bout de papier, Vol. 9, No. 2 (1992) — Spring 1992 // Printemps 1992, pp. 3–4
I had intended to write a positive message in my first column as PAFSO President. Events of the past few days, however, make necessary a new approach. The decision arrived at in secret to move the Social Affairs stream to the Department of Employment and Immigration dropped like a bomb in our midst. In particular, the manner in which it was unveiled left one with a feeling of deep dissatisfaction. It raises fundamental questions of leadership and probity at the most senior levels of the Department and challenges us as individual Foreign Service officers to do our best to contain the damage and, with luck, to try to reverse the negative effects brought about by the lack of professionalism of those who should know better.
To the members of the Social Affairs stream, I say that you have been and will remain important members of the Foreign Service and PAFSO. You have brought new perspectives to old questions and have, in particular, humanized many of the international issues confronting our service. We have been enriched by your presence and educated by your commitment and certainly we cannot be separated by a simple river. In Ottawa and at post, we will continue to work closely together in spite of those whose vision is limited to clean lines on accountability flow charts and whose dedication is confined to ensuring their own advancement.
Reproduced below then, is my letter sent on 2 March 1992 to the Secretary of State for External Affairs in response to the Under-Secretary’s decision.
Dear Ms. McDougall:
I have not, up to now, had occasion to write to you directly in my capacity as President of the Professional Association of Foreign Service Officers (PAFSO), which represents the Department’s career Foreign Service officers. My purpose in writing today, is to convey to you some of the very serious concerns that have arisen as a consequence of the recently announced decision to transfer to the Department of Employment and Immigration the cadre of External Affairs’ officers in the Social Affairs stream.
The concerns of PAFSO and of its members are several. At the strategic level, there is concern that External Affairs has embarked on a fundamental change in the way that Canadian foreign policy is both formulated and delivered. Also, the decision was taken without due regard to the formal (i.e., contractual) obligations of the Department to consult while not losing sight of the moral need of the Department to respect the dedication, the loyalty and the commitment exhibited over the years by its employees.
Canada, and this Department in particular, has expended a great deal of time and valuable resources to ensuring that Canadian foreign policy reflect the totality of Canada’s interests abroad. While perhaps painful to certain individuals at the time, the policy carried out since the early 1980s has succeeded in establishing not only an integrated Foreign Service but also in a coordinated approach to foreign policy formulation.
The explanation that External Affairs “needs to get back to basics” is one that ignores a consistent theme of your government, that Canadian foreign policy must serve the broader national interest, including such important issues as national reconciliation, economic competitiveness and prosperity, the development of human rights and respect for ethnic or other minority groupings. To a large measure, the ability of External Affairs to deal with the diverse international agenda is dependent upon its Minister having a pool of creative, diverse and multi-focused talent to draw upon. The men and women of the Social Affairs stream bring to this Department unique skills, talents and experiences that are invaluable to this process.
In your own speech on the 60th Anniversary of the Statute of Westminster you noted that Canada’s efforts to secure a co-operative basis for international security concerns would increasingly have to address such fundamental issues as international mass migration. The development of co-operative international refugee policies is, one would logically conclude, a major element determining the relative success or failure of any such endeavour. Quite simply, the expertise associated with such issues resides firmly with those men and women who comprise the Social Affairs stream.
The “back to basics” philosophy is also troubling in the larger context. It is symptomatic of an extremely narrow vision, that does not accord proper importance to the multitude of activities that have increasingly come to characterize state-to-state relations.
Long gone are the days when the conduct of international relations could be limited to those “traditional” concerns of political/ military relations and international trade.
The multilateral system in particular (i.e., the United Nations), has legitimized the view that nation states have authentic interests in a wider portfolio of issues. An illustrative listing of “non-traditional” issues that are dealt with internationally would include: the environment, women’s issues, the development of science and technology, international co-ordination of monetary and fiscal policies and co-operative efforts in the areas of health (i.e., containing the AIDS epidemic and international trade in illegal drugs).
The “back to basics” philosophy as it is apparently narrowly defined would make it logical (i.e., for organizational symmetry) for External Affairs to relinquish any role in such “non-traditional” areas. External Affairs could revert to a role of confirming hotel reservations and other logistical arrangements for such Departments as Environment Canada, Health and Welfare, Finance, Solicitor General and Industry, Science and Technology. Other Departments would then present Canada’s international positions on all such issues, without any guarantee that Canada would be pursuing a foreign policy where individual strategies served to mutually support our international objectives.
Implied in the need to return to “basics” is the belief that External Affairs has not been performing its “traditional” functions to the satisfaction of the government. In the absence of any attempt to explain, one must assume this to mean the provision of international political information and analysis. If there is a failure here, which is far from clear, it is not all clear how the separation of “non-basic” activities is expected to rectify the problem. Rather, it is more likely that the Department is experiencing the results of previous decisions to reduce human and operational resources and in neglecting to reform its own internal management structure and practices. Simply put, if we as a Department are not providing timely analysis and advice, perhaps it is time to reduce the number of filters between the point of analysis (i.e., the producer) and Ministers (i.e., the consumer).
By the Department’s own admission, the decision to transfer the Social Affairs stream was taken in concert with, but not part of the Government’s 1992/1993 Budget. Explanations relying on the Budget process as the basis for a total lack of consultation are disingenuous at best. Unveiling the announcement in the dead of night by posting press releases in elevators, is to display an unheard-of level of disrespect for the Department’s employees. It is contemptuous of the organizational culture that has helped to define the Department of External Attairs almost from its inception. Employees are treated by the Department’s senior managers as representing nothing other than boxes to be moved at whim around an organizational chart. The fundamental distinctions between management and leadership are clearly not understood at the senior levels of the Department, despite the portrait gallery of previous Under-Secretaries that hangs on the eighth floor and which serve, presumably, as some sort of reminder. The loyalty of the individual to the organization, which after all is what was demonstrated day-in and day-out in the far-flung corners of the world, is treated with obvious contempt. value by the organizational mandarins of Pride of place and purpose are given no the 1990s.
Unfortunately, as the responsible Minister you must bear some of the blame. The changes introduced have touched us all as Foreign Service officers and are not isolated to only the Social Affairs stream. If the effects could be isolated, then as Minister you might have had the luxury of dismissing the consequences as something of concern to another department. Life, however, is not so easy Colleagues, who are not in the Social Affairs stream have remarked to me, with increasing frequency, their growing frustration with the “one-way loyalty” that has become the dominant paradigm of the Department.
Another unfortunate aspect of this decision is that it will dilute the positive impact that other Departmental initiatives will have. The increased funding and operational priority accorded to training and skills development, for example, recognizes the importance of maintaining our professionalism and has been well received by all employees. Increased emphasis put on language training and on the development of a Foreign Service Institute are illustrative of measures that simultaneously feed the “professionalism” of employees while greatly expanding the Department’s skill base. Such initiatives, however, are predicated on the concept that the Department’s most important resource is its people. That ideal will be increasingly difficult to maintain in the face of mounting evidence to the contrary.
Not to be overlooked, is the undenied fact that the consultation provisions of the Government’s own Workforce Adjustment Directives as well as the provisions of the Foreign Service Collective Agreement were contravened. These commitments, binding in law, are apparently regarded as an annoyance to be disregarded at whim. If the Department has no intention of honouring legal agreements to which it is a party it should state so clearly. Either the Department’s senior managers are unaware of their obligations, in which case they are incompetent, or they are ignoring them, in which case they are dishonest.
The Professional Association is also concerned about the way in which this decision will be implemented. The transfer of over 300 employees from one department to another is unlikely to be done without significant additional cost. Yet, the manner in which the decision was arrived at shows that no serious financial planning was done before the announcement. The Spending Estimates, as tabled in Parliament by the Treasury Board, show a reduction in the budget of the Department of Employment and Immigration on the order of $175 million for the next fiscal year.
I, and my colleagues, are also particularly concerned about how this decision will have an effect on the delivery of services to Canadians, both at home and abroad. From the minimal material available, it would appear that External Affairs will retain responsibility for delivery of the Consular program. However, as this program is mainly delivered by our colleagues in the Social Affairs stream, it is unclear how the Department intends to staff the required positions, much less deliver the calibre of service that has characterized the consular program in recent years.
The transfer of consular responsibilities to the Social Affairs stream has resulted in increased efficiencies, expanded effectiveness and more timely and sensitive delivery of this important program. In decades gone by, when I might remark that External focused on “basics”, the delivery of consular programs often left much to be desired. Under the Social Affairs stream it has been revitalized and recognized as an area of serious endeavour, requiring trained and experienced professionals. The record which will include such situations as the evacuation of Canadians from Beijing and Zaire, the crises caused by the Gulf War and the Philippine earthquake speak for [themselves]. In your own capacity as Secretary of State for External Affairs, you agreed to the establishment of a special award intended to recognize the dedication and service of Canada’s consular officials.
Transferring the Social Affairs stream to another department will also significantly reduce the opportunity for all Foreign Service officers to gain valuable “cross-stream” experience. While the opportunities for “cross-stream” transfers have never been as open as they should be, even those limited chances will now be eliminated. Officers in External Affairs have been told for years that future promotional opportunities would, in part, be determined by whether an individual has demonstrated an ability to function across a range of policy and operational areas.
In the foregoing, I have outlined for your consideration a number of concerns associated with the decision to transfer the Foreign Service Social Affairs stream to the Department of Employment and Immigration. Nothing in these comments should be inferred as casting doubt on the integrity and operational effectiveness of that Department. Indeed, the members of the Social Affairs stream have historically enjoyed a close relationship to their Employment and Immigration colleagues. That situation will not change.
However, I would request that you reflect seriously on these concerns, possibly with a view toward advising the Prime Minister of the need to suspend the decision until such time as you are fully satisfied that it does not represent a fundamental mistake. Naturally, I would be prepared to discuss or clarify, with you or your officials, any of the points raised above.
View the original scanned pages →
Originally published in bout de papier, Vol. 9, No. 2 (1992) — Spring 1992 // Printemps 1992, pp. 3–4. Read the rest of this issue →
