Debates of Feb. 7th, 2008

HIV-AIDS among Aboriginal People

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, I got carried away.

We are going to have a meeting. The researchers at UBC and St. Paul's Hospital have not been able to get a meeting with anyone in the Conservative government, not a B.C. minister and not the Minister of Health. They are desperate. We are meeting with the researchers tomorrow to talk about some of these new treatment modalities that they are going to work on to see if they can assist people with treatment.

This is a sad day. We are dealing here not only with substance abuse, for which the government has no answer other than an ideological position that the Conservatives call a national health strategy, but we are also dealing with aboriginal people who are the most affected by this. The tools which were put together to deal with this problem and to get the kind of preventative measures that are needed for aboriginal peoples were not put into place. In fact, they were cancelled. We hear of small amounts of money being handed out.

When the Liberals were in government, we set up an urban aboriginal strategy that was going to assist urban aboriginal people to deal with health issues, to deal with substance abuse issues. There was a young urban aboriginal strategy as well. These have disappeared. They are gone. The government is obviously not interested in this most vulnerable population. It has obviously moved them somewhere off the path.

This is why I think this debate is important. It is an emergency. The problems have increased since the Conservatives came into power and they do not want to seek the right answers. They have developed an ideological attitude to things.

This debate tonight can shed light on some of the absolutely appalling public policy around these issues. Maybe Canadians will listen and decide that it is time that we stopped talking about aboriginal communities and did something about them. Maybe Canadians will decide that it is time we stopped talking about substance abuse and did something about it. We had started. We know that if we form government, we will continue to build on those very good strategies.

[Steven Fletcher, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary for Health]

Mr. Speaker, that was quite the speech. There are so many inaccuracies and misleading statements in the member's speech it is hard to know where to begin. Let me just point out a few things.

On the residential school agreement, we, the Conservative Party, signed that agreement. There is $1 billion to help mitigate some of the harm that was done.

On housing, the member says that there has not been a single housing announcement. In fact, the government is investing hundreds of millions of dollars in housing. Just a few months ago in Winnipeg, I announced $2.1 million for a three storey, fully furnished, 20 unit apartment building at 415 Logan Avenue. I encourage the member to check it out, the Anishinabe Place of Hope. That was designed for first nations people.

The member talked about hepatitis C. Now, that is something else. For a Liberal member of Parliament to talk about hepatitis C after the Liberals denied compensation to the tainted blood victims, including aboriginal peoples, is just scandalous. It was a deliberate public policy decision by the Liberal government to deny compensation, one of the greatest scandals in Canadian history.

The member talks about fundamentals, first principles. Surely, what is more fundamental than anything else is fundamental human rights. Most Canadians would be shocked to know that first nations people are not included under the Canadian Human Rights Act. The Liberals are preventing this government from including first nations in the act--

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Order. The hon. member for Vancouver Centre.

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad the member brought up the residential school agreement that the Conservatives signed. It is one that we are proud to have negotiated.

The member speaks about putting millions of dollars into housing. We had over $5 billion in the Kelowna accord that was set to deal with many of these issues.

Our party is not ashamed to say that we started the homelessness strategy that in fact had reached about $2 billion by the time the member's party assumed office.

I do not think I need a lecture from the member about housing and who signed what and when. The issue I am talking about is what the member does not seem to be able to understand. If we are going to deal with the fundamental issues of a disease that is caused by substance abuse and intravenous drug use, we need to deal with them in a manner that is consistent with public health principles. These are not my principles. They are not Liberal Party principles. They are proven public health principles. Any country in the world would have known what they are. And I am asking the government to actually observe them.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Vancouver Centre for participating in this important debate tonight and also for her very good understanding of this issue. In fact, the member and I were both part of the special parliamentary committee on the non-medical use of drugs. It included all parties. Randy White, a former member of Parliament, was on the committee as well. We had some interesting times.

One of the things we learned was that so much of the policy in Canada has been driven by the U.S. agenda. Certainly when she speaks about Insite, it was very much modelled on what we learned and understood to be working in the European context, where a safe injection facility is just part of a comprehensive strategy. I think at some points we almost had the Conservative member convinced, but then he had to keep moving back to his party's position.

There is a new bill before the House, Bill C-26, regarding minimum mandatory sentences for drug crimes. One of the things I am very concerned about is that we are moving in the direction of increased enforcement, of criminalization of drug users. That is very alarming. It is very much the U.S. style of the war on drugs. It is what George Bush has adopted. Certainly the Prime Minister and the Conservative government seem to be moving in this direction very rapidly.

I am very concerned about Insite being shut down and what that would mean in terms of more overdoses in our community. I am very concerned about this so-called anti-drug strategy, which really is a U.S.-style approach .

I just wonder if the member would comment on that.

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased that the member asked this question. I know how she feels about the issue. I know how many of us felt, those of us who actually travelled and saw the details and facts. We looked at what worked in Europe and came back filled with hope and recommendations on what we must do here.

The member asked me to comment on Insite. If Insite closes down, given that Insite had brought the overdose death rate of that particular group of people who attended Insite down to zero, should one of them die when Insite is closed, that would increase the death rate as a result of a direct act of this government. I cannot put it more verbally than that.

With regard to an anti-drug U.S.-style approach, it is not only Europe that has been doing this. We can talk about Spain or Belgium. We can talk about the work that is being done in Germany. The European Parliament has decided that this is the way it is going to go because based on evidence, it is working. The results are extraordinary.

Australia started a project like Insite and now it is all over Australia. Every place in Australia has similar clinics. They are no longer projects. They have been adopted as a strategy.

All I can say to the member is that if we do not base our strategies on what is known to work, and what is evidence based, on what research has shown us, then we will have made a great mistake, and the government will have to accept the results of that mistake on its shoulders.

[Luc Malo, Bloc, Verchères—Les Patriotes, QC]

Mr. Speaker, before I begin my speech, I would like to inform you that I will be sharing my time with the member for Laval.

The first thing that surprises me about tonight's debate, Mr. Speaker, is that when you received the motion from the member for Vancouver East requesting an emergency debate, you granted it, so you must have thought that, given your knowledge of the facts, the motion put forward by the member for Vancouver East was a matter of some urgency.

However, judging by the governing party's speeches, particularly the one delivered by the Minister of Health, and the way he sees the current situation in Vancouver, I do not sense much urgency. In fact, nowhere in his speech did he come up with innovative ideas or a specific plan to do something about what people in that part of Canada are going through.

However, in his reply, the Minister of Health spouted a lot of preconceived and ideological notions about how to make things better for drug users in Canada. It seems to me that since it was decided that this issue should be the subject of an emergency debate, we should be using the debate to look for a solution to this particular problem affecting people in that part of Canada.

Nowhere in his speech did the Minister of Health talk about the health of aboriginal peoples. I am a member of the Standing Committee on Health. We often urge the committee to consider the health of aboriginal peoples. Usually, committee members would rather talk about issues that fall under provincial jurisdiction, but I think it is time the Standing Committee on Health took a closer look at issues that concern it directly and that call for federal government action in an area that does fall under its jurisdiction: the health of aboriginal peoples. Statistics about the health of aboriginal peoples are frightening.

To return to the matter at hand, I would like to inform the House that we are aware of research published by the American Journal of Public Health confirming that aboriginals are more likely to have HIV than other Canadians. The study shows that aboriginal drug users in Vancouver's Downtown Eastside are twice as likely to contract HIV-AIDS as non-aboriginals.

Research data shows that, during the four years of the study, 18.5% of aboriginal men and women who use injection drugs such as cocaine and heroin became HIV positive, compared to 9.5% of non-aboriginals. This disparity is rather significant and, in my opinion, should be the subject of a thorough study or at least serious awareness on the part of the government.

The epidemic, which continues to spread throughout the world and from which practically no country is immune, can spread several ways. According to the report “AIDS Epidemic Update” produced in 2006 by UNAIDS and the WHO, approximately 39.5 million people are HIV positive, and the pandemic continues to target vulnerable communities.

In recent years, the number of people living with HIV has increased in all areas of the world. In 2006, 4.3 million people were newly infected with HIV and 2.9 million people died of AIDS related illnesses. In Canada, the number of people living with HIV-AIDS grew from 50,000 in 2002 to 58,000 at the end of 2005. Up to 25% do not know they are HIV positive.

In Canada, aboriginals represent the most vulnerable populations and are most often the victims of this pandemic. They are nearly three times more likely to be infected by HIV than any other Canadians. This statistic alone, I think, should be enough to make the government realize the importance of this critical situation.

The findings of the study on aboriginals in Vancouver confirm the existing data gathered throughout the country. Previously, in 2003, a study of aboriginals in Vancouver concluded that aboriginal intravenous drug users become infected by HIV at twice the rate of non-aboriginals. The Public Health Agency of Canada also released a report on these statistics in November 2007. If I may, I would like to share some of the findings, which are extremely alarming.

Aboriginals continue to be overrepresented in the epidemic of HIV infection in Canada. They represent 3.3% of the Canadian population, but account for an estimated 7.5% of all existing HIV infections. In addition, 9% of new HIV infections reported in 2005 occurred in aboriginals, 53% as a result of intravenous drug use, compared to 14% for the general population. The overall infection rate among aboriginals is therefore roughly 2.8 times the rate among non-aboriginals. One final statistic that shows how serious the problem is concerns aboriginal women, who account for 48.1% of positive HIV tests reported among aboriginal peoples, compared to 20.7% among non-aboriginal peoples.

These findings point to the need for specific measures to address the unique features of the epidemic of HIV infection in the aboriginal population. According to the Vancouver study, intravenous drug use poses the greatest risk of infecting the aboriginal population not only in Vancouver, but across the country.

Members of our first nations are not more likely to use drugs because of their culture or biology; drug use is rooted in a malaise caused by serious social problems.

Speaking of social problems, I would like to talk about the poverty in aboriginal communities across Canada. Canada is responsible for the aboriginal peoples, but the poverty among our first nations is one of the most serious social injustices in this country. Canada has more than 750,000 first nations people. The latest census indicated that the aboriginal population had exceeded one million. Of that number, 750,000 live on reserves, in urban areas and in Canada's northern territories.

If we compare the situation of the first nations with that of the rest of Canada's population, a number of facts emerge. First, one in four first nations children lives in poverty, compared to one in six in the rest of the population. The life expectancy of first nations men and women is 7.4 and 5.2 years shorter, respectively. First nations dwellings are nearly twice as overcrowded as other Canadian homes.

Half of first nations homes are contaminated with mould. The socio-economic conditions of first nations are comparable to those of developing nations, as people's health status is well below the national average.

I understand that my time is up. Thank you for allowing me to finish.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

Your time expired a while ago.

The hon. Parliamentary Secretary for Health.

[Steven Fletcher, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary for Health]

Mr. Speaker, the member and I work on the health committee, and the member does a very good job. I always appreciate his interventions.

There is an irony here though. We have a Bloc member, whose goal is to presumably separate, commenting on the situation in Vancouver. However, this is one of the ironies in which we find ourselves.

Given the member's separatist tendencies, has he had an opportunity to reflect on what would happen to first nations people in Quebec if there were ever an issue of sovereignty? It seems that they would be in a very serious situation. As the member has indicated, the federal government supports first nations people in the order of billions and billions of dollars.

Would the member agree with the government's strategy, with the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, in working toward a cure, or at least a vaccine for HIV-AIDS and does he accept that is a good role for the federal government to play?

[Luc Malo, Bloc, Verchères—Les Patriotes, QC]

Mr. Speaker, if the Parliamentary Secretary for Health has doubts as to my constitutional option for Quebec, then I will reassure him right now. I support Quebec's independence and I have made it my personal cause. I became involved in politics on that account.

Having said that, I am surprised that he is asking why we are taking part in the debate today because the Bloc Québécois—and my hon. colleague opposite is certainly aware of this—speaks for the most disadvantaged, for those who suffer. And that comes through in everything we say.

In my opinion, the current situation of Vancouver's aboriginal people must be raised in this House because, as I was saying in my speech, it is a reflection of what is happening in many aboriginal communities. We must be aware of this.

Therefore, I urge the Parliamentary Secretary for Health to put forward policies that will make the health of aboriginal people a central part of this government's actions because it is a worrisome situation. I see that he is nodding and I gather that he agrees with this comment.

What will happen to aboriginal peoples under a sovereign Quebec? That is an excellent question.

The National Assembly of Quebec was one of the first legislatures to acknowledge the very existence of the first nations. It recognizes aboriginal people as a nation within Quebec and already has a nation-to-nation dialogue with them. I believe that it is clear that, when Quebec is sovereign, this dialogue will continue and Quebec will assume its full range of responsibilities, including the well-being of aboriginal people in partnership with native governments.

Mr. Speaker, thank you for allowing me to finish my reply.

[Nicole Demers, Bloc, Laval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, while I wish to make a point of speaking to the motion tabled by our colleague for Vancouver East, I have doubts and I wonder whether it is worthwhile debating the issue. Since the debate began, I have not heard any real concern from the government. I have heard many partisan comments, much pettiness and many things that have nothing to do with the problems of aboriginal people suffering from HIV-AIDS.

I find it unfortunate, in this illustrious place with 308 elected members, that elected individuals, with specific positions such as that of the parliamentary secretary, use the debate to engage in petty politics. I find it most unfortunate that this is being done at the expense of individuals suffering from a fatal disease and the disadvantaged, who can ask nothing else of life except to wonder when will the government realize the impact of their illness. I find that very sad.

Nonetheless, in her motion, the hon. member made a realistic and factual plea. I find it unfortunate that the Minister of Health did not come up with anything else either. Instead of decrying the situation and providing evidence of concrete solutions to the problem, he talks about the fight against drugs. We are not just talking about the fight against drugs. I know there are drugs in Canada and in Quebec and I know it is a problem. We are talking about people who are dying every day from a disease they did not ask for, regardless of which part of the population they come from and regardless of whether “Men who have sex with men are the group most affected by the epidemic, accounting for 51%”, as the Minister of Health pointed out. What a statement. When we hear that we wonder whether in his view the government would be better off letting people die instead of taking concrete action to help them overcome this problem. I find it unfortunate to hear things like that.

I am ashamed to be here in the House this evening with people who take part in the debate and say such things. This is no laughing matter and it is no time for getting sidetracked and bantering about Quebec's separation. We are talking about people dying and people getting infected every day. Every two hours of every day someone gets infected with the HIV-AIDS virus. And it is not the gays, the lesbians and the aboriginals who are getting infected; people are getting infected. Let us not forget that.

Instead of trying to lay blame, I would like everyone to remember that we are talking about a disease. This disease appeared 25 years ago and since then we have been trying to find a reason, some medication, a vaccine. Twenty-five years later and some are still looking for reasons. The primary reason is poverty. The primary reason is indifference toward aboriginal people who have been put on so-called reserves. Reserves are for animals. When you travel to Africa you go on a safari on a reserve. We are talking about aboriginal communities.

It is really very petty to not care any more than that about their well-being, to pass the buck back and forth as though it were a political game instead of a social issue. What has become of us that our politicians can do nothing but pass the buck without taking responsibility for their actions?

This party has been in power for two years now, and it can stop blaming the previous government and start thinking about what it has not done and what it should have done. If we want to talk about others' actions or lack thereof, I have a lot to say about the Conservative government.

This disease affects not only adult women, but also the young. There are children being orphaned. There is poverty in all aboriginal communities. It is not in one aboriginal community, it is not just in aboriginal communities in the west or in the north, it is in all aboriginal communities across Canada. There are people who are crammed into houses. There are people without access to clean water or medications. These are the terrible situations we see every day.

That is what we should be thinking about this evening. We should take this opportunity to focus on what we can do together—not against each other, but together—in order to eradicate this disease and give everyone a fair chance.

[Steven Fletcher, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary for Health]

Mr. Speaker, it is important for the member to know that the government takes the issue of HIV-AIDS very seriously from coast to coast to coast, in Quebec, East Vancouver, and throughout the entire country. In fact, the government recognizes that HIV-AIDS occurs in increased percentages in the Vancouver downtown east end and we are taking action through a variety of initiatives.

The member is right in that the government has a role to play. The Conservative Party is playing a role and it is part of the solution. That is a role that the Bloc will never have because it will never be government. It will never have that ability.

The fact is that this government has done a lot on prevention, education, dealing with people who already have HIV-AIDS. We are also looking to the future for a vaccine. We are working with the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation and, through CIHR, investing moneys in research.

Would the member agree that it is important to invest in research to find a vaccine? Does the member agree with the government's approach at least on HIV-AIDS research?

[Nicole Demers, Bloc, Laval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as long as members of this government and this Parliament fail to grasp the importance of the role of the Bloc Québécois in this House, there is very little chance of them making any further progress.

They have a unique opportunity. We are a unique party among all the world's democracies, a party that has no financial connections to anyone. Our only goal, our only objective, is to defend the rights and interests of the people we represent. We did not endorse placing COLD-fX on the shelves the day after Don Cherry visited the House.

No lobbyist can buy our support and we will never be in power. I would like them to understand why the Bloc Québécois has a role to play in this House. Although the government may not understand it, Quebeckers certainly understand. That is why they have been giving us their support and putting their trust in us for the past 15 years.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate the parliamentary secretary is being so partisan in his comments tonight. I would certainly like to thank both the member for Laval and her colleague from the Bloc who are participating in this debate tonight and bringing forward genuine information, sentiment, feeling and passion about this important issue.

I certainly want to thank the member for Laval for bringing us back to the point that this is about human rights. It is about people's dignity. It is about providing the basic essentials, so that people can meet their own potential whether or not they have HIV or AIDS.

I would like to ask the member if she could maybe talk a bit about harm reduction programs in Quebec? We often look to Quebec as a place where progressive things are done in many areas, whether it is child care or housing. I would like her to maybe say a little bit about what harm reduction programs do exist in Quebec--

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I will have to stop the hon. member there.

The hon. member for Laval.

[Nicole Demers, Bloc, Laval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is true that we have a lot of programs to help people struggling with drug problems, whether injection drugs or others are involved. Those programs are important.

We know that HIV transmission is often linked to injection drug use. People may not have enough money to buy new syringes every day or even every hour, or they may simply be unable to get the devices they need to administer drugs correctly.

Organizations like CACTUS are very active in syringe distribution programs. Other programs, such as those offered by community health centres, provide information, support and help. Drug users have rights too. Drug addiction is an illness and it can be treated. However, to treat the illness, people need access to comprehensive programs that treat not only their bodies, but also their souls. This is not just a physical illness; it is a spiritual one as well.

We have developed a number of programs in Quebec. I know that in Vancouver, too, there is a place that is very useful to people—

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Order, please. I apologize for interrupting the hon. member for Laval, but the time for questions and comments has expired.

Resuming debate. The hon. member for Yellowhead.

[Rob Merrifield, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to stand and contribute this evening to what is deemed an emergency debate on the tragedy of what is happening in the lives of some individuals in the Vancouver area.

I know that the emergency debate is more about the aboriginal side of this. I believe that aboriginals make up the largest part of the HIV-AIDS infected individuals in that area, but I would like to broaden the debate somewhat because I think HIV-AIDS is a problem right across the country and certainly in places around the world. The advance of this disease is much more severe than we see in Canada, although when one sees an area that is around 30% infected, it is very significant. Most Canadians would be appalled at the idea that we have an area of population in this country where 30% to 40% of the population is infected with HIV-AIDS.

HIV-AIDS is a disease that is 100% preventable. We know how to prevent this disease. It is not like what we know of the luck of the draw as to whether we get cancer, heart problems or other diseases that afflict our population. This is one that we know how to fix. We know that we can prevent it. We know of the absolute tragedy when an individual becomes infected with this terrible disease.

The problem in our debate this evening is how to use the dollars that we allocate in Canada in the most effective, efficient way in dealing with this problem. As parliamentarians, we come here tonight to be able to dialogue with each other, to be able to put our heads together, hopefully, in as non-partisan a way as possible, to deal with this issue.

I would like to speak to this issue. I have the privilege of chairing the finance committee and some people might ask what I am doing talking about health care. However, I did have the opportunity and the privilege to chair the health committee when it did a study on this exact issue just a few short years ago. In the study, we looked at the dollars that were going into HIV-AIDS in Canada and at whether we were getting any proper or appropriate results.

Individuals testified before the committee. We certainly looked at the aboriginals and tried to discern whether the appropriate measures were being taken or whether there was more we could do with regard to the aboriginal communities and HIV-AIDS.

I want to go back to our report, because we tabled that report in the House, and that is really what we do with reports from committees. In committee, we are not making a report to a specific ministry or minister. It is a report to this Parliament and to and for the people of Canada. We try to lower the political temperature in those committees so that we can do that to the best ability of the hon. members in the House.

With that, I would like to say that we do acknowledge the severe problem that is afflicting our populations with this disease. What are we going to do about it?

I have had the opportunity to visit Africa a couple of times, where HIV-AIDS has impacted the population much more severely than it has in Canada or any place in the world. When looking at the problems in Africa, as Canadian parliamentarians we all feel for that continent. We have tried to help by sending a significant amount of money. In fact, we passed bills in the House to try in a compassionate way to get anti-viral drugs to those populations, to get them there in ways that they can afford and that would actually help ease the suffering and the curse of this disease.

In Africa, I talked to some of the leaders. We were able to sit down and dialogue. I remember one HIV-AIDS conference that I was at in Senegal, on the west side of Africa. Ten different countries in Africa came together. These were countries that had severe problems. There were two countries with examples of how they were infected much less severely than the rest of Africa. One was the country of Senegal and the other was Uganda. They approached the HIV-AIDS virus in a much different way.

One country immediately allowed for free testing and free drugs to be able to deal with it, and the other one said no, that it was going to do everything it could to make sure that its populations did everything they could not to become infected. Those two approaches were aggressive and effective.

Still, the prevalence of the HIV-AIDS epidemic in Africa is so significant that it is devastating to see when one visits there. On the way home, I was thinking about what we in the western world could do in regard to HIV-AIDS that would help in our country and internationally.

One thing that struck me immediately was that maybe we should stop stealing their doctors, because they need them much more than we do. By that, I mean the medical practitioners. We have a rich country, one of the wealthiest in the world, and I would suggest that it is the best country in the world. It is not the richest in the world, but it is very rich. We can train our own physicians. We should try to do that as much as possible.

Second, if we really are going to help Africans on this disease, we have to focus on something that will last a long time and actually address the problem. If we cannot change their culture and if we cannot change the reason they get HIV-AIDS, which is a very difficult thing to do, then we need to make sure that we do everything we can to get a vaccine in place to protect people from this virus.

Interestingly, at the Senegal conference I remember that for two days all the parliamentarians could talk about was how poor they were. Their number one problem was poverty, they said. It was poverty, poverty, poverty, they said, and I listened to that for two days. Finally I said that I did not think their problem was poverty. I said that I thought it was corrupt governance. The room went absolutely quiet, but the next day they came to me and said that I had a point, that they knew their parliaments and their governance were somewhat corrupt.

They actually came up with a solution at the end of this conference as to how they would deal with corrupt governance in order to be able to take the money from the World Bank and the global funds to address the HIV-AIDS epidemic in an appropriate way. They said, “Why don't we set up an arm's length agency of government that would have the mandate to deliver this HIV-AIDS money directly to the patients and not go through the mechanism of government?”

Why am I relaying that story to members? Because it relates directly to what we are talking about. In Canada, we dedicate $9 billion to $12 billion for first nations people in this country, yet we have some of the worst conditions, third world conditions, on some of the reserves. Why is that the case? It is not really a lack of money. It is because the money is not going where it should in order to address the problems.

We are here tonight on an emergency debate about HIV-AIDS. I could easily make the same case for aboriginals and say that we need an emergency debate on fetal alcohol spectrum disorder, which is particularly prevalent on first nations reserves, and in epidemic proportions. By the way, every one of those cases is 100% preventable.

I could make a case for aboriginals that we should have an emergency debate on diabetes on first nations reserves, because the diabetes epidemic on reserves and within the first nations population is very significant.

I could make a case for aboriginals that we should have an emergency debate on the obesity rate for children on aboriginal reserves. The health committee just finished a report on that subject last March. It showed that 55% of children on aboriginal reserves are obese or overweight. It is in epidemic proportions in the general population at 26%, but for aboriginals on reserve it is 55%, and off reserve it is over 40%.

All of these cases could be made and would be very valid. The problem is deeper than just dealing with HIV-AIDS and the money that we put toward it. I am not trying to downplay it or say that as parliamentarians we should reduce funds or change funds. What we should do is make sure that we do everything we possibly can to deal with the root problems on our reserves and with first nations peoples.

That is our focus, number one, but part of this is the way that we govern and treat aboriginal people. We do not give them matrimonial rights. We do not allow them to own their own homes. We do not allow the structure and give them the respect they deserve with regard to the way we treat them, so they have low self-esteem. That is all part of the root problems of why they get into major drug problems and have a culture that allows them to become infected by the disease of HIV-AIDS.

I am not saying that I have the answers here, and I do not think anyone in this House has all the answers, but I know that the problem of HIV-AIDS on reserves and off reserve, and particularly in this area of Vancouver, is significant. I know that we should do everything we possibly can to help these individuals and to prevent them from transmitting that disease to more Canadians.

To get back to the report that the health committee did, we listened to the witnesses about this disease and the first thing we said was that the moneys had not moved since the early 1990s. This was in 2005. Since the early 1990s, $42 million a year was all the money that the Canadian government put into HIV-AIDS. We said that was not enough.

We asked the government what was being done with the money and we were told this and that. I am not going to drag it out, but the real gist of the testimony was that we could do much more. There was a tremendous case made for that. Every dollar that we put into it was going to save the taxpayers a tremendous number of dollars in the long run because it would prevent a number of infections.

Therefore, I was convinced that we needed to add funds to our HIV-AIDS funds in Canada. I recommended and the committee recommended unanimously that we increase the amount. In fact, our minority report suggested that we would double the amount of money to $85 million. That is what the Liberal government of the day did. The amount was increased to $85 million. Our government has followed through on that.

However, there was another part of our report that is very significant. It is important for the House to understand this if we are going to put more money into HIV-AIDS in Canada. At that time, there were 4,000 new infections per year. With that money, the goal was to reduce the number of infections. If we were just going to put money into the problem, then we were not going to really address the situation.

We needed to have a goal to say that we were actually going to do something with the money we wanted put into it, even though when we did that we knew the numbers did not really make a lot of sense. We looked at what was happening in other countries around the world. The United States was putting in $12 per capita for its spending on HIV-AIDS. Canada was putting in $1.40 per capita. Australia was putting in $1.25.

The interesting part about this is that even though the United States put in 94% more money, the prevalence rate there was massively higher than what it was per capita in Canada. Canada was contributing much less than the United States and our prevalence rate was much lower. Australia was putting in only $1.25 per capita and its infection rate in the population was much lower than Canada's and that of the United States. It had nothing to do with the correlation that when more money is put in, the prevalence of HIV-AIDS is reduced.

Part of our recommendation concerning the money was that the government was to put in $85 million, but $5 million of that would be going directly to first nations and Inuit people and another $5 million to inmates. I do not know the exact percentage of inmates in our institutions who are aboriginal, but it is a significant number, so we could say that much of the $10 million allocated would go to aboriginals.

Since then, we have heard the minister explain to the House that we have a national drug strategy and that two-thirds of that amount goes to prevention and to treatment of individuals affected by drug problems.

I believe that is an appropriate response. It is the right way to go. I believe also other countries should model the number of dollars Canada put into the vaccine and research. The Gates foundation is an example and model of what we are trying to do.

We can leverage the money in other countries and leverage the money that we put into the federal government to come up with some results that hopefully will get a vaccine to deal with not only HIV-AIDS in Africa but in Canada, Asia and other places around the world where this disease is out of control.

The problem on the east side of Vancouver is significant. I am not trying to downplay it any way. I am saying that as a government we are dealing with it in a multifaceted way, and I am pleased to see what is happening.

Can we do more? Absolutely. How can we say we do not want to do more? We want to do more, but we want to be effective with the resources we have as a government. There are limited resources. More money is not necessarily the answer. We have to have a multi-pronged approach, and that goes right back to the way we govern our first nations people, the way we give them the self-respect they deserve, the way we deal with the obesity problems, FASD, the alcohol problems, the way we deal with the health problems on reserves and all the other things I have explained.

I believe we can do better. We always can do better and it is important that we strive to do better.

This emergency debate is not necessarily an emergency debate, although I guess if one has HIV-AIDS on a first nation, one would see this as an emergency. I do not downplay that at all. However, it has gone on for a considerable amount of time. We are here today to discuss it and debate it as parliamentarians. Hopefully, we can do that in a constructive way.

As a government, we have placed a considerable amount of resources in this area. We will continue to do that, I am sure. However, my biggest hope is we will get a vaccine to deal with this virus. The money we have put into the vaccine approach to this is the way toward a solution.

There is one last thing, and I want to close with this. I said I was in Africa twice, once to the HIV-AIDS conference in Senegal. The other was a trip to Tanzania and to Ethiopia. I talked to the health minister of Tanzania. She said to me that whatever we did in the western world, not to give Tanzania more drugs. She said that if we gave it more drugs, the people would think they had the disease fixed. She said that they were so close to changing their cultural habits that allowed the infection to be passed on from one to another, and that was through multiple different ways. She was astute enough to know that the cultural habits had to change, if the people were going to slow the advancement of HIV-AIDS in their country.

I was thinking about that. The compassionate part of me was saying I wanted to give the people the drugs. We want to be compassionate and to ease the suffering. This individual was saying that if we were really compassionate, we should educate their youth, their females so they would understand how this virus was passed on, and prevent the next generation from becoming infected. That is what a really compassionate world would do to help Africa.

The vaccine is one way that we can certainly assist those people. The faster we can get a solution with regard to a vaccine, the better off they will be, the better off we will be and the better off the people of the east side of Vancouver will be.

We have a terrible situation in Canada and around the world. There is not one Canadian who would not want to help if he or she possibly could. However, helping is multifaceted. We have to discern that here tonight and recognize that it will not happen with just one focused approach. We have to be comprehensive in the plan. It is no different than our approach with FASD, or obesity or some of these other significant problems in our society.

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am absolutely intrigued with the hon. member's presentation. I do not understand whether he is drawing a correlation between how much money someone puts into a problem or whether he is looking at the issue of evidence based facts, effective things that we do.

Therefore, I want to go back. The United States spends 90% more money per capita and its results are absolutely appalling. It has the same ideologically based approach that the Conservative government seems to have, which is enforcement and nothing about harm reduction. The war on drugs, et cetera has not worked in spite of the fact that there is so much money.

Then the hon. member points to Australia, which spends about 10¢ less than Canada and gets better results, and he wonders why. Australia believes in a real comprehensive national strategy, which is research, epidemiology, prevention, harm reduction, treatment, et cetera. We know Australia has many Insite clinics.

Does it occur to the member that perhaps it is not how much money we put in, but what is done with the money, how it is spent, what other strategies are used and that using evidence based strategies is the only answer?

The member mentioned a particular person in Africa who told him not to give them money for drugs, that they had to change their culture first. Is the member suggesting that it is the aboriginal culture creating this increase in HIV-AIDS, by any chance? Is there something aboriginal people do culturally wrong that gives them this problem? Therefore, let us blame the victim. It seems to me that is what the member has said.

Would the member explain those remarks because they are really confusing? I have no idea what the member means by them.

[Rob Merrifield, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for the opportunity to explain them because maybe they did not come through clear enough.

I will read the statistics, which are in our report. It says that the prevalence of HIV-AIDS in Australia is 60% lower than in Canada, yet it is paying $1.25 per capita for HIV-AIDS prevention. In Canada, it is $1.40. In the United States, it is $12. It is a significant amount more per capita, yet it does not address the problem. In fact, it is 94% higher in infection rates and other problems. There is no correlation for the amount of money that goes in compared to the outcomes. That is my concern.

If I had a disappointment with the health committee's decision, and I am reading from our minority report on that study, it would be that we should have targeted some outcomes. What will we try to do with this money? We say that over a five year period, let us try to reduce the number of infections. When we know the disease is 100% preventable, how can we stop more people from becoming infected? We had that goal with our report.

Unfortunately, we have put more money into that area and we have seen an escalation of HIV-AIDS infections in Canada. Therefore, we have not been very successful in this.

When it comes to the health minister in Tanzania, what she was saying was if we gave them more money for drugs, they would think they had a cure and they would not have to worry about protecting themselves from their social habits to deal with it. Unfortunately, I have had the HIV-AIDS people in Canada saying the same thing. They think they have a cure already. They have antiviral, so they do not have to worry about whether their social habits will allow them to become infected by it or not. Unfortunately, that is a dead-end street. There is no cure for HIV-AIDS.

[Bill Siksay, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the member about one of the important aspects to deal with drug addiction, and that is the whole question of harm reduction.

In Vancouver we have the Insite safe injection site, which has been proven to reduce deaths surrounding the issues related to drug addiction and injection drug use. Yet that important facility, which is a clean facility, which has the presence of health care professionals and which is responsible for referrals to other agencies and other kinds of health care, gets a very short leash from the federal government.

We keep hearing the federal government say that more studies are needed. We know there have been 25 independent studies of Insite showing that it does exactly what it claims to do.

We also heard earlier from the member for Vancouver East that the Western Aboriginal Harm Reduction Society had its funding cut by the federal government. Therefore, it cannot do its important harm reduction work on the downtown east side among the aboriginal community. Even a program of hospital visits to support people who seek treatment for their addictions is likely to fail because of this funding cut.

Could the member address the importance of harm reduction and how that should figure in what the government does to address these important issues?

[Rob Merrifield, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Mr. Speaker, when the minister spoke earlier this evening, he addressed that exact same question.

Two-thirds of the government's national drug strategy is prevention and treatment, which addresses harm reduction. It may not do it in exactly the same way as the injection sites. I believe we were looking for the completion of some studies before making a discernment of what to do with those. We will wait for that to happen. When it comes to this problem, it is multifaceted and one is not the whole solution.

I personally question sometimes whether it is compassionate to have individuals come in and inject them, although it is safer. I do not deny that at all. However, it is also giving up on them by allowing them to continue a bad habit. If it moves them from there into treatment and we can prove that we can get them off these bad habits, then it is compassionate and we can really help them. However, if it only promotes bad habits that will ultimately kill them, I am not sure that is as compassionate as some of the people in this room might think it is.

[Steven Fletcher, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary for Health]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Yellowhead is in a unique position, as former chair of the health committee and former chair of the finance committee, to comment on the investments the government has made on some of the precursors or determinants that may lead to the difficult living conditions on the east side of Vancouver.

Could the member for Yellowhead talk a bit about the investments the government has made in housing, low income family situations, harm reduction and so on. It seems it has not registered as much as it should with some of the other members in the House.

[Rob Merrifield, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I do not have the actual numbers. We just finished a massive study, a prebudget consultation in which we had 400 different presenters. We listened to 200 of them, but we had submissions from 400 on the prebudget consultation. I cannot recall the actual numbers.

We are doing some significant work. We have to do more work on poverty reduction and see what we can do to try to keep people off the streets and look after their needs. It is not only a problem for the federal government. The provincial and municipal governments all have to put their heads together to try to come up with something that will work, that will be effective and that can be funded.

I do not have those exact numbers for the hon. member. I do know we are investing millions of dollars, not only the $84.4 million that we are putting into HIV-AIDS in our country. The provinces are also investing money. We are investing a significant amount of dollars in a national drug strategy. Two-thirds of that is prevention and treatment. This is going along the lines of what we are trying to do with some of the cases in our cities where we are trying to help people who are having a difficult time making it on their own.

[Anita Neville, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to participate in this evening's debate. I want to thank my colleague from Vancouver East for raising this issue tonight, the matter of aboriginal people living in the downtown eastside and their battle with HIV-AIDS.

When I speak to the issue in the downtown eastside, and I have been there many times, I guess what I am struck with is the passing reference to aboriginal people or what I hear is dismissive references to aboriginal people coming from colleagues opposite.

I think the emergency goes beyond aboriginal people and HIV-AIDS. I think there is an emergency in this country as it relates to aboriginal people and the lack of support that the government is providing for them.

The downtown eastside in Vancouver has become symbolic for all of the ills of the urban aboriginal. It is notorious. It is known for despair. It is known for the poverty. It is known for substance abuse. It is known for the sexual exploitation in the downtown eastside. All of which could be transferred to many other communities across the country, not necessarily with the same intensity but certainly prevalent and certainly there.

I have had the opportunity to visit the downtown eastside in the last months a number of times. Very recently, I had a tour with the liaison officer from the local police department. I toured the area. I visited the women's centre. I visited the aboriginal mother centre. I met with groups of women. I certainly know their challenges and indeed have seen their despair.

I guess what I am struck with, as I go into the downtown eastside and look at them, is, and we have heard this often, they are someone's mother, they are someone's sister, they are someone's brother and they are no less human than any of us. They deserve the treatment, the care, the courtesy, and the respect that I think is not given to them appropriately.

I am not hear to speak to the health challenges of AIDS. My two colleagues who are physicians can run circles around me on that. I want to speak to some of the issues as they relate to aboriginal people, some of the determinants of why we are here tonight, why we are talking about aboriginal people on the downtown eastside, and why they are experiencing such skyrocketing HIV infection rates.

I am here to speak about the causes and the realities in the lives of aboriginal people and why so many of them are living with AIDS. As we saw in some of the clippings that some of us received, Ms. Barney, a member of the Lillooet Titqet Nation, was recently quoted in the Globe and Mail. She said:

It has its roots in poverty, unemployment, lack of housing and dislocation that plague many aboriginal communities and send young people to the streets of Vancouver seeking solace.

They come from all over the country. I have met, as I know many in the House have met, with families whose sisters, mothers and daughters are missing, who have ended in the downtown eastside of Vancouver and disappeared, nowhere to be seen.

What we have seen from the government, and I do not want to be political, has in fact been a pattern of betrayal and disrespect for aboriginal people. We have seen dramatic cuts made to many of the programs that serve them, whether it is the aboriginal languages program or whether it was the $11 million first nations and Inuit tobacco control strategy program, which was a preventative health initiative. What we also know is that the government has scrapped the Kelowna accord, a trade-off I fear.

We were criticized earlier in the evening for bringing up the Kelowna accord and politicizing the debate. The Kelowna accord provided real solutions for aboriginal people. The Kelowna accord offered hope to aboriginal people.

My colleague from Churchill could tell us stories of going into remote communities in northern Manitoba, speaking to elders with no knowledge of English but who knew Cree, Saulteaux, Dene, and Kelowna. Kelowna for them was a symbol of hope and a symbol of hope for their children that their lives would change.

Kelowna really touched on the issues affecting aboriginal people, such as housing, health care, economic development, education, all of which would close the poverty gap between aboriginals and non-aboriginals in this country.

We have heard much in recent weeks about the great success of the government's water strategy. I will acknowledge that some progress has been made, but it has been made at the cost of other programs. It has been made at the cost of education. I can run off a litany of educational programs in communities from coast to coast to coast that have been cancelled, delayed, or put on ice literally and figuratively for years to come because there is an unwillingness to put new dollars into communities.

Kelowna was quite singular. It was an 18 month process that involved politicians at the federal and provincial level as well as aboriginal leadership from right across the country. It involved bureaucrats from various levels of government and bureaucrats from community organizations.

The strength of Kelowna was the fact that it was a holistic response to communities. It allowed communities to develop their own plans and set their goals and aspirations.

In the Kelowna agreement $95 million was allocated for last year for the education of young people in this country and $264 million for this current year. For housing, both on reserve and off reserve, there was $500 million for last year and $275 million for this year. Economic development opportunities would have equaled over $40 million for this year and last. In terms of stabilizing the first nation and Inuit health system, about $137 million for last year and $218 million for this current year.

We know that the underpinnings of poverty, crowded houses, lack of education, lack of hope, and lack of opportunity, drives young people out of their communities to seek what they think might be a better life in the big city only to fall into the trap of dependency, addiction and frequently sexual exploitation.

We have heard much from members opposite about costs. This afternoon, in another debate, a member implied that Kelowna was really not that front and centre in the minds of Canadians. He said that when the government did its budget consultations nobody spoke to it about Kelowna.

I want to read something into the record that came from the former Liberal Prime Minister, the member for LaSalle—Émard. He said in a very recent newspaper article:

This isn't only a question of money. To those who say we can't afford it, I say yes, we can. After all, why else as a country did we resolve in the 1990s to eliminate the deficit? It was not simply to please foreign bankers or leave room to cut a few pennies of GST off the cost of a new coffee maker. We eliminated the deficit to claim control over our future - to finance the kind of Canada we wanted to leave for our children, to fortify our social foundations and, above all, to help those who need it most.

Kelowna was a first and important step on that road to helping those who need it most. I listened with great interest to the member opposite talk about the needs of Africa. I do not want to minimize them in any way, but I cannot help wondering what an African person coming in and going to northern Manitoba, or going to Vancouver's eastside would say about Canada, and how we live and how we serve our population.

We know that the aboriginal leadership has questioned the government's view and role of aboriginal people. They have frequently commented and I will quote Mr. Fontaine, the National Chief of the AFN, who said, “We see this as discriminatory treatment. We ask ourselves if this government really cares about first nations”.

We know, because it is on the record, that there is not a real care for the plight of aboriginal people by members opposite. We have, as many do, the derogatory comments made by members opposite, some at the highest levels of government and some in this department in the past and in the very recent past. So, it is no wonder that we are not seeing the attention given to the aboriginal file that we should have.

We have heard much about the residential schools concern and the residential schools legacy has caused much harm to aboriginal people. The Indian residential schools settlement was negotiated by the previous government, culminated on the signing of it with the passing of a peace pipe that we saw on the front pages of the Globe and Mail, and it was certainly a step in the right direction.

However, when I hear members opposite talking about the residential schools agreement, I cannot help wondering when is the apology coming? When are the Conservatives going to say, on behalf of the Government of Canada, to aboriginal people across this country “we are sorry”?

We have heard much about the survivors of residential schools and the loss of culture that they faced, the loss of heritage, the loss of language and the sad legacy of emotional, physical and sexual abuse. We have heard of the childhood wounds and the lifelong challenges that they faced to overcome them.

There was a study released today and I want to read from an article in a news release from the Canadian Aboriginal AIDS Network. It referred to two recent studies by the Canadian Aboriginal AIDS Network, one addressing homophobia in relation to HIV-AIDS in aboriginal communities and the Canadian aboriginal people living with HIV-AIDS in care, treatment and support issues. It showed, and this is startling, “that 16% of participants in each study had attended a residential school and an overwhelming majority, 90% plus, had a parent or a grandparent who had attended. These deep childhood wounds would not go away in four or five therapy sessions”.

She further indicated that preliminary data for those who participated in it said that addictions are a major factor in living with HIV-AIDS. Intensified use of drugs and alcohol was an initial coping strategy when diagnosed, and addictions were dealt with soon after diagnosis in order to begin antiretroviral treatment, or getting cleaned up, and more important than dealing with HIV-AIDS.

The residential school survivors need this apology. We have seen the pain and suffering on the downtown eastside. It is important that the member for Vancouver East has brought this issue forward to highlight it. What she has also brought forward, and which governments, all parties, in fact all Canadians have to take ownership, particularly in light of the Statistics Canada report that came out not too many days ago, is the growing aboriginal population, the growing poverty and despair in the aboriginal population, the drug addiction that is so prevalent in that population because of the lack of hope and the lack of opportunity. We as legislators and parliamentarians have an obligation to speak out on it, to make sure that Canadians are aware and that Canadians participate in closing the gap for aboriginal people in this country.

I thank the member opposite for bringing this issue forward. She highlighted the issue of HIV-AIDS, but she highlighted the greater issue of aboriginal people and the despair which many of them feel.