THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON HUMAN RIGHTS
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Monday, June 15, 2026
The Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights met with videoconference this day at 3:59 p.m. [ET] to consider Bill C-234, An Act respecting the establishment and award of a Living Donor Recognition Medal.
Senator Paulette Senior (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Good afternoon, honourable senators. I’d like to begin by acknowledging the land on which we gather is the traditional, ancestral and unceded territory of the Algonquin Anishinaabe Nation.
My name is Paulette Senior. I’m from Ontario and am the chair of this committee. I now invite my colleagues to introduce themselves, starting with our deputy chair.
Senator Bernard: I’m Wanda Thomas Bernard, a senator from Mi’kmaw territory in Nova Scotia.
Senator D. M. Wells: David Wells from Newfoundland and Labrador. I am the Senate sponsor of Bill C-234.
Senator McCallum: Mary Jane McCallum from Treaty 10 territory, Manitoba region.
Senator Karetak-Lindell: Nancy Karetak-Lindell, Nunavut.
[Translation]
Senator Arnold: I am Dawn Arnold from New Brunswick.
[English]
Senator K. Wells: Kristopher Wells, Alberta, Treaty 6 territory.
The Chair: Today, our committee is beginning its study on Bill C-234, An Act respecting the establishment and award of a Living Donor Recognition Medal.
We have the pleasure of welcoming Mr. Ziad Aboultaif, Member of Parliament for Edmonton Manning, and sponsor of the bill; from the Canadian Organ and Tissue Donors Association, we welcome Richard Tremblay, Founding President, and Sylvie Lauzon, Registrar.
We’ll begin with opening remarks before we move to questions from our members.
Ziad Aboultaif, Member of Parliament for Edmonton Manning, sponsor of the bill, House of Commons of Canada: Thank you, chair and senators. Good afternoon, and thank you for the opportunity to appear today to discuss my private member’s bill.
On December 8, 2003, I donated part of my liver to save my son, Tyler. He also received another life-saving organ donation from an anonymous Quebecer. Our family will be forever grateful. That experience showed me first-hand the courage of living donors and the quiet heroism of those who give without expectation of reward. Across Canada, thousands of living donors have given the ultimate gift, the gift of life, often at personal risk and always without compensation. As one colleague powerfully stated during debate, “. . . the gift of life is among the greatest acts of service one human being can offer another. . . .”
These donors are unsung heroes whose compassion strengthens families, communities and our nation. They deserve recognition at the highest levels.
I thank senators for their unanimous support of this bill so far. Your leadership and commitment to this non-partisan initiative send a powerful message that, when we set politics aside, Parliament can unite to honour extraordinary Canadians and save lives. I am grateful to Senators D. M. Wells and Boudreau for their thoughtful and inspiring speeches in the Senate. Their words captured the profound selflessness of living donors and reinforced why this recognition is both timely and necessary.
I am also deeply thankful to Minister Dominic LeBlanc for his strong and personal support. As someone who himself received a life-saving stem cell transplant, Minister LeBlanc understands the transformative power of donation. His advocacy, along with the collaborative work of his team, has been instrumental in refining this bill through friendly amendments that strengthen its objectives while ensuring smooth implementation. I thank him, the Privy Council Office, the Office of the Governor General and the Department of Justice for their diligent work.
With regard to amendments, in the House, friendly amendments from the government were made to strengthen the bill. One, in particular, regarding post-nominals, is worth highlighting. The original wording of the bill stated, “The Governor in Council may make regulations . . . providing for the use of post-nominals . . .”
When it became clear that some individuals interested in the honours system did not want post-nominals, members of the House decided to remove any uncertainty and ambiguity regarding this matter. An amendment was proposed by the government that strengthens the wording to “A recipient of the Medal is entitled to use the post-nominal letters ‘L.D.M.’.”
Parliamentarians have made it very clear that they wish to proceed on this matter. This medal, with its post-nominals, will provide lasting, tangible recognition. It honours altruism, raises awareness about living donation and encourages more Canadians to consider this life-saving act.
With approximately 4,700 Canadians awaiting transplants, most needing kidneys, greater awareness can reduce wait times and bring relief to families who are facing immense stress. In the House, this bill passed unanimously and was jointly seconded from every province and members from all parties. Friendly amendments, developed in close collaboration, also create a pathway to recognize exceptional blood donors: those with a significant, sustained, lifelong commitment to giving the gift of life.
We are working toward a deadline. Next April is the thirtieth anniversary of National Organ and Tissue Donation Awareness Week, ironically another initiative that began as a Liberal private member’s bill and was unanimously supported in both the House and Senate at the time.
I know many are hoping we can present the first medals by that anniversary. Passing this bill before the summer will allow for the proper design and minting work to take place.
I thank senators from all groups who reached out to me informally to indicate their support for this bill and to offer their help to be the sponsor or the critic.
Living donors exemplify the best of Canada: selflessness, courage and compassion. By establishing this medal, we celebrate them, inspire others and help save more lives.
Thank you. I’ll be happy to take any questions whenever you’re ready.
The Chair: Thank you. You were right on time.
[Translation]
Richard Tremblay, Founding President, Canadian Organ and Tissue Donors Association: Madam Chair, honourable senators, it is a great pleasure for me to speak to you about the Canadian Organ and Tissue Donors Association, which has been honouring living donors since 2004 in Quebec. Donors who registered are invited to receive their tributes at a ceremony presided over by the Lieutenant Governor of Quebec.
They receive the Good Samaritan Medal of Honour in recognition of their action. The medal is not reserved for living donors; it also honours Quebec citizens and police officers who have contributed to the exceptional promotion of organ and tissue donation. Police officers have been volunteering to transport medical teams and human organs throughout Quebec since 1987.
The medal honours the commitment of a good Samaritan. Its symbolism is a veritable lifelike sculpture, the Bonzai, the fruit of patience and fidelity, love and respect for life. Noble and worthy, it symbolizes peace and serenity. In its small size, one finds greatness and a delicate balance between the force of man and that of nature. It is the perfect example of a lasting relationship and unconditional dedication.
Since 2004, more than 400 living donors have been honoured and have received the Good Samaritan Medal of Honour at a ceremony presided over by the Lieutenant Governor of Quebec that also honours donors posthumously.
In this regard, the only cenotaph dedicated to organ donors in Canada is in Sherbrooke, Quebec, where the names of more than 6,000 posthumous donors are recorded.
I am available to answer your questions, Madam Chair.
[English]
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Tremblay.
We’ll now proceed to questions from senators, who will have five minutes for their questions, which includes the answer. Please note that we will be concluding this panel at 4:45; that is just a heads-up to all of you.
Senator Bernard: Thank you both for your testimony before us today.
From what you’ve shared, it’s clear that you anticipate this bill, if adopted, would help encourage more Canadians to become living organ donors. How would you see that working in reality in terms of the promotion of living donorship?
Mr. Aboultaif: Thank you very much. That’s a very good question.
The entire intent of the bill is to bring more awareness, almost on a daily basis, to Canadian households, to the streets, to the coffee shops and to events so Canadians can be aware and continue talking and learning about it. The more awareness we can generate about that, the more Canadians will be happy to come forward and donate part of their liver, a kidney or any other thing that they can donate while they continue to be alive.
We believe that this will be an ongoing promotion and marketing campaign, if you will, to continue generating this awareness for Canadians. Our family experience, as my own personal family, when I donated part of my liver to my son, most of the community did not know that was possible. They knew that our son was sick for 12 years before he received his first organ from me, but they never knew there was a solution like that.
I remember when the first liver failed, one of the visitors to the hospital came to me on Christmas Day and said, “I’m willing to donate part of my liver right now. If there’s a way, I’m happy to do it right now to save his life.”
Thank you for the question. It’s an excellent one.
Senator Bernard: Thank you. You refer to them as unsung heroes. It’s nice to hear what’s been happening in Quebec.
One of the things I noticed, though, was that you said stem cell transplants are not included. Is there a reason why this bill doesn’t include stem cell transplants?
Mr. Aboultaif: Actually, it’s the opposite. I have accepted many friendly amendments from the government and from the minister’s side, and one of them is to include stem cells. Minister LeBlanc himself — this is public information — was a recipient from a donor outside of the country who somehow heard about his story, came forward and, thankfully, was a good match. That amendment is in the bill, and it has already been passed by the House.
Senator Bernard: My apologies. I missed that. Thank you. I’m glad to see that’s included.
I’d like to ask what privacy and logistical concerns, if any, you anticipate related to collecting and sharing donor information under this bill.
Mr. Aboultaif: As I understand it, there would be an application process put in place by Rideau Hall. All privacy laws and safeguards would be in place for the handling of the applications. This is the law that would be followed.
There’s no intention of having the provinces automatically forward information to Rideau Hall or anything like that. The applications for these medals would be fully voluntary. If someone chooses not to be recognized, that will basically be their choice.
Definitely, one of the things that was top of mind for me when I submitted the first draft of this bill is privacy. I’ll tell you something — again, a personal story. When my son received the second partial liver from Quebec, we didn’t know who the donor was. We knew nothing about the family. We sent them sort of a message from our son, but we didn’t know who they were. We gave it to the hospital, and the hospital was able to deliver it.
Senator Bernard: Thank you.
Senator D. M. Wells: Thank you, Mr. Aboultaif, Mr. Tremblay and Ms. Lauzon. My question is for either Mr. Tremblay or Ms. Lauzon; I don’t know who is best equipped to answer.
I’d like you to describe the typical donor in Canada. Are they rural or urban? What are some of the impediments to living organ donation? How would the adoption of this bill help the efforts that you’re trying to promote?
[Translation]
Sylvie Lauzon, Registrar, Canadian Organ and Tissue Donors Association: I can answer that.
In the regions, we have to work with the major hospitals. That’s the only way to reach all the regions in Quebec.
About 2,000 police officers transport organs of deceased individuals as well as medical teams throughout Quebec. Although the main transplant hospitals are in major centres, there’s good collaboration.
I don’t know if that answers your question, but that’s what’s happening.
Mr. Tremblay: If I may, I would like to add something.
Remote hospitals in Quebec are connected to specialized centres by land or air for major retrievals. If a kidney donor, whether posthumous or not, is in the Gaspésie region and the organ needs to be transplanted in Chicoutimi, Quebec City, Montreal or here in the Outaouais, that’s when air transfer takes place.
In Quebec, police officers have been participating in this cause for 40 years. I, myself, am retired from the Sûreté du Québec. That’s how we got involved in this cause. We figured we needed to do something to help the donor community. People waiting for an organ at the time told me they were worried and didn’t understand why they weren’t receiving their organ. There was a huge need.
I’m talking about the time of Dr. Pierre Grondin and Dr. Christiaan Barnard, when transplants were just starting. The use of cyclosporine allowed for the preservation of those organs and prevented rejections.
That’s how it’s done, senator. Remote regions are connected to major hospitals across Quebec, and the same is true in Ontario, with transplant organizations. You won’t see borders. A lobe of liver or a kidney can be transferred from Sherbrooke to Toronto, from London, Ontario, to one of the major centres in Ottawa. I transported organs here to the University of Ottawa Heart Institute myself. That’s how it works. That’s reassuring.
[English]
Senator D. M. Wells: Thank you very much for that.
Mr. Aboultaif, thank you for putting forth this bill, and thank you for asking me to sponsor it in the Senate. I’m honoured to do so.
What are some of the obstacles that you met in trying to get this to where it is now?
Mr. Aboultaif: Thank you, senator. I was honoured that you took on the sponsoring of this bill in the Senate.
To be honest with you, I received nothing but collaboration and support from every part of the House, from every province, from the minister’s office and from him, personally.
I feel that Canadians are aware of the issue. We have over 4,700 people waiting to receive an organ. Last year’s statistics were that more than 3,000 surgeries were performed in Canada. Almost 300 people died waiting because of the lack of availability of an organ.
I think everyone I spoke to and everyone who spoke at the House felt the same way. One life is a big deal. How about the hundreds and thousands of lives we could save? I think this is a great thing.
As I said, thankfully, it was all the people I was associated with, on all sides, and from the NGOs. I’ve been receiving letters from patients. One of them just received his liver not long ago, and I promised that if I do a tour to basically promote this further, I will visit him and his family somewhere in Ontario. There’s so much support out there, and I’m thankful for that.
Senator K. Wells: First, thank you all for being here. Thank you for introducing and supporting this bill. If a bill like this can promote saving one life, it’s the least we can do as parliamentarians. It’s a very honourable and noble pursuit. Thank you again for the time being here.
First, are there other countries that have similar legislation or programs that maybe you could learn from? How does Canada compare internationally with this effort?
Second, maybe for our sponsor, I know that this bill primarily leaves the nomination rules and the award criteria to later be set by regulation. I’m curious as to why you decided to do that. Maybe to our panel, do you have thoughts on what those criteria and what the nomination rules should be, for example, given your experience with this important work?
Mr. Aboultaif: Thank you, senator, for your good question.
Canada, if this bill passed, would be the second country to have something like this. The first country was Saudi Arabia. The medal was set by the king to encourage that, and Canada will be the second country in the world as far as I know.
As far as the criteria, this bill is focused on living donors: people who are still alive and can donate. Those are the ones who can be examined properly and whose sacrifice is so meaningful. I was donating to save my son’s life, and that decision was the hardest decision I’ve made so far. So you can imagine what it takes and how much we need awareness and education about the importance of this in place so people can be encouraged to come forward and save someone’s life. That’s why everything around this bill is going toward making sure that this is going to serve that purpose.
I hope I answered your question.
Senator K. Wells: Yes, and maybe this is for our other panellists: Regarding selection, is it every recipient who comes forward — we heard it’s voluntary — or do you envision a set of criteria and a panel to make that determination?
[Translation]
Ms. Lauzon: It’s open to the general public. Thanks to the Canadian Organ and Tissue Donors Association website, anyone can get the information, whether they’re a living donor or a recipient.
The process is quite simple after that. There’s a request for medical confirmation of living organ donation. We work closely with hospitals. It’s often the clinical nurses who promote it to the donor, explaining that there’s a certain tribute and procedures to follow. It often helps to assist the donor in completing the different formalities. Afterwards, we receive the application and validate the information. This simple and entirely voluntary process is open to all organ donors. Does that answer your question?
[English]
Senator K. Wells: Thank you.
[Translation]
Mr. Tremblay: If I may, I would add that the process definitely can’t be very complex for the living donor. They would’ve given their heart if it had been possible. They made an honest, profound and often anonymous donation. It’s important to honour them. This recognition must be given without making it more complicated for that donor. I believe that by working with the hospitals treating these donors and doing the retrievals, we’re on the right track. To date, we’ve honoured 400 living donors in Quebec, and more than 20 others will soon be honoured.
[English]
Senator McCallum: Thank you for your work and presentations. I want to speak about the unconditional love that goes into being a living donor. I don’t know if I could do it, but I do know people who have received from family. It’s amazing. Human beings are given an opportunity to expand their humanity. This wasn’t available before, and I know that both the U.S. and Canada have increased their living donor numbers.
So my question is this: Have you any idea of the decrease in dollars and resources with the living donor program? I’m looking at kidneys with dialysis and the cost of leaving the family and the community. First Nations have the highest rate of people on dialysis; I know many. They’re leaving family, community and support. There’s premature morbidity and mortality, and this would prevent them from going into dialysis. Have there been numbers or conversations about cost savings?
Mr. Aboultaif: Thank you. That’s a very good question. The cost saving is between the direct cost of the surgery versus the treatment. You are also talking about the hidden costs that nobody talks about. The productivity level of patients sometimes goes from 100% to almost zero. The effect on the immediate family, the surrounding families and the workplace — it’s not hard to measure what the savings will be, but the savings will be incredible. Enough of it is the quality of life that you bring to the patient.
Again, my son was living on a cocktail of mostly chemicals. He couldn’t eat regular food. When we received the liver, he could eat normally. It was a huge cost of hundreds of thousands of dollars just with respect to medicine. And then, to continue watching him and to continue to be able to guard for him is beyond measure. There’s no comparison between the savings, if we can talk dollar to dollar, and you’re talking about an organ that can live for good if you take care of it. Again, the quality of life, the productivity and the effects on the family, community and workplace are huge.
Senator McCallum: I had read that when you have a living donor, the organ lasts longer than an organ from a donor who passed on. If you can, please comment on that. When I was reading about the States, one of the medical doctors said:
We have a lot of altruistic donors, including young people, who come forward after researching on their own and finding our transplant hospital.
You’re talking about further expansion of potential donors and how they come forward. Another hospital said:
We want patients to think that living donation is the standard, and that it is not only the best answer for them, but it’s the first answer.
Can you speak on that?
Mr. Aboultaif: Thank you. On the young coming forward, the donor for Mr. LeBlanc was 18 years old, if I’m not mistaken, voluntarily donating his stem cells so he could save the minister’s life. Obviously, the difference between someone who is a deceased donor versus a living donor is the opportunity for hospitals and doctors to examine both patients to make sure the match is almost perfect and the conditions are set properly. Basically, they will be setting up the stage to do the surgery at a certain time when everybody is ready and when all the tests are done. That’s a huge advantage to both — the donor as well as the recipient — and that could be as if you’re basically ordering an organ to place it or transplant it into the recipient’s body. I’m not a doctor and can’t claim any experience in that, but there are grounds to think that the process itself helps to give the best organ to the recipient. Thank you.
Senator McPhedran: Thank you very much, and lovely to see you here for such a good reason, and welcome to your colleagues on the panel.
I’m really interested in the decision to include just the word “blood” in your definition. As you well know, we have probably close to 2 million Canadians a year who donate blood. How are you going to differentiate there for this award?
Mr. Aboultaif: That’s a very good question. This came as a friendly recommendation or amendment, and I have accepted. I felt that I should have thought about it when I wrote the first draft of the bill.
Again, from personal experience, during a very difficult night, our son received 93 units of blood in order for the doctor to be able to finish the surgery. That tells you how important it is for us to have frequent blood donors and how important that is for saving lives. Thank God we have a system in place in Canada, and we are proud of it. Because the need is only increasing, it helps a lot.
As I said, when I heard the number from the surgeon, about 93 units of blood just for one surgery for one patient, I realized that every one of us should donate blood.
Of course, the criteria have to be set to make sure that we recognize that they do it regularly. Those criteria have yet to be set, but at least it’s already in the bill. Then we will have an opportunity to put the framework forward.
Senator McPhedran: Thank you.
To understand the answer a bit better, do you anticipate that the process of nominating someone for the medal will just naturally eliminate those million-plus Canadians who could potentially be nominated because they gave blood?
Mr. Aboultaif: Actually, I anticipate that they will be recognized because they are living donors. I know one fellow from Montreal has been doing it for years. The goal is to recognize some of these people. Again, the criteria and the framework have to be set with the expertise of professionals; they know what the criteria will be.
We have to talk, of course, to Canadian Blood Services and Héma-Québec about that at some point. That will be another conversation when the final framework is established.
Senator Arnold: Thank you all for being here today. I have a quick question for you, Mr. Member of Parliament. Are human tissue and bone marrow also included in this?
Mr. Aboultaif: Yes.
Senator Arnold: You mentioned that 2 million people give blood. We can find that easily. You also referenced — and it’s very public — that Minister LeBlanc received a stem cell transplant. But that wasn’t just happenstance. There was a registry in Germany. That’s how they were able to find that particular donor. Has there been any talk of doing that sort of thing in Canada as well?
Mr. Aboultaif: That discussion never happened with me. I was in Taiwan in 2018, I believe. They have a bank with 8 million records. When we did the tour as Canadian officials, they said to us that if anyone needs a stem cell of any kind, you just send them the records through the proper channels. If they have the match, they will donate it.
Canada can do more. We are pioneers in many fields, especially health care and research and development. Hopefully, this bill will whet our appetite to do more to enhance the health care system and to make sure that Canadians get the help they need, especially in situations where they need an organ. We see an increased number of cases, especially with respect to leukemia. Maybe it’s time to look at that, but the answer is not with me.
Senator Arnold: Has it come up in your role?
[Translation]
Mr. Tremblay: Whether it’s Héma-Québec or other provincial organizations who collect blood, plasma or bone marrow, I think they can be included. However, it would be very cumbersome to manage and the medal would lose its value because of the number of medals awarded. They should have a different medal or honour. That’s what we’re seeing right now in Quebec. Héma-Québec recognizes its blood donors. When they give blood more than a 1,000 times or more than 500 times, they receive a medal. It’s a public recognition of that act.
Our medals are presented to living donors of a kidney, liver lobe or lung lobe. There aren’t a lot of donors. We’re talking about a few donors in Quebec per year.
Mr. Aboultaif said there are hundreds of people waiting for kidneys in Quebec. In fact, there are about 800 or 900 of them. Many won’t get one. Some will die without receiving a transplant.
I’d like to point out that these living donors allow the recipients to save the annual cost of dialysis, which is between $35,000 and $40,000. When they receive a transplant, recipients become active again in their community and educate people on becoming potential donors.
In my humble opinion, we’ve been recognizing living and posthumous donors in Quebec for 33 years and if we don’t want the medals to lose their high value, then we can’t give them to everyone. If we honour living donors, I think it should be kidney, liver lobe, lung, bone marrow and plasma donors. That’s a lot of people.
We’ll recognize what Héma-Québec and other organizations across the country are already doing. They recognize blood and plasma donors, and that’s great. However, our association recognizes tissue and cornea donors in particular. Corneas are important. My elderly mother received corneas.
Ms. Lauzon: From posthumous donors?
Mr. Tremblay: Yes, from posthumous donors, of course. We recognize these donors. However, I think we have to be careful with recognition, because it’ll become very cumbersome. I know the process the chancery will have to go through to issue those medals. We’re talking about several thousand medals. I know cost is not the issue, but the management —
[English]
The Chair: Thank you.
Before the final question, I would like to understand: Is Quebec the only province that does what your organization does in Quebec?
[Translation]
Mr. Tremblay: As far as I know, the only monument to the memory of deceased donors where the name of each donor is recorded every year is in Sherbrooke. It’s the only one in Canada that accepts deceased and registered donors from every province. For living donors, it’s the same thing. We look after living donors in Quebec.
[English]
The Chair: Do you anticipate, once this bill goes forward, that there would be a national entity, or would it continue to be administered by your organization in Quebec?
[Translation]
Mr. Tremblay: I’d be the happiest man in the world if our living donors were to receive a Canadian honour from the chancery. It wouldn’t stop us from also awarding our medal in each province during a protocol ceremony, as we do here. We’d be very happy to accept this new medal.
Madam Chair, I’ve been involved in organ transplant and donation for 40 years. Last week, I heard the best news: I heard about this bill and received your invitation to come and talk to you about it. I want to thank you very much.
[English]
The Chair: Thank you very much.
Senator D. M. Wells: I have a brief question and probably expect a brief answer, Mr. Aboultaif: Would the designation of a medal and the post-nominals be retroactive for past donors or would this be on Royal Assent and going forward? Has there been any consideration of that?
Mr. Aboultaif: Living donors that are still living should receive this medal.
The Chair: Thank you, senators, and thank you to our guests for agreeing to participate in this meeting. Your assistance with our study of this bill is greatly appreciated.
For our second panel, we have the pleasure of welcoming virtually Shelley Hunt, a living kidney donor, and Christopher McCreery, an expert on the Canadian Honours System and honours administration. We’ll begin with your opening remarks before we move to questions from members. You each have five minutes.
Shelley Hunt, Living Kidney Donor, as an individual: Thank you, Madam Chair. Good afternoon, honourable senators. Thank you so much for inviting me to speak with you today.
I’m calling from Penticton, B.C., and acknowledge the land of the Okanagan and Syilx People, on which I have the privilege of living.
In 2014, I became a living kidney donor. A few years earlier, I received information in the mail about living donations. Before that, I did not know it was something a person could do.
As soon as I learned that living kidney donation was possible, I knew I would do it. I believe we are all put on this planet for many different reasons. I always felt like this was one of mine.
I started going through the testing process. At one point during a test for kidney function, a nurse said to me, “You have the highest kidney function I have ever seen.” I remember thinking, “Of course I do; I was born to do this.”
I had originally decided I would donate anonymously. However, while I was going through the testing, I met Aidan. Aidan was a little boy who needed a kidney. He is only two weeks younger than my oldest son. At the time, they were both 5 years old. That made everything very real and very personal. I was not a direct match for Aidan, so we participated in what is called the paired exchange program. That meant I was able to donate my kidney to someone else and, through a chain of donors and recipients, Aidan was able to receive a kidney too. That all happened on October 1, 2014. I’m happy to report that I am healthy. I went into the hospital healthy and I came out healthy. My life has been a beautiful series of fortunate events ever since.
I would do it again if I could, over and over. It remains one of the most incredible experiences of my life. I am very happy to report to you all that Aidan walked across the stage last week and graduated from high school. That is the part that gets me.
When I first heard about the idea of a medal for living donors, my first thought, if I’m honest, was that I certainly don’t need one. Seeing Aidan alive, thriving, growing up and graduating high school is the only medal of honour I will ever need. Giving him a thriving life and giving his family the freedom of seeing him well, not chained to dialysis and not living in and out of hospitals made it all worth it. It would have been worth it even if he had only been given one healthy year.
That said, I will always participate in anything that brings living donation to the forefront because it is such an important thing.
I made the decision to donate because information landed in my lap in the form of a pamphlet. I learned about something I did not know existed. It changed my life, and it changed Aidan’s life. My hope is that anything that brings attention to living donation might help someone else learn about it too. Maybe someone hears about this medal, hears about living donation and realizes you can do that. Maybe that person becomes a living donor. I do not think most living donors would say they need a medal. However, I do think recognition is beautiful. I think it matters and that it’s important to celebrate the most beautiful things about being Canadian.
If this medal helps honour living donors, brings awareness to living donation and maybe leads to more donations, then I’m very glad to be here and very happy to support it.
I think this is an easy, beautiful thing for Canada to approve. I’m hearing “yes” from all of you, and it’s really touching.
I know this is not on the docket today, but if you are ever considering free parking for living donors for the rest of our lives, I would also enthusiastically support that. Thank you so much for hearing my story today.
The Chair: Thank you. That’s a lovely plug. We will now go to Mr. McCreery.
Christopher McCreery, Expert on the Canadian Honours System and honours administration, as an individual: Thank you, honourable senators. It’s indeed a privilege to appear here, where I started working back in 2004 for former senator Michael Kirby doing mental health things. It’s weird to see my name at the front of the room.
I’m here as an individual, not in my role as Private Secretary to the Lieutenant Governor of Nova Scotia, the Honourable Mike Savage.
My doctorate focused on the development of the Canadian Honours System, and I have published about a dozen books on the subject. I also administer the honours programs in Nova Scotia, so I come to this with an interesting view.
I have followed the progress of this bill with interest, not just as it relates to honours but because a very dear friend, Laurie Anderson, was the recipient of a heart transplant two years ago. I’ve seen up close how important these sorts of events are.
I certainly do not question the outstanding altruism that organ and blood donation require. My concern relates to the medal program proposed herein. This bill requires further study. You should call witnesses from the Chancellery of Honours, which is responsible for administering the honours programs, and also from Héma-Québec and Canadian Blood Services, or CBS. They will be responsible for recognizing the blood donor portion of this honours program, which is by far the largest portion of the program at, by my estimate, 95%.
Looking at existing blood donation and tissue donation levels in Canada, this will result in between 5,000 and 6,000 medals being awarded annually. This will make it, by far, the largest single honours program in Canada running annually, dwarfing the Order of Canada, Decorations for Bravery, Meritorious Service Decorations and the Sovereign’s Medal for Volunteers, by at least threefold, costing roughly between $1.2 million to $1.8 million annually. This doesn’t include the promotion that is clearly required with a program like this, not to mention requiring Canada Blood Services and Héma-Québec to devote additional HR resources to making and verifying nominations. These are the only ones that will be able to do that for blood donations.
I note that, at present, the Chancellery of Honours is woefully underfunded. They are still issuing medals with the effigy of the late Queen on them, almost four years after the change of reign, and there is a backlog of investitures that goes back several years.
The creation of this program at this time may result in the reduction of other honours programs, such as the Order of Canada or the Sovereign’s Medal for Volunteers, which was created as a result of the work of our former governor general Roméo LeBlanc, originally as the Caring Canadian Award.
That aside, as the chamber of sober second thought, I suggest you make certain improvements to this bill to ensure it will better fit into the Canadian Honours System, as it presently does not. I have the document that will be circulated to you shortly.
I’ll start with the most problematic part, clause 7.1.
The inclusion of post-nominals with this proposed medal is highly problematic. Post-nominals have historically been reserved for orders and decorations, such honours as the Order of Canada, the Star of Courage and the Order of Military Merit, to name a few. They have never been associated with a medal for service or volunteerism.
The inclusion of post-nominals for this medal will be offensive to some veterans and members of the Canadian Armed Forces, or CAF, notably those who have been awarded the Sacrifice Medal. The Sacrifice Medal is awarded to CAF members who have served in war or combat theatres, such as Afghanistan, where Canadians were killed, physically maimed with the loss of limbs or experienced PTSD.
In recognition of their suffering, they have been awarded the Sacrifice Medal, which has no post-nominals. These are people who answered what I would say is the highest call a country can make of its citizens, writ large. Granting post-nominals with the donor medal will also make it more important than campaign medals, which are awarded for serving in combat, as those medals do not come with post-nominals. You cannot compare voluntary donations of blood or tissue, important though they are, with service in armed combat, let alone the loss of life or limb or the permanent mental health issues that can be the result of combat.
Clause 2 should be altered as well. The name of the medal should be restyled. The “Recognition Medal” part is redundant. All medals are forms of recognition. “Living Donor Medal” — “L.D.M.” — also has the unfortunate potential of becoming a source of derision as a post-nominal, like the old Volunteer Decoration, or “VD,” had with the Canadian militia. It is almost inevitably giving it a derisive name, such as the “Lying Down Medal,” which is unfortunate because this is a noble thing.
It is not fitting for a national honour to have this sort of issue.
Calling it the “Living Donor Medal” will also lead many to assume that there will naturally be a “Deceased Donor Medal.” The word “donor” on its own is problematic, as it is associated with monetary contribution. Something more dignified, such as “the Organ and Blood Donation Medal,” “the King’s Medal for Organ and Blood Donation” or “the King’s Medal for the Gift of Life,” would be better choices as official honours in Canada emanate from the Crown and the King of Canada.
There are other elements of the bill that are incongruous with our other national honours, and they should be amended.
Regarding clause 7, no national honour calls for public presentations. Many people wish to receive their honours privately, and this is something I regularly encounter in my job. The clause that allows senators and MPs to present the medal is also problematic. It can make it appear as though the parliamentarian is personally responsible for the conferral of the medal. It will inevitably be perceived as injecting an element of partisan politics into our national honours system. Lester B. Pearson, on founding our honours system in 1967 with the consent of our late Queen, designed it to sit above the political fray.
This award is quite different from the Coronation Medals and the Jubilee Medals, which many of you presented over the past few years because you directly nominated the recipients. That is the way it will look with you presenting these.
I circulated a document. I am more than happy to take any questions about this and about the potential challenges of administration.
Thank you. Wela’lioq.
The Chair: Thank you, witnesses, for your statements. We’ll now proceed to questions from senators.
You will have five minutes for both your questions and answers. Please note that we will conclude this panel at 5:30 p.m.
Senator Bernard: Thank you both for your presentations before us today.
Ms. Hunt, I will start by saying thank you for the passion that you bring to the living donor experience and to the significance of recognition and celebration. Could you say more about how you see this medal as a form of celebration?
Ms. Hunt: It’s the celebration of an act that is beautiful. We need more celebration of those milestone moments that impact people’s lives positively. Celebration creates a culture that uplifts those beautiful things in life and shifts people’s focus to the good in the world.
Senator Bernard: Thank you.
Mr. McCreery, thank you for being here, for the concerns that you’ve raised about this bill and for your suggested amendments.
Are you aware of what consultation, if any, was done with the Canadian Armed Forces during the development of this bill?
Mr. McCreery: At this point, I’m not aware of any consultation, and I’m in regular contact with the Directorate of Honours and Recognition. It may have been in camera, so I might not be aware if it has taken place. However, in speaking to a number of recipients of the Sacrifice Medal and Campaign Medal, they reacted very negatively to the idea that a medal outside of those we normally have post-nominals with would suddenly have them. They don’t want post-nominals for the Sacrifice Medal, which is for losing your life or a limb or for PTSD, but they felt this doesn’t fit into the existing pyramid of Canadian honours with post-nominals.
Outside of the post-nominals, I don’t think there’s any objection to it. We would become one of only four countries that have a medal for organ donation. I believe those four countries are Russia, Saudi Arabia, Monaco and Luxembourg. There may be one other; I cannot remember.
Again, there are also administrative issues that I have introduced that should be considered. You should talk to Héma‑Québec and Canadian Blood Services because they’re the ones that will have to administer the lion’s share of this program. As we know from the Coronation Medal program, the Chancellery of Honours can tell you that many organizations receive medals in an allotment of, say, 10, 15 or 100, and they don’t have the resources to devote to choosing worthy nominees.
This is simpler because you would choose from the list created by Héma-Québec or Canadian Blood Services. They have their milestone levels of 10 through over 1,650 donations of blood or plasma, depending on which it is. I’m sure that the regulations would outline that, but someone still has to administer this outside the Government of Canada to submit it to the Chancellery of Honours. That intersection is problematic without more consultation.
I’m not saying this to delay it, but if you want a good policy and an honour that will fit well into our national honours system — which is one of the best in the world — then it should be more well reasoned on that front.
Senator Bernard: Mr. McCreery, you said in your opening remarks that the bill needed more study. In an ideal world, what were you thinking about with regard to further study of this bill?
Mr. McCreery: Thank you, senator. I think you need to hear from those two organizations — Héma-Québec and Canadian Blood Services — and from the Chancellery of Honours, who can lay out and explain to you the stages through which an honour is literally created. It’s a very noble goal to want this ready for April 30 next year. The King Charles III’s Coronation Medal program, which is 30,000 medals, took more than 18 months to set up. We’re sitting at 9 months. You will likely adjourn shortly. Royal Assent will likely come in the next week or so, and Privy Council has to get involved in doing the regulations and recommendations to cabinet. That’s a couple of months there. These are complicated regulations as well, and they need to be in order to ensure there’s a solid bar, that this system is not abused and that it’s reflective of the high quality of honours that we bestow upon Canadian citizens from coast to coast to coast.
Senator D. M. Wells: Thank you, Ms. Hunt, specifically for the sacrifice you’ve made and the promotion you’ve done for living organ donation. I have a question for you before I move to Mr. McCreery. Do you see this recognition, whether it’s the medal or the post-nominal, more as a thank you for past efforts or a motivator for future donations?
Ms. Hunt: I think both, to the full extent. It is a celebration, a recognition and a thank you. It sounds very simple, but that pamphlet landing in my lap, people talking about these medals and people receiving them get conversations going in small ways across the country. That’s when there are motivation and inspiration. There are many people who don’t know about this. I had no idea. I was 30 years old when I donated, and I didn’t know prior to learning about it in 2012 that it was even possible. I think there are more people like me out there who would make that impact and make that choice if they knew.
Senator D. M. Wells: Ms. Hunt, that you know of, have you inspired others to give through your personal connections or public promotions that you’ve done?
Ms. Hunt: I’ve received many phone calls from people who are considering it. They wanted to know what the process looks like and wanted to know about my experience. Yes, that has resulted in other living donations. Also, we’ve received messages over the years from people who signed up to be donors after they pass. That’s part of the inspiration as well. One of the hoped-for outcomes is for everybody to give some thought to passing on their organs to other people after they have passed on. We’ve heard about this happening from many people.
Senator D. M. Wells: Thank you very much.
Dr. McCreery, I want to let the committee know that you and I have worked together on a couple projects in the past, and I appreciate the work that we’ve done together and you’ve done on behalf of Canada.
Dr. McCreery, you said that the cost of this — and we often talk about costs in our Senate committees — would be between $1.2 million and $1.8 million annually. To me, that seems extremely low, given the amount of money that passes through our Senate committees and the Senate Chamber. Can you talk a little more about some of the costs and what they would cover?
Mr. McCreery: Certainly. Thank you, senator. This is based on the idea that each medal would be struck by the Royal Canadian Mint and then have a certificate, which needs to be mailed and administered. If you look at the cost of what the Coronation Medal program costs the Chancellery of Honours, it is about $170 to $200 per unit to administer it from the Government of Canada side. It’s not a lot of money. The whole Order of Canada program costs less than that to administer, and that’s our highest honour for civilian contributions.
In terms of the shrinking budget of the Office of the Secretary to the Governor General — something I watch because I write about it and because I intersect with them more formally as a colleague — they don’t have enough money to hold investitures. Their budget has been clawed back like those of many other organizations. They’ve had occasions in the past fiscal year where they didn’t have enough money, for example, for service medals for police and fire officers. They couldn’t get them struck by the Royal Canadian Mint because they couldn’t send the money over to them at the journal voucher. That shrinkage of their funding will cause a problem, and it will mean maybe having to take from another program, the Sovereign’s Medal for Volunteers, which about 1,500 to 2,000 Canadians receive every year. That might have to be dormant for a while. They have done that before in the past. That’s why I encourage you to get them here to explain to you what it is to set up a new honour.
It takes years, even with the Coronation Medal. I did it in Nova Scotia with the Platinum Jubilee Medal program, which we then ran in five other provinces. That took 14 months, from the concept on the deck at my cottage to getting it to other provinces and the Government of Nova Scotia ready to go with that. It’s not just coming up with a pin; it’s a national honour; it’s a permanent piece of recognition. Your name goes in a register, which is another part of it. If you want it to have the cachet, the status and the symbolic importance that an honour is supposed to have, it needs to be set up properly and not in a rushed fashion.
In 1943, the Government of Canada created the Canada Medal, which was to be a one-level medal for all Canadians. Winston Churchill was going to get it, right down to the person who was helping to screw timers on the top of bombs to be dropped on the Nazis. It languished on a shelf for 25 years until we had the Order of Canada because no one could figure out how to do the regulations, and they didn’t want to pay for it. Even though there was great interest from the public, it didn’t go anywhere because the back end — where they were figuring out the regulations and details of who will get it, how and why — was not worked out in advance. Successive administrations ragged the puck, for lack of a better term, and it died on the vine.
Thankfully, we got the Order of Canada in the end, which is the envy of the world in terms of official national honours, but 25 years were lost. Canadians were not being recognized in the immediate wake of the Second World War because policy-makers and politicians couldn’t figure out what they wanted to do.
Senator D. M. Wells: Given your comments a moment ago that there weren’t direct criteria developed, there appear to be very direct criteria related to this. Do you see that even with one life saved — and I’m sure at least one life would be saved by this — that this is an extremely low cost? The process that we ended up doing with the Senate of Canada Sesquicentennial Medal was at a low cost, and we did it fairly quickly as well. Do you think there have been lessons learned within Canada that would allow this to get up and running and off the ground, going to the motivation of the recognition?
Mr. McCreery: Thank you, senator. The time required is significant. We will have to figure out the blood side of it: How many donations, how many plasma units, how many real units of blood and so on will qualify? Will Quebec be different from the rest of Canada because Héma-Québec is different from Canadian Blood Services? The organ donation side is not the complicated part. That’s fairly straightforward. However, having added the blood side, and then the questions regarding the name and whether it will eventually include deceased donors, this all needs to be worked out in the regulations well in advance. That means consultations; you can’t do it on the back of a napkin, unfortunately.
On the blood side, it’s very complicated, according to the people I’ve talked to in the medical world. Where do you set that bar? It’s easy with a piece of kidney or liver; that’s easily quantifiable. With blood, how many units will it be? They have a range from 10 to 125 through to 1,650 and 1,700: You receive a pin, a certificate and other things. You have to find a way to marry that with the other system that exists for Héma-Québec, which is every 100 donations and up. The criteria have to be equal across Canada. It’s not very easy to do.
Senator D. M. Wells: On the blood donation aspect, let’s say it was set at 125. Doesn’t that remove the question of what it might be once it has been established?
Mr. McCreery: It does, but you have to get partner buy-in. You can’t just impose it on Canadian Blood Services and Héma‑Québec. That’s essentially what you’re doing right now. You are going to tell them: “Here is a medal. Give it out.” There will be massive pressure on them to start it right away. People will want recognition. It’s a human thing; many people want to be recognized. But you need to consult with partners.
That’s what we’ve done with the Jubilee and Coronation Medal programs: We consulted with partners to find out what they wanted the criteria to be and what they wanted recognized. Otherwise, it’s a top-down Ottawa thing being pushed onto a regional agency. It won’t work as well as you hope it will if you want buy-in and participation. Those are going to be key because they’re going to be your two major partners.
Senator D. M. Wells: A few moments ago, you mentioned the possible confusion if an MP or a senator is giving it out in their riding, where it might be seen as political or something like that. Now you’re talking about Canadian Blood Services handing out the medal, but I don’t know if there’s been any suggestion that would be the group that would give it out. If there were an eligible recipient that I became aware of, I would work it out with the MP or perhaps the senator — though I represent the whole province — but I would work it out with my MP to do it together. I don’t see that as an impediment to this.
Mr. McCreery: To address that, in order to verify someone has donated the blood, Héma-Québec or Canadian Blood Services will have to confirm it. You can’t just say, “I have a certificate,” and then that will be enough to verify that you should get this medal. There has to be some due process and diligence in ensuring people aren’t just going to YouTube or making a PDF document of a certificate. That would completely debase the important recognition this is supposed to afford to Canadians who are giving of themselves in a very profound way.
Senator D. M. Wells: I’ve just opened up my Canadian Blood Services app, and I see exactly how many blood donations I’ve given. It’s their record of my donations. I understand what you’re saying, but I think there are a lot of things that we can overcome if the objective is worthy. Thank you for your answers.
Senator McPhedran: I’m wondering, Senator Wells, if you could use a little bit of my time. Did you get everything covered?
Senator D. M. Wells: I’m okay. If there’s a second round, I may go.
Senator McPhedran: This has been really helpful. These intricacies are seldom contemplated in advance. I’m very supportive of this bill, but I can see how some of the practicalities of making it a success are really important. I’d like to differentiate between not following protocol or established practices and damage. I am really asking you to hone some of what you shared with us, if we could hear a bit more about what you would see as damaging or undermining. I hope I’m being clear in the question.
Mr. McCreery: I think you are, senator. Thank you.
I would reiterate that the regulations and the details of this should be worked out before it is launched. They are complicated and require consultation.
The potential damage is in potentially having people who are not eligible for this — people want medals. You all saw it during the Coronation Medal program. Your email inboxes were full, and your staff were driven crazy. I’ve lived it on both sides, where people are ravenous for recognition. I’m not saying that would be the same with this group of people because it is a more altruistic contribution to your community and country.
However, if you don’t have due process, a very high bar and assurance that people who are receiving this have met the bar — again, I’m focusing on the blood side, as the tissue side is much more straightforward — then it will devalue this medal. That will not only devalue this medal, but people will look and say, “So‑and-so is wearing this, and they didn’t really give that amount of blood, or I never saw them do it” — and you get that sometimes, anyways. But when you see people who patently don’t deserve an honour wearing it, and that happens occasionally as well, it debases other honours that are given out.
That’s why you need to have symbolic equality and that sort of recognition for it to still have a symbolic quality and purchase in the community — for it to be worthy of recognition. You wear your Senate badges. I see the fellow here had his Order of Canada pin on. Those are elements to say who you are but also what you’ve achieved. If you don’t have a proper system set up to support that awarding of honours in advance, it can go haywire.
We had that happen in 1977, with the Queen’s Jubilee program. It was a long time ago, but they had several MPs who were sort of shovelling medals out the back of their cars. It’s not to paint politicians in a bad way. They’re an essential part of our parliamentary democracy and part of the honours system as well. But this happened again in 1992, with Bloc MPs doing the same with the 125th Anniversary of the Confederation of Canada Medal, where it debased that program because there were no real criteria. Basically, it was just given it to whomever they wanted.
On the other side of the damage I see, the post-nominals are a big stickler for me. People who serve Canada overseas and put themselves at the highest level of risk, higher than certainly I’ve ever experienced, or who have lost a limb, they don’t have post‑nominals. In my discussions with them — and I work with many people in the Canadian Armed Forces — they don’t want post‑nominals to say they served in Afghanistan. They don’t want post-nominals to say they received the Sacrifice Medal. But then they see that you are going to receive post-nominals for a medal for donating blood or tissue, something you do voluntarily. The people I have talked with have no problem with there being a medal for this. They think that’s lovely. Many of them are blood donors themselves. In their profession especially, as members of the Canadian Armed Forces, blood donation is very important. But where they see the problem is it is then being given a status higher than what they received for serving overseas in the defence of Canadian values, and that’s a pretty hard bar to surpass, even with something as altruistic as this.
Senator McCallum: Thank you for your presentations. My question is for Mr. McCreery. I wanted to go to some of what you had talked about: that there were amendments made at the Standing Committee on Health in the House of Commons and that the bill passed unanimously. Clause 6 was amended to remove a provision excluding certain persons, such as senators or MPs, from receiving a medal. Clause 7 was amended to expand the categories of persons that could present the award, and they added a provision indicating that a recipient can use the post-nominal letters under clause 7.1. Then they amended the provision to remove the power to make regulations for the use of post-nominals and remove the power to make regulations prescribing persons excluded from eligibility.
The House of Commons amended the bill that came in to put that in here, and then it was passed unanimously. Can you comment on that?
Mr. McCreery: The House passes things unanimously on occasion. I’ve presented a series of amendments that I think would improve this bill.
The preclusion of members of Parliament and senators from receiving the medal was very rightly removed because with no other Canadian honour are you prevented from receiving it in your lifetime, though the Order of Canada you can’t receive while you’re in office. It didn’t make sense to not include people like the member of Parliament who donated to help his son. He should definitely get this medal, so that made a lot of sense.
The other amendments were made so that they can make regulations more easily for the Governor-in-Council, rather than the way it was structured before, which was almost enshrining too much into the act and didn’t give the Governor-in-Council enough latitude to set up regulations that would allow for the proper administration of the honour. That happens in many provinces when they have set up their honours and enshrined things into their provincial order act that then become very cumbersome and can’t be amended or take years to be amended, and it ends up taking away from the honour itself.
Unanimity is lovely, but I’m looking at the nuts and bolts. I’m not trying to rain on this parade completely, but more study needs to be done between intersecting partners, and the post‑nominals should be dropped. It is going to be offensive to many members of the Canadian Armed Forces. That’s why I decided to come today in person: To be here with you to answer these questions face to face. Thank you, senator.
Senator McCallum: They did not want post-nominals. They made that decision. So why would they go to another group and say, “You should think as we do”? Why would they now be offended?
Mr. McCreery: I don’t think Canadian Armed Forces members were consulted broadly on this.
Senator McCallum: I thought you said they did not want —
Mr. McCreery: No, I said they have not been consulted. When the House amended the bill, it said that there shall be post‑nominal letters, L.D.M., which is, again, problematic in terms of the letters chosen. “Lying Down Medal” is what it is going to be called.
The Australians have an Australian Defence Medal, or “ADM,” and they call it “Another Dumb Medal.” You have to be very careful with these symbolic elements of our state to make sure they cannot be so easily open to derision. I’ve proposed several more laconic names that would be more befitting an honour of this significance. That’s where I am on this.
I appreciate the question, senator.
Senator McCallum: Thank you.
The Chair: Before we go to Senator Wells from Newfoundland and Labrador for round two, Dr. McCreery, do you feel that some of the concerns, particularly the potentially damaging ones that Senator McPhedran asked about, could be addressed through regulations?
Mr. McCreery: They can only be addressed through regulations. The concerns about how people who donate blood will be recognized, those thresholds, that will all be determined by regulations.
The regulations could also say the Governor-in-Council decides to style the medal — I don’t know what it might be — “the King’s Medal for Organ and Blood Donation,” for example. You can restyle the name without amending it here. But you need the agreement of the Governor-in-Council to do that, which none of us — including you, honourable senators — have the ability to assure will happen.
You also need to hear from the chancellery about how you set up an honours program. It’s not going to be done by April 30. You want to get it set up correctly, like when they set up the Order of Canada, the Order of Military Merit and the various Coronation and Jubilee programs.
There are huge lead times on this. I’m not saying to get rid of the good for perfection. However, you want this to be a high-level, well-regarded honour from the get-go. You don’t want it starting off with any problems or someone saying, “So-and-so received it for this, but I received it for that,” and so on. There isn’t a standard bar for blood and plasma donation. That has to be worked out.
Again, you have to ensure that you have the partnership of those people who administer the blood donations so you can verify and ensure the people receiving the medal are deserving of it. Otherwise, it’s just something you can buy on eBay and wear — and people do that too, which is a whole other issue I won’t go into right now.
Senator D. M. Wells: Thank you. People can buy anything on eBay, as you know. Whatever we say here is not going to change that.
I want to go back to Ms. Hunt. The objective of this is to motivate people to consider live donation. While there might be some sharp edges around that, do you see anything that we’ve discussed — outside of, obviously, your own testimony — here that would make this a no-go decision by the committee?
Mr. McCreery: Thank you, senator.
Senator D. M. Wells: I was asking Ms. Hunt.
Ms. Hunt: Sorry. Can you reword that question for me about the no-go?
Senator D. M. Wells: Yes, I understand.
One of the clear motivations for this is to increase living organ donation by Canadians.
Ms. Hunt: Yes.
Senator D. M. Wells: Do you see or have you heard anything at the committee today — or even in the House committee, if you were listening to that — that would not contribute to that objective?
Ms. Hunt: No, I don’t think so. For what it’s worth, I think dropping the post-nominal part of it would not change anything. I respect what the gentleman speaking prior was talking about with respect to not cheapening the medal.
It can be simplified. There can be a happy point in between everything that everybody is saying today. There’s a way to recognize while regulating and not cheapening medals across the board.
I feel that in the organ and blood donation community, living organ donation is recognized as — if there is a hierarchy — something that is incredibly noble. Maybe there could be different systems and processes of recognition for both of those things that would make it possible for this bill to move forward, if that simplifies things.
I absolutely agree that fighting for your country, risking your life and everything that comes with that is incredibly noble and not something that I would do.
So, yes, I love the enthusiasm around this bill. I believe that it could be moved forward while respecting the processes that exist. I don’t think that the types of people who are living donors will be picky, so to speak, regarding this recognition.
Nothing changes for me, no matter what the outcome of this is. I truly do believe that, in the same way I discovered that this was possible, this kind of thing will bring these conversations to the forefront and we will see more donations.
Something worth talking about in all of this is how much money we save when we get people off dialysis and make people healthy. I don’t want to make it about money, but there is that component that’s beneficial to our health care system.
Senator D. M. Wells: Thank you very much. I don’t have any further questions.
The Chair: Thank you to our panellists for your testimony and for sharing your experiences and expertise with us. Your assistance with our study of this bill is truly greatly appreciated.
Senators, is it agreed that we go in camera at this point?
Hon. Senators: Yes.
(The committee continued in camera.)