The committee met at 8:06 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, an all-party committee of the Legislative Assembly.

I’d 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 Peoples now known as the Songhees and Esquimalt Nations.

The purpose of today’s meeting is to conduct in-camera deliberations, receive additional presentations on Bill M214, the Firefighters’ Health Act, and then to continue to clause-by-clause consideration of that bill.

Before we move on to our agenda items, I’d like to provide an update on our committee’s work.

At our last meeting, we received presentations on Bill M217, Dashboard Cameras in Commercial Vehicles Act, and heard from the sponsor of Bill M216, Professional Reliance Act. I expect that our consideration of both bills will continue in the coming weeks, and our committee is required to report back on Bill M216 by May 6 and on Bill M217 by May 21.

The opportunity to provide a written submission on Bill M226, Motor Vehicle Amendment Act (No. 2), 2025, closed yesterday. Members will be reviewing the written submissions and will continue our consideration of the bill at an upcoming meeting. The written submissions on the bill will be posted on our website in the coming days.

Additionally, the committee is accepting written input on two bills. Members will recall that on Monday, another bill was committed to our committee, Bill M232, Long-Term Care Access and Transparency Act. We are accepting written submissions on that bill until Tuesday, March 24, and we are also still accepting written input on Bill M231, Veterans and First Responders Month Act, until Tuesday, March 17. To participate in those consultations, please visit our website at bcleg.ca/consultations.

Moving on to today’s agenda, and just before we proceed in camera, I understand that the Deputy Chair has a motion to put forward.

Gavin Dew (Deputy Chair): Obviously, our in-camera conversation will be about the next steps for Bill M216. In advance of getting into a long conversation about presentations, I do just want to bring a motion:

[That the Select Standing Committee on Private Bills and Private Members’ Bills recommend to the Legislative Assembly that Bill M 216, Professional Reliance Act not proceed further.]

Amna Shah (Chair): Is there any debate?

Darlene Rotchford: Yeah. I hear MLA Dew’s conversation. There’s a lot of debate back and forth, and because there’s a lot of debate back and forth and there was a lot of correspondence, I do think we need to move forward with presentations to hear a mix of those people who are currently supporting it, those who don’t, and some of the concerns.

[8:10 a.m.]

For myself, I’m hearing those concerns and whatnot, but I also potentially see something moving forward and really want to hear from the Ministry of Housing as well and a few others about it before I can actually make a decision on that bill.

Susie Chant: I had the opportunity yesterday when I was in with the real estate folks and the developers and the builders group, that breakfast yesterday…. I actually I asked them what they thought

and a few others about it before I can actually make a decision on that bill.

Susie Chant: I had the opportunity yesterday when I was in with the real estate folks and the developers and the builders group, that breakfast yesterday…. I actually asked them what they thought of Bill M216. From their perspective, they were quite keen on it, the reason being that they felt quite concerned that on occasions, things would be submitted that were by engineers and everything else and it would be reviewed by somebody who was not necessarily an engineer and then sent back for revision.

That’s another $10,000 and, you know: “Can you move this doorway over here?” “Well, no, we can’t. It’s a load-bearing wall.” The person who’s doing the review isn’t actually an engineer or an architect or whatever. So they find it really, really frustrating.

What will happen is…. I’m going to use a rec centre as an example — this is not a live example — a recreation centre that was designed according to all the input by a municipality. They send the design in, and lo and behold, somebody reviews it that is not an engineer, not an architect or whatever, and sends it back. “We need the bathroom moved over here,” which means the whole thing has to be redone again. They’re not looking at it with the eyes of a person who is trained in that area.

Also, the other piece of it is when they do have somebody that’s an engineer or whatever doing the review, the cost keeps going up. So they were feeling very concerned that…. This bill may have some merit and may be the catalyst to start changing how some of this work goes. They’re saying it’s two, three, four, five years between buying a piece of land and getting it ready to go and the time they actually can get shovels in the ground, by which time things have changed so much that they have to redo the infrastructure that was maybe put in. They said it’s crazy making.

Anyway, that was the input that I got from a group of people yesterday, as a matter of fact.

Jeremy Valeriote: I’m a bit torn. I appreciate the member for bringing this motion forward because it is very worthy of consideration. I’m a bit torn. People have made a huge amount of effort to make written submissions, and they’ve volunteered to present. There is some advantage to hearing them out in a way that maybe there is something that can be salvaged from this bill, quite frankly.

On the other hand, there are so many flaws, and the sponsor is now bringing amendments to us in a presentation form but has no standing to put forward those amendments.

I think there are other ways to streamline, to find these efficiencies. I absolutely understand, and I don’t love some of the stories we’ve heard about the do loop, but it does feel like a municipal affair. I feel like the province has imposed a lot of new housing regulations in the last two years. This one, where a municipality must accept, really takes away a lot of autonomy.

I’m going to listen with an open mind, but at this point, I’m inclined to vote in favour of the motion and some mechanism…. I’ll ask the Clerk and the Chair. Perhaps if there’s some mechanism to send this all back to the Ministry of Housing and see if they can make something of it. But I feel at this point, at the private member’s level, this is not the way to go forward.

We could spend a dozen hours on this and still not have a bill that’s salvageable.

Hon Chan: I hear both sides. MLA Chant mentioned…. I actually asked the same group of people the same question. There are some pros, obviously. However, the cons do appear to them as well.

We did the consultation process. Just remember that the presentation is just an add-on. It’s not a full consultation. We had a consultation period for over a month, and we even actually extended it. I think we actually got quite a bit of suggestions from the public and from the municipalities and from the industry. It’s not like we didn’t hear anything. We did hear from almost 500 submissions.

[8:15 a.m.]

I personally did not go through all 500, but I did go through quite a bit of them. So saying that we did not consult the public and we rely on presentation is unfair because people actually took the time to put out online submissions to us. I think we have the duty to

I did go through quite a bit of them. Saying that we did not consult the public and we rely on the presentations is unfair, because people actually took the time to actually put online submissions to us. I think we have the duty to review them, and we should have to.

With the submissions, we did mention last week that there are a vast majority. We’re talking about almost 90 percent of the people. And these people are just not…. It’s not just general public. We’re talking about municipalities. They’re professionals. It’s from their engineering, permits department. They are the professionals, not us, actually. We only have, what, a few hours of time to debate such a very complex bill?

I kind of agree with Jeremy. This bill is flawed. I think we all agree on that. But using the words “too savage” is already kind of too far to a point that we actually should pass a bill like that. I think there are some points that we can actually take from this bill. We should actually ask the Minister of Housing, and maybe they can come up with something more comprehensive. By that time, I think I would be happy to support that.

But at this stage, I think we should not waste the private member bill committee. We have four, five, six, seven more bills coming in. We should make use of our time much more efficiently and much more usefully. I think we should support just getting rid of this for now.

Gavin Dew: I also share mixed views on the bill. I think certainly in reviewing all the feedback there are people that have indicated that they’re supportive of the intent of the bill, but there are a lot of problems with the way the bill has been brought forward. The lack of consultation. Frankly, the lack of engagement and buy-in from the Ministry of Housing who are responsible for balancing a wide range of competing priorities and policy directions.

I would say the premise that people have made effort and that we should hear them is a strong one. That’s why I brought a motion at the last meeting to extend the presentation time to eight hours, and that motion did not pass. We’ve now got ourselves down to the point where we would be taking a very limited number of presentations for a fairly limited amount of time. We would be attempting to reconcile changes to a bill that, frankly, is of a complexity that it probably should have been a government bill proceeding from the Ministry of Housing through all of the right processes with consultation.

I really don’t see a scenario where this bill is salvaged. If in fact this bill is sent back to the main House, there’s a good probability it gets referred back over to the Ministry of Housing and after we’ve spent numerous meetings going in circles on it.

I think that MLA Anderson is proud of the work that he’s put forward. He’s proud of the conversation that it has started. Yes, there has been significant negative feedback, 88 percent negative. I don’t think that that feedback is entirely because of the intent of the bill. I think it’s about the way the bill was brought forward. I think it’s about the lack of consultation.

I mean, what I’m looking to try to accomplish here is to prevent us from spending several meetings going in circles on a bill that I ultimately don’t believe will actually go anywhere in its current form. From a process perspective, we don’t have the ability within this committee, as I understand it, to refer the bill to the Ministry of Housing. It has to proceed through the entirety of our process, go back to the House and then be referred.

With that said, we’re all people that are capable of having conversations with others in the Legislature. This bill has been the subject of considerable discussion, media coverage, discussion among stakeholders. I don’t think it would be any surprise to the Minister of Housing to learn that there is frustration, that there is in some cases resistance, in some cases support for the basic ideas of the bill. I think that, for example, it would be possible for us to pass this motion, recommend the bill not proceed further. Should we choose as a committee, we could perhaps send some formal correspondence to the minister indicating we’d like them to have that conversation or we can capture the hallway and have that conversation.

But I think we are frankly wasting our time and sending the wrong signal in terms of future bills being brought forward if we allow this quagmire to continue. So as such I would recommend that everybody vote to have this bill not proceed further.

Amna Shah (Chair): Before I go to Jeremy, just to answer the initial question about mechanisms. The terms of reference for this committee and in terms of what outcomes are possible is to either pass a bill without amendments, to pass a bill with amendments or to recommend that the bill not proceed.

[8:20 a.m.]

I suppose in short form it’s not possible under the current terms of reference to send it to Housing and then bring it back, etc. Just to answer that that question.

Jeremy Valeriote: That was going to be my question, just to clarify that

will not proceed. So I suppose in short form it’s not possible, under the current terms of reference, to send it to Housing and then bring it back, etc. — just to answer that question.

Jeremy Valeriote: That was going to be my question, just to clarify that on the record. So we either pass it or we don’t proceed. But as Gavin mentioned, correspondence to the Minister of Housing — “Here’s the package of 500 submissions; here’s the intent; maybe it can become a government bill” — that’ll be up to the Ministry of Housing. Or maybe at some future.... That’s helpful to know. If we can’t refer it from here, then we’re either digging into it on a multiple-meeting basis or we’re not.

Susie Chant: Just to clarify among those choices, where, in the process that this committee has established, do we make a decision not to proceed with a bill? Is it anywhere within the process? Or do we go through reviewing stuff and then make a decision? How does that work, please?

Amna Shah (Chair): It is entirely in the committee’s hands as to what it chooses to do with a bill. Traditionally and historically speaking, in the work of this committee, the passage of bills has gone through all of the associated processes that were pre-agreed upon shortly after this committee was struck. That means having gone through all of the process and procedures in this committee. Does that help at all?

Susie Chant: Okay. My concern is that there’s no particular point where we say go or no, go or stay.

Amna Shah (Chair): It’s entirely in the committee’s hands at any point. I just gave a sense of how we’ve typically done things in the committee since its inception.

George Chow: Yes. I think last session we turned down to study this bill for another eight hours, but I don’t mind actually listening to some of the presentations that we were discussing before we were voting, on that bill, on spending up to eight hours. I would like the committee to decide on choosing some presenters to present to us and, maybe, spend another few hours, three hours, on it. Then that would be it.

Darlene Rotchford: I have a question on the terms of reference, for my own purpose. Were the terms of reference agreed upon by both sides of the House? Or were they terms of reference that were created, before this committee was struck, through the Clerk’s office?

Amna Shah (Chair): They were adopted by the Legislative Assembly.

Darlene Rotchford: So if we wanted to change that process a little bit, not here but down the road, would that have to go back to the floor? Or would it...?

Amna Shah (Chair): Yeah. So in terms of any changes to the terms of reference of the committee, that would be brought forth in the form of a motion from the Government House Leader in the Legislative Assembly.

Darlene Rotchford: Okay, great. Thank you.

Amna Shah (Chair): All right. I don’t see any further discussion. So I will now just call the vote.

Division has been called.

The question is that the Select Standing Committee on Private Bills and Private Members’ Bills recommend to the Legislative Assembly that Bill M216, Professional Reliance Act, not proceed further.

Motion negatived on the following division: YEAS — 3, NAYS — 3.

[8:25 a.m.]

Amna Shah (Chair): Seeing that the votes are equal, it is my responsibility as Chair to provide a casting vote. In keeping with the principle of allowing for further discussion, I vote against the motion, and the motion is defeated.

Motion negatived on the following division: YEAS — 3, NAYS — 3.

Amna Shah (Chair): Seeing that the votes are equal, it is my responsibility as Chair to provide a casting vote. In keeping with the principle of allowing for further discussion, I vote against the motion. The motion is defeated.

Now, moving on to today’s agenda, the committee will be proceeding to in-camera deliberations. I will ask for a motion to go in camera.

Motion approved.

The committee continued in camera from 8:25 a.m. to 9:20 a.m.

[Amna Shah in the chair.]

Amna Shah (Chair): Thank you, Members. We will now take a brief recess until 9:30.

The committee recessed from 9:20 a.m. to 9:33 a.m.

The committee recessed from 9:20 a.m. to 9:33 a.m.

[Amna Shah in the chair.]

Amna Shah (Chair): Welcome back, members. Our next agenda item today is presentations on Bill M214, Firefighters’ Health Act. We will begin with the Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General. We’re joined by Alistair Cochrane, executive director of the office of the fire commissioner.

Welcome to you, Mr. Cochrane. As a reminder, you have up to five minutes to present to the committee, followed by ten minutes of questions from committee members. You’ll see a timer on the screen to assist you with timekeeping. We are ready whenever you are.

Presentations on Bills

Bill M214 — Firefighters’ Health Act

Alistair Cochrane: Thank you, Madam Chair and committee members, for the opportunity to speak to this bill. As mentioned, my name is Alistair Cochrane. I’m the executive director with the corporate strategic initiatives branch and the office of the fire commissioner — or OFC, which I’ll use throughout — with the Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor General.

As a bit of background, the OFC’s mandate is about protecting people and communities, as set out in the Fire Safety Act, reducing the loss of life, injury and property damage from fire hazards. We are the lead provincial agency for fire prevention in British Columbia. We do this work in close coordination with local governments, fire services and a wide range of partner organizations across the province.

We are also responsible for managing the provincial fire incident data reporting system, which helps inform prevention efforts, policy decisions and improvements to fire safety over time. Under legislation, we set the minimum training standards for fire inspectors, fire investigators and fire service personnel, with a particular focus on structural firefighters.

[9:35 a.m.]

In addition, we have a legislated role to provide information, advice and recommendations to fire departments and local authorities on fire suppression, including the establishment and operation of fire departments; to the public, fire departments and local authorities on fire prevention; and to local authorities with respect to fire prevention and fire suppression bylaws.

to provide information, advice and recommendations to fire departments and local authorities on fire suppression, including the establishment and operation of fire departments; to the public, fire departments and local authorities on fire prevention; and to local authorities with respect to fire prevention and fire suppression bylaws.

We appreciate the committee’s consideration in allowing us to address this bill. The health, safety and well-being of firefighters within the province remains a matter of significant importance. The OFC is supportive of the intent of this legislation and its acknowledgement of the health risks that firefighters are exposed to in the course of their duties.

My comments today are focused on the proposed amendments to clause 2(1), clause 4(1) and clause 5(1), specifically the named inclusion of the minister responsible for the Fire Safety Act; the Fire Chiefs Association of British Columbia, or FCABC; and the B.C. Professional Fire Fighters Association, BCPFFA.

The OFC is pleased to partner with FCABC and the BCPFFA, establishing robust relationships through joint initiatives that advance fire safety, improve fire training and support advocacy efforts across the province. However, as mentioned by our colleagues in the Ministry of Labour, it’s unusual for specific organizations to be named in legislation of this nature.

I do want to be very clear that we support the work of these organizations, and we highly value their contributions to fire safety in the province. The OFC, as the lead agency responsible for the Fire Safety Act, regularly consults with BCPFFA and FCABC, as well as additional fire-related organizations, such as the British Columbia Fire Training Officers Association, the Volunteer Firefighters Association of British Columbia, the Greater Vancouver Fire Chiefs Association and interjurisdictionally, as part of the Council of Canadian Fire Marshals and Fire Commissioners, among others.

Instead of naming specific organizations within the legislation, it may be more effective to continue to refer to “the minister responsible for the Fire Safety Act” as listed and remove those specific references to the BCPFFA and FCABC ,while maintaining those references to consultation. As key partners, both organizations would be consulted by the OFC, but removing their specific references allows for the inclusion of additional current or future organizations. This also enables the OFC to address or resolve any conflicts or disputes arising from consultation prior to the plan being presented by the minister.

As previously stated, the OFC maintains a strong partnership with these organizations and fully supports their ongoing efforts to safeguard firefighters’ health and safety within the province. The amendments we propose are not intended to diminish or challenge the valuable contributions of these organizations. Instead, our recommendation addresses what we perceive as an unconventional drafting practice and the potential exclusion of other important partners.

So to summarize, the OFC is supportive of the intent of this bill and the work of the FCABC and the BCPFFA. However, we want to ensure that any unintended consequences in the drafting process are addressed.

And with that, I will close and invite any questions.

Susie Chant: Just out of curiosity. I heard health, safety, training — all those good things. Does your office have anything to do with standards of gear? I mean, one of the things is the turnout gear and the impact of turnout gear on the health of folks. Is that within your jurisdiction, or is that somewhere else?

Alistair Cochrane: Thank you for the question. No, not the OFC. Certainly we’re aware of these standards and can educate fire departments if they ask us questions on it, but oversight of those standards is not within the OFC’s mandate.

Amna Shah (Chair): Are there further questions from members?

Gavin Dew (Deputy Chair): Thank you very much, Alistair. Appreciate your note around typical approach to consultation and the inclusion in legislation.

Just to make sure I fully understand what you’re suggesting…. What you are suggesting would be a suitable fix to that amendment would effectively be to strike out everything after “consultation” up to “develop a plan.” Is that what you’re suggesting would be your approach?

Alistair Cochrane: Which…?

Gavin Dew (Deputy Chair): Sorry. I’m referring to clause 2(1).

Alistair Cochrane: Generally speaking, I would say our only concern is on specifically naming those organizations. So I certainly would say inclusion of “the minister responsible for the Fire Safety Act” and “in consultation with fire departments.”

Gavin Dew (Deputy Chair): In consultation. Period.

Alistair Cochrane: Period. That would be perfect. Yeah.

[9:40 a.m.]

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

All right, seeing none, thank you so much, Alistair. Appreciate your time today. Have a great one.

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

Seeing none, thank you so much, Alistair. Appreciate your time today. Have a great one.

All right. We’ll just take a one-minute recess so we can get set up for the next presenters. Thanks.

The committee recessed from 9:40 a.m. to 9:41 a.m.

[Amna Shah in the chair.]

Amna Shah (Chair): All right. Welcome back, Members.

Next we are joined by Associate Deputy Minister Ian Meier, from the Ministry of Forests, and Assistant Deputy Minister Rob Schweitzer, from the B.C. wildfire service. Welcome to both of you.

As a reminder, you have up to five minutes to present to the committee. There is a timer here to assist you with your time, and we are ready when you are.

Ministry of Forests

Ian Meier: I want to thank you for the opportunity for Rob and I to come and speak with you today. I’ll start off with giving a bit of context around the Ministry of Forests in general, and then Rob will dive into the details around what our firefighters are seeing today.

The Ministry of Forests is made up of seven divisions, one of which is the B.C. wildfire service. So the B.C. wildfire service is nested inside the Ministry of Forests. The ministry holds the overarching accountability for wildfire and wildfire management. However, the B.C. wildfire service is the lead agency. We really do operate in a very integrated manner.

The B.C. wildfire service is also considered an all-hazards response agency, meaning we respond to floods, landslides or any other emergency support that, really, is driven by the Ministry of Emergency Management and Climate Readiness. We support them in a big way there.

Over the last few years, since 2017, BCWS has been able to grow considerably. We are currently made up of 600 permanent personnel, 300 seasonal personnel in support roles and approximately 1,300 auxiliary and full-time firefighters, for a total of 2,200 personnel in the B.C. wildfire service.

Our firefighters start off as auxiliary employees. Their terms are up to nine months in duration each year. Then they get recall status, and they can come back each year. It takes about, on average, ten years for a firefighter to move up the ranks into the first full-time position, which is a crew leader position on our crews.

The organization, since 2017, has evolved significantly from a back country–only firefighting agency to really a front country organization. We interface and integrate with structural departments each year more and more. Our integration with structural departments is integral to our success.

Not only are we in the wildland-urban interface a lot more, we are now on the world stage. We just had a team come back from Australia, a successful deployment there.

[9:45 a.m.]

We do have strong relationships and right down to a working-plan stage with the state of California, and we are also working with Oregon and Washington states. Not only across Canada, but we are definitely north-south, along the west coast, very aligned with our partner agencies.

plan stage with the state of California, and we are also working with Oregon and Washington state — not only across Canada. We are definitely north-south, along the west coast, very aligned with our partner agencies.

I’ll stop there and get Rob to hop into more of the details of what our firefighters are facing on the line.

Rob Schweitzer: Thank you, Ian.

In the B.C. wildfire service, the wildland firefighters typically manage wildfires by setting up pumps, removing fuel in the fire’s path, using chainsaws, pulaski shovels and digging fireguards to contain or extinguish wildland fires as part of their normal course of work, including falling danger trees.

Wildfire fighters are exposed to numerous confirmed carcinogens, such as crystalline silica, benzene, formaldehyde and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, which are short for PAHs. They work long hours in remote and extreme environments, which contribute to carcinogen exposure burden because of the duration and the frequency. They work up to 16 hours a day for 100 days on the fire line a year.

They don’t have the ability to conduct thorough and comprehensive decontamination procedures, like their structural firefighter partners. Really, the work they do is incompatible with a lot of the turnout gear or the full respiratory gear that you see in structural fire departments.

In the B.C. wildfire service, we are working on researching exposure, presumptive disease and by doing respiratory…. We provide respiratory protection, masks, to all staff starting in 2024. We’re doing foundational research conducted on related exposures, including smoke, carbon monoxide, the polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and skin exposure; ongoing collaboration with universities to study those exposures and impacts; the continuous assessment of new personal protective equipment and monitoring devices; and hygiene education developed with occupational hygienists to reduce the risks.

A final few pieces before my time is up. Really, there’s also a major focus for wildland firefighting on mental health and resiliency. We’ve done a lot of partnerships and training on that and have also established a lot of support networks for our wildland firefighters.

With that, my time is up.

Amna Shah (Chair): Great.

Are there any questions?

Susie Chant: Something that just caught my attention just then was the ongoing studies with universities. Has the data come in from that? Have we seen any compilation or any aggregate data from the various studies that have been done?

One of the things that we’ve been hearing is there’s not a lot of information around wildfire fighters. But what I’m hearing from you is there is some work being done, but where is the result of that work? And has it been looked at in conjunction with what we’re doing with the firefighters?

Rob Schweitzer: Yeah, it is very true that there’s been very little research done on wildland firefighters around the world. I would say here in B.C., we’re probably leading Canada in doing that research with universities. It is still pretty preliminary, but the findings, even preliminary, are really showing that those exposures that we suspected were occurring are occurring, through blood and urine samples of our staff.

The sample size is pretty small, but it’s all starting to tell us that our staff are not only being exposed through smoke from breathing in but also exposure on the skin, and how important some of the procedures are that structural departments are doing around decontamination, washing your gear, washing your trucks. We’re trying to instill that into our operational practices.

Again, it’s so much different in wildland firefighting because you’re not going back to the hall at the end of each night. You’re typically camping out for two weeks at a time on a fire line. You don’t have access to a shower or clean clothes.

Those are all things that we’re really focused in on. I think what we’re finding from our structural partners is there’s a general recognition now that the exposure levels are as significant if not more significant than what structural firefighters are seeing.

Jeremy Valeriote: Thank you for the information.

We’re struggling with an amendment that is, you know, for volunteer firefighters at least ten years of service. Forest fighter originally was ten years of service. We’ve got an amendment to talk about 60 months, which is sort of five full-time years.

[9:50 a.m.]

BCGEU is recommending five seasons, which I guess is about the 100 days you mentioned, or age 40.

It doesn’t sound like there’s enough data. It’s great that we are working on that, but I would suspect a concrete statistical answer is a decade away. May I

BCGEU is recommending five seasons, which I guess is about the 100 days you mentioned, or age 40.

It doesn’t sound like there’s enough data. It’s great that we are working on that, but I would suspect a concrete statistical answer is a decade away.

May I ask, Rob, your recommendation would be under kind of a precautionary principle to make this a suitable kind of time frame for wildland firefighters?

Rob Schweitzer: Yeah. I think the five-year mark is certainly a reasonable one. The one thing that I would point out that is slightly different with wildland firefighters, which I’ve already kind of touched on, is the structural departments. They will go to a few calls a month. Our staff will go to 100 calls a year or spend 100 days a year in that sort of environment. So I think by targeting something lower than the 10 years like you’re suggesting in your amendment is certainly reasonable.

Ian Meier: Just want to hop on. The concentrated nature is really the key here. So 100 days is over a short amount of time, not 100 days over 12 months. So the cumulative effects are considerable.

Amna Shah (Chair): Hon?

Hon Chan: Actually, they just answered about the intensity. That’s what I was….

Amna Shah (Chair): Right. Susie?

Susie Chant: I’m just trying to clarify in my brain. So when you say five years, you’re saying five seasons or 365 times five days?

Rob Schweitzer: I would suggest because of the intensity, five seasons would be a very appropriate place to be looking.

Susie Chant: Okay. So give seasons is different than the five years we were talking about, I think. Thank you. I appreciate that.

Hon Chan: I’ll follow up on Susie’s question.

Five seasons…. Because I know some of us actually…. Some of our wildland firefighters were actually deployed to other jurisdictions, like as you mentioned, California or even Australia. Does the five seasons, including if they fight in Australia, count into their resume, as in the duration?

Rob Schweitzer: Yeah. Our firefighters that aren’t full-time…. We do have a small contingent that are, and we’re growing that contingent to full-time 12 months a year. They typically get hired in February and get laid off in late November. That usually matches up with any sort of deployments to out of country or out of province to support agencies across Canada or California or Australia. Those staff were actually had been recalled back to their positions so that they could be deployed.

Hon Chan: When you call one season, is that from February to November or is it the same as one year then?

Interjection.

Hon Chan: A year is a season?

Rob Schweitzer: Yes. February to November is a full season for us.

Amna Shah (Chair): Are there any further questions or comments from members?

Seeing as none, thank you both very much for being here today, and I hope you have a wonderful day ahead.

We’ll just do a one-minute recess to prepare for our next portion of the meeting.

The committee recessed at 9:53 a.m.

The committee resumed at 9:58 a.m.

[Amna Shah in the chair.]

Consideration of Bills

Bill M214 — Firefighters’ Health Act

Amna Shah (Chair): Welcome back, Members. We will now continue with clause-by-clause consideration of the bill. We are on clause 2, considering the amendment proposed by the Deputy Chair. I will call on the Deputy Chair for some comments.

Gavin Dew (Deputy Chair): Thank you, Madam Chair.

With the consent of the committee, I would like to withdraw that amendment and propose that we return to clause 1.

Amna Shah (Chair): Seeing agreement, we can withdraw that amendment.

Now we will return to clause 1. We are on the amendment proposed by the Deputy Chair.

Gavin Dew (Deputy Chair): With the consent of the committee, I will withdraw that amendment as well so that we can begin from scratch.

Amendment withdrawn.

[10:00 a.m.]

Gavin Dew (Deputy Chair): I’d like to move an amendment to clause 1:

[CLAUSE 1, in paragraph (c) of the proposed definition of “firefighter”, by deleting the text shown as struck out and adding the underlined text as shown:

(c)a forest firefighter as defined in section 45.25 (1) of the Employment Standards Regulation with at least 10 years60 months of cumulative service during a period in which the forest firefighter was in service for a number of consecutive calendar years.]

I do have copies of it. Here we go. I have one. I forgot to photocopy it.

Amna Shah (Chair): Members will be provided with a copy.

Gavin Dew (Deputy Chair): I don’t have enough for everybody, no.

Amna Shah (Chair): We’ll take a brief recess while we circulate the amendment.

The committee recessed at 10:00 a.m.

I have one. I’ve got a photocopy of this.

Amna Shah (Chair): Members will be provided with a copy.

Gavin Dew (Deputy Chair): I don’t have enough for everybody, no.

Amna Shah (Chair): And we’ll take a brief recess while we circulate the amendment.

The committee recessed at 10:00 a.m.

[10:05 a.m.]

The committee resumed at 10:06 a.m.

[Amna Shah in the chair.]

Amna Shah (Chair): All right. I call this committee back to order.

The Deputy Chair has proposed an amendment to clause 1, and I’ll call on the Deputy Chair to make comments.

On the amendment.

Gavin Dew (Deputy Chair): Thank you, Madam Chair.

Having heard the feedback and received the feedback that we have since our last discussion, I would remind everyone that what we’re trying to accomplish is to establish a reasonable duration of service in order to define forest fighter for inclusion. I have actually brought two different ways to deal with this, one of which is to specifically create a definition, which is the same amendment I previously brought forward.

For the awareness of the committee, there is a backup plan B, which would effectively make that work of definition be part of the plan that will go forward. Again, the amendment that I’m bringing forward now is to clause 1, paragraph (c) and the proposed definition of firefighter, to include a forest fighter as defined in section 45.25(1) of the Employment Standards Registration with at least 60 months of service during a period in which the forest fire fighter was in service for a number of consecutive calendar years.

Again, this follows on discussions, submissions, and a broad understanding that this is approximately the right length of service. We know that we don’t have a perfect quantifiable explanation here, but we have heard, over a series of different presentations, information that leads us toward the belief that this is a reasonable definition.

Susie Chant: Simple brain here. Can we just put five in instead of...? Could I move that we just put in “five years” as per the discussion we just had, which was that February to November is very close to a year and we just say five years? We leave “consecutive” out, because exposure is exposure is exposure. It accumulates. We go with five years and not....

I also feel if we say a number of consecutive calendar years, we’re leaving it way too wide open for somebody to go: “Well, what number? What should we do?” I would like to suggest the potential of putting in “five years of cumulative service,” which, in turn, makes it consistent with what we’ve talked about with the volunteer firefighter.

Amna Shah (Chair): At the current moment, we’ll address what’s in front of us. If you would like to propose a motion after this discussion is over, very welcome to do that.

Susie Chant: Yep, that’s where I’m at. Just saying.

Darlene Rotchford: I think within the firefighter world, they are using seasons. So when we look at that and the way this is for ten years or 60 months....

[10:10 a.m.]

I mean, I’ll go back to conversations we’ve heard, not just to pick on this poor bill, on other bills in drafting and language and why it’s so important to flag some of these issues earlier. I think I want to see five. Keeping in line with.... Especially because we just had a conversation with the Ministry of Forests and what they look at. I think looking at that

not just to pick on this poor bill and on other bills in drafting and language and why it’s so important to flag some of these issues earlier. I want to see five, I think, keeping in line with....

Especially because we just had a conversation with the Ministry of Forests on what they look at, I think looking at that would be better than what we currently have.

Jeremy Valeriote: I agree with taking out “consecutive,” because if a firefighter takes a year off, for any number of reasons — mental health could be one of them, as we just heard — they shouldn’t be penalized. They’re still exposures, as Susie says.

If we went towards “seasons,” I’d really want to inquire about the legality, because I think five seasons could be spring, summer, fall, spring, summer. That would be two years, essentially, if we define “season” as the way I would define it.

The last thing. I recognize that we don’t have the data. I’m happy to settle on a number. My only concern is that if we put this in the legislation, the five years, what happens if it turns out to be two? We’d have to go back and amend.

There is some attractiveness to putting it in the plan, but I think — given that it’ll probably be five or ten years before they actually have solid data — in starting with five years, it can be revised at some point. Putting it in the plan has less teeth, in my mind, and it could get lost in the mix.

So I’d be pretty supportive of it. I don’t know if it’s.... I guess it can’t be a friendly amendment. It’d be a new motion.

Hon Chan: Yeah, I agree. I think we can actually settle with the five years instead of seasons. With Jeremy, I agree with that. Also, there could be firefighters who actually served only a month, but that’s a season for them, versus people who actually fight for ten months. So I think “years” would actually make sense.

Gavin Dew (Deputy Chair): I think procedurally, the way for us to address this.... I’m hearing, around the room, a level of comfort with “five years.”

What I would propose we do is that I will withdraw that amendment. We would stand down clause 1, and we would ask staff to come back, over the next short period of time of this meeting, with a drafted amendment which has “five years,” as MLA Chant has suggested, and we could then proceed on that basis. We actually do need that in writing.

It sounds as if, around the room, there’s a level of comfort with simply changing it to “five years.” I think I’m seeing nods and consensus that that would be an amendment that we can see brought forward. Again, procedurally, we’ll just need that to be drafted.

So if we can stand down clause 1, move on to clause 2, and then come back to clause 1, Chair, with your comfort, that would allow us to achieve that objective.

Amna Shah (Chair): Is there agreement to stand down clause 1?

Oh, did you have your hand up?

Susie Chant: Just so I understand....

Gavin Dew (Deputy Chair): No, I’m withdrawing.

Amna Shah (Chair): The Deputy Chair has withdrawn his amendment. Before I ask the question, I noticed your hand was up, Susie.

Susie Chant: I’m just wondering if I can propose an amendment. Then we’d finish it and get through clause 1.

Amna Shah (Chair): We’ll just answer the question around the standing down of the clause. Is there agreement to stand down the clause? The question before us is: is there agreement to stand down the clause?

Jeremy Valeriote: A quick clarification. When Jennifer mentioned that “stand down” means a pause, I would prefer it to be withdrawn, then.

Gavin Dew (Deputy Chair): I’ve withdrawn the amendment. That’s already happened, and we’re now standing down the clause.

Jeremy Valeriote: Got it. Thank you.

Amna Shah (Chair): I think there was agreement to withdraw. Then is there agreement to stand down the clause while we draft it...

Susie Chant: What is the merit of standing it down versus just getting it done now? What’s the merit?

Amna Shah (Chair): ...while we draft up the new...?

Susie Chant: So it’s allowing us to continue our conversation while the drafting is occurring? Is that what I’m hearing? Okay. I’m fine with that.

Amna Shah (Chair): And everyone’s good with that? Great. So the amendment is withdrawn.

[10:15 a.m.]

On the main motion.

Clause 1 stood down.

Jennifer Arril (Clerk of Committees): Just a clarification about the committee’s request for the amendment to clause 1

Jennifer Arril: Just a clarification about the committee’s request for the amendment to clause 1, the request to draft.

Susie Chant: Replace ten with five.

Jennifer Arril: So five years. Does this mean that there could be a break between any one of those years?

Susie Chant: I think that’s what we said. If we could….

Interjections.

Jennifer Arril: Five years of cumulative service. Thank you.

Amna Shah (Chair): Okay. So we’re now moving to clause 2.

The Deputy Chair has proposed an amendment:

[CLAUSE 2, in proposed subsection (1), by striking out “9 months” and substituting “12 months”.]

We will take a brief recess to circulate.

The committee recessed from 10:16 a.m. to 10:19 a.m.

[Amna Shah in the chair.]

Amna Shah (Chair): All right. Welcome back, Members.

The amendment has been circulated, and I’ll call on the Deputy Chair to make some comments.

On the amendment.

[10:20 a.m.]

Gavin Dew (Deputy Chair): In the course of our consultation on this bill, we’ve heard a variety of different feedback around the timeline for the plan to be brought back.

The original bill called for nine months. I think based on the feedback that we’ve heard, we

We’ve heard a variety of different feedback around the timeline for the plan to be brought back. The original bill called for nine months. I think based on the feedback that we’ve heard — we asked this question repeatedly to different stakeholders — we generally heard either that nine months was reasonable or we heard that something closer to 12 or 15 months was reasonable.

This is an amendment to change the time required to table a plan from nine months to 12 months, in line with the feedback and consultation that we have undertaken.

Amna Shah (Chair): Is there any discussion? Shall the amendment pass?

Amendment approved.

Amna Shah (Chair): On clause 2 as amended.

Go ahead, Darlene.

Darlene Rotchford: If I’m not mistaken, when we just had the Attorney General here, though, they had made comments about removing “and the association of Doctors of B.C.,” because they said not to put stakeholders in here, actually, after firefighters. Was that not what was said?

Gavin Dew (Deputy Chair): To be clear, that would be moving on to the next potential amendment.

We’ve just passed the nine to 12, and I am prepared to move a next amendment.

Darlene Rotchford: Okay, because I thought we said “does clause 2 pass,” and this is….

Just the amendment. Okay, my apologies.

Amna Shah (Chair): Okay, so the Deputy Chair is proposing an amendment to clause 2.

[CLAUSE 2, in proposed subsection (1), by adding the underlined text as shown:

Within 12 months after this Act comes into force, the minister must, in consultation with the ministers responsible for the Workers Compensation Act, the Fire Safety Act and the Wildfire Act, and after consultation with the BC Wildfire Service, British Columbia Professional Fire Fighters’ Association, the Fire Chiefs’ Association of British Columbia and the Association of Doctors of BC, develop a plan for the comprehensive health screening of firefighters.]

We will take a brief recess while it’s circulated.

The committee recessed from 10:21 a.m. to 10:24 a.m.

[Amna Shah in the chair.]

Amna Shah (Chair): Welcome back, Members.

There has been an amendment proposed to clause 2. I will pass it over to the Deputy Chair to make comments.

On the amendment.

Gavin Dew (Deputy Chair): The intent of this amendment is to add additional stakeholders to the consultation process of forming the plan.

[10:25 a.m.]

Specifically, that includes adding the minister responsible for the Fire Safety Act and the Wildfire Act, and it also outlines consultation with the B.C. wildfire service. The British Columbia Professional Fire Fighters Association was already included. We’re adding the Fire Chiefs Association of British Columbia, in addition to the Doctors of B.C., who were already included.

The purpose of this amendment is to expand the scope of consultation to be undertaken

It also outlines consultation with the B.C. wildfire service. The British Columbia Professional Fire Fighters Association was already included, and we’re adding the Fire Chiefs Association of British Columbia, in addition to the Doctors of B.C., who were already included.

The purpose of this amendment is to expand the scope of consultation to be undertaken in the development of the plan.

Susie Chant: Did we not hear from PSSG just now that we don’t want to put additional people into the legislation because the expectation is that it limits it to those people in future and, also, it’s contrary to the consistency of drafting that happens in other legislations to actually name other groups?

The areas and expectation of consultation, but it’s not done at the legislative level. It’s more at a different level that the people that they consult with are named. I believe that’s what we just heard from PSSG, and that they were recommending against naming those other groupings.

Additionally, the B.C. wildfire service is actually, as they said, nested within Forests. If the Ministers of Forests and PSSG are already involved, that’s sort of redundant. It feels redundant to me. That’s my concern with this.

Gavin Dew (Deputy Chair): Thank you very much, Susie. That’s very legitimate feedback. Obviously, that was new feedback we haven’t heard before from PSSG.

Just to bulwark what you’ve said, I think that the message we just got from PSSG was that it would be eminently logical for an amendment to be made that adds the ministers responsible for both the Workers Compensation Act, which was previously included; as well as the Fire Safety Act and the Wildfire Act.

On that, that far into the motion, PSSG appears to be aligned. The question is whether we should name the additional groups to be consulted. The amendment that I have put forward does name additional groups. If you do not believe those groups should be included, then you would be voting against this motion.

I will just be perfectly upfront that I have a version of the motion that strikes out the naming of the additional consultant groups that I will bring if this version is defeated.

Darlene Rotchford: I think that hearing what they say, especially hearing what Forests said and some of the stakeholders they’re dealing with…. I don’t want to miss them, especially when they’re talking about the work they’re doing with the post-secondary section, especially for the forest fire fighting stuff. I think it’s really important.

Is there a way that we can look at encompassing that with something like “key stakeholders”? Something that’s a little more broad but gives that understanding for anyone else who could be covered. It’s just a thought.

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

Seeing none, shall the amendment pass?

Amendment negatived.

Gavin Dew (Deputy Chair): I’d like to bring an amendment, which is the amendment I just previously mentioned, that strikes out the latter half of that motion.

[CLAUSE 2, in proposed subsection (1), by adding the underlined text as shown and deleting the text shown as struck out;

(1) Within 12 months after this Act comes into force, the minister must, in consultation with the minister responsible for the Workers Compensation Act, the Fire Safety Act and the Wildfire Act, and after consultation with the British Columbia Professional Fire Fighters’ Association and the Association of Doctors of BC, develop a plan for the comprehensive health screening of firefighters.]

The Clerk now has a copy of that amendment and will circulate it shortly.

Amna Shah (Chair): Members, an amendment has been proposed to clause 2. We will take a brief recess while it is in circulation.

The committee recessed at 10:28 a.m.

The committee resumed at 10:33 a.m.

Amna Shah (Chair): Right. Welcome back, members. You have before you an amendment proposed by the Deputy Chair.

Deputy Chair, would you like to make comments to this? Go ahead.

On the amendment.

Gavin Dew (Deputy Chair): As previously discussed, this is a version of the amendment that covers the ground articulated by MLA Chan so well, and that, I believe, reflects a general consensus of the committee.

Jeremy Valeriote: Thank and recognize the Deputy Chair for his diligence in these matters, and I’m fully supportive of this.

Amna Shah (Chair): Great. Any further comments? Shall the proposed amendment pass?

Amendment approved.

Amna Shah (Chair): Shall clause 2, as further amended, pass? Deputy Chair.

On clause 2 as amended.

Gavin Dew (Deputy Chair): I would like to bring another amendment to clause 2(2)(e), which I will sign, provide to the Clerk and have circulated shortly.

An Hon. Member: Is that the one we’ve already got?

Gavin Dew (Deputy Chair): No, you don’t have that yet.

Amna Shah (Chair): So the Deputy Chair has proposed an amendment, which we will circulate. And so we will take a brief recess.

The committee recessed from 10:34 a.m. to 10:35 a.m.

[10:35 a.m.]

Amna Shah (Chair): Welcome back, members.

There has been an amendment proposed by the Deputy Chair to clause 2.

Deputy Chair, would you like to make

The committee resumed at 10:35 a.m.

[Amna Shah in the chair.]

Amna Shah (Chair): Welcome back, Members.

There has been an amendment proposed by the Deputy Chair to clause 2.

[CLAUSE 2, in proposed subsection (2), by deleting the text shown as struck out and adding the underlined text as shown:

(2)The plan referred to in subsection (1) must provide for the following:

(a)early detection cancer screening;

(b)comprehensive physical examinations on a regular basis, including a mental health assessment;

(c)comprehensive laboratory and screening tests on a regular basis;

(d)the applicable requirements for the inclusion of forest firefighters in the plan.;

(e)the continued collection of data regarding

(i)the exposure of firefighters, in the course of carrying out their duties, to potentially harmful chemicals and to emotionally traumatic events, and

(ii)the impacts of the exposures described in subparagraph (i) on the health of firefighters.]

Deputy Chair, would you like to make comments?

Gavin Dew (Deputy Chair): I would be happy to do so.

The purpose of the amendment is to add section 2.2(e), which calls for the continued collection of data regarding the exposure of firefighters, in the course of carrying out their duties, to potentially harmful chemicals and to emotionally traumatic events, and the impacts of the exposures described in subparagraph 1 on the health of firefighters.

This is something that was requested by the BCPFFA, as well as other submissions that did not present to the committee. We believe that this is a good and appropriate amendment that will enable valuable data collection and be very, very helpful as this continues to develop, going forward.

Susie Chant: I do agree that the continued collection of data is what we want. I do worry that this particular wording limits the data that we look at. And that may be moot, but you know….

Potentially harmful chemicals is part of it, yes. Emotionally traumatic events, yes. But we also talked about the fact that, say, wildfire fighters can’t shower, so they can’t remove the chemicals, versus guys that can go back to the shack can have a shower.

But there are also other things out there, like being hit by a falling tree that’s on fire. So I worry a little bit about limiting….. Even if we could just put in, for example…. Instead of saying specifically “potentially harmful chemicals and emotionally traumatic events….”

The second piece I’m okay with. I just worry a little bit that that’s limiting the data, because I think as people get out in the field, they go, “Holy crap, we should know something about this,” whatever this is. Just as a suggestion.

Amna Shah (Chair): Thank you, Susie.

Before I get to you, Gavin, I have a similar concern around the wording of “potentially harmful chemicals.” That could pretty much extend to a lot of chemicals under the sun. Just wondering about defining it with the word “potentially” harmful chemicals and what the definition of that really is. It’s what concerns me.

That’s just related to yours, and I’ll kick it over to you.

Gavin Dew (Deputy Chair): I think, Susie, your question is a very good and legitimate one. The way that this is drafted is not intended to exclude the possibility of other matters being analyzed as part of the plan. You’ll note the language is that the plan referred to “must” provide for the following. So that’s a baseline minimum.

Those other areas that you’ve pointed to, including additional risks incurred — fallen trees, things of that nature…. Those are certainly things that could be studied.

We’re not attempting to be exhaustive in terms of covering every aspect of what could or should be in the plan or forcing the hand of the minister. The intent is that there, again, should be a plan. If those are matters that become apparent during the plan, they absolutely could be included. There is nothing restrictive about the way that this is developed.

This simply speaks to what must be included as a baseline minimum in the plan, Susie. So I think that your concern, while a very important one, is not one that is necessarily there in the text.

Darlene Rotchford: Yeah, I don’t like the way this is worded. When I look at it and I think if we want to cover everything…. “The continued collection of data regarding the exposure of firefighters in the course of carrying out their duties….” I feel like you could take out that part, if we were to look at this amendment, right, and put the impacts…. Like I feel there’s a way to actually put d(1) and (2) together.

I’m just trying to look at it and think of what that may look like to cover everything. That’s all. Just because when I think of what the Forests folks said, right, because…. I think this is one of the things, when we’ve talked about this bill, is talking about our IAFF members and our forest firefighters and the way we’re collecting data and the way that they’re going to be exposed differently to things….

When we’re trying to narrow things down, it is a struggle to look at it very specific, where we can make it a bit broader so that we can cover it all.

[10:40 a.m.]

I’m just trying to think of a way to word that. That’s all. I think there’s a path forward. I just have to think about it.

Amna Shah (Chair): Who’s first? Gavin.

Gavin Dew (Deputy Chair): Thank you very much, Darlene. That’s a very interesting point. It sounds as if there’s kind of a desire to create some clarity around that.

One

cover it all.

I’m just trying to think of a way to word that. That’s all. I think there’s a path forward. I just have to think about it.

Gavin Dew (Deputy Chair): Thank you very much, Darlene. That’s a very interesting point. It sounds as if there’s kind of a desire to create some clarity around that.

One thought that I have…. I might actually look to the sponsor of the bill to make sure that I’m in line with her intent here. But potentially, we might be able to simplify this by saying “the continued collection of data regarding the exposure risk of firefighters and the impacts of the exposures” or something along those lines that might be a little bit simpler. That’s where, again, “exposure” is not necessarily defined here. So I’m trying to come up with….

Effectively, what we’re trying to do is we’re trying to collect data regarding the risks faced by firefighters, and that includes exposure risks as well as the impact of those exposures. It sounds as if there’s not any philosophical objection to the gathering of data, but we’re just looking for wording that gives everybody comfort. So would “exposure risk” or something along those lines make sense?

With the consent of the Chair, might I ask the sponsor to speak to that?

Misty Van Popta: Thank you for the opportunity.

I guess I can see both lenses here. I think it, because it says…. To the Chair’s point about how broad of a chemical exposure, well, it talks about in the course of carrying out their duties. But I’m open on this to however you see fit.

I think we all know what the intent is. If you’re not comfortable with the wording, I’m okay with whatever or however you feel like this gets accomplished, as long as we’re all on the same page of data collection being the piece that has been missing and needed to be added.

Hon Chan: I think we do have a middle ground, from what I heard from both sides. I think we actually can just put an amendment later if this is defeated, just to continue collection of data regarding the exposure risk of firefighters in the course of carrying out their duty and the impact of exposure. So that includes all the risks of exposure. It doesn’t matter if that’s chemical or a tree falling down or whatever. I just don’t want to just put “risk” instead of “exposure risk,” because there are so many risks. Then this just becomes a crazy amount of….

Interjection.

Hon Chan: Yeah, they trip over, a ladder failed, or it got into an accident. That’s just way too much. So I would put that out.

George Chow: Yeah. I think if you want something more encompassing, you could say “occupational hazards, including exposure risk of firefighters.”

Gavin Dew (Deputy Chair): I believe that Hon has actually come up with a very elegant solution, which includes changing it to “exposure risk” and simplifying. I think George is going down the same general track.

I think where the intent was specifically around exposure risk….

And there is some risk of over-broadening, George, with what you’re talking about.

But Hon does have an alternative draft. So with that being the case, I would like to withdraw my amendment and perhaps entertaining….

Madam Chair, you might be interested in entertaining Hon’s proposed amendment.

Amna Shah (Chair): Hon?

Hon Chan: If you submit an amendment….

Gavin Dew (Deputy Chair): I’m withdrawing my amendment. I’m withdrawing….

Interjections.

Amna Shah (Chair): The Deputy Chair has proposed to withdraw his amendment. Are members in agreement?

Some Voices: Aye.

Amendment withdrawn.

Amna Shah (Chair): Great. The amendment has been withdrawn.

Hon is proposing an amendment to clause 2.

Hon Chan: It has already been submitted to….

Amna Shah (Chair): We will take a brief recess while we circulate the proposed amendment.

The committee recessed at 10:44 a.m.

[10:45 a.m.]

The committee resumed at 10:48 a.m.

[Amna Shah in the chair.]

Amna Shah (Chair): All right. Welcome back, Members.

Hon has proposed an amendment to clause 2.

[CLAUSE 2, in proposed subsection (2), by deleting the text shown as struck out and adding the underlined text as shown:

(2)The plan referred to in subsection (1) must provide for the following:

(a)early detection cancer screening;

(b)comprehensive physical examinations on a regular basis, including a mental health assessment;

(c)comprehensive laboratory and screening tests on a regular basis.

(d)the continued collection of data regarding

(i)the exposure risk of firefighters, in the course of carrying out their duties, and

(ii)the impacts of the exposures described in subparagraph (i) on the health of firefighters.]

Hon, would you like to make some comments?

On the amendment.

Hon Chan: Yeah. As mentioned, I just want to add and cross out some sections of the previous amendment. So just “exposure risks of firefighters in the course of carrying out their duties” and “the impact of the exposure” described in paragraph 1 on the health of firefighters.

So that should include most of the exposure risk, and that doesn’t limit the data collection. Hopefully that works.

Amna Shah (Chair): Are there any comments or questions? I will give members a moment.

Susie Chant: I reserve my right to comment.

Amna Shah (Chair): Yeah. I’ll give members a moment.

[10:50 a.m.]

All right, seeing as there are no questions or comments, shall the amendment pass?

Amendment approved.

On clause 2 as amended.

Clause 2 as amended approved.

Amendment approved.

Clause 2 as amended approved.

On clause 3.

Gavin Dew (Deputy Chair): I’d like to propose an amendment to clause 3.

[CLAUSE 3, by deleting the text shown as struck out and adding the underlined text as shown:

Tabling of plan

3 As soon as practicable upon completion of the plan referred to in section 2, the minister must table the plan in the Legislative Assembly if the Legislative Assembly is sitting or deposit the reportplan with the Clerk of the Legislative Assembly if the Legislative Assembly is not sitting.]

On the amendment.

Gavin Dew (Deputy Chair): This is a very simple amendment to correct a drafting error on the original bill. It simply changes the word “report” to the word “plan.”

Copies of it are being circulated as we speak.

Amna Shah (Chair): Are there any questions, comments or concerns?

Darlene Rotchford: I just think it is worth noting that it was a drafting error and that we’re encouraging to come up with a plan, not a report. I think, on the record, it’s important for them to know we recognize this will take time and they’re going to come up with a plan that will be ongoing, similar to the issues our firefighters are having. This is not an end date thing; this is just a start

Amna Shah (Chair): Any further questions or comments?

Amendment approved.

Clause 3 as amended approved.

On clause 4.

Gavin Dew (Deputy Chair): I would like to bring an amendment. My amendment is to slightly change the additional stakeholders.

[CLAUSE 4, in proposed subsection (1), by adding the underlined text as shown and deleting the text shown as struck out:

Review of plan

4(1)Every 5 years after a plan is tabled or deposited under section 3, the minister must, in consultation with the minister responsible for the Workers Compensation Act, the Fire Safety Act and the Wildfire Act, and after consultation with the BC Wildfire Service, British Columbia Professional Fire Fighters’ Association, the Fire Chiefs’ Association of British Columbia and the Association of Doctors of BC, begin a review of the plan and make any revisions to the plan that are necessary to safeguard the health of firefighters.]

On the amendment.

Gavin Dew (Deputy Chair): This mirrors the inclusions added in clause 2(1). To be clear, it mirrors the inclusions added in the second version of clause 2(1), which we passed. So this is basically a copy-and-paste of an amendment we have previously passed.

It will be circulating shortly. It’s being circulated as we speak.

Susie, it follows exactly on your advice.

Amna Shah (Chair): We will take a brief recess while the further amendment is circulated.

The committee recessed at 10:53 a.m.

The committee resumed at 10:58 a.m.

[Amna Shah in the chair.]

Amna Shah (Chair): Welcome back, Members.

We are on the amendment to clause 4.

Would the Deputy Chair like to speak to the amendment?

On the amendment.

Gavin Dew (Deputy Chair): Yes, absolutely.

The amendment matches what we’ve previously done in other clauses to lay out the additional stakeholder consultation. This again is a copy and paste of prior changes that we have made, which carry them forward for consistency through the bill.

Susie Chant: I’m happy to support this. It is consistent with the discussions we had earlier and with what PSSG was talking about. So happy to support it.

Amna Shah (Chair): Any further questions, comments? All right.

Shall the amendment pass?

Amendment approved.

[11:00 a.m.]

Amna Shah (Chair): Shall clause 4 as further amended pass?

Clause 4 as amended approved.

On clause 5.

Gavin Dew (Deputy Chair): I would like to bring an amendment to this clause.

[CLAUSE 5, in proposed subsection (1), by striking out “9 months” and substituting “12 months”.]

On the amendment.

Gavin Dew (Deputy Chair): The amendment simply changes the time required to review and report on the Workers Compensation Act from 9 months to 12 months

Gavin Dew (Deputy Chair): I would like to bring an amendment to this clause.

[CLAUSE 5, in proposed subsection (1), by striking out “9 months” and substituting “12 months”.]

On the amendment.

Gavin Dew (Deputy Chair): The amendment simply changes the time required to review and report on the Workers Compensation Act from nine months to 12 months, which again renders consistency with other amendments already made to the bill.

Amna Shah (Chair): We will take a brief recess while the amendment is circulated.

The committee recessed from 11:00 a.m. to 11:05 a.m.

[Amna Shah in the chair.]

Amna Shah (Chair): Welcome back, Members. We have before us an amendment to clause 5.

Deputy Chair, would you like to make comments?

Gavin Dew (Deputy Chair): The purpose again of this amendment is to amend the nine

The committee resumed at 11:05 a.m.

[Amna Shah in the chair.]

Amna Shah (Chair): Welcome back, Members. We have before us an amendment to clause 5.

Deputy Chair, would you like to make comments?

On the amendment.

Gavin Dew (Deputy Chair): The purpose, again, of this amendment is to amend the nine months articulated in 5(1) to 12 months. Again, this renders the timeline consistent with the amendment we previously made to the planning timeline on the recommendation of stakeholders who came to visit the committee.

So I see this conversation as simply a copy-and-paste continuation of what we did earlier, and I would ask that the committee support it.

Amna Shah (Chair): Any questions or comments?

Seeing none, shall the amendment pass?

Amendment approved.

On clause 5 as amended.

Gavin Dew (Deputy Chair): I have a further amendment on this which will be circulated shortly.

[CLAUSE 5, in proposed subsection (1), by adding the underlined text as shown:

5(1)Within 12 months after this Act comes into force, the minister must, in consultation with the minister responsible for the Workers Compensation Act, the Fire Safety Act and the Wildfire Act, and after consultation with the British Columbia Professional Fire Fighters’ Association and the Association of Doctors of BC,

(a)conduct a review of section 140 of the Workers Compensation Act and the Firefighters’ Occupational Disease Regulation, taking into account relevant medical or scientific evidence or information, and

(b)prepare a report with any recommendations, if any, in respect of the following:

(i)prescribed occupational diseases for the purposes of section 140 (1) (b) of the Workers Compensation Act; and

(ii)prescribed minimum cumulative periods for the purposes of section 140 (2) (a) of the Workers Compensation Act.]

On the amendment.

Gavin Dew (Deputy Chair): And again, the purpose of this amendment is another copy-and-paste job of the changing composition of stakeholders.

I believe this is consistent with prior discussion, and I believe it should be an easy yes for everyone.

Amna Shah (Chair): We will take a brief recess to circulate the amendment.

The committee recessed from 11:06 a.m. to 11:07 a.m.

[Amna Shah in the chair.]

Amna Shah (Chair): Welcome back, Members. We have before us an amendment to clause 5.

Would the Deputy Chair like to make comments?

Gavin Dew (Deputy Chair): No, I just made those comments, and I believe that those comments stand.

Amna Shah (Chair): Are there any questions or concerns?

All right. I’ll pose the question. Shall the amendment pass?

Amendment approved.

On clause 5 as amended.

Clause 5 as amended approved.

On clause 6.

Clauses 6 and 7 approved.

On clause 8.

Darlene Rotchford: I’d like an amendment to clause 8.

[CLAUSE 8, by deleting the text shown as struck out and adding the underlined text as shown:

8This Act comes into force on the date of Royal Assentby regulation of the Lieutenant Governor in Council.]

Amna Shah (Chair): An amendment has been proposed.

Darlene Rotchford: I sent it by email, but I can write it down for you real quick.

Amna Shah (Chair): We will take a brief recess while the amendment is circulated.

The committee recessed at 11:09 a.m.

The committee recessed from 11:09 a.m. to 11:15 a.m.

[Amna Shah in the chair.]

Amna Shah (Chair): All right. Welcome back, members. We have before us an amendment to clause 8.

Darlene, would you like to make comments?

On the amendment.

Darlene Rotchford: Yeah, I would. Part of this, and the reason I’m looking at it in doing it more in regulations and giving the minister some capacity to change it is that I think, through the conversations,

The committee resumed at 11:15 a.m.

[Amna Shah in the chair.]

Amna Shah (Chair): All right. Welcome back, Members.

We have before us an amendment to clause 8.

Darlene, would you like to make comments?

Darlene Rotchford: Yeah, I would.

So part of this, and the reason I’m looking at it from doing it more in regulations and giving the minister some capacity to change it, is I think through the conversations we have, this is very fluid. And when I look at the different tables and the way things are happening, I think it’s just better to have it in a regulation than in royal assent within the law. It gives some flexibility.

That’s kind of my two cents on that right now. I just think that…. For example, we just added the eight cancer screenings. We’re asking for some other things. We want all the ministry to be fluid with that in the way they’re doing it.

Jeremy Valeriote: Yeah, I think I need a bit more context.

As I understand, this could go to royal assent, probably, in April, by the time it gets back through the House. Coming into force by regulation could be met anytime, is that correct? And we’re then relying on the ministry to decide when this becomes law?

Darlene Rotchford: Yeah, it is. Again, when the ministries are getting data that this committee is not, and they’re working on different moving parts of the multiple ministries, I think that is a better way to do it than ending up at royal assent at the time.

Jeremy Valeriote: I’ll just be right upfront. I’m really uncomfortable with that idea. I spend a lot of time in this committee trying to understand intent of legislation, and the answer I get back is: “Don’t worry. Trust us. It’ll come out in the regulations.”

After what I heard from…. Some concern about what I heard from the Ministry of Health. I would prefer to see this become law when it gets royal assent.

They have 12 months to develop a plan. That’s a significant amount of time. April 2027 seems reasonable to me.

My question is, I guess, flexibility in terms of what’s actually written in this legislation that we’re contemplating…. Is that what regulation would do, allow for changes in wording of what we’re just amending and passing right now?

Hon Chan: Can somebody actually answer Jeremy’s question first? Those are pretty legit questions.

I kind of also question about…. We spend a lot of time to decide if it’s nine months or 12 months or 15 months, but now then by regulation, it’s just basically that we could just not have any…. We didn’t need the debate of nine, 12, 15 if this actually goes in there, right? Because you can start the regulation next spring or wherever. Then that defeats the purpose of having a 12-month plan.

Maybe my question…. Would this by regulation actually change that 12-month plan, or is it still going to be having a plan by next spring, 2027? Because that’s the fundamental of the bill.

Amna Shah (Chair): Just to clarify, “ by regulation” would mean that cabinet, which is the Lieutenant Governor in Council, would decide when it comes into effect.

Susie Chant: One of the reasons that I am supporting in regulation is that, again, there are so many moving parts right now. There has been new legislation already in play to expand the number of cancers that are recognized. There’s work going on at the federal level that we aren’t really terribly clear on what the evidence is that’s coming back from that.

And so I feel like to sort of say, “Okay, bingo, let’s go,” without having the opportunity to bring those other factors that we’ve already discussed ad nauseum a while ago…. I think it’s a little concerning to want to do it by royal assent versus regulation.

Gavin Dew (Deputy Chair): I can certainly hear some of those matters. I think that having the way in which this moves forward, once a plan is developed, be brought into force by regulation would be eminently fair and logical.

[11:20 a.m.]

But I think to suggest that the beginning of this planning process should be brought forward by regulation rather than by royal assent completely blows up any notion of timeliness, because there is, in fact, no timeline associated with it if that’s the approach that we take.

Unless I’m misinterpreting the intention, it just feels like it casts the bill into a limbo from which it might never come back.

Darlene Rotchford: So

completely blows up any notion of timeliness because there is in fact no timeline associated with it, if that’s the approach that we take.

Unless I’m misinterpreting the intention, it just feels like it casts the bill into a limbo from which it might never come back.

Darlene Rotchford: We can’t assume that the minister won’t take action until it becomes law, right? We can’t assume report or third reading will actually get a majority vote in the House.

I have a procedural question. If we don’t have consensus on a private member bill, when it hits the floor from a vote perspective, can we clarify what happens to that bill?

Amna Shah (Chair): Once the bill is reported back to the House there is subsequently a report stage and a third reading stage, which is voted on by members of the House.

Darlene Rotchford: And if the vote is a tie on a private member bill at third reading?

George Chow: I’m seeking a bit of a clarification here.

The act will be effective by royal assent — right? — if it’s passed through the House. By regulation of the Lieutenant Government in Council, it really is implied in this act, because we refer to “the minister,” right? The minister is part of cabinet, executive council. What’s being carried out has to be done by the executive council anyway.

Yeah, I think I just wanted to see what the difference is here. The act becomes an act, like any of our acts. But who carries out the act? The executive council.

Amna Shah (Chair): Just to clarify, the amendment that’s before us is to make the act come into force by regulation. Yes indeed, there would be work that would be done, for example, by the minister in terms of developing plans and all of the wording in the clauses. What this amendment is proposing to do is to change the date that this particular act comes into force — as in becoming effective.

I think those are two different things, the work versus when the act comes into force — if that makes sense.

Maybe I’ll word it a little bit better, but I’ll go to Jeremy.

Jeremy Valeriote: I don’t see anything in this act that can’t flex with changing science or changing federal regulations. The 12 months from when it passes seems like a reasonable amount of time.

I have a fundamental objection to a private member’s bill that goes through all the process, and then cabinet decides on whether it actually ever happens.

Furthermore, I’m a little bit upset about the suggestion that the government might not pass this bill if we don’t pass this amendment. Up until now, I thought we had pretty good consensus that this was a good bill, so talking about ties in the House, to me, suggests that there’ll be a tie in the House.

Darlene Rotchford: Absolutely not, on the record, and I will say that.

My question is like…. Yes, we have good consensus and conversation. I’m just looking at process of things.

We talked about our terms of reference. We talked about what some of the ramifications are we can and can’t do with bills. My question is: how does that look? How does it play out? That’s my only question, because I actually don’t have the answers to those.

Again, I’ve been engaged in this conversation. You know this stuff is important, which is why I’m working with the amendments. Just a point of clarification on my end.

[11:25 a.m.]

Hon Chan: Yeah, I don’t want to speculate on third reading, because our duty in our committee is just to basically report this back to the House. How the House is going to vote for it is up to the members.

However, with this clause, it literally, basically just puts our previous month of discussion into limbo.

because our duty in our committee is just to basically report this back to the House. And how the House is going to vote for it is up to the members.

However, with this clause, it literally basically just put our previous like a month of discussion into limbo. We gave 12 months for the minister to develop a plan. We originally mentioned nine. We heard from a different ministry. They suggested 12 would be good, better than nine, so we actually made that change according to the ministry’s staff suggestion.

But now with this clause, it just basically says the ministry now has unlimited time to put this into force. And why we put this bill in in 2026 is because we do not want to wait until 2029 or ‘30 for the federal government to come up with a report. With this clause 8, then that’s just basically saying we’re not doing anything. I mean, it’s up to the minister. So that’s just way too vague and I really have to think this clause over.

Amna Shah (Chair): So just to answer your question, if I’m understanding it right, is…. Members in the committee are free to express their vote subsequent to this particular amendment, as in, for example, the title of the bill. Or I think there’s one more after this as well, clause 1, which we previously stood down, and members are free to vote against that. But there’s no one vote about the whole bill that you could technically vote against, if that makes sense.

Gavin Dew (Deputy Chair): Just to understand options around this. I understand it’s also possible that the act could come into force by regulation of the LGIC or on a date that is a specified number of days after the date of royal assent, whichever is earlier. So if the effort is to provide flexibility for it to come into effect by regulation, I think it would be reasonable to establish a time clock.

So if it comes into force, for example, 60 or 90 days after royal assent, if it is not already brought into force by regulation of the LGIC, that would provide some of the flexibility that the member is talking about.

I’m not sure if that accomplishes what we’re trying to accomplish because I’m not totally clear what we’re trying to accomplish here.

Hon Chan: The question can be directed, maybe…. Do you think the ministry would need more time? That’s why you need this clause? We are happy to accompany with anything that you guys have concern.

Darlene Rotchford: I think that when you look at how complicated this has become, how many amendments we’ve made and you want to talk about process…. I’ll be quite frank as well. This bill with all the amendments is not what we even originally agreed to on the floor.

So if we want to…. One could argue, if we’re bringing back a bill and we’re voting on third reading, we’re voting on third reading on a bill that wasn’t even really technically debated on the floor yet. We’re bringing back a bill with different amendments than what people even voted on originally to bring to committee stage, right?

And I think we had further conversation on what this looks like, so also how the ministries may handle this and how it may take time — and again, key stakeholders — is going to take potentially longer. And we don’t want to miss anything. We want to give everyone time to ensure that it’s being covered.

As well, it also allows cabinet to consider shifting resources and implementing law through our legal review. If we’re saying this is a priority, we need to shift priorities.

And I know you guys are, you know, us as a committee, have talked about how Health is going to have to implement this. We need to look at ways that we may have to reallocate service to make it actually happen, right? So that’s part of it. Yeah, so that’s where I’m in for that one.

Susie Chant: I’m just wondering if we can have a five-minute bio recess.

Amna Shah (Chair): All right, Members. We will take a recess and return at 11:35 a.m. Thanks.

The committee recessed at 11:30 a.m.

The committee resumed at 11:36 a.m.

[Amna Shah in the chair.]

Amna Shah (Chair): Welcome back, Members. What is before us is an amendment to clause 8, and we left off at discussion. Are there any further questions or comments?

Darlene Rotchford: Yeah, like I said earlier, I think when we’re looking at the way we’re doing this bill, and not just this bill…. There are a lot of amendments coming to them.

What we’re debating and what’s in front of us…. I just don’t think it is a good way to do business. Looking at it from a regulatory change, and then giving, as well, cabinet and them time to move and reallocate resources to do it…. I think with some of the language that’s in there, the things we’re doing, this is a better way to move forward.

Gavin Dew (Deputy Chair): I think the intent of the bill is no different than when it was brought forward. That’s to provide for the development of a plan for the comprehensive health screening of firefighters and the tabling of such a plan in the Legislative Assembly.

I don’t think the process here is any different than any other bill going into committee stage and coming out with amendments. I would also add that if the premise is that ministries need to rearrange time, we had ministries come here. We asked them about realistic timelines. They told us that nine months was too fast. We amended to 12 months in order to allow for exactly that kind of resourcing conversation. I think that the proposed amendment, frankly, is the opposite of how this process is supposed to work. I don’t see any substantial argument for it.

I don’t agree with the premise that amendments to a bill make it a fundamentally different bill when it goes back to the House. I don’t agree with the premise that there’s more time needed to rearrange resources, because we actually just afforded more time. We increased the amount of time allocated by 33 percent.

In fact, if anything has changed in terms of what was originally passed by the House, it’s that we’ve actually given more time for government to do the work associated with the bill. I think we’ve actually made it an easier bill for government to process. So the argument that there should be further delay simply, in my opinion, just doesn’t wash.

Jeremy Valeriote: I mostly echo what Gavin says, and also, I don’t agree that this is substantially different from what went through second reading. I think there are lives on the line here. I think this is a significant health matter, and I can’t support the amendment.

Amna Shah (Chair): Any further questions or comments?

Shall the amendment pass?

Division has been called.

[11:40 a.m.]

Members, seeing that the votes a

Amna Shah (Chair): Division has been called. We will now begin with the division process.

Amendment negatived on the following division: YEAS — 3, NAYS — 3.

Amna Shah (Chair): Seeing that the votes are equal, it is my responsibility as chair to provide a casting vote. The chair votes against the amendment to keep the bill intact in its original form and as adopted at second reading.

Clause 8 approved.

Amna Shah (Chair): Now we will go back to clause 1, which was previously stood down.

On clause 1.

Amna Shah (Chair): Shall clause 1 pass?

Gavin Dew (Deputy Chair): I would like to move my first of two amendments to clause 1.

[CLAUSE 1, by adding the following definition:

“minister” means the minister responsible for the Ministry of Health Act.]

Copies are already ready, so let’s circulate quickly.

Amna Shah (Chair): Members, you have before you an amendment to clause 1. Would the Deputy Chair like to make remarks?

On the amendment.

Gavin Dew (Deputy Chair): The purpose of my amendment to clause 1 is to add the following definition. “Minister” means the minister responsible for the Ministry of Health Act. This will provide clarity in the bill as well as addressing any possible interpreted costs associated with data collection. Are there any questions or comment?

Darlene Rotchford: I’m just looking at some of the other amendments we made in the bill. And I know it’s in order so just…. Do we want to define minister meaning the Minister of Health?

Sorry, give me two seconds because we’ve been all over with the bill. Because within the bill, there’s other ministers covering. Do we want to say just the Ministry of Health Act, though, under definition? That’s my only clarifying question.

Gavin Dew (Deputy Chair): That’s a great question. So the reason for this addition is to make the minister responsible for the Ministry of Health, lead minister.

Again, that specifically is designed to address the amendments in clause 2(2)(d), which is the collection of data, and to mitigate any concerns about interpreted costs associated with that data collection. It’s just specifically to address that particular piece. Your point is a solid one, but that’s the purpose here.

Amna Shah (Chair): Are there are any further questions or comments? Seeing none, shall the amendment pass?

Amendment approved.

Amna Shah (Chair): Shall clause 1 as further amended pass?

Gavin Dew (Deputy Chair): I would like to bring one final amendment, which I think is probably the most important amendment. Copies will be circulated momentarily.

[CLAUSE 1, in paragraph (c) of the proposed definition of “firefighter”, by deleting the text shown as struck out and adding the underlined text as shown:

(c)a forest firefighter as defined in section 45.25 (1) of the Employment Standards Regulation with at least 105 years of cumulative service.]

Amna Shah (Chair): An amendment has been proposed copies are being circulated and we’ll take a brief recess.

The committee recessed at 11:44 a.m.

[11:45 a.m.]

The committee resumed at 11:45 a.m.

[Amna Shah in the chair.]

Amna Shah (Chair): Members, you have in front of you an amendment to clause 1.

On the amendment.

Gavin Dew (Deputy Chair): This is an amendment brought back after discussion earlier in this meeting. I believe it follows on the intent of what everyone around the table appears to be comfortable with, as well as the feedback provided by the ministry responsible.

We’ve heard a variety of different feedback around what the appropriate definition is here. We have received correspondence from the BCGEU. We have received feedback from the ministry responsible. We have discussed around the table what the logical way is to characterize this, and I believe we’ve arrived at a relatively strong consensus that the right way to define this is a forest firefighter, as defined in section 45.25(1) of the Employment Standards Regulation, with at least five years of cumulative service.

That is the structure of the amendment. I believe we discussed it at length earlier, and I hope that it’ll see strong support.

Amna Shah (Chair): Are there any questions or comments?

Jeremy Valeriote: I don’t want to throw confusion into this, but I do want to be pretty clear that this doesn’t require five 12-month years. I don’t know how it would be interpreted. I’m concerned that we might have to get some legal advice.

Is it clear, in terms of how you serve for a year? Say it’s a short season. You serve from April to September. That counts as a year. Then maybe the next year is 11 months. Or is it actually 60 full months of service, which would be a different matter?

Gavin Dew (Deputy Chair): In line with the feedback that we heard earlier, the intent here is that that is five years of service. There may be different months or durations of service. There might be different intensities of exposure within that time. But the intent is five years of cumulative service.

As MLA Rotchford rightly raised earlier, part of why cumulative is a good approach to take, versus continuous, which was another alternative drafting we could have looked at, is to address scenarios where, for example, someone was on a maternity or paternity leave, did not work in one year, and worked a total of, let’s say for the sake of argument, five years of cumulative service out of six years, or five years of cumulative service out of seven years.

We are not getting into the weeds of defining exactly what makes up a year. We are assuming, based on the feedback that we received from the ministry earlier, that on the basis of the aggregate exposure, a year is a year.

Jeremy Valeriote: Okay. I just want to make it absolutely clear on the record that my interpretation, my understanding, is that if in a fire season a forest fire fighter only fights fires for, say, four months, that still qualifies as a year. They have served in that year. I want to make sure that that’s the stated intent.

Gavin Dew: I will also state for the record that that is the intention of the amendment, Jeremy, so that it’s on the record.

If I may, is that the understanding of the amendment for everyone around the table?

Susie Chant: As per the discussion with the forest fire folks, who basically said they’ve their full-time people, and then they’ve their auxiliary people, whose seasons typically run from February to November. That’s what he said. We all looked and said: “Okay, a year will encompass that?” He said yes; we all nodded. So I’m feeling confident that this will meet the intent of our discussion.

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

[11:50 a.m.]

Amendment approved.

Clause 1 as amended approved.

Title approved.

the amendment pass?

Amendment approved.

Clause 1 as amended approved.

Title approved.

Darlene Rotchford: I move that the Chair report Bill M214, Firefighters’ Health Act, complete with amendments.

Motion approved.

Amna Shah (Chair): Motion to adjourn.

Motion approved.

The committee adjourned at 11:51 a.m.