Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise to discuss this important motion from the member for York South—Weston—Etobicoke.
I will start by commending the member. We get one shot to move a motion or a private member's bill if we are lucky to be drawn early enough to have it debated in the House. It can be tempting to put something forth that is partisan and that makes it difficult for other parties to support, but as I read this motion, I think the member used his opportunity to move something that can bring the House together. I thank him for that.
There are some particular things I would like to note. As I mentioned, the language is drawn to find consensus in the House. On the language around accountability and effectiveness, I think back to what got me interested in international development in the first place, which was the Muskoka initiative back in 2010, when the Harper government of the day was hosting the G8 and had the opportunity to have a signature initiative. Stakeholders like Save the Children, UNICEF, CARE, World Vision and others came together and had the idea of tackling two particular targets that were behind: the target to save the lives of kids under five, and the target to save the lives of mothers in and around childbirth. Of course, those were things that all Canadians could support when they really understood what was going on.
One thing that was hard-wired into the Muskoka initiative was the steps around accountability and transparency. On the accountability side, one thing that was hard-wired in was that when G8 countries came to Canada and made a promise on the Muskoka initiative, they were expected to keep that promise. Second to that, on the transparency piece, was working with the international community. In fact, Prime Minister Harper co-chaired a group that was focused on making sure that we knew where the money was going, that there was some transparency around where the money was being spent and that the money was being spent to accomplish the goals that it set out. I remember talking to the CEO of one of the international development organizations in Canada who said the Muskoka initiative was probably one of two G7 or G8 initiatives that had a meaningful impact. Probably the most powerful two were the Make Poverty History campaign and the Muskoka initiative.
It is important with these types of initiatives, when we are talking about accountability and transparency, to focus on the outcomes. When we look at the outcomes, we can look at the two millennium development goals, or MDGs, which were set out in 2000 with a timeline to finish them by 2015: MDG 4 and MDG 5 around saving the lives of kids and saving the lives of mothers. In 2000, nine million kids were dying every year from things that nobody in North America would die from, like diarrhea, things that were completely preventable. We were way behind on our targets, but By 2015, in large part because of efforts that Canadians led, we went from nine million kids under five dying to under six million kids under five dying every year from completely preventable causes. The momentum really picked up after the Muskoka initiative.
In the area of moms dying in and around childbirth, in 2000, the number of moms dying every year in and around childbirth around the world, again from completely preventable causes, was 500,000. By 2015, in large part due to the efforts of all countries, but organized through the Muskoka initiative led by Canada, we went from 500,000 moms dying every year to under 300,000 moms dying. There are over 200,000 more mothers living every single year in part because Canada marshalled support from the international community to support the Muskoka initiative.
With respect to these types of impacts, I have seen the birthing kits that organizations use and that they handed out on the ground; organizations like World Vision, Plan International, Save the Children, CARE and UNICEF have been a big part of that. In those birthing kits might be something like a plastic sheet to lay on a dirt floor so a mom can give birth on the sheet instead of on a dirt floor, or an X-acto knife, a box cutter-type knife, to cut the umbilical cord. Again, it would probably take pennies to produce those, and someone would not have to chew the umbilical cord to break it when a baby is born.
I am not allowed to use props, but if I were, I would hold up a little bottle like an eye drop bottle for people with contact lenses, which holds a clean saline-type solution that could be put on the end of the umbilical cord to keep a baby alive. In the absence of that, oftentimes folks in some parts of the world would put mud on the end of the umbilical cord as a way to seal it off. Members can imagine the impact that would have. Birthing kits were, for pennies, saving people's lives, women's lives and the lives of kids, and having a huge impact around the world.
I do not often stand here in support of a Liberal member's motion or bill, but one of the reasons I am standing here in support of this particular one is that it is designed to bring us together and to find some common ground. One of the key things from Muskoka at the time was that the organizations that came together ahead of time to work with the government and the Prime Minister's Office were really focused on finding the things that 95% of Canadians probably could support at that time. They set aside some things that may have been more wedge issues, to really focus on something that brought people together. That had an enormous impact.
However, we are in a different time than we were in then. When we consider the challenging budget situation we have right now, there are a few reasons why it is hard to get Canadians to bring up, at their doorsteps, international development. I think number one is addressed in the bill; I think there is a feeling that there is no accountability for the money being spent. I think there is a feeling that the money being spent is not effective. As well, I think there is a feeling that the money is going into the pockets of folks who are not spending it the way it is supposed to be spent, and there is a lack of transparency around it. I think the motion seeks to deal with some of those things.
I also think that sometimes the language that gets used is sort of inner circle language or echo chamber language that Canadians have a hard time understanding. I will not get into the terminology. I have had lots of conversations about the terminology with people who work in the sector, but if I talk to my constituents in my incredible riding of Leduc—Wetaskiwin and use the language that the international development world uses, they do not really know what I am talking about.
However, I noticed that the first part of the motion talks about reciprocal economic benefit, about harnessing Canadian innovators and small business and about Canadian economic strengths around clean energy, agriculture, digital tech and education. If I talk to my constituents about harnessing Alberta expertise in agriculture so we can deal with the food crisis around the world, it is easy to get them on board. If I talk about Albertans' expertise in drilling and energy, which is probably the most dedicated to being as clean as we can be in terms of energy production, and if I talk about harnessing that expertise to work with countries that have energy resources that are not being used to their economic benefit, I think I can win my constituents over on those conversations.
Edmonton is a centre for AI through AMII, the Alberta Machine Intelligence Institute. If we talk about harnessing that expertise and putting it to work, working in partnership with people around the world who have the expertise though maybe not quite the same resources, that is a conversation that is really easy to have with my constituents if we just speak in the language that those constituents are using.
I will just close by again thanking the hon. member for moving the motion. I look forward to hearing the rest of the debate.