Business
Global Affairs Canada Foreign Aid: An Update
Canadian Taxpayers are funding programs in foreign countries with little effect
Back in early November I reached out to Global Affairs Canada (GAC) for a response to questions I later posed in my What Happens When Ministries Go Rogue post. You might recall how GAC has contributed billions of dollars to the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria, only to badly miss their stated program objectives. Here, for the record, is my original email:
I’m doing research into GAC program spending and I’m having trouble tracking down information. For instance, your Project Browser tool tells me that, between 2008 and 2022, Canada committed $3.065 billion to the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria. The tool includes very specific outcomes (like a drop of at least 40 per cent in malaria mortality rates). Unfortunately, according to reliable public health data, none of the targets were even close to being achieved – especially in the years since 2015.
Similarly, Canada’s $125 million of funding to the World Food Programme between 2016 and 2021 to fight hunger in Africa roughly corresponded to a regional rise in malnutrition from 15 to 19.7 percent of the population since 2013.
I’ve been able to find no official documentation that GAC has ever conducted reviews of these programs (and others like it) or that you’ve reconsidered various funding choices in light of such failures. Is there data or information that I’m missing?
Just a few days ago, an official in the Business Intelligence Unit for Global Affairs Canada responded with a detailed email. He first directed me to some slightly dated but comprehensive assessments of the Global Fund, links to related audits and investigations, and a description of the program methodology.
The Audit is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
To their credit, the MOPAN 2022 Global Fund report identified five areas where important targets were missed, including the rollout of anti-corruption and fraud policies and building resilient and sustainable systems for health. That self-awareness inspires some confidence. And, in general, the assessments were comprehensive and serious.
What initially led me to suggest that GAC was running on autopilot and ignoring the real world impact of their spending was, in part, due to the minimalist structure of the GAC’s primary reporting system (their website). But it turns out that the one-dimensional objectives listed there did not fully reflect the actual program goals.
Nevertheless, none of the documents addressed my core questions:
- Why had the programs failed to meet at least some of their mortality targets?
- Why, after years of such shortfalls, did GAC continue to fully fund the programs?
The methodology document did focus a lot of attention on modelling counterfactuals. In other words, estimating how many people didn’t die due to their interventions. One issue with that is, by definition, counterfactuals are speculative. But the bigger problem is that, given at least some of the actual real-world results, they’re simply wrong.
As I originally wrote:
Our World in Data numbers give us a pretty good picture of how things played out in the real world. Tragically, Malaria killed 562,000 people in 2015 and 627,000 in 2020. That’s a jump of 11.6 percent as opposed to the 40 percent decline that was expected. According to the WHO, there were 1.6 million tuberculosis victims in 2015 against 1.2 million in 2023. That’s a 24.7 percent drop – impressive, but not quite the required 35 per cent.
I couldn’t quickly find the precise HIV data mentioned in the program expectations, but I did see that HIV deaths dropped by 26 percent between 2015 and 2021. So that’s a win.
I’m now inclined to acknowledge that the Global Fund is serious about regularly assessing their work. It wouldn’t be fair to characterize GAC operations as completely blind.
But at the same time, over the course of many years, the actual results haven’t come close to matching the programs objectives. Why has the federal government not shifted the significant funding involved to more effective operations?
The Audit is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
Europe calls it transparency, but it looks a lot like teaching the internet who’s allowed to speak.
|
When the European Commission fined X €120 million on December 5, officials could not have been clearer. This, they said, was not about censorship. It was just about “transparency.”
They repeat it so often you start to wonder why.
The fine marks the first major enforcement of the Digital Services Act, Europe’s new censorship-driven internet rulebook.
It was sold as a consumer protection measure, designed to make online platforms safer and more accountable, and included a whole list of censorship requirements, fining platforms that don’t comply.
The Commission charged X with three violations: the paid blue checkmark system, the lack of advertising data, and restricted data access for researchers.
None of these touches direct content censorship. But all of them shape visibility, credibility, and surveillance, just in more polite language.
Musk’s decision to turn blue checks into a subscription feature ended the old system where establishment figures, journalists, politicians, and legacy celebrities got verification.
The EU called Musk’s decision “deceptive design.” The old version, apparently, was honesty itself. Before, a blue badge meant you were important. After, it meant you paid. Brussels prefers the former, where approved institutions get algorithmic priority, and the rest of the population stays in the queue.
The new system threatened that hierarchy. Now, anyone could buy verification, diluting the aura of authority once reserved for anointed voices.
Reclaim The Net is sustained by its readers.
Your support fuels the fight for privacy, free speech and digital civil liberties while giving you access to exclusive content, practical how to guides, premium features and deeper dives into freedom-focused tech.
Become a supporter here.
However, that’s not the full story. Under the old Twitter system, verification was sold as a public service, but in reality it worked more like a back-room favor and a status purchase.
The main application process was shut down in 2010, so unless you were already famous, the only way to get a blue check was to spend enough money on advertising or to be important enough to trigger impersonation problems.
Ad Age reported that advertisers who spent at least fifteen thousand dollars over three months could get verified, and Twitter sales reps told clients the same thing. That meant verification was effectively a perk reserved for major media brands, public figures, and anyone willing to pay. It was a symbol of influence rationed through informal criteria and private deals, creating a hierarchy shaped by cronyism rather than transparency.
Under the new X rules, everyone is on a level playing field.
Government officials and agencies now sport gray badges, symbols of credibility that can’t be purchased. These are the state’s chosen voices, publicly marked as incorruptible. To the EU, that should be a safeguard.
The second and third violations show how “transparency” doubles as a surveillance mechanism. X was fined for limiting access to advertising data and for restricting researchers from scraping platform content. Regulators called that obstruction. Musk called it refusing to feed the censorship machine.
The EU’s preferred researchers aren’t neutral archivists. Many have been documented coordinating with governments, NGOs, and “fact-checking” networks that flagged political content for takedown during previous election cycles.
They call it “fighting disinformation.” Critics call it outsourcing censorship pressure to academics.
Under the DSA, these same groups now have the legal right to demand data from platforms like X to study “systemic risks,” a phrase broad enough to include whatever speech bureaucrats find undesirable this month.
The result is a permanent state of observation where every algorithmic change, viral post, or trending topic becomes a potential regulatory case.
The advertising issue completes the loop. Brussels says it wants ad libraries to be fully searchable so users can see who’s paying for what. It gives regulators and activists a live feed of messaging, ready for pressure campaigns.
The DSA doesn’t delete ads; it just makes it easier for someone else to demand they be deleted.
That’s how this form of censorship works: not through bans, but through endless exposure to scrutiny until platforms remove the risk voluntarily.
The Commission insists, again and again, that the fine has “nothing to do with content.”
That may be true on a direct level, but the rules shape content all the same. When governments decide who counts as authentic, who qualifies as a researcher, and how visibility gets distributed, speech control doesn’t need to be explicit. It’s baked into the system.
Brussels calls it user protection. Musk calls it punishment for disobedience. This particular DSA fine isn’t about what you can say, it’s about who’s allowed to be heard saying it.
TikTok escaped similar scrutiny by promising to comply. X didn’t, and that’s the difference. The EU prefers companies that surrender before the hearing. When they don’t, “transparency” becomes the pretext for a financial hammer.
The €120 million fine is small by tech standards, but symbolically it’s huge.
It tells every platform that “noncompliance” means questioning the structure of speech the EU has already defined as safe.
In the official language of Brussels, this is a regulation. But it’s managed discourse, control through design, moderation through paperwork, censorship through transparency.
And the louder they insist it isn’t, the clearer it becomes that it is.
|
|
|
|
Reclaim The Net Needs Your
With your help, we can do more than hold the line. We can push back. We can expose censorship, highlight surveillance overreach, and amplify the voices of those being silenced.
If you have found value in our work, please consider becoming a supporter.
Your support does more than keep us independent. It also gives you access to exclusive content, deep dive exploration of freedom focused technology, member-only features, and practical how-to posts that help you protect your rights in the real world.
You help us expand our reach, educate more people, and continue this fight.
Please become a supporter today.
Thank you for your support.
|
Yakk Stack
(Only 5 Days Left!) Claim Yours Before It’s GONE FOREVER
Hey, all.
Imagine this…you’re slicing into that fresh loaf from Loblaws or just making a Wonder-ful sammich, the one you’ve bought hundreds of times over the years, and suddenly… ka-ching!
A fat check lands in your mailbox.
Not from a lottery ticket, not from a side hustle – from the very store that’s been quietly owing you money for two decades of illegal price fixing.
Sound too good to be true?
It’s real.
It’s court-approved.
And right now, on December 7, 2025, you’ve got exactly 5 days to grab your share before the door slams shut. Don’t let this slip away – keep reading, feel that spark of possibility ignite, and let’s get you paid.
Back in 2001, you were probably juggling work, kids, or just surviving on that weekly grocery run. Little did you know, while you were reaching for the President’s Choice white bread or those golden rolls, Loblaws and their cronies were playing a sneaky game of price-fixing. They jacked up the cost of packaged bread across Canada – every loaf, every bun, every sneaky sandwich slice. For 20 years. From coast to coast to coast.
And now…the courts have spoken. $500 million in settlements to make it right. That’s not pocket change – that’s your money, recycled back into your life.
Given the number of people who will be throwing in a claim…this ain’t gunna be life-changing cash…but also, given the cost of food in Canada, it’s better than sweet fuck all, which you will receive by NOT doing this.
If you’re a Canadian resident (yep, that’s you, unless you’re in Quebec with your own sweet deal), and you’ve ever bought bread for your family – not for resale, just real life – between January 1, 2001, and December 31, 2021… you’re in.
No receipts needed.
No fancy proofs.
Just you, confirming your story, and boom – eligible.
Quick check: Were you under 18 back then?
Or an exec at Loblaw?
Nah, skip it.
But for the rest of us everyday schleps…Jackpot.
Again…the clock’s ticking on this.
Claims opened on September 11, 2025, and slam shut on December 12, 2025.
That’s this Friday.
Payments roll out in 2026, 6-12 months later, straight to your bank or mailbox.
Here’s what you need to do…
- Breathe deep, click → HEREQuebec frens →HERE
- 10 second form that’s completed by your autofill…30 seconds off of a mobile device.
- Hit submit and wait for that sweet cash to hit your account.
Again…this won’t be life saving money and most certainly ain’t gunna hit your account before Christmas.
And before you go out an Griswald yourself into a depost on pool in the backyard…you may only end up with enough cash for the Jam-of-the-Month…the gift that truly does give, all year round…just be a little patient.
If you end up with a couple of backyard steaks in time for summer…
Some treats for the children or grandchildren…
Maybe just a donation to the foodbank…
This is what’s owed to you. Your neighbors. Friends. Family.
Take advantage!
Media bound to pay the price for selling their freedom to (selectively) offend
Sometimes An Ingrate Nation Pt. 2: The Great One Makes His Choice
Recent price declines don’t solve Toronto’s housing affordability crisis
From Exception to Routine. Why Canada’s State-Assisted Suicide Regime Demands a Human-Rights Review
-
MAiD1 day ago
From Exception to Routine. Why Canada’s State-Assisted Suicide Regime Demands a Human-Rights Review
-
Automotive2 days agoPower Struggle: Governments start quietly backing away from EV mandates
-
Business1 day agoCarney government should privatize airports—then open airline industry to competition
-
Business2 days agoNew Chevy ad celebrates marriage, raising children
-
Business1 day agoWhat’s Going On With Global Affairs Canada and Their $392 Million Spending Trip to Brazil?
-
Censorship Industrial Complex2 days agoA Democracy That Can’t Take A Joke Won’t Tolerate Dissent
-
Energy1 day agoCanada following Europe’s stumble by ignoring energy reality
-
Censorship Industrial Complex2 days agoFrances Widdowson’s Arrest Should Alarm Every Canadian