Debates of Nov. 2nd, 2009

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, while it may be true that the material circulated was offensive, and it is worth noting that the Liberals apologized for that mailing, it is also true that first nations in this country are disproportionately affected by the H1N1 virus. In fact, first nations in Manitoba have said that clearly from the outset and have asked the government to recognize that fact and ensure that they are able to get access to the vaccine as a high-risk group in our society.

I appreciate the member's speech today, but we have had disagreements about this in the past. I wonder if he now recognizes the importance of listening to the voices of his own community when they say that a host of factors are contributing to the situation, such as, overcrowded living conditions, poverty, lack of access to medical supplies and services, conflicting information, and lack of access to running water, that all combine to make an ideal breeding ground for H1N1. They ask the government to appreciate that fact and act on it. Will the member?

[Rob Clarke, Conservative, Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK]

Mr. Speaker, living in the north, having lived on reserve and having lived off reserve, I have seen the conditions that people have lived in for hundreds of years. What I have seen this government do is put the money forward with respect to proper water conditions and better living conditions for first nations.

Tonight we are looking at the pandemic plan. In the 2006 budget, this government invested $1 billion to increase the preparedness to respond to public health threats, such as a flu pandemic. This also includes planning in first nations communities. I think I speak on behalf of all Canadians when I say to stop with the fearmongering tonight and let us work together on finding a solution.

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I can understand the hon. member being upset and suggesting that the questions that are being asked are political, but he is wrong. It is the duty of the Government of Canada to protect the people of Canada in an epidemic and in such a public health crisis as the current one. It is also the responsibility of the members of the opposition to ask the government why it has not fulfilled its responsibility to do exactly that.

Other countries, knowing about the same pandemic, the same global flu, were able to put into place the preparations to take care of those who are susceptible and vulnerable. Also, the job of good public health is to stem the spread of contagion. This is something the government did not pay attention to. It did not get enough vaccination. There were many other companies, not just the one company, that it could get vaccination from. It did not do that. As a result, now the people who are susceptible are afraid and now the spread is of great concern. There is no vaccine for people who need it. This is something the government must answer for. It is not political; it is a very real accountability issue.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

There are 30 seconds left for the member for Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River.

[Rob Clarke, Conservative, Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I want to talk about accountability.

What about SARS? What did the Liberals do when there was SARS? I remember having to work on the front lines when there was SARS. They did nothing.

This government has made an investment in the preparedness for the pandemic planning. It has invested over $1 billion in this pandemic planning, yet the Liberals keep on ranting over there.

[Bob Rae, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have obviously been listening to the debate this evening and I want to respond to some of the points that have been made.

I appreciate the opportunity to participate in the debate, particularly after the intervention of my colleague from Repentigny, as well as listening very closely to the comments of my colleague from Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, and of course, my colleague from St. Paul's who spoke earlier, as well as the Liberal leader.

This debate is important because one of the things we know is that due to the nature of the modern world, we are likely to be facing this kind of issue and this kind of pandemic more often than not. My colleagues opposite have mentioned SARS. There will be lots of time to analyze the responsibilities of federal and provincial governments with respect to SARS. No doubt there will be a public inquiry or review of some kind with respect to this particular issue that we have been dealing with and there will be ample opportunity for all of us to figure out what has happened and what needs to happen.

However, it is very important for the House to reflect on this question, because there are going to be more such incidents. We know this because the world is getting smaller, because various kinds of diseases that formerly were isolated in one part of the world or another no longer can be isolated, because when they strike their impact is much more sudden, and because certain conditions that affect people, such as asthma, are far more widespread than they were before.

Many of us, if I may speak personally, who have been asthma sufferers for a long time were rather surprised to learn that we are part of the vulnerable community because of susceptibility to the virus.

H1N1 came upon us last year. It is an illness about which there was a great deal of concern and anxiety at the beginning because no one quite knew what it meant. It has a severe impact on certain individuals.

I will quote the comments of the Chief Public Health Officer, whose name has been invoked a great deal this evening as well as in other debates. Dr. David Butler-Jones said on October 26, on CTV News:

We have no way of predicting which 18 year old, which 10 year old, which 30 year old who's previously healthy will end up on a ventilator. The only way we can actually prevent that is ultimately to be immunized.

If I may say so, if nothing else emerges from this debate and discussion, perhaps the fact that a greater number of Canadians might decide that it is time for them to take seriously the risks and for them to make the choice to be immunized is a positive outcome.

In listening to the debate and explanations from the minister and also in reading much of the discussion that has taken place over the last several weeks, I have no hesitation—

By the way, I will be splitting my time with the member for Vancouver Quadra, who has been waiting patiently for me to utter these all important words, which I now do.

There seem to be three assumptions in place. The first one is that the second round, the so-called second wave of H1N1, would come somewhat later in the flu season than in fact it has.

The second assumption of policy seems to have been that one supplier would be best. I look across at my colleagues opposite who I would have thought ideologically might be a little uncomfortable with the notion that a single state-subsidized supplier is going to be the ultimate best solution for national planning.

The third assumption seems to have been that a low-key approach would be the best. The politest term that I think one can apply to the government's approach over the summer is that it was decidedly, from a public standpoint, low-key. The public was not widely informed about H1N1.

My colleague from Peterborough spoke earlier tonight and said he in fact had circulated a flyer throughout his riding. I congratulate him for that. I do not think there were 300 other members who did the same. Perhaps there were, I do not know, but the simple fact of the matter is that the public has not been particularly well informed on this matter, because the government decided for whatever reason that a low-key approach would be best.

There are these three assumptions, and we know one other fact, which is that from the time people get their shot, it takes 10 days for the immunization to take full effect. That is what we are told. That is what the experts tell us. That is what we read in the paper. So from the time people get their shot, they have 10 days in which they have a better chance of being protected from the spread of the virus than they would otherwise have.

These three assumptions have been widely shared. They might be called the conventional wisdom that has taken hold of the government. The government has relied on consensus and what it has heard from experts in saying this is the approach that it has decided is the best. There are at least three things that have followed from these assumptions. This is what we need to analyze, understand and recognize as posing a potential problem.

First, in terms of its impact and the severity of the illness, the second wave of H1N1 has started again without a vaccine being widely available, and in some cases, without a vaccine being ready at all. That is a fact. Members opposite might say, and many of them have, that I am politicizing and engaging in hyperbole. No. Actually, we are looking at the timeframes and saying, when one looks at when the wave started, the vaccine was not widely available. Perhaps the wave started sooner than was expected. We will need to know the answers to these questions.

Because of what we call a screw-up with respect to the production of the vaccine, there are people in vulnerable groups, including pregnant women, people under the age of 65 who have an underlying condition such as asthma or a heart condition or something else, and young people between the ages of 16 and 25, who are not getting the vaccine this week. They are not getting the vaccine this week because there is not enough vaccine available.

Again I stress that these are simple facts. They are not hyperbole. They are not exaggerations. They are not things that are being thrown around. They are facts. They are unfortunate facts, but they are a reality.

The second consequence from the decision to have a single supplier, and my colleague from Repentigny has referred to this, is that supplies are affected by bottlenecks and by changes in demand. In speaking today, the minister said that the reason they had a delay was because they decided that they needed to get the flu vaccine before the H1N1 vaccine, as if there is only one place to get the vaccine.

We do not live in a place where there is no competition. Other companies could have supplied the necessary vaccine, but the government decided that one single company would be responsible for supplying vaccine. I am telling my fellow members that we are all familiar with the problems associated with having a single source. Having a single source causes problems. That is the problem we have now.

The third consequence, the consequence of the low-key approach, is that the public is not quite as well informed as they need to be with respect to this question. A couple of comments have been made that I found interesting to listen to and important to analyze. The first is a comment by the minister and others. I think Dr. Butler-Jones may have said it, and I think it was the minister who said it. They said that they were not expecting the level of demand that was there. They were not expecting the responses from the public.

One can only ask, what exactly were they expecting? If a 13-year-old teenager, tragically, passes away, that is going to have an instant public reaction. That is going to cause a level of public concern. I know it is politically inevitable that there will be charges back and forth with respect to what is taking place.

We have asked tough questions. We have a responsibility to do that as the opposition. We have asked for a debate. We have a public debate, and that is a healthy thing. I think it is important that the public be informed, that they be aware of the public policy choices that have been made by the government, and that they be aware of some of the consequences of those choices.

If, in the course of events, the government decides to change course to become more active in its publicity and more engaged in its leadership role, and if the public can in fact be better informed as a result of the debate and the controversies and the comments that have been made, then I am one of those who thinks that is a good thing. That is a healthy outcome. It is important for Canadians to be well informed about this issue and it is important for us as Canadians to know the choices that we face.

[Bruce Stanton, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments of my colleague opposite. Certainly as one sits and listens and reflects on what he had to say, one realizes that there are different points of view to express on this. However, the fact is that any one of us, and I think the comment was offered earlier this evening, can sit and be a Monday morning quarterback on issues like this. It is easy to look in hindsight to see how one might have done things differently, but one cannot escape the fact that Canada has prepared for this situation. It is far ahead of just about every other jurisdiction in the world and has been complimented for that.

Just yesterday, Dr. Butler-Jones commented on the degree to which Canadians have been vaccinated. It is far above any other country and their response to this.

I appreciate what the member has to say, but would he not believe, when he considers the evidence, the facts and the gains that we have made on this issue, that we are making good progress, and when health officials--

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

The hon. member for Toronto Centre.

[Bob Rae, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, having been the first minister of a province, I have had my share of Monday morning, Tuesday morning, Wednesday morning, and Thursday morning quarterbacks. Indeed, many of those quarterbacks are still out there and many of them are at the opposite side, and 20 years later they still have advice and views with respect to what took place 20 years ago. So I am very familiar with the problem that he has described.

My one concern in all of this, and I have spoken with many public health officials and in fact have had several phone calls over the weekend from doctors and others, and the one comment that a doctor made, whose name I will not repeat for fear of embarrassing anybody, because he is a respected public health doctor, is that, as he said to me, we have to understand that one of the consequences of the shortages we are experiencing this week is that there are members of vulnerable groups who will not get vaccinated soon enough to protect them from the impact of the illness. He said that could have been prevented if we had not had the shortages and bottlenecks that we had, but we now have them and we have to deal with the consequences of that.

I can only say to the hon. member that part of the job of being in opposition is asking difficult questions and making difficult points.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Order, please. I will just stop the hon. member so we can accommodate one more question, if that is all right.

The hon. member for Winnipeg North.

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the speech that my colleague has just given.

One issue that has not been touched on very much tonight is that in the midst of the shortage, the bottlenecks and the lineups was this absolutely shocking report about a clinic in Toronto, Medcan, getting access to the vaccine, and of course, then inoculating those clients of that clinic who had paid a very large user fee.

My question to the member is, what does he know about the situation? Why does he think it happened? What does he think can be done about ensuring that the rare supply of vaccine we have goes to those most in need?

[Bob Rae, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the answer to the first question is that I do not know anything other than what I read in the paper.

The second comment I would make is that I think everyone who receives the vaccine, whether it is a private clinic or whether it is a private doctor, has an obligation to follow the priorities that have been clearly established by every expert with respect to who should get vaccinated and who should not be vaccinated.

I would certainly share with the hon. member the sense that access to the vaccination should never, ever depend on one's means or the size of one's chequebook or the fact that one is a member of a clinic or not a member of a clinic.

As to how it would have happened, I think the simplest explanation is that the provinces each made decisions with respect to where the vaccine would go, whether it was made in one part of the country or another. There were other clinics, I am sure, in Quebec, in British Columbia and elsewhere that have received the vaccine, just as family doctors and others, all of whom are small businessmen, have received the vaccine.

I would just make the point to the hon. member that I think we all have to agree that the most important thing in these next days is to make sure that the members--

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Order. The time for questions and comments is over. We will go to the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra.

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as I take the privilege of speaking to this emergency debate, I am going to begin by adding to what the hon. member for Toronto Centre was saying about the government's low key approach to the issue of H1N1.

I am dismayed at how the government is not taking responsibility for the mistakes that it has made over the course of the last few months. Of course there will be mistakes. Without taking responsibility, the government is just defending itself. It is not learning from those mistakes. That is a disheartening condition that I have observed as a member of the parliamentary Standing Committee on Health.

I would like to put on the record the fact that all members on the Standing Committee on Health were determined to treat this as a non-partisan issue. Our job was to try to identify any gaps and put ideas forward, so the government could actually do a better job and be successful. The whole committee was dedicated to that.

The committee was not made up of a set of armchair quarterbacks as one member mentioned. The committee actually had some leading experts on pandemic preparedness. The committee had an ex-minister of state for public health, who herself had set up, in response to what was learned from SARS, the Public Health Agency of Canada with its budget to deal with pandemic preparedness.

There was a set of civil servants who had been working for members of the opposition and now working for government members. They were using a framework that had been set up by Liberal opposition members. Everyone was on the same page.

What started to become very clear was the fact that there were gaps. Opposition members on the committee pointed out that we needed to have updates in the summer because things were going wrong.

Committee members heard that aboriginal communities were not being listened to and were not being served. They heard from representatives of front line caregivers who said there was no coordination. We also heard that the front line people who had to deliver the vaccination and the preparedness plan were disconnected from the structure of the leadership.

In hearing those things, committee members took some clear steps toward ensuring that there were summer briefings. They had to drag agreements out of Conservative members in order for the committee to play an oversight role so that parliamentarians could know what was happening and to focus the committee meetings on H1N1 rather than have them be scattershot over the fall on important issues but not yet emergency issues.

Members of the health committee played a constructive role and pointed out things that needed to be done in a constructive way. However, the government has had the pathological inability to take responsibility.

At the risk of sounding political, the government is very good at taking credit, whether it is for the way the public's dollars are spent, or in any number of other ways. Government members have been so obsessed with taking credit, they have forgotten how to take responsibility.

The theme of “Everything is okay. Don't worry there will be vaccinations for everyone. Don't worry, be happy. It's all under control” is a theme that we have been hearing at committee for months, meeting after meeting, despite the fact that we had been hearing from representatives of public health, chief medical officers and many other experts that “All is not well”.

Yes, we have learned from SARS and there have been improvements, but all is not well. We need to do better. Now we are seeing some of that begin to crystallize. We are not doing a good enough job. Unfortunately, people are suffering as a result of the vaccines being ordered late. As a result of the confusing messages from the government, the supply of vaccines is drying up.

Not taking responsibility is a key theme with the minister and the government unfortunately and we heard it here tonight. The government has been blaming the provinces and territories, blaming medical experts for the government's own decisions, blaming drug companies, and now blaming the opposition as opposed to taking responsibility. Where is the leadership on this issue? It is completely missing in action.

Coming from Vancouver, I have another concern around the mismanagement of this issue that has led to the lineups and the panic, the shortages of vaccine, the lack of availability in the coming weeks, and the lack of information. I am going to take a moment to read some very worrisome news that the government needs to be aware of and perhaps is:

Quarantine was imposed in [Ukraine's] nine western regions due to the epidemic of the H1N1 influenza, commonly known as swine flu. It was also decided to declare a three-week ban on all mass events and introduce a three-week holiday period at all educational institutions.

In other words, schools are shut down. Public events are cancelled. A huge disruption to society in the Ukraine. According to the president:

We will introduce a special system to stop unnecessary travel from one region to another. We will cancel all mass meetings...for three weeks...We are considering (imposing) a quarantine not only in the west but also across the country, because the virus is spreading very fast.

I cannot comment on whether this is a proportionate response to a crisis in Ukraine, but it is incumbent on me to point out to the government that in less than 100 days now we will have half a million visitors coming to Vancouver in British Columbia for the 2010 Winter Olympic and Paralympic Games. Should we be in a situation such as the Ukraine, it would be a huge disappointment and a huge disturbance of the Olympics that Canadians are so excited about and so proud of.

Having been recently in Olympia where the Olympic flame was lit and in Victoria where it was received from Greece, the beginning of the relays across the country, I know how important the Olympics are after so many years of work from an economic perspective, the human perspective, the inspiration to youth and to sports, and the hundreds of thousands of visitors that will come to Canada. We have to do an absolutely impeccable job of preparing for this with the vaccinations, preparing and preventing Vancouver and British Columbia from continuing to be a hot spot and having to consider the Ukraine-type response.

The government has been letting British Columbia down. I heard from the provincial medical health officer a number of weeks ago when I asked whether there are adequate resources from the federal government. I heard, “No, we have not received any cost-sharing for actually implementing vaccinations”.

At the committee I asked the head of the public health agency if there is a shortage of resources for the provinces and I was told, “No, there will be adequate resources”. But going back to the Vancouver chief medical officer I was told there is no funding for the delivery of a mass vaccination program. That will cost between $8 and $10 per person. That is $25 million to $30 million in British Columbia and not a dollar from the federal government. That is historic, the first time in history that there has been a mass vaccination with no resources from the government.

I call on the government, as are the Liberal MPs, to put back the $400 million set aside for pandemic response by the Liberals in budget 2006 for this time period, support emergency planning to help local health authorities cope with this issue, and divert the $60 million from the Conservatives' self-advertising of their economic plan and partisan misuse of funds into the pandemic so that people can properly understand what they need to do and respond to that.

I call on the government to take responsibility and stop taking credit.

[Patrick Brown, Conservative, Barrie, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in regard to the words from the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra, I think that instead of attacking the situation, we should be very proud of the health care workers in Canada and proud of the role Canada has played in the world.

There has been more vaccination delivered per capita than any other country in the world. I think we should be telling Canadians how proud we are of the role that our health care workers are playing along with the excellent work of the Public Health Agency of Canada.

We should talk about the incredible co-operation we are seeing in this country. If I could quote Dalton McGuinty, and I would like to hear the member's comments in regard to this, he said, just last week, that overall we are working the best we can, working closely with the federal government. They decided, by and large, on certain protocols, what is best when it comes to delivering this vaccine. He said he is not an expert.

I think there has to be a debate at one point in time as to the best time for delivering the vaccine, who should be in the first wave, and who should be receiving it. He said that it is being done in a timely way and that a lot of thought has gone into this, a lot of expertise went into this, and we see governments of all stripes working together, believing they are doing the best job.

Does the member for Vancouver Quadra not see the achievements happening in Canada, not just the negative?

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I see a public health system under strain.

I see health authorities in British Columbia and other provinces that are already maxed out with their public health obligations now being asked to deliver mass vaccination programs without a dime of assistance from the federal government.

I see people working overtime. I see a shortage of resources to actually deliver this in Vancouver. I would encourage the member to think about the results we want. We have heard many reasons why things have gone off the rails. We might hear a lot of reasons why we have a disaster.

What we actually need are results. That means taking responsibility where there are errors, putting corrections in place, and being willing to listen when there are errors.

[Rob Oliphant, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, earlier this afternoon I received a very heartfelt email from a constituent living in Leaside, who asked very clearly that I not try to score political points in this debate tonight but instead try to reach a constructive conclusion to this.

The question I have comes directly from this email. It is from a father of a one-year-old and a three-year-old, two daughters, both diagnosed this past weekend with H1N1, and both now on Tamiflu. The concern that he has, however, is the difficulty he had in getting the medicine, Tamiflu, the rationing that is going on with that, and the availability of it in a form that a one-year-old can take. It was not available.

I am wondering if the hon. member, as a member of the health committee, heard from the government about access to Tamiflu, not the vaccine but Tamiflu, as a treatment. As the member for Toronto Centre said, as this pandemic progresses and we are not able to actually stop it, maybe we are going to have to try to cure it as it comes.

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would say that primarily what we heard in the health committee were various versions of: “Do not worry, be happy. There is enough dosage for everyone. Everybody will get it”.

What we are seeing now is a great deal of concern. There is a great deal of chaos and misinformation in the meantime. I cannot say that we have had clear information about how things will actually be delivered, either in the preventative vaccination or in the post-illness treatment.

[Joy Smith, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Mr. Speaker, we just had an outstanding presentation in committee from the Health Minister. She has been to the committee many times. Dr. Butler-Jones, Dr. Plummer, and all the leading health officials in Canada are keeping everyone informed on a daily basis. They are keeping Canadians informed through a gigantic media program across the country.

I really think that it is very important at this time to not politicize the pandemic but to work together. Would the member not agree with that?

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Mr. Speaker, first, I acknowledge the chair for her leadership in the early time period with the committee dealing with H1N1. However, I am forced to go back to my original point, which is it is not about the job that Dr. Butler-Jones has done, or anyone else. It is about the need for the government to take responsibility when there is feedback about what has not worked and what can be improved. We are not seeing that tonight and we have not been seeing that from the minister.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with my colleague, the member for Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing.

First, I begin by reiterating and further supporting the proposition that the leader of my party, the New Democratic Party, made earlier tonight. It is certainly something that our health critic from Winnipeg North has been fighting for as well. It is the idea of what the role of the federal government is at this stage in the game.

We have been rehashing and going over the past few months time and time again, but I reiterate the point that we need the federal government to take a stand, to take leadership and to commit to financially supporting the work currently being done on the ground with respect to the rollout of the vaccine, as well in terms of dealing with the flu as it goes on.

We need to reassure the partners on the ground, whether they are provincial governments or first nations governments, that it is important, at this time, for them to go all out, to give everything, to put the personnel on the front lines with the support they need to ensure the messages get out, communications-wise, and to ensure we invest in this effort 100%. The only way people will do that is when they know the federal government is there to support those efforts. As we all know, it really comes down to the finances.

That proposition is so important to me as the member of Parliament for Churchill. I know what H1N1 means in our region. I had the opportunity earlier to ask a question of the Minister of Health. For me, H1N1 is a very shocking reality that has been part of the region I come from for quite some time now. The first wave of the flu hit us among the hardest, certainly per capita, in its level of impact compared to many other regions across the country. The impact of H1N1 has been felt most by not only northern Manitobans but by first nations. I want to emphasize that it is not only by first nations in remote communities but first nations across the region.

The experience of working with chiefs, with leaders and with health care workers on the ground has been a very trying because of the challenges they have had to face. It was very disillusioning to see that the chiefs, Chief McDougall, Chief Harper and Chief Knott of the Island Lake regions, were getting basically a response of silence by the health minister when more people were being impacted than they had previously anticipated. That silence was a direct reflection of the lack of commitment and concern when it came to what first nations faced.

While I have heard declarations in some of the positive directions that are taking place, I question what that means in terms of action. We heard that the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs had to go out and fund raise to get flu kits that the federal government said were not needed, flu kits that contained Tylenol and thermometers, things that are not easily accessible in remote first nations communities. Essential tools in fighting this pandemic were denied by Canada's government, the government that has the fiduciary obligation to first nations.

Time and time again there were real communication challenges for people in regional offices. That breakdown in communication with first nations that were on the front lines of this pandemic was disillusioning as a Canadian, certainly as a member of Parliament, and was a real signal of things to come.

Many of us back home have anxiety, as do many Canadians, because we know what happened beforehand. Some of that sentiment was an inspiration for people to get on board in terms of planning and networking, but the question of funding and financial support for these initiatives is extremely pertinent.

Two weeks ago I met with people working with the MKO, Manitoba Keewatinowi Okimakanak. People show up at the door of the health office. They told me about a family that showed up at the door of the office in Thompson. The family needed a house because there was overcrowding in the community. The family knew that overcrowding helped H1N1 spread. The family wanted to avoid that. It wanted to avoid its children getting sick.

Organizations are trying to cover everything, from concerns about health care professionals coming into communities and avoiding things like burnout. They are trying to be in touch with the federal agencies in the work they are doing. They are having to do everything, including being asked to find homes for people, something that is not written in any document when it comes to the job they are supposed to do. This is the level of anxiety and these are the kinds of needs we face in the north.

MKIO made a proposal, which I supported, asking for direct funding when it came to some of these support roles. We heard it was under consideration, but have yet to hear whether anything will be done. I hope it is an area that is considered for financial funding, recognizing that organizations and people are working long hours day in and day out with great stress. They want to ensure they have the supports needed.

I also I was pretty horrified to hear that when organizations asked for extra supports, initially they were told to pull out from other programming. What are they supposed to pull people out of, addictions work, suicide prevention? In a moment of need, are these the kinds of priorities people are supposed to choose?

All these services are important in first nations and northern communities. It is pretty disgusting to hear that people are expected to take funding out of essential services to deal with a global pandemic, which we have known for some time was going to hit us.

First, I hope this area is very much considered, especially when it comes to working with first nations, as I noted, because of the fiduciary obligation.

Second is the element of communication. I know it is a recurring theme. I visited my home town of Thompson and people asked me if they should get the vaccine. This is a real sign that the message is not getting through to Canadians, the confidence and information they need and the anxieties they have.

As a member of Parliament, while I would like to think that I can show leadership on a number of areas, the medical area is one that we need to be communicating on a lot better and the federal government needs to be showing leadership on.

A lot of work needs to be done. Much of our discussion is focusing on the here and now, as it should, but I hope we can work together at looking at some of the next steps we need to be taking as we fight this virus across our country, for first nations, northerners, rural Canadians and Canadians from coast to coast to coast.

[Rob Clarke, Conservative, Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the member's riding is in northern Manitoba, which neighbours my riding in northern Saskatchewan, and her riding consists predominantly of aboriginals.

My question is about the ten percenters that have been sent out by the Liberal opposition. What is her opinion of the ten percenters and how did it affect her riding? Did she received one from the Liberal leader, the member for Etobicoke—Lakeshore, and how were they received by her constituents?

Also, I am curious how the ten percenter from the member for St. Paul's was received and her personal opinion of these ten percenters.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, our riding received one of the ten percenters and it was a shocking image, an inappropriate image. I understand a discussion took place in committee. I am glad to see it was raised by people like the Grand Chief who also felt very strongly about it.

The substance, being the question of the body bags, of which there are all sorts of theories that have been put forward in terms of what happened, has to be dealt with. At the end of the day, it is very important that we continue to look ahead to see how we can best support first nations and not use them for shock value or drama, but to listen to them, listen to their needs and be there to support them.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member especially for mentioning the special aspect of aboriginal and rural communities.

I come from the farthest riding from Ottawa. I can tell the House that all Canadians are at risk. It is very important that they are all protected.

The member made an important point about people asking her whether they should be immunized. The member for Toronto Centre made the important point that if anything should come from this debate, it is very important that people set aside their concerns and be immunized.

Could the member elaborate on that point?

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I have made it clear that I plan to get the vaccine at the earliest possible time. Given that I am not in the first set of priorities to get vaccinated, that the people in my region, my neighbours, my friends, people who live in communities that I represent need it more than me, I have also made it clear that they should get it done.

I also want to highlight as well that I, like many Canadians across our country, do not have a family doctor. Therefore, it makes it a bit challenging to engage in the medical discussions. It points to the real weaknesses of our health care system and the need for us to step up and not only deal with supporting our health care system when it comes to crises but support it throughout so we all have the care and that relationship to the health care we deserve throughout our lives.