Stephen Harper government should stop muzzling Canada’s ambassadors

The Harper government is regularly criticized for its unwillingness to allow civil servants to speak openly about Canadian policy in their areas of expertise.

To its credit, Ottawa has provided a rationale for its actions that is not unreasonable. The country should speak with one voice, argues the prime minister, and that voice should come from the elected leadership (and their personal communications officials).

The second, albeit less vocalized, motivation to silence the bureaucracy likely stems from the government’s fairly clear distrust of what it seems to think of as a partisan (read: Liberal) civil service protected by overbearing (read: NDP-friendly) unions.

Since we can’t predict what Canadian officials might say, the thinking seems to go, and since we can’t fire those officials for making comments that hurt us politically, why let them speak at all?

Some might find the latter argument distasteful, but it makes good short-term political sense.

Neither line of thinking, however, justifies the current refusal to allow Canada’s ambassadors to speak off the cuff.

Ambassadors are, by definition, representatives of the state abroad. Presumably, they are also policy experts in their areas of responsibility.

And while Canada’s approach to world affairs should indeed be clear and consistent, there are a limited number of government representatives capable of speaking convincingly on international issues. Moreover, those select few cannot be expected to be fluent on each and every global challenge at all times.

It follows that ambassadors should be able to articulate the national interest at opportune moments without having to clear their every word with the prime minister’s office. Canada will still be speaking with a single voice, and that voice can always be assumed by Foreign Minister John Baird once he has been suitably briefed.

The alternative – bland, meaningless communications from political advisors designed to buy time until the minister is prepared to respond – potentially rob Ottawa of its capacity for international influence.

There is, of course, always the chance that a disgruntled or inexperienced ambassador might utter something regrettable. Here again, however, the government is largely protected. Unlike most other public service positions, ambassadorships are crown appointments – meaning that they are made by Cabinet directly.

If Cabinet is unhappy with the performance of its overseas representatives, it can always relieve them of their duties.

In sum, muzzling Canadian ambassadors runs contrary to the national interest, and it has no real political upside. It’s a policy that has to change.

Original Article
Source: thestar.com
Author: Adam Chapnick