I've been trying to find out how much foreign aid is "in kind" - i.e. stuff we buy domestically and ship overseas as aid. Recent stories suggest that American farmers stand to lose more than $2 billion per year with the demise of USAID, I wonder if Poilievre has considered the Canadian equivalent in his calculations.
I love this comment, because *I think* there's a simple and boring answer: We don't do a lot of 'in kind' donations. (If anyone knows differently, I'd be curious to know.)
But you're so right to pick up on the *enormous* damage that cutting USAID does to American farmers. American farmers are not only producing food for famine-prone areas, but American agricultural knowledge is helping grow food in areas that are otherwise challenging to sustainable agriculture. And USAID money funds both American production but also local innovation. It's total win-win-win.
A smart 'Canada first' politician would swoop in to take up that mantle. Put development money into Prairie farmers and have them fill the gap left by USAID. A smart Conservative politician would be talking about Saskatchewan and Manitoba fields feeding hungry people in Myanmar and B.C. farmers innovating new agricultural practises in Burkina Faso.
As the the US retreats from foreign aid and its soft-power value, china and russia are stepping in to fill the void. I’d rather it be Canada. The long-term gain would serve us well, I’m certain of that.
If Poilivre is publicly talking about cutting off foreign aid, given his track record to date, he'd cut off aid to Candians in Canada if he gets into office. I trust him as far as I could throw his rented campaign plane.
A well-researched and sharp article. This is a strong argument by Justin Ling - “It is easy to say that we should do nothing for people over there when people are suffering here, at home. But that position is both morally hollow, practically wrong, and entirely self-defeating.”
OMG. The pandering going on in this interview is stunning. No wonder no one will respond to your questions, Justin, or questions from any other journalist not on their list, for that matter. True colours keep getting brighter.
I've been trying to find out how much foreign aid is "in kind" - i.e. stuff we buy domestically and ship overseas as aid. Recent stories suggest that American farmers stand to lose more than $2 billion per year with the demise of USAID, I wonder if Poilievre has considered the Canadian equivalent in his calculations.
I love this comment, because *I think* there's a simple and boring answer: We don't do a lot of 'in kind' donations. (If anyone knows differently, I'd be curious to know.)
But you're so right to pick up on the *enormous* damage that cutting USAID does to American farmers. American farmers are not only producing food for famine-prone areas, but American agricultural knowledge is helping grow food in areas that are otherwise challenging to sustainable agriculture. And USAID money funds both American production but also local innovation. It's total win-win-win.
A smart 'Canada first' politician would swoop in to take up that mantle. Put development money into Prairie farmers and have them fill the gap left by USAID. A smart Conservative politician would be talking about Saskatchewan and Manitoba fields feeding hungry people in Myanmar and B.C. farmers innovating new agricultural practises in Burkina Faso.
As the the US retreats from foreign aid and its soft-power value, china and russia are stepping in to fill the void. I’d rather it be Canada. The long-term gain would serve us well, I’m certain of that.
If Poilivre is publicly talking about cutting off foreign aid, given his track record to date, he'd cut off aid to Candians in Canada if he gets into office. I trust him as far as I could throw his rented campaign plane.
I'll bet that cutting off assistance programs will be a big help when we go looking to "diversify" Canada's trade partners and security allies.
Good thinking, Jeff.
Really strategic.
That’s right PP, you lil’ wank. Just do exactly what Dumpty Trump did. Soft power is not wasteful.
A well-researched and sharp article. This is a strong argument by Justin Ling - “It is easy to say that we should do nothing for people over there when people are suffering here, at home. But that position is both morally hollow, practically wrong, and entirely self-defeating.”
Related to USAID debacle, highly recommend this New Yorker article featuring Atul Gawande: https://www.newyorker.com/podcast/the-new-yorker-radio-hour/atul-gawande-on-elon-musks-surgery-with-a-chainsaw
OMG. The pandering going on in this interview is stunning. No wonder no one will respond to your questions, Justin, or questions from any other journalist not on their list, for that matter. True colours keep getting brighter.
Your suggestion that Canada step in and help fill the void left by the loss of USAID...is right on the mark..if only Mark would do it!