Neutral
An Act respecting the establishment and award of a Living Donor Recognition Medal
The intent to honour living donors is commendable and may boost awareness, but the measure is primarily symbolic and does not advance core drivers of national prosperity or efficiency. It introduces ongoing administrative costs and risks scope creep due to an overly broad definition of "organ" without clear, measurable economic benefits.
The bill defines an organ to include "any form of human tissue"—does this mean blood, hair, and stem cell donors qualify, and what is the projected number of recipients and total program cost over the next five years?
Why create a new medal program rather than use the existing Canadian Honours system, and what safeguards are in place to prevent administrative duplication and control ongoing operating costs?
Given the emphasis on public ceremonies, how will donor privacy and medical confidentiality be protected, and will donors have an explicit right to opt for private or anonymous recognition without affecting eligibility?
Primarily symbolic; any prosperity effects are indirect via potential health system relief, which is speculative.
Creates a new honours process and reporting but does not materially affect economic freedom or reduce red tape.
Improved transplant outcomes may marginally aid productivity, but the medal itself does not change competitiveness drivers.
No relation to trade or exports.
No connection to capital formation, R&D, or resource development.
Adds administrative design, nomination, ceremony, and reporting functions with unclear measurable savings; broad eligibility could inflate costs.
No tax provisions.
A recognition medal is a symbolic, incremental measure with no meaningful impact on large-scale prosperity.
Did we get the builder vote wrong?
Email hi@buildcanada.com