Why Is Canada Sending Millions Abroad While Canadians Struggle?
Canadian taxpayers have funded nearly half a billion dollars to Plan International over the past decade, raising longstanding questions about government oversight and the allocation of public resources.
According to government records, Global Affairs Canada (GAC) disbursed $408,823,686 to Plan International between 2012 and 2023. The funding has reportedly “supported” initiatives ranging from international development to humanitarian aid, with a focus on education, health, and gender equality in low-income countries.
While Plan International is a globally recognized non-profit, the scale of Canadian contributions has sparked concern among critics who question whether sufficient accountability measures are in place to ensure the money is effectively utilized, especially given Canada’s track record of failing to do so.
The organization’s projects often target issues like child protection and access to education, particularly for girls in developing nations. However, the outcomes of these programs are not always easy to measure, making it difficult to assess their long-term efficacy.
This level of spending also raises broader questions about Canada’s foreign aid priorities. With GAC managing billions annually in development assistance, critics argue that a more transparent foreign aid system is needed.
You might recall a report published by the Office of the Auditor General of Canada that determined GAC does not know whether its major funding initiative—aimed at promoting gender equality abroad—is actually improving the lives of women and girls.
The audit found incomplete and missing project files, making it impossible for the department to accurately track and report the outcomes of funded projects, according to the office.
Auditor General Karen Hogan said it is imperative that Global Affairs “act immediately” to improve its information management practices.
The office told Coastal Front that Global Affairs committed to providing quarterly updates on its progress regarding the improvement of its information management but didn’t provide further details.
As for Plan International, a spokesperson for the organization stated that the funding has facilitated transformative programs in some of the world’s most vulnerable communities.
“We are committed to transparency and rigorous impact assessments to ensure every dollar achieves meaningful change,” the organization said in a statement.
As scrutiny of foreign aid spending grows, it is increasingly evident that Canadian taxpayers are not receiving value for these investments. Billions are allocated without meaningful input or consent from the public, while organizations like Plan International continue to receive significant sums despite a lack of transparency and measurable outcomes. This unchecked disbursement of funds lays bare the urgent need for stronger accountability measures and a reevaluation of Canada’s foreign aid system.
Mistrust Toward INGOs
While International Nongovernmental Organizations (INGOs) like Plan International are often celebrated for their humanitarian work, a growing body of evidence suggests they are losing trust in host nations worldwide. From accusations of political interference to concerns over accountability and transparency, INGOs face increasing scrutiny—scrutiny that Canadian taxpayers cannot afford to overlook, including the nearly half a billion dollars given to Plan International over the past decade.
INGOs, by their nature, occupy a precarious position in the geopolitical landscape. Organizations like World Vision, CARE International, and Oxfam are tasked with delivering what are supposed to be vital services—disaster relief, education, healthcare—in regions where governments have either failed or are unable to act. Yet, their operations often blur the lines between apolitical humanitarianism and political advocacy, generating mistrust among host nations.
Suspicion is particularly acute in regions with fragile or non-Western-friendly governments, where INGOs are often viewed as tools of foreign influence. These organizations are frequently accused of advancing Western political agendas under the guise of development, further destabilizing already insecure political systems. In Zimbabwe, for instance, INGOs have been linked to Western “soft power” initiatives aimed at influencing regime change under the cover of humanitarian aid. More on that shortly.
Plan International and Accountability
Plan International, a recipient of massive amounts of Canadian funding, is not immune to the criticisms leveled against the INGO sector. While its stated mission focuses on child rights, education, and gender equality, its work takes place within a complex political landscape.
For example, in regions of conflict and instability, INGOs have been criticized for inadvertently undermining state legitimacy. By taking over essential services like education and healthcare, they can weaken local government structures rather than strengthening them. In Mozambique, INGOs' control of health programs created social inequalities and eroded local control, leading to long-term dependency rather than sustainable solutions.
Such patterns invite scrutiny of Canada’s funding strategy. Has nearly half a billion dollars of taxpayers’ money to Plan International resulted in measurable, sustainable outcomes? Or has it perpetuated the same dependency cycle, reinforcing mistrust among host governments and local populations? Without clear, publicly accessible impact assessments, Canadian taxpayers are left in the dark.
Plan International and Broader INGO Trends
The mistrust toward INGOs is compounded by allegations of operational inconsistencies, corruption, and political entanglements. This broader mistrust extends to other actors in the aid ecosystem, including private contractors like ARK Group DMCC—a consulting firm highlighted in a previous investigation by Coastal Front—which received substantial Canadian funding. ARK’s operations revealed how aid mechanisms can be weaponized for covert political objectives. Such revelations fuel skepticism about the true motives behind aid initiatives.
In Zimbabwe, Plan International has faced similar accusations of aligning with political interests. Residents in Kwekwe reported that aid was withheld from individuals not affiliated with the opposition Citizens Coalition for Change, fostering divisions in already vulnerable communities. Critics argued that Plan International’s activities were sowing discord and undermining local government stability, operating outside its stated humanitarian mandate. These allegations raise concerns that Canadian taxpayers may have yet again inadvertently funded politically charged initiatives overseas, further destabilizing fragile regions under the guise of development aid.
A Questionable Partnership
Plan International’s reliance on Canadian taxpayer funding is further called into question by its partnerships with corporations like Accenture, a company embroiled in controversy over its government contracts.
Accenture played a key role in Plan International’s youth training programs, such as Skills to Succeed, but its track record has raised eyebrows recently, to put it lightly. The firm was awarded a $208-million sole-source contract by the Canadian government to manage the Canada Emergency Business Account (CEBA), bypassing competitive bidding. This contract drew widespread criticism for its lack of transparency and questionable oversight. Access-to-information requests later exposed the full extent of Accenture’s involvement, including setting up call centres, building loan collection systems, and creating digital infrastructure—tasks that were neither initially disclosed nor subjected to public scrutiny.
Accenture’s track record, as highlighted in its administration of CEBA, reflects a broader pattern of opaque practices and self-serving priorities. By affiliating with a corporation known for such controversies, Plan International further erodes the integrity of its programs.
Children Left Without Promised Support
Plan International’s operational failures extend beyond Zimbabwe. Its abrupt departure from Sri Lanka in 2019 left over 20,000 vulnerable children without support, and local communities struggling to fill the gap. Despite citing improved economic conditions as the reason for its exit, internal reports revealed escalating costs and internal conflicts as the true drivers. Former employees described the departure as poorly planned and ethically questionable, with communities blindsided and no viable alternatives put in place.
The fallout was significant: projects were abandoned, families were left without promised support, and local officials labelled the exit irresponsible. As one Sri Lankan official told The Guardian, “Hopes were raised with communities and thereafter dashed to the ground.”
(Schoolchildren participating in a Plan International project. In December 2019, the charity announced its decision to exit Sri Lanka, citing the country's ‘significant economic growth’ as the reason for its departure. Image credit: Plan International Australia)
A Flawed System
This is not just about Plan International—it is about a flawed system that prioritizes unchecked spending over efficacy. INGOs have been criticized globally for: Operating with minimal transparency and oversight, overstepping mandates in politically sensitive regions, delivering short-term solutions that fail to create lasting change, and much more.
In Zimbabwe, for example, Plan International allegedly blurred the lines between humanitarian efforts and political agendas. Canada’s ever-flowing gravy train to such organizations highlights a systemic failure to adequately vet recipients and enforce accountability mechanisms. Plan International’s partnerships with corporations like Accenture add another layer of complexity.
Canada has failed over and over again to ensure that taxpayer dollars achieve measurable and meaningful outcomes. The absence of oversight has allowed inefficiency, mismanagement, and questionable political engagements to persist unchecked.
At home, Canada faces urgent domestic crises: an escalating cost of living, a healthcare system failing millions, and a growing homelessness epidemic. Meanwhile, the federal government’s Fall Economic Statement reveals a $62 billion deficit for 2023-24—exceeding its promised $40 billion ceiling by nearly 54 percent. Yet, despite these pressing challenges, billions continue to flow overseas in foreign aid. And for what?
