bout de papier, Vol. 28, No. 4 (2015) — Spring 2015 // Printemps 2015, pp. 38–40
Canada’s foreign ministry was trying to cope with a prime minister who openly questioned its role, its commitment to the government’s agenda, its effectiveness and whether its results justified the expenses associated with international diplomacy. At the same time, it was unsure whether it could rely on its minister to defend its position at the cabinet table — so unlike now! For those who may sometimes be afflicted with nostalgia for an imagined better past, bout de papier offers this confirmation that “nostalgia ain’t what it used to be.” In this issue (where we focus on the terms of reference) and the next (which will deal with the findings) we will reprint extracts from and about the “McGill Report” on the role of the Department of External Affairs, which was prompted, whatever the reassuring language reprinted below, by serious doubts and significant concerns which had had a major impact on morale. These passages are reproduced from the editor’s copy of the report. — Hector Mackenzie
Department of External Affairs / Ministére des Affaires extérieures
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
OTTAWA, August 15, 1975
Ottawa File : 1-1-11
CIRCULAR DOCUMENT [TO : HEADS OF POST / DIRECTORS GENERAL / DIRECTORS |
Admin. No. 46/75 (SAR)
The Role of the Department of External Affairs
Since the Government of Canada undertook a thoroughgoing review of foreign policy in 1968 we have had a great many stones overturned, a number of new procedures and new mechanisms have been instituted, and much thought and labour has been devoted to adapting the instruments of Canadian foreign policy and foreign operations to the needs of the times. The White Paper “Foreign Policy for Canadians” of 1970 contained a short section on “Organizing for the Seventies.” A task force chaired by Mr. Sydney Pierce was charged at that same time with studying and reporting on the integration of Federal Government operations abroad. Out of the Pierce Report of 1970 and subsequent cabinet decisions came ICER (the Interdepartmental Committee on External Relations), the PMC (Personnel Management Committee), the integration of support services abroad, CPMs (Committees on Post Management), the country programming system, the “seven principles” of policy coordination, etc. We have also seen in the past few years attempts to come to terms with such closely related matters as the role of a diplomat, of international units in Government departments and of provincial offices abroad.
Much of this activity has been related to the role of the Department of External Affairs in the processes of government but no comprehensive review and evaluation of that role has been undertaken in recent years by the Department itself. Any organization must be capable of re-examining itself periodically if it is to maintain continuing vitality and I have decided that it is time such a review was undertaken by the Department of External Affairs. This decision was not taken because we face any immediate crisis but in the light of the cumulative effect of swift changes in the environment in which the Department operates at home and abroad. I have observed that there is a good deal of persistent questioning among members of the Department about what we are supposed to be doing and some uncertainty elsewhere in the Government about the role of External Affairs. I have therefore asked Mr. Allan McGill to take responsibility for organizing a review of the role of the Department of External Affairs in the Government of Canada.
This varied experience, which is by no means unique in our Department, should stand him in good stead in organizing a review of the Department’s role.
Objectives
Within the general aim of ensuring that the Government and the people of Canada are effectively served by the Department of External Affairs, the objectives of the review are to examine the role of the Department in the Government of Canada; to establish whether the role is clearly defined, known and agreed; to determine how far the Department meets valid expectations arising from its role in the Government; to identify anomalies in the definition of the role or in the Department’s performance of its agreed role.
It is not the intention at this stage that the review will focus on such specific matters as the organization and structure of the Department, or ICER or the Foreign Service or that the end-product will be a set of recommendations for changes of structure. It is important first to define, clarify and evaluate the role of the Department of External Affairs in the context of existing structures. The results of the review may throw some light on structural weaknesses which will prove useful to the Department and to the rest of the foreign policy community whenever they may be considering institutional matters but
the primary objective is clarifying the role of External Affairs.
Concept
The study is conceived of as an “open” one, designed not so much to diagnose ills and prescribe remedies as to hold up a mirror to the Department so that those who staff it can more clearly see the context in which they perform their tasks. To ensure a proper perspective of our role we must also consult others and provide them with an opportunity to define their views on what is expected of External Affairs. The review will pay a good deal of attention to comparing perceptions with reality in the hope that, in the process, some misconceptions will be dispelled, some obdurate facts will be delineated and
some clearer sense of purpose will emerge.
Method
7. — It follows from this concept that a larger number of members of the Department of External Affairs, and persons outside who have significant involvement with the Department, should contribute to the study. It also means that much of the documentation assembled in the course of the review will be as low in classification and as widely disseminated as possible. One of the few things to be treated in principle as confidential will be the names of persons who volunteer frank opinions. A further aspect of the proposed open approach is that the results of the review will be produced and circulated in serial form rather than embodied in one comprehensive document at the end of the process. There will be an attempt to make the process of review cumulative by putting out for further discussion and comment propositions which emerge from the earlier stages.
Substance
The review will take the form of a search for answers to a series of questions along the following lines (these are illustrative only and not necessarily sequential): What are the “scriptures”? How is the role of the Department of External Affairs defined and described in legislation, statutory instruments, cabinet decisions and other policy directives, studies and reports?
What do people think the role is? What perceptions of the role of the Department of External Affairs are prevalent in the Department itself, in other agencies and departments of the Canadian Government and among attentive and informed persons outside the Government?
What is expected of the Department? What requirements of the Government of Canada are expected to be fulfilled by the Department of External Affairs in the performance of its role, as perceived by those inside and outside the Department? What are the misperceptions? To what extent are prevalent ideas about the role of External Affairs held by those inside or outside the Department at variance with the “scriptures” or with current realities?
How well does the Department perform its role? In what respects does the Department of External Affairs function in accordance with its accepted role or exceed it, or fail to meet expectations based on a valid conception of its role?
What do other countries do? What is the role of the foreign ministry, in theory and in practice, in other countries with some comparability to Canada?
Apart from items (a) and (f), which are straightforward matters of research, answers to these questions will be sought mainly through a process of dialogue. There will be widespread interviewing and questioning of individuals, seminar-type discussions for those who can conveniently be brought together and written questionnaires to those not otherwise accessible. As the program of work on the review develops, members of the Department at home and abroad will be canvassed with specific requests for views and information. In the meantime, observations and comments on the subject of the study will be most welcome to Mr. McGill at any time and can be sent directly to him without waiting for further solicitation. I would like this circular to be made available to all members of your staff. For your information, I shall be sending copies of it to the heads of all government agencies and departments with a significant involvement in external operations.
This Circular Document is cancelled effective December 31, 1975.
– H. B. Robinson “Record of [an open general] meeting held on October 2, 1975, to explain SAR Study of the Role of the Department as outlined in Circular Document Admin. No. 46/75” [enclosed with Circular Document Admin. No. 67/75(SAR) of 4 November 1975]. The meeting opened with a statement from Mr. Allan McGill, describing the background to the study he was conducting. The idea for the study had occurred to the Under-Secretary shortly after he took over the Department. As happens to all officials coming to such a position, he had been offered a series of suggestions and admonitions concerning new courses he should take or policies he should amend. After listening to these proposals, he decided that it was essential to have a clear picture of the role of the Department before setting out to alter structures or policies. Some people had reacted to news of the study by questioning the necessity of “yet another” such exercise. In fact, however, the last time a comprehensive attempt was made to define the Department’s role was in a 1964 circular document written by Mr. Ralph Collins. Subsequent events, such as the growth of new government departments, the birth of new international organizations, broadened Departmental responsibilities, the development of provincial interests overseas, and the increased mobility of Canadians more than justified a re-examination at this time. Since 1964, attitudes had also changed and the general interest in and knowledge of foreign affairs had spread. The foreign policy review of 1969/70 had taken place, followed by the White Paper, “Foreign Policy for Canadians”. The goal of maximum possible integration of foreign operations had been enunciated. As part of this process, [CER had come into being, and it had overseen the development of the country programming procedures. The Department had taken steps to cope with new circumstances and adapt to change, but perhaps at the cost of losing sight of its basic role in government.
The study was above all an open exercise. Its aim was to collect evidence of both the perceptions and the reality of the Department’s role. It would have to be a collective effort by all concerned, or it would not work. There were indications that many people within the Department were working away conscientiously and effectively at a specific job, but had little feeling for the direction of the enterprise as a whole. A main point of the study was to show the Department to itself in all its facets. Clearly there were problems concerning the Department, both internally and in its external relations. The size and seriousness of these problems were open to debate. They included jurisdictional disputes between departments and internal difficulties over performance of the role. With regard to the last point, the study cannot be limited simply to definition; performance will have to be evaluated as well. Reasons for non-performance, where it exists, will have to be explored.
The suggestion had been made by some that the existence of the study indicated a defensive posture on the part of the Department, but this was not necessarily so. Mr. McGill’s experience so far indicated that a great many people in the Department knew what they were doing and that there was no general lack of confidence. People in other government departments were often either worried about External Affairs’ power or wanting the Department to do more. It may well be a finding of this investigation that there is a widespread desire for an expanded External Affairs role. Some would no doubt object strenuously to such a development, but this would certainly not be a universal reaction. External Affairs was not a weak sister; indeed it was a sign of strength that the Department would undertake this sort of self-examination.
Mr. McGill went on to say that he would be talking to informed observers outside Government. An example of an organization which could contribute was the Canadian University Service Overseas (CUSO), which had asked to meet with him. CUSO will probably prepare a brief based on their experience abroad, thereby providing a valuable set of perceptions of the Department. Their views may turn out to be unflattering, but they would be useful. Other sources of opinion will be academics and journalists. What is to come from this study? The report will be divided into several sections, including one on the “scriptures” or written mandate for the Department’s activities, one on the way other countries have approached the problem of an MFA, and one including the cross-section of views about the Department.
Q. Was the study linked with a supposed morale problem in
A. It was not specifically linked according to the terms of
reference of the study, but clearly morale would enter into any consideration of performance. One point of the study was to clear up uncertainties that might be affecting morale. Although morale was not mentioned in the terms of reference, it would undoubtedly come up, and any comments in this area would be noted. A press story some weeks ago about a study of morale “problems” in External Affairs was confused and inaccurate and did not apparently refer to this study. So far, the number of people in the Department who appeared to know what they were doing, and why, was impressive. Admittedly, some people seemed uncertain of their direction.
Originally published in bout de papier, Vol. 28, No. 4 (2015) — Spring 2015 // Printemps 2015, pp. 38–40. Read the rest of this issue →
