Debates of April 30th, 2019

Budget Implementation Act, 2019, No. 1

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

I declare the motion carried. Accordingly, the bill stands referred to the Standing Committee on Finance.

(Bill read the second time and referred to a committee)

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

It being 6:43 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.

The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill S-240, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (trafficking in human organs), as reported (with amendments) from the committee.

Criminal Code

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

There being no motions at report stage, the House will now proceed, without debate, to the putting of the question of the motion to concur in the bill at report stage.

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

moved that the bill be concurred in.

(Motion agreed to)

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

When shall the bill be read a third time? By leave, now?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

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

moved that Bill S-240, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (trafficking in human organs), be read the third time and passed.

Mr. Speaker, let us get this done.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

Members do seem to like the length of that speech.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice.

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada and to the Minister of Democratic Institutions]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in this third reading debate on Bill S-240, a piece of legislation that has been described as the culmination of over 10 years of parliamentary work on the important issue of organ trafficking.

It is worth recalling that four bills dealing with this issue were introduced in Parliament prior to Bill S-240, some of which were sponsored by the member for Etobicoke Centre and by the former minister of justice, Irwin Cotler.

This goes to show that combatting the scourge of organ trafficking and protecting vulnerable people from whom organs are being forcibly removed are serious concerns that we all share. That applies to my constituents in Parkdale—High Park and Canadians around the country who are rightfully concerned about protecting those who are vulnerable to predatory organ harvesting activities in Asia and around the world.

There is no question that there exists a serious organ shortage, both in Canada and abroad. The organ shortage affects family members and neighbours, and it understandably leaves many feeling vulnerable about their health. However, Bill S-240 provides an important reminder to Canadians that capitalizing on the vulnerability of organ donors abroad is not an acceptable response to this issue. That is why our government is proud to support this important bill, with targeted amendments that make it better achieve its objectives.

Bill S-240 proposes to strengthen Canada’s response to organ trafficking by creating four new Criminal Code offences related to this conduct, extending extraterritorial jurisdiction over these new offences and amending the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act to add a new ground of inadmissibility to Canada for having engaged in conduct that would be an offence under the bill.

More specifically, Bill S-240 proposes to criminalize all persons involved in the removal of an organ for transplant knowing that, or being reckless as to whether, the organ was removed without the informed consent of the donor or a substitute decision-maker.

Organ trafficking involves a range of conduct committed by various players. Accordingly, the proposed offences seeking to address this conduct would capture brokers who connect prospective organ recipients with prospective organ donors, medical professionals who extract organs illegally for transplantation, and persons who purchase organs for their own use, as well as those who assist them.

The bill also proposes to criminalize the commodification of human organs more specifically by enacting a new financial transaction offence. This offence would prohibit participating in, or facilitating the obtaining of, an organ for transplant knowing that, or being reckless as to whether, it was obtained for consideration, whether the donor consented or not to the organ removal.

With respect to the meaning and scope of the term “for consideration”, according to the study of the bill by the House of Commons Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development, this term targets the purchasing of human organs.

The bill would also extend extraterritorial application to these offences, which means that Canadian citizens or permanent residents who go abroad to purchase an organ for transplant, also known as “transplant tourism”, or commit any of the new offences abroad, could then be prosecuted in Canada.

As illegal organ trafficking is an international issue that mostly targets impoverished individuals in foreign countries, the extraterritorial application of these offences will help protect vulnerable people abroad, including those who may be induced to sell their own organs out of financial desperation.

Consistent with the objectives of the bill, these new provisions would help deter Canadians and permanent residents from contributing to organ trafficking by fuelling the demand through transplant tourism.

As mentioned during second reading debate, the extraterritorial application of the new organ trafficking offences is necessary given the fact that much of the conduct targeted by the bill occurs abroad.

Bill S-240 also proposes to add a new ground of inadmissibility to section 35 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, for having engaged in conduct that would constitute an offence under the bill. As a result, a permanent resident or foreign national could be found inadmissible to Canada for having engaged in one of the new organ trafficking offences. This amendment sends a clear signal that purchasing any organs, including from vulnerable people abroad, is serious criminal conduct here in Canada.

I would like to address some of the amendments that were made to the bill during the committee stage.

On February 27 of this year, the House committee adopted an amendment to clarify that a substitute decision-maker can provide consent on behalf of an organ donor to provide greater precision around some of the criminal law language used in the bill.

The committee also removed two amendments that had been passed in the Senate on October 23, 2018. It removed the proposed definition of “informed consent”, as well as the duty for physicians to report all organ transplants to an authority designated by order of the Governor in Council.

As previously highlighted during second reading debate, the proposed definition of “informed consent” presented challenges. The term “informed consent” has clear meaning in provincial and territorial health law. This is one of the reasons why it was not defined in the Criminal Code as part of the medical assistance in dying reforms in 2016. Therefore, in order to avoid statutory interpretation issues and ensure clarity and consistency in the Criminal Code, the definition was removed.

The proposed duty to report for physicians also raised concerns. As recalled before the House committee, doctor-patient confidentiality is sacrosanct. It is a fundamental principle that allows people to feel safe about disclosing any health issues they may be facing to their doctor. It encourages people to safeguard their own health and seek treatment, where necessary, in order to get better. It is important to protect this relationship between patients and their physicians.

Furthermore, the duty to report for physicians applied to all transplants. For these reasons, among others, the duty to report for physicians was also removed.

I pause to note that since the committee's important study of this bill, the Government of Nova Scotia has passed legislation that presumes consent for organ donation while retaining the ability for individuals to opt out of the organ donation regime. I want to clarify that I respect the choices individual provinces and territories make to try to protect the health and safety of Canadians, and that nothing in Bill S-240 is intended to interfere with provincial efforts in this important regard. We look forward to seeing the results of this legislation for the people of the province of Nova Scotia.

As members know, this piece of legislation is the result of successive efforts made by parliamentarians in both Houses to address what is truly a horrendous crime that continues to exploit vulnerable individuals right around the planet. The provisions contained in Bill S-240 will allow Canada to demonstrate leadership in the fight against organ trafficking and in the protection of international human rights.

I would urge all members of this House to support Bill S-240 in order to ensure that its proposed legislative measures become law.

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Madam Speaker, I wish I could speak with the brevity and clarity of my colleague from Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan.

I want to get on with it as well. I support this initiative. The NDP supports it wholeheartedly.

I respect that the parliamentary secretary has quite properly pointed out the all-party support this bill has received, from Senator Ataullahjan, who has been a crusader for it in the other place, of course from the member for Etobicoke Centre, and from the hon. Irwin Cotler.

I wish to lend my support to the bill. I seconded it at second reading. I am not entirely sure all the amendments are necessary or warranted, but in principle we want to get it to the other place. We want it to be a legacy of this Parliament, so we can address what my friend the parliamentary secretary properly called a “horrendous crime”. I support this without reservation and urge all members to support it as soon as we can get it out of here.

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill S-240, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (trafficking in human organs).

In 2007 at an airport in western Ukraine, I came across a gut-churning article on the front page of the local newspaper. The town's police officer had investigated the disappearance of orphans who, at age 17, were discharged from the care of the local orphanage. He had been worried that they were being trafficked into western Europe for sexual exploitation. What he discovered was much worse. These adolescents were sold to be trafficked for their organs, by the director of the orphanage.

In the following weeks, upon returning to Canada, a constituent made me aware of illegal clinics in India where poor farmers had their kidneys removed to pay off debts. Then the most barbaric example was brought to my attention. There were multi-million-dollar businesses run by the Chinese People's Liberation Army, which through its military hospitals had built an industrial-scale operation that removed, to order, body parts and organs of prisoners of conscience imprisoned in China's vast penal network.

This harrowing underground industry of trafficking in human organs and body parts, whether in the developing world or in totalitarian states, has commonalities. Those with power and wealth target and victimize the most vulnerable in their societies: orphans, destitute farmers, prisoners of conscience.

This depraved industry is a consequence of three global trends coinciding during the last decades: first, the development of medical technology allowing for the transplantation of virtually any body organ; second, an immense increase in global income disparities between the rich and powerful and the poor and vulnerable; and finally, easy and accessible transplantation tourism by wealthy westerners to clinics in the developing world.

I first addressed this modern-day horror in the House of Commons on February 2, 2008, when I introduced Bill C-500, an act to amend the Criminal Code with regard to trafficking and transplanting human organs and other body parts. Unfortunately, the legislation died on the Order Paper of the 39th Parliament, as did Bill C-381, which I introduced in the 40th Parliament, and Bill C-561, introduced by our colleague the Hon. Irwin Cotler in the 41st Parliament.

The horror of this industry hit home when, the very day after I first addressed this legislation in the House of Commons on February 3, 2008, the Toronto Star headlined an article “GTA home to 'Dr. Horror'”. Millionaire doctor Amit Kumar of Brampton was the mastermind behind an operation in India that implicated three hospitals, 10 pathology clinics and five diagnostic centres. This cabal had bought or forcibly removed and then trafficked to wealthy Indians and westerners the kidneys of approximately 500 destitute farmers and poor labourers in India.

However, the west is not just implicated in this industry by those among us willing to profit from the illegal removal of body organs, the “Dr. Horrors” among us. The profits feeding this evil are provided by those facing debilitating terminal illnesses, those among us made desperate by the severe lack of organ donations in Canada and other countries, those among us willing to not ask questions as to how and from where the human organs that extend their lives come from, and willing not to ask whether the donors were willing, willing not to ask whether donors' health and often lives were sacrificed and their organs stolen and exchanged for money.

This is why I supported what I consider to be a complementary sister motion, Motion No. 189 on organ and tissue donation. Organ donation can address this shortfall of organs for transplantation in Canada, and it is why legislation that addresses the trafficking and transplanting of organs must be passed.

My original draft legislation from 2008 has served as a template for similar legislation in Poland and Belgium. It is time for Canada to take action. Canadians must not be implicated in this depraved, evil industry that sees the wealthy and desperate in the west monetize, pay for the organs and body parts of the most vulnerable in the developing world: orphans, destitute farmers and prisoners of conscience.

Eleven years after I first tabled legislation to deal with the trafficking in human organs, I am heartened that legislation to combat this horror, to combat this modern form of cannibalism will finally be enacted by this 42nd Parliament.

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

Madam Speaker, I first want to thank and recognize all members from all parties in both chambers who have been involved in this process. The work is not done and it is no guarantee that the bill will make it through the Senate in time, so we must continue the work. Those following this debate must contact their senators and all of us must engage the Senate in dialogue to ensure this final version of the bill makes it back through the Senate before it becomes law.

We have taken this a long way and it is remarkable. I include Senator Ataullahjan who put this bill forward in the first place and my friend from Etobicoke Centre for his incredible steadfast work over such long a time. There are too many members to recognize individually, but I thank them all. It has been such an honour for me to work with so many excellent people as part of this effort. However, again, the work is not done.

At committee, there were amendments and on the vast majority of them, there was consensus. However, one issue going forward from this legislation that we will have to consider is the issue of reporting provisions. This was discussed by the parliamentary secretary. He noted issues around potential doctor-patient confidentiality when there were mandatory reporting provisions requiring physicians to report things about their interactions with patients. However, I will note that we have reporting provisions that are seen as exceptions to this already, reporting provisions that deal with issues like gunshot wounds and child abuse. Therefore, it is not unprecedented to require reporting in cases where it is designed to prevent harm to the vulnerable.

We do not have time at this stage to try to readjudicate that debate. It is important to pass the bill in its current form so we can get this done. We should not make perfect the enemy of the good. However, at the same time, as the bill is implemented, we will have to follow the impacts of not having that reporting provision. Perhaps it will be something a future parliament will take up.

Previous versions of the legislation, including the original version put forward by my friend from Etobicoke Centre, did have within them reporting provisions. Nonetheless, let us not make perfect the enemy of the good. Let us get this done. Let us make this a legacy of the 42nd Parliament, that notwithstanding disagreements and occasional rancour, we were able to do something incredible for the world's most vulnerable, something that other Parliaments until now have failed to do.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

(Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed)

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

Statistics Canada

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Madam Speaker, I rise today to talk again about Canada's census and Statistics Canada with regard to privacy and ensuring that our census is done in the proper context.

Changes were made to Canada's census process and the information-gathering process that raised a lot of concerns about privacy. Most recently, Statistics Canada was able to obtain individuals' banking information and data without their consent by going through companies themselves. Banks and other financial institutions were asked to provide that information to Statistics Canada, basically unvetted and unaccounted for. That raised a lot of concerns.

I am here to report that since I asked my question and wrote to the Privacy Commissioner, there has been an investigation. The Privacy Commissioner has responded very positively with regard to oversight and analysis.

The fact of the matter is that the Liberals, when trying to fix the changes made to the census by the previous government, left some gaping holes with respect to public policies that continue to undermine the ability to get good information that is important with respect to housing, to the distribution of funds for transit, to infrastructure investments and to a number of different things that are necessary for a civil society to be effective in distributing funds to deal with socioeconomic issues.

I recently tabled a bill that proposes to eliminate Crown copyright in this country. Canada is the only country that still has copyright on basically public information that people pay for. Government information for research and reports and a number of different things is held by the Liberal government. This is based on a 1911 law in Great Britain. Other Commonwealth nations, and even the United States, never had this law, which prevents information paid for by the public from getting out. The information is often redacted. Ironically, the minister has been advised that ending Crown copyright would improve public information.

There is a solution. Jack Layton always told us that we had to be in proposition versus just opposition. Our colleague from Burnaby is now asking for the same type of work.

In the dying days of this Parliament, I have laid out a proposition asking the Liberal government to eliminate Crown copyright to alleviate some of the pressure on the issue I am raising here today, which is the census and privacy.

Again, this goes back to banking information that was requested under the chief statistician. What changed is that the Liberals allowed the chief statistician to basically have free reign on the collection of data through third party groups.

This expedition to get individuals' private information from their banks through a third party without their even having a chance to opt in or out was done through changes to the law and legal practice, which we warned the Liberal government about, and it is undermining the census. This so-called pilot project is actually enshrined in part of the law.

My question has really been resolved by the Privacy Commissioner. Unfortunately, the Liberal government has not participated in the solution. I hope the government will deal with the issue of Crown copyright, because that would help the situation.

[Rémi Massé, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Innovation]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to respond to the question from my colleague from Windsor West. I would like to focus on Statistics Canada's pilot project to collect banking information.

I want to remind Canadians that this pilot project was still at the design stage and that no data was collected from banks.

Statistics Canada understands Canadians' concerns. The chief statistician made it very clear that Statistics Canada will not proceed with this pilot project until Canadians' privacy concerns are addressed and the Office of the Privacy Commissioner has done its work.

We are living in a society and digital economy that are evolving rapidly, and official statistics must reflect this reality. Quality statistical data helps us better understand important issues like housing, tourism and cannabis.

Understanding Canadians' participation in the digital economy is important. For example, information about how people spend their money and what they spend it on is used to calculate the consumer price index, the CPI, which is a factor in many important decisions that Canadians and Canadian businesses make, such as saving for retirement and employer-employee compensation agreements.

We count on Statistics Canada's world-class expertise to provide us with good statistics that enable us to make major evidence-based decisions. Statistics Canada has a solid reputation when it comes to protecting personal information.

I want to make it very clear to all members and all Canadians tuning in right now that Statistics Canada collected no personal information or data from banks as part of the pilot project on banking data collection.

As I stated, and as Parliament's chief statistician also said, the project is on hold until Canadians' concerns have been addressed.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Madam Speaker, that is because essentially New Democrats fought for and then received these assurances. A request was actually sent by us to the Privacy Commissioner, so the information was in process.

By the way, this type of pilot project never existed prior to the Liberals making changes to the law. That is a problem, as it would not exist without the law changing. The Liberals can characterize it as a pilot project, but what it does is actually change the law to allow them to do it.

I am kind of perplexed by their continuing insinuations about it, because how would it even exist in the first place? They are trying to deny it because they are responsible for it and it was a bad decision. What we had was the Privacy Commissioner stepping in, doing their job and doing it very effectively. That is who is now providing the assurances.

I hope the parliamentary secretary supports our Crown copyright amendments, because that will alleviate some of the problems about privacy and provide more data for scientists, researchers and economists across this country.

[Rémi Massé, Liberal, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Madam Speaker, let me reiterate that, of course, the Government of Canada is committed to protecting Canadians' privacy and that personal information related to data collected by Statistics Canada has always been and will always be protected.

I repeat, no data was collected as part of the banking data collection pilot project because it was still at the design stage. Statistics Canada will not proceed with the pilot project until Canadians' privacy concerns have been addressed and the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada has done its work.

The Environment

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker, last December I once again raised concerns regarding a commitment made by the minister following the 2017 climate COP in Bonn, Germany. It was made in response to concerted pressure by labour and environmental delegates. There was a call to invest in a just transition for fossil fuel workers and their communities, yet few dollars have been distributed, despite budget allocations, one of which was made in March of last year. This was despite action by the previous New Democrat government of Alberta, which committed $50 million to a just transition for coal-fired power workers in my province.

By April of last year, the government finally committed some money toward a just transition, but it was limited to coal-fired power workers. Added to this was a commitment of additional monies, but not until after the next election. This tends to be a propensity of the government. It commits additional dollars to provide jobs for the communities that have coal-fired power, but only in 2020-21.

Despite the dollars budgeted to support transitioning coal-fired power workers, no long-term plan exists to address the longer-term transition of the majority of fossil fuel workers, including those in coal-fired power. To date, much to my surprise and to the chagrin of coal-fired power workers, less than $300,000 of the $35 million has actually been delivered. We are moving into an election this fall, and that will be a lot of lapsed money that could have gone toward retraining coal-fired power workers and supporting their communities.

I appeared as a delegate in many of the climate COPs. At meeting after meeting, international delegates called for their governments to invest in a just transition for fossil fuel workers. Finally, after a lot of pressure, the minister committed to creating a task force. That task force included the Alberta Federation of Labour, which played a huge role in the transition plan for Alberta.

The task force report issued by the minister offered few surprises. It builds on and reinforces decades of advocacy by labour unions and other progressive voices. The report reiterates calls for support of affected workers and their communities, and that they should be at the heart of any transition plans.

These were restated by the International Labour Organization, the Canadian Labour Congress, the United Nations and the CCPA. They noted that there should be income support, skills retraining, pension bridging, re-employment support and other services for affected workers, and support for their communities.

However, what is puzzling is that the task group was given a very narrow mandate, focused only on coal-fired power, even though, according to the report given to the government, only between 3,000 and 4,000 people, spread over 50 Canadian communities, actually work in that sector. That accounts for a fraction of a percentage point of this country's GDP and less than 20% of Canada's greenhouse gas emissions.

The outstanding issue is, where is the transition plan for all the other fossil fuel workers in this country? Of course, we know that more than 100,000 workers are out of work in my province of Alberta. Where was the transition plan? The government has agreed with Alberta to shut down these plants earlier, by 2030. That is only 10 years away.

Everyone calling for this knows that a lot of advanced planning is needed. Where is the plan for the additional 50 communities across Canada? Where is the plan for all the fossil fuel communities and workers in this country?

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries]

Madam Speaker, Canadians see the very real impacts of climate change in our country, floods, droughts, forest fires and a melting Arctic, and understand the need to take action to ensure a sustainable planet for future generations.

Canadians understand the importance of limiting the temperature increase to 1.5°C. That is why Canada supported this goal in 2015 in Paris. This was further emphasized last year when the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, IPCC, released its special report on a 1.5°C temperature increase. The IPCC's report makes it clear that we are the last generation to be able to act to prevent the worst climate change impacts.

The Paris agreement is key to global efforts to limit warming to 1.5°C. That is why the Government of Canada worked with provinces and territories, with input from indigenous peoples, to develop Canada's climate plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 30% below 2005 levels by 2030. This landmark achievement is the first climate change plan in Canada's history to include joint and individual commitments by federal, provincial and territorial governments.

Our plan outlines over 50 concrete measures to reduce carbon pollution, help us adapt and become more resilient to the impacts of a changing climate, foster clean technology solutions and create good jobs that contribute to a stronger economy.

I am pleased to say that we have covered a lot of ground since launching Canada's climate plan and are starting to see results. To date, we have developed a pan-Canadian approach to pricing carbon pollution, as well as new policies, programs and regulations to reduce emissions in every sector of the economy. These include regulations for coal and natural gas-fired electricity, regulations to reduce methane emissions in the oil and gas sector, measures to increase the use of low-carbon fuels and funding for clean technology, renewable energy and energy efficiency.

We have also established robust mechanisms to track and drive implementation of Canada's climate plan, including annual reports to first ministers and Canadians.

As reported in Canada's most recent greenhouse gas emissions projections in December of last year, Canada's GHG emissions in 2030 are expected to be 223 million tonnes lower than projected prior to the adoption and implementation of Canada's climate plan. This improvement in Canada's emissions outlook reflects the breadth and depth of our climate plan.

Canadians are asking that we do more. That is why we have created an advisory council on climate action to provide advice on how Canada can further reduce emissions from transportation and buildings, two of Canada's highest-emitting sectors.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker, regrettably the parliamentary secretary avoided the most important part of my question, which was the fact that the Liberals' own department was now reporting that the Liberals were nowhere close to meeting the meagre targets they had imposed. They also have not taken genuine measures to enable a transition of fossil fuel workers, including coal fire power, coal mining and all the fossil fuel sectors across Canada.

In order to ultimately meet those emission standards, as well as the fact we are being told by the International Energy Agency that into the future there is not going to be a demand for our fossil fuels, we need to be working now on a transition plan to ensure our communities are supported, as well as the workers and their families.

When are we finally going to get a genuine transition plan addressing these issues, including our indigenous communities?

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Madam Speaker, budget 2019 proposed additional funding to support Canada's climate plan. This includes strategic investments that will make it easier and more affordable for Canadians to choose zero-emission vehicles. It also includes over $1 billion to support energy efficiency for residential, commercial and multi-unit buildings and funds to accelerate the development and adoption of innovative technologies and processes that seek to lower the oil and gas industry's environmental impacts.