Jinny Sims

[Organ Donations, December 5th, 2011]

Mr. Chair, I want to thank my colleague for taking part in this debate and for the excellent question that she asked.

I absolutely agree there is a role for individuals to play, but there is also a role for government to play. Sometimes we wait until we are almost at a crisis point before we think it is a good time to have that conversation.

When somebody is in the emergency room or the intensive care unit and the family is gathered around to say their final farewells, it is not a good time to be talking about organ donation. If I were in that situation, I would be more concerned about saying my farewell to my loved one lying in the bed. The last thing I would need at that moment, no matter how logical and necessary it is, would be to talk about this. It is why a registry, getting consent and being prepared are so important.

We often hear of ambulance chasers in other countries who are looking for organs. We are not that kind of a country. We do not do that here. Because of that we have an extended duty to encourage the conversation to raise Canadians' awareness. I believe that once Canadians know, they will listen to their heart and give up parts of their bodies to help their loved ones and strangers.

[Organ Donations, December 5th, 2011]

Absolutely, Mr. Chair. We have taken some steps in the right direction. The reason we are having this debate tonight is because we need to do more. Because we need to do more and do it more quickly, we have given up our evening to take part in this important debate.

I am not saying that the provinces are being cut out of this. They have a role to play, but so does the federal government, civil society groups, parliamentarians and Canadian citizens.

It is of very little solace to a person who is waiting for an organ to know that we have a long-term plan. We need to make plans, but we also need to move quickly so thousands of people are not kept waiting.

One of the key areas, and my colleague from Vancouver East covered this earlier as well, is for us to raise awareness, to create space, so we can have these conversations and raise our consciousness about this.

There is going to be cultural sensitivity about this and we need to take a look at that. However, more than cultural sensitivity, there is also personal fear sensitivity. We all have some of those fears, so we need to shine the light on those and have honest conversations about them.

[Organ Donations, December 5th, 2011]

Mr. Chair, it is not exactly a delight, but I am really pleased that we are having this very important debate tonight.

Organ donation is not what typical Canadians are running around thinking about, especially at this time of the year. They are busy working, some of them two or three jobs. They are busy trying to get ready for Christmas, looking after their children. Normally this kind of conversation does not enter our households unless we have a family member or a friend who is impacted.

For 4,000 Canadians who are waiting for an organ transplant to save their lives, tonight's debate is very critical, not only for those who are waiting for the organ transplant but for every member in the family and for all the friends. Therefore, the circle of concern widens.

For many of us, as we listen to the debate tonight, it brings home to us the importance of us shining the light on this issue. Who knows, one of us may need an organ transplant one day. We would never wish that on anyone, but we never know. That is the kind of conversation we need to have.

Canadians are very generous and very giving. I am very proud that in Canada we do not allow the sale of organs for transplants. We have a lot to be proud of. Despite that, there is no incentive, but the incentive that exists is the one of giving that comes from the heart, and Canadians give. We have to find a way, not just in Parliament, but at every dining room table, at every water cooler, at every coffee stand, all over the country, where people are consciously having a conversation about organ donation.

I heard a colleague mention earlier that years ago there was a form we filled in and there was a mark on our driver's licence. We knew that we had time to think about it.

However, when we look at how many people are waiting for organ transplants and how many are actually performed each year, only 1,803 were performed last year and many people were left waiting. They go into the evening and their families never know if their loved one is going to make it to the next day, or to the next week. It is that kind of angst that we need to have a discussion about, because it is only when people hear about the real stories that they are then moved. That is how Canadians are. They hear of a need and they will rise to the occasion.

I must be honest that I am always in absolute awe of those who give one of their organs, for example, a kidney, while they are still alive. It always brings tears to my eyes because I cannot think of a greater sacrifice one would make for a loved one, or a stranger or a friend than to give one's organ, not knowing what the future holds in store.

When we look for heroes in our lives, those people are true heroes. With a bit more education, there would be more heroes. I remember a few years ago there was the case of a very young person needing a kidney and people from all over were phoning in, emailing, asking to be tested to see if they were compatible.

I think that kind of generosity will occur once people get engaged in this conversation. When the light is shone on the real impact on the lifestyle of that person who is waiting and the impact it has on his or her family, it moves people. It is going to move them far more than technical reports and appeals from politicians, even parliamentarians. Most of them are not going to be moved by us. We can shine the light on those stories. We can send communication out and we should.

However, at the end of the day, what moves Canadians to give is when stories touch their heart. That is one aspect of what we need to do. The other aspect is the absolute need for an integrated, coordinated national registry, not only of the donors but the recipients who are waiting for an organ as well.

I absolutely agree there needs to be some form of an independent panel that makes the determination if a kidney becomes available and there are six or seven people who are a match. I would not want to make that decision. It should not be made by a roll of a dice or by who made the first phone call.

Those people need to be skilled, to have the medical knowledge and the expertise so they can make the determination, giving it to the person who is the most needy at that time. We are going to get into the situation where six or seven people match and there is only one kidney. That decision has to be made. I would hate to see those kinds of decisions being made by who got an email in first. That is not how this should be.

We are not talking about widgets, or buying flowers or buying groceries or a TV set. We are talking about a life-giving organ. Because of that, I would really want to there to be some very tight guidelines.

All of us have stories of people in our lives who have waited for organs or who suffer some form of kidney failure and need dialysis. I have a very dear friend, and I do not know how she has managed over the last great number of years, going in, having dialysis and getting right to work. She is leading a productive life, supporting her kids, while all the time she is waiting for a donor.

I think this is where I absolutely agree that we do have a role as parliamentarians. We all do have outreach. We all connect in our communities. It is something we can do to create and encourage space for these conversations to occur. These are not the kinds of conversations that are Twitter friendly. These kinds of conversations have to be much deeper.

When I go home and sit down with my grandchildren, it is a conversation I want to have with them. By having that conversation with them, they will then start to think about this and will have that conversation outside as well. If all of us were to commit to start that circle of conversation and watch that circle grow, it would be great. We are going to have an opportunity to go to so many events.

I would not really recommend, if members are out for at Christmas do and somebody is about to toast, merry Christmas or happy new year, that they say “Stop, let us talk about organ donation”. We all know we have to find the right moment, and we will all do that.

There is a quote from the Canadian Blood Services that I would like to read into the record. It states:

Canada is one of the only countries in the western world without a national, coordinated system for organ and tissue donation and transplantation...The system as it stands today is at capacity, and is struggling to cope with current needs and projected future demand.

It is really important that even though health care is a provincial issue, and we all know that, that organ donation in Canada also has to be a national issue, coordinated with the provinces. We have a huge country with a huge geography, but we have a very small population. When a country has a very small population, a national strategy becomes really critical.

I would invite all parliamentarians, as they go into their communities, to look for spaces to create this conversation. Let us have the will here to have a national registry.

[Business of Supply, December 5th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, people are often judged both nationally and internationally by how they behave and by their actions toward the most vulnerable in our society. However, we are talking about something that impacts everybody. Having millions of dollars in the bank is not going to protect people from environmental harm that results from climate change.

Let me put on the record an excerpt from a report. The 2010 annual climate change performance index indicated that Canada finished in 54th place out of 57 countries that were evaluated, 54th out of 57, with only Australia, Kazakhstan and Saudi Arabia faring worse than Canada. That is not a record that the government should feel proud of. We have a lot to do, so let us get on with it, protect our environment, make commitments to firm numbers, and invest in green economies not by re-introducing or re-announcing the same money over and over again. Let us see what can be done with new projects.

[Business of Supply, December 5th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for the question that I believe was in there somewhere.

Every time somebody has a different point of view, the government tries to paint the person as being anti-Canadian. Let me tell the member that Canada is a democracy and in this democracy people are allowed to debate different points of view. We celebrate the fact that we have those different points of view. It is not a surprise to Canadians that through the media they are seeing that in the first two days of the Durban conference Canada received three fossil awards.

Miners and archeologists celebrate when they find fossils, but when we look at our role in the environmental sector, that is not something to celebrate. Yet, my colleagues across the aisle last week cheered when it was mentioned they had won the fossil award again. That is nothing to be proud of. It does not make me feel proud to be a Canadian. If being a Canadian means having to damage the environment, then I am a Canadian who wants to protect the environment.

[Business of Supply, December 5th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Berthier—Maskinongé.

I rise today to speak to this issue. Everyone in the House recognizes the importance of climate change and the impact it has on our environment, not just through slight shifts in temperature but the real economic impacts, as well as the fact that climate change has a real effect on species and our culture as well. Despite that, we obviously have very little agreement on how to move forward.

I think all of us can agree that we are very proud of the fact that Canada has always had a stellar reputation in the world as a leader in human rights and on environmental issues. Therefore, it is with a great deal of sadness today that I will read a quote that has damaged our standing in the world community.

Last week we saw some of the media coverage when the ambassador for South Africa spoke up about our role in Durban and how nervous they were that Canada could sabotage the talks going on in Durban, which are so crucial not only for our generation but for all our generations to come.

Over the last week we have been taken to task not by one nation but many nations for the lack of leadership that we have showed.

South African leaders, including Desmond Tutu, along with several African environmental groups, released a letter last week criticizing the government. It stated:

Canada, you were once considered a leader on global issues like human rights and environmental protection. Today, you’re home to polluting tar sands oil, speeding the dangerous effects of climate change.

For us in Africa, climate change is a life and death issue. By dramatically increasing Canada’s global warming pollution, tar sands mining and drilling makes the problem worse, and exposes million of Africans to more devastating drought and famine today and in the years to come.

That is a very sad legacy and sad comments for our young people to read. I received an email from a student in my riding who talked about the lack of leadership being taken by Canada at the conference in Durban and expressing concern that we as parliamentarians were not doing enough to protect the world, the planet, for them. We really do need to sit up and start paying attention.

Often we understand economic arguments even when we fail to understand the survival of our planet. For those members who understand economic arguments, I will put forward some facts.

In Quebec, insurance payouts for claims mainly related to flash storms, sewer back-ups and basement flooding in 2005-06 represented a 25% jump in water-related payouts as a percentage of the overall payouts from the 2001 to 2002 levels. These were related to climate change. What we have seen is a one metre sea level rise that could inundate more than 15,000 hectares of industrial and residential land. That is more than 4,600 hectares of farmland and the Vancouver International Airport.

When we look at these arguments, it becomes imperative for us to make commitments now and commitments we can actually live up to.

I have heard this question in the media, as well in the House today. How can we make firm commitments when others do not? We keep using the fact that the U.S., one of the largest polluters, and China have not signed on to Kyoto, so therefore our not living up to Kyoto is not a big deal.

If we were to apply that same kind of logic to everything else we do, then Canada would be frozen into inaction. We would be immobile. We did not wait for everyone in the world to be in agreement before we sent our troops into Libya. We do not wait until every country honours human rights for us to fight for human rights around the world. We are not waiting until every country becomes a democracy to then say now we are going to promote and push for democracy.

Canada is a leader on the world stage. As a leader on the world stage, this is our opportunity, our chance to be a leader and show that we really do care about the environment, the future economy and the future of this planet, not just for ourselves but for our children and grandchildren.

Climate change is not just going to happen in one area of the world. We are already beginning to experience the impacts of climate change. All of us have experienced the erratic weather recently and maybe the lack of snow in some areas and the massive amounts of snow in other areas. All of us know this is a direct result of what we have done to the environment over the years. Climate change does not respect international borders drawn by man.

We cannot say that because some countries have been taking these kinds of actions, therefore climate change is not going to occur in that part of the world. We have to take a leadership role, show that we mean business and that we are still a player on the international stage when it comes to being advocates for the environment.

Historically, the government has killed climate accountability measures before such as the accountability act that was introduced by our past leader, Jack Layton, but it is not too late today to still make those commitments. The costs, both human and economic, of not paying attention today are too high. David Suzuki does a wonderful experiment by which he shows how lack of action, even for a small period, can lead to an acceleration, which is way beyond our imagination, of the damage we are doing to our planet.

Together it is the responsibility of parliamentarians on both sides of the House to work together to prevent financial, social and environmental costs by working with all nations, not by isolating them, and leading by example. We have done that before and we need to do it again. Not only that, but we need to look at our own actions.

I would like to read into the record a letter written to me by a grade 11 student that I received today. She says, “I'm writing to you as someone concerned about ecological harm the oil sands in Alberta are causing. As a result, I would like to see something done to protect our environment. Oil sands production requires a very large amount of water”. She ends by saying, “However, animals aren't the only ones suffering, as other 30 different first nations groups live in the oil sands region”.

She is appealing to us. I wish I could read the whole letter into the record to show that this grade 11 student did her research and wrote a very detailed letter as to why we needed to play a critical role and be a world leader, not a fossil once again when it comes to the environment.

[Safe Streets and Communities Act, November 30th, 2011]

I apologize to the minister, Madam Speaker.

What he said was this:

For the government to bring in closure and time allocation is wrong. It sends out the wrong message to the people of Canada. It tells the people of Canada that the government is afraid of debate, afraid of discussion and afraid of publicly justifying the steps it has taken.

I would urge the government not to live up to this hypocrisy.

[Safe Streets and Communities Act, November 30th, 2011]

Madam Speaker, this bill is flawed. All parties know it, including the Conservatives. They actually tried to move some amendments. Those amendments were ruled out of order, but it showed that even the Conservative benches realize there is a need to debate this bill. Instead of taking the time to debate it, they have tried to move closure and time allocation.

I have a quote from the Minister of Public Safety, Vic Toews, on November 27, 2001—

[Foreign Affairs, November 30th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, Henk Tepper's family, in New Brunswick, is still waiting for him to come home safe and sound.

Today, we learned the RCMP sent his private information to Algeria before he was arrested. This sounds like the Maher Arar scandal all over again.

Will the Conservative government take responsibility for its role in this affair and will it tell this House, and the Tepper family, what it is doing to bring Henk Tepper home today?

[Foreign Affairs, November 28th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, in a disturbing pattern, the government continues to abandon Canadians detained abroad. Henk Tepper, a New Brunswick potato farmer, has been in prison for eight months in Beirut, even though he has not been charged with any crime. His health is deteriorating, yet our officials have visited him only once. This man remains jailed, without any charges.

Why does the government refuse to protect Canadian citizens abroad and will the minister intervene and ensure his safe return before Christmas?