Foreign Affairs Committee on Feb. 12th, 2024

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Montarville, QC]

It seems that we also have them in the House. Sorry.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

I'm so sorry. We'll just suspend for a couple of minutes.

We're back.

I will forewarn you, Senator, that the chances are it's going to cut out again. We have a technician who will be showing up. Let's give it another try. Hopefully there won't be any problems.

Go ahead, Senator.

[Peter M. Boehm]

Okay. We were into the generalist versus specialist discussion.

In our travels and fact-finding studies in other countries, we discovered that Canada is by no means alone in this. You can have a specialist, for example, on arms control or on nuclear safety, which can get very specific, and on development, human rights—you name it. Then you have linguistic expertise, too, in foreign languages. If a person wants to build a career with various assignments to China, for example, then obviously, you have to invest in keeping that foreign language capacity current. That means after assignment, training to keep it up. There are a lot of factors in there.

The advantage on a generalist.... When I was in the foreign service, I was a generalist, but I had a Latin American phase and a European phase, and I did other things. The advantage is that generally a generalist will be more nimble and can adapt more quickly. You will want some people who have a specialization, who do not necessarily want to be managers, who do not necessarily want to be ambassadors. There was an attempt a few years ago to create another foreign service category, the FS-04, where the salary range then went into the EX-01 category but with the understanding that these were seasoned professional experts. Over time, that too has eroded. I would recommend in the internal review, which, of course, you're part of, Mr. Oliphant, to really have a look at that and see what makes the most sense.

[Rob Oliphant, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

Could I just ask about formation and education? I come at this as a United Church minister, and we had six seminaries across the country, training people for the ministry in the United Church. The church and the academy worked hand in hand, differently but hand in hand, so the church had expectations given to the seminaries and the seminaries had to respond.

What do you see as a perceived good relationship between our academic institutions in Canada and the preparation for and recruitment of foreign service officers and others at GAC?

[Peter M. Boehm]

I often get asked that by the academic institutions. Once we launched the report, I went to the Norman Paterson School here and then to the Munk School in Toronto as well, and there are many young people who are eager to get in.

With the foreign service exam in the past, all you needed to do was to pass the exam and have Canadian citizenship, but the exam that was being offered was very much like a SAT, if you know what this is, or an LSAT. It's very specific and would not take into consideration foreign language capability, niche expertise if you're an economist or a lawyer, and that sort of thing. That's why we recommended looking at that differently and also looking at mid-career exchange in and out.

The department had a very successful academic exchange program for a while, whereby experts would come in and then leave—Jennifer Welsh is an example—but that goes back to the 1990s. That sort of enrichment would be great, getting people in sort of mid-career and rotating them out, and the same thing with other government departments and agencies or even the provinces. Every province has an international affairs component to its work. Every department has an international affairs directorate of some kind. Have more fluidity in terms of moving people in and out, and then you can select your assistant deputy ministers or deputy ministers of the future on that basis. That's why we have a direct recommendation to the Clerk of the Privy Council in this.

[Rob Oliphant, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Thank you very much.

We next go to MP Bergeron.

You have six minutes.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Montarville, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It's my turn to greet the Saint‑Hyacinthe air cadets who are with us today. I'd like to welcome them to the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development. I'm very happy to see them, having been a sea cadet instructor myself for a number of years.

Senator Boehm, it's great to see you again. I would like to join my colleagues in recognizing the excellence and eminence of your professional career, both as a Canadian diplomat and as senator and chair of the Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade.

Senator, according to one of the recommendations in your report, “Global Affairs Canada should promote the equal use of French and English within the department, ensure that ab initio official language training is maintained, and expand official language training opportunities to all other employees, including both Canada‑based and locally engaged staff.”

I would like to ask you two questions about that.

On the one hand, have you heard that some senior public servants who should normally have a qualification in French have a special privilege that allows them not to have this qualification?

On the other hand, most of the time, the Prime Minister, the ministers and senior public servants speak mainly in English, if not exclusively in English.

What message does this send to the rest of the bureaucracy at Global Affairs Canada and, more importantly, what message does it send to our international partners?

[Peter M. Boehm]

Mr. Bergeron, thank you for your questions and your kind words.

This is really a problem in the department. When we talk about recruitment, we should receive, ab initio, training in an official language, either English or French. That practice has been discontinued over the years.

As for the francophones who work in the department, they normally use English in policy documents, for arguments and for briefing notes sent to ministers. We see that as a problem.

We can certainly speak of a lack of knowledge of French among the department's senior officials, and that's the case. For example, deputy ministers don't have to take a language test every year or two. We need to work on this, which is why we made that recommendation in our report.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Montarville, QC]

Are you satisfied with the government's response?

[Peter M. Boehm]

The report has to be approved by the Senate. After that, we're waiting—

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Montarville, QC]

Fantastic.

Another recommendation says, “The Government of Canada should ensure that Global Affairs Canada's senior officials, including deputy ministers, have in‑depth knowledge of and experience in international affairs.” It's a bit terrifying to read that recommendation.

Are we to understand that the deputy ministers of Global Affairs Canada don't have in‑depth knowledge of international affairs?

[Peter M. Boehm]

It's hard to navigate all of that.

The four current deputy ministers have a great deal of experience in international affairs. I'm talking about the deputy minister of Foreign Affairs and the deputy minister of International Trade. In fact, he worked at the Department of Finance. He has worked on issues related to the G7 and all the major financial issues. That said, in the past, some deputy ministers didn't have their experience.

It is important to have the knowledge required when working with other diplomats. A diplomatic career is very interesting, because normally you make friends in other countries. When you have more experience and seniority, you maintain ties with people in other departments. In my case, for example, I'm still in contact with my former colleagues.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Montarville, QC]

Recommendation 22 says, “Global Affairs Canada should recognize the value and contributions of locally engaged staff to the work of the department by providing them with greater training, interchange and leadership opportunities as well as ways of contributing to the work of the wider department.”

We were very surprised a few days ago to learn that, after the expulsion of 41 Canadian diplomats from India, no attempt had been made to compensate for these positions by hiring more local employees.

Do you think it's appropriate for Canada not to have increased the number of local employees after the expulsion of 41 diplomats?

[Peter M. Boehm]

I can offer an opinion on that as an individual.

I think locally engaged staff are very important to our government operations outside of Canada. However, each case is different, because they are normally citizens of other countries. There are also a lot of Canadians who have a second citizenship, as you know, from other countries such as France or the United States.

Locally engaged staff are loyal to Canada, even if they live in another country, which has different laws. We need to look at that. We need to give these employees opportunities to improve their careers and further their education, among other things. Maybe we should give them a gateway to the department through another job.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Montarville, QC]

Thank you, Senator.

[Peter M. Boehm]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Madam McPherson, you have six minutes.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Senator Boehm. It's been very interesting to have you here. Thank you very much for being here.

Thank you for that report. I think it was very useful. In fact, I think you did a lot of work that we may be repeating in this study. Thank you for doing that. Certainly, I read it with great interest.

I also want to welcome our friends here into the chamber with us.

One question I wanted to ask came up this weekend. This weekend was obviously a pretty challenging place around the world, but one thing that was on CBC News was that Canada is very quickly becoming irrelevant in sub-Saharan Africa, or totally irrelevant, as the quote in the news said.

We had said there would be an Africa strategy. That has not come out. There was a note that our failure in terms of diplomacy, development and trade in the region meant that we were ceding much of Africa to other countries like China and Russia. I'm wondering if you could comment on that from that diplomatic standpoint.

[Peter M. Boehm]

Sure. I'm delighted that you would pick a quotation that was taken from a committee that I was chairing.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

I know.

[Peter M. Boehm]

We have embarked, in the Senate, on an Africa study. I know work is going on within the department. I know Mr. Oliphant is directly involved in that.

We thought it would be useful to look at that, so we are going to do a deep dive. We have just started. As you know with your own background, it has to be more than official development assistance. We have to look at countries that may have slipped back during the pandemic and see how trade, investment and other things can be increased.

At the same time, there's been an increase in activity by countries that don't necessarily follow the ODA rules that have been established by everyone else. Of course, China and Russia are the examples.

Sub-Saharan Africa is a difficult part of the continent. I know from my previous life that in our bilateral discussions with France, there was always a lot to talk about, but when we get into things like putting troops on the ground, an international peacekeeping force and the like, it can get very complicated, so—

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Well, Canada's quite diminished in peacekeeping in the region. That's all around the world, but in Africa in particular.

[Peter M. Boehm]

Yes, you can certainly make that argument.

The point is, if you look at the demographic trends in Africa, as you know, it's going to be exponential in terms of population and in terms of need. There is a real role for Canada there.

I would add that we are in a unique position in terms of two smaller organizations, which are the OIF—the Francophonie—and the Commonwealth, where we are the second-largest contributor, at least in terms of our dues, though not necessarily in terms of voluntary contributions.

That puts us in a special position that could be utilized as well, in my opinion.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

I know I have a different opinion from that of many people within Global Affairs, but I did not believe that it was particularly good for the diplomatic and development portions of our foreign affairs to have Global Affairs all be in one place, because I feel that trade has trumped the ability of our diplomacy and our development to take a meaningful place within our foreign policy. It's something I've seen for a long time that worries me. I know you've said there are some real benefits to having it in one place, and I'm sure there are, but there are obviously things that are lost if we don't recognize the value of diplomacy and development as well as our trade relationships.

Senator Boehm, I hope you'll forgive me, but I'm going to move a motion now, because this is what we have to do when we want to move things. That will probably take the rest of my time, but I read your report with a lot of interest, and I do thank you for coming before the committee.

Mr. Chair, I will be moving the motion that I distributed to the committee on February 5 on military goods and technology exports to Israel, and I will be asking for a recorded vote on that, if I could.

I move:

That, pursuant to Standing Order 108(1)(a), and given that the value of military goods and technology exports to Israel from Canada exceeded $21 million in 2022, and that there were 315 utilized export permits and a further 199 authorized for military goods and technology to Israel reported in the 2022 “Report on the Export of Military Goods”, the committee order Global Affairs Canada to produce all documents, briefing notes, memorandums and emails within the department, including the Minister of Foreign Affairs’ office, and between the department and the Department of National Defence, the Canadian Commercial Corporation, the Privy Council Office and the Prime Minister's Office related to the granting of any export or brokering permits for military goods and technology to Israel between 2020 and 2024, within 30 days of the adoption of this motion; and that these documents be provided to the committee without redactions except to protect cabinet confidences.

Obviously, this is something I'd like us to vote on right now. I'm happy to speak to it and say, basically, that this committee made a similar request a few years ago regarding Canadian military exports to Turkey. That resulted in important information that was made public and a study by this committee that led Canada to suspend military exports to Turkey—an action that we, of course, have seen reversed this month.

I have another motion on arms exports to India that I will be moving at another time.

I have been asking for clear answers on military exports to Israel for a long time. I have not been able to get any accurate answers, including to an Order Paper question for which I received two identical answers to two very separate questions.

I have received more than 250,000 emails in my inbox on this issue.

I would like us to have a recorded vote on this motion. Thank you.