Debates of Sept. 27th, 2018

Opposition Motion—Housing as a Human Right

[Adam Vaughan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Families]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to comment quickly on the last statement by the member opposite about energy efficiency and the housing program.

Under the national housing strategy, all new builds would be required to obtain 25% above building code in energy efficiency for precisely the reason the member highlighted. Not only does it create durability and better housing build practices, it also reduces the cost of affordable housing. Also, because 60% of greenhouse gases come from the residential sector, it makes a huge contribution in reducing greenhouse gas in the atmosphere. Therefore, it has been built into the housing program. One would not qualify for dollars if one cannot show energy efficiency. Some housing providers have complained that is a bureaucratic problem, but on the environment, we have to make those achievements.

I also want to be very clear that we did not wait for the national housing strategy to make investments. We spent $12 billion in our first two budgets on new housing programs, new housing starts, repairs and renewing the operating agreements. However, at the end of 10 years, yes, $40 billion more will be spent. In fact, we added close to $2.5 billion in the last budget and so the housing budget is even bigger than $42 billion. When the new additional indigenous housing programs come online, like the $500-million agreement we have with the Métis, we will see those numbers grow, and the housing system is going to continue to grow. We are very proud of the fact that we are building much larger systems.

No expert told us to front-end load the money. All of them told us that we have to build the program, sustain the program and sustain in particular the subsidies. Will the member opposite agree—

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

The hon. member for Edmonton Strathcona.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to hear that at least the member is interested in the federal government encouraging more energy efficiency, but why the heck has it not restored the eco-energy retrofit program? I know every home in my riding would welcome the infusion of dollars so they too could reduce their energy bill and make their homes energy efficient.

I used to sit on the environment committee, and we heard that the updated energy efficiency provisions in the national building code are not going to be in place until 2030. I am troubled by that. Could we please speed that up so that any new housing being built actually meets higher standards and we can save dollars for Canadians.

[Tracey Ramsey, NDP, Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am so proud to rise to speak to our NDP motion from our wonderful colleague, the member for Saskatoon West.

Canada is facing an unprecedented housing crisis. Housing prices are exploding. I see it in my riding of Essex in all the small communities. What is happening in Toronto is starting to come down to southwestern Ontario. The cost of homes are becoming unaffordable for families. Bidding wars are happening, changing the entire affordability of homes, but also putting so much out of reach for young people and young families that want to fulfill the dream of owning a home and having something stable for themselves. We see rents increasing. There are competitions for rental units now, something we had never seen down in our region. It is really starting to come to us in a big way.

I certainly recognize that this has been an extreme challenge for Vancouver, Toronto and larger cities, but this is reaching rural Ontario and rural Canada. It is no longer just a housing crisis in big urban centres. This is impacting everyone.

We are talking about rural communities where there is very little access to transportation. There are fewer opportunities for employment. Not being able to find affordable housing or rental space is a challenge most folks cannot overcome. Unfortunately, they end up leaving communities where they have grown up, where their family, friends and support base are, because they are simply priced out of living in the towns they grew up in. That is unacceptable.

There is such a long wait-list for non-market housing, and the homelessness rate is increasing as well. There has been quite a conversation going on in Windsor about the increase in homelessness on our streets. In our municipal elections, there have been folks talking about the way to address this. What we think of as big city issues around homelessness, affordable housing, affordable rental units, and availability are becoming issues for everyone in Canada. That is certainly true in my riding of Essex.

Action on the housing crisis is needed now. The lack of affordable and adequate housing is very troubling, but it is unacceptable that in a country as wealthy as ours, we have all of these people with so much wealth desperate for affordable housing. Housing is a right.

There are measures taken by the government, but it does not seem to understand the urgency of this situation for people who are struggling to afford their homes, or to even find a home that is affordable.

I think of my wonderful legislative assistant, Melanie Sanderson, who is spending her last days with us here in the House. She is moving out to B.C. with her husband, Matt and her one-year-old daughter Violet to join the B.C. government. She will be missed horribly. A hard part of her leaving and going to this wonderful new opportunity has been trying to find housing. In Victoria, trying to find affordable housing for a young family is next to impossible. It is completely out of reach. They find themselves in a situation where they are going to have to live with some family members for a while.

This is what is becoming the reality for this generation and the next generation of families in Canada. They have to seek alternatives to housing because there are no affordable rental units available. There certainly are no affordable homes available. They are being priced out of what in the past was something it was accepted that families would do. When I was married and had a young family, people would get a home. It is a step in life. One goes to school, has a family and a home. That step is being removed entirely for our next generation. That step has been pulled out from under them by the government and its lack of action.

The idea that there is some type of housing support that is coming before the next election, before many years beyond this, is ridiculous. Families are not fooled by that. They hear the words of the government. They hear the intention, but they are not seeing it backed up by action and the resources necessary to make it a reality. That worries me for so many families across Essex who are struggling to find housing. We simply do not have enough affordable housing, and it is a challenge to find space. With the cost of real estate going up, if we do not start investing in affordable housing, in co-op housing, in housing that will help people at their most vulnerable, even shelters, then what are we doing?

This is simply a broken system. Addressing the concerns of Toronto is not good enough in Canada. We need to address the concerns of rural Canada from coast to coast to coast, including our indigenous communities. We need to have a plan that will address everyone's concerns, not a small number of people who certainly are suffering under the issue of affordable housing, there is no denying that.

It really is disheartening to see all of this funding being pushed way far out. It is very difficult for people who hear the words of the government and have some hope, who think that the government hears that they are struggling for housing, yet nothing ends up happening. There are no resources to come to Essex, to come to southwestern Ontario, to come to regions that desperately need it. What the government is presenting as its housing plan is simply not acceptable.

I want to go back a bit and talk about housing as an investment. Safe and consistent affordable housing brings dignity to the lives of people. A safe home is also a bedrock for families. It is where families can focus on finding a good job, getting education, raising their families and so much more. That is what I want for families in my riding of Essex.

I will tell members a little about Windsor-Essex and the low income we have there.

In 2013, a national household survey showed that our low-income population was at a rate of 18.3%, compared to 13.9% across Ontario and 14.9% nationally. We are well above these averages. Therefore, we already have a very vulnerable population in our region.

In a 2010 study, in Windsor, 33.3% of low-income households were located in very low-income neighbourhoods. This is the highest percentage across Canada. Poor housing options are a vicious cycle that is almost impossible to break out of, especially for our youth.

We could have a conversation about the challenges that face our youth, such as affordable education and finding good jobs in our communities. To then face the ultimate challenge of not even being able to have a roof over their head is something that is driving young people in my region out of their home communities and away from their families, which is heartbreaking.

I want to say that gender also plays a role. We are here celebrating gender equity this week across Canada. There is no place that economic division in Canada is split more widely than it is among gender lines. The inequality is all the more striking when we talk about housing statistics. In 2010, a study found that in Windsor-Essex 41.8% of female-led, lone-parent families lived in poverty. That is more than three times the general population for our region.

We have a crisis of poverty in our region. We have one in four children living in poverty in Windsor-Essex. Housing is such a basic right for people, regardless of their income. However, those who are the most vulnerable are the ones who suffer the most when we do not have a comprehensive strategy to ensure that people have a roof over their heads in our country.

Seniors are living on fixed incomes. I think about Jim in my riding who is living in co-op housing. Jim has a small pension. He was living in co-op housing when the current government raised the GIS, which he also is receiving. It raised the GIS by such a small amount, and on the heels of that happening the co-op housing raised his rent. Therefore, Jim ended up with $5 extra a month to go and have a Tim Hortons coffee. It is unacceptable. Our most vulnerable, our seniors, our senior women are filling our shelters because they are homeless. They have nowhere to go. Affordable housing is completely out of their reach. They are receiving the bare minimum. Many of them are widows. Because many of our manufacturing facilities have closed in southwestern Ontario, they have pennies on the dollar of their husbands' pensions. Keeping their home is paramount to their health, and to the health of all of our communities.

We owe Canadians the right to housing in our country.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Mr. Speaker, if my hon. colleague's argument is that there is a right to housing, is there also, therefore, a right to adequate transit? The reason I ask is that housing is not so much an issue where I come from, but adequate transit is. People cannot get to and from Scarborough in any kind of efficient fashion comparable to other parts of Toronto. I want to know whether the member would also argue that if housing is a right, adequate transit is also a right.

[Tracey Ramsey, NDP, Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I think the member should perhaps ask his own benches that, but transportation is incredibly important to rural communities and to communities across our country.

If the member is not experiencing the crisis in housing in his region, he should count himself fortunate. As I said in my statement, I did not ever imagine that it would reach my region, with its very small rural communities. I have five municipalities in my region. We are in Windsor-Essex, which is a very affordable place to live, by all accounts, but my fear is that it will touch every corner of Canada.

I would challenge the member, because most communities have vulnerable people who are struggling for housing. They may not be people we see every single day, but I believe that there are people out there in every corner of Canada today who are struggling for the right to affordable housing. The affordable piece is so important, because there may be housing, but people may be unable to access that because they are receiving a very small amount of money monthly. If they are widowed, if they are seniors, or if they are young people, the ability right now to get a good job or to live off a pension is very difficult.

[Karen Vecchio, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I know the member lives in the same part of the world I do, in southwestern Ontario, which is being so highly impacted by the NAFTA negotiations. I know that she is working on that for all the auto workers.

We know that the government just cannot get the job done with NAFTA. Does the member feel that they just cannot get the job done when it comes to housing? Is she hearing from constituents who are losing their houses or are in angst due to the fact that they cannot negotiate themselves in this trade deal?

[Tracey Ramsey, NDP, Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, certainly there is great insecurity in my community in Essex in southwestern Ontario. Across manufacturing as a whole, there is great insecurity.

I was an auto worker of 20 years, and I was laid off in 2008 when the economic downturn came. I saw many of my very dear friends handing in keys, saying that they could not afford their homes. They were priced completely out of having homes.

There is an idea that people who are working can afford a home, and that is not true. Certainly across manufacturing, wages have been driven down because of poor trade agreements and because of decisions that have been made by governments in the past. Wages have not increased with the cost of living.

We have an entire group of people who are the working poor in Canada who are working every single day, some of them at two and three jobs, doing their utmost to put food on the table and to have a roof over their families' heads. It is becoming increasingly difficult. Ninety per cent of the announced funding from the Liberal government for the national housing strategy will only flow after the next election. That is unacceptable.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

It being 5:15 p.m., pursuant to an order made earlier today, all questions necessary to dispose of the opposition motion are deemed put and a recorded division deemed requested and deferred until Tuesday, October 2, 2018, at the expiry of the time provided for oral questions.

I see the hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader on his feet, perhaps on a point that will be of some interest to the House.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I expect if you were to canvas the House, you would find unanimous consent to see the clock at 5:30, the time for private members' business.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Is it the pleasure of the House to see the clock at 5:30 p.m.?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Accordingly, the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business, as listed on today's Order Paper.

Organ and Tissue Donation

[Ramez Ayoub, Liberal, Thérèse-De Blainville, QC]

moved:

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.

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour for me to rise today in the House to speak to Motion No. 189 on organ donation. This motion to establish an organ and tissue donation and transplantation system is above all a matter of empathy, altruism, human generosity, and respect for both life and death.

Organ donation is one of the greatest possible gestures of human solidarity. It reconciles the irreversible side of death and the beauty of life by giving those waiting for a donation a second chance. This is a very sensitive human issue that must be approached with respect. Organ donation goes against certain beliefs and challenges certain ideas. I would like to say a little more about that.

Organ donation has many outcomes and possibilities. It can be as extraordinary as delaying death, restoring sight, repairing tissue, or even carrying out a face transplant, as we saw with the recent case in Montreal, a Canadian first. These medical feats have one objective: to make life as normal as possible for those who have sustained lifelong injuries and been deprived of what matters most, namely their health.

Speaking of firsts, I had the honour of meeting Diane Hébert, the first person in Quebec to receive a heart-lung transplant. She lived in Lorraine, the town that I have lived in for 25 years and that I have served as town councillor and mayor.

Ms. Hébert's story was known across Quebec. This woman overcame many challenges and was an exception to the rule. She had been given two years to live, but the transplant gave her a new lease on life that lasted more than 25 years.

After recovering, Ms. Hébert made it her mission to raise awareness of organ donation. As a result of her work, in 1987, the Quebec health card became the official organ donation card in the province. Ms. Hébert inspired me and was behind my commitment to promote organ donation.

Every year, there are 4,500 Canadians awaiting an organ transplant. These people live in hope of getting healthy, being active again, contributing, participating in everyday activities, or simply being able to appreciate the small things in life, like everyone else, before their lives and those of their loved ones are turned upside down by illness.

Unfortunately, too many people today will still not find a compatible donor. Of the 4,500 sick Canadians who are waiting for an organ donation, 250 die every year because a donor is not found on time.

Motion No. 189 is therefore especially important for those people and for anyone who may need an organ donation in the future. They will have a better chance of survival with the improved system that is called for in this motion, because progress is not being made quickly enough to help the thousands of Canadians who are waiting for a transplant that will improve their health or even save their lives.

Although the number of donors has increased substantially over the past 10 years, there is still work to be done to realize Canada's potential in organ donation and transplantation. Despite the growing number of donations in Canada, the deceased donation rate in Canada is still two times lower than in some of the highest-performing countries, such as Spain, the United Kingdom and the United States. What is more, living donor rates per million population in Canada remained stagnant or declined slightly between 2006 and 2015, from 17 per million population in 2006 to 15.7 in 2015.

Our system cannot meet current and future patient needs. For example, 75% of individuals on the wait list are waiting for a kidney, and the median wait time for a kidney is four years, ranging from 5.7 years in Manitoba to three years in Nova Scotia.

That brings me to my next point: donor rates vary greatly from province to province. Here are the numbers for 2015: between 250 and 300 donors died in Ontario; about 150 died in Quebec; 100 died in British Columbia; and fewer than 50 died in New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, and Newfoundland and Labrador. This disparity results in an inequitable organ donation system for Canadians.

Consent is another major limiting factor in our existing organ donation system. Only 20% of Canadians have registered as donors, even though 90% of them say they support organ donation. Moreover, in 10% to 15% of cases, families withdraw consent when the potential donor dies because they had not been informed of the donor's wishes.

On Tuesday, the Standing Committee on Health, on which I sit, tabled a report on organ donation in Canada that was unanimously adopted by all members of the committee. The committee's study highlighted the importance of a strong organ donation and transplantation system for improving the quality of life of many Canadians.

In light of what we heard from experts, researchers, provincial organizations, and health organizations, we realized that there is still a lot of work to be done to realize Canada's potential in organ donation and transplantation. We must do better at meeting current and future patient needs for organ donation, especially since these needs vary significantly across the country.

Motion No.189 calls on the government to reiterate its commitment to facilitate collaboration on an organ and tissue donation and transplantation system that gives Canadians timely and effective access to care. The variation in organ donation rates from one province to another is the result of varying capacities and resources across jurisdictions to implement best practices in organ donation.

Provinces such as Ontario, British Columbia and Quebec are pioneers in Canada. In other provinces, programs and services for organ donation after death are practically non-existent. The factors that contribute to higher donation rates in certain provinces are the following: mandatory referral of a deceased donor, presence in hospital of organ donation specialists who must account for the effectiveness and quality of the system, optimized programs for diagnosis of neurological death and cardiac-circulatory death, and the systematic application of sophisticated practices.

The differences in programs and services offered by the provinces result in unequal access to care and missed opportunities for organ donation when the occasion arises because of the lack of potential donors. That is why this motion urges the Government of Canada to support national efforts with provincial and territorial authorities and stakeholders to increase organ and tissue donation rates in Canada. It is unfortunate and completely unacceptable that the probability of receiving an organ donation is dependent upon the patient's place of residence in Canada.

Motion No. 189 also addresses the improvement of ongoing communication and the exchange of information between provinces, including on best practices. Even though organ donations and transplants in hospital fall under provincial and territorial jurisdiction, the federal government can and must play a role by promoting the sharing and implementation of best practices or the essential components of highly effective organ donation systems that exist in certain provinces, so that in the near future face transplants are done not only in Quebec, but also across Canada.

Motion No. 189 also calls on the government to encourage organ donation through public education and public awareness campaigns.

As I said, one of the limitations of our organ donation system is consent. This can change through education, awareness, and knowledge of the right information. It is crucial for donors to understand the importance of their action and their commitment. It is not enough for people to sign the back of their driver's licence or health card. They also have to talk to their loved ones. We have to raise awareness among donors and their loved ones. We all have this amazing ability to be organ donors.

There are some myths surrounding organ donation that contribute to the statistic indicating that only 20% of Canadians have expressed their willingness to be a donor. Some believe that their age might prevent them from being an organ donor or that donating organs will have an impact on the hospital services they are offered.

That is why this motion seeks to share reliable information between all the key players while making public education a priority, a cornerstone of an effective organ donation program.

I will give an example showing just how generous Canadians are. At the time of the terrible tragedy involving the hockey team in Humboldt, Saskatchewan, one of the victims had registered as an organ donor, which helped save six lives. Shortly afterwards, there was a sudden and considerable spike in donor registrations in Canada, with nearly 100,000 new donors.

Motion No. 189 calls for more education campaigns to encourage public conversations and the exchange of information, especially with our families, friends and loved ones. This is a social issue that concerns all of us. Real efforts need to be made to increase awareness of organ donation so that it becomes a natural reflex, including when we are talking about our own deaths.

Despite current efforts, of the 4,500 people waiting for a transplant in Canada, approximately 250 die every year. I truly believe that we need to do better to save those whose only hope is an organ donation.

I want to thank all the individuals, organizations and stakeholders I spoke with regarding organ donation and this motion. I would like to emphasize that Motion No. 189 transcends all partisan politics. In fact, I have been assured of support from all sides of the house, and I would like to thank all hon. members in advance.

The last thing I want to ask of my hon. colleagues, besides their support for Motion No. 189, is that they register as an organ donor, if they have not already, and that they speak with their families about their wishes. If, by chance, they also know someone who would like to register, we could spread our message even further, right across the country.

I thank my hon. colleagues in advance for their interest and the thoughtful discussion we are about to have.

[Christine Moore, NDP, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in February 2016, the Conservative member for Edmonton Manning, whose son had three liver transplants, introduced a private member's bill that sought to create a national registry and a national strategy for organ donation. This bill was introduced a number of times in the past by Liberal and NPD members. Unfortunately, the member opposite voted against that bill.

A study was done in committee. The motion the member is presenting is worthwhile but non-binding.

Why did he refuse to support the bill introduced by the member for Edmonton Manning, which contained more binding measures regarding organ donation? That bill could have helped advance this cause.

[Ramez Ayoub, Liberal, Thérèse-De Blainville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for her excellent question.

I have been a member of the Standing Committee on Health from the start. We change as we participate in debates and sit on committees.

The information gathered in the context of the report that was released helped develop our perspectives. That is how we realized that we needed to make improvements and move forward.

Yes, this is a motion. Yes, I did have the choice to introduce a bill that would be more binding. However, organ donation is an extremely sensitive topic that involves both provincial and federal jurisdictions. That is the type of leadership that I am looking for in this motion. That is the purpose of the motion.

I hope that this motion will help advance this cause and lead to a consensus on sharing information between the provinces and the federal government.

[Len Webber, Conservative, Calgary Confederation, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for tonight's motion. It really means a lot to me as a strong advocate, as the member is as well.

I understand that about one in five families say no to the wishes of their loved ones to donate organs. Does the member have any thoughts on why it is that such a high number of families would say no to the wishes of their loved ones?

[Ramez Ayoub, Liberal, Thérèse-De Blainville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague opposite, a fellow member of the Standing Committee on Health, is absolutely right. We have to educate people.

One in five families says no to organ donation at a time of great sadness. Through organ donation, death can give the gift of life. If the donor's wishes were not properly explained or the donor did not discuss those wishes with family members, it can come as a surprise to the family. When someone dies, those left behind experience strong emotions, and that can make the decision even more difficult. That is what happens. Unfortunately, one in five families decides not to honour the deceased's wishes.

On Tuesday, my colleague opposite also introduced a bill to increase the number of donors. I support his bill. We need to talk about organ donation, and we really need to talk about it with our family members. That could reduce the number of families who say no.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member mentioned driver's licences in his presentation. In Ontario, there used to be a system whereby an individual would check off a box on his or her licence indicating that they wish to be a donor. These licences need to be renewed and we have to keep reminding ourselves to check off the box.

Now we have the beadonor.ca website, where we are able to indicate one time only that we want to donate our organs. Is that something common across Canada or is it only in Ontario?

[Ramez Ayoub, Liberal, Thérèse-De Blainville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

I very much appreciate his support for my motion.

What he is talking about is a best practice. Earlier, I mentioned Ontario, Quebec and British Columbia, but other provinces have different practices. I will not go through all the provinces.

We can find out more about best practices for increasing the number of organ donors. Canada ranks in the bottom third of developed countries for life-saving organ donations. That is one practice, and it is one possible solution.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise today in the House to speak in favour of Motion No. 189, regarding organ and tissue donation.

I would like to begin my speech by thanking the member for Thérèse-De Blainville for moving this motion and for his ongoing efforts on this file. I would also like to thank the member for Calgary Confederation for his years of work on this file and, more recently, for introducing Bill C-316.

I want to take this opportunity to draw attention to the most recent report of the Standing Committee on Health, entitled “Organ Donation in Canada”. This unanimous report is the ideal example of how members from all parties can work together to improve Canadians' health. Organ donation is an impartial and non-partisan issue. I would like to thank all members of the Standing Committee on Health for their hard work. In particular, I want to thank the member for Calgary Confederation for raising this issue three years ago. Organ and tissue donation is a Canadian concern, and I hope we will not forget that as we continue this debate.

The Standing Committee on Health made several recommendations to the federal government in its recent report, including that the government provide Canadian Blood Services with greater funding in order to expand upon interprovincial programs and develop an awareness campaign. The committee also recommended that the Minister of Health establish a federal-provincial working group to examine best practices across the country and that the federal government consider the feasibility of a presumed consent system for organ donation.

Along those same lines, I would like to thank all the groups, organizations and Canadians who have reached out to the health committee and to other members of Parliament to highlight the importance of this issue. This is a national issue that needs be addressed. Being an organ donor can save up to as many as eight lives and can improve the quality of life for up to 75 people, without counting the family and loved ones of those awaiting treatment. Organ and tissue donation play a large role in the Canadian health care system and are truly life-changing. I would like to take this opportunity to encourage all Canadians to visit BeADonor.ca and register.

With respect to statistics, more than 1,600 people are added to the organ donor wait-list each year. With respect to the demand on our health care system, over 75% of Canadians on the organ donor list are in need of a kidney transplant, 10% need a liver, 6% need lungs and 4% are waiting for a heart. This is a tremendous need. Considering only 1% of deaths in hospitals end up being organ donors, more needs to be done to increase the number of possible donors across the country.

When most people think of organ donation and of being an organ donor, most Canadians think of organ donation as happening after death. However, living organ donation is also an important part of our medical system. Living organ donation can include a kidney, part of the liver or a lobe of the lung. British Columbia and Alberta have the highest living donor rates in Canada, coming in at 20 living donors per million people. Often overlooked, I would encourage all Canadians to further inform themselves on becoming a living donor.

Another uniquely Canadian concern is the differences between provincial systems. Different registration systems, registration rates, medical practices and education frameworks make the Canadian organ donor system we have now extremely fragmented. Where one lives should not impact ones access to health care, but that is the reality in Canada. Whether it be palliative care, surgery wait times, prescription medication access or organ donation rates, the lack of consistency between our provinces leaves many Canadians without the care they need and without the opportunities other Canadians may have access to. Where people live should not have an effect on their quality of care.

Internationally, there are a number of models we could look to for best practices. Canada has what is called an opt-in system, meaning people do not become listed as organ donors until they register through their respective province. This has led to less than 25% of Canadians being registered as organ donors, which is a stark contrast to the figure of 90% of Canadians who are in favour of organ donation.

Another very popular organ donation system would be the opt-out model, wherein people are considered to be organ donors unless they officially opt out. As we can imagine, this leads to much higher donor rates, such as in Spain, which has an opt-out model. In less than a decade the country passed from having 15 donors per million to 40 donors per million, and had more than 4,600 organ transplants in 2016 alone. This is in comparison with the 21 per million donor rate and the 2,835 organ transplants in Canada in the same year.

This system has been brought up on numerous occasions. I have heard from many Canadians who believe that an opt-out model would lead to a drastic increase in organ donation figures. Today, in Ontario, there are over 1,500 people waiting for life-saving organs. Even more shocking is that every three days, someone in Ontario will die because they have not received an organ.

For example, Health Canada's website shows that in 2016, 4,500 Canadians were waiting for organ transplants, 2,800 organs were transplanted, and 260 people died waiting for a transplant. That means 260 lives were lost because of the shortage of organs in Canada. That is simply unacceptable.

However, simply having a national consensus is half the battle. Family refusal rates can be detrimental to organ donation numbers and, as such, I would encourage every family to have the conversation. Organ donation saves lives and being aware of a loved one's intention is of the utmost importance.

We have heard some discussion already about how important it is for family members to know of a loved one's choice to be an organ donor. They should have those conversations before the difficult time when a loved one has passed and the family is left to carry out that person's wishes. It is a good idea to do that. Sometimes people think they are too old to be donors, but that is not the case, because the oldest tissue donor was 102. It is never too late to become a donor. I believe the oldest organ donor was in his nineties, so it is certainly something people should consider and it is never too late to change their minds and get on the list.

When it comes to organ donor best practices, Ontario, B.C. and Quebec have some excellent practices, not just in making sure that organs can be used but in the technology they are using to do organ transplants. We can see how a tragedy like the one in Humboldt resulted in 16 deaths, but one of the people was an organ donor and was able to save eight lives. Not only that, but the attention that news of that got encouraged others to take the time to become an organ donor. If people are watching, I would encourage them to go online to beadonor.ca and sign up now. It does not take very long, but it could make a difference to someone's life.

Motion No. 189 is definitely in line with both my colleague's private member's bill, Bill C-316, as well as with all the testimony heard at committee. All of the parties have expressed their support for further improvements in this area and, as such, I will be supporting Motion No. 189. I would encourage my colleagues on all sides of the House to do the same. I want to thank members on both sides for bringing this issue forward. I love to see examples of parliamentarians working together in a positive way for positive outcomes for Canadians.

[Christine Moore, NDP, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to my colleague's motion on organ donation, a topic that has already been the subject of a bill and a study in committee. Although I support my colleague's motion, as I said in my question, I am disappointed that he decided not to support the bill introduced by the Conservative member for Edmonton Manning in February 2016 and that he moved a motion on the same topic. It would have been more productive to support the bill and send it to committee, where it could have been studied immediately.

I took a look at this bill and the committee's report, which is quite interesting, and I have to say that the state of our health care systems really could have been expanded further. There is a lot of talk about donations, people who do not sign their consent card and public awareness campaigns. This is all worthwhile, but it is hard to talk about organ donation without talking about what is going on in our health care systems, especially in Quebec. The federal government has some responsibility there, and it creates an additional burden when it shirks its responsibilities, especially with respect to health transfers to Quebec.

Organ donation is a very demanding and technically complicated procedure, particularly when the donor is brain dead. First, the potential donor is assigned two nurses, who must have intensive care training and know how to use specialized equipment. Because timelines are so tight, the deceased's vital functions must be maintained until the organ can be harvested and transplanted into the recipient's body. When the individual is brain dead, the body must be intubated and hooked up to a ventilator, and the heart must be stimulated to beat.

These procedures require a lot of equipment and specially trained staff. Unfortunately, nurses in our health care system are already overworked. They work 16-hour shifts on understaffed wards. Emergency rooms are often two or three nurses short, and nobody is brought in to replace them. People miss opportunities to identify organ donors because it does not occur to them in the moment. It is a complex process, and a particularly onerous one for rural regions.

If we really want to raise organ donation rates, we need to take a close look at the state of our health care systems. Nurses are vital to the organ donation process. Say a person is brought to the hospital after an accident. The person is brain dead. For a transplant to happen, there have to be nurses available who are not overwhelmed by their other duties. Discussing the options with family members takes a person who has the time to explain the process calmly. Nurses cannot manage that if they are always running around like chickens with their heads cut off.

There are a lot of health care system issues we need to consider. Unfortunately, that whole piece has been left out of the puzzle. I realize that the provinces are primarily responsible for setting up these systems, but when the federal government dissociates itself by cutting health transfers to the provinces, that is kind of hypocritical. If we want to raise organ donation rates, we need to make sure our emergency rooms are not swamped and our people are not exhausted. That is where we need to start.

Most cases of organ donation that were not decided when the donor was living, and therefore were not planned and occurred because of unfortunate accidents, are identified in emergency departments. They occur because of the alertness of emergency room staff. These workers realize right away that there is an opportunity, and they immediately inform a doctor that someone is a potential donor.

We must also understand that practices in the health field have changed a great deal over the years. Staff are much less quick to initiate resuscitation procedures. Families often ask for resuscitation to be stopped. In such cases, the person was never brain dead. Had they continued with resuscitation, the person would have become brain dead and could have been stabilized and become a potential donor.

There is also a danger when the person had a disability or attempted suicide, for example. The danger is that the resuscitation manoeuvres will be successful but will leave the person with impairments. Often, families would rather stop resuscitation than run the risk of keeping the person alive in a vegetative state. In cases where the prognosis is dismal, families often ask medical professionals to stop resuscitation, which is done much more quickly than before.

Before, medical professionals were required to do everything in their power to save a life. Now they stop resuscitation much sooner, which means that the person dies. Distance and the time it takes to move the body means that it is unrealistic to expect organs to reach recipients in rural regions on time. Often, the only way for them to receive an organ from a potential donor is to keep the donor's system functioning. The donor needs to be in stable condition. Their blood pressure, heart rate, respiration or ventilation and oxygen saturation levels must be maintained.

A potential donor cannot be moved unless they are in stable condition. Doctors have to be able to stabilize them, which takes a lot of resources. Such resources are sometimes hard to come by in the case of an accident that happens in the middle of the night. That is the reality of the health care system, and I would like that to be taken into account when we talk about organ donation. We talk a lot about the people who have not signed an organ donor card, but we also need to carefully consider the reality of our health care system. I think we need to take that into account and understand that the provinces are doing their best with their health care systems. However, we are currently dealing with a major crisis.

We need only think of the overtime that nurses are required to do. That is a total disaster. Every day nurses are forced to remain at work even though they are exhausted and do not feel they can work or think. They are forced to work for 16 hours straight. Then we wonder why they do not have the clinical reflex to initiate the organ donation process when they are completely exhausted and the health care system is broken. The federal government pretends not to be aware of this; it is backing away from health transfers, claiming that the provinces alone are responsible for what happens in hospitals, that it is not its jurisdiction.

If women are forced to stay at work, if they cannot go pick up their kids, if they leave work in tears, or decide to change careers because they are completely exhausted, I think we have a problem. I sincerely hope that we also consider what is going on in our hospitals to try to fix our public health problems, which can be serious for many people. Some people might not look at our health care situation with blinders on, like they do now.

I urge people to step up and pay attention to the crisis in our hospitals.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of Motion No. 189 in support of organ donation.

Often the expression “life and death” is used metaphorically when the stakes are high. However, the subject of today's motion is truly a matter of life and death. Organ donation is a modern miracle of medical science. It has saved and continues to save thousands of lives.

Winston Churchill once said. “We make a living by what we get, but we make a life by what we give.” Guelphites are choosing to give the gift of life. According to recent data, 41% of Guelphites are registered organ donors, which compares to Ontario's average of 33%. Of 119,293 health card holders, Guelph has 48,820 registered donors. Becoming a donor is as easy as a trip to beadonor.ca with one's health card in hand. It only takes a few minutes to register to become a donor and from there on in, the fact that one is a donor appears on the back of one's next health card.

While modern medicine provides us with the tools to save lives, we lack an effective way to inform Canadians about the necessity of donations. The lack of awareness and education has led to some truly shocking numbers. In 2016, for example, over 4,500 people were waiting for organ transplants across Canada. While 2,906 of those lives were saved through transplant, 256 of those people on the list died waiting. In any given year, on average, one person will die every three days waiting for an organ that did not come in time to save their life. These deaths are preventable and truly tragic.

While Canada usually ranks in the top third of countries for donations, supply is hindered by myths and misconceptions about organ donation, as has been mentioned in the House tonight. About 90% of Canadians support organ donation, but only 20% have given their consent to be donors. Some believe they are too old to be organ donors even though their age is not an issue. In addition, 10% to 15% of the time, families chose not to donate at the time of death simply because they were not aware of their relative's intentions. Unfortunately, organ failure can happen to anyone. We all have organs and they can fail for a variety of reasons. We never know who will need an organ or when.

As a regular blood donor myself and an organ donor, I understand how difficult it is for blood banks to keep up with demand. Half of all Canadians are fit to donate blood, but only one in 60 Canadians gave blood last year. It takes many blood donors to help save a hospital patient. It can take up to five donors to save someone who needs heart surgery, 50 donors to help save just one person seriously hurt in a car crash and eight donors a week to help someone going through treatment for leukemia. The fact is, doctors need a supply of blood and organs in order to do their critical work in saving lives.

As the motion states, government can make a difference through public education and awareness campaigns, as well as through ongoing communication. For example, those Canadians who have considered donation often consent to donate their organs after death. However, what most people do not realize is that it is also possible to donate organs while you are still alive. Living donors who are at the age of majority and in good health can donate a kidney, a part of a liver or a lobe of a lung. Even a portion of a lung or a liver can grow into a complete and fully functioning organ, given modern science.

Since 2013, Canada's rates of donations among living donors have decreased. Guelph City Councillor Phil Allt recently became a local hero by donating one of his kidneys to save his brother's life. Phil has gone on to continue his service as a city councillor and his brother has a new lease on life. There has been some other promising news. In the past 10 years, the number of people consenting to donate their organs post-mortem has gone up by 42%. As Canada's population continues to rise and age, we need organ donation to keep pace with our changing demographics.

It is time for a comprehensive plan for organ donation. This would not only educate Canadians about the current scope of the challenge but would show them how they as individuals can help to solve it.

By registering consent to donate, we have the potential to save as many as eight lives and improve the quality of life for up to 75 people, and most of all give countless families more treasured moments with those who need help.

Another one of my constituents, Janet Parr, received a donor heart six years ago. The moments that her donor has given her are plentiful. However, two stick out in her mind: being alive to see her daughter reach milestones, such as getting her driver's licence, graduating high school and college, getting her first job as an adult; and being at the bedside of her brother, who underwent a successful heart transplant just four months after her own. Her donor is her hero.

Mike Willis also received a donor heart in the summer of 2015. Since then, with a new heart, Mike and his wife Linda have become local champions in Guelph, setting up a sign-up booth at the Guelph Farmers' Market, working with the local Lions Club, raising the beadonor.ca flag at city hall and promoting beadonor.ca on social media. Guelph has had 3,097 new registrations in the past year due to their efforts and the tremendous community response. Even still, Guelph still has 68,000 more potential donors. Better is always possible.

Before I finish, I would like to extend my gratitude to the member for Thérèse-De Blainville for putting this important motion forward for debate. We can all do more to save lives, both as individuals and as communities working together, whether through blood or organ donation. The Government of Canada can play a key role in identifying options for improved collaboration, increased organ donation and transplant rates, and outcomes across Canada. It is only by working together that we will continue to improve the organ and tissue donation and transplant system, and ensure that Canadians have timely and effective access to care.

We need to build on the local stories. We need to see Canadians helping each other to live more rich and fulfilling lives, knowing they will be covered off by other Canadians willing to share their life before and after death.

[Len Webber, Conservative, Calgary Confederation, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise today to speak to Motion No. 189, which seeks to improve the organ and tissue donation system here in Canada.

This is a very timely issue for debate in the House, in a week that has seen the tabling of the health committee's report on organ donation, the second reading of my private member's bill on organ donation, and now Motion No. 189 on organ donation. It has truly been an organ donation week here in the House.

Like the hon. member for Thérèse-De Blainville, I am a long-time advocate of organ and tissue donation in Canada. I have heard many triumphant and also tragic stories related to organ and tissue donation.

As a former MLA, I had a bill pass in the Alberta legislature that resulted in the creation of the Alberta organ and tissue donation registry.

However, more work needs to be done to get Canadians on board, so I introduced another bill just this week here in the House of Commons. That bill proposes to amend the annual income tax return to ask Canadians if they wish to become organ and tissue donors. It has the potential to register millions more donors.

Over 90% of Canadians support organ and tissue donation, but just over 20% of Canadians are registered. We need to do better. We can do better.

I am honoured to have the member for Thérèse-De Blainville as an official seconder of my bill, and I certainly will be supporting his initiative here with Motion No. 189.

Also, on Tuesday of this week, the House of Commons Standing Committee on Health presented an important report regarding organ and tissue donation. The report is an accumulation of the work we did together after I proposed a study at committee.

I must note that the committee did an amazing job of working together toward a common goal. I must thank all hon. committee members for allowing this study to happen. This non-partisan effort, along with the tremendous expert testimony that we received, made the report a fair and accurate representation of the study we undertook.

I would like to take a moment to highlight some of the key items from the report, as they speak directly in support of Motion No. 189.

We found that the federal government could help by first, supporting the adoption of best practices in organ donation and transplantation across all jurisdictions; second, investing in national public education and awareness campaigns to promote a conversation among family members regarding organ donation; third, creating more opportunities for Canadians to register their decisions regarding organ donation; and fourth, providing sustained funding for research and data collection to ensure that organ transplantation results in improved health outcomes for Canadians.

The health committee quickly agreed on a number of key recommendations after listening to these key stakeholders and experts.

The first recommendation from the health committee is that the Government of Canada provide the Canadian Blood Services with sustained funding to strengthen and expand upon existing interprovincial organ donation and transplantation-sharing programs; develop a sustained national multimedia public awareness campaign to promote organ donation, and promote the adoption of best practices in organ donation and transplantation across the country.

The second recommendation is that the health minister establish a working group with provincial and territorial ministers of health to examine best practices in organ donation legislation across the country, such as the adoption of mandatory referral of any potential organ donor, and to identify any barriers to the implementation of these best practices.

Our third recommendation is that the Government of Canada identify and create opportunities for Canadians to register as organ donors through access points for federal programs and services, in collaboration with provincial and territorial organ donation programs. Of course, I have to note that this particular recommendation directly supports my Bill C-316 and my efforts to amend the annual tax return so that Canadians can register as donors.

The fourth recommendation of our health committee is that the Government of Canada provide information and education to Canadians regarding organ donation as part of its efforts to promote organ donation registration through federal programs and service access points.

Our fifth recommendation is that the Government of Canada continue to provide funding for organ donation and transplantation research through its networks of centres of excellence program.

Finally, the sixth is that the Canadian Institute for Health Information and Canadian Blood Services work together to develop a national data collection system to monitor outcomes in organ donation to support research and systems improvement.

Improving the transplant system in Canada is not a political issue; it is a human issue. I believe we have a united House when it comes to dealing with this issue of organ donation, and I firmly believe that we can improve the system. We have the potential to save hundreds of lives and improve the quality of the lives of many Canadians in every community of this great country. Inaction or delays in making necessary improvements will cost lives and money. It is a known fact that life-saving transplants save us costs in our our medical system because they remove the dependence of thousands of people from costly treatments and hospitalizations. This leaves more resources for other challenges to be addressed.

I recognize that in Canada, because organ and tissue donor registries are a provincial jurisdiction, we face some unique challenges in implementing change. That said, I also believe that where there is a will there is a way. I believe that Canada can move from being a country with one of the worst organ-donation rates in the world to one of the best. I believe that Canadians will register in greater numbers if we make the process easier and more convenient. I believe we need to be innovative in how we reach potential donors and how we educate and inform potential donors. I also believe that we need to do a great deal more work to make sure that families respect the wishes of their family members. The number of people who want to donate but have that decision overruled by their surviving families is shocking. One study suggests that one in five donors does not have his or her relatives respect his or her wishes to donate. We need to open up the discussion in Canada so that we do not bury perfectly good organs every day while other people in our community face death daily, waiting for a life-saving transplant.

In closing, I would again like to thank my colleagues from all parties for their support on this issue that is so close to my heart. I want to thank them for their non-partisan and collaborative support to improve the lives of so many Canadians. I believe we can achieve some great things here if we all continue to pull in the same direction. For this reason, I am proud to be a strong supporter of Motion No. 189.

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

Mr. Speaker, first off, I applaud my colleague and friend for bringing to the House a fantastic issue that really touches all Canadians. I suspect it would not take much for us to go into someone's home and after a short discussion find out there is someone in that home who knows of someone with a personal story regarding organ donation.

It truly is one of those issues, as has been pointed out by previous speakers and others, that supersedes political partisanship. We often see healthy debates when motions of this nature come forward. At times it can be very challenging depending on the content. For example, members from the New Democratic Party made reference to a private member's bill. At times, maybe the debate does not go the way in which everyone would like to ideally see it go, but what is important is that we have the debate.

My colleague, no doubt with the support of many others, has brought forward a resolution worthy of an ongoing debate. Hopefully, we will see more action, not just action coming from Ottawa, but from a number of different stakeholders. One of the positive attributes about the motion my friend has brought forward is it approaches the matter by saying that we need to see strong national leadership, but recognizing just how important it is that other stakeholders be involved and engaged in that process.

For a number of years I was the health care critic in the province of Manitoba. In that capacity, I had the opportunity to meet with a number of people. One individual, who has since passed, needed a transplant.

We all understand the importance of transplants. We all understand that the public as a whole would like to see us do more, and that is the way in which I interpret this motion we are debating today, a motion that would ultimately be for the betterment of all of Canada and which really encourages Ottawa to work with the different stakeholders in order to advance a wonderful idea.

Mr. Speaker, I understand the time has run out, so I will end my comments there.