Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to rise today to discuss another initiative dealing with the issue of human organs and organ transplantation. By my count, there are five initiatives that have been or are before us that deal in some sense with the issue of organ transplantation. There were private members' bills put forward by my colleagues from Edmonton Manning and Calgary Confederation; we have the motion before us tonight; and we also have a number of legislative initiatives, one of which I have sponsored and which deals with the issue of illicit organ harvesting. That is, organs taken without consent, which is obviously a very different issue but is one that might be worth reflecting on in the context of some of the discussion that is happening tonight.
What we are debating tonight is Motion No. 189, which says:
That the House: (a) reiterate its commitment to facilitate collaboration on an organ and tissue donation and transplantation system that gives Canadians timely and effective access to care, since every year more than 250 people, out of the 4,500 on waiting lists, die without receiving a transplant; and (b) urge the government to support national efforts with provincial and territorial authorities and stakeholders to increase organ and tissue donation rates in Canada through public education and awareness campaigns, ongoing communication and the exchange of information, including best practices.
It is important to underline that when we debate a motion, it is essentially the House of Commons participating in a communications exercise. That is, we are all together, expressing a sentiment through endorsing an idea. In plenty of cases and in this case, it is a thing worth doing, given the motion is before us. I am going to be voting in favour of this motion.
However, I will also challenge members that the primary objective that we should pursue, as legislators, is not just to look for opportunities to put forward communication pieces on vital issues like this, but to actually look for opportunities to change the law in ways that actively increase the rate of organ donation and also that compel the government to take specific action to move these things forward. If a motion is a way of starting a conversation, that can be very worthwhile, but if a motion is a substitute for legislative action then it is perhaps not desirable. What we need to be doing is looking for opportunities, as legislators, to legislate to take the vital steps that need to be taken now to move this issue forward. I certainly commend the mover of this. I am, again, pleased to support this motion. However, there is such an urgency when it comes to moving forward and addressing, as the motion says, the number of people on waiting lists who die without transplants, that legislative changes are urgently required.
I was pleased to speak in favour of and support a bill by my colleague, a concrete legislative initiative by the member for Edmonton Manning, that would have created a national organ donation registry. Unfortunately, this bill was voted down. It was one of the first private members' bills that was put forward in this Parliament and it was defeated. A national system of national collaboration, which is indirectly hinted at by this motion, would have made the concrete difference. It would have taken far more steps in the right direction than this motion does tonight. It is with regret that I note the defeat of that bill because, had it passed, it would be saving lives today as we speak.
We had another bill put forward, by my colleague from Calgary Confederation, and this added the very helpful step of saying that when persons fill out their income tax forms they should be able to indicate on there whether they wish to be an organ donor, so it would be another opportunity for people to give information and hopefully this would increase the number of people who are saying they would like to be an organ donor. Again, it is a legislative initiative concretely moving things forward, compelling the government to action instead of simply participating in a communications exercise.
These were both good bills. I was pleased to see Bill C-316 pass.
In light of where we are in the electoral cycle and that we are likely less than a year until the next election, members should be seized with the urgency of moving forward good private members' bills that are currently before committee.
Bill C-316 passed the House at second reading. From what I understand of the process, it will need to complete the committee study, complete third reading and make its way through the Senate. There is an urgency to moving that bill forward. If all we do in this Parliament is pass this motion but not pass legislative action, that will have been a failure, a missed opportunity. I hope we will all be able to work together on that legislative initiative.
I would note the mindset and strategy behind Bill C-316. I am reading a fairly well-known book called Nudge by two behavioural economists, Thaler and Sunstein. It talks about this idea of something called libertarian paternalism, which is that governments, businesses, institutions that are shaping the architecture within which people can make choices can preserve complete liberty for the individual while still aligning the circumstances of that choice to try and bring about a socially desirable outcome.
In the case of organ donation, many people likely do not sign their donor cards not because they are choosing not to be an organ donor, but because it is simply that they are not confronted with a situation where they have to make a choice either way. They might be willing to be an organ donor, but they are just not thinking of it, and then something happens to them and they have never gotten around to signing their donor card. The idea of thinking about the choice architecture is to create the conditions in which people still have complete liberty to decide where their organs are going, but the circumstances increase the chances that they will make a choice that is in a broader sense socially desirable.
In the case of Bill C-316, it is about putting people in situations where regularly they are seeing the choice option in front of them, a way of nudging people toward making the choice one way or the other. If someone does not want to be an organ donor, absolutely the individual should have that freedom. However, it is useful for the person to be given that choice in as many contexts as possible so he or she at least is given the greatest opportunity to say yes or no. Hopefully, the individual would say yes so that again we do not have people who are not organ donors even if they thought about it they would be willing to be an organ donor, but they just never got around to signing the card or having that question in front of them.
In the context of discussion about organ donation, I want to talk briefly about Bill C-350 and Bill S-240. Tomorrow night we are going to be debating Bill S-240, which is from the Senate. It would make it a criminal offence for someone to go abroad to receive an organ for which there has not been consent. This is such an important and obvious bill. There are countries, one country in particular, where organs are taken from people without consent, often because the people are seen as politically undesirable by the government.
Anecdotally, Canadians have a sense that some people in other countries will travel to receive an organ that was taken without consent. That should be a criminal offence because being complicit in this terrible practice of organ harvesting is wrong and Canada should do everything it can to try to stop that practice. We should note in that context as well that people who are in that situation face a level of desperation because they know they need an organ and they are on a wait-list. One thing we can do is address that act specifically and address the fact that some people might go abroad to receive an organ that was harvested without someone's consent. At the same time, we can work to increase the level of organ donation here in Canada so that people no longer find themselves in that desperate situation. We can and we should do both.
By passing legislation like Bill C-316, we can ensure that people do not have to be in the desperate situation where they are on a wait-list and even where they may make a choice that they would not make under other circumstances that ends up harming someone else's life in another part of the world. With that in mind, I am very hopeful that we will be able to move forward quickly on the legislative initiative in Bill C-316 as well as Bill S-240 which we will be debating tomorrow.
I am pleased to support this motion, but the House must do more to make the vision behind this issue a reality.
