Good afternoon.
Thank you for the invitation to come and discuss with the committee the current state of Canada's diplomatic capacity and its future in an increasingly unstable world.
I'd like to begin by agreeing with the opening paragraph of the “Future of Diplomacy” initiative report that suggests Canada must invest more in its diplomatic service and activities given our current global context and that we cannot continue to rest on our laurels.
Canadians are living in an international system that is less hospitable to our interests and values than perhaps at any time since the end of the Second World War. We do need to be more strategic about our global engagement and seek to enhance our influence, especially through diplomacy.
This influence is not just about guns and bombs but a deep and granular understanding of the forces at work. This requires a presence around the world. I give an example to the committee that prior to its invasion of Ukraine, in February 2022, Russia significantly increased its presence on the ground in Latin America, especially in Mexico, in recognition of the importance of political narratives and winning allies. Effective diplomacy is critical to understanding how narratives that challenge our interests and values take hold and how they can be countered.
The UN Secretary-General's recent “A New Agenda for Peace” that was released over the summer not only paints a grim picture of the intersecting challenges facing our world, but also positions the UN system in a very different way from the recent past. It is much more backstage in a supportive role, ready to step in when and if national governments themselves can find common ground. Only diplomacy can achieve that common ground.
When I look at the priorities outlined so far by GAC and its various initiatives, I have a number of observations I could share with you today, but I'll limit myself here to three by way of conclusion.
Yes, we need to increase our presence with key countries, but this goes beyond the G20. We also need to be much more engaged in the Americas, where Canada's footprint has been far too light given its strategic importance not just to us but to the United States, and in Africa and Central Asia. However, we also need to be much more innovative with our liberal democratic allies.
Yes, we need to be more present at top multilateral tables. I note the worrying fact that while we are a major contributor to the UN system, our diplomatic presence is among the lowest in the G7. We also need to expand diplomacy beyond traditional multilateral institutions, which may not be the forum in which key advances are made. I can give an example of postpandemic diplomacy in the Q and A if this is of interest of the committee.
Second, and the previous speaker alluded to this, Canada's diplomatic capacity needs to include a much more robust and cutting-edge system for foresight and scenario planning, an exercise that needs to be clear-eyed about how threats to states and the individuals within them could unfold, and how they intersect. It has become clear to many of us in the research and academic community that GAC has lost that policy planning edge and needs to develop much better long-term assessment of trends and their potential impacts. It could also look to other countries whose governments are key funders of research. I point here to the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office in the U.K.
Third and finally, there's a sustained discussion of the need for GAC and Canadian diplomats to engage more strategically in communication. Yes, I'd agree. However, this must extend beyond public relations to real substance. Above all, if GAC and the federal government wishes to sustain support from Canadians for a new foreign policy direction, it must speak honestly, openly and often about the dramatic changes in the international environment and particularly the threats facing our prosperity, security and political values. This is something I fail to see. Linked to this, I would recommend taking great care with the recommendation for Canada's diplomacy to be open and connected.
In many ways this is true but with respect to the particular comments on diaspora communities, I think both our political leaders and civil service have operated with an outdated approach. Canada's core challenge going forward will be to ensure that our diversity still enables us to have a coherent national interest that we can define and promote, which may be at odds with what some diaspora communities might wish.
As a final point, the future of diplomacy initiative calls for a whole-of-government approach to tackling crises and pursuing Canadian interests. It suggests that GAC should lead it. However, with the deepest of respect, I would question whether other federal government actors still look to GAC to chart the overarching direction for Canada's foreign and global engagement, given that Canada has not updated its foreign policy strategy in almost two decades.
Thank you for your attention.