I thank Dariusz Dziewanski for taking the time to write a piece on the Huffington Post. However, I'm sad to say he has mischaracterized the nature of the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA) and our partners around the world.
Mr. Dziewanski is correct in stating that Canadians take pride in our international development work. However, there should not be great satisfaction in the simple transaction of international aid. CIDA's lofty mandate is to alleviate poverty in the developing world. We are steadfast in our commitment that the agency deliver real results for those most in need. Canadians should take pride in these results because their investments are lifting people out of poverty and creating a more prosperous and secure world.
As I stated in my speech to the Economic Club of Canada: CIDA is not in the business of subsidizing mining companies or any Canadian companies. Nor do we subsidize Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs), for that matter. We are an outcomes driven agency. We use any and all legitimate vehicles available to us -- including the private sector -- to meet our stated objectives.
The fact is, without economic growth people living in developing economies will not be able to rise out of poverty. As we know, a healthy private sector is integral to sustaining economic growth in the long-run. So while the likes of Mr. Dziewanski simply demonize the private sector, our government is working constructively with it, and with open-minded NGOs, so that local populations can benefit from private sector led economic growth in their countries.
When we speak about the private sector, we should note that equally important are the large multinational companies employing hundreds of thousands of people around the world and the single woman entrepreneur operating a start-up business in a remote village of Bangladesh.
Our work with both are achieving tangible results Canadians should be proud of. For example, in Bangladesh, 900,000 entrepreneurs, mostly small-holder farmers, have increased their income as a direct result of Canada's international development work. In Ghana, our work with World University Services Canada and Rio Tinto Alcan is enabling 400 youth living in mining communities to get the technical skills required to achieve a high-paying role in the mine. The project is also providing a quality education and access to clean water for the community's 134,000 residents.
We are well aware of the challenges facing the extractives sector worldwide. The International Development Agency is committed to leading the way with constructive solutions that enable transparent, accountable and economically viable extractive industries in developing countries. The Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (EITI) recently certified Tanzania with their standards for annual disclosure of financial information to local governments and communities. This information is published so that citizens know what mining, oil and gas companies have contributed, and can hold the government accountable for the use of these funds. CIDA provided the technical support that made this possible.
Our government has not shied away from helping those most in need in their greatest time of need. As Prime Minister Harper has stated, "Canadians are a compassionate neighbour." Canadians can and should take pride that their tax dollars provided emergency food assistance to more than six million people and treated more than 526,000 children suffering from severe acute malnutrition in the Sahel region of West Africa. More recently, Canada provided 480,000 people suffering the effects of Typhoon Bopha in the Philippines emergency shelter, food and safe drinking water.
Our government will continue to be there when humanitarian crises strikes the world's most vulnerable. But our long-term goal is to help people help themselves, so that they can move themselves and their families from poverty to prosperity -- a result I believe all Canadians can take pride in.
Dariusz Dziewanski: Is Canada's Foreign Aid Just About Looking Good?
Glen Pearson: CIDA is Breaking Canada's Promise to the World
While the Minister’s response is a welcome move towards dialogue, it otherwise disappoints. A shopping list of statistics and talking points eschews initial questions posed: why do we give aid? What does it say about us? And, is it the role of CIDA to subsidize the corporate social responsibilities of multimillion dollar companies?
I would be the first to agree that the private sector is grossly under-utilized in international development. More must be done, for instance, to harness the potential for SMEs to drive indigenous and sustainable growth, especially given recent repatriations to countries such as Liberia and Sierra Leone. But the Minister implies that a critique of CSR subsidies to extraction companies – in specific – and of aid used for the promotion of national economic self-interests – in general – is a criticism of the private sector; even a tacit argument to forego support for “the single woman entrepreneur operating a start-up business in a remote village of Bangladesh.” To suggest this would be, at best, an over-simplification of private sector development, and, at worst, disingenuous.
Canadian’s deserve not only more dialogue. But also more nuance, more candor, and political discussion that speaks to the issues. For the sake of Canada and our international partners, I hope we get it.
That's because the minister either doesn't understand the issues at hand and can't differentiate very easily distinguishable concepts (and hopes that most Canadians can't either), or because he's not interested in dialogue but rather in repeating talking points/soundbytes prepared by his PR team. I'm not sure if you noticed, but Fantino's response to you is pretty much a re-hash of the talking points brought up in his previous piece, which itself was a response to Hélène Laverdière's criticism of subsidizing mining companies' CSR projects. So let's not kid ourselves, this isn't part of dialogue and self-critique, it's about repeating the government line (a thousand times, until it becomes true) and scoring cheap political points against the NDP and other critics while they're at it, usually by making a straw-man argument and repeating it over and over again.
They get turned away from social agencies because they are not youth and do not have children.
These are good people who would like to do nothing more than work, earn a living, pay taxes and be productive members of society.
Any idea how hard it is to look for work when you can't afford even a pay as you go phone?
Right now they are sleeping on my couch and loveseat.
How about some domestic aid?
Its good that we can help the needy overseas. But don't go bragging so long as there is one person without a place to call home (who wants one) in Canada.
Lazy they are not! People have no idea how much work survival on the street is.
The alignment between the changes to CIDA to promote the interested of Canadian extractions companies and the decision to provide "military" training to Mali an area rich in natural resources is more than just a coincidence. Everyone should do a little personal investigation on the citizens of Mali that are going to be forcefully displaced from their land in order to avoid the pesky problem of paying appropriate fees for access.
Secondly, lets not forget that Nigel Wright the new chief of staff for the PMO has very close ties to Barrick Gold. His personal connection to this company through his long time relationship with a member of the board is a delightfully devious way of ensuring the the lobbying efforts of Barrick Gold can continue to happen at social events and other venues that sneak under or circumvent the lobbying rules that are currently in place.
I guess explorting Barrick's brand of mining through force, abuse, pollution, sexual assault, is our new normal. Lets not forget Barrick's problems in Tanzania and Paupa New Guinea
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/rob-magazine/barricks-tanzanian-project-tests-ethical-mining-policies/article559188/?page=all
coming from fantino --i,d say vindictiveness cloaked as something else
if it wasnt why even mention the other guy