Allan Gotlieb is senior business adviser at Bennett Jones LLP and a former Canadian ambassador to the United States
Now that Justin Trudeau's new cabinet is in place, one of the key appointments he will need to make is Canada's ambassador to Washington. Canada's current long-serving ambassador, former Manitoba premier Gary Doer, has made known his intention to step down from his post. The Canadian ambassador's role in Washington is a very broad one – that of chief strategist, chief advocate and chief lobbyist for Canada. It is thus by far the most important and visible in Canada's diplomatic representation.
It is often said, accurately, that the two greatest challenges a Canadian prime minister faces is managing national unity and managing our relations with the United States. Pierre Trudeau appointed four ambassadors to Washington in his decade and a half as prime minister. All were from the Canadian foreign service. His son could do worse.
Canadian ambassadorial appointments to Washington have a curious history. The immediate past three, Mr. Doer, appointed by Stephen Harper; Michael Wilson, also appointed by Mr. Harper; and Frank McKenna, appointed by Paul Martin, have all been political appointees. None were drawn from Canada's professional foreign service.
But, before that time, going back to the outset of the Second World War, appointments to Washington – some 14 in total – were drawn from Canada's public service. Half of these appointees had previously or subsequently occupied the top diplomatic position in Ottawa, the undersecretary of state for External Affairs. (Full disclosure: I was one of them.) It's becoming harder to appreciate this unbroken period of more than 60 years, and why it was considered unwise to look outside of career diplomats to fill this assignment. In fact, it was unthinkable to do so. The post became reserved, so to speak, for the "best and the brightest," the stars of the Canadian diplomatic service, including Lester Pearson and many others. The reasons were perhaps twofold.
Given the heavily charged Canada-U.S. working agenda, it was thought that the issues being so difficult or contentious, this was no place for Canadians to practise patronage. And it was believed that for an ambassador to Washington to be influential, he required direct experience in dealing with the grand multinational and strategic issues of the day. Whatever the reasons for this dramatic shift in attitude toward favouring political over career appointees, it came about quickly during the past decade or so and has rarely been debated in Canada.
The question arises: Does it really matter whether the occupant of the top Washington post comes from the foreign service?
Isn't the only clear requirement that of competence? Wouldn't it be reverting to the elitism of earlier times if the professional foreign service were privileged in the selection of incumbents to this critically important position? Aren't there advantages in selecting ambassadors who are close to the prime minister of the day and thus capable of influencing him on a personal basis, and hasn't our experience of the past dozen years of political appointments demonstrated the skills and competence of the political appointees, their high standing in both Canada and the U.S., and their effectiveness?
The answer to all these questions appears to be that, in the minds of most Canadians, it doesn't really matter if the ambassador is not drawn from the career diplomats, and if it does matter, it doesn't matter much.
But there are long-term consequences and there are costs. That they are barely visible in the short- or middle-term does not deny their significance.
Canadians want Canada to play a major role on the international stage. The most significant factor in enabling Canada to play such a role is the quality of our human resources devoted to the task. Over a period of generations, Canada formed a cadre of remarkably gifted individuals who have been influential in the corridors of foreign capitals and international institutions – a fact widely acknowledged and admired.
If, in the years ahead, Canada is going to be able to recruit and retain a cadre of ambitious young persons who are future stars in the diplomatic world, they must be able to aspire to the highest positions and roles in foreign affairs. They cannot do this if the office of Canadian ambassador to the United States is closed to them. If Ottawa were to now appoint another political appointee, no matter how well-qualified, the message might well be that they are ineligible for Canada's top diplomatic jobs and should look elsewhere to make their mark in the world.