Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your kind invitation today. Given the fact that I'm into my ninth decade, these invitations are very rare indeed, so I very much welcome this one.

Of course, this is a very different world from when I was born in 1939. My mother would always remind me that there were two very important events that occurred in 1939. That's one she would use all the time.

The timing of this study, of course, for those of us involved in diplomacy around the world and trying to see how we fit into governments that come and go and this sort of thing.... There are significant changes in policies and approach. I think having a study of this nature, on the capacity of diplomacy, is generally overlooked when we look at foreign policy. We tend to look beyond whether or not we have the capacity to do so. Of course, capacity will determine whether we're able to protect and project the interests of Canada into the world.

As the senator mentioned earlier, Peter and I were colleagues in Central America for a number of years, chasing the wars down there. I became a member of the foreign service in 1967. It was still in the afterglow of Pearsonian diplomacy. The agenda was changing in that particular period beyond our ties with the United States and Europe to the new world created by decolonization and the self-determination of people. The empires largely disappeared. They were very much in place in 1945, but in 1945, when sovereign states got together in San Francisco to create the United Nations, there were only 52 countries. Today, there are 193. That in itself gives us the magnitude of the issues. I would suggest to you that with the way the world is today, it will not be long before we probably have 200 sovereign members of the United Nations.

In that sense, I think as an issue that gets overlooked as far as foreign policy is concerned in Canada, I would hope that the committee would note specifically that the indigenous people of the world remain a matter that will increasingly involve our international attention. It's not one. Canada, along with Australia and New Zealand and the United States, a few years ago mistakenly opposed a UNGA resolution on indigenous peoples. That, I think, was one of the more serious mistakes that Canada has made diplomatically in recent years.

As Peter mentioned, when I came to Ottawa in the 1960s, there was Canada-wide recruitment for the foreign service, and public interest was exceptionally high. It was not uncommon that somewhere between 7,000 and 9,000 people would apply for the number of jobs that were available. Today, we're into the age of contract arrangements and entry from other parts of the government. That in itself, as Peter noted, carries its own problems.

Equally, over this same period there are the name changes. We were first external affairs. Then we were foreign affairs. Today we are Global Affairs. Then the associated functions of trade, immigration and refugees and development were included within that body. The immigration and refugee function has returned to its domestic home, but as you all will note, those issues associated with immigration and refugees are as much a part of foreign policy today as anything else we are wont to do.

All foreign ministries around the world have undergone similar structural transformations and struggle to find a balance, if you like, in terms of how to meet the needs that those functions require. However, recruitment is still the main issue here. I'm glad that the committee asked Mr. Boehm a number of questions about the report that he was an author of in terms of how we recruit and whom we recruit. In effect, there is a set of characteristics that I think would be essential in terms of Canadian representation in other countries. This, of course, is the question of knowledge, aptitude and language acquisition abilities, and of course there's always personal flexibility.

These capabilities, while not necessarily unique to the foreign service, are essential for the persons required to provide the services that Canadians need internationally.

There is, of course, as I mentioned in terms of the personal suitability and in the changing Canadian mosaic that we deal with, the issue that has come up for any number of my colleagues of dual-career families: how they can adjust to, in effect, a rotational life in the foreign service.

I would also add a cautionary note for you to keep in mind: that large international events, including the conflicts that we are dealing with, have a daily if not an hourly effect on Canada's diplomatic activity. Today, global communications are faster than the proverbial speeding bullet, and no foreign ministry has the time for reflection before action is often required.

I would also mention one issue that I think we should give the committee some cautions on here, and these are the elections that are going to occur in the United States on November 5. As we all know if we watch the news at all, the political and social divisions in this, our most important relationship, have never been as extreme as they are today.

Equally, there are aspects of this reflected in our own elections and political system. What is unique is that these divisions have an existence—

Transcript

Discussions (0)