STATEMENT BY THE MINISTER AND RESPONSES
ONTARIO ASSOCIATION OF FIRE CHIEFS
ONTARIO PROFESSIONAL FIRE FIGHTERS ASSOCIATION PROVINCIAL FEDERATION OF ONTARIO FIRE FIGHTERS
EAST YORK FIRE FIGHTERS' ASSOCIATION
INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF FIRE CHIEFS
ASSOCIATION OF MUNICIPALITIES OF ONTARIO
PETERBOROUGH FIRE DEPARTMENT GORDON HOLNBECK
NORTH YORK PROFESSIONAL FIRE FIGHTERS ASSOCIATION
MISSISSAUGA FIRE FIGHTERS' ASSOCIATION JOHN MOSSA
CONTENTS
Monday 7 April 1997
Fire Protection and Prevention Act, 1996, Bill 84, Mr Runciman /
Loi de 1996 sur la prévention et la protection contre l'incendie, projet de loi 84, M. Runciman
Statements by the minister and responses
Hon Robert W. Runciman, Solicitor General
Mr David Ramsay
Mr Peter Kormos
Ministry briefing
Mr Bernie Moyle, fire marshal
Mr David Burnside, legal counsel, SOL
Ms Anne McChesney, legal counsel, SOL
Ontario Association of Fire Chiefs
Mr Harold Tulk
Ontario Professional Fire Fighters Association; Provincial Federation of Ontario Fire Fighters
Mr Jim Lee
Mr Bruce Carpenter
East York Fire Fighters' Association
Mr Michael Madden
Mr Mac Sheahan
City of Mississauga
Mrs Hazel McCallion
Mr Cyril Hare
International Association of Fire Chiefs
Mr Peter Ferguson
Toronto Fire Department
Mr Peter Ferguson
Mr Peter Simonsen
Association of Municipalities of Ontario
Mr Terry Mundell
Peterborough Fire Department
Mr Lee Grant
Mr Gordon Holnbeck
Mr Patrick De Fazio
North York Professional Fire Fighters Association
Mr Jim MacIntosh
Ancaster Fire Department
Mr David Guilbault
Mr Willis Blair
Mississauga Fire Fighters' Association
Mr Larry McPhail
Mr John Mossa
STANDING COMMITTEE ON ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Chair / Président: Mr Gerry Martiniuk (Cambridge PC)
Vice-Chair / Vice-Président: Mr Ron Johnson (Brantford PC)
Mr RobertChiarelli (Ottawa West / -Ouest L)
Mr DavidChristopherson (Hamilton Centre/ -Centre ND)
Mr BruceCrozier (Essex South / -Sud L)
Mr EdDoyle (Wentworth East / -Est PC)
Mr Garry J. Guzzo (Ottawa-Rideau PC)
Mr TimHudak (Niagara South / -Sud PC)
Mr RonJohnson (Brantford PC)
Mr FrankKlees (York-Mackenzie PC)
Mr PeterKormos (Welland-Thorold ND)
Mr Gary L. Leadston (Kitchener-Wilmot PC)
Mr GerryMartiniuk (Cambridge PC)
Mr John L. Parker (York East / -Est PC)
Mr DavidRamsay (Timiskaming L)
Mr DavidTilson (Dufferin-Peel PC)
Substitutions present /Membres remplaçants présents:
Mr GaryCarr (Oakville South / -Sud PC)
Clerk / Greffier: Mr Douglas Arnott
Staff / Personnel: Mr Andrew McNaught, research officer, Legislative Research Service
J-1801
The committee met at 1004 in room 228.
FIRE PROTECTION AND PREVENTION ACT, 1996 / LOI DE 1996 SUR LA PRÉVENTION ET LA PROTECTION CONTRE L'INCENDIE
Consideration of Bill 84, An Act to promote Fire Prevention and Public Safety in Ontario and to amend and repeal certain other Acts relating to Fire Services / Projet de loi 84, Loi visant à promouvoir la prévention des incendies et la sécurité publique en Ontario et modifiant ou abrogeant certaines autres lois relatives aux services de lutte contre les incendies.
The Chair (Mr Gerry Martiniuk): Good morning, ladies and gentlemen and members of the committee. I'll call the meeting to order. This is a hearing of the standing committee on administration of justice consideration of Bill 84.
I just point out, because they're all bundled together, that you should have received on your desk this morning written submissions by CUPE Local 79; fire chief Alan Speed of the city of North York Fire Department; fire chief Ivan Jackson, Village of Hastings Fire Department; Mr Norm Mitts; Ms Judy Taylor; the borough of East York; and fire chief Thomas Powell, city of Scarborough. You should have those. If you do not, speak to the clerk.
We will start this morning with a one-hour statement by the minister. I welcome the Honourable Bob Runciman, Solicitor General for Ontario, and also Mr Bernie Moyle, the fire marshal. We have one hour set aside for the minister's statement and the statements from each of the parties, so it works out to 15 minutes apiece. Without further introduction I'll pass the meeting over to --
Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): Chair, if I may, I was going to bellow out "point of order," but I realize that may not be necessary here, as compared to the chamber.
I moved several weeks ago in this committee, and the motion was adopted by the committee, that the hearings be held in the Amethyst Room. The committee approved that. I don't believe there was any dissent in that regard. I spoke with the clerk, who explained that committee rooms are assigned on a rotating basis, short of a committee which necessarily needs translation services, in which case it gets priority. I asked her how we give effect to the committee's request to be in the Amethyst Room, clearly for the purpose of televising these so that people have access to it across the province. She explained that it was incumbent upon the Chair to seek a transfer of rooms with the Chair of the committee sitting in the Amethyst. I wonder if that has been done, and if it hasn't, no quarrel.
The Chair: Mr Kormos, there was instruction from this committee, and it was unanimous, for me to proceed to determine whether or not the hearings could be held there. The clerk did the investigation and determined that the room had already been booked by the standing committee on finance and economic affairs for its consideration of the Assessment Act. I spoke personally to the finance committee Chair requesting that he move to permit us to use that room and he did not think that wise. He felt his bill was also very important. That discussion took place last week. That's why we're here.
Mr David Ramsay (Timiskaming): On another point of order, Chair: I was wondering if there was anything the committee clerk and the Chair could do to accommodate, as you see, the overwhelming interest in this bill. Is it possible to open up the adjoining committee room for the spillover, for the people here? Is there any way we could accommodate people so they could sit and possibly hear and maybe even watch the proceedings here in the justice committee?
The Chair: I'll have the clerk look into it. Unfortunately the audio will probably be the problem. However, possibly the clerk can investigate that while the presentation is being made to determine whether we can open up those rooms for seating purposes.
Mr Kormos: I've got some seating to my left. Mr Bisson won't be here this morning.
The Chair: That is members' seating, I understand, Mr Kormos.
Mr Ramsay: There's one seat, anyway.
Mr Kormos: I was just trying to accommodate.
The Chair: It is unfortunate, and I apologize to those who are standing.
STATEMENT BY THE MINISTER AND RESPONSES
Hon Robert W. Runciman (Solicitor General and Minister of Correctional Services): Thank you, Mr Chairman and members of the committee and those of you who are able to get into the room and those of you who can hear this outside in the hallway. It is regrettable that we don't have the room for all of you to be accommodated. I want to welcome everyone who has taken the time to be here today and come to the public hearings concerning Bill 84, the proposed Fire Protection and Prevention Act.
At the outset I want to emphasize that the government will give serious consideration to all comments and suggestions received during this committee process. Personally, I am looking forward to listening to the input of witnesses and I'm eager to work with everyone involved to ensure that this legislation achieves what I believe is our shared goal: to help municipalities provide all Ontarians with the best possible level of protection from fire in the most efficient way.
As I've said before, Bill 84 provides a whole new framework for fire protection in Ontario. The proposed legislation makes Ontario a fire safety leader in Canada, and it's long overdue.
1010
The proposed act consolidates nine separate statutes: the Fire Departments Act; the Fire Marshals Act; the Hotel Fire Safety Act; the Firefighters Protection Act, 1993; the Lightning Rods Act; the Egress from Public Buildings Act; the Firefighters Exemption Act; the Accidental Fires Act; and the Fire Accidents Act.
Some of these acts are so old, they're irrelevant. For example, the outdated Egress from Public Buildings Act deals with specific issues already covered in the fire code. That means the egress act has been irrelevant since 1980, when the fire code was first introduced.
For the first time in nearly 50 years, after previous governments examined the issue but took no action, the issue of fire services is finally being dealt with, I believe, demonstrating this government's fundamental commitment to fire safety.
Consultation on Ontario fire services has been occurring for almost 30 years. The most recent round of consultations began in 1989, when the Fire Services Review Committee was established. This committee included representatives of the Ontario Professional Fire Fighters Association, the Provincial Federation of Ontario Fire Fighters, the Ontario Association of Fire Chiefs, the Association of Municipalities of Ontario and the Fire Fighters Association of Ontario.
The committee met a number of times in 1990 and again in 1991 and a staff report on the committee's work was distributed for comment in 1993. Further consultations began in 1994, led by Mr Bernie Moyle, the Ontario fire marshal, who has joined us today and is sitting to my left. The fire marshal submitted a detailed report on legislative reforms in 1995 which stakeholders had an opportunity to comment on. In addition, the Who Does What emergency services panel concurred with the government's direction and confirmed that our reforms are sound.
Finally, I should add that there have been a number of meetings between the fire unions and myself -- I've been involved in a few of them -- my own staff and representatives of the ministry and the fire marshal on Bill 84.
Since Bill 84 was first introduced, there has been a wide range of comments and opinions from various stakeholders. I am glad to see that all of you here today and all those who have commented on the bill over the past few months clearly recognize the importance of fire safety for all residents of this province.
As I've emphasized in the past, Bill 84 will enhance public safety by focusing on fire prevention. Under Bill 84, Ontario will be the first province to make fire prevention and public education mandatory, which will help prevent fires from occurring.
Data gathered by the office of the fire marshal indicate that most fire deaths could have been avoided through greater use of fire prevention and public education programs. In fact, that's precisely what 20 coroners' inquests and over 60 inquest recommendations have called for.
In the past 25 years alone, fire fatalities have dropped 60%. This can be largely attributed to an increase in prevention and education, such as the distribution of smoke alarms and other prevention tools. By focusing on fire prevention and public education, Bill 84 can and will save more lives. In addition, the bill encourages automatic aid agreements which can improve response times in critical situations, meaning the closest fire service would respond to a fire regardless of municipal boundaries. When lives are at stake, this is only common sense.
Many people are surprised to learn that there is currently no requirement for municipalities to provide a fire service. I want to emphasize this point: Prior to Bill 84 there was no legislation to address levels of fire service or even a legislated requirement for a municipality to provide fire protection. Bill 84 corrects this glaring weakness in the current legislation by requiring every municipality to provide an appropriate level of fire prevention and fire protection to its residents.
This guarantee will be backed up by giving the Ontario fire marshal new powers to review municipal fire services. If the fire marshal believes there is a serious threat to public safety in a municipality, he, or perhaps in the future she, can conduct a review and make recommendations to the local municipal council. If the threat to public safety is not addressed, the Solicitor General of the day can, through cabinet, regulate the level of fire service to be provided in that municipality.
Our goal in creating this bill was to set the foundation for the safest jurisdiction in North America by ensuring that fire prevention and fire safety education are balanced with fire suppression capabilities that meet the needs of every corner of this province.
Over the past few months the government has listened to the concerns of municipalities, fire chiefs, firefighters and their unions about Bill 84, and we are still listening, because we want this bill to be the best fire services legislation possible. The message of the government to firefighters is clear: We want your input and we are prepared to listen to your constructive suggestions for improving Bill 84.
In saying that, I would like to take this opportunity to recognize the enormous contribution of professional firefighters in the 32 full-time and 120 composite fire departments across the province. Ontario's professional firefighters are among the finest in the country, demonstrating their commitment and dedication to fire protection and prevention for over 80 years. Firefighters play a huge role in our communities, ensuring the safety of the public right across this province. They clearly deserve our heartfelt thanks for all their hard work and dedication.
I'd like to take a few minutes to address some of the issues that have been raised by firefighters, their unions and others since the introduction of Bill 84 and provide the committee with an indication of some of the areas of Bill 84 that we intend to amend as a result of that input.
For instance, we have heard that there is a need to examine the definitions of several terms, such as the definition of a fire chief and the definition of a trade union. I want to indicate that we will look at those areas of the bill with a view to making improvements that clarify those terms.
Similarly, we have heard concerns about making sure that Bill 84 is consistent with the provisions of the Labour Relations Act in a number of areas and reflects fair labour practices. Of course we take these matters very seriously and we are looking at improvements to those parts of Bill 84 as well.
Another thing we need to make clear is that subsection 52(2) of Bill 84 was not -- and I'll capitalize that -- intended to interfere with firefighters' pension benefits, and we will be making an amendment to clarify that issue.
Let me repeat that we are prepared to listen to these and other concerns about this bill, keeping in mind that our objective is to improve and clarify the legislation.
1020
In the proposed legislation the definition of firefighter has been expanded to recognize the possibility that municipalities may wish to hire salaried employees on a part-time basis. Currently, a municipality is restricted to hiring full-time firefighters or recruiting volunteers. Generally, volunteers receive some form of compensation or honorarium for responding to an emergency, but are not paid a salary. Bill 84 provides municipalities with more flexibility as to how they deploy resources.
I also want to mention that currently most Ontario firefighters -- 18,000 out of 26,000 -- are volunteers who perform their duties capably and admirably.
The use of paid part-time firefighters can lead to an improvement in public safety. I'll give you an example: Under Bill 84 a municipality could hire someone for 24 hours a week to conduct a fire safety program. Many municipalities would benefit from an ongoing public education program, but are not large enough to occupy an employee on a full-time basis.
My priority as Solicitor General of Ontario is public safety, and that includes safety from death, serious injury and losses caused by fire. It's a role that I take very seriously, and I know that municipalities recognize their own role when it comes to public safety.
That's why I'm confident that all firefighters, part-time or full-time, will continue to receive appropriate training. I want to stress that safe and effective performance does not depend on a firefighter being full- or part-time. In fact, the Occupational Health and Safety Act requires that all workers be sufficiently trained to carry out their duties. It makes no distinction between full-time staff and part-time workers.
In practice, it may even be easier for municipalities to ensure part-time firefighters are adequately trained, because they can be directed to take certain training as a condition of employment. Training may be much more easily accommodated as part of a formalized working relationship between the employer and employee.
On another matter, Bill 84 will establish the Fire Marshal's Public Fire Safety Council to enhance private sector participation in delivering fire safety education. It will clarify the role of the province and the municipalities in delivering fire services.
As it has done since 1993, the Fire Marshal's Public Fire Safety Council will continue to play a key role in promoting partnerships with community groups and the private sector to raise awareness and better educate the public about fire safety. The public fire safety council will provide materials to all municipalities that require assistance.
Most importantly, the changes will improve public safety by ensuring that the public receives a continual and consistent message, making people aware of fire safety hazards, emphasizing individual responsibility and providing appropriate information to protect Ontarians from fire. While we're on the subject of partnerships with the private sector, I must clarify that the bill neither encourages nor discourages fire privatization in Ontario. That is a decision that must be made locally according to local needs and conditions. This option is available in all other provinces in Canada.
You may be interested to know that although no Ontario municipality has contracted with a private company for fire protection in the past, they have always had this option under the Municipal Act.
Bill 84 will bring common sense to the way fire services are organized on the ground in the municipalities in the province, so that fire safety is delivered in the most economical and practical way. To enhance these efforts, the province will support the best possible level of safety from fire at the lowest possible cost.
The fire marshal's office will work closely with all municipalities, especially smaller municipalities, to provide them with the materials they need to implement solid fire protection and prevention programs.
I must again stress that while this bill allows municipalities to determine what will best suit their own needs, the province will not allow any action which could present a serious threat to public safety. That said, we are confident that municipalities will make the right choices and decisions for providing fire services and fire safety in their own communities.
Ontarians living in isolated rural and northern areas will be happy to hear that this legislation will improve public safety for all Ontario municipalities, including isolated rural and northern communities.
For the first time, it provides unincorporated communities in the north with the authority they need for effective fire prevention and fire safety education.
In those areas, the traditional focus of fire suppression has not, and will not, provide the necessary level of public safety. Bill 84 gives them the means to take advantage of technology and place more emphasis on early warning systems and escape plans through effective prevention and public education.
Earlier, I spoke briefly about another important issue dealt with in the bill: automatic aid. This is the concept of allowing the closest fire station to respond to an emergency, regardless of municipal borders.
Currently, some cities have their respective fire stations and equipment immediately on a municipal border. If a fire occurred in a specific area of one city, a neighbouring fire department may be able to respond faster, but because of the way things are currently structured, they cannot. I think we would all agree that in many respects this is nonsensical and dangerous.
When lives are at stake, it shouldn't matter which fire department responds, and Bill 84 will make it easier for municipalities to arrange automatic aid efforts with their neighbours. It's only common sense that whoever can get there faster should respond, and we expect and are confident that municipalities will work together to improve public safety.
As a matter of fact, we are already starting to see positive examples of neighbouring municipalities working together on this front. Approximately 15 fire departments in Essex county have recently finalized an automatic aid agreement that could serve as a model for the province as a whole.
We are confident that municipalities, fire departments and professional firefighters will continue to work together to improve the safety of all Ontarians.
Of course, public safety remains our top priority. If we find problems in the future, we reserve the right and are prepared to act to ensure cooperation with neighbouring fire departments. I want to emphasize that any changes made by this legislation will be fair and that public safety will take precedence.
I'd now like to address some of the labour relations aspects of Bill 84.
In any other sector, public or private, managers are not members of the local union. Every other item of labour legislation achieves a balance between management and employees, which serves the interests of both parties. Current legislation states that only the fire chief and deputy chief of a fire department are excluded from representation by the local firefighters union.
For example, the city of Toronto has only two employees classified as managers to oversee approximately 1,300 firefighters. That just doesn't make sense. In today's environment, it is not realistic to limit the management of large, complex fire departments to only two people. We need to ensure that each fire department has a competent team of individuals who perform management functions, classified as managers, to act in the best interests of the public they serve.
Bill 84 includes a formula to automatically exclude a number of managers in a fire department depending on the total number of staff. For example, fire departments with less than 25 staff will have two managers, staff of 25 to 150 will have three managers, 150 to 300 staff will have four managers, and five managers will be assigned in fire departments which have over 300 staff.
Disputes regarding additional exclusions would be referred to the Labour Relations Board, which would render a decision based on the functions of the position, as they have done for many years in other sectors.
1030
The new legislation will ensure that any member of a fire department who functions as a manager will be a manager. I should also add that based on discussions I've had and input I know members of this committee have had, we are considering building in suitable protections for those firefighters who do not wish to take a management position so that they are so-called red-circled and do not lose their salaries because of that decision. We are recognizing the concern and attempting to address it.
I'd like to close today by reiterating this government's commitment to public safety, the key to the Fire Protection and Prevention Act. This legislation renews our commitment to preventing fires and improving fire safety across Ontario.
I am confident and expect that all members of the fire service, including firefighters and other fire service providers, will work with this government to create a piece of legislation that will make us a leader in Canada by ensuring safer communities for all Ontarians.
Safety is the bottom line. My goal, the government's goal, and I'm sure this committee's goal, is to ensure that the Fire Protection and Prevention Act creates a safer Ontario for everyone. I feel confident that your deliberations over the next few weeks will help us achieve that shared goal.
The Chair: Thank you, Minister. We have allotted 15 minutes per caucus, and we'll start off with Mr Ramsay.
Mr Ramsay: I'd like to start this morning and say to the minister that I hope he really does listen to the presentations we will hear over the next two weeks, both here in Toronto and across the province.
I'm pleased to hear that he has just said that his bottom line is fire safety, because I think that's very important and I think that's why we're all very concerned here. Why I'm surprised, though, is that I really haven't heard a concern in Ontario about fire safety. I think we're doing a pretty good job in this province. We have a reputation in Ontario as having some of the best firefighting services in the world. We have a very high standard in this province. To me it brings forth the old adage that if it ain't broke --
Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): A point of order, Mr Chairman: I hear bells ringing, and I'm wondering whether members must return to the House.
The Chair: I believe it's a quorum call, but I'm not certain.
Mr Tilson: I don't know. Well, it has stopped. It just seems to me that may happen from time to time, when we're in Toronto at least. Mr Ramsay, I apologize for interrupting you; it seems we're obliged to return.
Mr Kormos: Mr Chair, if I may, the member is quite right. It is as likely to happen outside of Toronto as here. If outside of Toronto, committee members aren't going to be able to pack up and scurry off. We've got a whole lot of people eager to see these hearings proceed. I don't think there should be any interruption on the basis of bells -- a fire alarm perhaps, but certainly not on the basis of mere bells.
The Chair: It's a hypothetical situation at this moment. I'm sorry for the interruption, Mr Ramsay. Please proceed.
Mr Ramsay: Thank you, Chair. I would hope that all caucuses, as we have in the opposition, have organized themselves to carry on in both places today.
Getting back to my point that there really isn't a problem, this is the real concern I have with this bill, in that what's going on here in fact is another bullying piece of legislation. Bill 84 is basically one of the sons of Bill 26, which is, I would say, the mother of all bullying bills. This is an attack on public sector services, in this case public sector public safety services that the people of Ontario pay for through their taxes and require for their public safety in all municipalities across this province.
We are very proud of the public service that gives us fire protection in Ontario, and this bill is designed to destroy that. It's going to destroy that because it's going to break the agreements that firefighters have negotiated with their fire departments over the years that have devised a teamwork approach in how to deal with fire safety and fire suppression.
This bill interferes with the collective bargaining process. It's anti-labour. It's a continuation of the anti-labour legislation this government has brought forward since it was first elected back in June 1995. What it really boils down to in the end is opening the door to getting rid of the high-quality services we have established in this province and are proud of, and inviting in private companies, as this minister is inviting in other areas such as jail security, to provide public safety services in this province.
That is wrong. It is wrong because we've seen the American experience where public safety has been put at risk. This is not a hypothetical situation here. We have seen concrete examples in the United States where the privatization of emergency services has proven to be inefficient and has put lives at risk. That's what this is all about and this is why we're concerned about this.
Premier Harris, as he was campaigning as leader of the third party going into the last election, had promised the firefighters that he would not bring any firefighting legislation before the Ontario Legislature until he sat down with the firefighting organizations and consulted with them as to how these changes should be brought forward. He didn't do that, and I think we're going to hear about that as the presentations come forward.
Now, Minister, there are probably some good areas of this bill, and what I would suggest, as I have suggested to you before, is that we could get on in a couple of weeks and pass this bill if we delete part IX. That would give you some time to sit down with the firefighting organizations and work out how the labour relations aspects of this bill could really be put forward in a way that we could get some agreement, could keep the morale of firefighters across this province high, being encouraged to do their job.
Right now, what you've done with this bill is a slap in the face, and the major area where this is a slap in the face to firefighters in this province is that one little line in there that says that firefighters will not have the right to strike. You know, that is completely unnecessary, because we have never lost one minute of firefighting protection in this province from the men and women who risk their lives on a daily basis for all of us in Ontario because of any labour relations dispute. They have never done that, and they've never done that because that is part of their code of being a firefighter. They have dedicated themselves to public safety; that is the very essence of their job. They are committed to that and they've never broken that commitment to the people of Ontario.
To put in a piece of legislation a sentence that denies their right to strike is a slap in the face of firefighting men and women across this province. It's part of the essence of who they are and the lives they live that they would never, ever do that. You've got to pull that out and get back to that trust relationship that has always been there and has never been breached.
That's the point. If you could cite one problem where a fire department refused to go out and just let a fire burn, let a house go down -- but you can't do that, because that's never been documented in this province. They would never do it and they have, through their firefighting organizations, sworn never to do that. It's more than an unwritten code with them; it is part of the constitution of their firefighting organizations. I don't know if you appreciate how far you've gone in demoralizing firefighters across this province by that one aspect of the bill.
1040
I want to talk a little more about this privatization and getting right down to the detail of what this is all about and how this can have an effect on fire safety. Minister, as I'm sure you know and are aware of through your briefings, response time is the key element in fire suppression. The most important aspect of getting a fire extinguished is the response time of the fire department to the site of where the fire is taking place.
As the minister probably knows, a fire doubles in size and intensity with each passing minute, so by the time a fire has burned for six minutes, it is now 64 times the size of when it was started. Flashover happens at eight to 10 minutes, and at this point, the chance of death in a fire goes up 900%. After 12 minutes, the chance of a successful rescue in a fire falls to 46%. After 15 minutes, the odds are only 5.5%.
Coroners' juries routinely identify response time as a key factor in saving lives. Studies show that response times of five minutes or less are almost impossible unless firefighters are in the firehall, ready to go at all times. This gets to the crux of the matter. Because of all the downloading pressures of the Harris government on our municipalities, this bill is sort of a sop to the municipalities, to say, "We know firefighting's expensive and we're going to give you the ability to totally rearrange how you organize your fire departments so you can save some money."
None of us likes to pay taxes, but we know in our heart of hearts that there are certain aspects of government administration that are absolutely required by the people of Ontario. In any area of public safety and security, I know the people of Ontario are willing to pay their taxes to make sure their homes and lives are secure. Fire suppression is one of those services that I would never want to shortchange on. I would never want to dilute the services that the people of Ontario get when it comes to public service.
Maybe we could look at other government services and maybe we could save a little bit here and there by working out some different arrangements, but when it comes to public safety and security, there is no discounting how we organize those services. As far as I am concerned, we've got to keep to the highest standard. Yes, maybe we're not going to be able to run some of these services on the cheap, but I don't want to and I don't think that's what the people of Ontario want to have.
If we start to have fire departments now that are undermanned, where we're not going to be calling the people to the fire until the emergency call has come into the fire department; where we're going to be allowing part-time people who might have other jobs, who want to be firefighters on a part-time basis; and in our major cities, where there are fires going on 24 hours a day, to be calling those people in who will be unable to keep up to speed with all the different requirements of being a first-rate professional firefighter because they can't do it full-time; that is not the way to run a first-rate public sector, public safety and security service. That is absolutely wrong.
While I know there are tremendous pressures and I think we can do a better job in government and find better efficiencies and make cost-effective services -- maybe there are some things in government we should get out of and let other people provide services if they're required -- when it comes to basic public safety and security services, this is where we cannot shortchange the people of Ontario.
Bill 84 does that. It is starting to cut corners now in government services where the public safety is at risk. That's why we in the opposition feel very, very strongly about this bill that it's a bad bill and it's got to be withdrawn. If the whole bill is not withdrawn, at least let's get part IX withdrawn, give ourselves some time to discuss how we could organize ourselves better, if we can, while at the same time making sure that the men and women in this province have the very best fire protection service, as they have today, in the world.
Applause.
The Chair: I'd remind the audience that demonstrations are not permitted in the House or in committee.
Mr Ramsay: I didn't mind it all, Mr Chair.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Ramsay.
Mr Kormos: And I encourage it, quite frankly.
Mr Ramsay: But he's a troublemaker.
The Chair: Please don't encourage it, Mr Kormos, because it would mean that the only remedy I have is to clear the gallery, and I don't want to do that. The police caused us no problems, and I am sure the fire staff are just as professional as our police services.
Mr Kormos: Thank you, Chair. This is my 15 minutes and that would go over like gangbusters, I'm sure, if you cleared the room.
Minister, I appreciate very much your being here and I appreciate your comments today. You're anticipating I'm going to take quarrel with more than a few of them, and let me start by your declaration that this bill somehow fills a vacuum, an absence of a requirement that municipalities provide fire protection. We heard you say that and I trust that's what you wanted to imply, that somehow the government here has bravely rushed in with legislation where legislation had been absent for so many decades and generations.
You spoke specifically about the requirement that municipalities provide fire protection, which is that broad range of services which includes fire prevention and fire safety education and training of persons. It includes fire suppression, firefighting, confronting almost inevitably that dangerous scenario of fires in people's homes and in businesses and industries.
I'd ask you then at some point to explain how you can say this in your address to the committee, but how your act in section 2, which creates the requirement, what municipalities shall do, indicates that the only requirement for municipalities, the only mandatory role for municipalities, is to establish a program of public education with respect to fire safety and certain components of fire prevention.
In the mandatory section of the bill there's no requirement that a municipality establish programs of fire suppression, because the section goes on to say, "provide such other fire protection services as it determines may be necessary in accordance with its needs and circumstances."
Were you serious and was the government serious about truly requiring municipalities to provide fire protection services, it would have -- and I invite you to -- included by way of amendment to section 2 the complete range of fire protection services as contained in section 1 in the definitions.
You know I've been suspicious about the agenda of this government. I've suspected, as have a whole lot of other people, that pieces of legislation have a relationship even though it may not be apparent at first blush; for instance, the relationship between Bill 26 and now Bill 84, the agenda of privatization. Now you want to persuade people that there was an avenue or an access to privatization under the Municipal Act which preceded Bill 84, but you acknowledge that Bill 84 very much permits or accommodates privatization.
Minister, I don't know if you're aware of this, but the private, corporate, for-profit, American operators of any number of social services are lined up at the Peace Bridge a mile long, three across, ready to take over public services here in the province of Ontario and make big bucks doing it, and similarly charge big bucks. I don't buy into the concept that private firefighting, any more than private policing or private health care, is going to save anybody in Ontario any money. These are for-profit, profit-driven corporate bodies, almost inevitably American-based. My view, and I think the view of most Ontarians, is that they're going to result in a lower standard of services and, at the end of the day, with higher cost.
1050
I mean, come clean. Do you really think that private firefighting services can provide a better firefighting service than what has been provided in the public sector by some 9,000 currently professional firefighters in this province employed by any number of municipalities across the province of Ontario?
You should know that Rural/Metro, one of the big-time corporate, for-profit operators in the United States, wasn't content with simply maintaining its position in the lineup over at the Peace Bridge but it actually met, we're told, with the CAO of the municipality of Waterloo recently to try to sell its package. It had an audience, I'm told, with the city of Waterloo, with its CAO, and talked about how it would propose to operate by increasing workweeks to 66 hours, inevitably by paying lower salaries, inevitably by employing less-qualified people than are employed in professional firefighting services now.
Now, you should know that Rural/Metro brings some baggage with it. I took a look at a couple of articles out of the Phoenix Gazette from Phoenix, Arizona. One news report from August 1987 talked about a scenario in which Rural/Metro took over 20 minutes to arrive at the scene of a house fire. The house burned to the ground. Rural/Metro then billed the homeowner for $13,000 for equipment and services that the company itself was unable to provide evidence of having documented sending to the scene.
In another incident a year later, a report from the Phoenix Gazette in December 1988, a woman, Pam McGriff, told the Phoenix Gazette about how her house was totally destroyed while Rural/Metro -- this is private, for-profit firefighting services, the type that you're accommodating in Bill 84 -- firefighters, if you can call them that, just stood around and watched her house burn. It took them 14 minutes to get there, and the pumper apparently had enough water for only about three and a half minutes. One of the trucks broke down while it was in front of her house and had to be towed away by a tow truck.
You appear to take some pride in the fact that in Bill 84 you're further accommodating privatization of firefighting services. I say to you that Bill 84, any firefighting legislation in the province of Ontario, should specifically forbid privatization of firefighting services and should, by doing that, recognize the commitment and professionalism of the 9,000 or so professional firefighters here in Ontario currently. It should require that municipalities provide, among fire protection services, fire suppression services, and that they remain very much in the public sector as they have been.
I'm concerned because even in your address today -- and I appreciate the way these things are crafted; people are paid a whole lot of money to sit in the minister's office and fine-tune these and get the language right -- you kept referring to the federation and the association as unions. I have no quarrel with that and I suspect most firefighters don't, but we understand what your spin is there. I mean, we understand that you're trying to paint a picture that's perhaps more adversarial than reality would suggest. You've consistently, throughout your address, refused to refer to the association or the federation as the association and the federation. You talked about the firefighters' union, and again I understand. People are paid a whole lot of money to script these things and to try to put spin on them, and that's what's happened here. You want to create the image of there having been, or being, an adversarial relationship between firefighters and their employers.
I mention that in the context, of course, as has my colleague from the Liberal Party, of the inclusion in the bill of a denial of the right to engage in work stoppage. I agree. I mean, this is an affront to professional firefighters, none of whom have engaged in a work stoppage and all of whom are committed to quality firefighting services here in the province.
I've got to put this to you, because Jim Lee, the president of the Ontario Professional Fire Fighters Association, had this to say about Bill 84: "The price of the so-called cost-cutting measures contained in this bill may be measured in human lives and higher insurance rates for our citizens."
Further, Bruce Carpenter, the president of the Provincial Federation of Ontario Fire Fighters, said this about Bill 84: "Bill 84 jeopardizes the safety of both the public and our members. It would set the Ontario fire service back 75 years."
Those are remarkable statements from the leadership of the two bodies representing the 9,000 professional firefighters here in the province of Ontario when you purport to have -- I'm throwing the word in "meaningfully," because to consult in a way that isn't meaningful isn't really a consultation; it's just playing with words. You purport to have consulted with these people.
As a matter of fact, and the message is ingrained, we've seen the videotape that the Premier made when he was campaigning in April 1995. I mean, we can read along with it. We've watched it -- it's like your kids who watch The Lion King and they know the words to all the songs. We can read the text along with the Premier in the video that he presented to the firefighter conference in April 1995.
Mike Harris, then campaigning, now Premier, said: "We have serious concerns about some of the changes that are being contemplated with respect to the Fire Departments Act. No changes will be made under a Harris government" -- and that's where we are, you know that; it's a Harris government, for better or worse. "No changes will be made under a Harris government until such time as your members have been thoroughly consulted." Thoroughly. "We will insist" -- and this is a very interesting part, because this is one you haven't been forthcoming on. You may well be before this is over. "We will insist that all changes be fully costed both from the point of view of workers as well as management."
You didn't refer to that during the course of your submissions this morning. We've got an hour of technical briefing coming up, and I trust we're going to receive information about that costing to both the municipalities and to the professional firefighters and to the province.
One of the concerns we have is that you talk about the role of the fire marshal in supervising -- mind you, you didn't put the standard into the bill, and that makes it very difficult for people to consider whether or not there's going to be any real standard at all, but you tell us that the fire marshal's office is going to be active and out there and monitoring and reviewing the fire protection services provided by municipalities.
Well, we don't think the fire marshal's office is in a position, has the capacity, to do that at this point in time, in view of its staffing, in all of those municipalities across the province. Again, no criticism of the fire marshal, but we simply don't think they have the budgetary capacity to engage in that particular role.
I don't know why you're doing this in terms of this legislation. I simply have no idea. I say that as rhetoric, because I do have a pretty good idea. I think your embrace of privatization is a lot more aggressive and enthusiastic and passionate than you would lead us to believe. I think there's very much an agenda here; it's an agenda that's designed to create privatization.
You've downloaded on to municipalities. You're going to have companies knocking at their door prepared to buy up their sewer and water systems. You've got legislation in the works that's going to accommodate that here and now. You've got companies that are going to be offering private health care. And I tell you, you've already got companies, be it Wackenhut or Rural/Metro, that are going to be out there doing firefighting services. You've written a blank cheque to the corporate sector, particularly the American corporate sector, and you've done so to the great detriment of professional firefighters and to the safety of citizens of communities in each and every part of this province.
I'm hard pressed to think of anything you can do with this bill right now -- well, I want to tell you what you can do with this bill right now, but for the moment I'd suggest that this bill be set aside, that there be meaningful consultation and that there be a thorough addressing of the concerns that have been raised now for several months by firefighters and by communities and by citizens of those communities across Ontario.
1100
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Kormos.
The clerk has determined that room 230, next door, is not available. However room 2, which is downstairs, is available as an overflow room. Unfortunately there is audio-feed only, but I understand that room is now open in case some of the people who are standing would like to sit for a little while.
We now have 15 minutes for the government caucus.
Mr Ron Johnson (Brantford): Thank you, Mr Minister. I'll be fairly brief, knowing that some of my colleagues would like to ask a question or two as well.
One of the things that surprised me when I first read this bill was the glaring omission about ensuring that municipalities had adequate fire protection. Could you just explain briefly to the committee the process and the role of certain bodies with respect to fire protection and ensuring that municipalities maintain a certain level of fire protection services?
Hon Mr Runciman: Mr Johnson, I raised the point about public safety and the responsibility of the Solicitor General with respect to public safety, and that's the number one priority related to all of the responsibilities that fall within the Ministry of the Solicitor General and Correctional Services. Certainly this minister, and I'm sure anyone who holds this office, doesn't want to initiate any change that will in any way, shape or form jeopardize or increase the possibility of jeopardizing the public's safety.
The evidence that I've been provided with and the recommendations that have come forward from most of the stakeholders in the fire community, the changes we've brought forward, will enhance public safety by focusing on the fire prevention side and making fire prevention and public education programs mandatory. I think there is a strong belief in the fire community that this will prevent fires from occurring.
I mentioned in my comments that the data that have been gathered by the fire marshal's office indicate that most of the losses that have resulted from fire could have been avoided through greater use of fire prevention and public education programs. We've seen, over the past quarter of a century, fire fatalities dropping about 60%, and I think most of that has been attributed to the increase in prevention and education.
We believe quite strongly, based on the input that I've received and the government has received, that by focusing on fire prevention and public education this bill will actually save more lives. I think a very important ingredient of all of this is the fact that if the fire marshal believes there's any threat to public safety in any municipality, he can conduct a review and make recommendations, and if that --
Mr Ramsay: Mr Chair, can I have a point of order, please, just a point of clarification on our proceeding here? It seems to me that I thought we agreed that the minister would make a statement and then the two opposition parties would have 15 minutes each. Then we would go into a technical briefing and then all three parties would have --
The Chair: No. Each caucus has the opportunity to make statements or ask questions, 15 minutes each. It was 15 minutes for the minister and 15 minutes for each caucus, an hour in total.
Mr Ramsay: Chair, if I may, I would refer you to the minutes of the subcommittee meeting.
Mr Kormos: Further to that point of order, I beg to differ with you, Chair. Of course, Mr Ramsay and I compared notes before he made his point of order. I'm reading paragraph 7 of the subcommittee report that was approved, and that is, "The opening statement of the Solicitor General will be scheduled for a maximum of 30 minutes and that the responses of opposition critics be scheduled for a maximum of 15 minutes per caucus on Monday morning, April 7."
I understand what's happening here. The government's trying to do cleanup, and neither Mr Ramsay nor --
The Chair: Excuse me, Mr Kormos, your point is well taken. Mr Ramsay, you're quite correct, the opportunity was not given for the government caucus for questions.
Mr Ramsay: We will have a technical briefing and then each party has a chance.
The Chair: I'm sorry, members. The subcommittee report which was adopted by this committee did not provide for 15 minutes for the government caucus, and I apologize for the inconvenience.
Mr Minister and fire marshal, thank you for your attendance here today.
Hon Mr Runciman: The fire marshal will be staying on.
MINISTRY BRIEFING
The Chair: We will now move to the briefing by members of the ministry staff. The fire marshal, Mr Moyle, will be making at least part of the briefing on behalf of his department.
Mr Bernie Moyle: Thank you, Mr Chairman, members of the panel. My presentation is going to be done on 35-millimetre slides, if you don't mind. The purpose of the briefing really is to give you the technical overview of the legislation and some rationale behind some of the policy decisions. Legal counsel will assist at various times during the presentation with some of the more complex parts of the bill.
I would like to draw your attention now to what exists in our legislation. It's pretty sparse. Our legislation is now comprised of nine acts.
Fire protection of any kind is not mandatory. Municipalities set the level and type of service. Municipalities can reduce fire protection and there's no provincial mechanism for intervention. For example, a large municipality, according to provincial legislation, could even employ volunteers if they wanted, reduce their fire service by 50%, and there's absolutely nothing anybody can do about that. They have not been irresponsible and we have provided a good level of fire protection, but there is a need to modernize and consolidate our legislation and bring it up to date based on the new realities that we're seeing.
1110
In order to fully appreciate the bill, you have to understand the composition of Ontario's fire services. If you look at the composition, there are 645 fire departments: 32 full-time; 127 composite, which are a combination of volunteer and full-time; 486 volunteer -- 95% of the municipal fire departments now have a volunteer component, and that's a really important point. There's also fire protection in unincorporated communities where we have about 101 fire protection teams and about 1,350 firefighters providing fire protection in those areas. That's a little-known part of our fire protection delivery system. All groups provide, I think, an excellent level of service to the communities, and there's not really any dispute about that.
The point I'm trying to make here is, the legislation must address the needs and circumstances of the entire province. I'll just give you an example of how one of the changes would do that. Right now in unincorporated communities, which is very important to people in those northern communities, they're not considered fire departments; they're considered fire protection teams. Under the proposed legislation, fire protection teams would fall within the definition of a fire department. The reason for that, and why that's a benefit, is that they can then automatically become assistants to the fire marshal and they can also become fire chiefs and have the powers to investigate fires in their areas, two authorities they don't really have now. This clarifies once and for all that those teams in those areas will be fire departments. That will have a significant impact on prevention and education in unincorporated communities. They're very vulnerable in those areas because of their remoteness.
I'd like to provide an overview of the Fire Protection and Prevention Act for you. It's going to be fairly quick, but I want to talk about the improvement in public safety as I see it. This is very complex legislation; it's not that easy to understand. What I'd like to do is walk you through that so you have a basic understanding of the rationale and the concepts included in this bill.
Just a little bit on how the bill is organized: Part I is "Definitions"; part II is "Responsibility for Fire Protection Services"; part III is "Fire Marshal"; part IV is "Fire Code"; part V is "Rights of Entry in Emergencies and Fire Investigations"; part VI is "Inspections"; part VII is "Offences and Enforcement"; part VIII is "Recovery of Costs"; part IX is "Firefighters: Employment and Labour Relations"; part X is "Fire Safety Commission"; part XI is "Fire Marshal's Public Fire Safety Council"; part XII is "Miscellaneous" and includes regulatory powers; and part XIII is "Consequential Amendments, Repeals, Commencement and Short Title." That's how the bill is organized, and it's much better organized than the legislation we've had in the past.
What this bill does, very importantly, is clarify the relationship between the province and municipalities in fire protection matters: Municipalities are responsible for funding and delivering fire protection services; the province is responsible for providing support and also kind of an oversight role and a provincial fail-safe mechanism which I'll get back to later.
Municipalities fund fire protection 100%. We're responsible then to support that system through advice, training, fire investigation and such, through my office. But there is a strong provincial interest in ensuring that municipalities meet their obligations under the legislation. That was not there in previous legislation.
I want to talk a little bit about some of the fire safety improvements in this bill and I think they're very important. There are a lot of new provisions and they need some explanation. I'll go over them fairly quickly.
A very important one is the community fire safety officer or team. Why that's important is that it allows very small municipalities to meet the requirements of public education and prevention under the act. There are a number of small communities that just do not have the resources to muster a fire department, so this community fire safety team is the instrument in meeting that requirement for them.
The second one is that automatic aid is defined, and I'll get back to that later because that's an important concept.
Mandatory fire prevention and public education are also defined in the bill. That is a very important concept, and I'll tie that back into my presentation.
The establishment of a fire department means a municipality must have either a community fire safety team or a fire department to meet the requirements under the bill, and that's an important point.
There's a new authority for the fire marshal's office, and this reflects the provincial interest in ensuring that municipalities meet the responsibility under the act. This is new. Previously we could only go into a municipality if we were invited; there was nothing we could do about it. We had no authority to initiate a review of municipalities' fire protection systems. Within this -- and there's one point Mr Kormos raised that I want to dwell on a little later on -- is the monitoring function, and how that ties in to this particular authority.
There's also a regulatory authority for the Lieutenant Governor in Council to make regulations specific to a municipality if they do not address a serious threat to public safety in their community.
There are some other very good improvements here, one being broad delegation powers for the fire marshal and the fire chief, so any power I have under the act I can delegate to appropriate persons. The fire chief can also do that, and that's very important in regard to fire investigation and promoting fire prevention inspections within municipalities.
Another area we've improved on is that the fire marshal can direct assistants to the fire marshal. We've clarified that to address a ministry concern so that there's some consistency in the application of the fire code across the province.
Another very important improvement is the development of guidelines, which I'll come back to a little later. It's much easier now to introduce regulations in the fire code -- there is ministerial authority -- and the fire code is broadened in scope to cover greater areas, which we think is a significant improvement. The Fire Marshal's Public Fire Safety Council is now established in law, which we think is important.
What I'd like to talk about now, so you really get a handle on the rationale, is the fire death problem in this province. To understand the thrust of the legislation, you really need to look at how fire deaths occur. I'm going to examine 17 fire deaths that occurred in structures during January and February. There's no plan to that. We just took them because they're the most recent. They're fairly typical of how fire deaths occur.
I put some charts together and I'd really like you to take the time to think about them. The charts show the number of people who are over 60, and there are four of them. They also describe a little about what happened, the fire department response time and the status of smoke alarms. In other words, did they have a smoke alarm and it worked, or did they have a smoke alarm and it didn't work?
In this one, an over-60-year-old person's clothing was ignited by a stove. There's really not much anybody can do about that. The fire department's response time was excellent and their smoke alarm worked, but it doesn't matter if their smoke alarmed worked because of the fact they ignited their clothing. There's very little you can do about that -- it's very quick -- other than "Stop, drop and roll," which is an educational concept.
Below that is another one, under 60, where the victim's clothing was ignited by a stove; died in hospital. The fire department response time was seven minutes, and yes, they had a smoke alarm.
In the next one the victim fell asleep while smoking in bed, with the door closed between the bedroom and the hallway smoke alarm. Fire department response was six minutes, and yes, the smoke alarm worked.
These next ones are all over 60. People over 60 are more vulnerable than any other group in our society. This first one was a misuse of smoking materials and a frail senior died attempting to escape. There was a 3.1-minute fire department response time, and yes, they had a working smoke alarm.
The next one was a senior found burned in the home, physically disabled, used a cane and a walker; a 4.3-minute response time, and yes, their smoke alarm worked.
The next one is under 60, who may have been intoxicated, preventing them from escaping. There was a nine-minute response time, which is not unusual in rural areas; that's why prevention and education are so important in those particular areas. Yes, they had a working smoke alarm.
The next one was a hotel fire and the cause was undetermined; over 60; 3.6-minute response time, and no, there was no smoke alarm installed in this particular case.
The next one, a victim over 60. The victim had the habit of burning incense in the bedroom; a 5.8-minute response time; no power in the smoke alarm.
The next one was a victim smoking, fell asleep, a typical scenario; a 1.2-minute response time; no working smoke alarm there.
In the next one, the victim went back to the scene of the fire and the clothing caught fire, died in hospital, possible suicide; a 4.9-minute response time; no battery in the smoke alarm.
The next victim fell asleep, was cooking French fries; a 3.7-minute response time; no smoke alarm installed.
Next one, again cooking with French fries; reasonable response time; no battery in the smoke alarm.
1120
Trailer fire, unattended Coleman stove; no response; none installed.
In the next one, the victim's clothing was ignited by stove; a 4.3-minute response time; no power to the smoke alarm.
In the next one, the victim fell asleep smoking and drinking; an 11-minute response time, which may not be unusual in rural areas; no battery.
A 60-and-above victim found in bedroom; fire originated in the living room due to careless smoking; five-minute response time.
The point I want to make here is that this reinforces the need for prevention and education. Nine of these victims ranged in age from 67 to 95 years old. Of 17 fires, 59% had no smoke alarm or no power source to the smoke alarm. It's a significant human behaviour problem that's at the root of this.
So how do we protect people with Bill 84 under these circumstances? These people are dying even though the average response time of the fire department is 5.2 minutes, and in many cases, despite the heroic efforts and the efficiency of the fire department, these deaths are occurring before they can intervene, before they can do anything about it. These are the kinds of deaths we think we can prevent through this legislation.
With people who catch their clothes on fire, there's not much you can do about it other than to educate them to not reach across a burning object or to stop, drop and roll when that does happen.
The fire department response is absolutely essential and critical in minimizing property loss and rescuing people once they arrive, but the kinds of things we're looking at and seeing across the province are people are dying because of actions that can be prevented. Some 95% of the homes in Ontario have smoke alarms installed. The problem is maintenance; educating people not to remove batteries, to maintain them at all times. That's an educational problem, an awareness problem, and this is really the focus of Bill 84.
These are very small numbers we're looking at. These are 1997 fire fatalities where the smoke alarm activated: 43%, and again they're small numbers.
In the first one, the victim's clothing ignited on the stove or a heater. The other ones: Victims were impaired by alcohol, victims were physically disabled, victim smoking in bed. We believe most of these fires could be prevented by proper education.
The conclusions are pretty stark. Fire deaths generally occur in residential occupancies. The fire department response was unable to change the outcome for these 1997 victims. Many of these fires could have been prevented by behavioural change, and we're very confident of that.
Let's get on with Bill 84. The greatest opportunity to reduce Ontario's fire deaths is to intensify our efforts in the areas of fire safety education awareness: Prevent the fire from occurring before it starts and know what to do when the fire does occur. You can see by the typical fire death scenarios I presented earlier that behavioural factors contribute significantly to our fire death problem in Ontario.
Bill 84 makes fire protection mandatory, fire safety education, and fire prevention. This gives every municipality responsibility to educate their citizens but also gives them the capacity to have an assistant to the fire marshal, an inspection capacity, a capacity to eliminate hazards and also to act on complaint of a fire safety problem. That effort would be supported through my office.
The instrument to carry that out in the act is the community fire safety officer or the community fire safety team. The municipalities must have this or a fire department, and both of those are "shall." A small number of municipalities do not have the resources to create a fire department. They don't have the population, they don't have the money and they're too widely scattered, so there's no central core from which to amass a fire department. That's why it's so difficult to mandate fire protection in every community. That spills over into unincorporated communities. The unincorporated communities are much more numerous when they get that size and those characteristics. So it's not practical, in some areas, to have a fire department because by the time you got everybody together, the building would have long been burned down.
This particular instrument is one that aims at getting people out alive, educating them, making sure their smoke alarms work. The interesting thing about this concept is that they can be people from all walks of life who can take part in this. This instrument cannot just be applied in an isolated community; it can be applied in other communities where response times are a little bit longer. They can put community fire safety teams in place in those particular areas.
To support communities and to support the effort, the Fire Marshal's Public Fire Safety Council has been put into law in this legislation. Right now, we have about 26 organizations and individuals, including the National Fire Protection Association and the firefighters' associations, fire chiefs, volunteers and private citizens, including older adults, participating on this committee. Bill 84 has removed some significant barriers for us and we see this as an extremely important part of our support system, particularly for small communities, particularly in the operation of community fire safety teams. We'll also have a standard approach across the province in dealing with fire protection and public safety education. It focuses on public education.
The second line of defence is that fire safety standards are in place. This is the fire code, basically, which is covered in part IV of the legislation. We have a very strong fire code right now. We've expanded the fire code to include more subject areas, but the main thing here is that this is done by the fire service traditionally, or community fire safety teams, possibly, in the future, to eliminate the hazards, make sure the standards are in place, ensure building systems are in compliance with the fire code.
The first line of defence is that people know what to do. They prevent the fire from occurring. But if it does occur -- and they always do and they always will; we'll always need a strong fire service for that reason -- then the systems will work and people will get out safely. That's basically the thought behind that second line of defence. Bill 84 covers that very nicely. There are about 3,500 assistants of the fire marshal now across the province in municipalities to carry that out. We expect that to increase.
The third line of defence is the fire service. Municipalities must have either a community fire safety team or a fire department. They're both "shalls." We need to maintain an efficient and effective emergency response capability. It's critical to fire safety. Although many fire deaths occur before the fire department arrives, the firefighters save many lives and they reduce the property damage that results from fire. It's the third and last line of defence.
Fire protection: Bill 84 says "other fire protection services" based on "needs and circumstances." You look at fire protection services. A municipality may decide on Hazmat -- hazardous materials -- medical response, extrication, public assistance and fire suppression as being part of their delivery system. All those things depend upon a quick and effective emergency response, not just fire, so it's important that the response time in that system is maintained.
A fire department under the act must have fire suppression capability and it also must have a fire safety education program. Only about four municipalities right now do not have a fire department.
We get into the idea now of standards and needs and circumstances. This is a really interesting and frankly a very complex and difficult problem, because if you look across the entire spectrum of the fire services of Ontario, how do you set specific standards that apply across the board for a small volunteer fire department, a fire protection team, a large urban area? It's very difficult. Basically, a municipality needs to look at its own characteristics to determine the level of service. I'm going to give you a very good example of that. What is their economic base? Do they have a rural area? Do they have waterways, do they have Hazmat? All those things have to be considered when looking at needs and circumstances for a fire department.
I'd like you to pay close attention to this. I don't know whether you can see that well or not, but I'll go through it. This is very important. I'm comparing two bordering municipalities. Both of these municipalities have excellent fire departments, they're not overstaffed in my opinion, and on the surface they seem to be very similar. But if you look at it, municipality A covers about half the area of municipality B; the population is about 12% higher in A, 613,000 to 562,000; the fire department budget is $84 million to $48 million; the number of fire stations is 27 to 19; fire department staff is around 1,300 to 663. But look at the assessment. Assessment is $83 billion in A and $49 billion in B.
What I'm trying to point out here is that on the surface they seem similar, but from a fire protection standpoint they're not very similar at all.
If you look at the death rate in A, it's 8.8 deaths per year averaged over the last five years; in B it's only three. So B spends less money than A, has a third of the death rate than A, has fewer fire stations than A but it has a lower death rate. The injury ratio is the same. What you have to look at -- this is where I'm talking about needs and circumstances -- is the age of the building stock. In A it is much older, their assessment is much higher, they have much more to protect, they're much more densely populated and they have significant traffic congestion problems. So when comparing those two municipalities and their fire services, they're both appropriately balanced for their needs and circumstances.
1130
What Bill 84 intends to do is to give the tools for municipalities to make informed decisions to match risks to resources and to come up with a local solution of what their needs are.
One of the tools I'm very strong on -- I know the minister is and I think most firefighters are -- is automatic aid. This is another measure municipalities can use to in some cases dramatically improve their fire protection. It's defined in the legislation in a permissive way, but the bill encourages it by putting it there in the first place. It can maximize fire department resources on a day-to-day basis. For example, some fire stations may run as few as 500 calls; others might run as many as 4,000. You can maximize the use of fire stations through the use of automatic aid.
All things being equal, you would expect the closest fire station to respond to a critical emergency, and that's just not always the case. I'm going to give you an example, and this is a real-life situation that exists. Look at fire station B and fire station C: Fire station C is 17 kilometres away from station B's coverage. B can be into those areas, into area C, area E and area D much quicker than any of those other fire stations, but because of municipal boundaries, that just doesn't happen -- although things are starting to change. It would make sense for fire station B to cover a much larger area in respect to fire protection.
The other thing I want to touch on is the definition of fire chief. The fire chief is the key figure in a municipality to be finding the appropriate level of service for the community. He's their expert, not me; it's the fire chief. He or she should have the opportunity to address council for important fire protection matters. I think that's critical. The legislation lays that out, but not in a direct way. What happens here is that there's no direct reporting relationship to council implied by the legislation, but it does point out that the fire chief is ultimately responsible to council for the delivery of fire protection services. We see that as a very key area in the future.
Fire protection in Bill 84: The delivery system is 100% funded by municipalities. They set the level and type of service based on needs and circumstances, but they cannot jeopardize public safety.
I think it's important to note what the role of the fire marshal is in the province. The fire marshal is much like the chief coroner. I'm appointed by order in council and I operate somewhat independently by giving independent advice to government and municipalities that is objective. We administer provincial fire legislation and we provide an overall leadership and coordination support function, but our focus is public safety and my concerns are for the safety of the province's 11 million people.
The act specifies a number of duties that are very important. Fire investigation is critical when it comes to the monitoring function or finding out whether fire safety standards are in place. Training programs and evaluation systems are extremely important for our firefighters, particularly our volunteers, to make sure they are adequately trained to respond to the kinds of emergencies they face today. Our investigation purpose, of course, also deals with the criminal element. Maintaining a fire college is very important in the future when we get into the things like monitoring, risk management and the new provisions of Bill 84, so we see the fire college as being very critical to that. Of course, collecting information is extremely important to us.
Some other duties the fire marshal will have under the act, and some of these are very similar to those we had before, is keeping a record so I can tell the government and the public what's happening out there; providing information and advice to municipalities and government; and also advising municipalities on the interpretation and enforcement of the act and regulations.
There are a number of powers in the act, which are slightly different from duties. Subsection 9(1) confers certain powers on the fire marshal. One of the most important I want to talk about is the guideline power. We see this as a major tool for municipalities to be able to evaluate their fire protection and make informed decisions. We expect to develop those guidelines in consultation with all our stakeholders.
We think they should be flexible and adaptable because of variations, as I explained earlier, between different municipalities. Guidelines can be changed fairly easily, which is an advantage, and they certainly would help municipalities to make those informed decisions. We will use them in municipal reviews, and they will have weight because we will use them in municipal reviews, as a measure of what the municipality's fire protection systems look like.
We developed a comprehensive risk management model several years ago, and part of that was a staffing study. What this does is it just shows you how a guideline can be developed that's flexible and may meet the needs of most fire departments and the variations between fire departments in Ontario. For example, this would imply a 10-person response to a residential occupancy. There are various ways they could deliver the firefighters to the scene through that particular model. This has been used by a number of fire chiefs quite effectively to convince council that staffing levels are correct, so we know they'll work.
The fail-safe provision: It's extremely important. You need to know how this is going to work in practice. We're working our way through that. It's complex and we are in the preliminary stages of development.
What we're doing now is working with the University of Toronto and a group called CAMERA. This is a post-graduate study group called the Centre for Assessment, Measurement, Evaluation, Research and Application. We're developing a whole monitoring system with them so we can monitor fire protection across the province. We're identifying what data we need to collect. From that data, we want to develop community profiles. We want to group similar municipalities together. We will be developing performance measures and, in the end, we'll be doing a comparative analysis between municipalities.
That will give us an opportunity to detect problems before they start or while they're still small. It's a problem-solving model that we want to do. We don't want fire safety to deteriorate. We want to be able to proactively intervene when there is a problem, and we believe this information will allow us to do that. It's still in the early stages of development, but we're quite excited about it.
If in fact we do think there's a problem -- and previously I couldn't do a thing about it; I'd have to stand on the sidelines. If the municipality didn't want me to come in, they just wouldn't invite me -- if they have a problem, I'm sure they don't invite me.
Now we have a review process, and a number of criteria could trigger an immediate review. Again, we haven't finished all the criteria. If we thought there was a public safety problem we'd look at things like: Have they closed the fire station? Is there a sharp reduction in staff? Is there an abuse of the mutual aid system? Are fire losses extraordinarily high compared to other municipalities in the same grouping? That could trigger a review.
The review is divided in two phases. We'd use the guidelines as part of this particular review. We'd set up a review process: We'd look at the assessment of existing fire protection services and we'd do an assessment of risk, and match those two. Also, we'd look at their economic circumstances. From there, we'd be able to determine whether there was a fire safety problem. If there was, we'd report to council. If there wasn't, we would stop our review at that point.
In the second phase of the problem-solving review we'd develop implementation options. We'd assess what the options would be, and it might be automatic aid or it could be other options. We'd identify the operational impact of council policy decisions. In other words, are they putting enough money into their fire protection services? Could they afford to put more into it? That may be the entire problem. We'd develop a master plan, then we'd want to monitor, evaluate and revise.
If they failed to address the recommendations or the serious threat to safety, the Lieutenant Governor in Council could pass regulations specific to that municipality or general regulations for other municipalities.
1140
Bill 84 has three lines of defence, as we see it: fire safety education, fire safety standards, and efficient and effective emergency response. All are critically important, but the focus increases now on fire safety education, because we think we can do better. We think we can save a lot of those lives that are being lost, particularly our seniors when they catch their clothing on fire or fall asleep with a cigarette, those kinds of things. They're beyond the help of anybody. The only people who can help them are themselves, at that particular time.
Our legal counsel are going to explain the next sections: part V, part VI, part VII, part VIII and IX. I'll just leave it there.
Mr David Burnside: My name is David Burnside. I have beside me Anne McChesney. We are counsel with the ministry.
Part V of Bill 84 deals with the rights of entry on to lands and premises in certain circumstances. It provides that firefighters and others authorized by the chief may enter into lands or premises, or adjacent lands and premises, for the purposes of fire suppression, rescue and emergency services, including emergencies that pose a serious threat to life or the quality of the natural environment.
This part also authorizes certain fire personnel to enter on to lands and premises for the purposes of investigating the cause and origin of a fire, and for dealing with an immediate threat to life.
Ms Anne McChesney: Part VI of the bill deals with inspections and enforcement of inspection orders. The fire marshal, assistant to the fire marshal and the fire chief are all inspectors. An inspector may, without warrant, enter lands and premises for the purposes of assessing fire safety. An inspector may order the owner or occupant to repair the premises and, with the approval of the fire marshal, may order that the premises be closed until repairs are made.
There is a provision for the fire marshal to informally review an order of an inspector, and the fire marshal may confirm, amend or replace it with another order. An appeal may be made to the Fire Safety Commission, which can, after a hearing, confirm, amend or replace the order with another order. The Fire Safety Commission's orders may be appealed to Divisional Court.
Bill 84 groups together the current offence provisions and provides some changes on offence levels. It's an offence to fail to comply with an inspector's order. Once a conviction is obtained, a provincial court judge may order that the premises be closed or that any structure or substance be removed from the premises. An inspector may also apply to Ontario Court (General Division) for an order that directs an owner to comply.
If an order requires an owner to do something, to carry out work on the premises, an inspector may apply to the commission for an order authorizing him or her to actually do the work. Costs that are incurred as a result of doing this work may also be authorized by the Fire Safety Commission.
Much of the substance of these provisions is the same or reflects existing provisions, with a couple of exceptions.
The first deals with warrants. Although inspectors currently do obtain warrants for entry where the owner refuses them admittance, there is a provision and a procedure in the act for obtaining a warrant.
Second, the bill changes the informal review conducted by the fire marshal slightly, so that all orders must be reviewed by the fire marshal before an appeal can be taken to the Fire Safety Commission.
Mr Burnside: Part VII of Bill 84 sets out the offences and enforcement provisions. By and large, what we have done is consolidated the various offence provisions that were set out throughout the Fire Marshals Act. Offences include hindering or obstructing the fire marshal, an assistant to the fire marshal or the fire chief; refusing to cooperate with an inspector; contravening any provisions of the act and/or regulations; or refusing to carry out the instructions of a fire marshal, an assistant to the fire marshal or a fire chief.
Penalties for individuals are fines of up to $10,000 or imprisonment for one year. Corporations are subject to fines of up to $50,000. Penalties for failing to comply with an order made as a result of an inspection are up to $10,000 for every day during which the non-compliance continues.
Ms McChesney: Part VIII provides a mechanism for the province or for a municipality to recover costs that they have incurred in carrying out work that has been authorized by the Fire Safety Commission or costs incurred in responding to an immediate threat to life and taking appropriate measures. The costs may be collected through the court process or in the same way as municipal taxes, by adding it to the tax roll. There are similar provisions relating to recovery of costs in territory without municipal organization. Again, these provisions largely exist currently in the Fire Marshals Act.
Mr Moyle: We'll now proceed into part IX, and legal counsel and myself will share this. What we'd like to do is provide an overview of the more significant changes in the proposed legislation. Firefighter employee relations are now covered under the Fire Departments Act. A general statement about this portion of the act is that it provides more flexibility in the organization and administration of fire departments and moves firefighter employer/employee relations more in line with broader municipal public sector employees.
There's a role now for the Labour Relations Board in this legislation where there was not a role previously. It defines the employer to mean a municipality or a private organization or individual. The previous link here was -- and it still exists. That authority exists right now in the Municipal Act; it was pointed out by the minister.
The next one is changes in definition of a firefighter to allow for part-time firefighters. Under the proposed legislation, part-time firefighters could be used in the delivery of all aspects of fire protection services such as suppression, fire safety education, communications and inspections. The Fire Departments Act definition of firefighter also included "assigned exclusively to fire protection or fire prevention duties." Bill 84 is now more flexible and recognizes a broader range of services provided by firefighters such as medical responses.
Subsection 41(1) sets out a procedure for the termination of firefighter employment. The Fire Departments Act entitles a firefighter to a hearing before council as well as a grievance procedure in a collective agreement if one existed. Now, a firefighter is entitled to an independent review only if the collective agreement doesn't provide for another review mechanism.
Some other changes: Under Bill 84 fire departments are considered an essential service, which they always have been. They're not allowed to strike or to be locked out by the employer. This was not addressed in the Fire Departments Act because it was implicit with the seamless collective agreements which were designed under that particular legislation.
Also, under the Fire Departments Act a fire chief was required to recall any off-duty firefighter in the event of a fire, flood or other disaster that required the services of all firefighters. Under Bill 84 the definition is changed to major emergency and a fire chief can recall any number of firefighters when such an emergency occurs. There's also another amendment to the hours off duty provision and the words "or calls" have been deleted. So the firefighter is free from fire department duties but if the fire chief or administration requires to phone them, that's permissible under the new legislation.
Under part IX, subsection 44(8), probationary firefighters can be terminated without cause during a 12-month probationary period unless the collective agreement provides otherwise. This is a change from the Fire Departments Act where a probationary firefighter had the same rights as other firefighters.
Maybe David or Anne could take over here.
Mr Burnside: Bill 84 provides for a process of certification of bargaining agents by the Ontario Labour Relations Board that is similar to the process set out in the Labour Relations Act, 1995. Bargaining agents who are signatories to existing collective agreements are deemed to have been voluntarily recognized by the employer as bargaining agents for the purposes of this part. Where no trade union has been certified as a bargaining agent for firefighters in a unit and there is no collective agreement in place, a trade union may apply to the board for certification.
1150
A trade union is required to file the application for certification with the Ontario Labour Relations Board and it shall be accompanied by a list of names of the union members. The trade union is required to deliver a copy of the application to the employer without the list of names. Upon receipt of an application the board shall determine the voting constituency to be used for a representation vote. The board will certify a trade union as a bargaining agent if more than 50% of the vote is in favour of the union. If the trade union is not certified, its application will be dismissed and it will be unable to bring a further application for another year.
Firefighters may apply to the Ontario Labour Relations Board for a declaration that a trade union no longer represents them if a collective agreement has not been made within one year of the trade union being certified. In circumstances where collective agreements are in place, the bill sets out timing mechanisms during which firefighters may apply for a declaration that the trade union no longer represents them. Generally, an application for a declaration can be made during the last two months of the term of a collective agreement.
The Ontario Labour Relations Board will declare that the trade union no longer represents the firefighters in a bargaining unit if more than 50% of the vote cast is in opposition to the trade union. If there's less than 50% of the ballots cast in opposition, then the application will be dismissed. Where an employer has entered into a voluntary recognition agreement with a trade union, there are challenge periods during which firefighters may apply to the board for a declaration that the trade union was not entitled to represent them. The board has broad powers to make inquiries in respect of an application and to hold representation votes where necessary.
Finally, there are timing provisions for bringing applications for certification or termination where the collective agreements have not been made within one year after certification and a conciliation officer has been appointed by the minister.
The collective bargaining process is set out in Bill 84 as well. Following certification or voluntary recognition, where no collective agreement is in place, the trade union shall give the employer written notice of its desire to bargain. Where a collective agreement exists, the employer or the bargaining agent may give written notice of its desire to bargain within 90 days before the collective agreement expires.
The employer and the bargaining agent must meet within 15 days after receiving notice and bargain in good faith and make every reasonable effort to make an agreement. Where notice to bargain has been given under section 50 by a trade union and no collective agreement is in operation, there is a statutory freeze in relation to the rates of wages and other terms or conditions of employment. In effect, the employer or the trade union cannot alter these terms without the consent of the other party.
The bill sets out a procedure for conciliation and arbitration. Conciliation is mandatory for interest disputes. Unresolved disputes proceed to final and binding arbitration. Matters will be referred to an arbitration board unless the parties agree to refer the matter to a single arbitrator. Powers are given to an arbitrator, the chair and the arbitration board to require production of documents, to summons and enforce the attendance of witnesses and to administer oaths and affirmations. An arbitration decision is binding on the parties. There are provisions setting out time frames for the parties to prepare and execute a collective agreement giving effect to the decision of the arbitrator or the arbitration boards.
A single arbitrator determines rights disputes. A rights arbitrator has the same power as an interest arbitrator or board of arbitration to require the production of documents, to summons and enforce attendance of witnesses and to administer oaths and affirmations or accept evidence or enter premises where work is being done and so on. Where an arbitrator determines that a firefighter has been discharged or otherwise disciplined by an employer for cause and the collective agreement does not contain a specific penalty, the arbitrator may substitute another penalty.
Mr Moyle: Section 58, managers, not firefighters: Under the Fire Departments Act, as you're probably well aware, only the fire chief and deputy chief are excluded from the bargaining unit. Under Bill 84 a municipality may designate from two to five management positions, depending on the number of firefighters in the fire department. For example, a fire department with 300 or more firefighters may designate up to five managers, and fire departments with fewer than 25 persons may only designate two.
An employer may also assign a person employed by it to a position which, in the opinion of the employer, involved the exercise of managerial functions or is employed in a confidential capacity. The latter positions can be challenged by the union before the Ontario Labour Relations Board.
Section 88 has some ministerial regulating powers and a fairly broad range of them. Things like standards for fire apparatus, inspections for hotels, record keeping and statistical information which are vital to our monitoring function, defining "regularly employed" and standards for fire protection and training and certification of firefighters are all covered in that particular section.
Just in summing it up, the underlying philosophy of the proposed legislation really is to prevent fires from occurring in the first place, to educate the public, municipal officials and the fire services in all aspects of fire protection, management and control; in other words, to define the lines of defence that we talked about.
A proactive approach to the early identification of problems and the quick resolution should reduce the need to regulate. However, if a municipality is not willing to address serious delivery problems, the government, in my opinion, should not hesitate to regulate fire protection services.
In my opinion, from a fire safety perspective, Bill 84 is leading-edge legislation. We're entering into areas here that haven't really been addressed before, in the areas of monitoring, review, defining what is a serious threat to public safety, very difficult and challenging areas, and areas that will challenge us and the staff of my office. I won't make any mistake about that.
It does represent a paradigm shift in the way we look at fire protection services, what our priorities are and how they shall be delivered, and it will certainly challenge the fire service in municipalities and so on. There's no question about that.
What we need to achieve here, and I mean this very sincerely -- cooperation will be the key to how effective the implementation of Bill 84 will be. So there's a critical balance between fairness and cooperation and how you achieve that balance.
The framework must provide the flexibility for municipalities to manage and operate the fire departments in a most cost-effective manner, because if they can do that, there's no question we can maintain the level of service or even a higher level of service.
Having said that, there has got to be a fair and reasonable balance between a municipality's rights and the rights of the firefighters with respect to labour management issues, and if we can achieve that balance, I think we can improve fire safety dramatically in this province.
In my opinion, Bill 84 is one of the most comprehensive provincial fire acts in Canada. It is, in my opinion, the most comprehensive and will provide us with the framework to effectively reduce our fire losses and make Ontario the most fire safety community in North America.
I think we're leaders now, but we can really enhance that role, but we need to do that together, we need to address the problem of fire in Ontario together. That's with the fire chiefs, government, municipalities and our firefighters throughout the province.
The Chair: Thank you very much. We have 10 minutes left per caucus for questions or statements.
Mr Kormos: Why would the bill want to facilitate private firefighting services? How does that fit into the model that you just displayed about the need for effective and efficient -- I believe those are two of the words that were used, "effective and efficient" -- fire protection services, including fire suppression? How do private firefighting services fit into that model, effective and efficient?
Mr Moyle: I don't think the bill facilitates it. I think it has always been there. A municipality has always had that option and, interestingly enough, no municipality in Ontario has ever privatized their fire service, and I think for very good reasons, Peter. I think our labour laws are different here. Any private fire department would be subject to the same requirements as our municipal fire service. In other words, the review process, the serious threat to public safety, would kick in.
We have a terrific municipal fire service in Ontario, and I agree with that, but it's a matter of government policy whether they want to include privatization in the bill, and if our fire services are as competitive as they can possibly be, I don't think privatization's a threat, frankly.
1200
Mr Kormos: Okay. I appreciate you're here as the fire marshal and not as a politician. So you're serving the Ministry of the Solicitor General --
Mr Moyle: That's correct.
Mr Kormos: -- as a civil servant, and I appreciate that. I hear what you're saying. I think we agree about private firefighting services. I think we do.
Mr Moyle: Is this a trick?
Mr Tilson: Watch it; he's tricky.
Mr Kormos: No. I hold them in great disdain, based on the experience that people have had with them down in Arizona and New England. You're arguing that public firefighting services have a proven record here in the province of Ontario.
Mr Moyle: Yes, I'd say that without a doubt.
Mr Kormos: I've got a feeling that somebody's going to move an amendment under the definition of "employer" to delete the reference to persons or organizations that employ firefighters, which is perceived by a whole lot of us as this opening of the door to private firefighting services. When the Solicitor General asks for your advice on that, I trust that you're going to tell him that you're in accord with the deletion of that from the bill.
Mr Moyle: To be quite honest with you, Mr Kormos, and I have to be quite frank with you, my business as the fire marshal is not so much how municipalities organize their fire department; my business is whether that organization results in a safe service for communities. That's my position as the fire marshal.
Mr Kormos: I don't want to put you in a position that's uncomfortable.
Mr Moyle: I'm not uncomfortable at all.
Mr Kormos: And I don't want to put you in that position. You know where I'm coming from. I, along with more than a few people in this room, am adamantly opposed to the proposition of private firefighting services. Somebody advised the drafters of this bill to include the provision that employers shall include persons or organizations that employ firefighters. I'm wondering in response to what sort of policy request that was included in the bill.
Mr Frank Klees (York-Mackenzie): On a point of order, Mr Chair: This is a technical briefing, and I don't believe that it's appropriate for Mr Kormos to be challenging staff on issues of policy.
The Chair: I think it's a little wider than that, Mr Klees. I would overrule that at this time. Please proceed, Mr Kormos.
Mr Moyle: The provision for municipalities to provide private fire protection has always been implicit in the Municipal Act. As far as we're concerned, as far as I'm concerned, there's no change in this particular legislation. Now, the legal technicality of how it's written in there, I can't advise you on that. Maybe Mr Burnside could.
Mr Burnside: What the fire marshal has said was correct. We believe that there is the authority in the Municipal Act to contract with private individuals. What the definition of "employer" under part IX was attempting to achieve is to ensure that the collective bargaining process for those employees or firefighters would be pursuant to part IX as opposed to going generally under the Labour Relations Act. It's a technical answer, but that's why it's there. It doesn't create anything new; it just ensures that the collective bargaining process will occur under this act as opposed to under the Labour Relations Act. But we feel that the ability to engage private individuals already exists in the Municipal Act.
Mr Kormos: Having said that, what does the addition of "person or organization that employs firefighters," in terms of being among "employer," do to achieve what you're talking about? You know where I'm coming from, and I think that's the open door for private firefighting services. You're telling us to the contrary. Tell me what it does and why that can't be deleted.
Mr Burnside: What I'm trying to do is clarify and indicate that the authority to engage private individuals is the Municipal Act. What we're trying to do in part IX is to ensure that the firefighters who are providing the service, whether it's directly as employees to a municipality or to a private organization, would collectively bargain under that part of our Bill 84. If they were excluded somehow by definition, if you only had a definition of "employer" saying it has to be a municipality, then presumably, since the Municipal Act still speaks, it would be possible in theory, although, as Mr Moyle has indicated, it has never happened in practice in Ontario, for a municipality to contract with private individuals for fire protection services. But those employees of that private organization would be left to collectively bargain under the Labour Relations Act.
Mr Kormos: I'm going to go back to the fire marshal, because I'm worried about the stories we've heard about Wackenhut in -- where is it? -- New England and about Rural/Metro down in Arizona. Have you had a chance to take a look at the sort of services they provide down there?
Mr Moyle: Interestingly enough, I had Rural/Metro, as an educational endeavour -- I invited the firefighters' association and the fire chiefs to the fire college to listen to what they had to say, because their point of view on things is quite interesting. I can't honestly give you any kind of an evaluation of what their performance would be like, Mr Kormos. It's not something I've studied. My concern is, if a private fire company was organized in Ontario with unionized firefighters in a municipality, then they would not be allowed to reduce the level of service that would pose a significant risk or serious threat to public safety. We would be on them the same as we would any other municipality. So the test would be there.
Mr Kormos: I'm wondering also, in subsection 2(1), paragraph (a), where it indicates that every municipality shall "establish a program...which must include public education...and certain components of fire prevention," why that doesn't include fire suppression.
Mr Moyle: If you go down one more, it says in meeting those responsibilities they must either establish a community fire safety team or a fire department. Here's the crux of the issue, because it makes sense to have a certain level of fire protection across the province. But if you look at some of these communities and the variations, from unincorporated communities to small volunteer to large urban, it's a very difficult nut to crack in that way. If you have 75 people living in a rural area and there's no central core, you just don't have the capacity to have a fire department; it's not feasible. So you drop back to a community fire safety team to ensure that the public is educated, they have working smoke alarms and they can get out of their homes. That's the crux of the issue. If every municipality had the capacity to deliver a volunteer fire service, for example -- but municipalities have fire departments because they want them and they make sense. There would be a tremendous public outcry if you didn't have a fire department in these areas.
Mr Kormos: I would put to you that the same argument could be made about public education and fire prevention. If it's simply on the basis of making sense, that's perceived or included as one of the mandatory requirements, whereas fire suppression isn't.
I appreciate the issues that were raised in the presentation and the data that were provided, but at the end of the day we're talking about the shortest possible response time to a fire by firefighters, aren't we? Isn't that the crux of community safety? Certainly one can't rank them in terms of priorities, but that's certainly equal to fire prevention and fire safety, isn't it?
Mr Moyle: I would take issue with that. I would go back to the three lines of defence. If you can prevent the fire from occurring, if you can prevent an older adult from catching their clothes on fire, of which we have a significant number every year -- the fire department can't help them. The only person who can help them is themself. Even the smoke alarm can't help them, because they're consumed very quickly. The fire department response is critical in a number of areas: medical responses, Hazmat fire suppression; they rescue people when they get there. Absolutely they're a critical part of the three lines of defence. But surely you and I and everybody else in this room would want to prevent the fire from occurring in the first place.
Mr Kormos: I agree. In an ideal world, there would be no fires, nor would people make French fries.
1210
Mr Klees: My question is to the fire marshal. Thank you, sir, for your briefing this morning. Before I get to my question to you, I just want to take the opportunity to thank the many firefighters who have in fact consulted with us over the last number of months. I have to say that I think of all of the legislation that we've introduced, probably the most organized forum of consultation has been with Bill 84. Now, why that is, I'm not sure, but you're certainly well organized, and thank you for that.
Fire marshal, I would say that probably one of the things government is constantly being criticized for is that we tend to deal with symptoms rather than the root problem. Government traditionally is known for throwing a lot of money at trying to solve symptoms.
One of the things I find very interesting about this particular piece of legislation is that I think to a large part it's trying to get at some of the root cause, and hence the focus on prevention and education. I also, on behalf of the government, want to commend the many individuals who have been working on this legislation over the last number of months to begin to address the root problem of safety around some of these issues.
I'm confused that my colleague David Ramsay and -- well, not so confused that Peter Kormos would make this suggestion. But I find generally Mr Ramsay to be very constructive in his critique of legislation. For him to suggest that the government should withdraw this piece of legislation really puzzles me, particularly because of the very strong emphasis on the issue of prevention and education. Having said that, I'd like to focus in on that, because you're aware of the very strong campaign that the people in Ontario have heard. We've all become very aware of the message that's out there now, and that is that Bill 84 will be detrimental to safety. All of us are concerned about that, if in fact that were the case.
You make reference to the fact that it is your office that's responsible for the training and evaluation of firefighters in this province. Is that correct?
Mr Moyle: The municipalities are responsible. We would be providing the support systems in their endeavours. Under the Occupational Health and Safety Act, the municipalities are responsible for training their employees, but there is regulatory authority to introduce standards and certification for firefighters in the act, which is important.
Mr Klees: Can you share with me where the actual training programs for firefighters in this province are developed and who has the responsibility for oversight of that training?
Mr Moyle: Right now we have the major responsibility through the Ontario Fire College to train firefighters and fire officers, but we also work very closely with the Ontario Association of Fire Chiefs and other groups such as the Ontario Professional Fire Fighters Association, the municipal training officers, fire prevention officers and volunteers.
We have a professional standard-setting body, and we have developed a number of professional standards for firefighters across this province. My office has developed an extensive curriculum for volunteers and for full-time professional firefighters. I think something like 500 fire departments out of the 645 are now using that. We're now developing testing criteria to give them certificates of achievement for doing that. In fact, I will be going down next week to present the first certificates to a composite fire department in LaSalle. So the training is in pretty good shape in the province, I would say.
Mr Klees: I would think the training is at the heart of the issue of safety. We can have all kinds of policies, and if we don't have the appropriate training program and coordinate a training program across the province, then our policies would be of ill effect.
What I'm really looking for from you as the fire marshal is an assurance that as we move forward with this bill, and we're going to continue to look for input on this bill over the next couple of weeks, we end up with a piece of legislation that not only will speak to safety but will in fact have grounded, and hopefully with some authority resting in your office, that there will be a responsible coordination of training across the province that reaches out not only to full-time but also to part-time, if we're going to move in that direction, and the volunteer sector of firefighting in the province. Can you give us that assurance?
Mr Moyle: Yes, absolutely. I believe the system is in place now. We can always improve on it, we're developing more and more as we go along, but for backstep firefighters there's an excellent training program in place now.
Mr Tilson: I represent the communities of the county of Dufferin and the town of Caledon, all of which are served by volunteer firefighters. I also represent a number of constituents who work for the Brampton fire department. I've consulted with all of these groups unofficially and officially, and the Brampton Professional Fire Fighters Association has seen me several times, individuals and as a group. One of their statements troubles me: "The new definition of a firefighter, which is in section 41, will inevitably lead to less qualified, part-time firefighters. This is clearly a cost-saving measure and will jeopardize public safety. Fire and emergency services are not a part-time occupation." In other words, there's the suggestion that there's a problem with fire services of part-time volunteer firefighters.
I understand from a union perspective why that may trouble them, but on the other hand I represent an area which is completely served by volunteer firefighters. I need some assurance to take back to my constituents who are served by these volunteer firefighters that everything is okay, that the excellent services, in my view, that are being offered in Caledon and in Dufferin will continue.
Mr Moyle: I can speak firsthand from Caledon because I was a volunteer there myself for seven years, and they do provide an excellent level of service. There's no question about it. But as you get into the larger, more urban areas, the fire protection problems obviously become more complex. The risks are greater, the population density is different.
Mr Tilson: I understand that.
Mr Moyle: Certainly there are ways that I believe part-time employees could be used effectively. If the use of part-time firefighters is abused or in any way threatens public safety, there is regulatory authority within the legislation to pass regulations on the use of part-time firefighters.
Right now they can employ volunteers, for example, and certainly a part-timer in smaller communities, particularly volunteers. When they start to get a little busier, it makes sense to then go to a part-time system, probably. Another thing I'd like to point out is that there are a lot of composite fire departments now that are very busy that employ volunteers. The use of part-timers in some of those locations may make sense in the future, particularly if it becomes difficult to get volunteers, and they can be unionized. I think there's significant potential to increasing union membership in those particular cases. But if there is an abuse of the part-time worker, we could deal with it under the existing legislation.
Mr Ron Johnson: My question will be for legal counsel. With respect to privatization, we've heard that in the Municipal Act apparently the powers already exist for municipalities to explore that as an option. Is there anything within the Municipal Act or within Bill 26 that would prevent the government from putting a non-privatization clause within Bill 84?
Mr Burnside: If I understand your question correctly, you're asking whether it would be possible to close off that as an issue in this legislation?
Mr Ron Johnson: Yes.
Mr Burnside: It may be open to have that kind of clause in this legislation. I would point out to you, however, that the amendments put forward in Bill 26, the Savings and Restructuring Act, contain wording to the effect that it's despite any other act. So there still would be an argument in certain circumstances that there could be privatization, although that wording was limited to the moving of services to upper-tier or lower-tier and in the context of the amendments. It may partially accomplish that, but it still may leave an argument that in certain circumstances the Municipal Act may still speak.
1220
Mr Ramsay: That was an excellent question from Mr Johnson. Obviously the answer is that the damage was done last year in the passage of Bill 26, and that's why the opposition was so adamant about opposing that.
Fire marshal, I'd like to --
Mr Kormos: Filibustered.
Mr Ramsay: We did actually. Fire marshal, I'd like to ask you a few questions on something you were just talking about with Mr Tilson, and this was in the use of part-timers. What do you mean by the abuse of part-timers?
Mr Moyle: There's been this scenario played out which doesn't make a lot of sense to me that they would have a reduced level of service and have part-timers sitting at home. When you get into large urban areas it just doesn't make any sense. It just isn't going to happen. I was trying to address that.
In the city of Toronto you have fire stations running 4,000 calls a year and in the city of North York the same. In those large urban areas, that scenario, to me, just didn't fit. If anybody tried to drop the level of service, we could handle it two ways: if it posed a serious threat, which is our fail-safe, or there could be some regulatory authority to deal with that.
Mr Ramsay: What you're saying is that you don't think it to be a good idea, in a large urban centre, to run a fire department using a majority of part-time firefighters.
Mr Moyle: In that particular way, but there are other ways that you'd use part-timers very effectively. I'd be quite happy to elaborate on that.
Mr Ramsay: I just want to get to the core of this. You're saying you don't think it would be an abuse of fire safety if, say, Toronto or some urban centre decided to get rid of all the full-timers and tried to run the operation 100% or 90% with part-timers. You're saying that's an abuse. That's just not going to provide the fire safety we require.
Mr Moyle: What I would say to you is that each circumstance would be weighed individually. In other words, I'd have to look at that. I'm not going to sit here and make a decision. I'd have to see what the circumstances were and what they did about it. But in a place like the city of Toronto, to employ part-timers in place of full-timers, I'd be very concerned about that, yes.
Mr Ramsay: If that's a concern, then why wouldn't we put the protection in the bill to begin with? When you're talking about public safety, people get very concerned. I share the same concern as you do. Why wouldn't we put that protection in the bill that could calm some of this concern and say it would be inappropriate, in large urban centres, to try to convert a full-time service to a part-time service?
Mr Moyle: Because the authority to review municipal services is individual, you would look at passing a regulation, if necessary. First of all we would try to solve the problem before it happened. So it would be looked at individually, not across the board. I don't know where you draw the line in the use of part-timers. Every situation would have to be looked at differently, evaluated and a decision made whether it was a threat to public safety. That's the way it would have to take place.
Mr Ramsay: The problem I worry about is that maybe, and you're right, through regulation we'd be able to fix it, but then after the fact -- we've got municipal elections coming up this year. I could be running for municipal office in, say, a small urban centre in Ontario and I'd certainly want to cut the budget of the local municipality -- I'm not a professional at this -- and I'd think that maybe I could run the fire department now with part-timers. So a slate of us gets elected and that's what we do, and yes, you could come in after the fact and correct it, but maybe we've got a part-time operation now where we should have had it like it was before and maybe we've put the people in jeopardy.
Mr Moyle: Again, each situation has to be looked at on its own. I think part-timers can play a significant role in the future in fire protection. I believe that should be in the act. I think that flexibility needs to be there. I'd have to look at each situation on its own merits wherever that occurred. That's the only answer I can give you. The regulatory authority is in the act, the fail-safe provision, so we have the power to act.
Mr Ramsay: Okay. Would you agree that this bill could allow the establishment of a privatized fire department?
Mr Moyle: This bill? The Municipal Act allows that, as we've said, and I think the purpose of this bill, as legal counsel pointed out, was to make sure that if there were private firefighters, they fell under this legislation, which I think is to our advantage. I think it's the Municipal Act that allows it.
Mr Ramsay: And this continues it, I guess. It also continues to allow it.
Mr Moyle: I think it just defines the employer. Again from a technical point of view, David would have to answer that question.
Mr Ramsay: Do you think a privatized fire department would be better than the ones we have here today?
Mr Moyle: I think we have an excellent municipal fire service that delivers a fine level of service. As I said earlier, as the fire marshal, my business is whether fire safety is seriously threatened in the province. How municipalities design and manage your fire service is not my business. It's a government policy decision whether they want to allow private fire protection.
Mr Ramsay: But in your capacity of fire marshal, you're certainly going to be supervising any changes that municipal fire departments may be making to ensure public safety?
Mr Moyle: Absolutely. Yes.
Mr Ramsay: I want to talk about some of the management exclusions in the bill and first just to ask what the problem has been that it has been required to have these exclusions in the bill in order to create more managers now. Has there been a problem?
Mr Moyle: I think there's a principle here. For example, if the megacity were to go through, I'd throw the question back at you: Would it be reasonable to have two managers for 3,200 firefighters? What other business in this province would try to manage a corporation of 3,000 people with two managers? It doesn't make sense. It certainly doesn't give enough, as far as I'm concerned, for the municipality or the fire chief. It doesn't give them a management team that I think they need to run the fire department.
Mr Ramsay: Has there been a problem to date with the way fire departments have structured themselves in providing fire safety to the people?
Mr Moyle: That's something you'll hear arguments put across the table to the panel on during the next couple of weeks and I think you can make your judgement on that. I think it's necessary and in the best interests of the municipalities. It's got to be done fairly, but the fire departments, without question, need more managers. They need 24-hour-a-day management.
Mr Ramsay: I'm just going to ask you, do you agree that there's never really been any time lost by a firefighter because of labour-management disagreements in the past?
Mr Moyle: You mean through strikes?
Mr Ramsay: Yes. A strike, any work action. Has anybody been put in jeopardy by a firefighter in Ontario because of any work action?
Mr Moyle: Not that I know of. Not that I'm aware of.
Mr Ramsay: That's good to hear because that's my understanding too. Then why is it so important to put the sort of no-strike clause in the bill? Why did you see fit to do that? Why did you see fit to ensure that there was a no-strike clause in the bill?
Mr Moyle: I thought the government decided those policies. I didn't see fit to put anything in this bill, sir.
Mr Ramsay: Okay. Just as a government employee and head of the fire service -- why is it there? Would you think that's a good idea then?
Mr Moyle: I think it's a good idea that it's in the bill. I think there hasn't been a labour stoppage. I'm not an expert in this field, so I may have to defer to the legal counsel, but I believe it was the continuous collective agreements, essentially, that it was implicit there was no strike. I'm not sure, David, under this existing system, how that affects it.
Mr Burnside: In changing over to having provisions more similar to the Labour Relations Act, it meant an alteration to the seamless collective agreement that existed under the Fire Departments Act. Our view was that since a collective agreement always continued under the Fire Departments Act, it was not possible to have a work disruption, to have a strike.
When we moved to having collective agreements that would come to an end and we introduced concepts such as statutory freeze, it then became necessary to address up front an issue that we thought was always there, in that firefighters were not able to strike.
Mr Ramsay: Did it ever come up in discussions before you did this that labour relations are more about clauses and bargaining, that they're about the relationship between employer and worker and about the level of dedication of the worker to the job and to the department? In this case, why did the government see fit to put that in when there really was no problem? There was never even a threat to strike.
Mr Burnside: That may get into a policy area which I'm not equipped to discuss, but I would just say to you that it's an obvious thing, so why not state it? It's there for police. If you're looking at it as an essential public service, it would only seem appropriate to state the obvious. It appears not really to be an issue.
Mr Ramsay: I'm concerned about the deterioration of the goodwill that I think firefighters have always had with their fire departments and the municipalities. Unlike the police who have sometimes gone on strike, they've never done that. That's just what's so discouraging about this, that it's this slap in the face to people who have said they would never do it and have never threatened to do it.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Ramsay. Our time this morning has elapsed. Fire marshal and staff, thank you very much for your attendance here today.
We are adjourning until 1:30 this afternoon in the same room. This room could not necessarily be secured, so I'd ask you to remove anything that should be removed.
The committee recessed from 1231 to 1338.
The Chair: This is the continuation of the hearings on Bill 84.
Mr Ramsay: Chair, on a point of order: I was wondering, with the situation here, is there any other remedy available to us to try to alleviate this overflow situation? I understand we have a committee room downstairs.
The Chair: We have committee room 2 with an audio feed only, plus coffee is served downstairs. There were individuals there this morning.
Mr Ramsay: And you're saying there's a problem --
Mr Kormos: Quorum, Chair. Quorum.
The Chair: Mr Kormos has called a quorum, which simply means we cannot proceed until a quorum is present.
Mr Kormos: And there is one now.
The Chair: Okay, we'll proceed, then.
Mr Ramsay: To continue with my point of order, could you put on the record what the problem is with us trying to use the resources of 151? Could I possibly move that the committee request the finance committee to trade places or go to another committee room so we could go to 151? That would provide a visual feed besides an audio feed, which might be more satisfactory to people and allow people to follow the hearings in other locations throughout Queen's Park that way.
The Chair: Mr Ramsay, pursuant to the committee's request, on a motion made by Mr Kormos, I did speak to Mr Chudleigh, who chairs the finance committee, on two occasions. In that the finance committee had booked meeting room 151 prior to this committee, he did not feel he could relinquish it, because they are hearing the Assessment Act. If you wish me to approach him again, I can do so, but it would only be for tomorrow.
Mr Kormos: On a similar point of order, Chair: It's not a matter of relinquishing because of having booked earlier. As I told you, I spoke with the clerk's office and the clerk explained to me the process: One doesn't book a room; one is merely assigned a room. Obviously, this committee picked a short straw.
Having said that and recognizing that these are public hearings, that the public is here in numbers in which they aren't present in 151, the Amethyst Room, it's imperative that if these hearings -- the government is trying to do some spin-doctoring on the consultation stuff. Mr Klees very articulately this morning, as did Mr Tilson, talked about being eager to hear from these and other presenters. Then surely Mr Chudleigh, your colleague in the Conservative caucus, should be impressed with the fact that it's more appropriate for these hearings to be in the Amethyst Room so that people can watch the proceedings in an adjoining room, because it is televised out of Amethyst, when in the Amethyst Room there aren't the same numbers of people and not the same need to accommodate folks. I think it's imperative that these folks be accommodated in a real way rather than being forced out in the hallway where they can't hear and they can't see. This isn't much of a public hearing when they can't hear and they can't see.
Mr Klees: For the record, I want to assure Mr Kormos that members of the government on this committee share his concerns and did, at the very outset, support unanimously the request to have this hearing in the Amethyst Room. I'd just like to say as well, particularly given the experience of today, that we make another attempt to have the facilities changed. I agree that it's obviously too late for today, but if we can accommodate that for tomorrow, I would certainly support that.
The Chair: Is that the unanimous wish of the committee, that I approach the Chairman of the finance committee once again? Fine. I will try to arrange that for tomorrow.
ONTARIO ASSOCIATION OF FIRE CHIEFS
The Chair: I call the first presenters, the Ontario Association of Fire Chiefs, Fire Chief Harold Tulk. Welcome, sir. To yourselves and to all presenters we have allocated only 15 minutes, which is really not adequate; however, to ensure that everyone has an opportunity to make a presentation, we have had to limit it to 15 minutes. It's my job to ensure that ruling is upheld and I will do so. I'd ask you to proceed.
Mr Harold Tulk: My name is Harold Tulk. I am president of the Ontario Association of Fire Chiefs. Fire Chief Tom Powell is the legislative committee chair of the Ontario Association of Fire Chiefs from the city of Scarborough.
What I will do is cover the position paper, as printed, on Bill 84. Then we have provided some support documentation that you have on the table, and we will speak to that if time permits; in the event that time does not permit, we wanted to make sure you had support documentation that was developed in support of this position paper for your reference.
Who are we? The Ontario Association of Fire Chiefs was incorporated into a not-for-profit organization on September 14, 1973. The founding objectives of the association are directed towards public safety. We represent full-time and volunteer administration of the Ontario fire service from a firefighting management perspective.
The objectives of our association are: to promote interest in and the study of fire services for the greater protection of life and property from fire; to engage in research and the study of problems affecting fire services at the municipal, regional and provincial levels; to establish, support and aid in the establishment of programs, surveys and other activities which contribute to the advancement and development of fire services generally; to encourage cooperation with organizations in developing and stimulating public education in fire prevention for the preservation of life and property from the destruction of fire; to propose and support legislation at all levels of government for the advancement and development of the fire services.
Membership in our association: The founding members of this association, in developing the above objectives, established a fundamental reason and purpose of the association that is as appropriate today as it was when it was established in 1973. Currently the Ontario Association of Fire Chiefs has approximately 650 members, representing over 700 fire service organizations across the province. The membership is made up of 33 full-time departments, protecting approximately 55% of Ontario's population, 127 composite -- a combination of full-time and volunteer members -- fire departments protecting approximately 30% of the population and 486 volunteer departments protecting approximately 15% of the population.
We've prepared an overview of the legislation. We wanted to speak to principles rather than specifics.
It is the view of the OAFC that the proposed legislation contained in Bill 84 is a positive step forward in public fire safety. The fire chiefs have been calling for changes to the outdated fire service legislation for many years to reflect the changing face of the fire service. Bill 84 provides the flexibility for municipalities to deliver the appropriate level of fire prevention and protection in each community.
The proposed legislation is directed towards fire prevention and public education. The OAFC believes this is a positive move towards improved public safety for all Ontario residents. We encourage the government to retain the need for mandatory services through the process of legislative debate.
The OAFC has consistently called for flexibility to establish a strong management team to take the fire service into the future. The provision of an enhanced management team within the legislation is another positive step. We also support the need for exclusions from bargaining units of all positions for which a management responsibility can be demonstrated.
We urge the provincial government to be firm on the concepts within the proposed legislation, as they are in our opinion fair and reasonable to all the parties.
Responsibility for fire protection services: The OAFC supports the concept of mandatory fire services in the province of Ontario as it relates directly to the issue of public safety. Bill 84 contains requirements for municipalities to establish fire prevention and public education programs. It is understood that the majority of municipalities already provide these essential services. Confirming in law what is a practice among municipalities is a positive endorsement and appropriate leadership in the development of public fire safety policy.
The provision of fire suppression services as an optional program gives us some concern; however, the proposed review process regarding the delivery of municipal fire services will ensure that public safety is not compromised. Specifically, in that sentence we're speaking to the fact that the fire marshal has the ability to monitor and evaluate fire protection at the municipal level. Given the fact that we are not seeing as strong language in the mandatory sense, the fact that the fire marshal does have the ability to evaluate and review gave us some comfort.
Fire prevention programs: It is the view of the OAFC that the introduction of mandatory fire safety programs is a proactive approach to public safety. We believe that fire prevention is the key to reducing loss of life and property in the province of Ontario.
Fire prevention services are best provided by personnel with fire prevention and protection experience. The fire service has a full-time and volunteer resource that is currently delivering these services. The emphasis of the legislation reinforces the current fire service practices and will enhance the concept of public fire safety.
We support the proposed legislation in this regard and encourage a firm commitment to the concept of public fire safety and prevention programs from all the stakeholders in the fire service. That's a mission statement supporting the retention of the Ontario fire code with the fire service. The public have a relationship and an understanding in terms of perception with the fire service, the vehicle, the uniforms they wear, in terms of fire safety.
Public education programs: Education of the public will enhance fire prevention programs and will raise the profile of fire risks and the dangers of fire. Recognizing dangerous fire situations and having the knowledge to deal with those dangers will help reduce the incidence of fires and save lives. We support the initiative of the public education component in the proposed legislation.
1350
The definition of a fire chief: The need to define the position of a fire chief in law has been a concern of our association for some time. We have recognized, in this day and age of liability and responsibility, that this definition is essential. The fire chief is the individual who has the expertise to provide professional advice on fire-related matters to the municipal council.
Ensuring that the appropriate duties and responsibilities are outlined and provided in law will protect the public and the fire chief. The explanation of authority, duties and responsibilities will also improve the ability of the fire chief to manage the delivery of fire protection and prevention programs for a municipality.
The definition of a fire chief as proposed in Bill 84 recognizes that every municipality which has a fire department should have a fire chief. The OAFC recognizes that some jurisdictions have an elaborate reporting structure, which may include CAOs and commissioners, while others are basic in terms of reporting structure, with the fire chief reporting directly to the council. This definition provides the desired flexibility requested by municipalities and ensures that accountability and responsibility are balanced between policy development and ensuring that those public safety policies are administered and delivered in the best interests of public safety. The members of the OAFC have consistently requested this change in the interest of public safety. We very strongly urge the government to incorporate the definition and reporting process in the final legislation.
I want to move off the brief for a moment because I heard the minister's comments this morning that one of the areas that may be adjusted was the definition of a fire chief. The fact, as we see it, is that the need for a reporting relationship between the fire chief and council is essential to the further proper and reasonable development of public safety policy in a community. We understand there are administrative processes, but there's also an operational application, and you have to balance the interests between the two.
We support the definition as printed. We do not want to see the definition altered. The issue here is making sure that the fire chief has access to council, to let him know the operational ramifications of the policies that are developed in public safety at the political level. There is an administrative process in some communities and not in others. It is inconsistent because it's based on the size of the community.
This definition has flexibility. We feel it maintains the continuity in the reporting continuum. We would urge the legislative group to recognize that the fire chief needs to maintain access to council. That's imperative. If council wants to know the ramifications of those policies in terms of operational application, it's imperative that they speak to the person who understands the operational side of the fire service. That's the position.
Firefighters' employment and labour relations: The majority of issues under part IX are not issues raised by the fire chiefs. However, we wish to comment on the following -- and I want to qualify it. As I said earlier when I described what the Ontario Association of Fire Chiefs is, as chartered in 1973, we deal with public safety, we deal with organizational matters that affect public safety. One of the issues that we felt was paramount during the fire services review was the management exclusion issue, so we've commented on that and not commented on any other area.
The OAFC has consistently called for additional management exclusions from firefighter associations. The existing legislation provides for only two managers to be excluded from the association -- in the brief it says "union,"and we stand corrected and apologize; it should be "association" -- the fire chief and the deputy fire chief. Obviously, with only two management exclusions in the department, the ratio of managers to association positions is inconsistent with good management and current business practices.
The OAFC supports the concept of a management team as proposed in Bill 84, including the managerial exclusions concept under the Labour Relations Act. The members of the OAFC have consistently requested this change in the interest of good management and current business practices. We urge the government to incorporate the management team and the management exclusions in the final process.
The conclusion: The proposed legislation will provide through its direction and guidance an effective fire protection and fire prevention service for all of Ontario. We support the concepts and the principles within Bill 84. I must remind you, there are 13 parts to the legislation. There was a technical overview provided by the fire marshal. We are concerned with the public safety component of Bill 84. We believe it represents the future of the fire service in terms of dealing in a fair way with the citizens we serve and the people who must provide those services.
The members of the Ontario Association of Fire Chiefs believe this legislation will enable an efficient and effective delivery of fire protection and prevention services into the next decade and beyond. We urge the government to adopt the legislation.
Now, before I say I've finished, we put a support document in there. It's the fire chief standard and the deputy fire chief standard. The fire marshal spoke earlier today. This standard was developed with participants across Ontario. The document describes the process. It describes the duties and the skills that a fire chief must have to function; it also describes what a deputy fire chief must have in terms of the operational skills and the responsibilities they have to assume. One document is a companion to the other and adds emphasis to the need for future changes.
When Bill 84 was released we conducted a number of membership meetings across the province of Ontario. We have summarized the concerns. For your benefit, these were circulated to the membership -- a little later than some of them would have liked, but they were circulated. All the concerns of the members were listed and expressed in summary note form, and this is on Bill 84 in particular.
There's a document that also supports the need -- it was developed by the Ontario municipal fire prevention officers and the Ontario Association of Fire Chiefs to support the maintenance of the fire code in this province. It's an essential life safety document and it is starting to demonstrate some very proactive behaviour in terms of fire prevention. Why the fire code should stay with the fire service is described inside of that document as well, in some detail.
When the fire marshal's report was released, the OAFC developed 12 summary recommendations. We put those in for the committee's reference as well.
Last but not least, we started to experience, prior to the issue of Bill 84 and then subsequent to it, the elimination of deputy fire chiefs in Ontario. This gave us grave concern. We consulted with our legal people and we developed a public information release. Inside of that document are some valuable background data as well.
But having said all of that, we thank you very much for the opportunity to be here. If there are any opportunities, we will answer any questions you may have.
The Chair: There really isn't a lot of time, about 30 seconds per caucus.
Mr Klees: Thank you for your presentation. I'd like to very quickly move to the management exclusions component of your presentation. As the minister indicated this morning, we're prepared to take a look at some red-circling of employees around this issue because, as you know, there is some opposition to simply unilaterally designating people from management and excluding them from the bargaining unit.
I've also had representations to me personally. For example, in one case it happened to be a captain who said, "If you're going to be making any exclusions, will you allow me as a captain to say that I don't want to be part of that management team that is going to then be excluded?"
I'd like your views on whether that's workable and if not, why not.
Mr Tulk: As a fire chief looking at fire department organization, the OAFC examined the issue of right of refusal, successor rights etc, and we will be positioning ourselves to be able to demonstrate that we need managers to effectively manage a fire department. If the person opts to be part of that management team or not part of that management team, that will probably be left to some form of labour relations process.
Mr Ramsay: Thank you, Chief, for your presentation. I wanted to ask you about the provision for call-in firefighters in this bill. The bill will allow the use of call-in firefighters, it says, in a major emergency, but the bill doesn't define what a major emergency is. Really, that would allow a community to develop a call-in firefighting system if they wished. As a fire chief, do you think that's an effective way to manage a fire department?
Mr Tulk: Most of the jurisdictions now have some arrangement for calling in firefighters that was properly agreed upon at the local community level, based on those circumstances. What is a major emergency in one community may differ greatly from another in terms of interpretation and the impact on that community. It could be a local community decision. Our sense is there's more flexibility for us to put it forward in the new legislation. In the old one it was very restrictive. If we needed one we had to call everybody back when we declared an emergency, so this offers more flexibility.
The Chair: Thank you very much, gentlemen, for your presentation.
1400
ONTARIO PROFESSIONAL FIRE FIGHTERS ASSOCIATION PROVINCIAL FEDERATION OF ONTARIO FIRE FIGHTERS
The Chair: Our next presenters scheduled for 1:45 and 2 o'clock have cooperated. Mr Jim Lee, the Ontario Professional Fire Fighters Association, and Mr Bruce Carpenter, president of the Provincial Federation of Ontario Fire Fighters, will combine their 15 minutes to make a total of one half-hour and make their presentation consecutively together. You should have the written presentation of both associations before you. Gentlemen, welcome. I'd ask you to proceed.
Mr Jim Lee: Mr Chairman, members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to speak to you today on this very important matter. My name is Jim Lee and I'm the president of the Ontario Professional Fire Fighters Association. I've been a firefighter for 25 years in the city of North York. With me at the table is Bruce Carpenter, president of the Provincial Federation of Ontario Fire Fighters, and he fights fires in the city of St Catharines.
I've come to this standing committee with a very simple request: Please listen to the people of Ontario.
People from across this province, from Windsor to Hawkesbury and from Armstrong down to Leamington, have spoken out against this bill. They have lobbied their MPPs, mailed in postcards, signed petitions and phoned our offices to ask that this bill be amended. They want you to eliminate the threat to fire safety for them and for their families; 200,000 Ontarians have signed petitions to express their opposition to Bill 84. They are telling you:
"Firefighters need speed, experience and teamwork to save lives. I oppose any legislation that could undermine the work of my local firefighters and jeopardize fire safety in my community. Please listen to professional firefighters and amend Bill 84 to eliminate the threat to fire safety."
On behalf of each of the communities that have spoken out against this bill, a citizen from that region is joining me today to present the petitions to you. Bruce and I would like to take a moment to introduce them and allow them to present their petitions.
Sherry Lee lives in Mississauga, where she does charitable work for children with disabilities. She's concerned about the future level of safety for her and her community. She is here to present petitions on behalf of the people who live in the GTA.
Mr Bruce Carpenter: Cauleen Viscoff is a self-employed businesswoman from Peterborough who understands that a community with a second-rate fire service is a very poor business environment. She is here to present petitions on behalf of the people of central and northern Ontario.
Mr Lee: Carolynn Ioanonni operates a day care in Niagara Falls. She is concerned that Bill 84 will lower the protection that people like her rely on. She is here to present petitions on behalf of the people who live in the Niagara Peninsula and southwestern Ontario.
Mr Carpenter: Ron Phillips is an active firefighter in Ottawa. He recognizes that disrupting the firefighting system is a danger to him and to the public. He is here to present petitions on behalf of the people who live in eastern Ontario.
Mr Lee: We are here today with those citizens, not just as the representatives of firefighters across Ontario, but as the representatives of the people of Whitby, who ask you to amend Bill 84.
Mr Carpenter: The people of Chatham ask you to amend Bill 84.
Mr Lee: The people of North Bay ask you to amend Bill 84.
Mr Carpenter: The people of Brockville ask you to amend Bill 84.
Mr Lee: The people of Thunder Bay ask you to amend Bill 84.
Mr Carpenter: The people of Niagara Falls ask you to amend Bill 84.
Mr Lee: The people of Barrie ask you to amend Bill 84.
Mr Carpenter: The people of Woodstock ask you to amend Bill 84.
Mr Lee: The people of Cumberland ask you to amend Bill 84.
Mr Carpenter: The people of Kitchener ask you to amend Bill 84.
Mr Lee: The people of Timmins ask you to amend Bill 84.
Mr Carpenter: The people of Brampton ask you to amend Bill 84.
Mr Lee: The people of Collingwood ask you to amend Bill 84.
Mr Carpenter: The people of Sudbury ask you to amend Bill 84.
Mr Lee: The people of Nepean ask you to amend Bill 84.
Mr Carpenter: The people of Kenora ask you to amend Bill 84.
Mr Lee: The people of Hamilton ask you to amend Bill 84.
Mr Carpenter: The people of Innisfil ask you to amend Bill 84.
Mr Lee: The people of Mississauga ask you to amend Bill 84.
Mr Carpenter: The people of Owen Sound ask you to amend Bill 84.
Mr Lee: The people of Brantford ask you to amend Bill 84.
Mr Carpenter: The people of Cambridge ask you to amend Bill 84.
Mr Lee: The people of Etobicoke ask you to amend Bill 84.
Mr Carpenter: The people of Elliot Lake ask you to amend Bill 84.
Mr Lee: The people of Fort Frances ask you to amend Bill 84.
Mr Carpenter: The people of Windsor ask you to amend Bill 84.
Mr Lee: The people of St Thomas ask you to amend Bill 84.
Mr Carpenter: The people of Toronto ask you to amend Bill 84.
Mr Lee: The people of Waterloo ask you to amend Bill 84.
Mr Carpenter: The people of London ask you to amend Bill 84.
Mr Lee: The people of North York ask you to amend Bill 84.
Mr Carpenter: The people of Belleville ask you to amend Bill 84.
Mr Lee: The people of Wasaga Beach ask you to amend Bill 84.
Mr Carpenter: The people of St Catharines ask you to amend Bill 84.
Mr Lee: The people of Midland ask you to amend Bill 84.
Mr Carpenter: The people of Gananoque ask you to amend Bill 84.
Mr Lee: The people of Scarborough ask you to amend Bill 84.
Mr Carpenter: The people of Ottawa ask you to amend Bill 84.
Mr Lee: The people of Kingston ask you to amend Bill 84.
Mr Carpenter: The people of Keswick ask you to amend Bill 84.
Mr Lee: The people of Newmarket ask you to amend Bill 84.
Mr Carpenter: The people of Pickering ask you to amend Bill 84.
Mr Lee: The people of Ajax ask you to amend Bill 84.
Mr Carpenter: The people of Clarington ask you to amend Bill 84.
Mr Lee: The people of Port Colborne ask you to amend Bill 84.
Mr Carpenter: The people of LaSalle ask you to amend Bill 84.
Mr Lee: The people of Oshawa ask you to amend Bill 84.
Mr Carpenter: The people of Peterborough ask you to amend Bill 84.
Mr Lee: The people of Wallaceburg ask you to amend Bill 84.
Mr Carpenter: The people of Lindsay ask you to amend Bill 84.
Mr Lee: The people of Guelph ask you to amend Bill 84.
Mr Carpenter: The people of Pembroke ask you to amend Bill 84.
Mr Lee: The people of Burlington ask you to amend Bill 84.
Mr Carpenter: The people of Thorold ask you to amend Bill 84.
Mr Lee: The people of Richmond Hill ask you to amend Bill 84.
Mr Carpenter: The people of Kanata ask you to amend Bill 84.
Mr Lee: The people of Sarnia ask you to amend Bill 84. The people of Oakville ask you to amend Bill 84.
Mr Carpenter: The people of Smith Falls ask you to amend Bill 84.
Mr Lee: The people of Welland ask you to amend Bill 84.
Mr Kormos: Damn right.
Mr Lee: Here we have additional thousands of names that we received today that we would ask to be entered as petitions on behalf of Bill 84. We didn't have time to box them.
The people of Ontario ask you to amend Bill 84. On their behalf and on behalf of professional firefighters across this province, I urge you to follow their wishes and adopt significant amendments to this bill.
The 200,000 petitions that Bruce and I have just presented talk about speed, experience and teamwork. They are critical elements in the work we do as firefighters.
Speed matters in firefighting more than any other profession. If you don't have enough firefighters and equipment there in the first eight minutes, the fire will flash over. After that the risk of injury goes up ninefold. After 12 minutes, your chances of a successful rescue are only 46%. Three minutes later those odds have dropped to 5%.
But speed matters in more than just fighting fires. Firefighters are called on for other emergency duties; 60% of the work firefighters do is in non-fire-related emergencies. When someone is lying on the pavement flat-lined, you don't have a couple of extra minutes to get the defibrillation machine. Every second you lose lowers the odds of pulling that person back. When hazardous materials spills happen, you have to get containment now or risk getting toxins in the water supply or airborne contaminants spreading across residential communities.
Firefighting isn't the same as other professions. You can't wait for backup; you can't hold on while reinforcements arrive. Speed matters. Speed is what saves lives. You don't get second chances when you're fighting fires.
When coroners' juries look at the situations where lives were lost and try to prevent that from happening again, there's one thing they call for over and over: response times. Get the firefighters there, get them there fast, and get them there in sufficient numbers to do the job. I'm asking you to listen to those men and women and recognize beyond any doubt that response time is critical. Speed saves lives.
1410
Experience matters. I don't know how many of the members of this committee have ever fought an apartment fire. Let me tell you what you'd see: nothing, not a thing. The smoke is so thick you can't see your hand in front of your face. The smoke is billowing up to the top of the building and accumulating there. But the people fleeing the fire are running up toward the smoke and the smoke is what's going to kill them.
Meanwhile, you're trying to get inside, because if you start fighting that fire from the outside of the building, you push the fire back into the building and it spreads and finds fresh fuel and injures more people. So you've got to get inside the building to fight that fire. But to do that you have to know how the building is laid out, which hallway leads where, which shaft goes to which storage room and what's kept there. There has to be a pre-fire plan in place. If you stop to figure it all out after you get to the fire, the fire will be out of control before you begin.
Once you know all that, you've got to find the fire. The person who reported the smoke doesn't know where the fire is; they just saw smoke. And you can't see because the smoke is so thick -- and it's hot. Every minute you wait, the fire is getting twice as big and twice as hard to fight, until you hit that eight-minute mark and, boom, it flashes over and you've got a whole different problem on your hands.
That's a little of what you need to know to fight an apartment fire.
Shall we talk about a Hazmat spill now? Or how about a fast water rescue? Or how about evacuating children from a burning house? How many people at this table can mount an attack on a house fire with people inside before that fire gets out of control? I bet the answer is two: Bruce and myself. That's not because we're special, it's just because we know how. Don't ask us to go and face 40,000 angry voters in your riding at election time; we can't do that. But we have the experience needed to be effective in an emergency situation. We also have the good sense to know that people without our level of training and experience pose a threat to public safety.
Experience matters. Experience saves lives. Teamwork matters. Inside that burning building you're depending on your partner to know where you are every minute and get you out if something goes wrong. But there's more smoke than you can imagine. You can't see anything. You have to just know where your partner's going to be, and your partner has to know the same thing about you.
That's not a relationship that's automatic. It's developed over time with someone who's done the same kinds of drills you have and worked the same job and faced the same kinds of experiences. When even a minute can cost lives, you're not talking about thinking things through; your responses have to be almost instinctive. And it's not just your instincts; its the instincts of everyone on the team that you have to count on.
Throwing a part-timer into that mix isn't just inconvenient; it's dangerous.
Teamwork matters. Teamwork saves lives. I can't stress these points enough. You can't tinker with the firefighting system we rely on without having serious consequences. Unfortunately, Bill 84 does a lot of tinkering, and it doesn't do it very well. It's obvious this bill was written in a hurry; there are technical mistakes all through the bill. Along with those technical mistakes there are some practical mistakes. Bill 84 makes changes to the firefighting system that sound fine on paper, but in practice they would be disastrous.
The government says they want this to be the best fire safety legislation in the country. Right now it isn't. The bill will cut corners at the expense of critical services. Even Sally Barnes, the Tory candidate from the last election and former aide to Bill Davis, had only one thing to say about Bill 84 in her last newsletter: that Bill 84 would cut costs. She's not calling it the best fire safety legislation in the country.
Bringing in call-backs and part-timers and privatization puts the public at risk and undermines the firefighting system people have come to rely on. The people of Ontario, the 200,000 who signed petitions and the thousands who have phoned our offices, are counting on you to ensure that they have the protection they need in an emergency. I know you won't let them down.
Mr Carpenter: Mr Chairman, members of the committee, my name is Bruce Carpenter. I'm President of the Provincial Federation of Ontario Fire Fighters, which represents over 4,500 professional firefighters across Ontario. With me at the table is Jim Lee, President of the Ontario Professional Fire Fighters Association, which represents roughly 4,500 firefighters in Ontario.
Jim has touched briefly on some of the reasons that people are concerned about this bill. I want to take a moment to address those concerns and what can be done to fix the problems.
Bill 84 was written in a hurry. That's clear to anyone who has read the bill. When you look at some of the sections, it's obvious that it was thrown together in a rush. There are no enforcement mechanisms for the rules set out in the bill. There's no transition process to manage the changeover between the old and the new acts. There are no provisions for what happens to procedures that are already under way in the old system. There's even a section that refers to pension legislation that's been gone for a decade.
There are technical mistakes all through the bill. That's unfortunate. The government has said repeatedly that they intend to put forward the best fire safety legislation in the country. It's a good intention. It's an intention that can still be fulfilled if you can address some of the following problems in the bill.
(1) Bill 84 adds bureaucracy. The management exclusions provision of Bill 84 sacrifices firefighters and adds bureaucrats. The bill adds as many bureaucrats as the labour board will allow. That could take firefighters off the line where they are needed and create an overloaded bureaucracy -- but that's not all. The exclusion process will require lengthy litigation before the labour board, which will be time-consuming and expensive for both sides.
I and my colleagues recognize that some groups strongly favour more bureaucracy in the fire service. We don't think that's right, but if you are going to do it, don't set up a system like the one in Bill 84, which will have long appeals to the labour board. If you have to make changes, choose a system like the fire marshal proposed: Set a specific number of managers based on the size of the department and set a firm limit.
(2) Bill 84 doesn't provide for successor rights. Without successor rights, any amalgamation, privatization or reorganization could reduce the standards of firefighting in our community in a single stroke. The new fire department wouldn't be bound to meet the standards currently negotiated. They could employ fewer firefighters, under-staff the fire halls and lower levels of training and experience.
Other municipal employees are entitled to successor rights, but for some reason Bill 84 assumes that sustaining arrangements with parking attendants is more important than maintaining the arrangements with firefighters.
I can't see any reason why firefighters are denied successor rights when other municipal employees have them. If the arrangements with clerical staff are important enough to be kept in place after an amalgamation, isn't the firefighting system important enough to keep? We strongly recommend that you provide firefighters with the same successor rights other municipal employees have.
(3) Bill 84 undermines safe staffing levels. The new call-back provisions of Bill 84 undermine the province's professed commitment to fire safety. Call-backs allow fire departments to drop staffing levels below a viable standard and bring firefighters in after an emergency occurs. That's an efficient system for managing paper flow or widgets, but not for firefighting. Call-back systems mean slower response times and a greater loss of life and property.
We recommend that you leave the call-back system the way it is, allowing each municipality to negotiate a call-back system that protects it in a major emergency. Because the system is negotiated, it can't be used to under-staff emergency vehicles. That system is working. Why change it now?
1420
(4) Part-time firefighters undermine firefighter safety. The use of part-time firefighters, which this bill promotes, works in concert with the call-back system to encourage municipalities to understaff firehalls. Part-time firefighters are used to shore up understaffed fire departments in an emergency, but part-time staff don't participate in pre-fire planning, training exercises or equipment maintenance. That undermines the effectiveness of fire protection.
That was the conclusion of the study done by Durham, North Carolina, when they chose to abandon their part-time firefighting system. Despite having used it for years, Durham realized that part-time help isn't what you need when you're trying to protect people's lives. The legislation must not encourage the use of part-time firefighters. Part-time employees won't provide the same level of service and the public doesn't feel they can rely on part-timers to do the job.
(5) Bill 84 would make hours of work non-negotiable. That means firefighters don't have the basic bargaining rights everyone else in Ontario has. I assume this was one of the errors in drafting the bill. It's unreasonable to single out firefighters for this kind of treatment.
As Fire Chief Speed of the North York Fire Department states in his letter of March 18, 1997, to the clerk of this committee, "Firefighters should maintain their right to negotiate their hours of work." We believe that firefighters should be treated the same as every other worker in Ontario. Let us negotiate our hours of work with the municipality.
(6) Bill 84 disrupts the firefighters' associations. Bill 84 could result in firefighters' associations losing their right to represent their members. The bill would impose a union certification system on firefighters' associations. There is no certification system for police, and Bill 105 maintained that policy. The firefighters' associations have never had a strike or a disruption, and we've made a commitment never to do that.
Why threaten the stability of firefighters' associations, and throw us all into a union drive that will cost money and create uncertainty? What can be gained by that? Keep the current system in place.
(7) Bill 84 disrupts the labour relations system. The bill fails in a number of ways to address basic labour relations issues. The transition from the current system is fundamentally flawed and won't work. It creates uncertainty and instability in the workplace. There are no enforcement provisions. The current system works. It is being replaced by a system that doesn't work.
We recommend that the elements of the bill dealing with transition and enforcement be totally rewritten. I think everyone recognizes that they were put together in something of a hurry and that they need a lot of work.
(8) Bill 84 raises the threat of privatization. There are too many horror stories about private fire companies in the US. Why do we want to bring that level of service to our community when our existing municipal departments are doing a good job?
The bill specifically accommodates privatization and has made it a real prospect here. Having done that, there's a need to step in and prevent that from happening. We don't want to face the kind of service that private fire companies have shown in the past. You need a clause in the bill that prohibits the privatization of fire departments.
As members of the committee, you have before you a submission from Scarborough Fire Chief Powell. Chief Powell clearly opposes the provisions of the bill which would permit privatization of fire emergency services.
(9) Bill 84 bans strikes and lockouts. The professional firefighters' associations have never had a strike. Our constitutions specifically forbid a strike. We have no intention of going on strike now or ever and, frankly, many of our members are insulted that this clause is in the bill. However, we are prepared to accept a no-strike clause in the interests of accommodating those groups who feel that they need that assurance.
Changes along these lines would go a long way towards eliminating the problems that Bill 84 creates for the firefighting system and for fire safety. I hope you will look closely at the recommendations we have put before you.
For these reasons, 200,000 people -- firefighters, fire chiefs, business people, citizens, even government backbenchers -- have signed this petition, recognizing that Bill 84 needs to be amended if fire safety is going to be protected in their communities. The people of Ontario ask you to take a look at the bill and make the changes that will keep them safe. For the sake of all of our communities, I urge you to listen to them.
Mr Klees: Thank you for your presentation. I have had an opportunity to read your petition, and for the record, I just want to say to you that I have no problem signing this either, because the very fact that you're here --
Mr Lee: We've got one right here you can sign.
Mr Klees: Well, I'm happy to sign it, because we too are very interested in ensuring that safety is uppermost in the province, and we recognize the contribution that you make. The very fact that we're in this forum indicates that the government is prepared to listen, that we're looking for your input. We may not agree on all of the changes that you are suggesting, but certainly I think you heard from the minister this morning that we're here to listen to the concerns you may have regarding the legislation specifically. There will be some changes, and we thank you for your suggestions.
Mr Ramsay: Thank you very much. Either one of you could address this. I'm just really wondering, why would a government in its haste to try to save money really want to gamble with fire safety and therefore the lives of Ontarians? What's behind this? Why would a government do this when we have good fire protection in this province?
Mr Lee: I think the Conservative government has made a commitment to the Association of Municipalities of Ontario to give them the tools to reduce costs in the municipality, and the municipalities are going to do that through or on the backs of the fire service. They're going to reduce the level of fire service to try and save money in the province, and we don't think it's right.
Mr Ramsay: The other thing is, I'm wondering why this government doesn't have the goodwill, especially when in your presentation here I think you've been very conciliatory to say you would accept a no-strike clause, to sit down with you and work out what the labour relation agreement should be between firefighters and the government.
Mr Carpenter: It's a good question. We're perfectly willing to sit down with this government at any time, and we have said that from the beginning. It's very unfortunate that this legislation was put together with such haste that we're facing the legislation we are now, with no input whatsoever from my organization or from Jim's organization.
Mr Kormos: Thank you, people. You were here this morning when the Solicitor General was making his comments, and you notice he never referred to either the association or the federation as "the association" and "the federation"; it was "the union." It could have been an accident --
Mr Klees: On a point of order, Mr Chair.
Mr Kormos: -- but I can't help but think that the $1,000-a-day spin doctors --
The Chair: I'm sorry, Mr Kormos. We have a point of order.
Mr Kormos: On my time?
The Chair: No. We'll take care of it.
Mr Klees: I just would like this matter clarified. Are the federation and the association unions or not? Could we get clarification of that?
Mr Kormos: Maybe we could, but we've got question time.
You heard the speech that was read by the Solicitor General, and I'm interested in particular because the government has been very defensive about the prospect of privatization, and you also heard all sorts of almost pettifoggery around the issue of whether or not the bill opens the door. But the absence of a provision for successor rights in conjunction with everything else, does that force one to arrive at the irresistible conclusion? All these things together -- there are no successor rights, the expanded definition of "employer" -- when you add all those up, does it lead to anything other than the prospect of privatization or at least an open door to it? There may be other angles to it. Go ahead.
Mr Lee: It definitely opens up the door to privatization in the province with regard to delivery of the fire service. We only have to look at what happened in Waterloo on January 21. Rural/ Metro went in there and put a proposal together to actually try and privatize the fire service, and we've heard from a number of backbench government MPPs and cabinet ministers that this will never happen in Ontario. I don't believe it. If they believe it will never happen, I think they should be putting it in the legislation to not allow it to happen. It shouldn't happen in the province of Ontario.
The Chair: Mr Lee and Mr Carpenter, thank you for your excellent presentation.
I'll just make an announcement. We have a point of order from Mr Klees, and we're going to take a five-minute adjournment after that in order to have the clerk remove the petitions to the clerk's office.
Mr Kormos: There are a lot of petitions. It might take more than five minutes.
Mr Klees: Mr Chair, if we could have clarification as to whether the federation and association are in fact unions or not. Could you clarify that for us, please?
The Chair: Excuse me. I don't know whether it's proper to ask these gentlemen those questions. Our time for questions of these gentlemen is up. That will be referred to the ministry staff, and they will get you an answer on that, Mr Klees.
Mr Klees: I would appreciate that.
The Chair: I know these gentlemen have the answer, but it isn't a proper question to them at this stage.
The committee recessed from 1430 to 1440.
EAST YORK FIRE FIGHTERS' ASSOCIATION
The Chair: If I may call the meeting to order once again, I apologize, ladies and gentlemen, that we're somewhat behind schedule. We'll try to make it up along the way. Our next presentation is the East York Fire Fighters' Association, Michael Madden, who I assume is the president. You have someone else with you, Mr Madden, and you might identify him for the purpose of Hansard in the event he is going to take part in the presentation. Welcome, gentlemen. Please proceed.
Mr Michael Madden: Thank you, Mr Chairman, members. This is past president Mac Sheahan, a firefighter of 32 years, a captain with the East York fire department and also the secretary of our association.
As for my part of the presentation, I'll say I'm not a polished speaker; I'm just a firefighter on the back of a truck. Actually, I worked this morning and got my own time off to come down here, so I missed the fire marshal's presentation, which I hear was fairly good.
The main point I wanted to speak on was bargaining of hours, or the lack of the right to bargain for hours. I took this job with the conception that it was a democracy, that we had the right to negotiate our hours and we wouldn't be forced to work 24-hour shifts, that we could negotiate with the municipality anything we really wanted to get.
I think it's going to be a detriment to my family life and may even force me out of the fire service and into another career if that's what it comes to. That's really the only point I wanted to make here. I'll turn it over to Brother Mac Sheahan.
Mr Mac Sheahan: Mr Chair, members of the committee, the first point I wish to comment on is the remark of the honourable minister in his introduction of the Fire Protection and Prevention Act on October 16, 1996: "Previous governments used these consultations as an excuse for inaction. They examined the issue to death, and then backed away from it. They had the opportunity to reform the fire service. They failed to act."
During my career with the fire department, I too have realized that these consultations to which the minister referred have been time-consuming and have not shown any resolve. However, I do not believe that this is the fault of the firefighters' representatives. Time after time these representatives have left discussions believing that there has been a resolve, only to return at the next scheduled meeting and find that the representatives of other stakeholders were not willing to endorse the agreement. With the introduction of this bill firefighters, in my opinion, will suffer due to heavier workloads, increased hours of work, increased costs during labour disputes, uncertainty as to crew size and backup and the threat of privatization.
This bill refers to strikes, lockouts and exclusions from the bargaining unit. Although the right to strike has been available to firefighters in this province, to my knowledge this has not been a problem, due to firefighters voluntarily giving up this right, and I believe there is a provision in most collective agreements acknowledging these decisions. One must acknowledge the right of management to certain exclusions from the bargaining unit. However, I should point out to this committee that in Canada there have been very few labour stoppages among firefighters where senior members of the department are within the unit. The cities of Montreal and Halifax are two exceptions that come to mind. In both of these cities the officers are not in the same bargaining unit as the firefighters, and both of these cities experienced strikes in the not-too-distant history.
The committee should also be aware that a number of municipalities within this province currently operate without deputy fire chiefs as cost-saving exercises, and for these municipalities to request these exclusions should be treated with some caution.
Although the bill does not refer to the privatization of fire departments, it does, through the municipal restructuring program, allow municipalities the flexibility to find the best ways of providing local services that meet local circumstances. This bill makes it mandatory for fire prevention and public education programs but allows latitude for suppression. Any jurisdiction that is relying on private fire departments is at the whims of the contractor. Personnel, equipment, training and most of all reliability are dictated by the cost, and need for profit.
I think that currently we need only to look at the questions raised on the safety of Highway 407 by the Ontario Provincial Police, the men and women who will be investigating and reporting accidents and maybe even deaths on this privately funded, cost-effective highway. Unfortunately we do not or will not know if these cost savings will translate into more accidents and loss of limb or life until some time in the future. It appears the honourable Minister of Transportation will have to make a political decision which may or may not come back to haunt the minister in the future. Why should the citizens of some municipalities who are currently funding a fire department have to risk loss of property or life in the future due to the desires of some municipal governments who are willing to take such a chance due to budgetary desires?
The conciliation process that the minister is implementing would be, in my opinion, from past experience, a total waste of time and money. During the 1960s and early 1970s it was convenient for most councils to let arbitrators decide any issues or benefit they would be uncomfortable giving to their employees as the members of a council may have had to answer to the taxpayers in the future. It was easier for the council to blame it on a usually nameless arbitrator than to stand up and say that the benefit was deserved and why it was given. It also appeared that many municipalities approached the arbitration process unprepared, and I believe that this was evident when the awards were reviewed. Since then municipalities appear to be going to arbitration boards better prepared, and the awards are indicating the same. Most firefighters' associations have good working relationships with their municipalities, and to insert a conciliation step is only a delaying process requested by municipalities. There normally is sufficient time between the breakdown of negotiations and the arbitration dates for reasonable men and women to effect a compromise without the need of a costly conciliator.
Currently, hours of work have been subject to negotiations between the parties, and it appears that the terms of this bill exclude same from the collective agreement process. Why would an important part of working conditions be excluded? I am at a loss as to the reason for any employer or employee not being able to negotiate such an important detail. It does not appear that in the past the hours of work have been a problem between employers and employees. Is it the desire of the bill to make such a dramatic change that this provision should be included? The conditions that firefighters can be subjected to at any incident should preclude any change to the hours of work.
The suggestion of the employment of part-time firefighters is of grave concern to most firefighters, whether they are officers or other members of the crews. Firefighting is a team concept, and to have any doubt as to the availability or the training or experience of the crew will certainly result in reduced levels of service.
The current fire marshal of this province has in the past spoken of on-site manning as the key to the future for crew response size. This means that at a certain time after the initial receipt of the alarm a certain number of firefighters will be at the incident. On paper this appears to be reasonable, but what is a reasonable time?
Studies have shown the dramatic effect of fire spread within a time delay of deploying suppression. Tell this to the occupant of a dwelling, who is watching and waiting for a rescue to be initiated, that until a certain number of personnel are on scene the rescue cannot be initiated or the suppression attack cannot begin. The on-scene firefighters will have to make decisions that could and will lead to the loss of property or life of both the citizens and the firefighters. What I mean by this is that no firefighter is going to sit outside a building on fire knowing that there is someone, your children or my children, in that building and not take a chance on going in, regardless of what the rules may be. So please don't tie their hands.
1450
If you have never encountered the eternity during emergency procedures, it is difficult to imagine the agony of someone waiting for the arrival of equipment or watching for a loved one to be rescued.
The role of a firefighter has changed greatly during my years as a firefighter. It's no longer, "Put the wet stuff on the red stuff." Now hazardous chemicals, auto extraction, defibrillation procedures, medical assistance and even the odd childbirth are a few of the extra duties performed by and expected of firefighters. Would part-time firefighters be trained in a manner that their skills would not reduce the effectiveness of a department, or would the cost savings of this part-time person satisfy the manager who would agree to this? The possibility of injury and disease are greatly increased with every new evolution undertaken. Should this part-time person be subjected to these risks?
The minister speaks about the management team. I would ask you to take a look in this province at the record of our fire chiefs. Take a look at the city of Toronto, where most of our chiefs have risen through the ranks. The minister has indicated that he feels the association limits these people, but let me tell you that in most collective agreements the promotional policies do away with that and the cream rises to the top.
In closing, I respectfully believe that amendments should be made to this bill which will address the concerns regarding all of the above. There appear to be great strides made to protect and educate the public, which will benefit firefighters, but they are greatly overshadowed by a few of the negative aspects of this bill.
Thank you for your attention.
Mr Ramsay: Thank you very much for your presentation. You spent a little time on the imposition of the hours of work that this bill will do, and that's obviously in stark contrast to the present custom where hours of work are negotiated. What do you think that's going to do to the fire service and maybe the morale of the firefighters in these organizations?
Mr Sheahan: Any change to the hours of work is certainly going to have a major impact on the morale. Currently most departments, and for a long time, have had basically the same hours and people have adapted to it. I think you have to remember that firefighting is a career in which you are away from your family at odd hours and for a long time. You're away on weekends. To change this, as Michael said earlier, probably would make a lot of the younger men and women in the department take a major look at continuing in this career base.
Mr Kormos: You speak of part-time firefighters and the risk that poses for victims of a tragedy; to wit, a fire or any of the other incidents that you speak of. I'm also concerned about the safety of other firefighters. The sense I'm getting is that firefighters train and work and develop a concept of team where there's a lot of unspoken communication that goes on when you're attending at a scene and that not only does the welfare of the victim of a fire depend on that, but your safety as a firefighter depends on that. Can you elaborate on that a little bit?
Mr Madden: I would say that anyone would realize that the more time you spend working with someone on a day-to-day basis, the better you get to know that individual, his faults, his strengths, and you start to realize what guys are better for what and you end up covering each other for those specific reasons. That's the team approach, and that's something we feel would be lost if you run into a case where an individual is brought in one day a week or he's brought in when there is an emergency only. I think we'd lose that continuity, if you will.
Mr Tilson: I understand your concerns. You mention hours of work. I think that's section 41 or 42 -- 42 to 48, is it?
Mr Madden: It's under section 52 and referred to again under section 43.
Mr Tilson: I also understand your concerns, the fear of reduction of work size. I understand those issues, particularly issues of fatigue. Of course, a municipality may or may not do those things.
I'm sure you've read section 2, subsections (7) through (10), which list off very increased powers to the fire marshal, and you've heard the fire marshal this morning, who can literally come into a municipality and, if there's a threat to public safety, a threat that you're suggesting, the fire marshal along with the regulations that the government will be putting forward, putting a minimum standard across this province, can take very severe action against a municipality. My question to you is, what is wrong with that?
Mr Sheahan: I guess I have to come back to you, sir, with my question: What is the minimum standard?
Mr Tilson: First of all, if you've read subsection (9), which talks about the fact that there are going to be minimum standards for fire protection service in municipalities requiring municipalities to comply with the standards, the fire marshal is going to be given very strong powers to come in. If a municipality --
Interruption.
Mr Tilson: There are laughs in the audience, but you should read the section, because it's there.
The Chair: Excuse me, Mr Tilson. I am afraid your time is up.
Mr Sheahan and Mr Madden, thank you very much for taking the trouble to assist the committee today. We appreciate it.
CITY OF MISSISSAUGA
The Chair: Our next presentation will be a citizen of Mississauga, Her Worship Hazel McCallion, and Chief Cyril Hare. Welcome, your worship.
Mrs Hazel McCallion: Thank you, Mr Chairman and members of the committee. I seem to be coming down here a lot.
The Chair: It's always pleasant to see you down here.
Mrs McCallion: First of all, I appreciate the opportunity to deal with Bill 84. I was a member of the Who Does What panel and I was on the subcommittee that dealt with fire, police and ambulance. So we spent a lot of time on this, and the fire marshal was present, as well as the staff of the province.
First of all, I want to say that I think we all have to agree that the status quo is not acceptable any more. That relates to all services, no matter, and to municipalities etc. We can't go on the way we are. We've got to look at how things can be improved. I think that is something that is very difficult.
When I think that I was president of AMO in 1978 -- we were talking about amendments to the fire act, and every time we got close to it, the lobbying that went on by the fire associations, I have to say, caused the politicians to back off. I wouldn't be a bit surprised if you don't back off this time. When I see some of the literature that's being distributed with, in my opinion, misleading information about Bill 84, trying to raise fear in the minds of the citizens, I think it's unfortunate. So I want to make my position very clear on that.
We are a municipality of 560,000 people and we have one of the best fire departments in the country. I think the Mississauga derailment was proof. Our municipality gives every priority to the fire budget of our city. I've said on many occasions I want my fire staff to have the best equipment, the best clothing, everything, the best on the market. We as politicians are prepared to do that.
So I get a little concerned when today I think local government is taking sort of a beating that we're not responsible. I'll tell you, if any level of government in this province is responsible, it's the local level of government, and I'll tell you why: because we're right there with the people. If we don't do what is necessary, I can assure you they don't know where to get their MPP, or not that often, they don't know where to get their MP, but they sure know where to get the mayor and the members of council. So if we at any time decided to reduce the fire protection for our city, my job would be on the line. I want to make that clear.
Second, I think you should know that there are many municipalities in this province that operate with a volunteer fire department. I had the pleasure of being mayor of one. The town of Streetsville had a voluntary fire department second to none. It would match any full-time fire department, and in fact the deputy chief of the volunteer fire department became the chief of the big Mississauga full-time fire department. That shows you that it can be done.
1500
We support in principle the provisions of Bill 84. We're a little disappointed because the Who Does What panel recommended automatic response. Yes, it's in the bill, but with the union agreements we can't implement it.
Second, there is one recommendation that we're disappointed is not in the bill, and that is the way in which arbitration is handled. It's very interesting that when it comes to arbitration awards, the employer and the union have the choice of trying to decide who the arbitrator should be. I'll tell you, when it's a development application before our city, we have no choice as to who hears the application at the OMB. We don't know until the time is assigned. We asked that that be in the act, that the arbitrators be full-time, as the OMB hearing officers are, and that the province assign the arbitrator. We're very disappointed that was not in the Who Does What.
Management exclusions: It's a step in the right direction. We did not feel it went far enough, and I can assure you that the decision as to whether other positions can come out of the union will be based on the management definition in the Labour Relations Act. You know automatically that's going to go to arbitration, so again we're into this very costly arbitration process. That is why we recommended conciliation before arbitration. It's a welcome provision of the act.
Selection of arbitrators: as I've mentioned.
No contracting out: That is a very difficult thing for the municipalities, not to be able to contract out. I think it's very essential that we do that, and I take exception to the comment that was made by one of the previous presenters that the province is giving this tool to the association of municipalities to cut costs. I think that's an unfortunate statement to be made here to this committee. The province is not giving it to us to cut costs. I want you to know that the municipalities of this province are extremely responsible to the people and directly accountable to the people, more so than any other level of government. I think we've proven it in Mississauga. Therefore, this idea that municipalities are going to play around with the safety of the people and the property I take real exception to. It's just unacceptable to use that type of argument. I'm glad I came a little early to hear that, because I think it's most unfortunate.
Part-time firefighters: You know that volunteer fire departments have to be trained just as adequately as a full-time firefighter. I even have complaints that one fire department, full-time, is not as good as another. Isn't that interesting? I thought the training of firefighters is mandated, and why shouldn't it be?
The other thing in the act that's very important to us is fire prevention. There are some municipalities, especially in faraway places, that do not have fire prevention. This act certainly makes it necessary now to have fire prevention.
Those are my comments. I think the act is a step in the right direction. If there are some things that could be clarified, I would hope the government would be prepared to sit down and clarify them, but I can assure you I am concerned about this fear that is being placed in the minds of the people of this province that this act is going to lessen the fire protection in this province. I think that's most unfortunate, and I'm very disappointed that in my own city that is being promoted when we have, as I say, spent all kinds of money. We've never questioned the money to be spent on fire protection in our city. So I hope the province will look at some of the things.
Hours of work: I wish I could have my hours of work regulated in which I could have time off etc. I get a lot of complaints from my citizens that firefighters have two jobs: the one for the fire department and the one that they work with their days off. As long as we get the fire protection we want, I'm not concerned about that, but I think the firefighters should know that is a concern out in the community.
I'm very proud of my fire department and I'm rough with them as well. When it comes to sick leave, we try to negotiate out the sick leave with them, and every time they send it to arbitration. They wouldn't even let us negotiate it out for new firefighters coming on. I don't believe you take something away from an employee that you give them, and since it was given to the previous firefighters who were hired by the city, I say fine, but the new ones coming on, we as a city wanted to put them under a plan that all other employees of the city are under to protect them.
I think it's time that the fire departments or the associations -- which are unions, by the way; there's no question they are unions -- will take into consideration that the status quo is not acceptable and that we have to sit down and figure out how we can provide the adequate fire protection for the least cost and in the most efficient way. Maybe some functions of the fire department can be contracted out. I'll tell you, we sit with an information system in the region of Peel that can't go into operation because we've got to try to get the Brampton fire association to agree with the Mississauga fire association. So we have got problems, and they're all labour relations. It's as simple as that.
The Chair: Thank you, Your Worship. Chief, do you have anything to add?
Mr Cyril Hare: Not at this time.
Mrs McCallion: In fact, I'm rough on him too.
The Chair: We have some time for questions, approximately two minutes a caucus.
Mr Kormos: Within the context of Mississauga, and appreciating that council would have to make that decision, which of these new opportunities -- part-time firefighters, contracting out, privatization of part or more -- that are in this bill could you envision Mississauga considering; if not taking, at least considering?
Mrs McCallion: We have never and I doubt that we would ever contract out the fire protection of the city, but I've got to tell you that we could be forced into that. You know, I heard a number of people say "negotiate." Yes, I guess we negotiate, but when you have the right to go to arbitration on everything, it ruins the other people we can sit down and negotiate with. We have to either come to agreement or we're in trouble. In this case, we don't.
In regard to hiring part-time, no, I don't see us ever thinking of that in the city of Mississauga. We're a large city with a lot of industry and, as you know, today fire protection has to be advanced. We don't hire the way we used to. I found when I got into the fire department in Mississauga that there was the grandfather, the father, the son. We hire now based on qualifications, and very tough qualifications. That's why we've got one of the best fire departments in the country.
I don't think we would use any of those, but I'll tell you, we'd like to use automatic aid that is not bound by the contracts. Right now, there's an area of Mississauga that cannot be protected by Mississauga and Brampton -- should be the automatic response. We can't do it until we get over these negotiations.
So there's a lot of things, and I've said to my fire department, "We've got to sit down and negotiate these and forget about this arbitration process." If we're interested in the good of our people, if we're interested in protection for people and property, then I think we'd better find a solution and not use a union agreement to keep us apart.
Mr Ron Johnson: Thank you for your presentation. I want to follow along the lines of contracting out and privatization. As you well know, no municipalities currently in Ontario are doing that and it's been alluded to that they've already got the ability to do that now if they choose. To what degree, I guess some would argue.
My question is, you haven't done it in Mississauga and you just indicated that you doubt your municipality would ever contract out fire protection services. What kind of an inconvenience or problem would it create for municipalities across the province in your opinion if there was an amendment that prohibited the contracting out of fire protection services?
Mrs McCallion: First of all, I have to say to you that there are only two things guaranteed in life, and that's death and taxes. So I can't guarantee that the city would never want to contract out. That's like saying -- I guess 25 years ago if you had looked at the technological advance made, you would never have thought that we could do the things or put a man and woman on the moon. So I'm not going to say we'd never do it. I don't see us doing it because of the complexity of our municipality and the success with which we have been able to manage our municipality, in which we're debt-free and haven't increased the taxes for six years and we've got the best fire protection, I believe, or as good as any, in the province.
So I can't stand here and say we'd never contract out, because I'm not going to be around 10 years from now to guarantee that. I think there are certain things that we would like to contract out and I think they should be looked at, but we will always have this union agreement hitting us in the face. I think the arbitration process is what prevents what I call sincere negotiations between the municipalities and the fire associations, and it's unfortunate.
Mr Ramsay: Mayor, I just wanted to thank you very much for making your presentation. As always, you've made a valuable contribution to the committee and I know all of us are going to be looking at what you've said today when we get down to clause-by-clause deliberations.
The Chair: Your Worship and Chief, thank you very much.
1510
INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF FIRE CHIEFS
The Chair: Our next presentation is the International Association of Fire Chiefs, Mr Peter Ferguson. Did I get that right?
Mr Peter Ferguson: Mr Chairman, I'm here as a principal presenter for the city of Toronto. I received a telephone call this morning from the International Association of Fire Chiefs and unfortunately their presenter couldn't get here. Garry Briese, the executive director, has asked me if I could have the latitude of the committee to read into the record a letter from the International Association of Fire Chiefs.
The Chair: Excuse me, sir. What is your name?
Mr Ferguson: My name is Peter Ferguson. I am scheduled as the next speaker to speak on behalf of the city of Toronto. I've been asked by the International Association of Fire Chiefs, of which I'm a member, in their space to read a letter into the record for them.
The Chair: How long do you figure it will take?
Mr Ferguson: Not long. It's a two-page letter and I'd just like to read it.
The Chair: Fine. Please proceed.
Mr Ferguson: I do have copies for the committee. I also have sitting next to me here Dave Guilbault, who is the chief of the Ancaster fire department.
The letter is addressed to the Chair of the committee and it's on the letterhead of the International Association of Fire Chiefs:
"On behalf of the International Association of Fire Chiefs, I would like to offer some comment on the portions of Bill 84 which accommodate the potential privatization of fire departments in Ontario.
"The IAFC is the professional membership organization for senior fire and emergency services managers and represents more than 11,000 individual members. The members of the IAFC provide leadership for the fire and emergency services organizations that protect the majority of the population of both the United States and Canada.
"As you know, over many years several communities in the United States have experimented with privatization, and in many of these cases the efforts to privatize the fire service have resulted in failure and a return to public fire protection.
"The primary impetus for examining the privatization of fire service often is highlighted as potential money savings. A careful review of nearly all of the factors in favour of privatization can be found to translate in one way or another to the potential promise of cost savings for the municipality. No other factor can even come close to money when evaluating potential privatization efforts.
"Often the promised cost savings are not achieved by an increase in productivity nor the increased use of resources nor by any new technology, but only can be accomplished through a reduction in the number of firefighters or in the benefits provided to those firefighters.
"The largest negative factor is also that, in the long term, the envisioned cost savings are often significantly less than anticipated or promised in the early stages of a privatization effort. There is a body of opinion that private contractual services can lead to a lessening of control over an essential public safety service and eventually to a significant deterioration of those services.
"While certain limited and short-term advantages may be gained, these advantages are often far outweighed by the long-term disadvantages which include a significant upheaval in the relationship between labour and management, a reduced fire protection response, a diminished emergency medical services capacity, and a substantial exposure to increasing costs.
"We believe that the fire service, as it is currently organized, can provide a cost-effective and cost-efficient service to the citizens of the communities they serve. We also believe that this goal can be best obtained through the development of a new relationship between fire service and labour management -- the development of a fire service leadership partnership.
"The importance of a supportive city, county or provincial government cannot be emphasized enough. In fact, this factor may be the single biggest determinant to the success or failure of any effort to fundamentally change the relationship between fire service labour and management and at the same time find methods to improve efficiency and contain municipal spending increases.
"We believe that this new relationship must bridge the old confrontational style that has been successfully used by both labour and management. It worked for many years when the future of the fire service was basically the same as its past, but the future is not the past. It is important that your committee realize that the fire service is moving to meet these challenges and prepare our workforce for the next century.
"Many communities have used the threat of privatization of their fire service to continue the confrontational relationship that has existed between the community and its firefighters. This is not the relationship that needs to exist between any community and its firefighters. Privatization may not be the answer to the problems that a community may be trying to solve.
"The promise of a new relationship between labour and management and the development of a true fire service leadership partnership will test the maturity and commitment of fire chiefs, labour leaders and firefighters. But the time has come.
"The IAFC is committed to doing what is necessary to make this new relationship work for the communities we serve, for the citizens, for the future of our employees, our labour colleagues and our fire departments.
"Sincerely,
"Garry L. Briese, Executive Director," International Association of Fire Chiefs.
Would you like me to start my presentation as the --
The Chair: I understand you're reading a letter into the record. Mr Ramsay suggested to me that there might be an opportunity to ask questions, but you're really not representing that organization.
Mr Ferguson: They asked if I'd read it into the record. I'm going to present my primary brief as the chief of the Toronto fire department.
The Chair: We do have time if you wanted to say something, but asking Mr Ferguson a question I think would be unfair.
Mr Ramsay: I wouldn't mind, then, just commenting on this letter, which I find very interesting because, just a few submissions before, we had a submission from the Ontario Association of Fire Chiefs which took a very different view on Bill 84. It would make you think that fire chiefs, because of the Ontario association, are against this bill. But now we have a letter, as has just been read into the record, from the International Association of Fire Chiefs which takes a very different tack. I think it begs the question, why is the Ontario Association of Fire Chiefs so supportive when the international association, which has the experience internationally with other jurisdictions trying to privatize firefighting services and has seen the failures of those experiments, have that wisdom -- it's really refreshing to see a progressive group of chiefs who understand the modern ways of labour relations, that we've got to get away from this confrontational method of labour relations that Bill 84 just continues on, because it dictates to firefighters their hours of work and some of the other matters we've discussed here today, and take a very progressive approach. I would hope the Ontario fire chiefs somewhere down the line would see the light and work in a more cooperative manner with firefighters in Ontario.
Applause.
The Chair: Excuse me, I think I mentioned this morning there are no demonstrations permitted.
Mr Kormos: That was applause.
It's interesting, because I read your submission, Chief, you having just distributed it, and you, as the chief of the Toronto fire services, are interestingly not at odds with the International Association of Fire Chiefs and the comments they make. You appeared perfectly comfortable relaying --
The Chair: Please, Mr Kormos, I've already ruled that he cannot answer questions in regard to a letter which he read into the record. Mr Ramsay took my meaning to mean that he could make a statement, which he did, and I would request that you do the same if you disagree with it. I think it's very unfair to ask Mr Ferguson questions on a letter that he did not write.
Mr Kormos: You felt perfectly comfortable reading that.
Mr Ferguson: If I have an opportunity to make my submission, I think you'll see some similarity in some of the concerns I have with what was said by the fire chiefs. Of course, I wouldn't have read it into the record if I was in conflict with the letter.
Mr Kormos: God bless you, Chief Ferguson.
The Chair: Is there any statement to be made by any of the government members? If not, Mr Ferguson, we will proceed with your primary presentation here today.
1520
TORONTO FIRE DEPARTMENT
Mr Peter Ferguson: Good afternoon. My name is Peter Ferguson. I am the fire chief of the Toronto fire department. I'm a career firefighter. I have 20 years' service in the municipal fire department. Prior to being appointed as the deputy chief of the Toronto fire department, I served a number of years in the North York fire department, which is the second-largest fire department in Ontario. I'm formerly a member of the fire service advisory committee on occupational health and safety, and I currently sit on the NFPA 1201 committee, which is developing standards for the fire service. As the fire chief of this municipality, last year I responded to 26 multiple-alarm fires where I was the incident commander.
I would like to thank you for this opportunity to present to the committee this afternoon.
The overall objective of any fire department is to provide the community with the optimum level of protection from fire and other related public hazards. At the same time, the department must ensure an appropriate level of health and safety for its firefighters.
The firefighting division is by far the most costly element of a fire department's operation and it should be designed in the most cost-effective fashion. When staff or equipment is poorly utilized, there is significant financial waste. On the other hand, a poorly staffed fire department can result in property and life loss beyond accepted community norms. The cost of a firefighter death or disabling injury may far exceed any money saved by understaffing. That is not to say that there is a fixed value on a life or injury. The point is that firefighting forces are the asset that protects the community's economic and tax base as well as its health and welfare in the event of an emergency. This asset is a valuable one and must be carefully provided and wisely managed.
Toronto city council has funded and operated a municipal fire department since 1834. The Toronto fire department serves and protects 640,000 permanent residents and a workforce of close to 600,000 people. With the addition of tourists and visitors, the daytime population of the city exceeds more than one million people. The Toronto fire department is the largest and busiest fire department in the province, with an establishment of 1,270 full-time employees and 97,000 unit responses in 1996.
The Toronto fire department has well-established fire prevention and public education programs. The staff of our training academy ensures the department meets the changing needs for training and safety and the overall fitness and health of our employees. Our equipment services division maintains and repairs more than 10,000 pieces of equipment annually.
The firefighters work a 42-hour week, with 10-hour day and 14-hour night shifts. Just a historical note: The hours of work that are currently in the present Fire Departments Act, the 42-hour work week, which is the norm for firefighters in the province of Ontario, was as a result of an arbitration in the city of Toronto in 1956, which formed in part that section of the current act. I'm proud to say here today that the Toronto Fire Fighters' Association and the corporation of the city of Toronto have not been to arbitration on an interest matter since 1956.
The Toronto fire department operates under a four-platoon system operating from 27 stations. Our front-line apparatus consists of 29 pumpers, 16 aerials, three rescue squads, one hazardous material unit, one high-rise unit and one fire boat. The Toronto fire department has evolved into a total rescue service that involves many diverse functions: fire suppression and rescue, auto extrication, high-angle rescue, hazardous materials control and basic life support, including defibrillation. Fire safety is now a quality-of-life issue and the people are demanding more fire prevention and public education programs.
The Toronto fire department in the last 20 years has produced three master fire plans, which examined the current and projected emergency response and fire safety needs of the community. The recommendations contained in these long-range development plans have received the necessary support from city council. This has allowed the Toronto fire department to respond to the changing needs of our community and fulfil our commitment to a fire-safe city.
At its meeting on February 24, 1997, Toronto city council took the following action:
(1) Affirmed its support for the firefighters of the city of Toronto and expressed its concern with respect to the provincial government's Bill 84.
(2) Requested that the provincial government be advised that council does not support any legislation that would lower standards for firefighting or disrupt the firefighting system that the city of Toronto relies on.
(3) Requested the Solicitor General and the Legislative Assembly to consider amendments to Bill 84 that would eliminate any aspect of the bill that could undermine fire safety in the city of Toronto.
I understand that Mayor Barbara Hall will be here tomorrow to offer her comments to the committee on the bill.
In the time allotted for this presentation, it's not possible to do a clause-by-clause review of the bill. However, I would like to highlight some of those sections that give me cause for concern.
General comments related to Bill 84: The proposed Fire Protection Act, a consolidation of nine separate statutes, creates a new legislative framework for fire protection, fire prevention and firefighter labour relations in Ontario. As a result of this consolidation, the draft is like a patchwork quilt, with sections of the Labour Relations Act and other pieces of the existing legislation knitted together, dependent on yet unwritten regulations to clarify the intent. For example, the bill does impose an obligation on both the employer and the union to "bargain in good faith and make every reasonable effort to effect a collective agreement." However, the bill as presently drafted does not provide for any specific enforcement mechanism with respect to this requirement or many of the other mandatory requirements under the bill, including the prohibition against strikes and lockouts.
Part II of the bill sets out the municipal responsibility for providing fire protection services and makes it mandatory to establish programs that include fire prevention and public education with respect to fire safety.
Fire protection services, however, are not mandated and a review of municipal fire protection services is only considered if the fire marshal is of the opinion, and I quote from the bill, "that, as a result of a municipality failing to comply with its responsibilities...a serious threat to public safety exists." Considering that the proposed legislation opens the door to part-time firefighters and contemplates the contracting out of full-time municipal fire departments, clearly defined standards for fire protection, training and certification should be included in the legislation to guarantee the safety of professional firefighters and to ensure that a serious threat to public safety will never exist.
1530
Part III, fire marshal: The bill significantly increases the power and responsibility of the fire marshal. With this expanded role for the fire marshal, is it contemplated that the fire marshal will be provided with the necessary resources to carry out the expanded role, as in my opinion the office of the fire marshal does not have adequate resources available to carry out their existing mandate, particularly in the area of training and fire investigation.
Under duties of the fire marshal, it should be a duty for the fire marshal to consult with each level of the fire service prior to developing training programs and evaluation systems, and that consultation should include large urban, mid-sized urban, small urban and rural/small town departments where applicable. It should be the duty of the fire marshal to recognize that there are differences in the needs of the fire service community according to their size and community profile.
The operation of a central fire college should be a power, not a duty. This will allow for the most efficient and cost-effective method of delivery for specialized training duties.
Part VII, Offences and enforcement: Section 28 offences apply to all provisions of the act and will expose all of the members of the fire department, the fire marshal and all of his staff, the officers of the municipal corporation and the councillors of a municipal corporation to fines and imprisonment. This can apply to all violations of any and all labour relations provisions of the act. Again, clarification is required.
Part IX of the proposed legislation sets out the labour relations provisions for firefighters and is by far the most contentious part of the bill. The broader definition of "employer" opens the door for the privatization of fire departments in Ontario and the use of part-time employees. This new approach to fire protection in this province could result in the erosion of the quality and level of fire protection in the province.
The proposed legislation gives the fire chief the exclusive right to call in off-duty firefighters as a result of an emergency. What is an emergency? If it's not defined in the act, without a clear definition of "major emergency," this section is subject to abuse and could lead to a reduction in the number of full-time firefighters available on duty for initial response purposes, particularly in privatized fire departments.
The bill allows for automatic exclusions from the bargaining unit, to a maximum of five. Additional bargaining unit exclusions must be approved by the labour relations board.
I agree that a department the size of the Toronto fire department should be allowed additional exclusions from the bargaining unit. However, I do not support the position taken by some that everyone above the rank of firefighter should be removed from the bargaining unit. In a large department this could result in two bargaining units, one for officers and one for firefighters. In the city of Toronto I have 220 firefighting captains. That would certainly be a bargaining unit larger than most bargaining units in Ontario. I am concerned that this would have a negative impact on the crew and team concept at the operational level in the firefighting division, a major safety consideration.
The bill provides for conciliation before interest arbitration. This is appropriate, but the parties should not bear the costs of conciliation when parties under the Labour Relations Act have conciliation provided by the ministry without cost to themselves.
The new legislation provides for both certification and decertification of bargaining units. In the transition period leading up to certification, it is unclear what the status of the current collective agreements under negotiation or referral to arbitration might be. Without clarification around transition issues, there will be confusion on the part of the parties as to where they stand and what may be done in the workplace, and that's not a good thing for the fire service.
In conclusion, I submit to the committee that the draft of Bill 84 has some serious flaws. Appropriate amendments must be considered before the bill is passed into law. Thank you very much.
Mr Tilson: Thank you very much for coming and making your presentation. I'd like to ask, are you able to tell me how much the city of Toronto spends on overtime?
Mr Ferguson: Nil. Zero.
Mr Tilson: With respect to the topic of privatization, you suggested that privatization may not be appropriate, and it may not be in many circumstances. Are there any areas where it is appropriate? I'm thinking, for example, with respect to inspections or education of the public, of the firefighters themselves, of continuing education. Are there any areas in which there could be forms of privatization?
Mr Ferguson: My experience and the experience in the United States related to privatization, and I think a little bit was touched on in the letter I read, is that private providers of fire and ambulance service are in the business to make money, and in doing so, obviously there are a lot of standards that are not met. What I have to relate to you is that if it's the intent of the government to allow private fire departments, there must be standards put in as to what standards will be met. That is the one glaring error.
They're going to mandate public education and fire prevention. Most departments have well-established programs. If you choose to contract out, you must give protection to a level of standard. There also must be the training component.
I sit on the NFPA 1201 committee which is developing standards for emergency medical service and fire protection, and that's one of the things that's really been problematic in the States. There are no standards, there are no unions in these private companies and basically, particularly in the EMS area, some of these employees will work in excess of 18 hours a day.
So I think that if it's your mind to do that, you have to balance the scales, and I don't believe they're balanced here.
Mr Ramsay: Thank you, Chief, for your presentation. It's very refreshing to see a fire chief from the largest firefighting service in the province come forward showing some of the concerns, and I hope the government members, especially the parliamentary assistant, are paying attention to this.
I thought that in your answer to Mr Tilson you made a very good point that I'd like to elaborate on a little bit, when you talked about the privatization of fire services. In a free-market system the mandate of a company is to make a profit. Their mandate is to do well, and that's great, and we want companies to do well, but your job is to do good, to do the public good, and I really think there's a difference there.
That's why I think we have a public sector, that there are some functions in society that government takes upon itself to deliver, and while there's a real zeal on right now to somehow try to privatize everything, there are sort of core functions of government, especially those that are involved in public safety and security, that I strongly feel have to remain in the hands of the public sector so that you're accountable to the people to do the public good.
I think that's the point you're making here and I feel very strongly about that. I will certainly be asking the government to consider some sort of amendment to be brought forward so that we would have assurance in Ontario that firefighting services will remain in the public sector so that they are there to do the public good. I think that's what should happen.
Mr Kormos: Obviously you've talked about privatization, and the other issue you spoke of was that of part-time employees and how this bill facilitates that. What's wrong with part-time employees, part-time firefighters?
Mr Ferguson: Again, one of the problems with the legislation is that it opens the door to part-time employees but there are no clearly defined standards as to what those employees would be required to meet.
The other thing that I also find is most interesting in the bill is in the dual definition of firefighter. In one they say we can have part-time firefighters, but they explicitly exclude the organization of volunteers into the full-time bargaining units.
My experience in the area of occupational health and safety is that the volunteers, more so today, want to be covered by a lot of the legislation that covers the full-time firefighters; and to balance the scale, if you want to allow part-time firefighters, there have to be standards, there have to be training standards. That's one of the reasons I mentioned in my submission, that if it's going to be a duty of the fire marshal to create those standards, I think all the stakeholders should have input. It shouldn't be just the management side to look at those. That's a big concern. There doesn't seem to be a balance. It seems to be all balanced one way. I think you need a balance in there.
The Vice-Chair (Mr Ron Johnson): On behalf of the committee, Mr Ferguson, thank you for your presentation.
1540
PETER SIMONSEN
The Vice-Chair: Moving on to the next presentation, Peter Simonsen, please. Good afternoon, sir.
Mr Peter Simonsen: Good afternoon everybody. Ladies and gentlemen, I wish to deal mainly with the aspect of Bill 84 that permits municipalities to privatize fire departments.
When I bought my first house in Pickering township in 1963, the property taxes were $204, or two weeks' pay. We had a volunteer fire department then and that was what we could afford and it was adequate. The fire trucks were kept in a steel building behind the township office. The ambulance was run out of the funeral home. The point is that the people engaged in these services made their living at something else.
As my property taxes quadrupled over the last 20 years to over $6,000 per year, I started to examine where all the money went. I now pay more in taxes towards the fire department than I pay for fire insurance. Here in Ajax we have multimillion-dollar, architect-designed firehalls spending over $5 million. In 1992 the operating cost came to about $85 per citizen of Ajax. Other municipalities have per-citizen fire budgets for 1997 as follows: Pickering $79, Scarborough $65, North York $87, Etobicoke $77. It should be noted that every municipality has its own management and administrative setup. Significant savings could be had with just one administration per county or perhaps one for the whole province.
When someone has a heart attack or a fainting spell and you call 911, here is what you get, and I have seen it: first the police, often two cars, then the fire truck, third the ambulance, and fourth, sometimes, the fire chief shows up in his red sedan. Everybody has to show the flag in order to justify their outrageous budgets. All you really need is an ambulance with the necessary equipment on board. When I ask the local politicians why they allow this waste of resources, they tell me it is provincial regulations.
When I was a youngster in west Jutland in the 1940s and 1950s, we had two competing rescue services. On our farm we had a contract with the Falck Rescue Corps. Once a year a Falck man would come to the farm and collect the annual fee. Falck supplied us with a substantial first aid kit, and for anything to do with rescue, fire, ambulance, roof blowing off, stuck tractor, dead battery, flat tire, road or farm accident, we called Falck.
I think the direct payment was great, because when we pay by way of government, we are fortunate to get back 50 cents on the dollar in services. In fact, I don't believe I get 10 cents on the dollar for my property tax up here in the country. The road is in atrocious condition, the snowplow doesn't come until everybody has gone to work, and if you want your kids to have a decent education, you have to take charge of it yourself.
Today Falck is the dominant player in rescue services in Denmark. It provides fire service on contract to two thirds of the municipalities in the country. This represents about 10% of Falck's overall activity. Falck provides ambulance service, wheelchair buses and regular buses to transport the elderly to doctors' visits and tests. These services are provided on a contract basis to all the counties, and this represents about 40% of Falck's activity. The remaining half of Falck's income is from private contracts or paid by private insurance.
Falck looks after accidents, and only if there is drunkenness or criminality involved are the police called. There is not as great a desire to place blame there, nor is there a large blame industry. Falck has one head office, one administration.
Falck was started in 1906, and until recently it was owned by the Falck family. Falck Holding is now owned by seven insurance companies. These of course have an interest in having an efficient rescue service. The Falck Rescue Corps is owned 80% by Falck Holding and 20% by an employee fund. Employees elect five of 15 directors.
Falck Rescue operates 132 rescue stations in the country. Some of these are firehalls only and are manned by part-timers. Some 33 of the stations are also dispatch centres, which also monitor fire and theft alarms. You call Falck for a home nurse, and in the night for a doctor or a midwife, even a security guard. I am told that it owns all but two of the tow trucks in the country.
Falck Air is another subsidiary. It owns several propeller aircraft and two corporate jets that are used both as ambulances and as taxis. Patients are transported between hospitals in the Nordic countries. Nordic citizens travelling or working elsewhere in the world can take out insurance that will pay for health care locally, and if good services are not available, they will be brought home by ambulance jet. Once I read in the newspaper that a Danish foreign aid worker had developed a blood clot while in the Sudan. A jet with two Falck pilots and two doctors on board was sent to pick him up. Could we not have a similar system here so that our snowbirds and their families do not risk being bankrupted by the American hospital system?
The following pages are copied from Falck's 1992 annual report. You will note that the turnover was the equivalent of $477 million, or $91 for each of the 5.2 million citizens. This is only slightly more than what we spend here for the fire department alone, and half of it comes from private sources. At first glance the difference in cost seems incredible, but a Falck man's hours are 80% billed for and no one sleeps over at the firehall.
It would appear that by contracting out our rescue services and putting them all in one place we could save a great deal of money. We would have a comprehensive rescue service for what it costs now to operate the firehall. All it takes is the political will and the courage to do it.
The firemen, like other public servants at risk of being subjected to the demands of the marketplace, are appealing to our emotions in order to save what is surely the softest featherbed in the country. One fireman, writing in the Ajax paper, suggested that our children would die in fires if the firehall was privatized. I am sure you are aware of it but it ought to be said out loud: These public servants are not concerned about our welfare, our safety or our children's education. They are agitating for their own welfare and using the poor and children as pawns.
If such reforms are to be effected they have to be forced by Queen's Park. Local councillors and school trustees know that they cannot be elected unless they have the public servants on side, because these are extremely well organized. No aspiring politician could be elected dogcatcher if he suggested cutting the budget for the police, the fire department or the education establishment. I wonder if you can be elected MPP without catering to the public servants.
When Mike Harris took office almost two years ago, I wrote him and suggested that he take a page from New Zealand's book and cut two thirds of public servants, cut across the board and mostly from the top and do it quickly so that powerful vested interests would not have time to get organized. It could not be done without right-to-work laws. I feel we have to do this if we are to put this province on sound financial footing, and to remove the bureaucratic straitjacket from those of us with an entrepreneurial bent, so we can get on with the business of creating wealth and jobs.
Needless to say, I am disappointed with the indecisiveness and confusion I have seen so far. The hospital situation is typical. You have closed beds, fired front-line patient care workers, but the army of obscenely paid administrators is still there, as revealed in the newspapers, feeding at the public trough. It does not take much courage to cut welfare mothers, they have no union, but it would take a little fortitude to put all these bureaucratic parasites out to pasture.
Mr Ramsay: I'd like to thank you very much for your presentation.
Mr Kormos: I've read this. Obviously I can only read the charts and the graphs and the bar graphs and so on in the accompanying financial reports or annual reports.
Mr Simonsen: I have written in some translations and some numbers that may be pertinent.
Mr Kormos: I see you've got some notations on there.
Mr Simonsen: You may wish to study those pages.
1550
Mr Kormos: I'm not familiar with Falck at all. This is a new bit of information. I'm going to be looking at these and trying to get some more information about Falck Holding and their delivery of service.
Mr Ron Johnson: Thank you for your presentation. Further to the privatization initiatives -- again, I'm not familiar with this particular model and system that's in place -- are you aware that in Canada there have been about seven provinces that have experimented with privatization initiatives and are you aware of the outcomes of those?
Mr Simonsen: No.
Mr Ron Johnson: Let me help you out a little bit. To be quite honest with you, some of the scenarios that developed as a result of those initiatives certainly weren't in the best interests of the residents of those particular provinces. In fact, there were some cases of hidden books and different sets of numbers and that sort of thing, and that's the ministry that said that in their own report, that in fact it was an unsuccessful attempt. You can make a compelling argument that you shouldn't limit privatization initiatives because of those circumstances. I want to get a handle on how you feel the government should react with respect to Bill 84 in terms of privatization, and if it's a good idea, why haven't municipalities done it already?
Mr Simonsen: I think one reason they haven't done it is that the unions would not allow it. But as for how it evolved, in Canada we basically started out with a colonial institution where things were imposed on us, whereas in a place like Denmark institutions have evolved over the centuries from the grass roots. In other words, when there was a need the people in a community got together and filled the need the best way they could. Around the turn of the century there was a need for motorized fire departments. This family stepped in to fill that need and they have evolved to be the institution there. This is very successful over there, which may be part of the culture.
The Chair: Thank you, sir, very much for your presentation.
ASSOCIATION OF MUNICIPALITIES OF ONTARIO
The Chair: Our next presentation will be made by the Association of Municipalities of Ontario.
Mr Terry Mundell: My name is Terry Mundell and I am president of the Association of Municipalities of Ontario. With me today is Mr Dail Levesque, who's director of human resources from the city of Owen Sound.
I want to take this opportunity to thank you on behalf of the association for the opportunity to appear before you today to present issues related to the proposed Fire Protection and Prevention Act.
As a sector, we have continually argued that new fire services legislation must be free of barriers which inhibit municipalities from maximizing the productivity of fire protection resources. AMO sees Bill 84 as a step in the right direction in eliminating many of those barriers and municipalities are encouraged that the government has recognized the municipal sector's need for more flexible legislation.
During the many reviews which have taken place over the years, we have focused our comments on the labour relations elements of fire services legislation, and again today our comments will focus mainly on those aspects of Bill 84. Our comments on the general direction of Bill 84 will be complemented with specific recommendations for amendments to various sections of the act.
Municipalities are responsible and accountable for a broad range of services in our communities. Fire protection and fire prevention are a critical component of our overall responsibilities. We have an enormous wealth of experience in fire services and that experience is anchored within a broader experience in governing, building, serving and protecting our communities.
Municipal governments are responding to a changing economic environment. With the elimination of provincial financial support for services in our communities, municipalities are looking for better and more cost-effective ways of doing business. We're looking for innovation and opportunities to integrate and streamline services so that we can provide the range of services that taxpayers expect and that taxpayers are prepared to pay for. Municipalities need to provide better services at less cost. The province is in a position to assist us by removing the overregulation and barriers to efficiency that waste scarce resources.
Section 2 of the bill sets out new, mandatory requirements for municipalities to establish public education and fire prevention programs. AMO recognizes and shares the provincial interest of preserving public safety. We trust, however, that with this new requirement the government will live up to its commitment to assist municipalities in their additional responsibilities.
This statute clearly articulates what is expected of municipalities. Along with these responsibilities, it is clear that the determination of the level of service provided at the local level rests with the municipality. Although we acknowledge that the fire marshal is ultimately responsible for public safety, as funders and service providers we expect the development of regulations and guidelines to be done in consultation with the municipal sector. We also urge the committee and the government not to lose sight of the critical importance of the volunteer system in the provision of this essential service.
Section 6 enshrines in legislation the appointment of a fire chief and the structure within which he or she reports to council. Municipal councils recognize the importance and the valued expertise of fire chiefs on important matters of public fire safety and we routinely structure our administrations to capitalize on this knowledge.
As you may know, the new Municipal Act, as proposed, will require councils to appoint an administrative head. He or she will be delegated the authority to appoint additional officers within the municipal administrative structure. We support this direction of ensuring a clear responsibility for the administrative function. It makes good business sense.
The inclusion of section 6, as it is written in this legislation, will only add confusion and contradict the direction of the broader municipal reform initiative. Municipal councils are responsible for providing, at minimum, the fire protection services provided for in this act. The fire chief, as other municipal department heads, is responsible for managing the service. If additional municipal positions are prescribed in other statutes such as this one, it will make it difficult for municipalities to organize/reorganize administration to achieve greater efficiency and cost savings. AMO does not support having fire chiefs reporting directly to councils.
In order to achieve consistency between statutes and to alleviate possible confusion, we recommend amendments to section 6 which clarify reporting requirements and the appointments process. The amendments are listed for you in your report.
Municipalities must be free to design services according to local needs, local circumstances and local priorities. Yet, the current wording in subsection 19(1) does not provide municipalities with the flexibility to determine who is empowered to act as an inspector under the act. This subsection must be amended to recognize the existence of fire inspectors now performing this function and enable other qualified municipal staff to take on this function. We recommend that the act be amended to allow councils to appoint an authorized individual as they deem appropriate.
We have one key concern with the section of the bill on offences and enforcement. We believe that issues related to labour relations should be exempt from this part of the act and we recommend that an exemption clause should be included under section 28.
AMO fully supports the government's move to harmonize municipal labour relations legislation to more closely parallel that in the broader labour relations arena. For years, municipalities have been pressing the provincial government for changes to labour relations for fire services to provide councils with much-needed flexibility to manage the service appropriately. We are very pleased with this development and we welcome the mechanisms the province has extended to us through this statute.
Despite our overall support for these legislative measures, however, we must point out that these productivity enhancements will be met with limited success unless other broader labour issues are addressed.
1600
Collective agreements which predate part IX of the act should not be allowed to undermine these important legislative reforms. Municipal fire departments must be able to take advantage of the full effects of the act. Improvements like automatic aid, streamlining of fire and building inspections and the sharing of training expertise across a municipal organization are some examples of how municipal fire departments could be managed in a more cost-effective and efficient manner while improving public safety. To quote Minister Runciman, "This bill ensures people's skills and talents will be arranged and managed in a way that will better serve the public and that in itself will improve public and firefighter safety."
The Who Does What emergency services subpanel under David Crombie recommended that new fire services legislation allow municipalities to enter into automatic aid agreements, notwithstanding the no-contracting-out clauses in collective agreements. It is a fair, reasonable and important recommendation and it should be acted upon. No-contracting-out language prevents municipalities from pursuing other avenues which could result in reduced costs and more effective and efficient service provision, and by extension put public safety at risk.
AMO recommends that collective agreements that are in effect prior to this act should not hinder the implementation of Bill 84 and its provisions.
Given ongoing municipal restructuring, the government and the committee must consider the implications of restructuring on fire services. Currently, Bill 84 has one paragraph which addresses the transition from old legislation to new legislation. There is no mention of what would happen if two or more forces are amalgamated.
The legislation must include a mechanism that facilitates an orderly transition of responsibilities. Provisions in current collective agreements set up substantial barriers to municipal restructuring. New municipalities created through amalgamations and restructuring must be allowed to freely negotiate with their workforces.
AMO recommends that all existing collective agreements be renegotiated in the event of municipal restructuring. The new municipality must be provided with the opportunities to freely negotiate its own collective agreement to suit the local needs concurrent with existing Labour Relations Act first agreement provisions.
We support the government's intention to include hours of work in legislation rather than leaving these provisions to be determined through contract negotiations. Municipalities expend a great amount on wages. In order to effectively manage the service, employers must have ultimate control over service costs. Subsection 43(10) allows the employer to call in off-duty firefighters in the event of a major emergency.
We caution the committee that the inclusion of such a clause will only result in some form of labour relations action, grievance or arbitration around the definition and redefinition of what constitutes a major emergency. We maintain that the determination of appropriate staffing levels during any given situation should rest with the manager. To avoid the possibility of labour relations action, we recommend that this subsection be deleted.
The existing act entitles full-time firefighters to a hearing before council in the case of a dismissal. We have continually argued that this recourse should be removed since most collective agreements have a grievance procedure to address dismissals. We are pleased to see that the government has recognized the need to treat all employees equally and has removed from the legislation this unique right for firefighters.
As we mentioned earlier, municipal amalgamations must be taken into consideration. Bill 84 does not address how seniority will be determined in instances where fire departments are amalgamated. Based on recent municipal restructuring exercises and the labour complications which have arisen, we strongly support integrating the seniority lists of each department. This would enable each firefighter's true seniority date to be recognized and would result in equal treatment of all staff. AMO has recommended an amendment to the act that addresses seniority provisions, which you will find listed in your report.
AMO regards the introduction of a mandatory conciliation process as a step forward in the harmonization of municipal labour legislation. We are pleased that the government has recognized the need to introduce an alternative dispute resolution mechanism. Municipalities work hard to contain the costs of services. Generous awards granted by arbitrators have seriously undermined these efforts.
A conciliation process is a must. It promotes free collective bargaining over interest arbitration and places more responsibilities on the parties involved. Most importantly, it brings fire services labour legislation more in line with other labour laws.
However, to bring this act further in line with traditional labour relations practices, we suggest an amendment to the current wording in subsection 53(5). As it is currently written, it is assumed that the total cost of the conciliation process will be shared equally between the parties. We believe the intent of the legislation is that each party pays its own costs relating to legal representation, witnesses etc, and that the parties to the process will split the costs incurred by the conciliator.
A mandatory conciliation process is a positive step towards controlling labour costs. We believe, however, that any arbitration process should ensure mutual risk in the selection of arbitrators and that arbitrators should be neutral in their positions.
According to Bill 84, when a matter is referred to arbitration, regulations will guide the appointment of an arbitrator or arbitration board. In other words, the province will make the appointment. During the various fire service reviews, AMO continually recommended changes to the current system of appointments. We believe that the introduction of regulations to guide the process is a step in the right direction and demonstrates an appreciation of the problems with the current system.
We recommend a formal rotating list which limits the term of provincially appointed arbitrators and designates that the term of an arbitrator only be renewed following a period of time; a system of staggered appointments; the establishment of one pool of arbitrators to oversee all municipal disputes, with the requirement that each arbitrator will be assigned to work in all areas of municipal and provincial employment; and that the appointment of the arbitrator in any dispute should not be subject to decisions of the parties involved in the dispute.
Municipalities have been pressing for more management exclusions from the bargaining unit. We are very pleased that Bill 84 provides for a much wider exclusion of firefighters. The most troubling aspect of the Fire Departments Act is that municipalities, which pay approximately $780 million of the total $785-million bill, have their managerial hands tied. The current situation where only the fire chief and the deputy fire chief make up the management team is unacceptable, in particular for larger forces.
Over time, interest arbitration awards have also dramatically restricted the operational and staffing options available to municipalities. We are encouraged to see that any additional managerial exclusions beyond those set out in the legislation are subject to decisions of either the Ontario Labour Relations Board or the municipality itself. From an operational perspective, the additional exclusions make a lot of sense. Again, however, we ask the committee to consider the effects of municipal amalgamations.
Based on the management exclusion formula set out in the legislation, it is conceivable that some fire departments could have fewer managers for much larger departments. We see a need for additional designations to be included in the legislation to assist those departments with larger forces as follows: seven persons if the employer employs 500 or more; nine persons if the employer employs 1,000 or more. New agreements arising from amalgamations must, as a minimum, also recognize existing ratios of volunteer, full-time and part-time firefighters.
Currently the Fire Departments Act requires that collective agreements continue until they are replaced by new negotiated agreements or by arbitrated decisions. The freeze provisions outlined in Bill 84 must be clarified. We are not certain what constitutes the terms and conditions of employment or rights, privileges or duties of an employer.
Most fire departments issue standard operating procedures to outline how firefighters are expected to conduct themselves in any given situation. We believe that to clarify the intent of this section, it must be stated that no change can be made to the terms and conditions of employment contained in the collective agreement. An additional clause should be included to indicate that the hours of work and management exclusions continue to apply during times of a freeze.
We have some brief comments to make as they relate to the indemnification section, section 85 of Bill 84. First, we believe the intention of this section is to ensure that an individual is indemnified for actions that are job-related. This is not clear with the current wording. Second, section 85 should not apply to disciplinary actions undertaken for labour relations, and we have suggested alternative wording for the committee's consideration. We do not believe that violations of the labour relations sections would merit the penalties that have been set out.
I would like to conclude my remarks today by expressing AMO's overall support for the direction of Bill 84. The proposed legislation reflects many long-standing positions held by Ontario's municipalities. We urge the committee to address the obstacles which continue to exist for municipalities.
The municipal sector is still faced with a limited ability to implement the changes. Without relief from no-contracting-out provisions, we are not in a position to achieve efficiencies; nor can we look to alternative service delivery options such as automatic aid as a public safety measure. Ultimately all of us, the province, municipalities and firefighters, have a common goal and that is to ensure public safety. We urge the committee to consider these comments and suggestions we have presented here today.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Mundell, for your presentation. Your time has elapsed.
1610
PETERBOROUGH FIRE DEPARTMENT GORDON HOLNBECK
The Chair: Our next presentation will be made by the Peterborough fire department, Fire Chief Lee Grant. Welcome, Chief Grant. I understand you will be sharing some part of your time, so I'd ask you to proceed.
Mr Lee Grant: I'm Fire Chief Lee Grant from the corporation of the city of Peterborough. Sitting immediately on my left is former alderman Gordon Holnbeck. He's also the founding chairman of the Peterborough county-city disaster trust fund, which is an organization that's available 24 hours a day to assist victims of fires and other emergencies. It's a fully fund-raised organization and staffed by volunteers. He's also the proud recipient of the Ontario Medal for Citizenship, and he will be speaking momentarily.
I'll begin by providing a quick personal background which I hope will help you understand my comments.
I have been involved in the fire service in Peterborough since 1980 as a firefighter, a chief fire prevention officer and now fire chief. I have also held numerous union offices, including president, and am currently the district deputy fire marshal for Peterborough county, coordinating firefighting and mutual aid for 14 volunteer fire departments as well as my own.
The Peterborough fire department protects approximately 70,000 population with 84 firefighters, three fire prevention officers and one training officer at a per capita cost of $85, which I was pleased to hear is pretty competitive in the province. I'm the only non-union member of the Peterborough fire department and report through the director of community services to the city administrator to council. At this point I would say that I would not be in city of Peterborough uniform and/or have this on city letterhead had this report not been endorsed by the city administrator and distributed to our council in Peterborough. As you read it, you can keep that in mind.
The city of Peterborough and Peterborough county are the first non-Metro area in Ontario to receive 24-hour paramedic staffing. This has been the result of very close teamwork between firefighters, administration and the ambulance service to ensure eight-minute defibrillator response 90% of the time through a tiered response agreement. This agreement has caused the number of medical calls for my department to rise from 134 in 1994 to 855 in 1996 and has resulted to date in five confirmed saves. Those people who are alive today would not have been without the defibrillator program. This has been accomplished in addition to the existing firefighting workload with no additional personnel and no budget increases for our department. I am not at all sure that a privatized fire service would be able or willing to achieve these results for the citizens of Peterborough.
In an independent survey the Peterborough fire department is the number one municipal service, in the eyes of the citizens, with 93.3% rating our service as good or excellent. This result has been achieved by close cooperation between firefighters and administration at all levels to promote a highly motivated team of trained professionals delivering service to the citizens they serve.
I fully support the need for the legislative changes necessary to allow for an expanded management team. The legislation must recognize that the structure and size of this team must be a local decision based on a needs analysis and the availability of management expertise within the municipal structure.
As fire chief without a deputy, I am keenly aware of the challenges of managing a 91-member department with a limited management team. I do not believe that taking highly trained command officers from the field and putting them behind a desk, nor placing non-union personnel on the fire ground, is the most efficient management model or in the best interests of the public we serve.
There are many management models which could share other municipal expertise or the use of consultants, as needed, to expand the management team. These can be explored and could be allowed by simply not restricting the number of non-union personnel within the fire department. It may be that currently unionized firefighters have the necessary management expertise and interest and would choose to apply for and fill the management positions created based on need. The fire marshal could, as in other parts of this act, review the management structure of a fire department if necessary.
Part IX of this proposed legislation gives me some concern as it appears to be an attempt to simply move firefighters into the same labour relations agreement with other unionized workers, but without the right to strike or negotiate hours of work. The fire service has never been involved in a strike and is surely among the most innovative users of shift schedules to ensure maximum efficiency and manning levels in a service that operates 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. I am not at all sure the same could be said for the years of experience the province has had with unionized workers under the Labour Relations Act. What is to be gained by moving firefighters under the Labour Relations Act?
There are positive changes to the bargaining process proposed in part IX which may improve the responsiveness of the current system for both parties. However, I believe that part IX should be carefully reviewed, with a priority on making only the changes which will show definite and measurable reductions in cost of operation or improved efficiency of the fire service in Ontario, and not make changes of questionable real value which may help to destroy for years to come the excellent labour-management relationships enjoyed by many Ontario fire departments.
The definition of a fire chief in law has been long awaited and is absolutely necessary in today's world. The fire chief is the person called to account for the actions, and particularly the failures, of the fire department or its personnel in an emergency response situation. The fire chief will be among the first on the stand at an inquest into a fire death and must justify all policies and actions. It is therefore critical that the fire chief have a clear line of responsibilities and authority, along with a clear reporting structure to the municipal policy makers.
The introduction of automatic aid in the proposed legislation is possibly the most significant potential improvement to the level of fire service in rural Ontario since the formation of fire departments. There are many locations in rural Ontario which are protected by township firehalls, many minutes farther from them than the firehall of an adjoining township.
There is, however, a potential for a significant increase in the call rates for some volunteer departments, in particular where rural Ontario meets urban development. Automatic aid, when implemented, will mean that a rural department would likely cover part of the urban fringe area. I strongly support the automatic aid initiative. However, you must be mindful of the precarious position of the volunteer fire service in Ontario and its vulnerability to overutilization, resulting in members being unwilling or unable to offer the necessary time off work to meet increased call rates.
In addition, many volunteer departments may find themselves geographically closest to a significant fire or chemical spill risk which was not previously in their jurisdiction, and as a result be insufficiently trained, staffed or equipped to deal with this circumstance.
I am concerned that the implementation of automatic aid may not be accompanied by the appropriate preplanning, training and analysis and may in fact be the demise of some otherwise viable volunteer fire services and may result in the necessity for full-time fire services if not carefully monitored. I believe this monitoring is a crucial role which must be played by the fire marshal.
As a fire chief and a long-time fire prevention officer, I am particularly pleased to see fire prevention and public education mandatory in this proposed legislation. This is clearly the only way to continue to reduce the number of fire deaths in Ontario. Establishing the Fire Marshal's Public Fire Safety Council will allow corporate partnerships to help provide necessary materials and support for these crucial fire prevention and education programs.
I want to take the time to thank the committee for listening to this presentation. This proposed legislation has so many significant gains for the Ontario fire service that I can only hope that the concerns with specific sections of this legislation can be overcome quickly and that Bill 84 is able to proceed to third reading and royal assent in the very near future.
1620
In closing, I want to assure you that the fire service, both professional and volunteer, in Peterborough and Peterborough county will continue to provide the very best service to the citizens. We appreciate this opportunity to address you today. We hope this presentation is of some help in your deliberations.
I would now ask you to look at the presentation of Mr Holnbeck.
The Chair: Mr Holnbeck, you have five minutes, so I would suggest you read rather rapidly.
Mr Gordon Holnbeck: Thank you very much, Mr Chairman. I really appreciate the opportunity to speak to you and members of the committee. I did send a letter to the Honourable Bob Runciman and Premier Mike Harris regarding my concerns over some of the contents of Bill 84. They replied promising hearings and here we are today.
First, I commend the government in bringing up to date a number of statutes that have been outdated, actually nine in number, to promote public safety in the province.
My association with the fire department goes back to 1936, as a member of the Salvation Army welfare board for many years, supplying coffee and sandwiches to firefighters when there were major fires. In fact, I was present in May 1951 when four Peterborough firefighters were killed fighting a fire on Peterborough's main street.
Also as a founder of the Peterborough city-county disaster trust fund committee, I worked along with them. I have been greatly impressed with their dedication on the job and going the extra mile in assisting our committees with details of the occupants of buildings who were displaced by fire, explosion, hurricanes etc.
Today firefighters are faced with far more complex problems, such as auto accidents, medical calls, heart reactivation, explosions, downed power lines and elevator rescues. Rapid response time and teamwork are essential to all of these emergencies.
Section 42, strike and lockouts: "No fire fighter shall strike and no employer...shall lock them out." This clause, in my opinion, should be removed. I have been in Peterborough since 1936 and in all my dealings with firefighters over the years I have never known them to strike in this type of job action. This clause is really a slap in the face to firefighters whose primary concern is public safety. I might also add the corporation of the city of Peterborough has never locked them out.
Section 43, hours of work: This clause is similar to the provisions that currently exist. However, when combined with Section 52 it drastically changes its impact. The result: This legislation specifically excludes hours of work, and in fact any of the working conditions set out in the hours of work section of the proposed legislation, from negotiations. Is this reasonable? Is there any other group of employees who don't have the right to negotiate the scheduling of hours, the total number of hours they work and additional pay for work over and above their normally scheduled hours?
Section 41(1), privatization: The definition of the employer has been changed in Bill 84. It now includes not only municipalities but also persons or organizations that employ firefighters. This will allow for the privatization of fire departments. The fire service should continue to be managed, run and financed by the municipality. The many services the fire department provides do not suit themselves to being provided by a company that has making a profit as its primary reason for being. I would urge you to change this definition to ensure that not only that municipalities are the only suppliers but that they be required to supply this service to the taxpayer in the same way police service is provided.
Section 58, managerial exclusions: Bill 84 will allow more personnel to be designated as managers, reducing the number of personnel responding to emergencies. Section 41(2) states, "A person shall be deemed not to be a firefighter if...he or she exercises managerial functions...." We don't need more bureaucrats sitting in an office. We need more full-time professional firefighters responding to emergencies.
In conclusion, I urge you to make the changes to Bill 84 that I have suggested. I believe that with amendments to correct the problem areas, as I have mentioned, this legislation could serve the needs of the community for a number of years to come. Thank you, Mr Chairman.
The Chair: Thank you, gentlemen, for assisting the committee here today.
PATRICK DE FAZIO
The Chair: The next presenter is Patrick De Fazio, editor of Intrepid/Fire Line Publications.
Mr Patrick De Fazio: Mr Chairman, could I just make one comment before you put the time on me here?
The Chair: The time is probably already running.
Mr De Fazio: No, it's not running yet. I just want to make a comment that you have two briefs there and because of the time constraints I had to limit it down to 15 minutes. I'm going to be reading from the white brief, but I would ask that in your leisure you would read the entire brief. The red-covered brief contains the exhibits.
Bill 84 is a thoughtless piece of legislation, quickly drafted without complete and proper input, some of which can only lead to calamitous results.
Because of severe time constraints I ask you to take a quick look at exhibit number 6. This is where an experienced team of full-time firefighters from Oakville, wearing self-contained breathing apparatus, went down 100 feet below ground and then proceeded along a 200-foot tunnel to rescue a person who was trapped in dense smoke as a result of an electrical fire. The four-person crew was given lifesaving awards, as shown in the exhibit. Speed, experience and teamwork are the name of the game. The concept of a part-time firefighter as stipulated in the new act will destroy the dedicated full-time team concept. There's a picture of those firefighters right up on the mantelpiece there.
I ask the committee to take a look at exhibit number 3. Six children die in a tragic fire, a coroner's inquest is held and a recommendation is made "that a law be passed by the Legislature of Ontario that mandatory installation of a hard wire/battery smoke detector in all residential dwellings be passed within one year." Testimony was given by an expert witness and subsequently reiterated by the Crown that approximately 16 inquests in the last 10 years have made recommendations concerning smoke detectors. I checked with the appropriate authorities in this municipality and not one individual followed up the inquest recommendation. That includes the mayor, that includes the councillors, that includes the MPP and that includes the fire chief.
I submit that the fire marshal's office for the province of Ontario is also negligent in this area. Five people died in the province of Ontario in December 1996 as a result of no smoke detector or removing the batteries from smoke detectors. This is indicated in the Ontario Fire Watch, prepared by the office of the fire marshal. Over 1995 and 1996 we are averaging 11.16 deaths per month or 268 people over the two-year period. What is in the new act pertaining to this mandatory recommendation of hard wire/smoke detectors? Absolutely nothing. Bill 84 is silent in this regard.
The statement is made by the Solicitor General that the volunteers are the backbone of the fire service in the province of Ontario. I ask the committee to take a look at exhibit number 4. This is where 15 volunteer firefighters walked off the fire ground during the course of a fire in spite of an order by an incident commander to stay and fight the fire. I'm not intending to demean the volunteer firefighters in the province of Ontario, but it must be pointed out that there are serious gaps in this type of service and the truth has to be told.
In another incident a person is stricken with a heart attack while singing in a church choir. Emergency phone calls are made from the church to the designated phone operator. An ambulance is on the way; 20 minutes later another call is made and the caller Is assured that an ambulance is on the way accompanied by the fire department. No one shows up. The caller runs into town a short distance to get the town doctor and he is out. The caller comes back to the church and phones a local fire department and the answer given is that it is outside their jurisdiction.
Another phone call is made to the area fire department where the person in charge says, "We do not take medical assist calls," even though resuscitation equipment is on the apparatus. An ambulance arrives 45 minutes later. The victim died in the interim. I'm not saying that the fire department could have saved this person, but the fact that they refused to respond is irresponsible in the extreme. This is going on all over the province of Ontario and impacts directly on the office of the fire marshal. What is being done about it? What does the act say about it? Nothing. It is absolutely silent.
The irony of this situation is that the person who died in the church was a former volunteer fire chief; the person who refused to take the call was a volunteer fire chief.
1630
In spite of tragic high-rise fires in the province of Ontario where multiple deaths occurred in the stairwells, there is no definitive policy in Bill 84 that recommends to the people of Ontario whether you should stay or go in a high-rise fire. This is another area in which the fire marshal for the province of Ontario is dragging his feet and there is no direction in the proposed legislation. I find this absolutely unbelievable in light of what the coroner has just recently said in the Toronto Star, warning of perils in using stairwells. Why isn't there something in Bill 84? Why isn't there something in the act? The bill is silent in this regard. There is a picture up here that shows the condition of the stairwells and hallways in high-rise buildings.
Although the new act contains provisions for mandatory fire inspection and education, it is devoid of any mandatory aspect pertaining to the appropriate staffing of first-line apparatus. The staffing arrangements for the fire service in Ontario are horrendous. As we have said in the past to the fire marshal and various other authorities, we still have apparatus responding to schools, institutions, hospitals, nursing homes and other structures with only one or two firefighters on the initial call. One does not have to explain the danger associated with this type of response.
I recently called a fire department on a weekend where one person was on duty. He identified himself as a part-time firefighter working for $10.50 an hour, by himself. This is taking place right now and the bill, in its permissiveness, will make it much worse. I do not believe the citizens of Ontario endorse this type of fire service delivery and I also believe the fire marshal has not taken any steps whatsoever to inform the public about this retrograde type of fire service that takes place in many areas across the province.
It is worth mentioning at this point that the new proposed legislation affecting the police in Ontario contains the following safeguard with respect to adequate policing: "The Solicitor General may request the OCCPS (Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services) to conduct a hearing into matters of adequacy of a police service, consistent with the statutory mandate of his office for ensuring public safety." I respectfully ask, why the double standard when it applies to the fire service in the province of Ontario?
We have a situation where a full-time fire chief was attending meetings of volunteer contingents and asking them to send in letters of support for Bill 84 as it is written. That particular person is the president of the Ontario Association of Fire Chiefs. First of all, why would this be done? When volunteers are questioned about Bill 84 and the complexities of the legislation they do not understand it, but yet they have sent letters to the government and those letters have been read in the House.
If one examines exhibit number 5 it will reveal that the volunteers have changed their position and have directed their members to send a letter to their MPP which states in part:
"However, we do not support part IX of Bill 84. We do support our full-time firefighting colleagues in the belief that part IX would have a disruptive effect on the firefighting system that the province of Ontario relies on.
"We the Fire Fighters Association of Ontario urge the government to amend part IX of Bill 84, and return to further discussion with the parties concerned."
It is impossible to speak to every aspect of Bill 84 because of the time limits. However, I would now like to speak to the area of part-time firefighters and privatization. The introduction of the part-time firefighter and privatization in the fire service will eventually, if implemented, be the complete demise of the fire service as we know it today.
It is a given that the federal government and the provincial government are openly encouraging the use of part-time employment. The sole purpose of this direction is the potential in the long run for the savings of millions of dollars. This will be accomplished because part-time personnel are paid in many instances the minimum wage or slightly above the minimum wage. In addition, good benefit packages are not the norm and if there are any pension plans, they would be few and far between.
Let's be honest about the introduction of part-time fire fighters. It's all about money, not efficiency or safety to the public as it applies to the fire service, simply money and the fact that they can call these people in to replace the full-time firefighters.
A part-time firefighter in one sense is comparable to a volunteer. They both have another job, or in this economy maybe two other jobs. What does this say about commitment to the fire department? There is none, not in the real sense that you would find with a committed full-time crew of firefighters who work and train together on a continuous basis. To my way of thinking, this is not the type of service where you can shove in part-timers and expect them to have the experience and expertise in so many areas that the full-time firefighters have acquired.
I question whether or not they will get the proper training. It will be hit and miss and certainly not every day, and he or she will be unfamiliar with the apparatus and the myriad of tools and equipment that firefighters use on a day-to-day basis. In short, they will be a hindrance and cause confusion on the fire ground or at the scene of an emergency. The full-time firefighter will be wary of what they can do and how it impacts on his or her safety when effecting rescue or extinguishment or confined-space extrication operations, just to name a few.
No, it is not a good idea, and if this committee thinks about it for a while, they will realize that it will be counterproductive. The government will say that this part of the legislation is permissive, which we've already heard today, which means that a municipality does not have to institute part-timers if they do not want to. This is a crutch. Once the municipality gets the green light, they will, over time, systematically eliminate full-time firefighters or certainly a good portion of them. It would be wise for the committee to delete the concept of a part-time firefighter from Bill 84.
The question of privatization in the fire service is an open invitation to death and destruction. I make these statements not to be an alarmist but to tell you that this is a seriously misguided concept with the sole aim to provide a service and turn a profit for the owners of the company. It is entrenched in very few places in North America and many reports exist concerning its inefficiency and extended response times.
The main thrust of this type of venture is to tell a municipality that they will provide the service for half the cost. But how is this done? If the municipality gives them the go-ahead, they will gather all of the employees into one area and tell them that if they want to work for the new company, the wages are going to be reduced by 50% and certain benefits will not be provided. If you are interested, that's fine. If not, there are hundreds of people outside waiting to take the job.
Under these conditions, the fire service in the community will suffer irreparable harm. The morale will plummet and those working will do so in a perfunctory manner. A reduction in staff will diminish appropriate crew sizes, causing considerably more time for emergency tasks and thereby placing the public at greater risk. I predict that many lawsuits will be applied to municipalities if they contract out the fire service to a private company.
In light of everything that has been said and what could have been said if enough time had been given, I am asking this committee to recommend that Bill 84 be tabled and that a commission of inquiry be instituted immediately in the province of Ontario.
On July 27, 1994, the Ontario Professional Fire Fighters Association called for a commission of inquiry. The Ontario Association of Fire Chiefs support a commission of inquiry; see exhibit 2. The Harris government supports a commission of inquiry; see exhibit 1, page 2, last paragraph. The Liberal Party supports a commission of inquiry, and if I were to ask the NDP, I'm sure they would support a commission of inquiry also. So why not do what is appropriate in the circumstances and recommend that Bill 84 be tabled and commence with a commission of inquiry into the fire service in Ontario?
I would conclude, Mr Chairman and members of the committee, that not all fire chiefs are supportive of Bill 84 in its entirety, notwithstanding the position taken by the president of the Ontario Association of Fire Chiefs and the fire marshal for the province of Ontario. If I had more time, I would love to talk about those two individuals for a while. These are respected chiefs and deputy chiefs in the province of Ontario in spite of the "rebel" tag that has been applied unfairly to them for speaking out against Bill 84. I applaud them. They should stand proud if they are labelled as rebels for coming here and speaking out against Bill 84, and I would say there would be more of them if there wasn't any fear of retribution against them in their careers where they work.
I would ask you to read one excellent letter in this connection that you will find in exhibit 7. The following is an extremely important excerpt from that letter:
"As we get closer to the time when the proposed legislation will be referred to committee and public hearings, it is extremely important that you, the members of the government and all of the members of the provincial Legislature, understand that the bill is fraught with difficulties and bodes ill for the future of the fire service in this province. You should also be aware that the legislation is not blindly supported by all fire chiefs in this province, as some would have you believe."
I would also like to point out that the letter is signed by the chief and the deputy chief of the Windsor fire department, a very respected fire department. The deputy chief of that particular department, whom I admire as the deputy chief -- his name is Patrick Burke -- has presented more briefs to this government, more briefs to arbitration in the province of Ontario, was chairman of the OMERS board for over 10 years or so and is very well respected in fire service circles.
If you take a look at this letter and read what is said in this particular letter, I am sure it will change your mind with respect to what you're going to do with respect to Bill 84.
I'd also like to take this opportunity to thank Peter Ferguson for appearing here today and making some of the comments he made. One of the comments he made in the newspaper is that as far as the labour relations were concerned --
The Chair: Excuse me, Mr De Fazio, could you wrap it up? Your time is up.
Mr De Fazio: Okay. I just wanted to say it was a draconian approach to labour relations. Thank you very much.
The Chair: Thank you very much for your presentation here today.
1640
NORTH YORK PROFESSIONAL FIRE FIGHTERS ASSOCIATION
The Chair: Our next presentation will be the North York Professional Fire Fighters Association, Jim MacIntosh. Welcome, Mr MacIntosh. I compliment you on the first page of your presentation; it's very attractive. If you would proceed.
Mr Jim MacIntosh: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. I am Jim MacIntosh, and on behalf of the men and women of the North York Professional Fire Fighters Association, I would like to thank you for the opportunity to speak to you today about Bill 84.
This piece of legislation has our members very concerned. It will have an impact on the safety of the citizens we serve, the safety of our members and our ability to negotiate with our employer.
There are positive aspects to the legislation, namely, part II, section 2: mandatory fire prevention and education programs. This is a proactive approach to addressing the lack of fire prevention and education programs, especially in the smaller municipalities of the province. This initiative does not come without a price attached. The funds necessary to implement these programs must be addressed in the legislation.
The provincial government has proposed with this legislation to allow the private sector to become involved in this area. The private sector would have to be competently educated in the chemistry and the characteristics of fire, the fire code and municipal bylaws to assume the responsibility for properly educating the public and enforcing the standards.
The provincial government has recognized the need to improve these programs. What is needed are the funds to initiate a program and trained professionals to do a proper job. The larger municipalities have the trained personnel to address this initiative. The problem arises in the smaller communities of the province. An alternative may be to establish fire prevention inspectors and fire safety educators who could share their expertise on a cost-recovery basis.
Automatic aid agreements, part II, subsection 2(6): The changes made to the Municipal Act, section 7, would allow a municipality to enter into an automatic aid agreement with a neighbouring municipality. It would allow for the initial or supplemental response to fires, rescues and emergencies in another municipality where the first municipality is capable of responding more quickly than any fire vehicle in the other municipality.
Most municipalities have mutual aid agreements already in place. The problem arises when one municipality has paid for and developed an adequate fire protection system of highly trained and well-equipped staff who are then required to supplement the neighbouring municipality. The taxpayers in the properly staffed municipality who have paid for this level of service may have their safety compromised to some extent by this arrangement. What is needed is a cost-recovery agreement to compensate for the service provided and a letter of understanding stating that this service be limited to extenuating circumstances.
There are a number of areas in the bill which have the firefighters in Ontario very concerned.
Part IX contains significant changes in the area of firefighter employment and labour relations. Make no doubt about this: These changes will not only be detrimental to the working conditions of the firefighters; they will have a significant impact on our ability to perform our job properly and in a safe manner. As a result, this legislation will jeopardize the safety of the citizens we serve.
Section 41, the definition of a firefighter, would allow the use of part-time firefighters. The full-time firefighter in Ontario is expected to be a professional who is highly trained and experienced to perform to the best of his or her ability. The training of a professional firefighter is an ongoing daily responsibility which is not taken lightly. Practical exercises and theoretical lectures are an important part of ensuring that we have the best-trained people responding when we answer the call for help. As an officer for the North York fire department, I do not take this responsibility lightly.
Our training division staff conduct courses to ensure that our personnel maintain a high level of competence. New areas of expertise are being introduced on a regular basis. Recertification in first aid, CPR, defibrillation and driver training are ongoing programs. It would be extremely difficult to ensure that the part-time firefighter received the training he would need to perform properly and safely on the fire ground.
It is extremely important that you understand that firefighters rely on each other. It is a team effort. You would not expect a medical student to fill in for a heart surgeon under emergency conditions. Fire ground experience cannot be emphasized enough. A part-time firefighter would have limited time to gain the expertise needed to perform properly when required. One of our concerns is, how are we expected to do our job properly and safely if we are unsure that the other person will be able to back us up?
I believe the intent of introducing part-time firefighters was to supplement staffing when manning levels are down. Even without considering the training and experience issues of a part-time firefighter, consideration must be given to the fact that this would not be a reliable alternative. A part-time firefighter could not be available to respond in a timely fashion on a 24-hour basis, seven days a week, 365 days of the year. A part-time firefighter may have a full-time career and family commitments which would take precedence.
Section 53, mandatory conciliation, would require the bargaining agents representing firefighters to go through a system of conciliation where a government-appointed conciliator is required to mediate collective bargaining disputes before the matter can be referred to interest arbitration. However, unlike trade unions and employees under the Labour Relations Act, firefighters and municipalities would be required to each pay one half of the cost of the service of the conciliation officers.
The present system of interest arbitration has proven to be fair and equitable to all parties to date. The firefighters of Ontario, after enduring numerous attempts to resolve collective agreement issues at the bargaining table over periods of months, are presently expected to wait for an arbitrator to be appointed to resolve the issues independently. These costs have been shared equally but at great expense. The conciliation process would further delay the process. It would add a further financial burden to both parties, it would not be binding on either party, and it would change the present system of the two parties appointing the chair of the proceedings.
The interest arbitration process is the only avenue the firefighters of Ontario have to take after negotiations have broken down. There have been no labour actions taken, nor would it be contemplated under the present Fire Departments Act. It would be morally repugnant to any professional firefighter to not perform to the best of our abilities.
1650
Section 43 and section 52 would exclude negotiations over the hours of work. The fire department would arrange the hours of work in a shift or platoon system. The number of hours could be increased to 48 hours in an average week. Presently firefighters work an average of 42 hours a week. The general population is not asked to work this number of hours. It would be at the exclusive discretion of the employer to increase the hours of work or to change the shift arrangement. I am unaware of any other organized group of employees who cannot negotiate their hours of work. This is discriminatory.
Subsection 41(2) exclusions provide that persons who perform managerial functions or who are employed in a confidential capacity in matters related to labour relations are deemed not to be firefighters.
Subsections 58(1) and (2) provide that the employer may identify certain persons as managerial or confidential. The labour relations board is to determine whether the person in question does in fact perform managerial or confidential functions. The board's decision on this issue is said to be final and conclusive for all purposes.
Subsection 58(3) allows the employer to designate a limited number of persons, depending on the number of firefighters employed in the department. This designation would not appear to be subject to review by the labour board.
The bill states that persons designated in this way are "conclusively deemed to be exercising managerial functions" and can be identified by the employer "in its sole discretion." It is therefore conceivable to conclude that the employer could determine not to use its automatic designation authority to exclude the chief and the deputy chief since the employer would likely be able to convince the labour relations board that these persons exercise managerial or labour relations authority and therefore are to be excluded on that basis. This could mean that the designated persons would be in addition to the chief and deputy chief. Persons deemed to be excluded should be clearly defined.
These people would not be allowed the rights and protections which they presently have as members of the bargaining unit. Their only choice would be to accept the position or quit.
In many fire departments in the province, the positions of deputy chiefs and fire command positions are not being replaced. We believe that by removing these firefighters, it will have an impact on the team concept of the fire service.
Subsections 43(9) and (10): The call-in provision extends the employer's ability to call in firefighters in emergencies. The existing provision allows that firefighters may be called in under certain situations. The new provision would allow the employer to call in firefighters as a result of any major emergency.
This proposal should be considered in light of the change in the definition of a firefighter. It could allow the employer a staff of both full-time and part-time firefighters, which could in turn allow fire stations to be staffed at different levels at different times of the day. This is a recipe for disaster. We would not know who, how many or when the firefighters would be responding. Why would these changes be made that could cause an interruption in the quality and delivery of fire services to the citizens of Ontario?
Please consider the proposed amendments to the Fire Departments Act. The present act has allowed the fire service to resolve issues in a spirit of cooperation which has served the citizens of Ontario well.
On behalf of the men and women of the North York Professional Fire Fighters Association, I would like to thank you for the opportunity to express our concerns.
The Chair: We only have one minute per caucus.
Mr Kormos: I'm following you while you're reading yours and, again, this proposition of not being able to negotiate working hours is a strange sort of affront and contradiction to what most of us have believed in in terms of the ability to negotiate contracts. It's also strange because, referring to the previous presenter's brief, he's got a copy in here of the response that the Premier made to the questionnaire from the Ontario Professional Fire Fighters Association. The Premier -- or Mike Harris as he was then, because he was running to be Premier -- is asked if normal collective bargaining will resume after the social contract and he responds, "Full collective bargaining in the public sector will resume upon the expiration of the social contract."
When I read that, I presume that to mean including the right or ability to negotiate hours of work. Is that an unfair interpretation of that on my part?
Mr MacIntosh: Like I stated, I believe this is discriminatory because it appears that we would be the only group that could not negotiate our hours of work. I believe anyone working 42 hours a week is working a sufficient number of hours in a week, and to be going to some system where you could be working 48 hours a week seems to me to be awfully regressive.
Mr Ron Johnson: Thank you, Mr MacIntosh, for your presentation. I want to say, a number of your points I do agree with, a number of the concerns that I've heard from firefighters, in particular those leading towards privatization. But the one that I'm having difficulty trying to wrap my mind around is this part-time argument that you're getting and how that somehow will erode the teamwork approach that is currently being used by fire departments.
I look at the briefing we had today: There are 645 fire departments in Ontario; 127 of those have a combination volunteer and full-time complement. It is arguable that they work very well together and in fact that the teamwork and that concept hasn't eluded volunteer/full-time relationships. Help me understand why a part-time firefighter would not be able to work in the same team environment that currently is being worked in with the volunteer fire departments and the full-time ones. Why couldn't it work with part-time?
Mr MacIntosh: We wouldn't have a problem working with a part-time person if the person was properly trained and had the experience to do the job properly. You cannot work at a professional job, a profession, and do it on a part-time basis. You must have the experience. You must have the knowledge of the job.
In the city of North York right now, our department is having a very difficult time keeping up with the training for the 645 members that we have. We are currently going through recertification for all of our CPR, first aid, defibrillation, and we're also going through a new system now where we have computer-aided dispatch. We are taking on more responsibilities as far as hazardous materials are concerned and that involves being trained to the NFPA 472 level. These are very time-consuming --
The Chair: I'm sorry, the time is up for that question.
Mr Ramsay: Just commenting on Mr Johnson's question, I think that's an excellent question, and we got an excellent answer. I think there's a real lack of understanding with some people in Ontario of how professional a firefighter is today. The body of knowledge that you started to rhyme off that is necessary to carry out your functioning as a firefighter is enormous. There's just no way, in a big urban fire department, that a part-timer is going to be able to keep up to speed with the training and the skills that are required.
I just don't understand why the government thinks that somehow the way a lot of our small towns work, with volunteer fire departments that seem to work fine in small-town settings, can somehow be applied to a larger urban centre. It just can't.
The other thing that really concerns me is that with the whole thrust of this bill we're seeing such a split among people involved in fire suppression in Ontario. We've had the fire chiefs association come out primarily for this bill, but now we've had some major fire chiefs across this province -- Windsor, Toronto, Peterborough; I'm sure we're going to hear others -- who are very afraid of this bill and think it's going to really break up the teamwork approach that firefighting has had in this province.
The government has really got to rethink this. Mr Klees had said he thought my claim was outlandish this morning when I demanded the bill be withdrawn. I'll just say right now, I'll pass the bill tomorrow; just withdraw section 9 and we could get to work on that. Give yourselves time to work on that. Let's pass the rest of the bill. Let's give ourselves some time to work on section 9 because there are a lot of good things in this bill, but this poison pill part of section 9 I think is going to destroy firefighting in this province.
The Chair: Mr MacIntosh, thank you very much for your presentation here today.
1700
ANCASTER FIRE DEPARTMENT
The Chair: The town of Ancaster fire department, Fire Chief David Guilbault. Welcome.
Mr David Guilbault: Thank you for allowing me to speak here today on this very important legislation, Bill 84. My name is David Guilbault and I am the fire chief for the town of Ancaster.
I joined the fire service in 1972 in the city of Ottawa as a probationary firefighter and remained in the suppression division for the next 15 years. In 1987, I was instrumental in creating one of the first fire department public education divisions in this province, and it's still very active today in the city of Ottawa.
In 1989, I was appointed deputy fire chief for the city of Kanata. In 1990, I was presented with the Solicitor General's fire prevention award in the Ontario Legislature for outstanding achievement in public education in fire prevention. I'm presently the only fire chief in this province with that award.
It's extremely important that you, the members of the Ontario government and all members of the provincial Legislature, understand that Bill 84 is filled with difficulties and is harmful for the future of the fire service. I only have 15 minutes, so I'll deal with the major issues from my point of view.
You should be aware that the contents of Bill 84 are not supported by all fire chiefs in this province. Furthermore, the position of the Ontario Association of Fire Chiefs is not the position of every fire chief and deputy fire chief in the province, and it's certainly not the position of the fire chief, or the deputy fire chief, of the town of Ancaster.
In Ancaster we take pride in working towards a cooperative relationship. We believe we were being successful, and all sectors in our community are reaping the benefits of an honest, open and cooperative relationship. In fact, we have established management committees. These are unionized people. We have finance committees. We have training committees. We have vehicle and equipment committees. We encourage our firefighters to participate to build the present and the future of our fire department.
I feel there are groups and organizations throughout this province that will use the present contents of Bill 84 maliciously in the reorganization of their departments, and one does not have to look past eastern Ontario to find examples. The proposed legislation appears drafted to foster confrontation and encourage disagreement. This is very troublesome and disappointing.
Following are some of the major areas of concern with respect to Bill 84. Part I: There is no definition of a deputy fire chief. When I looked around this room this morning I saw several fire chiefs here. I'm just wondering who's running the ship if they're here in Toronto.
I have a definition for the record and I'll read that: "There shall be a deputy fire chief who shall be appointed by the council of the municipality or the councils of the municipalities, who shall act in the stead of the fire chief if he or she is absent or unable to act and when so acting has all the power and authority of the fire chief, and the deputy chief shall be a firefighter as defined in this act."
There is no clear definition whether the fire chief is also a firefighter. The fire chief and the deputy fire chief must be firefighters as defined in this act. Is the police chief not a police officer? It's my understanding that he or she is.
If there have to be exclusions from the bargaining unit, management positions, these persons must remain firefighters as defined. I guess I have to question too, if there's no need for a deputy chief, there's no definition, then I guess we have to question whether there should be a deputy fire marshal or, for that matter, a deputy minister.
Part II, responsibility: Subsection 2(7) states, "The fire marshal may monitor and review" and "may make recommendations to the council of the municipality." This should read, "The fire marshal shall monitor" and "shall make recommendations to the council of the municipality." The present wording is very wishy-washy. It is the duty of the fire marshal to monitor and review. If municipalities have inadequate public education and prevention, and there is a threat to public safety, then the fire marshal should be making recommendations, not "may."
Canada being number two in fire deaths per capita in the industrialized world is certainly nothing to be proud of. You gave the fire marshal the responsibility, now give him the authority.
The same applies to subsection 2(8): "The fire marshal shall" -- instead of "may" -- "respond to the minister and the minister shall act upon the recommendations and report to the fire marshal."
Part III, fire marshal: Move section 9(1)(a), the power "to monitor, review and advise municipalities," to section 9(2) and make it a duty. I'd like to refer to what 9(1) says. It's very brief.
"Powers of fire marshal
"9(1) The fire marshal has the power,
"(a) to monitor, review and advise municipalities respecting the provision of fire protection services and to make recommendations to municipal councils for improving the efficiency and effectiveness of those services."
There are clauses (b) to (g). That should be put in the duties of the fire marshal.
Section 9, firefighters and labour relations --
Mr Kormos: Excuse me, Chief. Mr Chair, it's unfair for the chief to be making a submission when there's no quorum here.
The Chair: You may be preventing the chief from making one. You have a right to call for a quorum.
Mr Kormos: There's nobody to listen to him. The Liberals are represented; the New Democrats are represented.
The Chair: There is now a quorum. Please proceed, sir.
Mr Guilbault: In part IX, firefighters and labour relations, there are two definitions of firefighters. Both are different. This is confusing. Decide on one definition. There is no definition of a strike or lockout. How do you even know if you have one? Strikes and lockouts should be clearly defined. Being a professional firefighter and member of an association, I'm also appalled at the fact that someone would consider firefighters striking in this province. I think it should be removed completely.
There is no definition of a major emergency, section 43(9). Each council in a municipality sets its level of service, whether that be full-time, composite or volunteer. A major emergency in Ancaster, such as a multivehicle accident with several persons trapped, versus a fire involving four floors in an office tower in downtown Toronto are obviously different. Each community has different staffing levels and defines major emergencies differently. A clear definition is required. The fear is towns or cities will understaff to allow for call-back. You can't order people back. I see this as an area of abuse.
Hours of work: Firefighters should be permitted to negotiate their hours of work. No other public sector employees are prohibited from negotiating hours of work.
Another area of possible abuse: changing of shift schedules, forcing firefighters to work longer hours with increased demands on the fire service to respond to emergencies other than fire; for example, medical calls. Some departments have seen increases of over 50% in medical calls in the past several years. The potential exists to have tired firefighters injured and be less productive when dealing with emergencies. Tired firefighters are accidents waiting to happen.
Sections 58(1) and (3) will lead to difficulties where fire chiefs are being dictated to by CAOs, chief administrative officers, or supercommissioners, and again you don't have to look past eastern Ontario to see examples. Staff cannot be forced in and out of a bargaining unit on an acting basis.
Some fire departments have already begun restructuring and this bill is not even law. They plan on excluding captains, who are front-line staff, from the bargaining unit. These departments have acting captains, in some cases two per platoon. First of all, captains and lieutenants should not be excluded, as they are front-line firefighters. Then there's the question of the acting captains. If captains are excluded, then you will have acting captains in and out of the bargaining unit. While it may be necessary to allow bargaining unit exclusions, in section 58(3) there's an opportunity for significant abuse.
1710
Section 58(1): As indicated earlier, this process is being started in several municipalities even though Bill 84 has not received royal assent, and this is very disturbing. As I said earlier, captains and lieutenants must remain members of a bargaining unit. They are front-line emergency response personnel.
It's interesting to note that most modern organizations are streamlining, or as we say, rightsizing, and looking to remove bureaucracy at the top. Yet this bill could allow a fire department to be top-heavy with managers. It's certainly dinosaur thinking. I know one department where, if this bill goes through, over 40% would be in a manager status. In the town of Ancaster I could be at 30% managers.
Privatization: The existing law says nothing about privatization. Privatization is not even contemplated. In fact, the Fire Departments Act is predicated on the assumption that municipalities run fire departments. There are many horror stories with respect to privatization, from airlines to garbage collection. In fire services where privatization has occurred there have been instances of questionable billing practices, fire trucks without water on board, a 30-minute response time and -- this is one that's very disturbing -- a house burning to the ground but then the homeowner is billed over $13,000 to cover the cost of personnel and equipment on the scene.
Private companies in the United States have been known to charge close to $1,000 per household only to provide suppression duties. In comparison, in the town of Ancaster the average household would pay $58 for fire protection, fire prevention and public education.
Residents and visitors to Ontario enjoy a very high quality of life. Privatization would certainly put this in jeopardy, and our government, with its Common Sense -- there's no common sense here.
In summary, I'm extremely concerned over the direction the proposed legislation is taking in fire service labour relations and the quality and delivery of service to the citizens of this great province. This bill appears to be a cut-and-paste. There are double definitions, there are no definitions, there's no flow or continuity. Our ultimate goal as a fire service is to provide the best possible fire protection, fire prevention and public education for the citizens of Ontario. Bill 84 is far from accomplishing that goal.
We've all lived with the Fire Departments Act for over 50 years. We'll probably have to make do with this act for the next 50 years. Let's take our time and make sure we do it right. Thank you for your time and patience.
The Chair: Thank you, sir. We have one minute per caucus, and it will be one minute because we must move on.
Mr Ron Johnson: Understood. I'll be very brief. Thank you for your presentation, by the way. I just want to ask you, when you talk about management exclusions and putting people on the management level, do you see it as appropriate for about 1,300 firefighters in Metropolitan Toronto to have only two employees currently classified as managers? That would be my first question. Do you feel that it should have a number of people that are adequate enough to facilitate the size of the department in terms of management staff?
Mr Guilbault: I get what you're saying. I think each municipality, each fire department, has to be looked at on an individual basis. Certainly when you look at the city of Toronto -- and I shouldn't be speaking for them -- when you see 1,300 firefighters, if you only have two managers, that's obviously very difficult. But there is a possibility of abuse the opposite way, and I gave you examples. That's my concern. I guess with the present legislation there's room for abuse. I don't want to name the cities, but I know of cities where this has already started and this is not even law yet.
The Chair: We must move on.
Mr Ramsay: Thank you, Chief, for your presentation. It was a great presentation and you've given us some very solid ideas. I think your last comments are something that the committee needs to think about and rethink about as we go through these deliberations. We've had nine or so acts in the past that may be outdated now but have served us very well in the past, and we have an attempt to consolidate and to bring something forward that, as you say, we'll probably be stuck with for 50 years. So why don't we just catch our breath for a minute and relook at this, especially when we see the division that's among chiefs, among firefighters, among municipalities in this province, and get it right. That's really sound advice.
I'm sort of saying to the government that the way to do that would be to get the good parts of this passed right away and we could agree on a time frame to get the labour relations, section IX, worked on too. But let's maybe not do it all in one day; let's get the rest of this done and then take our time. I think that's wise advice and that's the advice I give to the government also.
Mr Kormos: There are some consistent themes that are starting to develop here in but a few hours. I suspect they'll be strengthened as the days go through this week and into next. Thank you kindly, sir.
The Chair: Thank you very much, sir, for attending here today.
WILLIS BLAIR
The Chair: Our next presentation is Mr Willis Blair. Welcome, Mr Blair. Mr Ramsay has just pointed out to the Chairman that he is some half-hour behind. I apologize to members of the committee for that. Please proceed, sir.
Mr Willis Blair: I'm not here as a firefighter or former firefighter but as one who has been in municipal life, or was for a good many years, in East York. I had a close association with the fire service there and of course in Metro as well.
I think repealing the various acts relating to the fire services and their consolidation is a very good idea, but hopefully it will be done right. My concerns are ones that have been already expressed today. Whether repetition is a good thing, I don't know, but sometimes it is.
I'd mention the fact that the district chiefs are part of the bargaining unit and I don't think they should be. I've always wanted this, for about 25 years. My people are in management and are members of the bargaining unit. I think they should be out and hopefully that will be done here.
If management is going to do the job the way they should, they should not have to run the possibility of a conflict of interest. The deputy chief -- apparently this is an oversight; at least I attributed some savvy to the people who drafted this bill. If the deputy chief's position is not included, I think it should be, and I'm sure that will be corrected when the amendments come in -- if it isn't, it could lead to some very nasty situations some time -- just by including the deputy chief and the responsibilities that he will assume in the absence, vacation or illness of the chief will be spelled out.
The hours of work: I've had some negotiations with fire departments in the past, so I speak from that experience only. I think section 52 says, "The parties may bargain in respect of the remuneration (including pension benefits)" -- and I presume other fringe benefits as well -- "and working conditions of members of the bargaining unit but shall not bargain in respect of the working conditions described in section 43." I think there's something inconsistent about that. That should be done locally with the unit, because situations are different one municipality to the other and having hard and fast rules in here may be detrimental.
In section 41 -- that's already been alluded to already -- it says, "`employer' means a municipality, person or organization." Depending on where one comes from, I suppose they could interpret that in any way they want. What does that section infer? We hear a lot about privatization these days in various government areas and I hope that is not something that's going to be slipped in through the back door here. Privatization envisions a whole lot of problems and I would think the insurance costs -- I don't know whether it's spelled out in here -- are something that should be a concern of everyone.
In Metro, and of course that's where my experience has been, although I come from a small community in western Ontario where they have volunteer services, one can't help but be reminded of one's experience with dialling 911 where there has been a problem. All of us have had some situation where it required emergency service, whether it be sickness or an accident or whatever. I've had some really beneficial experience with the emergency service, and who is the first service to respond to a situation? It's usually the fire department.
My neighbour, a few years back, had a heart attack at 5 in the morning. It was a German couple who had difficulty with the language. The wife called and my wife went up and massaged the person's heart and I did the calling. Within a matter of two or three minutes they were right there and before the fire truck stopped in front of the house the staff were in with the ventilator. It was obviously a lifesaving situation there. We can all recount instances of that kind. It's the professional people who have the training, and since that particular instance I'm alluding to, the training has been really advanced and they can do an even better job.
1720
I'm not going into the labour business. That's been pretty well explored today. There are little technicalities there from time to time that annoy people, but I think when this whole thing is discussed, the matter of amalgamating the various acts is a good thing. People will know where they're at and not pitting one against the other. But surely the hearings that are being conducted here today and tomorrow and I guess in other places in Ontario will likely draw or develop a theme within which some of the amendments that are necessary to correct some of the deficiencies or omissions can be looked after.
The protection of life and property is a very important thing, and hopefully the amendments that are being proposed here are not necessarily a money-saving thing. How can you put a price on a life or a person's property? I'm not saying they should go hog-wild, but there has to be a certain amount of discretion shown here and I'm sure it will be. I think this is the first run at Bill 84, and in the next few weeks I'm sure there will be some amendments that will satisfy most people.
That's about all I have to say. I'm speaking not as a firefighter -- I have no axe to grind there -- but as one who's been involved with the fire service in another capacity. I think there are a few things here that were likely an oversight, and hopefully they will be corrected as the hearings go on and the committee gets down to work on it.
Are there any questions? That's all I have to say. I'm speaking as an outsider.
Mr Ramsay: Thank you very much, Mr Blair, for your presentation. I'd like to ask a question first of Mr Carr, and you had mentioned that you think there are some oversights there, some technical oversights. The deputy fire chief, for instance, is not mentioned at all. I was wondering, Mr Carr, are there some sort of technical amendments that you would already see some deficiencies in the bill that you've already decided on that maybe you could bring forward now? Obviously you want to listen to everybody as far as any substantive amendments are concerned, but are there some things now that you see wrong with it that you'd want to bring forward pretty shortly?
Mr Gary Carr (Oakville South): No. Obviously that's what this whole process is about. We appreciate you pointing those out and we'll bring them forward, as you heard the minister say. But there aren't any at this time.
Mr Ramsay: So they'll come out later. Mr Blair, as you can see from all you've heard this afternoon, there's a lot of disagreement about all this. I was wondering if you had any idea of how you think the government should maybe resolve this. It looks like they haven't fully consulted with a lot of people in working something out that the majority of chiefs could agree with, and firefighters. Would you have any ideas from your experience how maybe the government can kind of patch this up?
Mr Blair: I don't know what some of the differences are between a really urbanized area or a rural area where there are volunteer departments, but I think the members themselves on this committee and in the Legislature will have sufficient experience with dealing with the local situation that they can do something about this. You're not going to get perfection no matter what you try, but you try to do your best, and I think as long as the fire service as we know it, especially in the urban areas here -- we take them for granted, that's one thing, unless there's a fiasco some time or there's a late return or call to an illness or something. I think just a little bit of fine-tuning will take care of it.
Mr Ramsay: Okay. Thank you very much.
Mr Kormos: Thank you kindly, Mr Blair. I wonder if you would flesh out a little bit of your background. You're coming here and I want people to understand that you're obviously coming here with some very significant experiences of your own, if you'd flesh that out for us just a little bit.
Mr Blair: I was in municipal life for 18 years in East York and Metro Toronto, as mayor for a couple of terms, and I've had other provincial experience as well, as some of you likely know. When I inquired of some of my firefighter friends what this was all about, they shared some things with me and they said: "Well, maybe you'd like to come down. Would you come down?" Well, here I am.
I think the presentations that have been made this afternoon and the ones you'll hear tomorrow, and I understand there are hearings in other parts of the province coming up shortly -- you don't have to change everything. Just be careful.
Mr Kormos: Thank you kindly, sir.
Mr Blair: There's a gentleman here from the Toronto Hydro. I told him I'd be about six or seven minutes at the most and he wanted to fill in my time.
The Chair: Mr Johnson might have a question and then we'll let you go.
Mr Ron Johnson: Just briefly, under the current legislation, as you may know, there is no mandatory requirement for fire prevention or public education programs, and Bill 84 makes that mandatory now. If municipalities are in a situation where a part-time person to do public education programs is sufficient in smaller communities, do you feel that municipalities should have the option of hiring someone part-time to provide that type of program?
Mr Blair: In the smaller communities, I would say yes.
Mr Ron Johnson: Currently they can't; you know that. Currently they are unable to do that.
Mr Blair: It's a specialized field, and I would think that one person whose specialty is that could do several municipalities, several small areas at once, on a fee-for-service basis or whatever.
Mr Ron Johnson: Thank you, sir. I appreciate it.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Blair, for being a private citizen and taking your time to come before us and assist us in our deliberations.
Mr Blair: I see some of my old cronies when I come down here.
1730
MISSISSAUGA FIRE FIGHTERS' ASSOCIATION JOHN MOSSA
The Chair: Our last presentation: I exercise my discretion as Chairman in making a spot for the Mississauga Fire Fighters' Association simply because they represent a large number of firefighters in the Metro area and the only way to get them in the schedule was by adding them to the end of the day. We will now have their presentation.
Mr Larry McPhail: Mr Chairman, on behalf of the Mississauga Fire Fighters Association, I sincerely thank you and appreciate the invitation extended to us. My name is Larry McPhail and I am the president of the association. Today I have with me Martin Goodkey, who is the secretary of the local and committee chairman of our benevolent fund organization that has raised over $3.5 million and distributed it back into the community in the last 15 years. John Mossa is the president of the Muscular Dystrophy Association of Canada in Toronto. He is going to start off and say a few words. He is in a time window here with Wheel-Trans so I'll let him go first.
Mr John Mossa: Thank you very much. I want to thank the committee for this opportunity to speak to you about my concerns on Bill 84.
I have two main concerns. They are public safety, especially for persons with disabilities and seniors; and the morale of firefighters as very important community-based volunteers. Therefore, I am strongly opposed to Bill 84 and the changes it makes to fire prevention and safety.
I have become involved with fire and safety issues because of the important partnership and support firefighters have from Muscular Dystrophy. When Bill 84 came out, firefighters were very concerned about the changes to fire prevention and safety. I too share their concerns, which leads me to my very first point, public safety.
I feel that Bill 84 jeopardizes public safety, especially for people with disabilities and seniors, because the bill makes it easier for municipalities to understaff fire stations and short-staff emergency vehicles, which means additional firefighters will be added only after an emergency occurs, which would slow down response time to emergencies, which would cost human lives, especially for people with disabilities and seniors who need the extra time in a fire evacuation.
There is a compounding problem here as well. Not only is the response time longer, but with hospitals closing down, it may take emergency vehicles longer to get to hospitals. In addition, Bill 84 introduces part-time firefighters, which would cut the number of fully trained professional firefighters. This threatens the safety of disabled people and the elderly because part-time firefighters will be less experienced and trained in dealing with fires and fire evacuation.
As well, I think reducing the number of firefighters and using part-time employees to fight fires will undermine teamwork. Teamwork is vital for saving lives. Studies have shown that key factors in emergency situations are rapid response time, fully staffed emergency vehicles and effective teamwork. This leads me to my second point.
Bill 84 will begin not only to undermine teamwork but will begin a process of demoralizing a very valuable community-based volunteer: the firefighter. Firefighters are very important stakeholders to many non-profit organizations such as Muscular Dystrophy, burn units, food banks and many other organizations. Under Bill 84, with the reduction in full-time firefighters, I could also see a reduction in the amount of volunteering they will do. I know it is not because they don't want to; it's because they will be unable to due to Bill 84's effect on staffing and employment.
In summary, I care about fire and safety issues because of my concern for people with disabilities and seniors, as well as the impact of fire and safety, and the morale of full-time firefighters as valued public workers and important community-based volunteers.
I think Bill 84 is a piece of legislation that looks at cutting costs instead of safety issues. If so, I think this is a shortsighted way to save money when it may cost municipalities and this province more money in the long term with a potentiality of increase of injury and death by the public and firefighters.
I would like to thank the committee again for this opportunity to speak.
Mr McPhail: Thank you, John. Following my introduction, I would state that I am a firefighter with the Mississauga fire department in my 25th year of service. I hold the rank of captain and am presently president of the Mississauga local, representing 500 full-time firefighters. I sincerely thank you for the opportunity to make comments on specific sections of Bill 84.
Not to restate what you've already heard, but this is a very complex bill, bringing together nine pieces of former legislation into one very large bill. However, eight of these acts are primarily standards, codes and regulations, and that being the case, probably deserve to be studied and integrated.
There is, however, one standalone piece of legislation, that being the Fire Departments Act, which deals with the structure, definition and labour relations aspects of the present fire department and fire services in Ontario, a document seven pages long which has served to create a model of fire service excellence for the residents of the province for over half a century, which is to be repealed and replaced with 23 pages of labour relations gobbledegook in part IX of the proposed bill.
There are those who have stated that the Fire Departments Act is outdated and no longer effective and workable. I would say to Hazel McCallion that nothing in this bill has impeded the progress of her fire department and her services to the community of Mississauga in all the years I have been there. I say, as a front-line firefighter and officer, that those people do not understand, nor appreciate, the service and how complex it is at an operational level. As a multi-service provider they should leave it alone.
The fire service is a pragmatic, quasi-military organization. It is slow to change, and rightfully so, for the life and fire safety of citizens and workers can never be taken for granted. The fire service has worked hard to closet the many cavalier practices of our past and move dramatically forward in its ability to provide state-of-the-art fire and emergency service delivery.
In my brief tenure in this profession, the service has moved from one that literally arrives on the scene and puts wet stuff on red stuff, and you've heard that today already. We carried wrecking bars for auto extrication and we administered first aid with a Canadian Tire first aid kit and a resuscitator. Today fire and emergency services are science- and technology-driven, requiring highly skilled and trained teams to be able to deal with the complexities of auto extrication, high-level rescue and high-angle rescue, water rescue, in every situation fire suppression and control, hazardous material containment. If I may just add here, at the present time about 60% of our calls are medical calls. Bodily fluids are now hazardous materials. In the area of first aid we have expanded our knowledge and capabilities embracing the technology and the tools of defibrillation with the potential to bring people back to life.
In Mississauga we've had our failures: two major nursing home fires with large losses of life, Extendicare in 1980 and Meadowcroft 14 years later. We've also had our successes: the Mississauga derailment, a major fire loss but with the successful movement of a quarter of a million people without one fatal incident.
To the business of Bill 84: The blending together of those pieces of regulatory and codifying legislation is likely worthy of review and probably long overdue. I concur and share the interests of those whose concerns are with fire prevention, investigation and most certainly public education. In Mississauga the firefighters' benevolent fund organization cofunds the Learn Not To Burn elementary school program.
With respect to the repealing of the Fire Departments Act and replacing it with the proposed part IX in the new bill, "Firefighters: Employment and Labour Relations," I wholeheartedly disagree. I cannot see that this in any way will enhance the fire service and the delivery of that service to the residents of the province. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
The late Dr Eric Taylor, for years adviser to government and labour organizations, expounded a commonsense and practical method of testing the value of change. He called it his threefold test that simply asks the following questions: Are the changes morally sound? Are the changes legally defensible? Are the changes reasonably practicable? If the changes do not meet this testing model and method, then beware. There is, however, again a pragmatic model here that some people believe, because we're in the 1990s, shouldn't apply. Pragmatism is outdated. I am not one of those. I am a hands-on firefighter and I know what works in my profession.
Time does not permit going through part IX clause by clause, but I will attempt to demonstrate with a couple of examples, beginning at the start of part IX, definitions, subsection 41(1): "`firefighter'" -- one word -- "means a person regularly employed on a salaried basis in a fire department and assigned to fire protection services and includes technicians but does not include a volunteer firefighter"; compared to the definition of "fire fighter" -- two words -- in section 1 of the Fire Departments Act: "`full-time fire fighter' means a person regularly employed in the fire department on a full-time salaried basis and assigned exclusively to fire protection or fire prevention duties, and includes officers and technicians."
Question: Why so many changes? Today's fire service, like all other professions, has evolved into a service of specialization and certification. We provided lots of literature to the government. There's no mystery there. Reconfiguring the definition of a firefighter to be a jack or jill of all trades and ignoring the differentiations in the service won't work -- not reasonably practicable and not morally sound judgement, in my view.
The removal of the word "full-time" suggests a system other than full-time. Our system works and is effective and efficient because of three factors, those being speed, experience and teamwork. The job cannot be done better in any other way. I, as a concerned practitioner, state this. Removing officers from the firefighting team will reduce the effectiveness. It's as simple as that: not reasonably practicable.
Part IX, subsection 52(1): "The parties may bargain in respect of the remuneration (including pension benefits) and working conditions of members of the bargaining unit but shall not bargain in respect of the working conditions described in section 43," which happens to be hours of work. You've heard this before.
In the existing Fire Departments Act, subsection 5(1), it is understood that working conditions include hours of work. Why, in this proposed bill, are firefighters precluded from bargaining a fundamental right, the right to determine hours of work? In my view, blatantly morally wrong.
I urge you take the time to apply the simple, practical and humane testing method to review and considerations of the amendment to the existing Fire Departments Act. I can assure you that the proposed changes will fail Dr Taylor's test model.
What else can I say? I stand firmly with and alongside my sister and brother firefighters in opposition to part IX of the proposed legislation. It can, in my view, only lead to significantly compromised emergency service and ultimately major risk to the taxpayers and the public of this province. My personal suggestion is to remove part IX in its entirety, for it is so convoluted it cannot possibly be fixed, and leave in place undisturbed the model of fire and emergency service excellence presently in place for the citizens of Ontario.
I sincerely thank you for taking the time to listen to this presentation. I urge your thoughtful consideration. I know that your work has just begun. You have a difficult task ahead of you, but perhaps I've provided a tool and a method that will make your deliberations a little easier.
The Chair: Thank you very much, gentlemen, for your presentation here today.
There's a matter of travelling arrangements that a couple of members have raised afterwards, otherwise we are done today. I am adjourning till 10 o'clock tomorrow morning in this room.
The committee adjourned at 1742.