Let me say, to start with, that I think there's scope for lots of donors to provide more assistance. I think there is scope, actually, for Canada, like others, to do a bit more than is being done at the moment. As some of you will be aware, there's a UN commitment that was established following the work of a great Canadian, Lester Pearson, that countries around the world should provide 0.7% of their national income in official government assistance. I think it would be very good if more countries were able to do that. Canada, nevertheless, has an important role to play, and lots of other countries have important roles to play as well.
In terms of the arguments I make, which is your question, there are two broad arguments. The first is that there is a moral responsibility. The truth is, the people whose stories I hear—in Cox's Bazar, where the Rohingya refugees ran to, in Yemen, in Homs in Syria or in the eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo—are just the same as you and me in every material respect, except that life's lottery has been kinder to us than it has been to them. There's something about our common humanity that makes it an imperative and something that every member state in the United Nations has signed up to—which, for me, is argument enough to be generous in helping other people.
The second argument—and you probably know that I spent quite a lot of my working life in a kind of national security environment—is that, in our very small world, it's much smarter for rich countries worried about problems spreading from one place to another to try to tackle problems where they start. It's cheaper, by the way, to do that than to allow too many things to get out of control, cross borders and so on. I think there's a realpolitik rationale, as well as a moral responsibility.