November 22, 2010
The Second Report to Parliament on Canada’s Official Development Assistance 2009-2010
Lost amidst the welter of recent government announcements about the wonderful things Canada is planning to do with its aid budget was the tabling in the House of Commons of the second Report to Parliament on the Government of Canada’s Official Development Assistance (ODA), 2009-2010. You would think that a government which places great store in action and principles – if we are to believe the Prime Minister’s explanation for losing a seat on the Security Council – would be eager to tell Canadians what a swell job it is doing in foreign assistance. But it didn’t. Instead it opted to publish the report on line, with no mention on CIDA’s website and no printed copies available except on request.
The ODA Accountability Act of 2008 was a private member’s bill that passed with all-party support, a very rare occurrence in our parliament. The Act sets out three conditions for Canadian development aid: it must contribute to poverty reduction; it must take into account the perspectives of the poor; and it must be consistent with international human rights standards. And the government has to report on all the expenditures it is claiming as ODA (as defined by the OECD Development Assistance Committee) not just the funds disbursed by the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA). This explains why Foreign Affairs and International Trade, Finance Canada, National Defence and a range of other departments – including Parks Canada – get a mention in the report. If you thought that including these other departments was an exercise in sweeping up a few spilled kernels of wheat, think again. Finance Canada spent over $500 million on ODA in 2009-2010 and Foreign Affairs almost $300 million out of a total of $4.788 billion.
So what’s in the report? Essentially, it’s just a list, and a selectively short one at that. The opening section states “Canada is contributing to the global efforts to meet the needs of those living in poverty in developing countries…” and goes on to list, in general terms, “activities that are undertaken to achieve poverty reduction.” The subsequent text on CIDA lists some of the things the agency spent money on, without explanation as to how or why they meet the stipulations of the Act. There are frequent references to CIDA’s indomitable Minister, Beverly J. Oda. Human rights and the perspectives of the poor get short shrift. When it comes to Finance and Foreign Affairs there is virtually no reference to poverty reduction, the views of the poor or human rights.
The government can claim that it has reported, but it’s a skimpy effort, completely inconsistent with the spirit and aim of the Act. This is not surprising, given that the government doesn’t like the Act.
Why such a weak report? Minister Oda can’t utter a sentence about recipient governments and NGOs without demanding “results” half a dozen times. The government claims it’s throwing money at lots of good causes – Haiti, and the mother and child health initiative for example – so there should be lots of material to work with. Perhaps there’s less here than meets the eye. With the aid budget frozen for the next five years, there will be less money to spend on all the announcements made this year. And Afghanistan has an insatiable appetite for CIDA money and priority, regardless of the Act’s stipulations about poverty, human rights and what the poor might think.
Maybe if the media or the Opposition asked the right questions there would be more government accountability around an Act which is, after all, the law of the land. Don’t hold your breath though. Reporters and parliamentarians of all stripes seem content with the mantra that Canada performs well and is a respected member of the international aid donor community. Too bad the public record can’t or won’t demonstrate the facts to back it up.