There is still a persistent view that Canada has a fairly progressive foreign policy among Canadians who believe that Canada should be involved in the UN and international aid programs. This has in large part, been due to our role in the UN. Not only was its predecessor founded by a Canadian Prime Minister, but Canada is the UN�s fourth largest donor, provides 10% of its personnel and is continually involved in peace missions. Even those Canadians critical of their foreign policy are usually so because they question the political motives of government actions. However, Chretien did keep Canada out of Iraq and Martin has repeatedly said that Canada will not get involved unless it�s under the UN.But Canadian foreign policy has a dark and often overlooked side that isn�t so rosy: our trade and specifically our aid programs.
The issue of Canada�s international aid program has been highlighted by the recent African focus of the current G8 summit and a report by Action Aid (www.actionaidusa.com) which has found that a number of countries are donating �phantom aid�; aid that for some reason or another doesn�t reach the donor country adequately. Phantom aid can include spending on overpriced technical assistance, aid tied to spending in the donor country, double-counted debt relief and other aid that never materializes for poor countries.
The Canadian International Development Agency was founded in 1968 and gives billions each year in aid. After years of being used to open and secure Canadian markets, forcing countries to buy Canadian goods and develop disastrous infrastructure projects with Canadian assistance, CIDA began to concentrate more on actual aid at the end of the Trudeau era. The entrance of the Mulroney governments put that idea quickly to bed and the economic priorities of the following Liberal governments have meant it hasn�t been looked at since.
Although most OECD countries including Canada signed on to the 1970�s UN mandate of aid to have oversees aid reach 0.7% of GNI (Gross national income), very few, save Sweden Denmark, Norway and Luxemburg, have managed to come even close to that goal. Canada, with 0.22% of GNI in 2003 may pride itself on being not as low as the US with 0.15%, but that puts us at 14th out of 22 countries, below the OECD average and just above the G8 average. To add insult to injury, research by Action Aid shows that when phantom aid is taken into account, the percentage of real aid given is even lower.
Out of Canada�s 0.22% of GNI in aid spending over half of it is phantom aid. 17% of Canadian phantom aid is spent on overpriced technical assistance that could be spent in the donor country and therefore less expensive, more effective and better coordinated. 47% is tied to spending in Canada meaning that countries that need aid are forced to buy Canadian goods that could be overpriced, slower to reach the country in need (in the case of food during a famine for example) and makes a country spend money on goods when it may be better spent elsewhere. Canada is also in the mid-60% range when it comes to how much goes to low income countries while the rest of the top ten is in the mid 70% range.
True, none of this may bother those who believe that aid is a waste of tax dollars or interest lobbies like the American Enterprise Institute who believe it should not be increased because free-trade is the answer to curing poverty. But there are Canadians that support the argument that giving aid helps fight the poverty that Canada has helped create, and relieve problems in the global economy, environment and cultural-poverty.
For those that wish to see Canada continue with a strong role in as an international actor with a progressive foreign policy, a focus on Canadian aid is long overdue. Although a strong opposition has developed against Canadian military involvement in Iraq, Haiti and Afghanistan, parliament and grassroots organizations have been mostly focusing on what Canada �should not� be doing and have failed to tackle any vision for what Canada �could� be doing.
As of mid-June Paul Martin�s Liberals, having just passed a $4.6 billion social-service budget, have decided they are �not prepared to make promises that the federal government can't keep� with regards to increasing federal funding for aid closer to the UN goal of 0.7% of GNI. Although this should trouble many in parliament and the public, it does not mean that Canada could not be doing a lot more in terms of aid with what is already is giving. With half of our aid being phantom aid, MP�s and grassroots organizations could start trying to make sure our aid is simply better administrated in order to ensure that Canadian aid does what it is supposed to do: help people in need.