December 1, 2011
Three events in recent weeks underline the lack of transparency in the way the government is implementing foreign policy. Everyone agrees that the government has a right to frame foreign policy. “But it should make these changes in full public view with a full public explanation. The paper-shuffling, obfuscating and insinuating have to stop”. (The Citizen, Dec. 20, 2010)
Kairos: Bev Oda tied up in “nots”
Just before Christmas some things in the Kairos saga became clearer. CIDA President Margaret Biggs, testifying before the Parliamentary Committee, said that when she signed off on the Kairos proposal she recommended that the Minister approve it, because it was in line with CIDA priorities. Subsequently Minister Oda’s signature and a handwritten “not” was added to the proposal – making the recommendation to “not” approve the proposal. When asked by the Parliamentary Committee, Minister Oda said that she did not know who put the “not” in the document and she also seemed unsure whether she herself had signed the document or whether it was done using an automatic pen.
All three opposition parties subsequently sought a motion of contempt of Parliament against Minister ODA for having misled the House when she suggested that the Kairos proposal was rejected at the CIDA level. Bob Rae said that the document had been altered to make it look as if the CIDA President and VP had made the “not” recommendation. In the House he suggested this could constitute fraud. The Speaker has “put over” the matter to allow the Government to prepare its response.
Foreign Affairs: Changing Language, or Not
Things weren’t any clearer over at the Committee on the Status of Women where they were also discussing words. Last year Embassy Magazine reported that the Office of the Minister of Foreign Affairs was making changes to the language used in the Department – not through a formal statement but more subtly through altering phrases used in multilateral meetings, speeches, and letters. “Gender equality” became “equality between men and women”, “international humanitarian law” became “international law”, and “child soldiers” was to become “children in conflict”. The Committee on the Status of Women decided to call witnesses. Among them was Alan Kessel, Legal Adviser, Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade. In his testimony he said,
I know the objective of the discussion here has been about terminology. My objective is to show you that the terminology hasn’t changed; the policy hasn’t changed. The terminology we use is carefully negotiated language that came out of many years of negotiation in international fora.
Then the Liberals tabled an internal memo written by Jamieson Weetman, Deputy Director, West and Central Africa Relations, which expressed concern about the policy implications of the changes in language coming from the Minister’s office (see below). The changes are real, they are important, and they have important policy implications.
Transparency at Rights and Democracy: Not
And then there is the forensic audit of Rights and Democracy. Following the government-led debacle at this once-respected human rights organization, interim president, Jacques Gauthier called for an audit of the organization’s recent activities. According to The Citizen, some Board members insisted that the “disagreement isn’t over ideology. No, they said, it’s about fiscal management. They complained that they were dealing with a staff ‘revolt against accountability’ and made reference to ‘transactions that require the attention of forensic auditors’.” The audit was completed in August but in spite of its concern about accountability, the Board did not release it. In December The Globe and Mail published a summary. Surprise – the audit didn’t reveal any major irregularities. Deloitte & Touche, however, concluded that the main problems at Rights and Democracy stemmed from the Board’s attempts to control the organization’s activities, especially in relation to Middle East issues.
And so it goes. The lack of professionalism, incompetence and outright deceit are breathtaking. It is hard to imagine what would move this government to expose the policy-making process to the light of day – and democratic process.
______________________________________________________
Memo from Jamieson Weetman read into the record at the December 7th meeting of the Standing Committee on the Status of Women.
Dear All:
Some of you will have already noted over the past few months the tendency from OMINA to change or remove language from letters, speeches, interventions at multilateral meetings, etc. on such interrelated issues as child soldiers, International Humanitarian Law, human rights, and R2P.
A recent example is a fairly extensive set of suggested revisions to a standard docket response on DRC. Suggested changes to this letter include removing the term “impunity” in every instance, e.g. “Canada urges the Government of the DRC to take concerted measures to do whatever is necessary to put an end to impunity for sexual violence”. That is changed to “Canada urges the Government of the DRC to take concerted measures to prevent sexual violence”. Furthermore, the word “humanitarian” is excised from every reference to International Humanitarian Law. References to “gender-based violence” are removed and every phrase “child soldiers” is replaced by “children in armed conflict”.
Some of the changes suggested by OMINA are more than simply stylistic changes. For example, “The sentence cited above changes the focus from justice for victims of sexual violence to prevention”. Only this morning, Glen Coutts and I discussed the term “gender equality” with OMINA to be informed that current lexicon is instead “equality of men and women”, which actually takes something away from the internationally used terminology, as well as being more cumbersome and awkward.
So far we have largely been managing these issues as they come in on a case-by-case basis. However, Jim Nichol and I have been wondering if it might be necessary for a more coordinated approach as these issues interest a number of different bureaux, and are recurring fairly frequently. It is often not entirely clear to us why OMINA advises on making such changes and whether they have a full grasp of the potential impact on Canadian policy in asking for changes to phrases and concepts that have been accepted internationally and used for some time.
We would like to know whether you might find it useful to meet with us to discuss these issues as a possible precursor to a meeting with OMINA staff. I do not believe the request from OMINA to make these kinds of changes to language will diminish. It will be useful for us to know here when OMINA-suggested changes are not consistent with accepted Canadian policy. The ultimate objective would be to work with OMINA to find a language that is more palatable to them and which also accurately reflects Canada’s policy approach.
Signed, Jameson Wheatman, (actually Jamieson Weetman) from the Ministry of International Affairs. He is Deputy Director Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada.