Mr. Speaker, it is very important for me to participate in today's debate on the motion put forward by my colleague, the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean—Saguenay. The motion reads as follows:
That this House calls upon the government to review its international aid policy with a view to substantially increasing the funds available for Canadian humanitarian aid, particularly in the context of the military interventions in Afghanistan, and to increasing the level of its aid for development to 0.7% of GDP, as recommended by the United Nations.
In a remark made earlier this afternoon, a member seemed to wonder where this famous 0.7% came from. Why do we use that number? Why was it included in the motion?
This figure was set by the United Nations. My colleague for Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière reminded us that this discussion began in 1959. Lester B. Pearson, who was then our ambassador to the United Nations, made this suggestion to the organization. The idea made its way through all sorts of obstacles, it was discussed, and all kinds of calculations were made. In 1975, there was a new attempt to implement the 1959 decision. Ultimately, the final decision was made in the 1990s, so that rich countries could contribute to the development of mainly third world countries.
It is important that we get involved in development because, collectively, we are responsible for what is happening out there. We would all like wealth to be shared better. We all realize that we were lucky to be born in a country that has never been affected by famine, war, despair and all the terrible things that have been happening elsewhere.
Our involvement is also important because aid to developing countries is crucial. This contribution is an integral part of our openness to the world and it is an extremely effective tool against poverty.
Terrorists have reasons to do what they do. We speak of the U.S. response to what we could perhaps call another kind of response. For some, what happened on September 11 was a response to what they were living, to what they were unsatisfied with, to the reason they were not happy. So this is a response to a response to a response. When will this ever end?
My young colleague proposed an extremely important motion. Another speaker reminded us earlier that several countries are still far from making the contribution asked by the UN. As far as I know, it seems from the documents I read that only five countries have so far accepted to make that contribution, that is, Denmark, the Netherlands, Sweden, Norway and Luxembourg.
None of these countries are part of the G-7. Thus, none of them are among the main industrialized countries.
And yet, they have managed to give between 0.7%, for Luxembourg, and 1.06%, for Denmark. If we are aware of the fact that it is important to share that wealth, if we want to put an end to starvation, to extreme poverty and to violence, it is probably a good idea to try, as quickly as possible, to fulfill this commitment that was made many years ago.
Looking at the refugee situation in Afghanistan, somebody else was saying that there was short term action being taken. Of course, Afghanistan is a major concern at the present time, but we also have to think about the long term.
There are many countries where action is required: Palestine, Sudan, other countries in Africa and South America, but what concerns us most at present is the situation in Afghanistan. We were upset to learn that there have been mistakes, that eight children were killed Saturday night. I do not think anybody is rejoicing over that. However, this does not stop us from considering that the response was legitimate. But now, we have to ask ourselves what we can do to help these people.
I have read articles of European magazines such as Le Nouvel Observateur , Le Point or l'Express . NGOs are very unhappy about the fact that the United States has engaged in military action and humanitarian action at the same time. Those are two major operations that are normally separate, not as much in time since aid must be forwarded to people anyway, but more from the point of view of natural helpers. NGOs are the ones that normally provide humanitarian aid.
If the war ended tomorrow, we would still need to give humanitarian aid to Afghanistan, which has been at war for 22 years and has gone through a three year drought. When a drought lasts for three years, it is not easy to grow anything.
During a program I was listening to recently, it was mentioned that NGOs, having been unable to enter Afghanistan as easily as before, could not bring the necessary seeds for next year's harvest. Because of that, the situation in Afghanistan will get even worse.
It must be understood that humanitarian aid in Afghanistan is vitally important at this time and that it will remain so in the future. According to the United Nations' estimates, seven million people will need aid, which is about one third of the country's population. The country will need to be rebuilt. Different kinds of support will have to be put in place.
We will have to rebuild what the bombs will have demolished. We will have to remove all mines in that country. Apparently, this will take the whole next century.
What seems more important to me is what a former president of Médecins sans frontières said, and I quote:
Modern humanitarian aid developed by breaking loose from politics. Enslaving it to the logic of states would be a step backward.
I invite Canada to play a leadership role in this field so that we can offer our aid, give food, not any food but food that conforms to these people's eating habits. What the people of Afghanistan now need is wheat, oil and sugar, and not biscuits, peanut butter or jam.
That is not what they need today but that is what is being air dropped to them, putting their life in danger because they have to run through minefields to get the famous yellow packages.
