Harold Albrecht

[Organ Donations, December 5th, 2011]

Mr. Chair, I want to thank my colleague for her kind remarks about my speech. Certainly my colleagues in this House have been there for me through these past seven months in incredible ways. Their compassion, understanding and periodic questioning of how I am doing has been an immense encouragement to me.

My understanding is that the federal government does not regulate the allocation of the organs. We talked many times throughout our debate tonight about the areas of provincial jurisdiction, which we respect in this government, but transplant programs across Canada do share organs so that the most urgently ill patients in the country can have transplants first.

I think this is an important issue. When we think of the people who have been on waiting lists, sometimes for many years, coming to the end of their ability to continue dialysis or some other method of medical treatment, it is important that the most crucial needs be met first. Those who may be nearing the end of their medical treatment and are unable to continue on with that process are offered the gift of life and would be the first on the list to access those transplants.

[Organ Donations, December 5th, 2011]

Mr. Chair, as I indicated at the outset of my speech, I do not profess to be an expert on organ donation and transplantation, but I know that Canada has some very stringent guidelines in place as it relates to the safety of transplants. In fact, I mentioned in my speech the safety of human cells, tissues and organs for transplantation regulations. These regulations outline some of the most safe and medically sound methods of organ donation and transplantation.

The safety of organ donation and transplantation is a responsibility shared by numerous parties across Canada. I believe there are some 37 registered organ transplant programs in Canada. Operators of these programs are responsible for declaring that the organs they distribute are safe for transplantation in Canada. We have some very stringent guidelines in place. I share my colleague's concern that we certainly do not want to open up the possibility of a black market for access to organs for transplant purposes.

[Organ Donations, December 5th, 2011]

Mr. Chair, it is an honour to have the opportunity to speak tonight to this important issue of organ and tissue donation.

My comments tonight will no doubt come from a different perspective than most of those who have already spoken. I do not serve on the health committee, nor do I presume to be an expert on organ transplant issues. So I ask for the indulgence and the patience of my colleagues as I share some of my personal journey over the past seven months.

On May 2, election night, as my wife, Betty, and I were watching the early results of the election, along with a campaign volunteer, Betty suddenly experienced a headache. Within seconds she collapsed to the floor, and while she was breathing normally and had a strong pulse, there was no response. Minutes later, following a 911 call, local volunteer firefighters from the New Dundee detachment were on the scene to provide assistance, and they were followed very closely by EMS personnel. Betty was taken by ambulance to Grand River Hospital, placed on life support, and immediately transferred to a major health centre for more specialized care.

ICU personnel and surgical specialists cared for her and explained in some detail that Betty had experienced a spontaneous intracranial hemorrhage and that, in spite of surgical intervention attempting to stop the bleeding, their best efforts had been unsuccessful. The intense bleeding had applied extreme pressure to sensitive brain tissue and brain function had ceased. After consultation with neurosurgeons and ICU doctors regarding Betty's neurological death, we now were faced with the question of the possibility of organ and tissue donation.

We were then introduced to a team of very compassionate personnel representing the Trillium Gift of Life Network. They presented the options to us and provided the answers to all the questions that were raised by me or by my three adult children. There was no doubt in our mind as to what Betty would want to do. We knew that she would want to continue giving in the same spirit of generosity in her death as she had always done in her life.

Betty and I had also discussed this issue openly each time we renewed our driver's licence and had always both agreed that should anything happen to either of us, which would open the question of organ donation, we would want to help in that way.

As I reflect on the difficult journey of our grief over the past seven months, that journey has been made less difficult by two key factors: first, our personal faith journey as followers of Jesus Christ; and second, our decision to follow through on Betty's wish that upon her death, if possible, her organs be donated.

I will briefly expand on both of those factors. As it relates to the tragic, premature loss of life, there are no easy answers, but these past seven months have been possible because we possess a profound sense of hope.

As I said just a little over a month ago in the chamber in regard to suicide prevention and Bill C-300:

Hope is dependent on having a sense of connection to the future, even if that future is very short-term.

Hope is the oxygen of the human spirit; without it our spirit dies.

This is a quote from Margaret Somerville of McGill University.

Each of us can relate to the importance of having hope in our lives. That hope may be a very short-term hope, such as getting through grade 5, or graduating from high school, or getting a driver's licence for the first time, or the upcoming weekend trip. For people of faith, a longer term hope, in fact an eternal hope, is ours because of our belief in the reality of the resurrection.

A colleague in this chamber recently used the phrase “death shall have no dominion”, crediting the phrase correctly to Dylan Thomas. In fact, this phrase finds its origin in the scriptures in the Book of Romans, chapter 6, verse 9, in the context of Christ's victory over death, a victory offered to each of us. My ultimate hope is in this reality that I will again see my wife, Betty, who left this earth just seven months ago yesterday.

I will return for a moment to that hospital. It was clear that Betty's physical life was over. Brain activity had stopped completely. We knew instinctively that the Betty we had come to know and love was no longer there. Her spirit was still very much alive but her body was only breathing with mechanical help. What to do?

Again, our faith has its foundation in the Christian scriptures, which uses many different metaphors for the physical body. It is referred to as a tent, a house, a temple, or even as clothing for the spirit within. So if the person who lived in that temple or had occupied that house or camped in that tent was no longer here to need any of those things, why would we not share them with someone in need?

Why not help out one of those thousands of people who are currently on waiting lists for a specific organ? Many of those waiting are still in the prime of life. An organ donation can make the difference between life and death. Our decision, while not easy, was made lighter by knowing that someone else would possibly receive the gift of life even as we journeyed into our own grief and loss.

Was there a downside to agreeing to organ donation? Yes, there was. We had to prolong the inevitable by agreeing to multiple tests in order to determine if in fact the organs were healthy and suitable for transplant. There were detailed personal history questions in order to mitigate any risks to potential recipients.

Let me assure members of this House and Canadians that they can rely on the safety of organ transplants in this country. This is because of Canada's strong organ transplant community and Health Canada's work in establishing rigorous safety requirements through the implementation of the safety of human cells, tissue and organs for transplantation regulations.

Today in 2011 Canada is now seen as a leader in the area of transplantation safety. This is reflected in the fact that our standards are recognized by the World Health Organization.

The additional tests required the continued use of mechanical means to keep her breathing for another day or more in order to conduct those tests, and then to allow arrangements for transplant teams to be put in place.

All through this, however, while sitting at Betty's bedside, meeting with family and friends in the intensive care waiting room and having Trillium Gift of Life personnel work through our intense grief with all of us, we were carried by our faith and by the knowledge that some good would come out of this very difficult time.

Over the past seven months, the resources of Trillium Gift of Life Network have been incredible. The network followed up regularly with letters of support, offering access to resources, letting me know the health of the organ recipients. Five people have received the gift of life through organs that were transplanted: heart, liver, lungs and two separate kidney recipients. In addition, others have also benefited from the gift of her eyes, bone and vessel tissue which will aid in the transplant process.

Trillium Gift of Life has also sent lists of books and other resources written for people who have experienced the loss of a loved one. One of those books on the recommended reading list is entitled, A Grace Disguised, written by Jerry L. Sittser. I highly recommend this book for anyone grieving. I have purchased more than 20 copies of it and have shared it with family and friends.

We know the need. Four thousand Canadians are waiting for organ donations at any given point. In Ontario alone, over 1,500 people are waiting for a life-giving transplant. Over 1,000 of those people are waiting for a kidney transplant. It is easy to register one's intentions to donate. In Ontario, one simply goes to the website beadonor.ca. Elsewhere in Canada, one goes to www.transplant.ca.

Right now only 20% of Ontario residents have registered their intent to be an organ or tissue donor. Why not go online now and register? In addition to registering, it is important to discuss this matter with one's family members. I ask everyone to please discuss it with them, too. This decision could very well save a life and offer hope.

I know that because of our decision to donate there are now at least five people enjoying fuller, richer lives and even more who are benefiting from tissues transplanted. We are in a death-denying society. No one wants to think he or she will die before 80 or 90, and because of amazing medical advancements many people will live to that age or even beyond. However, we have no guarantee as my family discovered so quickly and with no warning of any kind.

Thousands of adults and children are counting on us and their fellow Canadians to give the gift of life. It is time we as a nation closed the gap between the need for lifesaving and life-enhancing organs and the supply of organs available. Why not take steps now to make a difference? It could be anyone, a son or daughter or granddaughter, who will be the recipient of someone else's good decision to donate their organs.

This past weekend I walked in a Christmas parade with a heart and double-lung transplant recipient. I met many other recipients who have been blessed with the gift of life through organ transplants.

I know that every one of the recipients is extremely grateful for the fact that someone else took the time to register to be a donor, and now they as recipients are enjoying the gift of life.

[Citizen's Arrest and Self-defence Act, December 1st, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, one of the benefits of the discussion on this bill is the fact that there are those who may have been in situations where they were reticent to act simply because the law was somewhat fuzzy and people were more concerned about being on the wrong side of the law than actually taking the action that should have been taken.

My colleague sort of muddied the waters when he started off his speech by talking about the preoccupation of this government with crime. He said that crime rates were dropping. In fact, in many areas of criminal activity the rates are actually on the rise. Even if they were not, does the member feel that the current levels of crime are acceptable in the areas of child sexual exploitation, drug trafficking near our schools, selling drugs and destroying the lives of children and young people? Is the member actually satisfied that in those areas of criminal activity the current rates are acceptable?

[Citizen's Arrest and Self-defence Act, December 1st, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his speech and for his affirmation that his party will support this bill at second reading and get it to committee for further study. We are definitely open to that idea.

I want to thank him as well for highlighting the key elements that the bill talks about: that an arrest needs to be made within a reasonable amount of time and that there must be reasonable grounds to believe it was not feasible, in the circumstances, for a police officer to make the arrest.

There is one comment that I may have misunderstood in the first part of his speech. I would like clarification, not just for my own purpose but also for people who are listening to this debate, that this bill differs substantially from the private member's bill tabled in the last Parliament, which required only reasonable grounds as the criterion. This bill clearly makes the point that the person must have seen an incident occurring, seen someone committing an offence, and that an arrest must occur within a reasonable period of time. I think it is an important improvement on the previous private member's bill that was tabled. Would my colleague agree?

[Citizen's Arrest and Self-defence Act, December 1st, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly agree with my colleague on the emphasis to be placed on restorative justice initiatives. In my region of Waterloo, there are many great restorative justice initiatives that are achieving excellent results. I think he and most of my colleagues would agree that particular approach is not always effective. We still need an effective criminal justice system to be in place.

I was somewhat surprised at his innuendo in the first part of his comments. He implied that there are times when the Conservative Party is not open to input. This party is very eager for input, to have discussion, dialogue, collaboration and consultation, but there comes a time when it is necessary to take action. For example, Bill C-13 was before the House recently. We had been having discussions about the budget since last March and it was time to implement the initiatives in it. Canadians expect us to take action.

He also referred to his concerns about ensuring that there be reasonable grounds that the person under suspicion is actually the criminal. I want to be sure he understands that the current bill before the House is not similar to the one that was tabled in the previous session where only reasonable grounds were necessary. This bill actually identifies that it—

[Citizen's Arrest and Self-defence Act, December 1st, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague highlighted the fact that the situation of Mr. Chen probably brought this to our attention more dramatically perhaps than others. However, I think the member would agree, as my colleague would agree, that this is certainly not the first time there has been controversy around the issue of citizen's arrest.

My colleague points out, rightly, that it is important this place and committees take time to study the bill carefully to ensure we get it right. My colleague has said that it is important we hear from more people like Mr. Chen. It is also important we hear from people who may have been faced with a similar situation, but perhaps did not act out of fear that the law would not stand behind them, as well as from those who may have acted and found themselves unbelievably on the wrong side of the law having taken some actions to protect their property.

If we will be hearing from more people like Mr. Chen, would my colleague agree that it is important to also hear from those who may have experienced loss of property through a criminal offence that may never have gone reported?

[World Autism Awareness Day Act, December 1st, 2011]

moved for leave to introduce Bill S-206, An Act respecting World Autism Awareness Day.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce Bill S-206, an act respecting world autism awareness day.

I think all of us in the House have met or have had personal contact with those who are struggling with autism. We are very much aware of our colleague, the member for Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, who has done such an incredible job of raising the awareness, understanding, acceptance and desire to help people and families struggling with autism. I am continually amazed at the perseverance and tenacity demonstrated by every family and community that has to deal with autism on a daily basis.

We need to do all we can to raise awareness, to work toward effective solutions and to finding ways to support them.

(Motion agreed to and bill read the first time)

[Business of Supply, November 25th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, the member mentioned the budget implementation bill, Bill C-13. Within that bill there are some terribly important measures that we have to get passed, including EI improvements and accelerated capital cost allowance for business, as well as work sharing.

He also implied that bringing this budget bill to a vote to finally get it implemented is somehow something new. Bill C-13 has had more hours of debate at second reading than the average budget bill over the last two decades, and more than any Liberal majority budget bill during that time.

Here we are a few days away from the end of 2011, and we are debating the implementation of budget 2011. Does my colleague not think it reasonable that we should implement budget 2011 in 2011, rather than letting it slide on into 2012?

[Business of Supply, November 25th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, it is easy to manipulate those numbers. Certainly 50% of a small number looks like a huge number. We came back in September to get some things done. Our colleagues know that we have to get Bill C-13 into law. We are so close to the end of 2011, and we have not even passed the 2011 budget yet.

We have had many opportunities. On Bill C-10, the safe streets and communities act, we have had four days of debate in the House, 11 committee hearings, 37 hours, and 53 speeches in the House in over 16 hours. That has been on Bill C-10 alone. On Bill C-13, we had seven total days of debate in the House. There were more days of debate at second reading than the average budget bill over the last two decades and more than any Liberal majority bill during that time. There have been more days of debate on Bill C-13--