Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Madam Minister, for being here. I probably have a hundred questions just arising out of what you said or didn't say. I'll try to get in three or, if I'm lucky, four.
I'm sure you're very aware of the exceptional vulnerability of persons in developing countries—particularly in Africa, but some others as well—to the combined impact of climate change and dire poverty, with horrendous disasters to people's lives individually and to communities. Yet in the most recent budget with respect to overseas development aid, with respect to international obligations, there wasn't a single mention of environment.
I want to ask you what the government's current upcoming budget commitment is to the continuation of the Canadian climate change development fund, which not only is desperately needed in developing countries, particularly in Africa, but is also something that is part of our Kyoto obligations, which we're not living up to.
Second, with respect to aid to Palestine, there is a desperate humanitarian crisis in Palestine with respect to poverty and disease. I want to know what the new national unity government situation presents in the way of an opening for the Canadian government to begin to recognize that the services and programs needed by the people of Palestine ought to be delivered through that new unity government. And will you, Madam Minister, be pressing for a change in directing our aid through that new unity government?
Third, with respect to Afghanistan, I have to say that I find it deeply distressing that almost always at the very top of the government's brag sheet about what it's doing in Afghanistan is the assertion—and they were the first words that came out of your mouth again today when you talked about Afghanistan—bragging that the single largest recipient of Canadian development assistance is Afghanistan. Of course, what you never say is that the level of our ODA in the world is at such an appallingly low level that this is almost a meaningless assertion.
In the Bill C-48, add-on funds that came from the NDP demand to the former Liberal government, there were some infusions of new dollars. But when you look at where we are with ODA today, if I'm not mistaken, as a result of this budget we're going backwards on our ODA level of contribution.
Because the Global Fund infusion was a one-time infusion, the fact is that it wasn't built into the base. I'm not sure of the absolute accuracy of this, but it has been estimated that, given the tiny baby steps we've been making to move towards our 0.7% minimum commitment, with this budget it would require an infusion of $600 million more to even maintain the level of ODA from last year—in other words, 0.34%.
What, from your point of view, is this year's level of ODA commitment as a result of this budget, and what is it projected to be over the next three years?
Finally, specifically with respect to TB and malaria funding, I think you'd be well aware of the horrendous numbers of deaths that are resulting from TB and malaria, particularly because of the co-infection implications, and that TB prevention and control and treatment is really one of the most cost-effective investments we can make to save lives in Africa. TB kills 600,000 people every year, and of course TB is the leading killer of people living with HIV/AIDs.
What I want to know is whether, in this budget, there is in fact a planned increase in spending, because I think what we've seen is flat-lining in the spending on TB and malaria programs, which means our investment in HIV/AIDS programs is actually far less effective than it could be.
Those are my four questions. I'm sorry there's not a lot more time for us to pursue other questions.