Anne Minh-Thu Quach

[Senate Reform Act, December 8th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my NDP colleague for providing so much relevant information. I would like to hear her opinion on this bill, which has been introduced for a third time and still has many shortcomings. For example, the provinces will hold elections and cover the costs, but the elected candidates will not necessarily be considered by the Prime Minister. In fact, the Prime Minister could choose candidates without any obligation to consider the elections held in the provinces. In addition, the Senate would be made up of some elected senators and some appointed senators.There are still many slapdash elements that were developed on the fly. Is that democratic? What does my colleague think?

[Senate Reform Act, December 8th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. Liberal member.

In fact, when it comes to the Canadian Wheat Board, if we had better representation in Parliament, representation that was more proportional and democratic, the people in the regions and the prairie provinces would be better represented. The current government represents just 40% of Canadians.

If there were better representation, we would have more people from the Prairies or from each region and local issues would be better represented. Canadians would have better representation within our Parliament.

[Senate Reform Act, December 8th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for Vancouver East.

Indeed, proportional representation would better represent the realities of all regions of the country and the different peoples who live in Canada. As a result, things would be much more democratic. This would be politics at its best. More people would be inclined to get involved and become interested in Canadian politics.

[Senate Reform Act, December 8th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, if we abolished the Senate, we could reinvest thousands of dollars in communities. Last July, 36% of Canadians said they were in favour of abolishing the Senate. It is up to Canadians to decide. We need to have a referendum, to consult the provinces, as the Constitution demands. That would be a much more democratic approach and would allow people to have a say, share their opinion.

We are elected by the public and are accountable to them. The three reforms the Conservatives are proposing in the current bill do not even allow senators to be accountable to the public, since a senator's term would end after nine years. They would be replaced before they could even serve a second term, precluding the need to take responsibility for their decisions or to justify the choices they force on the public. For all those reasons, this cannot stand and we must abolish the Senate.

[Senate Reform Act, December 8th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, the bill the Conservative government has introduced is a travesty of democratic reform and an affront to Canadians’ intelligence.

If the bill is passed, our Senate will no longer be representative either of Canadians’ choice or of the cultural reality of Canada, and we will inherit a hybrid Senate devoid of the independence it needs if it is to be more credible in the public’s eyes.

If I may, I would like to explain why this reform is sloppy, incomplete and scandalous. I would then like to add a few thoughts about genuinely democratic reform of our parliamentary system.

Let us see. This reform would allow the provinces to hold elections in order to participate in the process of selecting senators. The bill proposes a framework for holding these “elections”, which could be held at the same time as municipal or provincial elections, for example. The public would be invited to go and vote for one of the candidates in the running. Citizens would do their civic duty and put their ballot in the box. And then what would happen? The province would submit the list of candidates selected to the prime minister of Canada, who would decide whether to take the recommendations into account. But the prime minister would retain the privilege of choosing the candidates. He would therefore not be at all obliged to take the voters’ choice into account.

Are we really going to ask Canadians to go and vote, and not be able to assure them that their choice will be honoured? And the government calls this a democratic reform? We already have a declining voter turnout for federal, provincial and municipal elections. Canadians are completely disillusioned about our political system, and they are being asked, with a straight face, to take part in a travesty of democracy. Is this a joke?

That is not all. These senators will be appointed or elected, as the case may be, for a maximum term of nine years, and will be allowed to serve only one term. These new senators will be sitting alongside colleagues who are senators appointed for life and will be telling them that since they were elected, they have more legitimacy than they do. This will create a two-tier Senate.

As well, once the senators are elected, they will never again have to account to Canadians. Because they will be unable to stand again, they will not have to face the public and keep their campaign promises. The provinces will be able to decide to hold elections without even knowing whether the voters' choice will be honoured. And who is going to foot the bill for those elections? The provinces, of course.

We might say that this has become a bad habit with Conservatives. This looks like the omnibus bill, Bill C-10, which provides for more prison terms and more prisons. Who will pay for that? The provinces will, again. It is easy to make reforms when you can pass the buck and the consequences on to someone else, but it is hard for the provinces to swallow, given, moreover, that they are not the ones who are making the decisions. This really looks like an ad hoc, sloppy bill. The fact is that this is the third time the Conservatives have proposed a bill relating to Senate elections, and my Liberal colleague has explained that very well. And yet they still have not managed to do any better than this. To me, this looks a lot like a manoeuvre to get us to swallow an ad hoc reform at top speed, in order to circumvent the constitutional rules of this country.

If the government truly wanted to respect democracy, it would follow the rules laid down in the supreme law of this country, our Constitution, which states that any reform relating to the selection and qualification of senators requires an amendment to the Constitution of Canada.

It is true that section 44 of the Constitution Act, 1982, authorizes Parliament to amend the Constitution without the agreement of the provinces in certain circumstances, however paragraphs 42(1)(b) and 42(1)(c) of the Constitution Act, 1982, set out four exceptions to this rule, and in these cases the agreement of the provinces is required. The exceptions are as follows: amending the powers of the Senate; the method of selecting senators; the number of members by which a province is entitled to be represented; and the residence qualifications of senators.

So what is the government doing in order to avoid consulting the provinces? It is trying to make people believe that senators will be elected while continuing to appoint them. It is trying to reform the Senate without asking the opinion of the provinces.

This trick, however, is perhaps not even constitutional. In fact, in a very important decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in 1980, the justices of the highest court in the land stated that Parliament alone cannot make substantive amendments to the “essential characteristics or fundamental features of the Senate”. Moreover, Quebec intends to challenge the constitutionality of this bill, if passed.

What can be made of a bill that is nothing but a parody of democracy and does not respect the Constitution of our country? What can be made of a government that says it supports democratic reforms in Libya and in other Arab nations, touts democracy in China, Burma and Vietnam, and is not even capable of following its own democracy’s rules? What can be made of a government that negotiates free trade agreements and security perimeters behind closed doors and Conservative members who shut down standing committees by systematically directing committees to go in camera and cut short debates in the House? This government is very poorly placed to talk about democracy.

Moreover, the purpose of the Senate must be kept in mind. The Senate was created by the Fathers of Confederation to ensure the independence of our democratic system, a long-term perspective, continuity and equality between the regions, all in keeping with the principle of federalism of our nation. If the government wanted true reform of the Senate—democratic reform—it would modify the upper house to reserve a special place for the first nations, women, francophones—especially francophones outside Quebec, who presently have no national voice in our system—a place to better respect the contemporary nature of our Canadian societies with seats for the cultural communities.

I am convinced that Canadians also have their thoughts on the matter. Why not give them a voice? A referendum on the reform or abolition of the Senate would provide us with a real democratic verdict. We should let Canadians have their opinion on such an important subject. We should give Canadians a real voice instead of having them participate in a mere semblance of democracy. Canadians deserve much better than this botched reform.

[Organ Donations, December 5th, 2011]

Mr. Chair, I would like to thank my colleague for speaking so openly and from her heart about organ donation. She talked about raising awareness, about information and public education, and about creating space to have conversations. Does she think the federal government should play a role as catalyst in the campaign to raise awareness about organ donation, as the reports suggested in 1999? We need a long-term campaign to raise awareness. There have been only two, one in 2001 and one in 2002, and then nothing. No more has been said about it. Organ donations are needed every day of every year. An awareness campaign has to go on over a long period of time.

Health Canada has a very clear mandate to design and carry out awareness campaigns. This is one of the actions the government can take within its jurisdiction, in partnership with the provinces and community organizations, which can circulate this sensitive information and give people accurate information. An awareness campaign would debunk myths and reassure people about organ donation, and presenting them with personal accounts or scientific information would enable them to understand the benefits of participating in an organ donation program.

[Organ Donations, December 5th, 2011]

Madam Chair, does the Conservative member believe that the federal government can play a key role in awareness campaigns on television, in the print media, such as newspapers, or on posters that could be placed in hospitals and other public places?

This will get people thinking about organ donation. One strategy could involve having a place on federal forms where people could register as organ donors. If there were a Canada-wide awareness campaign, people would have to think about it. They could discuss it and would be more aware of organ donation.

[Organ Donations, December 5th, 2011]

Madam Chair, I would like to thank my NDP colleague for her important comments. Clearly, the federal government must promote a Canada-wide awareness campaign. The more publicity this issue gets, the more people will see the symbols of organ donation all over. This will start discussions, get reactions and generate debate. That is exactly what we want. However, the government must manage this campaign so that the debate is based on factual information and not on fear.

I mentioned myths. Many people think that if they sign an organ donor card and they become ill, they will not be given the same level of care because doctors will want to harvest their organs to give to others. That is not at all true. Health professionals treat all patients ethically and professionally in order to help them regain their health. Once these myths are debunked, people will feel safer and will know what will happen to their organs and how health professionals go about doing transplants. They will understand the odds of a donor being compatible with a recipient and the odds of success for transplant operations.

The more informed people are, the more confidence they will have in these procedures or operations. When people see the positive effects that organ donation has and how it helps others, they will have a stronger desire to get involved and to contribute. That is why it is important that the government get involved and demonstrate leadership in raising awareness of the issue of organ donation and the positive effects it has on the health of Canadians from all walks of life.

[Organ Donations, December 5th, 2011]

Madam Chair, I thank the member opposite, who spoke about a number of topics.

Indeed, there are many people waiting for kidney transplants. Seventy-five per cent of patients on waiting lists are in need of kidney transplants. It is a problem. Even when there are lists of living donors, there are challenges when it comes to compatibility. What we could propose, for example, is to have a list of paired living donors. Someone who wanted to sign up to donate a kidney could be paired with someone who was in need of an organ. This way, two people would be put on the registry: a donor and a recipient. Every time, there would be two people put on a list.

We can work on promoting awareness at the individual level. We can encourage people to talk more about organ donation. Obviously, when we are healthy, we do not usually think about getting sick or having an accident and dying unexpectedly in some stupid way. People do not necessarily take the time to sign their donor cards. For the time being, this is one of the ways we have available to give a precious gift to someone who needs a vital organ. We absolutely must talk about it.

The hon. member mentioned the holiday season, when family and friends often get together. This is a topic that must be talked about. There are no miracle solutions. We could work on the best ways to manage the registries and all the tools we have available. We could work with the provinces and territories to ensure that health care professionals are able to talk to families and that they have better resources to manage the information they are able to collect from patients and their families.

[Organ Donations, December 5th, 2011]

Madam Chair, I am very pleased to be able to speak today on the crucial importance of organ donation.

Donating one’s organs or tissues means giving the gift of life to someone who truly needs it. Obviously, consenting to donate one’s organs is not an easy decision and a number of factors may also influence that choice. In any event, more and more people are dying while still waiting for an organ to be offered by a generous person. The gap between the number of organs available and the number of patients waiting continues to grow. The number of people desperately waiting for the telephone call that will change their life is also growing steadily. It is therefore important for us to discuss this, to think about it and to develop strategies that will improve the situation.

In spite of recent efforts to increase the number of organ donations, the number of organs available in Canada has stagnated. The two reports published in 1999, one produced by the House of Commons Standing Committee on Health and the other by the National Coordinating Committee for Donation, led to only meagre progress and did not result in the adoption of a long-term, Canada-wide strategy orchestrated by the provinces and the federal government.

Canada is still far behind other countries such as Spain, France and the United States in terms of the number of post mortem organ donations. In fact, Spain’s rate of post mortem donors is twice as high as Canada’s. Of course, that figure depends on a number of other factors, including the traffic accident rate, for example.

According to statistics from Transplant Québec, a provincial organ donation agency, the number of organ donors fell from 151 to 119 between 2008 and 2010, while the number of people needing transplants rose from 1,159 to 1,241 in the same period. The trend is therefore very similar in Canada. We need to redouble our efforts if we want to be able to close that gap.

There are solutions to consider, however. On average, each donor contributed to nearly four lives, and a single donor can save as many as eight lives. Saving lives is therefore within the reach of all of us. So what can we do to increase the number of patients who receive an organ donation?

Because health is under provincial jurisdiction, the federal government can play a coordinating role in raising awareness and in initiating a dialogue with the provinces to establish a national organ donor registry and possibly adopt measures that have been successful elsewhere. We should also consider creating a more effective registry of recipients and way of searching for matches between the two registries. Establishing a national registry would therefore facilitate the process of identifying people who need a donation or people who are prepared to donate. The registry could be associated with income tax returns or the census form. Then everyone who worked on their finances at some point during the year would have to think about the importance of organ donation.

There is not always a lot of leeway in terms of time when an organ transplant is needed. The less time people have to wait, the greater the chances of success. Information is needed before a transplant is done, such as blood group, tissue type, the size of the organ, the urgency of the procedure, and so on. A national registry that was managed effectively could mean a higher success rate.

Let us talk about awareness building. There have been no further campaigns since the 2001 and 2002 national campaigns, which followed the recommendations from the two 1999 reports. The focus should instead be on a long-term awareness-building strategy in order to ensure, among other things, that health care professionals can discuss these matters with their patients and that families discuss organ donation more. Moreover, according to the doctors I consulted, families can sometimes be an obstacle to organ donation following the death of a loved one.

We know that doctors do not necessarily have the resources or the time required to make requests of the families of the deceased. More money should therefore be invested to give doctors the tools they need and to help health care professionals obtain family consent in order to proceed with the removal of organs from a deceased person.

This certainly is not the best topic of conversation around the dinner table at holiday time, but it is an important subject to discuss with our loved ones. If, upon reflection, you consent to donate your organs and tissue upon your death, it is crucial that you share your decision with your loved ones, which may also have a positive effect in terms of how others think.

Building awareness is important as it helps to debunk myths and address public fear. For example, many people are afraid that if they give prior consent, less effort will be put into saving their lives. In fact, this fear may explain the discrepancy between the number of people who are in favour of donation and the number who actually sign their donor card. In fact, this discrepancy may also be due to simple logistics, but if doctors were able to discuss this myth, people would be reassured and might be more likely to sign their donor card and discuss what they have done more openly.

Moreover, we could also encourage our provincial counterparts to explore the question of presumed consent. Canada currently uses a system based on explicit consent. In other words, consent cannot be presumed given unless the individual in question has signed an official statement indicating his or her consent.

In some countries, such as Spain, where the post-mortem donation rate is very high, consent is presumed, which means that it is assumed that the individual automatically agrees to donate his or her organs upon death, unless the person, while alive, has expressly refused organ donation. Those in favour of presumed consent argue that, according to polls, the majority of Canadians are in favour of organ donation, but very few of them complete their donor card. In short, although I am not explicitly suggesting that we should adopt this kind of approach, it is nevertheless worth serious and in-depth consideration.

Finally, the Health Canada standards for potential donors could be revised. Currently, these standards exclude homosexual men, because men who have had sexual relations with other men in the last five years are excluded. This is an outdated standard because we now have the tools required to screen for blood and organ diseases. There is a lack of dialogue in the medical and research community concerning Health Canada's standards.

In light of the growing gap between the number of available organs and the number of people in need of an organ, we must act very quickly. We will have to be creative and work closely together with the provinces and territories. There are enough examples elsewhere for Canada to find practical and achievable solutions. Canada must develop a public awareness campaign to facilitate and encourage organ donation, explain how the organ donation process works, and do more to create a national registry of donors and recipients.