Talking Back to the Open Canada Report

The Open Canada study is critical of CIDA and Canada’s development assistance, but their reform suggestions warrant debate.

"The objective of Canada's assistance must be to produce economic independence-the missing link in the sovereignty equation for so many countries. The real measure of success is SUCCESS." – from "Development: In Aid of New Approaches," Open Canada: A Global Positioning Strategy for a Networked Age

Open Canada strives to put aside old debates and take a fresh, bold look at global challenges and the international role Canada could play. “No tepid Canadian compromises” for us, its authors say. We want candid discussions, tough decisions and political courage.

The chapter on development assistance continues in this vein. Almost everyone who thinks about these issues agrees with the chapter’s premise that our development assistance program, especially the key delivery agency Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA), needs a serious rethink. So, this debate is welcome.

There are two important components in the discussion about Canada’s role in development assistance – what should be done (what kind of development assistance? For what purpose?) and how best to do it (structures and mechanisms). This chapter focuses almost entirely on the latter, often referred to as the machinery of government, and unfortunately doesn’t say much about the former. However, the heart of any development program is what happens on the ground – how people’s lives are improved, how we support citizens make decisions about their own lives, and how we help them hold their own governments to account. This needs to be clear before considering what kinds of policies and mechanisms support the selected type of development.

The study gives the impression that Canada has the appropriate know-how to move in and get the job done. “The real measure of success is success:” it is not out of Canadian modesty that I say that this doesn’t work. Over the last 50 years we have learned a great deal about what kind of development assistance works and what does not. We know that there are no quick fixes – development assistance needs to be long term and comprehensive. Even the Gates Foundation’s useful vaccination programs aren’t sustainable without functioning health care systems which are much more difficult to develop and measure. We have learned that people change their own world. To be sustainable, development needs to be locally owned and directed, it cannot be imposed from outside. The role of outsiders is to support, facilitate and empower.

The study states that the purpose of development assistance is economic independence, without any definition of what this means or how it is related to poverty reduction, the promotion of human rights, good governance or social equality. Economic growth, while an important component, is not synonymous with development. Development assistance alone will not bring about development. To be effective it needs to be part of a larger policy framework which includes fair trade rules, environmental sustainability, more democratic global governance systems and the pursuit of human rights.

While the report’s diagnosis of CIDA’s weaknesses – too bureaucratic, too slow and risk averse – is essentially correct, the cause of the problems is not clearly stated. In my view the problem lies mainly at the political level. Successive governments have not given the agency a clear mandate, they have appointed an ever-changing chain of junior ministers and senior managers, allowed constant changes to policies and program priorities, and they have used CIDA funds for other political, military, and commercial purposes.

The solution offered is to break CIDA into three units (human development, economic development and humanitarian assistance), using the International Development Research Centre, arms-length Crown Corporation model. This model might distance the agency from political meddling in day-to-day management but could also lead to the isolation of development assistance from influence over other foreign policy priorities which potentially contribute to development – trade, investment, environmental protection, and the promotion of human rights. It is hard to see from a policy and implementation perspective how social and economic development could be separated into two distinct agencies.

Whether this model or the so-called “Super CIDA” model, about which the report is quite dismissive, would remedy the problems needs a good deal more discussion.

The study’s seeming assumption that Canada works alone doesn’t acknowledge the complex environment in which Canadian development activities take place. Canada works with 23 OECD members and a growing list of other donors, including India and China, scores of UN agencies, and thousands of local and international civil society organization. Nor does the report seem to be aware of the major international initiatives underway to improve aid effectiveness.

The chapter is rather disparaging of people who work in the development field, “Discussion about aid is dominated by interested parties”. Professional knowledge of the field is not valued. This begs a question: would we attempt to reform the banking system without involving bankers? Open Canada rightly calls for an active global engagement on the part of Canada, linking our national interests with global interests, and challenging Canadians to decide what roles they want to play. However reorganizing CIDA, another time, as proposed, won’t take us there.