Debates of Nov. 19th, 2018

Opposition Motion—Finance

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, I enjoyed being on the parliamentary committee for Arctic parliamentarians with the member opposite. We worked great together. However, I have a question for him, as this debate is almost over.

The member's concern was that parliamentarians are often asked which years will be in deficit or surplus. The Conservative member said this question has been asked hundreds of times and is the key to this debate. Each parliamentarian should know when there is going to be a deficit or a surplus.

Therefore, I would like to ask the member this. When did the Conservatives announce in their 10 years of government they were going to have nine deficits and one surplus at the end? When did they let Parliament know, if Parliamentarians are supposed to know this?

[Larry Maguire, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague and loved working with him on Arctic affairs. I also know that he was part of the government at the time before he came back in 2015. However, had he been listening, he would have been able to answer his own question.

It is very true that when the Conservatives came to power in 2006, for two years they reduced debts in Canada by about $30 billion. That is what my colleague for Winnipeg North forgot to say in his answer today.

There was a debt reduction in the first two years of the Conservative government of $30 billion. Then we had the world's worst recession since the thirties and the government planned to spend $150 billion by investing it in the economy. There were deficits in those years, along with a plan to balance the budget within seven years. The government announced its fiscal accountability and did balance the budget in its sixth year, just as the 2015 election came.

There was a $1.9 billion surplus left to the Liberal government. However, that government has completely failed Canadians in its budgetary analysis and everything it has done since 2016.

[Pierre Nantel, NDP, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Brandon—Souris for his speech. I really liked how he presented the subject, in a very rational, common sense way. That is done all too rarely in this place.

Earlier a Liberal member said that business owners were happy that the economy has recovered. Of course my local business owner is going to be very happy with me if I max out my credit card to invest in his or her business.

I would like to know what my colleague thinks of the message being sent to Canadians, since everyone knows that Canada's debt is huge. I read recently that nearly half of all households are living paycheque to paycheque and do not have substantial savings.

Would my colleague agree that this is not only a broken promise—and certainly not the first—but also a bad message to be sending on financial management?

[Larry Maguire, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, there was one thing I wanted to say in my speech, but did not. I do not think I mentioned that the share of the national debt for every living and breathing Canadian is $17,937. That is just the federal debt, as I was explaining. It is a very disconcerting number, considering that the Liberals continue to add $49,500,000 a day to that. We could almost say that for every living Canadian, the government is spending a dollar and a half a day more than it said it would and more than what collects in revenue. The amount they actually spend is way more than that.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

It being 6:15 p.m., it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the business of supply.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Hope, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would ask that the vote be deferred until tomorrow, Tuesday, November 20, at the end of the time provided for Oral Questions.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Accordingly, the recorded division stands deferred until tomorrow, Tuesday, November 20, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.

Bill C-75—Notice of time allocation motion

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that I share that an agreement could not be reached under the provisions of Standing Orders 78(1) or 78(2) with respect to the report stage and third reading stage of Bill C-75, an act to amend the Criminal Code, the Youth Criminal Justice Act and other acts and to make consequential amendments to other acts.

Under the provisions of Standing Order 78(3), I give notice that a minister of the Crown will propose at the next sitting a motion to allot a specific number of days or hours for the consideration and disposal of proceedings at those stages.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I suspect if you were to canvass the House, you would find unanimous consent to see the clock as 6:30 p.m.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

The House will now proceed to the consideration of Motion No. 189 under Private Members' Business.

The House resumed from September 27 consideration of the motion.

Organ and Tissue Donation

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

When the House last took up debate on the motion before the House, the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons had taken about seven minutes for his remarks.

The Chair therefore recognizes the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I would recognize an amazing effort by the member for Thérèse-De Blainville, who came up with a wonderful idea. I want to applaud him personally on his actions in bringing such an important national issue to the floor of the House of Commons.

Suffice to say, it is important to recognize that it is not just Ottawa alone. There are many stakeholders, in particular, the provinces and territories, that can do so much more by working together to heighten the sense of public awareness on the issue of organ donation. I will leave my comments at that.

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to rise and speak in support of Motion No. 189. It is a rare opportunity for me to say I agree with the member for Winnipeg North but this is a wonderful opportunity to do that.

Often we in the House find ourselves debating different issues that have great symbolic importance, financial importance or importance in regards to the safety of Canadians. However, when we talk about organ donation and its importance, this is literally a matter of life and death.

Over the past 12 years, I have been proud to support several motions, bills and studies that encourage Canadians to become organ donors. Specifically, during this Parliament, I think of Bill C-223, introduced by my hon. colleague from Edmonton Manning and Bill C-316, introduced by my hon. colleague from Calgary Confederation.

This is not, or at least it should not be, a partisan issue. However, I was dismayed to see the Liberal Party vote against Bill C-223, that I just referenced. This legislation would have established a Canadian organ donor registry and co-ordinated and promoted organ donation throughout Canada. I believe it was a good piece of legislation that unfortunately failed. At the very least, Bill C-223 should have been referred to the Standing Committee on Health for further study in order to receive input from expert witnesses.

Bill C-316, currently being studied by the Standing Committee on Health, was introduced by my colleague from Calgary Confederation. It would give Canadians the opportunity to sign up as organ donors on their annual income tax return. I hope that my colleagues on all sides of the House and in the other chamber will continue to support this common-sense measure that would give Canadians more opportunities to register as an organ donor and in the process save the lives of thousands of Canadians who are on a waiting list. Because time is of the essence, I hope that the Standing Committee on Health and the Senate will quickly move this legislation forward so it is actually in law before the end of this parliamentary term.

The motion today is as follows:

That the House: (a) reiterate its commitment to facilitate collaboration on an organ and tissue donation and transplantation system that gives Canadians timely and effective access to care, since every year more than 250 people, out of the 4,500 on waiting lists, die without receiving a transplant; and (b) urge the government to support national efforts with provincial and territorial authorities and stakeholders to increase organ and tissue donation rates in Canada through public education and awareness campaigns, ongoing communication and the exchange of information, including best practices.

It is a sad truth that while 90% of Canadians support organ donation, only 20% are registered. I am proud to say that the towns of New Hamburg and Baden in my riding of Kitchener-Conestoga have reached a level of 52% registration. They are tied for fifth place out of 170 communities, while New Dundee and Petersburg, also in my riding, are tied for eighth at 49%. Congratulations and many thanks to these four very engaged communities.

We need to do more as members of Parliament to encourage our constituents and all Canadians to register to become organ donors.

I am thankful that the Standing Committee on Health has recently completed a study on organ donation in Canada. I am proud of my Conservative colleagues on that committee who initiated this study. Members of our caucus are awaiting its final report.

In addition to registering as a donor, it is important for individuals to discuss their decision to register with their families. They should let their families know about their decision and then register at beadonor.ca because in the final analysis, families of the deceased are not obligated to follow through but are much more likely to follow through if the discussion occurred beforehand. This decision could very well save a life and offer hope to someone waiting for an organ transplant.

Thousands of adults and children are counting on us and our fellow Canadians to give the gift of life. It is time that we as a nation close the gap between the need for life-saving and life-enhancing organs and the supply of organs that are available. Why not take steps now to make a difference? It will be someone's son, someone's daughter, someone's granddaughter who will be the recipient of someone's good decision to register to donate his or her organs.

We would all like to think we will live to be 80 or 100, but the reality is many of us will die long before that for a variety of reasons.

I came face to face with that reality seven and a half years ago, when my wife of nearly 40 years experienced a sudden intracranial hemorrhage on election night, May 2, 2011. Suddenly unconscious, rushed for medical treatment, surgery and life support, it became apparent that the bleeding could not be stopped, brain activity had totally ceased and death was imminent.

Conferring with my children, knowing Betty's wishes, that she had signed her licence to confirm her intentions to donate her organs, the decision, while not easy, was the right one, as we know that five people have had their lives extended and many more have benefited from the tissues donated.

Seven years ago, I stood in the chamber during a take-note debate about organ donation, just seven months following Betty's death, and I said these words:

I will return for a moment to that hospital. It was clear that Betty's physical life was over. Brain activity had stopped completely. We knew instinctively that the Betty we had come to know and love was no longer there. Her spirit was still very much alive but her body was only breathing with mechanical help. What to do?

Again, our faith has its foundation in the Christian scriptures, which uses many different metaphors for the physical body. It is referred to as a tent, a house, a temple, or even as clothing for the spirit within. So if the person who lived in that temple or...[who] occupied that house or camped in that tent was no longer here to need any of those things, why would we not share them with someone in need?

Why not help out one of those thousands of people who are currently on waiting lists for a specific organ? Many of those waiting are still in the prime of life. An organ donation can make the difference between life and death. Our decision, while not easy, was made lighter by knowing that someone else would possibly receive the gift of life even as we journeyed into our own grief and loss.

Was there a downside to...organ donation? Yes, there was. We had to prolong the inevitable by agreeing to multiple tests in order to determine if in fact the organs were healthy and suitable for transplant. There were detailed personal history questions in order to mitigate any risks to potential recipients.

Let me assure members of this House [of Commons]...that they can rely on the safety of organ transplants in this country. This is because of Canada's strong organ transplant community and Health Canada's work in establishing rigorous safety requirements through the implementation of the safety of human cells, tissue and organs for transplantation regulations.

Many times since Betty's death on May 4, 2011, two days following her intracranial hemorrhage, I have reflected on the reasons that I am able to move ahead in spite of my deep loss. I can say that two things come to mind: first, my total confidence in Christ's victory over death and in the power of the Resurrection and that I will see her again; and, second, my knowledge that five others have been given the gift of life through Betty's death.

There is a third reason. Two years following Betty's death, the amazing gift of my marriage to Darlene has given me renewed joy in my journey, and I am indeed grateful and blessed to have walked this journey.

As I said earlier, thousands of Canadians are on the waiting list for a life-saving transplant. I urge all Canadians to step up and register at beadonor.ca. We can do better than the 20% registration rate. I think we can even do better than the 52% rate that I referred to from my communities in Kitchener—Conestoga. Why not aim for at least a 75% registration rate? It will almost certainly save a life.

By supporting Bill C-316 and this motion, Motion No. 189, and, most important, people taking the time to register themselves, every one of us can make a positive difference.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Motion No. 189 on organ and tissue donation. This motion calls upon the House to:

(a) reiterate its commitment to facilitate collaboration on an organ and tissue donation and transplantation system that gives Canadians timely and effective access to care, since every year more than 250 people, out of the 4,500 on waiting lists, die without receiving a transplant; and (b) urge the government to support national efforts with provincial and territorial authorities and stakeholders to increase organ and tissue donation rates in Canada through public education and awareness campaigns, ongoing communication and the exchange of information, including best practices.

Canada's New Democrats will be supporting this motion, because our party believes fervently that we must make every possible effort to ensure that every Canadian who needs an organ or tissue transplant receives it.

I would like to thank my colleague, the hon. member for Thérèse-De Blainville, for introducing this motion and for his passionate advocacy for organ and tissue in donation in Canada. It is also a pleasure to work with him on the health committee.

Canadians need urgent action to improve organ donation rates. At 20.9 donors per million people, our current donation rate puts us at the back of the pack among comparable countries. There are also significant variations in donor rates and programs across Canada. While some provinces, such as British Columbia, Ontario and Quebec, are considered centres of excellence in organ donation, others vary significantly in terms of the types of programs available. That's why, for over a decade, New Democrats have been working to create a pan-Canadian organ donor registry to better coordinate and promote organ donation throughout Canada. Legislation to create such a registry has been introduced by New Democrat MPs on five occasions: in 2002, 2003, 2008, 2009 and 2013.

ln February 2016, the Conservative member for Edmonton Manning, whose own son has been the recipient of three donated livers, introduced private member's legislation, Bill C-223, with the unanimous support of the New Democratic Party. Unfortunately, the Liberal government voted to block that effort. The Liberal health minister at the time attempted to defend her government's decision, saying, “This is a matter that is under provincial jurisdiction, and it is for that reason that the bill was unsupportable.”

Canada's New Democrats were profoundly disappointed to see the Liberals rush to that determination without even sending the bill to committee for review. Indeed, when the health committee subsequently agreed to study Canada's organ and tissue donation system, in March 2016, it was made abundantly clear that organ donation and transplantation is a shared responsibility between federal, provincial and territorial governments. ln particular, the federal government has a responsibility to facilitate national coordination to ensure that every Canadian who needs a transplant receives it.

As part of that study, the committee heard from a range of witnesses, including representatives from Canadian Blood Services, provincial organ donation and procurement organizations, researchers, health care providers and health charities. New Democrats hope that the committee's report, tabled earlier this fall, will place a renewed focus on the need for immediate federal action to improve Canada's organ and tissue donation system, as this motion calls for.

The report calls on the federal government to act in a number of specific ways. First, it should enhance Canadian Blood Services' role as a national coordinating agency for organ donation and transplantation. Second, it should improve public education and awareness. Third, it should create new opportunities for Canadians to register to become donors through access points for federal programs and services. My hon. colleague from Calgary has introduced an excellent bill that would allow our tax returns to be used for that purpose.

Fourth, it should share best practices in organ donation and transplantation. Fifth, it should provide funding for organ donation and transplantation research. Sixth, it should develop a national data collection system to monitor outcomes in organ donation. Finally, as the New Democrats have suggested, it should explore the feasibility of a presumed consent system for organ donation.

Canada's New Democrats were particularly pleased to see that the report endorsed our recommendation calling for a study of presumed consent, or an opt-out system, for organ donation, an idea our party knows will make a huge difference in the number of organs available to save lives.

Unlike Canada's current opt-in system, an opt-out approach would automatically register all citizens for organ donation unless they chose to indicate otherwise. The most important success of this system has been that it has led to organ donation being routinely considered when a patient dies, regardless of the circumstances of death. lt is vital to note that an opt-out organ donation system would not limit any Canadian's freedom to choose not to donate. ln an opt-out system, consent can be withdrawn at any time and families are still responsible for making the final decision with respect to donations.

However, the facts are clear. Countries with opt-out laws have organ donation rates 25% to 30% higher than those in countries requiring explicit consent. Indeed, this approach has helped to make Spain a world leader in organ donation over the last 25 years. ln 2016, Spain recorded an organ donor rate of 43.9 per million people, compared to 20.9 per million people in Canada. That is twice as many. ln Austria, the donor rate quadrupled after instituting opt-out legislation. Similar regulations in Belgium doubled kidney transplants.

By adopting a presumed consent system in Canada, we could increase donation rates, save lives, improve patient outcomes and ultimately realize significant savings in our public health care system. For example, only 16% of the 22,000 Canadians whose kidneys have failed are currently on the transplant wait-list. Without an organ transplant, the only other treatment available to people with kidney failure is dialysis, which has a lower five-year survival rate than organ transplantation, 45% versus 82%, and offers a lower quality of life to patients.

This is not only a moral concern; it is economically imperative. The total annual cost of dialysis ranges from $56,000 to $107,000 per patient, whereas the cost of a transplant is about $66,000 in the first year and about $23,000 in subsequent years. Therefore, the health care system could save up to $84,000 per patient transplanted annually. Of course the main benefit is in the patient's health.

The urgent need for federal action on this file was recently reinforced for me when I spoke with Todd Hauptman, an international public relations consultant based in Vancouver. Todd was diagnosed with Alport syndrome when he was four years old, which meant he would someday need a new kidney. At the age of 16, his condition worsened, forcing him to take medication and change his diet. Then at the age of 20, he started kidney dialysis every night for nine hours a night. A challenging three years on dialysis led to an ever-declining level of health for Todd. His condition got increasingly worse until he had three massive seizures one night in late November 2009. He was in a medically-induced coma for five days and in hospital for 10. The doctors told his family that he may not survive and if he did, a kidney transplant may not be possible. Todd could have died at the age of 23, but he survived thanks to the efforts of exceptional medical staff and a life-saving kidney donation from his friend of 10 years, Tanya Tait.

lt is heartbreaking to realize that some patients will never receive the gift of life when they could. As today's motion reminds us, hundreds of Canadians die every year waiting for an organ that never comes, but could.

For this reason, I wish to conclude my remarks by strongly encouraging all Canadians to register as organ donors and discuss their wishes with their loved ones. One donor can save up to eight lives through organ donation and enhance the lives of up to 74 more through the gift of tissue. There is always potential to be a donor, so no Canadian should let anything stop him or her from registering.

I wish to reiterate the NDP's support for the motion before us today and call upon the Liberal government to turn these words into urgent action to ensure that every Canadian who needs an organ or tissue transplant receives it. No one should ever die because that call did not come in time. The New Democrats will work to help make that a reality.

[John Oliver, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health, Lib.]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Motion No. 189, which calls on the government to reiterate its commitment to facilitate collaboration and support for a Canadian organ and tissue donation and transplantation system.

I would like to thank my colleague, the member for Thérèse-De Blainville, for raising this issue in the House and for the excellent and diligent work he does on the Standing Committee on Health. The government is proud to support this motion.

The government is pleased to support this motion. This is an important issue for the health of Canadians. The need for organs is great. There are many diseases and health conditions that damage one or more vital organs or impair their function. An organ transplant is often the best and sometimes the only way to treat the condition or to improve the quality of life for an individual.

While many types of organs can now be successfully transplanted, such as hearts, lungs, pancreas, livers, intestines, kidneys are by far the most needed in Canada. Often kidney disease is associated with other medical conditions, such as diabetes, high blood pressure and heart disease. To help Canadians reduce the risk of chronic diseases and conditions like these, our government is contributing to efforts that promote healthy living.

There are many different kidney diseases and disorders. Some kidney diseases are detected at birth and others develop as we grow older. In 2015, over 35,000 Canadians were living with end-stage kidney disease. The best option for many is to receive a kidney transplant, and they must wait until a suitable organ becomes available for them. Meanwhile they often need regular dialysis to maintain their health.

Where do these organs come from? Though many may be somewhat familiar with the idea of organ donation and have discussed their wishes with their families, I would like to explain what is involved so members can fully appreciate the needs and challenges in making the system work.

As humans have two kidneys, sometimes it is possible for someone to donate a kidney while someone is still alive. It is also possible to donate part of a liver, lung, intestine, or pancreas. These are called living donations. I would like to take a moment to honour all those who have made a living donation. Approximately 500 Canadians a year step forward to do so. It is an incredibly valued, selfless and altruistic act.

I would also like to recognize and remember all those individuals who have died but were able to donate after death. I will repeat the words of Hélène Campbell, a double-lung transplant recipient, who says the following on her website:

To my donor, and to their family; no words can express how grateful I am for the precious gift you gave me. Thank you for allowing me to have a second chance and for giving me this 'second wind'.

Indeed, it is family members who, in those most difficult of moments, may be asked if they know their deceased loved one's wishes regarding organ donation. That is why it is important that each of us has those discussions with our own families now so that should the time come, they will know the answer. It is also important for an individual to register his or her wishes in the system used by his or her province, where available.

Canadians may not realize that only a small proportion of people will die in circumstances that make them eligible for organ donation, for example, in the case of a massive stroke that causes brain death. The rarity of these events makes every donation opportunity more precious and makes it all the more important for more people to make their wishes known before death. One deceased donor can save up to eight lives. Organ donors touch many families and leave a lasting legacy.

The act of donating an organ, or receiving one as a transplant patient, is a momentous event forever linking two people. In Canada, this miracle occurs approximately eight times every day; in 2017 almost 3,000 organs were transplanted. However, that is not enough. There were still over 4,000 patients on organ wait-lists and last year, 242 patients died while waiting for a transplant. How long should a patient wait? Statistics from Quebec indicate that the average wait time for a kidney in that province in 2017 was 493 days, or one year and four months. The wait-lists do not even include all people who might benefit from a transplant.

What is the problem? Why are there not enough organs to meet the needs of these patients? Many elements have to fall into place, and be in place, for the right organ to be available for the right patient at the right time. Sometimes donors and patients are in different jurisdictions, so interprovincial systems are needed to bring it all together.

While provinces and territories each manage the delivery of health care in their jurisdictions, including organ donation and transplant surgeries, a more pan-Canadian approach is needed to fill the gaps that provinces and territories cannot achieve on their own, and our government has been playing a part in filling those gaps.

As the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health, I want to take a moment to highlight the contributions that the health portfolio has made to develop and improve the organ and tissue donation and transplantation system.

Our government has an important role to play in protecting the health and safety of Canadian transplant recipients through regulation. The safety of human cells, tissues and organs for transplantation regulations contain safety requirements related to the assessment of donors, the retrieval and handling of organs, and labelling for transport of organs.

In addition, our government contributes to the pan-Canadian organ and tissue donation and transplantation system. Together with the provinces and territories, we have invested over $70 million in support of efforts by Canadian Blood Services to improve the organ and tissue donation and transplantation system over the last 10 years. The Government of Quebec contributes approximately $845,000 to Canadian Blood Services annually for interprovincial services. Transplant Quebec coordinates organ donation and transplantation activities in that province.

In addition, the Canadian Institutes of Health Research have invested over $100 million in transplantation research between 2012 and 2017, and scientists are researching how to improve access to transplants and how to improve the long-term survival and quality of life of transplant recipients. Important advancements are being made. For example, research is illuminating new ways to manage blood group compatibility to expand ways to match a patient with a broader range of organ donors.

On October 18, I had the privilege of announcing a further investment of $3.3 million in the Canadian donation and transplant research program to advance research on many facets of organ and tissue donation and transplantation in Canada. This funding is a joint investment by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Astellas Pharma Canada Inc., the Canadian Liver Foundation, Cystic Fibrosis Canada, the Fonds de recherche du Québec, and the Kidney Foundation of Canada. Through such collaborations, we can increase the availability of transplants for Canadians and transform clinical outcomes for transplant patients from coast to coast.

Beyond these established roles, I am pleased to inform the House that the Minister of Health is actively pursuing her mandate to work with provinces and territories to facilitate collaboration on an organ and tissue donation and transplantation system that would give Canadians timely and effective access to care. Health Canada officials are leading a collaborative initiative, in partnership with the provinces, territories and Canadian Blood Services, to engage stakeholders in determining how to improve the system so that Canadians can count on having access to the care they need when they need it. A wide range of patient groups, transplant specialists, organ donation organizations, and other key stakeholders across the country have been interviewed to help identify how to improve and optimize the results for Canadians. We will keep the House informed of the outcomes of that work.

Again, the government is very pleased to support this motion.

In closing, I want to thank the member for moving this motion. I look forward to working with all members of the House and continuing the discussion on this important issue for the health of Canadians.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to rise today to discuss another initiative dealing with the issue of human organs and organ transplantation. By my count, there are five initiatives that have been or are before us that deal in some sense with the issue of organ transplantation. There were private members' bills put forward by my colleagues from Edmonton Manning and Calgary Confederation; we have the motion before us tonight; and we also have a number of legislative initiatives, one of which I have sponsored and which deals with the issue of illicit organ harvesting. That is, organs taken without consent, which is obviously a very different issue but is one that might be worth reflecting on in the context of some of the discussion that is happening tonight.

What we are debating tonight is Motion No. 189, which says:

That the House: (a) reiterate its commitment to facilitate collaboration on an organ and tissue donation and transplantation system that gives Canadians timely and effective access to care, since every year more than 250 people, out of the 4,500 on waiting lists, die without receiving a transplant; and (b) urge the government to support national efforts with provincial and territorial authorities and stakeholders to increase organ and tissue donation rates in Canada through public education and awareness campaigns, ongoing communication and the exchange of information, including best practices.

It is important to underline that when we debate a motion, it is essentially the House of Commons participating in a communications exercise. That is, we are all together, expressing a sentiment through endorsing an idea. In plenty of cases and in this case, it is a thing worth doing, given the motion is before us. I am going to be voting in favour of this motion.

However, I will also challenge members that the primary objective that we should pursue, as legislators, is not just to look for opportunities to put forward communication pieces on vital issues like this, but to actually look for opportunities to change the law in ways that actively increase the rate of organ donation and also that compel the government to take specific action to move these things forward. If a motion is a way of starting a conversation, that can be very worthwhile, but if a motion is a substitute for legislative action then it is perhaps not desirable. What we need to be doing is looking for opportunities, as legislators, to legislate to take the vital steps that need to be taken now to move this issue forward. I certainly commend the mover of this. I am, again, pleased to support this motion. However, there is such an urgency when it comes to moving forward and addressing, as the motion says, the number of people on waiting lists who die without transplants, that legislative changes are urgently required.

I was pleased to speak in favour of and support a bill by my colleague, a concrete legislative initiative by the member for Edmonton Manning, that would have created a national organ donation registry. Unfortunately, this bill was voted down. It was one of the first private members' bills that was put forward in this Parliament and it was defeated. A national system of national collaboration, which is indirectly hinted at by this motion, would have made the concrete difference. It would have taken far more steps in the right direction than this motion does tonight. It is with regret that I note the defeat of that bill because, had it passed, it would be saving lives today as we speak.

We had another bill put forward, by my colleague from Calgary Confederation, and this added the very helpful step of saying that when persons fill out their income tax forms they should be able to indicate on there whether they wish to be an organ donor, so it would be another opportunity for people to give information and hopefully this would increase the number of people who are saying they would like to be an organ donor. Again, it is a legislative initiative concretely moving things forward, compelling the government to action instead of simply participating in a communications exercise.

These were both good bills. I was pleased to see Bill C-316 pass.

In light of where we are in the electoral cycle and that we are likely less than a year until the next election, members should be seized with the urgency of moving forward good private members' bills that are currently before committee.

Bill C-316 passed the House at second reading. From what I understand of the process, it will need to complete the committee study, complete third reading and make its way through the Senate. There is an urgency to moving that bill forward. If all we do in this Parliament is pass this motion but not pass legislative action, that will have been a failure, a missed opportunity. I hope we will all be able to work together on that legislative initiative.

I would note the mindset and strategy behind Bill C-316. I am reading a fairly well-known book called Nudge by two behavioural economists, Thaler and Sunstein. It talks about this idea of something called libertarian paternalism, which is that governments, businesses, institutions that are shaping the architecture within which people can make choices can preserve complete liberty for the individual while still aligning the circumstances of that choice to try and bring about a socially desirable outcome.

In the case of organ donation, many people likely do not sign their donor cards not because they are choosing not to be an organ donor, but because it is simply that they are not confronted with a situation where they have to make a choice either way. They might be willing to be an organ donor, but they are just not thinking of it, and then something happens to them and they have never gotten around to signing their donor card. The idea of thinking about the choice architecture is to create the conditions in which people still have complete liberty to decide where their organs are going, but the circumstances increase the chances that they will make a choice that is in a broader sense socially desirable.

In the case of Bill C-316, it is about putting people in situations where regularly they are seeing the choice option in front of them, a way of nudging people toward making the choice one way or the other. If someone does not want to be an organ donor, absolutely the individual should have that freedom. However, it is useful for the person to be given that choice in as many contexts as possible so he or she at least is given the greatest opportunity to say yes or no. Hopefully, the individual would say yes so that again we do not have people who are not organ donors even if they thought about it they would be willing to be an organ donor, but they just never got around to signing the card or having that question in front of them.

In the context of discussion about organ donation, I want to talk briefly about Bill C-350 and Bill S-240. Tomorrow night we are going to be debating Bill S-240, which is from the Senate. It would make it a criminal offence for someone to go abroad to receive an organ for which there has not been consent. This is such an important and obvious bill. There are countries, one country in particular, where organs are taken from people without consent, often because the people are seen as politically undesirable by the government.

Anecdotally, Canadians have a sense that some people in other countries will travel to receive an organ that was taken without consent. That should be a criminal offence because being complicit in this terrible practice of organ harvesting is wrong and Canada should do everything it can to try to stop that practice. We should note in that context as well that people who are in that situation face a level of desperation because they know they need an organ and they are on a wait-list. One thing we can do is address that act specifically and address the fact that some people might go abroad to receive an organ that was harvested without someone's consent. At the same time, we can work to increase the level of organ donation here in Canada so that people no longer find themselves in that desperate situation. We can and we should do both.

By passing legislation like Bill C-316, we can ensure that people do not have to be in the desperate situation where they are on a wait-list and even where they may make a choice that they would not make under other circumstances that ends up harming someone else's life in another part of the world. With that in mind, I am very hopeful that we will be able to move forward quickly on the legislative initiative in Bill C-316 as well as Bill S-240 which we will be debating tomorrow.

I am pleased to support this motion, but the House must do more to make the vision behind this issue a reality.