Article content continued

The majority isn’t getting its way. As the University of Ottawa’s Professor Stephen Brown wrote in 2014, “Among the 28 industrialized countries belonging to the Development Assistance Committee, only debt-ridden Portugal cut aid more drastically than Canada (in 2013). Not even Greece, in the throes of austerity, cut aid as deeply in Canada — despite the fact that … we weathered the recent financial crisis better than any other G8 country.”

Canada’s overall aid spending is now lower than it’s been in a decade, according to the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. We part with only 0.24 per cent of our GNI, while the UK has met the 0.7 per cent target two years in a row. And some critics say that Canada has made some cuts underhandedly; in 2012-13, for instance, it effectively pocketed about 10 per cent of what it budgeted for aid.

But the issue with Canadian foreign aid isn’t just how much we give: it’s how we give. Brown and other experts say that Canada’s motives for aid are unclear. We’re emphasizing poverty reduction less and commercial interests more by, for example, prioritizing work with mining companies in middle-income countries in the Americas over work with NGOs in poorer African states.

The questions

Leaders ought to spell out why they think aid is important, or defend why it shouldn’t be a priority. Who should benefit from aid? Why has Canada missed the 0.7 per cent target so dramatically? Why or why not might Canada firmly commit to meeting the target in the future? If Canada continues to miss the target, what might be the long-term consequences for our country? For the world? Why or why not should Canada prioritize extreme poverty? What is the proper role of private sector actors in aid projects, if any? Is it important that Canada give the amount that it promises? And what are the leaders’ broader visions for how Canadian foreign aid can be most effective and ethical?