Hansard
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Add search criteria
Results: 1 - 60 of 159
View Garnett Genuis Profile
CPC (AB)
Madam Speaker, the next petition I am tabling is in support of Bill S-204, a bill that would make it a criminal offence for a person to go abroad and receive an organ without consent. This bill was debated on Friday. Unfortunately, we did not have the support of the government to expedite it at that time, but hopefully that support will be forthcoming very soon. Petitioners want to see this Parliament be the one that gets Bill S-204 passed.
View Garnett Genuis Profile
CPC (AB)
moved that Bill S-204, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (trafficking in human organs), be read the second time and referred to a committee.
View Garnett Genuis Profile
CPC (AB)
Mr. Speaker, Bill S-204 would make it a criminal offence for a person to go abroad and receive an organ without consent. It fights the horrific practice of forced organ harvesting and trafficking.
I am not going to speak much about the bill because everyone already knows this bill should pass. This bill has already passed the Senate twice and the House once, unanimously. This bill started out as a Liberal bill under Borys Wrzesnewskyj and Irwin Cotler.
The question today is not on the substance of the bill. The question is about whether the government is committed to doing what it knows to be the right thing and allowing this bill to pass, or whether it will prevent the bill from passing. If this bill passes now, then the House can immediately resume consideration of the government's budget, so the government can either support that to happen, or we can spend the hour talking, delaying both this bill and the budget bill.
Therefore, I would like to seek the consent of the House for the following motion. I move that notwithstanding any Standing Order, special order or usual practice of the House, at the conclusion of today's debate on Bill S-204, the bill be deemed to have been read a second time and referred to a committee of the whole, deemed considered in a committee of the whole, deemed reported without amendment, deemed concurred in at report stage and deemed read a third time and passed.
View Mark Gerretsen Profile
Lib. (ON)
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
I believe after someone puts forward a motion in the middle of their speech, they do not get to continue speaking after. I think the proper rule would be to go to the next speaker, would it not?
View Garnett Genuis Profile
CPC (AB)
Mr. Speaker, it is somewhat of a moot point. I am very disappointed the member for Kingston and the Islands chose to say no to this unanimous consent motion given that the House has unanimously supported this bill in the past, but I have finished my speech.
View Mark Gerretsen Profile
Lib. (ON)
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
If the member is able to confirm I am the individual who said no, I would love for him to be able do that, but in the meantime, perhaps he should not suggest it until he is somehow able to confirm it.
View Kevin Lamoureux Profile
Lib. (MB)
View Kevin Lamoureux Profile
2021-06-18 13:40 [p.8792]
Mr. Speaker, my question to the member is related to the request he has asked of the House. Would he agree that what he was attempting to do is best done through House leadership teams, where they can try to see if it is possible to do what he has requested?
For example, would the member support the quick passage of Bill C-30, which is the budget bill, given the implications for the pandemic and supports for Canadians? Would he support such a measure for Bill C-30, Bill C-6, Bill C-10 and Bill C-12?
View Judy A. Sgro Profile
Lib. (ON)
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak on this important issue today, an issue I have cared about for a very long time, as do many members of the House.
Before I do that, what a pleasure it has been to serve with you, Mr. Speaker. You have been kind and constantly pleasant, even if we have been on opposite sides of the discussion. You are always very polite to everyone in the House. In your role as Deputy Speaker, you have done a fine job. I wish you and your lovely wife much happiness in the future as you go into what is called retirement, but I have a feeling it is not really retirement for you.
As I rise today for what will most likely be my last opportunity to speak before we recess for the summer break, I look forward to the opportunity of being back in my riding of Humber River—Black Creek full time this summer. It seems like it has been ages since I have seen my constituents, especially being able to give them a hug and playing bingo with them.
I cannot wait to visit the local community parks, the various seniors groups and, mostly important, to spend some more time with all my family, not just my husband. It has been quite some time since I have had the opportunity to hug my grandchildren, and I know it is similar for you, the Speaker. After recently receiving my second dose, this will mean the world to me.
However, before that happens, I want to take this opportunity to thank all the teams, the clerks and all the people in the team that kept us going forward in the diligent management of this year's House proceedings. It certainly was an extremely difficult time and a real learning experience for many of us. We could not have done our job if everyone had not done such an incredible job. It is amazing what we have accomplished in such difficult times. I thank all of them.
I would also like to thank the House of Commons support staff for their tireless effort in assisting members to operate in a virtual Parliament. The number for IT help is front and centre in my home, by my computer. Like all my colleagues, when things are not working, I have to call the wonderful people in IT for help. I thank all of them.
It was not an easy job, but we all managed to get through it. It is my hope that we will soon see some normalcy in all our lives—
View Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe Profile
BQ (QC)
Mr. Speaker, we are supposed to be debating Bill S‑204. From what I understand, the Liberals do not want this bill to pass quickly.
It is very nice and all to want to thank everyone, but the member's comments have nothing to do with the subject at hand.
View Mark Gerretsen Profile
Lib. (ON)
Mr. Speaker, on that same point of order, when we come toward the end of a session like this, it is not uncharacteristic for us to allow members a brief opportunity to thank people. She spent half the time thanking you, Mr. Speaker, for the incredible work you have done before departing on your retirement. She was thanking a few members of her staff. She was literally just getting started when the member interrupted her. It was entirely appropriate and we should allow the member to continue now so she can get on with her speech.
View Judy A. Sgro Profile
Lib. (ON)
Mr. Speaker, I have been following the debates all week and many of my colleagues have used their time in their interventions to acknowledge the wonderful work that various people have done.
I very much support Bill S-204.
As members know, we had a late night last night. We were voting on the main estimates to approve the necessary programs that were going to make a difference in all Canadians' lives, programs that would help get people back on their feet after surviving this global pandemic. It has not been easy, but we have been there for Canadians.
It is my hope that in the coming days, when we deal with bills like Bill S-204, we will see the swift passage of bills like Bill C-30 and other important pieces of legislation, which still need to be addressed, so we can ensure that the supports needed to help Canadians through the final stages of this pandemic are in place. That is why we are all here in this place. We do not need to be told by other colleagues that if we want to get Bill C-30 passed, we have to turn around and get some other bill passed. That is not the way democracy works.
We are to represent our constituents and make a positive difference, and I believe Bill S-204 would make a big difference in the lives of many people.
Bill S-204, formally known as Bill S-240, passed both in the House and in the other place in 2019. I was very proud to be one of the persons, along with my colleagues, who passed this important bill. I appreciate the fact that my colleague has raised this issue, brought it back and continues to move it forward, because it is a very important bill.
Unfortunately, Bill S-240 never became law due to the dissolution of the House before the federal election. That happened to many good pieces of legislation. It is long overdue that this Parliament pass legislation like Bill S-204, dealing with a practice that we all are appalled to know continues in spite of many of us calling for the abolition of it. We know it continues on many days and in many countries.
Similar bills have been sitting in Parliament for over 12 years, during which time many innocent lives have perished due to the organ transplant trade, something we all find completely appalling. Two previous private members' bills were tabled by my former colleague, the former member for Etobicoke Centre, and my life-long friend, someone we all love and respect, the Hon. Irwin Cotler.
I am the chair of the Parliamentary Friends of Falun Gong and I am all too familiar with the issue of organ harvesting and how this bill could help put an end to this horrific practice. I have seen many pictures and talked to people who have had their family go through this terrible process.
Bill S-204 proposes to amend the Criminal Code to create new offences in relation to trafficking in human organs. The bill also would amend the Criminal Code to enable Canada to assume extraterritorial jurisdiction to prosecute, and that is very important. There is no sense having legislation if we do not put teeth in it. We need that ability to prosecute, in Canada, Canadian citizens or permanent residents who commit any of the proposed offences abroad.
I was recently told about number of Canadians who were going abroad, specifically to China, and getting kidney transplants and different things done. I would like to ask Canadians, before they do that, to think about where those organs come from. This would make it an offence for any Canadian to go abroad to take advantage of that.
It would also amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act to provide that permanent residents or foreign nationals would be inadmissible to Canada if the responsible person were of the opinion that they have engaged in any of these activities relating to trafficking in human organs. Imagine that for $5,000, someone can get a transplant, never asking where that organ came from.
Our government is committed to ensuring our criminal justice system keeps communities safe, protects victims and holds offenders to account. We condemn the illegal and exploitative trade of human organs in the strongest of terms, and that was shown in the previous vote on Bill S-240, and will be on this one as well. We continue to have very strong feelings on things like this, as I believe all Canadians do.
Organ trafficking, the practice of extracting organs through coercive means to sell them for profit, is absolutely reprehensible and it is a global challenge, not just the challenge we are talking about today, which frequently involves the exploitation of vulnerable individuals. It is a complex issue that requires both legislative and policy responses. Our government is proud to support this important bill, with targeted amendments that would make it better to achieve its objectives.
I very much look forward to seeing its passage by Parliament contrary to what my colleagues seemed to indicate earlier. This a bill that we all want to pass and then have very strong enforcement to end human trafficking in organ transplants.
If I do not get another opportunity to do so, I wish everyone a blessed summer and I will see everyone in September.
View Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe Profile
BQ (QC)
Madam Speaker, Bill S‑204 would make it a criminal offence for a person to go abroad to receive an organ harvested without consent. This bill combats the horrible practice of forced organ harvesting and trafficking in human organs. I will not get into the bill because everyone agrees that it should be passed.
This bill has already been unanimously passed twice by the Senate and once by the House. Initially it was a Liberal bill introduced by Borys Wrzesnewskyj and Irwin Cotler. The issue today is not about the bill.
The issue is whether the government is committed to doing what it knows is the right thing and will allow the bill to pass or whether it will decide otherwise. If this bill is passed right away then the House could resume debate of the government's budget. The government can either agree to this or spend an hour talking about it, delaying both this bill and its own budget.
Accordingly, I would like to seek the unanimous consent of the House to move the following motion: That, notwithstanding any standing order, special order or usual practice of the House, at the conclusion of today's debate on Bill S‑204, the bill be deemed to have been read a second time and referred to a committee of the whole, deemed considered in a committee of the whole, deemed reported without amendment, deemed concurred in at report stage and deemed read a third time and passed.
View Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe Profile
BQ (QC)
Madam Speaker, unfortunately, I believe it is quite obvious what the Liberals are doing. Afterwards, they will tell us that the opposition was being partisan and playing politics. Quite frankly, that is disappointing today.
View Gord Johns Profile
NDP (BC)
View Gord Johns Profile
2021-06-18 13:55 [p.8794]
Madam Speaker, it is an honour to rise in support of Bill S-204. The bill would prevent the illegal harvesting and trafficking of human organs, penalize Canadians who participate in or facilitate the illegal black market for organ harvesting and deter people from getting involved in this immoral and unregulated industry that is loaded with illegal businesses. This illicit and illegal organ-harvesting industry is hurting vulnerable people across the world. A global shortage of organs has driven this illegal industry, which relies on low-income populations as donors and wealthy foreigners as recipients. It is illegal and immoral. It is an industry that preys on some of the most vulnerable people across the world. We have to recognize that this demand is fed by wealthier nations and individuals.
According to experts, the illicit trafficking of organs on the black market has grown exponentially as demand has grown and supply has become more limited. Who are the victims of this illicit trade? As is mostly the case with the trafficking of organs, they tend to be the poor, who are vulnerable and exposed to exploitation. They are commonly refugees living in terrible and unsafe conditions. They are often told they will get large sums of money or released from debt. Specifically in the case of kidneys, the most commonly harvested organ from living donors, recruiters will even tell victims that the kidneys will grow back. These victims are desperate and seen as easy prey for exploitation.
The perpetrators who are often implicit in the trafficking of organs include a wide array of people, from the recruiters who identify the vulnerable victims, the transporters, the staff working at the clinic or hospital, the medical professionals who carry out the surgery and the wealthy westerners who buy these organs. There is a whole chain of people who end up profiting from this horrific crime.
Just over the border in the United States, over 114,000 people are on the organ waiting list with a new person added every 10 minutes. The World Health Organization estimates that 10,000 kidneys are traded on the black market worldwide annually. That is more than one every hour. We just cannot go on like this. It is completely unacceptable and we as members of Parliament have to do something about it. This is the fourth—
View Warren Steinley Profile
CPC (SK)
View Warren Steinley Profile
2021-06-18 13:58 [p.8795]
Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am sorry to interrupt my colleague.
Because of the numerous points of orders that were brought during private members' hour, I was wondering if that time will be added to the end of the hour.
Standing Order 30(7) states:
If the beginning of private members’ hour is delayed for any reason, or if the hour is interrupted for any reason, a period of time corresponding to the time of the delay or interruption shall be added to the end of the hour suspending as much of the business set out in section (6) of this standing order as necessary.
View Gord Johns Profile
NDP (BC)
View Gord Johns Profile
2021-06-18 13:59 [p.8795]
Madam Speaker, this is the fourth time that this issue has been brought before Parliament. The situation is urgent, especially for those who are being preyed upon. Clearly it should not be a partisan issue. I know it is June and I know it is a difficult time, but, sadly, here today partisanship is now playing in on this bill that could be saving the lives of those who are being preyed upon in developing countries. We need to stop waiting around and get this done.
I am really disappointed to see how things are playing out today. This is exactly the sort of bill that should get cross-party support and all sides of the House should be able to and can agree that we have to do more about this and that this has to be stopped, not at some distant time in the future but right now. There have been opportunities today to advance that, so it is very disappointing. The victims of this crime simply cannot wait any longer.
Here in Canada, we are way behind in dealing with this issue on organ trafficking. We look at other countries, such as Spain and Norway and Taiwan, that have passed similar pieces of legislation to tackle this issue. Europeans have a convention entitled, “Council of Europe Convention against Trafficking in Human Organs”. We have to start catching up with the rest of the world by acknowledging the problem and taking action to fix it. The international community must come together on this issue. Canada needs to be a leader and establish clear conditions that will cut off the organ-trafficking industry's profits and the illegal businesses.
While most organ trafficking occurs abroad, measures must and can be implemented to ensure Canadians on long organ donation lists are not perpetuating this brutality by purchasing trafficked organs out of desperation. While we debate this bill to stop international organ trafficking, I do want to take time today to commend my colleague and good friend from Calgary Confederation for taking great action here at home and in this House that I know will address many domestic needs for organs. I am aware it just received royal assent. His bill, C-316, would deal with tax records being used for an organ donor registry. It is a highly commendable proposal that can be part of the solution to increase the supply of safe, legal and consensual organ donations, in an ethical way that respects human rights. This will have a real impact on people's lives here in Canada. I am honoured to continue to work with my colleague and to be a part of supporting his proposal, both his bill from the last Parliament and the bill that just passed.
The NDP really wants to ensure that this bill is passed swiftly and that those who have been harmed by this illicit trade are given the justice that they deserve. To support this, we must do more domestically to encourage ethical, safe organ donations, including giving Canadians more options to be able to sign up to the organ donation registry.
Organ harvesting and trafficking abroad is a horrific crime against humanity. It must be stopped. Canada can and must begin the process of fixing this injustice by passage of this bill.
Again, I am disappointed today that partisan politics have come into play. We support dealing with this horrific crime of organ harvesting and trafficking abroad.
View Kevin Lamoureux Profile
Lib. (MB)
View Kevin Lamoureux Profile
2021-06-18 14:03 [p.8795]
Madam Speaker, I have been listening very closely to what has been said. In good part I agree when members talk about the partisanship we are seeing on the floor, but I take it from a different perspective, where, over the last while, there has been a great deal of partisanship on the floor of the House of Commons.
I know that a good number of people are watching and are very much interested in this piece of legislation ultimately passing and receiving royal assent. There was a great sense of disappointment when it passed the House of Commons but the Senate was not able to get its royal assent. There is no doubt that a vast majority of Canadians recognized that it should be a crime to travel abroad without the donor's consent in order to get an organ transplant.
They try to give a false impression. I referred to it yesterday, and more and more we are seeing this unholy alliance of opposition parties coming together to try, in every way possible and in as partisan a way as possible, to make the Prime Minister and members of the Liberal caucus look bad. Seriously, I am not aware of any Liberal member of Parliament who would want to prevent this from becoming law. There are procedures that need to take place. Each political entity has a House leadership team with whom the issue could be addressed.
I say, to individuals like Irwin Cotler, David Matis, Maria and so many others who have been strong advocates on this issue, that what they are witnessing today is a partisanship that is not coming from the government. The government is doing what it can to ensure that there is a series of pieces of legislation. I could cite specific examples that have been provided to me. We know that we could pass this with unanimous consent, as we could do for a number of pieces of legislation.
Where was this empathy for the people the legislation would benefit, for example, when we dealt with Bill C-3? Bill C-3 was about the judicial appointments and training. Members will recall that it, too, passed the House of Commons in the last Parliament and the government reintroduced it as Bill C-3. How many hours of debate took place on that bill, even though it went through the full process the previous time? It was hours and days, but the Conservatives did not want it passed, and for what reasons? I will let people follow the debate.
Members will say that the issue has been debated already. I remember opposition members, when the shoe was on the other foot, would say that it was the previous Parliament and there are new members of Parliament who were just elected back in 2019 and ask if they should not be afforded the opportunity, if they want to be able to contribute to the debate. I understand the rules, the process and how things operate regarding legislation. We now have an offer saying that if we pass this bill unanimously right now, we will be allowed to debate Bill C-30. Members can imagine the hypocrisy. That is the reason I raised the matter of privilege I raised earlier today.
Last Friday and this Friday the NDP and the Conservatives were working together through privileges to prevent the government from being able to deal with legislation. Is this legislation not also important? What about other private—
View Warren Steinley Profile
CPC (SK)
View Warren Steinley Profile
2021-06-18 14:08 [p.8796]
Madam Speaker, the hon. member for Winnipeg North has talked about how much he knows about the parliamentary practices and procedures of this House. I have been listening intently, and he really has not talked about human trafficking—
View Kevin Lamoureux Profile
Lib. (MB)
View Kevin Lamoureux Profile
2021-06-18 14:08 [p.8796]
Madam Speaker, shame on the member for the interruption.
I have debated this issue. I have supported this issue's advancement, and I suspect that it will get through second reading at some point, as other private members' bills will. If there is keen interest such as I have heard today on the floor of the House from all members, I would suggest that they raise the issue with their respective House leadership teams. Maybe there is a way in which it can be accommodated.
Is this select group now going to prioritize all the other areas and bills that are before us and say these ones too should be rushed through the House of Commons without debate, let alone some debate? I could list Bill C-6 on conversion therapy. I could talk about Bill C-30, which is going to help millions of Canadians, many of whom are in desperate situations. Then there is Bill C-12, on net zero and the environment, and Bill C-10. That does not even go into the many private members' bills from many of our colleagues who are very interested in advancing their ideas, resolutions and bills.
That does not take away from the importance of the debate on this bill. I suspect that when it comes to a vote, every member will likely vote for it as they did previously. The ones who are trying to score political cheap shots today are the opposition parties. In the days going into summer, this is brought to the table. If the people who are pushing for this legislation really wanted to do a service for the audience, there is a better way of doing it. I suspect some of them know that, but they have chosen to do this in their partisanship, while saying the Liberal government is preventing it.
Out of respect for some of the individuals I have referenced, I will work within my caucus, as I know my colleague from Toronto who spoke prior to me will. We understand what the bill and the legislation will do, but we also understand that after today there are three days left of this session before we break for the summer. There are still opportunities to try to shame one political entity into unanimous consent for personal or political views, or to try to make others look bad. I believe that the manner in which this issue is being dealt with today is just wrong.
I have been on House leadership teams for 30 years. It would be nice to see this bill passed at all stages. If that is possible, then I would really recommend that members watching or participating use that same passion in talking to their House leaderships. There might even be some other members who have other ideas for legislation that may be important to them and to Canadians, and that could allow us to set a good example around the world.
Canada taking action can have a positive outcome for other nations. I recognize that, but I also recognize that at the end of the day, in order for us to succeed we have to have a process. If we are respectful of the process and work in collaboration as parties, we could probably achieve a lot more, as we did for the private member's bill the first and second go-round.
I would invite members who are following the debate to participate in a discussion afterwards with regard to how I feel, using my expertise, about what could be done with regard to this legislation.
I suggest this as an open gesture of goodwill, because I, like the former Liberal speaker, support the legislation.
View Mark Gerretsen Profile
Lib. (ON)
Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to rise to speak to this bill today. Before I do that, I want to address some of the observations I have had from the debate so far today.
The member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan took the floor, introduced the subject, talked a little about it and then said he wanted to move that we vote on it. If a minister had brought forward a bill, even a bill that he or she knew the House would definitely support, can members imagine the outrage that would have come from the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, in particular? It has happened on a number of occasions.
That is what this is about. This is about letting all members have the opportunity to speak to these very important pieces of legislation.
To my colleague from the Bloc, I cannot remember his riding, but I am pretty sure that when he was speaking, his famous father was actually in the background of his shot at one point, which I thought was pretty cool by the way. I would say the same thing to him. The Bloc had an opportunity to speak to this. The member had an opportunity to speak to this. Then he tried to move the same motion again.
I am more concerned about why opposition parties seem not to want to allow Liberal government members to speak to this. The member for Courtenay—Alberni, with all due respect, spoke for almost a full 10 minutes, and then shamed other people for wanting to speak. His party has 24 seats in the House, and he occupied a full 10 minutes of the 60 minutes of debate.
I find it very troubling when, especially on the motion that we are talking about, someone could come forward and say, “Here are all my thoughts. Now let us vote.” To the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, the manner in which he clearly went about doing this and getting this legislation to be voted on very quickly, perhaps the opposition could have picked somebody to run that exercise who could have perhaps shown more diligence or respect for the process? They could work with parties, talk to the parties beforehand and say, “This is what we want to do. Would you consider asking your members to limit how much they speak so we could do this? Is that a possibility? If not, are there other concessions we could make?”
We could have had a discussion and tried to negotiate. I had my speech ready to go here when I found out I might not have the opportunity to speak to this. I just think that if the opposition was genuine in really wanting this to pass, and we have seen it before, it would have used resources differently. It is almost as though they wanted this reaction from the government, so that it could say, “See? This is such a great bill and nobody else wants it to pass.”
I am very happy with the work that this bill has gone through, both in this House and in the other place, and that it is back before the House. If we do not specifically wrap it up now, we will have an opportunity to continue it in the fall. It is important. Now I want to turn to my prepared notes because I know I will run out of time if I do not.
Bill S-204 proposes a number of reforms that would target trafficking in human organs. We know that trafficking in human organs is a transnational, global challenge. This heinous crime involves the exploitation of the poor and vulnerable living in under-resourced developing countries. International estimates indicate that organ trafficking nets between $600 million and $1.2 billion U.S. annually in illegal profits.
Generally, wealthier individuals, often from developed countries, drive demand for organs, and the supply of organs usually comes from developing regions of South America, Asia, Africa, India and China. Bill S-204 seeks to end organ trafficking by creating organ trafficking-specific indictable Criminal Code offences. The bill's proposed offences would prohibit obtaining an organ or otherwise taking part in the removal of an organ without the informed consent of the person from whom it was being removed. These offences criminalize organ trafficking-related conduct when there is evidence that organs were extracted through this coercive process.
The bill would also create an indictable Criminal Code offence that would prohibit obtaining an organ, or otherwise taking part in the removal of an organ that is obtained for financial consideration. This transactional offence would criminalize organ trafficking-related conduct where there is evidence that organs were purchased.
Furthermore, the bill would ensure that Canadians and permanent residents of Canada were not able to escape criminal liability by going abroad to commit these offences. We have heard why it is so important that it be part of this. I listened to what the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan said at the beginning. Based on his comments, this is why that is so important.
The bill would achieve this goal by enabling Canadian prosecution of Canadians and permanent residents of Canada who commit any of the proposed offences abroad. This reform, together with the bill's financial transaction offences, criminalizes transplant tourism, which involves buying organs abroad.
The bill would also create a new category of inadmissibility to Canada for foreign nationals and permanent residents who engage in organ trafficking conduct. Specifically, it would amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act to make those who engage in the conduct prohibited by this bill inadmissible under the provisions that apply when foreign nationals and permanent residents have violated human or international rights, for example by committing war crimes or crimes against humanity.
Vulnerable people who have organs extracted coercively or who sell their organs out of financial desperation deserve the protection of criminal law. As I have explained, these are reforms that would achieve that goal by creating specific organ trafficking Criminal Code offences that apply extraterritorially.
Currently, the Criminal Code prohibits conduct related to coercive organ removal through its human trafficking offences, which apply extraterritorially, and its assault offences, which do not. However, this can be difficult to prove, particularly when a person is coerced into doing this overseas or is led overseas to do it.
The bill's financial transaction offence would provide extra protection for the vulnerable by criminalizing anyone engaged in conduct that involves the commercialization of organs. This includes those who extract organs for profit, those who facilitate the extraction of organs for profit and those who buy organs for their own use regardless of evidence of these practices taking place. The offence would address the demand that fuels organ trafficking. There is no doubt that organ trafficking is a serious global problem that harms the most vulnerable. It is a problem that requires a comprehensive and effective response.
In Canada, organ transplantation is governed by a legislative framework that encompasses both health and criminal law. Provincial and territorial human tissue gift statutes regulate organ donation. They contain regulatory offences that prohibit the sale, purchase or dealing in any human tissues or organs outside the applicable regulated framework. The applicable provincial and territorial legal framework has never allowed for the commercialization of organs, but these regulatory measures do not apply extraterritorially.
Ongoing efforts to increase legitimate organ donation in Canada complement these reforms. Since 2018, Health Canada has been leading an initiative called the organ donation and transplantation collaborative with provinces and territories, Canadian Blood Services, patients, families, clinical and administrative stakeholders, and researchers. The collaborative's goal is to achieve organ donation improvements that result in better patient outcomes and increase the number and quality of successful transplantations.
As I have indicated, we need to protect the vulnerable against those who are engaging in criminal activity, particularly those who are subject to that criminal activity. We need to protect those who might be interested in selling an organ out of financial hardship. A motion such as this that comes through both Houses, here and the other place, will truly assist in making this activity much more challenging for those who want to do it illegally.
View Adam Vaughan Profile
Lib. (ON)
View Adam Vaughan Profile
2021-06-18 14:24 [p.8798]
Madam Speaker, in my riding of Spadina—Fort York, the intersection of Spadina and Dundas is the scene of virtually a 24-hour-a-day, seven-day-a-week protest of this very single issue. During the last campaign, as I do my work out of my constituency office, which is located at Spadina and Dundas, the people who protest this issue talked to the public and talked to me. They saw my face and my name on the billboard at the office building where their protests are staged, and they asked me a question in the last Parliament. They said they knew how I voted on this issue but asked why I did not speak to it. Clearly, the people leading the campaign to prevent this horrendous practice want people to not only support their cause, but advocate for it. They want to see how and why that advocacy will be effective and where and how that advocacy will be used to advance the issue they are speaking to.
If I were to go back to the protesters and organizations leading this debate and say that I just decided to vote but not speak to it and not honour my commitment to speak to it, I would disappoint them. I am thankful that a number of members of the House have created this debate and this space to forward the work that was started by my cherished colleague Irwin Cotler, and then Borys Wrzesnewskyj, because not all of us get the opportunity, due to our parliamentary duties, to speak to every issue that comes in front of the House. If we did, every debate would take days and days and weeks and weeks.
We try to prioritize, but in this situation I made a commitment to the residents I represent, and in particular the organizers and protesters who stand guard on this issue, that I would speak to this issue. I thank my colleagues for affording me this opportunity, and I hope members opposite understand that for those of us who represent communities where this issue is most poignant, affording us a chance to speak to it is part of our responsibility and duty to this House, but also to the people we represent. I hope it is not seen in any other light.
There are a number of different dynamics that drive this issue, but there is also great disappointment in the inability of our Houses of Parliament, both the other place and the House of Commons, to get this legislation through in the last term. We know why that happened. It did not happen because this bill was filibustered; it happened because several other critically important bills were filibustered, including the work on the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. It was in fact that filibuster in the House that prevented the Senate from getting to this bill. Thankfully, all sides now seem to have seen a way forward on the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, and hopefully that bill will get royal assent on Monday.
It is a little rich for the sort of back-and-forth that we are filibustering to be raised in this context, when the parties opposite, in particular the Conservatives, know that the Conservatives filibustered this one in the last Parliament. They are suddenly now demanding immediate action on this file, when they could have achieved immediate action on this file years ago if they had co-operated. They take no responsibility or accountability for that, but their obstruction, even in the majority Parliament, had an impact on the legislation that was proposed and that we are talking about here today.
Let us not talk about the strategies and the inside baseball of House affairs and the various tactics that various House leaders use to try to achieve progress on parts of the agenda that are a priority to their party. That is politics. That is the House, and that is what happens in Parliament, but to pretend that there is some sort of ideological purity on that or partisanship that is independent of ulterior motives is a little rich, especially coming from a party that has been filibustering, in particular, the legislation on conversion therapy, which impacts Canadians' civil liberties and Canadians' human rights now, as we speak. For the Conservatives, in particular, to stand on a high horse on this one only makes me wonder if they have ever actually seen a horse—
View Pierre Poilievre Profile
CPC (ON)
View Pierre Poilievre Profile
2021-06-18 14:28 [p.8799]
Madam Speaker, the member asked if we have ever seen a horse. We have seen part of one, but my point of order is different from that.
Government members are now filibustering this private member's bill and have done so for half an hour now, which is pushing back debate on the budget. We were anxious to get working on the budget. Had Liberal members not been filibustering this particular bill, would that have allowed us to get through the time-allocated portion of the debate on the budget? That is my question.
View Adam Vaughan Profile
Lib. (ON)
View Adam Vaughan Profile
2021-06-18 14:29 [p.8799]
Madam Speaker, that was an excellent impression of the horse's end that I think the member was speaking to.
At any rate, the issue I am talking about now is the issue of organ harvesting, which happens primarily because our own organ donation system is not working. In fact, the city of Toronto has the lowest enrolment of organ donors of any other municipality in the country. We have worked very hard as city councillors and as elected federal and provincial politicians to reverse that. It is a public education campaign; it is a change in the system by which people register; it is a whole series of processes that must be addressed to take away the demand for this unspeakable activity, which we hope to make illegal through this bill. We have to do better on organ donations in this country if we are going to contribute to the eradication of this horrible practice that sees people leaving the country to attain organs in a way that is unbelievably horrendous and hard to describe in simple terms.
Part of the bill also requires us, as politicians, to think about the public education campaign part of this and to relieve the anxiety and desperation of Canadians across the country who are seeking to achieve full health through the miracles of modern medicine. We also have to make sure that we remove barriers for people who do want to donate, and make sure that for those who have signed up to give the gift of life, the process becomes easier and is facilitated in a way that would alleviate the pressure on people to go looking in the dark corners of the globe to do what they have to do.
As well, the research and the work done by many community activists and leaders to highlight where some of these terrible practices emanate from have to be broadened. We tend to focus in, because of the work of a particular organization, on one particular part of the world, but this is a global phenomenon that requires us to understand it in a more complex way and to do the research and the public education so that Canadians do not unwittingly take part in what they think is a legitimate operation and end up contributing to the harm that is being done to so many people around the world. This is also part of the work that has to be done.
It is not addressed in the bill, but perhaps there are ways, through committee, that it can be enhanced and developed, and perhaps it can be tied [Technical difficulty—Editor] in this country and make them more efficient and more humane. I think that is part of the process and part of the reason many of us want to speak to the bill in a way that generates a much stronger and much more important piece of legislation.
However, if we pass the bill on to the other House, if it goes through the parliamentary process and gets voted on, and I believe all parties have indicated support for it, then we will also need those parties in this House that have caucus members who sit in the other place, because we need the other House to also prioritize the bill in the way that has been spoken to today by several opposition members. It is not good enough for political parties to just stand in one chamber and say they want speedy passage, if they know in the back of their mind that in the other chamber their colleagues, their caucus members, their political movement, will do everything they can to frustrate every other piece of legislation that is coming through the parliamentary process. We need some consistency out of the Conservatives on the bill and we need some co-operation, which is the last point I would like to bring to this debate today.
All the processes and all the legislative agendas that collide in the House of Commons, such as measures brought forward by the government, by private members and by political parties in this House [Technical difficulty—Editor] slowing down legislation, but how little they contribute to speeding up legislation. We have had some good examples when there has been consensus on some critical pieces of legislation. The situation around UNDRIP is a perfect example where, quite clearly, the tenor of the House changed. As people thought more deeply about the information and the circumstance, they realized that some of the good legislation proposed by our government required immediate passage, and I think we saw some progress on bills like that.
I also think back to last week, when an opposition motion designed to blow up the national housing strategy was presented, and all opposition parties sided against the government. I find it ironic that, as they sought to destroy the national housing strategy, including the rapid housing initiative, the right to housing, the work on the co-investment fund, and the work being done in building housing in every riding, in every part of this country from coast to coast to coast, no sooner had members of the opposition voted to destroy the national housing strategy that they called up the parliamentary secretary to the minister in charge of CMHC and asked if we could fast-track some of the projects in their ridings, because they want to get the work done and they know how critical the job is.
If members are going to talk out of both sides of their mouths, they should try to be consistent. They should not try to destroy the program and try to acquire access to the program simultaneously. They should be honest about their approach here. I think that it is incumbent upon all of us to do that, to find a co-operative way forward, to work across party lines to achieve on issues that need to be achieved on and not to play these sorts of games where they deflect and present false arguments, when things are clearly in need of speedy passage.
I look forward—
View Garnett Genuis Profile
CPC (AB)
Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
I would like to seek the consent of the House for a motion that would allow every member, who so wishes, to speak and still expedite passage of this bill.
I would like to seek the consent of the House for the following motion.
I move that, notwithstanding any Standing Order, special order or usual practice of the House, the House shall sit beyond the ordinary hour of daily adjournment to consider and dispose of Bill S-204 as follows: the member currently speaking, as well as all members of the government caucus may speak for not more than 10 minutes on the second reading motion; and when every member of the government has spoken or when no member rises to speak, whichever is earlier, Bill S-204 shall be deemed to have been read a second time and referred to a committee of the whole, deemed considered in committee of the whole, deemed reported without amendment, deemed concurred in at report stage and deemed read a third time and passed. When Bill S-204 has been read a third time and passed, the House shall adjourn to the next sitting day.
View Mark Gerretsen Profile
Lib. (ON)
Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
Normally, when somebody seeks unanimous consent, it implies, and it is quite often why we start off that unanimous consent statement by saying such, that discussions have happened among the parties. Discussions did not happen among the parties before we heard this motion. The member needs to have those discussions, and I would encourage him to do that.
View Randeep Sarai Profile
Lib. (BC)
View Randeep Sarai Profile
2021-06-18 14:38 [p.8800]
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to join the second reading debate on Bill S-204, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (trafficking in human organs), which came to us on May 10, after having passed in the other place.
This important bill proposes to protect vulnerable persons who have organs extracted through exploitation of their vulnerabilities by creating new Criminal Code offences targeting organ trafficking-related conduct that would apply extra-territorially, including a financial transaction offence that would criminalize transplant tourism, a practice that involves purchasing organs abroad, usually in under-resourced countries; and amending the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act to make foreign nationals or permanent residents of Canada who engage in conduct that would constitute an offence under one of the bill's proposed organ trafficking offences be inadmissible to Canada for having violated human or international rights.
International research indicates that traffickers may coerce vulnerable victims into giving up an organ and that organ donors often come from less wealthy nations. That is why organ trafficking affects certain populations disproportionately. Patients from wealthy countries travel abroad to obtain organs from donors in impoverished countries who may suffer from desperate poverty and may feel the need to sell their organs out of financial desperation.
Donors may also be deceived by traffickers into trading their organs for money that may not be paid at the end of the surgery. This exploitation of extreme poverty in certain parts of the world, for example in North Africa, South and Southeast Asia, and Central America, drives organ trafficking.
In addition to the abuses I have just noted, the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime reports that “In cases of trafficking in persons for organ removal, victims may be recruited through deception, [and may not be] fully informed as to the nature of the procedure, the recovery and the impact—”
View Carol Hughes Profile
NDP (ON)
I am sorry. The hon. member will have eight minutes the next time this matter is before the House.
The time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired. The order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the Order Paper.
View Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe Profile
BQ (QC)
Mr. Speaker, today I am tabling this petition signed by nearly 100 people, all of whom are concerned about the rise in international trafficking in human organs.
These petitioners are calling on all parliamentarians to pass Bill S-204, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act with regard to trafficking in human organs, which is currently before the House and which seeks to prohibit the trafficking of human organs removed without consent or as a result of a financial transaction.
View Garnett Genuis Profile
CPC (AB)
Mr. Speaker, the second petition is in support of Bill S-204, a bill that would make it a criminal offence for a person to go abroad and receive an organ in the case where there has not been consent. This bill is currently before the House, and the petitioners would like to see it passed expeditiously. It was passed in the same form unanimously in the House in the previous Parliament, and it has been passed twice unanimously in the Senate.
View Garnett Genuis Profile
CPC (AB)
Madam Speaker, the next petition is in support of Bill S-204, a bill that would make it a criminal offence for a person to go abroad and receive an organ without consent. The petitioners are supportive of that bill and want to see it passed as quickly as possible. The bill is currently before the House, having unanimously passed in the Senate. It unanimously passed in the House in a previous form.
View Garnett Genuis Profile
CPC (AB)
Mr. Speaker, the third petition I am presenting is in support of Bill S-204, a bill that has passed the Senate unanimously, and has previously passed the House unanimously in the form of Bill S-240.
The petitioners are hoping that this bill will be adopted and that this will indeed be the one that finally gets it done.
View Arnold Viersen Profile
CPC (AB)
View Arnold Viersen Profile
2021-06-07 15:51 [p.8031]
Mr. Speaker, the next petition I am presenting today is from Canadians from across Canada who are concerned about forced organ harvesting that happens around the world. The petitioners are calling on the Government of Canada to pass two bills: Bill C-350 and Bill S-240. These bills would make it illegal for a Canadian to go abroad to gain access to illegally harvested organs.
View Garnett Genuis Profile
CPC (AB)
Mr. Speaker, it seems my reputation precedes me. I have many petitions to present today, and although I intend to go through them quickly, I do not think I will be able to get through all of them in the time we have, but here we go.
The first petition is in support of Bill S-204, a bill that would make it a criminal offence for a person to go abroad and receive an organ in a case where there has not been consent. It would also create a mechanism by which a person could be deemed inadmissible to Canada if that person has been involved in forced organ harvesting and trafficking. Petitioners are in support of Bill S-204. They would like to see it passed as quickly as possible.
View Garnett Genuis Profile
CPC (AB)
Mr. Speaker, the final petition is in support of Bill S-204, a bill currently before this House, which has just passed the Senate unanimously. Bill S-204 would make it a criminal offence for a person to go abroad and receive an organ where there has not been consent. This bill has passed the House unanimously in its current form as Bill S-240 in the last Parliament. Now we simply need to complete the reconciliation process by passing Bill S-204 in this Parliament. The petitioners are hoping this Parliament is the one that finally gets it done and deals with the abhorrent practice of forced organ harvesting and trafficking. It is an issue on which all parliamentarians agree and has had unanimous support in both Houses before in this form, so let us try to get it done in this Parliament.
View Garnett Genuis Profile
CPC (AB)
Mr. Speaker, the second petition is on Bill S-204, a bill that would make it a criminal offence for a person to go abroad and receive an organ taken without consent. The bill has passed the Senate unanimously and is now before the House. I note that it is identical to Bill S-240 and it is in the same form that the bill was in when it passed the House unanimously in the last Parliament.
The bill has now, in the same form, though, in different Parliaments, passed both Houses unanimously. The petitioners hope to see this Parliament finally be the one to actually get the bill into law.
View Garnett Genuis Profile
CPC (AB)
Madam Speaker, the second petition I am tabling is about Bill S-204, a bill that has now passed the Senate and is currently before the House.
It is a bill that would make it a criminal offence for a person to go abroad and receive an organ in a case where there had not been consent. It also creates a mechanism by which a person could be made inadmissible to Canada if they were involved in forced organ harvesting and trafficking. This bill has now passed the Senate unanimously twice. It passed in the House once before unanimously, in the same form, in the previous Parliament.
Petitioners are hoping Bill S-204, which is the same as Bill S-240 from the previous Parliament, will be passed in this Parliament with the support of all members.
View Garnett Genuis Profile
CPC (AB)
Mr. Speaker, the third and final petition I am presenting this morning is in support of Bill S-204, a bill that has been unanimously adopted by the Senate and is now before this House. The bill would make it a criminal offence for a person to go abroad and receive an organ without consent. It would also create a mechanism by which people could be deemed inadmissible to Canada if they are involved in forced organ harvesting and trafficking.
Bill S-204 is the same bill, in an identical form, as Bill S-240, which passed in this House unanimously in the last Parliament. Bill S-204 has unanimously passed in the Senate twice. It has unanimously passed in the House. It has passed in both chambers in identical form.
The only remaining step is for this House, in this Parliament, to again pass the bill in the same form it was passed in the last Parliament so we can finally take this vitally necessary step for Canada to fight back against the horrific practice of forced organ harvesting and trafficking.
View Garnett Genuis Profile
CPC (AB)
Madam Speaker, the third petition I am tabling is with respect to Bill S-204, a bill that would make is a criminal offence for a person to go abroad and receive an organ without consent.
The petitioners want the government to support the passage of Bill S-204 as quickly as possible. The bill has already passed the Senate and is currently before the House. It is identical in form to Bill S-240, which passed in the House unanimously in the last Parliament.
View Garnett Genuis Profile
CPC (AB)
Mr. Speaker, I have four petitions to present this morning.
The first petition is in support of Bill S-204, a bill that has just passed the Senate and that I presented to the House yesterday. The bill would make it a criminal offence for a person to go abroad and receive an organ taken without the consent of the person it came from. This bill has been before the House in various forms for approaching 15 years. The petitioners are very hopeful that this will be the Parliament that finally gets these measures passed into law.
View Garnett Genuis Profile
CPC (AB)
moved that Bill S-204, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (trafficking in human organs), be read the first time.
He said: Mr. Speaker, Bill S-204 would make it a criminal offence for a person to go abroad to receive an organ taken without consent. The bill would fight organ harvesting and trafficking by reducing demand, and it would save lives.
I want to salute the work of Senator Salma Ataullahjan, as well as former MPs Borys Wrzesnewskyj and Irwin Cotler, who have put forward versions of this bill in the past. It has been close to 15 years since Mr. Wrzesnewskyj first put this concept on the table. This bill passed in both Houses unanimously in the last Parliament, although we ran out of time to complete the reconciliation process. As of this point, the Senate has unanimously adopted the same version of the bill that was adopted in the last Parliament, so an identical version of the bill has been adopted unanimously by both chambers, though in different Parliaments.
Clearly, everyone agrees that this is important and that lives hang in the balance. Let us do all we can to clear the barriers and get this done this Parliament.
View Garnett Genuis Profile
CPC (AB)
Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to present three petitions to the House today. The first petition is in support of Bill S-204, a bill that I tabled for first reading in the House earlier today. The bill seeks to make it a criminal offence for a person to go abroad to receive an organ without consent. It also creates provisions by which a person could be deemed inadmissible to Canada if they are involved in forced organ harvesting and trafficking. The petitioners are hopeful that the bill will be able to pass in Parliament. It has passed the Senate and is now back in the House of Commons.
View Garnett Genuis Profile
CPC (AB)
Mr. Speaker, if you will indulge me, I would like to wish my wife a happy 10-year anniversary.
The first petition I would like to table is in support of Bill S-204, a bill that has just passed the Senate. It would make it a criminal offence for a person to go abroad and receive an organ for which there has not been consent.
View Garnett Genuis Profile
CPC (AB)
Mr. Speaker, the third petition is in support of Bill S-204, a bill currently before the Senate, but which I am hopeful will be before the House of Commons very soon.
This bill would make it a criminal offence for a person to go abroad and receive an organ without the consent of the person it was taken from. It would also create a mechanism by which someone could be deemed inadmissible to Canada due to involvement in forced organ harvesting and trafficking.
The petitioners want to see this Parliament pass Bill S-204 as soon as possible, noting that it has been over 10 years that various members of Parliament from various parties have been working on getting a legislative initiative like this moving forward.
View Bruce Stanton Profile
CPC (ON)
View Bruce Stanton Profile
2021-05-06 21:36 [p.6860]
I have the honour to inform the House that messages have been received from the Senate informing the House that the Senate has passed the following public bills to which concurrence of the House is desired: Bill S-204, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, trafficking in human organs; and Bill S-205, an act to amend the Parliament of Canada Act, Parliamentary Visual Artist Laureate.
View Garnett Genuis Profile
CPC (AB)
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be presenting three petitions to the House this afternoon.
The first petition highlights the issue of forced organ harvesting and trafficking and calls on the House to quickly support the passage of Bill S-204, a bill that would make it a criminal offence for a person to go abroad and receive an organ that was taken without consent. The bill would also create a mechanism by which a person could be deemed inadmissible to Canada if they had been involved in forced organ harvesting and trafficking.
The bill is currently before the Senate at third reading. The petitioners are calling on the House to support the rapid adoption of this bill.
View Garnett Genuis Profile
CPC (AB)
Mr. Speaker, the second petition, on a similar issue, zeroes in specifically on the issue of organ harvesting. It is in support of Bill S-204, a bill that would make it a criminal offence for a person to go abroad and receive an organ without consent.
The petitioners are supportive of Bill S-204. They note that it has been before this House and the other place in various forms for over 10 years. They are hopeful that this Parliament will be the one to finally get it done.
View Garnett Genuis Profile
CPC (AB)
Madam Speaker, I am presenting four petitions in the House today.
The first petition is about Bill S-204, forced organ harvesting and trafficking. The petitioners are in support of that bill, which would make it a criminal offence for a person to go abroad and receive an organ taken without consent. The petitioners want to see Bill S-204 passed as quickly as possible.
View Garnett Genuis Profile
CPC (AB)
Mr. Speaker, I am presenting three petitions in the House today.
The first petition is about Bill S-204, a bill that would make it a criminal offence for a person to go abroad to receive an organ for which there has not been consent. This bill seeks to combat the horrific practice of forced organ harvesting and trafficking. Petitioners want to see the other place, as well as the House, pass Bill S-204 as quickly as possible.
View Garnett Genuis Profile
CPC (AB)
Madam Speaker, the second petition is related to the first, in that it responds to the particular issue of organ harvesting and trafficking. The second petition is in support of Bill S-204, a bill that has just been referred back to the Senate for third reading. The bill would make it a criminal offence for a person to go abroad and receive an organ that was taken without the consent of the person whose organ it is. It would also create a mechanism by which people could be deemed inadmissible to Canada if they are involved in forced organ harvesting and trafficking.
Various versions of this bill have been put forward by Liberal and Conservative members over a decade, and petitioners are hoping that we are finally able to get it done and passed in the current Parliament.
View Garnett Genuis Profile
CPC (AB)
Mr. Speaker, the third and final petition is in support of Bill S-204, a bill on forced organ harvesting and trafficking that has just passed the Senate committee on justice and human rights and is now headed to the third reading in the Senate before hopefully coming to this place very soon. Petitioners are in support of Bill S-204 and hope that this Parliament is the one that gets it done.
View Garnett Genuis Profile
CPC (AB)
Mr. Speaker, I have three petitions to present to the House today.
The first petition is with respect to Bill S-204, to prohibit forced organ harvesting and trafficking. That bill has just passed the Senate committee and is back for third reading. The petitioners are in support of the bill.
View Garnett Genuis Profile
CPC (AB)
Madam Speaker, I want to congratulate my friend from Winnipeg North on his campaign for Speaker. I am sure we will be hearing more views from him on the rules in the coming days.
I have three petitions to present to the House today.
The first petition is in support of Bill S-204, a bill that would criminalize Canadians going abroad to receive organs that have been taken through forced organ harvesting and trafficking.
I am pleased to share with the House that the bill has just passed the committee stage in the Senate and will be headed very soon for third reading. I congratulate Senator Ataullahjan and all the senators involved in that important work.
View Garnett Genuis Profile
CPC (AB)
Madam Speaker, the fourth petition is in support of Bill S-204, a bill currently before the Senate, that would make it a criminal offence for a person to go abroad and receive an organ that has been harvested from an unwilling patient. I am sure members can appreciate the importance of this bill.
The petitioners want to see this Parliament take the steps necessary to get that bill passed into law as soon as possible.
View Garnett Genuis Profile
CPC (AB)
Mr. Speaker, the fourth and final petition highlights Bill S-204, a bill currently in the other place, before the justice and human rights committee of the Senate.
Bill S-204 would make it a criminal offence for a person to go abroad and receive an organ without consent. This deals with the horrific practice of forced organ harvesting and trafficking that we see in other parts of the world and the risk that Canadians might be complicit in that practice.
The petitioners are in support of Bill S-204 and want to see it passed by both Houses as quickly as possible.
View Garnett Genuis Profile
CPC (AB)
Mr. Speaker, the fifth and final petition I am tabling today is in support of Bill S-204, a bill in the other place that would make it a criminal offence for a person to be complicit in organ harvesting and trafficking by going abroad and receiving an organ that had been taken from a patient without that patient's consent. It also contains provisions by which a person could be deemed inadmissible to Canada if they were involved in organ harvesting and trafficking. Petitioners hope to see Bill S-204 passed by this Parliament.
View Garnett Genuis Profile
CPC (AB)
Mr. Speaker, the third petition highlights Bill S-204, proposed in the other place by Senator Ataullahjan. This bill would make it a criminal offence for a person to go abroad and receive an organ for which there has not been consent.
Petitioners want to see the government pass this important bill. It has been over 10 years in the making and it received unanimous consent at different times from this and the other place, but has not yet been able to pass in identical form in the same Parliament. Petitioners are hoping this Parliament will be the one that finally gets the work done.
View Garnett Genuis Profile
CPC (AB)
Mr. Speaker, the third petition is in support of Bill S-204, which recently passed second reading and has gone to committee study in the Senate. It would make it a criminal offence for a person to go abroad and receive an organ that was taken without the consent of the person it came from. This is in response to organ harvesting and trafficking in China, but also in other countries around the world.
Results: 1 - 60 of 159 | Page: 1 of 3

1
2
3
>
>|
Export As: XML CSV RSS

For more data options, please see Open Data