Canada’s Foreign Affairs Minister, Mélanie Joly, launched a major operational review of Canadian diplomacy a little over a year ago. It should be finished soon.
We are both former employees of the Canadian Embassy in France. We are both Canadians. For more than 25 years, we have observed and actively contributed to Canadian diplomatic action in Paris.
We are speaking out because, like the Minister, we are convinced that what is happening in the world “has an impact at home and in everyday life”.
Now this is indeed one of the failings of our diplomacy which we have too frequently observed. It takes too little account of the needs of the people of this country, wherever they are. Beyond the major discussions and reflections on planetary issues, we must make it a daily diplomacy.
The COVID-19 pandemic and climate change, to give just a few examples, have cruelly proven that what is happening on the other side of the planet also has a very real impact on people’s daily lives. We can also say the opposite. What comes from elsewhere can also help us find solutions to our difficulties.
How many times, at the Canadian Embassy in Paris, have we not been approached by French politicians and journalists wishing to learn more about Canadian governance in order to improve public safety, the functioning of hospitals, the management of public finances, among a multitude of other subjects? In turn, how many times have we seen many French practices that Canadian governance, wherever it is, would benefit from knowing better?
However, we have lost count of the number of times we have witnessed the return to Canada of a minister and his delegation, following an official visit to France, with no result other than a report summarizing what they have seen and heard without any follow-up projects on Canadian soil.
During the visit of a Prime Minister, this is even more true. Apart from the necessary and profitable discussions with the French president and his prime minister on common foreign policy issues, the benefits to Canada of a stay in France remain limited, to put it politely.
There are many reasons for this. In Canada, many subjects affecting the daily lives of citizens are the responsibility of federal departments other than Foreign Affairs. These are all areas that also come under the provinces and cities. And we could mention the growing role played by non-governmental and private organizations in the management of what was once only a matter for the public sector.
All these beautiful people are involved in international affairs: the ministries other than that of World Affairs, the provinces, first and foremost of course Quebec, the big cities. We must add the activism of the most important non-governmental organizations and Canadian associations, the networks of scientists.
However, the links between all these actors are particularly loose when the time comes to reflect on Canada’s action abroad. There is little practice of interministerial, even less intergovernmental, and synergies with other actors in society are almost non-existent. Silo culture reigns supreme.
Finally, one of the most important keys undoubtedly lies in the management of human resources. The vast majority of employees who, throughout the network of Canadian embassies and consulates around the world, manage the day-to-day demands and needs of our citizens, our businesses, our governments and politicians, are recruited locally. They do not return to Canada every four or five years. They are mostly citizens of the country. But they can also be Canadians who have chosen to live abroad. This was our case.
There would be a lot to say about their situation. The rules surrounding diplomatic immunity mean that they are not formally protected by any law – neither the law of their country of origin nor Canadian law. Embarrassing for a country like Canada which makes the rule of law one of its hobbyhorses.
Local employees often have a better understanding of the functioning of the company in which they operate. On the other hand, they know less about the needs, strengths and weaknesses of Canadian society than career diplomats. There is a real complementarity there, rich in possibilities in a diplomacy in search of what elsewhere can improve our collective life at home.
Our classic international action has the limits of the small power that we are. By thus redefining our foreign policy towards day-to-day diplomacy, Canada, lucid about its real weight, would innovate and could, in turn, serve as an example.