OTTAWA — The Trudeau administration will present a framework rather than a strategy for Canada’s relationship with Africa, saying it better reflects the policy’s original intent — drawing criticism from some who say Liberals do not take the region seriously .

For at least a year, the Liberals have been promising an Africa strategy that would define Canada’s relationships with dozens of countries and enable cooperation with a new intercontinental trading bloc.

Rob Oliphant, the parliamentary secretary to Secretary of State Melanie Joly, said in interviews last summer and autumn that he was working on a “strategy for emerging Africa” ​​and “a strategy document for our diplomatic engagement”.

But in an interview with The Canadian Press earlier this month, Minister Joly made it clear that the plan was not a comprehensive strategy.

She reiterated that it was more necessary to talk about a framework.

The aim is to meet the demands of several African countries for better access to Canada, she says.

In an interview, Mr Oliphant said that some time after the autumn of 202, Ms Joly wrote to him asking him to “develop a strategy for Africa and in particular for our foreign policy in relation to Africa”.

The idea was to assess Canada’s diplomatic presence across the continent, which groups it should participate in and what goals it should present to African leaders. This would fill a gap as Canada’s trade and aid policies were clearer than its foreign policy goals.

“For me, that was the weakest area of ​​our engagement in Africa,” said Mr. Oliphant.

Last November, the Liberals unveiled their Indo-Pacific Strategy, a five-year, $2.3 billion plan that will affect agencies ranging from the Canadian Security Intelligence Service to Fisheries and Oceans Canada.

“At the time, I suggested renaming it a framework rather than a strategy,” said Rob Oliphant, explaining his work on African politics.

He said he was working on a framework “that encourages investment by making sure we reduce risk,” for example by supporting aid projects that make countries more resilient.

Oliphant expects to present the directive to cabinet in the fall and says it will be published later this calendar year.

He added that his focus is on ensuring African governments engage rather than dwell on the terminology – although others say the wording makes a real difference.

The meaning of words

Lori Turnbull, director of the School of Public Administration at Dalhousie University, points out that strategy provides a roadmap with thoughtful outcomes. But a framework is, by definition, less structured.

“The specificity is the important part. One strategy is, ‘This is what we do. This is what we will do to achieve our goals,’ she said.

But a framework “is more of a sort of overview and overall set of parameters,” she clarified.

Ms Turnbull believes Minister Joly’s comments could give officials the impression that Africa is underperforming compared to other regions that are attracting more voter attention.

“It would suggest that she is trying to distinguish between the two – and there is a difference, she argued. A subtle message could be sent to the ministry.”

The change in terminology was noted by senators on the Foreign Affairs Committee, who warned Commerce Secretary Mary Ng last December that Canada appears to be falling behind the United States and other peers in building closer trade ties with Africa.

Senator Amina Gerba said in an interview that this change does not bode well for Canada to benefit from a new trading bloc that encompasses most of the continent.

The African Continental Free Trade Area is an ongoing project to eliminate most tariffs and harmonize some regulations in about 45 countries.

The term strategy is “more comprehensive” and “binding” on Canada, she said, while a framework has its “limits”.

The Quebec senator said the government didn’t tell her why the change was requested.