Foreign-policy considerations are one of three primary criteria that the Canadian International Development Agency is using to select which countries it focuses aid on, the agency’s president said in Vancouver.

Sitting next to Margaret Biggs and hosting the May 20 event was John Richards, a professor of public policy at SFU. Richards was recently quoted in the Vancouver Sun in support of an argument that CIDA’s recent policy shift looked like it was not directed by members of that agency but instead was dictated by politicians.

It is Canada’s trade and security agenda that CIDA’s redirection reflects, columnist Don Cayo argued, and not an understanding of where help is needed most. In the piece, Richards went on to speculate that CIDA’s shift was underscored by tensions between left-leaning bureaucrats in CIDA and right-wing officials in the Conservative government.

The SFU engagement, held at the university’s downtown campus, took place only hours after Bev Oda, minister of international cooperation, announced in Ottawa that there would be a new set of aid spending priorities for Canada. Biggs was quick to echo the minister’s remarks.

“We have to go back to basics,” she said. CIDA will now focus on assisting countries in working toward sustainable economic growth, increasing food security, and focusing on children and youth.

Biggs argued that there are “fundamental changes” taking place and that these require a “fundamental shift” in how CIDA does things. The economic crisis, new security concerns, climate change, and threats to food security are “fundamental drivers which are going to shake up our world,” Biggs said.

In February 2009, the Conservative government announced that it would shift aid spending from 25 countries selected by the former Liberal government and “focus” 80 percent of its bilateral spending on a new list of 20 countries (never mind that one of those “countries” is the Caribbean, which is a region consisting of more than 25 countries).

Dropped from CIDA’s list of “Countries of Focus” were eight African nations: Benin, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Kenya, Malawi, Niger, Rwanda, and Zambia.

On May 20, three months after that announcement, Oda was quoted as saying, “What I will talk about is not something that aims to please Irish rock stars,” alluding to the efforts of Bob Geldof and U2’s Bono to alleviate poverty in Africa.

At SFU, Biggs noted that February’s announcement was criticized for pulling Canadian aid out of Africa. But she insisted that is not what the Conservative government and CIDA have done.

Biggs claimed that the Conservatives are committed to doubling aid to Africa. She argued that a simple look at the number of African countries that CIDA has listed as priorities is not a good measure of Canada’s involvement in the continent.

Countries which appear on CIDA’s revised list were selected on the basis of three criteria, Biggs went on to explain. A basis of need was the first, she claimed. Canada’s ability to engage with a country in a meaningful way was the second. And the third criteria to select a country as a priority for CIDA was a foreign-policy consideration, Biggs said.

“We are still in Africa,” she continued. But she described an inquiry about how nine African countries were removed from CIDA’s list “on the basis of need” as “a fair question”.

“Another government might have made another choice,” she said. “There is immense disparity, inequality, and poverty in many other countries.”

The majority of new countries on CIDA’s list are in Latin America. Biggs emphasized that CIDA is not there to help the rich people but to assist people in rising out of some of the continent’s “deep, deep pockets of poverty”.

She also argued that countries like France and Britain are already heavily invested in Africa and that nobody is helping Latin America’s poor.

“We are going to focus geographically,” she said.

This event was billed as being open to the public. SFU stated that the Georgia Straight could attend but was not permitted to report on what was said. After evaluating this—and keeping in mind that Margaret Biggs is a public servant paid for by taxpayers and she was speaking at a publicly funded university heavily subsidized by taxpayers—the Straight decided it was in the public interest to convey what was said at this “public” meeting.

You can follow Travis Lupick on Twitter at twitter.com/tlupick.

The following is a response from John Richards, professor of public policy at Simon Fraser University.

From: John Richards
Sent: Friday, May 22, 2009 1:01 AM
To: Travis Lupick
Cc: Shaheen Nanji; Chris Dagg; Margaret Biggs
Subject: Re: Georgia Straight on M. Biggs afternoon session

Travis,

I acknowledge that what you wrote about Margaret Biggs's presentation is more-or-less accurate. What you imply about my opinion and hers sins by omission.

You refer to my statement in a Vancouver Sun column of Don Cayo's that I believe recent changes in CIDA strategy, including the decision to concentrate bilateral aid in fewer countries, are being driven by senior officials and others outside the agency. I stand by that. You then write: "It is Canada's trade and security agenda that CIDA's redirection reflects, columnist Don Cayo argued, and not an understanding of where help is needed most."

Admittedly, the government decided - while the Liberals were in office - to engage not only the army but CIDA in Afhanistan in a significant way. That was a decision with budgetary implications for CIDA that reflected security concerns. Afghanistan is also, obviously, among the least developed countries, one in need of aid. And admittedly you attribute the conclusion in the quote to Cayo, not to me. But nowhere in your story do you refer to the case that Biggs, I and others have made, namely that Canada's aid dollars can achieve more by concentrating on doing fewer things in fewer countries. There is a legitimate debate about which countries and how to narrow the focus. Biggs referred to that debate yesterday. You don't report it.

Beyond any question of journalistic accuracy are important ethical issues.

The first is whether it is legitimate for a university, particularly a publicly funded one, to conduct off-the-record seminars and events. The answer is that such provisions are necessary for full exploration of ideas. One purpose of a university is to allow people to try out ideas, to explore them in ways that we would not do on-the-record for fear of misinterpretation.

Let me give examples. When Colin Hansen, provincial finance minister, offered to discuss with our students ideas surrounding budget preparation, I agreed. When his staff proposed that the media be allowed into the classroom, I refused. Students did not want to be portrayed as partisan - pro or con - the government, and undoubtedly, the minister would be more guarded in his responses with the press present. We frequently invite professional civil servants to discuss with our students the decisions they make, the criteria used, their relation to elected politicians, and so on. Quite reasonably, these officials would refuse the invitations if their comments were to be quoted in the press.

A second ethical issue is the legitimacy of professional civil servants speaking off-the-record. As with participants in universities, professional civil servants cannot fulfil their obligation to give "full and frank" advice to elected leaders if every assessment they make of a controversial nature is open to journalistic scrutiny. The rationale for a professional civil service is to mark a division between elected politicians accountable to electorates and civil servants who are expected to offer frank professionally motivated advice to whomever voters choose. Admittedly, Biggs was not briefing her minister yesterday but she was speaking under general university conventions about not-for-attribution.

A third issue is the ethical conventions that should guide journalists. Your role in holding institutions and individuals to account is crucial. Investigative journalism that leads to criticism of senior public officials - and university professors for that matter - is fully legitimate.

I acknowledge that in emails sent to the SFU community we referred to the event as "open to the public". In retrospect we should have been explicit about this being an off-the-record seminar. However, you accepted to take part having received an explicit explanation to the effect that what Biggs and others said in the meeting was off-the-record. From our perspective, we were trying to help you in your job by allowing you to participate. If you wanted to report Biggs's opinions, our understanding was that you would obtain a separate interview with her, and she would understand her comments to be on-the-record.

In conclusion, I appreciate your interest in development policy but am disappointed that you decided to write about the contents of the seminar. Your decision has the inevitable consequence of lowering trust between The Straight and SFU, and between the Straight and CIDA.

John Richards

Graduate Public Policy Program,
Room 3273, Simon Fraser University - Harbour Centre,
515 West Hastings Street,
Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, V6B 5K3