Evidence of meeting #23 for Health in the 45th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was medal.
A video is available from Parliament.
Conservative
Dan Mazier Conservative Riding Mountain, MB
Yes, I think we're good on this side. The Conservatives are good.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Hedy Fry
Before we move to that second round, I would like to welcome our expert from the Privy Council Office, Mr. Girouard. He is available for any questions members might have on the legislation.
Good day, Monsieur Girouard.
Now I'm going to go to the second round. Do I have names?
Conservative
February 26th, 2026 / 4:05 p.m.
Conservative
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Hedy Fry
I keep getting this changing scenario, guys.
We do not have a second round now. Is that it?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Hedy Fry
Thank you. That's good. That was originally the idea.
Now, do you all have in front of you the agenda prepared by the legislative clerks?
I'm going to start by saying to you that, pursuant to Standing Order 75(1), consideration of clause 1, which is the title, and of the preamble is postponed. We do that at the end. I will begin with clause 2.
(On clause 2)
Ms. Chi, go ahead.
Liberal
Maggie Chi Liberal Don Valley North, ON
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I move G-1. This amendment aims to broaden eligibility for the medal to include bone marrow and blood donations. The criteria will be established in the regulations, and the government intends to follow the criteria established by existing organizations that recognize blood donors who have made significant and sustained blood donations over their lifetime.
Conservative
Matt Strauss Conservative Kitchener South—Hespeler, ON
I just want to say that I love this bill. I was terribly moved by our colleague's story of personal courage. I note that reference to “courage” is made at the beginning of the bill. Undergoing surgery to give an organ does involve a real risk of death, and I assume that the risk of death would have been described to Mr. Aboultaif when he was preparing for surgery. It also touches on my personal family history. My father wrote me a letter the night before he was going to donate a kidney to his brother. Thank God, he survived, and I've never had to read that letter.
I guess my concern with this amendment is that donating blood does not involve a material risk of death. Some of these surgeries for donating organs can be in the order of a one-in-300 chance of death, compared to a one-in-10,000 chance for bone marrow donation. It's basically unheard of, almost impossible, to die from donating blood. When I think of a medal ceremony, I think of recognizing physical courage, and I wonder if the mover of the amendment could touch on that point. Why has a decision been made to seek this amendment?
Liberal
Maggie Chi Liberal Don Valley North, ON
I understand that the amendment was a work in collaboration with the mover and all parties, so maybe the officials can jump in to answer the question as well.
Joël Girouard Senior Privy Council Officer, Machinery of Government, Privy Council Office
Thank you, Madam Chair.
There are a number of reasons that Canada bestows honours on citizens and on others as well. Some of them involve courage. Some are for other accomplishments or other ways that people have given to Canada.
The feeling is that there will be a threshold established by the Governor in Council for blood donations. That threshold will be high enough that the level of donations—the sustained commitment to giving the gift of life to others—will generally take place over decades and not over a short time. That level of commitment is deemed worthy of recognition by those who have moved the amendment.
Conservative
Matt Strauss Conservative Kitchener South—Hespeler, ON
I don't want to derail the proceedings. I'm hugely supportive of this bill. I want this bill to sail through this process or as the regulations are devised, if it's by your office or wherever. I just want that recognition that, if you donate blood for decades, you're still not incurring the material risk of physical death that my colleague incurred and that my father incurred when they donated an organ. It seems incorrect to me to put those two....
By all means, donating blood is important, and it's nice, but it doesn't really incur the same sort of sacrifice. It's unclear to me why they would incur the same sort of reward. I have nothing further to say on the topic. I believe the amendment will pass on division, but I wanted to have that on the record.
Thanks.
Liberal
Liberal
Doug Eyolfson Liberal Winnipeg West, MB
Yes, I agree with Mr. Strauss. The risk from a blood donation is absolutely minuscule compared to other things, like surgery. However, there are many public recognitions for tremendous amounts of service. People who have volunteered for years have received honours for having benefited the lives of many.
To my earlier point about risk and sacrifice, that still goes. However, the people we're talking about, who would give blood, even though they wouldn't actually be at physical risk, would spend a tremendous amount of time and effort providing a prolonged, life-saving public service. For that, I think select people who have done this regularly over decades and have saved many lives are also worthy of this honour.
Conservative
Helena Konanz Conservative Similkameen—South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC
Thank you. I have a question for Ms. Chi.
If you brought this forward, why is it so important for you to have this? I'm 100% supportive of this bill, and I want it to pass, but I do agree in a lot of ways with MP Strauss about this. Why do you think it's so important to add this, when it is so different from what was originally asked for?
Liberal
Maggie Chi Liberal Don Valley North, ON
I believe this amendment was developed in collaboration with all parties at the table. Yes, I did move the amendment as a procedural thing for the committee.
Conservative
Helena Konanz Conservative Similkameen—South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC
I haven't been through this type of thing before, so I want to understand this.
Conservative
Ziad Aboultaif Conservative Edmonton Manning, AB
Thank you, Chair.
I did accept this amendment because, first, we're also aiming to encourage any effort to save Canadians' lives. When you donate blood, that's one of the ways.
The second thing is that, of course, we have a blood shortage in Canada, and we need to encourage more people to donate.
The third thing I touched on in my speech was that it will apply when there is a significant number of blood donations. It's a very rare thing to happen, but in case it happens, I believe it happens because it's saving lives. To that extent, the medal will be a good thing to have and will be something to support those efforts.
Bloc
Jean-Denis Garon Bloc Mirabel, QC
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Perhaps this observation will be helpful. Perhaps not. As I understand it, the honour will be bestowed on someone who has made a significant physical donation to save lives over a sustained period of time, and the eligibility criteria will be very high. I may be in the minority here, but I wonder—and I'm not a doctor, obviously—whether it's necessary to rank the level of pain or risk involved. Nevertheless, I'm not sure whether I'm totally comfortable with us, as parliamentarians, taking it upon ourselves to create a hierarchy of pain or risk and set the threshold for awarding the medal.
Assuming it is possible under the regulations to determine whether a physical donation is significant enough to save lives, I am pretty comfortable putting my trust in those who will ultimately bestow the award. Generally speaking, I think the bar for awarding these kinds of medals is high enough.
As far as I'm concerned, I would not be comfortable saying that this type of donation is more painful than that type, that a liver donation is more painful than a kidney or bone marrow donation, for example. Personally, I'm not sure I'm comfortable making that decision. For that reason, I support the amendment.