Doctors Without Borders degenerated the same way the Amnesty International did. If you pay attention to what is happening out there that is all the substantiation you need.
Funded by the Wechsler Family Foundation, which is a New York-based charitable organization. The Foundation is closely associated with pro-Israeli positions:
QUOTE
According to Jerusalem Center for Publica Affairs, the predecessor to NGO Monitor, NGO Monitor Project, was "a joint venture of the Institute for Contemporary Affairs [of the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs], founded jointly with the Wechsler Family Foundation, and B'nai B'rith International."
It is also worth noting that "Inside Philanthropy" has assessed that "the Wechsler Foundation backs education and youth, health, the arts, environmental and animal organizations, and Jewish causes."
Inside Philanthropy also observes that the "foundation lacks transparency, which limits information available on its grantmaking priorities and activities. This funder is not very approachable and does not provide a clear way to get in touch, leaving grantseekers with the need to network here."
I simply used this site as a easy to navigate single source for you to begin your own investigation, not as the original source for the claim. That source cover decades of increasing anti-Semitism and increasing sympathies for various Islamic death cults.
Also, Canadian military anecdotal stories (mutually supportive from different units) that piqued my curiosity about the blatant anti-Semitism encountered in Afghanistan between CAF personnel and MSF members (especially French). I was surprised, presuming this was strictly a humanitarian organization. So I started to look into it and came across all kinds of examples of systemic anti-Semitism within MSF across the globe PLUS significant sympathy and support by MSF members for various terrorist organizations that were Islamic. This story - presuming one is there based on so much anecdotal evidence - has yet to be written for public consumption but it certainly is well known by those working with the MSF organization as well as MSF members themselves.
That’s a bit of a trick question, because in order to be allowed to work with “the Palestinian people”, Hamas requires the NGO to assist it in its attempts to destroy Israel. The NGO might sincerely feel that it has to make these trivial (to it) compromises, since none of them much like Israel to begin with, in order to deliver on its humanitarian mission but you can’t blame Israel for taking a dim view of that. Sort of like sleeping with the enemy might be necessary to feed your children but it’s never going to win you any praise.
Hamas has no such requirements. That is a load of hooey. And, the answer is ZERO - NADA - None. The moment you make an effort to provide humanitarian assistance to the Palestinians, you are branded as anti-Semitic.
Tildeb already has, but I’ll add this search in Jerry Coyne’s Why Evolution is True. I just searched on “MSF” to avoid cherry-picking the results, to show the, well, evolution of his views of MSF.
Presumably you won’t like his evidence either — Prof. Coyne is Jewish albeit Leftist — but there you have it.
My previous comments were NOT intended to be anti-Jewish.
The point I was trying to make, obviously in a way that failed to convince you or @Tildeb, was that one cannot simply say "well, these people said it, so it must be true".
My biggest concern, though, are claims made by subscribers like @PETER AIELLO, who refused point-blank to substantiate his main claim, namely that "humanitarian aid will continue to be a cesspool of futility."
That can only be construed as one thing: a complete denial of the benefits to be had in the provision of aid to address governance failings, health concerns and humanitarian disasters outside Canada.
And to be clear, what I wish to see is not more money for MSF or other organizations that have become magnets for political controversy (some of it manufactured by self-interested third parties). What I want is more funding for Canadian programs that serve to improve circumstances for people living with the consequences of environmental degradation, war and civil strife.
How to do so is a debate that Canadians should have.
But to claim that we should do nothing? A complete abdication of human responsibility.
Throwing money at symptoms that come from underlying problems is not a solution; in many cases like Gaza, 'humanitarian aid' (diverted taxpayer funds let's not forget) is an essential component for advancing the war making machine for various Islamic death cults (Hamas mostly but also PLA and Islamic Jihad and Hezbollah). That is what such well intentioned but incredibly naïve 'financial aid' produces. More violence. More indoctrination. More suffering. But isn't this throwing of money what typifies Canadian governance for the past decade? Not meaningful results. Not anything that works. No shared national projects. No lasting solutions. Not anything that improves anything. Just announcements of ever more 'invested' money (heavens, no, never an 'expense'... just additional 'investments' donchaknow). Cheque delivered, picture taken, good vibes shared, move on. Next? Another few billion tacked on to the growing debt for the next generation to have to deal with. And who cares if any of that money goes into a pay-to-slay-Israelis pension for mass murderers and their families? It's the giving that matters, the 'human responsibility' under which we help fund the next round of mass murdering and can feel ever so good about doing our part.
Your comment focuses on Gaza and is informed by your perspectives on the Palestinians. It is therefore does not present a comprehensive review of foreign aid programs writ large (and their merits).
Quite true. But it relates directly back to my comment about first fixing systemic anti-Semitism within MSF before giving the organization public dollars. In other words, connect Canadian aid to implementing Canadian values first and foremost. That element should be fundamental rather than an afterthought.
Hmmm. Canada, for decades so blatantly impotent inside its own borders, and some people think that it is capable of and should do something useful outside its own borders ? I salute the resolute naivete of these people. Used to be me, eons ago.
Thank you to Mr Nickerson for writing this op-ed, and to Matt Gurney and Jen Gerson for seeing it published here.
It is worth noting, in this context, that Canada has been backsliding for decades WRT foreign aid and the revamping of programs to make them more effective. Though we are one of the richest countries on the face of the planet, our per capita aid funding is low.
I hope that the new government actually tables a foreign aid plan at the same time as it introduces new plans / strategies for defence and foreign policy. All are sorely needed.
Thank you for writing this Mr. Nickerson. I have been a firm supporter and donator to MSF for decades and have a great respect for the heroic deeds of those doctors, nurses, and support staff that choose to be deployed to ground zero of humanitarian conflicts around the globe.
I agree that Canada should step up its foreign aid. However, we should concentrate where we can play a unique and beneficial role. Prioritizing crisis situations within La Francophonie and the Commonwealth - organizations that Canada belongs to and has a large footprint and positive reputation would have much better outcomes that politically charged conflicts such as Gaza. Lack of accountability by NGO's and poor overall outcomes have resulted in the general populous of Canada having a negative view foreign aid.
Mozambique, for instance, which only recently became a member of the Commonwealth, has been a recipient of Canadian support for a number of years now. In fact, Canada is the 3rd largest donator to the country after the EU and Japan. Despite some positive outcomes, the situation in the country has become worse, particularly in Cabo Delgado and other areas north of the Zambezi. Canada could do so much more there but has not increased funding despite a deteriorating situation caused by Fundamentalist Islamic groups as well as natural disasters.
Rather than spread a little amongst many, Canada would be better off targeting countries and regions that are for the most part being ignored by the Great Powers.
I used Mozambique as an example, however there are many other nations that could benefit from Canada, and visa versa.
It is not La Francophonie as they speak Portuguese there. They were the first nation with non-historical ties to Britain to join the Commonwealth, followed soon after by Rwanda. I grouped militant Islamic groups in with natural disasters, so I think it obvious that I consider both to be having a negative effect on Mozambique.
The al-Shabaab insurgency has for the most part been put down with the assistance of the Rwandan military, and is isolated in Cabo Delgado with some elements in Niassa Province and Tanzania, where the movement moved to Mozambique from.
Haiti is complex and essentially a non-functioning state at this moment. Kenya has sent in a force to assist with policing but has had limited success due to lack of international cooperation. Haiti requires a very large coordinated international force to go in and restore order, but there seem to be few nations willing to do so at this time. I would not advocate for Canadian involvement in Haiti because the law and order must first be established before any meaningful humanitarian aid can be sent there.
There is a particular tone I pick up from your brief post. You are probably against Canada providing and supporting aid to developing nations. I am of the belief that rich nations such as Canada has a responsibility to provide aid to those less fortunate.
My only criticism is that the aid should be more focused on a few nations and that we provide a Canadian footprint in those areas so we can assess and ensure success. But such aid should also be multifaceted, so that closer political and economic relations would also be developed. Africa is on it way to becoming an economic power house, with great manufacturing possibilities. Dealt with fairly and bilaterally, this could be a great benefit to Canada and each partner it decides to work with.
Indeed, many NGOs are not doing good work. However, I'm alarmed by commentators here (not you) who seem content to leap upon this fact to justify "throwing baby out with the bathwater".
I am glad this was published and commend Mr Nickerson for his work and the positive contribution he has made to humanity around the world. I acknowledge what I am about to say errs on the side of populism but post COVID I’m really struggling with supporting Canada using resources to try and address issues outside of Canada. Ideally, we would contribute more as Mr Nickerson has advocated for but until positive strides are made on fixing issues in Canada, I think it’s a luxury we can no longer afford. I’m happy to go into greater detail but you can really pick any issue discussed in this publication as justification.
Mr. Nickerson, you write that "... Canada’s responsibility to work to address them [various worldwide problems] is clear ..."
No, we don't have such a responsibility. We can CHOOSE do undertake those things and, in some cases, it would be dumb for us to ignore A or B or C or whatever but it is not our responsibility. The responsibility for fixing those things is with those people who are breaking the particular things that you want us to fix. Again, in some cases, it would be dumb for us to ignore some stuff - but out of our own self interest.
Why do I say this? Damn! We can't even fix our own country let alone take responsibility for other countries.
On the other hand, if you are looking for fellow travelers in anti-Semitism, our government certainly fits that bill.
We should only bring in refugees and those refugees should go through a strict process in acceptance of the language, culture and social norms of Canada. An American style melting pot and nothing else.
Too bad there is so much outright corruption in the aid business. Makes it hard to think that throwing money at problems is the answer. May be a part of the solution but until the corruption and huge administration draws on money end and the dollars actually make their way to the front line humanitarian aid will continue to be a cesspool of futility.
So, rather than fixing the problems you have not bothered to substantiate with analysis drawing on research, let's just not bother at all.
After all, what possible harm could come to Canada from increased refugee flows caused by war? Or massive outbreaks of tuberculosis in other countries? Or a surge in HIV/Aids in countries where funding is no longer available for anti-retroviral treatments?
Canada need not be troubled by refugee flows. Without our invitation from the UN High Commission camps, they can’t get here unless they are very strong swimmers. We don’t have to let asylum seekers come here. We just have to hear their tales if they get here. Big difference. We can (and do) demand that immigrants be certified free of tuberculosis, resistant and otherwise. Deaths to HIV in foreign countries are not a problem for Canada, nor are deaths due to HIV here, for that matter, but it should be an exclusion for immigration.
You can say I’m a terrible person for thinking this. Go ahead. You are trying to appeal to Canada’s *self*-interest in doing something about humanitarian crises in foreign Hell-holes. My point is that our self-interest is not threatened and we should not be frightened into doing anything out of fear we will be affected by them. Those who want to donate their own money to disaster-relief charities are free to do so. They even get a tax credit. Knock yourselves out.
My own view is that people are free to support whatever cause they find attractive. But don’t spend my tax dollars to do so.
I hadn’t associated the word a “fragile” with medical care until I read the article. Means prone to break under shock. Seems to fit in Canada these days doesn’t it? Looking at measles outbreaks in Canada and particularly Ontario where in true Canadian (Salem) fashion they are blaming it on witches and heathens in this instance these disobedient Mennonites. But also in true Canadian fashion Doug Ford’s minions are offering “every assistance short of real help”. How about area targeted roadblocks, testings, quarantines and masks until the epidemic washes over like the Trudeauites implemented during Covid? But it might cost conservative votes.
You can engage in whatever risky behavior you want such as refusing vaccines, riding a motorcycle without a helmet or hiking alone unarmed in a strange area. But don’t ask the medical and first responder system paid for by those who act prudently to support you for free if you have an issue arising from your behavior.
Finally foreign aid by countries as far as I can tell is primarily a subsidy system for domestic manufacturers of tractors, vehicles, arms, medical supplies, etc. (Name your industry). Expect the US to get back to this fundamental truth once the government cost cutting exercise is over.
In your opinion. In the meantime maybe take a look at all the money Canada has thrown at FNs over the past ten years and ask yourself where the money has gone as an in-house version of aid corruption and why such things as boil water advisories are still a part of life in many of these communities.
How come you spare yourself the task of providing any fact to substantiate your claims. Thus far all you have done is impugn my general statements that corruption and administrative drains negatively affect the value of foreign aid programs. Actually you make no claims about the value of foreign aid funding to refute any comments to the contrary. Maybe you can provide some evidence of the effectiveness of programs that you support? Enjoy your day.
I’m sure those who advocate us not providing foreign aid to the developing world will be the first to complain about refugees from “shit hole” countries and that many countries in Africa, Latin America and Asia suddenly have an affection for China…
Hard and soft power will make us a great country again and help stabilize troubled parts of the world. It’s in our national interest to provide that stability.
We just need to make sure we aren’t sending cash aid that can be used by despots to buy yachts or weapons to oppress their people with.
MSF a group with incredible bravery and does great things. I like the fact they get donations and not taxpayer dollars (though Canadians can claim a tax deduction). But do not expect Canada to have any influence. We have no military, recently the world laughed a Canada for having the only leader dumber than Trump, and our dollar is artificially low to mask poor productivity. Let the Americans and the Europeans fund the soft power.
When Doctors Without Borders clean up their blatant anti-Semitism/anti-Zionism and stop supporting terrorist death cults, let's talk.
Please substantiate your claim.
Doctors Without Borders degenerated the same way the Amnesty International did. If you pay attention to what is happening out there that is all the substantiation you need.
Here: https://ngo-monitor.org/ngos/medecins_sans_frontieres_doctors_without_borders_/
Well done
Funded by the Wechsler Family Foundation, which is a New York-based charitable organization. The Foundation is closely associated with pro-Israeli positions:
QUOTE
According to Jerusalem Center for Publica Affairs, the predecessor to NGO Monitor, NGO Monitor Project, was "a joint venture of the Institute for Contemporary Affairs [of the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs], founded jointly with the Wechsler Family Foundation, and B'nai B'rith International."
END QUOTE
C.f.: Wechsler Family Foundation, accessed 16 May 2025, https://techinquiry.org/?entity=wechsler%20family%20foundation&guard=
It is also worth noting that "Inside Philanthropy" has assessed that "the Wechsler Foundation backs education and youth, health, the arts, environmental and animal organizations, and Jewish causes."
Inside Philanthropy also observes that the "foundation lacks transparency, which limits information available on its grantmaking priorities and activities. This funder is not very approachable and does not provide a clear way to get in touch, leaving grantseekers with the need to network here."
C.f.: Entry on The Wechsler Foundation, Inside Philanthropy, 9 August 2023, https://www.insidephilanthropy.com/find-a-grant-places/new-york-grants/the-weschler-foundation
I simply used this site as a easy to navigate single source for you to begin your own investigation, not as the original source for the claim. That source cover decades of increasing anti-Semitism and increasing sympathies for various Islamic death cults.
Also, Canadian military anecdotal stories (mutually supportive from different units) that piqued my curiosity about the blatant anti-Semitism encountered in Afghanistan between CAF personnel and MSF members (especially French). I was surprised, presuming this was strictly a humanitarian organization. So I started to look into it and came across all kinds of examples of systemic anti-Semitism within MSF across the globe PLUS significant sympathy and support by MSF members for various terrorist organizations that were Islamic. This story - presuming one is there based on so much anecdotal evidence - has yet to be written for public consumption but it certainly is well known by those working with the MSF organization as well as MSF members themselves.
Please name one humanitarian organization that works with the Palestinian people that the Government of Israel or NGO Monitor accepts and supports.
That’s a bit of a trick question, because in order to be allowed to work with “the Palestinian people”, Hamas requires the NGO to assist it in its attempts to destroy Israel. The NGO might sincerely feel that it has to make these trivial (to it) compromises, since none of them much like Israel to begin with, in order to deliver on its humanitarian mission but you can’t blame Israel for taking a dim view of that. Sort of like sleeping with the enemy might be necessary to feed your children but it’s never going to win you any praise.
Hamas has no such requirements. That is a load of hooey. And, the answer is ZERO - NADA - None. The moment you make an effort to provide humanitarian assistance to the Palestinians, you are branded as anti-Semitic.
Tildeb already has, but I’ll add this search in Jerry Coyne’s Why Evolution is True. I just searched on “MSF” to avoid cherry-picking the results, to show the, well, evolution of his views of MSF.
Presumably you won’t like his evidence either — Prof. Coyne is Jewish albeit Leftist — but there you have it.
https://whyevolutionistrue.com/?s=Msf&orderby=relevance&order=DESC&post_type=post
My previous comments were NOT intended to be anti-Jewish.
The point I was trying to make, obviously in a way that failed to convince you or @Tildeb, was that one cannot simply say "well, these people said it, so it must be true".
My biggest concern, though, are claims made by subscribers like @PETER AIELLO, who refused point-blank to substantiate his main claim, namely that "humanitarian aid will continue to be a cesspool of futility."
That can only be construed as one thing: a complete denial of the benefits to be had in the provision of aid to address governance failings, health concerns and humanitarian disasters outside Canada.
And to be clear, what I wish to see is not more money for MSF or other organizations that have become magnets for political controversy (some of it manufactured by self-interested third parties). What I want is more funding for Canadian programs that serve to improve circumstances for people living with the consequences of environmental degradation, war and civil strife.
How to do so is a debate that Canadians should have.
But to claim that we should do nothing? A complete abdication of human responsibility.
Throwing money at symptoms that come from underlying problems is not a solution; in many cases like Gaza, 'humanitarian aid' (diverted taxpayer funds let's not forget) is an essential component for advancing the war making machine for various Islamic death cults (Hamas mostly but also PLA and Islamic Jihad and Hezbollah). That is what such well intentioned but incredibly naïve 'financial aid' produces. More violence. More indoctrination. More suffering. But isn't this throwing of money what typifies Canadian governance for the past decade? Not meaningful results. Not anything that works. No shared national projects. No lasting solutions. Not anything that improves anything. Just announcements of ever more 'invested' money (heavens, no, never an 'expense'... just additional 'investments' donchaknow). Cheque delivered, picture taken, good vibes shared, move on. Next? Another few billion tacked on to the growing debt for the next generation to have to deal with. And who cares if any of that money goes into a pay-to-slay-Israelis pension for mass murderers and their families? It's the giving that matters, the 'human responsibility' under which we help fund the next round of mass murdering and can feel ever so good about doing our part.
Your comment focuses on Gaza and is informed by your perspectives on the Palestinians. It is therefore does not present a comprehensive review of foreign aid programs writ large (and their merits).
Quite true. But it relates directly back to my comment about first fixing systemic anti-Semitism within MSF before giving the organization public dollars. In other words, connect Canadian aid to implementing Canadian values first and foremost. That element should be fundamental rather than an afterthought.
Well said, sir.
I can only conclude that this author has not been in Canada for sometime if he is
looking for principled courageous action from our governments.
Hmmm. Canada, for decades so blatantly impotent inside its own borders, and some people think that it is capable of and should do something useful outside its own borders ? I salute the resolute naivete of these people. Used to be me, eons ago.
Thank you to Mr Nickerson for writing this op-ed, and to Matt Gurney and Jen Gerson for seeing it published here.
It is worth noting, in this context, that Canada has been backsliding for decades WRT foreign aid and the revamping of programs to make them more effective. Though we are one of the richest countries on the face of the planet, our per capita aid funding is low.
I hope that the new government actually tables a foreign aid plan at the same time as it introduces new plans / strategies for defence and foreign policy. All are sorely needed.
Thank you for writing this Mr. Nickerson. I have been a firm supporter and donator to MSF for decades and have a great respect for the heroic deeds of those doctors, nurses, and support staff that choose to be deployed to ground zero of humanitarian conflicts around the globe.
I agree that Canada should step up its foreign aid. However, we should concentrate where we can play a unique and beneficial role. Prioritizing crisis situations within La Francophonie and the Commonwealth - organizations that Canada belongs to and has a large footprint and positive reputation would have much better outcomes that politically charged conflicts such as Gaza. Lack of accountability by NGO's and poor overall outcomes have resulted in the general populous of Canada having a negative view foreign aid.
Mozambique, for instance, which only recently became a member of the Commonwealth, has been a recipient of Canadian support for a number of years now. In fact, Canada is the 3rd largest donator to the country after the EU and Japan. Despite some positive outcomes, the situation in the country has become worse, particularly in Cabo Delgado and other areas north of the Zambezi. Canada could do so much more there but has not increased funding despite a deteriorating situation caused by Fundamentalist Islamic groups as well as natural disasters.
Rather than spread a little amongst many, Canada would be better off targeting countries and regions that are for the most part being ignored by the Great Powers.
So more money for the Islamists in Mozambique, or less? I’m not sure I follow your argument.
And why should the fact they speak French in “la Francophonie” count for anything? You want to fix Haiti?
I used Mozambique as an example, however there are many other nations that could benefit from Canada, and visa versa.
It is not La Francophonie as they speak Portuguese there. They were the first nation with non-historical ties to Britain to join the Commonwealth, followed soon after by Rwanda. I grouped militant Islamic groups in with natural disasters, so I think it obvious that I consider both to be having a negative effect on Mozambique.
The al-Shabaab insurgency has for the most part been put down with the assistance of the Rwandan military, and is isolated in Cabo Delgado with some elements in Niassa Province and Tanzania, where the movement moved to Mozambique from.
Haiti is complex and essentially a non-functioning state at this moment. Kenya has sent in a force to assist with policing but has had limited success due to lack of international cooperation. Haiti requires a very large coordinated international force to go in and restore order, but there seem to be few nations willing to do so at this time. I would not advocate for Canadian involvement in Haiti because the law and order must first be established before any meaningful humanitarian aid can be sent there.
There is a particular tone I pick up from your brief post. You are probably against Canada providing and supporting aid to developing nations. I am of the belief that rich nations such as Canada has a responsibility to provide aid to those less fortunate.
My only criticism is that the aid should be more focused on a few nations and that we provide a Canadian footprint in those areas so we can assess and ensure success. But such aid should also be multifaceted, so that closer political and economic relations would also be developed. Africa is on it way to becoming an economic power house, with great manufacturing possibilities. Dealt with fairly and bilaterally, this could be a great benefit to Canada and each partner it decides to work with.
Indeed, many NGOs are not doing good work. However, I'm alarmed by commentators here (not you) who seem content to leap upon this fact to justify "throwing baby out with the bathwater".
I am glad this was published and commend Mr Nickerson for his work and the positive contribution he has made to humanity around the world. I acknowledge what I am about to say errs on the side of populism but post COVID I’m really struggling with supporting Canada using resources to try and address issues outside of Canada. Ideally, we would contribute more as Mr Nickerson has advocated for but until positive strides are made on fixing issues in Canada, I think it’s a luxury we can no longer afford. I’m happy to go into greater detail but you can really pick any issue discussed in this publication as justification.
Mr. Nickerson, you write that "... Canada’s responsibility to work to address them [various worldwide problems] is clear ..."
No, we don't have such a responsibility. We can CHOOSE do undertake those things and, in some cases, it would be dumb for us to ignore A or B or C or whatever but it is not our responsibility. The responsibility for fixing those things is with those people who are breaking the particular things that you want us to fix. Again, in some cases, it would be dumb for us to ignore some stuff - but out of our own self interest.
Why do I say this? Damn! We can't even fix our own country let alone take responsibility for other countries.
On the other hand, if you are looking for fellow travelers in anti-Semitism, our government certainly fits that bill.
We should only bring in refugees and those refugees should go through a strict process in acceptance of the language, culture and social norms of Canada. An American style melting pot and nothing else.
Head in the sand.
That is the Plan.
So typical of Canada.
Too bad there is so much outright corruption in the aid business. Makes it hard to think that throwing money at problems is the answer. May be a part of the solution but until the corruption and huge administration draws on money end and the dollars actually make their way to the front line humanitarian aid will continue to be a cesspool of futility.
So, rather than fixing the problems you have not bothered to substantiate with analysis drawing on research, let's just not bother at all.
After all, what possible harm could come to Canada from increased refugee flows caused by war? Or massive outbreaks of tuberculosis in other countries? Or a surge in HIV/Aids in countries where funding is no longer available for anti-retroviral treatments?
Canada need not be troubled by refugee flows. Without our invitation from the UN High Commission camps, they can’t get here unless they are very strong swimmers. We don’t have to let asylum seekers come here. We just have to hear their tales if they get here. Big difference. We can (and do) demand that immigrants be certified free of tuberculosis, resistant and otherwise. Deaths to HIV in foreign countries are not a problem for Canada, nor are deaths due to HIV here, for that matter, but it should be an exclusion for immigration.
You can say I’m a terrible person for thinking this. Go ahead. You are trying to appeal to Canada’s *self*-interest in doing something about humanitarian crises in foreign Hell-holes. My point is that our self-interest is not threatened and we should not be frightened into doing anything out of fear we will be affected by them. Those who want to donate their own money to disaster-relief charities are free to do so. They even get a tax credit. Knock yourselves out.
Love you idealists. Keep on sending money.
They are sending too much of our tax money, and not enough of their own.
My own view is that people are free to support whatever cause they find attractive. But don’t spend my tax dollars to do so.
I hadn’t associated the word a “fragile” with medical care until I read the article. Means prone to break under shock. Seems to fit in Canada these days doesn’t it? Looking at measles outbreaks in Canada and particularly Ontario where in true Canadian (Salem) fashion they are blaming it on witches and heathens in this instance these disobedient Mennonites. But also in true Canadian fashion Doug Ford’s minions are offering “every assistance short of real help”. How about area targeted roadblocks, testings, quarantines and masks until the epidemic washes over like the Trudeauites implemented during Covid? But it might cost conservative votes.
You can engage in whatever risky behavior you want such as refusing vaccines, riding a motorcycle without a helmet or hiking alone unarmed in a strange area. But don’t ask the medical and first responder system paid for by those who act prudently to support you for free if you have an issue arising from your behavior.
Finally foreign aid by countries as far as I can tell is primarily a subsidy system for domestic manufacturers of tractors, vehicles, arms, medical supplies, etc. (Name your industry). Expect the US to get back to this fundamental truth once the government cost cutting exercise is over.
Your commentary offers NOTHING substantial to corroborate your claims. That makes it worthless.
In your opinion. In the meantime maybe take a look at all the money Canada has thrown at FNs over the past ten years and ask yourself where the money has gone as an in-house version of aid corruption and why such things as boil water advisories are still a part of life in many of these communities.
Your failure to provide substantiated commentary is not "my opinion". It is fact.
I reiterate, unsubstantiated claims are difficult to take seriously.
How come you spare yourself the task of providing any fact to substantiate your claims. Thus far all you have done is impugn my general statements that corruption and administrative drains negatively affect the value of foreign aid programs. Actually you make no claims about the value of foreign aid funding to refute any comments to the contrary. Maybe you can provide some evidence of the effectiveness of programs that you support? Enjoy your day.
I’m sure those who advocate us not providing foreign aid to the developing world will be the first to complain about refugees from “shit hole” countries and that many countries in Africa, Latin America and Asia suddenly have an affection for China…
Hard and soft power will make us a great country again and help stabilize troubled parts of the world. It’s in our national interest to provide that stability.
We just need to make sure we aren’t sending cash aid that can be used by despots to buy yachts or weapons to oppress their people with.
MSF a group with incredible bravery and does great things. I like the fact they get donations and not taxpayer dollars (though Canadians can claim a tax deduction). But do not expect Canada to have any influence. We have no military, recently the world laughed a Canada for having the only leader dumber than Trump, and our dollar is artificially low to mask poor productivity. Let the Americans and the Europeans fund the soft power.