Gee ! 9 0f 20 get Canucks bucks in aid

[Guest Peeves]

I cannot think of many less justifiable expenditure of our tax dollars. A simple WHY! When China with the biggest standing army in the world gets aid from Canada there's something smelly in the state of Denmark.

:angry: GIVE ME A BREAK!

Stop giving money to G20 countries

By BRIAN LILLEY

Posted 1 day ago

When I mention China, do you think of a country needing foreign aid, or an emerging superpower?

I tend to think an emerging, and dangerous, superpower, but I could be wrong.

After all, Canada is still giving foreign aid to China.

In fact, Canada is giving aid to many of the most economically powerful countries on the planet, the ones making up the G20.

The G20 consists of 19 member countries, including Canada, plus a representative of the European Union.

These are the biggest, most powerful economies in the world, the twenty largest. Some of them are old powers, some of them -- like Brazil or India -- are emerging powers, but all of them are powerful countries, regional leaders.

According to the Canadian International Development Agency, nine of the 20 members received aid last year.

Take away Canada and the European Union and we are giving Canadian tax dollars to half of the countries considered the biggest and most powerful in the world.

In total, we gave these countries more than $140 million.

Some amounts are small by foreign-aid standards, such as $1 million for Turkey. Others are large.

Did you know that we provided $36 million in foreign aid to Indonesia last year?

This is a country with a growing economy, a capital city filled with modern, high-rise buildings and every luxury we would expect in a major western city, including a presidential palace that makes 24 Sussex Drive look like public housing.

It's true that there is poverty in Indonesia, but this is also a country that is spending $58 million to have Boeing build a custom presidential jet.

Brazil received much less than Indonesia, just shy of $9.5 million.

Canadian taxpayers are footing the bill for training the Brazilian civil service, to help displaced people, and to pay for immunization campaigns.

Meanwhile, Brazil has become a direct competitor to Canada with its government fighting ours over subsidies of jets. They compete for jobs with Canada, they compete to sell their goods over ours.

Yet, we subsidize them.

Worse yet is that we are still giving aid to China.

At the G20 meetings, China is expected to be the saviour of the European Union. American, French, German and British leaders are hoping that China will backstop the Greek bailout, continue to buy European debt and stop everything from crashing down.

So why oh why are we sending nearly $36 million to China?

According to CIDA, we are promoting human rights and environmental standards in China.

I'm sure that most Canadians support giving foreign aid to help those in most need around the world, but we cannot feed every child, right every wrong.

The Harper government, following on moves started by the Martin government, has tried to focus our foreign aid to make it more effective.

How giving aid to Russia, Argentina, India or Mexico -- countries that are also part of the G20 -- achieves that goal is a mystery to me.

We keep hearing that the feds are looking for ways to trim spending and get control of the deficit.

Here's a free tip -- stop sending foreign aid to any member of the G20. They don't need it.

-- Lilley is the host of Byline on Sun News Network

http://www.thebarrieexaminer.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=3357550

[Tilter]

Gotta agree with that post.

By the way, how much foreign aid does the Republic Of China give us?

[Guest Peeves]

Gotta agree with that post.

By the way, how much foreign aid does the Republic Of China give us?

I think they send us spies and flu virus.

[Shwa]

I cannot think of many less justifiable expenditure of our tax dollars. A simple WHY! When China with the biggest standing army in the world gets aid from Canada there's something smelly in the state of Denmark.

Geez, it almost sounds like we are handing them a bag of money. Are we handing them a bag of money Peeves? Is that how the Canadian International Development Agency works? They go into these countries and just hand them big bags of money? Is that how you perceive it?

[Guest Peeves]

Geez, it almost sounds like we are handing them a bag of money. Are we handing them a bag of money Peeves? Is that how the Canadian International Development Agency works? They go into these countries and just hand them big bags of money? Is that how you perceive it?

I perceive it as a tax paying Canuck that says G 20 members should be getting nothing but trade from Canada,and nothing that is in anyway a abuse of the expenditure of our tax dollars.

I think that was patently clear.

Edited November 6, 2011 by Peeves

[Shwa]

I perceive it as a tax paying Canuck that says G 20 members should be getting nothing but trade from Canada,and nothing that is in anyway a abuse of the expenditure of our tax dollars.

I think that was patently clear.

What is "patently clear" is that you have no clue as to how foreign aid works or for what purposes and I bet you don't even know what CIDA is all about, never have bothered to see what programs are being invested in nor have a single idea about why CIDA exists in the first place.

It is "patently clear" that you cannot raise discourse above the level of a colourful little parrot.

Peeves wanna a cracker?

[Michael Hardner]

But is Peeves' impressions of the situation far different from the average Canadian's ? Is his level of knowledge more or less ? Even having read a single editorial with a few facts, I'd say his knowledge is likely already better than average.

If the masses don't know something - who's fault is that ? Communication is a two-way street so I'd say it's both the government and the masses at fault.

[Bonam]

What is "patently clear" is that you have no clue as to how foreign aid works or for what purposes and I bet you don't even know what CIDA is all about, never have bothered to see what programs are being invested in nor have a single idea about why CIDA exists in the first place.

Why should he, or anyone else, care? Canada has plenty of projects worth investing in right here at home. We should not be spending the money we do on foreign aid when our own economy is struggling. And most especially we should not be spending money on foreign aid in nations that are well on their way and have large economies that can fund their own aid to their poorer areas.

The West is losing competitiveness fast enough without directly shoveling money out the door in any case. Why hasten the process?

[Michael Hardner]

Why should he, or anyone else, care? Canada has plenty of projects worth investing in right here at home. We should not be spending the money we do on foreign aid when our own economy is struggling. And most especially we should not be spending money on foreign aid in nations that are well on their way and have large economies that can fund their own aid to their poorer areas.

The West is losing competitiveness fast enough without directly shoveling money out the door in any case. Why hasten the process?

There are strategic reasons behind these projects... but the public is in the dark as to the ourselves, success criteria and results.

[Guest Peeves]

What is "patently clear" is that you have no clue as to how foreign aid works or for what purposes and I bet you don't even know what CIDA is all about, never have bothered to see what programs are being invested in nor have a single idea about why CIDA exists in the first place.

It is "patently clear" that you cannot raise discourse above the level of a colourful little parrot.

Peeves wanna a cracker?

Seems I have one, following me. So far all you have chosen to do is take ad hominem disparaging shots at me.

I suppose that's will suffice to one unprepared to defend ANY position but willing and able to call someone they know nothing about, denigrating labels. Parrot indeed. So then are you a pheasant, a pheasant plucker perchance?

If all you can add to the subject is insults join the wankers elsewhere.

China's standing army, 1,700,000 (world's largest) plus 3,520 combat aircraft. World's second largest.

ANYONE:?

Justify in 30 words or less, our contribution to China's benefit to the tune of $ 36 million.

Take away Canada and the European Union and we are giving Canadian tax dollars to half of the countries considered the biggest and most powerful in the world.

In total, we gave these countries more than $140 million.

Respond to: Why are we sending nearly $36 million to China?

And: Respond to

We provided $36 million in foreign aid to Indonesia last year?

This is a country with a growing economy, a capital city filled with modern, high-rise buildings and every luxury we would expect in a major western city, including a presidential palace that makes 24 Sussex Drive look like public housing. This is also a country that is spending $58 million to have Boeing build a custom presidential jet.

And human rights violations.

And:Respond to

Canadian taxpayers are footing the bill for training the Brazilian civil service, to help displaced people, and to pay for immunization campaigns.

Meanwhile, Brazil has become a direct competitor to Canada with its government fighting ours over subsidies of jets. They compete for jobs with Canada, they compete to sell their goods over ours.

Canadians are over taxed yet, :angry:

Yet, we subsidize them.

We have to be very selective in aid $ to other countries. We certainly should not be 'giving' any benefits to countries in the G20.

Brazil requests that Canada stop subsidising its aircraft ...

www.thefreelibrary.com › ... › December 29, 1999

Free Online Library: Brazil requests that Canada stop subsidising its aircraft production industry. by "Airline Industry Information"; ...

Canada presses China to stop subsidizing exports - CTV News

www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/.../finance-ministers-meeting-101009/30 Sep 2010

Canada joined a growing chorus of industrialized nations calling on China to stop keeping its currency artificially weak ...

[Guest Peeves]

There are strategic reasons behind these projects... but the public is in the dark as to the ourselves, success criteria and results.

B/S in spades. Strategic ?

Only strategy this type of aid - subsidy creates is good will for some future favor.* That's too high a price to pay. To me it's the political equivalence of baksheesh. Learn from the USA, the more you give the morethey want and expect as entitlement, and, eventually, the more they hate you for being weak.

*Didn't work for Harper at the UN.

"as to ourselves, success criteria and results"

? Whaaa?

I can accept aid to encourage trade, or to provide funds perhaps that will be used to buy Canadian goods.

CIDA should specifically concentrate funding to developing countries.

Their mandate should preclude aid to countries that can muster an army and air force to the tune of billions.

Let's get smarter people.

[Shwa]

Seems I have one, following me. So far all you have chosen to do is take ad hominem disparaging shots at me.

Aw, there, there. All I have said - which you amply prove below - is that you have no clue as to what our foreign aid is all about, why CIDA does what CIDA does and can only elaborate on the points already given in a "news" story. More parrot asking for more crackers.

I suppose that's will suffice to one unprepared to defend ANY position but willing and able to call someone they know nothing about, denigrating labels. Parrot indeed. So then are you a pheasant, a pheasant plucker perchance?

Your clueness is all in the OP. Grumpy old parrot syndrome.

If all you can add to the subject is insults join the wankers elsewhere.

Pfft. Hardly. It's not my fault you don't know how to use the Internet yet.

China's standing army, blah, blah, blah. We certainly should not be 'giving' any benefits to countries in the G20.

More parrot discourse proving you have no clue as to how Canadian foreign aid investments work, why CIDA does what CIDA does. Why don't you use the Internet to find out instead of swinging back and forth on your little perch reciting the same request for a cracker over and over?

[Shwa]

Let's get smarter people.

[Shwa]

There are strategic reasons behind these projects... but the public is in the dark as to the ourselves, success criteria and results.

Come on now. If you choose to keep the lights off, don't complain about being in the dark. There is plenty of information about CIDA projects, success criteria and results and the more interested you become in those sectors, the more you will understand.

[Michael Hardner]

You have stated 'the information is available' in the past though even though you have to write an FOI request to get it.

The system always needs to be built for expected use.

[Shwa]

You have stated 'the information is available' in the past though even though you have to write an FOI request to get it.

A truly interested person will write an FOI or, at least, visit the website and start looking at reports. At the very least...

The system always needs to be built for expected use.

As opposed to what?

[Michael Hardner]

A truly interested person will write an FOI or, at least, visit the website and start looking at reports. At the very least...

As opposed to what?

As opposed to what you're describing.

It's hard enough for the public to make sense of complicated issues. I say let's put the information in an easy to find/read format rather than rely on interested parties to interpret the truth for us. The public isn't going to submit FOI requests to find out details of what is happening.

[Shwa]

It's hard enough for the public to make sense of complicated issues. I say let's put the information in an easy to find/read format rather than rely on interested parties to interpret the truth for us. The public isn't going to submit FOI requests to find out details of what is happening.

OK, so let's say we do that. What "parties" are going to format the information for us to be easy to read? Do you imagine some special department created to make sure this happens or would you prefer they contract it out to Nelvana so the information can be explained in cartoon format?

[Guest Peeves]

Aw, there, there. All I have said - which you amply prove below - is that you have no clue as to what our foreign aid is all about, why CIDA does what CIDA does and can only elaborate on the points already given in a "news" story. More parrot asking for more crackers.

Your clueness is all in the OP. Grumpy old parrot syndrome.

Pfft. Hardly. It's not my fault you don't know how to use the Internet yet.

More parrot discourse proving you have no clue as to how Canadian foreign aid investments work, why CIDA does what CIDA does. Why don't you use the Internet to find out instead of swinging back and forth on your little perch reciting the same request for a cracker over and over?

TROLL ALERT!

Anyone that does nothing but attempt to provoke, call names, insult and give no meaningful response to a subject is simply a Troll.

Edited November 7, 2011 by Peeves

[Michael Hardner]

OK, so let's say we do that. What "parties" are going to format the information for us to be easy to read?

That's a usability problem, which would be a requirement of the overall project.

Do you imagine some special department created to make sure this happens or would you prefer they contract it out to Nelvana so the information can be explained in cartoon format?

They could farm it out to many firms who specialize in this. The fact that the government is ten years behind on usability makes me curious about your sarcastic tone.

[Shwa]

TROLL ALERT!

Anyone that does nothing but attempt to provoke, call names, insult and give no meaningful response to a subject is simply a Troll.

Yet despite your fuscia warning, I speak the truth.

[Shwa]

That's a usability problem, which would be a requirement of the overall project.

I don't have a problem using the government's websites. I know there was an accessibility issue that delayed some of the common look and feel initiatives, but other than that, who's complaining?

They could farm it out to many firms who specialize in this. The fact that the government is ten years behind on usability makes me curious about your sarcastic tone.

Well is stands to reason that if they are ten years behind on the web usuability to the public, how far behind do you think they might be on the usuability systems to deliver programs and services? Priorities now. Unless you have a spare billion or so laying around to upgrade the government all at once. (no seriously, I bet most government workstations are Windows XP - ten years old).

But the problem with contracting out stuff like this is that you have inexpert formatting of expert information. Hence, the questions about cartoons.

But the real problem is the complaints about usability and format, but nothing really specific about what you are looking for. Perhaps you could be less vague?

[dre]

That's a usability problem, which would be a requirement of the overall project.

They could farm it out to many firms who specialize in this. The fact that the government is ten years behind on usability makes me curious about your sarcastic tone.

I think that if they publish the raw data then non profit analysis services will emerge on their own. Put the documents online, and index them, so that they can be easily searched. This is sortof like the wikileaks model, where you just flush out all the data, and put it online for everyone to look at.

They could use the hardware the now defunkt gun registry ran on.

Documents that are not classified, and would be turned over for a FOI request can just be put online.

Edited November 7, 2011 by dre

[Michael Hardner]

I don't have a problem using the government's websites. I know there was an accessibility issue that delayed some of the common look and feel initiatives, but other than that, who's complaining?

Nobody's complaining but it would be valuable for us to have tools to evaluate governments at our fingertips.

But the problem with contracting out stuff like this is that you have inexpert formatting of expert information. Hence, the questions about cartoons.

Really, the problem is you have to deal with government.

[Michael Hardner]

I think that if they publish the raw data then non profit analysis services will emerge on their own. Put the documents online, and index them, so that they can be easily searched. This is sortof like the wikileaks model, where you just flush out all the data, and put it online for everyone to look at.

They could use the hardware the now defunkt gun registry ran on.

Documents that are not classified, and would be turned over for a FOI request can just be put online.

This makes sense to me, actually.