Foreign Affairs Committee on Dec. 13th, 2023

[Louise Blais]

Thank you.

As did Guy Saint-Jacques, I had a stint in human resources in the department. I saw how it was run. I've also been on the receiving end as an officer, an employee.

In the quest for transparency and equality in the department, we run processes that are blind, and that's part of the problem. We promote people as if they're newly off the street. They come in with a blind interview that doesn't really look at their background and their experience, and then they don't get promoted for a variety of reasons—such as they didn't demonstrate that they had intercultural effectiveness, even though they were posted in some of the toughest places in the world.

I think we have to review the way we promote and assign people abroad. I think it's a tough nut to crack, but I think it's one we need to address, because it is affecting morale. I don't know if Ms. Isfeld would agree, but it is really a deep problem in the department, and there's not enough communication as to why someone doesn't get this or doesn't get that. There really is poor management of talent in the Department of Foreign Affairs.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

I'll go to Ms. Isfeld.

Would you agree with that comment? I have other questions, so I'd like just a quick answer so I don't run out of time.

[Pamela Isfeld]

Yes, I definitely agree.

I think they've gone to two extremes.

In the old days, it used to be that you got promoted by people knowing your reputation and based on different things like that. Then that got to be too much of a closed shop, and that was not fair.

They went to this very—on paper—objective thing that is based only on current capacities, and now they're at the other end. They need to swing back to where they look at current capacities and objective assessment as well as your experience and past performance.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

They have the EX level in their pay grid, and I heard one complaint—it's a good example—of an employee who was stationed abroad as an EX-01 and how she was going to move up to an EX-02. There was actually an EX-02 position in that embassy, but because she was jumping to the next level, she actually had to come back to Canada and then apply for the job that she should have naturally just moved into.

I have heard about other scenarios in which people have gone from an EX-02 to an EX-03, and yet they have not had to go through that process. Since they were already an ambassador, they seemed to be able to just slide into it and it just seemed to happen.

How do you find fairness in that type of system?

I'll start off with you, Ms. Isfeld.

[Pamela Isfeld]

Well, you don't, basically. That's the bottom line for some of these things.

That is our complaint, sometimes. As a professional association and the union representing people with grievances and staffing complaints.... Sometimes, there are very rigid systems that serve the central authorities when they want. If those systems don't serve what someone in power wants, there are always ways around them.

It's not easy, but I believe it is something that needs to change. I would love to see Global Affairs get some advice on how to do that.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

My next question is on where our resources are located.

Right now, I think 81.2% of all employees at GAC are stationed in Ottawa. Is that a real number? Shouldn't it be something where they have 80% abroad and 20% supporting them out of Ottawa? What is the right ratio here? Obviously, 81% is too high. Wouldn't you agree, Ms. Blais?

[Louise Blais]

As I said earlier, I agree.

I'm not sure what the current ratio is—you seem very well informed—but I know there is an imbalance, and we have to look at it. However, to do that, we have to look at what needs to be done in Ottawa. What are we doing that we shouldn't be doing, and what is the value of the department? It's a study that needs to happen. I hope it's part of what they are looking at, at the moment.

In my time, HQ has grown. The ratio was different when I joined, and things seemed to work just fine. I think we need to go back, but it feeds itself.

Yes, I know you have—

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

I apologize. I wish I had more time. I think we'll have to revisit that afterwards.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Mr. Hoback, I'm sorry about that.

For the final questions, we go to MP Zuberi.

You have five minutes.

[Sameer Zuberi, Liberal, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thanks to the witnesses for being here.

My first question is for Guy Saint-Jacques.

It's on the Indo-Pacific strategy with respect to how it's been received by our partners, business leaders and stakeholders overseas and by Canadians living abroad.

Can you comment on how our Indo-Pacific strategy has been received by those different groups?

[Guy Saint-Jacques]

So far, the information I've received is that it has been very well received.

The reason for this is that it's a plan developed with the participation of all relevant departments in Ottawa, and it comes with substantial new money: $2.5 billion over five years. As well, it compensates for the neglect of regions that had occurred in previous years. Also, it addresses the priorities of the countries concerned.

When I look at the implementation of the strategy.... Of course, there has been a big setback with the problem we have with India. Of course, it would be better if the relationship with China were better. Otherwise, in terms of opening new missions, organizing team Canada trade missions and EDC opening new offices, I think it's pretty much on track.

From my perspective, it's a very good strategy and I hope it continues to be implemented.

[Sameer Zuberi, Liberal, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

You mentioned the amount we've invested for the strategy.

Do you expect there to be a return on investment for that?

[Guy Saint-Jacques]

Yes. I think, both politically and on the trade side....

Politically, the department is now beefing up its expertise on China. China won't disappear, so there is more attention devoted to trying to understand how the country—especially the Chinese Communist Party—functions.

In terms of trade, it will help. I speak regularly with companies and advise them. I think there is a good effort taking place to help them look at new markets—to assist them. This should help us diversify our trade.

[Sameer Zuberi, Liberal, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

Mr. Rock spoke about Canada being bold again on the international stage. He spoke about the ICC, land mines and the human security agenda.

Do you want to share any comments on how you think we can lean forward as a country?

[Guy Saint-Jacques]

I think the value added of a diplomat—Louise alluded to this—is the quality of the networks and relationships you develop. This is extremely useful when you want to assess where a country is.

I think you have to take a long-term approach. You have to develop this expertise by sending people back. For that reason, it's important to speak the local language. That's the way to have a good understanding of the country.

[Sameer Zuberi, Liberal, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

Thank you.

I want to ask you two questions. I hope that in the next minute and a half you could answer both of them.

You talk about language competency. When I travel overseas, I always make it a point to visit our diplomatic missions whenever possible. I have noted that in Canada, we have people from many different backgrounds who can speak second and third languages in addition to English and French. However, at some missions, we have employees who can only speak English or French. We have Canadian staff, not local staff.

Could you comment very briefly on the importance of Canadian staff having the ability to at least understand a local language? That's the first question.

Second, could you comment on Mr. Bergeron's point about the importance of this committee travelling in order to enhance our understanding of what's happening overseas?

[Guy Saint-Jacques]

Well, I'm a bit surprised by your first question, because foreign service officers, before they are posted abroad—at least it was that way when I was in charge of that—are fully bilingual, and they can speak—

[Sameer Zuberi, Liberal, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

I mean a local language other than English or French.

[Guy Saint-Jacques]

In terms of the local language, that's a problem. I was listening to what David Morrison, the deputy minister, said. He said that only about 30% of the officers speak the local language. Clearly, this is something we have to invest in more.

In terms of the work of the committee, I would encourage you to travel, to go to difficult missions in order to understand what it's like, but also to take advantage of what was suggested earlier, which is to talk to our diplomats when they return to Canada.

When I was ambassador to China, I would come back to Canada about six times every year. I would try to meet as many people as possible. That is part of the job of an ambassador, and it could be extended to other diplomatic officers.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Thank you. That concludes our questions by members.

I'd like to thank former ambassador Guy Saint-Jacques, Professor Roussel, Ms. Isfeld and Ms. Blais. We're very grateful for your perspectives and your time. You can rest assured that you will find some of your views reflected in our final report.

We'll suspend for a couple of minutes, and go in camera.

[Proceedings continue in camera]