Madam Speaker, the end of the cold war represents an incredible change in the international order. It is the last episode of an era which will disappear forever. However, the new emerging order is characterized by a
great instability, and is jeopardized by new threats such as environmental disasters, the demographic explosion, the wasting of resources, financial crisis, and particularly the impoverishment of people living south of the tropic of Cancer, which is three quarters of the world population.
From a safety standpoint, the increase in the number of problem areas throughout the world compels the international community to search for regulating mechanisms which fit current political and economic realities. We must no longer merely avoid war: We must also seek peace.
With the 21st century looming ahead, peace is a big challenge for the international community, because everywhere there are conflicts which seem more and more difficult to solve.
It is in this context that the Canadian government is undertaking a review of its foreign policy. In the coming weeks and months, parliamentarians will have to decide what the new policy should be. We will have to ask ourselves what Canada's role in the new world order should be.
I want to mention a few ideas to think about in the course of the debate on the foreign policy review.
Apart from the violence which, too often, characterizes relations on the international scene, economic activity also influences those relations. In that regard, the globalization of economic activity is one of the outstanding features of the last few decades.
The growing internationalization of goods and services production, distribution and marketing that characterizes this tendency was influenced by the following factors: the lowering of tariff or other trade barriers, the gradual elimination of controls over capital flows, progressive deregulation in many countries, the reduction in transportation and communications costs.
The powerful forces of market globalization strongly influenced by the actions of multinational corporations give us the impression that we are ushering in an era where the worst kind of economic selfishness takes precedence over solidarity and sharing.
In recent years, the gap in the standard of living between the rich countries and the poor countries has become wider. According to the United Nations, this gap has doubled in the last 30 years. As victims of war and the international financial crisis, the people of the third world have become increasingly marginalized.
Malnutrition, the lack of democratic rights, the denial of basic human needs and the 17 million refugees in 1991, in addition to the 30 million displaced people, prevent us from turning a blind eye to the inappropriate development of the southern hemisphere countries, as our reality will be affected if only with respect to immigration and the environment.
Most developing countries were hurt by the economic crisis in the current global climate. In the 1980s, the reduced terms of trade were accompanied by the debt crisis and the overexploitation of natural resources to resolve this crisis. Caught in a vicious circle, the countries of the south cannot find a solution to this situation that has become intolerable for their population.
Partly responsible for this drama since they created the global economic configuration inherited from colonialism, the industrialized countries are also its victims as they will have to pay for environmental disasters, which do not recognize political borders.
We can no longer try to solve these problems without thinking that sustainable development is the cornerstone of the global socio-environmental chessboard. What does the Liberal government think of this?
Since a lot of people still believe in the old saying charity begins at home, the Canadian government has shown a tendency in recent years to reduce its development assistance budget. Unfortunately, this tendency is shortsighted and based on a erroneous assessment of the global situation as the millennium comes to an end.
It would be appropriate to briefly examine the evolution of aid to developing countries to show Quebecers' and Canadians' solidarity with their disadvantaged brothers and sisters throughout the world in the last 40 years.
In 1950, the external aid office, the ancestor of CIDA, had a development assistance budget of $11 million. By 1967, its budget had grown to $279 million. In 1968, the Canadian International Development Agency was created. CIDA never became a separate department. It was created without an incorporating act and comes under a statutory authority that gives it the power to spend money.
In his last report, the Auditor General of Canada points out CIDA's uncomfortable position under the sometimes undue pressures exerted by several departments such as foreign affairs, international trade, and national defence, not to mention Canadian businesses involved in international activities.
Legally, CIDA reports to the Department of Foreign Affairs, but its mandate has never really been specified. In principle, it should advise the government on co-operation issues; in practice, we have the impression that it responds to influence more than it really influences others.
Since it is not a department and since there is no minister with a mandate only for development assistance, Canadian ODA has never reached the internationally recognized standard of 0.7 per cent of GDP. In 1993, Canada spent only 0.4 per cent of its GDP, which is much less than what many industrialized countries spent on development assistance, as the following figures show: Norway, 1.16 per cent; Denmark and Sweden, 1 per cent; the
Netherlands, 0.86 per cent; France, 0.63 per cent; Finland, 0.62 per cent; Canada, 0.40 per cent.
While the federal government spent hundreds of millions of dollars on advertising Canada's 125th anniversary and sending its propaganda to all Canadian households, at the same time, it lowered the aid budget for developing countries.
The early 1990s marked the end of any measure to achieve the goal of 0.7 per cent. The 1991 budget not only further restricted development assistance but it extended aid to include the countries of eastern Europe and of the Commonwealth of Independent States.
In his 1992 economic statement, the then Minister of Finance cut international aid by $50 million. The last budget reduced the international aid envelope by 2 per cent and it will be cut by the same amount again in 1995.
Canada's aid strategy will soon be at a crossroads.
To this decrease in aid for developing countries must be added something else that reduces the impact of Canadian ODA: the scattergun approach. This approach no doubt confirms the many influences that turn CIDA away from its objectives. The charter of official development assistance from Sharing Our Future bases Canadian aid on the following four principles:
First, the fight against poverty; the main objective of development assistance is to help the poorest countries in this world; second, aid must seek to strengthen the human and institutional resources of developing countries so that they can solve their problems themselves; third, development needs must take priority in setting goals for official development assistance; fourth, development assistance must help to strengthen ties between Canadian institutions and citizens and those of third world countries.
Despite such clear objectives, the Auditor General, no offence to the Minister of Foreign Affairs, points out major shortcomings in what CIDA is doing: lack of clear, precise objectives and lack of coherence; dispersion and chronic lack of focus in CIDA's objectives; red tape favoured to the detriment of development content. On this point, I add that it is embarrassing to recall that for bilateral aid or the geographic program, CIDA uses 600 people to supervise the work of 125 people in the field. At the same time, a small organization like CECI sends 250 co-operants to carry out specific small projects.
The final shortcoming mentioned by the Auditor General is the limited knowledge of and minimal learning ability for accountability with respect to results.
On the other hand, the Auditor says he is sympathetic to CIDA, since it is subject to many constraints and influences. So, what is at issue is not so much how CIDA is managed as the lack of legal framework which makes it vulnerable.
In fact, Canadian development assistance increasingly finds itself torn between assistance and foreign trade. Which is to be favoured? This question sums up pretty well the whole problem. Again, the old saying "grasp all, lose all" is rather appropriate with regard to CIDA.
Let us not forget that Canada's ODA encompasses several programs which further dilutes goal attainment by involving more and more people. Although the figures do not apply specifically to Canada, the 1992 report on the United Nations development program is particularly bleak and calls into question ODA practices in developed countries.
In spite of these flaws revealed by the UNDP, definite progress have been made over the past 40 years in developing countries: life expectancy went from 40 to 63 years; the infant mortality rate dropped from 190 per 1,000 to 80 per 1,000 and the ratio of deaths of children under five years of age from 300 to 120 while, between 1970 and 1990, literacy grew from 23,8 to 48 per cent in Africa, from 44 to 64 per cent in Asia and from 73 to 84 per cent in Latin American and the Caribbean.
Yet, absolutely scandalous gaps continue to exist in terms of the per capita GNP for instance. Here are a few examples: in sub-Saharan Africa, the GNP was $120 in 1968 and reached only $330 in 1988; in South Asia, it was $100 in 1968 and $320 in 1988; in East Asia and Asia-Pacific, it was $100 in 1968 and had grown to $550 in 1988. Meanwhile, in Latin America and the Caribbean, it varied from $490 and $1,850 and in the Middle East and North Africa, it went from $220 in 1968 to $1,210 in 1988.
During that time, in OECD countries, the per capita GNP jumped from $2,750 in 1968 to as much as $17, 468 in 1988. In 1993, OECD nations allocated about $71 million to official development assistance, while a 2 per cent annual growth in the economy of poor countries would cost industrialized countries $200 billion a year. When faced with needs of this magnitude, we all too often give up. I remind members that these same OECD countries spent in excess of $370 billion on national defence in 1992.
Therefore, the problem is not one of resources, but rather of resource allocation. Canada's defence budget for 1994 is $11.5 billion, while $2.8 billion has been budgeted for assistance to developing countries. One can assume that the powerful defence industry lobby has a great interest in seeing this budgetary structure remain in place.
The Canadian government, cannot, however, continue indefinitely to support these questionable choices. By maintaining the gap between defence spending and development assistance spending, we perpetuate the belief that if poor countries cannot climb out of their state of poverty, the only solution left is for us
to arm ourselves to ensure our security in the face of a future revolt. Are we being foolish or reckless?
Any future foreign policy should settle this debate and come down on the side of government funding for development assistance. Canada could take on a leading role in this area and map out a new course to follow in the field of co-operation and development in the 21st century.
Moreover, Quebecers and Canadians are keenly aware of this new world vision which is tied not to the arms race, but to solidarity and sharing. It is no coincidence that roughly 250 aid agencies are members of the Canada Coucil for International Co-operation, the CCIC, and the Association québécoise des organismes de coopération internationale, l'AQOCI. These NGOs are driven by the generosity and dedication of thousands of volunteers who donate their time and money to help and ease the suffering of the poorest and most destitute men, women and children in the world.
In its foreign policy review, the Government of Canada must consider the objectives pursued by NGOs. It is generally recognized that these agencies are the most efficient channels for development assistance.
In the years to come, the Canadian government, as stated by the Minister of Foreign Affairs in the House on February 9, will be expected to increase its support for NGOs. At the present time, NGOs receive only 10 per cent of the ODA budget. This percentage must increase, especially since amounts allocated by the Canadian government are matched by the substantial amounts invested by development co-operation agencies in their development projects.
Because NGOs have no political ties with the often illegitimate governments of poor countries, they are unlikely to be obliged to abandon their activities in countries with a record of gross human rights violations, since their assistance is always directed to people, which unfortunately is not always the case with bilateral aid.
If we consider the fourth main principle of the ODA charter, which is that development assistance must help strengthen ties between Canadian citizens and institutions and those in the Third World, I think it is clear that the best vehicle for achieving this objective is the NGOs, whose workers merge with the social and cultural fabric of the people they help.
At the other end of the spectrum, we find large Canadian companies carrying out turn-key projects in developing countries which preclude this merging with the population, create even greater dependency and, in the final analysis, guarantee maintenance contracts for these companies. Our foreign policy review should stress these major issues: Does Canadian ODA serve the interests of a few Canadians rather than those of the poorest countries? These are a few of the aspects of development assistance which the Bloc quebecois would like to see considered in the context of a foreign policy review.
In concluding, I want to express my disapproval of the fact that the House of Commons Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade is being merged with that of the Senate. I object on several grounds. In the light of budgetary cutbacks, I think such concerns should be reflected in all decisions made by the government. In this case, having senators on the joint committee will add to operating expenses if the committee plans sittings away from Parliament Hill.
Furthermore, I also see this as a sign of panic on the part of the Liberal Party, which is afraid to see the party it resembles most, the Conservative Party, disappear altogether. To ensure the Conservatives are represented, the Liberals are prepared to appoint committee members from their supply of federalists. This means putting elected and non-elected members of Parliament on the same footing. This is unacceptable in a society that is proud of its democratic roots.
A survey conducted across Canada last summer indicated that more than 60 per cent of Canadians were in favour of abolishing the Senate outright. It is certainly not appropriate at this time to give the senators a legitimacy they have already lost as far as public opinion is concerned.
