Cutting back on foreign aid would be a mistake, both for humanitarian and diplomatic reasons.

The federal government’s most recent update on the state of the stimulus plan included an ominous warning: funding cuts are coming to nonessential programs, and they are coming soon. Indeed, if the government is serious about getting the deficit under control without breaking its promise not to raise taxes or reduce transfers to the provinces, then every federal department had best be on alert.

In the foreign policy community, the first area to suffer in lean times is almost always the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA).

Politically, this makes sense. As it has been argued in the past, how can the federal government justify spending millions, if not billions, of dollars outside of the country (even if it’s for the world’s poorest people) when Canadians at home are losing their jobs? Shouldn’t we solve our own problems before we worry about someone else’s?

It is easier to make that argument now than ever before. A 2007 Senate report on the state of international development in Canada condemned CIDA as a broken agency and even raised the prospect of abolishing it altogether. The 2008 report of the Manley Commission was particularly critical of the work of Canada’s international development team in Afghanistan. And this fall, although also noting a number of positive changes, the auditor general’s report on Canada’s approach to development assistance was not hopeful.

Reducing foreign aid seems to be a political no-brainer. Seeing as the primary beneficiaries are those in other countries, there is no domestic constituency to lobby against the cuts while there are plenty of people in Canada who will applaud the decision. And the government can make reference to a variety of reputable and respected reports to justify its actions. Add to that the eight per cent annual increase in base funding that CIDA has received over the last five years and you have the perfect storm.

Still, cutting the foreign assistance budget would be a serious mistake, not only in humanitarian terms, but also in terms of the national interests of Canada.

At the diplomatic level, reducing foreign aid will mean alienating countries with whom Canada has established development partnerships in the midst of a campaign to win a non-permanent seat on the UN Security Council. (Whether the purpose of aid is to win a seat on the council is irrelevant. The effect will be there regardless.)

From an economic point of view, given the small size of CIDA’s budget relative to the size of the deficit, the savings will be minimal. The disruptions to the agency however, which under Minister Oda has been aggressively transforming itself into a more focused unit capable of producing results, will be immense.

Such dramatic changes will further hurt the already tepid morale evident throughout CIDA, encourage the departure of the most talented, and interfere with any further efforts to improve aid programming and delivery.

While previous Liberal and Conservative governments have been content to let the development agency languish, the current one’s vocal commitment to restoring Canada’s place in the world suggests that there is an opportunity here for real change.

Foreign aid is an ideal public policy priority for proponents of an activist Canadian foreign policy. Unlike virtually every other international issue, the major powers—and the United States in particular—have no overwhelming interest in Canada’s actions. No country will tell us where to focus, how to contribute, or how much to spend. Moreover, development is relatively inexpensive. With the right strategies, a country of Canada’s size and wealth can easily make an impact in the developing world. The successful efforts of the Scandinavian countries are evidence of what good planning and a firm commitment can do.

Moreover, as a trading nation, Canada depends more than most countries upon an international environment that is stable and open to world trade. Reducing global poverty is one of the most effective ways to promote this interest.

If the government wants to show real leadership and really put Canada on the map, it should keep Minister Oda’s budget intact.