Libby Davies

[Fair Representation Act, December 6th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly respect my hon. colleague and I have listened to his point of view many times. I would encourage him to vote for the NDP Bill C-312.

A bill at second reading is a vote in principle and that is what we have done. We have laid out the principles by which this process should be engaged. Once we do that, then let us have a debate and consult with people. I do not see the Liberals doing that. They came out with a bunch of numbers, but who have they talked to about that? We have been asking that question and have not received an answer. Let us deal with the principles and then deal with consultation.

[Fair Representation Act, December 6th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I would be happy to address the issues being raised by the parliamentary secretary.

If the member were to look at Bill C-312, which is the NDP bill on this matter, he would see that we have taken the time to lay out the process. Numbers are important for sure, but on an issue about seat distribution and representation, the process of how we engage people is also important. It is the process of nation building.

From everything that we can see in terms of the minimal consultation that was done, there is very little comment from the premiers. There has basically been no consultation with the provinces. This is not the way to build a nation in this country.

I reiterate, the bill is a failed approach. I think the NDP bill is a much better approach and response to this issue.

[Fair Representation Act, December 6th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with one comment that my colleague who just spoke said, which is that there has been a very spirited debate in the House today. Sometimes we do not see that as it is quiet. However, this has been a very interesting debate.

I have been sitting here all morning listening to the debate. I do not know if it is because we are talking about our place or our home, so to speak, that we get so caught up in it. Maybe that is a reason. But it raises fundamental issues in terms of how many members of Parliament there are, how they are selected, and what criteria is used. I do think they are important issues.

However, in looking at Bill C-20, which is supposedly calling for fair representation, I do think that there is an underlying issue that to me is very important, that being that we are dealing with a Conservative government that now has a pattern of putting forward legislation that really is out of touch with the reality of Canadians.

Last night we passed Bill C-10, the mega crime bill, for which there was massive opposition across the country. Every leading expert in the country said it was a bad bill and yet here were the Conservatives hell-bent on pushing it through. They brought in closure, time allocation, because they believed that this absolutely had to be done. When the evidence shows that crime is actually going down, putting more people in prison is a completely failed agenda when one looks at what has happened in the United States.

I wanted to preface my remarks today on that because there is a pattern in that we are now debating legislation that many people do not see as relevant to the real priorities they are facing. Here we have this bill on seat distribution and adding additional seats. However, it completely misses the fundamental issue in terms of our democratic and electoral systems, that being that the basic system by which we elect members of Parliament is fundamentally not fair.

It is not only a question of seats but also the way that we vote in this country, what we call first past the post. It is very revealing that when the government has an opportunity to bring forward these issues, it makes a decision to bring forward a bill that is actually flawed instead of focusing on a debate or a proposal to implement something that would fundamentally improve the democratic process in Canada and would enormously improve the way that people actually relate to politics.

All day I have heard the Liberals' position to actually take seats away. I am sure there are members of the public who might support that position.

What I think would be a good a debate is one that proposes proportional representation. Then we could really engage people and ensure not only fair representation but that when voters vote. their vote is actually counted in a way that is proportional to the aggregate votes for any given party. That is certainly not the system we have now.

It is hugely disappointing that on the one hand we have a bill that deals with the Senate that again did not deal with any issues around proportional representation, and on the other hand we have Bill C-20, which is at report stage today and will be going through third reading I imagine quite soon. It is a bill that will continue a pattern and proposal that is basically not fair in terms of its representation.

I am glad that the NDP put forward its own private member's bill that did lay out the important principles of what we need to look at when we deal with seat representation.

I am from British Columbia and the first to say, as I know my colleagues from the NDP in British Columbia will say, that B.C. has been under-represented in the House, as have other provinces. We understand that. However, when we look at this bill, even from a B.C. point of view, we are not gaining adequate representation. I think the NDP bill that has been put forward really addresses some of the principles at issue here. One of those principles is the historical context of this country and how it was founded.

We cannot deny the reality that we do not have pure representation by population. It is not possible in a country as diverse and as large as Canada. Many people have given the examples of Prince Edward Island or other maritime provinces that on a population basis are hugely overrepresented, or northern communities. We understand that. We understand that there is a balance.

In fact, those balances and those principles have been reflected in decisions by the Supreme Court of Canada and other decisions that recognize the history of this country. Certainly, one of those principles is the place of Quebec within the nation of Canada. I was in the House when the motion was passed in November 2006 where we unanimously declared a nation within a united Canada. That was a very important principle that was enunciated by the House. Therefore, in terms of recognizing what that means to seat distribution and recognizing the historical level of seats within Quebec, this bill fails on that ground.

The Conservative government chose to raise this issue. It chose to bring it forward on its political agenda. It chose to use the particular seat distribution that it came forward with. I find it very surprising and perplexing that it did it in a manner that is not consistent with the historical representation that we have had for the province of Quebec.

I feel there are some very sound arguments here to speak out loud and clear that this bill is flawed. If we are going to do it, should we not be doing it properly? Should we not be ensuring that there is fair representation, and should we not be doing it on the basis of fundamental democratic reform and advancement in this country?

Many of my colleagues have pointed out that we are now really one of the last remaining nations under parliamentary democracy that still uses first past the post. Why are we not having a debate on that? Why are we not seeing a bill that would bring that forward? Unfortunately, we know the answer. The government is afraid to lose what it sees as a monopoly that it has on the system that we operate under. We have seen that with Liberal governments before them.

I am very proud of the fact that the NDP has been a champion of proportional representation and has been in the forefront of that struggle to say that it is a fundamental reform that needs to take place in this country.

We are responding to a bill that the Conservatives brought forward. We have our own bill that lays out very clear principles of the way we believe this issue should be approached. It should be approached as a nation building exercise. What consultation was done here? What provinces, what people were consulted on this bill?

This is another unilateral, arbitrary, dump it down, and rush it through bill. Like many of the government's bills, it is recycled. This is the third time it has come around. There was a choice here if we were going to deal with this issue to deal with it in a way that would have actually advanced democracy in Canada, and would have advanced representation in terms of members of Parliament for the population. Unfortunately, this bill does not cut it. It does not meet that test or standard.

That is why we are here today in the House at report stage pointing out the flaws of this bill and saying that there could have been a better choice.

[Fair Representation Act, December 6th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I listened very carefully to my colleague's comments when he said that there is a principle in the bill. I have been sitting here wondering, what is the principle? I know he will say that the principle is fair representation, but surely, if Parliament or the government is to engage in this exercise and talk about increasing seats in the House of Commons, is the principle not about nation building? Is the principle not about respecting the historical representation of Quebec in the House and in this country?

I think that the Conservatives have the wrong principle. Perhaps the hon. member would address that. What happened to the principle of nation building?

[Organ Donations, December 5th, 2011]

Madam Chair, I thank my colleague for informing us about what is taking place in Quebec.

There has been a lot of discussion tonight about the need to talk to our families and friends at the dinner table. I do think that is really important. However, it is similar to the chicken and the egg situation. If people are going to talk about it, it is because they are aware. It is one thing if there are 10,000 individuals who are aware and have conversations. However, we need to have a massive public awareness campaign in order to have those conversations.

There is awareness about drunk driving because year after year there have been messages about it. For example, in B.C., the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia has a massive campaign. We have campaigns by groups in the non-profit sector, such as Mothers Against Drunk Driving. We have police campaigns. There is a massive awareness and slowly, a shift begins to take place.

Of course, people have to have discussions before making a decision about whether to sign a donor card online, in person or at the auto insurance bureau. However, unless we have huge public awareness campaigns to deal with some of the myths about organ donation, I do not think we are going to make a lot of progress.

I wonder if the member would just comment on the need for some kind of huge public awareness campaign across the country.

[Organ Donations, December 5th, 2011]

Madam Chair, because the member for Vancouver Centre is from British Columbia, as I am, I wanted to say something about the program in B.C. Its new program was started in 1997, and was the first of its kind in Canada in that it created a new remote access computerized registry to record an individual's decision on organ donation.

Although we had a process before, it was really very flawed. First of all, it was only available to B.C. drivers, so it obviously missed a huge segment of the population. Most importantly, the information regarding organ donation was not accessible to health care professionals in an immediate and consistent fashion, and obviously we know that time is of the essence.

We have had a new system since 1997. It allows individuals to make an educated choice of, for example, which organs they want to donate. It gives a choice, which is then legally recorded.

It seems to me that B.C. has had a pretty good system. I appreciate the member's comments that having this consistently across the country is what is lacking. I do not want to single out any province and say it is not doing very well, because each province has tried to do it, but surely in this situation we can have a national registry, as the member has pointed out, and have consistency, so that we can get maximum results.

For me the biggest issue is to also raise awareness about organ donation generally with the public. Why--

[Organ Donations, December 5th, 2011]

Madam Chair, I thank my colleague for sharing that very beautiful story. It makes us feel better when we hear those stories. For the people who made the donation of an organ, what caused them to do that? Was it because they had some individual knowledge through another family member, or was it because of a broader policy at work that connected with them?

That is what we want to get at tonight. We want to hear of many more situations where people became donors by signing up and they could literally give the gift of life to someone else. We want to hear more of these experiences and stories. We will only do that by encouraging a much better process and system in place.

I think the purpose of tonight's debate is to help illuminate that, to draw attention to what is going on and of the plight and the living situation of people who are waiting on donor lists to receive an organ. It is good to hear that story tonight.

[Organ Donations, December 5th, 2011]

Madam Chair, the first thing we are doing is having this discussion and debate tonight, which is a very important element.

We represent 308 ridings across the country, from the north to the south, from large urban ridings like my riding of Vancouver East, to vast rural areas. One thing we could all do, and I will commit to do, is to get out more information locally. We have a great opportunity and an enormous privilege to communicate with their constituents. Maybe that is one thing we can all say we will do tonight, on an individual member of Parliament level, that we will send out information to our communities. In my case, because my community is very diverse and there are many languages, I would try to do that in a multilingual way.

However, I do feel that we need to go beyond that. This is a big issue that affects thousands of people. It is very important that we give some feedback to the government and say that more needs to be done at the national level in terms of public awareness and a coordinated system across the country, as I tried to describe in my remarks. I am not an expert on this, but we understand public policy and we know we need to put a system in place that works. We have very sophisticated technology these days. It is not rocket science. It is something that can be done.

Those are a few suggestions and maybe more will come up during the evening.

[Organ Donations, December 5th, 2011]

Madam Chair, I am pleased to participate in this very important debate this evening. In the rough and tumble of the life of Parliament, we can argue and disagree, but every once in a while an issue comes forward, and sometimes it is through a take note debate where there will be no vote, but at least we are able to express the concerns and issues we have around a particular issue. The issue of organ donation in Canada is a very important one. It is an issue that is deeply personal for the more than 4,000 Canadians who are waiting for organ transplants to save their lives.

Last year only 1,803 transplants were performed and there are many patients on waiting lists still. Unfortunately, the reality is that over 200 Canadians died last year while waiting for organ transplants. The greatest need is for kidney transplants. Seventy-five per cent of patients on the lists are waiting for kidney transplants.

We are all touched by this issue in various ways. I think of Garry Keller and what he and his family are going through. Our hearts go out to him and the struggle he is going through health-wise, as well as looking for a potential donor. This is very critical. Human stories are very difficult to share and talk about, but they help us understand what it is we need to do as members of Parliament, policy makers and legislators. I want to thank Mr. Keller for speaking out, helping inform this debate and bringing a sense of urgency of what it is that needs to be done.

We only heard recently about this take note debate, but over the past couple of days I contacted a couple of people who are very involved in this issue. I contacted someone who undergoes kidney dialysis and someone who is involved provincially in managing the liver transplant program. I would like to make a couple of comments about what these folks told me. It is one thing for me to talk about what is in a report, but when people hear it from those who are directly involved, it is ever so much more meaningful.

An individual who has been on kidney dialysis wrote to me today and said:

--to encourage all willing donors to sign their licenses, yes, but also to go on-line to register. If someone is in hospital dying (which is usually the case) the donor info pops up on the screen so the doctor can see that you are registered. If a family member is not right there or does not know, organs are then wasted.

This person went on to say:

...why cannot a national registry be created/maintained with this data so if someone does need a kidney suddenly (which is almost always the case) that the list of potential donors can be quickly [connected] and the appropriate action taken.

This is someone who is undergoing dialysis. That point is well taken. We have to understand what is behind it and that we need to do more.

I received an email from someone who is very involved in the system and is working with people who need transplants. This person said:

Every day people die and almost as hard, people are unable to be productive, contributing citizens while they wait...who are too ill to work and contribute. This applies to dialysis patients as well in many cases - they exist, but can't work at the same level as they would normally if at all....

The person went on to make the point:

It brings great comfort to the family of the deceased person to think they have made a difference in saving a life. Organ donation is the ultimate recycling. It seems odd to me that Canada with its reputation of helping others has one of the poorest organ donation rates in the modern world. We need to find a way to engage our people in organ donation including the people who have come here from elsewhere - using language, culture and reaching out to all.

That was an email from someone who works in the system coordinating the list in a province.

Canadian Blood Services has said that Canada is one of the few 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.

I return to where I started, which is on the issue of public policy. We have a responsibility as parliamentarians to ensure that our government is actually following through on recommendations that have been made. The Canadian Council for Donation and Transplantation was set up in 2001. I have no doubt that this body, which acts as an advisory body to the conference of deputy ministers of health, has done good work. I am not disputing that. However, we have not made the kind of progress that is needed on an overall pan-Canadian strategy. In some provinces there are very good systems. I was just speaking with one of my colleagues from Quebec, who told me that in Quebec there is a very well-organized system. There is good public awareness. I hope we will hear from the member later in the evening. He could share some of the experiences of what he knows to be happening in Quebec.

The fact is, as with many issues, it is uneven across the country. This report was done in 1999 by the health committee to draw attention to the gaps, inadequacies, and lack of an overall policy. It is rather disturbing and worrying that here we are many years later and not an awful lot of progress has been made.

Those are very important questions. We are debating some of these issues as we look at the health accord that was signed in 2004. As we approach the new health accord in 2014, a lot of questions that Canadians, advocates, the medical community and the health community are raising are around accountability, follow-through, knowing that we have procedures and programs in place to ensure that the systems are working the best they can, whether it is for organ transplants or for any other medical procedure.

I have concerns that on this issue we are not doing everything we could do, even on the level of public awareness. Obviously, we have to encourage people to come forward and to sign up, either online or in the various other ways of doing it, depending on where they live. There has to be a public awareness campaign.

As I remarked earlier to the parliamentary secretary, according to this report from 2009, there has not been an overall campaign, a big public awareness campaign in terms of multi-media, since 2002. This is a very critical factor.

We need to make people aware, particularly in multicultural communities where people may not be very familiar or comfortable discussing this issue. Surely, it is incumbent upon us to ensure that this information is out there in culturally appropriate ways, in different languages, in local communities, as well as in national campaigns to make it clear and to encourage people to sign up either as a living donor or to donate their organs when they become deceased.

Sometimes these are not pleasant things to talk about but it is part of our life process and it is a conversation that we should open up. Maybe, as members of Parliament, we can help open this up. I implore the government to look at this report from 1999. This is a job not yet finished on a very important issue.

I want to end by expressing admiration for the 4,000 Canadians who are waiting for an organ transplant. I recognize the struggles, hardships and difficulties they go through, some of whom are not able to work or are in pain. They probably all have a sense of anxiety. We say to them tonight that we know this and we need to act and follow through.

[Organ Donations, December 5th, 2011]

Madam Chair, just as a follow up to my earlier question, in the same report that I referred to as background and research, one thing which bothered me was that it said that neither the CCDT, the Canadian Council for Donation and Transportation, nor Health Canada has devoted much attention to public awareness. No campaigns have been conducted since 2001 and 2002. The report I am reading from is from 2009. Maybe something happened in 2009 or 2010, but if that is not that case, it is worrying that the public awareness, education and getting people to sign up which, as the member has just said is so important in this whole issue, was not done.

I wonder if he has any comment on that. This is one issue on which there is commonality in the House. This is a very human issue. It affects constituents across party lines, of course. If we can encourage better public information, and if this was one of the mandates of the council, it worries me that we are not quite up to speed on doing the public awareness.

Maybe because he is the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health he has more recent information, but this report made it look like not much had happened since 2002, which is somewhat concerning.