The federal government in its newly tabled budget announced that over the course of four years there would be a $2.7 billion reduction in international assistance. While we do not know all of the details yet, the proposal highlighted development funding for global health as a sector that would be targeted.
Upon assuming office in 2025, the Trump administration moved to dismantle the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). Programs have been significantly defunded, if not completely abolished, and what remains of the organization has been folded into the functions of the State Department, reducing the ability of the United States to partake in effective humanitarian missions.
In the face of these cuts, one would think Canada would use this as an opportunity to enhance its leadership in the humanitarian space. Instead, Canada, though clearly not to the same degree, is following in the footsteps of the US and other Western countries by reducing its global humanitarian footprint.
This announcement has drawn the ire of Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) who warn it could cause long-term, irreversible harm leaving vulnerable communities without essential medical care, food, and protection at a time when global needs have dramatically risen.
Recent cuts by other governments have already left populations without the resources they need forcing various organizations, like Doctors Without Borders, to become the only providers of basic healthcare services. These groups feel that Canada needs to fill the void left by the retreat of other countries, not join them in deepening it.
Cooperation Canada, an umbrella group representing more than 100 Canadian non-profits engaged in humanitarian aid efforts and international development, issued a statement saying, “this marks a retreat from our global commitments…. this budget further deepens the gap left by other major donors, undermining both global partnerships and Canada’s own strategic interests”.
Paul Farran, the Director of Policy and Advocacy for Cooperation Canada, said Canada has historically had “a leading role on maternal health, on child health, on treating diseases, on preventing diseases” like “AIDS, Tuberculosis and malaria” and that the rationale for reducing funding on these issues comes from the fact that Canada was disproportionately contributing to these initiatives. However, as Farran notes “it is a good thing” that Canada has “built networks, built expertise, contributed to saving lives, and making communities safer.”
“Why retreat from that?” Farran asked.
When the government and public adopt a philosophy of austerity, foreign aid is often one of the few programs where there is more of a broad consensus around making cuts. This is driven by the belief that domestic needs should take priority over international commitments and that the two aren’t connected. An Angus Reid poll from 2024 found that 59 per cent would favour spending cuts in international aid in favour of increasing spending on domestic programs.
Farran highlights how short-sighted and misguided this thinking is, noting that every dollar of official development assistance generates about $1.20 in exports for Canadian businesses and saves roughly $60 for every dollar in potential military costs.
“Cutting international assistance isn’t just about trimming foreign spending, it’s cutting down one of the smartest and cost effective investments Canada can make in its own security, its own economy, and its own health,” he said.
“We are aware that wars, conflicts, or natural disasters will disrupt trade. We are very aware of what pandemics can lead to and what migration pressures can contribute to… It is much more cost-effective to work toward stabilizing countries, partnering with them, and having fair trade than it is to pull back and respond to crises after they occur,” said Farran.
When we invest in international aid it is likely that in the long run we end up not only saving lives but saving tax payers money as well, he argued.
There is a traditional perspective that views military spending as the most effective way to tackle emerging global threats, which may explain why foreign aid has been cut to offset the increased military costs in the 2025 budget. This approach neglects to take into account how foreign aid can reduce the likelihood of future conflicts.
“When there is a lack of the most fundamental basics that allow for human dignity that can create circumstances where non-state actors come in, where conflicts break out, and radicalism being given the space to spread,” said Farran
The breakdown of order in crisis-affected regions can create fertile ground for such groups to gain influence, fill power vacuums, and exploit the desperation that arises when people are deprived of the basic necessities needed to sustain human life.
We have seen this happen in the past with groups like ISIS exploiting the catastrophic humanitarian situation in Syria, prior to their civil war, which was induced by a severe drought from 2006-2011.
The drought exacerbated existing vulnerabilities in Syria’s agricultural sector and triggered a massive influx of rural Syrians into urban centres as they sought to support themselves and their families. This migration increased pressure on services in these areas, leading to rising prices, social unrest, and widespread discontent with the incumbent leadership. Non-state actors, such as ISIS, exploited these dire conditions and the government’s loss of legitimacy to recruit individuals to their cause. While the drought and lack of access to basic goods was only one factor among many, it helped create the conditions that allowed extremist groups to gain a foothold in Syria and eventually expand their operations abroad.
Canada has the opportunity to analyze how aid can be facilitated in a way that prevents the rise of extremist groups and not help with their ascent by creating a vacuum through the reduction of the federal government’s commitment to helping these regions.
The question remains will this be the beginning of a trend or merely a short term and arguably short-sighted attempt to reduce spending before Canada goes back to championing foreign aid? Such a shift risks undermining the very stability and peace Canada seeks to defend.
Support rabble today!
We’re so glad you stopped by! Thanks for consuming rabble content this year.
rabble.ca is 100% reader and donor funded, so as an avid reader of our content, we hope you will consider gifting rabble with a donation during our summer fundraiser today.
Nick Seebruch, editor
Whether it be a one-time donation or a small monthly contribution, your support is critical to keep rabble writers producing the work you’ve come to rely on as a part of a healthy media diet.
Become a rabble rouser — donate to rabble.ca today.
Nick Seebruch, editor
