bout de papier, Vol. 4, No. 1 (1985) — Winter 1985 // Hiver 1985, p. 4
Has the time come for a Foreign Service Act?
In recent years the Foreign Service and the Department of External Affairs have undergone major change and upheaval, including the consolidation of all foreign service sectors under one roof and the partial exodus of the senior ranks to the EX category.
The conversion of 219 non-rotational trade officers into the Foreign Service this May — the largest single introduction of new blood into the foreign service since it was created — is the latest manifestation of change in the foreign service. While it is not a classic case of lateral entry – like the AS-CR integration of a decade ago, the COs are being brought into the FS stream under some duress — it does make a mockery of the efforts of those, who in earlier times, strongly resisted any attempts at lateral entry or appointment to the Foreign Service category by means other than the traditional entrance exam and interview process.
In her report on Conditions of Foreign Service to the Prime Minister, Commissioner Pam McDougall opted against legislating a separate foreign service management system arguing that the service needed more, not less, contact with the domestic service. Nonetheless, she recognized the uniqueness of conditions abroad and the related implications for the personnel and financial systems. She urged amendments to the External Affairs Act which would establish the authority and responsibility of the heads of post and the department as the centre for the management and delivery of government programs abroad. These were mostly realized in the External Affairs Act revisions of 1983.
But we wonder whether, in light of the new conditions and new responsibilities of the department, the idea does not merit another look, especially at a time when our foreign policy, generally, is receiving a thorough scrutiny. Has the structure of the Service kept pace with changing circumstances? At a time of major restraint, cutbacks and increased emphasis on trade and economic prosperity should not some of the old shibboleths and guarantees of service be reexamined?
A Foreign Service Act should incorporate several major features. It should link the granting of career tenure, compensation and performance pay, as well as continued employment in the service, to performance. It should introduce an effective “up or out” policy, similar to the American system, in which an officer is promoted within a reasonable length of time or finds alternate employment. To attract and keep the most • qualified we must assure them the opportunity to move through the ranks at a rate which reflects their ability. Selection out for unsatisfactory performance should apply to all levels.
The Act should recognize the clear distinction between the Foreign Service and the domestic Public Service. Let us recognize the dangers as well as the perqs of life abroad. It should clearly limit foreign service career status to those who accept the discipline of service abroad. Flexibility in the form of lateral entry and long term leave without pay should be recognized as useful management tools. It should make provision for the special language requirements of the foreign service — only the Americans share our view that new recruits must have competence only in one language for entry. The report on training by John Halstead merits another look. Why not a Foreign Service Institute?
Collective bargaining with the FS group is already done separately; there should be recognition of our unique nature as an occupational group. Employee management relations could be enshrined in an equitable statutory framework — we should examine the concepts of a Foreign Service Labour Relations Board and a Disputes Arbitration Panel.
Legislation rather than continued administrative reform is probably the better approach. Putting it all on the table before a parliamentary committee would not only permit wide consultation but it would go a great distance to making our legislators and the public at large aware of the place and role of the contemporary foreign service. It would complement the 1983 External Affairs Act. It would also be very much in the spirit of the welcome and useful foreign policy review currently under way.
View the original scanned pages →
Originally published in bout de papier, Vol. 4, No. 1 (1985) — Winter 1985 // Hiver 1985, p. 4. Read the rest of this issue →
