Connect with us

Business

Global Affairs Canada Foreign Aid: An Update

Published

5 minute read

The Audit

 

 David Clinton

Canadian Taxpayers are funding programs in foreign countries with little effect

Back in early November I reached out to Global Affairs Canada (GAC) for a response to questions I later posed in my What Happens When Ministries Go Rogue post. You might recall how GAC has contributed billions of dollars to the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria, only to badly miss their stated program objectives. Here, for the record, is my original email:

I’m doing research into GAC program spending and I’m having trouble tracking down information. For instance, your Project Browser tool tells me that, between 2008 and 2022, Canada committed $3.065 billion to the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria. The tool includes very specific outcomes (like a drop of at least 40 per cent in malaria mortality rates). Unfortunately, according to reliable public health data, none of the targets were even close to being achieved – especially in the years since 2015.

Similarly, Canada’s $125 million of funding to the World Food Programme between 2016 and 2021 to fight hunger in Africa roughly corresponded to a regional rise in malnutrition from 15 to 19.7 percent of the population since 2013.

I’ve been able to find no official documentation that GAC has ever conducted reviews of these programs (and others like it) or that you’ve reconsidered various funding choices in light of such failures. Is there data or information that I’m missing?

Just a few days ago, an official in the Business Intelligence Unit for Global Affairs Canada responded with a detailed email. He first directed me to some slightly dated but comprehensive assessments of the Global Fund, links to related audits and investigations, and a description of the program methodology.

The Audit is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

To their credit, the MOPAN 2022 Global Fund report identified five areas where important targets were missed, including the rollout of anti-corruption and fraud policies and building resilient and sustainable systems for health. That self-awareness inspires some confidence. And, in general, the assessments were comprehensive and serious.

What initially led me to suggest that GAC was running on autopilot and ignoring the real world impact of their spending was, in part, due to the minimalist structure of the GAC’s primary reporting system (their website). But it turns out that the one-dimensional objectives listed there did not fully reflect the actual program goals.

Nevertheless, none of the documents addressed my core questions:

  • Why had the programs failed to meet at least some of their mortality targets?
  • Why, after years of such shortfalls, did GAC continue to fully fund the programs?

The methodology document did focus a lot of attention on modelling counterfactuals. In other words, estimating how many people didn’t die due to their interventions. One issue with that is, by definition, counterfactuals are speculative. But the bigger problem is that, given at least some of the actual real-world results, they’re simply wrong.

As I originally wrote:

Our World in Data numbers give us a pretty good picture of how things played out in the real world. Tragically, Malaria killed 562,000 people in 2015 and 627,000 in 2020. That’s a jump of 11.6 percent as opposed to the 40 percent decline that was expected. According to the WHO, there were 1.6 million tuberculosis victims in 2015 against 1.2 million in 2023. That’s a 24.7 percent drop – impressive, but not quite the required 35 per cent.

I couldn’t quickly find the precise HIV data mentioned in the program expectations, but I did see that HIV deaths dropped by 26 percent between 2015 and 2021. So that’s a win.

I’m now inclined to acknowledge that the Global Fund is serious about regularly assessing their work. It wouldn’t be fair to characterize GAC operations as completely blind.

But at the same time, over the course of many years, the actual results haven’t come close to matching the programs objectives. Why has the federal government not shifted the significant funding involved to more effective operations?

The Audit is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

2025 Federal Election

The “Hardhat Vote” Has Embraced Pierre Poilievre

Published on

David Krayden's avatar David Krayden

Blue collar and unionized workers are supporting Pierre Poilievre and the CPC

When President Richard Nixon won a landslide in his 1972 reelection, he did so by broadening his own personal popularity and the appeal of the Republican Party to blue collar and unionized workers. It was called the hardhat vote and many working people embraced Nixon because he seemed to be talking the same language as they were. Nixon talked about law and order and getting tough on crime; safer streets and harsher penalties for serious crime. Although unionized workers had traditionally voted for the Democratic Party and seen the Republicans as the party of the wealthy, by 1972 the Democrats had moved far to the left on social issues and were completely out of touch with average Americans who saw Democratic presidential nominee Sen. George McGovern as being soft on crime and approving of the anarchy on the streets.

It’s precisely the language that Conservative Party of Canada leader Pierre Poilievere is speaking in the 2025 federal election. As support for the New Democratic Party has collapsed throughout the election campaign, don’t think most of it is going to the Liberal Party. Poilievre has been targeting blue collar workers for years with his emphasis on the trades and talking about middle class tax cuts and safe streets. A factory or construction worker is middle class and just want an affordable lifestyle for their families. They don’t have a lot of time for the woke underbelly of the Liberals or the NDP and are increasingly reluctant to support either party because both have appealed to elites.

Listen to Karl Lovett, the president of the Local 773 of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, talk about Carney corruption and why he is supporting Poilievre and the CPC in 2025.

“Mark Carney also failed to pay $5 billion in Canadian taxes by hiding his company’s assets in Bermuda above a bike shop. Hard to believe that information comes from Canada’s NDP, or at least who is left of them, because the irony is, Mark Carney has eaten all those people alive. Even the mayor of Lima has warned Canadians not to vote for Mark Carney, and why for ripping him off the poorest of the poor people in Peru. That’s who he ripped off,” Lovett said.

“Listen, there are countless other outrageous examples proving that Mark Carney doesn’t give a damn about the Canadian working man. And now, as prime minister, which he’s not, Carney is promising to put carbon tax and tariff on the auto industry. It’s another rip-off screen that’s right. We’re getting punched by Trump on one side of the border, and Carney plans to punch us on this side of the border, also pretending it’s all about climate change, and now he’s made millions off the workers’ backs. He wants more than money. He wants more power. He wants all of the power to do whatever he wants to do. Mark Carney cannot be trusted with this power. Mark Carney cannot be trusted to protect workers,” Lovett continued.

The union leader told a cheering crowd that “Mark Carney is in it for himself, and when he loses this election, you can bet Mark Carney is going to leave Canada in a New York minute. But there’s hope, there’s hope, there’s our last hope. His name is Pierre Poilievere – the .only hope for Canadian workers. You see Mark Carney fooled Justin Trudeau. We can’t let him keep fooling us.”

“Local 773, which I represent, knows Pierre Poilievre very well. We can proudly tell you that Pierre has our back. Pierre has been putting Canadian people to work and Canadian workers. First, local 773 began working with Pierre Poilievre, the Conservative Member of Parliament Chris Lewis, some years ago, when it became all too clear that the Liberal Party had zero interest in helping out workers. Upon winning the leadership of the party, Pierre made Local 773 his very first priority, he came to my union hall. Pier made the Local 773 Visitor Training Center, and he met all our workers, and he made a pledge to me; he’s not going to turn his back on us, and I believe him,” Lovett said.

Toronto Sun columnist Joe Warmington agreed with me and you can hear that entire interview, below. “Labor wants to work, and they want to, you know, build things, and they want those good, paying jobs, and that’s what Poilievre has always been about, you know.”

“He wants more power. He wants all of the power to do whatever he wants to do. Mark Carney cannot be trusted with this power. Mark Carney cannot be trusted to protect workers,”

“Again, it’s hard to know, but I always felt … and I still think that Poilievre is going to pull this off because of these reasons that you’ve raised today, I never really bought into and again, I’m just one person’s opinion, and I go on the ground. In the air, the polls are saying, I know there’s this main street poll today, maybe it’ll swing differently. But in the air, it says one thing, and on the ground, it says another thing. And that clip you just showed, that’s the ground, that’s where the workers are, that’s where the families are.”

Continue Reading

2025 Federal Election

Poilievre will cancel Mark Carney’s new Liberal packaging law and scrap the Liberal plastic ban!

Published on

From Conservative Party Communications

Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre promised today that a new Conservative government will stop Mark Carney’s proposed Liberal food tax and scrap the existing Liberal plastic ban. Poilievre will:

  • Stop proposed new labelling and packaging requirements that will raise the cost of fresh produce by as much as 34% and cost the average Canadian household an additional $400 each year.
  • Scrap the Liberal plastics ban, including the ban on straws, grocery bags, food containers and cutlery, and other single-use plastics, letting consumers and businesses choose what works for them.
  • Protect restaurants, grocers, and low-income Canadians from one-size-fits-all packaging rules that disproportionately affect those who can least afford it.

“After the Lost Liberal Decade, many Canadians can barely afford to put food on the table. And now Mark Carney and the Liberals want to make it even harder with a new food packaging law that will raise the price of food–again,” said Poilievre. “A new Conservative government will keep food prices down by scrapping the Liberal plastic ban and stopping Carney’s new Liberal food tax.”

After a decade of out-of-control spending and massive tax increases, families are spending $800 more on food this year than they did in 2024, and food banks had to handle a record two million visits in a single month. In Montreal, 44 percent of CEGEP students are experiencing some form of food insecurity, while places like HawkesburyKingstonToronto and Mississauga have all declared food insecurity emergencies.

And food prices are still rocketing upwards, surging by 3.2% over the last year, with no end in sight. In the last month alone, food inflation increased by 1.9 percentage points—the largest monthly jump in food prices in decades.

As if this wasn’t bad enough, Liberals have made life even more expensive and inconvenient for Canadians by banning plastics – including everything from straws to bags to food packaging. The current Liberal ban on single-use plastics will cost Canadians $1.3 billion dollars over the next decade.

Now Mark Carney wants to make it worse by adding complicated and costly new food packaging rules that will drive up the price of food even more–in effect, a new Liberal food tax. Plastic food packaging makes up 1/3 of all plastic packaging in Canada. The proposed Liberal food tax will cost the average Canadian household an additional $400 each year, waste half a million tonnes of food, decrease access to imported fruit and produce, and increase food inflation. The Chemistry Industry Association of Canada has also warned that this tax will put up to 60,000 Canadians out of work.

“The Liberals’ ideological crusade against convenience has already driven up food prices and the last thing Canadians need is Mark Carney’s new food tax added directly to your grocery bill,” said Poilievre. “The choice for Canadians is clear, a fourth Liberal term that will make food even more expensive or a new Conservative government that will axe the food tax and bring back straws, grocery bags and other items, to make life more affordable and convenient for Canadians – For a Change.”

Continue Reading

Trending

X