The Canadian International Development Agency has been getting it from all sides lately.
With the Senate foreign affairs committee's recent call for CIDA to be disbanded, and a major study by a Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development currently looking into CIDA's role, the agency is starting to look a little beleaguered.
In an exhaustive report that was two years in the making, the Senate committee strongly criticized CIDA's track record in Africa, saying that in 38 years it has failed to "make an effective foreign-aid difference."
Since 1968, Sub-Saharan Africa has received $12.4 billion through CIDA, but little has been accomplished, the report said. As part of the problem, the report cited the fact that 81 per cent of CIDA staff is based in the Ottawa area rather that on site in Africa.
And while Ottawa has been increasing aid to Afghanistan, another report by the Senate committee on national security stated that as much as 90 per cent of Canada's aid dollars may be finding its way into the hands of corrupt officials in the strife-torn country.
One of the recommendations of the report on Africa is that if CIDA, which has a budget of over $3.1 billion, is not disbanded, changes be made so that the agency can be monitored by Parliament.
A more vigilant monitoring system was also emphasized by Naresh Raghubeer in a brief to the foreign affairs standing committee a few weeks ago.
Director of the Canadian Coalition for Democracies, Raghubeer told the committee that as a result of corruption and mismanagement, Canada's aid dollars are being wasted, and the way the money is being spent shows "a flagrant lack of respect for Canadian taxpayers and an indifference to the plight of the needy."
Raghubeer told the committee that of the 25 countries that receive Canadian aid, 19 have been identified by Freedom House as "unfree" nations or dictatorships where corruption is widespread. He questioned the logic of giving $56 million in foreign aid to China, for example, while that country has a thriving economy, the world's largest army, and has threatened war on Taiwan, a democratic, self-ruled island.
"We don't believe any aid should be going to China," Raghubeer told The Epoch Times. "Moreover, we don't believe it should be going to train judges who operate under the communist court system and report first and foremost to Beijing. There is no effective rule of law in China, there are no rights for citizens, and we've got great concerns in terms of the waste of money that this is."
Raghubeer says given the fact that China itself is "on a very aggressive expansionist aid policy" in Africa and other countries, it makes even less sense for CIDA to give aid to China.
Unlike China, democratic India has in recent years received less aid on the basis of its surging economy and social progress. Since 1993, CIDA has spent $390 million on development in Palestine, which according to Raghubeer has produced little in terms of establishing freedom and democracy there. He believes providing aid to countries that have dictatorships or that do not respect the rights of their citizens undermines the interests of Canada—especially in the case of the Palestinian Authority, which refuses to recognize Israel's right to exist.
Among Raghubeer's recommendations to the committee were that all aid provided by Canada meet the requirements of the Accountability Act, and that the Auditor General be able to track the aid dollars and audit all aid recipients, be they government or non-governmental. As well, he wants the committee to ensure that CIDA money doesn't end up supporting corrupt governments and bureaucrats, or those who sponsor or glorify terrorism.
"CIDA's been able to be…quasi independent in terms of its disbursements, and what we would like to see is it fall under a more accountable umbrella," says Raghubeer.
As it operates now, although CIDA reports annually to Parliament, much of Canada's foreign aid is channeled through the UN Development Program, the World Bank, or other agencies and NGOs that are not subject to an Auditor General's review.
CIDA spokesperson Greg Scott says that while he cannot comment on the Senate report, every CIDA initiative undergoes regular management and financial reviews to ensure that results are being obtained and the money is being spent properly. These reviews are conducted by either CIDA staff, multilateral organizations such as the World Bank, or by independent third parties.
Although the Senate recommended that Canada's aid spending be shifted to the Department of Foreign Affairs if the agency is not dismantled, Gerry Barr, president of the Canadian Council for International Co-operation, believes such a move would be a mistake because "it's not a good idea to mix aid policy with the geo-politics of Canada."
In other words, the poor could end up losing out.
Barr is pinning his hopes on Bill C-293, Canada's Better Aid Bill, which has been speedily making its way through the House with the unanimous support of all parties, and should reach the Senate for a review after the final Parliamentary vote on March 22. Barr says the bill contains legislation to ensure that aid spending focuses on reducing poverty and promoting human rights, and takes into account the perspectives of those who actually live in poverty.
The Better Aid Bill would also require Parliament to annually review all aid spending whether through CIDA or other governmental departments.
"The argument that has been used to advance this bill, and I think correctly, is that you can't really have accountability in aid spending unless you have clarity of purpose and that's what this bill sets out," says Barr. "It sets out the purposes of aid spending and sets up a framework for accountability which is very important."
As for the Senate recommendation to relocate much of CIDA's staff to recipient countries, Barr believes it may not be necessary. Many countries have sufficiently professional resources, he says, such as economists, analysts, logisticians and development experts to do what's necessary at a fraction of the cost it would take to maintain CIDA staff in the field.
Cathy Little, national manager of Results Canada, a group dedicated to fighting global poverty and hunger, says she doesn't really care who delivers the aid so long as it reaches those who need it most—the poorest. But she says CIDA has made some improvements over the years, including speeding up the process in which aid money is dispensed, particularly when compared to America which has a reputation of being "pitifully slow and very selective."
She says that while there are aspects of CIDA that Results Canada would like to see eliminated, such as the business-oriented CIDA Incorporated, she doesn't want to see the agency disbanded altogether.
"We're always walking a fine line in dealing with CIDA, because half the time we're pushing for more and wanting to let people know that CIDA's doing some good work, but then the other half the time we're saying this isn't the right way to go," says Little.
"We walk that fine line of criticizing, but also wanting to share what they are doing right."
Feeds