bout de papier, Vol. 20, No. 1 (2003) — Spring/Summer 2003 // Printemps/Été 2003, pp. 4–5
Cohen soutient avec raison qu’un virage aussi fondamental mérite au moins un débat public, car les réponses pourraient fort bien influer sur la manière et la mesure dans laquelle le Canada poursuivra ses objectifs en matière de politique étrangère.
It may seem perplexing to most Canadians outside of the Ottawa bureaucracy that, in these days of globalization and uncertain international circumstances, the relevance of a career foreign service would even be questioned.
However, neither the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade nor Citizenship and Immigration Canada nor the government as a whole has articulated a coherent vision of the future for the Foreign Service. As one former senior manager put it somewhat glibly, is the Foreign Service to remain separate and special or does it become just another occupational group within government? Behind these brief words lies an enormous choice: can Canada conduct an effective and activist foreign policy without career diplomats? Will Canada produce the Paul Heinbeckers who can “punch above their weight” internationally if there is no real career in the diplomatic service? Is diplomatic experience valuable (and if so is it properly valued)?
For those in the FS community, we have seen a number of changes and proposals for change that would appear to push the Foreign Service in the direction of integration into the public service. Actual changes are the undeniable large increase in “non-rotational” officers filling FS positions over the last few years both at headquarters and abroad on a single assignment basis, continued conversion of FS positions to non-rotational positions and the increasing use of locally engaged staff (LES) employees. These changes have created a quasi-parallel Foreign Service without the same rules on entry requirements, bilingualism, probation, training, appraisals and promotion imposed on the FS. Such actions have of course undermined FS morale and risk creating an “us v. them” mentality in the Department that is unhealthy for any organisation. But they have also falsely reinforced or created the idea that FS and other occupational groups are generally “interchangeable” (which begs the question as to why new FS recruits must undergo all the specialised training).
Proposed changes include a large lateral entry process at the FS 2 level to till upwards of a 165 positions and the idea of opening EX I promotions to all occupational groups which have to date been restricted to the FS officers who have international work experience in Canada’s 162 Missions abroad. This too begs the question as to whether international work experience in Canadian missions is relevant in order to perform at the ambassador level. Are our ambassadors to be mainly public service managers or should we expect something more from them as Canada’s face abroad?
Le plus déroutant, c’est qu’un si grand nombre de changements aient été apportés ou soient proposés sans vision ou objectif clair et net pour l’avenir du service extérieur comme carrière. En continuant à recourir à ces mesures provisoires, les ministères alimentent ceux et celles qui croient qu’un service extérieur de carrière est redondant. Le forum des cadres qui devait avoir lieu au printemps a été remis à l’automne afin de donner aux nouveaux sous-ministres l’occasion de se familiariser avec la situation. Les changements ne s’en poursuivent pas moins et, dans l’intervalle, le service extérieur du Canada continue de voguer à la dérive, sans vision. Ce sont cette incertitude et cette négligence qui ont incité les agents du service extérieur de carrière à remettre en question leur fidélité et leur place dans une organisation qui semble ne pas avoir de vision pour eux et qui continue de permettre que leurs rangs se dégarnissent.
Foreign Service officers continue to be paid less than other professional occupational groups in the Public Service as well as in other Foreign Services, and international organizations, both private and public as the $300,000 compensation study conducted by PricewaterhouseCoopers attested. One has only to look at the daily competition posters to see the money being offered to the non FS to do FS work (with starting salaries often well above what officers with 10 years of experience are making) to see that the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade is undervaluing the FS officers. The Department has basically recognized that it cannot pay others what it pays its FS officers to do this work. We believe that maintaining these differences will put further pressure on the FS attrition rate, especially on the junior and middle ranks. Why stay an FS when you can get more pay as an ES, continue to do international work, get foreign assignments and possibly next year have access to the EX I promotion process all without having to write appraisals or go through the inconvenient training program.
In this context, it is not surprizing that so many ES feel that the organization does not treat them with respect.
Les ministères préconisent la restructuration presque comme une panacée pour tous les maux qui affligent le service extérieur. Cependant, nous voyons mal comment la création d’une structure pyramidale classique à partir du système relativement horizontal actuel, au moyen de la reclassification à la baisse d’un certain nombre de postes FS-2 actuels, pourrait remonter le moral ou améliorer le maintien des effectifs. Nous craignons que le moral et le maintien des effectifs ne soient même pires si nous aboutissons à des gels au nouveau niveau FS-2 à FS-3 proposé. Les ministères ne nous ont communiqué encore aucune donnée qui apaiserait ces inquiétudes.
Cohen states that his book is not just about what we lost but also about what we could become again. It is about choices.
PAFSO agrees.
The Foreign Service community needs a vision of hope for the future. The government is going to have to decide if it wants a professional career Foreign Service or whether it is happy to go with another model of a public service that has people going on single assignments to foreign postings. If the latter, it will have to address issues of getting people to go to the hardship posts rather than New York, London, Paris and Geneva. It will have to consider how it will develop Asia specialists, Middle East experts, and Africa hands. Or how it will explain its inability to have expertise in these areas when crises hit in our age of potential clash of cultures.
Foreign Service officers are a stubborn lot but they are not stupid. They joined a service where they thought loyalty, pride, professionalism and acquired experience meant something and were willing to fight for the Service. But if the Departments and the government as a whole want to follow a 1990s paradigm of quick mobility and no permanent engagement to an employer, let them tell us honestly that the loyalty that we have continued to bestow on the Foreign Service is misplaced and unwanted.
View the original scanned pages / Voir les pages numérisées →
Originally published in / Publié à l’origine dans bout de papier, Vol. 20, No. 1 (2003) — Spring/Summer 2003 // Printemps/Été 2003, pp. 4–5. Read the rest of this issue / Lire le reste de ce numéro →
