Thank you, Mr. Chair.
My observations on diplomatic capacity are based on 33 years in Canada's foreign service and 15 years with the Canadian Global Affairs Institute.
We need diplomatic capacity to advance our objectives internationally. This is hard in a world that is messier, meaner and multi-centred. It is even harder when the political divide of our times is open versus closed, with no consensus on shared norms or rules, especially when it comes to human rights. It is further complicated with social media spewing disinformation and misinformation aimed at destabilizing and dividing democracies.
Diplomatic capacity relies on both hard and soft power. This means a robust foreign service to serve individual Canadians and Canadian interests. This also means a muscular armed forces to ensure deterrence and collective security, as well as well-funded development assistance to deal with global inequities and support fellow democracies.
We are no longer the helpful fixer we once were. We can play that role, but to do so, we must strengthen our diplomatic capacity.
As a first step, I encourage you to endorse and fund the recommendations in the recent Senate report, “More than a Vocation: Canada's Need for a 21st Century Foreign Service”.
My second observation is that the United States will always be our preponderant relationship, our partner in trade, our ally in defence and security and our co-steward in managing our shared environment. We can't change geography, nor would we want to.
We think we know all about the United States. We don't. I encourage parliamentarians to travel to the U.S. and cultivate members of Congress, whether through local, regional or policy interests. These relationships pay big dividends, especially as the U.S. tires of overseas entanglements and becomes more insular, if not isolationist.
As to managing Uncle Sam, remember three things.
First, our influence abroad hinges on our perceived access in Washington and our understanding of Americans. For its part, the United States is always interested in our intelligence and the constructive ideas that we can bring to the table. Again, this requires an active and agile global diplomacy, including being in places the United States is not, such as Pyongyang, Tehran and Havana.
Second, as Brian Mulroney put it, we can disagree without being disagreeable. Americans can take criticisms. What they cannot stand is dithering or obfuscation.
Finally, avoid preachiness. Heed Lester Pearson's advice that “as American difficulties increase, we should resist any temptation to become smug and superior”, and, “Our own experience, as we wrestle with our own problems, gives us no ground for any such conviction.”
My third observation is that we balance our bilateral U.S. relationship with an active multilateralism aimed at creating norms and rules. We need to re-embrace functionalism, meaning that if you have interests and competence, you earn and deserve a seat at the table. Functionalism is how small and medium powers level the playing field against big powers, who would return us to a system based on spheres of influence, where big dictates to small.
In conclusion, more than most nations, Canadians' sense of self-identity is realized by how we act and are seen to act abroad. More than most, Canada's prosperity depends on our ability to trade and invest abroad and to attract talented newcomers. This means strengthening our diplomatic capacity with a similar commitment to strengthening our armed forces and diplomatic assistance.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.