Since the beginning of the year, Canada has often appeared very bad in its foreign relations.
A few weeks ago, Canadians learned with amazement that an official representative of Global Affairs Canada had gone to celebrate at the Russian Embassy in Ottawa.
It is the same Russia that is waging an illegal and bloody war against Ukraine. The same Russia that Canada rightly calls genocidal because of its horrific actions during this war.
Duty of care
I spoke to someone at the highest level of the ministry after this mess and she was transparent: it was an unspeakable blunder (she used an even more colorful term).
At the same time, she used a phrase that came up in the news this week, ” duty of care which could be translated as “duty of care”.
This term is intended to encompass the country’s responsibility for its employees, including those of our embassies abroad.
Clearly, Canada has a duty to protect them and not to take any action that could compromise their safety. Celebrating with the Russians would keep the doors open.
Presumably, within our diplomatic world, there are those who think that we have a duty to continue to be nice to the Russians, otherwise it could go wrong for our employees there.
moral weakness
Reports released this week of an alleged weakness in local staff at our embassy in Kyiv have been startling.
The accusation is very serious: there would have been a list of our employees targeted by the Russians in the event of an invasion and Canada would have done nothing or, worse, would have concealed the information.
According to the account compiled by a Toronto newspaper, Canada would have been informed of the situation at the beginning of the year.
The problem is that the information would come from “three diplomats” and not “three Canadian diplomats”… This is an important nuance.
According to what Global Affairs said, “if the minister had information that locally engaged staff were under direct threat, she would have taken the necessary steps to ensure their safety”.
It seems unlikely that such information, if it existed, was ever shared with Ottawa.
Furthermore, I am led to believe the assertion that Minister Joly would not have tolerated the safety of our personnel, whether Canadian or recruited there, being put in danger.
Who’s deciding ?
In light of these alarming allegations, there is an essential question to be asked: who decides?
The answer should be simple, in our system of government it is the minister who decides and who is responsible.
The challenge is that when it comes to this “duty of care” doctrine, it’s no longer the department that decides, it’s the person responsible for our mission abroad. The Minister remains responsible, even if she was never consulted or even informed.
As much as it is obvious that the safety of our employees abroad must never be compromised, it has become urgent to clarify who decides, who must be informed and who is responsible.