chinese-flag

Wait, what?

From the Vancouver Sun,

Twelve of the world’s poorest countries – including Afghanistan, Pakistan and seven nations in Africa – are going to be hit as the Conservative government cuts its foreign aid budget by $377 mil-lion in the next three years.

Many of the affected countries rely on international assistance to provide food and other ser-vices to millions of citizens.

A source within the Canadian International Development Agency said Benin, Niger, Cambodia, China, Nepal, Rwanda, Zambia and Zimbabwe are expected to lose virtually all Canadian aid.

We were giving aid dollars to China?

According to the World Bank, Canada’s GDP in 2010 was $1.58T. China’s comparatively was $5.93T. China’s GDP is increasing at a rate of 10.4% a year.

New rule: if your country has a space program, Canada will not send you aid dollars.

Comments

comments

  • david miekle

    China also has something Canada doesn’t have:  Stealth fighters. They developed the Chengdu J-20.

  • Anonymous

     You mean the one that has a resemblance to the F22/F35?

  • joe

    Yeah well, that was Maurice’s rent check, folks. He lives in China and is the founder of CIDA.

  • yodalex

    Should we just call it tribute now?

  • Anonymous
  • Anonymous

    cut off all aid to every country, no exceptions. help only with direct food aid to those that support canadian values, if there is such a thing, and i don`t mean multicultural values.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_NHQAE2ZEBY7GEEPPX2I2URJS6M rastass

    In 2006 when Conservatives assumed power from the Liberals I recall the media fully ignoring the  peculiar waste of Chretien/Strong earmarking yearly $65 Million foreign aid to China from Canada.

    Finally getting rid of this kind of potential corruption/waste is another important reason to have a clear majority government enabled to reassess taxpayer funded expenditures.

  • Anonymous

     It’s shameful that a country as rich as Canada is cutting aid to some of the most desperate nations on the planet.

    Aid to China? Without knowing specifics of those aid programs, it would seem that it’s inappropriate.  How much was being spent, and on what?

    Let’s not stop here, let’s tackle some of the pricier foreign-aid giveaways we still engage in:
    – subsidies and tax breaks to oil-producers, which make it possible for these companies to produce and sell oil-sands oil (with its higher production cost) to the US – at a discounted price. In effect this is foreign aid to the US to the tune of a few $Billion a year.
    – our commitment to purchase an over-priced and under-performing fighter (even to the point of misleading the Canadian public) , which amounts to a subsidy to a US arms manufacturer.

    New rule: if your country has a space program, Canada will not send you aid dollars.

    If “space program” includes NASA, I could get behind this.

  • LAS

    1) You have no right to take money from others via tax and then throw it at other countries.

    2) There are no oil subsidies.

    3) The stupidity of the F35 does not justify the stupidity of foreign aid.

  • Anonymous

    1) Our elected government has that right. Some of us think it’s a good idea to not let people starve, or die of preventable disease. Noblesse oblige. We are our brother’s keeper. and so on. They can’t make our sneakers or break up our old ships if they’re dead.
    2) Yeah, subsidies. There are also discounted royalties and tax breaks specific to the energy sector. Oil is currently the #1 in-demand product in the world, we are right next door to the world’s #1 customer for oil, yet we have to ‘encourage’ industry to dig it up and sell it? And we sell it to the US at a discount? That’s foreign aid right there.
    3) I’m saying the F-35 purchase is itself foreign aid. I agree with you here, let’s cut that.

  • guest

     Hmmmm. Samsung/bird blenders. How much subsidizing going on there? FIT subsidies, farm subsidies to egg, milk, pork, chicken producers? Yeah let’s get rid of subsidies, like say to capital intensive, high labour cost, inefficient public transit while we’re at it, auto manufacturing, aircraft manufacturing. Sugar tariffs. High voltage DC power lines to export power to the NW US.

  • joe

     Let’s buy Chinese made 5th gen J-20 aircraft instead, OK? Probably get ‘em cheaper than the US version, as they are most likely “F-35″ knock-offs.

  • Anonymous

     Sure, let’s review the justification for each and every subsidy. Really. What does each of them do for Canada?

    I’m dying to hear why we need to subsidize companies for digging up and selling the world’s most demanded product to the world’s biggest market for it. And making big profit from it.

  • Anonymous

     Right now, you’re just being silly. 30 years from now, all fighter planes will be made in China. And available on ebay.

  • Switchyard O’Taylor

    404 Error Kenn2.

    Also, taking less from someone is not the same as giving someone something.  It’s pretty perverse that you seem to believe that the value created by oil companies for their shareholders is somehow yours by default.

  • Switchyard O’Taylor

    404 Error Kenn2.

    Also, taking less from someone is not the same as giving someone something.  It’s pretty perverse that you seem to believe that the value created by oil companies for their shareholders is somehow yours by default.

  • Anonymous

     The link is to a PDF;  it should open into a PDF viewer like Acrobat or Foxit, depending what you’ve installed. It still works for me.

    Here’s another. And another

    Also, taking less from someone is not the same as giving someone something.

    I hope you’re not an accountant.

     It’s pretty perverse that you seem to believe that the value created by
    oil companies for their shareholders is somehow yours by default.

    The cost of oil is roughly speaking the sum of:
    1)  the costs to find, extract, process and transport it
    2)  royalties to Canada and Alberta

    The difference between the selling price and the costs above is, of course, the oil companies’ profit. And the oil companies have been profiting handsomely.

    Given that oilsands oil is more expensive to produce, AND the oil is selling below world price to the US, AND the oil companies are profiting… who is getting “the shaft”? Canada and Alberta taxpayers, in the form of subsidies, reduced royalties and tax breaks.

    Who benefits? The shareholders. And, of course the US. In effect we’re giving foreign aid to the US. It’s not the first time; who remembers the $4B judgement against the US in the softwood lumber dispute, that was never paid? See also F-35.

    I shouldn’t be surprised, but it’s still amazing that on the subject of oil subsidies you folks are still arguing that 2=2 doesn’t equal 4.

    Even in the US there’s movement towards ending subsidies to big oil. God forbid that Canada should lead on anything…

  • joe

    I haven’t got a problem with the concept of profit, you apparently seem to, well at least US ones. US owned auto manufacturers are subsidized continuously. Last time to the tune of $12 billion. You have a problem with that, too? Their products burn a lot of fuel produced by your contention that that fuel is “subsidized”. It isn’t going to change anytime soon despite your railing about it, anymore than heavily subsidized “green” technology will replace the BTU equivalent power production of fossil fuels anywhere in North America.

    I own stock in oil and gas companies, banks, pipelines, REITS, service companies, steel makers. I get to participate in the profits of these business ventures and a lot of them are involved with oil and gas exploration and development and not just in North America. Every one of these companies are subsidized in one way or another through the Income Tax Act. They form the backbone of my future retirement. So do a lot of public sector pensions. If these companies were not profitable, they would go out of business rather quickly, don’t you think?

    So would your pension. As for the oil stop flowing under your scenario – nope, but your pump price would be a lot higher than it is now, sport. Your food costs would be higher too. Don’t worry, the oil sands are under threat from frakked oil in the US, which will put price pressure on oil sands development, to your obvious glee. Those are Canadian jobs at risk. You like Canadians don’t you? You like to see them working, not collecting EI, n’est pas? How does EI get paid? Money Trees?

    Do us all a favour: dream up a new power source cheaper than fossil fuel with the same or better BTU equivalent. You’ll get subsidized to do so and you’ll get rich (OMG!) from the profits. Wind and solar are only good for irregular power production for limited populations, not industrial sized ones that we live in today.

  • joe

    I haven’t got a problem with the concept of profit, you apparently seem to, well at least US ones. US owned auto manufacturers are subsidized continuously. Last time to the tune of $12 billion. You have a problem with that, too? Their products burn a lot of fuel produced by your contention that that fuel is “subsidized”. It isn’t going to change anytime soon despite your railing about it, anymore than heavily subsidized “green” technology will replace the BTU equivalent power production of fossil fuels anywhere in North America.

    I own stock in oil and gas companies, banks, pipelines, REITS, service companies, steel makers. I get to participate in the profits of these business ventures and a lot of them are involved with oil and gas exploration and development and not just in North America. Every one of these companies are subsidized in one way or another through the Income Tax Act. They form the backbone of my future retirement. So do a lot of public sector pensions. If these companies were not profitable, they would go out of business rather quickly, don’t you think?

    So would your pension. As for the oil stop flowing under your scenario – nope, but your pump price would be a lot higher than it is now, sport. Your food costs would be higher too. Don’t worry, the oil sands are under threat from frakked oil in the US, which will put price pressure on oil sands development, to your obvious glee. Those are Canadian jobs at risk. You like Canadians don’t you? You like to see them working, not collecting EI, n’est pas? How does EI get paid? Money Trees?

    Do us all a favour: dream up a new power source cheaper than fossil fuel with the same or better BTU equivalent. You’ll get subsidized to do so and you’ll get rich (OMG!) from the profits. Wind and solar are only good for irregular power production for limited populations, not industrial sized ones that we live in today.

  • Anonymous

     You’ve completely missed my point. Perhaps it’s my fault, so let me take another stab at it:

    I have no issue with companies making profit from engaging in business activities.

    I do have issues with our government giving up the proper royalties and tax revenue to tarsands activities. The industry is established, the demand is strong, the market is right next door… this is not an industry that needs coddling. Removal of subsidies will not cause production to end.

    You do know that oil isn’t forever? Our great-grandkids will be around to witness the end of the oilsands, at projected development rates. Geuess who also gets to pay for the cleanup, after this party is over?

    Every one of these companies are subsidized in one way or another through the Income Tax Act.

    This is good?  What happened to the free market?

    dream up a new power source cheaper than fossil fuel with the same or better BTU equivalent.

    Anyone with a smattering of physics and chemistry will agree that the energy/mass ratio of oil-based fuels is astounding. It’s close to magic, and we have yet to find or make a portable energy source that’s anywhere near as efficient. Oil also provides essential ingredients for alot of products and processes.

    So it’s sort of disappointing that we’re running through this non-renewable resource as quickly as we can, and in Canada we’re subsidizing companies to digit it up and sell it cheaply, when we  could back off just a bit, let market forces regulate demand, and maybe make the oilsands last a bit longer than the projected 100 years.

    Bringing this back around to the actual post topic, these sorts of industrial subsidies absolutely dwarf the cuts being made to social and aid programs. Is this a genuine conservative government, or just some vindictive right-wingers?

  • http://www.facebook.com/MakeLuvNtWar Michael Fitz Gerald

    Thats no big loss, forign aid should be last on our list, Big spending when we r in debt we should be helping our people first. Not others. The only aid that should be given is to us. Afterall we dont see any of it when it comes to spending except the Sunshine list ppl making over 100Gs a year.