Thank you for your question and thank you for the support of the NDP. I know Ms. Laverdière, Ms. Hardcastle and others have been engaged in discussions around this, as well as Mr. Rankin, your justice critic. He gave an excellent speech on this issue in the House. I appreciate your presence and commitment.
Organ donation is a bit outside the scope of the things I've been most embedded in thinking about the testimony for today.
In terms of a presumed consent model, there are many things we could do short of presumed consent that would substantially increase the availability of organs. There's been a lot of discussion about it in this Parliament, but we haven't yet ventured down the road at all of what Sunstein and Thaler would call nudges in the direction of increased donations.
Those nudges suggest the adjusting of a choice architecture to things like what my colleague Len Webber had proposed in a private member's bill, to have people on their tax forms indicate yes or no on whether they were going to be an organ donor. It is also suggested to automatically have people—in certain kinds of situations, like filling out their taxes—presented with the choice, things like a national organ donation registry with greater public information. Some people would have concerns about presumed consent from a personal liberty standpoint. There are many things we can do before we have that discussion that might solve the problem as it is.
My inclination would be to take those steps first and then we'll see the impact of those steps. Again, that's not a particularly well-thought-out response, because it's outside my focus today. It's an interesting discussion and, obviously, fits into the broader question of how to increase organ donations.