最初由 Sedona 发布：
The above is an announcement from yesterday.
The government just granted $273,000 for 50 children only.
I don't mean this money is bad, but think about the Chinese community with over 300,000 received just $250,000.
You can tell the difference.
"300,000 Chinese" is the total number of all chinese, but 50 Children is not the total number of all children. The number of Children in child community is much larger than 50. 50 and 300,00 are not comparable. the number of chinese who benifited from the $250,000 is much less than 300,000.
$273,000 for Kid’s mental health
Waterloo Region (May 9, 2007)
Now 50 of those 1,000 children n a waiting list for treatment at the KidsAbility Centre in Waterloo will get assistance thanks to a $273,900 provincial grant for this year.
The above is an announcement from yesterday.
The government just granted $273,000 for 50 children only.
I don't mean this money is bad, but think about the Chinese community with over 300,000 received just $250,000.
You can tell the difference.
最初由 cityslick 发布：
CPAC’s Problem is at it own Board &....
CPAC’s Problem is at it own Board and its Membership
1.For their ED to claim political neutrality is a bit disgenuiness. Look at their past, anyone would have concluded their Liberal bias at every level on community events. Their ex-Chair is a well-heeled, and deeply red Liberal. CPAC has made a decision, subconsciously or not, to be in line Liberal policy; now they just have to live with the consequences. Sadly, CPAC's misfortune will likely make other Mandarin community agencies so much more difficult to find the fund need.
2.Their board members often have undeclared conflict of interest in their decision-making. Many of them have business interests generated from their membership; ie selling good or services to their membership. Some even have used their board affiliation to cozy up with Governments here and aboard, ie China; in order to win favouritism in their business dealings. Sometimes to get free publicity to benefit their business indirectly. An outsider/consultant may need to be hired to look at it Board composition, and make some recommendations to clean it up.
3.CPAC need reform to serve our community better. I do believe they deserved to be funded by Government. Had they gone through the “request for proposal” process, they would have likely be the legitimate winner to get the money. Yet, their Board chose to make a “short-cut” by buddy up their Liberal friends. Now it proves to be a short-sighted move on their part. This fiasco has also demonstrated the lack of maturity and wisdom at Board level to manages a non-profit organization. I hope they will learn the lesson, and move on to bring new blood into their Board. A fresh perspective at their Board is called for to truly serve the Mandarin speaking community.
4.Membership drive has been always been an issue in the past. Most of the members have signed up simply to get a break on their auto-insurance premium. I am not sure what was done to bring the membership at large to buy in to CPAC’s mission and vision. A healthy organization is always built on a healthy genuine membership who believes in organization’s vision for the future, and the mission at hand. I do not see CPAC has this kind of membership.
The above is very well written with good English.
May I toss in my 2 cents of difference in opinion?
First, let me declare no conflict of interest:
1. I dont belong to CPAC, directly or indirectly.
2. I am not active in the Chinese community until my friend, a 51er, told me to contribute my thoughts to a high profile case a few months ago.
Ok. Back to business:
1. Most organizations at their infancy stage have affilitation with a political party or a faith based group, which is fine. I don't see anything wrong with CPAC to affilitate with the Liberals. Once these organizations have become well established and started receiving core funding from one of the ministries, they will have to "dilute" their original background to fit well with the government regulatory monitoring.
CPAC still is at their infancy stage.
2. You made very strong accusation - lack of arm's length, which can be "fatal" to any organization in their development. I don't know CPAC well enough, but it is common sense that the board cannot sell insurance to the members for personal interest.
Some organizations, however, offer supplementary benefits to their members though. For example, we join CAA for their roadside assistance, insurance and travel support only. How many of us will go to their AGM to advocate for the rights of car users and owners? Another example is our affilitation with professional associations. I pay for my license and the 3 letters of designations behind my name, but never contribute to the association.
Selling insurance is not wrong, as long as it is done with arm's length. The key issue is the priority: core service or insurance.
3. Money is money. It is not easy to obtain core funding, particularly for a new organization at the infancy stage without a proven record. CPAC needs funding; it doesn't matter if it is from core or slush.
Slush fund is not corruption or scandal. Thus far, I don't see any personal interest involved. Slush fund is bad because of lack of transparency and accountability, which deviates from the normal government practice.
Ontario should abandon the slush fund. After said that, slush fund is the government's problem, not CPAC.
4. I trust CPAC should have their Mission, Vision and Value; otherwise, it will not receive any funding - core or slush. Members and clients are different. Members run the organization but clients receive the service. This is your problem if you are a member but choose not to participate to run the agency. However, if CPAC receives funding to serve the member, its structure needs an overhaul.
My belief is:
1. Mr. Huang, as an intern in the past and a consultant now, has a limited role only. He does not have the decision authority to approve the funding.
2. 250K is not a lot of money. If CPAC pays a staff 50K a year, plus 18% benefits (sick leave, CPP, EI, insurance and etc) and 25% overhead costs (office, computer, mileage and program expenses), CPAC can hire at most 3 staff for a year.
The smallest program I am managing has a budget more than 250K a year.
250K is pennies, compared to other funded programs and projects.
3. Slush fund is for a year only. Without core fund, the project will die in a year. What did the Ontario government do for the Putonghua speaking community? Nothing
4. I will support Mr. Huang and CPAC. There still is a long way for them to go, but thus far they did it and got the money, for the Chinese community.
5. I agree with the argument from gz_fish.
最初由 gz_fish 发布：
我几乎是不发表评论的，但是这次是忍无可忍了。
在加国无忧还没有发表这个消息的时候，我就在TORONTO STAR的网站的头条看到了如此TITLE的消息：“Colle aide's group tied to `slush funds'， Chinese association got $250,000 grant”。之后，心里巨痛。
大陆移民今年一直占移民地区榜首位，但是大陆移民的安置却一直没有得到政府的实质帮助，大陆移民刚刚脱离GCD的独裁，为了一个美好的梦想，忍辱负重，以那些白人难以想象的艰辛与语言、技能、文化、气候、个性等等劣势抗争搏斗，自生自灭，悲剧环生。加拿大政府在对移民的安置上一直做的不够，但我相信每年总有巨额资金的拨款吧，为什么给一个大陆移民的团体拨了区区25万就在主流媒体上以如此恶毒的标题来丑化中国移民？？？不仅仅此，而且该文还攻击了做了六个月INTERN刚刚开始政府工作的大陆移民“黄政”，同情大陆移民的省移民厅长等，一箭几雕，用心极其恶毒！——还要给大陆移民政治社会生活的空间吗？
更让我气愤的是，主流媒体丑化了中国人的团体，我们中国人自己的媒体和一些中国人也也跟着起轰。也许，那些白人反对党是抓住了一些资金审批过程和使用上的漏洞，但是，那是我们中国人特别是大陆移民自己的组织，我们自己的孩子呀，当那些当地人揪住我们自己的孩子的一些错误往死里打的时候，我们自己还要去伸上几棍子，揣上几脚吗？？？
那几个张嘴闭嘴“纳税人的钱”的人，我不知道你们一年缴纳多少税款，我自己一年纳税额以万为单位计算，我心痛税款，是心痛那些TTC的大胖子们一数以百万计地消耗纳税人的钱，还一脸的流氓相。有本事和他们算“纳税人的钱”去呀。
话又说回来，我确实不是“专协”的人，而且，还并不喜欢这个组织，四年前，我刚登陆多伦多的时候，去过他们在第一广场的OFFICE，那个接待小姐头都不抬，爱理不理，张嘴就是要一百多元的会员费。之后几年，也只是偶然在一些媒体上看到他们有一些聚会而已。
但是，中国人需要自己的组织，有自己的声音，大陆移民更是如此。不健康，不完善，不要紧，我们一起努力建设。现在，一些别有用心的本地人在主流媒体上刊登的别有用心的文章，是完全可以成功地将我们的组织，甚至用于我们群体的一点点资金扼杀掉的呀。在这个时候，我居然看到大部分在中国人自己媒体上发表文章的人也在为那些别有用心的人摇旗呐喊。
两个字“心痛”。
马甲同志，我们都是“别有用心”？两个字“心痛”。 😁
回复
gz_fish
2007-05-09 20:46
举报
0
我几乎是不发表评论的，但是这次是忍无可忍了。
在加国无忧还没有发表这个消息的时候，我就在TORONTO STAR的网站的头条看到了如此TITLE的消息：“Colle aide's group tied to `slush funds'， Chinese association got $250,000 grant”。之后，心里巨痛。
大陆移民今年一直占移民地区榜首位，但是大陆移民的安置却一直没有得到政府的实质帮助，大陆移民刚刚脱离GCD的独裁，为了一个美好的梦想，忍辱负重，以那些白人难以想象的艰辛与语言、技能、文化、气候、个性等等劣势抗争搏斗，自生自灭，悲剧环生。加拿大政府在对移民的安置上一直做的不够，但我相信每年总有巨额资金的拨款吧，为什么给一个大陆移民的团体拨了区区25万就在主流媒体上以如此恶毒的标题来丑化中国移民？？？不仅仅此，而且该文还攻击了做了六个月INTERN刚刚开始政府工作的大陆移民“黄政”，同情大陆移民的省移民厅长等，一箭几雕，用心极其恶毒！——还要给大陆移民政治社会生活的空间吗？
更让我气愤的是，主流媒体丑化了中国人的团体，我们中国人自己的媒体和一些中国人也也跟着起轰。也许，那些白人反对党是抓住了一些资金审批过程和使用上的漏洞，但是，那是我们中国人特别是大陆移民自己的组织，我们自己的孩子呀，当那些当地人揪住我们自己的孩子的一些错误往死里打的时候，我们自己还要去伸上几棍子，揣上几脚吗？？？
那几个张嘴闭嘴“纳税人的钱”的人，我不知道你们一年缴纳多少税款，我自己一年纳税额以万为单位计算，我心痛税款，是心痛那些TTC的大胖子们一数以百万计地消耗纳税人的钱，还一脸的流氓相。有本事和他们算“纳税人的钱”去呀。
话又说回来，我确实不是“专协”的人，而且，还并不喜欢这个组织，四年前，我刚登陆多伦多的时候，去过他们在第一广场的OFFICE，那个接待小姐头都不抬，爱理不理，张嘴就是要一百多元的会员费。之后几年，也只是偶然在一些媒体上看到他们有一些聚会而已。
但是，中国人需要自己的组织，有自己的声音，大陆移民更是如此。不健康，不完善，不要紧，我们一起努力建设。现在，一些别有用心的本地人在主流媒体上刊登的别有用心的文章，是完全可以成功地将我们的组织，甚至用于我们群体的一点点资金扼杀掉的呀。在这个时候，我居然看到大部分在中国人自己媒体上发表文章的人也在为那些别有用心的人摇旗呐喊。
两个字“心痛”。
来稿:加拿大中国专业人士协会严正声明