The federal government unexpectedly revealed in its recent budget that CIDA would be amalgamated with the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade. The decision was made without any public consultation. But perhaps the government’s more important revelation was the promise of a legislative mandate for Canada’s aid program, something that has been missing ever since it began in 1968.

Together, the organizational shuffle along with an explicit policy mandate inscribed in law, could be a turning point, for better or for worse — depending on the outcome one is expecting. To begin with, the new legislation could enhance the effectiveness of Canada’s foreign aid program, as measured, for example, by its contribution toward meeting international targets such as the halving of poverty and hunger, the reduction of infant and maternal mortality, and the achievement of higher educational outcomes, over the period 1990-2015. The United Nations is currently working on a new and updated set of targets for development co-operation efforts after 2015. Will the new legislation link Canada’s objectives and efforts with those of the broader international community?

In a similar vein, there have been a number of initiatives over the last eight years among aid donors and their developing country partners to improve the effectiveness of aid. These have emerged in the Paris-based OECD and articulated in the “Paris Declaration” of 2005. Fundamentally, the declaration affirms the centrality of “ownership” of development programs by the developing countries themselves. It also upholds the need for mutual accountability between donors and their development partners. Foreign aid, in other words, must be primarily for the benefit of recipients, and the results of development co-operation must be demonstrated and justified. Will the new legislation enshrine the Paris principles as the modus operandi for Canada’s aid program?

It will not be sufficient for the legislation simply to state that the purpose of the aid program is “to reduce poverty.” Legislation to that effect has already been in place for a few years, and for all intents and purposes, it has simply allowed the government to continue with business as usual.

That brings us to the organizational shuffle resulting in a new Department of Foreign Affairs, International Trade and Development. Those celebrating the amalgamation of CIDA with the old DFAIT appear to be looking primarily through a foreign policy or international trade lens. Their litmus test is not primarily whether Canadian aid efforts will be more effective. Rather, it is whether the aid program can be enlisted to support Canada’s diplomatic and commercial efforts. We have already seen evidence of a move in this direction, even prior to the announcement in the budget, over the past year, with the explicit co-ordination of CIDA’s aid projects to support activities by Canadian mining firms in developing countries.

Now, this is not necessarily a bad thing, since there may be ways in which the aid program can enhance the social and environmental impact of mining projects. However, it is a far cry from focusing on achieving the internationally agreed development targets, or on enhancing the effectiveness of aid through rigorous application of the Paris principles.

If unity of purpose in the new amalgamated department is to be the government’s objective, it will likely be to advance Canada’s commercial or political interests rather than development objectives forged by the international community in “talk shops” such as the OECD or the UN. Indeed, it has been a challenge even to align Canada’s political and commercial interests. Canada’s concerns over China’s human rights record until recently obstructed the commercial ambitions of Canadian firms wishing to do business with China, and vice-versa. Today, the deepening of trade and investment between the two countries trumps all such concerns — witness the takeover of Nexen by the Chinese National Offshore Oil Corporation.

However, having announced the departmental reorganization by stealth, the government owes Canadians an opportunity for a full and frank discussion of the legislative mandate that it has in mind for Canada’s aid program.