As a retired FS, a more relevant critique (rather than parsing aid spending) is to ask on what global issues or regions does Canada hold sway? If you’re left scratching your head then you know the answer. Our irrelevance is truly shocking. Until foreign policy is no longer conducted through the lens of diaspora politics this will not change regardless of who’s in power.
I couldn’t agree more. Baird, Joly, they’re all the same. We’ve been squandering our international capital and reputation for years now, annoying allies, bringing nothing but sanctimony and hypocrisy to “various international fora”.
The ultimate lesson that I draw - please, this is only my conclusion! - is that corruption is pretty much endemic to much of the world and Canada is either willfully negligent in ignoring that truth and, further, is even more willfully negligent by deliberately funding these corrupt organizations and programs even in the evidence of that corruption.
The alternative, of course, is to not fund the programs. That would lead to howling from all the usual suspects (thank you, Casablanca, for that phrase!) and must be ignored. I say that any donation of our monies must a) take into account our ability to have spare monies (and monies funded by borrowing do not qualify there); b) must have clear expectations of success; and c) success or failure must be clearly quantifiable and that success/failure must be measured on an ongoing basis or funding must stop. Cold. Completely.
As for UNWRA, well, that corruption is so obvious that it is clear that our current government is itself supporting that corruption as a feature, not a bug. Therefore, all funding of UNWRA must stop immediately. Period.
Politicians practice diaspora politics because they tend to like the inherent conflict of re-election and pandering to growing demographics accomplishes the task. From a moral perspective, the state should not be involved in foreign aid. Paraphrasing St. Francis, if charity is a virtue, then it is only such when offered under free will. Let the charitable orgs and NGOs compete based on cause, efficacy, accountability, and results.
It seems that much of our aid funding goes to fund corruption and other misuses while no one accounts for any of it. Perhaps if the bureaucrats responsible for making the funding decisions had their salaries directly tied to successful and correct usage we might see a change. On the other hand there is nothing stopping politicians from standing up and pushing for defunding of blatantly corrupt organizations. To do otherwise is to be complicit in the corruption not to mention a failing in any measure of fiscal responsibility to tax payers.
In the 80’s I cheated a gov program to finance job skills for the poor. I could charm and bamboozle the front line social studies trained administrators. When I finally quit the program to seek more money elsewhere I had a brief meeting with the officer in charge of the office. I knew I hadn’t fooled him. From his questions and observations I realized he had looked at the course of my participation. He was not a harsh judge. The guilt I felt was from his unspoken disappointment.
There are good gov program officers. Capable. How to bottle that? I feel in a tenuous way that ministerial responsibility has to be somehow more arms length. Maybe instead of being responsible for programs that have too great a scope for one to effectively be responsible for, ministers should be responsible for the career trajectories of middle management civil servants. I know: corruption and favouratism and the precious anonymity of public service. Government shouldn’t be, in my view, solving the problems of the world. Government should be about giving the tools to right-minded people to do good.
As a retired FS, a more relevant critique (rather than parsing aid spending) is to ask on what global issues or regions does Canada hold sway? If you’re left scratching your head then you know the answer. Our irrelevance is truly shocking. Until foreign policy is no longer conducted through the lens of diaspora politics this will not change regardless of who’s in power.
I couldn’t agree more. Baird, Joly, they’re all the same. We’ve been squandering our international capital and reputation for years now, annoying allies, bringing nothing but sanctimony and hypocrisy to “various international fora”.
Well done, Sir!
The ultimate lesson that I draw - please, this is only my conclusion! - is that corruption is pretty much endemic to much of the world and Canada is either willfully negligent in ignoring that truth and, further, is even more willfully negligent by deliberately funding these corrupt organizations and programs even in the evidence of that corruption.
The alternative, of course, is to not fund the programs. That would lead to howling from all the usual suspects (thank you, Casablanca, for that phrase!) and must be ignored. I say that any donation of our monies must a) take into account our ability to have spare monies (and monies funded by borrowing do not qualify there); b) must have clear expectations of success; and c) success or failure must be clearly quantifiable and that success/failure must be measured on an ongoing basis or funding must stop. Cold. Completely.
As for UNWRA, well, that corruption is so obvious that it is clear that our current government is itself supporting that corruption as a feature, not a bug. Therefore, all funding of UNWRA must stop immediately. Period.
Politicians practice diaspora politics because they tend to like the inherent conflict of re-election and pandering to growing demographics accomplishes the task. From a moral perspective, the state should not be involved in foreign aid. Paraphrasing St. Francis, if charity is a virtue, then it is only such when offered under free will. Let the charitable orgs and NGOs compete based on cause, efficacy, accountability, and results.
It seems that much of our aid funding goes to fund corruption and other misuses while no one accounts for any of it. Perhaps if the bureaucrats responsible for making the funding decisions had their salaries directly tied to successful and correct usage we might see a change. On the other hand there is nothing stopping politicians from standing up and pushing for defunding of blatantly corrupt organizations. To do otherwise is to be complicit in the corruption not to mention a failing in any measure of fiscal responsibility to tax payers.
You could dismantle the entire department and not one single Canadian would notice.
In the 80’s I cheated a gov program to finance job skills for the poor. I could charm and bamboozle the front line social studies trained administrators. When I finally quit the program to seek more money elsewhere I had a brief meeting with the officer in charge of the office. I knew I hadn’t fooled him. From his questions and observations I realized he had looked at the course of my participation. He was not a harsh judge. The guilt I felt was from his unspoken disappointment.
There are good gov program officers. Capable. How to bottle that? I feel in a tenuous way that ministerial responsibility has to be somehow more arms length. Maybe instead of being responsible for programs that have too great a scope for one to effectively be responsible for, ministers should be responsible for the career trajectories of middle management civil servants. I know: corruption and favouratism and the precious anonymity of public service. Government shouldn’t be, in my view, solving the problems of the world. Government should be about giving the tools to right-minded people to do good.
Trudeau Sr had some real beef with now GAC before entering politics too. Seems like a same as it ever was type of situation.