Health Committee on Dec. 11th, 2020

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Thank you, Chair.

I appreciate that CRA is probably giving direction to the parliamentary secretary on this amendment, but I think Mr. Van Bynen brings up a really salient point here. I think the amendment is being characterized as this either-or dichotomy: Either we do this with a separate form or we're never going to get this implemented in an expedient period of time. I can't accept that. In this situation, the will and intent of Parliament is supreme. If Parliament gives direction to make this happen, with the intent of it being front and centre rather than buried in some separate form, then that's direction to the bureaucracy to make it happen.

I would rather that it happen properly than have it happen with limited impact. I think that's really the trade-off we're looking at here.

My understanding from Mr. Webber of the spirit of the bill is to incent as many Canadians as possible to think about making this decision and actually do it. I don't think that having assistance in a tax form is going to somehow remove consent. When you submit your tax return, even if you have assistance preparing it, you're still obligated as an individual to review that information and sign off on it that it's truthful and that you've disclosed everything. You are involved in informed consent in the submission of a tax form to begin with, so I think that's a bit of a false argument.

I think what's happening here is that perhaps the bureaucracy has given advice to the government that might make it easier for them to implement this, but in doing so it takes away the spirit and intent of the legislation. I don't think we can support the amendment while simultaneously supporting the spirit of the legislation, which is why I think we shouldn't support it.

With regard to the issue of provincial jurisdiction, in no way does the amendment remove the obligation to work with the provinces to make this acceptable within their jurisdiction. Again, I think that's been a bit of a false presentation; this would still have to happen. At this point, the time period to get that done is really a matter of the minister giving direction and overseeing the bureaucrats to make this happen between the provinces and the federal government. It's more of a matter of political will and efficiency within the bureaucracy than necessarily....

What I'm trying to say is that a statement that this is going to take years to happen is really a timeline being given by the bureaucracy, rather than political will or direction. I would like to think that, on an issue that's this urgent and that could save this many lives, we would see more political will.

The last thing is that I think the parliamentary secretary said that Nova Scotia had opted out. That's not correct. I believe they're moving to presumed consent, which is different from what was characterized.

I implore my colleagues, especially those from the Liberal Party, particularly Mr. Van Bynen. I think it's more important that we support the spirit of the legislation rather than the pedantry of a proposed implementation approach. This amendment would, I think, in effect neuter the spirit of the bill. I urge my colleagues that we can respect provincial jurisdiction, we can give direction to the minister and to the bureaucracy to make this happen within the spirit that it's being proposed, and we can actually do something that's going to save lives.

I strongly want to reiterate what my colleague Mr. Webber said about having this buried as a supplementary form in the back. The whole purpose of this bill is to have it up front so that people think about this and make a decision that could save lives. Having a form at the back might make the lives of a few bureaucrats a little easier, but I would rather that we, as Parliament, give direction to the government and to the bureaucracy to make this happen in a way that will actually save Canadian lives, rather than just put together a form.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, Ms. Rempel Garner.

Mr. Barlow, you're up next.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I won't take much time.

Ms. Rempel Garner articulated very well much of what I was going to say.

I was not part of the health committee during the original debate, but I've certainly spoken to Mr. Webber about this legislation many times. This amendment—no offence, Mr. Sorbara—is a very big change from what all parties agreed to in the previous Parliament and have agreed to all along. Looking through the blues at some of the previous debates at the health committee on this, for the CRA to say previously that this wouldn't be a problem, that they have the wherewithal, the funding and the guidance from Parliament to do this with that tick box on the front page, and then to come back with a completely different position is alarming.

As to Mr. Sorbara's amendment, I know he said there would be a separate form as part of the T1 paperwork, but we have no assurance that's what it would be. Would it just be line 247 on your income tax return? Would it be an actual form that would be easily read and visible? The essence of Mr. Webber's legislation is to have this on the front page of the tax return. Every Canadian will see it. It will be prominent and well displayed. The CRA agreed to do that. No offence to the bureaucrats, but parliamentarians are the ones who are supposed to be providing that guidance and that direction to the bureaucracy. It's not the other way around.

The CRA could have brought these concerns to a previous Parliament or any time up until now. The assurance that we had from the CRA previously was that this was doable and would be done. Now to come back with an amendment.... Mr. Sorbara is being the messenger here so I don't want to put too much on his plate, but there's no assurance for us as parliamentarians where this message on becoming an organ and tissue donor would be in the application. He's saying it would be a form, but we don't know that because now they have gone from “Yes, we will have this as a tick box on the front page” to “We don't really want to do that. We could kind of commit to do this but...”. There are no assurances in the amendment Mr. Sorbara has offered.

I know, Mr. Chair, you've spoken in strong support of Mr. Webber's initiative during my short time on this committee. It is so rare when all of us as parliamentarians of different political stripes come together and put forward something that we all support, we all agreed to and we all worked hard to get to this point, and something we know is going to benefit Canadians. I just don't think it's right for bureaucrats within the CRA to say, “You know what? It would be easier for us or less work if we did x instead of what Parliament and the House of Commons has unanimously supported us to do”. I think that sends a poor message to Canadians whom Mr. Webber and many of you on this committee have worked with on this legislation. They are looking to us to follow through on what we committed to do in a previous Parliament and what we have committed to do up until now.

In conclusion, I know how hard Mr. Webber has worked on this. To get that support from all parliamentarians is something I think we should respect and not change on the whim of the CRA, which again isn't giving us any assurance on what it will look like. In the spirit of the legislation, I cannot support these amendments and I would certainly encourage my colleagues on the committee not to support the amendments as well and to maintain what we had all agreed to over the past several years.

To get so close to the finish line...and I know Mr. Webber was so close in the previous Parliament and that was a tough pill to swallow. To get here again, so close to the finish line, and then get this wrench thrown into the system is really unfortunate. I hope we can all respect what we agreed to before, not support the amendment and support the spirit of this legislation for the benefit of all our constituents.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, Mr. Barlow.

Next up, we have Mr. Webber.

[Len Webber, Conservative, Calgary Confederation, AB]

Yes, it's me again, Mr. Chair. Thank you.

I just want to make a couple of comments and ask a couple of questions to Mr. Sorbara.

First, regarding his comments about his concern about expanding the scope of the CRA, to me these amendments would further expand the scope of the CRA by having them ask additional questions rather than just the basics. The tombstone data such as your name and your contact information are all that is required by the provinces. It's just the contact information of tax filers who are interested in registering in their provincial organ donor registries. That's it. You don't need a whole form for that. You need a tick box for the tax filer to just indicate that, and the CRA will then transfer your name and your contact information. That's all they require. Of course, that's when the provinces will go forward with their forms in order to complete the process of registering the individual who would like to be registered.

I want to talk about consultation. I know, Mr. Sorbara, you have consulted with the CRA. I've consulted with the CRA as well, but not only them. I've contacted the Trillium Gift of Life Network, Canadian Blood Services, the Kidney Foundation and the Canadian Transplant Association. These organizations want it front and centre. They made it clear, and that's who we should be listening to: Canadians.

My question for Mr. Sorbara is this. Do you believe these amendments would strengthen the effectiveness of the bill and better improve the outcomes for those awaiting a life-saving transplant? I'd like to get your answer on that. Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, Mr. Webber. I'm not quite sure I like the idea of tombstone data on my income tax, but we'll move on.

Go ahead, Mr. Sorbara.

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Thank you to all the MPs who have provided substantive feedback on their views. I'm going to take this on a couple of levels, and I'll answer Mr. Webber's question. It's a very important question because to say that we're in favour of the intent of the bill, for me, means that we're in favour of the effectiveness of the bill and the final result we'd get from the bill, which is increasing the number of individuals who will have signed up to become registered tissue and organ donors. That has to be the goal of the bill, and this is a very important issue for many Canadians and for the organizations you highlighted.

There's always a balance in crafting legislation and getting legislation done, and there are many stakeholders and many points of view. As I know Mr. Barlow commented, what does it mean to listen to bureaucrats and other representatives? We need to take advice from our government officials and listen. Obviously, the final decision is with the government in terms of the direction, but it is pertinent and very imperative for them to provide that feedback to parliamentarians. It doesn't mean that we don't see issues or flags or say yes or no, but it is important to receive that feedback, in this circumstance, from the CRA officials.

In my gut, in my honest estimation, in this process that I've been involved with in examining Bill C-210, I would like to see, as Mr. Van Bynen commented, at the end of the day, the bill moving forward, absolutely. What I would like to see is a separate page within the tax package that clearly states...and that we could utilize with the provinces in a very quick and efficient manner. It would say what we could agree on with the provinces and what descriptive information may be needed to be put in there.

Again, I take it back. This is not simply, if I can use the analogy, our asking people if they wish to pass on their information to be registered by Elections Canada. Elections Canada is a federal agency. They pass on the information to them. They then make sure that individuals are on the electors list, and that is on the front page. On this example here, there are jurisdictional issues. Regarding the opt-out by Nova Scotia, I know Ms. Rempel Garner has commented on that. I'm going to take another look at that because I'm obviously always open to constructive feedback and learning if I've erred in interpretation.

Again, in terms of efficiency, effectiveness and getting this in the tax package, the quickest way to do that is to have it on a separate page, not on the T1 form, but within the tax package. It's still there. It would still be for everybody to see. We know that when the tax filers are preparing their information, it is important to ask. We need to ensure that Canadians have the information they need to make those decisions that are very personal in nature, including becoming a registered tissue and organ donor.

To Mr. Webber, that's a very long way of saying yes. I believe this still maintains the effectiveness of Bill C-210.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, Mr. Sorbara.

We have Mr. Webber again.

Please go ahead.

[Len Webber, Conservative, Calgary Confederation, AB]

Thank you again, Mr. Chair.

I have a very quick comment on Mr. Sorbara's comments. He says that the quickest way to get this done is to put it on a separate form. I would beg to differ. First of all, why would it take longer to put it on the front of the form than to put it on a form? Are you suggesting that putting it on a separate form would then put it into the 2020-21 tax season, yet if it was put on the front, it would take longer?

I would say, first of all, why would you think that? Second, I would disagree. I don't know why it would take longer to put it on the front than it would to put it on a separate form.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Speak through the chair, please, if you wouldn't mind.

[Len Webber, Conservative, Calgary Confederation, AB]

Okay.

Anyway, that was my point there regarding the quickest way. I would say absolutely not. It would take the same amount of time.

I'm done now. Let's go to the vote.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, Mr. Webber.

Seeing no further speakers, I shall then call the question. Shall the amendment carry?

(Amendment negatived: nays 6; yeas 2 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

We will move on to the vote on clause 1.

Mr. Fisher, I believe you wanted to speak to this. Go ahead.

[Darren Fisher, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

I did want to speak to this, but Mr. Davies said exactly what I wanted to say. We have so many tremendous people in the House of Commons.

Len, you are truly one of them, and I'm happy to support your bill.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, Mr. Fisher.

Seeing no further speakers, I shall call the question.

(Clause 1 agreed to: yeas 11; nays 0)

Thank you.

Shall the title carry?

(Title agreed to: yeas 11; nays 0)

Shall the bill carry?

(Bill C-210 agreed to: yeas 11; nays 0)

That brings us to our last question. Shall the chair report the bill to the House?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, all.

Congratulations, Mr. Webber.

I would certainly like to thank everyone for their earnest and sincere advocacy on all the issues before us today.

I see that Mr. Webber has his hand up.

Mr. Webber, if you wish to speak, go ahead.

[Len Webber, Conservative, Calgary Confederation, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I just want to thank you all. I know I was a little bit passionate here today and a little bit, perhaps, emotional with respect to how I was speaking. I just want to say that I get that from visiting these transplant—

[Luc Desilets, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

I'd like to offer my congratulations to Mr. Webber.

[Len Webber, Conservative, Calgary Confederation, AB]

I'm sorry. I didn't quite get that.

Anyway, I just want to say thank you—even to you, Mr. Sorbara. I know that you support this bill.

I just thank you, all, for supporting it when it does come to the vote. Yes, I'm very happy with the outcome today, so I just want to thank you. I know a lot of people who are waiting for organ donation thank you as well.

Thank you, all, very much, and have a merry Christmas, everyone. Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, Mr. Webber.

Mr. Sorbara, please.

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Very quickly, Chair, to Mr. Webber, I just want to say congratulations on the work you've done in pushing this forward.

It has been a pleasure to get to know you in this last week. I think these are the first interactions we've had, and it's been an absolute pleasure to chat with you and to get to know you.

My best to you and your family over the holidays.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, Mr. Sorbara. We go now to Ms. Sidhu.

Ms. Sidhu, go ahead.

[Sonia Sidhu, Liberal, Brampton South, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Chair, I want to put on the record on behalf of those who have served on the committee with you that we will miss you, Mr. Webber. Congratulations. You were the nicest person on the committee. Thank you for all the work you did on the previous committees and for this one too. Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, Ms. Sidhu.

Ms. Rempel Garner is next, please.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

From the slightly less nice person who replaced Len on the committee, from me to everyone else on the committee this year, I just wanted to say, on behalf of the Conservative caucus, thank you, Chair, and thank you to the clerk and the interpreters.

We have a lot of work to do in the coming few weeks and in the new year, but this year I think has placed an inordinate amount of strain on everybody, in every walk of life. No matter where you are or what you do, this year has created challenges.

I sincerely hope that we can work together in the new year to come up with solutions for Canadians. While we do sit in positions of privilege, I want to wish all of you time with your families, as much as possible with the COVID restrictions, and some rest and relaxation before we hit the grind again in the new year.

Merry Christmas and happy holidays to everybody on the committee on behalf of the Conservative caucus.