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'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.
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.