The truth about aid
Ottawa Report
BY Aaron Freeman
Photography by Reuters
Parliament will soon be debating the International Policy Review (IPR), which aims to define what Canada’s role in the world will be in the coming years.
For more than a year, the IPR has been marinating in the bureaucracy. The lead bureaucrat is none other than Michael Pearson, grandson of Lester B. and a veteran of the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade (despite a brief stint lobbying for corporate clients such as Monsanto, Microsoft, CAE and Weyerhaeuser).
When the IPR finally hits a parliamentary committee late this fall, our fractured Parliament might produce some interesting results. But more on that in a moment.
When Paul Martin was crowned prime minister, he created enormous political space for Canada to lead on the world stage. By inviting Bono to the leadership convention and talking big about Canada’s potential internationally, he readied us for great things. Unfortunately, the only major initiative undertaken since then has been the passage of a bill to supply cheap AIDS drugs to Africa, a bill that deserves some kudos, but that would have passed with or without Martin at the helm. (It was introduced by Jean Chrétien in late 2003.)
So far, indications are that the IPR will focus primarily on defence and trade issues. Documents from the Prime Minister’s Office list goals such as “a more integrated approach to managing the Canada-US relationship,” “enhancing security in Canada and internationally” and “expanding markets and opportunities for trade and investment.”
But when most Canadians think of Canada’s role in the world, they usually think about peacekeeping and development assistance. These efforts get short shrift in the PMO documents.
That’s a shame, considering Canada has been coasting on accomplishments that are largely decades old. According to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, Canada now ranks 13th out of 22 industrialized countries in terms of development assistance. And while we once provided 10 percent of the world’s peacekeepers, today countries such as Zambia, Nepal, Portugal, Bangladesh, India, Ghana, Jordan and Kenya all contribute more to peacekeeping than Canada.
Development groups like the Canadian Council for International Cooperation (CCIC) want the IPR to conclude that reducing global poverty should be at the centre of Canada’s foreign policy. They are encouraged that Martin advocates finally meeting our international aid commitment of 0.7 percent of gross national income. The promise was originally made under Pearson, and re-affirmed several times in recent years. Canada hopes to achieve this level of aid contribution by 2015.
But CCIC is also concerned about the quality of Canada’s foreign aid. Roughly 40 percent of our assistance is so-called “tied aid,” which requires countries to purchase goods or services from Canadian companies, or is “conditional” on policies demanded by institutions such as the World Bank and International Monetary Fund. Also, many of the benefits of aid can easily be undone by trade agreements that restrict developing countries’ ability to base political decisions on what’s best for their citizens as opposed to what’s best for multinational corporations.
And that brings us back to Parliament. The NDP and Bloc will wholeheartedly support a pro-development orientation to the IPR. They’ll likely be opposed by the Conservatives, but the Liberals will probably be split. If a few Liberals are willing to join ranks with the two left-leaning parties, the IPR could produce a progressive blueprint for Canada in the world.
