hand out of foreign aid

[John Charlton]

Canada has no F-18 replacement, no ships to guard our boarders, I believe (1) ice breaker left, a total infastructure nightmare across this country,and yet we send millions of dollars to countries in need, and increase that dollar figure year upon year.

And the kicker is that we borrow the money from such countrys as China, Saudi Arabia, Japan... to give it away and let the Canadian tax payer pay the intrest. I am all for helping but I do believe this has to be brought under control. I want Canada to profit from my tax dollars not just give it away. If I am wrong I can take the feedback.

[Michael Hardner]

Edited: Corrected typo in title

[Argus]

Canada has no F-18 replacement, no ships to guard our boarders, I believe (1) ice breaker left, a total infastructure nightmare across this country,and yet we send millions of dollars to countries in need, and increase that dollar figure year upon year.

And the kicker is that we borrow the money from such countrys as China, Saudi Arabia, Japan... to give it away and let the Canadian tax payer pay the intrest. I am all for helping but I do believe this has to be brought under control. I want Canada to profit from my tax dollars not just give it away. If I am wrong I can take the feedback.

It's actually billions we hand out. We, and the rest of the West, have been pouring hundreds of billions in aid into the third world for decades. There's not a lot of evidence it is doing any good on a macro scale. Africa is worse off than it was fifty years ago. South America is better off because it has better governance, but that trend is reversing itself with the rise of left wing blowhard populists. The middle east remains a sewer except where there's oil money. And much of Asia is in the grip of corrupt and incompetent governments.

As to the Canadian military. It doesn't have those things because the Harper Conservatives have used the military as their piggy bank in the same way Chretien and Trudeau did, slashing its budget repeatedly in order to balance the budget in hopes that will get him re-elected.

[waldo]

Edited: Corrected typo in title

hand out of foreign aid...... vs. ....... hand out or foreign aid?

I believe the second "OR" construct aligns more with the apparent dichotomy the OP is attempting to present. Attempting to present without adding any actual monetary amounts for reference. What is this threads concern over... what amount(s) are of concern to the OP? Inquiring minds and all that........

[Keepitsimple]

It's all relative - we have more, many countries have far less. What used to bug me most was giving foreign aid money with little or no strings attached. In spite of criticism from the usual suspects, our current government has made serious attempts to tie aid to specific areas of need with some form of accountability. Fighting through the web of corruption that infests many aid-receiving countries is frustrating - but as long as we do our best to ensure the money makes a difference - I'm OK with it.

FYI.....less than two cents of every tax dollar goes to Foreign Aid - $4.9 billion from revenues of $245 billion in 2011/12.

Link: http://www.fin.gc.ca/tax-impot/2012/2012-eng.pdf

Edited August 7, 2014 by Keepitsimple

[waldo]

In spite of criticism from the usual suspects, our current government has made serious attempts to tie aid to specific areas of need with some form of accountability.

Simple... is that your codespeak for Harper Conservatives cutting the budgets for aid agencies doing “advocacy,”... you know, silencing all those so-called left-leaning, bleading-heart causes?

[waldo]

Simple... would that be specific areas tied to Canada's foreign mining interests... like that? Is that the real measure of the type of Harper Conservative foreign aid you yourself advocate for?

[Shady]

What exactly is the infrastructure nightmare? It's that handled by cities and provinces anyways?

[waldo]

Shady... you in the right thread?

[Bonam]

FYI.....less than two cents of every tax dollar goes to Foreign Aid - $4.9 billion from revenues of $245 billion in 2011/12.

2% of federal revenues is a HUGE chunk. It is way too much to simply be giving away. In any case, foreign countries benefit far more from trade than from aid.

Personally, I believe our government should not be giving away any money in foreign aid. Individual Canadians are generous and give to charities, and Canadian corporations do business abroad and transfer huge amounts of wealth to developing nations that way, we don't need to also be giving tax money away.

[Big Guy]

2% of federal revenues is a HUGE chunk. It is way too much to simply be giving away. In any case, foreign countries benefit far more from trade than from aid.

Personally, I believe our government should not be giving away any money in foreign aid. Individual Canadians are generous and give to charities, and Canadian corporations do business abroad and transfer huge amounts of wealth to developing nations that way, we don't need to also be giving tax money away.

I fully agree. I trust Canadians to make the decision of what organizations we support and which we do not. I do not trust our governments to distribute our tax money to some cause de jour and depending on their particular political philosophy.

[overthere]

It's ridiculous to give away money to people that don't even speak English when there are dozens of ad agencies in Montreal that are starving for government cash.

This would ever have happened when Chretien was in office.

[-1=e^ipi]

It's all relative - we have more, many countries have far less.

Yeah, this has been a big problem in the past. It is better to target aid to things like schools or infrastructure, rather than just hand money away.

I'll point to the Chinese proverb of 'give a man to fish, and he eats for a day, teach a man to fish and he eats for a life time', the Malthusian catastrophe, and large differences in demographic trends between developed and developing countries as reasons to be concerned about blindly giving away aid without fully thinking through the consequences.

Canada needs to abandon the target of 0.7% of GDP. It is unrealistic and too expensive.

Personally, I believe our government should not be giving away any money in foreign aid. Individual Canadians are generous and give to charities, and Canadian corporations do business abroad and transfer huge amounts of wealth to developing nations that way, we don't need to also be giving tax money away.

While I sort of agree with the general message (that most aid should be done by individuals to private charities), I think the position of zero aid is too extreme. For one, there are occasional unexpected natural disasters or wars, where the return on aid can be very high and it might be of geopolitical value to help the country (for example, if North Korea invades South Korea, do you really want to send them zero aid). Another reason to have some government aid is purely for 'image' value on how other countries perceive Canada.

[-1=e^ipi]

On a side note, Canada needs to rethink how we perceive our military, because our military is basically another form of charity to other countries.

[Bonam]

While I sort of agree with the general message (that most aid should be done by individuals to private charities), I think the position of zero aid is too extreme. For one, there are occasional unexpected natural disasters or wars, where the return on aid can be very high and it might be of geopolitical value to help the country (for example, if North Korea invades South Korea, do you really want to send them zero aid). Another reason to have some government aid is purely for 'image' value on how other countries perceive Canada.

I'm fine with some aid in the case of unexpected natural disasters, humanitarian crises arising from wars, etc. Just not as a general continuous transfer in times of "normal" conditions. In these cases it is important to mobilize significant aid quickly and governments have the resources to do this in an effective way.

[dre]

On a side note, Canada needs to rethink how we perceive our military, because our military is basically another form of charity to other countries.

Thats a good point. Participation in things like the UN, and NATO basically ammount to foreign aid for Canada. And not just money either but the lives of thousands of Canadians. International trade action is also foreign aid if it results in lost money for Canadians, for example santions against Russia aimed to help the Ukraine.

[-1=e^ipi]

I'm fine with some aid in the case of unexpected natural disasters, humanitarian crises arising from wars, etc. Just not as a general continuous transfer in times of "normal" conditions. In these cases it is important to mobilize significant aid quickly and governments have the resources to do this in an effective way.

Yes, furthermore, all these continuous transfers reduce our ability to help in cases of truely unique circumstances. The same can be said of our military (we need to rethink it completely).

[Moonlight Graham]

Thats a good point. Participation in things like the UN, and NATO basically ammount to foreign aid for Canada. And not just money either but the lives of thousands of Canadians. International trade action is also foreign aid if it results in lost money for Canadians, for example santions against Russia aimed to help the Ukraine.

Sanctions against Russia isn't simply to help the Ukraine, it's more to punish Russia for being dangerous jerks and breaking international law. Russia invading and occupying (and then annexing via illegal referendum) other countries isn't good for international security or Canada. Not many examples of Canada using its military for mainly altruistic reasons. Blowing up jihadist extremists or peacekeeping missions in the developing world seek to maintain international security, which is good for Canada's interests.

[Moonlight Graham]

2% of federal revenues is a HUGE chunk. It is way too much to simply be giving away. In any case, foreign countries benefit far more from trade than from aid.

It's not that much when you figure that much of the wealth of the Western world was built with great help from exploiting what are now developing counties. The British Empire, which used to include Canada, is a prime example. Don't worry. we aren't giving too much away when you figure that aid is used as a foreign policy tool as much as it's used to "help" people.

Also, some of the best foreign aid we could give is to balance international terms of trade with poorer countries to give all countries at least a fighting chance in international markets instead of keeping their heads under water. Developed countries and businesses perpetually rip off poorer countries on things like imports/export tariffs, resources access, IP laws etc. because they have the power to be greedy exploitative assholes. Looking at how something like the WTO works and it's a joke. That said, foreign aid still is helpful because we can help poorer communities learn how to implement ie: modern irrigation techniques or sanitation systems, or teach doctors/nurses modern medicinal practices.

Personally, I believe our government should not be giving away any money in foreign aid. Individual Canadians are generous and give to charities, and Canadian corporations do business abroad and transfer huge amounts of wealth to developing nations that way, we don't need to also be giving tax money away.

Well, I'd much prefer civil society non-profit/charity organizations to get the money directly to do foreign aid over government whenever possible and practical. The majority of charities get a huge portion if not the majority of their funding from the Canadian government. But this funding can come with political strings attached, and maybe more importantly it puts self-imposed pressure on charities to not criticize the government for fear of losing funding.

There is role for the government, civil society, and businesses to all help in "foreign aid" because each sector has their unique strengths. The government ie: has international clout, and relationships with other countries/governments charities just don't have. As you stated, govs also have resources charities don't when responding to crisis.

[eyeball]

On a side note, Canada needs to rethink how we perceive our military, because our military is basically another form of charity ito other countries.

No kidding, I think our main contribution these days is to put some semblance of a moral shine on our allies more egregious misadventures.

Probably don't get the bang for the buck that used to get.

[-1=e^ipi]

Sanctions against Russia isn't simply to help the Ukraine, it's more to punish Russia for being dangerous jerks and breaking international law.

What 'international law' did Russia break?

Russia invading and occupying (and then annexing via illegal referendum) other countries isn't good for international security or Canada.

No, first there was a referendum, then Russia moved in. You can call it 'illegal' if you want, but the by that logic the USA is 'illegal' since they started an 'illegal' war against the British to can independence. What is more dangerous for international security is having people not respect the right of the self determination of various groups of peoples. Lack of respect of this is what prevents various independence movements from having peaceful democratic means of accomplishing their goals, and results in these groups resorting to violence like in Eastern Ukraine.

It's not that much when you figure that much of the wealth of the Western world was built with great help from exploiting what are now developing counties.

Complete BS and nonsense guilt propaganda.

No kidding, I think our main contribution these days is to put some semblance of a moral shine on our allies more egregious misadventures.

Except we don't thanks to Harper, Baird and their idiot cold-war mentality towards foreign policy (specifically Ukraine & Russia). Not that any of the other 3 parties would be better.

[On Guard for Thee]

What 'international law' did Russia break?

It was called the Budapest Memorandum they signed in 1994, for starters.

[eyeball]

Except we don't thanks to Harper, Baird and their idiot cold-war mentality towards foreign policy (specifically Ukraine & Russia). Not that any of the other 3 parties would be better.

But but but the other guys?

[overthere]

On a side note, Canada needs to rethink how we perceive our military, because our military is basically another form of charity to other countries.

You have that completely backwards.

The PRIMARY ROLE of any government is clearly security of its citizens. The military is the main delivery instrument for that essential mandate. Our military has two roles, and they are intimately entwined: defence of the country, and fulfillment of our treaty obligations

If you consider the actual cost of defending our vast territory on our own, our small investment is miniscule. Our military is dramatically underfunded for that role. Air force, navy and army have no chance at all in defending the country on their own, we do not have the equipment or personnel because we choose not to spend what is required.

Instead, we rely and have relied on our alliances to deter aggressors. One hundred years ago UK was our main ally, for the last 70+ years is has been the US. We have long made the choice to live under the protective might of the US umbrella. It is not just a convenience of geography, it is what we have chosen.

So in fact, our military and our country is a a net recipient of charity, not a net provider. Sure, we contribute what we think is a lot to international ventures, under the auspices of NATO, the UN or both. But, in balance, it is a pittance to what we gain by being a member of those alliances.

Canadians hate to see the truth in this regard, our fragile national ego is battered, but it is still the truth. And... it remains the right choice overall.

[-1=e^ipi]

The PRIMARY ROLE of any government is clearly security of its citizens.

Unless the country faces no military threats from nearby countries. Who is going to invade Canada? No one.

Our military has two roles, and they are intimately entwined: defence of the country, and fulfillment of our treaty obligations

Defence from what? Exactly. It's just charity towards other countries.

If you consider the actual cost of defending our vast territory on our own, our small investment is miniscule. Our military is dramatically underfunded for that role. So in fact, our military and our country is a a net recipient of charity, not a net provider.

What a bunch of nonsense: "Canada is really big, therefore we are a net recipient of military 'charity'". No one is going to invade Canada and take over its frozen tundra. Canada faces no existential threats; the cold war is over. Size doesn't matter if there are no threats.