This bill was last introduced in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session, which ended in September 2019.
Considering amendments (Senate), as of May 14, 2019
(This bill did not become law.)
This is from the published bill.
This enactment amends the Criminal Code to create new offences in relation to trafficking in human organs. It also amends the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act to provide that a permanent resident or foreign national is inadmissible to Canada if the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration is of the opinion that they have engaged in any activities relating to trafficking in human organs.
All sorts of information on this bill is available at LEGISinfo, an excellent resource from the Library of Parliament. You can also read the full text of the bill.
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill S-240, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (trafficking in human organs), as reported (with amendments) from the committee.
The Speaker Geoff Regan
There being no motions at report stage, the House will now proceed, without debate, to the putting of the question of the motion to concur in the bill at report stage.
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
moved that the bill be concurred in.
(Motion agreed to)
Some hon. members
Agreed.
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
moved that the bill be read the third time and passed.
Mr. Speaker, let us get this done.
The Speaker Geoff Regan
Members do seem to like the length of that speech.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice.
Arif Virani LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada and to the Minister of Democratic Institutions
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in this third reading debate on Bill S-240, a piece of legislation that has been described as the culmination of over 10 years of parliamentary work on the important issue of organ trafficking.
It is worth recalling that four bills dealing with this issue were introduced in Parliament prior to Bill S-240, some of which were sponsored by the member for Etobicoke Centre and by the former minister of justice, Irwin Cotler.
This goes to show that combatting the scourge of organ trafficking and protecting vulnerable people from whom organs are being forcibly removed are serious concerns that we all share. That applies to my constituents in Parkdale—High Park and Canadians around the country who are rightfully concerned about protecting those who are vulnerable to predatory organ harvesting activities in Asia and around the world.
There is no question that there exists a serious organ shortage, both in Canada and abroad. The organ shortage affects family members and neighbours, and it understandably leaves many feeling vulnerable about their health. However, Bill S-240 provides an important reminder to Canadians that capitalizing on the vulnerability of organ donors abroad is not an acceptable response to this issue. That is why our government is proud to support this important bill, with targeted amendments that make it better achieve its objectives.
Bill S-240 proposes to strengthen Canada’s response to organ trafficking by creating four new Criminal Code offences related to this conduct, extending extraterritorial jurisdiction over these new offences and amending the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act to add a new ground of inadmissibility to Canada for having engaged in conduct that would be an offence under the bill.
More specifically, Bill S-240 proposes to criminalize all persons involved in the removal of an organ for transplant knowing that, or being reckless as to whether, the organ was removed without the informed consent of the donor or a substitute decision-maker.
Organ trafficking involves a range of conduct committed by various players. Accordingly, the proposed offences seeking to address this conduct would capture brokers who connect prospective organ recipients with prospective organ donors, medical professionals who extract organs illegally for transplantation, and persons who purchase organs for their own use, as well as those who assist them.
The bill also proposes to criminalize the commodification of human organs more specifically by enacting a new financial transaction offence. This offence would prohibit participating in, or facilitating the obtaining of, an organ for transplant knowing that, or being reckless as to whether, it was obtained for consideration, whether the donor consented or not to the organ removal.
With respect to the meaning and scope of the term “for consideration”, according to the study of the bill by the House of Commons Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development, this term targets the purchasing of human organs.
The bill would also extend extraterritorial application to these offences, which means that Canadian citizens or permanent residents who go abroad to purchase an organ for transplant, also known as “transplant tourism”, or commit any of the new offences abroad, could then be prosecuted in Canada.
As illegal organ trafficking is an international issue that mostly targets impoverished individuals in foreign countries, the extraterritorial application of these offences will help protect vulnerable people abroad, including those who may be induced to sell their own organs out of financial desperation.
Consistent with the objectives of the bill, these new provisions would help deter Canadians and permanent residents from contributing to organ trafficking by fuelling the demand through transplant tourism.
As mentioned during second reading debate, the extraterritorial application of the new organ trafficking offences is necessary given the fact that much of the conduct targeted by the bill occurs abroad.
Bill S-240 also proposes to add a new ground of inadmissibility to section 35 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, for having engaged in conduct that would constitute an offence under the bill. As a result, a permanent resident or foreign national could be found inadmissible to Canada for having engaged in one of the new organ trafficking offences. This amendment sends a clear signal that purchasing any organs, including from vulnerable people abroad, is serious criminal conduct here in Canada.
I would like to address some of the amendments that were made to the bill during the committee stage.
On February 27 of this year, the House committee adopted an amendment to clarify that a substitute decision-maker can provide consent on behalf of an organ donor to provide greater precision around some of the criminal law language used in the bill.
The committee also removed two amendments that had been passed in the Senate on October 23, 2018. It removed the proposed definition of “informed consent”, as well as the duty for physicians to report all organ transplants to an authority designated by order of the Governor in Council.
As previously highlighted during second reading debate, the proposed definition of “informed consent” presented challenges. The term “informed consent” has clear meaning in provincial and territorial health law. This is one of the reasons why it was not defined in the Criminal Code as part of the medical assistance in dying reforms in 2016. Therefore, in order to avoid statutory interpretation issues and ensure clarity and consistency in the Criminal Code, the definition was removed.
The proposed duty to report for physicians also raised concerns. As recalled before the House committee, doctor-patient confidentiality is sacrosanct. It is a fundamental principle that allows people to feel safe about disclosing any health issues they may be facing to their doctor. It encourages people to safeguard their own health and seek treatment, where necessary, in order to get better. It is important to protect this relationship between patients and their physicians.
Furthermore, the duty to report for physicians applied to all transplants. For these reasons, among others, the duty to report for physicians was also removed.
I pause to note that since the committee's important study of this bill, the Government of Nova Scotia has passed legislation that presumes consent for organ donation while retaining the ability for individuals to opt out of the organ donation regime. I want to clarify that I respect the choices individual provinces and territories make to try to protect the health and safety of Canadians, and that nothing in Bill S-240 is intended to interfere with provincial efforts in this important regard. We look forward to seeing the results of this legislation for the people of the province of Nova Scotia.
As members know, this piece of legislation is the result of successive efforts made by parliamentarians in both Houses to address what is truly a horrendous crime that continues to exploit vulnerable individuals right around the planet. The provisions contained in Bill S-240 will allow Canada to demonstrate leadership in the fight against organ trafficking and in the protection of international human rights.
I would urge all members of this House to support Bill S-240 in order to ensure that its proposed legislative measures become law.
Murray Rankin NDP Victoria, BC
Madam Speaker, I wish I could speak with the brevity and clarity of my colleague from Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan.
I want to get on with it as well. I support this initiative. The NDP supports it wholeheartedly.
I respect that the parliamentary secretary has quite properly pointed out the all-party support this bill has received, from Senator Ataullahjan, who has been a crusader for it in the other place, of course from the member for Etobicoke Centre, and from the hon. Irwin Cotler.
I wish to lend my support to the bill. I seconded it at second reading. I am not entirely sure all the amendments are necessary or warranted, but in principle we want to get it to the other place. We want it to be a legacy of this Parliament, so we can address what my friend the parliamentary secretary properly called a “horrendous crime”. I support this without reservation and urge all members to support it as soon as we can get it out of here.
Borys Wrzesnewskyj Liberal Etobicoke Centre, ON
Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill S-240, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (trafficking in human organs).
In 2007 at an airport in western Ukraine, I came across a gut-churning article on the front page of the local newspaper. The town's police officer had investigated the disappearance of orphans who, at age 17, were discharged from the care of the local orphanage. He had been worried that they were being trafficked into western Europe for sexual exploitation. What he discovered was much worse. These adolescents were sold to be trafficked for their organs, by the director of the orphanage.
In the following weeks, upon returning to Canada, a constituent made me aware of illegal clinics in India where poor farmers had their kidneys removed to pay off debts. Then the most barbaric example was brought to my attention. There were multi-million-dollar businesses run by the Chinese People's Liberation Army, which through its military hospitals had built an industrial-scale operation that removed, to order, body parts and organs of prisoners of conscience imprisoned in China's vast penal network.
This harrowing underground industry of trafficking in human organs and body parts, whether in the developing world or in totalitarian states, has commonalities. Those with power and wealth target and victimize the most vulnerable in their societies: orphans, destitute farmers, prisoners of conscience.
This depraved industry is a consequence of three global trends coinciding during the last decades: first, the development of medical technology allowing for the transplantation of virtually any body organ; second, an immense increase in global income disparities between the rich and powerful and the poor and vulnerable; and finally, easy and accessible transplantation tourism by wealthy westerners to clinics in the developing world.
I first addressed this modern-day horror in the House of Commons on February 2, 2008, when I introduced Bill C-500, an act to amend the Criminal Code with regard to trafficking and transplanting human organs and other body parts. Unfortunately, the legislation died on the Order Paper of the 39th Parliament, as did Bill C-381, which I introduced in the 40th Parliament, and Bill C-561, introduced by our colleague the Hon. Irwin Cotler in the 41st Parliament.
The horror of this industry hit home when, the very day after I first addressed this legislation in the House of Commons on February 3, 2008, the Toronto Star headlined an article “GTA home to 'Dr. Horror'”. Millionaire doctor Amit Kumar of Brampton was the mastermind behind an operation in India that implicated three hospitals, 10 pathology clinics and five diagnostic centres. This cabal had bought or forcibly removed and then trafficked to wealthy Indians and westerners the kidneys of approximately 500 destitute farmers and poor labourers in India.
However, the west is not just implicated in this industry by those among us willing to profit from the illegal removal of body organs, the “Dr. Horrors” among us. The profits feeding this evil are provided by those facing debilitating terminal illnesses, those among us made desperate by the severe lack of organ donations in Canada and other countries, those among us willing to not ask questions as to how and from where the human organs that extend their lives come from, and willing not to ask whether the donors were willing, willing not to ask whether donors' health and often lives were sacrificed and their organs stolen and exchanged for money.
This is why I supported what I consider to be a complementary sister motion, Motion No. 189 on organ and tissue donation. Organ donation can address this shortfall of organs for transplantation in Canada, and it is why legislation that addresses the trafficking and transplanting of organs must be passed.
My original draft legislation from 2008 has served as a template for similar legislation in Poland and Belgium. It is time for Canada to take action. Canadians must not be implicated in this depraved, evil industry that sees the wealthy and desperate in the west monetize, pay for the organs and body parts of the most vulnerable in the developing world: orphans, destitute farmers and prisoners of conscience.
Eleven years after I first tabled legislation to deal with the trafficking in human organs, I am heartened that legislation to combat this horror, to combat this modern form of cannibalism will finally be enacted by this 42nd Parliament.
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
Madam Speaker, I first want to thank and recognize all members from all parties in both chambers who have been involved in this process. The work is not done and it is no guarantee that the bill will make it through the Senate in time, so we must continue the work. Those following this debate must contact their senators and all of us must engage the Senate in dialogue to ensure this final version of the bill makes it back through the Senate before it becomes law.
We have taken this a long way and it is remarkable. I include Senator Ataullahjan who put this bill forward in the first place and my friend from Etobicoke Centre for his incredible steadfast work over such long a time. There are too many members to recognize individually, but I thank them all. It has been such an honour for me to work with so many excellent people as part of this effort. However, again, the work is not done.
At committee, there were amendments and on the vast majority of them, there was consensus. However, one issue going forward from this legislation that we will have to consider is the issue of reporting provisions. This was discussed by the parliamentary secretary. He noted issues around potential doctor-patient confidentiality when there were mandatory reporting provisions requiring physicians to report things about their interactions with patients. However, I will note that we have reporting provisions that are seen as exceptions to this already, reporting provisions that deal with issues like gunshot wounds and child abuse. Therefore, it is not unprecedented to require reporting in cases where it is designed to prevent harm to the vulnerable.
We do not have time at this stage to try to readjudicate that debate. It is important to pass the bill in its current form so we can get this done. We should not make perfect the enemy of the good. However, at the same time, as the bill is implemented, we will have to follow the impacts of not having that reporting provision. Perhaps it will be something a future parliament will take up.
Previous versions of the legislation, including the original version put forward by my friend from Etobicoke Centre, did have within them reporting provisions. Nonetheless, let us not make perfect the enemy of the good. Let us get this done. Let us make this a legacy of the 42nd Parliament, that notwithstanding disagreements and occasional rancour, we were able to do something incredible for the world's most vulnerable, something that other Parliaments until now have failed to do.
The Assistant Deputy Speaker Carol Hughes
The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members
Agreed.