First, Aid

The movement has come in three different waves.It began with the announcement over a month ago that CIDA would be pulling the majority of its development funds out of 8 African countries. Because no previous consultation or notice had been provided, the cuts shocked the NGO community, opposition parties and those African nations cut.  No doubt planned in such a way to blunt criticism, the manner in which it was done provided a clue that CIDA was making a change and it wasn’t about to ask Canadians what they thought.The second wave washed upon the Canadian shore with the visit of the 19 African ambassadors to the Foreign Affairs Committee last week. They were attempting to change the game, sound the alarm, and sincerely ask why Canada was not only cutting development aid to the 8 countries but why a friend would do things in such a secretive fashion to other friends.And now, with the results of a recent poll, we are witnessing the third wave.  The Innovative Research Group has discovered that the majority of respondents (1,383) didn’t believe linking foreign aid with self-serving trade interests was a good idea. In other words, the way the present Conservative government is headed by linking aid with trade flies in the face of what most Canadians desire.  This is what you get as a government when you don’t consult with voters before you make your move.It might come as a surprise to some to find that the poll found that 61% of those responding believed that foreign aid does more good than harm, and that almost half (49%), support the idea of increasing aid to Lester Pearson’s goal of 0.7% of GDP.Clearly the findings won’t bless the government.  Yet they shouldn’t be surprised – the number of those Canadians who participate in programs that assist developing nations is huge and they are savvy enough to understand that providing aid for the purpose of alleviating poverty is more altruistically effective than using our humanitarian dollars as a means of gaining more economic clout for ourselves.  The report concluded: “Given that extreme poverty can cause civil wars, epidemics and regional instability in the developing world, it is in the interest of wealthy nations to provide foreign aid.”  Some of the respondents concurred, feeling that aid the way the Conservatives are presently going about it could lead to commercial exploitation - a new colonialism.So, if I get this straight, the first wave taught us that non-governmental organizations roundly condemn the federal government’s new thrust of aligning aid with commercial interests.  The second wave revealed that our partners in the developing world were concerned enough about the new direction that they came en masse to Parliament to express their disapproval.  And now, with this third wave, we have come to discover that Canadians in general disapprove of CIDA’s current agenda.  It’s not a tsunami, but it is a gathering storm and the government is ignoring the warnings.The lesson is clear: ultimately, foreign aid is meant for the improvement of the lives of the most desperate, not for our own economic interest.  Civil society and our partners are saying it clearly: first, aid.  Now it is time for CIDA to start sailing with the wind.