The committee met at 9:05 a.m.

[Amna Shah in the chair.]

Amna Shah (Chair): Good morning, everyone. My name is Amna Shah. I’m the MLA for Surrey City Centre and the Chair of the Select Standing Committee on Private Bills and Private Members’ Bills, which is an all-party committee of the Legislative Assembly.

I would like to acknowledge that we are meeting today on the legislative precinct here in Victoria, which is located on the territory of the lək̓ʷəŋən-speaking People now known as the Songhees and Esquimalt Nations.

Election of Deputy Chair

Amna Shah (Chair): Now, our first order of business is to elect a new Deputy Chair. After that, we will receive presentations on Bill M214, Firefighters’ Health Act. Later in the meeting, we will hear from the sponsor of Bill M217, Dashboard Cameras in Commercial Vehicles Act, and then the committee will move in camera to deliberate.

Now, before we get started, I want to provide an update regarding Bill M216, the Professional Reliance Act, as that bill is currently with this committee for consideration, and I understand that there is a great deal of interest in it.

Bill M216 was committed to our committee on November 17, 2025, and we accepted written input on the bill from November 18 to January 6. During that time, we received nearly 500 submissions. On behalf of the committee, I want to thank everyone who has shared their views with us. The submissions are now publicly available on our website, and committee members are currently in the process of reviewing that input.

The sponsor of the bill advised me as Chair that they are also reviewing the written submissions. Given the volume of input, they requested additional time to complete their review prior to appearing before the committee. The sponsor has indicated a full willingness to present to the committee at a future meeting. Given this information, the committee will not be considering Bill M216 today.

We will now move to our first item of business. As members are aware, we have recently had a membership change on the committee. I’d like to welcome Gavin Dew, MLA for Kelowna-Mission, to the committee and thank Trevor Halford, MLA for Surrey–White Rock, for his contributions to the committee.

With this change, we need to elect a new Deputy Chair. Are there any nominations?

Hon Chan: I’d like to nominate Gavin Dew.

Amna Shah (Chair): A nomination has been made for Gavin Dew.

Gavin, do you accept the nomination?

Gavin Dew: Yes, I do.

Amna Shah (Chair): Are there any other nominations? Once more, are there any other nominations?

The question is that Gavin Dew take the role of Deputy Chair.

Motion approved.

Amna Shah (Chair): Congratulations, Gavin. I look forward to working with you.

All right. Moving on, we will begin our presentations on Bill M214, Firefighters’ Health Acts. Our first presenter is the Fire Chiefs Association of British Columbia, and we are joined today by Dan Derby and Phil Lemire.

As a reminder, you have up to five minutes to present to the committee, followed by ten minutes for questions from committee members. You will likely see a timer on your screen, which can assist you in timekeeping. Whenever you’re ready, please take it away.

Presentations on
Bill M214 — Firefighters’ Health Act

Fire Chiefs Association of
British Columbia

Dan Derby: Good morning. I’m Dan Derby, and I’m the president of the Fire Chiefs Association of British Columbia and the fire chief in Trail, B.C.

The Fire Chiefs Association of B.C. is the leading voice of the B.C. fire service, supporting fire chiefs from across British Columbia with invaluable connections, resources and training. The FCABC was formed in 1931 and is recognized today by government and the public as a trusted representative of B.C.’s fire service. Our members represent 364 of B.C.’s fire departments, and they service approximately 90 percent of all B.C. residents. We have over 550 members that represent a diverse cross-section of the B.C. fire service.

We support Bill M214, 2025. The FCABC remains unwavering in its commitment to protecting the health and well-being of all firefighters in B.C., career, paid on call and volunteer alike. Bill M214, 2025 introduces a promising framework for comprehensive health screening, emphasizing early cancer detection, mental and physical health assessments and laboratory testing. Early detection is key to limiting the effects and progression of cancer when it does occur. We commend its aim to facilitate early intervention and improve long-term outcomes for our members.

[9:10 a.m.]

We feel there is a need to expand consultation. While consultation with the British Columbia Professional Firefighters Association and the Doctors of B.C. brings important clinical and occupational perspectives, the current approach omits essential voices, specifically firefighters’ employers, local governments and the B.C. wildfire service. All of these entities

consultation with the British Columbia Professional Fire Fighters Association and the Doctors of B.C. brings important clinical and occupational perspectives, the current approach omits essential voices, specifically firefighters’ employers, local governments and the B.C. wildfire service. All of these entities would have a role and responsibility with a program such as this. So their input is relevant and important.

As well, our organization is provincewide, with strong ties to local jurisdictions. The FCABC is uniquely positioned to represent operational realities and fiscal responsibilities. We believe our involvement would strengthen the bill, ensuring it is not only medically sound but also logistically viable and equitably implemented across urban and rural settings alike.

Regular and comprehensive health screenings, as outlined in the bill, may place additional demands on health care infrastructure, especially in underresourced rural communities, where hospitals and clinics are already stretched thin. Diagnostic equipment, qualified personnel and service availability in these areas are often limited. Without strategic planning, the additional burden may result in delayed diagnosis and create barriers to timely care for firefighters serving in remote or underserved regions, which would take away from the intent of the bill.

A transparent fiscal review is necessary to provide clear insight as to where the cost is being allocated. While we anticipate the screening would be part of the medical fee system, we do not want to make an assumption, and it should be clearly indicated. The cost implications of implementing provincewide screening programs, particularly in the short term, require clearer analysis.

The inclusion of B.C. wildfire personnel in the bill rightly acknowledges the evolving and expanding scope of fire services in British Columbia. This also speaks to expanding consultations, so that local governments and the B.C. wildfire service are aware and can provide input on any potential impact as the funders of fire services.

In conjunction with the fiscal review, an analysis of the availability of health care services should be conducted, to ensure that the necessary services can be provided.

As stated, we are supportive of the bill. However, we feel additional analysis is required to ensure that all relevant parts of the program have been reviewed and discussed, with input from all stakeholders.

Amna Shah (Chair): Thank you very much for your presentation.

Members, we now have ten minutes for questions from the committee. Please indicate if you wish to ask a question, and I will keep a list of speakers.

Darlene Rotchford: Thank you for your presentation; I appreciate it. You made a comment about additional analysis being done to make sure it’s done right and we’re getting a little further.

I will say that one of the things I flagged about this bill was the part on the nine months after this act comes into force. Is it a fair statement to say that we want to ensure we’re not putting timelines in so that we can get this done right the first time?

Dan Derby: I think without putting a timeline on this, the concern from the fire service would be that it doesn’t get done. This is about building a plan, right? There may be more time required to ensure that the plan is built out, but I think having a timeline is important to ensure this work is done, because it’s ultimately about the health of our firefighters.

Just this weekend I was supporting a local fire department whose deputy chief passed suddenly, from cancer, while still operational and at work. This is something that happens all too often in the fire service.

Darlene Rotchford: Can I have a supplemental?

Amna Shah (Chair): Yeah, go ahead.

Darlene Rotchford: Okay, just one more, too. Would it make the best sense for us to align with the federal work that’s being done, so that we also, to your point, are making sure we’re following what’s going on across the country?

I know that one of the other concerns is we don’t have a lot of data within the country ourselves. There is data — right? — and I recognize that, but if we’re setting the bar, we want to make sure that the bar is even across Canada, so that everyone’s getting included and we’re not missing anybody.

Dan Derby: I have two thoughts there. One would be that B.C. has led some of this space in how we support firefighters in the workplace and in our cancer-presumption legislation.

[9:15 a.m.]

Being a leader is a bold thing for us in this space. I think that it speaks to our support for firefighters, but aligning with the federal work is also important, so that there’s that consistent approach, it’s well understood and we’re not confusing how we’re supporting our firefighters.

so being a leader is a bold thing for us in this space, and I think that it speaks to our support for firefighters. But aligning with the federal work is also important so that there’s that consistent approach and it’s well understood and we’re not confusing how we’re supporting our firefighters.

Amna Shah (Chair): Just before we continue with Gavin, just so members know, there is an opportunity to ask the sponsor — MLA Van Popta, thank you for being here — if you have any questions towards the sponsor, as well, about the bill. So that opportunity is there.

Gavin Dew (Deputy Chair): It sounds as though what I’m hearing is there’s some question around the nine-month timeline. If nine months is aggressive, what, in your view, is a realistic timeline?

Dan Derby: Well, you have a thought…. I think I wouldn’t want to see it stretched out too much longer, but there has been some discussion about maybe it’s a year, you know, would be the max. But I think we want to make sure that there’s time to do the necessary work properly.

Amna Shah (Chair): All right, are there any further questions?

Gavin Dew (Deputy Chair): Just to go back to the point around consistency and coverage, could you expand a little bit for us around the consistency in coverage or the variations in coverage that currently exist, in particular in terms of the share of firefighters that are currently covered by a contracted health plan?

Dan Derby: I think once you get outside of the career fire service in B.C., there’s a real mix of how fire services are delivered across the province. In those smaller communities and rural communities, we have a real mix of new firefighters, but we also have a lot firefighters that have been doing it for a long time, protecting their communities. We want to make sure that we’re encouraging you to make sure that all firefighters are considered in this.

As government is well aware, health care services in rural and remote locations across the province are limited or challenged at times, so we’re just saying that that needs to be taken into consideration, because not only are the services limited, but that’s where we choose to live. Also, pulling people out of those communities to do the screening and that sort of thing affects the service delivery in those communities. We just really need to think about the how in support of those communities as we roll out the plan.

Gavin Dew (Deputy Chair): Sorry, I’ll come back with more. The federal plan in discussion, what’s the estimated timeline for implementation of that federal initiative?

Dan Derby: Phil, are you clear on this one?

Phil Lemire: Not 100 percent clear. There are a few different things happening at the federal level, including one awareness piece and building out publications and information that’s literally just in its infancy. So other aspects of the federal plan, would have to do a little bit more homework there to get insight.

Gavin Dew (Deputy Chair): My understanding is the timeline is about 2030. Is that accurate?

Phil Lemire: I can’t say for sure, but I would consider 2030, four years, would be too much time to roll out a plan within the province per se.

Gavin Dew (Deputy Chair): To be clear, I’m asking about the federal initiative. As we talk about timelines for implementation, I’m trying to understand how long it may take for there to be a federal initiative in place versus a timeline that we’re trying to act on provincially, in order to make sure we’re setting the balance in terms of a realistic implementation timeline that does not lag on for years.

Phil Lemire: Yeah, wouldn’t have a concrete answer on the federal initiative.

Darlene Rotchford: I’ll just add the Ministry of Labour is here, so maybe we can parking lot that, because I wrote it down to also ask.

Amna Shah (Chair): Okay. Are there any further questions?

All right, seeing as none, thank you so much to the Fire Chiefs Association of British Columbia for being here. Dan and Phil, really appreciate your presence and your contributions. Thank you so much.

Dan Derby: Thank you. Have a safe day.

Phil Lemire: Thank you for the opportunity.

[9:20 a.m.]

Amna Shah (Chair): All right. Our next presentation is from the B.C. Professional Fire Fighters Association, and we’re joined today by Todd Schierling and Brian Catinus.

I’ll let you both get settled in. No rush there.

Association, and we’re joined today by Todd Schierling and Brian Catinus. I’ll let you both get settled in.

All right. As a reminder, you have up to five minutes for your presentation to the committee, followed by ten minutes of questions from committee members. There is a timer on the screens around you to help assist you. Please take it away whenever you please.

Todd Schierling: Thank you, Madam Chair. To the standing committee and to our friends online, thank you on behalf of the B.C. Professional Fire Fighters for calling us to speak to Bill M214.

The B.C. Professional Fire Fighters is an affiliate of the International Association of Fire Fighters and is a service provider and leading voice for B.C. firefighters when it comes to advocacy for health, safety and legislative improvements. We are 56 locals strong, representing 5,000 members in British Columbia and including Whitehorse in the Yukon.

My name is Todd Schierling, president of the B.C. PFFA. I am a captain with the Surrey fire service, now serving 29 years, and sit on the national advisory group for Bill C-224, national framework for firefighters in Canada. With me is secretary-treasurer Brian Catinus, firefighter with the Saanich fire department, now serving 17 years.

Madam Chair, the B.C. PFFA has had a long-standing record of working collaboratively with the provincial government, demonstrating evidence-based leadership and working with all party lines. We are thankful for the presumption, legislation, that we have now 20 coverages, and that includes 18 cancers, heart injury and occupational stress injury. It was just in the last eight years that we saw occupational stress injury, in 2018, and five additional cancers were added in 2022.

We’re now on the eve of our 15th annual Robert E. Hall legislative conference in March and need to acknowledge Robert Hall, a Vancouver firefighter, IAFF Local 18 and emeritus secretary-treasurer, who helped build the foundation of these presumptive coverages back in 2005. Sadly, he passed in 2007 of occupational cancer.

In recent years, our advocacy has evolved from a reactive model of adding more cancer coverage to a proactive prevention model. In the last several years we’ve been pitching to the provincial government on early cancer detection, screening processes and championing best practices for our firefighters.

We are thankful of the maker of this bill, MLA Misty Van Popta. We understand that MLA Van Popta has taken our previous advocacy, as just mentioned, to Local 4550, township of Langley, their leadership, and put emphasis on health screening for firefighters. That is to initiate a stakeholder group to build a plan, and we’re very thankful for that.

Right now, the firefighters’ chance of getting screened in B.C. can largely depend on family history. That happened to me when I was age 40. I’m holding up physician’s note with studies attached to it suggesting I get tested with a gastroscopy or colonoscopy. My doctor says: “No. Not unless you have family history, I cannot move this through.”

Or as mentioned earlier by our friends in the previous statement, your collective agreements. Some do have health plans to appease that. Of course, your postal code, depending on access throughout B.C…. We have a very mixed demographic based on urban and rural access.

In B.C. 41 percent of the career municipal fire departments — we did a survey — do not have a screening or wellness program; 33 percent have a specific program, 15 percent have a very general program and 11 percent are in progress.

It does not include the paid on call or volunteer groups in this survey — or the wildfire. We understand that wildfire may have some screening opportunities right now. That we’ve learned. But having this part of the collective agreement…. Although very noble and proactive, it’s inconsistent and it depends on bargaining power or perhaps concessions. Some locals are funding them themselves — union funded — some are co-funded and some are employer funded. So it’s very mixed.

[9:25 a.m.]

We are currently seeing a cancer…. The account of cancer is about 85 percent of line of duty deaths in Canada, and that comes from a 15-year study from 2007 to 2022. Only 14 percent of firefighters undergo regular screening.

Moving from a reactive model…. Again, we’re very appreciative of adding more cancer coverage. We need to close that gap with a screening program to improve survival rates. That study is from

and only 14 percent of firefighters undergo regular screening.

So moving from a reactive model, again, we’re very appreciative of adding more cancer coverage. We need to close that gap with a screening program to improve survival rates. And that study is from Samar Al-Hajj of 2025.

Also I received data from WorkSafeBC from 2020 to 2025 where I did an FOI where 323 claims cost the province, factoring in health care, survivor benefits, long and short-term disability, vocational rehab, over $39 million in just five years. This bill, M214, is a pathway to reduce that cost and to save lives and to detect it earlier so they can deal with it, cure it and treat it — perhaps cure it — before it’s too late.

An Ontario study by Anna Wilkinson reveals rising costs of breast cancer treatments are significantly higher for later stages, with stage 4 being up to 10 times more expensive than stage 1. The study concluded that escalating treatment costs result from novel therapies and increased survival rates.

I’ll close here. As stated earlier, Bill M214 provides a pathway to the work that we are currently undergoing with the provincial government and the Ministry of Labour on situations we can expand or move to a screening process. We’ve connected with Health Canada, Stats Canada, B.C. Cancer.

The potential savings if we can get this going within a year or two is four and a half times the investment in screening for workers compensation system. Another way to view it is that one early cancer detection will fund 1,351 subsequent screenings.

When you package our firefighters in B.C. we have 5,000 professional firefighters, but when you add in the paid on call — the wildfire — we’re around 12,000 to 13,000. That would probably be about nine successful screenings that would pay for that moving forward. So we can amend that.

Another beneficial addition that could help this bill is if we track exposures and build a cancer registry in B.C. That is something we’re working on in the national advisory group. To clarify, it will be about four years for a completion with the national framework, which is too long in my view. I think that moves at a glacial pace. I think we can be a leader and get it done sooner.

In closing, it’s a fiscal strategy to stop managing mortality and start preserving lives. I’ll end with that.

Amna Shah (Chair): Great. Thank you very much for your presentation.

Members, we have 10 minutes for questions. We’ll start with Gavin.

Gavin Dew (Deputy Chair): Thank you very much. I would just like to hone in on the timeline again. How long has advocacy around this been underway? When did this conversation start?

Todd Schierling: I think in 2019-2020, we started bringing in provincial screening. I could provide that data in our briefings. Each year we would advocate for occupational disease or mental health presumptions, but we’d always include a best practice or to have MSP cover earlier access to screenings.

Gavin Dew (Deputy Chair): So about six to seven years of advocacy so far, and we’re looking at about four years before a federal implementation of Bill C-224. Can you let us know do you think that nine months is long enough for implementation here or should we look at a longer timeline?

Todd Schierling: I think we can get it done in nine months. The data’s there. There are systems in place across the U.S., not so much in Canada yet, but it depends on how our health care system is going to work with that. I’m open to that nine- to 12- or nine- to 15-month range if that’s what it takes to complete a plan.

Darlene Rotchford: A couple questions for you, because the way I read this is…. The way the bill is written, we are currently missing some of the firefighters. So we want to make sure if whatever we do, the legislation is tight, so we’re not missing anybody. So with the way this bill is written, in your opinion, are forest firefighters covered and are volunteers adequately covered?

Todd Schierling: Yes. The short answer is yes. Now as far as the volunteer, is there a ten-year window piece?

A Voice: Yes.

Todd Schierling: Okay. So that is an amendment that could be looked at. We’re open to that, but it would include all firefighters, just as our presumptive cancer covers all firefighters.

[9:30 a.m.]

Darlene Rotchford: I appreciate it. I just want to make sure, because one of the things when I was looking for it…. And I did ask the member, and I know she’s open. I just want to make sure whatever comes from this that we’re doing it right the first time. As someone you know a bit of my background I want to make sure we’re not missing something, because trying to fix it later can be a challenge.

The other part of that too is…. Did I hear you right? The federal

One of the things, when I was looking for it…. And I did ask that, and I know she was open. I just want to make sure, whatever comes from this, that we’re doing it right the first time.

As someone…. You know a bit of my background. I want to make sure we’re not missing something, because trying to fix it later can be a challenge, we’ll say.

The other part of that, too, is…. So did I hear you right? The federal prediction out, and I will ask the Ministry of Labour this as well, is four years for them to complete their work. Is that what they’re projecting out?

Todd Schierling: I believe 2030 was accurate. It was five years from the onset of the framework. We’re now in year 1, so four more years.

Darlene Rotchford: Sorry, there’s another question I have for you. Come back to me. Sorry. I wrote another one. I have to find it.

Gavin Dew (Deputy Chair): Thank you, Todd. I heard some numbers around various different levels of coverage. Just for my understanding, what share of firefighters are currently covered by a contracted health plan?

Todd Schierling: Repeat that one more time.

Gavin Dew (Deputy Chair): What share of firefighters are currently covered by a contracted health plan?

Todd Schierling: Oh, yeah. There are 33 percent, I believe, covered by a plan. It’ll range from very vague, like wellness screenings…. Some are specific, like blood panelling and VO2 max and other testing. MRIs, even. Some employers are paying or co-funding with unions, paying companies to do those screenings. So there are companies out there that that are utilized.

If we were to use the health care system, however, you know, that’s a different story. But there are 33 percent with specific programs and less than that for other programs. Yeah, 15 percent for general programs. That’s only of the 5,000 professional firefighters, and as our friend said earlier, it’s very mixed, probably, in the paid on call and probably a lot less.

Gavin Dew (Deputy Chair): Thanks, Todd, I appreciate that. You spoke to the idea, you know, that’s obviously a patchwork. There’s a variety of different agreements. Can you help us understand the implications of this conversation from a collective bargaining perspective?

Todd Schierling: Yeah, so as I mentioned, the implications are…. I’m with my home local. I am paying 0.3 percent of my compensation towards funding that plan. Now, the employer might be providing the facility, and they can call it co-funding, but it’s funded by the union. So that’s a concession in our view, and that is something that the provincial government can easily pick up its share on.

Amna Shah (Chair): Are there any further questions?

Well, maybe I can ask a question. I am just wondering if you could shed a little bit of light on your conversations with the ministry, either Ministry of Labour/Health, on the preventative side of things.

You had mentioned that there’s the reactive and the proactive approaches and sort of the trend to really focus on the latter for a variety of reasons, whether it be to decrease long-term health care costs or just for the best interests in the health of firefighters.

I’m wondering what those conversations look like and if you’ve made progress. I can understand that you’ve been working with either of those ministries, specifically with the Ministry of Health on some of these and made some good progress. But yeah. Please feel free to….

Todd Schierling: Yeah. We’ve had a series of conversations dating back to August or earlier last year where we’ve had the IFF medical director, Neil McMillan. We flew him in. We’ve had Len Garis, who’s an advisor to Stats Canada and also sits on the National Indigenous Advisory Fire Safety Council.

And we’ve also been introducing other…. We’re about to introduce Stats Canada chief statistician. I know the minister has reached out, with our advocacy, to MP Mélanie Joly and Stats Canada to look at working on a cancer registry and exposure tracking models.

So I know that just as of recent we’ve received that notification that they responded, the feds, which was promising. It’s good to hear that they want to do work with us. And so there is traction and some actionable items in place to potentially get there.

[9:35 a.m.]

We’re hoping to collect and gather a lot of SMEs at our legislative conference next month, early March, where I’m trying to assemble some stakeholders and some of our friends here online hopefully to meet.

B.C. Cancer is also another one that we’ve been interacting with and recommending other ways to maybe offload some of the health care burdens such as AI health, using UBC, B.C. Cancer,

online hopefully to meet.

B.C. Cancer is also another one that we’ve been interacting with and recommending other ways to maybe offload some of the health care burdens such as AI health using UBC, B.C. Cancer, university out of Ottawa, Laval University and Newfoundland AI. So there are some other pieces that we could screen for. It’s just a proposal but they’re listening, and we’re having interactions.

Gavin Dew (Deputy Chair): Would you, Todd, if we were considering amendments to the bill, want to see exposure tracking included?

Todd Schierling: Yes, I believe an amendment would look something like a proactive automatic collection of chemical and emotional traumatic fire service exposures.

You know, one thing we could do is include the Office of the Fire Commissioner who has data linkages for exposure tracking. B.C. Cancer or Stats Canada has PHN linkages through tax records and can identify individuals for a cancer registry.

Darlene Rotchford: I looked on the review part of the plan. I saw MLA Popham nod her head, but also…. I’m going to assume, since this bill was done before the federal and we look at some of the stats they’re going to be collecting, if we put a review part in the bill we’d want to make sure we also have the Stats Canada part in there to cover not just WorkSafe, right? You’d want to make sure from a data perspective? Yeah? Okay.

Amna Shah (Chair): Are there any further questions? Seeing as none, thank you so much to both Todd — my eyes are really bad — and Brian. Thank you both so much for your time. And yeah, I think I need to pay a visit to an optometrist. Thank you, members, for your questions.

Our next presentation is from the Ministry of Health. We are joined by Assistant Deputy Minister Ian Rongve and Executive Director Eugene Johnson. Welcome to both of you to the committee. We’ll give you a couple minutes to get set up there.

As a reminder, you have up to five minutes for your presentation to the committee, followed by ten minutes of questions. Please take it away whenever you are ready.

Ian Rongve: Thank you, Madam Chair and committee members for the opportunity to speak to this bill.

My name is Ian Rongve. I’m the Assistant Deputy Minister for health system policy and oversight in the B.C. Ministry of Health. With me today is Eugene Johnson, Executive Director of provincial services and cancer care.

My remarks today I’m going to focus on the evidence equity and system sustainability, primarily of the first part on screening and diagnosis. Cancer remains one of the most significant health challenges in B.C. with nearly one in two British Columbians facing a diagnosis at some point in their lives. That means that almost everybody in B.C. will be affected by cancer. That’s why cancer care is a key priority of the Ministry of Health and reflected in its mandate commitment to improve cancer care delivery across the province.

In 2023, the province launched B.C.’s ten-year cancer action plan to better prevent, detect and treat cancers. From the plan, more people in B.C. are benefiting from expanded screening, greater access to diagnostic tests and better treatment options. Since 2017, the province has committed over a billion dollars to support the cancer care system.

In general, our B.C. health system is built on universal care, focusing on fairness, sustainability, and care is based on need and medical necessity. In B.C., our public health programs adopt a population-based approach, and we prioritize strategies that promote equitable health outcomes for entire communities. Services, policies and programs are evidence-based, an approach that has proven to avoid the harms of over-testing and inequities in care.

[9:40 a.m.]

Although early and frequent screening and diagnostic testing may seem reassuring, evidence shows that that early screening and testing can lead to unintended harms such as unnecessary and risky procedures and emotional distress.

Regarding cancer screening, B.C. currently offers four robust evidence-based cancer screening programs for breast

that that early screening and testing can lead to unintended harm, such as unnecessary and risky procedures and emotional distress.

Regarding cancer screening, B.C. currently offers four robust, evidence-based cancer screening programs for breast, colon, cervix and lung cancers. Screening, I think it’s important to emphasize, is intended for people who do not have symptoms and is based on population-level risk factors, so where you can identify changes in risk in the population, such as age and sex, where, as I said, we identify differences in risk across populations.

According to B.C. Cancer’s assessment of available evidence and established provincial cancer screening programs, there is no evidence-based justification for additional or occupational-specific cancer screening protocol for firefighters beyond the existing programs that we have.

Now, we recognize and B.C. Cancer recognizes there is elevated occupational risk of mesothelioma and bladder cancer among firefighters, but no validated screening test exists anywhere in the world for those two cancers.

B.C.’s cancer system and their health system in general is built on universal care and is…. Screening performed outside of evidence-based guidelines increases the risk of overdiagnosis, unnecessary and sometimes invasive procedures, and emotional distress. Eligible firefighters are eligible for our population-based screening programs. We absolutely encourage them to keep up to date with their existing screening protocol.

Regarding routine exams and diagnostic testing, the Medical Services Plan covers medically necessary diagnostic exams and laboratory testing for all British Columbians, including firefighters. The ministry relies on the clinical judgment of health care providers to determine when diagnostic testing is appropriate and medically necessary. Any time a clinician views further investigations of a patient to be warranted, that is available.

As we know, our health system has been facing significant challenges — overwhelmed emergency rooms, lack of access to a family doctor — and health care workers are under enormous strain. Legislating routine annual exams for firefighters without medical indication would create inequities, creating increased pressure on access for those who need it most. We continue to encourage firefighters to discuss any concerns with their health care provider and to monitor themselves for assistance.

There’s no doubt firefighting is a high-risk profession that may involve exposure to carcinogens. Government recognizes the vital role firefighters play in protecting public safety and acknowledges the importance of safeguarding their health.

While the private member’s bill seeks to address an important issue, it raises significant concerns relative to legislative authority, policy coherence and consistency with British Columbia’s existing health care framework, including the Medicare Protection Act. As drafted, the bill establishes prescriptive eligibility criteria for the proposed health plan, including specific years of service and defined firefighter categories. These provisions are set without demonstrated clinical justification, system-level analysis or alignment with established programs.

The bill also mandates detailed design and coverage requirements for the proposed plan. These provisions were also developed in advance of comprehensive consultation with firefighters, clinicians, municipalities and health system partners and without a complete assessment of the operational, clinical or fiscal impacts of these provisions. The lack of broad consultation and evidentiary review introduces substantial risk that the proposed framework may not be clinically appropriate, operationally viable or sustainable.

There are further concerns that the bill, as written, could result in unintended consequences, including significant pressures on health care capacity and the establishment of precedents that may affect expectations across other occupations with elevated occupational exposure risks.

With that, I’ll close and invite questions.

[9:45 a.m.]

Amna Shah (Chair): Thank you for your presentation.

We’ll start off with Gavin.

Gavin Dew (Deputy Chair): I’m just trying to grasp what I’ve just heard. My understanding is that firefighters have a four times greater risk of getting

your presentation, and we’ll start off with Gavin.

Gavin Dew (Deputy Chair): Thank you.

I’m just trying to grasp what I’ve just heard. My understanding is that firefighters have a four times greater risk of getting cancer. We’re talking about equity. We’re talking about individuals who are exposing themselves through their work, on purpose, to a dramatically greater degree of cancer risk, and it sounds as if the argument we’re hearing is that we should not treat firefighters any differently or enact any special programming and that them having access to early screening would be emotionally traumatic.

Is this really the position of the ministry?

Ian Rongve: The ministry operates our screening programs based on identifiable risk factors. According to international evidence, firefighters have the same risk of cancer, for most cancers, as anybody else. The difference…. They were acknowledged that they have higher risk in two cancers, mesothelioma and bladder cancer, and those ones do not have screens. There just aren’t screens. So for the ones where they face a higher risk, there is no screen for it. But for most cancers, they have the same risk as other professions.

Gavin Dew (Deputy Chair): Again, I’m struggling to reconcile some of what I’m hearing here. Throughout all the conversation on this issue, the six years of advocacy that we’ve heard from firefighters, I think we have heard overwhelmingly, and very emotionally, that these concerns are very real for firefighters, that exposure without knowing exactly what that exposure is, is very emotionally challenging both for individuals as well as for the community of firefighters who don’t always know exactly what they’re reckoning with.

I’m just really struggling to reconcile the position that early screening or early detection would be…. And this was repeated numerous times in what you’ve just said. The position that having early screening would be emotionally distressing strikes me as entirely incongruous with everything we’ve heard from the firefighting community and their advocacy around this bill.

Is it truly the position of the Ministry of Health that we should not do this because getting early screening would be emotionally distressing to firefighters?

Ian Rongve: That’s not what we what we’ve said. What we’ve said is that the screens that are existing for the cancers where firefighters have…. For the screens that exist, firefighters do not have increased risk. So the screening programs that we have — they should be taking advantage of. Where firefighters have increased risks, then there are no screens available. So regardless, there is not a screen that we could use.

Darlene Rotchford: I hear what you say about the two screenings that you put them on high-risk for. So with all due respect, the federal national firefighter group is starting to do work because they recognize there are more than those. So is it in your opinion that if that committee finds further screening, there wouldn’t be an issue because then the data is there?

Ian Rongve: If I could respond. I think if what you’re saying is that in the future, with future research, if the evidence changes, we would change our position, the answer is absolutely.

Darlene Rotchford: Okay. You heard the two further presentations, and then I’ll pass the question on to my colleagues. They’re saying, through their own investigation data, that this would be a cost-saver. Do you disagree with the data that they have, that they’re using from their firefighters? Or is that not part of what you guys look at as a ministry?

Ian Rongve: We look at the international evidence. We asked B.C. Cancer, the experts at B.C. Cancer on cancer screening programs, whether there was evidence to do occupational-specific screening. And the very clear answer from B.C. Cancer is no.

[9:50 a.m.]

George Chow: You mentioned about consultations, lack of consultation. Can you elaborate a bit more on what you would like to see in terms of consultation?

George Chow: You mentioned about consultations, lack of consultation. Can you elaborate a bit more what you would like to see in terms of consultation?

Ian Rongve: I mean, we believe this is, obviously, an important issue, absolutely. But we think that further consultation with B.C. clinicians with the ministry to make sure that what is being proposed matches and works within the existing system…. Firefighters, clinicians, municipalities and other health system partners would be the types of consultations that we’re looking at. To my knowledge, the Ministry of Health has not been consulted on this, for example.

Hon Chan: Thank you for your presentation there. I’m just also questioning about that there are two cancers that you mentioned that are actually higher risk than the other population. From what we heard from the firefighters association but also some of their federal organizations from their U.S. counterpart, it doesn’t mention just two. Actually, more in other cancers, including bladder, lung and others.

Is it just B.C. that there are only two that are higher than others when other jurisdictions of firefighters are seeing much more different types of cancer status higher than the general population?

Ian Rongve: Well, the data that we’re relying on is from the International Agency for Research on Cancer evidence scans. So they have looked at evidence across the world and have kind of looked for a scientific consensus.

I will note that at least one of them that you mentioned, lung cancer, we do have a lung cancer screening program, and we would suggest that firefighters take full advantage of that.

Gavin Dew (Deputy Chair): As it relates to those population-based screening programs, what is the participation rate at a population-wide level in cancer screening programs? What if any information do you have around the participation rate of firefighters? And what if any barriers to taking advantage of those screening programs exist for firefighters, particularly in more rural and remote areas?

Ian Rongve: I’m going to phone a friend and have Eugene answer this.

Eugene Johnson: For the four screening programs that are currently run, we do not have tracking for occupational participation in those. It’s based on existing population eligibility, which is currently gender and age.

When we talk about breast screening, currently about just under 50 percent of the eligible population is up to date on screening. When we talk about colon cancer, it’s lower. It’s about 39½ percent that are currently participating. Then for cervix, we have slightly a different measurement at the moment because of the recent changes to create mail-in kits and self-testing. Currently we have about 300,000 cervix screens being submitted annually. For lung cancer, this is about 19,000 screens that take place.

Hon Chan: In your presentation, you mentioned there will be much more screening that has been done if this bill has been passed. What is your estimate that the additional screening, if this bill has been passed, will be pressure onto the health care system?

Eugene Johnson: We don’t have a specific estimate, but the bill indicates annual activity which is considerably higher than we would have for some screening processes. Additionally, right now much of the screening that is done is age-based. Again, this presumes a population that is not age-specific that is participating in it.

[9:55 a.m.]

Those are some of the considerations that would significantly increase this screening, not because that firefighters as a population is particularly massive with regard to the general population but because of the way the language in the bill currently envisions frequency.

Darlene Rotchford: I’ll make it quick. You had made comments in regards to if we do it for this designation, it could open up potential other designations looking at risk factors.

but because of the way the language in the bill currently envisions frequency.

Darlene Rotchford: I’ll make it quick. You had made comments in regards to: if we do it for this designation, it could open up potential other designations looking at risk factors. What would your concern be if it did? What’s the worst-case scenario?

Ian Rongve: I think it’s important that what we’re talking about…. If you’re talking about screens, some of these screens take advantage of some pretty major technology — for example, CTs and MRIs. When you’re legislating screening, what you’re doing is putting people who are, by their nature…. Remember, we’re talking about screens, so these are people who are asymptomatic, and you’re saying they have a higher priority than people who potentially have symptoms of the cancers that we’re looking for.

So as I said in my presentation, anybody — firefighter or anybody — who has concerns and has symptoms can go in and get their diagnosis, get their testing, get all of the imaging that’s required, and they will get that. But if we legislate screening of non-symptomatic individuals, then that’s going to push those symptomatic people back down the list.

Amna Shah (Chair): We’ll go to Garry.

Garry Begg: You mentioned inequality would result in the health care system if this were created. So you’re saying, by interpretation, that firefighters would be in a special, specific category that would deprive others?

Ian Rongve: As I just…. Firefighters would be put to the head of the line, ahead of people who are symptomatic.

Garry Begg: To the detriment….

Ian Rongve: To the detriment, because people who are symptomatic — their diagnosis would be pushed back. That’s what we mean by inequality.

Garry Begg: Perhaps the proponent could speak to the issues that that she raised with the health care system. Did you surface these concerns?

Misty Van Popta: Thank you for the opportunity to speak to that.

This bill is just calling for a plan. If member groups are already using outside companies to do this type of work, that could be a way to mitigate those concerns. But again, the plan isn’t saying every single test needs to be done every single year. It’s just to say to come up with a plan. If it’s “This type of test requires every five years, or “This type of screening requires every two years,” that is something that can be built into the system and be addressed any way possible. There are so many ways to address these type of concerns that don’t take away from the general population.

But again, I’ll say that this comes down to a population of British Columbians who put their life on the line every single day to protect the general population. If they’re dying and if they’re on disability and if they’re being in treatment at the end of their life instead of being treated at the beginning, when they can go back into the general population and continue to do their work, it needs to be a conversation where it’s not just about looking at it from a clinical perspective that they’re taking away from the general population. They’re also, by the same breath, saving the general population.

So I think that there’s a way in the plan to address these type of concerns. This kind of narrative, I wasn’t really expecting, so thank you for letting me speak to it.

Garry Begg: Did you make inquiries with B.C. Health? As part of the process, did you make inquiries with B.C. Health?

Misty Van Popta: This bill was specifically in cooperation with my local union only, because this bill is driven by what the needs are of our firefighters how we can support them, so I did not look for a different narrative.

This is advocacy work. This is a bill directly resulting of advocacy. I’ve got two inches worth of paperwork here that shows that they’ve done the work. They’ve got the studies. I’ve got an Oxford study sitting right here entitled Occupation as a Firefighter and Cancer Mortality in Population-Based Cohort in the United States. There is this data out there. If B.C. Cancer doesn’t have that data yet, or if we’re only talking about what we currently do and how this fits into what we currently do, there is a conversation about that.

[10:00 a.m.]

We’ve addressed general population screenings and what’s required of general population, but to the member across the way’s point, firefighters may be…. There is a conversation to be had that we need to address this gap.

We’ve addressed general population screenings and what’s required of the general population, but to the member across the way’s point, firefighters may be.... There is a conversation to be had, and we need to address this gap. So no, I did not talk to the Minister of Health; I did not talk to the Minister of Labour.

I talked to my local firefighters — one who is 42 years old, younger than me, who didn’t know his family had a cancer history and is now in a category where he doesn’t qualify. Well, he does now, because his family’s cancer has been identified, but at 45 years old, after being a firefighter for 20 years, still didn’t qualify yet, at the time, for early screening of colon cancer, because he didn’t know he had a family history.

That is a big red flag in the system that needs to be addressed, and that’s what this bill is.

Jeremy Valeriote: Chair, my apologies for being late. While you were all sitting in comfort, I was enjoying a white-knuckle Harbour Air flight.

Amna Shah (Chair): Oh, no.

Before you begin, though, Jeremy, I just want to recognize that we are over time here, but it really seems to me that this conversation is quite valued by the committee members, so we’ll continue on.

Jeremy Valeriote: I’ll be quick. I understand the need to point out possible inequities and pressures on the health system. I’m a bit less comfortable with the idea of precedent, because I’m running into that in some other aspects of our work.

Could the ADM identify...? Is there another large group of occupational risks that would be the next logical follow-on from this? Or are firefighters in...? If so, who would that be, and how far would this extend?

Ian Rongve: Do you know?

Eugene Johnson: In terms of occupations and the specific level of risk, I think that’s an ongoing area of research and probably worth further pursuit. B.C. Cancer does have some research currently around fighting wildfires, because some of the factors may be different wit that.

As an example of occupations that have potential exposures — mining would be a good example, and various forms of metalworking — hairdressers would be a consideration. The degree and intensity of that, I think, is an area where the research at the moment still needs considerable work.

Amna Shah (Chair): Thank you, Jeremy; you’ve asked one of my questions.

Just to further that, though, you’d mentioned that you do take a population-based approach. I’m wondering if there is any other province.... Have you followed any other jurisdiction which does take an occupation-based approach — and your observations on it?

Then my second question has to do with the research. I think you mentioned the International Agency for Research on Cancer as one of the sources of your data, including B.C. Cancer as well, as one of your sources.

I’m wondering — within your conversations with, for example, the B.C. Professional Fire Fighters Association, the fire chiefs or all of the advocates who are advocating for the screening and the development of the presumptive-cancer list — whether there has been an appetite, or if there will be a future appetite, to really do a peer-reviewed gathering of research on this entire issue.

It seems to me, just from the conversation here, that there may be some different types of research that different stakeholders are referring to. I’m wondering how you reconcile that in determining your overall strategy — population-based versus occupation-based — especially as we move into the future and learn things that we don’t know today.

Ian Rongve: Can you remind me of your first question?

Amna Shah (Chair): Yes. Are there any other jurisdictions that follow an occupational...?

Ian Rongve: Not to our knowledge. There are no other jurisdictions in Canada that are pursuing an occupation-based screening program.

[10:05 a.m.]

To your second question, the people that we ask to review the evidence are the experts at B.C. Cancer. As you know, B.C. Cancer is a world-class organization, including world-class researchers.

iAs I suggested previously, if the evidence changes, if there’s more evidence that comes along that shows us that actually the evidence to this point is incorrect,

world-class organization including world-class researchers.

If, and I think as I suggested previously, if the evidence changes, if there’s more evidence that comes along that shows us that actually the evidence to this point is incorrect, well, as evidence changes, science changes, and we would update our screening programs.

Eugene Johnson: Just to add to what Ian was saying, B.C. Cancer does have researchers participating on the national review that’s currently taking place. They also provided an assessment of the monograph that came out of the International Agency for Research on Cancer, which had been updated in 2023. So the level of confidence in its currency was fairly high.

Gavin Dew (Deputy Chair): We heard some references previously to strategies like mail-in test kits taken for certain forms of cancer. I want to maybe change direction a little bit away from the frame of just expecting firefighters to participate in population-level screening programs. Recognizing you may not have sufficient evidence to weigh in on this quantitatively, I’d like to understand anything you can tell us about the participation rate in screening by firefighters.

And I want to put a lens on it. In my volunteer life, I do work with veterans. I work with an organization called the Veterans Transition Network, where one of the most important and challenging aspects of what we do is we provide counselling to veterans. We also destigmatize participation in counselling. Particularly for front-line-deployed individuals, whether they’re in military or first-responder capacities, there is often a psychological or cultural predisposition away from participation in things like counselling and, in some instances, proactive medical screening.

So I’d like to understand whether you have seen any evidence or indication that individuals may be participating at a lower rate in some of these screening processes and whether you believe that having occupation-specific screening that is proactive, that is actively presented, that is put forward in the way that some of the programming that is funded by certain employers and certain unions currently is happening…. Does that increase the rate of participation and allow early diagnosis?

Is there a broader case to be made here around the importance of making sure that people who might…? There might be correlations toward not participating in these kinds of proactive screening processes.

Is there a case to be made here around the need to actively seek ways to get these in front of people in the same way that the conversation has changed around men seeking diagnosis for prostate cancer through the Movember campaign, things of that nature? Is that kind of…? Is that conversation a live one in the ministry?

Eugene Johnson: I think that suggests a very fruitful avenue for future work, because right now, as the Ministry of Health, we only have access to public-based screening processes, which, as noted, do not track against profession.

What — I believe it was — Todd from the Professional Fire Fighters Association was indicating was that there are a number of programs available to some firefighter services that are privately funded, and so we don’t have a lens into what those programs are seeing in terms of things like, as you mentioned, participation rates.

I think bringing that work together to actually have a more comprehensive take on what the screening participation is and what might be holding people back if the rate is low would definitely be something we would be positive about.

Gavin Dew (Deputy Chair): Thank you. I appreciate that.

We had some conversation about potential inclusions in the bill around tracking. Again, recognizing that there is a disposition in the ministry toward making sure we’re talking about population-level screening, is it the case that, through some of the mechanisms envisioned in this bill or that we’re talking about as potential amendments to this bill, that actually could provide the opportunity to generate learnings that could then be applied at a population-wide level?

[10:10 a.m.]

Is it reasonable to say that this is a logical population subgroup with which to pioneer some of this work and that it could contribute, again, to broader public health and to improvements to a population-based screening program? Based on the evidence provided today, we actually have very little information on participation and on what’s working.

Ian Rongve: I think the answer is: we are interested in

broader public health and to improvements to a population-based screening program where, based on the evidence provided today, we actually have very little information on participation and on what’s working.

Ian Rongve: I think the answer is that we are interested in further investigations of this. I think the Minister of Labour has had some discussions with StatsCan, and we absolutely agree with that approach. I think, as I’ve said several times, if we get new information, we adjust our programs.

I’m an old researcher and absolutely agree with the idea of doing some more work to establish criteria.

Amna Shah (Chair): All right. Are there any further questions?

George Chow: Yes. It was mentioned that other occupations, such as hairdressers and people involved in mining…. I could think of, for example, welders, right? Is there something from the Health Ministry that pertains to studies of occupations that are more susceptible to cancer in general — like lung cancer, for example — that you could supply to the committee?

Ian Rongve: The Ministry of Health doesn’t have it. There are researchers out there. We talked to B.C. Cancer, and B.C. Cancer has provided their assessment of the evidence. We can certainly provide that.

George Chow: Okay. Sure. Yeah, that’s really what I meant — the expert agency that could supply this kind of background as well. Thank you.

Amna Shah (Chair): Just one last question before we let you go. This is related to the National Framework on Cancers Linked to Firefighting.

In their last…. Well, actually, this may not be their last update. In their update in 2024, there was an indication that at least there was some relevant promise to new investments which could support the development of guidance for diagnostic testing and potentially some new tools to address training needs within the health care sector. The whole idea is that maybe this could lead to earlier diagnoses and result in better health outcomes.

In terms of that work that’s happening in the national framework, what is the B.C. Ministry of Health’s contribution/participation in that regard and/or that of the general work of the national framework in itself? I’m just curious to know if there is some work that is kind of currently happening in terms of trying to figure out what the best framework is for early screening, which could lead to early diagnoses.

How would that kind of affect this view about a population-based approach versus an occupational approach, if that makes sense?

Eugene Johnson: Sure. Just with regard to diagnostic screening, the primary participation from B.C. would be through B.C. Cancer, and that would be because looking at diagnostic screening is focused around the clinical success in terms of how it can work. I would just, again, distinguish between that — which is for when you have an indication of a symptom or potential indicator of concern — versus screening, which is for when you have no symptoms. That work has primarily been through B.C. Cancer, because they have the clinical expertise to weigh in on diagnostic testing.

We do have a representative from the ministry who participates in the national framework as well.

Amna Shah (Chair): That’s great. The reason I ask this is because you’ve mentioned that firefighters are at a heightened risk for two cancers which we don’t have screening for. That’s unfortunate but doesn’t change the fact that that still occurs.

[10:15 a.m.]

I think part of the committee’s work here is kind of sifting through all of that knowledge from various different avenues to try and sort through how we can help keep firefighters safe across this province. With that being said, I’m wondering

is kind of sifting through all of that knowledge from various different avenues to try and sort through how we can help keep firefighters safe across this province.

With that being said, I’m wondering if there are, other than data from the B.C. Cancer Centre, any data sets that are used from other provinces to determine a path forward to supplement data from B.C. Cancer. Or is the research from what you’ve seen relatively the same with what B.C. Cancer has?

Ian Rongve: I think it is important to know that when we talk about the evidence, we’re not just looking at B.C. data, right? We ask B.C. Cancer to look worldwide at all of the data and to make their recommendations to us for the best way forward on screening and diagnostics for firefighters, specifically on cancer.

So it’s not…. As we’ve said, we actually don’t have the data for B.C., but there is research across the world on firefighters and cancer, and that’s what is being relied on.

Amna Shah (Chair): All right. Well, thank you very much for your presentation. I recognize that this is a very sensitive and consequential issue on many people’s lives. I appreciate your openness and your transparency here today.

Now committee I understand that we are going to the next presentation from the Ministry of Labour. However, entertaining some requests from the members for a short recess, we will take a short recess and return at 10:30. Thanks.

The committee recessed at 10:17 a.m.

The committee resumed at 10:33 a.m.

[Amna Shah in the chair.]

Amna Shah: I will now call the committee back to order.

Our next presentation is from the Ministry of Labour, and we are joined today by Deputy Minister Lorie Hrycuik, Executive Director Michael Tanner and Director Jake Ayers. As a reminder, you have up to five minutes for your presentation, followed by ten minutes for questions from committee members. Please take it away.

Lorie Hrycuik: Good morning. Thank you, Madam Chair and committee members, for the opportunity to speak to Bill M214, the Firefighters’ Health Act. I appreciate the opportunity to speak to you today and make comments about the bill’s provisions related to the workers compensation presumption for firefighters and to set the context for the work and role of the Ministry of Labour in that area. I’m speaking primarily on part 2 which is our role and responsibility.

As a brief reminder of how the presumption for firefighters work under the Workers Compensation Act, if a firefighter develops one of 18 specified cancers and has been employed as a firefighter for the minimum period specified for that cancer, the cancer is then presumed to be work related for workers compensation purposes. The presumption streamlines the process for firefighters to have their workers compensation claim accepted.

Across Canada the number of cancers subject to presumption for firefighters ranges from ten to 22 depending on the province. Of note, firefighters are still eligible for workers compensation benefits for work-related cancers that fall outside of the scope of cancer presumption. If they do develop a cancer not on the list, if they were employed for less than the specified minimum period of employment. WorkSafeBC then assesses the merit of their claim for workers’ compensation but without the benefit of the presumption. They still get the compensation based on the assessment but they just don’t have that same presumption.

[10:35 a.m.]

So with that context in mind, I’d like to make the following comments on the

for less than the specified minimum period of employment. WorkSafeBC then assesses the merit of their claim for workers compensation, but without the benefit of the presumption. So they still will get the compensation based on the assessment, but they just don’t have that same presumption.

With that context in mind, I’d like to make the following comments on the bill for the committee’s consideration. We understand the minister that’s responsible for the bill is the Minister of Health — to review the cancer presumption, considering medical and scientific evidence and make a report with potential recommendations.

First, section 140 of the Workers Compensation Act already permits the executive branch of government to regularly review the presumption and adjust the diseases included and the minimum employment periods by regulation, including when medical and scientific knowledge advances and becomes available.

A bill that directs this work is really not required, because we already have that accountability and responsibility to do that. Since the presumption came into force in 2005, the presumption has been updated six times, with the most recent amendment occurring in November 2022 to add pancreatic and thyroid cancers to the list of eligible cancers.

In line with the ongoing ability to review the presumption, the October 2024 NDP provincial election campaign included a commitment to expand presumptive coverage for firefighters who experience higher rates of cancer due to increased exposure to the hazards of a fire scene. To support this commitment, the ministry is already working on it and has been engaging with the firefighters, the Ministry of Health, WorkSafeBC, other stakeholders and First Nations on a potential expansion of the presumption.

I’m also going to mention the national framework, because everybody else has mentioned it. As you know, there’s a commitment to work alongside the governments and stakeholders to better understand the research and cancers on linking to firefighters.

I know that, as mentioned, the B.C. Professional Firefighters Association and the Ministry of Health have representatives that will be participating in the work of this framework.

B.C. has also offered to be a leader in working with Statistics Canada to develop a national firefighter cancer registry intended to strengthen our understanding of health outcomes among firefighters over time and to support research that informs prevention and care and is intended to streamline data acquisition and exposure documentation critical to the success of the registry.

I think this work will help inform future decisions on B.C.’s cancer presumption for firefighters as its findings and information from the registry come to light.

Final comments regarding the timing and scope of the review, described in part 2 of the bill. With the nine-month timeline, it will be very difficult to undertake a formal review, including consultation with scientific experts, health professionals, employers of firefighters, associations and groups representing firefighters to lead to recommendations and could be a duplicate of the work that the ministry has already undertaken as well as the work that will occur under the national framework.

With respect to consultation, it’s unusual to name specific organizations to be consulted in legislation, as is done in this bill. As an appropriate consultation, the ministry, as we do to form legislation and regulations, would include more than the B.C. Professional Firefighters Association and the association Doctors of B.C. It would include the organizations that I’ve mentioned — firefighters, cancer science experts, WorkSafeBC, academics and researchers, along with additional groups that have an interest in matters, such as the employers of firefighters, including municipalities and First Nations that would need to be engaged.

Finally, the purpose of the review in part 2 is not clearly articulated on whether the intent is to conduct a review of all cancers, including those that are already covered under the Workers Compensation Act and whether the current science links those cancers for firefighters as an occupational risk as well as other cancers.

I’ll end it there, and I really appreciate your time and the opportunity to speak to the private member’s bill.

Amna Shah(Chair): Great. Thank you for your presentation, and we will start our questions with Gavin.

Gavin Dew (Deputy Chair): We had a few different messages from folks over the course of the day around timelines, and it sounds as though we’ve established an understanding that the federal bill, C-224, is expected to be about a four-year process and is cancer-focused.

[10:40 a.m.]

The bill, as it stands, is nine months of time. We’ve heard from different presenters today that they think that nine is realistic. We’ve heard 12 months. We’ve heard nine to 15. What, in your view, is a realistic timeline if you believe nine months is too aggressive?

Lorie Hrycuik: First, I just want to say that even though the framework has a report due in 2030, the way the framework works is that there is going to be an ongoing implementation and

to 15, what in your view is a realistic timeline, if you believe nine months too aggressive?

Lorie Hrycuik: First, I just want to say that even though the framework has a report due in 2030, the way the framework works is that there’s going to be an ongoing implementation and that we’ll be able to use the science and the information as it evolves. For example, the registry which we’re talking about leading, which will be about exposure for firefighters…. We don’t anticipate that’s going to be four years in the future.

I think that that’s important. Yes, there’s sort of a timeline for that, but it doesn’t mean that that’s when all the work is going to happen. So I just want to make sure that there’s a clear understanding of that.

As far as a timeline is concerned, I think nine months is too short because if you can think about the time to gather everyone to actually be able to do the review, to meet…. It won’t be the only priority of the ministry as well. That’s always the challenge to add something else in.

We’re already doing work on looking at the presumption, so we would really have to take a step back to say, you know: “What does that look like?” We’re already doing that review of the presumptions now, and then to actually start a new process…. We’re actually consulting with First Nations and local governments and all those types of things. So first of all, I think it’d be a bit kind of confusing to then go out and do something like that.

It’s really hard to say. I think Todd said maybe a year or two, a year and a half to really look at what the science says and gather everybody to look at the presumptions.

Our presumptions are…. As we’d mentioned, there are 18 cancers, and what’s not clear to me in the bill is: are we looking at all cancers? Because we know that some of them were added in 2005, and the science may not be there for those initial cancers. We did it because, as you say, there’s an interest in supporting firefighters in the risks that they do. So we are leaning more heavily now that more information is now becoming available, and that’s the area that I think we’ll look for.

But to answer your question, maybe a year to a year and a half. Long-winded answer.

Gavin Dew (Deputy Chair): Long answer, but good answer. Thank you for clarifying that timeline. It’s just helpful to take everyone’s temperature around what they believe is realistic.

Could you help us understand what the potential implications of the bill would be in two different areas, one being any opinion you may have on the implications for collective bargaining and the other being around WCB, particularly given that it sounds as though there is reasonable evidence to the effect that there is considerable WCB cost occurring as a result of higher rates of, for example, pancreatic cancer among firefighters.

Could you just help us understand what the cost implications could or would be in those two areas? On WCB and, again, any thoughts you may have around the collective bargaining piece, particularly given that we presently have, obviously, a patchwork of different initiatives that are providing some of this screening or similar screening, that are, again, structured totally differently, with different employers and different unions. Help us understand those two dimensions if you can.

Lorie Hrycuik: I’ll do my best on the collective bargaining, and then I’ll turn to the two of you if you need to add to it.

The Workers Compensation Act and the legislation, the regulations, are in place to provide that fast track to firefighters in the cancers that are in there. It doesn’t interact with the collective bargaining. It doesn’t interact with….

Gavin Dew (Deputy Chair): Sorry, two totally different questions.

Lorie Hrycuik: No, but just to say it doesn’t…. That presumption doesn’t interact with collective bargaining. That is something that happens at tables from a priority perspective.

I know that, as Todd has said, it’s a patchwork. I imagine some collective bargaining do recognize the framework of the presumptions that we have, but there really isn’t a connection between what we have in legislation and regulation and how the collective bargaining process happens. So just to say that clearly.

[10:45 a.m.]

As far as WorkSafeBC, where the costs are primarily is the premium rates for employers of firefighters, which would be local governments and some First Nations — not very many. Their premium rates will increase because, obviously, the more cancers we add, the more premium rates there actually are increases.

But the other, and as Todd has said…. Any time you add something to a system, it creates

not very many. Their premium rates will increase because, obviously, the more cancers we add, the more premium rates actually increases.

But the other…. As Todd has said, any time you add something to a system, it creates staff that they have to do assessments, they have to do adjudications. There needs to be medical professionals who then are there to validate and support, the idea being as obviously as that you want to get the claims in as quickly as possible for the streamlined presumption process. I don’t have the costs associated with that. We will look into that.

Then obviously for those cancers that aren’t under their presumption, that also is that there’s an assessment process. There’s probably some more time that’s included in that assessment of the risk claim and then gathering data and then making sure that the firefighters have the support they need in the workers compensation and any kind of funding comes through whether or not they’re off work. The treatment comes through our medical care system. So the actual cancer treatment is in the workers compensation system.

I don’t know if I’ve answered exactly your question.

Gavin Dew (Deputy Chair): Do you mind if I just…?

Amna Shah (Chair): Go ahead. Clarify.

Gavin Dew (Deputy Chair): On the WCP front, I guess what I’m trying to understand…. It sounds, Lorie, as if you’re saying there is the potential for greater cost exposure as more presumptions are added. But I also want to understand what the potential for cost savings are if people are diagnosed earlier, and as a result, both the personal human cost and the financial cost of treatment and of absence from work are mitigated.

The other piece on the collective bargaining side…. I guess what I’m trying to understand is, for example, if ultimately some of this screening is undertaken through the public health system, then obviously that may take it off the table as what has previously been an individual bargaining item between individual employers and unions. I guess I’m just trying to understand what the knock-on implications of that would be.

Lorie Hrycuik: I hear you. I just want to be really clear. Our mandate and scope are the presumptions. We are not responsible for screening, so for me to answer your question on screening, I feel, is like I’m creeping into the Ministry of Health’s mandate to actually say what exactly that would look like from your second question on the collective bargaining piece. But what I would say is that any time you have someone who comes into a system with stage 1 versus stage 4, you’re going to have like less costs to the health care system.

The workers compensation…. If they do show up with a cancer and then a cancer presumption, it’s not going to change how WorkSafeBC processes that claim. Whether it’s a stage 1 or a stage 4, the actual process itself is going to be similar in the cost. It’s whether or not you can catch them before they hit the cancer or when they hit the presumption, I think, where you’re going to find cost savings in the system.

Darlene Rotchford: You were here listening to the Ministry of Health. One of the comments they made was, with the way that the bill is currently written, there were concerns it could open a can of worms, we shall say, in regards to other designations that may fall under this. Does the ministry themselves have any concerns about that?

Lorie Hrycuik: Just clarifying the question, are you talking about occupations?

Darlene Rotchford: Yeah.

Lorie Hrycuik: We know that there are other occupations that definitely have occupational risks — you know, asbestos removal, mesothelioma. I think Ian had mentioned mining, welding, all those other types of things. We’ve not specifically opened up the presumption from an occupational perspective to other diseases, with the exception of asbestos, which has mesothelioma.

Michael Tanner: Yeah. And there are a number of other presumptions in the Workers Compensation Act, dealing with a range of occupations and related exposures or type of work that there are presumptions for.

What’s different about the firefighter ones is that it’s specifically in the legislation, while the other is sort of managed through WorkSafeBC that they update those presumptions as science becomes available.

[10:50 a.m.]

Amna Shah (Chair): I’ll add myself to the list. I have a couple of questions. Just going off of this, you mentioned there are presumptions for other occupations but in the WorkSafeBC context rather than in legislation. What is really the difference in having that in legislation versus WorkSafeBC? I’m just curious.

for other occupations. But in the WorkSafeBC context, rather than in legislation, what is, really, the difference in having that in legislation versus WorkSafeBC? I’m just curious.

The presumptive cancers that are associated with other occupations in the WorkSafe list or inventory — are they also regularly updated? I’m just trying to get a sense of the difference.

Michael Tanner: Yeah. Historically, the presumption from WorkSafe was how it was done. It is regularly reviewed and updated. They sometimes will add things to the list and the presumptions. They sometimes, after a review and evolving science, may take things away.

So the presumption for firefighters was added in by legislation. I think what it does is just give more certainty to it, and it requires the Legislature or cabinet to amend it. So there may be a bit more flexibility to look at a number of factors for deciding which cancers should be on the firefighters presumption.

Amna Shah (Chair): Just to continue about the conversation on presumption of cancers, are you aware of any conversations or work that is currently occurring to increase the number of cancers? I know you mentioned that across Canada, there’s like a variation between 18 to 22 or something.

So considering we’re at 20 or 18…

Michael Tanner: It’s 18 for cancers.

Amna Shah (Chair): …are there any plans to increase that number? Is there work ongoing?

Lorie Hrycuik: As I mentioned in my speaking notes, we are in fact looking at the cancer presumptions currently — expanding them, yes.

Amna Shah (Chair): Are there any further questions from committee members? Seeing none, thank you so much for your presentation. I appreciate your patience.

We are going to take a two-minute recess to get our next sponsor set up. We’ll be back.

The committee recessed at 10:52 a.m.

The committee resumed at 10:57 a.m.

Amna Shah (Chair): I’ll now call the committee back to order. We will now move on to the consideration of Bill M217, Dashboard Cameras in Commercial Vehicles Act. We are joined by the sponsor of the bill, MLA Ward Stamer.

Welcome. Just a reminder, you have 20 minutes for your presentation, followed by 20 minutes of questions from committee members. Please go ahead.

Consideration of Bills

Bill M217 — Dashboard Cameras in  
Commercial Vehicles Act 

Ward Stamer: Thank you very much, Madam Chair, and thank you to my fellow committee members.

As members of this committee, we are entrusted with a responsibility that goes beyond party lines. Our role is to examine legislation carefully and ask whether it will generally improve safety, accountability and outcomes for people of B.C. That means grounding our decisions in evidence, considering real-world impacts and resisting both ideological reflex and complacency.

Bill 217 deserves a level of scrutiny because it responds to a real and persistent public safety challenge on our roads in B.C. It does so with a practical, modern and evidence-supported solution.

Road safety remains one of the most significant and preventable public safety issues in B.C. and across Canada. Nationally, Canada continues to experience close to 2,000 road fatalities per year, along with tens of thousands of serious injuries requiring hospitalization. British Columbia consistently accounts for a substantial portion of those numbers, particularly on our high-volume highways, in urban corridors and in areas experiencing rapid population growth.

Behind every one of those figures is a family permanently changed: a worker who does not return home, a child injured on the way to school, a senior whose independence is lost in a moment. Again, these are not abstract policy outcomes. They’re deeply human consequences.

From a public policy standpoint, road safety is one of the few areas where relatively modest improvements can improve immediate, life-saving results.

The economic cost of collisions is also enormous. Motor vehicle collisions cost Canadians tens of billions of dollars annually when health care costs, emergency response, rehabilitation, insurance claims, legal proceedings and lost productivity are taken into account. In British Columbia, these costs directly affect our ICBC rates, hospital capacities, emergency services and the financial stability of families and small businesses.

[11:00 a.m.]

Yet one of the most persistent weaknesses in our current system is not just the number of collisions. It’s what happens when they occur. In a significant proportion of crashes, fault is unclear or disputed. Investigations often rely on conflicting driver statements, partial eyewitness accounts, assumptions

our current system is not just the number of collisions. It’s what happens when they occur.

In a significant proportion of crashes, fault is unclear or disputed. Investigations often rely on conflicting driver statements, partial eyewitness accounts, assumptions drawn from vehicle damage. Insurance claims can take months or even years to settle. Court proceeds are delayed. Innocent drivers can face financial and legal consequences simply because there was no clear, objective record of those events. Uncertainty increases costs, delays justice and undermines trust in our institutions.

Bill 217 addresses this gap directly by requiring dashcams, dash cameras — an objective, impartial method of documenting what actually happens on our roads. Dashcams are not speculative. They do not exaggerate, they do not forget, and they record reality. From a legislative perspective, this is fundamental. As legislators, we believe in evidence, accountability and personal responsibility. Dashcams reinforce all three of those premises.

Let me begin with safety and prevention, because that is really the core purpose of this legislation. Evidence from commercial fleet operators, insurance providers and transportation safety research consistently shows that when dashcams are introduced, risky driving behaviour declines significantly. Fleet safety programs routinely report reductions of 40 to 60 percent in behaviours such as speeding, hard braking, tailgating, aggressive lane changes and distracted driving once dash cameras and accountability systems are implemented.

This change does not occur because the drivers are punished more frequently. It occurs because accountability changes behaviour. When drivers know their actions are being recorded, they’re more likely to obey speed limits, maintain safe following distances and avoid distractions. That behavioural change happens before a collision occurs, which is why dashcams are fundamental as a preventative tool.

Those behavioural improvements translate into fewer collisions overall. Commercial fleet data commonly shows a 20 to 30 percent reduction in collision frequency, along with reductions in the severity of those collisions where the incidents do occur.

Fewer collisions mean fewer injuries, fewer emergency responses, fewer hospital admissions and, of course, fewer lives disrupted. This is critically important for this committee to understand. Bill 217 is not merely about documenting collisions after the fact. It’s about reducing the number of collisions that occur in the first place.

From my perspective, prevention aligns with responsible governance. It reduces harm without expanding enforcement powers, increasing ticket quotas or growing bureaucracy. Dashcams encourage safe behaviour through transparency rather than coercion.

Dashcams also play a significant role in reducing insurance fraud, which remains a costly and underacknowledged problem. Insurance industry data indicates that fraudulent or exaggerated auto claims, again, cost Canadians billions of dollars annually, costs that are ultimately borne by honest drivers with higher premiums.

When dashcam footage is available, the insurers consistently report faster, more accurate fault determination, fewer disputed claims and a measurable decline in staged or false collision claims. Claims supported by video evidence are often resolved weeks faster than those without it. Faster resolution, of course, reduces administration costs, legal expenses and stress for drivers. From our perspective, that is a fairness issue. Responsible drivers should not be subsidizing fraudulent behaviour.

Dashcams also enhance safety outcomes from law enforcement and first responders. What’s the first thing that police ask when there’s a crash? “Has anyone got any dashcam footage?” Police officers investigating collisions benefit from immediate, objective evidence. Dashcam footage allows investigators to reconstruct events accurately and efficiently, reducing reliance on conflicting statements or speculation.

Jurisdictions that rely more heavily on in-vehicle video report shorter investigation times, higher case resolution rates and a greater consistency in enforcement decisions. This protects our officers from false allegations and strengthens public confidence that enforcement decisions are grounded in fact.

In serious or fatal collisions, video evidence can be decisive in ensuring responsibility is assigned correctly and justice is served. And for victims and families, dashcam footage can provide clarity and closure. In cases where there’s no independent witnesses, video evidence may be the only reliable account of what actually occurred. That clarity can prevent years of litigation, uncertainty and emotional distress.

[11:05 a.m.]

Committee members should also consider vulnerable road users. We have pedestrians, cyclists and motorcyclists who are disproportionately represented in serious and fatal collisions. National collision data consistently shows that these groups account

uncertainty and emotional distress.

Committee members should also consider vulnerable road users. We have pedestrians, cyclists and motorcyclists who are disproportionately represented in serious and fatal collisions. National collision data consistently shows that these groups account for a much higher share of fatalities relative to their exposure on the road.

When incidents involving those users occur, fault is often hotly disputed. Dashcams provide an objective record that protects those vulnerable road users and ensures that accountability is based on facts rather than assumptions.

Again, let me address concerns raised before this committee on privacy. Our B.C. Conservatives take civil liberties seriously, as all of us do. Any legislation involving recording technology must be carefully constrained, but it is essential to be precise.

Bill 217 does not create government surveillance. Dashcams are owned and operated by drivers and those companies. Footage is not automatically transmitted to the government. Access can be strictly limited through regulation to determine circumstances such as collision investigations, court proceedings or voluntary disclosure by the owner, as is happening already today.

With clear rules governing access, retention and penalties for misuse, privacy and safety can coexist. This committee has both the opportunity and the responsibility to ensure those safeguards are robust.

Secondly, affordability. Dashcam technology today is affordable, reliable and widely available. A reliable device costs a fraction of a single insurance deductible, traffic fine or legal dispute. For commercial operators, dashcams are already standard practice because they reduce liability and improve the safety culture in our trucking industry. The true cost to British Columbians is not the camera; it’s the preventable injuries, fatalities and rising insurance premiums.

Committee members should also consider the broader cultural impact of this legislation. Public frustration with aggression and distracted driving is growing. Surveys consistently show that drivers feel less safe on our roads than they did a decade ago. Enforcement alone cannot solve this problem. Education alone cannot solve this problem. Accountability must be part of the solution.

Dashcams reinforce responsibility in a neutral, non-confrontational way. They encourage safer behaviour without expanding our enforcement powers. They help restore a culture of respect and responsibility on our shared public roads. This is a bipartisan approach to public safety, empowering individuals, reinforcing responsibility and relying on evidence rather than assumptions.

Finally, we should consider precedent. Seatbelt laws, impaired driving enforcement and commercial vehicle safety standards were all controversial when they were first introduced. Each faced claims of overreach. Each ultimately saved lives. Mandatory dashcams follow the same trajectory — modern technology applied to a long-standing safety challenge.

Bill 217 does not expand government for its own sake. It modernizes road safety policy. It strengthens accountability, reduces costs and prevents harm. Safety is not partisan, responsibility is not partisan, and truth is not partisan.

As members of this committee, please support Bill 217 and encourage my colleagues here to advance it thoughtfully and responsibly, with strong privacy protections, so that it can fulfill its core purpose: safer roads, clear accountability, lower costs and fewer preventable accidents and tragedies for British Columbians and their families.

Amna Shah (Chair): Thank you very much, MLA Stamer, for your presentation. We will now open it up to questions from the committee.

Hon Chan: Thank you, Ward. I just have one question regarding…. I believe I heard that from our — I don’t want to say debate — discussion in the chamber, mentioning: “How do we keep those footages?” In this bill, it doesn’t say where we maintain or for how long we maintain the footage. Some mention about: do you upload it to the cloud? Or can you technically just keep it locally, just like what I do with my dashcam? I just keep it in my own local dashcam or computer.

It doesn’t say how long we have to maintain the footage for. Also, it doesn’t say…. Maybe if you are involved in an accident, you have to keep it for six months. If you’re not, then you keep the footage for one week, maybe, because it’s commercial. I don’t know.

[11:10 a.m.]

Is that under section 4, where the LG in Council can just do anything into how long you keep the footage for? Or do you want to make an amendment to add that clarity?

Ward Stamer: Thanks very much, committee member.

One week, maybe, because it’s commercial, I don’t know. Is that under section 4 where the LG in Council can just do anything, like how long you keep the footage for? Or do you want to make an amendment to add that, just for clarity?

Ward Stamer: Thanks very much, committee member. I basically left it like that for the committee to decide for a recommendation to government, inasmuch as that’s an opportunity to have those conversations.

Many of the trucking firms actually store that on their cloud systems, because many of our trucking firms now have real-time data. With their GPS systems, they know exactly where their trucks are and how fast those trucks are travelling. They’re able, in real time, to almost see what their drivers are doing. Those are the progressive trucking firms. Those are the ones that are driving the statistics. Those are the ones that are showing us that there’s a reason why they wanted to put dashcams into those trucks.

The reason I didn’t put in a specific timeline is because, personally, I don’t know how long that data should be stored for. I also didn’t want to put a cumbersome amount of additional cost onto, possibly, some of the mom-and-pop-type commercial vehicles that may be encompassed in this legislation. As you notice, there wasn’t a specific GVW on what a “commercial vehicle” was.

So to me, as we had talked through the development of this, and even previously, when I brought it through SILGA and UBCM, that would probably be something for the motor vehicle branch to determine. Possibly, the low-hanging fruit would be our semi trucks.

In looking at the data that these companies have already been able to provide — whether it’s a timeline of how long the data is stored for, how it’s being stored, what the best way is for privacy and retention of it, like you said, for having that opportunity, if you needed that data six months down the road — is that even something that would be necessary?

Then also at how the implementation process would be: if many of the trucking firms are already implementing dashcams, it wouldn’t be that big of a leap for us to be able to put it into law and then add the other, smaller vehicles later — whether it was adding taxis and Ubers or adding pickups pulling a trailer for landscaping and those kinds of things.

That’s also one of the reasons to add that I didn’t ask for both ways. Even though in Canada there have been court challenges where it has been upheld that there is a duty to be able to have both public and rear-facing, I really didn’t want to go down that rabbit hole. I thought that it’s really meeting that.

The intent of the bill is to determine what’s going on in the public. The stuff that’s going on in the truck is a different story altogether. Maybe we’ll get there eventually, but at this point of time, I really didn’t want to have that entered into the discussion. Does that ask your question?

Hon Chan: Yes, totally.

Darlene Rotchford: I have a couple of questions. One of the things about your bill that was flagged for me was actually by some of the school districts. Within this legislation, would you assume that school buses would be under this?

Ward Stamer: Yes. If I could add to that, MLA Rotchford, transit buses already have dashcams. So the government has already decided to implement that tool. It’s already in the toolbox through our transit system.

I would think that it would just be a logical step. Again, if you think of a school bus, how many times have vehicles gone through when the flashing lights are on? How much better would that be for our law enforcement to be able to...?

You can imagine the risk when somebody does that. Again, the police can’t be in the in those zones all the time, but I know of school bus drivers being so frustrated, trying to do everything they can to keep their kids safe in getting off the bus — light flashing “stop” and everything else — when someone comes flying through there. I think it would just be another way of being able to make it safer for everyone.

Amna Shah (Chair): Do you have a follow-up?

Darlene Rotchford: I have a couple.... I had thought of kind of a national plan, because one of my concerns is what does it mean for people coming into the province, either from another province or from the U.S., transporting goods. How would you see that playing out?

Ward Stamer: Well, I think we talked a little bit about speed limiters. In most trucks, speed limiters can be done very quickly, but speed limiters are not mandatory across Canada. I mean only Quebec, Ontario and B.C. have speed limiters. So with the dashcams, again, I would think that there would be an implementation period. From what I understand, over half of the trucks already have dashcams. So I don’t think it would be that big of a leap to do that.

[11:15 a.m.]

The other thing is that we talked about incentives. I understand that that could be a bit of a leap where, if we incentivized companies that didn’t have dashcams — similar to like when you go to renew your insurance — they’d ask if you’ve got an avoidance collision system

So I don’t think it would be that big of a leap to do that.

The other thing is…. We talked about incentives — I understand that that could be a bit of a leap — where if we incentivized companies that didn’t have dashcams, similar to when you go to renew your insurance. They ask if you’ve got an avoidance collision system in your vehicle, and when you do, you get a reduction on your insurance rates.

Well, maybe there’s a way for us to do that, to say that, in that period of time, if you were implementing the dashcam, maybe there’s a bit of a rebate back in that process. At the end of the day, statistically, it will save ICBC money. And from what I can see, a half-decent night-vision dashcam with a decent memory on it, like at least three or four days, is between 200 and 250 bucks.

So that would be the other thing for the committee to decide. What would be the minimum requirements? You’d have to have something so somebody that has a $35 dashcam wouldn’t meet the standard.

Gavin Dew (Deputy Chair): I was actually just going to ask about that very subject, Ward. In the feedback we’ve received, there was a question around defining “camera” along with the necessary functions and capabilities. It sounds like you’re quite open to that.

Do you have, even as an initial pencil sketch, a thought in mind as to what that minimum threshold — that minimum definition of “what is a suitable camera?” — would be?

Ward Stamer: Again, I don’t, Gavin, but I would suggest, by looking at some of the….

Case in point, Munden Trucking. They’ve implemented this system for a long time. I would suggest feedback from some of those trucking firms because they would be able to determine not only the reliability of it but also the technology that would help you, whether it’s the amount of pixels or the camera and those kinds of things. And then I think that you could probably meet a minimum threshold on that point.

Then, of course, if you wanted something more elaborate, that would be up to the individual driver, the individual trucking firm.

Amna Shah (Chair): We’ll go back to Darlene.

Darlene Rotchford: I’ll let him ask because he may be asking the same question. If not, it’ll come back to me.

Gavin Dew (Deputy Chair): Yeah, sure. Thank you, Darlene. I appreciate that.

I might not be asking the same question. I was just going to ask…. Ward, you mentioned the insurance savings piece. I wanted to understand. Are you aware of jurisdictions or insurers who presently provide discounts to individuals or to trucking companies that use dashcams?

Ward Stamer: I do not. I do not, Gavin. But you know, even back to the precedent thing…. You know, I thought it would be something that would go quite quickly. I know that there was a bit of resistance, looking back at the numbers, when it was 2024, 2023, when it went through UBCM. I thought it would be fairly easy to get through.

I mean, there are obviously some hurdles, but there are a lot of jurisdictions where the insurance companies obviously are using the dashcam footage in their determination possibly for rates and for accidents. So it’s not something that’s unheard of.

Again, I think in B.C., we’ve been relatively proactive when you look at the challenges in our highway systems and our changing weather and things like that. I also think through subsequent governments, we’ve done a pretty good job in trying to adjust to new drivers, changing driving habits, automatic trucks versus standard vehicles, trying to adjust for those weather conditions.

I think this would just be one more tool for us to be able to make sure that not only the drivers are aware of that responsibility but also when we do have a situation, that we’d actually learn from it.

I’m sure some of us in this room have seen the B-train a couple of months ago that was down in the Lower Mainland that had got loaded with lumber. There were railway tracks. The truck went across the railway tracks, came to an intersection. Whether the truck had gone straight across or turned right, it had to stop. Well, the back trailer was hanging on the railway tracks.

Train came along, hit that, blew the lift of lumber all over. If there was a vehicle sitting right next to it, those people would have been dead.

I’m quite sure that from that dashcam footage, what was determined is that now that trucking configuration is longer than it was in the past. Probably the first thing they do when that driver shows up, maybe for the very first time, is put on the safety gear and: “How long is your truck? Oops, it’s too long. I can’t load the truck.” Driver doesn’t know because he’s never been there before.

So again, there’s your anecdotal evidence to show that we’re improving, you know, not only what happens on our roads but also all the way through, with having that data.

That answer your question?

[11:20 a.m.]

Gavin Dew: Yeah, thank you.

Ward Stamer: You’re welcome.

Darlene Rotchford: Okay, other question. So under five — we say about commitment — six months. It would be a big shift, right? It would be a change getting everyone on board, whether that’s school boards, your local government and then individual one…. Why six

Darlene Rotchford: Okay, another question. So under 5, you say about commitment of six months. It would be a big shift, right? It would be a change, getting everyone on board, whether that’s school boards, your local government and then individual one. Why six months? Why did you pick six months?

Ward Stamer: I didn’t pick six months. I just thought that that was something that maybe we could do. I thought that if we could do it through this legislative session…. I know this legislative session is going to be very busy, and I didn’t really want to put it on the back burner. I thought that there would be an opportunity. And then again, the implementation process, it might be a year. You know, it’s taken us this long to get this far. I was hoping that if we were proactive, maybe other jurisdictions would do as well.

I know from talking to Dave Earle from the B.C. Trucking Association, they’ve had conversations with their counterparts. I guess we might have to do some of the heavy lifting, but if we kind of figure it out here, I’m quite sure that they would duplicate it all the way across Canada. Because if it’s good enough in B.C., I’m quite sure it’ll be good enough across Canada. Does that make sense?

Amna Shah (Chair): I’m going to put myself on the list. I have a few questions. I’m wondering which commercial…. Actually, you don’t have to tell me which, but how many commercial motor vehicle operators or operator associations have you consulted with prior to the drafting of this bill?

Ward Stamer: Lots. Quite a few. Even with the B.C. Trucking Association I got a lot of stakeholders that I was able to contact. It’s unfortunate that we didn’t get as many back from that but I think it was also a pretty short timeline, not only because it was around Christmas but we didn’t really have a long time to be able to put the word out for those submissions.

I know there was some negativity around the cost, but again, we’re not looking at thousands of dollars for something like this.

Amna Shah (Chair): Yeah, and that’s what leads me to the question. I think what I’m trying to grapple with is typically with private member bills, we talk about them not spending from the public purse. In this case it doesn’t, but by that same principle there are costs that are offloaded to operators, some who may very well be already doing this or willing to do this in the future. Regardless of how much a system costs or doesn’t cost, how many vehicles are in a fleet or not in a fleet, there is cost. And especially in the case of this applying to, for example, school buses and the cost pressure on school districts.

Part of the other reason is because there’s not really an indication of how sophisticated the system should be. And so there’s a bit of vagueness in my mind about that part of it. I’m wondering if you could comment on the offloading of the costs, on, whether it be operators of commercial vehicles or school districts, and what we could foresee.

Ward Stamer: Thanks for the question. Well, again, I think we could probably pull some of the data over the last few years. Again, the numbers that I’m quoting aren’t just made up. You know, obviously there are reductions in insurance costs because of the dash cams. So again, whether we look at ways of not necessarily subsidizing it, but if you had a reduction….

Again, similar to an avoidance system in a vehicle, obviously they’ve proven that having that piece of equipment in your car — which is already built in and you’ve paid for it; it’s not standard equipment on that vehicle — you’re going to get a reduction in your insurance rates.

It’s no different than even with school buses. They still have to be insured. If the government or the ICBC determines that there’s going to be a savings by having dashcams, because obviously there is, then they could turn around and pass those savings on back to the school boards and charge them less for those insurance costs.

Amna Shah (Chair): But currently there is no cost savings for if you have dash cams, in your view.

Ward Stamer: No, there’s not. There’s not. But again, if you look at the data, if you’ve already implemented it into your system, you’re already saving, you’re having substantial savings because you’re getting less collisions, and you’re getting less insurance claims. So there is a built-in factor by having them.

[11:25 a.m.]

It will actually make things safer, and it will actually be cheaper in the long run. You may have to put the money out front. Again, if all of a sudden, like I said, if you go and insure your car today

you’re getting less collisions. You’re getting less insurance claims. So there is a built-in factor by having them. It will actually make things safer, and it will actually be cheaper in the long run.

You may have to put the money out front, but again, if all of a sudden…. Like I said, if you go and insure your car today and you have — what’s it called? — an avoidance system in your vehicle, you get a reduction in your insurance rate because it’s in your vehicle. It’d be no different with the dashcam. If we implemented that with ICBC and said, “With commercial trucks, if you have that dashcam in the truck, there will be a slight reduction in your insurance rates,” and you’d think, well, who ultimately pays for it? Well, if we have reduction in crashes, that will save us money in the long run.

Amna Shah (Chair): Yeah. I understand. I understand the concept. I’m just recognizing that currently there isn’t one. There aren’t cost savings that exist. So I just want to put that on the record.

I have two quick questions. You mentioned in your presentations that drivers feel less safe on our roads than they did ten years ago. Could you tell us where you got this from?

I’m just thinking. Like, there are more dashcams on our roads now than there ever were before. There are far more programs to reduce speed in communities, far more than there were ten years ago. There are lots of preventative action campaigns in our province than there were many years ago. I’m wondering. Why do you think drivers are feeling less safe on our roads now?

Ward Stamer: Well, you made a really good point. Many of our municipalities are reducing the speed limits from 50 kilometres to 30 kilometres on their streets. Do you think that’s in relationship to them feeling safer?

Amna Shah (Chair): I don’t know.

Ward Stamer: I would suggest the reason why they’re doing it is they feel less safe. That’s why they want to reduce the overall speed. It’s because they’re feeling less safe on their roads.

The data that I draw…. There was one poll…. I can pick up where it came from. What they’re showing is that people by and large feel it’s more unsafe on many of our roads — not all of our roads but many of our roads — because of aggressive driving.

Amna Shah (Chair): Okay. So given the fact that there are far more dash cameras today on our streets and being used in even regular vehicles and commercial vehicles, would you say that that…? Shouldn’t that impact the way that we perceive safety on our roads?

Ward Stamer: I think it’s a personal perception. I think that if you asked…. Again, I guess we could do a poll and find out ourselves, but I would think that most people don’t think that it’s safer on our highways than it was before. You know, we’ve increased our speed limits. I would think, especially on the corridor where I am, the stuff that I’ve seen on the dashcams…. It doesn’t seem like drivers are really changing their behaviour that much.

Amna Shah (Chair): So dashcams may not, then, make our roads safer?

Ward Stamer: No, I wouldn’t agree with that. I still think that they will make it safer because statistics show that they will. But I still think there’s a lot of bad behaviour going on out there, and this might just be one way of trying to prevent, you know, an accident from occurring.

I’ll give you an example. As a driver, you have a professional responsibility, regardless of how long you’ve been on the road and whether the parameters are 12 hours or 14 hours. If you’re feeling tired, you’re supposed to pull over. Now, if you had a dashcam and the dashcam was consistently showing you travelling over the yellow line because you were getting tired, would you worry about that data affecting you? Or would you think that that wasn’t a big deal?

I mean, if it was me, I would think: “Gee, I wouldn’t really want somebody filming my bad behaviour because if all of a sudden I come around a corner and hit somebody, it’s going to be proven that it was my responsibility in that crash.”

I think that’s what some of these trucking firms have found. By having the dashcams, reinforcing it through their safe work procedures, it’s made their drivers feel safer. They drive safer, and overall it’s a safer environment.

Amna Shah (Chair): One last question. In your opinion, what do you think the penalties would be? I mean, the bill says that the operator of a commercial vehicle must ensure that the dashboard camera in the commercial vehicle is recording at all times and also is not obstructed or prevented from recording. What do you think would be…?

[11:30 a.m.]

Ward Stamer: Again, I think that was one of the things that I left for the committee to decide. A case in point was if you shut your speed log off or your log off on your truck. I don’t know what the enforcement on that fine is. In other words, if you all of a sudden stop that electronic log so that if CVSE comes along and can’t determine how long you’ve been in that truck because

I left it for the committee to decide. But a case in point was that if you shut your log off on your truck…. I don’t know what the enforcement on that fine is. So in other words, if you all of a sudden stop that electronic log so that if CVSE comes along and can’t determine how long you’ve been in that truck…. You can’t turn them off.

I would think that that’s probably a substantial penalty. It could be similar to that.

Gavin Dew (Deputy Chair): I have three, I hope, quite quick questions that I’ll ask.

Ward, the first is: do you envision that people would be required to provide their dashcam recordings in the case of an accident? Are there current requirements around that? How would that work?

Obviously, some of the value of these recordings would be for investigative purposes. I’m just trying to understand whether there’s any compulsion to provide the content.

Ward Stamer: Well, I think committee member Begg would be able to substantiate the fact that they can subpoena that evidence already. As a person in the public, or a commercial driver, you can either offer it up voluntarily or it could be subpoenaed.

Again, that was back to the timeline. That might be something to talk with the Solicitor General on to be able to determine what would be appropriate in those situations and what they are seeing typically, now, in that evidence-gathering, inasmuch as: should it be three days, four days, seven days?

Case in point. You could have a crash. It could be a truck way away in the intersection. The truck’s halfway to Toronto. So it might take a couple of days to even track the truck down in the first place.

Gavin Dew (Deputy Chair): With the indulgence of the Chair. can I ask MLA Begg to weigh in on that?

Garry Begg: It’s a good point. There are civil and criminal implications on both parties. So if you were in a motor vehicle accident, and there was a recording of it, civilly you would be required to produce. It’s called best evidence rule. So it applies in both cases, like Ward said.

Gavin Dew (Deputy Chair): I appreciate that. That’s very helpful. So effectively there’s some implicit knock-on effect, but it’s not explicitly mentioned in the legislation.

Just another piece which has been mentioned in feedback to us. I’ve heard you say both one-on-one and in here today that you don’t envision that this would add any requirement around inward-facing cameras. I just wanted to confirm that you would have no problem if there were an amendment to the bill that specified it did not include inward-facing cameras in order to alleviate that concern.

Ward Stamer: Absolutely. The reason why I did is I didn’t really want to get into that debate. Even though, in other places in Canada, it’s been proven that there is a government responsibility or law to be able to allow that, I just didn’t even want to get to that point as a sticking point for not allowing the bill to go forward in the first place.

Gavin Dew (Deputy Chair): Thank you. My third question. You just mentioned a couple of statistics around a 40 to 60 percent reduction of bad behaviours on the road where dashcams were present. I’m just trying to understand. My sense, from what I’ve done to canvass industry on this, is that most of what I would characterize as good actors, progressive firms in the industry, those companies that have an active culture of safety, are, in many cases, already choosing to implement dashcams.

So is it reasonable and fair to say that part of the objective here is effectively to encourage laggards, relatively speaking, to catch up with what is already becoming kind of the leading progressive culture in the industry around safety?

Ward Stamer: Agreed. I think I agree with that statement. I mean, it’s very similar to those incidents that have been happening in the Lower Mainland with the dump trucks and then to find out that one of the companies has had multiple infractions. Then, when the suspension of the licence occurred, they tried to go to Calgary or to another jurisdiction and get a different licence.

Those are the ones — you’re right — that maybe we just need to be able to push them just a little bit harder in that enforcement side of things and make it easier for the boots on the ground to be able to make sure that they’re doing what they’re supposed to be doing in the first place.

Gavin Dew (Deputy Chair): Thanks, Ward.

Ward Stamer: You’re welcome.

Gavin Dew (Deputy Chair): All done.

Amna Shah (Chair): All right. Thank you so much, MLA Stamer, for being here today.

Our next item is in-camera deliberations. Maybe I’ll give Ward some time.

Ward Stamer: Thank you, Madam Chair.

Amna Shah (Chair): Thank you so much.

Maybe I’ll just ask for a motion to go in-camera now.

Motion approved.

The committee continued in camera at 11:35 a.m.

The committee continued in open session at 12:08 p.m.

[Amna Shah in the chair.]

Amna Shah (Chair): Committee is now in public session. Motion to adjourn, please.

Motion approved.

The committee adjourned at 12:08 p.m.

Amna Shah (Chair): This committee is now adjourned.