This issue has been in the centre of our discussions this morning. I think they were very constructive discussions.
I don't want to anticipate what our position will be, because it depends on texts that are not yet available, but I think we had a very good common understanding with the minister. We do not oppose the fact that there is the possibility of a safe country list, and that is an instrument that allows for a streamlining of procedures. We do not oppose that, provided that fact does not impede first access to asylum, even from people coming from...and a special consideration of groups within this context.
For instance, one can have a democracy with serious problems of genital mutilation. Mali is an example. Mali is a democratic country, but genital mutilation is still a practice there. So for gender, for problems of sexual preference, there is persecution even in democracies.
I believe there was quite an important consensus this morning on the need for whatever legislation is adopted to create the safeguards to allow for these kinds of situations to always be taken into account. Now, of course, it will depend on how the texts are presented, and we will give our opinion based on those texts, but this was very openly and frankly discussed, and I believe there was a common understanding on what needs to be done to preserve access in those circumstances.
About DRC, I can only agree that supporting the DRC peacekeeping operation, the supports to humanitarian action in DRC, is very much welcomed because the level of humanitarian disaster in the DRC is out of proportion. In the DRC, we have people dying every six months, people who should not be dying, dying in numbers that correspond—if you remember the tsunami of four years ago—to one tsunami every six months. So it's really a level of tragedy...and women, of course, are victims of all kinds of terrible things. So DRC is a country in which we are very strongly involved.
I would like to leave a set of tables to the attention of the members of this committee, tables that show one thing that I believe is very important for a relevant donor country like Canada. We are trying to use your money not to spend it on the organization, but to spend it on the people we care for. So in these four years, we have reduced 300 people in Geneva, which means a 30% reduction in headquarters. Headquarters costs that were 14% of our costs are now less than 10% of our costs. Staff costs were 41% of our organization, now they are 27%, which means more and more is used directly by outside organizations, and more and more NGOs are involved in our activities, and we do our best to make sure there is value for money in the contributions that are given to us.
I will leave a group of tables. There are 15 copies or something, and if they could be distributed to the honourable members of the committee, I would be very grateful.
Thank you very much.