Don Davies

[Resumption and Continuation of Postal Service Operations Legislation, November 23rd, 2018]

First, Mr. Speaker, it is important to clarify what we are doing here today. We are here today debating a motion that the Liberal government has introduced that seeks to impose draconian and undemocratic restrictions on debate of back-to-work legislation that has yet to be introduced in the House. The legislation would limit debate on the bill, on the actual fundamentals of the back-to-work legislation, to a matter of mere hours. That is not democratic.

To the member's point about whether back-to-work legislation is ever justified, in my opinion, no. Our labour codes have essential services provisions in them, where it is open to any employer at any time to apply to the labour boards for a designation of essential services, which is done for police, firefighters and air traffic controllers, when obviously a full-blown strike would threaten the safety and security of the population. Therefore, we accept restrictions on those rights to strike, but that is done through a judicial process, not through a political one, and that is what the Liberals are doing here. They are showing their political stripes. They are sticking up for management and sticking it to unions. They do not support the right to strike in this country.

[Resumption and Continuation of Postal Service Operations Legislation, November 23rd, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, there is a subtext.

One of the fundamental questions is what is the proper role for the federal government in being an honest broker, and in enforcing our charter of rights and Constitution around labour relations in this country? I say that the proper role is to be an honest broker, with integrity, and to ensure that the rules are fair.

What did the government do? Weeks ago, when Canada Post moved to cut off disability payments to its sick and injured workers, to put pressure on the most vulnerable workers in Canada, the government said nothing. The Liberal government and its Liberal MPs sat back and let Canada Post do that. They did not even criticize it.

Second, the Liberal government telegraphed several weeks ago that it would be prepared to introduce back-to-work legislation. Again, I worked for 16 years in the labour movement, and when management is on one side and it knows that it has a backstop, because back-to-work legislation is going to be introduced, it changes the bargaining dynamic. No longer is there an imperative for management to reach an agreement, because it knows that government has its back.

Finally, in the House today, have we heard any Liberal MP stand up and talk about the workers' perspective, the workers' point of view? Not a one of them. I hear them mouthing the propaganda of the employer, where the employer is saying that their post office outlets are stuffed with stuff that will not get delivered. The workers, who actually know, are saying that there is not that much backed up, and that stuff is being moved along because it is a rotating strike.

However, I hear the Liberals MPs—

[Resumption and Continuation of Postal Service Operations Legislation, November 23rd, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, there is indeed a big difference between the present government's approach to back-to-work legislation and that of the Conservatives in 2011. At least the Conservatives allowed the House to debate the back-to-work legislation.

For Canadians who are watching, the Liberal government has introduced back-to-work legislation with regard to a Crown corporation that affects workers in communities from coast to coast to coast, and has only allowed for a few hours of debate. We will be debating this until about two o'clock tomorrow morning. That is what the Liberals have allowed for debate. That is not democratic. That is the big difference between now and what happened the last time back-to-work legislation for Canada Post was tabled in the House.

I have not heard any Liberal members explain why they are so afraid of debate and so contemptuous of members of Parliament standing in the House to represent their constituents' views that they want to truncate debate, and do not want media attention or public attention on what they are doing, and thus are passing it in the dead of night. It is so that Canadians will not see how weak and contemptuous this Liberal government is of organized labour and the right to strike in this country.

[Resumption and Continuation of Postal Service Operations Legislation, November 23rd, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to start by saying that yesterday the member for Spadina—Fort York answered a question by saying that his mother used to tell him that if he wanted to make a point he should join the NDP, and if he wanted to make a difference he should join the Liberals. I want to tell the hon. member what my mother told me. She said, “Liberal or Tory, same old story.” She also said that the problem with the Conservatives is that they always do what they say they are never going to do, and the problem with the Liberals is that they never do what they say they are going to do.

Here we have a case of a government that likes to pretend it supports labour, but when the chips are down it absolutely does not. Right now, outside this building, our security staff are wearing green hats and ties that say “Respect” on them. Why? It is because they have been without a collective agreement for years now under the Liberal government, which refuses even to compel the people who guard us and provide safety and security for parliamentarians. They cannot even make sure that those people have decent working conditions or even a collective agreement to work under. Therefore, I will not be lectured by the Liberal government about supporting labour.

I will say this. It is the case that some provincial premiers of all stripes across the country have, at times, been compelled to bring in back-to-work legislation. The difference, if the member had listened to my speech, is that it is done when essential services are at stake, such as hospitals, police, firefighters, and air traffic controllers. Canadians accept that there have to be some parameters around the right to strike. That does not exist with Canada Post workers, so he should explain why he is ordering them back to work when they are not part of an essential service.

[Postal Services Resumption and Continuation Act, November 23rd, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, I will be forced to be brief.

First, there is a difference when governments bring in back-to-work legislation when dealing with essential services. Provincial governments of all stripes have done that.

Second, the Government of Ontario, under Bob Rae, never ordered teachers back to work. That is completely false. It never happened.

Third, the Liberal MPs all seem to think that the right to strike in this country depends on the month of the year. It does not. That is not the way the Constitution works.

Finally, small business does have options. Small businesses will get packages and parcels delivered. They will simply use other service modalities to do so.

I do not trade off constitutional rights of workers in this country for the convenience of the business sector, like the Liberals do.

[Postal Services Resumption and Continuation Act, November 23rd, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, one of my favourite expressions is that everybody is a democrat when they win. However, the true test to determine people's commitment to a principle of democracy is how they act when they lose, because the whole system is predicated upon people ascribing to a principle that in exchange for a peaceful exchange of ideas in a competition for votes, everybody agrees to live by the end result. That is how we know if someone really believes in democracy.

It is the same thing when it comes to labour rights. A lot of people profess to believe in free collective bargaining as a fundamental right. However, the true test of whether or not they really do is how they act when presented with a situation where they have to actually implement a decision.

In this case here, we are watching a government that has clearly showed its true nature, that when push comes to shove, it absolutely rejects the notion of and will trample over the rights of Canadians to exercise their right to free collective bargaining. I will develop that idea in a moment, but I want to pause for a moment to talk about process.

With respect to democracy, the Liberal government has tabled legislation that purports to limit debate of members of Parliament in this House on something as important as back-to-work legislation that will be implemented on a national scale, country-wide, on a major Canadian Crown corporation. It wants to limit debate to a few hours. That is unbelievable.

It does not matter where we sit on the merits of the question before the House. I think all Canadians who are fair-minded, all Canadians who value democracy, all Canadians who understand the need for a free and fair exchange of ideas in debate in this chamber will condemn a government that does not have the courage to allow the people in this House to fully express not only their thoughts on this legislation but also the interests and opinions of the constituents who we come to this House to represent. That is shameful and it is cowardly.

I want to talk about free collective bargaining. People either believe in it or they do not. The way we determine whether or not politicians or policy-makers really believe in it is how they act when the chips are on the table.

Here we have a rotating strike by Canada Post workers. We have job action that is being taken. What is happening? We are being inconvenienced. The country is being inconvenienced. Customers are being inconvenienced. Businesses are being inconvenienced. We all are being inconvenienced. That is what the purpose of job action is. It is the withdrawal of services or a lockout by management which is intended to put economic pressure on the other side and the members of the public as a means for resolving the issues between the parties when they are unable to do so by agreement. That is what job action is. That is what a strike does. That is what a lockout does.

Therefore, for the Liberals to say that they believe in free collective bargaining but they will interfere to make sure that nobody will ever actually be able to take that final job action, which is the final expression of the right to free collective bargaining, makes a mockery of their so-called avowed commitment to the principle of free collective bargaining. Saying that one believes in the right of free collective bargaining but not in the right to exercise the right to strike or a lockout is absurd. That is what the Liberal government is saying right now.

What I have noticed about the Conservatives and Liberals is that they tend to believe in the right to strike when workers are on strike and it does not have any real impact. However, the minute that workers withdraw their services and it actually has an impact on the economy, that is when they scramble for return-to-work legislation and strip those workers of their right to exercise their economic impact. Basically, people have a right to strike in this country so long as the strike has no impact. That is the net result of the approach by the Liberals and Conservatives to free collective bargaining and labour in this country, and it is wrong. It is unconstitutional and it violates Canada's signature on any number of international treaties where we say to the world that we believe in the right of free collective bargaining. We say that when we are out of Canada, yet in Canada we strip our workers of that right any time those workers take a move to act on that right and it actually has an impact.

The longshore union in this country does not even have a strike fund anymore. Why? Longshore workers always get ordered back to work. The longshore workers belong to a federally regulated union. They have taken the decision that under Liberal and Conservative federal governments that regulate them, they should not even bother having a strike fund because if they ever move to strike, within days they get ordered back to work. Why? When longshore workers go on strike, the government indicates to the Canadian public how important the value of their labour is to the Canadian economy. Again, workers can strike if they have no impact on the Canadian economy, but if they have a pivotal impact on the Canadian economy, then they do not have the right to strike. That lays bear the contradiction that exists in the Conservative Party and the Liberal Party in this House. There is only one party in this House that stands completely for the principle of free collective bargaining, and that is the New Democratic Party of Canada, and we are going to continue to do that.

I want to talk about the impact. In this case, the government is acting as if Canada Post is an essential service. I just pointed out that I have great respect for the value and importance of the work of Canada Post, but according to the legal definition under labour law, it is not an essential service. If the government wants to treat it as an essential service, then it can make an application to the Canada Industrial Relations Board and make the case that Canada Post should be declared an essential service. If that is the case, the government is then entitled to perhaps place some restrictions on the right to strike. The government has not done that, is not doing it and will not do it. Why? It is because Canada Post is not an essential service.

The very argument the Liberals want Canadians to believe, that they have to legislate Canada Post workers back to work because they are essential to the Canadian economy, the Liberals actually do not have the intellectual integrity to demonstrate that before an independent arbitrator to determine if that is the case because they know they cannot. Why? It is because there are alternatives.

Yes, of course, if Canada Post workers are on a rotating strike, or even if there is a full strike and they withdraw services, that will have an impact on Canada, but there are alternatives. There is UPS. There is FedEx. There is DHL. There is Purolator, although it is owned by Canada Post. I am not sure if it is affected by this job action, but assuming it is not, there is Purolator. There is any number of courier services across this country that can make sure things still move.

That is the difference between that and true essential services like health care workers, police, firefighters or air traffic controllers, where Canadians accept that there could be meaningful limitations on the right to strike because the withdrawal of those services may put public health and safety at risk. That is not the case with Canada Post and the government is trying to slide this regressive act underneath that sort of fabric of essential service when it knows that is not the case.

I want to talk about the middle class. The government constantly repeats “middle class” ad nauseam in the House, as if the Liberal Party is the only party that cares about the middle class. My Conservative colleagues care about the middle class and the NDP cares about the middle class. We all do. However, for the Liberals, middle class is almost like their trademark. They have made it a talking point. The true test of whether the Liberals really believe in the middle class is not what they say, because I have heard more rhetoric in the last three years from the Liberals than I have heard in my lifetime, it is how they act.

What is the best way to enter the middle class? It is to carry a union card, to sign a union card. Joseph Stiglitz, a Nobel Prize winning economist, and any number of economists across the political spectrum will tell us that countries that have high rates of unionization have higher rates of people in the middle class. That is only common sense. Obviously, unions work to raise wages and improve working conditions. That is how people enter the middle class.

What do the Liberals do when what is happening in the private and public sectors and a union fights for improvements to its workers' wages and working conditions? They move to scuttle it. They move to restrict the ability of CUPW to improve the working conditions of its workers to enter the middle class. It is pure rhetoric on the Liberal side. The emperor has no clothes on this. If they really cared about the middle class, they would be letting CUPW and Canada Post bargain and allow CUPW come to a resolution, fight for its workers and gain improvements in the workplace that would assist them in moving to the middle class, but no, the Liberals are rushing to order them back to work.

I want to talk about workplace safety. About two and a half years ago, not one kilometre from here, I was present at a ceremony attended by the Prime Minister and all sorts of cabinet ministers and members of the Liberal Party. It was a function organized by Canada Building Trades Unions, where it unveiled its monument to the construction worker. It also served to remind us of those construction workers who have paid with their lives and injuries to build this country. It is a monument to injured construction workers. All the Liberals showed up and beamed with pride and it looked like they were completely happy about this and showed their support for the building trades and union leaders across this country as they stuck up for health and safety. Now how do they act? The single most important issue going on right now in the bargaining between CUPW and Canada Post is their rates of injury, and health and safety in the workplace.

We have already heard the shocking numbers that 25% of the workers at Canada Post have a workplace health or safety incident every year. These are the issues that the unions bring to the bargaining table. They are not asking, but are seeking and demanding a response from the employer. At the end of the day, unions only have one power. Management has all the power to determine the jobs, the terms and conditions in the workplace and unions can ask, can grieve, can seek to persuade someone else, can seek to persuade the employer who has the ultimate decision. The only power unions have at the end of the day is the power to withdraw their services. When that is taken away from a union, it has no power whatsoever. That is not collective bargaining any more. It is collective begging.

That is what the Liberal government is forcing CUPW to do. Instead of letting CUPW do its job, exercise its constitutional right and reflect the constitutional rights of its members and bring those issues to the table and refuse to go back to work and to continue to put economic pressure on Canada Post until they get improvements in health and safety in the workplace, the government seeks to interfere with that process.

Do the Liberals really care about health and safety like they professed on that day when that monument was unveiled and they clapped politely? No. Now they will throw that in front of an arbitrator and that, like a lot of other issues, will be swept under the rug.

The government claims to care about pay equity. Liberals have entered their fourth year of government. With a majority government they could have done anything they want in the last three years. They have entered their fourth year and now they pat themselves on the back for introducing pay equity legislation some time in the future with no money attached to it. Other than that, it is a great pay equity scheme.

What does CUPW do at the bargaining table? It is seeking to get redress for the inequities between the wages of men and women and between urban and rural carriers and workers. Again, what is the government doing with that? When the Liberals have a chance to really see actors in the Canadian economy get real improvements now to pay equity and to health and safety in the workplace, they seek to interfere in that process and derail it. That is some commitment to pay equity.

The rights of labour in this country have been hard fought for. They were not given to them. The rights of labour in this country were paid for by the sacrifice, by the sweat, and frankly, by the blood of workers from coast to coast who stood up and sacrificed for the rights of their sisters and brothers, sons and daughters and grandchildren to be able to live in a free, democratic country where workers have rights. The government shows again by this behaviour, this anti-democratic, anti-union behaviour that it is spitting in the face of that sacrifice.

I want to talk about what happens when we end job action by referring a matter to binding arbitration. I was a labour lawyer for 16 years before I was elected and I have lots of experience with this kind of situation. Something that everybody knows and the government members may or may not have the courage to admit, is that when they refer matters in the collective bargaining environment to an arbitrator in any kind of forum, whether final offer selection or any of the myriad of processes used to come to a binding dispute, they give the power to resolve the issues in dispute to one person. In that kind of environment, they always get a mediated, moderated compromise. They rarely get principled, real solutions to the crux of the issues in dispute. The only way labour really wins the day and has an opportunity to win its case is on the street when it is flexing its economic power and when it is taking the risk of having management exercise its economic power back.

Job action, as I have heard my colleagues say, is not taken lightly. It is not a picnic; it is a sacrifice. We have CUPW workers out there in the freezing cold who are receiving a fraction of their real wages. In fact, sick and injured workers have had their benefits cut off by Canada Post, as the most shameful, disgusting form of pressure to be put in a labour dispute, putting pressure on the most vulnerable workers who are sick and injured, and the Liberal MPs said nothing about it. They let Canada Post use injured workers as a pawn in a labour dispute, and they did not say a word about it.

These workers are out sacrificing, and when Canada Post loses business to companies like UPS and DHL and the other courier companies that are no doubt taking its work right now, they run the risk, when they go back to work, of not having that business there. There is risk, but that is the nature of a strike. It is economic conflict at its base. We do not like to say it, but that is what it is.

Again, I come back to my first point. People either believe in free collective bargaining in this chamber and in this country or they do not. If someone says, “I don't like the economic impact of a strike,” then they do not believe in free collective bargaining. He or she should have the courage to say that then. I challenge my Liberal colleagues, in 2019, to go to the union leaders, go to all of the union halls across this country, walk in there and tell them that they believe in the right to strike as long as there is no economic impact; and tell them that if there is any economic impact, then no, unions get ordered back to work and they will let some appointed person with no interest or accountability in the process make the decision for them.

I have been in this chamber 10 years, and the worst times I am in this chamber are when I see a government violate the constitutional rights of Canadians, and I am going to end with this. The right to strike is a constitutional right. The right to join a union and exercise all of the associated benefits of that is a constitutional right. A government that will interfere with that in this case will interfere with it in any situation. Therefore, we are not just standing up for CUPW workers today or for all workers across this country, we in the New Democratic Party are standing up for all Canadians who believe that this is a country ruled by a Constitution and rights. That means sticking up for them in all situations, not only when it is convenient to do so.

[Resumption and Continuation of Postal Service Operations Legislation, November 23rd, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, there are certain times in a government's term when an issue of fundamental importance comes up and we get to see the real character of the government, and this is such a time. I have rarely seen a time in a government's term of office when it acts in a way that is anti-democratic, anti-union, and anti rule of law and international treaty obligations at the same time, and that is what is happening here today.

There is a principle that Canada and Canadians subscribe to as a free and democratic society that is part of the global compact and agreement on what makes a modern democratic country that respects the rule of law, and that is the principle of free collective bargaining. That means that when labour and management have a labour dispute, we have to allow them to work out their differences freely without interference from any other party. That is not happening in this case. What is happening is that the government is interfering and introducing legislation to tip the balance to one hand.

Does the minister believe in the principle of free collective bargaining, and if so, why does she not back off and let Canada Post and CUPW resolve this issue by themselves?

[Housing, November 22nd, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday we saw disturbing images of lglulik children suffering open sores and respiratory disease from black mould rampant in their overcrowded public housing. This is a shameful and completely unacceptable situation for Canada's most vulnerable citizens. As a G7 nation, Liberals continually claim that we are leading the world in economic growth, yet we have Canadian children, babies, living in third world conditions.

Why is the government delaying housing funding and prioritizing corporate tax cuts over indigenous children suffering health problems?

[Food Security Institute, November 22nd, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, last week I had the opportunity to visit the Renfrew-Collingwood Food Security Institute, a vibrant organization operating in Collingwood Neighbourhood House in Vancouver Kingsway. Led by Mik Turje, Kaitlyn Fung and Najia Elacal, this impressive program champions the importance of healthy and culturally appropriate food for everyone. It fosters understanding of urban agriculture, sustainable growing, native plants and indigenous knowledge. It utilizes local resources for greater independence and social health. It brings local concerns to the decision-makers who make food policy.

Folks at the RC Food Security Institute believe that food is a human right, and that this means much more than meeting basic nutritional requirements. They understand that bringing people together to address hunger reduces isolation, builds community and strengthens our nation. I saw this in action first-hand. I would like to recognize their outstanding work, and urge Parliament to provide federal resources for them and every organization working to ensure that every Canadian has access to affordable, healthy and abundant food.

[Organ and Tissue Donation, November 19th, 2018]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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