Thank you. Clause 2, does the committee agree? Oh sorry, I'll go to the Member from Range Lake.

Okay, the motion is in order and copies are being distributed to the motion. The committee may debate the amendment motion and then call question. Okay, thank you, I wil go back to the Member from Range Lake.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. So, there's one area of this bill that is not equivalent to what was offered in Bill 29 and that is around latency periods. So a large effort of Bill 29 was to ensure accessible and equitable latency periods for cancer coverage for firefighters.

Currently, the way this bill is structured is those latency periods, the period between your employment as a firefighter and when you qualify for the presumptive coverage for a particular type of cancer, is to be set by regulation and that each cancer will carry between a 5- to 10-year latency period. So, that means you'll have to wait a particular period of time for a particular cancer.

And the latency periods that are set, there's a lot of math that goes into it, I guess, and decision-making that isn't always solely scientific. So, there is a concern that some of those latency periods just aren't -- are complicated and don't make a lot of sense, especially when you're in a position of someone requiring the care, and we want to get them the care. We want to get them the coverage; that's the whole point of this. So this amendment will bring the latency periods back to two years across the board for cancers. Cancers will still be allowed to be set by regulation, which will capture the evolving nature of cancer coverage for firefighters engaged in this work, which always is evolving. But it will set the latency period for those diseases at two years. And that means two years' employment as a firefighter will qualify you for the presumptive coverage. And, again, this was part of Bill 29. It was reviewed by the Standing Committee on Government Operations extensively. And the bill as amended, that emerged, it was endorsed by committee and brought before the House, did include this clause as well. And I believe it's appropriate to ensure that we are keeping Bill 48 true to the commitment of equivalent or better coverage for firefighters and all first responders who are contained by this bill.

And this is the one area... or, sorry, there are two areas, but this is the perhaps most important area where we have to make sure that this bill reflects that work. And, again, a lot of time and effort that went in through the committee's review that showed that this was an effective and efficient use of legislative and financial resources to support firefighters in receiving this kind of important coverage. So I encourage Members of the House to support this amendment so, again, we can ensure that Bill 48 honours all of the promises of Bill 29. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you. The motion is in order and copy has been distributed already. Is there any further questions to the motion? I'll go to the Member from Inuvik Boot Lake.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate that.

And first and foremost, thank you to the staff and the hard-working staff at the WSCC for the work on this bill. Obviously, thank you to the Minister and the department for the work put into this bill. And to the Gov Ops committee, which I am a Member of, for all the work that went into reviewing this bill. And, most importantly, my colleague from Range Lake whose advocacy and passion for this issue has been on display throughout. I certainly appreciate that as well, to bring that to this House. So, as my colleague had said, this bill was reviewed. The final iteration, I guess, of Bill 29 included the 2-year latency period. We had agreed that that would be part of the bill going forward. And, again, the bill was reviewed, was done, for the most part I think, fairly collaboratively all the way through. And then, again, it was discussed, obviously, at AOC, from that committee as well, around that. I appreciate some of the things that have been added to the bill by the department, but I do agree that I think -- I continue to support the 2-year latency. We supported it when it was at committee. We brought it forward that way. And I've been given no reason why, at this point, we should not still support that. So I do support the amendment to the motion. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Okay, thank you.

To the motion. I'll go to the Member from Frame Lake.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'll try to keep my comments as brief as possible. As Mr. Rodgers, or sorry, the MLA from Inuvik Boot Lake -- I'm sorry, Mr. Chair. As the MLA from Inuvik Boot Lake pointed out, this was reviewed extensively at committee. And I want to thank committee Members -- because I chair the committee -- for all their hard work on this bill. We certainly spent a fair bit of time with it, getting it to a place where we felt everyone could support it with amendments. And as the Member noted, it did get to this place with the bill with the 2-year latency periods. I just want to say, furthermore, you know, I made a point of speaking to constituents about this. And speaking to them about their feelings on, you know, there are certainly pros and cons to taking things out of regs and putting them in the bill itself. And I spoke to them about that. And the feeling was that the tradeoff for the 2-year latency period was worth it.

And so I did want to make sure that everybody understood that. And, yeah, so I had a conversation with constituents about it. And just note that, you know, I have to say, Mr. Chair, that I think this is a pretty deeply personal issue for the riding of Frame Lake.

You know, for one very obvious reason. And also just that there's a number of firefighters that live in this riding and so I feel particularly obligated to support them as their representative. And, you know, so this is one that I certainly do support. And I guess I'll leave it at that for tonight, noting that we are on o'clock. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you. To the motion. I'm going to go to the Premier.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Of course I want to join everyone in saying that, you know, we support enhancing coverage for firefighters. That's why we brought forward the best coverage in Canada with this bill. I do have some concerns about the 2-year latency period. Generally we like to make decisions based on evidence. I haven't seen any evidence brought forward. I know that across Canada these time periods are a combination of evidence and political negotiation. And I know that there was a lot of lobbying. People are doing their job, that's their job to do that, and it's our job to make sure that we are governing in a way that is respectful of, you know, the public purse that we've been entrusted with. And so in the absence of seeing any sort of substantiation from the Member on this 2-year period, it's really hard to say that's good governance. It may very well be correct, it may very well be appropriate, but to arbitrarily pick a number it's a difficult one to support. That being said, I would never want to stand in the way of this. And just because of that, Cabinet will be abstaining. Thank you.

Okay, Thank you. To the motion. I'll go to the Minister.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. And also, you know, I appreciate the work that's been done on this. And, you know, something that I committed to when I first started as a Minister, you know, and stuff that I wanted to see done. I know WSCC was working on this, you know, from the beginning. And, you know, they've had a piece of legislation in place already. So this is something that's also near and dear to my heart as I've spent 30 years in the fire service also. So I know the impacts. I know the people that have been impacted. And I, too, have been at those services where firefighters have passed on. You know, so I have to say, though, you know, it's difficult when you're in a situation like this where, you know, we are taking a, you know, something that is not necessarily fully science driven but politically driven, when across Canada we have latency periods that vary based on science and studies. And to me, you know, as somebody who's been in the service, you know, I believe in that we do have to support the firefighters and that's why we presented this bill. That's why, you know, committee's done the hard work. That's why the Private Member's bill was put forward. There's a want from everybody to support the firefighters and the service. Again, you know, committed to actually doing things that are, you know, scientifically-based and driven by jurisdictions across Canada on what's kind of the going rate.

So that being said, keeping in mind what's proposed already is the highest in Canada. And I think that shows the commitment. So thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you. Just for the record, that was the Member from Hay River South. And to the motion.

Question has been called. All those in favour? All those opposed? All those abstaining? Thank you.

The motion carried. Clause 2 is amended.

---Carried

Are there any other amendments to Clause number 2? Seeing none, clause 2 is amended, does the committee agree.

Please turn to page 2 of the bill.

Clause 3, does committee agree?

Clause 4, does committee agree?

Clause 5, does the committee agree?

Clause 6, does the committee agree? Member from Range Lake.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Chair, I move that Bill 48 be amended by deleting clause 6 and substituting the following: 6. This Act comes into force January 1st, 2027.