Interview with Taryn Russell, Executive Director of the NGO Results Canada
1. .What is your assessment of the outcomes of the Canadian presidency of the 2025 G7? What would be your recommendations for the French presidency coming next?
Canada took hold of the G7 presidency during a tumultuous time. Massive aid cuts by the US and deepening conflicts and rising humanitarian needs around the world meant there was a real need for bold, urgent action by the multilateral system.
Canada’s G7 presidency failed to really meet that moment and demonstrate what the G7 could accomplish. Meaningful commitments on global cooperation, whether through financial commitments or calls to action, were absent. I was also disappointed to see health, an area where the G7 has traditionally been a big champion on, not come into play.
Part of the lack of ambition was because of Canada’s domestic political situation. Our former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau resigned in January 2025. We then went through an election and the new Prime Minister, Mark Carney, was hosting the G7 Leader’s Summit six weeks after taking office. During this same period Canada was dragged into a trade war by US President Donald Trump and dealing with the fallout of tariffs’ increase became the topmost priority.
For France’s G7 I would recommend the government to have more meaningful consultations with stakeholders, including civil society. This was largely absent from Canada’s presidency and was one of the reasons the stated priorities didn’t seem to reflect what we are seeing in our work.
I also would encourage the French Government to build on past G7 successes. The G7 has launched and fostered some of the most impactful initiatives in history, including the Global Fund to Fight HIV/AIDS, TB and Malaria. The Global Fund has saved millions of lives but also contributed to the global economy. Each dollar invested has helped free up 2.9 billion hospital days, avert 5.5 billion outpatient visits, and generate roughly US$103 billion in cost savings and US$400 billion in productivity gains.
2. What would be the most urgent priorities on which the G7 countries should agree to reduce the unequal access to health globally?
The G7 should focus on strengthening health systems in low- and middle-income countries by investing in primary health care and the health workforce, particularly community health workers, who are the backbone of service delivery in many settings. Stronger health systems are essential not only for achieving Universal Health Coverage but also for building resilience against future pandemics and crises.
Equitable access must be a central pillar of the G7’s approach. This means ensuring that life-saving tools, from vaccines and treatments to diagnostics and nutrition services, reach those most in need. G7 countries should champion policies that promote affordability, support local and regional manufacturing, and guarantee fair distribution of medical countermeasures during health emergencies.
At the same time, the G7 must step up investment in research and development (R&D) that responds to the priorities of low- and middle-income countries. This includes supporting innovation for neglected diseases, diagnostic capacity, and climate-resilient health technologies, while advancing open science, technology transfer, and the responsible use of emerging technologies such as artificial intelligence.
By pairing equitable access with inclusive R&D investment, the G7 can help close global health gaps, accelerate progress toward Universal Health Coverage, and build sustainable, people-centered health systems that protect everyone, everywhere.
3. Considering the trend of decreasing fundings for ODA, what decisions should G7 countries take to make ODA more responsive to global health challenges?
First, G7 countries should buck the trend and stop decreasing ODA which is still a critical tool in places where Governments cannot afford or unable to provide critical services to their people. This includes in humanitarian settings where lifesaving needs have skyrocketed at the same time as donor contributions are drying up.
G7 countries should also continue to prioritize addressing the unsustainable levels of debt that many low- and middle-income countries are grappling with. The sky-high resources needed to service this debt means fewer domestic resources to spend on the health and well-being of their populations.
Finally, the G7 should look at ways they can make their own ODA investments more responsive to the actual needs of implementing countries. This can occur by building more capacities regionally, such as manufacturing of vaccines, drugs and other medicinal supplies. It also means ensuring more meaningful inclusion of implementing countries into the governance of global health institutions as well as development banks to ensure they are responsive to domestic needs.
;
