Canadian Spouses of Overseas Government Employees - Journeys Through Bureaucratic Logical Irrationality

In his novel "Catch-22", Joseph Heller tells about an American World War II airman who fears and loathes his country's bureaucrats more than he does the enemy attempting to shoot down his aircraft. The phrase "Catch-22" has since become a common term describing no-win, self-contradictory, circular logic. The spouses of Canada's government employees serving overseas can identify with either concept, essentially being classified as unpaid de facto government employees that are extensions of their partner. As such, their lives become governed by callous, contradictory bureaucratic fiat, but without effective grievance rights.

Although approximately 90% of Canadian households are dual-income to make ends meet, Canada's overseas "representatives" are instead still advised by Canada's Foreign Service that their spouses should not expect employment overseas. From the moment a spouse arrives in some foreign capital, the paradoxical diplomatic hazing ritual begins.

Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) strikes first by designating overseas government spouses as "Factual Residents" ("Resident of Canada") due to their diplomatic status and Canadian material ties. In CRA's mind, these spouses never really left Canada, and therefore must continue to file a domestic tax return from overseas. This includes continuing to pay Employment Insurance (EI) and Canada Pension Plan (CPP) premiums.

When CRA's "Determination of Residency" letter arrives, it is usually accompanied by a Service Canada letter also informing the spouse that their EI social benefits have been revoked because they are no longer physically "Resident in Canada". Although spouses are expected to help represent Canada overseas, our country apparently thinks they will perform this role better after first being disenfranchised by their own government.

To add insult, although Canadian prison inmates can collect EI after their release, government spouses will discover their EI eligibility expired upon repatriation after serving "two years less a day" minimum overseas.

Spouses fortunate to work overseas likely will only do so with embassy contracts applying their Masters or Doctorate degrees toward menial secretarial positions. However, DFAIT's policy is to hire them as Locally Engaged Staff (LES), classifying and paying them like any local foreign citizen.

At this point however, CRA reasserts the spouse's virtual Canadian residency in order to collect its cut, requiring a Canadian overseas employer to tax a Canadian expatriate solely to Canada. The contract completion culminates with the spouse receiving another letter from Service Canada notifying them that the Canadian EI for which they were just paying overseas has been revoked yet again. The spouse is also ineligible for foreign EI benefits because CRA blocked their ability to pay into that scheme.

If the spouse seeks local employment, they encounter the work permit conundrum. Essentially, they need a job offer before they can apply for the permit, but employers will seldom hire them unless they are already pre-authorized to work. Jobs in the European Union (EU) also often require employment pre-authorization in all EU countries despite there being no EU-wide work permit.

If a job is secured, usually one inferior to or outside the spouse's profession, CRA still collects its due at tax filing time, which includes going after their now missing Canadian EI and CPP T4 deductions. However, these social benefit premiums go unrecorded, having not been collected via Canadian pay checks. Likewise, foreign income is also ineligible toward RRSP contributions, overall resulting in little spousal pension savings upon retirement. If their partner dies first, spouses only get half their government pension because federal policies instead presume that surely they must have their own CPP and RRSP. Divorced spouses, a common outcome among diplomatic couples, may be completely abandoned.

How can DFAIT mandarins tout Canada's social justice overseas while failing to effectively safeguard this principle for their own families, especially the low-paid junior, OGD and support staff comprising the vast majority of every diplomatic mission? Their impotence may stem from how this unseen and vulnerable cadre is equally stigmatized by the Canadian public's resentment of a profligate lifestyle often perpetuated publicly by DFAIT's highly-paid top echelon minority.

Joseph Heller's book suggests that bureaucracy left unchecked will take on a life of its own, placing enormous importance on administrative minutiae and cost savings while trivializing basic human needs and dignity. For example, the 1981 MacDougall Royal Commission on Conditions of Foreign Service elucidated how cutbacks: "inadvertently, come out of the hides of foreign service employees and their families through curtailment or denial of services essential to them. This is not management, it is abuse." Unless finally confronted, this startling finding will likely continue to endure in the expected aftermath of DFAIT's current funding review by Treasury Board.

For their part, the government spousal perspective is accurately reflected by an old woman in Heller's book who resignedly explains: "Catch-22 says they have a right to do anything we can't stop them from doing."

The Honourable Bryon Wilfert, Member of Parliament, is the Liberal Party Associate Critic for Foreign Affairs.