With so many demands on the federal purse during these tumultuous times, it can be difficult for the government to balance competing spending priorities, including providing military and humanitarian assistance to Ukraine, helping struggling Canadians buy groceries, and championing the rights of women and girls around the world.
According to the Government of Canada website, “Canada launched its Feminist International Assistance Policy (FIAP) in 2017, positioning Canada as a champion for gender equality in its international assistance programming.”
However, unless the policy is properly funded every year, FIAP cannot be fully implemented.
In response to reduced international assistance funding in the March 28 federal budget, Cooperation Canada issued a stern critique. “At a time of enormous need globally, the Canadian government has failed to deliver on its promise to increase foreign aid every year,” reads a statement issued by the coalition of non-governmental organizations representing international development, humanitarian, environmental and advocacy groups.
“Compared to Budget 2022, the overall international assistance funding was cut by no less than $1.3 billion — a 15 per cent cut,” notes the Cooperation Canada statement, which was issued within hours of Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland delivering the budget in the House of Commons.
Feminist policy
As the recent auditor general’s report notes, “the goal of Canada’s international assistance, overall, is to eradicate poverty and build a more peaceful, inclusive and prosperous world.” Does the federal budget advance that goal?
“Absolutely not,” replied Sabrina Grover, director of communications and media for the ONE Campaign in Canada. “The federal budget cut aid by 15 per cent … and a budget cut like that undermines our ability not only to counter Chinese influence and ability to advance a foreign policy, but also to advance our development goals, including gender equality.”
According to the ONE Campaign website, “ONE is a global movement campaigning to end extreme poverty and preventable disease by 2030, so that everyone, everywhere can lead a life of dignity and opportunity.”
Likewise, Diana Sarosi, director of policy and campaigns with Oxfam Canada, said the budget does not advance Canada’s stated policy goals. “In fact, we were really disappointed by the most recent budget, considering there was a 15 per cent cut to international assistance,” she said. “That is absolutely going to impact how organizations like Oxfam are going to be able to do their programming around the world.”
Does the federal budget advance the goals of Canada’s FIAP?
“Absolutely not,” replied Julia Anderson, CEO of the Canadian Partnership for Women and Children’s Health (CanWaCH). The federal budget “directly undermines the ability of Global Affairs Canada and its partners” to carry out FIAP, she asserted.
CanWaCH has a membership of more than 100 NGOs, academic institutions, health professional associations and individuals working to bolster the health of women and children around the globe.
Describing Canada’s Feminist International Assistance Policy as an “ambitious” commitment to assist marginalized populations, Anderson said the budget cuts undermine Canada’s international reputation.
Credibility in question
“I don’t think it undercuts the credibility of the policy, but I do think it undercuts our ability to implement the policy and actually affect change,” ONE’s Grover said of the budget cuts.
According to Oxfam’s Sarosi, the cuts definitely undermine Canada’s FIAP. “We all knew that the government is operating in a very fiscally constrained environment. However, in the last budget, they made a promise to continue increasing international assistance,” she said.
“I think the budget undermines the policy objectives set out in FIAP,” CanWaCH’s Anderson said. If the government is serious about the policy, it must be properly funded, she added.
Anderson acknowledged that the government has made some “really important” investments in the feminist agenda over the years, such as the “historic” $1.4 billion annual spending commitment to women’s and girls’ health around the world. According to the Government of Canada website, the 10-year funding commitment, which begins in 2023, “will support sexual and reproductive health rights and maternal, newborn and child health — with $700 million of the annual investment dedicated to sexual and reproductive health rights.”
Focus on women and girl’s rights
According to the Oxfam Canada website, the organization’s mission “is to build lasting solutions to poverty and injustice, focusing on improving lives and promoting the rights of women and girls.”
Why is it important for Canada to help women and girls?
Women and girls tend to bear the brunt of crises — humanitarian, conflict, political — and helping them is the morally right thing to do, Sarosi explained. In addition, gender equality makes for more stable, prosperous and safe societies, she said.
What is the connection between extreme poverty eradication and the rights of women and girls?
“Everything that we do in terms of improving economic development, sustainable development and building good human capital comes down to the rights of equal participation of women and girls,” ONE’s Grover answered.
“Women and girls make up more than half of almost every community; to marginalize or to deny them access to things like education or sanitation or the adequate health services, like sexual reproductive health rights, means that they can’t be full participants in the economy,” the ONE campaigner continued. “All of it is tied together at the crux of their rights and their ability to participate in economies, in good health with the right education.”
Why is it important to fund programs that focus on women and girls?
Canada is a middle power and dependent on a peaceful world, CanWaCH’s Anderson responded. To shape a more peaceful, stable world, Canada should invest in health systems, in general, and in the health of women and children, in particular, she said. Those investments help communities to thrive economically, because “we’re investing in children’s ability to go to school” and mothers’ ability “to contribute economically.”
Cutting international assistance is “incredibly shortsighted,” Anderson said. “And I would like the Government of Canada reconsider their position.”
Government response
The humanitarian non-governmental organizations interviewed by the Whig-Standard said that the cuts to Official Development Assistance (ODA) do not advance Canada’s Feminist International Assistance Policy. How do you respond to that criticism?
“Actually, there are no cuts to development,” International Development Minister Harjit Sajjan asserted in a telephone interview. “The reason I say that there are no cuts: there are no programs right now that we’re cutting. Everything is continuing on track.”
However, the minister acknowledged that there is no new funding for international development programs. When it comes to ODA spending, he suggested that new allocations could still be announced.
“I’ve spoken to a number of our partners,” Sajjan said of humanitarian NGOs. And he urged them to “wait to the end of the year” and then make their judgments based on “how much funding is actually coming to development.”
COVID spending
“If you base it on the COVID funding that was provided, yes, there is less right now,” Sajjan said of comparisons between the 2023 and 2022 federal budgets. “As we said from the beginning, COVID funding can’t continue. That was our contribution for making sure that people got vaccinated internationally.”
So you are saying that the $1.3 billion in cuts were related to COVID-19 spending?
“The majority of that was actually for the COVID funding,” Sajjan replied.
Meanwhile, the minister said he continues to work on programming targeting education and food security. “But I can’t ask for money until I actually have that plan completely worked out.”
Circling back to pandemic budgeting, Sajjan said “there is no way for us to sustain the level of funding we’ve done for COVID.” And he insisted that the government’s commitment “to increase funding steadily not only remains but is actually on track.”
Are you saying that COVID-19 funding should not have been included in the baseline funding calculation regarding the promise to increase ODA year after year?
“No, you can’t,” Sajjan said of the budget calculation.
“Don’t look at the budget as the ‘be all, end all’ decision of where all funding goes,” he said as the interview concluded.