Foreign Affairs Committee on Nov. 27th, 2007

[Denis Lebel, Conservative, Roberval—Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

I'd like to talk to you about Afghanistan.

Having recently come to this committee, I can see how sensitive the Afghanistan issue is. Our committee intends to table an interim report in December. There is also the work of an independent advisory panel chaired by Mr. Manley.

I'd like to know whether the department has appointed employees to work with Mr. Manley on that panel. If so, what is their mandate, and how will that work with regard to the department in this context?

[Robert Greenhill]

Yes, we have an employee working on the support team. His mandate is to provide all the research and logistical support necessary in those areas.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you, Monsieur Lebel.

Mr. Edwards to the same point.

[Leonard Edwards]

On the same subject, Mr. Mulroney is the head of the panel on Afghanistan and its secretary. He is working with Mr. Manley and his team. We also have other people helping with logistical support and so on.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you, Mr. Edwards.

We should maybe clarify. That would be Mr. David Mulroney.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

We'll proceed now with the official opposition and Mr. Wilfert.

[Bryon Wilfert, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

Mr. Edwards, I certainly agree with the comments you made about your department, the staff, and the great work they do both at home and abroad.

In your comments you talk about power shifting to Asia, China, India, and we know about Japan. You talk about the new realities. Where in this budget does it show that you in fact have the tools to address that? You spent a lot of time on the Americas, and we could debate whether that is in fact a good public policy decision, but in terms of Asia, in terms of the understaffing in Asia, and whether it's the consulate closings, which I am vehemently opposed to, in Osaka and Fukuoka, whether it is in fact providing the tools at the Pearson Building for resources needed, how do we address this? I don't know that you could ever get enough money—I shouldn't say that, I guess—to do the job that needs to be done if we are going to be continuing to punch higher than our weight in the international community. I don't think we have been recently, and that's more of a political comment, but perhaps you could address that, Mr. Edwards.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you, Mr. Wilfert.

Mr. Edwards.

[Leonard Edwards]

Mr. Chairman, the question that has been raised is one, of course, that challenges management of any department when priorities are set and so on. As a senior manager of the department, I have to adjust the resources to the parts of the world to which the government gives priority. That is what we are doing.

Certainly in the case of the Americas, resources are being moved to the Americas in order to satisfy that particular priority.

With respect to Asia, here, in particular, the government put money into the global commerce strategy, and the global commerce strategy is focusing on India and China and to some extent Brazil, which is also an Americas priority.

So resources have been made available, particularly in the commercial area, to focus on Asia.

[Bryon Wilfert, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

Is it fair to say you're being asked to do more with less?

[Leonard Edwards]

The amounts provided in the global commerce strategy are quite significant.

[Bryon Wilfert, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

Of what I see in the cuts in here, are we looking at about an 8% overall reduction?

[Leonard Edwards]

In cuts in the estimates?

[Bryon Wilfert, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

Yes.

[Leonard Edwards]

I don't think I've done those calculations to determine whether or not that percentage exists. All I know is that we are having to deal with, over the last several years, going back to 2003, 2005-06, a series of cross-government program reviews and so forth that have continued to challenge management, as should be the case, to allocate resources to priorities. Whether it amounts to 8%, I'm not sure, but these are simply the realities that senior managers have to work with, and we do our best.

[Bryon Wilfert, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

For my own edificiation, can you get back to us on that?

[Leonard Edwards]

We'll provide it, yes.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you, Mr. Wilfert.

You have just a minute and a half, Mr. Martin, unless you want to wait for another round.

[Keith Martin, Liberal, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

We won't get to another round.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Yes, we will.

[Keith Martin, Liberal, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Thank you.

Thank you all for being here today.

Zimbabwe has the lowest lifespan in the world, and could we please get some resources there? You can do it through Health Partners International of Canada, who you work with, and secondly, by increasing the Canada Fund. All of your high commissioners and ambassadors would be jumping for joy. It's the best bang for the buck in your projects, I believe, so if that could be doubled, it would be helpful.

The $105 million that was just announced this week is really part of the $450 million health systems initiative that was announced last year. The $105 million, though, is going to UNICEF, as I understand it. UNICEF has a very high administrative overhead. Can you tell me what percentage UNICEF has? Because my fear is that a lot of money is going to go down and the trickle-down effect will mean only a small amount will get to where you want it to be able to save lives. So do you know what the overhead is of UNICEF?

[Robert Greenhill]

UNICEF is one of our key coordinating partners in doing this. In some cases they'll be involved in helping to do some of the analysis and oversight. In other cases, in fact it may be going into the country's systems directly. So in fact the way it's structured, it should have quite a low overhead. But I'll get the numbers and provide that back to the committee.

It is worth noting that it's not just UNICEF involved; Norway's involved, the Gates Foundation is involved, and it's actually a very innovative partnership in terms of how we're trying to get these facilities out to people.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you very much, Mr. Martin and Mr. Greenhill.

We'll go back to the government side, but I want to ask this question, and it's more to the Department of Foreign Affairs. In CIDA's statement that they gave here today, Mr. Greenhill said:

To manage these disbursements the agency is increasing the number of staff in Kabul and Kandahar as well as at headquarters. Our field presence has more than doubled in the past two years: we will have 35 professional staff working in Afghanistan by April 2008, compared to just 10 in 2006. (These figures refer to professionals only and do not include, for example, drivers, and so on).

He talks about 35 professional staff workers in Afghanistan compared to just 10 in 2006. I'm wondering if we could get the figures from the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade on the same type of calculation. Are we seeing a major increase in Foreign Affairs' staff in Kabul or in Afghanistan? How many of them are at headquarters, if there is a headquarters, and how many are in the field? I don't know if you have those available, but if not, I think it would be of some value if we could get that information.

Mr. Edwards.

[Leonard Edwards]

Yes, Mr. Chairman, I can get that information. I don't have it broken down here for Foreign Affairs. What I have, in comparison terms anyway, is we now have five Foreign Affairs positions, plus six CIDA, ten RCMP, and two Correctional Services Canada positions in Kandahar in the provincial reconstruction team; and we also have two other Foreign Affairs officials at the Kandahar airfield. This is a significant increase. It's the same in Kabul, in terms of the numbers we have there at the embassy: we predict that including Foreign Affairs, CIDA, and so forth, the total civilian complement in Kabul will eventually exceed 50 people.

If we were to do a comparison with this time last year, I don't have the figures here, but it would show a significant increase.