Mr. Speaker, this is an important issue, especially in these troubled times, these times of crisis, these global hard times. The world is changing in potentially dangerous ways. However, we should not overlook the fact that the global issues of misery, poverty, exploitation and violence have never been completely eradicated at any point in history. Too often, most of the time in fact, they fall through the cracks of public debate.
There has never been an era of endless prosperity. The grand assurances of the 1990s that globalization would lift the planet out of poverty have not become reality. As we can see today, the promises of a bright future have not actually come to pass. We are still living in one of the darkest and most difficult times, despite everything. Given the rather explosive and challenging global context we are seeing today, it is easy to see and safe to say that we are not where we thought we would be.
In his speech earlier, my colleague from Lac-Saint-Jean mentioned aspects that extend beyond humanitarian assistance. I will come back to humanitarian assistance and to the motion in a moment. We need to keep in mind that a motion is non-binding. It is always better to have one than to have none at all, but it is better still to have an effective policy, an actual law with binding force on governments, especially when our confidence in the government is so low. A while ago, my colleague said that the government funds a number of Canadian mining companies operating abroad that are guilty of exploitation. I would like to talk about that a little.
We heard from representatives of Export Development Canada a few times in committee. They are not entirely sure where the money is going. It is nominally intended to support development and wealth creation, but no one checks whether human rights abuses are being committed over there.
While participating in human rights observation missions in Chile and Colombia, I met with populations that had been harmed by Canadian mining companies. Often, these mining companies are not actually Canadian, but they register in Canada because it is extremely easy and because Canada is a flag of convenience. They also register as Canadian companies to benefit from the legal, tax and speculative advantages that come with being listed on the Toronto Stock Exchange. I met with people who had suffered due to air and water pollution and people who had been subjected to violence. I myself witnessed a private security system in Colombia stopping people from crossing public land.
Canada is a haven for mining companies, especially since there is no real ombudsperson. The ombudsperson's complaints office cannot compel the production of documents or compel witnesses to appear. This shows that Canada will not be able to restore its reputation in international assistance simply by proposing motions. It should start by cleaning up its own backyard.
Let us get back to the motion. As we have said, we support it. We know that the government has been spending for many years. We are not against the idea of spending. We ourselves advocate a certain minimum level of spending on humanitarian aid, but it is important to measure the impact of that spending. Take, for example, the so-called feminist international assistance policy. Of course, we fully support the principle, but there are no checks and balances in place to ensure that the money spent will achieve the goal. We are not the ones saying this; it is the Auditor General.
While international assistance must sometimes be delivered through agencies or organizations like the Red Cross and the World Food Programme, for example, spending on individuals or businesses should be limited in order to avoid waste. We should also look for potential benefits for Quebeckers and Canadians, where possible, and not just economic benefits.
For example, funding for French-language education programs in Africa could help improve the vitality of the French language on that continent. This would also have positive repercussions on the status of French in Quebec, if we are to continue taking in so many immigrants from these areas. This could improve the vitality of French in Quebec and in the rest of Canada.
This is an example of something we can fund that will benefit people here at home, but it does not mean that it is strictly an economic benefit that can be calculated clearly and spontaneously using indicators.
There are also countries like Chile, which, as we know, uses international assistance to advance its economic interests. Sorry, I meant to say “China”. It was a slip of the tongue, although Chile is not one of the most reputable regimes either, and China also has interests in Chile. Anyway, take the example of China and the new silk road. This is a system that has evolved constantly, as we know. It was supposed to be only a few sectors at first, but more and more were added, and it became very digital. The new silk road has really shifted toward technology and digital infrastructure.
A number of developing countries, including African countries, see this in a positive light. Now, we also know that these countries are receiving crumbs from the west, which also explains China's ideological appeal in Africa. It is extremely appealing to African regimes. However, the conditions attached to the assistance continue to generate strong criticism, and for good reason. I have no qualms about describing these conditions as unfair. China is investing heavily in developing countries. It is building ports and roads, rail lines and infrastructure to secure its own supply of raw materials. When countries are unable to repay their debt, China, the lender, repossesses the infrastructure and resources.
Ultimately, this allows China to gain the same advantages that large metropolises once derived from their colonies, without necessarily encountering the same disadvantages. It gets to have its cake and eat it too. In addition, China usually imposes a 99-year lease to maintain control over the infrastructure. This is a real problem, and it is something that should be monitored. We have to be wary, because I do not think anyone here is particularly keen on the idea of a new colonialism, like the Canadian neo-colonialism that mining companies are already engaging in. Now it could expanded, if assistance is viewed purely as an economic proposition. Fortunately, I am extremely pleased that the proposed amendment to the motion was accepted.
It should also be noted that the Liberals have achieved a remarkable feat: They have done less than Stephen Harper's government in terms of international aid. This was evident when Canada failed miserably to secure a seat on the UN Security Council after its last-minute campaign in 2020, a failure that, according to several experts, can be largely explained by Canada's abandonment of humanitarian aid. We reap what we sow. Canada is very far from reaching its target of investing 0.7% of gross national income in international aid. Instead, it is hovering around 0.3%. In fact, Canada even reduced aid in its 2023 budget.
When I say we reap what we sow, I think this motion may be the beginning of something, and that is interesting to me. We hope that it will not just be a symbolic motion. Luckily, we were able to put to rest the ridiculous notion of humanitarian aid being justified by purely economic gain. I am happy about that for the reasons I explained earlier. Now, there are so many other things to look at. Let me dispel the notion that Canada is still driven by the lofty ideals of peacekeeping. That is no longer Canada's role. It is no longer the envy of the world. We saw that even during the recent pandemic, when there was a vote at the World Trade Organization to lift patents on vaccines. Canada was among the countries that blocked this, that voted against it.
Canada can be a humanitarian country, but it can also be quick to jump into bed with multinationals, depending on where its interests lie. I have already talked about mining companies. I also talked about the idea of having an ombudsman. Canada has a lot of housekeeping to do before it can claim to be a great champion of humanitarian aid.
