The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Honourable senators, when shall this bill, as amended, be read the third time?

(On motion of Senator Patterson (Nunavut), bill, as amended, placed on the Orders of the Day for third reading at the next sitting of the Senate.)

[English]

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Bellemare, seconded by the Honourable Senator Dalphond, for the second reading of Bill S-244, An Act to amend the Department of Employment and Social Development Act and the Employment Insurance Act (Employment Insurance Council).

Hon. David M. Wells: Honourable senators, I rise this evening to speak to Bill C-224, An Act to establish a national framework for the prevention and treatment of cancers linked to firefighting.

For thousands of men and women in firefighting, the job is more than a profession. Firefighters face risks every day to protect others. They put themselves on the line for their communities, for citizens and for each other. It is well known that firefighters encounter carcinogens and toxins on a daily basis.

Initially, exposure was believed to occur from breathing in chemicals released during fires, as well as smoke, soot and asbestos. Further research has confirmed that those toxins can also be ingested and absorbed through the skin. The World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer, in July 2022, declared firefighting as a Group 1 carcinogen, the classification with the highest cancer hazards.

Through years of toxic exposure, firefighters contract cancer up to nearly four times the rate of the general population. Overall, the average Canadian has a 44% risk of developing cancer in their lifetime. This grows to 53% for firefighters. While a person has a 30% risk of dying of cancer, the mortality rate in firefighters is 44%.

To put these numbers into greater perspective, last year, 95% of deaths among Canadian firefighters were attributable to cancer. As a result, firefighting practices have increasingly emphasized the proper personal protective equipment usage, decontamination protocols and other measures like scrub-down areas in fire stations to minimize exposure to carcinogens.

However, in spite of these efforts, a growing body of research has shown that firefighters have been further exposed to deadly chemicals through the very gear that is supposed to protect them.

Firefighting coats and pants, as part of the collective gear, contain high concentrations of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, referred to as PFAS. PFAS are a class of more than 12,000 synthetic chemicals primarily used as surface treatment for the purpose of repelling water and oil. Their strong, long-lasting carbon-fluorine bonds make it so that many of them do not degrade in the environment and are difficult for the body to secrete. For this reason, they are known as “forever chemicals.”

PFAS are not exclusive to heavy-duty equipment and gear. In fact, these chemicals are found in everyday household items like cleaning products, rain jackets, umbrellas, tents, non-stick cookware and in the stain-resistant coatings used on carpets, upholstery and other fabrics like gym gear. They are even in personal care products like shampoo, dental floss, nail polish and makeup.

I deliberately note this, colleagues, to paint a picture of how integrated PFAS are in our lives. Through a number of toxicological studies, PFAS have been shown to impact behavioural development and metabolism as well as the circulatory, immune and endocrine systems. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention outlines a host of health effects associated with PFAS exposure beyond cancer, including liver damage, decreased fertility and increased risk of asthma and thyroid disease.

Now imagine wearing 45 pounds of work clothing covered in it every day.

It is also important to acknowledge that the high levels of heat firefighters face while battling fires help in releasing these toxins from the gear so that they regularly seep into the skin, are breathed in or enter the body through inevitable tactile transmission.

Emerging research has forced firefighters to reconcile that flames are not what they need to be most concerned about. It is the risk of cancer. In that regard, we must reassess the globally standardized gear that firefighters are required to wear. Colleagues, as you will recall, this bill would create a national framework to raise public awareness of cancers related to firefighting with the goal of improving firefighters’ access to cancer prevention and treatment. As critic of this bill, I wonder: How can the development of a framework be a solution?

Certainly, conversations on the merits of awareness should be had. However, true, effective change needs curative measures and not palliative solutions. If the goal is to reduce cancer for firefighters, we need to look at its sources and adjust accordingly. While little can be done to prevent the chemicals released during a fire, there is a direct, obvious solution in what is being worn in the first place, and it is simply to replace it with something safe.

Currently, firefighting protective gear contains PFAS to repel water and oil. Yet, as mentioned earlier, well-established science shows that its benefits are greatly outweighed by the dangers. Fortunately, safer substitutions exist with many more projects underway in an effort to transition away from these forever chemicals.

According to a Danish research report entitled Durable Water and Soil repellent chemistry in the textile industry, there are a number of alternative products on the market that provide durable water and oil repellency. These products contain modifications to their general chemistries that consequentially adjust their carcinogenic risk. There were five mentioned in detail in the report: paraffin repellent chemistries, stearic acid-melamine repellent chemistries, silicone repellent chemistries, dendrimer based repellent chemistries and nano-material based repellent chemistries. All these substitutes have chemical compositions that do not meet the definition of PFAS. In other words, they can be considered as safer alternatives to the chemical of concern when developing innovative firefighting gear.

As research is ongoing, I encourage the federal government to bring this crucial issue into consideration when developing this national framework. The concerns I have raised fall well inside the scope of this bill, given their direct link to cancer.

This is but one step the federal government can and must take to lower the risk for our firefighters and address their legitimate health and safety concerns. I would like to take a moment in my remarks to express that I’m fully supportive of this bill. In taking my role as critic seriously, I highlight the concern of firefighting gear to emphasize the necessity of this legislation and recommend a way to strengthen it within the existing purview of the bill.

The only reservation I have with this bill is that its original iteration, Bill C-224, included the line “provide for firefighters across Canada to be regularly screened for cancers linked to firefighting . . . .” I believe it was a very important element. However, this was later weakened to read, “make recommendations respecting regular screenings for cancers linked to firefighting.” Rather than requiring the government, it downgraded the measure into a recommendation. As someone who recognizes the separation of federal and provincial jurisdiction — and that is what this change was based upon — I can see why the change was made. However, I still think it does not stand as strong as it did in its original form. When it comes to protecting our firefighters from occupational diseases, time is of the essence. The earlier we screen for cancers, the better the outcomes, which is crucial given the implications and merit of this bill. Nevertheless, I’m proud to be involved in such a critically important bill.

Firefighters risk their lives every day to protect our communities, homes and lives. We must be there for them the same way they are there for us. This bill is one way of doing so by acknowledging the long-term health risks of firefighters and setting out frameworks to better protect them in the line of duty. It impacts far more than the firefighter. It impacts their entire family and the entire structure of our communities. Colleagues, this bill can save lives.

Thank you.

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: We do not have consent, Senator Dupuis. I am sorry.

Hon. Senators: Hear, hear.

[Translation]

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Honourable senators, it being 5:15 p.m. I must interrupt the proceedings, pursuant to rule 9-6. The bells will ring to call in the senators for the taking of a deferred vote at 5:30 p.m. on the second reading of Bill C-18, An Act respecting online communications platforms that make news content available to persons in Canada.

Call in the senators.

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Harder, P.C., seconded by the Honourable Senator Bellemare, for the second reading of Bill C-18, An Act respecting online communications platforms that make news content available to persons in Canada.

Senator Plett: I find that strange: “Don’t ask me the question; ask somebody else.”

Every day, it seems there are new revelations about foreign interference by Beijing and what the Prime Minister knew. The Prime Minister has always said there is a wall between him and the Trudeau Foundation. Last week, La Presse reported that one of the senior staffers in the Prime Minister’s Office reached out to the Trudeau Foundation in November 2016 regarding the “Chinese donation.” That’s a pretty thin wall, leader. A former board member told La Presse last week that the so-called political polarization reason the foundation and the Prime Minister gave for the resignations was — wait for this — “a bunch of lies.”

Leader, Canadians deserve the truth. There has to be a public inquiry. Clearly, the Prime Minister doesn’t agree or he would have called one by now.

But what excuse does his cabinet have? Why can’t they see that a full public inquiry is the only right thing to do at this point? Finally, leader, what do you call someone who spews a bunch of lies? What kind of language would you consider that to be?

Hon. Donna Dasko: My question is for the Government Representative in the Senate.

Senator Gold, members of the Canadian Museums Association are in Ottawa over the next two days as part of their 2023 Hill Day to speak with parliamentarians and others. The association includes many representatives from my city of Toronto, which is the home of fabulous galleries and museums.

However, people I know in the museum community are greatly concerned about the continuing turmoil at the National Gallery of Canada. As the search for a new, permanent director continues, my question to you today builds on the question posed to you by Senator Bovey last December, and that question is: Can you confirm that the new, permanent director will have two essential qualifications — an advanced degree in art history or in contemporary expression, and a career in directing and running a major gallery or museum? Thank you.

Senator Dasko: Given that the new, permanent director was expected to be announced by March 30, are you able to confirm today the date on which the announcement of this person will be made? Thank you.

Senator Dagenais: The government’s dental care program is going to become a bottomless pit and, as I’ve already said, it is even causing a shortage of dentists.

All that aside, do you think that it is right — and I won’t presume to refer to the Prime Minister’s chronic recklessness here — that Quebec families can pocket $630 from the federal government, even though the provincial government is already paying for dental care for children under the age of 10?

It seems to me that we ought to be able to harmonize our policies at some basic level. Isn’t there a way to harmonize policies in order to try to save Canadians’ money?

Senator Gold: Thank you for the question. My answer is twofold. First, if my memory serves me well, the Prime Minister says that he is open to discussing a bilateral agreement with his counterpart, the Government of Quebec, given that Quebec has a program that doesn’t necessarily exist anywhere else.

We will closely monitor that process and how the national program will be received in Quebec, and the amounts paid out.

That said, I must emphasize the importance of this dental program for thousands upon thousands of Canadian families, young people and not-so-young people, who don’t have access to dental care and who don’t have the means to obtain dental care, which is vital to physical and mental health. This is an important program for Canadians, and the Canadian government is proud to move forward with this program.

[English]

Hon. Claude Carignan: Honourable senators, this morning, Radio-Canada’s website had a headline about the Trudeau family vacationing with wealthy Trudeau Foundation donors.

This time, it wasn’t on the Aga Khan’s island, in London or Tofino; it was in Jamaica. Canadian citizens paid more than $160,000 of taxpayers’ money to provide security and other things that are required for the Trudeau family’s trip. Moreover, these costs don’t include the Challenger, which costs taxpayers a minimum of $10,000 per hour.

I checked Expedia’s website, and there are 5,105 hotels in Jamaica. Why did the Prime Minister choose the one owned by a wealthy contributor to the Trudeau Foundation?

Hon. Julie Miville-Dechêne: Would Senator Gold agree to take a question?

Senator Miville-Dechêne: I think legislation certainly needs to be as clear as possible, but it also needs to send a clear message. What came out in our hearings and, as you know, was very telling, is the fear that content creators have, those who create user-generated content. They are afraid that they are going to be covered under Bill C-11.

Unfortunately, the amendment as it’s currently drafted leaves a huge amount of uncertainty, particularly in terms of who will be covered. Is it anyone who makes money? Everyone knows that user-generated content allows small creators to earn an income.

How do you plan on reassuring those creators, considering they have been very clear about their fears? We’re talking about people who want to make a living. Just like the musicians who are opposed to this amendment, content creators exist and they feel that this amendment is unclear. Personally, I have to tell you that in reading it, I don’t find it particularly clear either.

Senator Housakos: Senator Gold, I’ve been now in this place for 15 years, and excuse me if I am a little skeptical of taking any government at face value. I as a legislator would like to see things in the law in black and white.

You pointed out as well that we should just have faith that this is going to be done and that we are here to make sure that we overlook and carry out our responsibilities, as you said in your speech, as legislators to make sure the government does what they say. Don’t you also agree that we are passing a law here that has not been supported by a regulatory framework? We’re leaving it to the CRTC, as you said in your speech. They will be carrying out public consultations in order to set the regulatory framework. What happens in case this regulatory framework isn’t consistent with the commitments you highlighted in your speech? What are our options as parliamentarians at that point with this bill to do a follow-up in a thorough way?

Senator Gold: You having been here for 15 years and I for 6 and a half years, we know that following Royal Assent there is a regulatory process. Following Royal Assent, there will be a process around the policy direction. I outlined that process to you and I will remind you it involves public consultation, public input, both at the front end and at the back end when the CRTC receives the public consultation. I will also remind colleagues — and as chair of the committee that studied the bill at length, Senator Housakos, you will also know — that the bill provides for reports to Parliament and parliamentary oversight and was improved in that regard by Senator Quinn’s amendment.

We have many tools in our arsenal, but the arsenal that we carry with us is a sense of what our role and responsibility are here in the Senate. Ninety-nine per cent of this bill was approved by this place and the other place. Of the 26 amendments, 20 were approved by three parties in the other place. This bill has been studied in this place and the other place extensively. The time has come now to recognize this is an important and good bill. The government has made firm, solid public commitments, and the text of the law is also clear with regard to what it applies to and what it does not apply to. If that is not enough for those in this chamber who in good faith want to see this bill succeed and pass, then I have run out of things to say.

If you want to kill the bill, there are lots of ways to do it. We have seen it in the past. We know how to do that. We can delay it. We can hope for another election. We can get it buried, and it will die on the Order Paper. But for those of us who believe that this is a good bill, a bill that has been improved by our amendments, and who believe that the elected members of the House of Commons have done their responsible duty and taken us seriously and have approved 20 out of 26 amendments, the time now is to give it Royal Assent.

Senator Wallin: The reason we are all asking you questions that seem similar is because it is not clear in the bill. Senator Miville-Dechêne and Senator Simons presented language — a compromise — inside our own committee. They presented language that would have given the government the right and the opportunity to be clear about what you promised and what they promised publicly, on television shows and in front of the committee.

If you really believe it, then put it in the bill. That’s why we keep asking the same question. A promise in a response to questions and in appearances on television is not law, and we would like to see it written in the bill.

Senator Gold: Senator Wallin, I appreciate your question very much. I answered it as best I could in the speech. I’m not going to reread it. The amendment, according to the government and according to the majority of the members of the House of Commons, did not achieve its objectives and poses a risk of undermining the central objectives of the act.

This was much debated in the committee and debated in the Senate. The Senate passed the amendment. The House respectfully disagrees. I’ve tried to provide the reasons why the House disagrees.

I’ve also tried to provide reasons which I know you will take seriously. Whether you agree with me or not, that’s your prerogative. Notwithstanding this disagreement, notwithstanding your disappointment or the fact that you do not necessarily find my answers compelling, we will agree to disagree and to pass this important bill for the benefit of the Canadian cultural community and Canadians in general.

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Do you have a question?

Senator Cardozo: Yes. My question is this։ Given that we don’t know everything about the technology that will roll out year by year, is this not the better way to do it? Should we not leave it to the CRTC to deal with those details and update those regulations every few years?

Senator Quinn: Senator Gold, really the focus of my comment is that all of the inputs received, et cetera, from people across the country — people who have appeared before the committee, people who have not appeared before the committee but have communicated with senators, across the spectrum — deserve to hear more directly than the normal process. You’re right: There are all kinds of things that are published and put on websites and whatnot, but the people who have been communicating with us may not be the people who deal with these issues in that format, if you can understand what I’m saying. They’re not used to the legislative process.

Should the government not have a proactive strategy to communicate with those people who have made their views on proposed section 4.2 explicitly known?