Political staff tried to spin Israeli military export data that Global Affairs Canada (GAC) was required to release under access law by inserting a paragraph that misleadingly claimed the exports were non-lethal.
The ministry’s director of access to information said he was “concerned” by the staff’s attempt to add the paragraph to a letter accompanying the export data, warning that “an ATIP release package is not a comms product.” The paragraph was ultimately not included in the package when it was released to The Maple in February.
A spokesperson from Foreign Affairs Minister Mélanie Joly’s office subsequently made false claims about the existence of the paragraph, and details about the attempted spin were only revealed through an additional access request filed by this publication.
The export data in question showed that the Trudeau government had authorized $28.5 million worth of export permits for sales of military goods to Israel during the first two months of that state’s brutal war on Gaza.
Further documents obtained by The Maple through access to information (ATIP) show that while the export data was being prepared for release, staff from Joly’s office wanted to intervene by adding a “caveat” paragraph to the ministry’s letter accompanying the data. Such letters are a standard document in ATIP release packages, but do not contain remarks on the contents of the package except to cite sections of the Access to Information Act in order to justify redactions.
On February 9, the day the data was released, Katri Boucher, a departmental liaison in Joly’s office, wrote to colleagues that she had spoken with Joly, and referred to an unspecified “caveat” which had yet to be confirmed for inclusion in the release package.
Boucher wrote that she hoped to have a final copy of the release package to share ahead of its release, “with the inclusion of the caveat.” No further details about the “caveat” were revealed in the correspondence.
When The Maple asked GAC for a copy of the “caveat” paragraph in May, Joly’s director of communications, Emily Williams, claimed that the paragraph “was not drafted,” after staff were advised that including it in the ATIP package would be inappropriate.
When pressed to explain what information the paragraph would have been intended to convey, Williams wrote in an email to The Maple: “There was no exact information requested, it was a broad question put to officials on whether it was even possible to include additional context/language.”
“The conversation didn’t continue after that point,” Williams claimed. “What was envisioned was general language around Canada’s arms export regime (the same language one would have received if they inquired with the media relations team), as well as any additional context/information on the breadth of items.”
However, a follow-up ATIP request filed by The Maple revealed that these claims were false.
On February 9, Boucher also wrote to Nathalie Dussault, a deputy director in GAC’s ATIP department, that staff in Joly’s office had no further inputs regarding the data, but wanted “a caveat added to the release package,” which was quoted by Boucher as reading: “none of the permits referenced herein [...] were used for the purposes of XXXX lethal weapons.”
Boucher explained that “there is currently a generic and consistent message / blurb that is applied as it aligns with recent GAC [communications] messages when these go out - staff have asked if we could apply that same messaging to this ATI release package.”
Since the beginning of Israel’s war on Gaza last October, the Trudeau government has repeatedly claimed that all newly authorized military exports to Israel have been for “non-lethal” goods, a term with no legal definition and which arms monitoring groups say could refer to components of deadly weapons.
Alex Cosh
For example, in previous public statements regarding transfers of military equipment to Ukraine, GAC has described items such as rifle scopes, laser range finders and tactical gear as “non-lethal.”
In a previous interview with The Maple earlier this year, Kelsey Gallagher, a researcher with Project Ploughshares, explained that “non-lethal” goods “could be really anything that doesn’t itself deliver a killing blow, but [could be] a component that’s integrated into something that does.”
GAC did not respond to a request from The Maple to explain why Williams falsely claimed the paragraph was never drafted. The ministry also did not respond when asked how Joly’s office justifies its attempt to add the Trudeau government’s political spin to an ATIP release package.
Export data released by GAC to the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development (FAAE) last month showed the vast majority of active export permits for sales of military goods to Israel are for circuit boards and other components that are integrated by Israeli arms companies into a broad range of systems, the exact natures of which remain undisclosed by the ministry.
As reported by The Maple last week, the FAAE data showed that Canadian companies, including some holding permits authorized before Israel launched its war on Gaza last October, could export nearly $95 million in military goods to Israel by the end of 2025.
A letter sent by foreign affairs deputy minister David Morrison to the FAAE in March indicated that the total value of military exports authorized since October 7, and whose end users are the Israeli government or Israeli arms companies, are valued at $23.5 million.
That figure stands at $5 million less than the total amount indicated in GAC’s February disclosure, which did not include information about end users.
The Trudeau government said it paused authorizations of new military export permits for sales of goods to Israel on January 8, but that it would not revoke existing permits.
Transparency Or More Spin?
Canadian military exports fall under categories in GAC’s “Export Control List,” which provide very broad strokes about the nature of goods authorized for sale under a given permit. While subcategories within each of these export categories provide slightly more information about the goods, they remain very broad.
Before releasing the first round of military export data in February, Joly’s staff asked for the data to include subcategories for the goods sold under each permit, ostensibly in the name of transparency, but possibly in the belief that doing so might better fit the government’s narrative about the goods being “non-lethal.”
Hours before the export data was released, an undisclosed individual from Joly’s office asked ATIP staff why subcategories could not be included in the release package, citing previous disclosures that they said included such information.
In the emailed correspondence obtained by The Maple, which ministry staff are aware is subject to ATIP legislation, the unnamed individual wrote that “I think providing as accurate and comprehensive information to requestors is important.”
The staffer then gave the example of subcategory 2-4 c., which concerns “Aircraft Missile Protection Systems,” rather than the potentially more damning category 2-4, which includes offensive weapons such as “bombs, torpedoes, rockets, missiles, other explosive devices and charges and related equipment and accessories.”
In the FAAE documents released last month, which disclosed export subcategories, none of the active export permits fell under 2-4 c. It is not clear if any active permits at the time the email was written fell under subcategory 2-4 c., though some were under the 2-4 category.
Shortly after the first round of export data was released in February, GAC’s ATIP director Alexandre Drago advised a deputy director in GAC’s export control division that “political staff have no role [in the ATIP disclosure process] other than receiving a warning on what goes out for comms and issue management.”
“It is unusual to have redactions questioned by political staff like this,” he added.
Alex Cosh is the news editor of The Maple.
ATIP documents
Member discussion