In my 20 years at IRCC I’ve engaged in many a cathartic gripe-fest with colleagues in relation to mysterious creatures whose habits and mannerisms we find difficult to comprehend: our Foreign Service cousins at GAC. “How can they be so obstinate/naïve/pushy?” the refrain might go, concluding with a shake of the head and the conclusion that they “just don’t get it”, whatever “it” may be.
Before GAC readers begin drafting angry letters to bout, a plea for self-reflection. Admit it – you have the same catty convos about us.
This “IRCC is from Mars, GAC is from Venus” perception is normal coming from departments with such different mandates. But maybe there are ways to reduce the divide. If, in the early 1970s, China and the US were able to organize a tension-reducing sports tournament as part of what was famously dubbed “Ping-pong Diplomacy”, perhaps two departments separated by a ribbon of pot-holed road can find a pathway to greater understanding. While a table tennis tournament would be great fun, how about, instead, a formal exchange of officers every year?
However, when an IRCC staffing official was asked in a recent conversation about the possibility of an FS officer undertaking a temporary assignment with GAC, the response was pessimistic: that would be a “heavy lift”. And to be fair, in the absence of a formal exchange program between two gargantuan bureaucracies, it probably would be. But it shouldn’t. A “heavy lift” is organizing a sporting event between enemy countries, ideologically opposed and lacking diplomatic relations. An exchange program between departments of the same government – departments that work closely together on a range of issues, including the now seemingly constant need for crisis response – is, in fact, a relatively straightforward way of improving interdepartmental cooperation.
All joking aside, this is a critical issue. There are fundamental misconceptions between IRCC and GAC as to our mandates, limitations and priorities. IRCC is a highly operational department bound by regulations, policies and program directives that (for the most part) apply to all foreign nationals equally. These can seem inflexible to the outsider but represent the foundation of a fair immigration program that processes millions of visa applications a year. By contrast, GAC operates on a diplomatic playing field involving untold unwritten rules that vary depending on one’s interlocuter. This could be anyone from a State Department trade official to an Egyptian intelligence officer to an Indonesian mining executive. The potential for misunderstanding between departments is clear and does play out from time to time.
Having more officers capable of decoding the rules of the other’s department could reduce these misunderstandings. They could not only allow for a more coherent approach to complex global issues but also improve and accelerate cooperation, for example in the case of fast-moving responses to crises. These have multiplied since the onset of the pandemic in 2020 – think Afghanistan, Sudan, Israel/Gaza, Haiti – often involving complex assisted departure operations that require close interdepartmental collaboration. Having had direct involvement in many of these efforts as a temporary embed with the GAC Watch Centre, I’ve had the good fortune to work with and learn from tireless GAC colleagues working 24/7 responding to people in distress. But these are adrenaline-fuelled assignments, thrown together at the last minute. Why not have an exchange of officers mandated to work systematically on long-term, inter-departmental crisis response planning? This is just one example.
An annual exchange of officers is also a cost-neutral investment in employee learning and development. As I’ve written previously, Canada’s Foreign Service must demonstrate that it can adapt to remain relevant. This small, silo-busting endeavor is just such an initiative. While acknowledging the bureaucratic challenges, surely our departments’ finest HR minds can find a way to swap a few boxes between org charts in order to make this happen.
But until then, I’m happy to talk shop with any of my GAC colleagues in a more informal setting: you find us a ping-pong table, I’ll bring the paddles and ball.