious ilk.
But I am concerned about the department today. I have before me a unique newspaper advertisement. It is under the aegis of The Professional Association of Foreign Services Officers. The ad issued warnings to anyone interested in a diplomatic career.
It lists eight points to indicate what a poor job in terms of salary and prospect is a career in our foreign affairs department.
This is a deeply disturbing indication of problems in the department through which our country makes its contribution to world diplomacy. Time was when young Canadians would give their eye-teeth to get into the department of external affairs. Now we have former staffers warning would-be officers against such a course.
Once again it is a warning. Cost counting and lower taxes seem to be a very appealing lure to the voters. But perhaps we had better ponder the value of close budgeting against the danger of destroying the effectiveness of two former areas of Canadian excellence and achievement. As a great French philosopher once said, “To govern is to foresee.”
View the original scanned pages →
Originally published in bout de papier, Vol. 17, No. 2 (2000) — Summer 2000 // Été 2000, p. 7. Read the rest of this issue →
