CANADA MERGES INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT WITH FOREIGN AFFAIRS AND TRADE – Bold Vision or Policy Blunder?

Preamble:
Canada, under its current highly Conservative government, seems ever more committed to shrinking its role in global leadership. Announced March 22, CIDA, the Canadian International Development Agency will be merged with foreign affairs and trade into a newly named Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development. Rumours of CIDA's demise as a stand-alone department had been circulating since it’s budget was drastically slashed last year. The decision to merge it with foreign affairs and traded has attracted criticism from aid organizations and opposition members alike.

For some 45 years CIDA has been supporting development assistance in low income countries, in partnership with other public and private sector Canadian organizations and international organizations. With separation of role from foreign affairs and trade, it upheld a distinctive commitment to a development agenda, including global poverty alleviation and the Millennium Development Goals. CIDA has focused in particular on international social development including gender equity and basic health priorities, economic well-being, environmental sustainability, and governance reforms striving for human rights and democracy.

The dismantling of CIDA appears (to this writer) based, at least in part, on political ideology and partisanship. After all, the agency was formed in 1968 by a Canadian Liberal government led by Pierre Trudeau. Its independence and social agenda was respected until now in its reporting directly to the Parliament of Canada. However, it has been subjected to poor leadership in recent years under Ministers appointed by the Conservative government. Most notable has been the financial mismanagement under former chain smoking minister Bev Oda who billed thousands in questionable expenses to taxpayers. She left politics last year and was replaced by Julian Fantino, a former Ontario provincial police commissioner, who has been criticized for using his CIDA office as a base for promoting his own political views.

With leadership like this, CIDA’s reputation for evidence-based policies has been damaged. Although it is said that the aid portfolio will continue to have its own cabinet minister and budget, with the new arrangement there is a risk that it will be aligned more deliberately with Canada’s trade interests than with the global need to alleviate poverty.

As a backgrounder for this preamble, we reference a Canadian Press report of March 21, 2013.

Reference: Stephanie Levitz, The Canadian Press Posted: 03/21/2013 4:10 pm EDT
Updated: 03/22/2013 9:42 am EDT. Canada's international aid programs to be merged under Foreign Affairs portfolio.
http://www.thecanadianpress.com/english/online/OnlineFullStory.aspx?filename=DOR-MNN-CP.60b02795c9804d3e867ebf64c76bc3c6.CPKEY2008111310&newsitemid=22576911&languageid=1

And for a balanced independent report, we include verbatim the following article by Jenny Lei Ravelo of devex, March 22, 2013.

CIDA no more

By Jenny Lei Ravelo on 22 March 2013
https://www.devex.com/en/news/80549/print

With a reduced number of focus countries and regional offices, the aid community must have seen it coming: the closure of the Canadian International Development Agency. A number of aid organizations have voiced concerns on the new direction of travel, while others remain optimistic.

The decision is stated in a document detailing the government’s budget plan for 2013. However, finance minister Jim Flaherty failed to mention the change in his budget speech on Thursday (March 21), leaving many to speculate on the finer details of CIDA’s merger with the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade.

CIDA chief Julian Fantino will continue to handle the country’s international development portfolio under a new Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development. And, perhaps in a move to secure his position following the demise of his agency, the government noted it will “for the first time, enshrine in law the important roles and responsibilities of the minister for development and humanitarian assistance.”

The move follows a build-up of the Harper administration’s increasing interest to align aid efforts with its trade objectives, an issue that has garnered much criticism from aid groups that see this as shifting against the “purpose of aid.”

“Foreign affairs is not in the business of reducing poverty. We risk losing the expertise, focus, effectiveness — and results — that CIDA staff brought to this goal,” Oxfam U.K. director of international programs Anthony Scoggins said in response to the merger.

But the government seems determined to “maximize” economic opportunities, arguing: “The mechanisms through which we are advancing our development objectives are increasingly more multi-faceted […] As the linkages between our foreign policy, development, and trade objectives continue to grow, the opportunity to leverage each of these grows at equal pace.”

Some argue the move was long overdue, while others see the decision as presenting an opportunity for Canada to match the “global development and poverty reduction agenda with our own economic interests,” though not without “serious leadership.”

Canada insists “essential” programs will continue: maternal and child health, education, public sector governance, justice reform and agriculture. The government will continue to provide humanitarian aid and advance poverty alleviation efforts.

“Core development assistance will remain intact,” according to the budget plan.

In a short statement aimed to reassure aid advocates, Fantino said: “The new Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development will maintain the mandate of poverty alleviation and humanitarian support. This decision will have no impact on Canada’s international assistance budget.”

Still, the transition offers few specifics and concerns abound among aid organizations.

“We are extremely concerned that this new direction for CIDA means that development assistance will be used to advance Canada’s prosperity and security, rather than focusing solely on the needs and aspirations of the poor,” World Vision Canada CEO Dave Toycen said in a statement. “There are so many voices in the world today speaking out for the needs of business and the powerful and we’re concerned that those few voices that prioritize the poor risk being lost.”

Toycen was pleased, however, that the focus on maternal and child health programs remains.

CARE Canada President and CEO Kevin McCort was more reserved: “Recent changes to CIDA will not affect CARE Canada’s commitment to fighting poverty in more than 30 developing countries worldwide […] CARE Canada has maintained an excellent working relationship with CIDA and we expect this to continue with the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development.”

McCort underlines, however, the importance for the government to “follow the principles outlined in the ODA [official development assistance] Accountability Act and the International Humanitarian Code of Conduct, which emphasize that aid priorities must be focused strictly on need alone above all other considerations.”

Envoi
Canada's reputation in the global development agenda is a big thing to gamble with. The proof will be in the pudding: let us now see whether Canada’s international development performance will improve under this new regime, or whether it will continue to lose its way on the world stage. The move requires new legislation and no timeline has been put forward.  Perhaps our best hope for a more progressive country lies in the next federal election.