Beyond The Commons

 Beyond The Commons

Aaron Wherry covers all the goings-on in and around Parliament Hill. Follow Aaron on Twitter: @aaronwherry

Categories: Beyond The Commons, Capital Read

'The real challenge is that we have a lack of transparency'

by Aaron Wherry on Wednesday, February 16, 2011 12:53pm - 43 Comments

Kenyon Wallace talks to KAIROS.

KAIROS is a faith-based ecumenical joint venture of 11 Canadian churches and organizations that promotes democratic human development and ecological sustainability in some of the world’s poorest countries … Other partners affected by the funding cut include Héritiers de la Justice, a women’s legal clinic in the Congo; the Commission for Disappearances and Victims of Violence, an Indonesian human rights group that pressures the government to investigate past military abuses and compensates victims; and Organizacion Femenina Popular, a grassroots women’s organization in Colombia that promotes community development, education and health and legal services.

Tags: , ,

Bookmark and Share
  • Stewart_Smith

    Please consider this cute opportunity to be helpful.

    • psiclone

      very cool shirt and a good way to broadcast on how to save the tax payer some coin at the same time – I could think of a whole bunch of other NGO's and assorted miscellaneous special interest lobbies that we could put the Kibash on as well and get shirts for them – hmmm – thank you Stewart am taking this one to next riding breakfast meeting :)

      • TimesArrow

        So, now church orgs that promote democracy and environmental sustainabiliy are special interests in your books. Meanwhile businesses that operate for their own benefit and only secondarily the wider communities benefit are what? Man, i thought the knuckledraggers had been beaten back into the margins of society back in the eighties – guess i was wrong.

        • alfanerd

          of course they are special interest groups. they have a "special interest" in democracy and environmental sustainability. it's not a slur, it's an accurate term. it's often used with negative connotation but it shouldnt necessarily include a negative connotation.

          also, the surest way to find a doctrinaire brainwashed idiot is to look for people who rail against 'businesses' in general. businesses provide you with all the goods and services you consume, and they provide employment to the 'productive segment' of society, as opposed to the parasites in the public sector.

          • TimesArrow

            Special interest has taken on an almost wholly negative connotation nowadays – particularly under this govt, who wield the phrase like a metaphorical club.

            Actually businesses exist to make their owners money.Only secondarily do they benefit society in general. No one starts a business by thinking: gosh, how can i help the country? I know, i'll open a restaurant and slave over a stove for 16 hours a day. But thanks for the primer on what businesses do. Having been a very small business owner i think i can grasp the idea.
            Somehow though i think you're being less then forthright. The phrase: : "parasites in the public sector" is one you don't seem to quite have the nerve to apply to kairos. Apologies if your a supporter of special interest groups ,such as kairos

          • Stewart_Smith

            As if there was a need to find doctrinaire brainwashed idiots. You just start a new thread and they are generally the first to reply.

          • TimesArrow

            You might want to hold off on replying for a mo or two more next time. I'm absolutely sure there are more worthy candidates than yourself out there. :)

          • brooster2

            "it's often used with negative connotation but it shouldnt necessarily include a negative connotation."

            If the term "special interest" shouldn't include a negative connotation, then why do neo-cons (going back to the Harrisites in Ontario) seem to spit it out with such venom when demonizing those who disagree with them? I've never heard them use the term in reference to their own supporters. Ever.

        • Adrian MacNair

          There's a big difference. One kind supports itself, while the other is reliant on taxpayer subsidization. Corporate welfare cases notwithstanding.

      • tedbetts

        So you oppose Harper using taxpayer dollars to fund his maternal health initiative? Just trying to get a sense of your level of consistency. And independent thought.

        • burlivespipe

          How about cutting taxes for big business — right after creating even more economical paradise by getting the HST-job done in the two most lucrative provinces? Is that not to benefit 'special interests'? And if you come back with the half-lie 'think about the workers' you can just sit in the corner, because many of them belong to 'special interest groups' like unions, etc.
          Boy, being a CON these days must be tough…

  • Brian

    KAIROS is irrelevant to this issue; every attempt to bring them into it is a distraction.

  • JamesHalifax

    TimesArrow asked:
    “Meanwhile businesses that operate for their own benefit and only secondarily the wider communities benefit are what?”

    Benfits include:
    Taxes – used to pay for everything you think is somehow free because you didn’t pay for it.

    Times, my boy…..you do realize that NOTHING is free right? Everything has a cost.

    Just because YOU may not have earned anything to pay for the services you receive, does not mean NO ONE earned the money to pay on your behalf.

    TimesArrow, I think you are simply galled knowing that some people out there work harder than you, and for some reason have more money than you.
    Get over it.

    • former_ADB

      I think you may have mis-read Time Arrow's comment.

      He was not asking what were the secondary benefits that business confers on the community. Rather, he was asking what is business, if not a special interest?
      I think Time Arrow in his comment implicitly recognized that businesses do make contributions to society (perhaps taxes as you suggest, or jobs) but this is not their primary purpose.

      In that light, do you think you might like to withdraw some of your more confrontational and critical comments from your previous post?

    • TimesArrow

      You really are a fool! What the hell do you know about me? What i've done for a living, what my income is, or anything else for that matter. You draw absolute conclusions from what? Known facts? Or out of your ass!
      Just for your edumacation James. Iv'e never worrked a day in my life for govt. In fact the town cheque i now get is the only time i've even recieved a municipal dime and i work 80 hours a week for it and pay my outrageous union dues[ which i don't like] and help feed my family. I've been a blue collar guy all my life and what education i do have came from my own efforts and reading widely – i suggest you try some too. And keep your moronic, juvenile assumptions to yourself.

      • Blue

        Maybe if you want to be taken seriously and avoid misconceptions, you could refrain from that name-calling tendency that seems so prevalent when liberals try to make a point.

        When you refer to people as moronic or a fool or an idiot or a knuckledragger, then chances are that`s what people will see, and not what you say.
        What`s the expression ?—-Curse the sin, not the sinner.

        • tedbetts

          "Curse the sin, not the sinner."

          Did a Harper supporting Conservative actually say that? I can't see, but… with a straight face????

          • Blue

            Think of it like this ted—-you know when you get those lists from LPC headquarters about all the nasty stuff that Harper character has been up to and then you enlighten us with all those lists over and over again, and then you go on and on about the culture of deceit…………….well, I may think your actions are silly but I would never think any less of you.

        • TimesArrow

          While it's perfectly true that name calling is unproductive and i try to refrain from it with most of the perfectly reasonable commentators @ macleans, neither James or almost as often Wayne qualify. That may be just my conceit, but i'm perfectly willing to live with it. Calling people out from time to time – when you have a valid reason – doesn't seem to me to be an abuse of privilege – others may feel differently, they are free to do so with their thumbs or through reply. Thanks for the concern. I'll try to bear it in mind next time i misunderstand you.

          • Blue

            We`re cool…………you would do the same for me.

          • JamesHalifax

            TimesArrow wrote:
            "While it's perfectly true that name calling is unproductive and i try to refrain from it with most of the perfectly reasonable commentators"

            Don't sweat it TimesArrow…….I am perfectly willing to receive the slings and arrows directed my way. It's to be expected on these sites. And I don't think I fit into your category of "reasonable" in any event, which is fair. You are just as entitled to your opinion, as I am mine.

      • JamesHalifax

        TimesArrow wrote:
        "I've been a blue collar guy all my life and what education i do have came from my own efforts and reading widely"

        My opinion of you has just increased.

        Secondly, if you are working 80 hrs a week……how do you find time to spend so many making comments here? Maybe you should spend some more time with your well-fed family.

        As for my moronic juvenile comments…….sorry, I call it as I see it.

  • JamesHalifax

    Nice to see KAIROS actually has enough money to blow on politically motivated T-shirts.

    guess they didn't need me to fund them after all.

    Thanks ms. Oda.

    • leroy

      I thought the Ts were a fundraiser.

      • Jan

        They are. Churches are used to raising money for charity.

        • tedbetts

          They also get a huge preferential tax treatment and tax support.

      • tedbetts

        {Pssst. Don't use obvious logic. It confuses them. See Beck, Glenn>Conspiracy Theories.}

  • TimesArrow

    I thought it was at least reasonably clear i was not railing against business – i'm not anti business in this case, just angry that a group who seem to be doing their best to make the world a better place gets the chop, not for reasons of inefficency or corruption or even pure incompetence – all of which would justify the cuts. But for reasons that appear to be purely political/idealogical.
    As for parasites in the PS; we have them everywhere in this country and i would certainly vote for any party that promised to only reward merit, rather then mediocrity. However, until we come up with a sure fire method of telling accurately which is which i guess we're stuck with what we've got. The world is what it is!
    I beieve funding ngos started principally to get them further away from bureaucratic and political interference. It's not like if we stopped funding them tomorrow the needs they attempt to meet would disappear too. I view it as a partnership, when it works, it seems to work well.

    • alfanerd

      On foreign aid and the needs the NGOs address, I think its an extremely touchy and difficult issue which cannot be properly addressed in a blog post. But I think its safe to say the current model is broken, given that in over 40 years essentially zero or even negative progress has been achieved.

      Foreign aid must be carefully targeted not to:
      a) prop up dictators
      b) hurt local entrepreneurs

      And that is a very difficult thing to do indeed. Currently most foreign aid does a), b) and sometimes both.

      People usually just react emotionally to this issue, but in all honesty, I believe the type of "foreign aid" Bush delivered to Iraq by getting rid of Saddam will be more effective in the long run then all the do-gooders in every NGO in the world. One model leads to dependency, the other can put a country back on its feet and free it from the biggest impediment to development: a dictatorial government. I realize my comments will prove highly unpopular, but the facts are on my side, if not the emotional reaction of most people.

      Look at Hait, one of the biggest recipients of foreign aid. And Haiti has one active NGO for every 800 haitians. The one growth industry in Haiti is to suck money from western governments by setting up a little NGO. These then provide goods for free, thereby killing local entrepreneurs. Meanwhile, foreign investors avoid it like the plague because of the rampant corruption.

      Im not saying I have the solution, just that we need to rethink our foreign aid model big time.

      • Holly Stick

        Considering Bush killed hundres of thousands of innocent people in Iraq and destroyed the homes of millions of them, Iraq is not going to get back on its feet for a long long time.

        What a stupid argument you are making.

        • alfanerd

          like I hinted at in my above post, those governed by emotions cannot be convinced of such cold hard realities despite the facts. in fact this is a very typical response: exaggerations, emotions, name calling, and incapacity to refute any of the points on which this conclusion is based.

          Even if Bush did kill hundreds of thousands – which he didnt – the fact is that despots like Saddam are responsible for millions of deaths, directly from their brutality, and indirectly from the poverty they engender. As distasteful as it may be to kill thousands to save millions, it sometimes is necessary.

          Speaking of hundreds of thousands of dead, why do environimental NGOs block coal plants being built in Africa under the pretense of global warming? Lack of electricity is responsible for millions of deaths in Africa, and NGOs are actively preventing Africans from getting the cheapest form of electricty available in coal, an energy source that we as westerners – enviro-turds included – benefit from?

  • Jan

    Are you against foreign aid because it's the NGO's that mostly carry it out. Think Red Cross, Oxfam etc.

  • Leo

    Well this is getting disgusting – lack of transparency my @ss. Kairos deserves not one thin dime after the Star mis-information.

    "Canadian NGOs have built a comfortable relationship with CIDA over the years. The cycle goes like this: Canadian NGOs demand CIDA spend more money to help the world’s poor; CIDA, wanting to be seen to be helping, pushes the money out the door as fast as it can; the NGOs spend the money as fast as they can, stopping only to demand, once again, that CIDA needs to do more to help the poor (by spending more money).

    Rinse and repeat. "
    http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/lead…

    • TimesArrow

      Now you're overreacting. From what i've had time to look at Gilmore's advise seems very sensible to a degree – why shouldn't there be free loaders in the aid business too[ like evrywhere in society - often at the top end too!]. By all means weed the suckers out. What he is not saying is kairos in particular should never receive another dime from the govt.

      • Leo

        The Star article has 'cherry-picked' Kairos causes, that's what got me going. The money they spent on a group going to Ft. MacMurray to diss the oil sands should have been used to help rape victims in the Congo, whatever. Don't you think we have enough NGO's dissing the oilsands?

        • Holly Stick

          As an Albertan, no, I think we need more NGOs pushing the government to do its job and clean up the place. And the government should be spending more money on Kairos and less on corporate welfare subsidies to the greedy oil companies who take our resources and give very little back but poisoned air and land and water.

          As for Kairos, you should read what they actually say instead of claiming they diss the tar sands.
          Like this: "…He also expressed sympathy for the people of Fort McMurray. "They feel they have been maligned mercilessly in the press." …"

          And this: "…"We are not calling for stopping this kind of development," she added. "We are saying that Canada needs a plan." …"
          What loyal Canadian would think there is something wrong with wanting us to have a plan, instead of just lying down and letting a bunch of foreign oil companies stomp all over us?
          http://www.canadianchristianity.com/nationalupdat…

  • Holly Stick

    Since James Halifax is misrepresenting what I quoted, here it is again:

    As an Albertan, no, I think we need more NGOs pushing the government to do its job and clean up the place. And the government should be spending more money on Kairos and less on corporate welfare subsidies to the greedy oil companies who take our resources and give very little back but poisoned air and land and water.

    As for Kairos, you should read what they actually say instead of claiming they diss the tar sands.

    Like this: "…He also expressed sympathy for the people of Fort McMurray. "They feel they have been maligned mercilessly in the press." …"

    And this: "…"We are not calling for stopping this kind of development," she added. "We are saying that Canada needs a plan." …"

    What loyal Canadian would think there is something wrong with wanting us to have a plan, instead of just lying down and letting a bunch of foreign oil companies stomp all over us?
    http://www.canadianchristianity.com/nationalupdat….

  • JamesHalifax

    Holly's schtick continues:
    "As an Albertan, no, I think we need more NGOs pushing the government to do its job and clean up the place"

    Great Holly……you pay for them, stop asking the rest of us to follow suit.

    Lastly, as you should know by now.

    Big ball of burning hydrogen in the sky. Honest.

  • JamesHalifax

    Big ball of burning Hydrogen Holly….

    Honest.

  • JamesHalifax

    Holly Schtick wrote:
    "We are not calling for stopping this kind of development," she added. "We are saying that Canada needs a plan"

    there is a plan Holly. It goes like this:
    1. Get the oil out of the ground and send it to market.
    2. Make Billions of dollars
    3. Pay Millions in taxes
    4. Employ thousands of people
    5. Provide energy to those who need it.
    6. Once an area has been exhaused of obtainable oil, clean up and restore the area to a natural environment.

    It's not, as David Suzuki would tell you responsible for destroying the environment. Is it ugly….sure is, but in my opinion, so are McDonalds signs, KFC signs..etc..etc..

    The difference is, the oil companies are mandated by law to clean up the place when they're done.

    Only in Canada, would people complain about a company cleaning the land of oil seeping everywhere.

  • Holly Stick

    Another Conservative liar.

Previous

Next

From Macleans