THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON NATIONAL SECURITY, DEFENCE AND VETERANS AFFAIRS
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Monday, June 12, 2023
The Standing Senate Committee on National Security, Defence and Veterans Affairs met with videoconference this day at 4 p.m. [ET] to study Bill C-224, An Act to establish a national framework for the prevention and treatment of cancers linked to firefighting.
Senator Tony Dean (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Honourable senators, good afternoon. Welcome to this meeting of the Standing Senate Committee on National Security, Defence and Veterans Affairs. I’m Tony Dean, senator from Ontario, the chair of the committee, and I would like to invite my colleagues to introduce themselves starting with the deputy chair.
[Translation]
Senator Dagenais: Good afternoon. I am Jean-Guy Dagenais from Quebec.
[English]
Senator Oh: Welcome. Senator Oh, Ontario.
Senator Cardozo: Andrew Cardozo from Ontario.
Senator M. Deacon: Marty Deacon from Ontario. Welcome. I’m so glad you are finally here.
Senator Richards: David Richards from New Brunswick. Welcome.
Senator Anderson: Akana. Margaret Dawn Anderson, Northwest Territories.
Senator Boehm: Peter Boehm, Ontario.
Senator Yussuff: Hassan Yussuff, Ontario.
The Chair: Thank you very much, colleagues. Today, our committee begins its study of Bill C-224, An Act to establish a national framework for the prevention and treatment of cancers linked to firefighting.
We are pleased to welcome today Sherry Romanado, Member of Parliament for Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, Quebec, the sponsor of the bill. Thank you for joining us today. Ms. Romanado, we begin by inviting you to provide your opening remarks to be followed by questions from our members. We understand that you may have to pause briefly to vote digitally with your colleagues in the House of Commons, but we understand that. We now invite you to provide your opening remarks to be followed by questions from our members. Please proceed when you are ready.
Sherry Romanado, Member of Parliament for Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, sponsor of the bill: Thank you very much. Good afternoon. Honourable senators, it is my pleasure to appear before you today to speak on my private member’s bill, Bill C-224, An Act to establish a national framework for the prevention and treatment of cancers linked to firefighting.
[Translation]
I want to thank the honourable senators on the Standing Senate Committee on National Security, Defence and Veterans Affairs for inviting me to be here today.
[English]
I would especially like to thank Senator Hassan Yussuff for sponsoring my bill in the Senate.
Canada has an estimated 126,000 firefighters working in some 3,500 fire departments around the country to ensure our protection. Across all of our provinces and territories, these brave men and women put their health, safety and lives on the line every day to keep their fellow Canadians and the property they own, the livelihoods they depend upon and the communities they live in, safe.
We all recognize that the work these emergency responders do is essential. Never has this been more evident than in recent weeks with their heroic response to the catastrophic and unprecedented wildfires that have been raging across many regions of our country, including in my home province of Quebec.
[Translation]
I’d like to take a moment to commend the incredible work of Canadian firefighters, and thank them on behalf of Canada and all Canadians.
[English]
We also recognize that the job is an inherently dangerous one. As the daughter and the wife of former volunteer firefighters, I developed a keen understanding at a very early age of the dangers involved in firefighting — or at least, senators, I thought I had. As it turns out, I was aware only of the imminent dangers firefighters face when the bell goes off, not of the much more insidious one that follows them home and lingers long after the fire has been put out.
We now know that the smoke and toxic chemicals that firefighters are exposed to in the line of duty — even from the protective gear meant to keep them safe, as we learned more recently — makes them four times more likely to develop cancer than the general population.
[Translation]
Last June, the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer, or IARC, reclassified the occupation of firefighting as a Group 1 carcinogen to humans, the highest level of carcinogenicity of occupational exposure.
[English]
Indeed, occupational cancers are responsible for over 85% of all duty-related deaths among Canadian firefighters.
In 2018, I was visited at my constituency office by a member of my local fire department, a young career firefighter and father in his forties, who had just been diagnosed with multiple myeloma. Jean-François told me the cancer he was battling — which I’m very happy to say he’s now in remission from — was not recognized by Quebec as an occupational illness linked to firefighting, but it was in other provinces and territories.
[Translation]
It’s unthinkable that, in one part of the country, a cancer contracted by a firefighter in the line of duty is recognized as linked to firefighting, but that, in another province, the same cancer developed by a firefighter in the line of duty is not recognized.
[English]
Through further meetings with representatives of the International Association of Fire Fighters, the Canadian Association of Fire Chiefs and my friend Chris Ross, President of the Montreal Firefighters Association, I learned that, unfortunately, Jean-François’s story was far from unique — that the cancer a firefighter develops in the line of duty may or may not be considered related to service depending on which part of the country he or she lives in.
Currently, for example, Alberta recognizes 20 presumptive cancers linked to firefighting, the highest number in the country. While Quebec recognizes only nine, one of the cancers it does attribute to firefighting — laryngeal — isn’t on Alberta’s list.
Clearly, each of these provinces has access to research and data that the other does not.
[Translation]
Although delivering health care and identifying occupational diseases is an area of provincial and territorial jurisdiction, it’s clear to me that the federal government can play an important role by bringing provincial and territorial partners together to promote information sharing.
[English]
That is precisely what Bill C-224 sets out to do. Its goal is to establish a national framework that would support research on the link between firefighting and certain types of cancer; identify the training, education and guidance needs of health care and other professionals, and make recommendations on regular screenings, to promote the prevention and treatment of these cancers; and collate the existing standards that recognize cancers linked to firefighting as occupational diseases and promote research, improved data collection and the sharing of information, knowledge and best practices in this area.
[Translation]
The bill also seeks to promote education and awareness by designating the month of January as national Firefighter Cancer Awareness Month.
[English]
To me, Bill C-224’s strength lies in its broad scope and the built-in flexibility that will ensure this national framework is developed in consultation with all of the partners concerned: provincial and territorial government representatives in charge of health, municipal governments, Indigenous governing bodies, health care professionals, scientists and, of course, stakeholders in the firefighting community.
[Translation]
The importance of firefighters to our communities and our country can never be overstated. They deserve our respect, gratitude and support.
[English]
That Bill C-224 passed unanimously in the House with the support of members on both sides of the aisle is a testament to the high esteem in which our whole country holds firefighters. It is also an acknowledgement of the duty that we, as parliamentarians, have to do everything in our power to protect their health and safety.
And there is no time to waste. By all accounts, we are heading into the worst wildfire season in our country’s history. If we have learned one thing from the 2016 wildfire that ravaged Fort McMurray and surrounding communities, it’s the lasting and devastating impact that such massive, intensive exposure to toxic carcinogens can have on the firefighters called in to battle these blazes.
[Translation]
Each passing day brings the risk of more hazardous exposure, more cancer diagnoses and more avoidable deaths.
[English]
Honourable senators, the faster Bill C-224 becomes law, the faster we can develop the national framework and start saving lives. Thank you. I look forward to your questions.
The Chair: Thank you, MP Romanado. Before proceeding to questions, I would like to ask participants in the room to avoid leaning in too closely to a microphone, or to remove their earpiece when doing so. This will avoid any feedback that could negatively affect committee staff in the room.
Ms. Romanado is with us today until 5:00 p.m. In order to ensure that each member has time to participate, I will limit each question, including the answer, to five minutes. The first question today goes to Senator Dagenais.
[Translation]
Senator Dagenais: Welcome to the committee, Ms. Romanado.
As you mentioned in your opening statement, fire departments are municipal creatures. The health of municipal employees is the responsibility of the provinces, as are occupational safety standards.
We know that firefighters are exposed to many risks besides cancer in the line of duty, but since this issue concerns health, can you tell us how the National Security Committee can play a role in developing a national framework for the prevention and treatment of cancers linked to firefighting? In tangible terms, what role can we play in relation to your bill?
Ms. Romanado: Thank you for your question. Thank you, as well, for your police service as a member of the Sûreté du Québec.
Given that health care is a provincial responsibility, the federal government can play a role by bringing people together. We have clearly seen that one province can have information that another does not. We want to bring all the players together to educate them on the importance of collecting all the necessary data to validate and share the information.
What are the best practices for preventing these cancers? What diagnostic tests do we have to prevent cancer? It’s about sharing that information.
At the end of the day, it’s up to the provinces and territories to decide how many cancers they recognize as being linked to firefighting, but the fact that we aren’t able to share that information right now is a problem. As MPs and senators, we should be aware. My father and my spouse are both firefighters, and I didn’t even know all this. Just think of all the parliamentarians representing Canadians who aren’t aware either. We should be sharing information to save lives.
Senator Dagenais: Did you estimate what it would cost the government to set up a national framework for sharing information? How much funding will be necessary, and how many people will be needed to support that process?
Ms. Romanado: That will be done under the national framework. The Minister of Health meets regularly with his provincial and territorial counterparts. It can be incorporated into their regular meetings.
As far as costs are concerned, since Canada has a universal health care system, when a firefighter is diagnosed with cancer, they will still be looked after. There are no additional costs. The person will still receive health care. This is about educating physicians and families so they understand that, as a firefighter, the person is at risk of developing certain types of cancers. The person’s physician needs to monitor them more closely since they have a higher risk of developing cancer.
Senator Dagenais: How much will fire departments in Montreal, Toronto, Vancouver and other big cities contribute to data collection? Will they agree to help with that?
To collect data, you need a system in place and funding. Do you have a sense of how they could contribute to the framework’s development, or will the federal government alone cover the costs associated with information sharing?
Ms. Romanado: All the stakeholders already have the data. I worked closely with the Canadian office of the International Association of Fire Fighters, as well as with the Canadian Association of Fire Chiefs. The data exist. We just need to be able to share them. They all agree. I believe the committee will also be hearing from those organizations’ representatives today.
In terms of prevention, there is no cost attached to preventing firefighter deaths. Right now, Canada is dealing with wildfires, so in two or three years’ time, we’re going to see a rise in cancer among the firefighters who battled the wildfires. Given that they are dealing with very intense fires for days on end, their level of exposure is tremendous and their likelihood of developing cancer increases. We need to educate people, share information, raise awareness and save lives.
Senator Dagenais: I have one last question for you. I keep coming back to costs. You need experts and physicians to do the cancer research related to firefighting. Will there be funding for that expertise, or will the institutions doing the research pay for it?
Ms. Romanado: The research exists already. Data out of the U.S. on the chemicals firefighters use are available and are validated by researchers. They already exist. In terms of federal funding, we have the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. We already have tools to fund research within the existing structures. The idea is to prioritize research on this type of cancer or that type of occupation.
Senator Dagenais: Thank you very much, Ms. Romanado.
[English]
Senator Cardozo: Ms. Romanado, thank you for coming here but, more importantly, for introducing this bill. It’s awfully important. One has to wonder why we haven’t done this before, but I congratulate you for taking this up.
I know that the International Association of Fire Fighters have worked with you and have been in touch with us on this. They are certainly a very effective representative of firefighters.
My congratulations to my colleague, Senator Yussuff, for being the sponsor of this bill.
I wanted to carry on with a question that Senator Dagenais asked with regard to the federal-provincial aspect. I assume the reason you are doing a framework as opposed to a law that points to certain specifics is because of the provincial jurisdiction, so you are trying to get everybody on the same page.
Ms. Romanado: Thank you, senator. Absolutely, we know that firefighting is under municipal and provincial jurisdiction. We also know that health care delivery is under provincial jurisdiction. The questions about treatment, screening and diagnostic are provincial. We are trying to use our convening power as the federal government to say: Let’s all get together at the table. What information do you have? Also, more importantly, what tools are you using to educate and train your firefighters to prevent this as much as possible?
The perfect example is the rural firefighter who is a volunteer firefighter. About 85% of firefighters across Canada are volunteers or on-call firefighters. Often, they will keep bunker gear in their car to respond directly to calls. The problem is the gear is contaminated. It’s the same trunk you are putting your family groceries in. I know this for a fact because my dad used to keep his gear in his trunk. My husband did as well — the same trunk where my kids’ baseball bat and toys were. We know more than we did before.
Regarding the question of what role does the federal government have, it is bringing the people together to say let’s share the information. At the end of the day, it’s the decision of provinces and territories. However, if we’re sharing information, we can no longer deny that cancer is prevalent in firefighting.
Senator Cardozo: From what you have seen in discussions with provinces, do you see a willingness to be a part of this? Proposed sections 4 and 5 talk about the minister putting forward a framework. How detailed do you expect that to be?
Ms. Romanado: Obviously, I have been in contact. The fact that every member of Parliament support this bill, representing every community across Canada, is commendable. I have been speaking with one of the members of the National Assembly that is in my territory. He has been supportive of it as well.
The Province of Ontario has just put forward additional presumptive cancers; Nova Scotia did the same after I tabled my bill. We are seeing that provinces are realizing that more and more cancers are linked to service. I think provinces will be on board with that.
With respect to your second question —
Senator Cardozo: Yes, regarding the framework.
Ms. Romanado: The beauty of it is I have written the bill to provide as much of a broad scope as needed. When I first wrote this bill, we didn’t know about per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, also known as PFAS, the forever chemicals. Now we do. It allows us to put into the framework whatever it is that we need to. For instance, the firefighters are going to be at the table, making those decisions and saying, “We think we should include this.” Health care professionals can say, “Have you thought about including that?” That’s where the beauty of the framework will be. Remember, the goal is the prevention, the treatment and the education of cancers in firefighting. We can put in it anything we want. We have listed some things in the bill, but that can change because things are changing. We’re seeing that now.
Senator Cardozo: Yes, thank you.
Mr. Chair, I don’t know enough about how the committee works as I am new to the committee, but will there will be an opportunity in a year’s time for us to review that framework given the kinds of issues that we will be raising today. Thank you.
The Chair: Senator, that is something we can discuss later in the meeting.
Senator Boehm: Ms. Romanado, thank you for being here with us I applaud your initiative on this bill. It’s high time.
In your second reading speech on April 4 of last year, you referred to the unique challenges faced by female firefighters, from ill-fitting gear to inconsistent standards across the provinces and territories. You noted there are few female firefighters in Canada. Do you have a figure on this as to how many there are? My sense is that numbers will only increase as fires increase.
You noted that Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta and Yukon are the only subnational jurisdictions that recognize women’s diseases such as cervical and ovarian cancer as being linked to firefighting. Since then, as you referenced in your speech, Nova Scotia was added to the list on July 1 last year.
Have more provinces or territories recognized that cervical and ovarian cancer can be linked to firefighting? Are you aware of discussions in any remaining provinces and territories? Do you have any thoughts as to why some provinces and territories have chosen not to acknowledge the link between firefighting and cervical and ovarian cancers?
My last question on this segment is this: In the measures outlined in the bill that could be included under the national framework, there is no specific mention of these women-specific cancers. Was that ever considered as a possibility? Would that be important, considering the unique challenges of female firefighters and that they are a minority in the country, or was the point to be as inclusive as possible?
Ms. Romanado: Thank you so much, senator. You raise a really good point. As much as I wish I could have had a longer period of time to do my presentation at the beginning, I could have included this.
Currently, just over 10% of the total number of firefighters in Canada are women. It’s relatively low. Remember also that first responders are often exposed to some of the same chemicals, so the number might actually be a bit higher than that. Effectively, right now, only eight provinces and territories recognize cervical and ovarian cancer as occupational hazards for female firefighters and, as you mentioned, Nova Scotia, Newfoundland and Labrador added those to it.
There is such a small number of female firefighters that I think there hasn’t been a lot of research in terms of data collection. I know the International Association of Fire Fighters is also looking into that on the United States’ front as well because currently the pool is not very large and not enough research is being put there. However, we know that it has been linked. We have eight provinces and territories saying that they have evidence to support it. I think, again, bringing everyone to the table will allow the other provinces and territories the opportunity to see the research themselves that support those claims that it is linked. As we saw with my first introduction of this bill, things have changed with the first introduction, namely, Nova Scotia increasing from 6 to 18. I think more and more provinces are looking forward to something like this, where they can come together and share information. I think it’s just a matter of time for all provinces and territories to realize that female firefighters are also exposed to cancers.
Senator Boehm: Thank you. If I may ask another question, could you comment on any challenges in establishing this framework at the subnational level, specifically as it relates to career firefighters versus volunteer firefighters? I know that you, and others, have made the point in the house debates that a firefighter is a firefighter regardless of employment status or postal code for that matter. What about dealing with the Department of National Defence regarding firefighters in the Canadian Armed Forces? They are now being deployed for the wildfires across the country. Would this bill, in the sense of its framework, cover them as well?
Ms. Romanado: Thank you very much for bringing that up. Full disclosure: I have two sons currently serving in the Canadian Armed Forces, one of whom was deployed as part of Operation LENTUS during the COVID pandemic.
Often, our members of the Canadian Armed Forces are called upon to respond to national disasters and firefighters, whether it is working for the Canadian Armed Forces or firefighters in Indigenous communities, they would be covered as part of this national framework. I have had a conversation with Minister Anand and Minister Blair with respect to whether this would apply to them, and it absolutely would. That’s the one area we do have jurisdiction over, so they would also be included as part of this.
Senator Boehm: Thank you very much.
Senator Oh: Thank you MP Romanado for being here. This is an important bill. I have a few friends that are firefighters and often talk to them about how dangerous their work is.
Are there any other countries that have a similar framework of cancers related to firefighting already in place?
Ms. Romanado: Thank you very much, senator, for the question. The United States is currently looking at developing something very similar. They have a similar sort of governance structure where each state determines which cancers are also linked to firefighting. The work is happening in parallel in the United States with respect to creating a national framework.
We know there are other jurisdictions, such as Australia and the U.K., that are looking at something similar. A lot of European countries are starting to see this, and this is the conversation. The minute the WHO declared firefighting a class I carcinogen occupation, the conversation changed and more countries are looking at what to do about this. With climate change, the reality is we will see more and more natural disasters, more forest fires, and so on. We need to get ahead of this. As I said about the Fort McMurray fires, we heard testimony at the House of Commons Standing Committee on Health that although they had been in service for a short period of time, the exposure to carcinogens they experienced during those wildfires fast forwarded possible diagnoses. We’re now starting to see cancers that are coming up in the firefighters that responded to that call.
The reality is rural firefighters don’t have the same equipment that big cities such as Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver. They have a lot of equipment for decontamination, and so on. Rural firefighters do not. This is something we also have to look at. We have a very large country and a large land mass, so we have to look at it also — similar geographies in terms of the challenges with respect to equipment, training and prevention.
Senator Oh: What specific types of cancer are typically associated with firefighters? Are there any?
Ms. Romanado: Thank you. I actually created a list. When I was first researching to do this bill, I was looking at which provinces recognized which cancers, and I created a little map that I can share with you. It shows the numbers. We did an excel sheet. We started comparing which cancers are recognized by which province. That’s where it pointed out that Quebec recognizes laryngeal cancer, but no other province does. There are 21 cancers that we know are linked to fire fighting. When you look at some of them, obviously, there is lung cancer. Believe it or not, when I was doing this at the beginning, Nova Scotia didn’t recognize lung cancer, which would be kind of counterintuitive. They do now.
When you look at it, the cancers could be everything from bladder, brain, breast, cervical, colorectal, esophageal, kidney, leukemia, lung, multiple myeloma, non-Hodgkin lymphoma, ovarian, pancreatic, penile, prostate, testicular, thyroid and uterine. There are a lot of cancers. You would not think these are something people would get fighting fires. You would think of smoke inhalation, et cetera. What we’re noticing is the largest organ on your body is the skin. It’s getting in through the skin. That’s what we’re seeing now.
As I said, when my dad was back in the day, I used to play around with his boots, and I’d wear the coat and so on, not knowing it was contaminated; no one knew about the gear. So after a fire, if you haven’t decontaminated the gear, you’re exposing yourself. Now add on the PFAS chemicals, so the very gear that is made to protect you may be putting you at higher risk.
Senator Yussuff: Thank you, Sherry Romanado, for all you are doing on raising this issue. It’s amazing how much we take for granted in society about what other people do to protect us, only to recognize they are not protected.
You just listed some of the cancers that firefighters are affected by and the ones that are recognized in some jurisdictions. Would it be fair to say that with every one of those cancers you listed that are recognized by a provincial or territorial jurisdiction, there is another side to that? There is the economic side of compensating the families of the individuals who might have a compensable claim in that regard. Do you think this has been part of the challenge of some provinces not getting onside sooner rather than later? It becomes a cost if the person ends up being diagnosed with that cancer. Ultimately you have to give him compensation in that context.
Ms. Romanado: Thank you so much, senator, and thank you again for working with me on this.
With respect to Workers’ Compensation or Commission de la santé et de la sécurité au travail, also known as CSST, that is provincial jurisdiction, and I don’t have any say over that. However, the federal government brought forward a program back in 2018 called the Memorial Grant Program, which is a program for first responders that recognizes service and sacrifice. Look, in a perfect world, we would be able to prevent cancer in firefighters. If they get sick, we would hope that the jurisdiction that they are in wouldn’t matter, that they would get the treatment and the care that they deserve and everything that goes with that and that — God forbid they succumb to their illness or injury — their family would be eligible for the $300,000 Memorial Grant amount. Right now, it’s a federal grant program that is based on whether your cancer was recognized in your jurisdiction. One family may be eligible if they lost a loved one to a cancer, but if the same cancer killed a firefighter in another province, that firefighter wouldn’t get it. That’s not fair. If we say we’re there, we’re there for firefighters.
I can’t dictate to a province what to do when a firefighter gets sick. We’ll be there to support them and with universal health care, they will have access to health care. But — God forbid we lose them — their family should be able to get the Memorial Grant.
Senator Yussuff: I’m working with a family and was working with a family who was afflicted by cancers from firefighting. He just passed away. He did not have the service to qualify for the provincial compensable benefit. After talking to the minister responsible for the file, he has now introduced changes to try to get those changes and hopefully retroactive. But it speaks to the disparity across the country and the patchwork that exists right now.
Maybe you could speak a little bit about how we could bring provinces together. I think this is based on evidence; it is not goodwill. The evidence clearly points to the infliction of cancer on firefighters and their job, and more importantly, of course, we know even though compensable benefits, are great.
The final thing I would like to address is how we take some of these carcinogens out of the environment. Ultimately, as we know, manufacturing of furniture and other things for the home is regulated. In that context, whatever you can remove from the manufacturing of these products will significantly enhance the safety of firefighters who have to go to a workplace or a home to put out a fire. Ultimately, if we could do that, we would certainly lessen the chemicals that intoxicate them to a large extent.
Ms. Romanado: Thank you, senator. You bring up a good point. When I was researching this bill, I read the worker’s compensation legislation of each province and territory to get a sense. Some provinces will say: “In order to qualify, you would have to have served for 25 years to be exposed,” and so on, so each jurisdiction is different. But those decisions were based on research and data, so by bringing everyone together, we can share the information.
For instance, in my home province, for laryngeal cancer, they have data that supports that. What is that data? Maybe by sharing that information, provinces and territories can update their legislation accordingly. Again, we cannot dictate that to them, but hopefully by bringing everyone to the table, that would be helpful.
With respect to limiting exposure, this is something that I had looked at with respect to the National Building Code which was being updated. The delay happened because of COVID. The codes were supposed to be updated in 2020, and they got updated in late 2021, early 2022. Firefighters’ safety is now a core objective of the National Building Code in terms of making sure that buildings can withstand more than seven minutes because the reality is it was based on getting people out of a building. Well, that’s when firefighters go in. That has been put into the new updated National Building Code.
There is work to do. We’re seeing California legislation and information regarding the anti-flame retardants on, for example, sofas and so on that actually give off chemicals. There is research there we can tap into. Again, that’s part of the framework because the question of prevention is in there. That will be key.
What else are we aware of? The International Association of Fire Fighters and the Canadian Association of Fire Chiefs have a wealth of information that they can bring to the table as well to say, “Look what is happening.” They are the ones that educated me on what is happening in California. It’s pretty interesting that they have this information, and they are willing to share it. We just need to bring everybody to the table.
The Chair: Thanks very much.
Senator M. Deacon: Thank you so much for being here. It is so important, and I’m just so glad that we’re finally at the table doing this today.
I come from Kitchener-Waterloo, and just learning about floral blocks, when we had our massive fire, and the long-term effects of those things that we use for flowers, what happened and the learning of the carcinogenic piece. Nobody really knew. So it does go on with this continuing collective learning.
I bring that up because in the legislation clause 3(3) indicates that the government may identify and compile information related to training, education and guidance for health professionals for the prevention and treatment of such cancers. I can read and interpret it. From your viewpoint, what was the impetus for this section? Is it the continued piece we’re hearing this afternoon, that cancers typically caught by firefighters might be rarer or not well studied? Are you aware of any other professions that also have high rates of these cancers? Do you have any Intel you can share with us?
Ms. Romanado: When we were looking at developing it, we asked what should be included, what could be included, and what must be included. We saw that when you’re drafting legislation — I’m not a legislative drafter, so I was working with the drafters — the federal government cannot direct provinces to do something that is under their jurisdiction, so we tweaked the language. We edited the language, because we cannot put on the federal government responsibility for something that is actually under another jurisdiction. We cannot include something that is outside of their control, so we had to remove that.
There are other things that can be put in there. This is not an exhaustive list. Once this bill becomes law, when we are developing the framework, there are opportunities that we can identify.
As I said, when I first brought this forward, we didn’t have any information about per — and polyfluoroalkyl substances, or PFAS. We didn’t know. Maybe that is something we include, other tools that firefighters are using that might expose them. There are other things that can be added in there. That’s about sharing the information and sharing best practices.
Senator M. Deacon: Thank you.
Senator Richards: Thank you, for being here today. When I fought forest fires when I was a kid. I had a hard hat, white gloves and a pair of boots.
My brother was a foreman at a mine. He was checked monthly for possible lead in the blood. I’m wondering if there is any preventative checking or testing done on firefighters across the country on a monthly or semimonthly basis for what they might have, if they have cancer or whatever.
Ms. Romanado: Thank you, senator. Thank you for your service in fighting those forest fires when you were younger.
Right now, each province and territory handles it differently. If we can’t even agree on a list of presumptive cancers, it’s hard to do the testing. It’s also up to the firefighter to educate the health care practitioner. Do they tell their health care practitioner, “By the way, I’m a firefighter. I’m exposed to a lot of toxic chemicals and so on and so forth. I’m also possibly at risk for developing these 21 cancers. Can you keep an eye on me? Can you take a baseline?”
One of our colleagues in the other place who was a firefighter said that when he retired, he actually insisted with his medical doctor to take a baseline for prostate cancer. He makes a point of saying, “I’m at risk of exposure. I’m at risk over the course of my career. Please test me.”
Part of this legislation is about educating everyone through the identification of January as the month for the prevention and treatment of cancers in firefighters. The goal here is to educate Canadians across the country, not just health care practitioners but nurses, and family members. Let’s be honest, most firefighters are men in Canada, and often men won’t say, “I’m feeling a little something. I’m not sure about this. I’m not sure about that.” Often it’s their families that are suggesting that they might want to get checked out.
This is about bringing everyone together in terms of prevention and catching it early if they are, in fact, sick.
Senator Richards: We have a problem in Canada, and it’s simply because of the federal-provincial divide that happens across the country in various portfolios.
We know refinery fires are probably more dangerous health‑wise than a house fire, but do you have a degree from, let’s say, red to yellow to green on dangerous carcinogens and certain fires, such as a forest fire compared to an oil refinery fire or whatever?
Ms. Romanado: I’m not a firefighter. I’m not an expert. I would suggest the next panel would probably be more able to answer that question. I really don’t know, and I don’t want to give you the wrong information. I’m assuming there is something along those lines, but I would suggest you check with the next panel.
Senator Richards: I will do so. Thank you.
Senator Boehm: Ms. Romanado, I have had some experience with national framework bills. I was involved in Senator Housakos’s bill on the Federal Framework on Autism Spectrum Disorder Act which received Royal Assent earlier this year.
One of the challenges there was getting people to understand that the bill, at the time, was not the framework itself but, rather, the guidelines to establish a framework. The framework for the framework, if you will.
Senator Cardozo mentioned the jurisdictional question earlier, and Senator Richards just touched on that as well. I noted that at the beginning when you introduced your bill, the Bloc Québécois, while being very supportive of firefighters, had an issue with the jurisdictional aspect and then somehow overcame that concern.
I would be interested in knowing how you handled that challenge in developing the bill and shepherding it through the other place. Framework bills of any kind at the federal level, where we get into jurisdictional issues with provinces, territories and municipalities, can be difficult, not to put too fine a point on it. Do you have any thoughts on that?
Ms. Romanado: Thank you, senator. Yes. I’m glad you pointed that out. A lot of people do mix up the bill that creates the framework with the actual framework.
When we brought forward the bill at first reading, the Bloc was not supportive of the bill and had concerns about jurisdiction. I’m from Quebec. I understand very well jurisdiction issues.
When we looked at the bill very carefully, it’s clear that the federal government isn’t dictating anything. Provinces don’t even have to come to the table if they don’t want. We hope they do. This is about, in good faith, bringing everyone together to share the information.
I can also say that firefighters can be very persuasive. From what I understand, firefighters reached out to the members. I spoke to a lot of the members. I wrote to every single member of Parliament. I was willing to meet with anyone. I spoke to them at length.
I’m someone who is not very partisan in the House, so I have been able to make relationships across the aisle. Right away, I had Conservatives signing on to second the bill, and NDP and Green. We were able to get support. I assured all members that the goal here is not to start putting my fingers in provincial or municipal matters. The goal is: Can we work together? The goal is to educate people, prevent as much as possible and save lives. That is the goal.
We did make some amendments to the bill at the House of Commons Standing Committee on Health to reassure that the goal here is the federal government has a role as convenor, and that’s the role that we’re hoping, and to sensitize people about cancers linked to firefighting.
Senator Boehm: Thank you.
Senator Cardozo: I have two quick points. I like clause 6, the awareness month. Those are really useful things when people can focus more attention on the issue.
Do you see down the road that the federal government may need to or should introduce legislation of any kind, such as banning certain carcinogens or how uniforms are made? Anything down that road?
Ms. Romanado: Thank you. Actually, Minister Guilbeault has now opened up consultations with respect to PFAS chemicals writ large, whether or not they should be banned in Canada. Obviously, if firefighting gear includes such chemicals, that would also be captured in there. I urge firefighters to voice their concerns as part of this public consultation as well.
Whether it be building codes or banning of chemicals, there are opportunities for us to move forward. As we said earlier, California is doing something interesting with respect to flame retardants on furniture. Definitely, more can be done.
I’m not sure how many senators knew about the link between cancer and firefighting before I introduced this bill. I’m sure some of you did. Like I said, there are 338 members of Parliament who know that firefighting can cause cancer, and now over 100 senators know that as well. We can share that information as well with our communities.
Senator Cardozo: Having carcinogens in firefighting gear is absolutely mind-boggling. I think that Senator Richards’s approach was probably correct in terms of not having protective gear, because at least it wasn’t carcinogenic way back when.
Ms. Romanado: As I said, I probably knew how to roll hose in Grade 2. Growing up, I played in the back of a fire hall. In playing with my dad’s gear, I exposed myself. We didn’t know, but we know now. The research and data are there. Share the data and let’s see what we can do about it. If we don’t know that the problem exists, we can’t do anything about it. That is the point of this. We know now, so let’s fix it.
[Translation]
Senator Dagenais: You talked about provincial differences. Have the provinces brought forward any recommendations or policies related to your bill? If so, can you tell the committee about them?
Ms. Romanado: We don’t have any feedback from the provinces or territories at this time. We didn’t know whether the House committee was going to propose amendments. The bill hasn’t been passed per se. We haven’t checked with all the provinces and territories. I discussed this with one of my Quebec counterparts, and they told me what a good idea it was. Other provinces and territories have changed the number of cancers they recognize as being work-related, as a result of my bill. The conversation has started, and everyone is in agreement. Now it’s a matter of choosing to act.
Senator Dagenais: Thank you.
[English]
Senator Yussuff: I have a couple of questions that are obvious in the bill but I wanted to clarify because of a brief we received from an organization.
The bill does not distinguish between structural, wildland, aircraft or shipboard firefighters. A firefighter is a firefighter, as far as you’re concerned. They are inclusive, period, in the context of what you’re doing here.
There is another issue that I have in the context of the approach that you take and how you drafted the bill. Recognizing the complexity of this federation that we call Canada, nobody wants to be told anything, but the reality is that whether it’s volunteer firefighters or those in the profession on a 24-7 basis, the implications for them are no different, regardless of where they are in the country. It’s a national approach in terms of us coming together in some way.
As you know, as a country, we finally found the courage to ban asbestos. We had known long before that moment that if you happen to work with asbestos at some point in your life and inhale it, it will kill you; it’s only a question of time. The latency period used to be 25 to 30 years.
I am one of those who worked with asbestos. I don’t know when that period may evolve, but we know from scientific evidence that within 25 to 30 years, it will show up somewhere in the system, or you might be fortunate enough not to have it show up in your system.
In the context of firefighter cancers, what is the standard latency period before we see the cancer starting to show up in a way that gives a clear indication that you’ve been impacted by the work you do?
Ms. Romanado: Thank you for that. I have two points.
First, cancer doesn’t know jurisdiction. Cancer doesn’t care if you responded to a call in Gatineau or in Ottawa; you were exposed. That was the premise when Jean-François came to see me.
With regard to your question about it showing up, it depends. I hate to use that language; it sounds like a very wishy-washy response.
For instance, Jean-François was diagnosed in his forties. We see people being diagnosed with cancers in their thirties and forties that normally you would only see in later life. For instance, normally you don’t see a diagnosis of prostate cancer in one’s thirties and forties, and we are now seeing that.
It depends on the type of cancer. It depends on whether you have the same decontamination facilities. As I said, rural Canada versus downtown Montreal; some may have decontamination facilities and others may not. They may have only one set of bunker gear or only one hood. Maybe they don’t wash it every time because they can’t; they are running from one fire or one call to another.
In terms of the question of prevention and education, we know they need two sets of gear. One is being decontaminated and not being brought home. We are not washing the gear and clothing in the same washing machine at home that we wash our children’s clothes in. There are a lot of things we know now that we did not know then.
We can educate people throughout the month of January. Families see their firefighter coming home with gear. I used to tease my husband that he smelled like bacon when he would come back from a call. I was pregnant with our first son, and he would get in bed smelling like he hadn’t taken a shower. He was covered in soot.
We didn’t know, but we do now. We need to share that information. We need to prevent this as much as possible because it is not going to go away. We have firefighters who are now my dad’s age succumbing to cancers that they shouldn’t have had to.
Senator Yussuff: The individual in the family I work with just died. He was in his mid-forties. Clearly, he was fairly young and in the prime of his life. The job took his life. As I always say, we go to work to make a living, not to die on the job. Too often, this is the reality for firefighters.
The last question is about the timing of passing this bill. I’ll let you answer that directly.
Ms. Romanado: We know that after Royal Assent, we have a year to create this national framework. We want to make sure the framework is developed in consultation with provinces, territories and firefighter stakeholders. We still have a year before it is put into effect.
January is coming up. January 2024 is officially the first month recognizing cancers in firefighting across Canada. We would like to start making Canadians aware of this.
Ideally, the faster we can get this legislation through, the better. We are in a minority Parliament. If an election is called tomorrow, this bill dies on the Order Paper and we’d have to start over in the next Parliament. I would hate for that to happen.
The fact that the framework is broad enough to include other parts once people come together is important. I urge senators to work with me to get this through as soon as possible so that the firefighters who have been waiting a long time for this get the recognition that their job is putting them at risk — not just on the call but after they return to the station.
Senator Yussuff: Thank you for all you’re doing and for your leadership.
The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Romanado, for being with us today. We have ended on a poignant note. You can feel the gravity in the room. Thank you for the time you have taken to be with us here today. Thank you for your hard work in promoting this bill and giving a sense of the gravity associated with the issues.
Many of us come to this place because we want to make a positive difference to Canadians and to our communities. You are certainly doing that in your promotion of this bill. We’re very grateful for that. We wish you well, and we thank you for the hard work that you are putting into this. Please accept our good wishes to you and your family members, who, we have noted, are also giving of themselves to public service and to benefit Canadians. So thank you. Our thoughts are with you, and we will work hard to make sure that we can support your endeavour.
In the second panel, we are pleased to welcome, from the Canadian Association of Fire Chiefs, Ken McMullen, President and Fire Chief of Red Deer, Alberta; and, from the International Association of Fire Fighters, Neil McMillan, Director, Science and Research. Thank you both for joining us today. We will begin by inviting you to provide opening remarks to be followed by questions from our members. We begin the panel today with Chief McMullen. Chief, please proceed whenever you are ready.
Ken McMullen, President, Canadian Association of Fire Chiefs: Good day and good afternoon to you all. Thank you sincerely for inviting me here to address you on Bill C-224, An Act to establish a national framework for the prevention and treatment of cancers linked to firefighting. As tabled by our good friend MP Sherry Romanado.
I’m the chief of emergency services in Red Deer, Alberta, and the elected president of the Canadian Association of Fire Chiefs, the national association that represents this country’s 3,200 fire departments and the 126,000 volunteers and career firefighters within them.
I’m honoured to be able to provide testimony in support of this bill, a bill for which you will know that my colleagues and I have been strong supporters of. I’m also honoured to be in the presence of my esteemed colleague from the International Association of Fire Fighters, my friend Neil McMillan.
I would like to begin by thanking you for taking the time to reflect on this bill. I am aware that the role of the Senate is to provide a sober second thought to key issues of importance to Canadians. We thank you for playing this role.
Fire chiefs know as well as anyone that things can go very wrong when consensus emerges too quickly or too slowly. Over the past few days, you may have seen the Canadian Association of Fire Chiefs on media stations across Canada and, in fact, around the world, from The Globe and Mail, to CBC, to the BBC, to Global, to CTV, The New York Times and local stations. The message is the same one I’ll share with you today. This country is relying heavily on the fire service that is seriously overburdened during this wildfire season and during the rest of the year. Training and equipment have fallen behind the times. We are adapting to climate change too slowly. These issues are predictable, and the situation is unsustainable.
What does this have to do with Bill C-224? You likely already know that firefighter cancer has been reclassified as a top-tier carcinogenic profession. Bill C-224 is important as it recognizes and identifies another risk and mitigating factor for the 126,000 firefighters we have in Canada.
Taking every action that we possibly can now, from passing Bill C-224, which will send a strong message that firefighter cancer is top of mind, to increasing the volunteer firefighters’ tax credit is what we need to make sure that we sustain morale for firefighters in this country. What happens if we delay? We will continue to hemorrhage firefighters.
And while I appreciate the jurisdictional issues involved with health care and have the utmost respect for them, the CAFC Cancer Prevention Committee has proposed a resolution for our upcoming annual general meeting that reads as follows:
Whereas Cancer as a disease, evidence as a domain, and firefighters as individuals are consistent across jurisdictions. And whereas each province/territory already conducts its due diligence to recognize presumptive cancers. Therefore be it resolved that a presumptive cancer recognized in one province or territory be recognized in all provinces or territories.
This is what the logic, if not the politics, would say. This is what we should be working toward.
There is a time where perfection can become the enemy of good. Our view is that right now this bill a good bill. Why do I feel comfortable telling you this? After all, it is my community, the firefighting community, that will be most impacted if this is not done well.
The answer lies in the consultation section of the bill. This bill requires discussion with all stakeholders, from the provinces and territories who have jurisdiction for health care, to scientists and to, most importantly, in my opinion, stakeholders in the firefighting community.
In this regard, then, the bill contains its own safeguards. We will hold government and the scientific community to account. When the alarm sounds, we take thoughtful action. Now is the time to take this thoughtful action as you are doing. Let’s finish the job and give a hand to those men and women on the front lines across this country. I thank you for this opportunity to share my views, and I look forward to the discussion.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. McMullen. Greatly appreciated. We’ll hear next from Mr. McMillan. The floor is yours whenever you are ready to proceed.
Neil McMillan, Director, Science and Research, International Association of Fire Fighters: Thank you very much.
Honourable senators, thank you for the privilege of speaking with you today. My name is Neil McMillan, and I serve as the Director of Science and Research with the International Association of Fire Fighters, the IAFF.
Under the leadership of our General President, Ed Kelly, extinguishing cancer is the number one mission of the IAFF, because it is the number one killer of firefighters, period.
Firefighters experience incredibly high rates of cancer, over 3,000 cases in Ontario alone. Occupational cancer accounts for 95% of Canadian IAFF line-of-duty deaths. In the last 10 years alone, we have recognized over 420 Canadian IAFF members who died in the line of duty from work-related cancer.
What we also know is that it is not just the smoke from the fires we run into that cause our cancers. It is also our exposures to per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances — known as PFAS — engineered directly into the coats and pants that are supposed to protect us and that we put on every time the alarm sounds. This national framework can help us to eliminate the unnecessary presence of cancer-causing PFAS in firefighter textiles, foam and equipment.
As a member of Ottawa IAFF Local 162, I served this city. In 2016, after 13 years of fighting fires, and at the age of 37, I was diagnosed with an invasive cancer. In 2021, another Ottawa firefighter, Ryan Hill, died of cancer the day after he turned 37, leaving behind a widow and two young boys. Thirty-seven is too young to develop cancer, and we as a nation should not accept cancer as being an inevitability of our job as firefighters.
Bill C-224 is key, as it will provide the tools practitioners need to detect cancer in its incipient stage, turning what has been a death sentence into a second chance.
From Yarmouth to Yellowknife, every IAFF local in this country has been touched by cancer, as I know many of you have as well. Whether it’s Craig Bowman from Welland Local 481, who lost his fight with occupational cancer just three weeks ago, or the clusters of firefighter cancers we have seen in communities who have suffered a single significant fire event, we have a duty to act.
What is also important to accept is the long-term health effects from the increased number of wildland-urban interface fires that now occur annually. Burning biomass release dioxins, aldehydes and other volatile organic compounds that are known to significantly contribute to a wide range of cancers. These fire events are long-lasting and result in our members being exposed for days on end without the protection of self-contained breathing apparatus, showers or other remediation methods.
As we have seen with the Horticultural Technologies fire in 1987, the Plastimet fire in 1997, the Fort McMurray fire in 2016, acute catastrophic exposures can drive carcinogenesis within a very short latency period, requiring flexibility in the systems that adjudicate the resulting cancers.
On the heels of the International Agency for Research on Cancer’s, or IARC’s, reclassification of firefighting as a group 1 known human carcinogen, this national framework is poised to address the gaps in recognition and interventions which exist across Canada, and build a path forward for provinces to follow — provinces such as New Brunswick and Quebec, which languish far behind other Canadian provinces when it comes to recognizing firefighter cancer. A couch that burns in a home in Saint-Hyacinthe, Quebec gives off the same carcinogens as one that burns in Mississauga, Ontario, and the related science does not change depending on the postal code the fire occurs in.
Furthermore, New Brunswick remains the only province in Canada that does not recognize prostate cancer as a presumptive illness for firefighters. And without recognition, there are no incentives to increase awareness, screening or prevention strategies that could be, if not a preventable cancer, at least a survivable one.
One tragic example is the story of Andrew Petrie from IAFF Local 999 in Moncton, New Brunswick. Andrew was diagnosed in 2014 and died two short years later at the age of 50, leaving behind his wife Trish and their two young boys, Alex and Brady. Last Friday, Trish read Andrew’s journal for the very first time, and she read about the fear he had regarding the financial uncertainty he knew his family was facing. Sadly, Trish did have to sell her family home due to the hardship that only arose because Andrew took an oath to serve his community.
Our firefighters should not have to rely on handouts to pay for the cost of occupational cancer, nor worry about whether their loved ones will be left destitute when they pass away. What they do deserve is the help this bill can provide.
Bill C-224 transcends parties because no matter what community you represent, firefighters are there answering the call and keeping their oath, ready to lay down their life to save the life of another.
It is for these reasons that I again thank you, honourable senators, for providing hope, for taking action and for standing side by side with our brave IAFF firefighters across Canada in support of this bill.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. McMillan.
Let’s go straight to questions. Colleagues, we have until 6:05 for this panel. I ask you to keep your questions succinct, and in this case to identify the person that you are addressing your question or questions to.
Senator Richards: Thank you very much. I’m going to ask the question — it probably sounds like a silly question to the two of you. But I’m wondering is there a distinguishing mark about which fires are worse for the likelihood of carcinogenic and a cancer. I’m assuming an oil refinery fire compared to a house fire or a forest fire. Which would you say? Are there levels you can distinguish one from the other?
Mr. McMillan: Thank you very much for the question, Senator Richards.
Cancer is complex. It occurs on a continuum. We have seen that chronic long-term exposures over the course of a career can lead to a higher incidence and higher mortality of cancer in firefighters, but additionally, we have identified acute exposures like the ones mentioned in the Horticultural Technologies fire, Fort McMurray, like we have seen south of the border with the World Trade Center disaster.
Other factors to incorporate are some of the physical exposures that might not be there at the fire scene. The effects of shift work, the effects of chronic fatigue, chronic inflammation, oxidative stress from some of the other physical exposure firefighters, unfortunately, are exposed to.
When it came to the IARC panel, they saw significant findings in five characteristics of carcinogenesis, which is alarming just for the occupation of firefighting. Some of those effects come from the fire scene, some are brought back from the fire scene to the firehouse, and some are just instituted in providing emergency service over a 24-hour period.
So, unfortunately, it is a perfect storm where both are factors that play in.
Senator Richards: You mentioned my province, and I’m going to ask this question very quickly. Why is there a discrepancy between provinces in deciding which cancers are related to firefighting and which are not? Is it research, insurance, or is it money? Is it simply a bullheaded idea that we don’t want to pay or recognize, or is it all of that?
Mr. McMillan: Without having a crystal ball, I can’t comment specifically. I’m forever the optimist that with the proper information made available, we can raise all boats with this tide.
The IAFF, under the leadership of General President Ed Kelly, has invested heavily into the research component, as well as informing practitioners and politicians as to the exact risks that come from firefighting exposure.
I would like to say the future will be bright as far as harmonizing coverage across the provinces, but I believe cost may be a factor. The cost of doing nothing is far more egregious than the cost of investing in these sorts of health care initiatives.
We know that many cancers are survivable if found early on, in Stage I as opposed to Stage IV. We also know from some of the data from some worker compensation schemes across Canada that the cost of a fatal firefighter cancer is sometimes 15 times as much as a non-fatal one.
I believe that with proper investment and education — that’s something that this framework can provide — we would be able to see more harmonious coverage across the provinces.
Senator Richards: Thank you.
Senator Yussuff: I have a number of questions, so I’ll go as quickly as I can.
You both spoke about families and the impact on families. How would this bill help families? They are always the ones left to deal with the challenge of their loved ones dying from something related to their work.
Mr. McMullen: Thank you, senator, for the question. It’s that component of our profession that we often forget about, the support of our supporters, those who are left behind, not only when we’re here doing our job but, heaven forbid, after we demise as a result of our occupation.
Right now in Canada, there are thousands of firefighters on lines of fires today. Of those, 80% are volunteers, not to mention the impact that they are having in leaving their own occupation. These are folks who have walked away from the businesses that they should be running, the equipment they should be operating. In doing so, they have added a new burden, which is, “How do I afford not to go to my place of employment for day 39 of this event in Alberta?” The assistance given in any capacity is a well‑received initiative that we are certainly going to support.
I would end by suggesting that the family be of the utmost importance in this bill, after the impact on the firefighter.
Senator Yussuff: The science around carcinogens is well known. We know the work you do every day to prevent fires. To have a smoke alarm in your house, it’s scientific. It’s been tested. It has proven its value. Why is it so difficult to get some jurisdictions to recognize that carcinogen exposure causes cancer, and for them to list it as such under Workers’ Compensation Board, or WCB, coverage?
I know it’s a very political question, but it’s an important question. For the men and women who commit their lives to this profession, that’s the least we can do for them.
Maybe you can respond with your own experience in dealing with this.
Mr. McMullen: I’ll give my perspective. Perhaps Mr. McMillan has a different one or a similar one.
We talked earlier about politics and money. I think both of those play a role in this.
We, as chiefs and associations, are good at lobbying. We also are up against lobby groups such as building industries and manufacturers that bring different arguments to the table. Sometimes their money argument outweighs our safety argument, if I was to be as blunt as that.
In the case of some of the known or unknown carcinogens, it’s simply around how much data we want to collect and how far into the data we really want to do the research. We know that it’s there. We know that it’s getting worse today than it was in what we would call our traditional homes and the products we put into our homes traditionally versus what we put in today.
I would suggest that politics and money play a significant role in why it is educated or not.
Mr. McMillan: We can see now through modern studies the epigenetic changes and the changes in DNA methylation in incumbent firefighters as compared to recruits. We can see that change because of those exposures. You factor out BMI or types of cofounding criteria within there, and the evidence is striking. In a lot of cases, the science is settled in the mind of researchers. When asking what chemical or what fire caused a firefighter’s cancer, it’s akin to asking which cigarette caused a person’s lung cancer. It is a totality of the exposures. We know from the stance of the current research that the changes on the cellular level are absolutely related to the polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, the PAH chemicals, the other volatile organic compounds and sum of the endocrine-disrupting chemicals.
I have heard discussions about the inequity in coverage for female firefighters as compared to males and the inequity of some of the science to that, but all the science that exists on female firefighters is consistent with what we know in male firefighters. When we can draw similarities between glandular cancers, adenocarcinomas, whether they occur in the prostate or the breasts or anywhere else, they all lead to the same conclusion that it was the chemical exposures from the occupation that contributed significantly to those cancers.
Senator Yussuff: Not that long ago, we knew that asbestos suits were fire-retardant, but they were equally dangerous on the opposite side because the fibre broke down, and if you end up breathing it, it will eventually cause serious harm to your health. We don’t provide asbestos suits anymore, because we know the reality of the development in that context.
Given that reality, why is it taking so long to develop new equipment that is not contaminated when used? It’s a basic question. Firefighters don’t get the choice of using the equipment when they go to work. They have to.
Is it a lack of research to get a handle on this or is it the fact that we don’t have the data in the context of a disease framework to know how many people are dying of these cancers and how frequently that is happening across the country?
As you know, society acts when it sees clear evidence in their face and insists the political class should respond to that.
Mr. McMillan: On the topic of PFAS chemicals in our turnout gear, it comes back to a broken standard system where certain tests have been implemented into a standard that other alternatives just can’t pass. Our turnout gear is the most heavily fluorinated textile in existence. Even when 50% of that PFAS is shed, mostly in our fire stations or through our skin, that gear still meets the current standard.
There are PFAS-free moisture barriers in use in Europe and Australia, but they cannot be certified through the standard that’s required in North America presently because of the prohibitive tests that are currently in place. As such, as you mentioned, that is a type of exposure to a known human carcinogen, a known human toxicant that has endocrine-disrupting effects, that recommendations from the United States Environmental Protection Agency, also known as the EPA, on certain PFAS in drinking water at a magnitude of 0.004 parts per trillion, and we have those chemicals in a percentage by weight in the coats we put on every time we head out the door when the alarm sounds.
Until the standards are changed and certification of our gear can occur without the PFAS chemicals being instituted, we will continue to have to put that on to serve our communities.
Senator Oh: Thank you, witnesses, for your service to our communities and our country.
If Bill C-224 becomes law, what is your expectation in terms of its impact on the health of firefighters and the development of personal protective equipment? Also, how will Bill C-224 impact cancer cases related to firefighting?
Mr. McMullen: That is two questions, sir, and I’ll try the first one. It’s in regard to how this will help, I believe.
Senator Oh: Yes.
Mr. McMullen: I wanted to make sure that I had that there.
In relation to the second question, which was more around the actual cancers, my esteemed colleague is very up to speed, as you have all witnessed today, on the cancer side.
In terms of the implementation of the bill and the law, the expectation will be consultation and coordination between provinces, territories and allies in the application of the cancers that we’ve all talked about.
You have heard it many times today: The cancer in Alberta is the same cancer that impacted those in Nova Scotia, on the other side of the country. We have an opportunity to show alignment, value and appreciation to the men and women firefighters across the entire country, which is absent today. There is recognition in some provinces but not in others.
Our expectation is that there will be a framework and consultation to determine the best method to assist with all 126,000 firefighters in this country — which includes volunteer composites and the International Association of Fire Fighters — to see a reduction in cancer over time.
The second question was in relation to those who have contracted cancer, and perhaps Mr. McMillan would be the best placed to answer that.
Mr. McMillan: I hear from our members in Ontario, Manitoba and elsewhere that when they discuss their risk of cancer with their general practitioner, they find themselves in the position of having to educate their medical doctors on what the risks are. They have to fight to get screening techniques such as heavy metal blood testing.
In terms of getting a broader-reaching application of this bill, we need resources — both from the ground up and from the top down — so that this information is available to practitioners, departments, unions and ultimately to our members when they need to get screened, when they need education on prevention and when policies are put in place.
The ultimate goal is to reduce the level of cancer in the fire service. Until then, we have to ensure that our firefighters are appropriately covered when they do contract cancer and that those cancers are found early. That requires guidance and assistance from this level of government to ensure that practitioners and all stakeholders involved have the information they need.
Senator Oh: Thank you.
Senator Wells: Thank you, Chief McMullen and Mr. McMillan, for appearing and for the work you’re doing, not just in your firefighting career. I’m sure that when you began your career, you didn’t think you would be sitting in front of a Senate committee doing advocacy work for cancer. Thank you for your advocacy as well. It may be the most important work that you do.
I want to talk about the timing of this legislation and the end of our parliamentary sitting.
You mentioned the necessity, when this bill passes, for consultation, coordination, implementation and framework development. When I hear all that, I think of time. We all know where we will end up, but it just takes time to get there.
What is your concern if this legislation is not passed before the current sitting we’re in — that is, before we rise for the summer — given that the big concern is what I’ll call early-age cancer and the time it takes, sadly, for the cancer to take hold after exposure? I’ll say long-term exposure, but it’s really short-term exposure as well with early-onset cancer.
Mr. McMullen: The timing couldn’t be more important, senator. You have recognized that it takes time. I’m here to tell you that we will put in the time that’s needed on our side. We will have whatever meetings are required. We have shown our support through any engagement we have had thus far and we’ll continue to do that.
My friends, I remind you that there are an unprecedented number of fires burning in our communities today. We’re seeing more fires in this province at this time of year than we have seen in recent history. Our men and women are supporting us every day through their activities to secure our cities and communities. This is not sustainable with the current method.
Since 2016, we have lost 30,000 firefighters in this country. At that rate, we have a sustainability challenge. We need to do everything we can today to demonstrate value and appreciation in order to ensure that we retain the firefighters we have and do our best to attract them in the future.
There is a host of reasons why some people join the service. Some call it a calling. Others are now doing their homework within that calling and asking whether it is the best profession for them physically and mentally. When they do the physical comparison, if we are not taking care of them, we will continue to see a reduction in the firefighting community.
Mr. McMillan: As Chief McMullen said so eloquently, this issue is of primary importance to the International Association of Fire Fighters and to the Canadian Association of Fire Chiefs. Our agreement on that is steadfast. We have members who don’t make $15 an hour and who have reached into their pockets to stand up a division within IAFF that funds cancer research. We’re coming to the table, and we’re coming more than halfway.
I’m a firm believer that you can’t have healthy communities without healthy firefighters. If this bill does not pass, we will continue to work as best we can. However, we encourage and support all levels of government to move, in order to allow this to take place.
As you said, some cancers have latencies that are very short. We have seen acute exposures lead to solid tumour formation within four years, and to leukemia and other cancers in under a year. We know there will be a diagnosis tomorrow. I’m sure that Chief McMullen and I will have a conversation in the near future with somebody who has a fresh diagnosis. It’s incumbent upon all of us to do as much as we can to get this bill to the goal line.
Senator Wells: Thanks so much. I have one more question on a separate topic.
Gear is probably more often replaced in well-funded fire locations or jurisdictions. When gear is replaced, what happens to the gear you’re getting rid of? Does that go to the volunteer sector? Is there a protocol or practice? Are we passing on something that should be given greater consideration?
Mr. McMullen: Thank you very much for the question. There is a combination of answers to that.
Fire departments are funded differently. In the average fire department, 10 cents of every dollar goes to prevention and 90 cents goes to response. The equipment that is required is very expensive. We talk about replacement of gear. Now there are questions and concerns about whether we should have a second set of gear if we’re continuing to contaminate the men and women who wear it.
Right now, there are standards for what we call front-line application use of personal protective equipment. However, the maintenance and standardization of that standard is yet to be determined. In other words, who is monitoring whether the volunteer department in northern Alberta is following the standards set out? Likely, this is not the case because cost will prohibit it.
There are fire departments that still use hip waders. Now I’m dating myself. In the 1980s, we saw firefighters wearing boots. They lifted up the boots, and the boots covered their knees. Those were called hip waders, and I’m afraid to say that they are still being worn in some applications.
That is in relation to the majority of the fire departments that are running the equipment. Sometimes they get funding. Volunteer fire departments — as well as career departments, for that matter — do a great deal of fundraising. They will often find ways to obtain the personal protective equipment that they feel is needed and that they are perhaps not being provided by their municipality.
I’ll end there and see whether Mr. McMillan wants to add anything in terms of what the IAFF does with their used gear.
Mr. McMillan: Thank you very much. The IAFF has a joint statement, in concert with the metro chiefs, advising our members to use their structural gear for its intended purpose — for structural firefighting and vehicle fires — and to limit use otherwise. We believe that the people who exposed us to those carcinogenic chemicals should be part of the solution to help get us out of those chemicals, whether that’s from a cost standpoint or not.
Our gear is overly engineered, which is why it costs so much money. It costs roughly $4,000 for a set of our gear, with a recommendation that we have two sets. Obviously, the fire service will need assistance to replace the gear, and in an appropriate period of time, to reduce exposure and get contaminants out of our fire stations.
There are higher concentrations of PFAS chemicals within fire station dust than in typical house dust. Fire stations don’t have a lot of upholstery and carpets, yet we have these high concentrations of PFAS in our dust from the textiles in our gear. It’s our hope that our action within the standards committees will reduce the cost of our gear overall and that other stakeholders invested in the health of firefighters at all government levels will assist with the financial component of replacement.
Senator Wells: Thanks very much.
Senator Cardozo: Could you tell us more about where firefighters are based? I would tend to think they are based in urban centres, large and small. But when we’re looking at these forest fires and wildfires, there aren’t a lot of firefighters there, I would assume. Does that mean all the urban centres are sending people there? I saw video just yesterday of 100 or more firefighters from South Africa who had arrived at the airport, probably Toronto, so you have international folks coming in.
Where do the firefighters come from who are doing that incredible work in the remote areas?
Mr. McMullen: Desperate times call for desperate measures. We are calling on friends and neighbours. There are different components to this. If you allow me, I will break it down for a moment.
There are wildland firefighters in Canada. There are structural firefighters and municipal firefighters in Canada. For the most part, in generalities, my colleague and I are representing the municipal side of fire fighting.
To answer your question, if I put it geographically, 80% of Canada geographically is protected by a volunteer or an on-call firefighter. If you inverse that and I talk population base, 80% of Canada’s population is protected by a full-time career, likely an IAFF fire department.
When you are hearing about our friends coming in from other countries, they are there supporting on the wildfire side. Canada has a robust system of interoperations and interoperability. You have heard of the Canadian Interagency Forest Fire Centre, or the CIFFC. It is the Canadian coordination centre that is getting these resource requests for Australia and New Zealand. Those individuals are on the wildfire side of the equation. They are not trained for municipal firefighting. They are not trained for structural for the most part. They are tasked in the treed areas.
What you’re seeing today, which is abnormal, because of the number of fires happening in our country right now, our municipal firefighters have had a long relationship with what we call “wildland-urban interface.” That’s part of our communities where we’re building right up against treed communities. Our municipal firefighters, which include our metropolitans, are assisting in those communities where we’re getting further involved in the actual wildland firefighting, which takes different training and equipment than what we typically get our training for. There was an announcement recently last week by the federal government to assist IAFF on some training opportunities, and we will look forward to working with IAFF on that exact component of how we train more firefighters on the wildland side because that’s not our typical response.
Senator Cardozo: Do many urban firefighters go off to do wildland fire fighting at a time like this?
Mr. McMullen: Yes, so if you allow me, I’ll speak on the Alberta situation, where I personally have been involved for the last 29 days as a member in those communities. In Edson, Alberta, firefighters from Calgary and Edmonton, and Fort McMurray are coming in to assist.
If you go back to Mr. McMillan’s examples of the Fort McMurray wildfire in 2016, there was probably not a fire department in Alberta that didn’t have some sort of response to the wildfire in Fort McMurray. I’m afraid to say that at the rate we’re going, we are all going to be involved in each other’s municipalities to give support on wildfire and large weather-related events.
On that note, we’ll point out we conducted a survey, as part of the Canadian Association of Fire Chiefs in 2022, and I’ll just very quickly tell you that in Canada, there are over 2 million responses to 911 calls in Canada. Of interest, over 50% of those are medical-related. We’re seeing an increase in the number of medical calls we attend. The point is we have seen a 5 to 7% increase in weather-related responses: floods, fires, heat domes, wind et cetera. To us, that’s alarming. That’s not something that necessarily we had predicted in that same fashion, and it just creates more of a reliance on our men and women every day.
Senator Cardozo: I have a question in regard to recruiting. I was interested that you mentioned recruiting, that this is really part of recruiting. Because for the people looking at firefighting as a career and seeing the danger, this bill will help you recruit people in the sense that you’re trying to make a safer workplace. What is the percentage of the shortfall that you have in terms of staffing overall? Are you able to recruit all the people you need?
Mr. McMullen: Thank you for the question. Today, we have 30,000 vacancies in the Canadian fire sector, which includes our metropolitans as well as our rural communities. That’s quite unheard of. In my 27 years in the service, there were always multiple applications for every job posting anywhere in this country. We are actually seeing vacancies, and again, in our volunteer components, we see a significant reduction.
Bill C-224 is going to help in the recruitment and retention. I think anytime we can show value and appreciation and show that we care about those men and women who are delivering this service, it goes a long way. We have to create new sales pitches. We have to create new opportunities and show value.
We’re losing the more senior individuals in our communities. They are aging out, meaning that most municipalities will not insure volunteers after the age of 60 to do the job. That’s the age demographic we seem to be losing at the highest rate.
At the other end of that, we’re having a challenge recruiting the younger generation for a whole host of reasons, mental health being one of them, but physical health being a significant component to that. If we had the ability to say, “Your health means something to us. We will do everything we can to ensure your safety throughout the beginning, middle and end of your career,” it is one more opportunity that we can use to help retain and attract individuals.
Mr. McMillan: To echo Chief McMullen’s statement, retention is a real issue across the fire service coast-to-coast-to-coast.
I know in my local, in Ottawa, our retirees have a life expectancy roughly six years below that of an average male in Canada. Six years may not seem like a lot, but firefighters are hired for their physical fitness and for a number of other attributes that would make individuals with underlying health conditions ineligible. We have a healthy worker factor. We have reduced rates of COPD, asthma, arthritis, kidney disease and many lifestyle-related illnesses because we recruit from a healthy workforce. Seeing those low rates of illnesses and higher rates of cancer and the ultimate lower life expectancy is absolutely affecting the type of recruitment that is occurring coast-to-coast.
With respect to where our firefighters are coming from to fight these wildland fires, Chief McMullen did an excellent job describing that. I was in Halifax earlier this month, and they saw unprecedented fires out there. Their municipal firefighters who I was interacting with, have been tasked. There were mandatory callbacks. They are providing services in jurisdictions in areas they wouldn’t normally be. There was an occurrence where the City of Halifax had two fire apparatus protecting the city because all their staff were serving these areas for the wildfires.
Just last fall when Hurricane Fiona came through the East Coast, we saw firefighters, IAFF members, all across the province serving in disaster roles. The IAFF does have members who are federal firefighters, but there is no federal fire service that provides a disaster response. It will fall on municipal firefighters, it will fall on the volunteers within the immediate jurisdiction so to have this framework in place that provides some of that overarching framework for, again, the awareness, prevention and to assist in reducing these occupational exposures, and having some of the mitigation processes outlined will benefit firefighters across Canada.
The Chair: Thank you.
Senator Boehm: My questions will be short. I had them on recruitment and retention, and that’s what we have been talking about in the last two questions.
Mr. McMillan, on behalf of the International Association of Firefighters, you appeared before the House of Commons Standing Committee on Health on December 13 last year. During your testimony you stated that you have:
. . . witnessed firefighter families being denied recognition and facing financial hardship due to the cancers acquired, which would be readily accepted in neighbouring provinces or in jurisdictions in the U.S.
Two weeks ago, I was in New York City and, for the first time, went to the 9/11 Memorial & Museum right on the site of the Twin Towers. I spent about four hours there with my daughter. It was quite an experience. If you have been there, you know there are crushed fire trucks and other emergency vehicles, but there is a lot of information about what was learned with respect to the contaminants that came out of the ruins, the fires, the combination of aviation parts and construction materials and the firefighters who subsequently got cancer and passed away.
How much of that has influenced your considerations here in Canada? The U.S. and certainly, New York state and City of New York have really taken major steps in that direction. It seems to me that out of that great tragedy, this is maybe one of the small silver linings we could get. You referred to it earlier as well. What can learn from our neighbours to the south?
Mr. McMillan: Thank you for the question. You’re absolutely right. It falls in line with Senator Yussuff’s comments earlier about as asbestos exposure. Mesothelioma has an average latency of 20 to 40 years. However, what we learned from 9/11 is that average latency for mesothelioma from the asbestos in that disaster is 11 years. It’s half to a quarter of what it would typically be. In dozens of U.S. states, the years of service required, the employment duration to be eligible for workers’ compensation because they recognize, again, the link between the occupation and cancer, is around five years — between three and seven years, depending on a number of those U.S. states.
There are some progressive actions there, as well with the determinations of what type of cancer should be allowable based on science. Sometimes, there is incongruence when it comes to the application of a law for presumption and the science that drives it. With respect to the types of cancer, sometimes it falls on the International Classification of Diseases, or ICD, code. If the ICD code doesn’t match, there is no coverage. The more holistic approach from body systems, body tracks that have the same type of tissue — and the tissues are affected in the same ways — is where we see some of those progressive models south of the border.
Some of the PAHs that firefighters are exposed to are measured in urinary metabolites. Those PAHs are absorbed or inhaled and metabolized within the body. They go through the blood, kidneys and bladder and are excreted. As a result, a lot of the urinary tract is covered. There was inequity as to some of that coverage with male and female firefighters in different jurisdictions but, again, the progressive areas understand that it’s the same body system and the same tissues. Arguments were made to support female firefighters’ breast cancer claims based on male firefighters’ breast cancer claims. It’s the same type of cancer. It’s treated the same way by oncologists. It’s the same type of tissue. I believe those are some of the lessons we can learn. Shorter latency, shorter requirements for the duration of employment and a more holistic approach when identifying or specifying the type of cancers that should be covered.
Senator Boehm: Thank you.
Senator M. Deacon: Thank you for being here and thank you to all of our support folks around here. That’s pretty powerful testimony. I think all of us agree it’s an absolute honour to host firefighters when they do come to the Hill. They lay down their lives for us, as you said. We have enjoyed listening to them over the last three or four years.
There is nothing quite as powerful as meeting and hearing the stories first-hand and then having our firefighters return home only to lose a comrade on the way home. That’s happening and it’s quite repetitive across the country.
I am changing my question because I’m finding this an emotional piece, but I do want to carry on with one line here. We have talked about recruitment in a number of different ways. There used to be line-ups and folks would take four or five tries in order to become a firefighter. It was a celebration of sorts in the community.
In the process of being interviewed and the selection, what information in 2023 is shared with a new recruit connected to the possibility of cancer?
Mr. McMullen: I’ll try from the municipal perspective. Recruitment in a volunteer department is far different than the recruitment in either downtown Ottawa or Toronto. Overwhelmingly, there is still a desire to be a firefighter in this country. We are a very proud and honoured profession such that people are still doing three or four attempts to get on.
When we come to our smaller municipality, even my own city of Red Deer, with a population of 105,000, has seen a decrease. One slight component to the Red Deer situation that might be somewhat unique, however, is that our staff are both paramedics and firefighters. What makes that a unique challenge is the pressures put on to the men and women specifically in the role of paramedicine today is different. I think that COVID had a significant impact — I don’t need to convince you of that — to the first responders. Every day, they didn’t know what new strain or hazard they were going to be facing.
As we learn more about mental health — and some of our colleagues in this room are very aware of the work we’re doing in the mental health realm; it’s a wonderful thing when we learn about it — it’s scary as all get out to learn about it but the more we learn about something, the more we want to be prepared to react to it.
If I may, senator, your question is around when do we start educating? We educate them now. Furthermore, we educate our spouses and partners, to a question raised earlier. I’m not suggesting that a spouse or a partner is going to detract or deter an individual from being a member, but they are going to have some different conversations once they know about the risks of mental health and the risks of cancers that individual is bringing home.
I came in at the end of MP Romanado’s speech about wearing her father’s gear. We talk about that today. We talk about how we go into schools and educate young children about firefighting. I used to put on the gear and crawl around. We don’t do that anymore. If we do, we bring in brand new gear that’s never been in a fire. There are ways that we can do things differently to be safer.
That is my answer as it stands on some of the recruitment challenges that we face. Perhaps I’ll give the closing remarks to Mr. McMillan.
Mr. McMillan: Thank you, Senator Deacon. We do our best to increase awareness. We want the applicants and the new firefighters to be informed of what the risks are.
Our senior firefighters are supportive of that within the IAFF because they have buried their friends from occupational cancer. Caskets get heavy. They know what is at stake. Where things fall apart is the operational requirements of firefighting. Without a doubt, firefighters, no matter what patch is on their shoulder, will put themselves in harm’s way when need be. That could be going into a burning building; or it could not be following the same safe practices for decontamination and post fire decontamination, if they are leaving one fire to go to another or to go to a medical emergency. That’s why, by having some of these supports from all levels of government that can help with retention, recruitment, proper staffing; and by having those prevention products that are necessary for reducing rates of cancer present in fire departments, we can hopefully bridge that gap.
Senator M. Deacon: Thank you. Perhaps Red Deer is the experienced part of the country, but when we’re looking at the volunteer firefighters, do you worry with this legislation that there are maybe some areas where they could fall through the cracks? For example, a city’s fire department might do regular cancer screenings on site, but perhaps not for volunteers. Do you have any concerns about them falling through the cracks as volunteer firefighters?
Mr. McMullen: Thank you very much. I certainly value your concern. We know that as we get further geographically, we run into challenges. I could go so far as to talk about the internet and the use of technology in some of our rural communities.
We believe that medical processes are done in almost all fire departments in Canada. Some form of physical and medical takes place. We will advocate on behalf of CAFC to ensure they are all being met through a standard. We cannot come to bat and we cannot advocate for something and then not implement it and not be sure that there is part of a solution that we play a role in to make sure.
We have done it in the mental health arena. We have made sure that there are ways we can deliver our messages to all corners of this country. We will do the same to ensure that the men and women in all parts of this country have the accessibility and availability to get whatever testing we think is appropriate to ensure firefighter cancer screening.
The compliance, we’ll have to wait and see, in all fairness.
Senator Dasko: Thank you to the witnesses for being here today. I want to ask a couple of questions about the provinces, first of all. You both mentioned some of the issues with the way the provinces deal with the issue.
Mr. McMullen, you said, for example, that the cancers that are mentioned in some provinces should be mentioned in the other provinces.
Mr. McMillan, you mentioned provincial differences and the importance of that.
I wanted to ask you about the provincial differences and whether, in fact, adding more to the list actually does result in a province doing more. Is there a connection between this and the outcome? Do provinces that take this approach actually end up doing more in this field?
Mr. McMillan: I can speak anecdotally to the areas that have wide coverage. In Ohio, if you can prove you are exposed to an IARC Group 1 or 2A carcinogen in your workplace, no matter what cancer it is, you can be covered through their workers’ compensation system. What it allows for is early detection, screenings and frequent medical visits. The cancers that they are seeing there are being caught, again, in the early stages. They are being treated, and members are returning to work, to full duties.
From what I have seen through my membership on both sides of the border is that when there is coverage, it means there is attention, awareness and a spotlight. One difficulty we have in Canada is not being able to conceptualize the real impact of cancer in the fire service, because if a cancer is not covered provincially, we don’t know, people know there is no assistance, there are no health care benefits, there is nothing for their families, they don’t report them. It’s not captured.
Senator Dasko: Can you tell me about the provincial differences? Which provinces do better, and how do they do it better? What is it that they are doing that the other provinces aren’t?
Mr. McMillan: I would like to say that with the provinces that are leading the way, such as Alberta, they are consulting with their stakeholders. They are consulting with their fire departments and with their unions. They are asking the information.
I was fortunate to sit in a meeting with the deputy minister in Alberta. It was a one-hour meeting, and the meeting went to two hours. I was in it along with Dr. Dan Whu, Chief Medical Officer with the IAFF, and we were providing them the information, the justification, the science and the connections they wanted so that they can make better informed decisions to better serve the firefighters in that province.
Provinces that are engaging the stakeholders, the firefighters who are invested in it, who are keeping track of the science, they are the ones who seem to be making the appropriate advances and keeping pace with the state of science.
Senator Dasko: Are they running any awareness campaigns? Do either of you know about the awareness campaigns that the provinces are actually running and who the campaigns are directed toward?
Mr. McMullen: Yes. There are certainly some campaigns. As I mentioned earlier, the Canadian Association of Fire Chiefs has representatives from all provinces and territories, as well as our allied groups which represent our Indigenous firefighter communities as well as a group called the Canadian Volunteer Fire Services Association. They are all part of our cancer committee within our association. We put out publications through our association to better inform our men and women of the risks being faced by fire departments.
Again, it goes back to the autonomy that each of the municipalities has. If we provide them good literature, the likelihood of them using it and providing it internally within their own stations is far more likely, and we do believe that is happening.
Senator Dasko: Would you describe these as campaigns among firefighters? Is that the focus of the campaign?
Mr. McMullen: Thank you for clarifying. Yes. I would suggest that the majority, if not all of the campaign, is done internally for internal use. In other words, we’re not getting a lot of literature from government, for example, informing us of some of the cancer-related risks that we face in our occupation.
Senator Dasko: It’s communications internally sent. The target groups are the internal organizations and workers.
Mr. McMullen: Yes.
The Chair: I am sorry to interrupt. We have come to the end of our time with this panel.
We would like to thank you both for sharing your expertise and experience with us. The evidence that we have heard is serious; it’s jarring. The occupational health challenges and outcomes are obviously severe, and we have learned that we now have a sustainability challenge in terms of resources.
Mr. McMillan, thank you for sharing your personal story of disease and recovery. We wish you the very best as you move forward.
To you both, thank you for informing our consideration of this important legislation. We are deeply grateful to you.
Colleagues, we move to the final panel of witnesses today in relation to our study of Bill C-224, An Act to establish a national framework for the prevention and treatment of cancers linked to firefighting.
In this final panel, we are pleased to welcome, from Health Canada, Matthew Jones, Assistant Deputy Minister, Healthy Environments and Consumer Safety Branch; And Dr. Miranda MacPherson, Director, Office of Environmental Health, Healthy Environments and Consumer Safety Branch.
Thank you for joining us today. We will begin by inviting you to provide opening remarks, to be followed by questions from our members. I understand that today’s remarks will be delivered by Matthew Jones.
Mr. Jones, proceed whenever you are ready. Welcome to our meeting.
Matthew Jones, Assistant Deputy Minister, Healthy Environments and Consumer Safety Branch, Health Canada: Thank you very much, chair. For the benefit of the interpreters, I have cut a few points from my remarks because so many of the things that we wanted to make sure the committee was aware of were covered well in the rich discussion that’s happened in this room over the last couple of hours.
Thank you, chair and members of the committee, for inviting us. We’re happy to be here and to have this opportunity to talk about this particularly important subject.
The risks faced by firefighters have been well covered and are well understood and documented. The World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer concluded that the occupational exposures experienced by firefighters are, in and of themselves, carcinogenic. This is a first and it’s a sobering conclusion. We could elaborate much further, but there is probably no need at this moment.
Health Canada researchers were among the international committee members who contributed to this evaluation. Moving forward, Government of Canada officials will continue to collaborate internationally to tap into the research that exists elsewhere in academia and through various organizations and governments around the world. We will continue to try to lead and contribute constructively to these important efforts to better understand and address the risks faced by firefighters.
I would like to talk about some of the actions that Health Canada and our colleagues within the public service have been doing to help protect firefighters from occupational exposures.
In his mandate letter, our health minister has a commitment to develop an action plan to better protect firefighters from harmful chemicals released during household fires in 2020. In response to that commitment, we brought forward a firefighters action plan in 2021. Through the plan, the Government of Canada is working to regulate harmful chemicals — specifically, flame retardants; supporting the development and use of safe flame retardants and other less harmful alternatives; conducting research and monitoring to assess firefighters’ exposures to chemicals; identifying practices for firefighters to reduce harm, such as related to personal protective equipment, as discussed earlier; and, sharing information and raising awareness on the risks experienced by firefighters and opportunities to better protect themselves on the job.
Since the launch of the action plan, the Government of Canada has taken a series of actions to help address the health risks faced by firefighters. Health Canada and Environment and Climate Change Canada have prioritized the assessment and management of chemical flame retardants, as we have discussed a fair bit today.
To date, we have completed risk assessments for over 150 chemical flame retardants, finding 35 of those to be harmful to human health. We have taken action to restrict use of 23 of those and are continuing our efforts on the remaining 12.
Further, in May of this year, Health Canada, along with Environment Canada, published the DRAFT State of Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) Report. Along with that document, we also published a risk management scope paper indicating the beginnings of a path forward to address the chemicals highlighted in that class.
The publication of these documents is a key step in the process of managing this class of substances, some of which are expected to be harmful to firefighters. These draft documents are presently undergoing a 60-day comment period. We invite stakeholders to participate and provide comments in that process. We will use that feedback to inform the risk management actions it will take to address their use.
As another element of the action plan, we have been expanding our research on occupational exposures. I recently spent time at a Health Canada lab. Many of the people I met were talking about the work they were doing related to firefighters. There was a full set of gear that had been undergoing multiple experiments. There is air and dust sampling collection going on in fire halls here in the Ottawa area to inform our studies. There is even a collection of urine samples from firefighters and biomonitoring research to help better understand the extent of exposures and the different exposures in different places.
We have also been working with University of Ottawa researchers to look at skin decontamination techniques to evaluate their efficacy. Those results will be forthcoming shortly.
We’re trying to focus our research based on input from stakeholders. I would like to briefly highlight a couple of workshops. In December, we cohosted a workshop with Ontario Health’s Occupational Cancer Research Centre, which brought together Canadian and international firefighters and researchers. Experts highlighted a long list of areas we need to zero in on, including surveillance, screening, various opportunities for exposure mitigation, increased communication, knowledge transfer, as well as the need to learn more about the specific needs and priorities of female, racialized, wildland and Indigenous firefighters, and to ensure that we can inform actions that protect all firefighters and their specific needs.
In collaboration with the International Association of Fire Fighters, we are planning a second workshop this fall. The workshop will focus on intervention-based research priorities, knowledge gaps of concern to firefighters, facilitating knowledge transfer and how best to protect firefighters in Canada from occupational exposures and particular chemicals.
In conclusion, I would like to say this is perfect timing for us to have this conversation. On a personal note, I can say we share the frustration of the inconsistency of the treatment across jurisdictional lines. We’re concerned about the extent of exposure that firefighters face. We’re also increasingly concerned about what seems to be strengthening evidence linking the exposure to adverse health effects. We’re committed and motivated to develop the framework that the bill calls for, and we will be using our convening power. We look forward to pulling our colleagues together from across the country to achieve meaningful outcomes, so we will convene our provincial and territorial colleagues. We will be engaging with stakeholders. We will be taking action on chemicals.
It’s worth noting that the Senate is about to vote on the amendments to the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, which is the legislation under which we manage chemicals in this country, and we’re hopeful that we’ll be able to take more efficient and more effective action on the substances of concern. To the greatest extent of our abilities, we will be contributing to the research in this area to increase our knowledge base so that we can take informed action.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Jones. We will now proceed to questions, and there will be many, as has been the case over the course of the evening. The first question for this panel goes to Senator Deacon, Ontario, and then several others to follow.
Senator M. Deacon: Thank you both for being here as part of a very informative afternoon and evening.
As you described toward the end of what you were saying, Health Canada has a very significant role in the work of this framework, whether it’s compiling statistics, information, best practices for sharing or with respect to the kinds of cancers that we’re seeing in our firefighters.
Have you had in your department a similar experience in working with provinces and municipalities on other at-risk professions when it comes to specific health side effects and afflictions? Is there, for lack of anything else, a template or something you are drawing from federally? If you could start there, that would be great.
Mr. Jones: I could maybe start. I’m new to Health Canada. I spent most of my career at Environment Canada. Certainly, we are looking at other frameworks. I think some of the challenges that we are likely to face around data collection and aggregation have been addressed on other issues, and we’re leading some of our colleagues. Our group is really the health and environment kind of nexus, but certainly colleagues elsewhere in the department that work more on infectious disease and other topics have experience that we could leverage.
Senator M. Deacon: Thank you.
Senator Oh: Thank you, deputy minister, for being here.
My question is for both of you. Are there any other countries that have a similar framework already in place for cancers related to firefighting? If so, how does this framework relate to the proposed framework in Bill C-224?
Miranda MacPherson, Director, Office of Environmental Health, Healthy Environments and Consumer Safety Branch, Health Canada: It’s an excellent question; thank you so much. As part of developing this framework, we will be scanning and collaborating internationally. While I’m not aware of countries that have similar frameworks, we are interested in following closely what the U.S. is doing. I think we would see them as leaders in part because of the funding. As well, they have a firefighter registry as do the United Kingdom and Australia, so they take a cohort of firefighters that they follow long term, tracking their exposure and then following presentation of disease. We’re looking at those best practices, and that will inform the framework.
Senator Oh: In terms of sharing equipment and the new types of equipment they are using, is there any sharing going on between our country and the other countries?
Ms. MacPherson: I would say not to my knowledge. I may not be best placed to respond on that particular point.
Mr. Jones: That’s something that perhaps we’re hoping we can get from our stakeholder engagement in terms of sharing of equipment. We’d be looking to some of our key stakeholders to help inform that question.
Senator Cardozo: I want to ask you about the government’s action plan to protect firefighters from harmful chemicals that you announced in August 2021. How does that fit in with this framework? Will it become part of the framework, or will it be two separate processes running together?
Ms. MacPherson: That’s a great question. I would say that the firefighters action plan is definitely something we will build on. I think it probably will become part of that framework. I think the framework is the way to further strengthen our action.
Senator Cardozo: Perhaps this would have been a question to our previous witness. In terms of the gear that is dangerous, essentially, we need to replace that gear. What would a framework do to deal with something like that?
Ms. MacPherson: I’m not sure. That’s a really great question. What I would say is the intervention research workshop that Mr. Jones has referenced is where we want to work with the International Association of Firefighters, bring together experts that study mitigation to identify best practices and then determine what those priorities should be. That may be an opportunity for us to consider whether that’s something that should be prioritized.
Senator Cardozo: To clarify — it may be obvious, but I would like it on the record — is the minister in favour of this legislation?
Mr. Jones: Yes.
Senator Cardozo: That was what I was looking for, just to know. Thank you.
Senator Boehm: Thank you very much to our witnesses for being here.
I’m not betting a man, but since this bill went through the House of Commons without any opposition and is with us now, I would say the chances are pretty good it’s going to get passed into law fairly soon. So, to use a term of art, are you at Health Canada doing any priming of the pump to be ready to engage? Do you have the FTEs and the human resources required to get into some negotiations in other jurisdictional areas or make those comparisons with the United States that were mentioned in terms of moving ahead? We have heard about the incipient nature of these cancers, and we also know that fires are increasing in Canada. I would be eager to know, as a former member of the civil service myself, just how quickly you feel you’ll be able to move.
Mr. Jones: I’m happy to say we have been doing a lot of work in preparation for the development of this framework. Miranda and her team have prioritized this work already and have done quite a bit of work to lay the groundwork. We are also anticipating, with optimism, the passing of this bill and its Royal Assent. We have quite a detailed stakeholder engagement plan and strategy going forward, and we’re looking forward to engaging people. In fact, we have been able to get a head start on some of this work, even in advance of the final passing of the bill.
Senator Boehm: Does that include the international consultation perhaps?
Mr. Jones: Yes.
Senator Boehm: Thanks.
Senator Yussuff: Thank you for being here. It’s a rare thing to hear from a department that it is thinking ahead and preparing for work at hand. That’s a compliment, not a criticism.
Based on what we heard earlier, we’re beyond the crisis stage. When I heard the statistics given by my friends about the number of deaths, the age of the men and women who are dying from workplace cancer, this is not just a problem. It’s a huge crisis for the country, the profession and, of course, our communities. Because the loved ones are left to struggle with this. No person in their right mind would go into a profession where the outcome is that you’re going to die early. This is the evidence. Cut through all the niceties of what it talks about, this is the reality.
Recognizing what you’re doing to try and understand the complexity of how cancers attack people and the importance of data in sharing this knowledge — so two things I would ask in the context of going forward. A disease registry for firefighters is absolutely critical because it is not just that they need to know, we need to as a society. If we’re not recording it someplace where we can access that data, we are not going to be able to show the level of effort required, and if one jurisdiction is not moving, we can certainly use the data to expose the fact that we need to move faster.
The second issue I raise is that we’re seeing an unprecedented level of forest fires across the country. There are thousands of firefighters who will be exposed to this, and it would be nice to know who they are so that we can track them, because within three years, four years, five years from now, what we know — because of the sheer volume of the fires they are fighting — their exposure limit is far greater than anything we have seen before. What would normally take a 10-year latency period we are likely to see in 3 or 4 years manifesting itself in these firefighters.
I ask you to react to that in a general sense in terms of the work you’re anticipating that you will do, because this will help inform us, with regard to the passage of this bill, that we are in the right frame here, looking at this complex situation, recognizing it is provincial and territorial jurisdictions you have to work with to get the information you need to deal with the comprehensive strategy to prevent further deaths of firefighters in this country.
Ms. MacPherson: I agree with everything you said. We are in a crisis. A firefighter registry would be really helpful. At the same time, with the IARC’s decision, we need to prioritize what we call intervention research, so identifying those best practices to protect firefighters and, where we don’t know, identifying the research gaps and how to study them.
I agree with your point in terms of being able to follow firefighters in terms of wildfires. That will definitely be discussed as part of the framework.
Mr. Jones: In our engagement with the provinces and territories, data will be a key piece of it. Hopefully, with the passage of the bill and the subsequent development of the framework, we will move toward having that more comprehensive data set that, as you have rightly pointed out, will be extremely helpful.
Senator Yussuff: I would also suggest the work you’re doing — I don’t know how that’s being shared in general — but there are a lot of folks in the workplace who have been focusing on workplace cancer for quite some time, and there are multitudes of workplace cancers across this country, as we know. It would be important that people learn from this, because this is one particular profession, but there are a lot of other professions that are implicated equally by workplace cancers across this country, and we need a comprehensive understanding of what men and women who go to work every day to make this country work are faced with in a general sense.
Mr. Jones: We are concerned about occupational exposures to multiple substances. Through the Chemicals Management Plan, we are trying to prioritize and assess substances. That process is going to be informed, increasingly, by occupational exposures rather than general exposure levels. There is a long list of substances that various teams at Health Canada is focusing on, including exposure to radon, as well as our whole Consumer Safety Branch that is worried more about products that are defective and dangerous.
There is a lot of related work that is partially for the protection of Canadian citizens in general, but with an increasing focus on occupational exposures.
Senator Yussuff: Thank you for all you do on behalf of the country.
Senator Dasko: My focus is on awareness. We are talking about a framework which says, “The Minister must develop a national framework designed to raise awareness of cancers linked to firefighting . . . .”
I wanted to ask you about awareness campaigns. First, are you going to run any campaigns, whether Health Canada — Health Canada does run — as you know, because you work there — promotion campaigns. In my career in the public opinion business, I worked on many campaigns for Health Canada quite awhile ago.
You always need to know what the goal is of an awareness campaign. Who are the target groups? What are the messages that are targeted to the target groups? Could you flesh out for me how you see the awareness campaign — those parameters, what those are?
Mr. Jones: We could talk about this for a while. Maybe I could start, and Ms. MacPherson can add.
The Firefighter Cancer Awareness Month is a key piece, and we would look to bring awareness through that vehicle. It’s a helpful tool.
The research that we are going to be doing and gathering, we would look to promote the results of that research both for users in a smaller group, directly impacted crowds, but also to the public. It’s important that Canadians understand this issue.
We would be looking to work collaboratively with stakeholders, and often other organizations like IAFF are perhaps better skilled, in some ways, than the public service is for getting the word out about new developments, key statistics, research and appropriate actions.
Generally, there are two different targeted streams. One is directly to inform people that are directly implicated, and the second is more to the general public. We would look to do that directly and through collaboration with others.
Senator Dasko: You have got a general public target, and you have got the firefighters.
What about the medical community? And physicians? Would they be considered a target group of a communications campaign?
Mr. Jones: That’s something we would be looking to do in collaboration with our provincial and territorial health ministry colleagues and perhaps through the Public Health Network.
Senator Dasko: Would Health Canada run a campaign?
Mr. Jones: It depends on what you mean by “a campaign.” If it’s an advertising campaign, I can’t commit to that because I don’t have dedicated funding to support that at this moment. Certainly, we use various tools to make people aware of the research that we’re doing and the studies that we found. We work with our communications team, for instance, social media and other things.
Senator Dasko: Can you describe what those tools are? What might you say and do, and whom you would target them to?
Mr. Jones: Sure. We have had various efforts on different topics over the last little while. So ministerial tweets, publications, website updates, tweets pointing at the website updates; working with other organizations who would point back online traffic —
Senator Dasko: There is a website with information on this?
Mr. Jones: I don’t know if we have a dedicated page on this at this moment, but, certainly, we would use our web presence to communicate externally.
Senator Dasko: Thank you.
Ms. MacPherson: I would just add that the scientists we do — are quite proud of us being an evidence-informed department. We would be looking to have scientists promote some of the work we are doing to share those results, and I think that would be targeted to firefighters.
Senator Dasko: So the scientists would do the communicating?
Ms. MacPherson: We do that at times, yes. We do profiles on scientists as well as profiles of scientific results. I can’t say for certain —
Senator Dasko: And you contemplate that here?
Ms. MacPherson: Yes.
Senator Dasko: Okay. Thank you.
Senator Richards: Thank you very much. I think Senator Boehm might have asked this. How much do you coordinate your research and responses with U.S. health, because we’re so interlinked? I’m wondering if you share information, share the assessments, quality assessments, and all the work that you’re doing, and is it feasible to think that this will continue? How does that go?
Ms. MacPherson: In our scientific work, we do collaborate internationally. We had U.S. scientists present at our first scientific workshop that is looking at research priorities for understanding the links between cancer and exposure. It’s definitely our intention to have U.S. officials there for our subsequent workshops. We do collaborate closely.
Senator Richards: Do you come to the same conclusions? You’re independent jurisdictions. What I’m trying to think of is it wasn’t feet of clay so much as I’m thinking of the Agent Orange in the 1960s that was spread across New Brunswick and caused a lot of cancer. It took until the 1990s to get work done. There was no response from the government and very little response from Health Canada.
Then I think of mesothelioma and the Thetford Mines and the hell that caused. There wasn’t urgency then, and I’m wondering if there is some urgency now about the firefighters and the carcinogens and all that.
Mr. Jones: I can’t speak to the examples you cited. With respect to firefighters, I have a work plan that says this is a priority that has been endorsed by my deputy minister in consultation with my minister. There already was an action plan.
I have moved money to do research in this area away from lower priorities, so I feel good about the work that we’re doing now and the path forward in terms of keeping this a priority.
Senator Richards: It really should be from what we heard today. Thanks very much.
Senator Anderson: Thank you to the witnesses.
Mr. Jones you mentioned in your comment earlier, the topic of research on racialized and Indigenous firefighters. Can you elaborate? Are there identified issues? If so, what are they?
Mr. Jones: The point that came out of the stakeholder workshop is that there are potential differences that need to be explored and better understood. It was more for informing new areas of research and engagement to make sure we’re getting at any gaps that currently exist. I know in the earlier session there was some talk about different kinds of cancer affecting with a greater incident women versus men. We would like to understand that better.
Ms. MacPherson: Our concern is just it’s a small population of the firefighting workforce so it may potentially be understudied. We want to ensure the efforts are there to make sure that all of those considerations are studied and well understood. With a framework, a goal would definitely be to create equity among all firefighters whether it’s volunteers, career, racialized or Indigenous peoples. The key first step for that is ensuring that it’s comprehensively examined.
Senator Anderson: I want to point out that in the Northwest Territories, where I’m from, the majority are in small, local communities and they are volunteers and have done so for decades.
I know universal health care was mentioned earlier. For Inuit, First Nation and is Métis, we’re covered under non-insured health benefits, and speaking as an Inuk who is under non-insured health benefits, it is extremely challenging that there is a preapproval process that is often prescriptive. That does include cancer. That does include denial of medications for cancer. That includes a wait time that is also prohibitive and places Indigenous peoples at greater risk, especially with the length of time it takes for a diagnosis for treatment.
I just want to make a note of that in terms of any cancer as well as fire fighting cancer, as an Indigenous person under non-insured health benefits, it’s a very difficult process to follow, to go through. A lot of Indigenous peoples actually do not go in for check-ups because of their experience in the health system. I want to put that out there and have that on your radar when you are looking at it in terms of Indigenous peoples.
Ms. MacPherson: Thank you for sharing that. That is an important consideration. We won’t forget that.
The Chair: Any other questions before we bring this panel to a close? This is the end of our final panel this evening. Thank you both Dr. McPherson and Mr. Jones for joining us. You have seen the degree of interest on the part of this committee in this bill and the occupational health issues that surround it. You have complemented well what we heard today and added considerably to it. We thank you for that.
I note this week is National Public Service Week. We have heard from, in the course of the last three hours, some wonderful, experienced and dedicated public servants at a number of levels in a number of jobs. I include the proponent of the bill when I say that. Thank you.
For those who spoke before you, some of whom are in the room, thank you for the work that you do every day on our behalf, it’s greatly appreciated. I know the committee appreciates it. I know that the broader community in the Senate appreciates it. Thank you very much.
Senators, having heard today’s testimony, are you ready to proceed with clause-by-clause consideration of the bill?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: It is agreed. Thank you.
Before we begin, I would like to remind members of a few points. If at any time a senator isn’t clear where we are in the process, please ask for clarification. I want to always ensure that we all have the same understanding of where we are in the process.
As chair, I’ll do my utmost to ensure that all senators who wish to speak, have the opportunity to do so. For this, however, I’ll depend on your cooperation. I ask all of you to consider other senators and to keep remarks to the point and as brief as possible.
Finally, I wish to remind honourable senators that if there is ever any uncertainty as to the results of a voice vote or a show of hands, the most effective route is to request a roll call vote which provides unambiguous results. Senators are aware that any tied vote negates the motion in question. Are there any questions on any of the above before we proceed? Seeing none, let’s go to clause-by-clause consideration.
You should have the appropriate paperwork in front of you and a copy of the bill. First, colleagues, is it agreed that the committee proceed to clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-224 an Act to establish a national framework for the prevention and treatment of cancers linked to firefighting?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall the title stand postponed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall the preamble stand postponed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 1, which contains the short title, stand postponed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 2 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 3 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 4 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 5 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 6 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 1, which contains the short title, carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall the preamble carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall the title carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Finally, shall the bill, not as amended, carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Does the committee wish to consider appending observations to the report?
Senator Cardozo: This isn’t an observation but a point that I raised earlier about it coming back in a year to the committee.
The Chair: Yes. Thank you for reminding me. I have clarified and been advised by the clerk that under our general orders of reference, we can return to items of this sort with the agreement of the committee. So yes, indeed, several months from now, or a year from now, we would consider a motion to revisit if that was of interest.
Senator Cardozo: Would that come up automatically in a year?
The Chair: No, it’s up to the committee to raise that if and when they wish to revisit.
Senator Cardozo: Can I suggest that it be brought up in a year’s time? Can I do that?
The Chair: We’ll make a note of it. You make a note of it in your forward calendar.
Senator Cardozo: Will do.
The Chair: Is it agreed that I report the bill without amendments or observations to the Senate?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Thank you. Colleagues, just before we call the meeting to a close, first, I want to thank all of you for your diligence and hard work this evening. This has been a bit of a long haul but very much worth it, I think.
I want to make a couple of brief remarks. This could be our last scheduled meeting before we rise for the summer. I first want to say that as I look around the table at each of these meetings, I’m reminded over and over again of our good fortune in having such a great committee membership here, a fantastic mix of talent from across all groups, inquiring, inquisitive minds, adding value at every meeting to the work we do, whether we’re considering bills or not. It is a huge privilege to work with you, and I enjoy every one of these meetings. This is the most favourite activity that I have in the Senate, and it’s because of the people that I work with.
We are also supported by terrific staff, and as we close out this session, I want to recognize and thank our library analysts, Ariel Shapiro and Anne-Marie Therrien-Tremblay, and other analysts who assisted on various legislative reviews; the committee clerks, Sara Gajic and Martine Willox, who travelled with the committee, and Catlin Seibel-Kamél; our administrative assistant for the committee, Natacha Umugwaneza; and, our communications officer Ben Silverman.
I also want to recognize the diligent work of our interpreters, our parliamentary reporters from Senate Debates, our Senate pages who support us in here, our console operators and room installation crews, TV directors, the crew and multimedia team, Senate Broadcasting, staff in our offices who go through this together with us every week and support us well, those who bring us food in here and cater for us, and, of course, those colleagues in the Parliamentary Protective Service who keep us safe.
Finally, I want to thank and commend our clerk, Ericka Dupont, a model professional who, as you have noticed, stays calm, cool and composed, even while she is trying to keep the wheels on this sometimes rickety machine, with me at the steering wheel. This is not the only thing that our clerks or Ms. Dupont do. I often think, wow, we have dedicated, fantastic support from these professional staff and colleagues. They actually do this for other committees as well, and I’m actually staggered by that.
Thank you, Ms. Dupont. Thank you to our colleagues around the room. Thank you very much to the staff who support us every day. It is, indeed, a privilege to be here with you.
Before we close, MP Romanado, congratulations. We thank you for all your hard work, the grind of moving a bill forward. From all of the professional colleagues who joined us today, who I know are also grateful to you, MP Romanado, thank you very much. It’s great to share this moment with you. We will continue apace to work on this bill, as a group of senators, and try to bring it home. We will do our very best for that.
There remains only to thank everyone in the room again and to wish everyone a good evening.
Honourable senators, we will be back to this bill shortly in the Senate chamber, and I look forward to that very much.
Senator Yussuff: You told us how you feel about us. You didn’t ask us how we feel about you.
The Chair: Let’s not get into that.
Senator Yussuff: It’s truly worth saying. For those of us on the committee and the important study that we are doing, we are blessed to have a wonderful, delightful chair to work with. Thank you for your great leadership. You have made us feel welcome and like a big family here. More importantly, we have accomplished a lot in the short time we have been on this journey.
I know we’re about to adjourn for summer. Speaking on behalf of all our colleagues, thank you sincerely for your leadership. You have held us together very well and made us humble to do this great work of ours.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
Senator M. Deacon: One little piece of business. Our last piece that we received through correspondence is that perhaps before the end of June, we may have the report. I just want to check.
The Chair: We are now collectively in the hands of the staff that I commended earlier. It is not certain. It is likely that with everyone pulling together, working diligently and reacting quickly to further reading, we have a good chance of seeing the report concluded and out. That’s our collective responsibility to work on that, and I know that we can depend on senators and staff in the room and those outside of the room, the interpreters as well, to help us get there. That’s our hope.
Senator Dasko: I’m very interested in the release of the report. If you could make sure we get all the information about when, what, where, et cetera.
The Chair: Indeed, we will do that.
Senator Dasko: Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you, everyone.
(The committee adjourned.)