bout de papier, Vol. 29, No. 1 (2015), pp. 41–43
In an earlier issue (bout de papier, Vol. 28, No. 4) we I that launched the “McGill Report” on the role of the Dep the examination, other Canadian government departmen of the foreign ministry. The summary of these opinions, w Document Admin No. 19/76 (SAR) on 1 April 1976 (th instalments devoted to this assessment of the Department findings will be published in the next issue of bout). As v and how well it does it – and problems of morale — are su the earlier extract, this comes from a copy of the “McGill
THE ROLE OF THE DEPARTM!
Perceptions of Other Governme
This paper is a preliminary attempt at cataloguing and classifying the results of some 60 meetings and interviews with federal government officials and a few written submissions about the role of the Department of External Affairs. A total of 30 departments and agencies of government were involved.
Set out below, therefore, with the least editorial comment, under the headings: “Service,” “Policy” and “Performance”, are some of the main points that emerged from interviews. The process of condensing and categorizing inevitably obliterates some of the subtleties and variations of the original perceptions. Also, some of the flavor is admittedly lost by keeping all the views anonymous. It was stipulated at the beginning of the review, however, that those who offered frank opinions would not be identified in any reports that emerged.
— ÀA.S. McGill Ottawa, February 1976.
Service The most commonly encountered view of External in its service role is that it is responsible for reporting from abroad information of interest to other departments and agencies of Government. … Some officials acknowledged a responsibility on their part to brief External Affairs more specifically on their requirements for information from other countries.
Most of those interviewed perceived one of External’s primary functions to be that of providing a channel of official communications with other countries. Some, however, see External as an unnecessary intermediary where matters are “technical” and within the competence of other agencies, or where other channels are readily available, as in certain countries, notably the United States. External is pretty generally seen as a message carrier to other governments, but it also is expected by many to be an advocate of Canadian policies, a publicist for Canadian achievements and an image-maker for Canada.
There was frequent mention of a requirement for External Affairs to expedite and facilitate contacts between officials of Canadian Government departments and agencies and their counterparts in other countries or in international organizations.
Extensive services are expected of External Affairs in connection with Canadian representation at meetings and conferences and official visits abroad.
A good many of those interviewed perceive External as providing advice, expert services, negotiating skills, etc. in the negotiation of international agreements. There are some, however, who see External as having little or no role to play in what they regard as technical agreements.
External is widely expected to provide assessments on the situation in other countries, or in international organizations, and country studies or briefings for the guidance and assistance of other Government agencies in the execution of their own programs.
External is seen by some Government departments, but not all, as having responsibility for providing managerial services in the Government in its external operations. It is also expected to provide an administrative framework in which other agencies can operate their programs abroad. External is seen as providing a service to the Government as a whole by producing policy overviews, particularly for Cabinet purposes. Here, perceptions about the service role of External Affairs merge into views about the policy role, which are dealt with below.
There were relatively few references by officials of other departments and agencies to an External role in providing services to the public in Canada or abroad.
Policy
Some officials see all policy as beginning with domestic considerations. One or two cited as reinforcement for this view the White Paper of 1970 [Foreign Policy for Canadians] to the effect that “foreign policy is the extension abroad of domestic policy”. In this view, External’s role is a supportive one. The Department may provide some information and advice in the policy-making process and it may have some coordinating function after policy is decided. When policy has been decided, however, on the initiative of domestic departments, External’s main role is to implement that policy abroad and to act as an advocate of that policy in other countries.
More frequently, External’s role is seen as participation, as one among equal contributors, in the formulation of Canadian national policy. External, in this view, makes an input of information and advice from a foreign policy standpoint. This input is seen as mainly on the “political” aspects but some would extend this to an economic and social input as well.
Among those who see foreign policy as something distinct from the sum of domestic policies projected abroad, External is held to be responsible for foreign policy while other departments are the custodians of various functional policies (economic, technical, social). Where there are conflicts or discrepancies between foreign and domestic policies, Cabinet must decide. External may be required to gather all important views on a policy matter and present them to Cabinet to be harmonized.
Another set of perceptions of External’s role sees the Department as performing functions variously described as harmonizing, coordinating, monitoring, drawing attention to contradictions, identifying cross-impacts in the policy field. In this view, External is seen as something more than a Department like the others. It may act as a catalyst to bring about a policy decision. It may be required to act as a neutral chairman among government departments. (“Neutral” because it is not responsible for any particular sector of domestic policy.)
A somewhat more extensive version of this role is suggested by some who see External Affairs as being responsible for a set of issues called foreign policy into which the Department must seek actively to integrate other policies, by a process of consensus, in the interests of a coherent national policy abroad.
A good many perceive part of External’s role as identifying the broad aims and goals of foreign policy and obtaining Cabinet approval for them.
A variation of this perception is that External has a leadership role in formulating and advising the Government on national objectives in the international field. It should identify objectives and priorities globally, or for geographical or functional areas abroad, so that other departments can see where their programs fit in to the total picture.
At the maximal end of the range of views of External’s role is that it is responsible for managing all of the Government’s external operations, and once Cabinet has approved policies, goals and priorities, it should use that authority to ensure coherence, it should monitor compliance with the Government’s priorities and enforce adherence to an integrated foreign policy. This perception of External Affairs is that of a kind of central agency.
Performance An invitation to comment on the performance of an organization naturally tends to yield more kicks than compliments. It seems to be generally acknowledged, however, that there is a great deal of talent in External Affairs. There was frequent praise of the competence and intellectual capacity of individual officers. The number of former members of the Department of External Affairs encountered at senior levels of other Departments and the indications of continuing demand for secondments from External Affairs presumably indicate that External continues to be regarded as a talent bank.
While officials elsewhere in the Government may respect the ability of many External Affairs officers, considerable resentment was also expressed (in private conversations more than in group interviews) concerning the style of some members of the Department. The most frequent complaints were of an arrogant or condescending manner or of a woolly and indecisive style of expression. Suggestions were made that the style of operation required for foreign service, and therefore cultivated in External Affairs, is less appropriate for Ottawa and is misunderstood by many domestic public servants. Included in the “inappropriate” habits were diplomatic evasiveness, avoidance of confrontation and seeking to find a way round a problem rather than to solve it.
The most commonly perceived hindrance to an effective performance by External Affairs, however, is lack of knowledge, understanding and experience of the domestic scene. It is charged that External Affairs officers frequently do not understand other departments of Government, have little knowledge of their programs and activities, do not appreciate how the Government works in Ottawa and are generally inadequately informed on what goes on in Canada.
Among the variations on this theme were suggestions that there is a lack of adequate expertise in External to perform its role in certain functional areas. It was common to hear that External does not have enough expertise in economic matters, accompanied by praise for certain individuals in External who do have this expertise and comment on the extent to which they are overworked. On the degree of knowledge of or expertise in other government activities required, an officer in one of the economic departments suggested that External need to know enough about his department’s subject: “To be sure you are not being conned”.
A criticism that External Affairs does not concern itself sufficiently with “bread and butter” issues or that it is overly-concerned with political problems was heard from several sources.
Among the areas in which External was frequently complimented for its competence was in international legal affairs but sometimes coupled with reservations about its knowledge of domestic law. Closely related to views about External’s lack of knowledge or expertise on subjects of major concern to other departments is the problem of continuity. Frequent turnover among External Affairs’ staff dealing with other departments was cited by many as a major problem. Some others, however, acknowledged that an increasing rate of turnover is a problem in domestically-based departments and that External was not unique.
A fairly common allegation about External Affairs, sometimes related to the alleged lack of understanding of domestic concerns, was a marked reluctance by members of the Department to press A number of those interviewed criticized External Affairs for a tendency to go beyond the bounds of its mandate by concerning itself with the details of programs and activities that are the responsibility of other departments or agencies.
Comments on the failure of External Affairs to show leadership are frequent. It is apparently widely assumed that External has a leadership role and that it has personnel capable of playing that role but that it is failing to play the role adequately. This school of thought is represented by one official who observed that External is shepherding not leading.
The kind of leadership that is expected depends, of course, on perceptions of the role of External in the Government. Some specific comments are that External does not produce overviews and policy options for the Cabinet, that it does not set out goals and broad strategies for other departments to fit into, that it does not help to establish priorities, that it is too timid with the provinces, and that it does not assert authority over the composition of delegations and the briefing of delegations to international conferences.
Those who saw lack of leadership as a major weakness in External’s performance were also generally ready to commend recent attempts by External to draw up lists of objectives and priorities for the Government in foreign policy, or to develop coherent strategies for dealing with certain countries, such as the United States and Japan.
A number of those interviewed complained that External is very slow to take a definite stand on a problem of concern to other departments and sometimes this was connected with the alleged internal fragmentation of responsibility within the Department. Related to this was a complaint that External sometimes blocks action by another department but does not explain why. There was also a broader criticism that External does not do enough to ensure that foreign policy is set down, codified and structured so that it will be clearly known and understood to those outside the Department.
A variation on the complaint about External not taking a definite
Originally published in bout de papier, Vol. 29, No. 1 (2015), pp. 41–43. Read the rest of this issue →
