Debates of Nov. 20th, 2025

Living Donor Recognition Medal Act

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of any specific awards such as the one I am proposing. April is Organ and Tissue Donation Awareness Month, which was created through the effort of some NGOs in their jobs, trying to bring awareness. I continue to help and to support their initiative; however, I believe we need to do more.

We need to recognize and bring awareness to Canadians about how important it is to have more living donors so we can reduce the 4,700 cases, which, by the way, have been in the system since I introduced my first bill 10 years ago to establish an organ donor registry in Canada. The legislation did not make it through, but I am hopeful the bill before us will be a successful attempt to bring more awareness and make sure Canadians understand that it is an important thing. It would be recognized publicly.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like thank my colleague from Edmonton Manning for this bill, and especially for sharing that very touching story about donating an organ to his son.

The only minor issue the Bloc Québécois has with the bill is that the Canadian Organ and Tissue Donors Association already holds a ceremony to pay tribute to posthumous donors and living donors. In addition, two medals already exist, namely the ambassador of health medal and the good Samaritan medal.

We simply need to ensure that the law recognizes the work already being done by organizations such as the Canadian Organ and Tissue Donors Association, Transplant Québec, Héma-Québec and Canadian Blood Services. I hope the member would agree that it is imperative to invite representatives of these organizations to appear before the committee to ensure that the recognition he wants to promote is aligned with the missions of these organizations.

I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on that.

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for the kind words and for the question. Absolutely, the nature and spirit of the bill is to recognize the heroes we do not even know about in Canada.

Working with organizations across the country is very important, and I believe this will be done. My office and I will be reaching out to many more organizations that we know of, and I thank the member for highlighting some today so we can work together, because as I said, the initiative is a non-partisan one. It needs to continue to be like this because, at the end of the day, we are all Canadians. We have one goal: to help each other and to make sure that we set examples for others.

[Bernard Généreux, Conservative, Côte-du-Sud—Rivière-du-Loup—Kataskomiq—Témiscouata, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for this wonderful bill, which I believe everyone in this chamber should support.

There is an organization in my riding called Chain of Life. Its president and founder, Lucie Dumont, created it to promote organ donation. My colleague mentioned education. Chain of Life aims to educate young people, aged 15 to 17, in English classes and takes that opportunity to talk about this issue. This bill promotes recognition by awarding medals, but it would also help inform the public about organ donation.

I myself have signed my organ donor card, using my Quebec driver's licence. There are 800 people waiting for organ donations in Quebec.

I think this is an extraordinary initiative by my colleague.

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his support. He brought other cases to my attention, and other organizations that are doing some good work. I am adding another chapter to that through the House; I am giving the House, all MPs in all parties, the opportunity to work together with all Canadians. For Canadians who are most in need of organs, the bill would facilitate that, make their lives easier and make the lives of people in their communities, their workplace and their families better. We can all be working together to achieve that.

[Ginette Petitpas Taylor, Liberal, Moncton—Dieppe, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I am extremely pleased today to stand in the House in support of Bill C-234, which calls for the creation of a living donor recognition medal.

Let me start by telling members why I am supporting the bill. For starters, how can anyone not be moved by the experience of the member for Edmonton Manning, who as a father of a child stricken by a critical illness, donated part of his own liver to save his son's life? Many brave Canadians over the years have also been willing to do the same by being a living donor to save someone's life, whether it be a family member, a friend or sometimes even a stranger. That is completely inspiring.

In my estimation, that kind of selflessness and courage captures the best of Canadian values and of human values, and it should be justly rewarded. We already reward selflessness of a different sort with the Sovereign's Medal for Volunteers, for example. We also bestow several military and civilian honours on Canadians who have risked danger to come to the aid of others in emergencies.

Creating this type of award to celebrate these qualities, particularly in the context of living organ donation, seems to me to be the next logical step.

I support the bill also because of the experience of two friends of mine, Mr. Dan McLaughlin and Michael Walsh.

Just a few months ago, Dan McLaughlin lived a thrill of a lifetime. During the Second World War, his father joined the RCAF, and like thousands of airmen from across Canada and the British Commonwealth, he honed his flying skills here in Canada in a Harvard trainer aircraft. Just a handful of Harvards are still flying today, but Dan recently had the chance to fly one of them, eighty-four years after his dad first climbed into a Harvard cockpit.

He kindly showed me the photos of that amazing experience, and I have to say that the expression on his face as he was flying through the air in a plane just like the one his dad piloted almost a century ago was absolutely priceless.

I tell this story because absolutely none of this would have happened if Dan had not received a life-saving kidney transplant six years ago.

My friend Mike Walsh received a kidney transplant seven years ago, and today he is managing his health and making the most of the years he thought he would never have.

Mike and Dan, who know each other well, went through similar trials as each waited for the donation of a kidney. They both did everything they could to stay positive and hopeful, but they also did what a reasonable person would do when the odds are stacked against them: They got their affairs in order. They said what needed to be said to their family members and friends, and they also made their funeral arrangements.

At one point Dan was so desperate to find a donor that he even put an advertisement on his car and drove around the city in hopes that someone would see it.

At last, after what seemed like a never-ending wait during which he had almost given up hope of his prayers being answered, against all odds, Dan received a kidney just in time, just as his time was running out.

Just like that, Dan suddenly received a new lease on life because of another family's tragic loss.

This is where Mike Walsh's case is very different. Mike had the extraordinary luck of finding a living donor thanks to his membership and active involvement in a local Rotary club. Mike lives just a few blocks from me in Moncton, but he happened to be far away from home at a Rotary event in Seattle, Washington, when a chance conversation with a fellow Rotarian from Washington state led to the man's giving Mike one of his kidneys.

Both my friends beat extraordinary odds in their own journey, but unfortunately, too many of the friends they made in the transplant community of people who were also waiting on the organ transplant list were not as lucky.

I think most members of the House, and indeed most Canadians in general, may have friends or loved ones like Mike and Dan. Most of us also probably know someone who did not survive because they did not get the transplant they needed. The saddest part of all of this is that, as we all know, the kidney is an organ that can be transplanted from a living donor. Living donors could greatly increase the life-saving transplants we could do in Canada, but only, of course, if we have more people stepping up.

The fact that Mike received his transplant kidney from a living donor did not speed up the process. In fact, just like Dan, he waited many years before the stars aligned and a match was found. Just think of how many Canadians' lives could be saved if we encouraged more people to donate a kidney or even a piece of their own liver while they are still alive.

I believe that Bill C-234 could help raise awareness, as my fellow colleague indicated, and encourage more Canadians to step forward to make this important gift. I also support the bill because I strongly believe it is simply the right thing to do. We should show our gratitude as a society to the people who make the sacrifice to save Canadians lives.

In conclusion, I just want to say that donations from all living donors are truly gifts of life. They are, by definition, priceless.

We could never pay someone enough to be a living donor. No amount of money could ever reimburse someone for giving so much of themselves to someone else, and that is why I personally support the idea of the member for Edmonton Manning, someone I also consider a dear friend, who proposed the bill, because the gift of life is truly priceless. We should reward living donors with a token of gratitude that is also priceless, a medal that can serve both as a tangible symbol of our nation's gratitude and also as a mark of recognition to ensure that the donor's selflessness, courage and honour are underlined.

Once again I offer many thanks to the member for Edmonton Manning. My friend has done well.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise this evening to speak to Bill C‑234, which seeks to establish a medal of recognition for citizens and permanent residents who have made a living organ donation in Canada.

The bill is relatively straightforward. It creates and implements this medal, and leaves the details, such as the design, eligibility criteria and the awarding process, to be determined by regulations. Certain exclusions are also provided for members of Parliament, senators and other persons excluded by regulation who would not be eligible to receive the medal. Furthermore, this medal can only be awarded once. The government must submit a report on the implementation of this measure.

It is a fairly straightforward bill that nevertheless exists in a political context, given that it was introduced by the member for Edmonton Manning, who is its sponsor. This is personal for him. He donated part of his liver to his son in 2003, and it should be noted that he had already introduced a previous bill, Bill C‑223, for a national strategy for organ donation. The Bloc Québécois rejected the bill at the time for a number of reasons, but this new version is much more acceptable. As for the positions of the other parties, it is quite simple. From what we have seen so far, I think we are heading toward unanimous support at second reading. It is a fine example of humanity.

However, there is a potential problem, as I mentioned to my colleague earlier. There is overlap with existing awards, such as the annual ceremony held by the Canadian Organ and Tissue Donation Association, the ambassador of health medal, and the good Samaritan medal. It is also important to hear from the Canadian Organ and Tissue Donation Association, Transplant Québec, Héma-Québec, and Canadian Blood Services in committee to avoid duplication of their work and to recognize all that they do. This will be an opportunity to hear from them in committee.

We in the Bloc Québécois will be supporting this bill. We want to highlight Quebec's major historic contribution in terms of organ donation, and I will come back to that a little later. As I said, we are somewhat critical of the fact that the bill fails to explicitly recognize this contribution in its preamble, along with everything that has been done in Quebec. We would actually like to highlight the essential role of Transplant Québec, which was created by Quebec doctors and has been at the heart of the Quebec system for over 50 years now. I will also come back to that a little later. In my speech, I will talk about the roles of the various agencies, provide a historical overview and conclude with a few statistics.

First, Transplant Québec is responsible for organ donation coordination, promotion, research and training. Since 1992, it has managed Quebec's single waiting list, a national feature that is unique to us. According to recent data from 2024, there were 206 donors, 556 transplants performed, and 856 people on the waiting list. The Canadian Organ and Tissue Donors Association holds an annual ceremony to honour living and deceased donors. It was founded in 1983 and promotes organ donation in Quebec and Canada. Since 1987, it has involved several police services and partners in the rapid transport of organs, which is often a vital step. It is the Quebec equivalent of Canadian Blood Services, which is responsible for the rest of the country.

Second, I want to go over a bit of history. I will try to present a somewhat structured timeline to explain and highlight Quebec's important role in the history of transplantation. First, in 1958, the first kidney transplant took place at the Royal Victoria Hospital in Montreal. In 1965 and 1968, the first lung and heart transplants were performed at the Montreal General Hospital. In 1970, three transplant physicians from Montreal founded Métro-Transplantation, the predecessor of Transplant Québec.

Between 1984 and 1992, there was a consolidation, funding from the ministry of health and social services, which granted it a provincial mandate, and the creation of processes for allocating and identifying donors. Finally, in 1985, the Royal Victoria Hospital performed Quebec's first heart-lung transplant, an important historical moment. Between 2001 and 2007, clinical nurses and liaison nurses were deployed. In March 2001, the ministry of health and social services allocated $1.2 million to this pilot project.

Since 2005, world organ donation and transplant day has been celebrated on October 17. It is an opportunity to acknowledge the importance of this gift of life. From 2007 to 2008, the Quebec government consolidated its assets and developed Québec-Transplant. Then, in 2011, the name changed to Transplant Québec.

Third, I would like to present some statistics about women and organ donation. According to Health Canada, 62% of living organ donors in Canada outside of Quebec are women.

According to Health Canada's information on living donors, men accounted for 38% of living donors in 2009, while women accounted for 62% of living donors. Also according to Health Canada, 59% of deceased donors outside Quebec were men and 41% were women. Interestingly enough, gender inequalities are also observed in the field of health and the Standing Committee on Health even conducted a study on those gender inequalities. We can see that there is a significant gender dynamic when it comes to organ donation. Living donors tend to be women, which could reflect social roles such as caregiving or biases in the transplant system.

It is also worth mentioning that older women in particular may be exposed to specific risks. For example, studies outside of Canada show that older women who are victims of domestic violence may suffer from significant comorbidities in terms of mental and physical health. This may be worth noting. Statistics on seniors and organ donation show that there are potential donors aged 60 and over.

According to the Canadian Institute for Health Information report, from 2008 to 2012, approximately 23% of deceased donors in Canada were aged 60 and over. However, there is significant variation between provinces. For example, Quebec had more than 34% of deceased donors aged 60 and over, according to the Canadian Institute for Health Information. The report notes that the estimated “potential” for older donors may be overestimated because there are many deaths in this age group. However, not all of these deaths can lead to safe donations. There are medical risks and exclusion criteria. This must be taken into account when discussing organ donation.

The age of donors in Quebec also comes into play. According to Transplant Québec's official statistics, the average age of deceased organ donors in Quebec between 2015 and 2024 was about 53 or 54 years. Transplant Québec's 2020 report also shows that deceased donor groups are broken down into two age groups: 61 to 70 years and 71 years and over. That is interesting, because it debunks some myths. People can donate organs at a much more advanced age. Organ donation is possible at any age in Quebec. According to the Quebec government's website, the oldest donor was 92 years old.

As I was saying, variations do occur, depending on the province. According to the Health Canada report, the frequency that organs from donors aged 60 and over are used varies greatly depending on the province. Some provinces use them a lot, others a lot less. The report suggests that these differences are likely more a matter of clinical practice than patient needs. The number of seniors is not the only factor. The criteria that organ donation and transplantation teams use to assess and accept seniors' organs also play a role.

This morning, I met with representatives of the Kidney Foundation of Canada. I also took part in the Kidney March in September back home in Granby. During the walk, I had a chance to speak with several living donors. One in 10 people in Canada suffers from kidney disease. That number is probably even higher because of undiagnosed cases. This means that 4 million people are affected, compared to 3.7 million people with diabetes. More than 6.2 million people in Canada are estimated to develop chronic kidney disease. It is the 11th leading cause of death in Canada. These chronic kidney diseases cost the health care system over $40 billion annually. More than 49,000 people in Canada have advanced kidney disease, and 42% of patients are under the age of 65. Of the 4,700 people waiting for an organ donation in Canada, 71% hope to receive a kidney.

I would like to make one final point. I was reminded this morning of the importance of signing an organ donor card in case something happens, as well as the importance of discussing it with one's family before such a thing happens.

We must not forget that prevention is the best medicine. For proper prevention, we need health care transfers, as we have been calling for. We asked for $11.6 billion over five years in the last budget, so we could invest not only in hospitals, but also in the entire system and in all the wonderful individuals who work there, the human resources who care for us every day.

I congratulate my colleague from Edmonton Manning for introducing this bill.

[Helena Konanz, Conservative, Similkameen—South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to be here tonight to talk about this wonderful bill. I thank my colleague for Edmonton Manning for sharing his story and his passion.

Before beginning my remarks on Bill C-234, I want to offer this House a brief update on our former colleague, well known to many here. My predecessor, Richard Cannings, recently underwent major surgery. I am really pleased to share that he is on the road to a full recovery. He served our communities in the south Okanagan and in West Kootenay with dedication and integrity for a decade. I know members across party lines will join me in wishing him strength and good health.

This is my first opportunity to rise and thank all the volunteers for Remembrance Day last week. There was an amazing turnout at the many legions and cenotaphs across my riding and across Canada.

Tonight I rise in support of Bill C-234, the living donor recognition medal act. This legislation proposes the creation of a national medal to honour Canadians who have donated one or more organs during their lifetime. Whenever possible, this medal would be presented publicly by a representative of the Crown, a senator or a member of Parliament, similar to how other honours, such as the King's Coronation Medal and the Sovereign's Medal for Volunteers, are awarded.

I have learned a lot since seconding this bill, and I cannot help but be touched by it. The intention is clear: to recognize extraordinary acts of generosity, to raise public awareness and, ultimately, to encourage more Canadians to consider becoming living donors.

The need for donors in our country is significant and urgent. According to the Canadian Institute for Health Information, at the end of 2024, more than 4,000 Canadians were waiting or temporarily on hold for an organ transplant, yet only 590 living donations occurred that year. Even when we consider posthumous donations, the gap between what is needed and what is available remains far too wide.

For patients on waiting lists, the passing of time adds not only emotional strain but medical complexity. Their conditions can often worsen as they wait. Many spend weeks, sometimes months, in hospital, unable to return home or resume normal life because they are waiting for a donor match that may never arrive. These extended stays place enormous pressure on families and caregivers, and they increase the strain on an already overburdened health care system.

Beyond the strain, the consequences can be tragic. In 2024, 217 Canadians died waiting for organ transplants. Behind each number is a family, a grieving spouse, a child or a parent whose loss may have been preventable. Recognizing people who choose to become living donors is not simply symbolic; it is part of creating a culture that encourages more Canadians to step forward and save lives.

Living donation is really an act of extraordinary compassion, as we heard our colleague speak to earlier. It is personal. Living donors often describe the experience as life-changing, not only for the recipient but for themselves. Many speak about a renewed sense of purpose, a deepened appreciation for their own health and an unbreakable connection to the person they have helped.

In my own community, I was moved by the story of local Shelley Hunt from Penticton, who chose to donate a kidney to a stranger. Her story was featured in the documentary called Because I Can, which highlights the power of living donation. Shelley said something that stayed with me. She said she constantly says that she wished kidneys grew back because she could do it again and again. That kind of spirit, that quiet, unwavering generosity, is exactly what this bill seeks to honour.

When the member for Edmonton Manning introduced this legislation, he asked me to second it, and I was proud to do so. I also offered the following words in support: The choice to be an organ donor is made without expectation of reward, but the Canadians who make this choice are choosing to save a life. Their courage deserves recognition.

I am not alone in this sentiment. Members from other parties have offered powerful endorsements, as we have heard. One colleague said that living organ donors embody the highest ideals of generosity, compassion and humanity. Another said that in honouring living organ donors, we celebrate a quiet heroism that saves lives and strengthens the fabric of our nation. A third added that the bill rightly honours living donors, recognizing the selfless gift of life that they provide and the profound impact they have on our health care system and our communities.

These comments were made by a New Democrat, a Liberal and a Green member. They were the words of the members for Vancouver Kingsway, South Shore—St. Margarets and Saanich—Gulf Islands. Their support reflects a genuine consensus on an issue that transcends partisanship.

It was nice to hear the support of my colleague from the Bloc Québécois. It was great to hear that Quebec has such a long and proud history of leadership in organ donation. I have heard stories of organ donors in Quebec, of donors who stepped forward for strangers, neighbours and loved ones, people who also deserve to be recognized nationally.

I am often asked by constituents why political parties cannot work together more often. I always say we can. The public may not always see it, but co-operation does happen. This bill is a perfect example of how members from every corner of this House can come together when we focus on what is most important: the lives and well-being of Canadians. As a new member, this makes me proud to be in this House and to be in this country.

Before concluding, I want to acknowledge the sponsor of this bill, the member for Edmonton Manning. His advocacy for this legislation is shaped by a deeply personal experience. He himself is a living donor, donating to his young son and giving him not only an organ but a future. His courage and the courage of so many living donors across the country are a powerful reminder of what this legislation seeks to honour.

Bill C-234 sends the simple yet profound message that living organ donors deserve national recognition for the life-saving act they provide. This medal would not create donors on its own, but it would shine a light on Canadians who choose to step forward. It would help normalize living donation, encourage conversation, inspire others and celebrate extraordinary generosity.

We may never know how many future transplants start because someone attended a medal ceremony or heard the story of a donor in their own community. If this honour encourages even a few more Canadians to consider giving the gift of life, the impact will be immeasurable.

For all these reasons, I strongly urge all members of this House to support Bill C-234. Let us stand together to recognize the Canadians whose generosity saves lives, strengthens families and gives hope to the thousands waiting for a second chance.

[Jessica Fancy-Landry, Liberal, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to rise today in strong support of Bill C-234, introduced by my colleague, the member for Edmonton Manning. This legislation would establish a living donor recognition medal, a meaningful and long-overdue way to honour Canadians who make one of the most selfless decisions a human can make, the decision to give life.

Today, 4,044 Canadians are waiting for a life-saving organ transplant. Behind each number is a family waiting for the phone to ring, hoping for another chance and living in that difficult space between fear and possibility, yet the hopeful truth is that most of these Canadians could be saved by a living donor. Living donors take the real risk. They undergo major surgery, stepping forward out of generosity, compassion and courage. They receive no compensation and often very little public recognition.

As the sponsor of this bill has shared so powerfully, on December 8, 2003, he donated part of his liver to save the life of his son, Tyler. This extraordinary act reflects the very best of who we are as Canadians, a quiet, determined courage rooted in love and responsibility, but he is not alone. Hundreds of Canadians today are alive because someone stood up and said, “Yes, I will help.” This could be a parent, like my fellow colleague was, a sibling, a friend or even a stranger. One transplant recipient once said that a thank-you card is not enough, saying, “I wish we could do a proper job of recognizing them.”

Bill C-234 answers that call. A living donor recognition medal would provide the first and only formal national honour for living organ donors. It is non-monetary, non-partisan and deeply meaningful. It is a way for us to say that their courage matters, their sacrifice is seen and their gift changed a life. Canada recognizes bravery, compassion and service. This bill would simply extend that principle to those who embody all three.

If adopted, Canada would become only the second country in the world to formally recognize living donors with a national honours system. That would send a positive, powerful signal, not only of gratitude but of leadership. It sparks conversation, shifts culture and encourages more Canadians to think seriously about organ donation.

I am especially proud to rise here as a Nova Scotian from South Shore—St. Margarets because Nova Scotia has been a leader in this area. We were the first jurisdiction in North America to introduce a presumed consent model, which is automatic donor registration with the option for individuals to opt out. This bold and compassionate policy recognizes a simple truth that more donation means more lives saved. It reflects something deep within our province's character, a belief in community, responsibility and looking out for one another, which are all values of Canadians.

While presumed consent addresses deceased donation, Bill C-234 complements that leadership by honouring those who choose living donation. Together, these efforts form a continuum of care, one that ensures more Canadians can access the transplants they need and that those who make donation possible will receive the recognition they deserve.

In my own riding of South Shore—St. Margarets, I have heard the stories of parents hoping for more time with their children, of spouses supporting one another through illness and of neighbours rallying around families during moments of crisis. These stories remind me that public policy is never abstract. It lives in our communities, in our hospital rooms, around our kitchen tables and even in the classroom where I was a teacher before becoming a member of Parliament.

I remember that, just last year, in my citizenship class, I gave a current event that was all about living organ donors. As we read it together as a class and discussed it, all of a sudden I recognized that, at the back of the room, my resource support teacher had put his hand up. I asked Mr. Thorpe if he had a question or comment. He said that he was indeed a living donor, that seven years ago he had donated a part of his liver to a family member. It is acts like that.

This medal will not solve our entire transplant backlog, but it will do something profoundly important, as the teacher I worked with before did. It will honour heroism. It will validate sacrifice. It will encourage new conversations about living donation, conversations that will save lives.

The bill has support across every party. Look at us here in the House today. Every region is represented through its sponsorship and every corner of the House is represented with the bill. That unity reflects something vital, that compassion is non-partisan, that gratitude is non-partisan and that saving lives is non-partisan.

Today, I am proud to stand as an official seconder of Bill C-234. I urge all members to support this initiative and to move it forward without delay. It is symbolic but symbols matter. Recognition changes culture; we spark conversations among families, workplaces and communities. This medal will not solve all organ shortages on its own, but it will help build that culture of support.

Let us honour those remarkable Canadians who give the greatest gift that one human can give to another, the gift of life.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry—Soulanges—Huntingdon, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am extremely pleased to rise this evening to speak to Bill C-234, which was introduced by my colleague from Edmonton Manning. It is an important bill.

We know that private members' bills are often rooted in the member's personal experiences. In the case of my colleague, back in 2003, he showed selfless generosity by donating part of his liver to his son, who went on to live a good life. I want to commend him for taking the time to bring this bill forward. Few people at home know what a privilege it is to introduce a bill in the House of Commons, because it takes some luck to win the draw.

After that, the winning members need to choose a subject that they care about and want to bring forward in the House of Commons, a subject that can change things and improve the lives of the people around them. Today, we have a perfect example in the member for Edmonton Manning. He introduced a bill that is meaningful to him based on his personal and family experience. He wants to change people's lives by shining a light on the importance of living organ donation.

As my colleague from Shefford eloquently pointed out in her speech before mine, Quebec has been a leader in organ donation. The first doctors performed successful transplants and worked together over the years to create Transplant Québec, which is now a world-renowned model. Thanks to that organization, people can go on living. These are often lives that would have been at risk had it not been for organ donation.

Organ donation is important, which is why we need to take the time to promote it. My colleague is proposing that a medal be awarded to honour all living donors who donate one of their organs while they are alive, so that someone can continue living their life. We are talking about kidneys, lungs and other organs. It is often kidneys, as my colleague mentioned.

I would now like to shine a light on something that has not been discussed much. In Quebec, there is a week dedicated to promoting organ donation. During this week, municipalities are invited to raise a flag to raise public awareness about the importance of people signing the back of their health card to consent to organ donation. Many people are still unaware of this option and do not sign their health card. When an accident occurs and they lose their life, their organs, which are still viable, can be used to save the life of a very sick person who is eagerly awaiting an organ.

I have a friend named Nancy Lefebvre who developed kidney disease at a very young age. She waited several years for a kidney transplant, undergoing dialysis three times a week. She had to stop working because she had no energy. When someone is no longer working, when they are sick and spend their days on dialysis, it is hard for them to stay positive. They do not feel useful anymore and they are afraid of dying. Fortunately, Nancy eventually received a kidney thanks to a donation from someone who had sadly passed away. With this kidney, she was able to go back to work and live her life. She even served as my official agent during my election campaign. Every year, during National Organ and Tissue Donation Week and world organ donation and transplant day, she makes a point of reminding people how important it is to consent to organ donation and to talk about it, because it can transform the lives of many people.

Once again, I want to thank my colleague for allowing us to debate a very important subject this evening and draw attention to it through a medal for living donors.

I agree with my colleague from Shefford that we will have to focus on the regulations and work with the many organizations involved to honour and pay tribute to individuals whose generosity has allowed others to go on living. I congratulate my colleague. I have a strong feeling that we are going to debate and expand on this bill in committee.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

The time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired and the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the Order Paper.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

Foreign Affairs

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight in Adjournment Proceedings to pursue a question I asked on October 23. That day may not immediately strike all members as one of deep significance, but October 24 every year is United Nations Day, and October 24 was actually the 80th birthday of the United Nations and the 80th anniversary of the United Nations Charter.

I rose and asked a question of the hon. Minister of Foreign Affairs, and she did me the honour of answering my question. It was not a bad answer; I want to share that right away, but we need to expand upon it.

I asked her where we are in the world of peacekeeping. Of course, former prime minister Lester B. Pearson, who was not prime minister at the time he did this, won the Nobel Peace Prize for resolving the Suez crisis and creating UN peacekeepers. It has been a long time since we had any bragging rights among the peacekeeping nations. One thing I lament deeply is that the Lester B. Pearson Canadian International Peacekeeping Training Centre, which was set up in 1994, was closed in 2011. Not only did we close the Pearson centre for peacekeeping, but we dropped to the rank of 69th country in the world on the level of our peacekeeping engagement.

It is unacceptable for a country like Canada to throw up its hands in the face of threats of war. We are currently witnessing a significant increase in threats of war.

We did not think 10 to 20 years ago that we could see a land war, with Putin invading Ukraine, but we saw a reversal in the nuclear arms race, thanks to the work of former U.S. president Ronald Reagan and then U.S.S.R. president Mikhail Gorbachev. Those two individuals put the world on track to eliminating nuclear weapons with things like the SALT treaty and the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. Now we are seeing for the first time, with great horror, the nuclear clock ticking closer to midnight.

I was gratified when the hon. Minister of Foreign Affairs answered me, and I will quote her: “Canada believes in a world free of nuclear weapons, and the current arsenals around the world remain far too large.” Canada's record does not make it clear that we believe in a world free of nuclear weapons. There is now, which has entered into force with enough countries around the world signing and ratifying it, the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons.

I would have been so proud as a Canadian if my country had been a leader in those negotiations, as we were in the Ottawa process to ban land mines. However, we have not signed the treaty. We refused to show up at the negotiations on the treaty. Now that we have meetings of the nations that are parties to the treaty, Canada does not even send an official observer group. Those of us parliamentarians who are concerned about nuclear war go to those meetings, as the only examples of Canadian concern, as part of the global parliamentarians who want to end nuclear war.

We see wonderful efforts from the grassroots across Canada, many participating in something called the peace train. We have the work of leaders like our former ambassador for disarmament, the Hon. Doug Roche. Of course, there is no current ambassador for nuclear disarmament. The position does not exist.

I hope for a better answer tonight.

[Rob Oliphant, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, I want to take the opportunity to both address the important question raised by the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands about Canada's long-standing commitment and leadership on nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament, and also to thank her for continually raising what I believe personally, and I believe our government believes, to be a critically important issue for humanity.

Canada's reputation as a champion for peacekeeping and human rights has already been well noted. It did not emerge by accident or nostalgia. It was built because Canada chose to lead, and we continue to choose to lead through diplomacy, through multilateral engagement in institutions and through the difficult technical and often incremental work that actually reduces nuclear risks. That work continues today.

Our approach is anchored in the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, the NPT, which is the cornerstone of the global non-proliferation and disarmament architecture. The NPT remains the most effective pathway towards verifiable and irreversible nuclear disarmament. It is based on three pillars or assumptions. First, non-nuclear weapon states commit not to acquire these weapons, so no new nuclear states. Second, nuclear weapon states commit to pursue good-faith negotiations on disarmament; they never stop talking. The third is that all parties commit to supporting peaceful uses of nuclear technology.

We are a nuclear country. We have nuclear energy. We will continue to look at the importance of non-arm uses of nuclear power. Canada takes each of these pillars incredibly seriously. We are fully committed to the universal adoption and full implementation of the NPT. We continue to advocate for halting the spread of nuclear weapons, reducing existing stockpiles and ultimately eliminating them altogether. This work is not theoretical. It is practical. It is sustained. It is results-driven.

Under Canada's G7 presidency this year, we convened the G7 Non-Proliferation Directors Group, driving forward nuclear transparency and risk reduction. At the recently concluded UN General Assembly First Committee, Canada urged member states to reject the notion that the geopolitical situation can ever justify slowing progress on nuclear disarmament. Canada has called for, instead, renewed urgency and tangible actions by all parties.

As the Prime Minister has said, we are living in an increasingly dangerous world. Russia's war of aggression against Ukraine, Iran's nuclear non-compliance and the looming expiration, in February 2026, of the new START arms control treaty between the U.S. and Russia underscore the fragility of global norms, including the taboo against nuclear weapons use.

Canada's response is twofold: We will increase defence spending to protect Canadians and our sovereignty, and we will double down on diplomacy to advance nuclear disarmament. For the last 30 years, we have been a leader at the UN on the fissile material cut-off treaty, which is a treaty that would ban the production of materials that are needed for nuclear weapons. These are foundational steps we will continue to take.

We recognize the sincere intentions behind the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons. However, Canada's view, as shared by our NATO allies, is that progress on nuclear disarmament must involve those who actually possess nuclear weapons; otherwise, it is talk.

As long as nuclear weapons exist, NATO will remain a nuclear alliance. Our alliance is equally clear that the circumstances in which such weapons might ever be used are extremely remote. We will continue to stand with our partners around the world to reduce risk—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

The hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. friend, and he is my friend, for his remarks tonight.

I deeply hope that the Government of Canada will change its approach to the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons. As I said earlier, we led the way on the landmines treaty, yet we are standing aside. We may say our NATO allies are not signatories either, but they are observers. It is to our shame as Canadians that we do not even show up to observe and signal our support for the treaty.

It was a while ago that Albert Einstein said that the splitting of the atom changed everything except man's mode of thinking, “and we thus drift toward unparalleled catastrophe.”

We have been warned. A nuclear holocaust did not occur in the last part of this century through a combination of good luck and divine intervention. We cannot count on luck. We have to take action before a nuclear accident occurs or, worse, the deliberate use of nuclear weapons.

[Rob Oliphant, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this is where I get dangerous and ignore the remarks that have been given to me, and I simply thank the member.

It is well noted that many of our allies and friends are observers. It is well noted that the conversation must continue. Canada will continue to be a leader. We put our hopes and our aspirations and our work in the NPT, but conversations with everyone engaged is absolutely critical. I am very glad that parliamentarians have been part of those conversations.

I will take back the suggestion coming from the member. It is earnest. It is heartfelt. It is a smart idea that needs good consideration from our government.

Employment

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, Canada faces an ongoing youth unemployment crisis. The youth unemployment rate is over 14%, which is more than a full point higher than where we were a year ago. According to the latest job numbers, more than 440,000 young people between the ages of 15 and 24 are unemployed. This continues to be a very bad situation for youth unemployment. Over 14% unemployment for young people is a bad number. It is not a good number, very clearly, and we need a strong response to address the youth unemployment crisis.

This is precisely why Conservatives put forward the Conservative youth jobs plan prior to the budget, calling on the government to take specific action to address the youth unemployment crisis. Our plan had four pillars: unleash the economy, fix immigration, fix training and build homes where the jobs are.

Unfortunately, budget 2025 not only fails to address this problem, but also contains specific provisions that would set us back. One of the things that I want to highlight tonight is how the Liberals completely broke their promises when it comes to the apprenticeship grant. Conservatives had proposed renewing it. Liberals had said they would renew it, and in fact they said they would expand it, yet there is no funding for that in the budget whatsoever.

Most apprentices study at polytechnics, and there would be no support for polytechnics in this budget. The budget actually goes further. On page 217 in the budget, the government is now proposing to completely withdraw any student grants in general from students who go to private institutions. The Liberals, in fact, would put more money into helping research councils help universities to attract foreign researchers to come to universities, but they would pull resources away from students who are attending career colleges. There would be nothing for polytechnics. There is a broken promise on the apprenticeship grant, and now the government would completely cut out of the system students who study at career colleges.

An important point to note is that there are many good vocations that students might pursue where overwhelmingly the only options are private institutions. If someone wants to study history or psychology, women's studies, law or medicine, then yes, they would most likely go to a public institution, but there are many other areas, such as those in trade skills and in specific professions. I talked earlier today about courses in the beauty industry and in alternative health, such as chiropractors and traditional Chinese medicine practitioners, where, overwhelmingly, people who are pursuing these disciplines go, and must go, to private institutions. That is their only option, yet in these areas, where there is labour demand and where people want to pursue these careers, the government would completely and arbitrarily shut out these students.

Our jobs plan actually called for a completely different approach. It called for support through students' grants to be aligned with the needs of the labour market. It called for having evaluations done of what the labour market needs are and to use student grants to magnify the needs of the labour market. Instead, the government would really deploy a kind of profession prejudice to shut students out, who are studying for these kinds of vocations at these kinds of institutions. It is discriminatory. It is not right, and it would risk exacerbating shortages in these professions, which would hurt our economy down the line.

Therefore, at a time of youth unemployment being very high, budget 2025 would make the situation worse by harming students, especially those in the trades and in other kinds of vocations that involve training outside of universities. Why would the government do this?

[Leslie Church, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Secretaries of State for Labour]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan is concerned about the issue of employment, and indeed, the Canadian labour market is going through a period of disruption.

A massive retirement wave is leading to a critical labour shortage. In fact, 300,000 skilled workers are expected to retire by 2033. This is a difficult situation, but the Government of Canada is committed to preparing the workforce for the future.

That is why budget 2025 has placed such an important emphasis on ensuring that young people have a future they can be proud of, a future and a career that they can rely on. Budget 2025 is proposing increased funding for the Canada summer jobs program to support 100,000 jobs across Canada in 2026. We are funding more jobs because the CSJ program has a proven track record of creating positive outcomes. It really does set young Canadians up for a lifetime of success in the job market. Last year, the Office of the Auditor General of Canada confirmed this by reporting that CSJ participants benefit in having better long-term earnings than non-participants do. Since 2019, CSJ has provided more than 530,000 young people with work, but that is just one program.

Budget 2025 also proposes over $1.5 billion for the student work placement program and youth employment and skills strategy, which includes Canada summer jobs. This investment will support about 175,000 opportunities for youth in 2026-27 alone. That is next year. As well, ESDC's student work placement program has supported over 51,000 placements, so post-secondary students can develop work-ready skills. Three out of four employers reported a willingness to hire the students following their work placement.

Additionally, we have announced significant enhancements to Canada's job bank, which will more easily and quickly match Canadian workers, including youth, with available jobs. Our government takes youth employment seriously, because youth are the drivers of future economic growth. These programs are very successful at helping youth acquire in-demand skills and improve their employment prospects.

Above all, we believe Canada's future success depends on our trades workforce. Since the government is committed to doubling the pace of housing construction, Canada will need to hire thousands of new skilled tradespeople who can build these homes. Automotive service technicians, power line technicians, millwrights, horticulturalists, and truck and transport mechanics are also key to Canada's road to a prosperous future.

We are actively encouraging young people to consider developing trade careers that will help them and help the country. Each year, nearly $1 billion goes toward apprenticeship supports and projects to help address challenges faced by apprentices as they pursue their Red Seal trade certification. Once they are trained, the just-passed One Canadian Economy Act will remove federal barriers to labour mobility, making it easier for skilled workers to do their job across Canada. A worker authorized in one jurisdiction can quickly and easily work in another.

The job of this government is to help create the workforce Canada needs to safeguard a strong economy. We are making sure that Canadian workers have the skills they need to succeed. We are taking action to make sure Canada comes out of this with a very deep pool of talent that will unlock a prosperous economic future for Canada that all Canadians, but particularly young Canadians, can benefit from.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the comments of the parliamentary secretary, in particular on skilled trades, are completely disconnected from the provisions in the budget that her government just put forward. She said some nice things about the skilled trades in her comments, and I agree with the nice things she said about the skilled trades. However, I am trying to square her professions of connection there with the fact that the government has broken its promise on the apprenticeship incentive grant and that it is cutting off student support to students who are studying at private career colleges.

I hope in this follow-up that I can get just a very direct answer from the parliamentary secretary. If she is sincere in the professions she has made about respecting and valuing skilled trade workers, could she explain very clearly why she supports a budget that broke the Liberals' promise on the apprenticeship incentive grant and that withdraws funding from students studying at career colleges?

[Leslie Church, Liberal, Toronto—St. Paul's, ON]

Mr. Speaker, do not take it from me; take it from Sean Strickland from Canada's Building Trades Unions, who commented on our budget. He stated, “The 2025 federal budget contains strong commitments to unionized labour and skilled tradespeople.

“It goes to show it’s possible to create policies that are mutually beneficial when industry and government come to the table together....

“Strong labour conditions are the proven path to good jobs and world-class infrastructure, and as Canada enters a new era of nation-building projects, skilled trades workers will be at the forefront of this transformative time.”

I think we can take it from actual members of Canadian trades that the measures we are putting into this budget, measures we drive as a government, are going to help tradespeople and young Canadians pursue the skilled trades in the years to come.

Carbon Pricing

[Helena Konanz, Conservative, Similkameen—South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin with the words of one of my constituents. His name is David, and he is from Oliver, British Columbia. He says that pensioners on a low income are struggling with prices rising, especially food, which increases continually each month. There is only one increase a year for pensioners.

David is right. Food costs are unaffordable and getting worse month after month. That is why I stand here tonight to request an explanation from the Liberal government about why it continues to hike the industrial carbon tax at a time when the cost of groceries for Canadians is only rising.

I know the member opposite will say there is no carbon tax on the food we pay for at the grocery store, but a tax on the supply chain, additional costly regulations and more red tape increase prices at every step, and at the end of the line, they increase the weekly grocery bill of families everywhere. It is simple economics.

When government changes regulations and adds costs, citizens where I live call that a tax. The industrial carbon tax is a tax on Canadian farms. How is it a tax on Canadian farms? It is a tax on the steel in farm equipment, in the storage bins and in tools. It is a tax on every grain dryer. It is a tax on every greenhouse heater on a farm. It is a tax on every bag of fertilizer. It is a tax on every aluminum can. It is a tax on every truck that hauls the food from the farm to the stores.

Just because the tax does not appear as a line item on a Safeway receipt, that does not mean it is not there. The government's taxes on sectors like steel and aluminum affect every person buying a can of soup. I will remind the Liberals that they have also raised the cost of food packaging with the P2 plastics ban, but that is not the subject of tonight's debate.

At a time of an illegal and unjustified U.S. trade war, when the Liberals promised to protect Canadian steel and aluminum producers, the Liberals are taxing them through the industrial carbon tax. The industrial carbon tax undermines the competitiveness of farms like the ones in the Okanagan Valley. Farmers in my riding compete with Washington state apple growers, who do not pay these additional taxes. It is wrong when a Washington state apple is more expensive in a grocery store than the Okanagan apple sitting right next to it that is grown down the street.

We all want to support Canadian jobs and businesses, so will the government commit to ending the industrial carbon tax on Canadian steel and aluminum to help bring down the price of food and the products we use every day?

[Wade Grant, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from the beautiful riding of Similkameen—South Okanagan—West Kootenay, a place I have visited many times over the years in my home province of British Columbia.

I want to address the member's question, which I believe is based on incorrect assumptions. Let me be very clear. There is no carbon tax applied to groceries. Farmers do not pay the industrial carbon price. The industrial carbon price system targets the largest producers in Canada, industrial facilities, not families and not the farmers who put food on our tables.

Canada's industrial carbon pricing systems are specifically designed to keep Canadian industrial industries competitive. For example, the federal backstop system gives companies flexibility. They can invest in cleaner processes or buy credits from innovators. Canada's pricing systems reduce emissions efficiently while protecting jobs and supporting economic growth.

The facts speak for themselves. Research by the Canadian Climate Institute published earlier this year concluded that large-emitter trading systems have zero or a positive impact on household consumption in 2025, and will have near zero by 2030. Because farmers do not pay the industrial carbon price, there are almost no costs to pass through the supply chain to consumers.

On the issue of food affordability, the independent analysis is clear. The real drivers of grocery price increases are global: supply chain disruptions, the war in Ukraine and energy price volatility. These are the pressures affecting Canadians. That is why the federal fuel charge was removed on April 1.

The opposition also refers to the clean fuel regulations, which they sometimes, or often, wrongly label as a hidden carbon tax. In reality, these regulations will cut up to 26 million tonnes of greenhouse gas pollution by 2030. They are supporting renewable diesel and hydrogen facilities in Alberta and Newfoundland and Labrador, and renewable gas and green hydrogen projects in Ontario and Quebec. These projects create good jobs, strengthen local economies and position Canada as a clean energy leader.

The suggestion that repealing industrial carbon pricing or the clean fuel regulations would magically lower grocery prices is simply not grounded in fact. Eliminating climate policy does not make world oil prices drop, nor does it fix global supply chain pressures. What it would do is increase pollution and put Canadian jobs at real risk.

Climate action is economic action. Industrial carbon pricing reduces energy waste, drives innovation, attracts private investment and strengthens Canada's long-term competitiveness. Canadians deserve solutions based on facts, not slogans. Our approach protects jobs today while building a more resilient and prosperous economy for the next generation and generations to come.

[Helena Konanz, Conservative, Similkameen—South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Mr. Speaker, what I do not understand is this. I appreciate the answer from the member across the way, but what I do not appreciate is the fact that if it costs me more as a farmer to do business, if it costs me more for steel and aluminum, why would I not raise my prices to cover those costs? That is the basis of running a business. One has to cover one's costs. If the cost of groceries is under global pressure, why have prices for groceries gone up so much more in Canada than in the United States?

What I did not hear were solutions on how we are going to lower the cost of groceries. The people who live in the Similkameen—South Okanagan—West Kootenay appreciate, and I think it is great, that the member has been there and knows how beautiful it is and how hard the people work. However, seniors, especially, and the most vulnerable Canadians cannot afford higher food costs. They do not want to wait in food lines anymore.

[Wade Grant, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I must reiterate that there is no carbon tax on groceries and farmers do not pay the industrial carbon price. Industrial carbon pricing and the clean fuel regulations are targeted tools that reduce pollution in a global market that is moving rapidly toward clean energy. Scrapping these measures would not lower grocery bills. It would weaken Canada's industrial base, deter investment and expose our businesses to higher costs under border tariffs from trading partners that are implementing their own carbon markets.

Our government will continue to develop policies that protect workers, strengthen competitiveness and build a secure, affordable future for all Canadians.