Thank you, Mr. Matas. It's always a pleasure to hear from you. Thank you for your long work on the objectives that are being sought by this bill. I will be candid with you and say that there has been some concern expressed—and I share some of the concern—with respect to the financial transaction component, so that's what I am going to ask you about.
It dovetails with what Mr. Genuis just said about how in the Senate there was a differentiation made on “organ” versus “tissue”. I think they were very alive to the issue about reproduction issues and people going abroad to obtain sperm and ova, for example, but they were also quite alive to the issue of people who.... I think the easy case, Mr. Matas, is the one where there is a prisoner, there is clearly no consent and their organs are harvested against their will. That's targeted by this bill. That is something that obviously all parliamentarians want to address.
The tougher case is the situation where, because of the organ shortages in this country, people in desperate circumstances are forced to go abroad to seek organs and end up transferring money in the process of procuring that organ even if they believe they've obtained consent. What I want to ask you is about the aspect of consideration. Specifically what I want to ask you is whether informed consent is enough, simpliciter, to address the issue?
I'd put it to you this way, Mr. Matas. If someone is obtaining an organ through unethical practices, such as inducing the consent of a person by deceiving them about the need to risks or consequences of the procedure, would that constitute a lack of informed consent on its own?