Evidence of meeting #37 for Foreign Affairs and International Development in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was point.
A recording is available from Parliament.
6:30 p.m.
Liberal
6:30 p.m.
Liberal
Randeep Sarai Liberal Surrey Centre, BC
Thank you, Chair.
My question will go to Dr. Gill, but first I want to add that another important thing to tell patients who might be contemplating going abroad is the fact that the organ matches done abroad are probably not done as thoroughly as they are here. They can shove anything into you, and there's no accountability. That should scare people when they're taking an organ.
My question is actually a follow-up to the question from Mr. Genuis in regard to mandatory reporting. I'm wondering what kind of dilemma a doctor would have if he's reporting a patient who has come in with an organ transplant, because on the other hand, it might impose a problem because people may not report medical complications arising out of a transplant abroad, and therefore they may die. They may not take treatment, fearing they're going to go to jail if they go there.
How does a doctor deal with that dilemma?
6:30 p.m.
Vice-President, Canadian Society of Transplantation
I think you've articulated the issues very well. That is the primary concern. When we're looking after the patients in front of us, our primary priority at that moment is to ensure their well-being. Anything that is going to compromise my ability to look after my patient is a concern. That is the crux of it. If faced with that dilemma, unless there is a compelling reason to do so, you're going to err on the side of ensuring what's in the best interest of your patient.
That's typically how I think it would unfold.
6:30 p.m.
Liberal
Randeep Sarai Liberal Surrey Centre, BC
Then how would you think we would be able to catch perpetrators? Really, if they're foreign nationals in a foreign country, we won't be able to get them. The only link to them is usually the Canadian person, who is the patient, unless there is a broker in Canada who's doing it.
How do you foresee the enforceability of such legislation? I'm in favour of the legislation. I'm just trying to figure out how we can enforce it if a doctor is about the only person who's going to know where this organ came from.
6:30 p.m.
Vice-President, Canadian Society of Transplantation
I'll humbly recommend something, acknowledging that this is not my area of expertise, but I think there are mechanisms you could justify from a public health standpoint to report if someone has been in a medical facility when outside of the country. That may potentially be an avenue to identify if someone has engaged in any sort of medical tourism, whether it's a transplant or otherwise. That would be my only consideration, but obviously that's a whole separate ball of wax to consider. That's one possibility.
6:30 p.m.
Liberal
Randeep Sarai Liberal Surrey Centre, BC
Dr. Cohen, would you be able to elaborate? Do you know of any jurisdiction that has done something with respect to reporting organ transplants and enforcing the legislation?
6:30 p.m.
Associate Professor, Faculty of Law, Université de Montréal, As an Individual
Mr. Chair, at this point I wouldn't be able to provide any further information on the reporting, other than what I mentioned before and what Dr. Gill has already mentioned.
6:35 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ali Ehsassi
Thank you.
Thank you, MP Sarai.
We now go to Mr. Bergeron for a minute and a half, please.
November 16th, 2022 / 6:35 p.m.
Bloc
Stéphane Bergeron Bloc Montarville, QC
I will try to be brief, Mr. Chair.
I would like to speak to an issue that Ms. Cohen mentioned a few moments ago.
Section 279.04(3) of the Criminal Code defines exploitation for the purpose of trafficking in persons as including the removal of organs and tissue “by means of deception or the use or threat of force or any other form of coercion [...]”.
In addition, section 279.02(1) makes it a crime for an individual to receive “a financial or other material benefit knowing that it is obtained by or derived directly or indirectly from the commission of an offence”, which is trafficking in persons for the purpose of exploitation.
To be clear, what actions does Bill S‑223 wish to prohibit that are not already prohibited under the Criminal Code?
6:35 p.m.
Associate Professor, Faculty of Law, Université de Montréal, As an Individual
In fact, Bill S‑223 would establish a separate criminal act. Trafficking in human organs would be established as a criminal act in itself, without necessarily being a consequence of human trafficking. What is already a criminal act is trafficking in persons. That is my answer.
As I said, the study I conducted recently outlined the current trend in international law: according to the reports, these crimes can be separated. There was concern expressed about treating trafficking in human organs as part of trafficking in persons, without seeing the distinctions that can exist when trafficking in persons is not present.
This would therefore follow the trend of the convention I mentioned, but also other trends that trafficking in human organs should be treated as a separate and distinct crime from the crime of trafficking in persons for the purpose of removing organs.
6:35 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ali Ehsassi
For the last question, we go to Madam McPherson for a minute and a half.
6:35 p.m.
NDP
Heather McPherson NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you again to our witnesses for their testimony.
Dr. Cohen, I have a quick question for you. I think we all agree that what is in this bill includes some very good things. Can you tell me, from your perspective, what countries have done things better? Also, what could be strengthened, what could be done in subsequent bills and what other things need to be undertaken by the Canadian government legislatively?
6:35 p.m.
Associate Professor, Faculty of Law, Université de Montréal, As an Individual
Mr. Chair, one thing that I would say strikes me is what I mentioned very briefly in my opening statement concerning definitions.
What I have done as a study, more on the international framework, is that often there are definitions of what trafficking is, of what is understood by “trafficking of organs”. I mentioned, for example, that it seems from a textual reading that it does not include—and, again, I'm not a physician—tissues or cells, because it says “obtains an organ”. That could be something to be clarified.
Additionally, there are the forms of participation in “carries out, participates in or facilitates the removal” in proposed paragraph 240.1(1)(b). It mentions participation. Is participation included in the other paragraphs as well?
Essentially, these are the two key aspects that I have noticed that other pieces of international instruments include that go to the question of clarification of definition.
6:35 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ali Ehsassi
On that note, given that we are out of time, allow me to thank our three witnesses.
Dr. Cohen, Dr. McKay and Dr. Gill, we are very grateful for your expertise and for your time. Again our apologies for some of the challenges we had a couple of days ago. We certainly understand this complex issue a whole lot better thanks to all of the guidance you have provided us today. Thank you.
This meeting now stands adjourned.