Debates of Nov. 16th, 1999

Organ Donation Act

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North Centre, MB]

The Reform member has corrected me. It is only 12.1 donors per million.

That rate of donation is appallingly low. The rate could be much higher if we had a government that was prepared to work with Canadians and provincial governments to advance a workable, reasonable strategy to encourage Canadians to indicate their wishes at an early opportunity, and to ensure there is a mechanism to follow through on the wishes of the donor and the donor's family.

What is the situation? The Liberals are treading water while our need for organ donation is growing.

The Reform health critic mentioned the situation with respect to dialysis. Figures released this summer by the Canadian Institute for Health Information show that we are headed toward a crisis in kidney dialysis unless some relief is forthcoming from organ donation. Dialysis needs increased by 14% in one year between 1996 and 1997. What does that cost? It costs $50,000 per year to maintain each patient. The number of patients is at 12,000 and is rising.

We can look at this from the human point of view and talk about the stress on individuals and families who are waiting for organ donations. We can talk about the unnecessary deaths that occur because this country does not have a good system for encouraging organ donations.

If that does not work for the government, at least look at the costs. Look at the economic factors. Look at the financial burden this is creating for our society today, at the very time when we should be trying like we have never tried before to ensure efficiencies in our health care system so that we can do everything we can to preserve our universal health care model.

The public will support it. We heard the witnesses before our committee. We heard Canadians everywhere say that they are supportive of a system to increase the rate of donations. They cannot do it by themselves. We need a system that ensures we can implement the recommendations of the studies we have heard time and time again.

What is preventing us from moving ahead? Why are we debating this again in the House? It is undeniably the Liberal government's unfathomable reluctance to act. If it was consciously trying to stall, it could not be moving any slower. I hope the member will take that message back to his caucus, to the cabinet and to the Minister of Health.

All of us submitted minority reports in response to the health committee's final report on organ donation. Why? Because it was missing a very important central element: a national organ donor registry. Thank goodness it is before us again today. We can keep the debate going, but we still come back to the question of why we have to debate it. Why was it not already in place, up and running and working?

When this country does not have a national organ donor registry and there is not a meaningful system to encourage donations and ensure we can meet the demand, the human costs are unbearable. People die. Families suffer.

On top of that, we are also creating a climate for xeno transplantation to take hold. It could go forward without any kind of public debate or consultation, without any kind of regulatory framework, without any ethical considerations being given to the whole question of using animal organs to deal with human needs for organ transplantation.

Department officials told the health committee that xeno transplantation was not taking place in Canada. That was in February 1999. What did we find out after that? That animal transplants were actually taking place in hospitals in this country.

An article came out this past summer in This magazine. It showed that transplantations using animal organs in humans were done as far back as 1994 in Montreal. It was done again in 1997, and there was a third case in 1997. All three were done at the Royal Victoria Hospital in Montreal. This government says it does not have a clue that anything is going on and there is no plan in place to deal with it.

Given those factors, the time to act is now. I hope we can get on with the task at hand and ensure that we move forward with a national organ donor registry.

[Greg Thompson, Progressive Conservative, Charlotte, NB]

Madam Speaker, this debate really should not have to take place and if you have listened carefully as I have to everyone who has spoken this evening on the private member's bill, there is nothing new here at all. The government has simply failed to act. I think the NDP member articulated that very well. The Liberals know what they have to do or should do, but they will not do it. Why? For the love of me, I do not know.

The hon. member's point of referring this to the member whose bill we are actually debating is a good point. He should go back to his caucus, go back to the Prime Minister and the cabinet and impress upon them the importance of moving forward on a national donor registry and transplant system.

We have heard it all before. There is unanimous consent in the House on the issue. A little over two years ago the member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca put forward Motion No. 222 to that effect. It was unanimously agreed upon by the House. I will read it word for word. and I hope the member whose bill we are debating takes this back to the Prime Minister tomorrow morning when the Liberals have their caucus meeting.

By unanimous consent, it was resolved:

That in the opinion of this House, the government should:

(a) implement a national real time database linking all health care facilities involved in transplantation and transplantable tissue procurement, and listing all potential organ transplant recipients and available transplantable tissue;

(b) implement a national mandated choice strategy for tissue donation through a mechanism such as the federal income tax return or the census;

(c) remove all financial disincentives that presently exist for health care facilities involved in transplantable tissue procurement; and

(d) bring in legislation in order to protect the rights and wishes of those who, upon declaration of brain death diagnosis, have previously consented to donate their organs.

The member who authored that motion is here listening intently as I knew he would be. The government, in typical government fashion, referred it to the standing committee. As the NDP member mentioned we had hearings that lasted about six months. We came up with a report of around 100 pages, in both official languages, on what the committee thought should happen. The committee was driven somewhat by the government. It was another foot dragging exercise. We could see that in the report.

There was nothing new or startling in the report. We had a sense that the minister was directing the outcome. That is not unusual. What we did, and I say we, is that a minority opposition report was authored by the Reform Party. I am quite pleased to point out that I signed on to this and I will read the notation:

We, the members of the Reform Party of Canada and Mr. Greg Thompson of the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada, respectfully submit this official opposition report in response to the Standing Committee on Health's study on organ and tissue donation in Canada.

There were five of us on the committee who signed that. There was the member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, the member for Surrey Central, the member for Nanaimo—Cowichan and myself, the member for New Brunswick Southwest.

If I have the time, I want to go through some of the points we made. Some of them were articulated by the government member whose bill we are discussing and the opposition members who talked in detail on the bill.

His bill includes some of what we were talking about in that minority report. I do not think his goes quite far enough. This is what the government should be doing, as articulated in that minority report. Let us step through them.

We are calling for more immediate action. I was talking about the foot dragging on the part of the government. We want immediate action. As I said earlier this evening, we should not have to debate this matter. It has been debated over and over again. No one disagrees, particularly the Canadian public whom we are attempting to serve in this place.

We are calling for immediate action to create two national registries. The first would be a real time national waiting list of potential recipients and the second would be a real time national waiting list of intended donors.

There should be mandatory reporting of all brain deaths to the national organ transplant co-ordinator. This would facilitate quicker identification of people willing to donate and of the suitability of donations. It would also link donors to patients more quickly.

We would identify and educate hospital staff and separate the medical professionals who treat the deceased patient and those approaching the surviving family members.

We would increase opportunities to become an organ donor, such as a form sent once a year to doctors' offices, for example. We are saying that the form should contain three parts: first, an explanation of organ donation; second, a request to be an intended donor; and third, a request that potential donors discuss their wishes with loved ones.

Funds should be available from shared federal, provincial and territorial contributions. The money should be targeted for organ transplantation. Recipients of organs should be able to meet the families of the donor if both parties are in agreement.

The last one is very important. It does not sound like much, but it is recognition. A medal should be awarded to the donors or their families by the governor general.

As we have been reminded in the House tonight, an average of 150 Canadians die every year waiting for organ transplants. I would say that number is smaller than it would be if we actually had a databank and we could exchange or share information the way we should be able to. We do not and we cannot. I think that number is very small compared to what is the reality.

While I am on my feet I want to point out that I am a transplant recipient. I was very fortunate because in my case it was bone marrow and it was not as difficult to find a donor. I could be my own donor. Because of medical technology and the advances of medical science I was able to donate my own bone marrow after it was purified, for lack of a better expression.

We should think of the hundreds of Canadians who are waiting for the same type of transplant procedure and there is no one there to help them out. The sad part is that they are there, but there is no way to hook them up or connect them up. We know it can work if we want to invest the time and the technology into that process.

Truly I would not be here if that procedure had not taken place. I was very fortunate because I could be my own donor and not all recipients are that fortunate.

The time has come and the message is pretty clear from all sides of the House that we want action on the part of the government. It has derailed, stalled, and thrown up every obstacle it could to keep the issue from moving forward.

I want to conclude by saying that regrettably this is not a votable motion, but we support the hon. member's initiative. We want the government to listen. The message coming out of the House tonight is that we want action and we want it now.

[Yvon Charbonneau, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Health]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to have the floor for five minutes to speak on Bill C-227. I want to thank the hon. member for Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam for bringing the issue of organ and human tissue donations to the attention of the House.

The hon. member will remember that, last year, the health minister asked the Standing Committee on Health to consider this issue. The minister was right to rely on the committee, given that it heard hundreds of witnesses. We in the government do not consider that consulting witnesses and listening to the people is a waste of time, contrary to what some of the opposition members said earlier.

During these consultations two main points consistently surfaced: the need for a central co-ordinating and facilitating body to bring together elements across jurisdictions and the need for greater public education and awareness of the issue.

That is why the government endorses the principle of Bill C-227 and approves its global purpose to improve co-ordination and education in order to increase organ and tissue donation rates in Canada which are much too weak. We also agree that Canadians should have easier and better opportunities to indicate their wish to be potential organ donors and that medical professionals have access to this information.

Also, Bill C-227 urges the federal government to act by establishing first and foremost a national organ donor registry.

I want to remind the House that some witnesses told the committee that Canada needs this kind of database. Others argued however that this may not be the most efficient way to address the issue. They cited the example of Great Britain and Spain. Even without a national registry, Spain has a much higher rate of real organ donations than Canada does.

Great Britain set up such a registry that has not been very successful. The registration level has dropped over the last few years.

In Canada, provinces like BC and Nova Scotia already have registries while others, like Quebec and Ontario, are looking into it. The Standing Committee on Health took notice of the work done by provincial governments. In its report, it recognized that provincial and territorial governments have many good tools at their disposal to encourage larger numbers of people to become donors. Considering what the provinces are already doing, the committee did not believe that establishing a national registry along the lines of the bill was a priority.

As early as mid-April, the Standing Committee on Health recommended greater co-operation between all partners: the federal government, the provinces, the territories, the care givers and the health care institutions. The government chose to rely on co-operation and has made headway.

We have been and will continue to work closely with the provinces and other stakeholders to develop a new approach to organ donation. This will include Canada-wide standards to ensure the safety of transplantation and a comprehensive and sustainable plan for all Canadians.

Our challenge will be to find an appropriate approach for Canada, which is a federation where responsibility over health is shared between the federal and the provincial and territorial governments.

Fundamental to this approach is a partnership with provinces that was agreed to by federal, provincial and territorial health ministers at their September 1999 annual meeting in Charlottetown before the government response had been made public within five months from the publishing of the committee's report.

Many ministers approved the establishment of a council on organ and tissue donation and transplantation in Canada and the guiding principles which will govern its operation once a business plan has been adopted. This plan is to implement a co-ordinated, comprehensive and integrated donation and transplantation strategy across Canada.

I know that we do not have much time. An eleven-point action plan was adopted by the federal and provincial health ministers in September and I think that we made important progress on that issue in the last while.

I ask our colleague and the members of the opposition to recognize that we are taking our responsibilities in this respect. I urge them all to support our approach and congratulate the hon. member for Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam on raising once again this issue in the House.

[Lou Sekora, Liberal, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am delighted to have support across the House. It makes me feel very good. The fact is that I did make this presentation to a subcommittee that was not made up of Liberals only. The fact is that there were other members who must have voted against this bill being a votable bill. Otherwise it would have been a votable bill. It could not be defeated just by members on this side of the House.

I am delighted. The fact is I knew the bill had great support from all sides of the House. When I asked for 100 signatures I could have got 100 signatures on either side of the House. It was supportable. The good doctor in the Reform Party has made some great comments. He is a physician and knows what he is talking about. I was delighted to hear those comments. I was delighted to hear all the comments that have been made, especially those from the Progressive Conservative member who had a transplant. I did not know he was a recipient of a transplant.

We talked about price tags and costs today and everything else, but we should keep in mind that if we save one life we cannot put a price tag on it. A good friend of mine who was a council member with me in Coquitlam before I was elected as a mayor lost his wife after five years on kidney dialysis. Can we imagine the cost of that? Finally they could not find a transplant and she died.

Many provinces probably think about the cost of transplants, but as the good doctor across the floor said the fact is the cost is very cheap compared to the cost of keeping people on dialysis, waiting for a transplant that may never happen. We can only imagine the trauma families must go through, waiting and hoping that their little child or some other loved one will get a transplant so that he or she can lead a normal life.

I have spoken to the health minister and will continue to speak to him and to all members of the House. I am not giving up on this one. I have never given up on the many things I have brought before the House as the new member for Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam.

I brought before the House the leaky condo situation. I am not giving up on that and I am not giving up on this one. The fact is that it is an issue with me which I will be fighting every day of the week. I ask all members on all sides of the House to give me a hand and come forward in this discussion, this debate and this fight. We will win.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

The time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired and the order is dropped from the order paper.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

[Grant McNally, Reform, Dewdney—Alouette, BC]

Madam Speaker, on October 29 I asked the Deputy Prime Minister a question about the APEC inquiry's chief lawyer, Marvin Storrow.

Mr. Storrow, who in his position with the APEC commission was supposed to remain at arm's length from the Liberal government, ended up dining with the Prime Minister at a $400 a plate fundraiser. I asked the Deputy Prime Minister why his government defined arm's length as being close enough to pass the pepper.

Mr. Storrow denied that his attendance at that dinner would compromise his impartiality at the inquiry, the same inquiry that may eventually call the Prime Minister to testify. Indeed it would have been Mr. Storrow who would have had the power of part of the decision making process to decide whether or not the Prime Minister should testify at the inquiry. Mr. Storrow still denied any conflict of interest but since then has actually done the right thing and resigned from the commission because of the perception of a problem there.

In response to my initial question in the House the Deputy Prime Minister told the House that the commission was well equipped to deal with matters of this kind and to let the commission do its work, which we have heard over and over again from the government.

Let us take a look at the work the commission has done so far. This is not the first scandal to have led to a resignation in the APEC affair.

Just about a year ago we all know that the former solicitor general was overheard on an airplane explaining to a friend that Staff Sergeant Hugh Stewart would take the fall for the pepper spraying of APEC student protesters. The then solicitor general categorically denied in the House day after day that he had done anything to undermine the important work of the arm's length commission, but finally he too resigned.

That is not all. Also last year the entire original three member panel resigned after an RCMP officer said he heard one of the members discussing the outcome of the inquiry at a Saskatchewan casino. That member denied the accusation but in the end it was he and two of the panel members who resigned.

The APEC inquiry is looking a bit more like a three ring circus. It has gone on now for two years. The government keeps feeding its media lines and spin about the commission doing its work rather than actually getting to the bottom of this incident, which could be cleared up very clearly by the Prime Minister's own testimony as to the involvement of the Prime Minister's Office in APEC security arrangements. Instead of hearing these lines, stalling and jokes about pepper spraying, we would like some answers.

Why does the government continue to engage in this process instead of simply getting the Prime Minister to the point where he is able to testify before the commission? I am afraid my colleague on the other side will say that he has not been called yet.

Let us clear up once and for all what the Prime Minister's involvement was in this APEC security scandal. It has gone on for two years. It continues to go on. We have seen people resigning and it is going on and on. We want some answers. We would like them today. We would like the Prime Minister to testify and tell us exactly what his role was in the APEC security scandal.

[Jacques Saada, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General of Canada]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member for Dewdney Alouette worries because the lawyer representing the RCMP Public Complaints Commission at the APEC hearings attended a fundraising dinner in Vancouver.

I cannot understand how such a question could be raised in the House. Unless my colleague does not understand the first thing about the legislation as it stands and its mechanisms. This matter has strictly nothing to do with the government.

I will explain for the umpteenth time, in the hope that the message will get across a little bit better this time.

The complaints commission was established in 1986 to investigate complaints made by the public against members of the RCMP.

Under the 1986 legislation, the commission is an independent administrative tribunal. It conducts investigations as it deems appropriate and is accountable for its practices and procedures. It is operating at arm's length from the government. That fact should be emphasized and repeated again, and I would repeat it in 15 different languages if I could: the commission is operating at arm's length from the government.

In the APEC hearings, the chairperson of the commission appointed Mr. Ted Hughes to deal specifically with the events that took place in Vancouver.

Mr. Hughes has a great reputation as an experienced lawyer and, under his direction, the hearings have made considerable progress. To date, more than 60 witnesses have been heard. I think Mr. Hughes has given all possible assurances that his work is absolutely honest and beyond reproach. In fact, that in itself is the best guarantee that the Canadian public will know exactly what happened at the APEC summit.

In performing his duties, Mr. Hughes recruited Mr. Marvin Storrow, who is the lawyer in question; he attended a fundraising dinner and has resigned, not to bring the work he was doing into disrepute.

The commission has nothing to do—

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

I am sorry to interrupt the hon. parliamentary secretary, but time has run out.

The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 6.34 p.m.)