Bill S-240 (Historical)

An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (trafficking in human organs)

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.

Human Organ Trafficking

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions to present today.

The first one is expressing that the increasing concerns of many Canadians about international trafficking in human organs removed from victims without consent have not yet led to a legal prohibition on Canadians travelling abroad to acquire or receive such organs.

The petitioners are also concerned that there are currently two bills before Parliament proposing to impede the trafficking of human organs obtained without consent or as the result of a financial transaction. Those are Bill C-350 in the House of Commons and Bill S-240 in the Senate. The petitioners are urging the Parliament of Canada to move quickly on the proposed legislation so as to amend the Criminal Code and the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act to prohibit Canadians from travelling abroad to acquire human organs removed without consent or as the result of a financial transaction, and to render inadmissible to Canada any and all permanent residents or foreign nationals who have participated in this abhorrent trade in human organs. It is definitely worth our consideration quickly.

Criminal Code

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is a real honour to be able to rise today to speak to Bill S-223. Before I get into my remarks, it is important to recognize the two individuals who have been working diligently over the years to shepherd this bill through Parliament, starting in the other place, with Senator Ataullahjan, and here, the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan. Both individuals have been long involved in this process, over several Parliaments.

The bill, of course, passed very quickly through second and third reading in the other place. In fact, it even skipped consideration by the committee on December 9 of last year. It gives a sense of the arduous journey that private members' bills, both from the Senate side and from the House side, have to make in order to pass the entire parliamentary process: the fact that we are here in December 2022, only now considering its third reading, and it has taken a full year to get to that stage.

Before I get into the details of why this legislation is necessary, I would like to talk about a few key points in terms of what the bill is going to do, so we are all very clear on what the House is going to be debating and hopefully passing in short order.

Essentially, it is a substantive amendment to a narrow section of the Criminal Code in relation to the crime of trafficking in human organs. We know that organs like kidneys and livers are being forcibly removed from many people, but this bill, with a new section 240.1, is going to create some new offences: anyone who obtains organs without informed consent, either for use in another person or for themselves; anyone who is involved in the carrying out of the procedure to remove those organs without informed consent; and anyone who does anything in connection with the removal of the organs without informed consent.

That is quite broad. It could involve anyone who was involved in allowing a place to be used for the surgery and anyone who is involved in the transportation of the organs or their smuggling across borders. It is a very real problem. It is something that, through several Parliaments, we have been waiting for substantive action on.

We know this is a crime that disproportionately affects people who live in impoverished countries and who live under authoritarian rule and do not have access to the same rights, privileges and equality under the law that we sometimes take for granted here in Canada. It is important that countries like Canada, with its well-known track record in standing up for human rights and the rule of law, not only here in our own country but abroad, follow suit and really establish what we think should be the norm and what all citizens of the world should be able to enjoy.

There is also a very important amendment to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, so that a permanent resident or any foreign national would be inadmissible to Canada if the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship is of the opinion that they have engaged in any activities related to the new offence that is going to be put into the Criminal Code through the passage of this bill.

Through the conversation today, I have heard several members talk about how having this provision in Canadian law for a crime that occurred in another country is important. It reminds me that we sometimes have a double standard in this place about how we apply Canadian law.

I have been a member of this House for seven years now. I was here in the 42nd Parliament. I remember a previous private member's bill, which was sponsored by the member for New Westminster—Burnaby. It was Bill C-331. In the dying days of the 42nd Parliament, we managed to come to a vote on that bill at second reading. It was June 19, 2019, pretty much the very last day of the 42nd Parliament.

That was an important bill, because it intended to amend the Federal Courts Act so that people from other countries who wanted to bring a civil claim could do so under the jurisdiction of federal court.

The nature of the claims could have to do with genocide, a war crime or a crime against humanity, slavery or slave trading, extrajudicial killings, torture, prolonged arbitrary detention, or the sale or trafficking of persons. These are all crimes that every member of this House agrees are abhorrent and certainly need the full force of the law.

The problem is that when the member for New Westminster—Burnaby was attempting, for many good reasons, to bring that bill forward, the House voted against it. In fact, the Liberals and the Conservatives joined together to shut the bill down at second reading.

I do not want to take away from the debate on the bill today. Bill S-223 is going to have our full support. I just hope that when Parliament is conducting itself and when we see value in these types of measures that try to apply Canadian law to things that happen abroad, we can do so on a consistent basis.

We need to recognize that there are huge problems out there, not just with human trafficking in organs, but also in war crimes, slavery and other methods. Should the member for New Westminster—Burnaby try to bring that initiative back, I hope the House will apply the lessons from the debate on Bill S-223 to that similar and worthy initiative.

Bill S-223 is no stranger to us. In the 42nd Parliament, it was before the House as Bill S-240. The reason I think it is a forgone conclusion that this bill is going to pass the House is that it is identical to the version we debated and passed as Bill S-240. In fact, in the 42nd Parliament it received the unanimous support of the House at second reading and again at third reading on April 30, 2019.

The important and notable difference with Bill S-223 is that it incorporates the amendments the House made to the previous version of the bill. That is what caused the delay on Bill S-240. It had to be sent back to the Senate so it could consider House amendments.

Unfortunately, at that time, the bill was held up because of the procedural shenanigans going on in the other place related to the old bill, Bill C-262, which was introduced by my former colleague, Romeo Saganash. That was his attempt with a private member's bill to enshrine the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

I am glad to see, from the tone and content of the speeches so far, that there is recognition that this is an important and long-overdue change to criminal law. It sends a strong message, not only to people around the world who are facing these barbaric practices under regimes such as China, and we have heard well-documented testimony on what the Uighur population is going through, but also to impoverished people living in countries where the rule of law is applied selectively at best.

These people may be targeted by criminal organizations. We have heard testimony from people who have woken up in a drugged haze to someone wearing a surgical mask and gloves telling them that their kidney has just been removed and that they need to take care. Often, these victims can suffer very serious, lifelong health consequences from that, and because of the nature of the operation, some people have ultimately died from it. It is a very real issue.

We know the demand for organs is very high worldwide, and we need to take steps to encourage people to put themselves on an organ donor registry. I am pleased to see that this Parliament has tried to address that by making it easier for people to sign up and so on. However, those are problems that are not going to go away. The demand for organs is high, and as our population ages we certainly need to have smart and effective policy to address that.

On behalf of the New Democratic caucus, I will indicate that we are looking forward to supporting this bill and voting on it so it gets sent to the Governor General for royal assent. We have long opposed all forms of trafficking, whether it be human trafficking for sexual exploitation, labour trafficking or the trafficking of human organs. We must do all we can to protect vulnerable people. With that, I will conclude my remarks. I appreciate this opportunity.

[Sameer Zuberi, Liberal, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to start by thanking the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan.

I also want to thank Senator Ataullahjan, who has created this conversation within our House, the lower house, the House of Commons.

This Senate bill, Bill S-223, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (trafficking in human organs), is a critical piece of legislation that would help us address a grave and serious human rights concern. It is new legislation that adds to an existing body of law, which addresses criminality but not with respect to organ harvesting outside of Canada's territory.

I want to acknowledge our collective commitment to ensuring that these important reforms become law. This is a commitment from all members of the House, from what I can see. The important and beautiful thing about this legislation and discussing it is we are focused on the public good, putting aside our partisan squabbles to promote what is right and just.

First, I would like to review the history of the legislative reform proposed in this bill.

The issue of organ trafficking has been before Parliament for a decade. Prior to Bill S‑223, there were two Senate public bills that proposed nearly identical reforms. They were Bill S‑240, introduced in 2017, and Bill S‑204, introduced in 2020. In addition, two private member's bills introduced in 2017 and 2013 proposed similar reforms. They were Bill C‑350 and Bill C‑561. We all agree that organ trafficking is a heinous crime. It requires a legislative response.

As I said earlier, this piece of legislation would create something new within the Criminal Code that speaks specifically to the trafficking of organs extraterritorially, or outside the territory of Canada. Additionally, it would amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act so those who are seeking to reside permanently in Canada or foreign nationals would be inadmissible to our beautiful country for engaging in conduct that constitutes one of the offences proposed in this legislation. These offences target anybody who obtains organs, or who participates in or facilitates the trafficking of organs, from a person who did not provide informed consent. This legislation also seeks to target those who obtained organs that are purchased and those who participate in or facilitate the transfer of purchased organs.

These are coercive practices. They are difficult to prove, but we want to send a clear and strong signal that we as a country do not accept them.

Unfortunately, we know that people who are wealthier unwittingly or sometimes wittingly engage in this practice. Those who are victims of this practice are almost always deeply vulnerable. The transplant of organs without consent is abhorrent. Oftentimes, it leads to devastating impacts on those who had their organs trafficked. They are uncompensated, they live with lifelong problems and they sometimes die.

The member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan and I participated in an important study on the Uighur people. This was over two years ago at the parliamentary subcommittee on international human rights.

We heard testimony from a survivor of the concentration camps within Xinjiang Uighur Autonomous Region. He recounted to us, in testimony, how he was apprehended. He was asked to sign a forced confession and refused to do so. He was medically examined to such an extent that he thought he would be dissected on that table, that his eyes were going to be removed or that his organs were going to be harvested on the spot during the examination.

This piece of legislation seeks to target any behaviour that harvests organs from people.

I recognize that the Criminal Code may apply currently to some of the conduct that this bill is seeking to legislate. Right now, the Criminal Code has assault offences that apply when organs are harvested here in Canada with coercion. This piece of legislation, as I mentioned earlier, also looks at what happens outside of Canada.

Right now, there is no international covenant from the UN that speaks specifically to organ harvesting in its essence as the main thrust of the covenant. However, there are two covenants that do touch upon organ harvesting, and Canada is party to both of these UN instruments. The first is the Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons, Especially Women and Children. This supplements the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime, which was ratified on May 13, 2002.

After this first piece of international law came the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography. This protocol addresses offering, delivering and accepting a child for the purposes of transferring children's organs, particularly article 3. This was ratified on September 14, 2005.

The Council of Europe Convention against Trafficking in Human Organs, adopted in 2014, also speaks directly to organ harvesting.

I will conclude by recognizing the important work that has been done around this, in particular by David Kilgour and David Matas. They have done extensive research around Falun Gong or Falun Dafa practitioners and have dedicated years to highlighting this particular issue around organ harvesting.

We know that David Kilgour served in the House for many years with the Liberal Party and the Conservative Party. He was a person of conviction. He was a person who continued to remain active after serving the House. He was somebody I crossed paths with before entering the House. I remember this gentleman as a sincere person who advocated for the public good and for human rights.

It is important to also mark David Matas, who along with David Kilgour conducted extensive research. It allowed us to build a body of evidence that proved not only anecdotally but also empirically that this is an abhorrent phenomenon occurring right now.

Recently, in the Subcommittee on International Human Rights, we heard how this is currently happening to the Uighur people. In the airports in Xinjiang Uighur Autonomous Region, in Urumqi, if my memory serves me correctly, there were lines on the floor as one entered the airport that specifically demarcated where one could pick up organs. This is abhorrent. This type of practice must stop. This practice might exist currently within a region of the world that we know, but this legislation applies across the board.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

I hope so also.

Let me answer your direct question and then, if I can, comment on your preamble as well.

My understanding of this bill is that there have been multiple versions of this bill at different points in time. There were amendments to Bill S-240 that passed this committee two Parliaments ago, and then it was sent to the Senate. My understanding is that this bill is identical to the version that passed at the House of Commons committee. There were previous versions, but it's identical to the version of the bill that passed at the House committee at that time.

I agree with you, by the way, that it would have been very reasonable for the committee to look at this bill and hear from witnesses earlier on in the process. My point was that we are way too late. The clause-by-clause study next week is three sitting days before the automatic reporting deadline, which means that the committee has not left itself time.

If we were having this conversation even two or three months ago, people could have said, “We want to hear from a few witnesses, and if we decide no amendments are needed, that's fine, but we want to hear from the witnesses.” It's just that we're in a minority Parliament. Anything can happen.

This bill has sat before the committee for almost the full 60 sitting days. Do I think it's reasonable for committees in a new Parliament to say that they want to take a fresh look at this? Absolutely. Do I think it's reasonable to wait the full 60 days without talking about the bill and then say at that point that now we need to have a extensive, detailed study? I don't really think that's reasonable.

I'm certainly not blaming you for that, but I personally have expressed the view before this committee, as members know, that we should prioritize legislation, not because it's my bill, but because legislation, as opposed to studies, is the way that committees exercise their hard power.

It is just too late. Doing clause-by-clause study next week will only have the effect of delaying the bill. If we adopt it with amendments, it will significantly delay the bill. If we adopt it without amendments, it will still delay the bill, because it will require report stage, when otherwise there would be automatic reporting.

I'm sympathetic, but we are where we are.

Human Organ Trafficking

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to present a petition today. Petitioners from across the country, and in this case particularly from Scarborough, are calling on the government to enact legislation that would prevent Canadians from going abroad and participating in the illegal organ harvesting that happens around the world.

The petitioners are calling on the quick passage of two bills: Bill C-350 and Bill S-240. Those bills are exactly the same, but one is in the Senate and one is in this place.

The petitioners are calling for it to be made a crime for Canadians to go abroad or for them to be inadmissible to Canada if they have been participating in the illegal organ harvesting that is happening. This particularly has been raised by members of the Falun Gong community here in Canada, and I want to thank them for their advocacy in this area.

Criminal Code

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, allow me to thank the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan for tenaciously sponsoring this legislation again. He should get an award for the number of times he has appeared on this very same bill.

In the House, we all recognize the importance of this bill. We have had several Parliaments debate it. I do not think there is any argument against this kind of an amendment being necessary to the Criminal Code and to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

I did have a number of comments I wanted to make, but in the spirit of what has already been said today, I would conclude by saying that the NDP absolutely does support this legislation. It is a shame that we did not see the former Bill S-240 pass through the 42nd Parliament quickly. If people remember correctly, that piece of legislation was held up, literally yards away from the finish line, because of the procedural shenanigans that were going on in the other place, when Conservative senators were trying to hold up Romeo Saganash's Bill C-262. That ultimately prevented the Senate from voting on the House amendments to Bill S-240.

That being said, we are here now with Bill S-223. I am proud to support this bill at second reading. We look forward to seeing it get to committee, back to the House and on to the Governor General's desk as quickly as possible.

Human Organ Trafficking

[Karen Vecchio, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Mr. Speaker, today I am very honoured to present a number of petitions focused on Bill C-350 and Bill S-240 regarding the organ trafficking that continues to occur. These are things we have to bring forward to Parliament and discuss for the greater good, and I am hoping everybody in this chamber will agree.

[Eric Melillo, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to table this petition signed by Canadians from across the country concerned about the issue of forced human organ trafficking. Those signing the petition are looking for Parliament to move quickly to pass legislation: Bill C-350 and Bill S-240.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the final petition I am tabling today is with respect to Bill S-223. The bill has had a number of different names and numbers. It is the bill that seeks to make it a criminal offence for a person to go abroad and receive an organ taken without consent. The bill has been in the works for over 15 years, trying to address forced organ harvesting and trafficking. It has been put forward in every Parliament I have been a part of, under Bills S-240 and S-204. Now it has been retabled in the Senate as S-223, and I am hoping against hope that this Parliament will finally be the one that gets it done.

I commend all these petitions to the consideration of hon. members.

Criminal Code

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, Humber River—Black Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have been following the debates all week and many of my colleagues have used their time in their interventions to acknowledge the wonderful work that various people have done.

I very much support Bill S-204.

As members know, we had a late night last night. We were voting on the main estimates to approve the necessary programs that were going to make a difference in all Canadians' lives, programs that would help get people back on their feet after surviving this global pandemic. It has not been easy, but we have been there for Canadians.

It is my hope that in the coming days, when we deal with bills like Bill S-204, we will see the swift passage of bills like Bill C-30 and other important pieces of legislation, which still need to be addressed, so we can ensure that the supports needed to help Canadians through the final stages of this pandemic are in place. That is why we are all here in this place. We do not need to be told by other colleagues that if we want to get Bill C-30 passed, we have to turn around and get some other bill passed. That is not the way democracy works.

We are to represent our constituents and make a positive difference, and I believe Bill S-204 would make a big difference in the lives of many people.

Bill S-204, formally known as Bill S-240, passed both in the House and in the other place in 2019. I was very proud to be one of the persons, along with my colleagues, who passed this important bill. I appreciate the fact that my colleague has raised this issue, brought it back and continues to move it forward, because it is a very important bill.

Unfortunately, Bill S-240 never became law due to the dissolution of the House before the federal election. That happened to many good pieces of legislation. It is long overdue that this Parliament pass legislation like Bill S-204, dealing with a practice that we all are appalled to know continues in spite of many of us calling for the abolition of it. We know it continues on many days and in many countries.

Similar bills have been sitting in Parliament for over 12 years, during which time many innocent lives have perished due to the organ transplant trade, something we all find completely appalling. Two previous private members' bills were tabled by my former colleague, the former member for Etobicoke Centre, and my life-long friend, someone we all love and respect, the Hon. Irwin Cotler.

I am the chair of the Parliamentary Friends of Falun Gong and I am all too familiar with the issue of organ harvesting and how this bill could help put an end to this horrific practice. I have seen many pictures and talked to people who have had their family go through this terrible process.

Bill S-204 proposes to amend the Criminal Code to create new offences in relation to trafficking in human organs. The bill also would amend the Criminal Code to enable Canada to assume extraterritorial jurisdiction to prosecute, and that is very important. There is no sense having legislation if we do not put teeth in it. We need that ability to prosecute, in Canada, Canadian citizens or permanent residents who commit any of the proposed offences abroad.

I was recently told about number of Canadians who were going abroad, specifically to China, and getting kidney transplants and different things done. I would like to ask Canadians, before they do that, to think about where those organs come from. This would make it an offence for any Canadian to go abroad to take advantage of that.

It would also amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act to provide that permanent residents or foreign nationals would be inadmissible to Canada if the responsible person were of the opinion that they have engaged in any of these activities relating to trafficking in human organs. Imagine that for $5,000, someone can get a transplant, never asking where that organ came from.

Our government is committed to ensuring our criminal justice system keeps communities safe, protects victims and holds offenders to account. We condemn the illegal and exploitative trade of human organs in the strongest of terms, and that was shown in the previous vote on Bill S-240, and will be on this one as well. We continue to have very strong feelings on things like this, as I believe all Canadians do.

Organ trafficking, the practice of extracting organs through coercive means to sell them for profit, is absolutely reprehensible and it is a global challenge, not just the challenge we are talking about today, which frequently involves the exploitation of vulnerable individuals. It is a complex issue that requires both legislative and policy responses. Our government is proud to support this important bill, with targeted amendments that would make it better to achieve its objectives.

I very much look forward to seeing its passage by Parliament contrary to what my colleagues seemed to indicate earlier. This a bill that we all want to pass and then have very strong enforcement to end human trafficking in organ transplants.

If I do not get another opportunity to do so, I wish everyone a blessed summer and I will see everyone in September.

Human Organ Trafficking

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the third petition I am presenting is in support of Bill S-204, a bill that has passed the Senate unanimously, and has previously passed the House unanimously in the form of Bill S-240.

The petitioners are hoping that this bill will be adopted and that this will indeed be the one that finally gets it done.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the next petition I am presenting today is from Canadians from across Canada who are concerned about forced organ harvesting that happens around the world. The petitioners are calling on the Government of Canada to pass two bills: Bill C-350 and Bill S-240. These bills would make it illegal for a Canadian to go abroad to gain access to illegally harvested organs.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the final petition is in support of Bill S-204, a bill currently before this House, which has just passed the Senate unanimously. Bill S-204 would make it a criminal offence for a person to go abroad and receive an organ where there has not been consent. This bill has passed the House unanimously in its current form as Bill S-240 in the last Parliament. Now we simply need to complete the reconciliation process by passing Bill S-204 in this Parliament. The petitioners are hoping this Parliament is the one that finally gets it done and deals with the abhorrent practice of forced organ harvesting and trafficking. It is an issue on which all parliamentarians agree and has had unanimous support in both Houses before in this form, so let us try to get it done in this Parliament.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the second petition is on Bill S-204, a bill that would make it a criminal offence for a person to go abroad and receive an organ taken without consent. The bill has passed the Senate unanimously and is now before the House. I note that it is identical to Bill S-240 and it is in the same form that the bill was in when it passed the House unanimously in the last Parliament.

The bill has now, in the same form, though, in different Parliaments, passed both Houses unanimously. The petitioners hope to see this Parliament finally be the one to actually get the bill into law.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, the second petition I am tabling is about Bill S-204, a bill that has now passed the Senate and is currently before the House.

It is a bill that would make it a criminal offence for a person to go abroad and receive an organ in a case where there had not been consent. It also creates a mechanism by which a person could be made inadmissible to Canada if they were involved in forced organ harvesting and trafficking. This bill has now passed the Senate unanimously twice. It passed in the House once before unanimously, in the same form, in the previous Parliament.

Petitioners are hoping Bill S-204, which is the same as Bill S-240 from the previous Parliament, will be passed in this Parliament with the support of all members.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the third and final petition I am presenting this morning is in support of Bill S-204, a bill that has been unanimously adopted by the Senate and is now before this House. The bill would make it a criminal offence for a person to go abroad and receive an organ without consent. It would also create a mechanism by which people could be deemed inadmissible to Canada if they are involved in forced organ harvesting and trafficking.

Bill S-204 is the same bill, in an identical form, as Bill S-240, which passed in this House unanimously in the last Parliament. Bill S-204 has unanimously passed in the Senate twice. It has unanimously passed in the House. It has passed in both chambers in identical form.

The only remaining step is for this House, in this Parliament, to again pass the bill in the same form it was passed in the last Parliament so we can finally take this vitally necessary step for Canada to fight back against the horrific practice of forced organ harvesting and trafficking.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, the third petition I am tabling is with respect to Bill S-204, a bill that would make is a criminal offence for a person to go abroad and receive an organ without consent.

The petitioners want the government to support the passage of Bill S-204 as quickly as possible. The bill has already passed the Senate and is currently before the House. It is identical in form to Bill S-240, which passed in the House unanimously in the last Parliament.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Madam Speaker, the next petition I have to present is from Canadians from across the country who are concerned about the scourge of organ trafficking. They are calling for the quick passage of Bill S-240 from the Senate. They are calling on this House to pass that as well.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the second petition is from Canadians from across Canada who are concerned with the illegal organ harvesting that is happening around the world. The petitioners are calling for the speedy passage of Bill S-240.

I believe it has passed through the Senate. I look forward to it coming to this place.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition respecting forced organ harvesting.

The petitioners wish to draw to the attention of this place the lack of a legal prohibition for Canadians travelling abroad. They call on Parliament to pass Bill C-350 and Bill S-240.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Madam Speaker, I have a number of petitions to present today.

The first petition is signed by Canadians from across Canada who are calling on the government to prevent organ harvesting and for the speedy passage of Bill S-240 from the Senate. Given the circumstances of the Uighurs in China, that would be appropriate.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the last petition I have to present is around Bill C-350 and Bill S-240 from the last Parliament. The petitioners are calling for the Government of Canada to quickly pass legislation similar to this that would restrict Canadians from going abroad and gaining access to organs that have been illegally harvested from around the world. They are calling for the quick passage of these bills and/or government legislation like it.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Madam Speaker, the second petition that I have to present today is from Canadians from across the country.

The petitioners are calling on the Government of Canada to pass bills from the last Parliament that were formerly known as Bill C-350 and Bill S-240, which would have reduced the number of forced organ harvesting in the world. The legislation would have made it illegal for a Canadian to go abroad to get an organ that has been harvested illegally.

The petitioners are calling for the quick passage of these bills.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the fourth petition I have to present is about the forced organ harvesting that is happening around the world. It is signed by people from across Canada. They are calling on the government to enact, from the previous Parliament, Bill C-350 and Bill S-240, which would make it illegal to travel abroad to purchase organs that have been illegally harvested.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I have five petitions to present today.

The first petition calls on the House of Commons and the government to pass two bills from the last Parliament, Bill C-350 and Bill S-240. These bills would make it illegal to travel abroad to receive a harvested organ.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is my honour and privilege to rise in this place to present a petition. This petition is calling on the government to pass forthwith Bill C-350 and Bill S-240 from the last Parliament. These bills deal with the forced organ harvesting that happens around the world and also Canadians that go abroad to receive a forcibly harvested organ.

The people who have signed this petition are asking for these bills to be passed forthwith in this place and made into law.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Mr. Speaker, in the second petition people are calling for the government to work quickly to pass Bills S-240 and C-350 from a previous Parliament. The petitioners are looking forward to that bill being passed. The bill would make it illegal for Canadians to go overseas to get an organ that may have been harvested.

Foreign Affairs

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the Inter-Parliamentary Union, or the IPU, is a critically important international organization. It has been described as the United Nations of parliaments. Essentially, it is an organization of legislators that brings together parliamentarians from around the world. It plays an important role in helping to advance democracy and human rights through dialogue among different parliamentarians.

I am very pleased to share with the House something I think members already know, in large part, which is that Senator Salma Ataullahjan, who has been involved in the IPU for a very long time and has used the IPU as a forum for advancing important human rights issues, is running for the presidency of that organization. I am very pleased that all members of our Conservative caucus are supporting her bid to lead the IPU. I know she has a great deal of support in other parties, including, for instance, within the government caucus.

The member for Beaches—East York told The Globe and Mail, “While we represent different parties, I’ve seen firsthand Salma’s thoughtful diplomacy at IPU conferences, and our Parliament would be lucky to have her represent Canada on the world stage”.

The Liberal member for Hull—Aylmer concurred. He told The Globe and Mail, “Salma would be a great leader of the IPU. It is good for Canada and for what our country represents.”

Senator Ataullahjan was encouraged to run for the leadership of the IPU by delegates from Britain and New Zealand. I know she has substantial support around the world for this bid. It would be good for Canada to have this prominent Canadian senator, a strong advocate of human rights, representing Canadian values on the world stage, bringing together and strengthening the work of the IPU, and continuing to use that as a forum to advance important issues of justice and human rights.

Independent senator, Mohamed-Iqbal Ravalia said that Ms. Ataullahjan is a “beacon of human rights and inclusive values…and as a Muslim woman, she will raise the profile of Canada’s place in the IPU.”

I would just say as well that Senator Ataullahjan has an extensive background in volunteering in various communities. She served on the executive board of the Canadian branch of the Citizens Foundation, an international organization that has built over 700 schools for Pakistan's poorest children. Senator Ataullahjan was appointed to the Senate by former prime minister Stephen Harper and was the first Canadian senator of Pakistani origin appointed.

Senator Ataullahjan and I have had an opportunity to collaborate specifically on the issue of forced organ harvesting and trafficking. She put forward Bill S-240 in the last Parliament, which almost got passed but did not quite make it, and has since put forward Bill S-204 in this Parliament, another critically important human rights issue that just adds to a long list of the work of Senator Ataullahjan.

This is a great opportunity for Canada to have a strong Canadian senator representing us at the Inter-Parliamentary Union in this important leadership role. It is important, therefore, for the government to get behind this bid and show its support because I know countries around the world are looking for that signal of support from the government, from our diplomatic representatives.

It is very clear that the government has put the resources of government at the disposal of former finance minister Bill Morneau in his bid for a position within the OECD, and it is only right that Senator Ataullahjan have the support of government.

We disagree in this place on issues from time to time, of course, but we should be able to work together on the world stage to advance our national interests. Conservatives were supportive, as supportive as we could be, of the government's bid to get on the UN Security Council. We try to work together in these international fora, yet the government has been strangely silent around the bid of Senator Ataullahjan. The minister said he is going to wait, he is going to meet with future candidates later on, and so on and so forth.

It is important for the Minister of Foreign Affairs to send a clear signal of support for Senator Ataullahjan's bid for that strong Canadian voice on the Inter-Parliamentary Union. The minister and the parliamentary secretary have an opportunity right now to express that support, and I think it is very important that they do so.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Chair, five years ago when Parliament passed Bill C-14, then justice minister Jody Wilson-Raybould said that it represented a finely tuned balance between access and safeguards. It also included a five-year review.

Petitioners on the first petition I'm presenting are very concerned to see Bill C-7 before Parliament, which removes safeguards ahead of that five-year review. Petitioners specifically mention their concerns about the removal of the mandatory 10-day reflection period, which can already be waived in certain circumstances. They are concerned about reducing the number of witnesses required to oversee it and ensure that a request has been properly made. I commend that petition to the consideration of the House.

The second and final petition that I will be presenting today is with respect to Senate Bill S-204. This would make it a criminal offence for a person to go abroad and receive an organ from a person who did not consent. This responds specifically to concerns about organ harvesting in the People's Republic of China involving Falun Gong practitioners and increasing concerns that this is being or about to be applied to Uighurs as well.

Canada can and should take action on this. Petitioners are noting that in the previous Parliament there were bills on this, Bill C-350 and Bill S-240. Now, in this Parliament there is a bill, Bill S-204, and the petitioners hope that this 43rd Parliament will be the one that gets it passed.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Chair, I'm pleased to be presenting a petition in support of Bill S-204. The text reads Bill S-240 because it was a petition signed during the previous Parliament, but the same bill has been put forward in this Parliament as Bill S-204. It seeks to address the scourge of forced organ harvesting and trafficking. This can happen in many different contexts, but the particular genesis of this is the targeting of Falun Gong practitioners and others in China through an aggressive policy of organ harvesting. There's concern that Uighurs are now being targeted, as well.

The petitioners hope that members of Parliament will support this bill and that this, the 43rd Parliament, will be the one that actually moves forward with action to address the terrible human rights abuse associated with forced organ harvesting and trafficking.

Human Organ Trafficking

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to stand today and present a petition.

The people who have signed this petition are concerned about forced organ harvesting internationally. We condemn organ trafficking and we would like to see the passage of legislation in this place. The people who have signed this petition referenced Bill C-350 and Bill S-240 from the last Parliament. They look forward to seeing similar legislation passed in this Parliament.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to present two petitions.

The first petition is in support of Bill S-204. The text actually refers to Bill S-240. That was the name of the bill in the last Parliament. In this Parliament the same bill has been proposed as Bill S-204. It would make it a criminal offence for a Canadian to go abroad to receive an organ for which there has not been consent, and it would also create mechanisms to make people impermissible to Canada if they were involved in the horrific practice of forced organ harvesting and trafficking.

This requires the urgent attention of members of Parliament. Members have been working on getting a bill like this passed for over a decade, so petitioners hope that the 43rd Parliament will be the one that gets it done.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to table a petition in support of Bill S-204 in the Senate, which is similar to Bill S-240 from the last Parliament. This bill seeks to address the horrific practice of forced organ harvesting and trafficking. It would make it a criminal offence for a Canadian to go abroad and receive an organ for which there has not been consent. It would also create a mechanism by which people could be deemed inadmissible to Canada because of their involvement in organ harvesting and trafficking.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present four petitions in the House today.

The first petition deals with proposed legislation that was discussed in the last Parliament, and we now have a similar bill proposed to the Senate in this Parliament. In the last Parliament, it was Bill S-240. In this Parliament, it is Bill S-204, and it seeks to combat the scourge of forced organ harvesting and trafficking by making it a criminal offence for a Canadian to go abroad to receive an organ without consent.

It would also create mechanisms by which someone could be deemed inadmissible to Canada because of their involvement in organ harvesting and trafficking.

The petitioners are in support of this concept and of the bill.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, today I am presenting a petition that was signed in the last Parliament in support of Bill S-240. That bill has been presented again in this Parliament conveniently under a similar number, Bill S-204. It is a bill that seeks to address the terrible reality of forced organ harvesting and trafficking and to end the possibility of any involvement by Canadians in this terrible trafficking.

The petitioners no doubt hope that the new Bill S-204 will be passed quickly through this 43rd Parliament.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, I have two petitions to table today.

The first is on the issue of forced organ harvesting and trafficking. It was signed in support of bills that went forward in the last Parliament, Bill C-350 and Bill S-240. Bill S-240 received unanimous support in both Houses of Parliament. Unfortunately, it was not the same version so it was not adopted. Petitioners no doubt hope that a similar bill will be passed and finally make it into law in this Parliament.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, I have two petitions to present today.

The first petition is in support of Bill C-350 and Bill S-240, which were in the last Parliament. They deal with the issue of forced organ harvesting and organ trafficking. It calls for these bills to be adopted. There is no doubt that petitioners would want to see action taken in the current Parliament, given that those bills did not make it all the way in the last Parliament.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to be tabling a petition that is in support of two bills that were up in the last Parliament: Bill C-350 and Bill S-240. These were bills designed to combat the scourge of forced organ harvesting. Unfortunately, those bills did not pass in time in the last Parliament, but no doubt petitioners hope that similar bills will be brought forward and passed in this Parliament.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to stand today and present a petition from Canadians from across the country in support of Bill C-350 and Bill S-240, regarding forced organ harvesting that happens around the world.

Human trafficking is a horrific human rights violation that happens right here in this country, as well. I hope that we can pass similar bills in this Parliament forthwith.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be presenting a petition in support of two bills that were in the 42nd Parliament: Bill C-350 and Bill S-240. These bills sought to deal with the scourge of forced organ harvesting and trafficking by making it a criminal offence for a Canadian to go abroad and receive an organ for which there had not been consent.

The petitioners no doubt hope that this important legislative initiative will be taken up in this, the 43rd Parliament.

[Terry Dowdall, Conservative, Simcoe—Grey, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to table a petition in support of Bill C-350 and Bill S-240 from the previous Parliament. These bills received unanimous consent in both Houses but did not pass in identical form, thus the law was not changed.

The petitioners hope to see this Parliament be the one that finally takes action on forced organ harvesting.

[Nelly Shin, Conservative, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Madam Speaker, I rise to table a petition that supports Bill C-350 and Bill S-240 from the 42nd Parliament. The petitioners want the 43rd Parliament to be the one that finally takes action on forced organ harvesting and passes these bills.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity today to present two petitions.

The first is with respect to the issue of organ harvesting and trafficking. In the last Parliament, attempts were made to get Bills S-240 and C-350 through the House. Unfortunately, they failed to make it. The petitioners are calling on Parliament to take action on this issue, and hope that the 43rd Parliament will be the one to finally get it done.

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to present a petition in support of Bill C-350 and Bill S-240 from the previous Parliament. These bills received unanimous consent in both Houses, but did not pass in identical form and thus the law was not changed.

Petitioners hope to see this Parliament be the one that finally takes action on forced organ harvesting.

[Marc Dalton, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am tabling a petition to support Bill C-350 and Bill S-240 from the 42nd Parliament. Petitioners want the 43rd Parliament to be one that finally takes action on forced organ harvesting and passes these bills.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Mr. Speaker, as it is my first time being recognized in the House, I want to thank the good people of Peace River— Westlock for putting their faith in me to represent them in Ottawa once again. I would like to congratulate you, Mr. Speaker, on your election to the Speaker. I know this will be a prosperous Parliament because of that.

I too would like to present a petition today calling for the passage of Bill C-350 and Bill S-240. These bills were introduced in the last Parliament. They passed unanimously through the last Parliament, but were unable to be declared into law. We look forward to reintroducing them and having them pass swiftly through this Parliament.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I have an opportunity today to table four petitions. The first petition is in support of bills that were in the last Parliament, Bills C-350 and S-240. These bills deal with the scourge of forced organ trafficking. The petitioners are no doubt disappointed that those bills did not pass in the last Parliament, despite having a lot of support, and are hopeful that similar bills will be able to move forward and finally become law in this Parliament.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate you for taking on the role of Speaker, and I would like to thank my constituents for sending me here again.

This petition is on Bill C-350 and Bill S-240 from the last Parliament. They dealt with the scourge of forced organ harvesting and trafficking. This petition is in support of legislation that would have made it a criminal offence for a Canadian to go abroad to receive an organ without consent and also dealt with the admissibility to Canada of foreign nationals involved in this abhorrent trade.

There is no doubt the petitioners hope that this issue is taken up in the 43rd Parliament and that we are finally able to get legislation passed to address this terrible situation.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to be tabling seven petitions in the House.

The first petition is in support of Bill S-240, currently before the Senate, dealing with the heinous practice of organ harvesting and trafficking. It seeks to end Canadian complicity in that practice.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition in support of Bill S-240, on organ harvesting.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the third petition is also in support of Bill S-240.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present three petitions today.

The first is in support of Bill S-240, on organ harvesting. Petitioners want to see that bill pass. It would make it a criminal offence for someone to go abroad to receive an organ for which there has not been consent. It would also deal with the issue of admissibility to Canada of someone who has been involved in the horrific practice of harvesting and trafficking in human organs.

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table a petition today to supporting Bill S-240. This legislation would make it a criminal offence for Canadians to go abroad to receive an organ without the consent of the patient.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, one of the petitions I have today has come up before. The petitioners are urging us to support either Bill C-350 or Bill S-240 on the issue of international organ harvesting, essentially making organ tourism unlawful in Canada.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the ninth petition is also in support of Bill S-240.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the seventh petition is in support of Bill S-240.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the fifth petition is also in support of Bill S-240.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the third petition is in support of Bill S-240.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I have nine petitions to table in the House today.

The first petition is on Bill S-240, which seeks to address the scourge of forced organ harvesting. The petitioners call on the government and the House to get the bill passed as soon as possible.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the ninth and final petition is in support of Bill S-240, which is on organ trafficking. The bill is currently before the Senate. We hope to see that bill passed as soon as possible.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, petition number seven is in support of Bill S-240 on organ harvesting.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

The fifth petition, Mr. Speaker, is also in support of Bill S-240 on organ harvesting.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

The third petition, Mr. Speaker, is also in support of Bill S-240, currently before the Senate, dealing with the scourge of organ trafficking.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be tabling nine petitions today.

The first is in support of Bill S-240, which is a bill that some members may have heard of before. It is a bill currently before the Senate. It deals with the issue of forced organ harvesting. Hopefully, we will be able to get this done in this Parliament.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a great honour for me to rise to present this very important petition on the awful subject of the trafficking of human organs removed without consent or as a result of a financial transaction.

The petitioners are calling on this government and this Parliament to pass Senate Bill S-240.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am tabling a petition on behalf of 40 petitioners today on Bill C-350 and Bill S-240. They are concerned about the trafficking of human organs obtained without consent and for financial gain.

[Jim Eglinski, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions to present today. The petitioners draw the attention of the House of Commons to the following: Whereas increasing concerns about international trafficking in human organs removed from victims without their consent have not yet led to legal prohibition on Canadians travelling abroad to acquire or receive such organs, and whereas there are currently two bills before Parliament proposing to impede the trafficking of human organs obtained without consent or as a result of financial transactions, and whereas Bill C-350 is in the House of Commons and Bill S-240 is in the Senate, therefore the petitioners urge the Parliament of Canada to move quickly on the proposed legislation so as to amend the Criminal Code and the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act to protect Canadians from travelling abroad to acquire human organs removed without consent or as a result of a financial transaction and to render inadmissible to Canada any and all permanent residents or foreign nationals who have participated in the abhorrent trade in human organs.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions to bring forward today.

The first petition has to do with Bill S-240, which would combat the scourge of forced organ harvesting that takes place worldwide, but in particular in China. The bill was presented by the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan as his private member's bill, and this petition is in support of it.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the third petition is also in support of Bill S-240 on the issue of organ trafficking, which is currently before the Senate.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I have three petitions to present today. The first has to do with Bill S-240 on organ trafficking, which is currently before the Senate.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, the second petition is in support of Bill S-240, which seeks to address the possibility of Canadian complicity in forced organ harvesting and trafficking. This bill is currently back before the Senate, and the petitioners hope to see it passed as quickly as possible.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition today in support of Bill S-240. If members are not aware, it is a bill dealing with the issue of forced organ harvesting. The bill has been through this place and through the Senate once, but it is back in the Senate for consideration of amendments. Petitioners hope that the Senate will pass this quickly so that it gets done before the next election.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, the ninth petition is in support of Bill S-240 on organ harvesting, which is currently in the Senate.

The tenth petition is also in support of Bill S-240.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, the second petition is in support of Bill S-240 on organ harvesting, which is currently in the Senate.

The third petition is also in support of Bill S-240.

The fourth petition is in support of Bill S-240.

The fifth petition is in support of Bill S-240.

The sixth petition is in support of Bill S-240.

The seventh petition is in support of Bill S-240.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to table two petitions today.

The first petition is in support of Bill S-240, which has been through the House and is now back with the Senate. The petitioners are hopeful that the bill will be passed as soon as possible to confront the scourge of forced organ harvesting and the potential of Canadians being complicit in it.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Madam Speaker, today, I am tabling a petition in support of Bill S-240, which would combat the scourge of forced organ harvesting. This bill is currently before the Senate. I hope it will be passed quickly.

Falun Gong

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, the fifth and final petition raises the plight of persecuted Falun Gong practitioners in China.

The petitioners call on Chinese officials to immediately end the persecution of Falun Gong and release all prisoners of conscience, including Canadian citizens and their family members, and to take every opportunity to establish measures to investigate the Chinese regime's organ harvesting, the taking of organs from innocent people. Again that is a reference to Bill S-240.

Human Organ Trafficking

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, the fourth petition is in support of Bill S-240, which is currently back before the Senate and seeks to address the scourge of forced organ harvesting.

The petitioners are hopeful that the Senate will move this forward as quickly as possible so it passes before the election.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Mr. Speaker, this petition is in regard to Bill S-240. The signatories to this petition want to see the bill progress through the Senate relatively quickly.

I cannot think of a more disgusting trade than the trade of human organs. That people would travel abroad to take an organ from somebody who has been forced to give it up or who has given it up through a financial transaction is just unthinkable. We would like to see this trade stopped. We are looking for this petition and this legislation to move forward so that it will do just that.

The petitioners call upon the Senate to move quickly on this bill; they hope it comes back to this House relatively quickly and that we can deal with it relatively soon.

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer—Mountain View, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I have a petition to present today that has been signed by nearly 70 people who want to make sure we are all aware of the scourge of international trafficking in human organs, which are removed from victims without their consent. Bill S-240, which is in the Senate, would place a legal prohibition on Canadians travelling abroad in order to acquire or receive such organs. It is incumbent upon all of us to make sure we recognize that.

With that in mind, I am proud to present this petition today.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to stand today and present a petition in support of Bill S-240, which is back in the other place today.

The petitioners come from a wide range of regions within Canada, and all of them support the petition for one single, solitary reason, which is to combat the scourge of forced organ harvesting.

The petitioners call upon the Senate to act upon this legislation as quickly as possible, because it has been before this place on several previous occasions.

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions to present this morning.

The first petition is from citizens who are concerned about the international trafficking of human organs that are removed from victims without consent. There is no legal prohibition on Canadians travelling abroad to acquire or receive such organs.

We are aware that Bill S-240 is now back in the other place, and we certainly look forward to the petitioners' concerns being met.

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I am tabling a petition in the House on the increasing concerns about international trafficking of human organs.

It talks about the fact that we have two bills before Parliament, Bill C-350 and Bill S-240. The petitioners are calling on Parliament to move quickly to pass the legislation.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to table a petition in support of Bill S-240, which is now back in the Senate. The petitioners hope it passes very quickly.

[Jamie Schmale, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am tabling this petition in support of Bill S-240, which would combat the scourge of forced organ harvesting. I understand that the bill is in the other place, and I hope it will be passed quickly.

Criminal Code

[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.

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parliamentary 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.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

moved that Bill S-240, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (trafficking in human organs), be read the third time and passed.

Mr. Speaker, let us get this done.

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.

Human Organ Trafficking

[Bernard Généreux, Conservative, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am presenting a petition in support of Bill S-240, which will help fight against forced organ harvesting. This bill will be debated tomorrow and I hope it will be passed quickly.

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on behalf of constituents, including a family on Rockwood Crescent in my constituency of Thornhill, to table a petition.

The petitioners support Bill S-240, the organ harvesting bill, which seeks to impede trafficking in human organs obtained without consent or as the result of financial transactions.

[Sylvie Boucher, Conservative, Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d’Orléans—Charlevoix, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to present a petition in support of Bill S-240, which will help fight the scourge of forced organ harvesting.

We will be debating this legislation tomorrow, and I hope it passes quickly.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lévis—Lotbinière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to present a petition in support of Bill S-240, which we will be debating tomorrow.

[Scot Davidson, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I too am tabling a petition in support of Bill S-240. This bill will be up for debate tomorrow, and I hope it will pass quickly.

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am tabling two petitions today, signed by people from Ontario and Quebec, in support of Bill S-240, which would combat the scourge of forced organ harvesting. The petitioners are hoping that this bill will be passed expeditiously.

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am tabling a petition today in support of Bill S-240 bearing signatures from Canadians from across this country, including in my riding of Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes. This bill would combat the scourge of forced organ harvesting. It is the hope of the petitioners that the bill that is up for debate tomorrow will be passed quickly.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to table a petition in support of Bill C-350 and Bill S-240, which would amend the Criminal Code as well as the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act to prohibit Canadians from travelling abroad for the purpose of forced organ harvesting.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I too would like to table a petition. This petition is calling for the quick and fast passing of Bill S-240, which will be up for debate tomorrow. I look forward to supporting it.

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I too rise to table a petition in support of Bill S-240. This bill will be up for debate tomorrow, and I hope it is passed quickly.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am also pleased to table a petition in support of Bill S-240, which is up for debate tomorrow and which we hope to see passed as quickly as possible.

[David Sweet, Conservative, Flamborough—Glanbrook, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am tabling a petition in support of Bill S-240, which would combat the scourge of forced organ harvesting. The bill will be up for debate tomorrow. The petitioners hope it will be passed quickly.

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I am pleased to present nine petitions, with hundreds of signatures, all of which address the horror of the abhorrent and illegal harvesting of organs, as documented by the independent Matas and Kilgour investigation. To put a stop to the barbaric practice of harvesting and trafficking in human organs and body parts, the petitioners urge Parliament to adopt Bill C-350 and Bill S-240. These bills are based on Bill C-500 and Bill C-381, which I first introduced in 2008 and 2009, and Bill C-561, introduced by former justice minister Irwin Cotler in 2013. This legislation would make it illegal to obtain organs or body parts from unwilling donors or as part of a financial transaction.

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to table a petition with respect to two bills before Parliament to impede the trafficking of human organs, Bill C-350 and Bill S-240. The petitioners support the rapid passage of Bill S-240.

[Bob Saroya, Conservative, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to table a petition with respect to Bill S-240, which would discourage forced organ harvesting. The bill will be up for debate tomorrow, and I hope it will pass quickly.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to present a petition in support of two bills, one presently before the House and one before the Senate, Bill C-350 and Bill S-240. Both bills address the issue of the illegal harvesting of organs from donors who, in all likelihood, have not given consent for the removal of these organs. As well, the petitioners ask that the people involved in that industry be prohibited from entering our country.

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today on behalf of Canadians who are concerned about the international trafficking of human organs. They are aware that this is happening in other countries without the consent of victims, and often for profit. They want to see Bill S-240 and Bill C-350 come into effect as soon as possible to prohibit Canadians from travelling abroad to acquire human organs removed without consent or as a result of a financial transaction. Also, they want to render inadmissible to Canada any and all permanent residents or foreign nationals who have participated in or supported the trade in human organs.

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to table a petition on behalf of Thornhill constituents and those across York Region and the greater Toronto region who are expressing their concern about the international trafficking of human organs and are urging the Parliament of Canada to move quickly on the proposed legislation now in the Senate, Bill S-240.

[Len Webber, Conservative, Calgary Confederation, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition to urge the Parliament of Canada to move quickly on proposed legislation Bill S-240 to prohibit Canadians from travelling abroad to acquire human organs removed without consent or as a result of a financial transaction and to render inadmissible to Canada any and all permanent residents or foreign nationals who have participated in this trade in human organs.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table three petitions today.

The first petition is in support of Bill S-240, a bill that deals with the issue of illicit organ trafficking. It would make it a criminal offence for Canadians to go abroad to receive an organ for which there was no consent. It also deals with inadmissibility to Canada of those who have been involved in this terrible trade.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table four petitions in the House today. The first is like the one just tabled by my friend from Etobicoke Centre and calls on Parliament to support Bill C-350, and in particular, Bill S-240, which deal with the issue of forced organ harvesting.

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the second petition raises a concern about international trafficking in human organs obtained from victims without their consent. This international trade has been documented in Bloody Harvest, a report issued by human rights lawyer David Matas and former Liberal cabinet minister David Kilgour.

In an effort to stop this disturbing trade, the petitioners, 200 of them, urge Parliament to adopt Bill C-350 and Bill S-240, which would make it illegal to acquire organs or body parts from unwilling donors as part of a financial transaction.

[Kellie Leitch, Conservative, Simcoe—Grey, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have a petition to present in the House with respect to increasing concerns about the international trafficking of human organs removed from victims without consent and the not yet legal prohibition against Canadians travelling abroad to acquire or receive such organs. There are two bills currently before Parliament, Bill C-350 and Bill S-240, which is in the Senate. The undersigned are asking for amendments to the Criminal Code as well as to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act to prohibit Canadians from travelling abroad with respect to this issue.

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions.

One is regarding international trafficking of human organs removed from victims without consent. The petition is in support of Bill C-350 in the House of Commons and Bill S-240 at the Senate.

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I am presenting a petition today with regard to international trafficking in human organs. These individuals recognize there are two bills before Parliament right now that they would love to see passed quickly, which rarely happens. They are asking for Bill C-350 in the House of Commons and Bill S-240 in the other House to be passed quickly. They are urging Parliament to please amend the Criminal Code and the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act to prohibit Canadians from travelling abroad to acquire human organs either removed without consent or as a result of a financial transaction, and to render inadmissible to Canada any and all permanent residents or foreign nationals who have participated in this abhorrent trade in human organs.

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present a petition from constituents regarding their concern about the reprehensible international trade in organ harvesting. Very often individuals who are taken into custody extrajudicially have organs removed for those travelling from western nations to in effect buy those organs.

These constituents are urging the Parliament of Canada to deal urgently with Bill C-350 in the House of Commons and Bill S-240 in the Senate.

[Phil McColeman, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have a petition from constituents that is actually similar or the same as my colleague has introduced. It states, “We, the undersigned residents of Canada, draw the attention of the House of Commons to the following: Whereas increasing concerns about international trafficking in human organs removed from victims without consent have not yet led to legal prohibition on Canadians travelling abroad to acquire or receive such organs and, whereas there are currently two bills before Parliament proposing to impede the trafficking of human organs obtained without consent as a result of a financial transaction”. These are Bill C-350 in the House of Commons and Bill S-240 in the Senate.

It continues, “Therefore, we the undersigned, urge the Parliament of Canada to move quickly on the proposed legislation so as to demand the Criminal Code and the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act to prohibit Canadians from travelling abroad to acquire human organs removed without consent or as a result of a financial transaction and to render inadmissible to Canada, any and all permanent residents or foreign nationals who have participated in this abhorrent trade in human organs.”

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions today. They are, however, on the same subject so I will just read the one.

The petitioners want to draw our attention to international trafficking in organs taken from people without their consent and ask that we support Bill C-350 in the House of Commons as well as Bill S-240 in the Senate. Presumably, they mean S-240, should it arrive here for us to vote upon.

Motion for Travel

[Anita Vandenbeld, Liberal, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

Mr. Speaker, following the usual consultations among all parties, I believe if you seek it, you will find unanimous consent for the following motion: That Bill S-240, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, trafficking in human organs, be deemed concurred in at report stage, deemed read a third time and passed.

Foreign Affairs and International Development

[Anita Vandenbeld, Liberal, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 23rd report of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development in relation to Bill S-240, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (trafficking in human organs).

The committee has studied the bill and has decided to report the bill back to the House with amendments.

Human Organ Trafficking

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the second petition draws the attention of the House to the issue of the trafficking of human organs. It points out that there are two bills on this issue in Parliament, Bill C-350 and Bill S-240, and they are urging that the Parliament of Canada move quickly on the proposed legislation so that we can begin to put controls on the issue of organ harvesting.

[The Chair, Mr. Michael Levitt (York Centre, Lib.)]

I'm calling to order this meeting of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development.

I want to thank members for making themselves available this afternoon, on what we consider a very pressing issue. We're going to be dealing with the clause-by-clause consideration, pursuant to the order of reference on Monday, September 10, 2018, of Bill S-240, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (trafficking in human organs).

With that, we're going to move to clause-by-clause consideration.

(Clause 1 agreed to)

(On clause 2)

MP Wrzesnewskyj, I believe we have several items to discuss here. Please proceed.

[Tracey Ramsey]

The word “consent” is used in various sections of the Criminal Code, without being defined. I wonder if you can speak to the importance of the Senate adding the definition of informed consent in S-240.

[Tracey Ramsey]

Thank you, Mr. Matas, for being here via teleconference.

I have a couple of questions for you about whether or not the offences created in S-240 are already covered by the Criminal Code in section 279.01 and subsection 279.04(3).

Could you speak to why that may or may not be?

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

It seems that the main reason for organ harvesting and trafficking is the lack of legal donors out there. I'm an advocate of living, legal donors, whether for tissues or for organs.

S-240 can really assist with the demand for organs by explicitly prohibiting organ trafficking and creating consequences for those who attempt to commit these acts. Do you believe, in this instance, that the Government of Canada could make a meaningful difference by working with the provinces to address the supply side as well, through a national organ registry, as has been presented before by me under C-223, and further, from two other members?

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

I put forward Bill C-350 in Parliament. Bill S-240 is a very similar bill, which Senator Ataullahjan put forward in the Senate. Though slightly different in some of the details, these bills substantively do the same thing.

The design was never for both of the bills to pass. It was just recognizing the difference in process. There are certain aspects of the Senate rules and the House of Commons rules that create different opportunities to move bills forward at different times.

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Good morning.

Thank you, Garnett, for sponsoring this bill, this legislation. Congratulations on your efforts. I believe this is a very, very important bill. I hope it will pass. I know it will make a difference for thousands of people out there.

I also know that you are passionate about this bill. You have introduced similar legislation, Bill C-350. It is in your mind. I know it's on your agenda.

Do you believe that your legislation, Bill C-350, is complementary to Bill S-240?

Will this piece of legislation provide the protection you had in mind in Bill C-350?

[The Chair, Mr. Michael Levitt (York Centre, Lib.)]

Good morning everyone.

I would like to call to order this meeting of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development.

We are meeting here this morning on Bill S-240, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (trafficking in human organs).

We have the sponsor in the House of this bill, MP Garnett Genuis, who is going to be providing us with some testimony, and then we'll be hearing some questions from members. Given that there is a lot of interest in this bill in the room, why don't we let MP Genuis get right on with his testimony? Then we can open it up to the floor.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table a petition in support of Bill S-240 on organ harvesting and trafficking. This bill will be considered at the foreign affairs committee tomorrow morning.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I draw your attention to the tabling of a petition pertaining to the trafficking of human organs removed without the donor's consent, which has not resulted in a legal prohibition on Canadians travelling to obtain these organs.

As there are currently two bills before Parliament that seek to prevent the trafficking of human organs removed without consent or as a result of a financial transaction, namely Bill C-350 and Senate Bill S-240, the undersigned are calling on the Parliament of Canada to move quickly on the proposed bills to amend the Criminal Code and the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act to prohibit Canadians from travelling abroad to acquire organs removed without the donor's consent or as a result of a financial transaction and to render inadmissible to Canada a permanent resident or foreign national who has participated in this abhorrent trafficking of human organs.

[Leona Alleslev, Conservative, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to put forward this important petition with respect to the international trafficking of human organs that have been removed from victims without consent. The petitioners are concerned that there is no legal prohibition on Canadians travelling abroad to acquire or receive them. Currently, there are two bills before Parliament that propose to impede the trafficking of human organs obtained without consent or as a result of a financial transaction, Bill C-350 in the House of Commons and Bill S-240 in the Senate. The petitioners ask that this be addressed immediately.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to rise today with petitions signed by Canadians from coast to coast to coast.

The petitioners note that increasing concerns about international trafficking in human organs removed from victims without consent have not yet led to legal prohibitions on Canadians travelling abroad to acquire or receive such organs, and that there are currently two bills before Parliament proposing to impede the trafficking of human organs obtained without consent or as a result of financial transactions: Bill C-350 in the House of Commons and Bill S-240 in the Senate. Therefore, the undersigned wish to urge the Parliament of Canada to quickly move these pieces of legislation.

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I too am pleased to rise to present this petition to the House of Commons. It states that the undersigned residents of Canada draw to the attention of the House of Commons increasing concerns about international trafficking in human organs. It refers to Bill C-350 in the House of Commons and Bill S-240 in the Senate. There are hundreds of signatures on this petition, and I am pleased to present it.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to table a petition signed by a number of residents of Ontario, calling on the government for the speedy passage of Bill S-240, which is now here in the House of Commons. It deals with the very serious issue of the trafficking of human organs and would make it a criminal offence to go abroad to obtain an organ that has not been legally acquired.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to table a petition in support of Bill S-240 on organ harvesting, which is currently before the foreign affairs committee.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I submit a petition with several hundred names from my riding in Edmonton West.

The petitioners ask the government to move quickly on Bill C-350 and Bill S-240, which would prevent Canadians from going abroad to obtain organs that have been obtained without consent.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table five petitions today. The first is in support of Bill S-240, a bill regarding the illicit trafficking of human organs. The bill is currently before the foreign affairs committee. Petitioners ask the government and members of Parliament to support its speedy passage so that we can get it done before the next election.

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to rise on the very same concept that my colleague just addressed. I have a petition regarding Senate Bill S-240, which would make it illegal to traffic in human organs and tissues and give the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship the power to make permanent residents or foreign nationals inadmissible to Canada if they have engaged in those horrendous activities.

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Mr. Speaker, we have increasing concerns around the world about international trafficking in human organs that are being removed from victims without consent. There are currently two bills before Parliament proposing to impede the trafficking of human organs obtained without consent or as a result of a financial transaction. They are Bill C-350 and Bill S-240. The undersigned petitioners are asking Parliament to pass those bills as soon as possible.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition in support of Bill S-240 on organ harvesting.

Trafficking in Human Organs and Tissue

[Ron Liepert, Conservative, Calgary Signal Hill, AB]

Madam Speaker, I, too, am pleased to table a petition supporting Bill S-240. As has been said, this would make it a criminal offence for Canadians to go abroad to receive an organ without the consent of the patient. I am sure there is not a member of the House who has not met with the members of this group who have told us the horrendous stories. The bill is currently before the foreign affairs committee, and we would ask that it be studied and hopefully passed before this session of the House concludes this spring.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Madam Speaker, I, too, would like to present a petition endorsing Bill S-240. It is currently at the foreign affairs committee. I ask that the committee proceed quickly to get the bill passed. Organ harvesting continues to happen around the world, and we need tools to make sure that it no longer happens.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to table a petition in support of Bill S-240, which deals with the horrific practice of organ harvesting. It might surprise members of the House to know that it still happens in many places around the world. The bill would finally deal with that scourge by making it illegal for a Canadian to go abroad and receive an organ without the consent of the patient. The bill is before the foreign affairs committee right now.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to table a petition today in support of Bill S-240. The bill would make it illegal to go abroad to obtain organs without the consent of the person donating those organs and would also render someone inadmissible to Canada who participates in that illegal trade of organs.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition regarding Bill S-240, which seeks to make it illegal to traffic in human organs and tissue and would give the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship the authority to make permanent residents or foreign nationals inadmissible to Canada if they have engaged in these activities.

Human Organ Trafficking

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, finally, I am pleased to table a petition in support of Bill S-240, a bill I sponsored that came to us from the Senate. It is currently before the foreign affairs committee. It deals with the scourge of forced organ harvesting. It is important that we pass that bill as soon as possible so that we do not have to start again after the next election.

[Len Webber, Conservative, Calgary Confederation, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to table a petition in support of Bill S-240. Bill S-240 would amend the Criminal Code to create new offences in relation to trafficking in human organs and tissues. It would also amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act to provide that permanent residents or foreign nationals would be inadmissible to Canada if the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration was of the opinion that they had engaged in any activities relating to trafficking in human organs or tissues. This bill is currently before the foreign affairs committee.

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

Madam Speaker, this petition supports Bill S-240. It is hard to believe that there is currently no law in Canada that prohibits going abroad and taking a person's vital organs without consent. This bill would fill that legal gap and needs to be passed right away.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the second petition I am tabling today is on Bill S-240. It is in support of it. It asks that the Government of Canada do more to combat forced organ harvesting and impose inadmissibility to Canada on those who have been involved. The petitioners mention that there are four bills that have been proposed in various parliaments over the last 10 years and that we have to start all over again every time there is a new election.

[Dave Van Kesteren, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Leamington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am tabling a petition in support of Bill S-240, which deals with organ harvesting and trafficking. It has been passed by the Senate and supported unanimously here at second reading. It is now about to be studied at the foreign affairs committee.

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of individuals who are concerned about the trafficking of organs. They call on the Parliament of Canada to move quickly on Bill S-240, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, to prohibit Canadians from travelling abroad to acquire human organs removed without consent or as a result of a financial transaction and to render inadmissible to Canada any and all permanent residents or foreign nationals who have participated in this abhorrent trade in human organs.

[Jamie Schmale, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to present this petition signed by members across the greater Toronto area in support of this Parliament's moving very quickly on Bill S-240. As people may be aware from previous speakers, the bill did pass the unanimously to go to committee. The petitioners would like to see the House and the committee move very quickly on this.

The petitioners call on Parliament to take a stance on and ban the international trafficking of human organs.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to table a petition calling on the House to give speedy passage to Bill S-240. They will be pleased to know that it has now passed unanimously at second reading. However, it remains to be considered at committee and by the House again at third reading. The petitioners recognize the evil of international organ harvesting and call on us to move forward on this issue as quickly as possible.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table a petition signed by a number of residents in Ontario. As members know, Bill S-240 was passed unanimously earlier today. The petitioners are calling for the speedy passage of this bill through committee stage and finally passed through this House.

Criminal Code

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am going to start by tying up a loose end. Some members have spoken and raised the question of whether, effectively, this is already captured by other provisions of the Criminal Code.

The parliamentary secretary to the minister of science made comments that might be construed to this effect. She spoke about provisions around human trafficking, including human trafficking for the purpose of the organ, which can be applied extraterritoriality. She also spoke about how the harvesting of human organs would likely involve the commission of other crimes, such as assault if it were to take place here in Canada.

However, I want to be clear that human trafficking for the purpose of extracting an organ and the trafficking of organs are two different things. For example, someone who receives a harvested kidney is not, strictly speaking, engaging in human trafficking, but organ trafficking; hence, the need for new offences with clear extraterritorial application.

While organ harvesting would necessarily involve other offences, those offences, like assault, do not have extraterritorial application. There are no current laws that involve the extraterritorial application of prohibitions against the trafficking of human organs. My friend from Kitchener South—Hespeler spoke about whether existing provisions around inadmissibility could be applied in this case. He spoke about serious criminality and organized criminality.

Let us be clear, first of all, that we have not seen prosecutions related to this in the past, and colleagues who think that the existing provisions of the Immigration and Refugee Act or the Criminal Code are sufficient should hopefully be able to point to cases where this crime has actually been prosecuted. Given that none have been raised in the House, it suggests to me that we actually do need to clarify and strengthen the offences such as they exist.

In terms of this issue of serious criminality and organized criminality, we are talking about offences that offend any basic sense of morality but are not necessarily illegal in the country where they take place. We have spoken about the case of one country that seems to have systemized and organized process of organ harvesting from political prisoners. Therefore, provisions that deal with inadmissibility to Canada based on the commission of an offence in the country where it is committed would not apply in this case, because someone might be doing something involving organ harvesting and trafficking from political prisoners. That is legal and, in fact, state policy in one country, but we would seek to apply the extraterritoriality provisions here in Canada.

There is a need for laws to address an issue that is perhaps hinted at around the edges of the existing provisions of the Immigration and Refugee Act and the Criminal Code, but is very clearly not explicitly illegal. Again, if members opposite think that those provisions are sufficient or do exist, then they should be able to point to cases where prosecutions have happened. As my colleagues have quite effectively pointed out, we know that this happens and that Canadians are involved, and yet we are not seeing prosecution of it.

Regardless of whatever arguments one might make about the text of the law, the fact that this is going on without its being prosecuted should be clear enough evidence that we need to strengthen the legislative work. If nothing else, the reporting mechanism in this legislation would create a mechanism whereby these extraterritorial offences could be effectively prosecuted.

The other points that have been raised have been responded to effectively by my colleagues. I just mention as well quickly that the member for Kitchener South—Hespeler spoke about the possibility that medical practitioners could be deemed inadmissible to Canada in cases where they might be involved in something related to this.

Those who are involved in illicit organ harvesting and trafficking could be deemed inadmissible to Canada, but there is ample space in the legislation proposed for the discretion of the minister. Inadmissibility to Canada is based on assessments made by the Government of Canada, which can weigh various criteria in each case. If there were a concern about people being caught up in the net of this who should not be, again that would be dealt with by the provisions that allow discretion. In fact, the legislation says that prosecutions under Bill S-240 cannot proceed without the explicit consent of the attorney general. These are ample provisions to ensure that there is not some indirect application to people whom it should not be applied to.

We have to take action to help the vulnerable here. There are many details in this bill that should be discussed in greater detail at committee. If people have constructive ideas for amendments, doing so at committee is the right place for that.

However, let us make a clear statement on the principle of the bill. That is what we do at second reading. We go on the principle of the legislation. This is the fourth bill in 10 years on this. I think we should all agree with the principle that Canada cannot, in good conscience, consent to the trafficking and harvesting of human organs from nonconsenting people, that we can take a clear and moral stance on this fundamental human rights issue, the details of which can be worked out at committee to the extent they need to be.

Let us now, at second reading, take a clear stand and move this forward by sending it to committee.

[Len Webber, Conservative, Calgary Confederation, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise today to speak to Bill S-248, a Senate bill that was brought forward to the House by the Conservative member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan. I know the member is passionate about this issue and has worked hard to bring this legislation to this point, so I thank him.

The RCMP has stated the obvious. It says that there are far more people in the world in need of a new organ than there are organs available. As in any market where a dollar can be made because demand far outweighs supply, people can turn to the black market to find what they need. When a person's life is on the line, the will to survive may override morals.

As members in the House may know, I have been a passionate advocate for finding improvements to Canada's organ and tissue donation systems. While 90% of Canadians support organ donation, just 20% are registered as organ donors. There are 4,500 Canadians desperate for a life-saving transplant, and 250 die each year before that life-saving transplant becomes available.

If we can increase the supply of organs, we can reduce or eliminate the desperation that leads people to take such drastic measures to save their own lives.

The problem of organ trafficking is not just a Canadian problem. The World Health Organization says that 10% of all organ transplants involved a trafficked organ. This is about 10,000 a year, every year.

The country of Iran stands alone in the world as the only nation with a legal organ trade. However, the trade is closely monitored and it has eliminated the wait-list for kidneys. However, I do not believe the end justifies the means either.

On a positive note, it has spurred the rate of donations from deceased donors in Iran. It is important to note that deceased donors are not paid.

Organ trafficking is a horrible phenomenon that can be crudely reduced to this: Rich nations take advantage of poverty in poor nations to satisfy their need for organs. A Harvard study showed that the main purchasing nations were the United States, Australia, the United Kingdom, Israel, Japan and, yes, Canada. We target nations in South America, Asia and Africa. In Indian alone, it is estimated that 2,000 kidneys are sold each year.

This trade is big business. Profits are estimated to be between $600 million U.S. and $1.2 billion U.S. per year.

Organ trafficking is done through what is generally known as “transplant tourism”. Those in need of a transplant travel to one of these poorer nations to undergo their transplant under the auspices of a vacation. There are even websites that offer all-inclusive transplant packages for these so-called tourists. A kidney transplant, for example, will mean a transplant vacation costing anywhere from $70,000 U.S. to $160,000 U.S. Canada does not have a law that prevents this.

While kidneys are the most commonly traded organ, it does not stop there. Other common transplants involve hearts, livers, lungs, pancreases and corneas. Human tissue is also illegally traded.

The trade involves three basic groups, according to the United Nations' global initiative to fight human trafficking: traffickers, who force or deceive victims into giving up an organ; victims who have their financial desperation used against them to give up their organs; and victims who are deceived into a medical procedure during which they have an organ removed without their prior knowledge.

Like any other illegal trade supported by organized crime, there are many layers of offenders. There are the recruiters, both for donors and recipients; the vulnerable people, who are the victims; the immoral medical people and facilities; the buyers; the facilitators; and more.

What do we do to address this problem? Of course, if we had enough donors in Canada, people would not be desperately mortgaging their homes or spending their retirement savings to get that life-saving transplant.

I do not blame people who are facing death for taking whatever steps they can to save themselves. They are just as much a guilty party in this trade as they are a victim of the trade. However, we need to take a stand on this issue if we are to stop it.

Before I go any further, it is important to clarify this would not prevent a truly informed and consenting person from donating an organ to someone in need. We are talking about unethically obtained organs.

Bill S-240 seeks to amend the Criminal Code to create new offences in relation to trafficking in human organs. It would also amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act to provide that a permanent resident or foreign national would be inadmissible to Canada if the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship were of the opinion that he or she had engaged in any activities relating to trafficking in human organs.

We face an interesting problem in the world of illegally obtained organs. Unlike other contraband items, customs officers cannot just seize an organ at the border. How can we tell if that tourist coming back to Canada has the same heart he or she left with weeks earlier? It would be a very difficult crime to detect. In many ways, the only way to detect this activity would be when those Canadians would go to their doctor, who suddenly would notice they had surgical scars and signs of a new organ.

Section 240 of the bill would require health professionals to notify a designated authority of such activity for investigation. Anyone found guilty of contravening these new prohibitions would be subject to up to 14 years in prison. I have concerns about the kind of relationship this would set-up between doctors and patients, but there really is no other way to do this.

Where does that leave us today? There is a saying that I think is very appropriate here, “When all is said and done, there is often a lot said and little done.” There have been four bills before Parliament in the past 10 years on organ trafficking, but yet we stand here today and continue to talk. It is time we get something done instead. Until we take aggressive steps to stop organ trafficking, the practice will continue to victimize thousands more every year.

Let us get the legislation enacted before the next election. If we do not, the whole process would have to start all over again. What a waste of time and money that would be. Thousands more could be victimized in the process.

At the same time, let us pass legislation like Bill C-316, my bill, which would help eliminate the demand for organ trafficking. Let us also focus more effort on acting on the recommendations of the health committee to improve our domestic supply of organs and tissues. Let us better promote the registration of organ and tissue donors, so our supply will exceed our demand. Honestly, imagine a day when people come to Canada to get a life-saving transplant because we have too many available organs. Would that not be an amazing goal?

Again, I applaud the Conservative member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan for putting the legislative proposal forward in the House. I look forward to voting in support of it.

[Marwan Tabbara, Liberal, Kitchener South—Hespeler, ON]

Madam Speaker, I want to talk about sections 36 and 37 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act in my speech, which already address inadmissibility grounds with respect to criminality, serious criminality and organized criminality. That will be the majority of what I will be speaking about in my speech.

I am pleased to be able to take the floor to discuss Bill S-240, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, which proposes new criminal law responses to tackle the issue of organ trafficking.

I would like to spend my time discussing the bill's proposed changes to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

Members will likely be aware that the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act sets out a number of rules governing who is and who is not admissible to Canada. In particular, division 4, part 1 of the act specifies a number of situations where a foreign national or permanent resident will be inadmissible to Canada for reasons of security, for reasons of criminality of various types, or for having engaged in human or international rights violations.

Section 35 specifically articulates the grounds upon which a permanent resident or foreign national would be inadmissible for reasons of violating human or international rights, such as where the person has engaged in genocide or war crimes. Bill S-240 proposes to amend this section to provide that a permanent resident or foreign national would be inadmissible to Canada for having engaged in conduct that would constitute an offence captured by any of the four new offences proposed in this bill. This amendment raises interesting issues that I look forward to hearing more about during our debates here in the House.

In determining whether someone is inadmissible, Bill S-240 would require the minister to be satisfied that the individual engaged in conduct that is captured by the bill's proposed new offences. In the summary of the bill, it notes that the minister who would be responsible for making such determinations would be the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. However, it is my understanding that the minister who is responsible for the inadmissibility sections of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act is the Minister of Public Safety. It is unclear to me whether the sponsor of the bill is proposing that the ministerial responsibility for this new ground of inadmissibility be different than what is currently the case. It is important to ensure that the bill would not result in a situation where ministerial responsibility is either misunderstood or inconsistently applied in this act.

I would also be interested to hear more from the bill's sponsor in the House of Commons as to whether amending section 35 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act is appropriate, given the focus of the section is on international rights violations. It is not clear to me why the amendments are proposed here, rather than in sections 36 and 37 of the act, which deal with inadmissibility on the grounds of criminality, serious criminality and organized criminality.

I would also like to note that another private member's bill, Bill C-350, introduced by the sponsor of Bill S-240 in the House, dealing with the same issue, would amend section 37 instead of section 35. There appears to be some uncertainty as to where this kind of change should be made, and I am interested in hearing more about this in the House.

More fundamentally, I wonder whether this type of amendment is even needed. The Immigration and Refugee Protection Act already contains a number of different grounds upon which a person may be found inadmissible to Canada. Specifically, sections 36 and 37 of the act already address inadmissibility on grounds of criminality, serious criminality and organized criminality. These provisions, in my view, are broad enough to capture the conduct targeted by the proposed amendment. For example, permanent residents or foreign nationals are inadmissible to Canada for engaging in serious criminality. While “serious criminality” is not defined, the provision makes clear that it includes engaging in conduct abroad that was an offence in the place where it occurred and that if it had been committed in Canada it would constitute an offence punishable by a maximum penalty of at least 10 years' imprisonment.

Under this rule, a foreign national or permanent resident who engages in conduct that would be criminalized by the offences proposed in Bill S-240 would be inadmissible. I wonder then what the rationale is for specifically enumerating a new ground of admissibility.

The same holds true for subsection 36(2), which states that a foreign national is admissible to Canada for having been convicted of an offence outside of Canada that, if it were committed in Canada, would have constituted an indictable offence.

Beyond the question I have already raised concerning the need for specific amendments of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, I would like to spend a few moments talking about what may be unintended consequences of Bill S-240.

As has already been discussed in previous speeches, one of the proposed new offences will criminalize any person who obtains or facilitates obtaining an organ from the body of another person where he or she knows or was reckless as to whether the organ was obtained for consideration. Others have spoken about how this would capture individuals who travel abroad to obtain an organ that was purchased in a country where it would be legal to do so. However, it is not only limited to this conduct.

For example, proposed subsection 240.1(3) will also criminalize medical practitioners who participate in the organ transplant surgery in the country where it is legal to do so. Under Bill S-240, that person will also be inadmissible to Canada. I wonder if this is an appropriate outcome.

I raise these questions because I strongly believe we need to fully appreciate the implications of any legislation that is brought before us. I do not believe that to this point, Bill S-240's proposed changes to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act have benefited from the kind of detailed debate that is required. In fact, based on my review of the parliamentary record, I could not find a single question raised in the other place about the implications associated with Bill S-240's immigration-related proposals.

There can be no doubt that the issue of illicit organ trafficking is a serious one. There equally can be no doubt that we, as parliamentarians, are united in our concern and commitment to identifying appropriate solutions to address the behaviour of those who would seek to exploit the vulnerable, with no regard for their health or well-being.

Nevertheless, we should not let the seriousness of the issue detract from our responsibility to closely examine and, where possible, improve upon legislation that is brought before us. A number of issues have been identified with Bill S-240 that require more detailed examination, and I look forward to our continued consideration of them.

[Jamie Schmale, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to join the debate on Bill S-240 and to take this opportunity to respond specifically to comments that have been made by many colleagues so far in this debate.

This bill, as members may know, would make it a criminal offence to receive an organ taken without the consent of the patient. This issue is morally clear-cut, and I think all speakers have agreed to that basic idea.

We are coming up towards the second reading vote, where we will vote on the legislation's principle. Members who have questions about some of the particulars but agree with the general principle should give this bill speedy passage at this stage so that we can make any necessary amendments at committee stage and still ensure that the bill becomes law before the next election. If further delays by Liberal members hold back progress in this Parliament, then we will have to start at square one in the next Parliament.

During previous speeches, members made observations about the extraterritorial application of Canadian law proposed in this case, that under this bill someone would be charged for getting an organ overseas for which there had not been consent. Members have generally agreed that we should be concerned about the basic human rights of non-citizens, and that we should seek to prevent Canadians citizens from violating the human rights of others while abroad.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice discussed some of the challenges associated with prosecutions involving extraterritoriality. He noted that these cases can be difficult and expensive to prosecute, since they might require Canadian law enforcement to gather evidence overseas. This can be the case with extraterritorial prosecutions, but I would make two observations to counter concerns about the challenges associated with extraterritorial prosecutions in this particular case.

First of all, we should not fail to criminalize bad behaviour just because prosecution is difficult. Even if we are only able to prosecute a small number of cases, the deterrent effect of the law will go a long way. We criminalize child sex tourism already, presumably recognizing the challenges involved in prosecution but also hoping that the law and the possibility of prosecution deter and reduce these crimes.

Second, though, organ trafficking and harvesting is a special case insofar as prosecution should be relatively easier than prosecutions for other crimes where extraterritoriality is involved. Recipients of trafficked organs are a special case because they will necessarily have prior and follow-up medical needs, and the transplanted organ will have a clear physical indication of a transplant. Circumstances related to the transplant will give doctors, and therefore law enforcement, clear indication of whether a person showed gross negligence around verifying that the donor consented.

Let us consider a concrete example and imagine that a patient is on a waiting list for a heart. He says to his doctor, “Doc, great news, I'm going to get a new heart. My cousin set me up. I'm going to Beijing six weeks from today, and I'll come back with a new heart.”

The doctor is perplexed. She replies, “That's not really possible. If there's a heart available for you, they're not going to keep it in the freezer for six weeks. The only way to plan that far in advance would be if doctors over there knew with certainty that someone who is a perfect match will die right before you arrive.”

This is a case where lack of consent is relatively clear, even if the patient may not fully understand at first. If someone is receiving a vital organ from a recently healthy patient in a country where organ harvesting is common, and is being told well in advance when an organ will be available, it becomes absolutely clear that someone else is being executed in order to remove the organ, on a schedule based on the availability of the patient.

In this hypothetical case, there is some very strong evidence already that can help lead to a conviction. That evidence exists based on the medical needs of the patient to consult with a physician here in Canada before and after.

In the scenario I have laid out, ideally, the doctor would advise the patient of what is likely going on. If the patient proceeded to receive the trafficked organ, the doctor would currently have no recourse, legal or otherwise. However, if Bill S-240 passes, a doctor in that situation might stand a better chance of persuading the patient to try a different path.

She might say to him, “You might not know this, but you taking an organ under those circumstances almost certainly means that it is being taken from an unwilling patient, who is being executed in order to get you an organ. Receiving an organ taken from an unwilling source is a serious criminal offence in Canada, even if done abroad. If you proceed with this, any physician who sees you in Canada will be legally obligated to report that you have received a transplanted organ and the circumstances of that transplant will become clear.”

It is hard to imagine a patient proceeding with his original plan after being presented with these new criminal law provisions and a reasonable probability of detection. While this is a case of extraterritorial application of criminal law, the medical realities mean fewer practical challenges.

The parliamentary secretary also mused about whether the reporting provisions in this legislation are overbroad. In an effort to ensure that any case of organ harvesting and trafficking is detected, a doctor is required to report the presence of a transplanted organ in every case. Might a narrower reporting mechanism achieve the same purpose?

The proper scope of the reporting mechanism is a good issue for the committee to study and should not be an impediment to those considering whether or not to support the bill at second reading, but still, l have a couple of observations at this point.

First of all, the parliamentary secretary argued about both the challenges of extraterritorial prosecution and a potential overbroadness of the reporting provision. The broadness of the reporting provision is precisely aimed at responding to what would otherwise be the challenge of prosecution; the one is a partial solution to the other. Further, it should not be particularly complex or onerous for the government to keep track on a list of those who have received an organ transplant, such that it can be verified if an organ was received properly. Requiring that reporting happens in every case ensures that those who participate in organ trafficking would be held accountable.

There are a few other points to make in response to what has been said. The member for Edmonton Centre mused about whether this legislation should include cases in which organs are purchased. He notes, quite correctly, that the bill presumes that a person who sells his or her organs is doing so from a position of vulnerability and therefore the bill proposes not to allow the selling of organs under any circumstances.

I appreciate that the member for Edmonton Centre acknowledges both sides of this question, saying as well, “...I also recognize...the need to ensure that individuals, often from developing countries, who may be vulnerable to abuse given their own economic situation, are protected from potentially exploitative practices.”

Let me make three points in response to this question about whether or not the bill should include a prohibition on purchasing organs abroad. First of all, this is also a subject where the application could be altered at committee. I would be sorry to see these provisions removed from the bill, but their presence should not be an impediment to supporting it at second reading given the possibility of amendment.

Second, the case the member for Edmonton Centre used, wherein a person goes overseas to buy an organ, in an environment with well-defined laws protecting the rights and the safety of the donor, is largely a fiction. There is a very small number of countries in the world where the buying and selling of human organs is legal and they are almost all very poor countries where the levels of health care are not anything resembling a respectable or desirable level. The decision by a healthy and aware person to sell their organ in a safe environment might be an interesting hypothetical for a philosophy seminar, but we should bracket that question and support measures that deal with the overwhelming reality of organ trafficking cases that involve exploitation.

Third, Canada does not allow the buying and selling of human organs domestically, so it is consistent with our Criminal Code to recognize the risks inherent in the commodification of human organs and the inherently exploitive nature of relationships in which people are selling body parts.

A number of members have said that there are no known cases of this practice happening in Canada, but whether or not the taking of human organs without consent has ever happened in Canada, the fact is that here in Canada it is already illegal and the bill deals with international organ trafficking, something we know is big and growing. It would be foolish to assume no involvement by Canadians in organ harvesting and trafficking. We have indeed heard anecdotally from hospitals of people going overseas to receive organs in China, although the particulars of the involvement of Canadians are obviously difficult to quantify. In the absence of a law prohibiting this practice, information about those going overseas to receive illicit organs should be released.

Let us move forward with the bill as quickly as possible and stop the excuses and delays. Let us make sure that we get this done before the next election.

[Cheryl Hardcastle, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Mr. Speaker, before I get into the debate on the bill, I would like to acknowledge that this is our last week in this place not only for the year, but it is the last time we will be sitting here in Centre Block for the next decade. I would like to thank everyone who works behind the scenes to make this place run smoothly for those of us who are honoured to be elected and serve Canadians here in this beautiful building, which is going to be restored over the next 10 years. Hopefully, it will take only 10 years. On our behalf, I thank all the staff, from Parliamentary Protective Service, to administration, to custodians and everyone in between.

I appreciate this opportunity to speak to Bill S-240. As vice-chair of the Subcommittee on International Human Rights, I can say that the subject of black market organ harvesting is not a new one. Indeed, Bill S-240 is the fourth iteration of a bill that has been through many parliaments. These bills were written largely in response to credible and appalling reports concerning organ harvesting in China.

Organ trafficking is considered an organized crime, with a host of offenders including the recruiters who identify the vulnerable persons, the transporters, the staff of the hospital or clinic and other medical centres, the medical professionals themselves who perform the surgery, the contractors, the buyers and those at the banks that store the organs. The Subcommittee on International Human Rights has studied the issue of organ harvesting in China numerous times and has issued at least two lengthy reports and a number of statements. The reports discuss in gruesome detail the establishment within China of an actual organ-harvesting industry.

The first source of organs for transplants apparently was prisoners who were sentenced to death and executed. A second source of organs was prisoners of conscience. The earliest of these were the Uighurs, Chinese Muslims from the eastern part of the country. The chamber will recall the more recent reports of up to one million Uighurs being rounded up by the government of the People's Republic of China and forceably placed into re-education camps.

In our subcommittee, we heard that while China's official central government's statistics indicate that approximately 10,000 organ transplantations take place per year, the numbers may actually be as high as between 60,000 and 100,000 organ transplants per year. The one population that ultimately became the principal victims of China's organ-harvesting industry was the country's Falun Gong followers. Falun Gong is the adherence to the Falun Dafa spiritual practice that originated in China. According to testimony that our subcommittee heard on November 3, 2016, China's organ-harvesting industry developed in tandem with its systematic repression of Falun Gong.

I will admit to being a bit skeptical initially about reports on organ harvesting in China. The idea of taking another person's organ to sell on the open market suggests a level of depravity that ordinary decent human beings find difficult to fathom. However, the more I learn about human rights abuses committed by the Chinese government against its own people and more and more credible accounts, my skepticism dissipates into reluctant belief. In fact, in recent hearings in the Subcommittee on International Human Rights looking into the human rights situation of the Uighurs in China, we heard that the Chinese government has been forceably taking DNA and blood samples from Uighurs. Chillingly, those of us who follow these issues immediately began fearing the Chinese government might be looking for yet more organs to harvest from this population.

It is time, therefore, that the international community come together on this issue and establish the conditions that will render the organ-trafficking industry unprofitable. While the majority of organ trafficking occurs abroad, measures must be taken to ensure Canadians waiting on long organ donation lists are not perpetuating this brutality by purchasing trafficked organs. Trafficking in human organs is an abhorrent activity that should be included in Canada's Criminal Code. Further, Bill S-240 proposes amending the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act to ensure that receiving organs or benefiting economically from this illicit trade would also make a permanent resident or foreign national inadmissible to Canada.

The NDP supports Bill S-240 as we oppose all forms of trafficking in organs. We believe it is important to ensure that Canadians who have their names on the long organ donation lists are not inadvertently contributing to the demand for this horrendous crime.

As this is the fourth bill on organ trafficking in 10 years, the NDP calls for cross-party co-operation to ensure the swift passage of Bill S-240 and for this issue to be finally taken seriously. In addition to supporting this initiative, more should be done to encourage ethical, safe organ donation domestically. Canadians contribute to organ trafficking primarily through a phenomenon called transplant tourism. It is the most common way to trade organs across national borders. Recipients travel abroad to undergo organ transplants and there is currently no law in Canada against this practice.

Unlike the United States, Canada does not have a centralized list of people waiting for an organ. The Liberal government actually voted against a bill in 2016 that would have supported the creation of a national registry to help identify those wishing to donate organs and those who need them. Canada is the only developed country without national organ donation legislation, such as the 1984 United States National Organ Transplant Act. The Government of Canada should seriously consider the feasibility of a presumed consent system for organ donation where individuals opt out instead of opting in to organ donation.

In addition to the development and coordination of an advanced interprovincial organ-sharing system, the federal government must also facilitate the implementation of best practices and promote professional education and training opportunities. Canada is way behind on the issue of organ trafficking. In fact, the Council of Europe has had a convention against trafficking in human organs since 2008, and as of 2017, it has been ratified by 47 member states. Several countries, including Taiwan, Spain, and Norway, have already passed similar legislation. It is time for our country to catch up with the rest of the world and we can begin doing so today by supporting this bill.

It is not lost on many human rights defenders listening to this debate today that it is a profound anniversary marking the UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide and the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights 70 years ago. Those sentiments are inextricably linked after the horrors witnessed in World War II and the conviction of never again. I submit that those sentiments are profoundly linked here as well to Bill S-240. After World War II, the world sought to ensure such madness ensued against humanity never happened again. Organ harvesting and trafficking are a nauseating reality and we must put a stop to them. Canada must act and must start by passing Bill S-240.

The House resumed from November 20 consideration of the motion that Bill S-240, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (trafficking in human organs), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Human Organ Trafficking

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, the last petition I present this afternoon goes to the issue of ending the horrific practice of organ trafficking. There have been many petitions in this place on this point. The petitioners call on this place to accept Bill C-350 in the House of Commons and Bill S-240 in the Senate.

[Jamie Schmale, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise and present this petition signed by many across the greater Toronto area who are basically calling for parliamentarians to support Bill S-240 and Bill C-350 to impede the trafficking of human organs obtained without consent or as a result of a financial transaction.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, Bill S-240, the subject of this petition, will be up for the second hour of debate next Monday at 11 a.m. The petitioners are asking members to move forward and quickly pass Bill S-240 to ensure that Canada finally joins a growing list of countries that are taking serious action to respond to the scourge of forced organ harvesting and trafficking in human organs.

[Jim Eglinski, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am presenting a petition from people from the Toronto area dealing with the international trafficking in human organs in regard to Bill S-240.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table a petition signed by petitioners in Ontario calling on the government to deal with the despicable act of trafficking in human organs. They call on Parliament to pass Bill S-240 to deal with this terrible and heinous act.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased and honoured to rise in the House today pursuant to Standing Order 36 to request the consent of the House to present a petition about Bill S-240.

[Bob Saroya, Conservative, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, today I present a petition calling on the House to move quickly in passing Bill S-240. The bill calls on the government to amend the Criminal Code to prohibit Canadians from travelling abroad to purchase illegally harvested organs and tissues. The practice of forced organ harvesting and illegal organ trafficking is cruel and evil. Our government needs to stand up for victims and get the bill passed.

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am presenting petitions from people from across Canada who ask that Parliament move quickly on Bill C-350 and Senate Bill S-240 that deal with the harvesting of organs.

[David Sweet, Conservative, Flamborough—Glanbrook, ON]

Mr. Speaker, today I am presenting a petition from dozens of Canadians in regard to Bill S-240. The bill calls on the government to amend the Criminal Code to prohibit Canadians from travelling abroad to purchase illegally harvested organs and tissues. The practice of forced organ harvesting and illegal organ trafficking is cruel and evil. The petitioners are asking the government to take decisive action to make sure the bill is passed.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, today I would like to present two petitions.

The first is on Bill S-240, which addresses international organ trafficking. The petitioners are urging us to pass this bill quickly, in other words, before the next election.

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to present a petition on behalf of Canadians who are asking the government and all members of Parliament to support Bill C-350 as well as Bill S-240, which would deal with the horrific practice of organ trafficking, human organ removal and international trafficking. It is clear that this is an issue that resonates right across the country and many people are concerned about this. They want us to take action to protect the victims.

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table a petition calling on the government to support the speedy passage of Bill S-240.

This bill deals with the scourge of forced organ harvesting and organ trafficking. This bill has been delayed for the first hour of debate, but we are still hoping that we can get it passed before the next election to ensure that victims do not have to wait any longer.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the second petition deals with the issue of organ harvesting. Other members have raised similar petitions today.

Bill C-350 and Bill S-240 in the Senate are both designed to deal with trafficking and travelling for the purpose of human organ transplants. This is important legislation to end this quite atrocious practice.

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition today from a number of Canadians from many parts of Canada in support of Bill S-240, a bill on forced organ harvesting and trafficking. While this bill would not solve all of the problems, it would at least make it an offence for Canadians to participate.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today on behalf of my constituents in Calgary Shepard to present three petitions on three different subjects.

The first is on the trafficking of human organs. The petitioners are asking for the government and all members of the House of Commons to support Bill S-240 and Bill C-350.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to present a petition, signed by several hundred Canadians, urging the House to pass Bill S-240, which is being sponsored by my colleague, the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan. The petitioners are urging Parliament to pass Bill S-240 to prohibit Canadians from travelling abroad to receive organs that have been harvested.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to present petitions from several hundred Canadians, similar to those from my colleague from Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, asking the government to act on Bill S-240, which has come before the House. They are urging the Parliament of Canada to move quickly on the proposed legislation to amend the Criminal Code to ban the horrible incidence of organ harvesting for financial gain.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the second petition is to do with Bill S-240. That bill, which has now passed the Senate and moved to the House, deals with the scourge of forced organ harvesting. The petitioners call on the government to support efforts to move as quickly as possible to bring this bill forward. I know that we saw delays during the first hour by the government. The petitioners and I are hoping this will move forward now as quickly as possible.

[Bruce Stanton, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the second petition is on behalf of dozens of citizens to bring attention to Parliament in respect to concerns about the international trafficking in human organs and the fact that there are two bills before Parliament at the moment, Bill C-350 and Bill S-240 in the Senate.

The petitioners are seeking Parliament's quick attention to this proposed legislation and that it be passed as soon as they possibly can.

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Grande Prairie—Mackenzie, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am here to bring forward a petition from Brampton. These petitioners call on the government to pass Bill S-240, a private member's bill that would basically address the issue of Canadians and people from Canada travelling abroad to receive organs from people who have not consented to those organs being removed. This is a heinous act the petitioners are drawing attention to. We look forward to seeing the bill addressed in this House soon.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I, too, am presenting a petition signed by residents of Ontario in favour of Bill S-240 and also Bill C-350, which covers much of the same terrain. This is essentially about organ harvesting from people who do not want to have their organs removed from their bodies. This amounts, in essence, to the murder of one person in order to facilitate surgery to benefit another. Canada should not participate in this. When I chaired the Subcommittee on International Human Rights, all parties agreed that this is a barbaric practice that ought to be stopped. The petitioners, of course, agree with that conclusion.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the final petition deals with the private member's bill I am sponsoring, Bill S-240, which seeks to criminalize the practice of going abroad to get organs for which there has not been consent. The petitioners want Parliament to support the expeditious passage of the bill. We need to move forward with Bill S-240 as quickly as possible.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to table a petition by three dozen Canadians. It is specifically drawing the attention of the House to the practice of illegal organ trading. They are asking parliamentarians to support the penalties in Bill C-350 and Bill S-240.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present this petition signed by many residents of Ontario on the subject of international organ harvesting without consent. The petitioners call on the government to pass both Bill C-350 and Bill S-240.

Criminal Code

[Kate Young, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Science and Sport and to the Minister of Public Services and Procurement and Accessibility (Accessibility), Lib.]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for bringing this to the House. It is an important debate that we need to have. It will be a debate that will continue, I am sure.

What has been stated before, of course, is very true. Our government is committed to ensuring that our criminal justice system keeps communities safe, protects victims and holds offenders to account. We condemn the illegal and exploitive trade of human organs in the strongest of terms.

Organ transplantation and donation is governed by a comprehensive legislative framework at both the federal and provincial and territorial levels, encompassing health and criminal law. The Criminal Code currently prohibits the removal of an organ without the informed consent of the donor. I think that last part, informed consent, is especially worth noting. That is in and of itself the most important part of any discussion about human organ donation.

Organ trafficking is a growing concern internationally. I appreciate the fact that this has been brought to the House to debate, but no known cases have occurred in Canada, and we hope it never happens.

In Canada, organ transplantation and donation is governed by, as I mentioned, a comprehensive legislative framework at both the federal and provincial and territorial levels. Health regulatory offences apply where organs are removed, transplanted outside the regulatory framework, while criminal laws apply where the organ donor did not consent or was coerced.

More specifically, provincial statutes prohibit the sale, purchase and dealing in any human tissues or organs outside this regulatory framework. These laws require the explicit consent of the donor or next of kin in the case of deceased donation. Federally, the safety of human cells, tissues and organs for transplantation regulations, administered by Health Canada, prohibit transplant activities unless carried out by a registered establishment.

In Canada, we talk a lot about encouraging people to donate organs. It is an ongoing issue. I think probably everyone in this House knows someone who has been on that waiting list, sometimes waiting months for an organ transplant. We have to encourage Canadians to make sure that they sign up so that they can become organ donors, if in fact the situation arises where they would be considered a donor.

That is what we need to address in this House. We need to encourage education so that people understand the differences between consent of an organ donation and what is actually going on around the world that I agree is abhorrent in nature.

The Criminal Code also includes a number of general and specific offences that can respond to the conduct targeted by Bill S-240. In 2005, the Criminal Code was amended to enact a number of specific offences that comprehensively address all aspects of trafficking in persons. For those who want to look it up, it is sections 279.01 to 279.04.

The main trafficking in persons offence prohibits engaging in specified types of conduct in order to exploit or facilitate the exploitation of another person. Exploitation is defined broadly, and includes causing a person “by means of deception or the use or threat of force or of any other form of coercion, to have an organ or tissue removed.” “Coercion” and “consent” are the two main words in this discussion.

In addition, it is an offence to receive a financial or material benefit knowing that it was derived from trafficking in persons. The concept of material benefit is sufficiently broad to encompass the receipt of an organ in cases where the recipient knew the organ was obtained through deceit or any other form of coercion. It is terrible to think that people get so desperate in this world that they know the organ they are receiving has been taken from another human being without their consent or through coercion. That is the worst possible point of this bill that we must address.

Canada's human trafficking offences also apply extraterritorially and, therefore, can be used to prosecute in Canada those Canadians or permanent residents who commit human trafficking offences abroad. There are Canadians who travel abroad and knowingly go there in order to receive an organ from someone who was either paid or coerced. That has no place in our civilization.

In addition to the human trafficking offences, criminal offences of general application could also be used to respond to organ trafficking. Depending upon the facts of the case, aggravated assault, unlawfully causing bodily harm, uttering threats, organized crime offences or extortion could all be used to address organ trafficking conduct involving coercion of the organ donor and all are punishable by significant penalties of imprisonment, as they should be. These provisions, however, do not have extraterritorial effect.

There are some real important issues that need to be discussed and I am certainly glad that my hon. colleague brought this forward. Trafficking in human organs is something that no one in the House would agree with. It needs to be debated, though, because there are laws that may conflict with this bill and we need to make sure we get it right. It is certainly something that, as a government, we are looking into. We need to address it and have the discussion both here in the House and possibly at committee stage.

We can all understand that some people take matters into their own hands and there have to be rules and regulations around trafficking in human organs to make sure people are not leaving Canada to get organs in this way. We also have to educate people in Canada to the fact that, yes, organ donation is a very positive thing to do, but people have to be able to consent and no coercion can be involved at all.

[Matt DeCourcey, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship, Lib.]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to Bill S-240, which is private member's business relating to trafficking in human organs.

To begin, let me clearly state that our government is entirely committed to ensuring that our criminal justice system keeps communities safe, protects victims and holds offenders to account.

Additionally, our government has a proven record over the last three plus years of presenting a solid face on the international stage as it relates to trafficking in organs, to trafficking in people and to the illicit trafficking of arms exports.

Members in this House will recall that, not too long ago, under the leadership of our foreign affairs minister, our government introduced Bill C-47, which would allow Canada to accede to the Arms Trade Treaty, to ensure that arms sold to other state entities were not going places where they could contravene international law, where they could cause all kinds of horrific things to occur. Quite frankly, we introduced that bill and we believe in the philosophy that underlies it because we understand the importance of global human rights and the equality of human dignity and ensuring that international law is upheld. We certainly share that philosophy when it comes to any and all other matters that concern trafficking and activities that occur across borders in illicit ways. That would relate as well to the trafficking of human organs.

We want to eliminate human organ trafficking around the world. That is why Canada's criminal justice system is at the forefront of these efforts. We want to stop these kinds of activities from happening abroad.

Furthermore, we certainly condemn the illegal and exploitative trade of human organs in the strongest terms, and we say that both in Canada and on the international stage. People can be sure that the officials who represent Canada at embassies and in international forums abroad share that same message, as would all members on the government side of the floor, when meeting with constituents in their home ridings, representing the government from coast to coast to coast and when travelling abroad to represent the Government of Canada and all Canadians on the international stage.

Organ transplantation and donation is governed by a comprehensive legislative framework at federal, provincial and territorial levels in encompassing health and criminal law. We are talking about significant coordination between different federal departments and agencies, which all have to work together to ensure we can guard against the trafficking of human organs. It takes cross-jurisdictional conversations as well to ensure officials at provincial and territorial levels, as well as public safety officials, ensure these sorts of things can be snuffed out and guarded against, and that this sort of trafficking is prevented as much as possible. Trafficking is prevented in drugs and human smuggling at home or when things arrive at our borders or shores.

We want to ensure we take a public health approach when we look at these sorts of things as well to ensure, first and foremost, that we look after the safety, security, health and well-being of Canadians. When we do that at home, we have the ability to share that story around the world and work with other partners on the international scene who may not have the same level of capacity Canada has to deal with these issues. It is a lesson and something we share across the world. Where we have the capacity to step up and lead, Canada always has. It has certainly been the story under this government.

We have to be aware of trafficking in human organs and other illicit goods, especially in the context of increased migration and flows of people who are on the move more so than we have seen since the end of World War II. In many cases, people are fleeing persecution. In some cases, they are fleeing gang violence and other activities that have caused them personal, physical, mental and psychological harm. Therefore, it is important we understand why people are on the move, what other illicit activities could be camouflaged with people moving around and how we guard against any trafficking at all, but certainly a proliferation of trafficking of things like human organs, persons or other illicit goods.

Another point is that the Criminal Code in Canada currently prohibits the removal of an organ without the informed consent of the donor. If we lacked that provision in our Criminal Code, think how terrible it would be to have an organ removed without one's consent. We have taken steps in our country to ensure that is not the case. It is reflected in our view that human dignity is to be upheld in all cases. Having someone's consent to have an organ removed is upheld in Canada.

With the few minutes I have left, it might be worth re-emphasizing for those who have been watching over the last few minutes how seriously we take the issue of trafficking in human organs, just like we take all matters that would have a negative or deleterious effect on the health, well-being, safety and security of Canadians or on the Canadian population.

[Randy Boissonnault, Liberal, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak to this Senate public bill, Bill S-240, which proposes amendments that seek to tackle an issue that is of concern internationally and to Canadians, and that is the illicit trafficking of human organs.

Before I discuss the substance of this relatively small but important piece of proposed legislation, I would like to spend a few minutes discussing the issue on which it focuses. As I mentioned, this issue has affected many other countries around the world, yet as my hon. colleague for Winnipeg North has said, it is important to note that, to our knowledge, no known cases have yet occurred in Canada, nor would we want them to.

Organ trafficking is a lucrative and dangerous form of transnational organized crime. According to a 2015 study by the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, this activity purports to net in excess of $1 billion U.S. annually in illegal profits. What this illicit revenue is used for can be far-reaching, but one can well imagine that some of it is funnelled into other criminal ventures, which can undermine public safety, fuel corruption and negatively impact the rule of law.

It is also important for members to understand what it is we are talking about when we say “organ trafficking”. According to the Council of Europe Convention against Trafficking in Human Organs, the only international treaty on this issue, trafficking in human organs includes the removal of organs from a person who has not provided free, informed and specific consent or who has received a financial benefit in exchange for the removal of organs.

We know that organ trafficking puts lives at risk. Medical procedures that might be performed in substandard and unregulated environments can impact those whose organs are being removed or those who are seeking organs themselves. Quite simply, this is an appalling and dangerous business, and it requires a strong legislative and operational response. It is against this backdrop that I would like to turn my attention to the substance of Bill S-240.

As I said earlier, this legislation is short and proposes amendments to both the Criminal Code and the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. However, despite the protests of my colleague across the way, there are still some questions we must address.

I will start with the Criminal Code proposals, the most significant of which relate to the creation of new criminal offences punishable by considerable periods of imprisonment. Bill S-240 would enact four new offences targeting organ trafficking and related conduct.

The first offence, in proposed paragraph 240.1(1)(a), would prohibit obtaining an organ in order for it to be transplanted into one's body and in a situation where the person who has received the organ knew or was reckless as to whether or not the person who provided the organ gave informed consent. This particular proposed offence appears to be focused on the beneficiary of the organ and not on anyone else who may be involved in organ trafficking generally.

The second offence, in proposed paragraph 240.1(1)(b), would more squarely address the facilitators. This offence would target those who carry out, participate in or facilitate the removal of an organ in cases where they know or are reckless as to whether or not a person provided informed consent to have the organ removed.

The third offence, in proposed paragraph 240.1(1)(c), would address those who enable illegal organ removals by prohibiting acting on behalf of or at the direction of or in association with a person who has removed an organ and where the accused knows that the organ was removed from someone who has not provided informed consent or was reckless as to that fact.

Finally, Bill S-240 proposes an offence at proposed subsection 240.1(3) to target those who are involved in obtaining an organ for consideration. In essence, this offence would make it illegal to obtain an organ for money, even in cases where the organ was provided by someone who provided free and informed consent.

As I mentioned, these proposed offences would be subject to a significant maximum penalty, imprisonment for 14 years. As with other indictable offences, a sentencing court would also have discretion to impose a fine of any amount.

I am interested in our discussion of these proposed new offences, and I say this because I have a number of questions on these proposed new offences. While I will not be able to raise all of them here this evening, I wonder, for example, whether it is the role of Parliament to use criminal law to target someone who has purchased an organ, perhaps in another country where it may be legal to do so, in a situation where the individual who provided the organ did so freely, in a safe manner and under circumstances that were closely regulated. This type of action would be captured by the bill, because the bill also proposes to allow the prosecution in Canada of Canadians who go abroad to purchase organs.

These are extremely difficult and complicated situations. I can well understand why some who are faced with the prospect of serious health consequences or even death and who cannot otherwise obtain a necessary organ might look to other options for saving themselves or someone they love.

On the other hand, I also recognize the motivation behind the proposal and the need to ensure that individuals, often from developing countries, who may be vulnerable to abuse given their own economic situation, are protected from potentially exploitative practices.

Bill S-240 proposes a definition of informed consent that would be a key feature of the new offences. I would note that, as introduced, the bill did not propose to define this term but that a definition was added by the Senate out of concern for the need to be clear in the law, particularly given that we are talking about criminal offences.

From my own perspective, I welcome the changes by the Senate in this regard, in that they try to make the law clear and clearly understood. At the same time, the Senate committee did not appear to consider the impact of this change in any significant detail. I wonder, for example, whether this definition of informed consent is consistent with the approach that is taken in the medical assistance in dying regime or whether defining it in the Criminal Code in the manner that has been done is consistent with how that term is understood in the health law context.

I look forward to hearing more and considering these points further. I would also like to comment briefly on the changes proposed to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, which would result in someone who has engaged in conduct captured by three of the four proposed offences being inadmissible to Canada. In thinking about this proposed change, I wonder whether it is, strictly speaking, essential given that the current laws on inadmissibility already address criminality and organized criminality. I am curious as to why the offence prohibiting the receipt of an organ for money would not provide a basis for excluding someone from Canada when the other newly proposed offences would.

There can be no doubt that Bill S-240 is targeting an important issue and this issue is deserving of our attention. However, as we are talking about criminal law, which is one of the most blunt and powerful instruments available to a government, I think it is critically important that we do our due diligence and fully examine the proposals contained in this bill and the full range of consequences that flow from its changes.

I worked on Bill C-75, which has several hundred clauses, and being in the cut and thrust of such legislation is hard work. We need to do the homework and take the time to make to make sure that the laws to be passed in the country are fair and balanced for all concerned.

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very honoured to rise to debate this matter. I am pleased as well to second this bill, brought to us by the hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan. It is the work of Senator Ataullahjan from the other place, the Senate, that led us here. I understand the bill passed with enormous support in the other place and I am hoping that it will have the same level of support here in this place.

Canada is a bit behind the times on this. I note, for example, that the Europeans have for quite some time had a convention entitled “Council of Europe Convention against Trafficking in Human Organs". The hon. member has already set out the cross-party support an initiative like that has had in this place for very many years, and it seems to me that the time has come to join the Europeans and other countries to deal with the scourge of trafficking in human organs this bill seeks to address.

I note that the bill “amends the Criminal Code to create new offences in relation to trafficking in human organs [and tissue]. 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 [or tissue].”

The hon. parliamentary secretary pointed out quite properly the difficulty sometimes of going after people in other jurisdictions. Of course, that has not stopped Canada dealing with sex trafficking, as has been pointed out, or “sex tourism” as it is called. We know that is the case. Also there is a section in Bill S-240 that would require any proceedings to be instituted only with the consent of the Attorney General, therefore making it likely that we could address these practical problems, to which he made reference, through that intermediary.

The scourge of organ trafficking is absolutely appalling and its exponential growth should cause concern for every member of this place. In her speech, the senator referred to situations that sound like horror movies. She cited the following:

Waking up in a weary haze in an unfamiliar house on the outskirts of Delhi, India, Khan was greeted by a stranger in a surgical mask and gloves. As he began to ask where he was and what had happened, he was told very curtly, “Your kidney has been removed.”

As another exposé published in the Haaretz newspaper indicates, thousands of Sudanese refugees living in Cairo have fallen victim to the illegal organ trade. These people are among the most desperate and easy prey for people who can simply push them aside, often by putting a mask with anaesthesia over their mouths, taking them to the back of a private clinic and removing organs, the most popular being kidneys, livers and others, and then sending them home after a while, still drugged, maybe unconscious, without the organ in question. Last year Professor Seán Columb of the University of Liverpool published a study showing a connection between the organ-harvesting industry and the societal exclusion of minorities and refugee groups in Cairo.

This is a huge problem. It has grown exponentially according to the experts, in part, as the parliamentary secretary pointed out, due to the fact that the demand has grown and the supply has become limited.

I feel that some practical steps have been taken recently in this place. The member for Calgary Confederation has introduced in the House Bill C-316, which would deal with information from tax records being used for an organ donor registry. That is another initiative I was proud to second and support. As the population ages, the demand will likely increase and these crimes by organized criminals will increase as well.

I do not want to spend much time on this bill. To me, it is a quintessential no-brainer. I want to join the Europeans. I want to join others around the world who are recognizing the scourge of organ trafficking and, as a Canadian, stand proudly with them and deal with this very real problem.

As my friend said earlier, we do not have a problem if we can come together, as other jurisdictions have, and say let us get this done in this Parliament to make a difference in people's lives right now.

[Arif Virani, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to participate in the second reading debate this evening on Bill S-240. As has been discussed already, the bill would enact new offences to target organ trafficking and to make those who engage in such conduct inadmissible to Canada.

Illegal organ trafficking is a growing problem around the world. According to the World Health Organization, kidney transplants occur in 91 different countries around the planet, with liver and heart transplants also occurring with some regularity. Despite there being a legal and regulated environment in which these life-saving procedures occur, the demand for organ transplant surgery far outweighs the supply. For this reason, we are seeing a rise in this new form of crime, organ trafficking, although it is important to note that no known cases have occurred in Canada. According to some estimates, 10,000 kidneys are traded on the underground market each year.

I am very troubled to have learned about some of the numbers and circumstances surrounding organ trafficking and the fact that, as with other types of crime, it is often the most vulnerable members of society who find themselves at the greatest risk to be victimized. ln countries around the world, impoverished individuals may be provided little or no money in exchange for a kidney.

News articles have noted that the average payment for a kidney may be around $5,000 and, in many cases, there is no payment provided. ln contrast, the average purchaser will spend well in excess of $100,000 to be provided with a new organ. lt is clear, given those facts, that there is a great deal of money being made for those who operate in this illicit marketplace.

ln my riding of Parkdale-High Park, constituents have approached me to raise their concerns specifically about the practice of organ harvesting. Political prisoners, including Falun Gong practitioners, as mentioned by my friend opposite, have been subjected to organ harvesting in order to support the trade in human organs, and these abuses are ongoing.

I am happy that the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan raised the issue of former parliamentarian, David Kilgour, and his 2006 report. That report documented the many Falun Gong adherents who had been killed to supply the organ transplant industry. In that report, Kilgour stated that he and his fellow researchers “believe that there has been and continues today to be large-scale organ seizures from unwilling Falun Gong practitioners.”

Most human organ trafficking is fuelled by the fact that patients in rich countries cannot get access to the organs they need to survive in their own countries, so they turn to countries where organs can be purchased.

Bill S-240 seeks to target organ trafficking by creating new offences in the Criminal Code. I look forward to debating this bill.

Right now, the sale, purchase and trafficking of human organs outside our existing regulatory framework are strictly prohibited under provincial health laws and the Safety of Human Cells, Tissues and Organs for Transplantation Regulations.

I would also like to note that the Criminal Code already prohibits human trafficking for the purposes of organ removal. This offence focuses on the exploitation of another person. The Criminal Code states that, and I quote, “a person exploits another person if they cause them, by means of deception or the use or threat of force or of any other form of coercion, to have an organ or tissue removed”.

Bill S-240 seeks to focus on the demand side of organ trafficking. It does this through the proposed four new offences included therein that would apply to situations where Canadian citizens or permanent residents would travel abroad and engage in conduct that would be prohibited if it occurred in Canada.

Three of the bill's four offences are focused on the situation where an organ is removed from one person in order to be transplanted into another in a situation where there is proof that the donor did not provide informed consent. Bill S-240 was amended by the Senate to provide a concrete definition of informed consent, which is as follows:

...consent that is given by a person capable of making decisions with respect to health matters and with knowledge and understanding of all material facts, including the nature of the organ removal procedure, the risks involved and the potential side effects.

This presents a challenge, and I want to underscore this for the purposes of this debate, as proof would require evidence that the accused knew that he or she obtained an organ from someone who did not offer informed consent. This, in turn, would require evidence that the accused knew that the person providing the organ had the requisite knowledge level.

It is quite possible that the accused would have no information concerning who the person providing the organ was, let alone knowledge of the risks associated with the transplant procedure. I am looking forward to following the debate on this bill on this particular point.

In targeting the demand, Bill S-240 would also allow Canada to assume extraterritorial jurisdiction, as was outlined by the member opposite, and prosecute cases here at home, even when the conduct occurred abroad and was committed by Canadians or permanent residents. This is laudable and perhaps very appropriate, given the fact that much of the conduct targeted by this bill occurs abroad. Nevertheless, I would highlight, for the purposes of this opening debate, that extraterritorial investigations and prosecutions are indeed challenging. They require police-to-police co-operation as well as more formal methods of international co-operation to secure the necessary evidence. Frequently they involve Canadian police officers travelling abroad, and of course, they require the accused to either be present here in Canada or to be returned to Canada. Such investigations are costly and would be borne by the provinces and territories that are responsible for the administration of justice. These matters are worthy of close consideration by all of us as we examine Bill S-240 more closely.

Another aspect of Bill S-240 is the proposal to establish a reporting mechanism to track organ transplants in Canada. Under proposed section 240.2 of the Criminal Code, medical practitioners, under this bill, would be required to report to a federally established body, made via a Governor in Council appointment, information concerning the fact that a person they treated received an organ transplant. This requirement would apply in all cases, including in respect of organ transplants that occurred right here in Canada. This begs the question of whether such an approach is necessary, given that the purpose of Bill S-240 is focused on illicit organ trafficking abroad.

There can be no doubt to anyone in this House that illicit organ trafficking merits serious consideration and appropriate responses from all governments, including our own here in Canada. Even though it does not appear to be a significant problem domestically, we should not take an approach that treats this issue as a problem that does not concern us. Like all forms of transnational crime, criminals find ways to exploit loopholes in the international legal framework. ln this respect, it is right for us to be examining our laws, programs and policies to ensure that they are as comprehensive and effective as they can be.

I would highlight, at this point, some of the comments made by my friend opposite in introducing this bill in this House, which came from the Senate. He underscored the fact that there have been successive efforts made by parliamentarians on both sides of the House to address this important issue. It is an important issue. It is one we take very seriously as parliamentarians. It is one that all parliamentarians in elected legislatures, literally around the planet, need to take seriously, in light of the fact that an illicit underground market has occurred for organs and that this underground market is actually exploiting vulnerable individuals in various nations around the planet. Whether it is in respect of kidney harvesting or liver or heart transplants, etcetera, these are concerns we need to draw attention to. That is why we are looking forward to concrete debate today and in the days and weeks to come on this bill to ascertain its merits.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

, seconded by the member for Victoria, moved that Bill S-240, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (trafficking in human organs), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

He said: Mr. Speaker, two well-known Canadians, David Matas and David Kilgour, have uncovered something shocking. Their painstaking research has unearthed that between 60,000 and 100,000 human organs are being transplanted in Chinese hospitals each year, with virtually no system of voluntary donation in place. Most of the organs come from prisoners of conscience, primarily Falun Gong practitioners.

I make this speech today in the presence of people who have been arrested in China, and had their blood tested in prison. It may have been that the only thing that prevented their victimization was that they did not match a potential recipient. They understand, more than anything else, the importance of what is happening on the floor of the House today.

Today, I am moving a Senate bill to ask the House of Commons to rule on a fairly simple proposition, that the removal of vital human organs from living patients without their consent is morally unconscionable and must be stopped.

About a similar bill in the past, the parliamentary secretary has said that this bill raises some complex legal and social policy issues. There can be no doubt, though, that the moral issues raised by the bill are quite clear cut. On the legal side, the bill has been well studied by the Senate. I believe it significantly improves on Bill C-350 that I proposed, and also on the original Bill S-240, which was subsequently amended by the Senate committee to bring us the version we have today.

The legal issue is not particularly complex, but in an effort to stop this horrific practice, it does invoke the idea of extraterritoriality. This is where the state seeks to punish someone for a crime he or she committed elsewhere. This is relatively uncommon, although morally necessary in cases like this. Generally, states do not see it as their affair to prosecute crimes that take place elsewhere, because the government of the state in which the crime occurs is best positioned to undertake that prosecution. The government ought not to be indifferent to serious crimes committed by Canadians abroad, but it is generally wise to leave the prosecution of those crimes to the state where they took place.

However, the normal practices should clearly not apply in cases where the local government is indifferent to, is unable to respond to, or is directly facilitating a grievous violation of fundamental human rights. In such cases, Canada can and must prosecute Canadians who go abroad to abuse human rights. Human rights do not apply any less to human beings in other countries. Nation states provide the practical framework through which rights are generally identified and preserved, but this should not be an excuse for allowing their own people to be complicit in grievous violations of human rights.

In 1997, during the tenure of Liberal justice minister Allan Rock, Canada explicitly made it a criminal offence in Canada for a Canadian citizen or permanent resident to engage in so-called child sex tourism; that is, to go abroad and participate in the sexual exploitation of children. Exactly the same principle applies in this case. One notable difference, though, is that offences related to organ harvesting are probably easier to prosecute. Unlike someone who engages in the despicable practice of child sex tourism, someone who benefits from organ harvesting will have follow-up medical needs in Canada.

This bill is morally necessary and it follows a well-established legal track.

A brief word on the legislative history of this initiative. My friend, the member for Etobicoke Centre, began this process on February 5, 2008, with a very similar bill, Bill C-500. He is, for those who do not know, a Liberal. Bill C-561 was proposed by former Liberal justice minister Irwin Cotler in December of 2013. I proposed Bill C-350 in this Parliament before Bill S-240 was proposed by the very excellent Senator Salma Ataullahjan in the Senate.

We have had four bills in 10 years, and now we have less than one year until the next election. When the next election is called, every bill will die and we will go back to the beginning. Four bills, 10 years, and fundamental human rights are at stake. If we do not proceed to a vote on this as soon as possible, I fear we will significantly reduce our chances of getting this done this Parliament. There have been four bills, 10 years and cross-party co-operation and engagement up until now. Let us not force the victims to wait any longer. Let us pass the bill as soon as possible.

Human Organ Trafficking

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to table a petition once again, recognizing the scourge of human organ trafficking. The petitioners are looking for quick passage of Bill C-350 and Bill S-240.

Organ and Tissue Donation

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

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.

Human Organ Trafficking

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table a petition in support of Bill S-240, a bill that would finally address the scourge of forced organ harvesting. This bill or bills like it have been before the House at different points for the last 10 years.

The petitioners and I are very hopeful that we will be able to have the co-operation of all parties to move this vital legislative initiative forward before the next election.

[David Graham, Liberal, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

In that case, I move:

That Bills S-215, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (sentencing for violent offences against Aboriginal women) and S-240, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (trafficking in human organs), not be designated non-votable.

If we pass this motion without opposition, we can continue the discussion on Bill S-203.

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to table this petition from many residents in the province of Ontario, related to Bill S-240, which is in the Senate. The petition urges the Parliament of Canada to move quickly on the proposed legislation so to amend the Criminal Code and the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act to prohibit Canadians from travelling abroad to acquire human organs removed without consent or as a result of financial transactions, and to render inadmissible to Canada any and all permanent residents or foreign nationals who have participated in this abhorrent trade in human organs.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table a petition signed by many residents of Ontario regarding the forced harvesting of organs internationally.

The petitioners call on Parliament to pass both Bill C-350 and Bill S-240.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the third petition I would like to table is in support of Bill S-240. This is a bill that I am sponsoring in this place that has come to us recently from the Senate. It seeks to make it a criminal offence for someone to go abroad to receive an organ for which there has not been consent. It also deals with inadmissibility to Canada for those who have been involved in the traffic of illicit organs.

The petitioners note that for trafficking in human organs without consent, there is currently no legal prohibition against that in Canada. It is a terrible practice that we must do what we can to put an end to.

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to table a petition in support of Bill C-350 and Bill S-240, which was just tabled in this House, regarding harvesting organs for financial gain. This is a problematic issue that needs to be dealt with. These petitioners support Bill S-240 and are in favour of passing the bill.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table two petitions today.

The first is in support of Bill C-350 and Bill S-240, which has now passed the Senate and which I just tabled in this House. Petitioners calls on Parliament to quickly pass Bill S-240 to make it a criminal offence for a Canadian to go abroad to receive an organ that was violently harvested from someone without their consent.

[Jamie Schmale, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this petition is quite timely, building on what my friend, the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan mentioned regarding Bill C-350 in this House and Bill S-240 in the other place.

These petitioners from across Ontario are encouraging the government to act and prohibit Canadians from travelling abroad to acquire human organs removed without consent or as a result of a financial transaction, and to render inadmissible to Canada any and all permanent residents or foreign nationals who have participated in this organ trade.

Criminal Code

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

moved that Bill S-240, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (trafficking in human organs), be read the first time.

Mr. Speaker, for 10 years members of Parliament have been trying to pass legislation to address the scourge of international organ trafficking. My colleague, the member for Etobicoke Centre, as well as the former Liberal MP and justice minister Irwin Cotler, both presented bills on this issue in the previous Parliament. None have passed until this point though.

I would like to commend to the House the excellent work of the Senate, and Senator Ataullahjan in particular, for getting Bill S-240 through the Senate. Great work was done and constructive amendments were proposed and passed at committee to ensure that we have an effective system for prohibiting the terrible practice of harvesting organs.

This is further than this bill has ever made it before, but it is critical that we pass this legislation in this Parliament, so we do not have to start it all over again. It has been 10 years with the involvement of multiple members and multiple parties. I hope we will finally be able to get this done in this Parliament.

(Motion agreed to and bill read the first time)

Message from the Senate

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate has passed the following bills: Bill S-203, an act to amend the Criminal Code and other acts (ending the captivity of whales and dolphins); Bill S-238, an act to amend the Fisheries Act and the Wild Animal and Plant Protection and Regulation of International and Interprovincial Trade Act (importation and exportation of shark fins); and Bill S-240, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (trafficking in human organs).

It being 6:30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business, as listed on today's Order Paper.

Human Organ Trafficking

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to present a petition signed by dozens of Canadians right across Canada. They wish to draw the attention of the House to concern about international trafficking in human organs. They call for the speedy passage of Bill C-350 as well as Bill S-240.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to also table a petition in support of Bill C-350 and Bill S-240. These are important bills that would address the issue of international organ harvesting, making it a criminal offence for a Canadian to go abroad and obtain an organ for which there has not been consent, and that would also deal with inadmissibility to Canada of people who have been involved in international organ trafficking.

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to present a petition today that encourages the House to pass Bill C-350 and also Bill S-240 in the Senate opposing organ harvest transplants.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to rise today to present a petition, in addition to my colleagues, condemning organ harvesting. The petitioners call for the House to adopt Bill C-350 and Bill S-240.

[Jamie Schmale, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to stand and present this petition signed by many from Quebec in support of Bill C-350 in the House and Bill S-240 in the other place. They are calling on the government to speed up the passage of these bills prohibiting the use of organ harvesting.

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am tabling this petition supporting two bills before the House, Bill C-350 and Bill S-240, dealing with international trafficking in human organs. The petitioners would appreciate the government passing these quickly.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table a petition. The petitioners are calling on Parliament to pass Bill C-350 and Bill S-240 dealing with the practice of organ harvesting.

Human Rights

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I have the honour of presenting a petition. The petitioners express grave concern about the illegal international harvesting of organs, as documented by the Nobel Peace Prize-nominated David Matas and David Kilgour. They call for a stop to the barbaric practice of harvesting and trafficking in human organs and body parts.

The petitioners urge Parliament to adopt Bills C-350 and S-240. These bills, which are based on Bill C-500 and Bill C-381, which I previously introduced in 2008 and 2009, would make it illegal to obtain organs or body parts from unwilling donors or as part of a financial transaction.

Human Organ Trafficking

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to present a petition in support of Bill C-350 and Bill S-240 asking the House to finally take action to deal with the scourge of forced organ harvesting.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am tabling a petition about Bill C-350 and Bill S-240. This is a petition that deals with the trafficking of organs. The petitioners are calling on the government to pass these bills, Bill C-350 and Bill S-240, as quickly as possible to end this scourge of organ harvesting without consent.

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition signed by a number of residents of Canada who have increasing concerns about the trafficking of human organs. They are asking Parliament to quickly pass Bill C-350 in the House of Commons and Bill S-240 in the Senate to limit this practice.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the second petition deals with organ harvesting and international organ trafficking. The petitioners call on the House and the Senate to work for the speedy passage of Bill C-350 and Bill S-240. These bills would make it a criminal offence for a Canadian to go abroad and receive an organ for which there was not consent.

The petition also deals with the admissibility to Canada of those who have been involved in the trafficking of organs.

[David Sweet, Conservative, Flamborough—Glanbrook, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have a petition in my hand from citizens of Canada in regard to Bill S-240 and Bill C-350. These are bills that would end the trafficking of human organs. Most Canadians would hardly believe that this goes on, but it does.

These petitioners are calling for fast passage of these two bills in order to prevent that from happening anymore.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to stand in the House and table this petition from Canadians regarding their increasing concern over the international trafficking of human organs.

The petitioners urge the government and all parliamentarians to work to pass Bill C-350 as well as Bill S-240 in the Senate.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is my honour to rise today to present a petition. The people who have signed this petition are concerned about the organ harvesting that is happening around the world.

In that regard, the petitioners call on the House of Commons to adopt Bill C-350 and Bill S-240 to ensure that this horrible scourge no longer takes place in Canada or around the world.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to be tabling three petitions today.

The first petition deals with Bill C-350 and Bill S-240. These are two bills that deal with the scourge of organ harvesting without consent. These bills seek to make it a criminal offence for a Canadian to go abroad for this purpose.

Bill C-350 is my bill and Bill S-240, I understand, is on the verge of passing the Senate. We hope to see, as do these petitioners, it pass the Senate very soon so we can get to it here in the House and finally move forward with this good, non-partisan initiative. Great work was done on it by Irwin Cotler, as well as other members of the government. Some of that work is being continued by members of the opposition.

[Kevin Waugh, Conservative, Saskatoon—Grasswood, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to also present a petition on behalf of many Canadians who are increasingly concerned about the international trafficking in human organs removed from victims without consent. We are dealing with Bill C-350 and Bill S-240.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I too rise today to draw attention to the issue of international trafficking of human organs.

The people who have signed this petition are looking for the expedient adoption of Bill S-240.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to present two petitions. The first one is exactly the same as many colleagues have presented this morning, dealing with the appalling trafficking in human organs. Petitioners are asking this House to support both Bill C-350 and Bill S-240 to put an end to the trafficking of human organs. The evidence of the involuntary taking of organs from living persons for sale is something that I think offends the conscience of every Canadian, and I hope the House will respond favourably to this petition.

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition, signed by 30 people, about international trafficking of human organs, in support of Bill C-350 in the House of Commons and Bill S-240 in the Senate.

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the second petition has to do with the international trafficking of human organs. Petitioners are encouraging the Parliament of Canada to move quickly on proposed legislation, Bill C-350 and Bill S-240, in order to restrict the illegal and improper trafficking of human organs around the world.

Harvesting of Human Organs

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Mr. Speaker, it is good to be back in the House, and obviously our constituents have been busy through the summer. I have three petitions to present very quickly.

The first petition is in regard to concerned individuals who support Bill C-350 in the House of Commons and Bill S-240 in the Senate. Petitioners want to see that these bills are brought into place to prohibit Canadians from travelling abroad to acquire human organs removed without consent or as a result of financial transactions, and to render inadmissible to Canada any and all permanent residents or foreign nationals who have participated in this abhorrent trade in human organs.

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the second petition is regarding Bill C-350 and Bill S-240, which have to do with the illegal harvesting of organs, and citizens moving to another country to receive those ill-gotten organs. We need to have this practice stopped. The bill will be voted on in the Senate, probably today, and returned to us. This practice needs to be stopped immediately.

Human Organ Trafficking

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to join my colleague in also tabling a petition in support of Bill C-350 and Bill S-240. I understand that Bill S-240 will likely be debated and voted on in the Senate today, and it may be with us very soon. These bills both aim to make it a criminal offence for a person to go abroad and receive an organ for which there was not consent. We know that this terrible practice exists whereby organs are extracted from political prisoners or prisoners of conscience without their consent, and they may end up being used by people from Canada. We want to put an end to this terrible practice, and hopefully these bills will move forward very quickly.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to stand today to present a petition calling on Parliament to examine the scourge of organ harvesting.

The petitioners are asking for the quick and expedient passage of Bill C-350 and Bill S-240.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the second petition is with respect to my private member's bill, Bill C-350, as well as a similar bill in the Senate, Bill S-240.

The petitioners call on the government and all parliamentarians to support the speedy passage of these bills. They would make it a criminal offence for a Canadian to go abroad and receive an organ for which there was not consent. This is an effective legislative tool to combat the scourge of forced organ harvesting.

[Jim Eglinski, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Mr. Speaker, my second petition says that the undersigned residents of Canada draw to the attention of the House of Commons that whereas increased concern about international trafficking in human organs removed from victims without consent has not yet led to legal prohibition on Canadians travelling abroad to acquire or receive such organs and whereas there are currently two bills before the Parliament proposing to impede the trafficking of human organs obtained without the consent or as a result of financial transaction, Bill C-350 in the House of Commons and Bill S-240 in the Senate, the undersigned urge the Parliament of Canada to move quickly on the proposed legislation so as to amend the Criminal Code and the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

[Jamie Schmale, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present this petition. There are two bills before Parliament proposing to impede the trafficking of human organs obtained without consent or as a result of a financial transaction: Bill C-350 in the House, and Bill S-240 in the Senate. Therefore, I am pleased to present these signatures from people mostly in the greater Toronto area urging the Parliament of Canada to move quickly on the proposed legislation to amend the Criminal Code and the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act to prohibit such acts.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to present a petition on the serious issue of international trafficking in human organs that are removed from victims without their consent. There are two pieces of legislation currently before the House, Bill C-350 and S-240 from the Senate. Constituents are urging the Parliament of Canada to move quickly to get legislation in place to prohibit this heinous act.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to present two petitions today.

The first is in support of my private member's bill, Bill C-350, that deals with forced organ harvesting, as well as a similar bill in the Senate, Bill S-240. I note that the Senate was on the verge of passing it last night, but other matters intervened. I am hopeful that Bill S-240 will be passed as soon as the House returns so we can get on with addressing this important matter in the chamber.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, Humber River—Black Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, increasing concerns about international trafficking in human organs removed without consent continues to be an issue that requires legislation to be brought forward. There are currently two bills before Parliament proposing to impede the trafficking of human organs, Bill C-350 and Bill S-240. The petitioners ask the government to support this.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise today to present two petitions. I join with many colleagues in supporting two private members' bills that are currently before Parliament, Bill C-350 from the hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, and Bill S-240, which started in the Senate.

These bills aim to make it illegal for Canadians and all permanent residents or foreign nationals to participate in the abhorrent trade of human organs removed without consent or as the result of a financial transaction. The petition is clearly widely supported.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join my colleagues in also tabling a petition highlighting the issue of international organ trafficking. There are two bills: one before this House, my private member's Bill C-350, which was actually proposed by Irwin Cotler in a previous Parliament, as well as Bill S-240, proposed by Senator Salma Ataullahjan in the other place.

These are important bills that would make it a criminal offence for a Canadian to go abroad to receive an organ harvested without consent. Petitioners are asking the government to pass at least one of these bills expeditiously, so we can move forward and be part of the solution to this global problem.

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Mr. Speaker, there are increasing concerns about international traffic in human organs. There are two bills addressing these concerns, Bill C-350 before the House and Bill S-240 in the other place. The petitioners are urging the Parliament of Canada to move quickly on proposed legislation to amend the Criminal Code. This would prohibit Canadians from travelling abroad to acquire human organs removed without consent, and bar any permanent residents or foreign nationals who participate in this abhorrent trade.

[David Sweet, Conservative, Flamborough—Glanbrook, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have a petition regarding human organ trafficking. In light of a continued global market for illegally harvested human organs, the petitioners are asking that Parliament and the Government of Canada move quickly to ensure that Bill C-350, which is before this House, and Bill S-240, which is in the other place, are passed, and that Canada does its share to combat organ harvesting and trafficking.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to present a petition that supports Bill C-350 in the House of Commons, and Bill S-240 in the Senate, which deal with the trafficking of human organs obtained without consent or as a result of a financial transaction. These bills would make it illegal to acquire and would prohibit Canadians who are travelling abroad from acquiring human organs removed without consent or as a result of a financial transaction, and would render inadmissible to Canada any and all permanent residents or foreign nationals who have participated in this abhorrent trade in human organs.

I would like to recognize the work of my neighbour, the MP for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan on this issue.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I also rise today to present a very important petition from Canadians from coast to coast to coast concerned about the issue of organ harvesting, organs taken from victims without their consent.

Two bills are currently before Parliament, one put forward by the hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan and one that emanates from the Senate, Bill C-350 and Bill S-240.

The petitioners call on Parliament to pass this legislation quickly so we can protect people in foreign countries from the risks of this extremely devastating thing. It is hard to even imagine organ harvesting without consent.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join my friend from Etobicoke Centre, and other colleagues, in also tabling a petition in support of Bill C-350 and Bill S-240.

I tabled Bill C-350, and it was seconded by the member for Etobicoke Centre, who had a similar bill in a previous Parliament. These bills deal with the scourge of forced organ harvesting, organs taken from people, often political prisoners, without their consent. These bills would make it a criminal offence for a Canadian to go abroad to get an organ for which there was no consent.

We cannot completely stop this practice, but we can stop Canadians from being complicit in it. The signatories urge Parliament to pass these bills quickly.

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I have the honour of presenting a petition signed by Canadians from across the country.

The petitioners express great concern about the harvesting and trafficking of human organs and body parts without consent and for profit, as documented by the independent Matas-Kilgour investigations.

In an effort to put a stop to the industry of harvesting and trafficking of human organs and body parts, the petitioners urge Parliament to adopt House Bill C-350 and Senate Bill S-240. These bills continue the work of Bill C-500 and Bill C-381, introduced by myself in 2008 and 2009, and Bill C-561, introduced by Irwin Cotler in 2013.

The petitioners urge Parliament to move quickly on this legislation and end this horrific multi-million dollar industry.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour for me to table a petition in support of my private member's bill, Bill C-350. It seeks to combat the trafficking in organs without patients' consent. This bill was seconded by a member of the government, the member for Etobicoke Centre, and it was originally proposed in the same form by Irwin Cotler, a previous Liberal justice minister, so it is a bipartisan, multipartisan initiative that seeks to combat this terrible scourge of organ trafficking.

The petitioners also mention Bill S-240, which has already been reported back from committee to the Senate, and I hope we will be able to see that bill here very soon. The petitioners call on the House to pass these bills as soon as possible to work toward the role Canada can play in ending this injustice.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the second petition is on Bill C-350, which was introduced in the House.

The petitioners expressly call on Parliament to pass Bill C-350 and Senate Bill S-240. These bills propose to amend the Criminal Code and the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act in order to prohibit Canadians from travelling abroad to acquire organs obtained without consent or as a result of financial transactions, as well as to render any permanent resident or foreign national who has engaged in the heinous practice of human organ trafficking inadmissible to Canada.

This petition has been signed by Canadians across the country.

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it gives me pleasure to present this petition. Increasing concerns about international traffic in human organs removed from victims without consent have not yet led to a legal prohibition on Canadians who travel abroad. There are two bills, one before the House and one in the Senate, Bill C-350 and Bill S-240, and the petitioners request that they be passed as soon as possible to prohibit this. The petitioners are from across southwestern Ontario.

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to rise today to present a petition with numerous names on it. There are currently two bills before Parliament proposing to impede the trafficking of human organs obtained without consent or as a result of financial transactions, Bill C-350 in the House of Commons and Bill S-240 in the Senate. It gives me great pleasure to present this petition on behalf of those who signed it.

National Security Act, 2017

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, let me be very clear. My party and I are very much opposed to torture. We go further than that. We take a very strong line against other countries in challenging them on human rights abuses, to a degree that I do not think we see from the current government.

For example, let me take this opportunity to shamelessly plug my own private member's bill, Bill C-350. It would, for the first time, make it a criminal offence for a Canadian to receive an organ that has been harvested from a person without his or her consent. A similar bill, Bill S-240, is working its way through the Senate and will likely come to this chamber before my private member's bill.

I suspect that my friends in the NDP will have no problem supporting either of those bills, but we have yet to hear from the government as to where it stands on this. Therefore, there are many issues around torture and fundamental human rights where we need to see some progress. I hope we will see support on those pieces of legislation dealing with organ harvesting, which is a form of torture.

The government has not yet signalled one way or the other how it is going to vote, which is interesting. It should be an easy, clear-cut issue. However, sometimes the things we think are easy and clear-cut do not seem as clear-cut from that side. Nonetheless, I am hopeful there is a consensus here that torture is totally unacceptable, and that we need to take the steps we can to address it.