bout de papier, Vol. 6, No. 3 (1988), p. 2
This issue of bout de papier is dedicated to the memory of the life and work of John W. Holmes who died August 13, 1988. Although he spent more of his working life as a scholar and a teacher, John Holmes made a lasting impression on the Department of External Affairs in the 17 years he spent as a diplomat (1943 to 1960).
It was a remarkable period for Canadian diplomacy and remarkable figures emerged from the ranks of those who then inhabited the East Block. L.B.J. Pearson, Vincent Massey, Escott Reid, R.A. MacKay, Charles Ritchie, Marcel Cadieux and Jules Léger are but a few of John Holmes’ contemporaries. And Holmes, who rose to become Assistant Under-Secretary, was a key figure amongst these men in shaping Canada’s international role, in particular, in the international institutions that rose from the ashes of World War II. As James Taylor, Under-Secretary, said at the Memorial Service in the Department for John Holmes on October 14, “It is not mere nostalgia to look on this period as a golden age of Canadian diplomacy.” “À golden age it was and one which laid firm foundations for Canadian foreign policy. It is a period which we do well to understand today, not because everything was better then or because Canada could exercise greater influence on the global stage or because individual career diplomats could play such significant roles and rise rapidly to the pinnacle of their careers. Rather, it was a period which set the stage for the new Canadian diplomacy. A golden age yes, but I dare to say not the only golden age Canadian diplomacy will see.
Canada’s role internationally has evolved and so has the Department. The world in which we act has changed from the world Holmes knew while he was a diplomat. There are many more players to take into account in multilateral and bilateral relations; development assistance has become a principle component of foreign policy; immigration and refugee policy now claim great significance. These reflect but a few of the new global realities: And the way Canada has responded and managed in this new environment has had to change as well.
But Canada has changed also and these changes have had to be absorbed in our foreign policy and reflected in the composition of the foreign service and in the conditions under which we live and work. The Royal Commission on Conditions in the Foreign Service in 1981 tried to take stock of changes that were needed to keep pace with changing conditions in Canada. There has been progress on many things. There are more women, minorities, and disabled in the Service than ever before (although still too few!). Some standard benefits outside the Service such as maternity leave, are now also becoming standard inside. It was only a few years ago that one woman I knew was compelled to take vacation leave in order to have a baby while she was at post. The Department has since set the record straight. We’ve come a long way, but this isn’t to say there isn’t a long way still to go.
I do not propose here to analyse what the new Canadian diplomacy and diplomatic life is about today. That is a challenge for the contributors to bout de papier to pursue. However, the passage of a great person gives us pause to reflect on the impact of ofttimes incremental changes and to contemplate the broader significance.
There is no question that the changes the Department has undergone in recent years to accommodate the new and complex policy thrusts has caused strains and pressures. In the early 1980s, the vision was of External Affairs as a central agency. The years have not borne out this vision but, nonetheless, the Department has become an extended and integrated bureaucracy incorporating trade commissioners, immigration officers and development assistance officers along with the political and economic officers who heralded from the traditional foreign service. Needless to say, a bureaucracy of this size and breadth is not without difficulties which are compounded by the rotational nature of the service.
At the Memorial Service for John Holmes, I was particularly struck by Mr. Taylor’s story of his first encounter with Holmes which illustrates rather poignantly where the years of change and growth have robbed the Department of some of its strength:
“I first heard of John Holmes in 1953. The circumstances say something about the man and the Department as it was then. I was in England, completing my studies. I had passed the Foreign Service competition, and was to return shortly to work in Ottawa. I had never worked in an office before, had only a vague notion of what was involved in being a foreign service officer, and had never been in Ottawa in my life. The only person I knew in England who knew Ottawa was Basil Robinson, then in Canada House. When I asked him for advice about finding a place to live, he said ’Why not write John Holmes?’ – without saying, as I recall, who John Holmes was. So when I got back to Canada, I wrote John Holmes. I received a courteous and helpful reply, enclosing a clipping from the Ottawa ’Citizen’ and telling me that there was a bachelor establishment of foreign service officers at 324 Chapel Street that was looking for a recruit to replace one of their number who had been posted. It was only when I arrived in Ottawa that I became aware, to my embarrassment, that I had been directing my housing enquiries to one of the most senior officers of the Department.
Yet later, when I knew him better, I realized that it had been as natural for Basil to refer me to John Holmes as it had been for John Holmes to send me a helpful reply. It was my introduction to an institution that has a hierarchy, because it had to, but that didn’t fuss about it, an institution where beginners were welcomed and treated with consideration.”
A large bureaucracy by its nature can easily loose its human touch and it is difficult to recreate the fraternity and loyalty that can permeate a smaller institution. But the point here is not to wallow in nostalgia. Rather it is to underline the challenge for management today, for PAFSO and for us as individuals to do what we can to preserve the finer qualities of Canadian diplomacy and of the foreign service and at the same time to adapt to the policy demands and the changing political, economic and social environment of Canada and of the world today.
John Holmes exemplifies so much of what was, and I believe still is, good in Canadian diplomacy and foreign service. He was a man of intellect, sensitivity, loyalty and honour; a man who could lead, who could teach and who would inspire others; a man who understood the fine arts of negotiation and compromise.
In this issue, in tribute to John Holmes, we have published a lecture, given first in 1986 but which he sent to bout de papier shortly before his death. Also included is a letter Holmes sent expressing his interest in and support for bout de papier. John Halstead, has written a remembrance for Good and Faithful Servants, and Vignettes in this issue is devoted to the thoughts of Holmes on Canadian diplomats and diplomacy. It was the words of Yvon Beaulne at the Memorial Service for Holmes which captured the sentiments we at the Editorial Board share in dedicating this issue to John Holmes: “J’ai l’espoir que son nom ne périra pas et qu’il restera un modèle pour les nouvelles generations de diplomates canadiens.”
View the original scanned pages →
Originally published in bout de papier, Vol. 6, No. 3 (1988), p. 2. Read the rest of this issue →
