Why was Barbara McDougall's obvious conflict of interest not disclosed earlier? Because the information was voluntarily "omitted" then replaced by a vague formula by IDRC. The tobacco control community and the media should have been more vigilant, should have checked deeper than the official press releases that concealed a very inconvenient truth but first of all IDRC and the Canadian Government should have been fully transparent.
Of course such transparency would probably have jeopardized the $5.2 million tobacco control grant from the Gates Foundation that was later completed by an even more substantial one ($40 million) for the Think Tank Initiative. Beyond the financial consequences it would have exposed a serious conflict of interest that made her appointment much more difficult if not impossible. It was therefore simpler to cover up the problem and hope nobody would notice and raise the issue. It worked for 3 years.
Greg Hallen's argumentation is to downplay the role and influence of the Chair of the Board of Governors and to tell us that since Barbara McDougall's mandate with Imperial Tobacco Canada is -supposedly- coming to an end by the end of March, all is well and business can go on as usual: no apologies, no mention of resignation, no changes to implement, no lesson learned.
Is that the answer IDRC will officially deliver? We'll see.
I think the key lesson is the need for a lot more transparency and accountability on the part of IDRC, starting with a precise explanation of why this conflict of interest was hidden (who knew, who chose not to tell) and a very detailed assessment of what IDRC and its grantees have achieved or not with the tobacco control grant awarded by the Gates Foundation.
This could also be a too inconvenient truth to expose but as Barbara McDougall's story proves, the truth finally gets out.
Let us hope IDRC's top management will opt to make the necessary changes. It is the only way for IDRC to regain some degree of credibility and legitimacy.
Comments