Dany Morin

[Affordable Housing, December 15th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, the minister did not answer the question about renewing social housing agreements. I will put the question in a different way.

This government spends billions on its friends in big business while spending on social housing does not keep up with inflation or population growth.

In my riding of Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, more than 875 families spend more than 80% of their income on rent. How are they supposed to make ends meet? These families will spend another Christmas not knowing what is going to happen. Why does this government not give them a break by renewing the long-term management agreements for social housing?

[Senate Reform Act, December 8th, 2011]

Madam Speaker, I would like to put a question to my New Democrat colleague. I would like to know what he thinks about the fact that this Conservative bill is going to give a single term to elected senators, who will thus not have to be accountable to the public for their election promises. They could very well not keep any promises and remain in the Senate for nine years, in addition to receiving a large salary and a pension.

Personally, as a Canadian, I find the double standard inconceivable. I am very happy that the terms of the members of the House of Commons are short and renewable. In that way, we are accountable to the public, which judges us. With this bill, senators may make whatever promises they like without having to be accountable to the public, in addition to receiving a large salary and a pension.

I would like to know what my New Democrat colleague thinks about that.

[Fair Representation Act, December 6th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, first, the NDP is in favour of greater proportional representation in the House of Commons. However, this bill has a specific cost. The Canadian Taxpayers Federation estimates that the Conservatives’ bill will cost taxpayers $18 million a year. The NDP knows where to find that money: by abolishing the Senate, which cost Canadians $106 million in 2010 alone.

I would like to ask my Conservative colleague where his government will find the additional money to pay for this bill. Is it again going to cut government programs that help real Canadians in order to pay the salaries of more politicians in Ottawa?

[Fair Representation Act, December 6th, 2011]

Madam Speaker, our Liberal colleagues are proposing to reduce the number of seats in the House of Commons to pay for representation in the House of Commons. The NDP is proposing to abolish the Senate because we believe that it is far preferable to have elected members in the House of Commons rather than unelected representatives in the Senate.

Does my NDP colleague not find that this is a better way to reconcile fiscal obligations with the representation of the country's citizens?

[Fair Representation Act, December 6th, 2011]

Madam Speaker, in 2006, the Conservative government recognized Quebec as a nation. Today, however, with this bill, the Conservative government is spitting in the face of Quebeckers. It is very clear to the NDP that Quebec must keep its historic percentage of seats in the House of Commons.

My question is for the hon. Conservative member. Does the fact that his party recognized Quebec as a nation mean absolutely nothing in their eyes?

[Organ Donations, December 5th, 2011]

Mr. Chair, I would like to thank my Liberal colleague for pointing out that organ donation legislation in England is now ahead of Canada's when it comes to persons who have had sexual relations with an individual of the same sex in the last five years.

I would therefore invite the Prime Minister to speak more regularly with his British counterpart. Why has the United Kingdom passed this legislation and progressed on this issue when the scientific evidence is the same in Canada as in England? Scientific evidence abounds in 2011. I hope that the Conservative government will at last show leadership on this issue.

I have a question to ask my Liberal colleague, who is a doctor by profession. Perhaps she raised this issue with her patients in the past. In her opinion, why is the public, generally speaking, so disinclined to donate their organs? Given her professional and medical experience, can she tell us why people are so reluctant to donate their organs?

[Organ Donations, December 5th, 2011]

Mr. Chair, it makes me happy to see so many colleagues from the Standing Committee on Health here today. Moreover, this evening we will have an opportunity to discuss an issue that has hitherto not been discussed in the committee, and that is organ donation. I hope that the repetitive nature of my question does not upset anybody. I was not entirely satisfied with the response from my Conservative colleagues.

Does my Conservative colleague believe that Canadian Blood Services' current rule, which puts any man who has had sexual relations with another man in the past five years in the at–risk group, is discriminatory?

[Organ Donations, December 5th, 2011]

Mr. Chair, I would like to thank my colleague, the member for Sherbrooke, for his question.

I am not an expert on organ or blood donations. So I will let the experts speak to this. I will say however that Canadian Blood Services has existed for many years and is the expert in this field. CBS has conducted research, focused on the issue and looked at all angles for many years. Canadian Blood Services finds it appalling that Canada has no coordinated national organ and tissue donation and transplant system, and goes so far as to say that, currently, although our system is effective in terms of pairing donations, the system is saturated and is having difficulty meeting current and future needs.

For the edification of my NDP colleague, what is even more deplorable is that—and I do not wish to blame anyone at either the provincial or federal level, or even the system per se—200 Canadians were unfortunate enough to die last year while waiting for an organ transplant. I hope that this information will encourage the federal government to move forward, to be innovative and to make me proud to be Canadian.

As a society we must do something, because it does not make sense that so many Canadians linger on waiting lists and, in the end, do not receive the organs that would help them and extend their lives.

[Organ Donations, December 5th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to answer this question.

I have an excellent example from Nova Scotia. That is not my home province but in Canada's federal government we must look at our provincial partners' best practices. In 2006, the Government of Nova Scotia created the Legacy of Life: Nova Scotia Organ and Tissue Program in order to raise public awareness of the importance of organ and tissue donation and to encourage people to sign up as donors. The federal government could draw inspiration from this wonderful provincial initiative. It could even work in partnership with the provinces.

The people of Nova Scotia can register to be organ and tissue donors by signing their provincial health card. The same is true in Quebec, but I wanted to give a second example. Even if someone has signed their card, health professionals must still obtain the family's consent, as I mentioned earlier, in order to be able to harvest any organs or tissues when someone dies. That is a good example. There are many others, but since we are almost out of time, I will stop at that one for today.

[Organ Donations, December 5th, 2011]

Mr. Chair, I would like to thank the Conservative member for her question. She is another member of Parliament who is devoted to the cause of health and she chairs our Standing Committee on Health.

I am really pleased that the government is taking more steps forward with these two new measures. The last time that this issue was addressed was in 2007. Technology and science have once again come a long way, and it is time to move forward at this new level.

Earlier, I did not address the issue of the compatibility of the organ donor and the recipient. For example, if I donated my kidney to a stranger or a member of my family and it was rejected, for one thing, I would have lost my kidney and, for another, the recipient would then need to find another donor. It is therefore a good thing that technology and the new measures will help to ensure that organ donors and recipients are more compatible. This is a step in the right direction.

Now, all we need is a better campaign to raise Canadians' awareness. Many of these discussions take place around the dinner table when people are talking. Sometimes, doctors ask their patients if they have ever considered organ donation. The federal government, particularly Health Canada and the Canadian Blood Services, could play a role. The purpose of a campaign is not necessarily to provide funding but to raise awareness. That can be done in many ways, some of which are inexpensive.

Once again, I have a recommendation to add. We must look at the scientific data that clearly shows that other countries are well ahead of Canada in this regard. They have removed the discriminatory regulation requiring five years of sexual abstinence in order for organs to be considered viable.