Dr. Francine Menashy is an associate professor at the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education of the University of Toronto. Dr. Rachel Silver is an assistant professor in the Faculty of Education at York University. They are researchers of international development, humanitarian aid and education policy.
In the lead-up to last month’s federal election, Canada’s future as a foreign-aid actor was uncertain. Donald Trump’s administration had plunged the aid world into an existential crisis by shuttering the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID). Britain had reduced its giving to its lowest level since 1999. So when Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre promised to pay for a permanent military base in Canada’s Far North by cutting foreign aid, it seemed certain that a Tory win would have meant a similar gutting here at home.
Apart from Mr. Poilievre’s pronouncements, however, candidate positions on foreign aid were vague. While campaigning, Mark Carney announced that the Liberals would continue on Canada’s current path as a “generous” leader on the global stage – but he was sparse on details.
After the Liberals’ win, many in the global humanitarian community felt tremendous relief that Canada would not follow other countries’ nationalist impulses. At this point, more than 20 million people previously kept alive by U.S.-subsidized antiretroviral therapy face unknown futures, and the UN warns that tens of millions of people are at risk of starvation. People will die from USAID cuts, and aid agencies believe that Canada could provide a much-needed backstop.
Yet, as researchers of international aid, we know that the status quo isn’t the answer either. We propose a third way forward beyond the binary of cutting aid or toeing the line. Canadians have a responsibility to those outside our borders, but the current humanitarian system is deeply flawed. Canada should reimagine aid altogether.
The global aid architecture – meaning the organizations, funding mechanisms, policies, and programs that together support development and humanitarian activities worldwide – often reproduces power hierarchies rooted in colonial histories and relationships. Decision-making in aid projects remains concentrated among international organizations, universities and businesses headquartered in wealthy countries – which are often the principal recipients of development contracts. Local people rarely set the agenda, and as a result, programs are often not fit for purpose. People from the Global South and those identifying as minorities are often tokenized; racism is rife within the aid industry.
These problems are well known in aid circles. But only in the past few years have some international organizations recognized their role in them. Activists have made calls to enact sweeping reform to remedy the deep structural inequities that plague international development and humanitarianism. Yet major systemic change has yet to happen.
For this reason, some have framed the current moment of aid pullback as both a tragedy and an opportunity. For example, the Centre for Global Development has put forth three pathways to reform global development financing, calling for universal commitments to pool aid, tiered approaches and alternative financing. Other critics have argued that an even more radical shift is needed. Our own research with development actors across the globe demonstrates that this paradigm-shifting moment offers an opportunity to recognize the interdependencies central to aid relations and forge new, more reciprocal partnerships for all of our sustainable futures.
Mr. Carney, along with newly appointed Minister of Foreign Affairs Anita Anand, should embrace such reimagining. Canada can be a meaningful partner to countries by supporting more local participation in poverty reduction. This would entail recognizing that local actors hold the expertise and knowledge to design and deliver programs. A reimagined aid structure means fewer resources remaining in the hands of international agencies, with funding flowing directly to local organizations. It means allowing programmatic agendas to be determined through dialogue, rather than being dictated. It means stepping back – but not in the ways imagined by isolationists.
Global Affairs Canada gave more than $12-billion in overseas development assistance last year, making it among the largest donors of all high-income countries. Through intentional reform, the Liberals can redirect our aid dollars to more agile initiatives that respond to the needs and reflect the visions of people most affected by poverty and crisis. In doing so, Canada can demonstrate global leadership as the U.S. isolates itself – and initiate meaningful change in how we engage with other countries.