FAAE Committee Report

Supplementary Opinion of the New Democratic Party

 

While we support the majority report, we are producing a supplementary opinion in order to highlight some important points raised by witnesses that are not reflected in the report’s recommendations, and to emphasize that we disagree with recommendation 7 concerning Canadian development assistance.

Although recommendation 6 in the majority report stated that the government should align its international development policy with the local priorities of partner countries, this recommendation should have clearly mentioned Canada’s obligation to implement the Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness. The declaration’s five fundamental principles will increase the effectiveness of Canadian aid in the field. As various witnesses pointed out, the federal government is far from implementing the Paris Declaration in its development assistance policy.   

With regard to the criteria for allocating Canadian assistance, recommendation 1 does not specify which criteria the federal government should review and improve. However, witnesses stated that the criterion to align Canadian foreign policy with assistance seems contrary to poverty reduction objectives. The NDP wishes to draw on testimony to emphasize that Canada’s assistance policy should not be subordinate to federal foreign affairs concerns. 

In addition, the majority report does not contain any recommendations regarding the approach the federal government should take to achieve the 2030 sustainable development goals (SDGs). However, witnesses stated that a thematic approach to assistance would be more effective than a countries-of-focus approach with regard to attaining the 2030 SDGs.

In terms of the SDG-related targets, Canada’s assistance policy must be based on stable, predictable multi-year funding. Canada currently allocates barely 0.28% of its gross national income to official development assistance. The UN expert panel led by former Liberal prime minister Lester Pearson had set 0.7% as the target to be achieved. Canada must do better and rejoin the group of nations that are attaining or exceeding this objective.

Improve the criteria for selecting countries of focus and Canada’s assistance partners and ensure they are consistent with the Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness.

Recommendation 1: The federal government should establish selection criteria for countries of focus and official development assistance partners that are consistent with the Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness and the Official Development Assistance Accountability Act. Canada’s international development policy should not be subordinate to the federal government’s foreign policy interests.

The federal government currently uses three criteria for selecting countries of focus: the countries’ real needs, their capacity to benefit from development assistance and their alignment with Canadian foreign policy priorities.

A number of witnesses mentioned that these criteria were inconsistent with the international development goals that Canada should pursue. Professor Stephen Brown stated as follows:

“…alignment with Canadian foreign policy is not about development; it's about Canada. This can often harm aid effectiveness, and it is not the purpose of foreign aid. Foreign aid is defined by Canadian law to be all about poverty reduction, and the definition of official development assistance agreed to, including by Canada, in the OEDC development assistance committee, DAC, means that it has to be directed towards the welfare of the recipient country.”

While the Official Development Assistance Accountability Act states clearly that official development assistance must target poverty reduction, this goal is being undermined by the federal government’s vague and contradictory criteria. Professor Aniket Bhushan stated as follows:

“What is the problem with this approach? Well, it has been argued, and I agree, that this is way too broad and vague an approach. It leads us to a place where, in our focus on partner countries, we have 37 priorities and partners in all. There is a lack of transparency about how the approach is actually applied. Really, any country you can think of can be put onto a focus or partner list because the criteria are so broad.”

As it works to improve the selection criteria for countries receiving assistance, the federal government must ensure it has the resources to provide aid effectively in the field. Canada is a signatory to the Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness. One of the five main components of the declaration is for donor countries to align their development policies with the partner countries’ priorities. Professor Stephen Brown made the following statement:

“We must support the priorities of local governments and institutions. Canada signed the Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness 15 years ago. We are committed to respecting the priorities of countries, to local ownership, and to aligning our efforts with their priorities. I believe that when we focus too much on our own priorities, we fail to comply with our commitment and with our new way of working together with others.”

Although Canada has signed the declaration, the federal government has failed to implement its principles. As the Canadian Council for International Co-operation pointed out:

“… Canada's 2012 peer review by the OECD noted how far Canada had fallen from aligning its support to the priorities of the countries in which it was operating…. We need a new action plan, and we need country partners, not us, to lead the way in defining their priorities for implementing the sustainable development goals.”

A thematic approach is necessary to achieve the 2030 Sustainable Development Goals. 

Recommendation 2: The federal government should do more to integrate a thematic approach into its international development policy.  

As stated earlier, the federal government must change its approach in order to meet its international obligations. Achieving the 2030 SDGs is critical to eradicating poverty. That is why Canada’s international development policy should be based on impoverished people and not solely on impoverished countries. Currently, 70% of impoverished people live in middle-income countries. As the Canadian FoodGrains Bank noted:

 “Many of the actions required to address development in the current environment go well beyond specific country programs, so there is merit in developing some thematic priorities and having funding flexibility to support these types of initiatives.”

The 2030 SDGs obviously require a thematic approach. As the Canadian Council for International Cooperation stated:

“The new SDGs challenge us to move outside of our silos, pushing for both stand-alone goals and cross-cutting objectives, such as on women's rights and gender equality and, I would argue also, on climate change.”

We must achieve 0.7% in order to fund the 2030 SDGs.

Recommendation 3: The Government of Canada should introduce a 10‑year funding strategy culminating in the allocation of 0.7% of its gross national income to official development assistance.

Funding for international assistance must be significantly increased in order to achieve the 2030 SDGs. Canada’s annual contribution to official development assistance is below the OCDE average. According to the Development Assistance Committee, OCDE countries contribute an average of 0.3% of their gross national income to official development assistance, while Canada contributes barely 0.28%. Our 2030 SDG strategy must be based on proper funding.

The Association québécoise des organismes de coopération Internationale supports our position:

“That is one way for Canada to support the implementation of sustainable development goals, or SDGs—through a substantial, gradual, predictable increase in its level of development assistance until it reaches the target of 0.7%.”

The NDP also believes that the 0.7% target is an international obligation for Canada. Global Canada strongly supports this approach:

“The idea is to ask what we can do in the next 10 or 15 years. That's what the British did. They said it wasn't just a matter of charity, but also a question of shared prosperity and global stability.”