Committee Transcript 1997-Apr-08 | Legislative Assembly of Ontario

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): I call the meeting to order. I remind members of the committee that these meetings start at 10 o'clock in the morning, and we have just lost 10 minutes. It's really important this afternoon that we start at 1 o'clock. We have a very heavy afternoon, and there are those who are taking a flight to our next location in Thunder Bay this evening, so I remind you that our meeting this afternoon will start at 1.

The first matter I'd like to raise with the committee is the petitions introduced to the committee by the two firefighters' associations in Ontario. They were presented to the committee and are in the committee's possession. However, the committee has no procedure to annex those petitions to our report, nor do we have facilities for storage, for that matter. I am suggesting, if there is no objection raised, that the petitions be returned to the associations so that they may use them as they see fit. Is there any objection to proceeding in that manner? If not, I shall proceed and instruct the clerk to do so.

Mr David Ramsay (Timiskaming): Maybe to be helpful, not to have these things being moved back and forth all over the place, if it was okay with the associations, I'd be quite happy to take a portion of those directly to my office, where I could bring them forward in the House at the appropriate time.

The Chair: If you have written authority from the firefighters' associations, that can be arranged. They'll be at the clerk's office.

Mr Gary Carr (Oakville South): The only thing I might suggest on that is, as you know, there were different cities brought forward and some of the individual members may want to present them, from Owen Sound and the different ones. I don't know how logistically we can do it, but I think some of the association folks are here. They can do it either way, whichever way, but there may be the potential for some of the individual members of all three parties to table them.

The Chair: Yes, Mr Carr. That will be up to the firefighters' associations. The documents are now theirs, and if they wish to give them to individual members -- I have presented similar petitions in the Legislature on behalf of the Cambridge firefighters -- that may happen, but that will be totally up to them.

ARTHUR DESPARD NANCY HOWSON

The Chair: We are now proceeding, and our first presenter is Arthur Despard. Welcome.

Mr Arthur Despard: Thank you for allowing me to speak on this matter. I will be speaking a short time, so I may catch you up a little -- but I won't because I'm introducing Nancy Howson, who is sitting beside me here, and we will be utilizing most of your 15 minutes.

My position is from an insurance standpoint. I've been 47 years in the insurance business. I consider myself a professional in the insurance business. I've been president of the society of FIICs, which is the graduate society, and the Insurance Institute of Ontario, which is the teaching group, and also I'm now on RIBO's council, which is the brokers' regulating group. In spite of this, I don't think I can speak on behalf of the insurance business, but I can speak of my own personal concern with the effect of Bill 84 as it applies to the insurance business.

In particular, my concerns are in the proposed reduction in the number of professional firefighters and the potential of replacing those professionals with part-time help. In talking about reduction, I'm certainly in favour of reductions in every place possible in municipal areas and in government in general. Certainly in the private enterprise area reductions have been going on, as you know, for many years, but the reductions I think are mainly in the administrative end, in the part that you don't see quite so often. You don't want to see firefighters. I've managed to see them three times in my life. I've been very impressed with what they have done. They have been most professional. They have been of great help certainly to myself and I know to many others.

In reducing, I don't think you reduce the providers of a service that is as important as the firefighter service, or the police for that matter. The business of reducing services to the public and services to a client from my standpoint has to be really from the administrative end as opposed to the direct service end. An additional 20 minutes, for example, standing in line to pick up a renewal for your car licence is not quite the same as waiting an additional 20 minutes for a firefighter to arrive. We're talking about reducing the number of firefighters in a truck from four to three, which is a 25% reduction, maybe replacing that third one with part-time help, and I can't see that part-time help can be as professional as the true firefighters that I've met up with and that you see every day on CITY-TV doing their thing. They really deliver a great service.

The question I guess we have is, if we reduce by 25%, is the service going to reduce by 25% as well? The answer is obviously no. It will reduce by something but maybe not 20%. It may reduce by 10%, it may reduce by only 1%, but look at some of the statistics. Ontario firefighters are successful in 40,000 resuscitations a year. Is it okay to miss 10%, 4,000 who don't make it, or 1%, 400 who don't make it? What is the acceptable number of deaths caused by the reduction?

Over 22,000 fires are put out each year, but at what stage? The difference in response time of three to five minutes will result in at least double the damage. In Canada, the total property losses last year exceeded $3 billion. Where this total includes natural disasters, such as windstorms and floods, the fire departments are still there, being of great assistance in windstorm and flood damage.

The remaining fire loss, say $1.5 billion, is very substantial: 10% of that is $150 million if the reduction would cause a 10% reduction in service; 1% of $1.5 billion, which is, let's say, the fire loss, is still $15 million. As people who have some idea of what the insurance business is like, you know that the rates will go up by at least the $15 million to recoup the service. My question is, will the reduction in costs of taking one professional off the trucks be made up by the $15 million and by probably 400 extra deaths?

Miss Nancy Howson: I'm here to speak to you today on two matters. First, as a nursery school teacher, I teach two- to five-year-olds and every year we have a mandatory safety unit. Part of the curriculum is a visit to our local fire station. At the fire station, the firefighters go into great detail with the children as to every aspect of equipment they use. They make the children feel comfortable that when they put on their masks and all their other gear, they're not monsters; that when they see them coming through to rescue them in a fire, they don't run and hide. I hear from parents every year that the children come home after the visit to the firehall and teach their parents things about what to do in a fire that they didn't even know. I am quite certain that somewhere down the line, with the visits to these fire stations that my nursery school takes, and mine is not the only nursery school that does it, these guys have saved a life. Unfortunately, I have no data to prove that point.

It is also important that these fire stations and the firefighters remain intact. They are an integral part of our community. We stress to the children in the school that if they are lost, if they are hurt, that is the best place to go: to the fire station.

On another point, in 1991 my father was ill and stricken with cancer. We were endeavouring to take him to the hospital ourselves when he passed out. We didn't know what to do. We were in a panic. I dialled 911. Within two minutes the firefighters showed up at the door and gave him the much-needed oxygen that he had to have in order to survive, and then rushed him to the hospital. My mother and I were alone that night. There is no way we could have gotten him to the hospital by ourselves. Even if we had managed to get him to the car, I am certain he would have been dead en route.

The argument can be made that he was stricken with cancer, he didn't have long to live. They saved him so that we had between three and four more months with him. That's very important to a family member. I cannot tell you how important it is. They were gentle, they were kind. They calmed him, and they were nothing short of incredible. I thank these guys because they gave me some more time that I wouldn't have had.

Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): I've got to tell you, I still haven't got a handle on what the government anticipates by way of a part-time firefighter. There may well be statistics about peak times. Whether there are beats me; we haven't heard about that yet. But you're right, who wants to be a victim of the stats if a fire or another crisis happens to occur off peak time? Do you know what they mean by a part-time firefighter?

Mr Despard: As a matter of fact, I was a little confused because I have a cottage up in the Georgina area and they have of course a volunteer fire department. Is that what they mean by part-time? Certainly volunteer fire departments are very well-trained individuals, which I found when I set fire to my cottage.

Mr Kormos: You didn't mean it that way, did you?

Mr Despard: Not quite that way, no.

Mr Kormos: Either you're going to staff a fire department, which means 24-hour -- because it's nuts to talk about staffing it on a part-time basis three days a week. That's wacko. You're asking people to schedule their crises for Thursday, Friday and Saturday. That's nuts. Either you're going to staff it full-time or you haven't got a fire department. Is that fair?

1020

Mr Despard: If you have part-time firefighters who are fully trained etc, they're probably full-time firefighters again, professionals, and that would probably work out fine. How do you fit the part-time guy into the team of firefighters, who obviously work well together? Everybody knows that. You can get all sorts of individuals, but they're not going to win the Stanley Cup, are they?

Mr Kormos: I'm pleased that you're here, though, as a member of the insurance industry. You're a broker, I presume.

Mr Despard: That's right.

Mr Kormos: I like brokers a lot more than I like insurance companies. Here you are. I'm surprised that the insurance industry per se hasn't been more outspoken, because increased losses -- we're talking property losses now -- mean increased loss costs for the insurance industry. They have an interest and so does the consumer -- this is very cynical, but from a pure dollars-and-cents point of view -- in maintaining quality professional firefighting services, don't they?

Mr Despard: I fully agree.

Mr Carr: Thank you very much for your presentation. As you know, one of the parts of this process is to make some of the changes and amendments that hopefully will improve the bill. I wondered if you had any specific sections or amendments that you think would be helpful that you'd like to pass on and share with members of the committee. Are there any specific areas in some detail that you think can make this bill better?

Miss Howson: From my dealings with the fire department, which have been over the course of about four or five years, these guys work exceedingly well as a team. To hire part-timers I think would damage the team. Even when I take a group of school children in, I notice that the right hand knows exactly what the left hand is doing. In the situation with my father, the right hand knew what the left hand was doing without even telling, without even saying. It was almost ingrained.

I can't think of a specific section, but that's just the one thing I would like the committee to bear in consideration. These guys work as a team. They know each other. They spend time within the fire station and out of the fire station. To break up the team I think could cause serious repercussions.

Mr Ramsay: First of all, Nancy, thank you very much for coming forward and bringing your very personal story to us about your occurrence with firefighters and how they intervened in a tough family situation and saved the day for you. It really is interesting that probably of all the public sector workers in this province the firefighters are held in extremely high esteem by the people of Ontario and it's sad to see the government doing what they're doing to firefighters in Bill 84.

Arthur, thank you for coming. You asked the rhetorical question, how many deaths are acceptable in trying to find efficiencies and cost-effectiveness in rearranging the whole pattern of work with firefighters? My answer to that would be very obvious, that no death is acceptable. It is never acceptable to put people at risk, regardless of how much we don't like paying taxes. You're from the private sector, but I think you appreciate as a taxpayer that there are certain core functions that government must remain in. There are certain core functions that government must remain in because the public sector is there to do the public good, where a private company such as yourself, you're there to do well, you want to make a profit, and that's fine. But there is certainly a distinct difference between them and that's why we have core functions that are delivered by government and have to remain so.

This government seems to feel that just about any function of government could be privatized, and I really think that's wrong, because the mandate is different for a private company, as it is in a public sector operation.

The point here is that it is never acceptable to gamble with people's lives or people's property. The protection of lives and property has to be one of the paramount functions of government. Bill 84 is, as I said, sort of the son of Bill 26. It's another anti-labour but also cost-cutting exercise that in this case -- as you say, it's not just inconveniencing people, that you may have to stand in line an extra 20 minutes to renew your driver's licence. When it comes to the response time of a fire department, not one minute longer is tolerable, because one minute doubles that fire.

The Chair: I see our time is up. Thank you very much for sharing your opinions and experiences with the committee.

SANDY STIENECKER

The Chair: Sandy Stienecker, welcome. Please sit down, make yourself comfortable.

Ms Sandy Stienecker: My name is Sandy Stienecker; I teach at George Brown College. I teach people who are training to be child and youth workers. That is, they work with children who are criminal offenders, children who are emotionally disturbed or street children. I'm opposed to Bill 84 because I think it will seriously weaken what I see as a really important community service.

I have to admit that since coming here from the United States about 20 years ago, I have taken for granted the firefighters' excellence here in Ontario. It hasn't been something I've had to rely on often; however, what motivated me to make an effort to come here today was a recent experience that I had at the college.

I was standing by an elevator, minding my own business, when a student hollered out from the stairwell, "I need a teacher." I ran over to the stairwell and there was a young man lying on the floor in the stairwell of the fourth floor. I went over to see what the matter was; he was clearly unconscious although his eyes were open, his pulse was beating. I was scared.

Another teacher came up behind me. I said, "One of us better get help." She said, "You." I ran; she stayed with the young man. I went and I called the school nurse and called 911 in that order and then I ran back and said, "I'll go down and wait for whoever comes first to help us out here," and did so.

I ran down four flights of stairs, through a lobby. I'm 50 years old, so I wasn't sprinting. By the time I got to the front of the building the firefighters were at the curb and four of them, all in big gear, came running up to me. I said, "I'll lead the way." We went charging up; we got to the stairwell and opened the door. I don't know how to say all of this and make it sound like it happened in a split second, but it did, so try to picture it. We opened the door and as we did we saw that the school nurse was bent down over the young man who had been unconscious the last time I saw him.

What we saw instead was the young man rise up, take the school nurse and hurl her against the wall and leap over the balcony of the stairwell. Before I could even let it register in my brain what was happening, all four firefighters, not one of them, not two of them, but every one of them, in unison, grabbed this young man's ankles as he went over the stairwell. They stood there, hanging on to his ankles, and he was a very large young man. We later found out that he had taken some drugs, was suicidal.

He was fighting their attempt to pull him back over the railing, and I don't how to describe it, but flipping like a giant fish or something which was exerting a lot of strength. The four of them were not only hanging on to him, but one of them was yelling instructions at me about what to do, what to do with the people around us and so on. He then hollered out to me, "Go down and wait for the police and the ambulance people," who they were expecting.

I ran down and waited a very short while for the ambulance people, but we were probably by this time talking another three or four minutes. We also waited much longer than that for the police response. I stayed and waited for each of those people to come. They went back up. They had by this time subdued the young man and put him into a protected shelter and so on. What was really amazing to me, though, was the split-second nature of it. If we had been a split second later, this kid would have been dead on the ground floor of the college. There would have been no second chance at all.

1030

I like to tell stories and when I tell this story the response I get without question each time is: "Of course, the firefighters are always the first ones there. What do you expect? You expect the police to be there first? No, it's the firefighters." I had expected in fact that the ambulance would be there first. If the firefighters hadn't been there and hadn't been able to work as a team the way they did, this young man would have been dead.

As a child and youth worker, I don't know how much you know about that field, but it is critical for us, if I'm working with a young offender or if I'm working with a gang member, if I'm working with a kid who has a serious mental illness which includes some violent reaction, I have to be able to trust my co-workers to watch my back, and it's not like we have time to sit and talk about what we're going to do with the kid. We have to know how the other person is going to respond and you have to trust them inside your gut. I don't know how to describe it in professional terms, but it has to be an instinctive dependence on each other. I saw that with these firefighters. If they had had to take the time to respond to each other verbally and check out who was going to do what, he would have been dead. They had to know instinctively how to trust each other, and they did that.

As a teacher at a college, as a child and youth worker, I also have seen what has happened as we have had to rely more and more on part-time workers. It has decreased our ability to work together as a team. If someone is only there part of the time, I don't develop the same relationship with that person, just because they're not there. I can't get to know them. We don't have enough time working together to develop the relationship so that this kind of trust and intuitive understanding of each other's actions becomes automatic.

That's really dangerous with children who are in trouble. It's even more dangerous in the case of the firefighters, where there is not a second. If they had had to talk to each other about it and hava a meeting before they did it, even for a split second, he would have been dead.

I'm concerned about several parts of the bill. One of the men earlier asked, you know, specific language. I don't know specific language in relationship to this bill. I assume that the men and women who work as firefighters probably are your best experts on that because they know what they need in order to work effectively together, and I can only urge you to listen very closely and specifically to them. I do know that I'm concerned about several parts.

I'm also, like the speakers before me, concerned about the part-time element of the bill for the reasons I've just stated.

I'm also extremely concerned about the privatization aspect of the bill. I feel that, again as a child and youth worker and as a teacher, and coming from the United States, and I was a social worker in the United States, I've seen what privatization does to social and health services. It's axiomatic that if you privatize something the emphasis is placed on maximizing profits. That's what it's about; that's the reason for it's existence, so it would be naïve in the extreme to think they wouldn't cut costs.

I've watched it here in this province in regard to day care services. Profit-making centres cut costs by cutting the quality of food, cutting the quality of care and so on. There's nothing inside of me that tells me firefighting would be any different. You can convince yourself that cutting down, making things part-time etc won't affect service; I have never seen it to be the case, so that's an area of concern for me.

I don't have much more to say other than my very personal experience, but I wanted to say it and I wanted to say it strongly. To be frank with you, it's out of my gratitude and frankly my complete awe at what I saw that day. I don't think I've ever seen anything quite as amazing as their saving this young man's life. Thank you very much for your time; I appreciate it.

The Chair: Thank you. We have about one minute per caucus. Are there any questions from the Conservative caucus?

Mr Carr: One minute doesn't leave us very much time, in fact no time.

Ms Stienecker: I'm sorry.

Mr Carr: No, it's not your fault. The time is certainly not your fault. But I did want to thank you for coming and relating this story and this personal experience. We can probably hear hundreds of stories similar to this --

Ms Stienecker: I'm sure you will.

Mr Carr: -- but we thank you for coming forward with that. We wish you luck and we really appreciate you taking the time out of your schedule to do that.

Mr Ramsay: Thank you also for relating your story. I think for a lot of us who only occasionally maybe see a story about a major fire in a newspaper and that's our only understanding of what fire departments do, we really need to hear more stories like this. Through the series of hearings we have heard and will hear stories of, "I called and four guys came up and we just had this little thing here and isn't that a waste?" You give us, through your anecdote, how that team of four firefighters worked as a team, because when you get that call you don't know exactly what to expect all the time.

As you were relating it and I was following it, it looked like they were just going to have to deal with resuscitating an unconscious young student and then all of a sudden the situation changed. I think it's that quick thinking and that teamwork of that squad of firefighters that came in there that exemplifies what we're trying to protect here. While somebody in a piece of paper said, "Why would you be sending out four people?" in this particular case, four were probably needed. Maybe in another case only three were.

But again, why would we gamble on that and put people's lives in jeopardy? I think that's really wrong and I hope through this maybe people like the Ontario Association of Fire Chiefs might understand this a little bit and get away from that control-and-command syndrome they seem to be buying into.

Mr Kormos: Thank you, Ms Stienecker. This is an incredible -- you're relating very viscerally and quite frankly a little emotionally. At least, that's my response.

Ms Stienecker: It was emotional.

Mr Kormos: I'm sure it was, because we felt that here.

The message we're getting out through this process is that firefighters are sort of the Swiss army knife of public services in that they're multifaceted, they do all sorts of things and you can never really anticipate. They don't know, they inevitably don't have a clear image of what they're arriving at or what they're travelling to before they arrive there.

Ms Stienecker: Precisely.

Mr Kormos: Nobody likes paying taxes. Nobody likes paying the plumber. Nobody likes paying the dentist. But at the end of the day, when people understand that they're getting incredible value for dollar, in firefighting services along with a whole range of other public services, I think we all better take a deep breath and understand that we're getting economies here that you don't get in jurisdictions like the United States with private services. We ain't seen nothing yet in terms of cost and a declining quality of service, and you have, so I appreciate your comments and I'm sure a whole lot of firefighters do too. Thank you kindly.

Ms Stienecker: I happily would pay more taxes in order to keep those services. I'm a homeowner and I know what I'm saying.

The Chair: Thank you very much for taking the trouble to attend here today. We appreciate it.

1040

CITY OF SCARBOROUGH

The Chair: Our next presentation is the city of Scarborough, His Worship Frank Faubert. Welcome.

Mr Frank Faubert: Good morning, Mr Chair, and members of the committee. I'm joined by Scarborough's fire chief, Tom Powell, and our director of human services, Alan Deans.

On behalf of Scarborough city council and the residents of the city of Scarborough, I am pleased to have this opportunity to appear before the committee today, to outline Scarborough's position on Bill 84.

As you know, except for a few minor amendments, the Fire Departments Act has remained virtually unchanged for almost 50 years. In recent years, there has been increasing concern on the part of Scarborough council that the existing legislation does not adequately address the needs of both the fire service and the public. In our view, the proposed legislation contains some positive steps forward in public fire safety.

At its meeting held on January 9, 1996, Scarborough council adopted the resolution which is attached as appendix A to this presentation. Specifically, council is seeking the authority to establish a strong fire department management team based upon job function, where the burden of proof related to the test of "management responsibility" is balanced between management and labour.

The proposed part IX, sections 41(2) and 58(5) and others of the legislation, is consistent with good management and current business practices, as well as the managerial exclusion concepts under the current Ontario Labour Relations Act.

Previously, council also petitioned the government for the inclusion of a "management's rights" clause in the legislation, particularly as it relates to staff complement and determination of the level of service in the community. Clearly, these matters are the exclusive responsibility of the council, and we would respectfully request that the bill be amended to specifically articulate these rights.

You will find a resolution dated April 27, 1992, attached as appendix B, which outlined additional concerns of the Scarborough council.

Council is pleased to see that the need for a review of the current arbitration process and for some rational direction to the firefighters' interest arbitration have been effectively addressed in the proposed section 53 under conciliation. Further to this, section 54(7) establishes appropriate criteria to be taken into consideration by an arbitrator or an arbitration board. This is consistent with schedule Q of the Savings and Restructuring Act, 1996.

Council is optimistic that Bill 84 will be a positive step forward in relation to the collective bargaining process which prevails in our other bargaining units.

The bill also provides local municipalities with other significant opportunities, including the option for council to delegate responsibility related to collective bargaining, if deemed appropriate. Under the legislation, municipal councils would also have the option, in the event of a termination of a probationary firefighter, to either review the matter themselves or to appoint a representative to conduct a review. This is a reference to section 44, termination of employment, within the bill.

It is our understanding that firefighters' associations are concerned about the legislation as originally introduced. While we support the concept and principles upon which Bill 84 is founded, there are certain areas which require clarification or elaboration.

Section 52, scope of bargaining, would seem to specifically exclude negotiations over hours of work, and indeed any of the working conditions set out in section 43, hours of work. Because of this, there is apparently a fear that hours may be increased to 48 hours in an average workweek. Just for the record, the matter of hours of work is one which is already addressed in the current city of Scarborough collective agreement. Scarborough council has not contemplated hours greater than the current 42 hours in the average week, and this section of the legislation should clarify the intent.

In part IX, the definition of "firefighter" would appear to include both full-time and part-time firefighters, so long as they are employed regularly on a salaried basis. The inclusion of a category related to part-time firefighters may enhance our ability to provide fire protection services, but further clarification would assist both the corporation and the association in understanding the intent and scope of such a category of employees.

Section 41 provides a very broad definition of "employer," including a "person or organization" as well as a "municipality." The transfer of emergency services does not appear to be compatible with the normal motivation of a profitmaking enterprise. Scarborough council would only contemplate recommending this provision be utilized with extreme caution.

Many organizations, groups and individuals, including Scarborough city council, have been calling for changes to the outdated fire service legislation for many years. Bill 84, with some modification and clarification, provides the flexibility for each municipality to deliver the appropriate level of fire prevention and protection services in an efficient and cost-effective manner.

It is the opinion of the Scarborough council that this legislation is urgently needed and the city of Scarborough looks forward to providing the vital services which we would be mandated to provide under the act. We urge the government to adopt the Fire Protection and Prevention Act, 1996, with appropriate amendments.

Mr Ramsay: Welcome, Mayor Faubert. Nice to see you again.

Thank you very much for your presentation because I think it's very balanced. I think we would all agree -- not only around this table but in this room -- that it's certainly long overdue for major changes to the myriad of firefighting legislation in Ontario and that consolidating into one bill is a good idea. There are a lot of very positive changes in this bill that certainly we could all support. In fact, you've come in with some very good ideas that would alleviate some of the fears for sure of firefighters, and I find those are very helpful.

It's sort of sad to see that the government has embarked upon this process as they also have on a process that you've been very intently involved in, that they haven't really consulted as was promised and barged ahead, and have really brought through a bill that while having some very good points to it is terribly flawed and especially in the section that you cite, the labour relations area, section 9. You've brought forward some ideas here that could help, because the firefighters are very concerned about the inability to negotiate hours of work.

As you point out, while you want to see some more positive collective bargaining process in place on behalf of municipalities, and I was going to ask you about that, but then on the next page you said hours of work are something for sure that firefighters should have the ability to negotiate. I was very pleased to see Scarborough's intention, at least contemplating, not to increase hours of work. But the point is that should be something that's bargained between the two parties for sure.

Mr Faubert: Exactly.

Mr Ramsay: Sometimes it's give and take, and that's fine. Those hours might change, but something else is given on the other side. I think that's where we want to keep it. We want to keep the collective bargaining process fair and open for both sides. You've been very helpful here and have given me some ideas that I will certainly use as a basis for some amendments down the road. Thank you very much.

Mr Kormos: Thank you, sir. During the last election campaign I spoke very directly in Welland and Thorold with firefighters about what I anticipated and what is now subsection 54(7), because it appeared in a Tory private member's bill. You know, you're like the Tory backbenchers who when Stockwell's making rulings in their favour, he's a good guy, but all of a sudden, if he rules against them, he's a bum. Read this morning's papers, you know.

Mr Faubert: The Speaker is really independent.

Mr Kormos: You can't have it both ways. I mean, collective bargaining, give me a break. When there's no right to strike, you're really talking about a very modified form of collective bargaining. You can't have it both ways. Forfeiture of the right to strike, in my view, is offset by submitting to the arbitration process.

Mr Faubert: Right.

Mr Kormos: I was on city council a long time ago too and I understand how councils -- once again, I've been there, done that. When the arbitrator rules in council's favour, "That's a damned good arbitrator." If he rules on behalf of firefighters: "He's a bum. He's obviously in their back pocket." You can't have it both ways, sir. Look at what subsection 54(7) does:

"The arbitrator...shall take into consideration...:

"1. The employer's ability to pay in light of its fiscal situation....

"3. The economic situation in Ontario and in the municipality."

I'm sorry, but this new standard, this is a very novel new -- of course if it's new, it's novel. It's a very novel, unique standard to be applied to arbitration. It's going to end up telling firefighters that their work isn't as valuable as the community and arbitrators have perceived to be in the past. It's going to be telling firefighters to pick up the slack, along with other public servants, for a government's fiscal policies, including its commitment to a 30% tax break for the richest. I hear what you're saying about arbitration and I understand why you're saying it. I'm sympathetic to municipalities, but you understand I don't agree with you.

Mr Faubert: I understand.

Mr Kormos: No, not by any stretch of the imagination. I've heard this too many times from employers as a result of too many arbitrations.

What this bill does is jig arbitration very much in favour of the employer, because a municipality that wants to play the game of zero tax increase for pure electoral purposes -- again, I understand that. I understand that city councillors are closer to the electorate than other levels of elected officials. They're the ones who take the heat. They're the ones under real pressure. They're the one who engage in all sorts of sophistry and game playing to avoid property tax increases.

But we had a person here before you, Ms Stienecker, who says she'd gladly pay more taxes if it meant maintaining quality firefighting services. Quite frankly, I would too. Do I like paying taxes? Not by a long shot; nor do any of the people in this room or any of the thousands of firefighters across the province, but damn it, they're taxpayers too. They're the ones who live in the communities that they work in and pay property taxes.

I don't agree with that proposition. This subsection 54(7) is a really insidious attack, in this case on firefighters, on public service workers. It's an attempt to devalue their work. It's an attempt to turn them into something far less than what they've worked hard for and aspired to and successfully achieved, that level of professionalism. It suggests that somehow firefighters, and it'll happen to others too, have to bear the burden. They're the ones who have to take the hit. They're the ones who have to pay the price because a city council hasn't got the political courage to acknowledge that certain costs are there and have to be funded.

City councils all over the province -- not all of them -- rather than taking on this government and saying no to the downloading of this government are somehow thinking that they're going to be further ahead by playing the game and getting so deep in the back pocket of Mike Harris that they're spitting out lint, and to the contrary.

1050

The Chair: On that note, Mr Kormos, I believe your time has elapsed. If we could move to the government.

Mr Kormos: I've only just inhaled.

Mr Faubert: I can appreciate Mr Kormos's position on this matter and he's gone on the record.

Mr Carr: Thank you very much for your presentation. Obviously in light of what's going on, I know how busy you are and I appreciate your taking the time. I also wanted to compliment you on the resolution. It's very thorough. Usually resolutions don't get into as much detail, but you've been able to make a resolution that does express the wishes of the council.

If you don't mind a little bit of indulgence, I want to get a little bit way from this particular bill and talk about what we almost are here with, the whole issue of Toronto. As you know, one of the concerns that people have relates to the costs -- which is a big part of your budget, the fire services -- with the amalgamation. There are those who think it will save money because, as you know, you've got different levels, and where we'll end up on the fire service, whether we'll go to the highest or go to the lowest or whatever, will really dictate whether there are going to be any savings as a result of the amalgamation.

As somebody who is intimately involved in this, what do you see happening with regard to firefighters' wages during the amalgamation when we've got Scarborough going with East York? Where do you see it going? Do you have any idea or is it too difficult to tell?

Mr Faubert: First of all, it may be biased, but I don't see the amalgamation of firefighters saving any money. I've never seen a report that's proven that. There have been a number of reports in Metropolitan Toronto. The only one was the Ernst and Young study commissioned out of the chairman's office, and the only way they save money is the reduction of around 400 firefighters, the service across Metropolitan Toronto. That's the only savings they could accrue.

There are other opportunities perhaps within a consolidation of services, the centralization of training and things like that, where there may be certain advantages, but I don't think you'll find a penny of savings within the consolidation of fire services across the Metropolitan area.

Mr Carr: Do you think it will actually go up? As you know, there's a potential to go up to the highest level. There could actually be an increase. Do you see that happening or is that going to depend on negotiations?

Mr Faubert: A lot depends on negotiation. There's a rationalization of service. There are no service standards for firefighting. That's the biggest problem. As you're well aware, you can't say, "This is the level of fire service." In most cases, with all due respect to Mr Kormos, it's determined by the budget of the councils as to the extent of the fire services that are provided by each individual municipality.

We know the service standards in the city of Toronto are higher for a number of reasons, not the least of which is that they have the daytime versus the night-time population. They're a centre of financial, entertainment, and a lot of other reasons, work opportunities within the Metropolitan area and the fact is that they have a different type of urban structure to service. Those are determining factors in the levels of fire services. But in terms of the consolidation of fire services, if you're looking for savings, you're looking in the wrong place.

The Chair: Your worship, thanks for taking time from your busy schedule to attend and assist us here today. Thank you, gentlemen.

FIRE FIGHTERS ASSOCIATION OF ONTARIO

The Chair: Our next presentation is by the Fire Fighters Association of Ontario, Mr David Carruthers.

Mr Dave Thomson: Mr Chairman, Mr Carruthers could not be here today. My name is Dave Thomson, first vice-president of the FFAO. This is Ross Jewell, second vice-president.

The Chair: Perhaps you could help me, sir. Are you the same as the Ontario Professional Fire Fighters Association?

Mr Thomson: No. We represent a majority of the volunteers in the province.

The Chair: Okay, good. Thank you.

Mr Thomson: First of all, I'd like to take this opportunity to thank you for the privilege of being here today.

Who we are: The Fire Fighters Association Of Ontario is a provincial organization consisting of 300 member fire departments, fire companies, firefighter associations and ladies' auxiliaries actively engaged in fire prevention and fire protection services. This association was formed in 1899, incorporated in 1910 and is made up of members from volunteer and composite departments across the province of Ontario.

The association's objectives: To develop a thorough understanding of firefighting requirements; to promote fire prevention and fire protection practices; to interchange ideas and information concerning firefighting; to cooperate with the office of the fire marshal and other regulatory bodies, both federal and provincial; to propose and support legislation which provides for the advancement and development of the fire service in general; to encourage co-operation between all organizations having the fire service in common; and to promote the preservation of life and property in the province of Ontario.

Membership in the association: When our association was formed, the members' reasons were the same as they are now, almost 100 years later. As mentioned, we are a province-wide association and have representatives on many committees which deal with the changes that are constantly occurring in the fire service.

Overview of the proposed act: It is our view that the proposed legislation contained in this bill is basically a positive step forward for the fire service in Ontario.

With reference to part I, we ask that a definition be included to state the qualifications of a part-time firefighter.

With reference to part II, we feel it is definitely a positive step forward in providing for public life safety in Ontario. We feel that equipment changes during recent years have contributed significantly to a reduction in property and lives lost to fire. However, since we seem to have reached a plateau in this area, it is definitely time to promote fire prevention and public education.

With reference to part IX, since this part specifically exempts volunteer firefighters and since the majority of our members are volunteer firefighters, we'd prefer not to enter into any discussion of this part, as it refers specifically to labour relations.

Training: It is the feeling of this association that the training now being offered to firefighters in the province is second to none. We support the continuation of this training, utilizing both the Ontario Fire College and training curriculum that is used by many departments in the province at this time. Also, there are many regional schools being offered through the Ontario Fire College, which makes the training available to many more of our members.

In conclusion, the fire service review process has been many years in the planning stage, and the result of this process is the legislation which we are discussing today. This piece of legislation will have more impact on the fire service than anything else in the last 40 years. The FFAO is in agreement with the principles of this legislation and can see a positive and proactive result of this bill in the areas of fire prevention, fire suppression and firefighter training standards, to offer the citizens of this province the best protection available.

It's signed by the president, Dave Carruthers.

1100

Mr Kormos: I come from down in Niagara, Welland-Thorold, one of those communities which has -- would you call it a blended fire service? We have quality professional services with a very strong volunteer component in every municipality in Niagara region and certainly in Welland-Thorold.

I appreciate that you're here on behalf of the FFAO and you're articulating the formal position that the FFAO wants to present here at this committee, but I've got to tell you, and I'm probably not telling any stories out of school, that the guys and gals who are volunteers in Welland and Thorold have sent letter after letter after letter, in this case to me as their MPP, expressing solidarity and support for their professional firefighting brothers and sisters, agreeing with you that the inclusion of fire prevention and fire safety as a mandatory role is very important but indicating very clearly that they do not support part IX of Bill 84, which deals with issues that my full-time firefighter colleagues strongly oppose.

I've received those messages from darned near every single -- because I went through the names -- volunteer firefighter from the Port Robinson part of Thorold and from the main part of Thorold, from Welland across the board. I've got them here from Bolton, addressed to Mr Tilson, who is their MPP, from the Herschel township fire department, from Port Stanley volunteer firefighters, Belle Ewart volunteer firefighters, by gosh, from Waltham volunteer firefighters, Timmins volunteer firefighters.

I've got them here saying the very same thing, that these folks do not support part IX, and they're from Stayner, Wasaga Beach volunteer firefighters, from the Sudbury area volunteer firefighters, from Innisfil volunteers, places like Stroud and Barrie, Ontario, from Sudbury area volunteer firefighters, who are saying they do not support part IX of this bill. They're saying they recognize how this attacks the professional firefighters with whom they work and who they understand are a crucial part, the anchor of firefighting services. From Copper Cliff -- this is up in the Sudbury area -- from Garson, Ontario; from Skead, Ontario; from Gore Bay, Ontario.

I've got the same letters from volunteer firefighters saying the very same thing about part IX of the bill from Trenton, Ontario; of course down in Port Colborne, Ontario, which is just south of where I have a constituency, down along the Lake Erie shore. Again, these are all folks that I know from Sherkston. That's over at Sherkston Beach, midway between Port Colborne and Fort Erie, and from Fort Erie as well. A whole whack more from Port Colborne. I've got them here from Picton, Ontario, the very same letter, volunteer firefighters who are saying no to part IX of this bill, in solidarity and in recognition of how the bill puts their professional sisters and brothers under attack. From LaSalle, Ontario; from Belleville, Ontario; from Trenton again. Just a whole whack of them.

These, I know, are just some of the ones that have been sent in, so I appreciate that you're here articulating, and again no quarrel with, the formal position of the FFAO to this committee, but I get the distinct impression that volunteer firefighters across this province have reviewed the issue, because I know there's a little bit of a history here. There was some --

Mr Thomson: There was some history.

Mr Kormos: A little bit of history.

The Chair: Your time has elapsed, Mr Kormos. I have Mr Leadston.

Mr Gary L. Leadston (Kitchener-Wilmot): On a point of order, Mr Chairman: I'd appreciate having an opportunity to look at those documents that Mr Kormos has presented. Perhaps copies could be provided for all members of the committee.

The Chair: Mr Kormos, you've referred to certain documents and at least one member of the committee would like to see them.

Mr Kormos: I'd prefer that Mr Leadston come over here and sit beside me, and I'll help him leaf through each and every one of them.

Mr Leadston: Mr Chairman, I'd prefer not to do that, but I wouldn't mind --

Mr Kormos: Too bad, so sad.

The Chair: It seems Mr Kormos does not want to provide you with copies.

Mr Leadston: Mr Chairman, on a point of order: Mr Kormos has presented these documents. He's named the municipalities and named the various organizations. I assume that's entered in as evidence. I don't see anything in error for him to provide the clerk or to provide me the opportunity to look at those documents.

Mr Kormos: Come on and sit beside me and take a look at them.

Mr Leadston: I'm not speaking for the other members of the committee. They may wish to see the same documents.

The Chair: In that he did not indicate he wished to file the documents with this committee, they are not formally before the committee other than certain portions that he read out on the record and his interpretation of what those letters said. Technically, I have no method of forcing Mr Kormos to present them. Thank you, Mr Kormos.

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): Just further to the same point, Mr Chair, through you to the clerk: Those portions that he read into the record attributable to certain sources, is he to provide those, since we are into a hearing where we are hearing evidence to an argument?

Mr Kormos: Chair, I can simplify this. I'll read the whole letter:

"Dear MPP:

"I'm a volunteer firefighter in the province of Ontario and one of your constituents. All firefighters support" --

The Chair: Mr Kormos, you've had your turn. You're just attempting to circumvent the rules again. Please.

Mr Kormos: -- "I urge the government to amend the bill." That's the full form of the letter.

The Chair: I made a ruling that we have no means of introducing -- Mr Kormos has refused to present them and that's a voluntary matter. I cannot force him and that's the end of it.

Mr Johnson.

Mr Ron Johnson (Brantford): It may surprise you, but I disagree with Mr Kormos on the part-time issue. I thank you for your presentation. I just want to highlight my concerns with the part-time issues, because I have to tell you I agree with a lot of what you said and I understand some of the concerns from the firefighters, but the part-time issue has got me a little baffled here because I don't quite understand the concern. When you have 95% of fire services using in some capacity a volunteer segment with respect to the provision of fire services -- and my understanding is your department also uses, if I'm not mistaken, volunteers. You work with them. Am I correct in that?

Mr Thomson: Strictly as a volunteer.

Mr Ron Johnson: Right. My concern is this: When volunteers are currently trained, and some would argue in some jurisdictions that volunteers do as good a job as professional firefighters do, and full-time, why is it necessary, in your view, to enshrine in legislation qualifications or training standards for part-timers, when those very qualifications or training standards are not enshrined in legislation for those working volunteer?

Mr Thomson: Because, sir, a definition was not included. That's where we felt that part I of the bill was short. The definition was not there for the qualifications of a part-time firefighter, so we felt that in pursuing this bill, in order to do it properly, the definition should be there.

The volunteer firefighters are defined full-time, everybody else is defined except the part-time.

Mr Ron Johnson: I understand the definition aspect and defining what a part-time firefighter would be, and I have some sympathy with respect to defining that. But you indicated in your presentation that you would like clearly defined training standards and qualifications also in the legislation. My question is, if that's not there -- they define what a volunteer would be --

Mr Thomson: That the definition include stating the qualifications of a part-time firefighter. I talked after this regarding the training aspect, which is excellent within the province, but there is no definition to state the qualifications of a part-timer. That's the feeling of the membership.

1110

Mr Ron Johnson: With respect to the definition -- help me with this -- of a volunteer firefighter, does it state in the legislation qualifications associated with being a volunteer firefighter or does it define what a volunteer firefighter is?

Mr Thomson: It defines what a volunteer firefighter is.

Mr Ron Johnson: But the legislation doesn't state specific qualifications that a volunteer firefighter must have.

Mr Thomson: No.

Mr Ron Johnson: Why would it then have to state specific qualifications for a part-timer?

Mr Thomson: Because I think we're moving out into a new avenue.

Also if I may, sir, our president and board of directors did meet with both unions to explain our feeling towards the legislation.

Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex South): Good morning, sir. Just to pursue a little bit further the point that you have presented this morning, the Fire Fighters Association of Ontario's brief, how did your association arrive at that brief and was it then circulated to all the volunteer firefighter departments in Ontario and any response asked for?

Mr Thomson: Yes, sir. There were two letters sent out to the membership of our association asking for input, and from there we discussed it at our board of directors and executive meeting. It was taken back to the membership meetings on two occasions and at the last membership meeting we had Jim Lee from the Ontario Professional Fire Fighters who was in and discussed a bit of concern that they had regarding the bill with our executive.

Mr Crozier: Was that concern shared by a number of other volunteer departments in the province?

Mr Thomson: Yes. That's why our position regarding part IX of the bill. Volunteer firefighters are not even defined, mentioned or anything in that bill, so our feeling and our decision was that we would stay clear of part IX of the bill because it has no effect. Our name is not even mentioned in that part of it.

Mr Crozier: It was just decided that since it would be difficult to arrive at a consensus it was best not to make any comment?

Mr Thomson: If our name was in part IX, if it had said "volunteer firefighter," by all means we'd have been into, I'm sure, some great discussions with them. If you take a look at those definitions in part IX, the volunteer firefighter is not even mentioned, so that is why we decided to stay clear of that section, because that deals with labour relations between the association and the union.

Mr Crozier: Then how do you arrive at the rest of your brief in the other areas of your brief? Do you take what the majority view is? Do you try and get a consensus from everyone? How do you finally get the brief in the order it's in today and the form it's in today and feel confident that it truly represents all the volunteer departments in the province?

Mr Thomson: From the input that we got through faxes and telephone calls, what we did was we sat down and drew up a presentation for today and that was basically the feeling regarding part I -- I do have copies for everybody -- regarding the part-time firefighter and fire public safety and the training.

Mr Crozier: Just one last point then: The brief that was presented today in the form that it's in today, did each volunteer fire department in the province of Ontario have a copy of that brief before you came before the committee?

Mr Thomson: No, they did not, sir.

The Chair: Thank you very much, gentlemen, for your presentation.

ROBERT SALTER JOEL FISH

The Chair: We're changing the order, I understand from the clerk, so we'll go to Dr Robert Salter and Dr Joel Fish. Welcome, doctors, and thanks for coming today. You have 15 minutes.

Dr Robert Salter: I'm going to introduce Dr Fish who's here with me so he may speak first. Dr Fish is the director of the very famous Ross Tilley Burn Centre at the Wellesley Hospital. Dr Fish will speak for approximately five or seven minutes, after which I will do likewise.

Dr Joel Fish: Thank you for the opportunity to come and speak and address the committee on Bill 84. I come with two messages. I'm the director of the Ross Tilley Burn Centre, as you've just been told, and I think I bring a view that is unique to Bill 84. I work with the burn patients from the time they've had their accident onwards in time.

The thing I teach people about burns is that burns are forever, so once they've come through the door and they're meeting us, as the burn team, that is forever. We become involved with the firefighters in varying time points through that episode, the acute phase of the burn. But what they bring in the system -- and I guess why I have come to speak against the bill is that there's a system in place that works.

This is my opinion as the director of that centre. What is that opinion based on? It's based on my recent experience over the past year where I travelled to three of the largest burn centres in North America. Harborview Medical Center in Seattle, Washington, has 400 burns per year. San Antonio, Texas, which has, if you will pardon the pun, set the world on fire in so far as burn units go, will see a burn patient any time anywhere who is a federal employee of the United States of America. They see over 400 burns a year. In the state of Massachusetts there is the Shriners burn system, which many people will be aware of. They have done more for childhood burns than just about anywhere.

It is through that experience that I come before you to say that the system we have in Ontario at the moment with the firefighters works. There are three parts to that system, from my point of view.

In terms of education and prevention, what they do in the community, nothing more can be said. It is a system that works. It is not perfect, but it is in place and it is something that we can work with.

Something that is unique is the support for research. In the areas of the United States where there have been bills introduced for some form of privatization, that is the first part of the firefighters' system that falls apart, because an economically based system does not necessarily support the kind of research we get. This is also true for efforts of ongoing education as well as efforts of prevention. It is not a hard and fast rule that these are present or not, but that is the insight I'm trying to bring to you today, that is really my message, that there is a system here that works.

This is where we bridge into the politics and where my understanding falls off exponentially: All of those specific issues -- anything which threatens safety either through numbers or through resources, at whatever level -- concern me greatly because I would like the system to stay as it is. There's always room for improvement. This is not a perfect system.

I think that to open this gap and to possibly allow for a changing of the status of how the firefighter system works will allow for the possibility of an unregulated system. In the state of Massachusetts the poignant reminder of this is the fact that patients are not triaged; they're not sent directly to regional burn centres. This is also true in the south, especially in areas around Phoenix, with some of these patients crossing the borders to various states to get to the larger burn units. They get delayed treatment and often inadequate treatment, and that in part, not solely, is due to the fact of who is there to pick them up and take them places.

The systems where there has been a denigration of the funding, the state funding or some kind of provincial funding, allow for that because it's economically not feasible to fly them from the northern part of Maine to the city of Austin. I see this as a problem and I hope my submission brings just another viewpoint, another opinion, in terms of why I think this bill probably is not beneficial.

I will end there. I'm safely under my five minutes, I hope. I would briefly introduce Dr Robert Salter, who is professor emeritus at the University of Toronto, and I believe he brings another viewpoint.

1120

Dr Salter: I certainly agree with what Dr Fish has just pointed out to you. He looks at this from quite a different point of view than I do. I am a semiretired orthopaedic surgeon at the Hospital for Sick Children -- I've been there 42 years -- formerly surgeon-in-chief and subsequently professor of orthopaedic surgery and now professor emeritus.

I would like to speak in relation to two different groups of people in this province: first of all, the citizens of Ontario -- men, women, children, and I'm particularly concerned about children and always have been through my professional life -- and secondly, the firefighters themselves.

First with the citizens: Those of us who are privileged to live in this marvellous province of Ontario may take the firefighters for granted. We consider it a right to have fire protection, but it isn't really a right; it's a great privilege, one we certainly do not wish to lose.

As I understand it, Bill 84 makes changes that could jeopardize the marvellous fire protection we now have. One indication of the reliability of firefighters, one that I admire a great deal, is that to my knowledge no firefighter in Ontario has ever gone on strike. I admire this because I believe that essential persons such as firefighters, police officers and doctors should never, ever go on strike, because such strikes are against the Judaeo-Christian ethic of the golden rule, a phenomenon that is true in all the great religions of this world.

Every year many human lives are saved by our firefighters through their first-class training and their raw courage. Having been on the staff of the Hospital for Sick Children these 42 years, I have tried, whenever I'm available and free, not in the operating room but free on the wards, to respond to any fire alarm. I find out from the switchboard where it is -- I'm sort of an unofficial fire marshal, in a sense -- and I always go directly to that place. The time it takes for the firefighters to arrive -- you can set your watch by it -- is three minutes at the Hospital for Sick Children, which I think is remarkable in a downtown setting. But I go there first because I know that if there were a fire involving a children's ward, three minutes would be too long to get children out of that area. Fortunately, most of the alarms at the hospital are false alarms, and I'm tremendously impressed by the courtesy of the firefighters; sometimes they're there two or three times a day for false alarms, and they don't complain. They just have a wonderful attitude towards their work. They're good-humoured and dedicated.

My concern is therefore about response time. If you have fewer firefighters and fewer vehicles, the response time is going to be longer. In emergencies, not only fires but also extricating seriously injured individuals from crashed cars, near-drownings, cardiac arrest -- as you know, many of the firefighters now are trained in cardiopulmonary resuscitation and the use of defibrillators -- in those circumstances minutes are important and sometimes even seconds are important. Anything that would prolong the response time of our firefighters to get to where the action is would be deleterious.

I'm sure that if all of you who are on this committee and all the members of Parliament of Ontario could just ride with firefighters for a few nights and see what they do, you would never be in favour of Bill 84.

Second, I'd like to speak about the firefighters. I understand that it's more difficult for a young person to be accepted in the firefighting department than it is to be accepted as a police officer, that the chances of a young person being accepted are even less than those of a potential medical student wanting to go to medical school. This is an indication of the high standard.

I'm also aware that the training of firefighters, as it is now, is very rigorous and vigorous and very demanding. Firefighters, like doctors, keep on learning all their lives and keep on training. I think this is admirable.

You're familiar, I'm sure, with the buddy system that firefighters have, where one looks after the other and the other looks after the one. This is a safety mechanism, and often one will save the life of the other. They are dependent upon one another. If you have fewer firefighters at the scene of a fire or any other emergency, this may suffer.

I'm certainly opposed to the concept of using part-time firefighters as opposed to full-time firefighters. Even though they may be reasonably well trained, it's only part of their life. For a full-time firefighter, it's their entire existence.

Let me draw an analogy: In the emergency department of our hospital, let's say that one of you has a child, your own child, who's been badly injured, with multiple, life-threatening injuries from an automobile accident. You find the ambulance people have taken your child to the Hospital for Sick Children. What would you think if the nurse said: "Tonight we don't have any full-time emergency surgeons on duty, but we have a number of part-time people. They're pretty good, so they'll look after your child"? I think you'd be quite concerned about that.

Our firefighters in Ontario do an outstanding job. I think they deserve our support. Last year I wrote a letter to Premier Harris expressing some of these concerns about the firefighters of Ontario, and after some time I had a response. I'll just read this. It's a very short letter dated January of this year.

"Dear Dr Salter:

"Thank you for your letter regarding firefighters in Ontario. I appreciate that you have taken the time to share your views with me. I apologize for the delay in responding.

"I have received many letters from Ontarians offering advice and support. These comments are valued and will be carefully examined as we continue to work to deliver the changes we pledged to the people of Ontario.

"I appreciate your input and thank you for your interest in public fire safety in Ontario."

Mr Chairman and members of the committee of administration of justice, I have stated my concerns. I implore all of you to administer justice for our heroic firefighters by defeating Bill 84. I thank you for the opportunity to express my views.

The Chair: We have only a minute per caucus.

Mrs Marland: A minute isn't enough time. First of all, I would like to thank you, Dr Fish and Dr Salter, for coming before the committee, because you both come with a very special perspective, and we appreciate how busy you are and your taking the time to do that. I want to place on the record our endorsement of what it is you're saying in terms of the standard of service and commitment the firefighters in this province give to the people who live here.

This bill, unless I have missed it -- I don't know anywhere in this bill where there is any question about the wonderful work that firefighters do. In terms of fewer firefighters, that isn't in this bill either. The point is that --

The Chair: The point is that your minute has elapsed. We're going to have to move on to Mr Crozier.

Mr Crozier: Thank you, doctors, and I too appreciate very much the fact that you've taken time to come and express your views. Just one short question, Dr Salter. In the letter you wrote to the Premier -- I have no knowledge of what was in it, but I suspect there were some specific suggestions. I listened to the answer you got. Would you consider that as addressing the issues you brought up?

Dr Salter: I think it's what we would call in medicine a generic letter.

Mr Kormos: This was written by one of a team of staff people and they've got a signature machine that puts the Premier's signature on it.

I thank both of you for coming. We've heard some incredible submissions this morning, yours among them; Ms Stienecker, a community college teacher who related a scenario she was a part of where firefighters intervened -- very effective comments. I'm as stubborn as they come, and I've got to tell you this: If for some perverse reason I had found myself in support of, among other things, part IX, even with me being as stubborn as they come, between you and Ms Stienecker I would have felt compelled to review my position. I don't have to because I don't support part IX, but if I did, it would have been, "Doctor, I'll see you at the rallies trying to save the Wellesley." I hope you're out there with the rest of the folks, thousands of folks, who are fighting to save Wellesley Hospital. Thank you kindly.

The Chair: Dr Fish and Dr Salter, thank you for coming here today.

1130

DOROTHY ROWE

The Chair: Our next presentation is Dorothy Rowe. Welcome, We have 15 minutes allotted for your presentation, including questions.

Ms Dorothy Rowe: I'm sure it'll be below nine minutes. I'll read my deputation, if that's okay, due to the fact I'm real experienced at putting my foot in my mouth.

My name is Dorothy Rowe. I'm a homeowner and a resident of the city of Etobicoke. I live at 50 Lloyd Manor Road. I'll start my deputation by first telling you a little about myself. I am 36 years old and have spent the better part of my life standing up and fighting for the things I believe in. The majority of this took place while I lived in the city of York for a period of 13 years. I was involved in a long list of committees and organizations; they stemmed from the likes of CCOPS, PCCOPS, security task force, women's committee, fighting against pay equity, fighting to have changes made to the Young Offenders Act, and many more. Due to these various involvements, I have received the Canada 125 commemorative medal.

I do not come here ignorant of the way things operate, nor do I have any misconceptions that you, the government we elected, may actually be listening to what we have to say. I realize you have probably already made up your minds and this is just a formality so you can say you listened, but I will tell you anyway.

I am here opposed to most of Bill 84, just as I am opposed to much of Bill 103. I will discuss first what I feel is good about Bill 84, since it is the shortest list to discuss. There are only two items that, in my opinion, seem to even be worth mentioning, the first being the improved investigation powers for the fire department for them to be able to enter adjacent properties and use electronic equipment in their investigations; the second being the ability for them to close unsafe buildings. This is all I find positive about Bill 84.

Bill 84, in my opinion, is most definitely a safety issue. I have two daughters; one is epileptic, with seizures that started at the age of three weeks; the other is diabetic and has been since she was two years of age. On many occasions I have had to use the 911 emergency services. Every single time I have used these services, the fire department was always the first to arrive on the scene.

I remember one occasion when my oldest daughter was about three years of age. She had a really bad seizure; she had even turned blue. I called 911. I immediately went outside carrying her in my arms. She was blue, limp and totally unconscious. Within seconds of going out the front door of my house, the fire truck was there. Before the truck even came to a complete stop, a firefighter had jumped off the back of the truck and ran to me, taking my daughter from my arms. They were successful in reviving her. I have always been grateful for the quick response of that fire truck. It seemed like forever before the ambulance had finally gotten around to showing up. There has never been one occasion when I have used the 911 emergency services that the ambulance was the first to arrive.

I don't like to think what might have happened if we had a call-in system like the one that could be implemented if Bill 84 were to be passed as is. This call-in system, without a doubt, will cost many lives. By the time firefighters are informed by beeper or phone, they could already be at the address, helping someone who has had a heart attack or someone whose heart has stopped. In these cases, the first couple of minutes are crucial. I know this, because my father had three heart attacks and one fatal stroke. It also is logical and appropriate that the fire department get to a fire while it is still a small one and can be put out quickly, and not arrive at a large fire just to save the foundation. This most definitely will have an adverse effect on insurance rates, if not our lives.

Excuse me, I'd really like everybody's attention if I can have it.

They are doing something similar in the Toronto hospitals as a cost-cutting measure. They have nurses on call when there are not enough patients in their wards; they are sent home and told to stay close to the phone in case they're needed, and for this they get a small portion of their regular pay. But they do not do this in the emergency departments because they realize they have to be fully staffed with qualified personnel, because with emergencies there is no time to be calling personnel in after the emergency has taken place.

I personally feel it would be totally ludicrous to even consider the changes that Bill 84 would open the door to. We would have nothing to gain but a longer response time, lower standards, less experienced firefighters and higher insurance rates.

It is time we called an end to the penny-pinching. It really is starting to get not just ridiculous but downright dangerous. A couple of weeks ago I had to go into St Joseph's Hospital for a personal medical problem. The person preparing me for the procedure pulled out a face-cloth, put quite a lot of alcohol on the cloth and started to clean my skin with it. I found this really peculiar and asked him why he was using a cloth. He said the hospital wasn't using cotton balls any more in order to cut back to save money. We both agreed it was totally ridiculous, since he had to use triple the amount of alcohol. This is a perfect example of changes being made by people who are so out of touch with reality that they have no idea of how things really work. All they have to do is listen to the people who have experience receiving the services, in this case the firefighters who are on the front line delivering the service.

Another concern of mine is having part-time firefighters. It is my opinion that we would lose the professionalism that we have all counted on, and quite obviously we've taken it for granted. I can only hope that this professionalism is not lost as a result of any stupid decision this government makes in introducing Bill 84.

A part-time person could never have the experience or the training that a full-time firefighter has. The full-time person puts in more hours and therefore is exposed to a larger variety of calls, whether they be fire or medically related. The part-time person could not possibly even compare to the amount of knowledge, professionalism and training that a full-time firefighter would have. Full-time firefighters are more professional and are paid to risk their lives. It is very unlikely that any weekend firefighter would do the same. Part-time and volunteer firefighters may be suited to small towns like Huntsville or Hastings, but they are not suited to a city like Metropolitan Toronto, where the population and the industry are this high. We need only professional, full-time firefighters. To have anything less would lower the standard of service to the taxpayers of Toronto.

As far as privatization is concerned, Bill 84 would open the door for large American companies to be able to come in and take over our local fire departments. In my opinion, this is not even open for negotiation. This could serve no purpose but to deteriorate the fire department. These companies would be concerned with the bottom line only: Profit. They would get it whichever way they had to. Bill 84 is not in our best interests.

I would like to close by stating a few obvious facts. We have a democracy in this country, and with this we elect people to represent us, the taxpayers. This means that the government, whether it be municipal, provincial or federal, works for us. You cannot ignore what we have to say; if you choose to, you'll be committing political suicide. Bill 84 clearly is not in the best interests of the taxpayers. We put you into power and we can take you out.

Mr Crozier: Good morning and thank you for your submission. I have no doubt that you have articulated your views. It would appear as though the part-time firefighter area is one of your greater concerns. Is that correct?

Ms Rowe: The three of them, pretty much: the part-time, the volunteer, as well as the concern with privatization.

Mr Crozier: I come from a town where we have an excellent volunteer fire department, a town of 15,000 people. You have said, and I'm inclined to agree with you, that where the difference between volunteer and part-time comes in is in the small urban/rural areas.

Ms Rowe: There wouldn't be as many calls. The population isn't as high. It's just common sense.

Mr Crozier: Okay, good. I want to thank you for your views and your taking the opportunity to come and speak to us.

Mr Kormos: Thank you, Ms Rowe. You indicate you're a homeowner, a property taxpayer. Some of us -- not everybody, because I suspect the government members would disagree that part of the whole purpose of the downloading, putting all these costs on to municipalities from the province, is so that the province can pay that 30% income tax break. Some of us -- again, I don't expect the government members to agree -- would suggest that Bill 84, and especially that part IX, is part and parcel of that, because the new rules for arbitration are going to permit arbitrators to come in with artificially low wages for firefighters and so on. If it's a choice between a 30% tax break -- and I know I got mine, and it's loose change.

Ms Rowe: It's very small.

Mr Kormos: Would you forgo the tax break to have quality firefighting services?

Ms Rowe: Most definitely. I don't even think that's negotiable. It's something that affects every single citizen in the city and includes the people here on this committee.

Mr Kormos: That's all I wanted to ask you. Thank you kindly, Ms Rowe. I appreciate it.

Ms Rowe: You're welcome. Anybody else?

Mr Ron Johnson: Thank you for your presentation. I find it somewhat ironic that Mr Kormos talks about our tax cut when if he hadn't spent like a drunken soldier the last five years --

Mr Kormos: My personal life shouldn't be a subject for discussion.

Mr Ron Johnson: -- we probably wouldn't have to make some of the tough decisions we have to make.

In the beginning of your presentation, you indicated that there were only two positive things, in your view, with respect to this bill.

Ms Rowe: I guess you could count them as three, but yes, there are two.

Mr Ron Johnson: Investigative powers and the other one was the ability to close unsafe buildings.

Ms Rowe: And enter adjacent properties.

1140

Mr Ron Johnson: Right now are you aware that there's absolutely no requirement for municipalities to provide fire protection or public education currently? Are you aware of that?

Ms Rowe: No, actually I wasn't.

Mr Ron Johnson: In fact, that is the case. This bill addresses that. This bill makes it mandatory for the municipalities --

Ms Rowe: For what little it gives, it takes a lot more away, and I'm more concerned with the response time, I'm more concerned with the fact that we have inexperienced firefighters on call, on part-time call and whatever you like. The fact of the matter is, what little you're giving -- I'm sorry, I'd rather see the tightening of part IX of this Bill 84, the wording. If you people are not intent on hurting the safety of the people of this city, you should be sitting down, whether it be with the fire department or whether it be with the union, whether it be with a committee of citizens only who have experience with dealing with the 911 services, and working at tightening the wording so that we don't have to be concerned about the safety of the citizens being affected. Whether it be the part-time, whether it be the privatization, if you people are seriously concerned with the services to the city and the citizens themselves, safety should be the number one issue on everybody's agenda. If you're serious about it, sit down with the people and tighten up the wording or get rid of the wording, but you look after these three matters before Bill 84 is put through.

The Chair: Thank you, Ms Rowe.

TOM POWELL

The Chair: Our next presentation will be made by the Scarborough fire department, Tom Powell. I think it's Fire Chief Tom Powell. Welcome again, Chief.

Mr Tom Powell: Thank you, Mr Chairman. I've been appearing as a support member in the past and not been able to speak my piece. I'm looking forward to it.

I want to thank the committee for giving me the opportunity to be here today and address my support and some concerns that I have with Bill 84. My name is Tom Powell. I'm fortunate to serve as the fire chief in the city of Fred -- Scarborough, and have done so since 1988. The reason I'm confused on where I work is that I've worked 35 years as a full-time firefighter, and over 20 of those years I've served as a fire chief, two of them in the town of Montreal West in Quebec, 10 years in the city of Fredericton, New Brunswick, and I'm now in my 10th year as the fire chief of the city of Scarborough.

I'm here today to provide my personal opinions and observations. I'm not here to represent the city of Scarborough and neither am I here to represent any association.

The proposed legislation is directed towards fire prevention and public education. I support the legislation with the these initiatives as this is a positive move towards improved public safety for all Ontario residents.

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. We have a dedicated, trained work force of volunteer and full-time firefighters who are eager to participate in fire prevention and protection services in Ontario. To consider the concept, espoused by previous presenters, of using persons other than professional firefighters to enforce the fire code is, in my opinion, detrimental to public fire safety. I believe the fire service of Ontario is well equipped with the knowledge and skills to deliver the essential services and to enforce the provisions of the fire code.

The need to define the position of a fire chief in law has been an obvious deficiency that must be rectified. The fire chief is the one individual who is appointed because they have the expertise to provide professional advice on fire-related matters to the municipal council. The inclusion in the legislation of the authority, duties and responsibilities of the fire chief will improve the ability of the fire chief to manage the delivery of fire protection and prevention programs on behalf of a municipal council.

The definition of a fire chief as proposed in Bill 84 recognizes that every municipality that has a fire department should have a fire chief. I am of the view that the terminology used to define the reporting relationship of the fire chief to council should be amended, and that is in part II, 6(3), by deleting the word "ultimately" in the first line. This will provide for a revised clause that would read:

"(3) A fire chief is the person who is responsible to the council of a municipality that appointed him or her for the delivery of fire protection services."

The rationale for this recommendation is that the elected municipal officials should be given advice on public safety directly from the individual whom they appointed because of their expertise and experience in this field of fire protection.

Many municipalities have in place elaborate reporting structures which may include chief administrative officers and commissioners. These structures serve to provide excellent administrative systems. I have no doubt that the fire chief will be required, through the direction of each council, to comply with all of the administrative processes and financial guidelines instituted by the chief administrative officer.

This proposal will not alter those administrative processes. It is designed to assist the elected official in receiving first-hand information from the appointed professional. With the interest of public safety in mind, I would strongly urge the government to incorporate the amended definition and reporting process in the final legislation.

The right of entry for fire and emergencies within the jurisdiction of the fire department appears to be absent from the legislation.

There are rights related to entry for adjacent lands by firefighters, entry on to lands outside of municipalities, entry where fire has occurred or likely to occur, powers upon entry, entry to adjacent lands and powers to enter when there is an immediate threat to life.

There are, however, no specific entry powers or rights of entry for firefighters when a fire or emergency is occurring. Obviously, this is an oversight and needs to be addressed by providing right of entry to the fire department when they have reason to believe that a fire or an emergency exists. During the fire marshal's presentation, I believe that I heard that the concept was being included in the proposed legislation. However, the current printed version that I have of Bill 84 does not recognize this important aspect of right of entry.

I would like to comment on the labour relations aspect of the proposed legislation, firstly the designation of persons performing managerial functions. I support the proposed legislation as it relates to the designations and the exclusions based on positions performing management responsibilities. However, I believe the designated persons are not sufficient to provide for a non-bargaining-unit employee to be on duty at all times.

I would recommend that the minimum team for any fire department with one or more full-time fire stations should be a fire chief and four on-duty fire officers. This would provide for five exclusions, and this would provide for 24-hour coverage with the appropriate system that one management representative would be on duty at all times.

With the direction being taken towards an amalgamation of the city of Toronto fire department with the five other fire departments, the impact of this legislation on a large urban fire department with over 3,500 employees should be considered.

It is necessary, in my opinion, to consider a sliding-scale formula in addition to the formula found in part IX, 58(5), adding a simple formula to clause (5) as follows: "one person for every 150 additional persons for departments over 400 persons." This would, in my opinion, be a reasonable method of ensuring sufficient management in a major fire department such as the proposed Toronto fire department.

Currently, the way the bill is written, if the six fire departments were to take advantage of the specifics within the bill, there would be as many as 27 positions taken out of the exclusions. With my proposal, with a combined fire department of 3,500 employees, there would be a maximum of 30 positions. It's very close to the proposal that's before you right now.

With regard to privatization of emergency services, I believe this is not the direction the Ontario fire service should be embarking upon. The definition of an employer should be amended to delete the reference to "persons or organizations that employ firefighters."

I agree with the position of the International Association of Fire Chiefs: To delegate emergency services to private industry, whose main purpose is to make a profit, will be detrimental to public safety and will provide a lower level of service at increased cost to the taxpayer. I should point out that there is no conflict with the position from the Ontario Association of Fire Chiefs, who did not address that particular aspect of the proposed legislation.

I have some difficulty with the provincial staff position that this is needed in the legislation to control a prospective private company from establishing a fire department outside of the Fire Prevention and Protection Act. I believe the powers given to the fire marshal are sufficient to prevent any misuse of the system.

I request that the committee give serious consideration to the removal of this definition of the employer. There may well be areas where the private sector can assist the fire departments in presenting educational type programs etc, but I am not in favour of emergency operations being a profit-making exercise.

In conclusion, I am of the opinion that the proposed legislation will provide through its direction and guidance an effective fire protection and fire prevention service for all of Ontario. I support the concepts and principles within Bill 84, with the exceptions I have outlined today. I urge the committee to amend the proposed legislation in those areas I have outlined and encourage the speedy passage of this much-needed legislation.

1150

Mr Kormos: Thank you, sir. I admire the fact that you've come here and expressed your personal views. There were some other Scarborough representatives here earlier today and theirs were the views of that level of governance in the city. I admire that, I respect that, I think it's a valuable contribution and I hope all of the committee considers the points you've made. Obviously the issue of privatization is one that's certainly of primary concern to me and I appreciate your comments in that regard. Thank you kindly, sir.

Mr Carr: Thank you very much for a fine presentation. I wanted to explore the issue of privatization. As you know, there are some people who read the existing legislation as saying that you could privatize fire services now. I agree with a lot of people that the reason it hasn't happened is we've got good service or fine service. That hasn't happened. So if that can happen now, has there been any movement from council or councillors in your area to try to privatize any of the services, because they've had cost pressures, like all municipalities have? Has there been any movement to this point to privatize from Scarborough's standpoint?

Mr Powell: A simple answer to that question is no, there has not been. It's questionable whether or not privatization has been available as an option to councils in the past based on the types of collective agreements and the strength of the Fire Departments Act previously. I would really question whether it was there or not, but there has not been any move, certainly not in Scarborough, towards privatization and I hope there won't be in the future.

Mr Carr: I don't know, I guess this would have been a good question for the mayor because he was here earlier. If this bill goes through you don't see any privatization happening in your area?

Mr Powell: I have concerns with this bill in the area of privatization and I've advanced those concerns today. There are companies out there that are waiting to see what happens; we all know of them. Some of them have been mentioned by members of the committee. I don't like the idea of having operational firefighting being conducted by a profit-making organization.

Mr Carr: My last question is a tough one, if I have a little bit of time, and it deals with what I asked the mayor about the amalgamation. As you know, there are some people who say there will be savings. Unfortunately, some of the savings may be in the reduction of fire chiefs. But as you know, the salaries could go either way; they could go to the lowest level or the highest level and so on. What's your best guess of what will happen under the amalgamation with the cost of fire services, which is a big part -- 80% is probably salaries and benefits. What do you see happening, or is it just going to be up to negotiations?

Mr Powell: I wouldn't suggest for one minute that I would be an expert in that area, but I would suggest that perhaps it'll come in the form of negotiations and clarification once the collective agreement is established for the new proposed city. There will be a lot of discussion that would have to go on in that area, so I can't really give you a specific answer to that question, sorry.

Mr Ramsay: I'm sure Mr Carr, the member for Oakville South, meant to say "the proposed amalgamation."

Thank you very much, Mr Powell. I very much appreciate a clarification you made in your submission. It may have been very unfortunate yesterday that the Ontario Association of Fire Chiefs was silent on the issue of privatization and I appreciate in a way you speaking on their behalf when you say, "I point out that there is no conflict with that position," referring to the international one, "from that of the Ontario Association of Fire Chiefs, who did not address the particular aspect of the proposed legislation."

I take it from that you mean that the Ontario Association of Fire Chiefs is not on side of privatization of fire departments either. Is that what you mean by that?

Mr Powell: I think what you can take from that, sir, is that the Ontario Association of Fire Chiefs presented the views of their members, which vary from volunteer right up to and including the fire chief of the city of Toronto, and those views are very broad in their scope. Therefore the Ontario Association of Fire Chiefs, when they presented their brief -- and I'm not here to speak on their behalf at this time -- had to encompass all the views of all those people, and as such was presented in that way.

Mr Ramsay: Okay. When you're talking about the exclusion formula, you've come up with a positive idea, which is always very helpful. You were concerned about the way it was going to work with the proposed amalgamation of a 3,500-member department, but then when you cited the two figures, you said the way it is now it would be 27 and with your formula it would be 30. It's only three different. You feel the formula somehow ensures a better ratio?

Mr Powell: Given the way it's written at the present time, if there's the proposed amalgamation of the departments, there are 3,500 employees and there would only be five designated positions. But if there are six separate fire departments, each fire department has the opportunity to designate up to five, at least four of them do, and for the other two I think two or three. When you total up those numbers of all six fire departments, should they choose to take all the designated positions, they have 27 positions. If you take my proposal that's before you and it's an amalgamated fire department, it would be a maximum of 30 positions.

The Chair: Thank you, Fire Chief Powell.

ELSIE STILES

The Chair: Our last presenter this morning is Elsie Stiles. Welcome, Ms Stiles.

Mrs Elsie Stiles: Thank you, Mr Chairman. It's warm in here.

The Chair: Yes, it is. We have 15 minutes allotted for your presentation. I'd ask you to proceed.

Mrs Stiles: Mr Chairman and committee, as a member of the Fire Marshal's Public Fire Safety Council, I am pleased with the recognition to be given to those of us who serve on it. Particularly welcome is the proposed power to be extended to the fire marshal "to monitor and review the fire services provided by the municipalities and to make recommendations respecting those services."

By the way, I'm not a member of any association or business. As a matter of fact, on the council I don't represent anybody but me, but people.

In the past, interpretation of laws and codes have varied between fire departments. This has been confusing to members of the public, who are concerned about fire safety in their own communities.

On the council, my particular area of interest is with the welfare of the thousands of people who live in the many high-rise apartment buildings in Ontario, especially those who cannot go down the stairs when the fire alarms ring. Their limited mobility may be permanent or it may be temporary because of an accident or illness. Anyone who has not lived in a high-rise apartment building, and I won't take a count as to how many have, cannot possibly imagine what it feels like to be jarred awake in the middle of the night by fire alarms ringing loud and long and not to be told why they're ringing.

Fire investigators have told me that in a number of apartment buildings in our province they either do not have a voice communication system or those they do have are not loud enough. My own building is one of the latter. Early on, lacking any other means of communication with our residents, we wanted our fire safety guide to advise them to turn their televisions on to the lobby camera for information that we would give them on cards held up in front of it.

However, even though our fire department had never used our voice communication system, they would not permit us to use this procedure officially. Of course, we did it anyway because we had to have communication with our people. Our fire safety guide has always suffered from their interpretation of the law. The lobby camera is normally used to allow occupants to identify callers on the Enterphone before letting them into the building, but they don't have voice communication with them. However, in future, when we finally do have an adequate voice communication system, that procedure, the camera, can still be used as a backup if the voice communication system ever fails during a fire emergency.

1200

Between the fire in North York in January 1995 and the ridiculous situation in our own building, I have to wonder if our firefighters have ever received any training in the use of a voice communication system. I use that "our," not very general, because I don't know. I just know that our fire department has never used it.

I became involved in fire safety 19 years ago -- I've been working that hard on it -- when my husband and I moved into our condominium apartment on the top floor of an unfinished 20-storey building. The developers never bothered to tell us what we should do when the fire alarms rang, and they rang a lot because there was no security; the building wasn't even finished. It wasn't long before we discovered that we had several occupants who could never leave the building in response to the fire alarms. Two were in wheelchairs and one man had been born with one leg, so he had to use either crutches or a prosthesis.

When we asked a Mississauga firefighter what these people should do under the circumstances, we were told, "They should be in ground-floor apartments or not living in a high-rise building at all." Well, that is no longer an option, considering the number of people with limited mobility who now reside in high-rise buildings, many of which are designed specifically for the elderly and disabled.

Fire alarms and voice communication systems are equally important for the safety of all occupants of high-rise buildings. However, the alarms can only warn the occupants that there may be an emergency. They can't tell them what it is. A voice communication system is the only means whereby all the occupants can be told immediately, all at the same time, why the alarms are ringing and how to react. The Ontario building code required a VCS when our building was erected in the late 1970s; and later, the retrofit law of 1992 specified that it must be loud enough to provide "a clear verbal signal throughout the building capable of communicating instructions to the occupants." We haven't got one in our building yet.

Not many years ago, firefighters had to deal with the safety of people only in single-family dwellings and low-rise buildings. Then, it was logical to get everyone out of the building as quickly as possible, because fires spread rapidly and the buildings could have collapsed. However, the situation is a lot different when fighting fires in high-rise buildings constructed of concrete and steel. Many of them have complete separation of each apartment from hallways and all other apartments and open balconies that make effective safe havens from smoke and gases.

Coroners' inquests of recent tragic fires have shown that rather than telling the occupants to leave the buildings when the fire alarms ring, it just might be safer for them to stay in their apartments whenever they sound, unless, of course, the fire is in their own apartment. However, this challenges a time-honoured principle that has been held ever since firefighting became organized. It is proving to be difficult to change, but it must change. No longer is it realistic to expect people to rush frantically down fire emergency stairways from 20, 30, maybe 40 or even more levels. Even if they are physically capable of doing so, human nature takes over after people have experienced a few false alarms: They decide to ignore all alarms in future. In high-rise buildings, alarms can be set off by mechanical failures as well as by malicious pranksters. There doesn't necessarily have to be a fire.

In the North York fire in January 1995, at least five conditions contributed to the deaths of six people, and one of those people was pregnant, so you have to say seven people. The occupants had never been given any guidance about how to act when the fire alarms rang, especially if they were unable to evacuate the building for any reason. I happen to know this because my daughter and her husband lived in that building for 18 years and had moved out, with two of our grandchildren, only a year and a half before the fire. They had other criticisms of the management too.

Another thing is that the mandatory automatic closers had not been installed on any of the apartment doors. The mandatory public address system had no backup batteries, so the wiring failed early on in the fire. The incident commander never even tried to give the occupants any information over the existing PA system.

This one is particularly worrisome, something that we people in the public don't realize goes on: Firefighters are trained to go to the floor below the fire floor, attach their hoses to the standpipes on that floor and carry them up the emergency stairway. Not only can they be hampered by people trying to get out of the building, but their hoses prevent exit doors on the fire floor from closing, allowing smoke to enter the stairway and rise to the roof. This procedure needs to be revised.

Fire investigators have also told me that few occupants of high-rise buildings succumb from the fire itself. More often they die from smoke and gas inhalation on the stairs as they are trying to get out of the building.

Early in 1979 -- that's how long I've been working on this -- when I asked the fire safety officer of the Mississauga fire department to tell me what the occupants of the many other high-rise apartment buildings in our city were advised to do, I was astonished to find out that none of the owners had ever written a fire safety guide for their occupants. What is more, the only printed information he could give me was written for single-family dwellings. Consequently, two hours later we had produced one for my building, the first fire safety guide for people in high-rise buildings in the city of Mississauga.

The first Guidelines for Preparation of Fire Safety Plans for Residential Buildings was issued by the fire marshal's office in April 1983, following the Weber inquiry, which, by the way, I attended quite regularly. Unfortunately, there was no guidance for occupants who could not go down the emergency stairways because of limited mobility. The absolute necessity of an adequate voice communication system in every high-rise apartment building must be addressed. Without this facility, those who cannot go down the stairs must agonize until the alarms stop ringing, which is the only indication that the emergency is finally over. I was in a meeting one time when there was a lady who had to use two canes, and I said, "What do you do when the alarms ring?" She said, "I pray to God there's no fire."

There is another situation that I feel needs to be addressed. When fire codes are written, the wording needs to be clear and complete. For example, the voice communication system in our building is supposed to have been tested for the past 19 years, but no one has ever tried to find out whether it could be heard and understood in every apartment by asking for feedback. Just get the people to tell you whether they heard it. Standing in the hallway is no good. How it should be tested needs to be explained, as well as how often. It says how often it should be tested -- once every month and once every year -- but it doesn't say how each way.

On the rare occasion when our voice communication system has been used -- sometimes in the testing -- up to now we have had to open our apartment doors to understand what is being said. Now, picture 200 apartment doors opening in a fire situation -- not likely.

Ideally, the voice communication system speakers should be placed inside every apartment -- which of course they do now, but look at all the buildings that don't have them -- along with the fire alarms, and not like ours, with only two speakers in the hallway to serve 10 apartments.

There is a situation which I describe as the worst-case scenario. It has not yet been addressed, even in the first draft of the guidelines, now in the process of being revised -- and you might know I'll be in on that. That is when a fire starts in an apartment and the lone occupant cannot use the stairs. Even a person in a wheelchair can leave the apartment, close the door behind them, pull the nearest fire alarm and go to the landing of the nearest stairway, closing the door behind them. That person must be in a position to tell the firefighters where the fire is located, because the smoke may not yet identify its source. This means that firefighters, of course, must learn to check each stairway on the fire floor.

Also, if one of several occupants in a burning apartment cannot be safely taken to a lower floor, that person must be taken to the landing of the nearest stairway. Then, the others who go down the stairs to the lobby must inform the firefighters of the location of that person, particularly if he or she may have been taken into a neighbour's apartment on the same floor. That goes along with every person who cannot go down stairs. When they move in or after it happens, they should report to the management and be put on a list that tells the fire department as soon as they get there, if there is a fire, if any of those people are in immediate danger and who should be taken out first, because you can't take everybody at once, especially in these special buildings.

One thing I learned about very recently was described as containment. Apparently it is not unusual for a fire in an apartment to burn itself out because of lack of oxygen. If this were explained to occupants of high-rise apartment buildings, they would realize the importance of the automatic door closer. It is too easy to loosen one of those for convenience, since the door doesn't stay open easily, or not to readjust one that has become ineffective.

My presentation today is based on my own experience and knowledge. In spite of the existence of many high-rise apartment buildings in other countries, it is surprising how little information seems to be available to help us learn about their safety procedures and how people who live in their high-rise building are treated. Considering the efficiency of modern communication, we should be able to learn from one another. And considering the efficiency of modern communication, we should be able to have a voice communication system in my own building that I can hear without having to open the door.

The Chair: I thank you very much, Mrs Stiles, for assisting the committee in its deliberations here today. Our time is up and we will be proceeding.

I remind all committee members that we have no less than 16 presentations this afternoon. We start at 1 o'clock. I predict I will see a quorum at 1 o'clock. Please do not be rude and keep our guests waiting.

The committee recessed from 1214 to 1302.

BOROUGH OF EAST YORK

The Chair: I call the meeting to order. Our first presentation will be by the city of East York; His Worship Michael Prue will be making that presentation. Your Worship, welcome to the committee.

Mr Michael Prue: Thank you very much, and it is the borough of East York, Canada's only borough.

The Chair: We have "the city." Sorry, you're quite right.

Mr Prue: Thank you very much for the opportunity to address the committee. I'd like to preface my remarks by saying that I support most of the major provisions of the bill, and I'm sure that most of the people who have been before you are concentrating on several areas. I would like to particularly commend the support given to the fire marshal, the areas around education and fire prevention. I think they're very sorely needed and they are appropriate.

I am here with concern for one specific aspect of the bill, and I think you might have had speakers before me but I would like to put it in a very strong municipal perspective, and that is the whole issue of privatization of fire services. I received a very nice letter on April 2 from Robert Runciman commenting on some of the statements I had made about privatization at an earlier news conference and I'd like to quote a couple of sentences from his letter to me because I think this is the nub of the whole thing. He writes: "I want to stress to you that Bill 84 does not promote privatization. The bill does not encourage or discourage privatization of Ontario fire services." I think that's the whole thing, it does not discourage them, and I think it should.

What our fire services do, and I know you all know this, is not just put out fires, although that's a key and important ingredient. They also supply the services for medical emergencies, for emergency planning for most of the municipalities, and are very key and pivotal around roles of education and fire prevention. This is, in our opinion, not a role for anyone except those who are the most professional, the most accountable and the best trained. Privatization has a place within the public service but it has no place, I submit to you, in fire protection. It has no place where people's lives are at risk; it has no purpose where split-second timing means everything.

The municipal experience in Metropolitan Toronto is a very favourable one around fire prevention and around firefighters in general. Everywhere in Metropolitan Toronto, the borough of East York and the other five municipalities, we can and do provide four-minute service; that is, from the time the fire alarms go until the fire trucks arrive on the scene it's four minutes or less. That is in about 90% or 95% of all cases. This is very, very crucial not only because of how fast fires spread, but it is also very crucial in terms of emergency services, lifesaving services where people stop breathing, suffer heart attacks. It's essential that someone get there within four minutes or the people will be dead.

We also have in the borough of East York, I'm proud to say, the lowest loss from fire both in terms of life and in terms of property damage in all of Metropolitan Toronto. We have coordinated our efforts, as do all the municipalities, across municipal boundaries.

We have the expertise not only to put out fires but to know intimately the community that the firefighters serve, whether that be where the roads are -- and I don't have to speak to the Legislature of how many roads and how many addresses there are in Metropolitan Toronto; I think you've discovered that over the last few days -- but certainly our firefighters know all of them within the borough of East York and indeed all of those in the surrounding municipalities within a one-mile radius of our borders. They need to know them and they need to know exactly where they are. There's no chance to get a wrong street. You cannot take that. By the time you find the right street it will be too late.

They know the emergency planning and they know everything intimately about every building, about every street, about every residence, about every business in the borough of East York. This is an expertise that I believe would be sacrificed if we went out to the lowest bidder.

To allow or encourage privatization I believe would be disastrous, and yet to even have it in the legislation will be a carrot dangling for cash-strapped municipalities, not necessarily our own, but there are lots of them. There are 850 municipalities in Ontario, many of which are facing difficult economic times. As governments cut back, at the federal level to the provinces and the provinces to the regional or municipal levels, there is less and less money and people are desperate. Municipalities are desperate, politicians are desperate, trying to find ways to do with less or to do it cheaper. I am very fearful that they will choose the option of privatizing an essential service, a professional service that cannot afford one bit less than the maximum which is being given today.

I'd like to give you some experience, not related to fire, but what has happened in East York around privatization. Privatization is always used, and I have never heard for any other reason except to save money. If there's another one, please let me know what it is. In East York, we've experimented with privatization in three major areas in the last five years. The first one was for garbage pickup and half of the borough is done privately and half of it is done publicly. We have sent out to tender our entire parking enforcement program, our parking authority. Last but not least, we have put out to tender our monthly payment plan; that is, people can pay their taxes through a monthly payment plan but they pay them to a private company.

Our experience has not been a good one. We did it to save money, and in fact in the first and initial months we did save some money. But the experience taught us another thing: that in the first month, with garbage for example, whereas we would receive one or two complaints a year about garbage pickup with our own workers, we received 300 in the first month after we privatized the garbage service to half the borough. At the end of two years we're not getting as many complaints, but they still average five to six per month and we still average less than one per month for our own employees on that half of the borough.

1310

In terms of initial cost savings, yes, it was much cheaper to privatize all of these three services, but I have to tell you that today they are all more expensive than if we had left them in the public domain. Garbage is being picked up by our own employees at $1 less a tonne than we are paying for the contracted service from a private company. Our parking is costing us about $25,000 more a year than we could do it ourselves, and the monthly payment plan is costing us in the neighbourhood of $18,000 a year more than we could do it ourselves. You say, "Well, that's fine; it's only money," but that was the initial reason we got into it.

But with the myriad of other problems and the complaints we get, I'm worried about the fire department. We get complaints on all these problems, number one, because the contracted employees or companies are not familiar with East York. If the fire service is not familiar with our municipality, then we are going to see really disastrous consequences, similar to what happened with the ambulance services of Metropolitan Toronto where they couldn't find a street in Scarborough, it took them something like 28 minutes, and a man who had suffered a heart attack died. That's still pending before the courts. If you don't know the community, if you're contracted out, if your head office is somewhere else, it's very difficult to expect the employees to be there on time.

Poor equipment: The equipment that is being used by the facilities with which we have contracted out I would think is not as good as the equipment that is in the public domain, certainly not as good as the equipment that we use in the borough of East York. If that were to happen to the fire service, you're going to see old and antiquated equipment, equipment that can break down. In order to save money, they're not going to go with the state-of-the-art facilities, the state-of-the-art equipment that we have today. Certainly we pride ourselves on being on a regional net with all of the municipalities except for Toronto, using the same types of equipment that are usable between municipalities.

Training: I'm very nervous about the amount of training given. It takes thousands and thousands of hours of training, years in fact, for a person to go from being a trainee in the fire department in the borough of East York to become a first-class firefighter. I'm not sure that same rigorous standard is going to be applied to private concerns that are attempting to gain the market at the cheapest possible cost.

Last but not least is the commitment. Firefighters are committed to the borough of East York. They work in the borough of East York; many of them live in the borough of East York. One need only go to community picnics, to cultural or social events in and around our municipality. You will see the firefighters there. They are known by the people, they are trusted by the people and they deliver the very best of service to the people they serve. I am very, very worried that if this privatization is allowed or encouraged, or is even there on the books, that if it was taken up this commitment would be lost.

All of these things have been lost in our efforts to privatize other services, but the consequences of privatizing your fire service has to be the most horrendous. It has to be the most difficult to deal with and it should be one that, in my opinion, has to be avoided at all cost.

What if communities privatize? What if the new firefighters get lost? What if their equipment breaks down, as it does in many American institutions? What if the training is not up to standard? What if the commitment to the community is not there? It's one thing to privatize your garbage, it's another thing to privatize your fire department, and I would ask you to please remove this one section. The rest of it I'll leave to other speakers; I really don't have too many problems. But we cannot afford a fire department which is not in the public domain so I'm urging you to delete this section. I'm available, if there's time, for any other questions you might have.

Mr Ramsay: Thank you, Mayor Prue, for your presentation today. I guess I'd have to say "thank God" that when you did experiment with privatization you started with the monthly payment plan and parking and not a public safety and security service such as fire. I think you make the point very well that, while municipal politicians are obviously tempted, from pressures from taxpayers and the downloading from the provincial government, to find the very best way to deliver services to people, this is not the route.

I agree with you that, from the quote from Mr Runciman's letter saying that he is not encouraging privatization of fire departments, then I think we should have some sort of amendment in this act that would prevent municipalities from privatizing their fire service. I think that's the way to go and that's the sort of amendment I would bring forward. Thank you for that suggestion.

Mr Prue: I don't know that that was much of a question, but thank you.

The Chair: Sometimes they are rhetorical questions.

Mr Kormos: Mine is likely to be similar, sir. I appreciate your comments about the experience with privatization because there's going to be a veritable orgy of privatization going on in this province. I'm convinced of it.

Firefighters are targeted. We've got companies here now that are out there pounding the pavement. The door has been opened for them to buy up public water and sewage systems, British style. The experience in Britain, as you know, has been a disaster. I suppose it'll be compounded when, if privatized, for-profit corporate firefighters arrive at a fire scene and then try to tap into a hydrant that's owned by a private water supply company which trickles to a dry run. I guess it'll just compound the crisis that privatization of public services is going to create.

I appreciate your comments. I appreciate your frankness. I suppose it's not an easy thing to admit that the experiments at cost cutting in your community have not been as fruitful as it was argued they would be. I hope you restore those things to the public sector as soon as possible. Thank you kindly.

Mr Prue: We want that. The question is whether we would restore them. We are attempting to do so. Unfortunately we are tied into contracts, and as soon as we can get out of those contracts and bring it back into the public domain, we can save the taxpayers a lot of money.

Mr Ron Johnson: Thank you, your worship, for your presentation. You indicated you had some concerns with the section of the bill that would allow for privatization. To be honest with you, I'm not a supporter of the privatization of fire services. I think that would be a mistake, but I have to ask -- some would argue that the power for municipalities to do that now already exists -- what particular section of the bill are you referring to that would give power to municipalities to privatize?

Mr Prue: You're going to have to bear with me to find the exact section. I have a lot of notes here and I didn't include that, if you can just give me a second.

Mr Kormos: You know what section that is, Mr Johnson. It's the redefinition of "employer."

Mr Ron Johnson: No, that's --

Mr Kormos: Mayor Prue knows that too.

Mr Prue: I'm looking for the number.

Mr Ron Johnson: My point really is that the act does not really change much with respect to the privatization initiatives that municipalities already have --

Mr Prue: No. I think --

Mr Ron Johnson: -- as much as I agree with you.

Mr Prue: I preface my remark from a comment I received from Mr Runciman. He said, "The bill does not encourage or discourage," and my remarks are that the bill should discourage. That's what I'm saying. The bill should not open that up because municipalities, as the cash crunch comes, will take every effort to try to save money because they're going to have to. This is not an area where I think they should.

If they want to do it in garbage, if they want to do it in other things that are not life-threatening or life-supporting, then maybe that's where it has to be done. But to leave this open for fire or for emergency services, I think that's the wrong place for it to be included.

Mr Ron Johnson: I agree with you.

The Chair: Thank you, your worship, for taking time from your schedule to come before us.

Mr Prue: Delighted. Thank you for starting on time. That was amazing.

1320

CITY OF TORONTO

The Chair: Our next presentation will be the city of Toronto, Her Worship Barbara Hall, accompanied by fire chief Peter Ferguson, I believe. Welcome.

Ms Barbara Hall: Thank you very much. You all look very alert. It's a real pleasure to have this opportunity to speak with you all today. I'm pleased that our chief, who addressed you yesterday, Peter Ferguson, is with me, and I know that Mark Fitzsimmons, the president of the Toronto Fire Fighters' Association, will be addressing you later today.

I'm deeply concerned about the impact of Bill 84 on the future of the city of Toronto. It is the economic engine of the province and the most livable big city in North America, and we have a lot worth protecting. I believe that Bill 84 will make those things harder to protect.

We've invested carefully in making Toronto a healthy city. We've put a great deal of effort into maintaining good parks, quality health service and top-notch emergency services to protect the wellbeing of the citizens of Toronto.

Visitors express surprise at the high quality of life and the vibrancy of our city. Quality of life is an end in itself, but it's also a means to economic growth. We've found that a healthy city grows faster. That's why we make it a priority to keep our city safe and healthy.

As mayor of the city of Toronto, I am proud of our fire service. Toronto has one of the best fire departments in the country. Citizens want a fire service they can rely on. It affects their insurance rates, their peace of mind; it affects the kinds of businesses, workers and leaders you attract to a community. Toronto wants to maintain that high standard. We believe Bill 84 threatens that.

There are three areas where the municipality and I believe the public have particularly strong concerns. First, the issue of part-time firefighters: Bill 84 provides for that, but I believe part-time firefighters won't get the same kind of experience as full-time firefighters. Effective firefighting depends on extensive pre-fire planning and ongoing training exercises. It's hard to see how someone on part-time duties can participate as fully as a full-time firefighter. The public has responded with alarm to this proposal. They deserve the best fire protection they can get and have doubts about the ability of part-time firefighters to do the job.

Bill 84 specifically accommodates privatization, and in reference to the question that the Vice-Chair just put to the definition section of "employer," I know the government has assured us that privatizing fire departments has always been an option. As a municipal politician I have a particular perspective on that claim. Many things can be read into the Municipal Act.

In my years on council there have been many issues where one group of lawyers has told us that a proposed action contravenes the act at the same time that another group of lawyers has told us that the same proposal is permitted. There is a lot of room for interpretation, and that lack of clarity often makes a significant difference in how municipalities choose to behave. By specifically accommodating privatization for the first time, I believe you're greatly increasing the probability that municipalities will choose this option.

The question of call-backs: Firefighting in densely populated urban areas depends heavily on response time. Getting there fast makes all the difference. We're proud of the response times we've developed in Toronto: an average of four minutes. The reason we have that is because we have firefighters ready to roll, on duty day and night. Changing the call-back system enables municipalities to abandon that policy.

The new call-back system abandons the commitment to fully staffed firehalls. Bill 84 removes restrictions on the use of off-duty firefighters. That change will encourage some municipalities to employ skeleton crews in the firehalls and exploit the new call-back system to call in off-duty firefighters after an emergency occurs. You can't have a four-minute response time with that kind of system. We will face more damage, more injuries and a reduced sense of security.

That's why on February 24, 1997, Toronto city council passed a motion affirming our support for the firefighters of the city of Toronto and expressing concern with respect to Bill 84. Council asked that the provincial government be informed that we don't support any legislation that would lower standards or disrupt the firefighting system that Toronto relies on.

Council calls on the Solicitor General and the Legislative Assembly to amend Bill 84 to eliminate any aspects that would undermine fire safety. I'm here again today to urge you to follow that advice and amend the bill.

I'm aware that the government has said it's simply providing options to municipalities. The government has claimed repeatedly that this bill allows municipalities to choose the kind of firefighting system they need. It's all well and good for the province to assure the public that municipalities will make the right choices, but the province hasn't left us a real choice. The costs that have been downloaded on to municipalities strain our budgets to the breaking point. The unfunded mandates, like the mandatory fire education programs in this bill, add to that strain.

As the government nibbles away at the standards for fire services, they dangle a dangerous temptation in front of cash-strapped municipalities. "Cut here," the legislation implicitly suggests. "We've made it easy."

With the changes the province has proposed through amalgamation, it's hard to anticipate the shape of municipal government in Toronto. While I and many others may trust in the wisdom of future councils to do what is right for the city, trust is a poor substitute for certainty. Communities like certainty. Businesses depend upon it. The province has an opportunity to create certainty by setting clear standards for fire suppression, but that's not here in Bill 84.

Instead of setting clear standards that inspire public confidence, the province is weakening some of the few standards in place. By opening the door to privatization, part-time firefighters and unlimited call-backs, the province has backed away from any sense of fire safety standards.

I know the Solicitor General has indicated that the government will intervene in those circumstances where the fire suppression system is inadequate, but I can't help but wonder why the province isn't doing what it so obviously should do: set clear standards.

The government has promised that the fire marshal will step in if too many cuts are made. But how will this happen? Is the fire marshal, with his modest resources, really going to scrutinize every fire budget, staffing model and training program? What standards will he or she set? How bad can it get before he or she steps in?

Instead of protecting fire safety standards on a reactive basis, why won't the government take a proactive approach, set clear standards, fund municipalities appropriately for those standards and put the public's mind at ease?

If that's how I feel, in a large municipality with strong fire services, I can only imagine the sense of uncertainty that must be felt by a business owner or a parent in an unincorporated community that has no fire services at all.

As a mayor and a citizen, I would sleep a lot better at night knowing that Ontario had set clear standards for firefighting and made a commitment to fire safety.

If Bill 84 is to become the first-rate fire safety legislation it professes to be, significant amendments will have to be made. Don't permit privatization, don't permit part-time firefighters and maintain some limits on call-backs. At a minimum, the province has an obligation to maintain the fire safety standards that are in place today. I ask you, on behalf of the people of Toronto, to amend this bill accordingly.

1330

The Chair: Thank you, your worship. Each caucus only has one minute.

Mr Kormos: That doesn't give us a whole lot of time. I appreciate your comments, though, about how you as a mayor have received, over the course of time, conflicting opinions, for instance, about the Municipal Act. When you take a look at section 2 of this bill, you note that the requirement for a municipality is mandatory that it establish "public education with respect to fire safety and certain components of fire prevention," and that of course has been lauded by everybody involved, and then it appears to make other fire protection services, to wit fire suppression, by virtue of it not being in that subparagraph, less than mandatory.

Then the government will say, "Yes, but the fire marshal has the power to review the adequacy of fire protection services in general." But when you take a look at the final say-so, it's by order in council from the provincial government. If we've got a provincial government that doesn't give a tinker's dam about the quality of, in this instance, fire protection services, and far be it from me to speak for you --

The Chair: Thank you, Mr Kormos. Your one minute is up. We'll move to Ms Marland.

Ms Hall: I think when the need is clear --

The Chair: I'm sorry, your worship. Because of the strictures, it is impossible, and I'm trying to move along. I apologize for you not having the opportunity to answer it.

Mr Kormos: I was sure I left time for the mayor.

The Chair: I am not here to make discretionary choices, Mr Kormos, as you full well know.

Mrs Marland: I'd like to speak to you not only as an MPP but as a former city councillor in Mississauga, that great city, for seven years. I'm a little biased because I happen to think that Mississauga has the best firefighting department in Ontario.

Ms Hall: We're lucky that a lot of cities have really good ones.

Mrs Marland: You're talking about local options to municipalities. As mayor, I know you would only make the best choices in those options on behalf of your residents, and so would your councillors. You wouldn't choose, in my opinion, based on my experience, anything that would put your people at risk. You wouldn't do it now and you won't do it after Bill 84. With the fact that you will have enhanced choices after the passage of this bill, I need to ask you, would your choices be any different in terms of priorities of human safety and security?

The Chair: I'm sorry, Ms Marland; there is not the time for the answer to be given.

Mr Ramsay: Thank you for your presentation, Mayor Hall, and I will give you an opportunity to answer my question. It's very simple. I appreciated your pointing out something that not many people have. On page 7 you're referring to some of the downloading of this government, but specifically in this bill, the unfunded mandate on the education programs. I was just going to ask you if you thought this was a commitment being broken by Mike Harris, the Premier, as he promised not to do that to municipalities if he got elected.

Ms Hall: We're certainly concerned about what we see as downloading in a number of areas. That's why I'm so concerned about the kinds of choices being left open to people. There are some things that are so central that they need to be guaranteed, need to be given some certainty, and I would agree that they also need to be given funding adequate to maintain them. We need the certainty in the legislation and we need the funding to allow those things to be delivered.

The Chair: Thank you, your worship, for your presentation here today.

JACKIE CUTMORE

The Chair: Our next presentation is from Jackie Cutmore.

Mrs Jackie Cutmore: Can I wait till Gary Carr, my MPP, comes back?

The Chair: No. Unfortunately, I don't know where Gary is, but that is an impossibility.

Interjection: I'll go get him.

Mrs Cutmore: Someone's going to get him. I told him he'd better get back.

Interjection.

Mr Kormos: She can if I ask the Chair to call for a quorum.

Mrs Cutmore: Would you, please? That would be great.

Mr Kormos: Sure.

The Chair: Is that a quorum call?

Mr Kormos: You bet your boots it is.

The Chair: We'll recess for five minutes.

The committee recessed from 1336 to 1340.

The Chair: I call the meeting back to order. Mrs Jackie Cutmore will be making a presentation and has 15 minutes. Please proceed.

Mrs Cutmore: I'd like to start my comments by saying that it is a privilege and an honour to follow the mayor of Toronto, Barbara Hall. I am in the position of wishing that the mayor of Oakville and the chief of Oakville were sitting here in her stead saying those remarks, which I know they won't. However, I would gladly add those comments to my remarks because I would back each and every one of them.

Mr Chairman, members of the committee, ladies and gentlemen, and especially you, Gary Carr, my MPP in Oakville, I want to thank you for the opportunity to speak today. I truly hope I can emphasize some areas of concern, enough to raise reasonable doubt. Although I do not ask you to act like a jury, I do ask you to carefully take my comments into consideration.

The Honourable Robert W. Runciman recently stated that the proposed Fire Protection and Prevention Act is the strongest legislation of its kind in Canada. He further states that for the first time in 50 years the issues surrounding fire services are finally being dealt with, and he finalized his comment by saying that this demonstrated this government's commitment to safer Ontario communities.

Undoubtedly, there are some excellent recommendations in this legislation, but I can tell you that I am really upset that it took the government 50 years to enact changes that were related to safety. I give credit to the current government for finally doing this, but I resent the implication that this legislation strives to improve safety when in fact this is not the case. I also want to mention here that this government had an opportunity to do this much earlier than the 50-year time span. That, ladies and gentlemen, is why I stand here before you today.

I am a former councillor of the town of Oakville, I am the mother of a firefighter and, last but not least and most of all, I have been a taxpayer and resident of Oakville since 1966, and that's in Ontario. There is only one issue I want to talk to you about today. It is safety: safety for the public, safety for the firefighters and safety for the community.

I had been following the media and discussions on this legislation but it wasn't until I heard Chief Peter Ferguson's presentation to Toronto city council that I acted. Chief Ferguson and the president of the Toronto Fire Fighters' Association received the unanimous support of Mayor Barbara Hall and a motion was passed declaring the city's opposition to any lowering of standards for firefighters.

That very morning, on February 18, I called Harry Henderson from the town of Oakville and asked for all pertinent information. I also asked if this had been discussed at town council as yet, and it had not. Peter Wagland called and had a package available for me to pick up. I also called Gary Carr's office asking for anything and everything to do about this legislation that would affect any vote he would make. I also asked the firefighters for information and received it.

There are many areas where I feel we can tighten controls and reduce spending, but there are no areas that I would agree to when it comes to safety.

The last time I stood before Oakville town council with the same concern regarding safety was in the mid-1970s when there was a proposal to remove 17 crossing guards in front of schools and replace them with crosswalks. I cited as my main issue that crosswalks gave a false sense of security. On the very first day a crosswalk was placed in the city of Toronto, a person was killed. I am happy to tell you that the council of the day did not wish to compromise the safety of the students on a recommendation before them and the motion was defeated.

I would like to address the specific areas I feel are of concern. I first of all want to say that I am upset about how a number of statements in the backgrounders to the legislation are worded. It is like Oakville or no other municipality ever took fire prevention and fire protection seriously.

I am concerned that over 30 coroners' juries have called for better integration of services and more public education to increase fire safety, but I am really concerned about why it wasn't after three or four or seven or eight. Why did we wait for 30?

We all know that putting out fires is the most visible part of a fire department's responsibilities, and are there any among you who do not know that prevention is the most effective way of reducing loss of life and property?

I am concerned about the promotion of part-time and/or volunteer firefighters. A municipality in the GTA which utilizes volunteer firefighters cites in an 18-month period over 70 incidents where volunteers did not respond when notified or were in excess of 10 minutes arriving at the station. I am also concerned when the president of the volunteer Fire Fighters Association of Ontario sent a letter to his members urging support of Bill 84 with the exception of part IX, which talks about labour relations and firefighter employment.

There are concerns on other issues such as the speed of response times and the effectiveness of firefighters' teamwork.

This legislation has the ability to:

Allow municipalities to provide fewer firefighters for emergencies: An Ohio State University study showed that understaffing the firefighting team leads to a 24% increase in fires that spread and a 46% increase in firefighter injuries. The Ontario fire marshal has concluded that a three-person crew has very limited firefighting capabilities. Among the tasks a three-person crew can't handle are attacking a fire inside a house, conducting rescue operations inside a house and establishing a water supply from a hydrant in a reasonable time.

I'll move on in case I don't have enough time.

Jeopardize teamwork in an emergency: Understaffing fire halls and emergency vehicles means that firefighters are scrambling in at different times. It's hard to coordinate a team when the number of players keeps changing. Adding part-timers with less training and experience makes it harder to function as a team because you can't be sure how the guy next to you is going to react and if it's the way you expect. What would you think of a pro football team that put only six players on the field and then added amateur athletes occasionally as the game went on? How many games do you think they would win?

Speed and response time: 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.

Privatization of all or part of the fire service: A private company took over 20 minutes to arrive at the scene of a house fire. The house burned to the ground. A private company then billed the homeowner for $13,000 for equipment and services that the company itself had no record of sending to the scene. When confronted with the fact, as a private company, Mr Edwards said: "I would hope that a private company is not doing that. But I can't say that it didn't happen inadvertently." This was quoted in the Phoenix Gazette in August 1987. I've given another couple of samples there for you to read as well.

Automatic aid is also one of the concerns I have. This is already done in most municipalities, and there's usually a mutual reciprocal arrangement, but there is a fear and caution advised about staffing.

These are just a few of my concerns. In the information I received from the firefighters' association they used the statement, "Speed, experience and teamwork make the difference." I have attached their comments as well as a very thought-provoking picture. You'll notice in your package that I have shown this picture that they have on their campaign literature. I might add that when I look at this picture I think of my grandchildren and my son, the firefighter. I even think about Oklahoma. No, I don't think about statistics and I don't think about the report; I think about the picture that was in the media of the firefighter holding that child, limp and actually quite dead; a really sad situation.

I realize that I don't have the time to make a proper presentation, but I would also like to say this is not legislation that recognizes the differences in communities, as it would have you believe. Oakville is a unique municipality with a small-town atmosphere and a city population. We are flanked by a refinery on the east and a refinery on the west. There are large industrial companies like Ford in the east, as well as St Lawrence Cement.

1350

This is not legislation that takes the aging population into consideration. We, like many municipalities, have addressed this issue and have made provision for an aging population. Both the region of Halton and the Halton District Health Council have done extensive studies in this area.

This is not legislation that takes high-density town house developments into consideration. There is a need to recognize the higher or greater risk in accommodating this form of housing.

This is not legislation that recognizes that a catastrophe on the QEW paralyses Oakville totally, for citizens, passersby and especially fire protection. This is of paramount concern.

This is not legislation that takes into consideration the value of morale as a positive means to productivity.

I've added also in here some excellent pages of information that I have just photocopied from the Ontario Professional Fire Fighters Association. Without reading it, I'll just pass it on.

Finally, this is not legislation that reduces the risk for citizens in a fire, but rather compromises the safety of me and my family, who I am proud to say are all homeowners in Oakville.

Finally, I would ask you to think of the people you serve. If there is any reasonable doubt about the points I have raised, you must amend your presentation for the hearings and withdraw your support until such issues are addressed and/or hopefully deleted if they aren't.

I respectfully ask this committee to put forward a motion that would not allow for the lowering of standards for firefighting or disrupt the firefighting service for this town -- I'm sorry; as you can see, I made this presentation to my town council last night, and I'd ask you to refer to your own committee and this presentation -- and also to consider requesting amendments that would eliminate any aspect of the bill that could in the town of Oakville.

I'd like to just briefly talk about the town of Oakville council meeting that occurred last night. It's really important for all of you sitting around this table to note that if I, as a citizen who had only been involved since February 18, after following a little bit of media here and there and some discussion that I had been made aware of, attended a council meeting that had actually been deferred to last night from the week before -- and I can tell you that if there had been more time, I strongly believe the town of Oakville would have defeated its support for this Bill 84.

I feel strongly that there were comments related to Chief Ferguson's positive outlook in his recommendation to the city of Toronto wondering why two chiefs have such differing opinions of what is called safety of their municipalities and what their present status is. One councillor -- and I guess being a former councillor and you being politicians as well might understand -- said: "I can easily go along with Peter Ferguson's remarks. However, there's been a lot of time spent on this discussion and I'll vote for the motion on the floor." So I think we would have had that one if we'd had a little more time.

I would close by saying, Mr Runciman, that the right thing done wrong is wrong. Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you, Mrs Cutmore. Your time has elapsed. Thank you very much for your presentation.

Mrs Cutmore: I appreciate the opportunity.

BILL WRETHAM

The Chair: Our next presentation will be made by Bill Wretham. Welcome, Mr Wretham.

Mr Bill Wretham: I am the former fire chief of the city of Scarborough. I served the municipality as a firefighter in excess of 41 years, starting as a volunteer in 1943, then as a full-time firefighter in 1950, and rising through the ranks to become the deputy chief in 1968 for eight years and the fire chief in 1976, a position held for 11 years and five months until my retirement in 1988. I was also an executive member of the Ontario Association of Fire Chiefs from 1975 to 1983, the last two years as their president.

I appreciate the opportunity to appear before this committee. I guess I'm in the enviable position of not representing an association. I'm not representing a municipality, I'm not representing a high-pressure lobby group, nor do I have boxes of petitions or a threatening brief, but I do have years of experience trying to manage a fire department under the still existing legislation, the Fire Departments Act.

I appreciate that Bill 84 encompasses many facets of the fire legislation for this province, but I would like to especially address part IX, section 58 of the bill, dealing with managers, which is intended to provide a meaningful degree of management within the fire department.

The present legislation, providing for only the chief and the deputy to be the sole management segment of today's multifaceted municipal fire department, is absolutely ludicrous and can only lead to turmoil or else to a degree of management as permitted by the local firefighters' association.

Prior to my leaving the fire service as the fire chief for the city of Scarborough, I'm confident that no other fire chief or municipality had had more experience or difficulty in attempting to manage a fire department of approximately 475 firefighters with just two officers excluded from the bargaining unit. I can assure you it is not a very comfortable or enviable position to be in and I have much admiration for fire chiefs today who are willing to accept this challenge and work under such adverse conditions, all of which are imposed by the abusive use of the Fire Departments Act.

When the Fire Departments Act was originally enacted years ago, it was obviously passed and administered with a spirit of good intent, but today the fire services in many municipalities are stagnated by those locals of the fire associations that insist on exercising the literal interpretation of the present-day act regardless of the consequences to the organization and good management of their department.

I'm certainly aware there may be a few fire chiefs who do not agree with my view on the need for further management positions out of the bargaining unit. Indeed some may well appear before this committee -- and some have -- and say they do not and did not have a problem. To them I can only say congratulations and good luck, because as long as the existing legislation is in place, it could be just a matter of time before your department could experience similar management difficulties.

It is only fair to acknowledge that certainly not all locals actively restrict the officers in the fire department from performing in a responsible management manner, and instead prefer to have an efficient management concept to the advantage of all, and I commend them for that. But we must bear in mind that the firefighter associations believe in local autonomy and have little or no apparent control over the actions taken by the individual local, even when these actions or behaviours seem to be to the general detriment of the image of the fire service or even the beliefs of the associations and other locals.

Picture if you will where only the fire chief and deputy chief of the fire department can administer any form of discipline, even a minor reprimand to a member of the ranks, while we have any number of officer ranks in between: acting deputy chief, platoon chief, district chief, captains or whatever. Now these officers are not permitted to even bear witness to the infraction because they must not knowingly wrong a brother. If they do and it results in an arbitration, then the lawyer for the union may declare the officer, who of course is in the same bargaining unit as the accused, as being a hostile witness. This does happen.

The position taken by officers within the bargaining unit has many conflicting effects. On the one hand, they can take a management stand and risk the position of being under constant, considerable badgering and intimidation from the local executive, or they can succumb, and sometimes conveniently, to the pressure and not act in an appropriate supervisory role. Indeed, I've seen some fine, conscientious officers take early retirement rather than compromise their ethics to uphold their management responsibilities.

1400

There is little doubt that an officer would be much more efficient and effective to carry out his or her responsibilities if they were unencumbered by the oath of brotherhood which appears at times in many cases to supersede their obligation to the employer.

As early as 1974 the then borough of Scarborough fire chief was admonished by the local association for permitting an acting deputy chief to issue directives and insisted that in the future all directives would only come from the chief or deputy. Bear in mind that the acting deputy chief's responsibility was to supervise the function of the firefighting and mechanical divisions of the fire department. That same year, the fire chief and council received correspondence from the local that district chiefs were not to be consulted or even assist management in the formation of any policy or directives. Of course I received a similar letter in 1977.

In another instance, the assistant deputy chief was confronted directly by the local association executive who demanded to know the reason he was in his office at fire department headquarters one evening after what they thought should be his regular hours -- the assistant deputy chief. They even pursued this with vigour to a labour-management committee. The local insisted he was exceeding his work hours and wanted to know what he was working on. They were certainly more than reluctant to accept his explanation that he was only working on his youth bowling league activities in the quiet of an office. The point is, of course, surely no officer, regardless of rank, should have to submit to this form of indignity and harassment.

Even the Occupational Health and Safety Act could not escape the weaknesses imposed by the infamous Fire Departments Act. The Occupational Health and Safety Act required that a safety committee be regularly convened consisting of supervisors and workers. The act defined a supervisor as "a person who has charge of a workplace or authority over a worker." According to the association local, only the chief and deputy chief qualified as supervisors as only they were not in the bargaining unit.

The worker side of the committee would of course be represented by who else but the union members, and the only time that officers, from the acting deputy chief down to captains, inclusive, would be allowed to appear would be at the discretion or permission of the union executive. We thought that at the very least at that time the director of training would obviously be a welcome and valuable member of the committee because he taught safety by the very nature of his job, but that was not to be.

If you really want an unrealistic scenario, picture the following: Under the present Fire Departments Act, combined with the frailties of a promotional system imposed on a municipality by an arbitrator, the president or executive member of a very militant local is placed in a position of acting in a senior officer's rank and he retains the position of union executive. Wouldn't that lead to an obvious conflict of interest and a possible nightmare for the fire department? Impossible? Absolutely not. It's happening.

To further illustrate the restrictions placed on the department and its officers to operate efficiently is the local's interpretation of the clause contained in the Fire Departments Act, "The hours off duty of full-time firefighters shall be free from fire department duties or calls." Obviously this meant from all fire calls.

One morning a district chief had a phone call placed to a firefighter at his home to advise him not to report to his regular station, but to report to another station for someone who had phoned in sick. We received a written grievance. The grievance stated that the firefighter objected to being phoned at home because it violated the Fire Departments Act. He also wanted an apology from the district chief involved, and the local, of course, supported the grievance. It certainly illustrates the local's intent to hamper efficient operations.

In summary, the problem with the existing act is perhaps best described as follows: In 1987, after a comprehensive review of the Scarborough fire department, the supervisor of the Fire Underwriters Survey, which is financed by the Insurance Bureau of Canada, stated in his final review report, "The management problems result from restraints that appear to be imposed, in large part, by labour arbitration rulings based on the firefighters' collective agreement, and an outdated, unsuitable Fire Departments Act."

Even arbitrators who have lectured at the management courses of the Ontario Fire College have referred to the Fire Departments Act as antiquated and archaic.

Changes to this act have been pursued by many municipal organizations, with the first really serious government consideration occurring in 1981 when the Honourable Roy McMurtry initiated a committee to review necessary changes. That resulted in four serious drafts being distributed between 1982 and 1984, and I believe in 1985 a fifth discussion paper was issued, all of which were vehemently opposed by the firefighters' associations. They liked the status quo, and why wouldn't they?

Unfortunately, with the frequent changes in the office of the Solicitor General and the changes in government, another 12 years have passed and this province is still saddled with the restrictive legislation. Surely fire departments deserve better. Surely municipalities deserve better. At least the proposed legislation would provide an increase in the degree of management proportional to the size of the department.

In closing, I would urge members of this committee to look favourably upon this section of Bill 84. I commend the Solicitor General for taking this very positive, progressive and indeed courageous step.

The Chair: I thank you for your presentation, sir. Basically, we've used up all the time. There's no meaningful time to allot to the caucuses and I therefore thank you again.

CANADIAN ASSOCIATION OF RETIRED PERSONS

The Chair: Our next presentation will be for the Canadian Association of Retired Persons, Shirley Yee and Ian Downie. Make yourself comfortable.

Ms Shirley Yee: Good afternoon. My name is Shirley Yee. I'm the director of public relations for the Canadian Association of Retired Persons, and my colleague Mr Ian Downie, who has had extensive experience working with seniors, is a volunteer with our association. He is also here representing CARP. We are here today on behalf of the president of our organization, Mrs Lillian Morgenthau. She is unable to be here because she is meeting with the Minister of Finance, but she sends her greetings.

I want to thank the committee for allowing us to make this presentation. I'd like to give you a very brief background on who we are. The Canadian Association of Retired Persons is the largest national organization of mature Canadians. We have 285,000 members across Canada and 190,000 members in Ontario who are 50 years of age plus, retired or not. We receive no funding from any level of government, ensuring our independence and neutrality. Our mandate is to foster, promote and advance the concerns of mature Canadians, and indeed of all Canadians and Ontarians, regardless of age.

CARP's position on Bill 84: Our members are deeply opposed to Bill 84. Seniors in general are extremely fearful of the implications raised by sections of this bill for a number of reasons and I'd like to briefly go over that. The reasons for CARP's concerns are as follows, and I think there have been some references made previously to these concerns.

1410

Seniors are especially vulnerable to fires. According to a recent article in the Ontario Fire Service Messenger -- Mary Prencipe, "Exploring the Fire Problem Using Fire Loss Statistics," September-October 1996, pages 5 to 7 -- the largest number of the 1,300 people who died in fires between 1985 and 1995 were aged 65 and over, accounting for 24% of the victims. A higher percentage of these seniors were also physically disabled at the time of the fire, in comparison with the rest of the population, and it is the policy of this government to have frail seniors remain in their own homes and in their community as long as they can safely do so.

Accordingly, seniors have every good reason to be fearful of the impact of the measures proposed in Bill 84. We understand that the single largest number of calls to the firefighters' 1-800 number, when the association ran its public alert campaign in February 1997, were single, senior women who lived alone, reflecting awareness of their vulnerability. But the concern over the threat to the safety of the community posed by these measures is by no means found only among seniors, regardless of their gender, since 17% of the victims were under the age of 10.

As we understand Bill 84, it intends to enable municipalities to reduce expenditures and, we fear, the standards currently set for firefighting. This bill will allow municipalities to achieve what is euphemistically called "efficiencies" by the provincial government by adopting a number of counterproductive measures.

These measures include the following possibilities:

(1) The reduction of the number of firefighters currently available in firehouses on a 24-hour basis: Again, as has been previously noted, studies derived from the experience of firefighting across North America demonstrate that at least four firefighters are the minimum necessary on a vehicle arriving at a fire at first response to ensure maximum effectiveness.

(2) The hiring of more part-time firefighters, who will be less trained and experienced and will severely weaken the team concept that is essential for sound firefighting.

(3) The privatization of firefighting, which has had very mixed experience in the United States where it has been tried. Our understanding, from studies, is that privatization has proven most successful in wealthier communities like Scottsdale, Arizona, in which the municipal council established and enforced stringent fire codes for developers, especially for the home builders. We are concerned that only wealthy communities in Ontario may adopt such standards, if they have the political will to do so.

In fact, Bill 84 does not make sprinkler systems mandatory in seniors' nursing homes, despite many coroners' reports which request that they be made mandatory. Nor, by the way, does the revised Ontario building code, recently introduced by this government, make sprinkler systems mandatory for nursing homes, although seniors' groups had requested that this should be done. For the majority of us, the consequence of lowered standards can be very severe.

Moreover, 60% of the work of firefighters today is not directed only at fighting fires. Rather, firefighters deal with other emergencies, such as defibrillation, which is of vital importance to seniors, delivering babies, extractions from automobiles, and responding to various kinds of injuries. People call firefighters because they are aware that they provide a well-trained, experienced, highly efficient and especially fast service, reflected by their average response time of four to six minutes in an emergency call.

In conclusion, CARP affirms that the proposals in Bill 84 are misguided. They are aimed at fixing something that is not broken. In our opinion, the bill will enable municipalities to attempt to save money that will, unfortunately, prove costly to the public, including seniors, in the short run as well as in the long run. CARP is asking the members of this committee to look to the future on this issue, because as we have previously noted older adults are the single-largest group who die in fires.

As the author of the article in the Ontario Fire Service Messenger, cited earlier, noted, "Because this age group," that is, seniors, "is growing at roughly four times the rate of the general population, they will become a more significant component of our fire problem in the future." Based on the evidence of experience, we urge this committee to advise the government to scrap Bill 84.

Mr Ramsay: Thank you, Ms Yee, for your presentation. I was wondering, when on page 2 you note some of the changes this bill would allow, from your point of view why would the Harris government sort of tempt our municipalities to cheapen the fire services here and put people at risk? Why do you think this is happening? Because I, like you, agree that we've got to have absolute good fire services to protect people.

Ms Yee: I don't know why they would do this. That's one reason we are reacting towards this, though. We represent seniors, but as I was saying, we represent all Ontarians and Canadians. From what we've read, from some of the newspaper articles -- we're not trying to appear like experts -- what it comes across as is reducing expenditures. I don't know whether there's more to it than that or not, but that's what it seems like. What we're concerned about is, yes, we have to reduce deficits, but at what cost?

Mr Downie, would you like to add to that?

Mr Ian Downie: The cost, as long as it doesn't affect the population and affect the great job the firefighters are doing now, is acceptable.

Mr Ramsay: Because of course part of all the pressure this government is under is their promise of a 30% tax cut. We all like to pay less taxes, that's only human nature, but are you saying today that you believe that the seniors in Ontario would be willing to pay their taxes for good, first-rate public safety and security services provided by the government?

Mr Downie: Are they not doing so now?

Mr Ramsay: I believe they are and this is the concern of Bill 84. What we're seeing here is one of the tools in the big toolbox that came down with Bill 26 to allow the municipalities, which are under a squeeze from this government through all the downloading we've been reading about in the last little while, some room to cut corners. While I think all of us around this table want to see more cost-effective and efficient government, I would hope all of us in this room would never want to see that happen when it involves public safety and security.

Mr Downie: We agree that we wouldn't like to see that happen, yes.

Mr Ramsay: Good. Thank you very much.

Mr Kormos: Thank you, Ms Yee and Mr Downie. I come from down in the Niagara region, which is, I am told, the oldest population in all of Ontario and second only to Victoria, BC, in terms of all of Canada. We have the very unique demographics of that area -- and I'm contributing to that in my own right, that shift in mean age or median age, so I'm very sensitive to what you have to say. I don't think you were here this morning, but over the course of the day we've heard some really graphic and compelling arguments consistent with yours.

I used to be on a city council, before I got elected here. My sense is that the minimum standards are being reduced with the inclusion of utilization of part-time firefighters, whatever that means, and nobody has really talked about it yet, with the prospect of privatization, for-profit corporate fire services. I'm all too familiar with the proposition where the minimum becomes the maximum, because that's almost the nature of the beast. Down where I come from, and I know it has happened across the province, firefighters themselves have fought for standards for what they've called minimum staffing, your proposition of a minimum four firefighters per vehicle. I recall the city digging its heels in, saying basically, "No way, José," and forcing it to arbitration. Sadly, in the instance of the Welland firefighters, they weren't successful at arbitration.

I hear the arguments coming from some people here saying: "No city council would ever do it. No city council would ever descend to those new and lower minimum standards." I say, "Horsefeathers," because been there, done that. I think that's almost the very nature of the beast, especially now that city councils are getting whacked. This government keeps talking about being fair, so sometimes we say: "You're always whacking these people with fairness. You're going to beat the hell out of them with fairness." But the municipalities are being hit hard with downloading, and I'm inclined to agree with you that these new lower standards are going to become the maximum for a whole lot of communities as the economic pressures are there.

I'm with you. I just know too many old folks -- and we saw some of the stats. Remember, folks? We saw some of the stats the first day from the fire marshal about deaths of people over 60, and they're the very innocuous sort of things: cooking accidents, accidents with stoves, accidents smoking. So yes, we're talking about perhaps a higher-risk population and one that's going to be ill served by these changes.

Thanks for coming. Gosh, I really appreciate it and I know the folks in Niagara do.

Mr Downie: Thank you so much for your words.

Mr Carr: Thank you very much for your presentation. As you know, probably having followed some of the debate, the areas of concern relate to part IX, the labour portion. The rest of it, I wouldn't say everybody, but there is fair public support for it. I think even Mr Ramsay said that the rest of the bill he likes, take out part IX and he would be willing to support it, and you talked about some of the sections in IX.

Are you supportive of some of the provisions that are outside of the part dealing with labour that give stronger powers to the fire marshal in the rest of the bill? Are you supportive of any of those measures that have been brought forward?

Ms Yee: I think mainly today we weren't looking at -- we are supportive of the measures that provide, I think like Mr Downie was saying, safe fire prevention. Any of those are fine. But again, that has to meet those certain standards that Mr Kormos was talking about. So when it gets into the speed and efficiency, gets into the IV to VI, you know, fire prevention, all those, as long as it reaches the minimum, then we're supportive of that, and that's basically what we were dealing with today. I'd be a little bit reticent about getting into other parts of the bill right now, because we really focused on this for this particular hearing.

Mr Carr: Thank you very much. Good luck to you.

The Chair: Thank you very much for your presentation here today.

Ms Yee: You're welcome.

1420

SUSAN AND PETER NERO

The Chair: Our next presentation is Susan Saganski-Nero and Peter Nero. Welcome. Please proceed.

Mrs Susan Nero: Thank you very much. My name is Susan Nero; Saganski is my maiden name. This is my husband.

Mr Peter Nero: I'm Peter Nero.

Mrs Nero: We are residents of East York.

Honourable members, ladies and gentlemen, thank you for giving us the opportunity to speak to you today on a matter of great importance, Bill 84.

We live our lives oblivious to the tragedies that could harm us or our families. Until we're faced with a situation, one doesn't give much thought day to day to the operations of a fire department, a police station or a hospital emergency room. Many of us don't get up every morning and say, "I wonder if everyone showed up for their shift at the firehall this morning." It's a reality. We all get so busy in our own lives and we do not stop to think about the essential services in our community until we have need for those services.

Years ago the fire department fought fires. That was their raison d'être. A fire broke out and the fire department was summoned. Traffic accidents and medical emergency calls were not part of the firefighter's duties. Today, over 60% of emergency calls in a firehall are non-fire-related emergencies, and they include auto extrications, medical emergencies, defibrillations, high-angle rescues, hazardous materials spills, icewater rescues, gas leaks and explosions, broken power lines and confined space entries. It currently takes a full-time professional firefighter four years to gain the skills and experience needed to be a first-class firefighter ready for any emergency.

As a taxpayer, I have an expectation that should I be in a car accident or should my house catch fire or my dinner guest suffer a heart attack, with one quick call to 911, a fully qualified team will arrive to my aid within minutes.

Bill 84 threatens to take away that feeling of security. Cutbacks to such a vital system not only put myself, my family, my friends and yours in danger, it takes a fundamental right to feel safe away from me. Calling in firefighters on an as-needed emergency basis is not the answer. I, as a victim, would want to know that the team responding to my call is experienced and professional.

The success of a team is predicated on each team member being in sync to get the job done and save lives. If I were in that emergency, I would not want someone on the team who hadn't worked enough shifts to gain the appropriate experience. I would expect a knowledgeable team of firefighters to arrive who would not fall apart under the extreme pressure of the immediate situation.

The government insists that part-timers would be as well trained as full-timers. However, if those part-timers are not on the job often enough, they wouldn't gain the valuable experience that only real emergencies could teach them. If they weren't in the firehall as often, they couldn't receive the benefits of continuous training and equipment maintenance.

Mr Nero: Bill 84 will turn firefighters into managers. Are they there to push paper or to save lives? Why have so many managers? They are there to provide emergency help to the community, not be bureaucrats. "All hands on deck" should be the way the system stays.

Imposing a management level will separate the team. If the fire captain becomes a manager, would they still be on the team going out to fight fires? Surely the thought of the most experienced person on the team being left behind and not able to coordinate their activities is absurd.

Section 43(10) states, "The fire chief may call in off-duty firefighters if, as a result of a major emergency, the fire department needs the services of more firefighters than are on duty." This wording could lead to a fire department being understaffed by part-time workers, with the extra firefighters being called in to meet any undefined major emergency. Rather than a staff of full-time firefighters who could immediately deal with a larger emergency, departments could be left to rely on the ability of the off-duty staff to arrive in time to effectively deal with the emergency.

As well, the cost of calling in these off-duty personnel should be considered. I would expect that any labour agreement would specify higher wages being paid for firefighters called in while off duty. This cost should be weighed against the cost of employing a department of full-time regular firefighters.

I would also not want to wait for part-timers to arrive should an emergency occur. In an emergency every second counts. There are no second chances. We have to ensure that the system works well the first time. If it doesn't, people could die. The bill in its current form does not even set minimum standards for response times, which could lead to a greater loss of life and property. Understaffing firehalls and emergency vehicles means that firefighters would always be scrambling at different times, and it would be very hard to coordinate a team when the number of players keeps changing.

Section 41(1) defines an employer as "a municipality, person or organization that employs firefighters." This opens the door to privatization, and what would be the end result? Could individuals contract out to private firms for their emergency needs? Would municipalities eventually abandon fire departments altogether and leave citizens to deal with companies operating solely to turn a profit?

Mrs Nero: Would private firms have the community involvement that full-time firefighters currently practise? Every fire department in the province currently selects a charity or charities to support in their local community, such as the food banks, children's aid and muscular dystrophy. They have a strong sense of duty to their community, and this sense of commitment comes from an organization that has pride in its profession. Disrupting the fire service organization as it stands would disrupt this sense of pride and community involvement. Once again, we would all lose.

Firefighters also play a major role in fire education, particularly in the school system. Fire safety training starts at a very early age. We cannot jeopardize this valuable educational process for our children. Cutbacks in the fire department and replacement with part-time workers may destroy much of the great work that has been done so far.

Bill 84 should be addressing some of the major safety recommendations outlined by dozens of panels and coroner's juries, which it currently isn't doing. If the government went through all of the expense of setting up these panels and juries, why aren't they listening?

The recommendations put forward were all to improve the public's safety. Even though the cost of fire prevention is rising, the government is not providing the adequate funds to run it. Municipalities may be forced into a situation where they have no choice but to cut back the emergency response to cover the shortfall. Is that what we as taxpayers expect? I think not.

Amalgamation, privatization or reorganization could reduce the standards of firefighting in my community. This new fire department wouldn't be bound to meet the standards currently negotiated. That in turn would create a threat of understaffing, lower levels of training and experience, and a greater risk to the general public.

As a citizen of my community, I expect the fire department to respond quickly in fully staffed vehicles and with effective teamwork. This is the only manner to successfully deal with the next emergency. Bill 84, as it reads right now, leads to ultimate disaster. For the safety of our families, friends and neighbours, we strongly urge the government to rethink its position on fire safety and amend Bill 84.

1430

Mr Kormos: Thank you kindly. It's remarkable. During the course of today we've been hearing from just plain folks. It's not been firefighting associations and so on. We had some doctors here from Wellesley Hospital, one of the hospitals that the government's going to be shutting down, but doctors who had expertise in burn treatment, again opposed to Bill 84.

You talk about the private, for-profit firefighting services. I read a report that Rural/Metro, one of the operators, has a history of gaffes and tragedies as a result of their inability to fight fires down in the Phoenix area. But they met with the CAO, we're told, of the city of Waterloo, and among other things proposed that one of their approaches would be to impose 66-hour work weeks. That's how they make the profit, right? And undoubtedly a firefighter paid at an extremely low wage. Can you imagine being the person in crisis and having that low-paid so-called firefighter showing up at your house, in blazes, on the 65th hour of his 66-hour week? That would just be so tragic, so sad.

You folks have an insight that I wish the government would become a little more sensitive to, because as residents of East York, whether you're tenants or property owners, you pay taxes, one way or the other. Part of this is all about when the government's got to borrow $22 billion over its term to help finance their tax break. They've got to borrow that much and add to the debt, but the rest of it they've got to get by cutting back on the transfer payments to municipalities. Could the government have that tax break back if only they would leave things like firefighting services alone and maintain the quality of them? Would you be happy that they kept that tax break?

Mrs Nero: Absolutely.

Mr Nero: Yes, we would.

Mrs Nero: Yes. I think for the amount of taxes that we pay, the expectation is always there that essential services in the community will be there when we need them. So, for sure.

Mr Ron Johnson: I thank both of you for your presentation. I heard two really significant concerns that you had, number one being privatization, and I want to tell you both that I agree with our concerns with respect to that.

The second was the implementation of part-time firefighters. I had an opportunity just before we came back after the lunch recess to speak to Bruce Carpenter, who's head of one of the associations and a couple of other reps from firefighters, their concern really being that part-timers would be actually riding on the trucks with them to fire scenes.

My question to you is this: Given that we are now putting in place mandatory fire prevention and community education programs, how do you feel about having, perhaps in a smaller community, somebody part-time doing that in the community? This bill would allow that. Somebody who's going to be providing education programs to a community, perhaps a smaller community, only needs to do it part-time. How do you feel about a part-time person being used for that?

Mr Nero: I would doubt, say, for children, impressionable younger children, that a person who is devoted specifically to that task would carry the weight that a full-time firefighter would who goes out to fight the fires.

Mrs Nero: It's a credibility issue to a certain degree. If that part-timer hasn't had the experience or the years of commitment to fire service, will the part-timer be able to relay experiences from the heart and be able to tell the children exactly how they should be dealing with fire education? I think it's all part and parcel of the whole process.

Mr Ron Johnson: I appreciate the input.

Mr Kormos: We're not talking about Wal-Mart here.

Mr Ramsay: I think I'd forgo my questions to Ron Johnson. He's doing a great job for me here. I'd let him continue on that line of questioning.

I want to thank you very much, though, for your presentation. What I think is very interesting is that when you talk about the team approach, how important the teamwork is, a previous presenter gave the analogy of a football team. Could you imagine running a football team with six players on the field and then, when needed, you brought in some part-timers? I think that's a very sound analogy, that the way the game is played, for safety and security and for the job to be done properly, it's important to have the full team in place. That's what this is about.

We've developed a system where we've got a full team in place, and through that we've got the highest firefighting standards in the world in this province, and we should all be proud of that. But because of the cost-cutting pressures, this government is going to put pressure on that and we're going to dilute those standards. I, for one, won't stand for that and I'm glad you've come today also to defend that, because we should be proud of those standards, that we live in a great place like Ontario and we can depend on our firefighting departments to be there when needed.

The Chair: Thank you very much for your presentation here today.

SHERRY SENIS ALLIANCE OF SENIORS TO PROTECT CANADA'S SOCIAL PROGRAMS

The Chair: Our next presenter is, Sherry Senis, a councillor of the town of Pickering. She will be accompanied by Jim Buller, who will make a presentation on behalf of the Alliance of Seniors to Protect Canada's Social Programs. Welcome. We have only allotted 15 minutes, so in view of your two presentations, you might have to hurry them up a bit because you will only get 15 minutes. Please proceed.

Mrs Sherry Senis: Good afternoon. My name is Sherry Senis and I'm a local councillor with the town of Pickering. I am here to speak today on my constituents' behalf. I also have with me Jim Buller, who will be speaking on behalf of the seniors at my conclusion.

I would like to thank the committee for giving us the opportunity to speak out in opposition of a section of Bill 84, and I'd also like to thank our local MPP for being in attendance today to hear what we have to say.

In a recent survey done by Metroland, specifically the News Advertiser, where the paper sought out reader opinions on the community services supplied by government, in Pickering at the top of the list was the fire department, where 93.3% of the readers judged it to be good or excellent. With this high acceptance level, does it make sense to tinker with something if it ain't broke?

Specifically, the areas we oppose are replacing full-time firefighters with part-time staff, reducing the number of firefighters and privatizing of service. I would like to address each issue separately.

Replacing full-time firefighters with part-time staff or volunteers will jeopardize the public safety of the residents of Pickering, as the part-timers have less training and experience. It takes a professional firefighter at least four years, working full-time, to acquire the skills needed to be ready for any emergency. You just don't get that level of training and experience with someone who is firefighting on a part-time basis. The town of Pickering will have a lower standard of protection when an emergency hits, not to mention the safety of the fire crews whose lives must depend on this less-experienced staff. Imagine the thought of part-time doctors. We wouldn't even entertain the thought for a second. They are professionals who save lives. So are firefighters. Part-timers are just not acceptable.

Reducing the number of firefighters further increases the risk of death to the public and firefighters alike. In such a labour-intensive, physically demanding job, this recommendation should not be an option to look for cost-cutting measures to make a more attractive bottom line in a budget. It is one thing when our garbage isn't picked up or the road doesn't get plowed after a snowstorm; however, it is absolutely unacceptable to have any member of the public or, God forbid, any child, trapped in a burning building for any length of time.

Privatization is the most frightening prospect of all. In my mind, the fire department and police department should never, ever be contracted out to a private company. Too much emphasis would be placed on profit and not enough on lifesaving. I don't care how altruistic the company would say they would be.

As a politician, we are dealing with a similar situation with the province, faced with possible amalgamation of our towns. The province is saying, "Consolidate; be more accountable and efficient." I can't argue with that. I urge the firefighters of the different fire departments to insist on getting involved in the budget process of your municipalities. Who better knows where cost savings could occur than you, the people doing the job? Suggest different ways that could streamline your fire department. Don't just leave it up to your chief. If you are competitive, no private company could compete. If you do this, you will close the door to privatization once and for all.

I thank you for allowing me to speak and would ask Mr Jim Buller who is here today to make some comments on behalf of seniors.

1440

Mr Jim Buller: Thank you. Members of the committee, as seniors closely allied to the half-million-member Coalition of Senior Citizens' Organizations, we wish to go on record as expressing our support and appreciation of Ontario's professional firefighters. These firefighters are true, courageous professionals, who have saved countless lives and prevented an enormous amount of property damage due to their prompt response times in answering the call to any and all emergencies.

We are dismayed that Bill 84 makes no attempt to enact any of the major recommendations of coroners' juries to require mandatory working smoke alarms, enhanced emergency dispatch and mandatory sprinkler systems in all seniors' homes, all of which have been ignored by the provincial government.

We commend Scarborough firefighters for donating $250,000 and countless hours of their time towards the enhancing of Scarborough General Hospital's burn unit. We are alarmed that the provincial government has closed this unit down completely and is redirecting this type of emergency to the Sunnybrook hospital, even though Scarborough is underserviced in hospital facilities. The government wants extensively harmful changes to the excellent fire protection services already in place. These harmful changes are as follows:

(1) Fewer firefighters where and when they are needed: Bill 84 makes it easier for municipalities to understaff fire stations and emergency vehicles, with the calling in of firefighters only after an emergency occurs. With a system like this, response times will be much slower, wasting precious seconds and minutes. Can we really afford the risk of delay when lives are on the line?

(2) Part-time firefighters will have less experience: Under Bill 84, full-time professional firefighters can be replaced with part-time firefighters with less training and experience.

(3) Privatization: Bill 84 allows any person or organization to operate a fire department. This raises the possibility that firefighting may be privatized. Privatized, for-profit firefighting has had lots of problems in the US where it is employed. Do we need these problems here in Ontario?

(4) Bureaucratic expansion: Bill 84 will turn the firefighters into managers, in some cases tripling the management ranks. Will we have to deal with a bureaucracy in an emergency? Why make changes when even the Ontario fire marshal says, "The current system promotes teamwork during an emergency"?

(5) Jeopardizing teamwork: Bill 84 will jeopardize the teamwork that is vital to saving lives in an emergency. Reducing the number of firefighters, using part-time firefighters and turning firefighters into bureaucrats hampers the firefighting team.

If these changes are designed to save money, there is much-needed money in cancelling the 30% tax cut to the wealthy, who already received a tax cut in 1984 from the Mulroney government, with the support of Jean Charest. Why does Frank Stronach, the CEO of Magna International, who pocketed $47 million last year, need another income tax cut? The same question applies to the presidents and CEOs of the major chartered banks and financial institutions, with their multimillion-dollar annual salaries and bonuses.

It seems this government is acting in a reckless, dictatorial and extremist manner in attacking firefighters, teachers, nurses, health care and child care workers, the poor, the disabled, senior citizens and all disadvantaged Ontarians in order to redistribute wealth to the already wealthy. We urge Bill 84 be withdrawn forthwith in the interests of the public good.

While we're talking about saving money, I have a practical suggestion for all the members on the government side. I just have the Toronto Star here of April 4, dateline Dallas, Texas. It's written by Kathleen Kenna, and it states that the provincial government is going to be spending $50 million of our hard-earned taxpayers' money in Texas to lure business to Ontario. If they're going to repeat this in Florida and California and New York state, we'll be bankrupt very shortly. I think this type of harebrained idea should be scrapped immediately. We can't afford to throw away our money, our taxpayers' dollars, with this type of ill-advised action.

I would urge that the bill be reconsidered.

Hon Janet Ecker (Minister of Community and Social Services): Thank you very much, Mr Buller and Ms Senis, especially to Ms Senis for taking the time to come down today. I know how busy you are.

I have a quick question. You raised the issued about privatization, as you say. It's my understanding that municipalities currently have the authority to make those kinds of privatization decisions now, that there is nothing in Bill 84 that changes that. I would ask you, as a very experienced municipal councillor who has frequently been involved in community safety issues, as you are today, why you would think that your council, for example, would want to change its position. It hasn't privatized now, obviously, for very valid reasons. Would you see it wanting to do that in the future?

Mrs Senis: The wind is changing, and we're going to have to start to adjust the sails.

Hon Mrs Ecker: But you've said you see it as a safety issue, so why would municipal politicians who are accountable, who are electable -- you are here today because of your response to these individuals in our community -- why would you put that at risk by doing something that you think is unsafe?

Mrs Senis: I personally would not do that, but I can't speak on behalf of the people who will follow. As far as I'm concerned, Bill 84 opens the door that much further.

Hon Mrs Ecker: Just another quick question, if I may. You mentioned physicians. Physicians, whether they are part-time or whatever, meet very strong standards to be physicians, and there are literally thousands of those physicians who are currently offering care part-time in the province, and very excellent care, in many institutions. If there are appropriate standards, can part-time firefighters work?

Mrs Senis: I feel that it is the type of occupation where we are better off if we have them as full-time professionals, as they do with doctors.

Hon Mrs Ecker: So you're saying part-time physicians don't give as good care as full-time physicians?

Mrs Senis: I'm not suggesting that, no.

Hon Mrs Ecker: I hope not, because I would see the question as standards in training as opposed to the amount of time someone is offering the service.

Mrs Senis: Perhaps we wouldn't be as concerned if the bill were tightened up so that if that is what you mean, that is what you say.

Mr Ramsay: Thank you for your presentation. I've just been going through it here and I think the start, to help answer Mrs Ecker's question, is that the Harris government is putting the screws so tightly to municipalities across the province that they are going to be forced to cut corners anywhere they can. I think if this is such a strong provincial interest here to have good, efficient and safe firefighting protection in this province, then all members of all political parties around this table should ensure there's an amendment in this bill that would absolutely forbid the privatization of fire services in Ontario. Everybody sort of says, "You wouldn't really do it, would you?" If we feel that way, then let's just put it in there, "Thou shalt not privatize the fire service in Ontario," period, done. We'd have a guarantee. That's the type of amendment I'm going to bring forward, and I would look towards the Tory members to support that.

Mr Kormos: Thank you, Councillor Senis and Mr Buller. I've wondered the same thing about Frank Stronach myself. That's an aside.

Hon Mrs Ecker: He can donate it back.

Mr Kormos: His name wasn't on the list of donors, remarkably.

I think it's particularly impressive that the councillor comes here. She has made it quite candid; she's speaking from her own perspective. I appreciate your contribution.

Earlier I was telling the folks from CARP, the Canadian Association of Retired Persons, I come from Niagara, where we have one of the oldest populations in all of Canada, second only to Victoria, I'm told, and I reflected with them about firefighters intervening in incidents of the need for fire suppression. But I suppose seniors -- as we get older, our likelihood of having contact with firefighters for intervention in health emergencies becomes more prevalent. So it's not necessarily a fire suppression issue, but we rely on them for their emergency medical aid. I appreciate being reminded of that. I think it's important for all of us to be very conscious of. Thank you kindly, both of you. I appreciate it.

The Chair: Thank you very much for your attendance here today and for your help.

1450

BRAMPTON FIRE DEPARTMENT MISSISSAUGA FIRE DEPARTMENT CALEDON FIRE DEPARTMENT

The Chair: Our next presentation is the city of Brampton, Fire Chief Verrall Clark. Welcome, gentlemen.

Mr Verrall Clark: Thank you, Mr Chairman and members of the committee. My name is Verrall Clark. I'm the fire chief of the city of Brampton. On my left is Cyril Hare, fire chief of Mississauga; and on my right is Boyd Finger, fire chief of the town of Caledon. We're here today representing the three fire departments in the region of Peel.

When considering the effects of Bill 84 on the fire service, we must first realize that it covers every municipality in Ontario, from a town of 100 to a city of 2 million. There are 645 municipalities in Ontario that have established fire departments, providing various levels of service. Of these 645 fire departments, 486 are volunteer, 127 are composite and 32 are full-time firefighters.

In the region of Peel it covers the city of Mississauga, with a population of 560,000 and a fire department of 500 full-time personnel. The city of Brampton has a population of 270,000 and a fire department of 265 full-time personnel and 45 volunteer firefighters. The town of Caledon has a population of 39,000 and a fire department with two full-time personnel and 200 volunteer firefighters, the largest volunteer fire department in Ontario. So you see that the three of us fire chiefs cover all spectrums of fire departments in Ontario and certainly cover all areas of Bill 84.

No legislation can be expected to cover every situation in such a diverse group of municipalities. Because of that fact, the fire service in Ontario has been designated as a municipal responsibility. At the same time, the province has realized that there must be certain standards or guidelines to ensure that every citizen receives at least a basic level of fire protection and fire safety. This is what Bill 84 provides, through the mandatory requirement of establishing a program in the municipality which must include public education with respect to fire safety and certain components of fire prevention; and to provide such other fire protection services as it determines may be necessary in accordance with its needs and circumstances.

For the first time in Ontario, a government has recognized the need to provide at least a basic level of fire protection. It would be nice to dictate that every municipality must have a fire department which would include fire suppression, but is it realistic, especially for those little villages and hamlets? The citizens and the councils of those municipalities will determine what level of fire protection they can afford.

At least now they will receive public education in fire safety and certain components of fire prevention, a vast improvement over what they've had in the past. The three fire chiefs in the region of Peel strongly endorse the Fire Protection and Prevention Act, 1996, and as the regional fire coordinator for 1997, I am speaking on behalf of those three fire chiefs.

To properly assess the impact of Bill 84, it is important to relate it to actual municipalities rather than espouse the hypothetical. The "what if" theory of debate is no longer acceptable. Since Bill 84 was tabled last fall, citizens have called us, the news media have called us and the firefighters have called us, all of them expressing their concerns about what was going to happen with the passage of the Fire Protection and Prevention Act, 1996. We have responded to each of them that in the region of Peel the fire service will only improve.

During all of these enquiries, there were a number of issues raised regarding Bill 84, and at this time I would like to relate to you some of those discussions and provide you with our position.

Automatic aid is an agreement between two municipalities that the nearest available resource will respond to an emergency regardless of municipal boundaries. Surely this concept cannot be opposed by anyone who truly believes that fire safety and life safety are the priority of the fire service. Consider for a moment the consequences of a fire vehicle refusing to cross a municipal boundary to perform a rescue or to suppress a fire. Who would be responsible for this loss of life? We have listened to speaker after speaker over the last two days stating their belief that response time is critical. Here is the opportunity to ensure the quickest response available. Automatic aid should be a legislated right and all parties -- firefighters, fire chiefs and municipalities -- should be supporting its passage.

Creating a management team: Currently under the Fire Departments Act each department, regardless of its size, is limited to just two managers excluded from the bargaining unit: the fire chief and the deputy chief. Major urban departments with up to 1,200 members are currently operating under this limitation, as is the city of Brampton fire and emergency services with 310 personnel, the city of Mississauga with 500 personnel and the town of Caledon with 200 personnel. No other organization, neither private nor public, must operate under these restrictive conditions.

Bill 84 will enable every fire department to have an effective team of managers who can manage their department in the best interests of the public without having conflicting obligations to the union. Additional management personnel will come from within the current organization. Turning firefighters into managers does not reduce the effectiveness of the firefighting teams, it merely adds to their value within the organization and the community.

Part-time firefighters: Once again we must realize that this legislation will encompass every municipality in the province regardless of its size. Small municipalities may not need or be able to afford full-time employees, yet with the proposed new legislation, the mandatory requirement of providing education and fire prevention programs will exist, a requirement that the entire fire service supports. The addition of part-time firefighters will be especially beneficial to those municipalities.

Recall for emergencies: The new legislation will enable the fire chief to call in off-duty firefighters if, as a result of a major emergency, the fire department needs the services of more firefighters than are on duty. This change is self-explanatory and is really just a clarification of what most departments have been practising for years.

The question is sometimes raised, what is a major emergency? This is one of those hypothetical questions that cannot be answered, because what is a major emergency in one municipality is not a major emergency in another emergency. An example would be that an emergency requiring four trucks and 30 firefighters in a rural area may require two or three fire departments. In a large urban area, this may only require a second alarm, which would hardly be a major emergency.

In conclusion, like all aspects of the fire service, the size, the location and the diversity of municipalities must dictate the requirements of their individual departments. The Fire Protection and Prevention Act, 1996, does not reduce the effectiveness of the fire service. We believe that it provides us with the opportunity to enhance the services we deliver. It provides a legislative framework to enable elected municipal officials to determine the level of service they and their citizens believe is necessary and affordable.

Mr Ramsay: Thank you, chief, for your presentation. Maybe you could help me here because I'm getting, as we all are, different messages from different chiefs from across the province. I was wondering why a chief from Toronto, Windsor or Peterborough can come in and say that their organization with such a large fire department can work the way it is, that they don't need all this management exclusion that this bill provides, and then some like you come forward and say, "No, it's very important to have more managers." What's the difference there? Maybe the management technique?

1500

Mr Clark: Personally, I believe it's just the individual feelings of certain chiefs, much like politicians; I'm sure you all don't agree on Bill 184. We just believe, and I think the majority of fire chiefs believe, that two management personnel are insufficient to properly operate a department.

Mr Ramsay: When you say that, two management people, it's not as if there's just two people really managing the whole thing. It's more or less an official designation about being management or kind of worker or union, because you still have a chain of command through all the firefighters, right? You have captains and all these different levels, so there's still a chain of command running through. It's not you dictating to everybody all at once.

Mr Clark: As you heard from a previous speaker, and certainly any fire chief will confirm, only the fire chief and the deputy chief are able to discipline individuals. In fact, the associations are quite adamant that platoon chiefs, district chiefs, captains will not discipline any of their members because they are brothers in the same association, and this has created problems in the past.

Mr Ramsay: So really a question of discipline is what it's sort of boiling down to.

Mr Clark: And dealing with confidential material. Obviously if you have an association president who happens to be a district chief, he cannot be dealing with confidential material that might be to the association's advantage at a later date.

The Chair: Mr Kormos.

Mr Kormos: Thank you, gentlemen. I appreciate your contribution. I have no questions. Thank you kindly.

The Chair: Mrs Marland.

Mrs Marland: Do I get your time, Peter?

The Chair: No, that's not the way it works, but you do get three whole minutes.

Mr Kormos: It doesn't hurt to ask.

Mrs Marland: No, it doesn't hurt to ask.

Thank you very much, Chief Clark, for your presentation. From the public perspective I think there is being fuelled a concern about what a part-time firefighter would be, what kind of individual that person would be. I think the inference of the opposition to the legislation that's being developed is that there would be a different level of commitment or a different level of ability and training, and with both Chief Hare and Chief Finger, I know that no one would know better than you the kind of training, ability and commitment that is needed. I'd like you to tell us whether a part-time firefighter could be hired for the job with a different level of ability or training.

Mr Clark: Is that to me?

Mrs Marland: That's fine. I won't be political and ask my own chief.

Mr Clark: First of all, the legislation, when it talks firefighter, should talk personnel, because a firefighter does not have to be what most people consider a firefighter: riding a fire truck, wearing a helmet, fighting fires. Under the legislation, a firefighter could also be a communications operator, could be a fire prevention officer, could be a mechanic. So it covers the whole spectrum of personnel within a fire department.

With the new legislation coming in, once again it requires every municipality to provide fire safety education and public fire prevention programs. Many of the smaller municipalities either won't have the money to pay for a full-time employee or would not have the requirement either. If you took a municipality of perhaps 100 or 200 people, a fire prevention officer could probably handle that municipality working one day a week. So it would be a waste of not only the time but the finances of the municipality.

Mrs Marland: Can I just --

The Vice-Chair (Mr Ron Johnson): Mrs Marland, I'm sorry, but the time has expired.

Mrs Marland: Three minutes?

The Vice-Chair: You got it. I've got the watch.

On behalf of the committee, gentlemen, thank you very much for your presentation.

ANDREA YOUNKER

The Vice-Chair: Our next presenter is Ms Andrea Younker, please. Good afternoon.

Ms Andrea Younker: Good afternoon. Thank you very much for giving me the time to speak to you today about Bill 84. I'm here speaking to you to voice my strong objections to the sections of this bill that specifically deal with privatization and the implementation of part-timers within this sector.

I have been a resident of Scarborough for over 30 years. Within the last seven and a half years I've lived in Scarborough, I've had to deal with the Scarborough fire department many, many, times.

I am the mother of twin boys who are both affected with severe cerebral palsy, chronic respiratory diseases and seizure disorders. My sons, Derick and Alex, were born at 28 weeks' gestation in 1989. That year, many of the hospital wards were shut down as a result of cutbacks from the provincial government. Because of these cutbacks, I had to be flown to Kingston to deliver the twins. After their birth, Derick and Alex needed to stay in the neonatal care unit of Kingston General Hospital for three and a half months. During that time they suffered many serious, life-threatening illnesses, cardiac arrest and aspiration pneumonias. After their release, it was not until they were a year old that I was told they suffered from bronchopulmonary dysplasia, spastic quadriplegia, cerebral palsy, extensive brain damage and blindness.

Being a young mother at the time, you cannot imagine the devastation of this diagnosis on my life. After leaving the Hospital for Sick Children that day, I had to make some major decisions. Should I maintain my children at home, giving them my loving care, or was I to give up all of my parental rights and place them for adoption? Would I keep some of my parental rights and place them in a home, or would I just walk away from everything and let the province deal with it? Boy, there were some heavy-duty decisions to make for being only 23 years old. In the end, I decided the best place for my sons would be to remain with me in a loving and stable home, provided that the essential services that the province was delivering would remain intact.

I love them. They're my sons. My gratification comes with every word they try to speak, every smile they give me and all the fight they give when they're sick. This brings me to a really sore spot in my life: what the provincial government is trying to impose with Bill 84.

Why must I continue to fight with you people to ensure that essential services are kept intact so that Derick and Alex may remain at home? I blame the provincial government for not giving me the space to have my boys in Toronto. I blame you people for my job loss and the loss of my home as a result of travelling back and forth to Kingston to see my sons.

It is about time I stood up to this province and told the government what you are doing to the life of my sons. Every time you play with legislation pertaining to services that affect my boys, you threaten to further reduce their ability to remain with me. There is no bottom line here. There are only two little lives at stake. How much more worthless do you feel Derick and Alex are to the province? Stop it.

Bill 84 is threatening the firefighters' excellent rapid response times. Bill 84 will only mean that I'll be forced to wait longer to have firefighters come and help me resuscitate my sons when they stop breathing. Minutes -- seconds -- are very, very important, especially in Derick's and Alex's fragile medical condition.

Bill 84 opens the door to allow full-time, fully trained firefighters to be replaced with part-timers with less training and experience. This will jeopardize the safety of the professionals and the volunteers, not to mention what could happen to Derick and Alex.

Picture this: What if Bill 84 is passed and privatization takes effect and part-timers are allowed? Is it going to be a Curly, Larry and Moe situation at 253 Catalina? This really makes me feel uncomfortable, having people work with others that they do not know. Some may have more experience and some may have less. How is Joe, the full-time professional fireman, going to know part-time Jack's weaknesses and strong points if the first time he meets him is at my house?

I don't want to be your guinea pig. We have been played by the province for too long. I want to know that if I have a fire or a medical crisis in my home, the Scarborough fire department will be there, as usual, within three minutes. I want to know that the boys, or girls for that matter, will know my situation, know where to find my boys and know that there are going to be two children who cannot walk on the lower level and two toddlers on the upper level. I want to know that I don't have to worry about Curly, Larry and Moe tripping over each other or that perhaps two of them just can't even make it to the fire. I need my comfort cushion with the fire department, and the province is trying to take it away from me and my boys.

1510

In 1989, when my boys were born, my brother had just graduated from the fire academy. He promised me that I could quite easily maintain the boys at home provided I phoned 911 when it was needed. He further guaranteed that the firefighters would be the first to arrive on the scene, within three minutes of placing the call. True to my brother's word, it has happened. These men have always been there when the boys have needed them. Sometimes when they come it may be to resuscitate, sometimes it may be to give oxygen, but they've always kept them going until the ambulance has arrived. Believe me when I say that seconds or minutes could cost my children's lives.

Please, if you have never done the job, don't try and change the rules. There are many, many other people in similar or worse situations than we are. Don't try and fix something that is working quite well.

If Bill 84 is passed, it could mean my children's lives. It may also cost your own or someone you love. If this bill becomes law without the appropriate amendments made, I can only say for the members of this gevernment that I hope your leader can turn himself into Captain Picard and beam you up.

I thank you for giving me the opportunity to express my views and the possible outcomes of the passing of Bill 84 with regard to Derick and Alex.

Mr Kormos: I quite frankly can't think of anything to ask you that's going to add to what you said. Today's been a remarkable day. You, along with several other presentations by people, just people, who live in some of the communities around here and have spoken about this bill -- it's impressed the heck out of me because you've obviously taken an interest in the legislation and it also implies to me that you don't take this at all lightly. You're serious. This is not a game. That's my impression. You know what the scoop is. You've lived it and you anticipate having to continue to live it.

I can't think of any questions to ask you. All I can say is thank you kindly. You've made an incredibly effective presentation and I hope your view will prevail. God bless.

Ms Younker: Thank you.

Mr Carr: Thank you very much for a very moving presentation. As you may know, the parts of the bill that have created some problems relate to part IX, but I think there is some broad support for a lot of the other features in the bill. Most of what you seem to be talking about I think would relate to part IX, but did you have any other comments about some of the other provisions, some of the powers for the fire marshal? Are there any other parts of the bill outside of part IX that you wanted to comment on?

Ms Younker: I am most concerned about the sections of the bill that will directly relate to outcomes of situations such as my own and for the possible problems within the community as far as response times are concerned and possibly losing people's lives over the fact that if it does get privatized, there might be some sort of changes in response times, equipment and manpower. Those things are what directly affects the community, and that's what I am the most concerned about.

Mr Carr: Thank you very much. Good luck.

Mr Ramsay: Thank you, Ms Younker, for your presentation. You in a very eloquent manner really brought home for many of us who don't have such an ongoing experience, which you unfortunately have to have, with emergency services how important such a service is to a family with your challenges. I'd like to thank you very much for coming today and sharing that with us. It really enhances all our appreciation of the importance of firefighters and what they do and enlarges the scope of our understanding of what they do, that they're not just there to put out fires, but there are many other caring acts they provide on a daily basis. You've personalized in a way that I think is very understandable for each of us.

Ms Younker: Thank you very much.

The Vice-Chair: Ms Younker, on behalf of the committee, thank you very much for your presentation.

ERNIE WYNNE

The Vice-Chair: The next presenter is Mr Ernie Wynne, please. Welcome. You can begin any time.

Mr Ernie Wynne: Committee Chairman, members of the committee, fellow citizens of Ontario, my name is Ernie Wynne and I reside at 25 Piane Avenue in Brampton, Ontario.

I wish to thank you very much for the opportunity to present my reason for appearing before this committee and to voice my opposition to Bill 84 and provide my reasons.

First, on the evening of January 11 this year my wife, my daughter, my eight-year-old granddaughter and I had just completed our supper and were relaxing in the kitchen. Apparently during our conversation I suddenly started choking and collapsed on to the floor. After my wife tried checking what was wrong with me and received no response from me, my daughter got on the phone and called 911 and told the operator what had happened and passed on our address.

Apparently I had choked, passed out and was unconscious. Therefore, part of the text of my problem is being related to you second hand from my wife and my daughter.

We live within a kilometre and a half of Brampton fire station number 4, a choice we made when we purchased this house and moved in two years ago. Fortunately, we had immediate response, from their emergency team on duty that night, of approximately three minutes in length. The first firemen on the scene were a pair of fully medically trained firefighters who cleared out my breathing passageway and started to apply artificial respiration. After a short period of having no success they then applied the defibrillator to me and were successful in bringing me back to life. After approximately three minutes the ambulance then arrived and the firefighters turned my care over to them. The ambulance crew immediately rushed me to Peel Memorial Hospital as I was unconscious and comatose.

Fortunately for me, we live so close to the fire station and Brampton's full-time firefighters are all trained in advanced life support and 11 of their trucks are fully equipped for an emergency such as mine, a program which was started voluntarily by our Brampton professional firefighters.

As it turned out, I remained unconscious for a total of five more days, which put my family through hell as there was always a chance of my not making it.

Due to the fast and professional action of this team of firefighters, I not only was saved from death, but also their quick action has proved to have saved me from any serious effects from my having suffered cardiac death, as the cardiologist wrote it in his report, for approximately three and a half minutes.

I was kept at Peel Memorial Hospital for two weeks of testing and care. Then I was sent on to Toronto General for another two weeks where I was further tested by the chief of the cardiac team, the chief of the respiratory team and the chief neurologist. After having numerous chest X-rays, electrocardiograms, echocardiograms, angiograms, ultrasound pictures and consultations with a battery of Brampton's and Toronto's foremost specialists, the final analysis was that I had had a cardiac arrest due to an irregular heartbeat, compounded by the stress of having lost my job three weeks previously due to the company selling out to a Calgary-based company. This was further complicated by the fact that I had choked at the last minute on my regurgitated supper.

1520

The result of all the tests by the doctors and the specialists was that I now have a defibrillator sown inside my chest and attached to my heart. This totally controls the irregular heartbeat and, I hope anyway, possible future cardiac arrest.

After numerous tests, the specialists have all said that my miraculous recovery was due to (1) the quick response within three minutes of the medically trained firefighters, (2) the treatment received from the staff of Peel Memorial Hospital, and (3) my fighting desire to live. Not only have I completely recovered with only a small amount of short-term memory loss and an artificial defibrillator to assist, monitor and report the condition of my heart and its irregular ventricular heartbeat, in two and half short months I now have been able to start back to work with a new company as an accountant on a part-time basis, directed by my cardiologist, which he feels should lead up to a full-time job within three to six months.

As my medical problems are hopefully behind me, I have gone and thanked the team of firefighters and the hospital staff for their wonderful lifesaving treatment that I have received. Without each and every one of their timely and competent assistance, I unfortunately would either have been buried six feet under two months ago or, at best, I would be a human vegetable at this moment due to the damage done by an oxygen-starved brain in my head.

Having such a complete and competent medical team as the one I have been lucky enough to have been associated with during my time of need has shown me I must make sure that as many people as possible have the same opportunity to a full life as the one I have been given.

As a professional accountant, I have had to make some very critical and painful financial decisions affecting a number of families whose employment with a company going under during the depression of the 1980s was affected. Fortunately, they were assisted both by the company and by our federal government in being able to find suitable work again.

My sitting here in front of you should be sufficient knowledge that the program of training and operating our professional firefighters in the role of paramedics, I like to say, has a value that should not be sacrificed by today's fiscal restraints. My being able to be a productive citizen of Ontario and being able to sit here to voice my displeasure at the possibility of having the professional firefighting program possibly altered should be sufficient knowledge for you that the program of fully trained and competent firefighters is a very important part of any and all communities, and it needs to be supported during this period of fiscal restraints.

Every day I pick up my newspaper and read further about the medical cutbacks that are being required to maintain our standard of medical care. Please remember that medicare often translates into medical prevention, and the rapid response of our firefighting paramedics means that they do not have to just package up bodies but can assist patients with medical aid. They can play a very important role in helping not only to save lives, but also they can, through doing their job, assist members of our society in being an active part of the society rather than just a drain on the public coffers.

I thank you very much for this opportunity to express my views on the recommendations you must make to the Ontario government on Bill 84. I implore you to look beyond what possible fiscal savings might be realized by cutting back the professional firefighters' role in Bill 84. But more important is the possible savings in human lives directly and indirectly and the savings to be realized from saving potentially productive lives.

Mr Carr: I want to thank you for your presentation and for bringing forward your ideas and concerns of a personal nature. On behalf I think all of the committee members we really appreciate your taking the time and doing that.

Mr Wynne: It's my pleasure.

Mr Ramsay: Mr Wynne, I'd also like to thank you for your presentation. I think your story about your incident really illustrates the need to fully fund a fire-rescue department and also illustrates that firefighters provide a very broad service in our communities and need to be supported.

Mr Wynne: Thank you. I guess like so many of us who aren't involved in it on a day-to-day basis, you really don't realize until a time like this comes along. I've always taken my firefighters as just there. Believe me, I have a greater respect for their abilities now.

Mr Kormos: Mr Wynne, I've got to tell you, I've never had to call -- honest -- 911 in my own right. My neighbour's house caught fire two summers ago and I did call 911, but never in my own right. I suppose I've been very fortunate. The data we've been getting are, as I get older along with everybody else, the likelihood of us needing the medical emergency intervention of firefighters is going to increase, so I appreciate you and others who have come here and been very candid, because the concerns we have are things like you've talked about -- part-time firefighters, the privatization of firefighting services and the devaluing of firefighters -- because the new sections for arbitration will permit arbitrators to low-ball in, let's say, determining amounts of pay for firefighters. Those are real concerns and we've got to keep grinding away at them and stop this in its tracks.

The Vice-Chair: Mr Kormos, I'm sorry, your time has expired. Mr Wynne, thank you very much for your presentation.

TORONTO FIRE FIGHTERS' ASSOCIATION STEVE ELLIS

The Vice-Chair: The next presenter is Councillor Steve Ellis, please. Committee members may note a change in the agenda. The clerk informed me the next one would be Steve Ellis.

Mr Mark Fitzsimmons: Actually, I'm Mark Fitzsimmons and Steve is presenting with me.

The Vice-Chair: Understood. Mark Fitzsimmons and Councillor Steve Ellis then, the two of them. Good afternoon, gentlemen. You'll have 15 minutes for your presentation and you can begin any time.

Mr Fitzsimmons: Thank you very much for the opportunity of appearing before the committee this afternoon. My name is Mark Fitzsimmons and I'm here today as president of the Toronto Fire Fighters' Association and will be deputing on behalf of the 1,200 firefighters in the city of Toronto.

Due to the limited time allotted to this deputation, I can only briefly touch on our main concerns with the proposed legislation. I just want you to know that I would be more than pleased to meet with any of you to give you full details of what our concerns are, should you wish, after this presentation.

We believe that it is the responsibility of the government of Ontario to ensure its citizens receive proper fire and emergency services and that any legislation dealing with the fire service must contain strong provisions to protect the lives and property of its citizens. Bill 84, as written, is a contradiction of itself and of that premise.

1530

It has been said, "The true meaning of a term is to be found by observing what a man does with it, not by what he says about it." I'll repeat that for you because I think it's very important: "The true meaning of a term is to be found by observing what a man does with it," and we'll say a woman as well, "not by what he or she says about it." It's the actions taken, not the words used. Our concerns with Bill 84 are not with what it says, but rather with what it doesn't say and what that silence allows.

Bill 84 does increase the level of fire prevention activity in the province. That's a positive step, no two ways about it. However, in contradiction to the premise of a fire-safe Ontario, the bill not only ignores the need for established fire suppression and emergency response criteria, but in addition encourages changes that, when implemented, will result in a downgraded fire and emergency response service in Ontario.

What I'm going to say next you've heard before. I think it's well worth repeating. To understand why it is essential to have properly staffed and properly trained fire departments, you must first understand what the firefighters in the province do on a daily basis. Firefighters don't just fight fires. Firefighters are, or should be, the first-response units to the victims of life-threatening medical situations such as heart attacks, automobile accidents, subway and rail incidents, spills of hazardous materials, building collapse, and many other situations where people need help in a hurry.

To minimize the loss of life and property in fires or any other types of emergencies we respond to, there are three critical areas that must be maintained: We must have properly staffed fire apparatus, with properly trained firefighters responding as a team, and must arrive within a critical time window to all emergencies where life, property and the environment are threatened. If any of these three critical functions are compromised, people may die needlessly.

For fire suppression, an early aggressive and offensive initial attack on a working structural fire is essential if we are to reduce loss of life and property damage. The progression of a structural fire to the point of flashover -- and flashover is the point at which life in the room of origin is gone and you can't do anything for them any more -- generally occurs in less than 10 minutes from the initial combustion. The most important elements in limiting fire spread and loss of human life are the quick arrival of sufficient numbers of properly trained firefighting personnel and equipment to attack and extinguish the fire as close as possible to the point of origin.

Data generated by the National Fire Protection Association, as well as studies by numerous other fire protection agencies, including the Ministry of the Solicitor General and Correctional Services and the office of the fire marshal, substantiate the fact that rapid and aggressive interior attack can substantially reduce the human and property loss associated with structural fires. A study done by the Dallas fire department emphasizes the need for early intervention in a fire. The study shows that when rescue occurs between 12 and 15.5 minutes in a building, the survival rate is 46.6%. That rate drops to 5.5% when rescue is delayed beyond 15 minutes. Without dispute, the timely arrival of properly staffed fire apparatus is the most important factor in the successful rescue of victims and the extinguishment of fire.

Similarly, the time it takes to get to the side of a heart attack or critically injured victim and to initiate treatment is the single most important factor in the survivability of that victim. The need for a timely response by properly trained responders is not disputable when the survivability rates of heart attack victims are reviewed.

A victim of a heart attack who receives CPR and rapid external defibrillation 10 minutes after his or her heart stops beating statistically has no chance of survival. You don't need your calculators for that; they have no chance of survival. If that same person receives rapid external defibrillation within four minutes and advanced cardiac life support within eight minutes, their chance of living is increased to 34%. The previous speaker was certainly a witness to that statistic. You see, time is not only money; it is lives.

To offer part-time auxiliary firefighters as a cost-saving tool for municipalities sends out the message that it is okay to understaff fire apparatus. What is really being said when buzzwords like "efficiency staffing" and "supplemental fire personnel" are used is, "We don't know how many firefighters are coming or when they're going to get there, but by God, we balanced our budget." Firefighters must work as a team to be most effective. Part-time firefighters destroy that concept. I keep hearing about training and how part-time firefighters could be trained to the level. First of all, I don't believe that. Second, even if they were, they have to act as team.

I'll give you a sports analogy. Back in 1972 at the Canada Cup, a team of the best hockey players in the world were not successful in beating the Russian hockey team until they'd had time to work and jell as a team. They were not successful until they were a cohesive unit working together. It's the same with firefighters. If you don't work together and you don't know each other, you're not going to be as effective. Furthermore, emergency situations aren't hockey games. You don't get the best out of seven. You don't get to catch up. You have to have your best people there and your best team there the first time.

In Toronto over the last number of months we have had a number of arson fires involving garages. With our current response times and staffing, we have lost one to three garages at different fires. If we were operating under a system where we had to rely on part-time firefighters being called in, with the resulting delays in response time, we probably would have lost one to three blocks.

We realize that some communities may not have the resources to have full-time fire departments and that in these situations volunteer firefighters may be the only alternative to no protection at all. However, we believe it is the responsibility of the provincial government to include language in this fire service legislation that encourages the development of proper full-time fire suppression capabilities across the province, rather than encourage, as seems to be the case with Bill 84, the increased use of part-time firefighters within professional fire departments which will downgrade those fire departments as a cost-saving measure.

I'd like to talk briefly about the reporting structure and accountability within the fire service and what appears to be another contradiction in Bill 84. The government has spoken at length about the need for an expanded management team, yet Bill 84 does not recognize the need for a deputy fire chief -- that's a provision that was in the old act -- and it just doesn't add up.

Bill 84 makes the fire chief of a municipality "ultimately responsible to the council" of that municipality for the delivery of the fire service. We agree with the premise that the fire chief must ultimately be responsible for the delivery of fire service. However, we have very grave concerns that the current trends within local municipalities to push the position of fire chief down in the reporting structure severely jeopardizes a fire chief's ability to do their job properly.

If a fire chief must report through a bureaucrat to get to council, the reality is that the fire chief will not have control, nor should he or she be held responsible for fire protection in that municipality. It will be the bean counter making the real decisions, based on the bottom line instead of on proper fire protection. The legislation must contain provisions that allow the people responsible for the delivery of fire protection services direct access to the elected officials who are ultimately responsible for the safety of those who elected them.

On privatization: I'd like to say that public fire departments are more efficient than private, for-profit fire departments and provide more service for the same dollar cost as there is no need for a profit margin. Over 90% of the fire department budgets are, by the very nature of the job, related to the cost of staffing. The only way a private, for-profit fire service can offer cost savings over a well-managed public service is by reducing the service level the public receives.

Private, for-profit fire service providers may offer an attractive bid to get their foot in the door, but the reality is that once there, they will call the shots. Once a municipality has given up their fire department to a private, they have lost control of that service. Amendments must be made to this bill that will mandate municipalities to provide fire protection services as a public service.

On labour relations: Let me say that we, as an association representing the firefighters in the city of Toronto, expect to be fairly compensated for the service we provide and to be treated fairly in matters of labour relations. For that I make no apologies. We believe that firefighter associations and fire department management should continue to work together as partners dedicated to providing the best possible fire protection in the most efficient manner.

Differences will of course arise, and when they do there needs to be a fair mechanism to deal with those differences. Bill 84, rather than foster this cooperation and partnership, sets up confrontation. It removes the right to fairly negotiate hours of work and places many onerous requirements on firefighters, without any apparent duty for the employer to act in good faith. The bill, as written, gives an unscrupulous employer the ability to wreak havoc among their employees and the bargaining unit, and has a very arrogant attitude and an apparent distaste for the men and women who put themselves at jeopardy in service to the public.

The bill must be changed to ensure that firefighters have a right to a labour relations environment that is balanced. The arbitration process must remain free from bias and political interference, and finally, provisions must be made to restrict exclusions to the bargaining unit to senior management only. At the fire scene, chiefs, captains and firefighters all work together as a team to the benefit of the community. We don't want some political definition of a manager jeopardizing that reality.

1540

In conclusion, I would like to discuss commitments made to us by Mr Harris, then leader of the third party, prior to the last election and presented to firefighters. When asked about changes to the Fire Departments Act, Mr Harris assured us that a Harris government would make "no changes to the Fire Departments Act until such time as professional firefighters have been thoroughly consulted." Mr Harris also stated, "Any changes would be fully costed both from the point of view of management and the firefighters prior to implementation." Mr Harris further stated: "Our priority is maintaining and even improving the quality of front-line essential services. And how we do that must be determined by you, the front-line professionals, not the ivory tower politicians or bureaucrats who seem to have all the answers yet none of the solutions."

Whether consultation has taken place is very debatable. I guess that depends on whether or not an unproductive meeting is defined as consultation. The full costing has not been done, and it appears that the only people consulted have been the ivory tower bureaucrats. We expect the Harris government to remain true to its word and provide full costing, and let the front-line professionals determine how to improve front-line services, prior to the passing of this bill.

Now I will turn over to Steve Ellis.

The Vice-Chair: Mr Ellis, you're down to two minutes, just so you know the time frame.

Mr Steve Ellis: Well, I guess I'll speed-read. Good afternoon, folks, Chair. I have a letter that's been presented to you by Paul Walter, who is the president of the Metropolitan Toronto Police Association. I would have read it, but I only have two minutes, so please read it. It's a very strong letter, a very effective letter in support of the firefighters, with the police association's opposition to Bill 84. Please take time to read it.

I wanted to come before you to say that I know very little about the actual mechanics of fighting a fire. You've heard from the professionals here on how to fight fires and the impact of Bill 84 on that. I know a little bit about politics, and that's what I'm here to address.

Quite frankly, Bill 84 should categorically be amended to say that fire and emergency services will not be provided for profit. It's fundamental that the fire service be provided on the basis of saving lives, not saving bucks. As a politician, I understand the fire department and I understand the fire service and the bureaucracy and the reporting, but I just don't understand this bill.

Simply put, Bill 84 and this talk about having a toolbox for smaller municipalities, different municipalities, to tailor the fire service to their needs -- I think you should take the toolbox off the table for privatization. It should be a complete non-starter.

With respect to excluding the chiefs, deputy chiefs or different management people from the bargaining units, I don't think that's right. This is the way to --

The Vice-Chair: I have to stop you there. I am sorry. We run on a --

Mr Kormos: He can have my time, Chair.

The Vice-Chair: You don't have any time, Kormos.

Mr Ellis: One sentence?

The Vice-Chair: No. I'm sorry. We have to stick to the guideline of the 15-minute presentation. On behalf of the committee, thank you very much for the presentation.

TONY MINTOFF

The Vice-Chair: Our next presenter is Mr Tony Mintoff. Welcome, sir.

Mr Tony Mintoff: Thank you very much. I would first like to thank the committee for offering me the opportunity to present my personal views with respect to the fire service and in particular Bill 84.

My perspective has been forged during 22 years within the field of public fire protection. During these 22 years, I have been a member of three municipal fire departments, an active member at the executive level of both labour and management organizations, and a member of the professional standards-setting body which is dedicated to ensuring the creation of appropriate standards for the Ontario fire service. I am also currently responsible for the delivery of fire protection services, as fire chief, to a municipality of 170,000 people.

Given the amount of time available, my comments will focus on key areas of controversy which have been raised since the introduction of Bill 84. However, very briefly, I wish to say that the mandating of public education and fire prevention programs, the increase in management team size and the power of the fire marshal to monitor and review the fire protection services provide by municipalities clearly offer a very sound foundation for improved public fire safety in this province.

Much has been said about Bill 84 introducing options which would create additional risks to public safety. The opportunity to utilize part-time firefighters or to privatize the municipal fire department in part or in whole has raised many an eyebrow. It is important to understand that the existing legislation, the Fire Departments Act, does not nor has it during the past 50 years ever precluded the use of part-time firefighters or the ability to privatize a fire department. The municipalities have not exercised these options in the past and they are merely being continued in the proposed legislation.

The unions have promoted the right-to-strike issue as one where they have exercised responsible discretion and, by inclusion in their union constitution, voluntarily waived their right to strike. If one continues this thought process, then an amendment to the union constitution, which can occur at the union's sole discretion, could empower them to strike if they so desire.

A close examination of the existing legislation does not bear out the union's explanation on this issue. The Fire Departments Act, in subsection 7(2), states, "Every agreement, decision or award remains in effect until the end of the year in which it comes into effect and thereafter remains in effect until replaced by a new agreement, decision or award." Implicit in this wording is the acknowledgment that there is never an absence of an agreement or award in effect. It logically follows that there is no opportunity for or right to strike.

Under this same act firefighters were provided with the right to binding arbitration. In terms of the balancing of interests, binding arbitration is the mechanism used to offset the inability to withhold services, or strike. Bill 84 intends to continue the union's right to the arbitration process, with some modification through the use of conciliation prior to arbitration. The approach contemplated by Bill 84 is sensible, in my opinion.

The Association of Municipalities of Ontario prefers a mutual risk arrangement, which would provide firefighters with the right to strike but remove their right to binding arbitration. I view this to be a very dangerous and ill-advised concept which could jeopardize public safety at the expiration of a collective agreement. Bill 84 merely adjusts the existing process so that it is more fair and equitable. The right to strike has no business in the emergency services delivery system.

Perhaps the most frustrating barrier to effective fire service management exists in the current legislation, which requires that only the deputy chief and fire chief be excluded from the union's bargaining unit. Given the nature of the service delivery system, being 24 hours a day, seven days a week, there is no manager on duty for well over 50% of the time which a fire department operates. How does this legislative barrier allow municipalities to ensure that the corporate and departmental goals and objectives are being pursued in an efficient and effective manner? Having the fire chief or deputy chief available on call to respond to emergencies falls well short of the need to have managers in the work place at all times. Can we realistically expect unionized employees to develop appropriate programs and procedures when failure to adhere to them would result in disciplinary action being taken against a fellow union member? I don't think so.

Prior to becoming fire service managers, many deputy chiefs and fire chiefs were very active in pursuing and supporting union perspectives. In fact, many of these individuals held senior union positions at the local, provincial and federal levels. Yet when they became managers, most experienced changing philosophies. Union leaders often relate this change in viewpoint or behaviour to the individual's lack of a value system or their inability or unwillingness to take a position contrary to that of the municipal council.

I have struggled for some time to understand the motivation behind this common attitudinal shift in managers. I have concluded that it is a systemic problem, driven by the very management system which the unions wish to continue. Until an individual is personally exposed to the management functions within our existing delivery system, the inherent weaknesses are not readily obvious. An almost impermeable barrier is created by the very restrictive existing management structure. Changed legislation is the only effective means to remove this barrier to sound management and proper succession planning, in my opinion.

1550

In my experience, many persons holding the rank of captain, district chief, platoon chief or divisional chief openly struggle with loyalty issues when faced with the prospect of exercising typical management functions. They are very often unwilling to confront performance or behaviour deficiencies when the individual involved is a fellow union member. A great deal of pressure from the union can and has been placed on individuals who have attempted to modify poor performance or behaviour of staff under their control. According to my information, no other province in Canada fails to examine the exercise of management functions, which Bill 84 intends to do, when deciding on the scope of the bargaining unit.

One only needs to recognize that the existing legislation and its imposed management framework are almost 50 years old. When comparing the complexities of today's fire and emergency services to those of decades ago, it becomes very easy to appreciate how archaic this legislative barrier to effective management really is.

The unions would have us believe that there are already enough managers in the fire service. Could it be that their position on this matter has little, if anything, to do with the effectiveness of the current management structure? After all, how many of these unionized individuals could really know of what they speak? Very few of them could have acquired the fire service management experience under the existing restrictive system which they continue to promote. Perhaps their position has very much more to do with their realization that increased management exclusions would potentially weaken their organizations, both in membership size and in financial strength through a loss of membership dues.

At the other end of the spectrum on this issue, we find some organizations, including some fire chiefs, who believe that any fire department member above the rank of firefighter first class should be automatically deemed to be exercising management functions and, therefore, be removed from the union's bargaining unit.

I believe that both positions are extreme. In contrast to these positions, Bill 84 proposes a blended approach which recognizes staff ratios through automatic exclusions. It also recognizes the diverse delivery systems utilized by full-time, composite and volunteer departments within the province and the importance of focusing on the individual's exercise of management function as the criterion to be used when deciding this issue.

The issue of defining in legislation the position of fire chief and the reporting mechanism within the municipal corporate structure for this position is of great interest to most fire chiefs. In previous corporate organizational structures, dating back to the writing of the existing legislation, all fire chiefs, as did most other department heads, had a direct reporting relationship and, therefore, access to their municipal council. This is an extremely important link because council is responsible for establishing the levels of fire protection services which will be provided to the community. In the last decade, municipal corporate structures have changed significantly. Many fire chiefs, as do I, now report to a commissioner who in turn reports to the chief administrative officer, who in turn reports to the municipal council.

The concern, which has been expressed by many fire chiefs, is quite simple. In their opinion, the further removed from council they become in the reporting structure, the more concerned they become about maintaining their ability, and in fact their duty, to ensure that council receives all relevant information required to permit it to make informed decisions about appropriate levels of fire protection services and programs. If the fire chief is the agent of council on matters pertaining to fire protection and public safety, some access to council is appropriate.

"Ultimately" reporting to council does not require a direct line between the fire chief and the municipal council on a regular basis. However, it is my opinion that the fire chief must maintain the ability to approach council on matters of significance which threaten or impact public safety. In my case, I have access to a fire and emergency services committee of council which allows me to ensure that appropriate interaction takes place.

An effective reporting structure permits the fire chief to better assist the municipal council in making policy decisions relating to public safety. It also ensures that the appropriate practices, procedures and operational systems required to support council's wishes are implemented.

Much has been said about the lack of consultation during the process of revising and consolidating the existing fire safety legislation. Significant consultation, over many years and under many governments, has taken place. What is lacking is agreement rather than consultation. It is time to recognize that complete agreement necessary to resolve all issues in the minds of the many stakeholders will never be achieved. Not in 1997 or not in the year 2007. Changed legislation to permit increased flexibility to municipalities so that appropriate levels of public fire protection, based on flexible risk assessment models, can be achieved in an affordable manner is required now.

In order to understand the cause of the conflict between the unions and management as it relates to Bill 84, one must examine their mandates. The unions are charged with the responsibility of securing the best deal possible for their members and are struggling to maintain the many financial and organizational benefits which they have negotiated or have been awarded over the years. However, times have changed. Dwindling resource bases cry out for innovative, responsible approaches to providing public fire protection. We can no longer afford to approach the fire safety problem as we did in years gone by.

Municipalities and fire service managers, although mindful of the wellbeing of their employees, have a much larger mandate. They must focus on providing deliverables, based on the needs and expectations of the public. Notwithstanding the need to treat our employees well, the fire service cannot lose sight of its primary focus on public safety.

Issues such as automatic aid agreements, changes in hours of work, operational changes in service delivery have traditionally been resisted by the unions because of the perceived impact on their membership rather than the impact on public safety. To resist these methods of improving public safety in some ways contradicts the unions' campaign banner that "Speed, experience and teamwork save lives."

I am very comfortable in saying that Bill 84 will enhance public safety in the province of Ontario by applying a balanced approach to the creation of a more flexible environment in which to manage the many challenges ahead. Rather than being concerned about their safety in the aftermath of Bill 84, I believe that the public should rejoice its enactment.

The Vice-Chair: Thank you, Mr Mintoff. We have under one minute per caucus, starting with the Liberal caucus.

Mr Ramsay: Thank you, Mr Mintoff. I'm just wondering why we have such varying opinions from chiefs across the province. You seem very concerned about the union membership in a fire department, while other chiefs seem to be able to work well with them. I was just wondering why you think there's such a broad difference of management approach by different chiefs and the relationship they have with their firefighters.

Mr Mintoff: Is your question, why do I think that there is a need for expanded management exclusions? Is that correct?

Mr Ramsay: Well, I just wanted to know --

The Vice-Chair: Mr Ramsay, I'm sorry. I did say under one minute per caucus. We do have to move on.

Mr Kormos: Mr Ramsay can have my time to get a response.

Mr Ramsay: What I'm getting is a very different message from different chiefs. The chief of Toronto has come before us, and Peterborough. Windsor has made a submission, and we'll hear from him directly when we go there next week. They seem to be able to manage under the present system in managing the firefighters within the organization, but you make a very strong case that it doesn't work and that you somehow need more control and more managers. I was just wondering why the difference of approach between the different chiefs.

Mr Mintoff: As I said in my presentation, I believe there becomes a fettering of loyalties and a conflict of loyalties when issues of job performance, whether it be disciplinary in nature or effectiveness-oriented, come between unionized members.

Mr Carr: As usual, there isn't enough time. One minute doesn't give us a whole lot of time other than to say, as I've done with everybody else, thank you for taking the time and doing the presentation and coming in. We appreciate the input.

Mr Mintoff: Thank you for the opportunity.

The Vice-Chair: Mr Mintoff, on behalf of the committee, thank you very much for your presentation.

1600

SILVANA HELLIWELL

The Vice-Chair: The next presenter is Silvana Helliwell. Good afternoon, Mrs Helliwell. You can begin any time.

Mrs Silvana Helliwell: Good afternoon. My name is Silvana Helliwell. I would like to thank the committee for allowing me to speak and represent the community of Durham region as well as the disabled population of Ontario. I am a resident and a homeowner in Markham. I am married and a mother of a four-year-old son. I am also employed by Revenue Canada.

I am opposed to Bill 84. The proposals outlined in Bill 84 will make it easier for municipalities to understaff fire stations and use part-time firefighters, which in turn will increase the response time, jeopardize teamwork and reduce the high standard of fire protection that we the citizens of Ontario have known for more than 50 years under the current Fire Departments Act.

My family and I are opposed to this bill because, as a disabled person, I depend on the firefighters not only for fire protection but also for fast emergency response in many other situations. I have had horrible situations where, thank God, the firefighters came to my rescue in a very short time frame. I will elaborate on a couple of these situations.

My husband, who is not disabled, works shift work, so I am alone when he goes to work. I depend on health care aides for daily living activities, such things as personal care and upkeep of the house.

This particular day, I was getting assistance from my bed to my wheelchair when my health care aide accidentally lost grip of me and I slowly fell to the floor. I was jammed between the bed and my wheelchair, and my attendant could not get me up. I had no other resources of help in the immediate present. I was in pain and afraid my leg was broken, so I told her to call the fire department.

They arrived within minutes and took control of the situation. They checked me over for injury and got me back into my wheelchair. They recommended I be checked at the hospital. It turned out that my leg was only sprained. It would have broken if had they not arrived on time and reacted in the professional, efficient manner they did.

Part of the formula that helped make this situation have a happy ending is the fact that I know the firefighters and they know who I am. I had previously been to the fire station and introduced myself. They had documented where I lived and what my situation is. They had even been to my home and preplanned their entry and did a floor plan in case of poor visibility in my house.

Another incident occurred when my son was first born and I had gone to live with my parents for a while. Once again the fire department was informed of our situation. My brother, who is also wheelchair-bound, lives in my parents' home as well.

On this particular day, my brother and I were in the basement working on the computer when we heard a loud explosion upstairs and then the power went off. The explosion turned out to be a transformer outside, so we were not in immediate danger, but we were informed that the transformer had gone and that the power would probably be out for most of the day, up to early evening.

We told the hydro people that there were two disabled people in the basement, but they were unable to help at that time. The elevator that takes me to the main floor has no emergency backup and no manual mode. We were trapped, which was a really scary feeling. It was like being trapped in a car wreck, with no injuries and no option but to sit and wait. However, when the power goes out at 10 am and it's now 1 pm and, as you know, nature calls, you tend to get worried.

I called the fire department. Again, they recognized our situation and were there within minutes. They carried us up from the basement and carried our 250-pound wheelchairs up for us. The power did get restored about 8 pm that day. I will never forget how courteous, professional and well informed they were.

Now that I am a taxpayer, married and a mother of a four-year-old, I am more concerned about the changes in Bill 84. The situations I have related to you today only touch upon the needs of the disabled and elderly in the communities of Ontario. We must have the highest standards maintained for our fire service. Bill 84 can only reduce the excellent levels of fire protection, emergency response and the brotherhood that currently exists within the fire service as we know it today. Bill 84 threatens that which has taken years to build.

Thank you again for listening and giving me an opportunity to speak on behalf of not only me and my family but also on behalf of my community and others in similar situations. Please don't let Bill 84 pass as written. It must be amended to ensure the continuation of the very best service possible and also to treat fairly the men and women who are all so dedicated to serve us as the firefighters of Ontario. Thank you.

Mr Kormos: Thank you, Ms Helliwell, for coming down to the committee. You, along with a whole lot of other people today, have made some very powerful representations to the committee, because you're talking about real-life scenarios. You've shared that with us, and I'm certainly grateful to you. I'm sure the rest of the committee is.

It was interesting because the Metro Toronto Police Association -- they're going through their own amendments to their act right now, and they're not very happy about those, but they're concerned enough about what's happening to firefighters that they've made a submission to the committee as well. You're ad idem with them.

They say: (1) that Bill 84 makes it easier for municipalities to understaff fire stations and emergency vehicles by virtue of permitting fire departments to call in firefighters only after an emergency occurs; (2) they are very conscious of the fact that Bill 84 means that full-time, professional, trained firefighters can be replaced with part-timers, who are inevitably going to have less training and experience; (3) they express a concern of all of us, that Bill 84 opens the door to privatization.

We've heard the horror stories from the United States about for-profit corporations. Those guys are lined up at the Peace Bridge, down where I come from. The American corporate operators are lined up waiting to privatize corrections, ambulance services -- Rural/Metro, an American for-profit company, has already come into Ontario and bought six municipal ambulance services just last month -- health care, firefighting, water and sewer systems.

The Metro Toronto Police Association talks about this business of management, about how Bill 84 is going to permit municipalities or any other employer, even the private sector -- that's where it really comes into play, where all this ties in with the privatization -- to defeat the association or the federation, whichever the case may be, by loading up on management people rather than hands-on firefighters. Of course the Metro Toronto Police Association is incredibly aware that Bill 84 is an attack on the concept of teamwork that's developed among firefighters, with their platoons and working together as full-time professional firefighters.

There we go: The ranks of opposition to this bill just grow and grow, from sources as credible as you and the Metro Toronto Police Association. Thanks for coming. I hope the government's listening.

Mrs Marland: Silvana, you and I met, quite a long time ago, actually. I didn't know you were married, and congratulations on your son. I can't resist that personal comment, because the very first time I met you was at a magic show in Mississauga, with our own Mississauga fire department sponsoring it, and I met you at some subsequent events, including more shows.

I've always been very impressed with the tremendous ability you have, and I appreciate, I say most sincerely on my own behalf and on behalf of the government, that you have made the effort to be here today, because the area you're pointing out, about the needs of people with disabilities in terms of any situation of crisis, be it an emergency such as a power outage, let alone a fire emergency, is a very special, defined area of emergency. I notice that Larry McPhail is with you today too, from our Mississauga department.

I know that what you're talking about in this brief, Silvana, is a very serious comment about having access to those services when you need them. I really wonder if there's anything more you wanted to say that relates to where the bill is going to deteriorate those services. The decisions about level of service are going to be made by elected people like us or elected people, as I was before, on Mississauga council, and all of us will be as accountable to you or anyone else in delivering the services quickly and accessibly. Fire protection and the emergency service example you've given are a priority in terms of human need, and no local municipal council is going to make cuts in that area, because they are directly accountable to the people.

I'm wondering if you have a real concern with the kinds of people who have been elected to municipal councils before, because I don't know of any where they wouldn't be able to make that priority decision in terms of funding.

Mrs Helliwell: I do have a comment. I'm involved with health care issues with myself, personally. What I'm concerned about if this bill goes through with no amendments, because of the aging population and people like me who are now living in the mainstream -- I live in my own home. I've worked really hard, along with my husband -- he's here today -- to live independently, to be a taxpayer like everybody else in this room and to not have him worry when he goes to work, "If she falls out of a chair or if there is a fire or anything like that, who's going to help her?" Also, for the elderly, especially in Markham -- Markham has a lot of seniors. I was in the hospital about a month ago with pneumonia. When I was in there, an elderly person came in. They were in their house for about three days until somebody found them. The fire department brought them in.

The Vice-Chair: Mrs Helliwell, I'm sorry; we have to move on to the next caucus.

Mr Ramsay: Thank you very much for making your presentation These personal presentations are very important to us because they give us a greater understanding of the importance of the fire service and really expand on, for a person like myself, who hasn't had that much involvement with the fire service, the whole gamut of services they provide. Especially, you illustrate for an able-bodied person something I would take, depending on the season, I suppose, as being fairly inconsequential: the loss of power. But of course for you, that potentially, as it did in the case you illustrated, meant a loss of mobility, obviously an extremely important consequence to you.

It really helps us with our understanding. I'd like to make a comment that Ms Marland made. I agree: I don't think that under normal circumstances any politician would want to jeopardize any services that are delivered to people, especially at the municipal level, where they have that understanding of providing and delivering those services.

But the member for Mississauga South has to realize that times have changed. It's her own government that has put increasing pressures on the municipal level of government and therefore has to present bills such as Bill 84 that in a sense give an escape clause to municipal councils, to say, "We're going to give you the opportunity." They're saying: "Not that we're promoting privatization or many of these other things, but we're just going to lay it out for you in case you find you might be pressured. It's coming from us, the provincial government, to do these things." That's the fear, and that's why I would like to see some very strong amendments in this bill that would protect our emergency service across Ontario. I'm certainly, I'm sure with others, going to be putting those forward.

The Vice-Chair: Thank you, Mrs Helliwell, for your presentation.

The committee now is going to take a five-minute recess so we can set up our projector.

The committee recessed from 1612 to 1620.

HOLLY BENSON DIANNE BAUER

The Chair: We will now proceed with the presentation by Holly Benson and Dianne Bauer.

Ms Holly Benson: Good afternoon. My name is Holly Benson and I appreciate having the opportunity to speak with you briefly today regarding my concerns with Bill 84.

I'm not a professional firefighter, nor am I immediately related to one nor am I employed by any fire association or organization in this province or otherwise. What I am instead is merely a private citizen whose life has been touched directly by experiences with fire and with fire professionals. I am also one of the thousands of Ontarians who understand that the safety of our families and our neighbourhoods and the stability of our commercial and corporate communities hinge on the ability of professional firefighters to do the job that we expect, and frankly, frequently take for granted of them.

I know that in a world of dramatic change and growing uncertainty it is one of those givens that my home, my family, my place of employment will be protected from the potential devastation of fire. That is one of those assumptions that allows me to sleep a little better at night.

Twice in my life that was not the case. When I was 10 or perhaps 11 I was awakened late one night by my frantic parents and rushed out to the street of our quiet neighbourhood in an older part of Mississauga. I watched in some state of shock and fascinated horror as the home next to ours was engulfed by flames. Standing in the dark night in my bare feet, clutching my mother's hand and watching the rain of sparks fall upon our rooftop, I can remember being absolutely terrified that our house would next catch fire. At ten or eleven, that stark possibility was virtually inconceivable.

It was then I became aware of the firefighters moving swiftly, efficiently and seemingly fearlessly through the night around us and I understood that they were there not only to extinguish the blaze next door, but to ensure that our small house, the centre of my world, remained safe and intact.

The fire was finally controlled and our house was saved, but I had more than just a great story for school the next day, I had one of those experiences that left an indelible impression.

Years later as a university student in Kitchener-Waterloo, I was again wakened one night by the sound of sirens and the smell of smoke, and I rose to find the adjacent side of our semi-detached house in flames. That house was uninhabited at the time, but the same fear from a dozen years earlier welled over me -- my house and everything I owned was going to disappear in heat and smoke. Once again, professional firefighters were on the scene virtually immediately, and quickly and thoroughly the fire was out and my small frame home was again, thankfully, safe from the very real threat of fire.

Twice in my life people, possessions and property I cherished were saved from damage if not utter destruction by the fast response, capable actions and cool professionalism of this province's firefighters. I owe them my life and my happiness twice over, and I don't know if I've ever really thanked them, actually. But I have more than enough cause to appreciate them and their work and to have a very personal understanding of the impact they can have on individual lives like mine. Now that I have a husband, two children and my own home, I take the issue of fire protection and fire prevention in my community and across Ontario even more seriously and very personally.

Bill 84 includes a number of items that need to be addressed and revised, if not in fact omitted completely, in that they would allow for broad and inconsistent application by municipalities. These include but are not limited to guaranteeing that firefighters are required to retain full-time status, that my municipality's fire services include fire protection as an intrinsic part of the fire prevention and public education programs trio, that the teams that have saved lives and property in this province for the past 75 years so effectively continue to operate as cohesive teams and not as fragmented units of part-timers, casual staff or off-duty call-ins after the fact.

No one in this room would support a piece of legislation that gave school boards the provision of teaching children in classrooms staffed entirely by supply teachers instead of accredited educators. Personally, I wouldn't want to risk my life in an operating room led by casually employed, part-time surgeons who were perhaps a tad inexperienced.

Yet the Fire Protection and Prevention Act as it currently stands opens the doors for potentially dramatic and debilitating changes to the provision of our provincial fire services: fewer firefighters on call ready to respond to an emergency as it happens, the employment of part-time firefighters with potentially less experience and training, a possible reduction in the rapid response rate that continually saves lives in communities across Ontario -- all combining to jeopardize the split-second teamwork that is the hallmark of focused, effective fire service.

Perhaps the level of exemplary service we've come to expect is simply too costly an enterprise to continue. In these leaner, and some would say meaner times, couldn't we all understand if the cities wanted to just explore part-time staff or perhaps privatization as a means of downsizing their costs a little in their operating budgets? Those managing our towns and cities will be hard pressed to keep the long-term implications and related costs of an even slightly deregulated fire service firmly in mind when sharpening their administrative pencils over plowing snow for seniors and keeping the books on the library shelves.

Do we open the Pandora's box of completely restructuring fire service, and if so, at what ultimate cost? Studies in Michigan and North Carolina have found that part-time firefighters are consistently less effective than full-time firefighters, with slower response times, disruptions in training, maintenance and fire planning, and in gaining actual hands-on experience. No amount of purported front-end tax savings will make the horrendous track records of some of the leading US private fire service companies even remotely acceptable to the unwary public, at least not after their buildings and fields begin to burn unchecked.

The citizens and civic leaders from Sun City, Phoenix, Daisy Mountain, Glendale and Cave Creek, Arizona, are all undoubtedly still paying the bills for over seven years of bungled, unaccountable, mismanaged privatized fire service. This is one American lesson we would be well advised to heed. There is another somewhere in the fact that less than one half of one percent of all fire departments in North America actually use part-time firefighters.

Why then would it make any sense to support a bill that opens up loopholes like these and risks eroding the level of fire prevention and protection we have all come to expect and in many cases personally appreciate? How many more minutes longer than the current four- to six-minute average response time will the corporate sector deem acceptable when it begins calculating the potential for damage to property for suddenly inflated insurance costs? What decrease in the percentage of successful rescues will the public actually consider an appropriate risk? Who specifically wants to be the one to hear and respond to these questions?

When my nights were twice lit by flames and filled with smoke, I know who answered the call: experienced, professionally trained, full-time, committed firefighters. I have told you about their efficiency, their speed, their thoroughness and their dedication to duty. I, as one of many who have shared their concerns with this piece of proposed legislation, believe that to jeopardize the provision of skills, equipment, training and teamwork that enable firefighters to routinely save lives and protect property is ill-advised, incautious and perhaps short-sighted.

I am speaking today to voice my fervent hope that Bill 84 will be readdressed and revisited, that the mandate and organizational structures that shape, guide and govern the status of Ontario's firefighters will be preserved and maintained, and will allow them to continue their exemplary efforts and documented achievements.

This province is blessed by a level of public fire service that is the envy of comparable operations across North America. It is one of those critical elements that consistently keep our nation and our province high, if not at the very pinnacle of international rankings of quality of life. It is quite simply what the public expects. The ability of professional firefighters to provide this service to me and to all of us is one I believe must be preserved and strengthened, not tampered with nor challenged, whatever the political or economic climate, and no matter how well intentioned.

When I asked my daughter Terri who is now eleven years old what she thinks about firefighters, she said, "They're brave because they risk their lives to go into burning buildings and places and save people they don't even know." I hope my daughter never experiences the terror and trauma that a brush with fire can bring to your life. I pray that as she grows up the cities and towns of Ontario will still be able to boast of their legacy of fire protection and fire prevention because this government will have had the wisdom to preserve those high standards for our future.

I'd like to now turn the rest of this session over to my colleague Dianne Bauer.

1630

The Chair: Ms Bauer, there is five minutes left, so use it accordingly.

Ms Dianne Bauer: I am Dianne Bauer, executive director of Waterloo Regional Heart Save. Heart Save is a community not-for-profit agency. We are dedicated to providing CPR, first aid, public education programs and developing our community's chain of survival. I have been in the prehospital emergency care education field for more than 17 years and I'm honoured to have been an invited presenter at international symposia on emergency cardiac care in Cincinnati, Seattle, Richmond, Virginia, and Montreal on various topics including emergency system entry. I'm very pleased to have the opportunity to speak today.

I am speaking today about a concept known as the community chain of survival -- I've brought some overheads to help us become a little clearer since it is coming to the end of the day -- and expressing my concerns about the effects Bill 84 may have on the response time and the role that firefighters currently play in medical responses in our community.

The links of the chain: The first is early access; the second is early CPR; the third is early defibrillation; the fourth is early advanced care. They present a model which is interdependent in its links and in which the firefighters play a very important role.

Early access involves prompt recognition of an emergency and prompt entry into the emergency system. It is a citizen link. The second link represents early CPR. Although we do try to train as many citizens as possible, it's an ideal situation. The reality is that in less than 10% of the time for life-threatening situations is a bystander available to do that, so often the firefighters arriving on the scene represent the early CPR link. In our community and many like it across the province, the larger urban fire and ambulance services provide the early defibrillation link. Finally, early advanced care in communities across the province is dependent upon the communities doing their homework and getting their system in order. Those that have the other parts of the link well in order may meet the qualifications for advanced life support by paramedic personnel, so all in all, we're looking at a community system of which the firefighters are a very integral part.

If we can have a look at the diagram on the lower part of the overhead, the line across the top represents minutes ticking by in the case of an emergency response; specifically, a vital sign is absent. If you can imagine that little line down the left-hand side of the page as being zero time when breathing and pulse stop, the first particular scenario, the wiggly line there represents the electrical activity that's going on in the heart after breathing and pulse stop. The electrical activity happens for some period of time before it finally runs out and becomes what's known in the hospital TV shows as the flat line.

In the first scenario we have, someone has made the call and the first thing that happens is defibrillation at about the 10-minute mark. You can see -- well, maybe you can't see -- it's 0.2% survival in that instance.

The next line down represents early CPR being implemented by a bystander but defibrillation being delayed until about the 10-minute mark, and in this case I believe we have about a 2.8% chance of survival.

The third scenario shows early CPR and shows defibrillation happening more quickly, and simply moving up the time until defibrillation happens moves the survival rate to about 20%, and that's great news. Time is everything in cases of life-threatening emergencies.

In the final scenario we see the optimum chain of survival. We see early activation into the system, early CPR, early defibrillation and early advanced life support, and the numbers at the end of that column show about a 30% chance of survival in cases where those things happen. That's wonderful news, but it's very time-dependent.

The next overhead is from another study. It's taken actually from the textbook from the American Heart Association on survival rates -- sorry, this one is Mickey Eisenberg's study out of Seattle and you can see where the chain of survival is all in place, and in that particular study, they saw a 43% chance of survival. That's what I'd like for my community and my province, to see a community system that works well.

If we can go back to the very first one with the chain of survival, I think that will be a good background as I look at the critical nature of time and what firefighters do.

Although we encourage citizens to take training, firefighters are often the early CPR link. Maybe we can change that with more training. We'll certainly try hard.

Firefighters reach the emergency site to administer defibrillation often before ambulance crews, and a local study is currently showing firefighters arriving two full minutes before the ambulance personnel. When time is everything, that means a lot, and I'd hate very much to see them lose that advantage of getting there in time to provide that very important service.

When we look at that fourth link, we tend not to think of firefighters, but our community realized that because of their activities and because of their response times meeting the criteria for the Ministry of Health, we were able to get permission to go on with the Ontario advanced program through the Ministry of Health to get our paramedics. They have worked very hard to help with the criteria to have well-trained paramedics who will start their training in about two weeks for our community. They're very much indebted to the work of the local firefighters to have that done.

Fire departments throughout our region and across Ontario are also very involved in citizen training, organizing and helping with blitzes, and have responded in that way for better than a decade in most of our regions. They are very actively involved in all the chains of survival.

In summary, firefighters are an integral part of our community chain of survival. Their prompt and timely arrival not only provides access to early defibrillation, but in many situations where trained citizens are not present, they provide early CPR link as well.

The links in any community's chain of survival are interdependent. Just as the effective functioning of all of the links in the chain provide the best possible chance of survival for victims of life-threatening medical emergencies, the failure of any one of those links to promptly execute their role jeopardizes the chance of survival for people in life-threatening medical situations.

I trust that the hearings will give serious consideration to the important role of firefighters that play a very integral part in the community chain of survival, well beyond what we traditionally think of as the firefighting role.

Thank you very much for the opportunity to speak.

The Chair: Thank you both for your presentation here today.

Mr Kormos: On a point of order, Mr Chair: We heard earlier about the issue of response time when it comes to fires and how crucial it is with respect to fires and being able to extricate people and/or suppress a fire. Today we heard about response time when it comes to lifesaving tactics or approaches.

There's a reference to studies in Michigan and North Carolina that, according to Ms Benson's submission, reported that part-time firefighters are consistently less effective, among other things, with respect to response times. I would ask that the Chair instruct that the research staff obtain that. I think it's important that this material be filed with the committee, it having been referred to. These are just incredibly persuasive arguments about part-timers and --

The Chair: Excuse me, Mr Kormos, are you requesting information from our staff? Which studies were those?

Ms Benson: I'm sure the original documentation can be provided to the committee.

The Chair: Could you provide it to the committee?

Ms Benson: I'm sure we can do that, yes.

The Chair: We certainly would appreciate that. Could the Clerk have your card? We thank you very much for that. That will prove valuable to all of us.

Mr Kormos: Further, I would ask that legislative research follow up and perhaps investigate even further as to the availability of similar studies. Europe, I'm sure, has had some experience with it as well, perhaps even places like New Zealand which have undergone these types of exercises.

1640

SCARBOROUGH PROFESSIONAL FIRE FIGHTERS ASSOCIATION

The Chair: Our next presentation will be made by the Scarborough Professional Fire Fighters Association, Mr Barry Papaleo. Welcome.

Mr Barry Papaleo: My name is Barry Papaleo and I'm the president of the Scarborough Professional Fire Fighters Association. Seated beside me is Bob McWhinnie, who is a member of our association.

Although I don't want to use up much of my valuable time rebutting or challenging the comments made by one of the previous speakers, the former chief of the Scarborough fire department, I would, however, point out that the current fire chief has been in the position for nine years and addressed this committee earlier today. He never expressed the types of problems offered by the former chief. Perhaps the problems he has alleged to have experienced back then had more to do with the particular management style.

I would like to thank the committee for this opportunity to address you today with regard to our concerns about Bill 84 as it is presently proposed.

The Scarborough Professional Fire Fighters Association is made up of 496 professional firefighters who serve the citizens of the city of Scarborough. Our association has represented firefighters for some 58 years and during that time we have managed to secure, through the free collective bargaining process, working conditions and a compensation package that afford our members decent, but not excessive, wages as well as a degree of dignity in their workplace. These hard-won benefits are important to our members. It has taken years to acquire them and they will not be relinquished without resistance.

We believe Bill 84, especially part IX, "Firefighters: Employment and Labour Relations," is fundamentally flawed. It not only jeopardizes public safety, it also adversely affects the collective agreements and intrinsic rights of professional firefighters in the city of Scarborough, and indeed across the province of Ontario.

While the present Fire Departments Act is clear, concise and understandable, part IX of this proposed legislation is legalistic, fuzzy and often unintelligible. We have yet to find anyone who fully understands it.

At this point I would like to take the committee to a number of specific areas of the bill that the Scarborough firefighters have the most concern about.

Hours of work, sections 43 and 53: Firefighters in the city of Scarborough and in most other municipalities in the province continue to work a 42-hour workweek on a 10-hour day and 14-hour night shift. In Scarborough we have been successful in negotiating a four-day week consisting of a 42-hour week for our day workers. Those are the people in fire prevention, training and the mechanical divisions. Any forced alteration to our present working hours will have a detrimental impact on our members who have, for years, patterned their lives around the reality of their shifts.

Section 52, entitled "Scope of bargaining," excludes hours of work as a bargaining issue and invokes section 43, which allows fire departments to unilaterally impose any system of hours of work so long as it does not require firefighters to be on duty for more than 48 hours in an average workweek. Surely, any reasonable person would agree that this section is regressive in the extreme and simply not acceptable or conducive to harmonious labour relations. In fact, we believe it may be illegal.

Negotiating hours of work is a basic bargaining right enjoyed, to our knowledge, by all other bargaining agents in Ontario. We must question why firefighters have been singled out with such a draconian clause.

Privatization/part-time firefighters, section 41: The changes in the definition of an employer and a firefighter in the above section will, without a doubt, lead municipalities to consider the privatization of their fire departments as well as the introduction of part-time firefighters into Ontario's fire and emergency services.

Like police protection, fire safety is too important to be left to the private sector. The private sector does many things well, but fire protection is not one of them. The myth of privatization is that it will make the fire service more efficient and will save the taxpayers money. Yet, as we have seen in the United States, the results have been service deterioration and unsatisfied customers.

The driving factor behind a privatized fire department is to make money for the company providing the service. It is propelled by the profit motive and bottom-line economics. Fire and emergency medical services are public services that should be provided for the public good, and accessible to all citizens, regardless of economic status. The possible privatization of the fire service has no place in the province of Ontario and will, if implemented, put our citizens and communities at great risk.

Part-time firefighters cannot possibly be as well trained as full-time firefighters. Their use will encourage municipalities to understaff fire stations and rely on a call-back system when an emergency occurs. It is universally accepted that properly staffed vehicles with fully trained and experienced firefighters are essential if fires are to be extinguished and lifesaving rescue is to be successful. The first few minutes are the most critical in both fire and medical emergencies.

Bill 84 allows municipalities to play Russian roulette with public safety and undermines the commitment to full staff. Privatization, part-timers and the call-in provisions allowed in Bill 84 will encourage municipalities to let staffing fall to a dangerous level. Firefighters will be brought in only after an emergency occurs. This will lead to slower response times and an inescapable increase in property damage and lost lives, not to mention the enhanced safety risks to the professional firefighters on the scene. If Bill 84 was really about public safety, a commitment to mandatory well-staffed fire trucks would have gone a long way to ensuring this goal.

Bargaining unit exclusions, sections 41(2) and 58(1) and (2): Under the existing Fire Departments Act only the fire chief and the deputy fire chief positions are excluded from the bargaining unit. When the fire chiefs demand more exclusions to enable them to perform their duties, it should be remembered that there is in the city of Scarborough, as in most municipalities, a bureaucracy with excellent human resource capabilities, as well as a number of employees at the fire department headquarters to aid and buttress the fire chiefs in their administrative obligations.

This committee should also know that over the past few years many municipalities have chosen not to replace their deputy chiefs when the occasion arises. If they fail to restore the managers they are presently entitled to, how can they in good conscience argue that they need more managers? The massive management exclusions allowed under Bill 84 will add more bureaucrats and take firefighters off front lines where they are needed the most. Effective firefighting relies heavily on the team concept to adequately and safely perform our duties.

Firefighters and officers who regularly attend the fire scene are part of the team and should remain part of the bargaining unit. In Scarborough this would include district chiefs, who are consistently present at the emergency scene fulfilling their role as the incident commanders. These senior and experienced firefighters should remain part of the team.

Section 58 authorizes the employer to assign an unlimited number of persons as managers. This can be appealed to the labour relations board, but until the appeal is heard any firefighter so designated remains outside of the bargaining unit. Subsection 4 allows the employer to revoke designations at any time. In addition, up to five firefighters may be designated as managers with absolutely no recourse to any body. Even the fire marshal recommended that after a certain number any further exclusions should be subject to negotiations and/or arbitration.

In the city of Scarborough it has been implied that upon the passage of Bill 84 at least 17 senior officers will be taken out of the Local 626 bargaining unit. This would not be simple additions needed for more efficient management; it would be blatant union-busting. At the very least the bill should allow for the number of exclusions to be determined by the size of the fire department.

Without some finality over who will be in and who will be out of the bargaining unit, confrontations will never cease and lengthy and costly legal battles over exclusions are assured. This section of Bill 84 invites endless conflicts and adversarial labour relations in the fire service, which is to the detriment of the citizens, the professional firefighters and the municipalities themselves.

Successor rights: There is nothing in Bill 84 that deals with successor rights for firefighters who may be amalgamated with other jurisdictions. Thus, any reorganization of the fire service could reduce the current standards and collective agreements with the stroke of a pen. Especially now, those of us who are employed by municipalities in Metropolitan Toronto must be guaranteed successor rights to our jobs.

Firefighters deserve to know and be consulted on this and other issues. When major reforms like those proposed in part IX of Bill 84, not to mention the megacity bill, are tabled, the views of the firefighters should be genuinely solicited and seriously considered.

General comments: Much has been, and will be, made of the consultation process that has led to Bill 84. Premier Harris promised the firefighters in the province of Ontario, "No changes will be made under a Harris government until such time as your members have been thoroughly consulted and we will insist that all changes be fully costed, both from the point of view of workers as well as management." This promised consultation has not taken place and the firefighters have yet to see any costings with regard to Bill 84.

1650

Our association has closely followed the deliberations of the Fire Departments Act review committee during the time of its existence and was surprised and disappointed to find that a number of issues that were never discussed have managed to find their way into Bill 84. Included among these issues are privatization; part-time firefighters; certification/decertification of our locals; involvement of the labour relations board; removal of the firefighters' rights to negotiate hours of work; the massive exclusions allowed under Bill 84; mandatory conciliation where firefighters must pay the cost.

It would seem to me that for real and meaningful consultation to have taken place, the finished product must bear some resemblance to what was actually discussed during the so-called consultation process. Part IX of Bill 84 replicates very little of the reported discussions and agreements that were reached at the Fire Departments Act review committee meetings. Thus with Bill 84 we have gone from the relative clarity of the present Fire Departments Act to the incomprehensible murkiness of part IX.

The Scarborough Professional Fire Fighters Association is today urging the committee to listen to the professional firefighters, both men and women, who ride the fire trucks and deal on a daily basis with the consequences of fires, medical calls and a host of other emergencies. They know that for the most part the process is not broken. In fact, the citizens of Ontario enjoy one of the best fire and emergency response systems in the world. There is always room for improvement, but part IX of the bill is a giant step backward.

Part IX will make firefighting more dangerous for our members as well as for the public at large. This is regrettable since a new Fire Departments Act could have made a positive difference for firefighters and the citizens of the province. The Scarborough Professional Fire Fighters Association, like others in the fire service, welcome Bill 84's commitment to mandatory fire prevention and public education. I am not here today asking this committee to do away with Bill 84. However, the professional fire fighters in the city of Scarborough do maintain that part IX should be rescinded by this committee or amended to address the real concerns being put forth by the public and the firefighters.

There is still time to get it right. The stakeholders should be reconvened along with the Solicitor General in a serious effort to arrive at a consensus on a new part IX. The committee should strike a real blow for public safety and tell the government that part IX of Bill 84 has some serious problems. It is not reasoned and thoughtful legislation whether examined from the point of view of the citizens of Ontario or the professional firefighters who serve them. However well intentioned the bill is, it will impact negatively on public and firefighter safety.

We believe that firefighters have a special relationship with the citizens in the province. Public satisfaction with the service we provide has consistently shown up at the top of any surveys that have been done. Firefighters have responded to this vote of confidence by taking a real interest in their communities. In Scarborough alone, we have raised over a quarter of a million dollars to equip the Scarborough General Hospital burn unit. At this time of year, the firehalls in Scarborough are busy with people dropping off bags of food for the Daily Bread Food Bank. Many of them bring their children to meet the firefighters, see the fire trucks and tour the station.

To date, our firefighters in Scarborough have collected over 12,000 signatures on a petition from people who agree with us. This is no mean feat. It represents a very significant number of ordinary citizens who believe Bill 84 threatens their safety.

The professional firefighters in the city of Scarborough urge the standing committee not to encourage the use of part-time firefighters or private fire departments. Don't promote a call-in system that will leave fire stations permanently understaffed; don't add a new level of bureaucracy to the fire departments by allowing the extensive exclusions allowed under Bill 84; finally, do not pass a bill that takes a labour relations process that has been responsible for years and years of uninterrupted quality service to the citizens of Ontario and replace it with one that promises nothing but ongoing confrontation and litigation between firefighters and their employers.

In closing, let me thank you for your attention. You have a difficult but important job. Bill 84 requires extensive revisions to make it workable to firefighters and beneficial to the citizens of Ontario. This is your challenge. Thank you.

The Chair: I thank you very much for your presentation. The time has elapsed.

I was wondering if it would be of any value to request that our researcher provide for us any constitution or obligations of firefighters to each other, pursuant to the professional organizations. I am interested because there's been some reference to that and I was wondering what that might play in judgments they make. Would anybody have any objection to receiving that information?

Mrs Marland: No. I think, Mr Chair, it would be interesting. It would be valuable to us.

The Chair: I'm just curious.

Mrs Marland: Yes, I think it would be valuable to us.

The Chair: Fine. If they would provide that.

ONTARIO MUNICIPAL FIRE PREVENTION OFFICERS' ASSOCIATION

The Chair: Our last submission is the Ontario Municipal Fire Prevention Officers' Association, Roy Chalk. Welcome.

Mr Roy Chalk: Mr Chairman, I'm Roy Chalk and this is Bob Webb. Mr Webb is going to do the presentation this afternoon.

Mr Robert Webb: The Ontario Municipal Fire Prevention Officers' Association, representing over 500 fire prevention officers from 220 fire departments in Ontario, welcomes the opportunity to address you today on the fire prevention aspects of Bill 84.

Our members include full-time, composite and volunteer officers from all regions of the province, and our goal is to prevent the loss of life and property through fire prevention education and the enforcement of the Ontario fire code. As an organization that is interested in fire prevention, investigation and public safety, it is our intention to only discuss those areas of the bill.

We as an organization support the fire prevention aspects of Bill 84 because we believe that fire prevention must be a vital part of every community within the province. We firmly believe the prevention sections of this legislation will result in an improvement in the quality of life for every resident.

Each year needless deaths occur because people did not know what to do or had failed to ensure their life safety equipment, such as smoke alarms, was operating properly. We believe the passing of this bill will reduce this needless annual toll in lives and property in Ontario. We believe this will be accomplished through the efforts of an empowered fire service serving the community with fire and life safety education programs and code enforcement, as mandated by this bill.

The following are our comments and concerns on Bill 84.

Part II, "Responsibility for Fire Protection Services," subsection 2(7), review of municipal fire services: The fire marshal may monitor and review fire protection services. Does this mean the fire marshal will set a minimum standard of fire and life safety in Ontario, or will it be monitored on a municipality-to-municipality basis? If so, how will it be standardized throughout the province?

The review function of fire protection is currently being carried out to a large extent by the Fire Underwriters Survey. Does this mean the fire marshal will operate jointly with this organization?

Section 5, fire departments: We believe the fire prevention division is an integral part of the fire protection services. This section appears to allow segregation of suppression from prevention. We believe suppression services must include a proactive prevention component by working more closely with the residents in their communities through the development and delivery of essential lifesaving and fire prevention programs. We believe this legislation should require that all fire departments deliver both suppression and prevention services because the fire service is properly looked upon as experts by the citizens they serve and the public at large.

1700

Subsection 6(6), delegation: The current act does not allow for delegation of power of the fire chief. The proposed legislation allows these powers to be delegated to "any firefighter or group of firefighters." We believe these powers may be delegated, but only to persons suitable to be designated as assistants to the fire marshal as set out in the proposed legislation, section 11.

Part IV, "Fire Code," section 12: This section should contain a reference to installers and maintainers of fire safety systems and equipment. The present situation is that fire safety equipment is prescribed in various legislation; however, the quality of the installation and maintenance is questionable at best. According to a report by Factory Mutual, life safety systems may have up to a 30% failure rate in emergency situations. We believe essential emergency systems have to be installed and maintained by licensed, qualified and accountable tradespeople.

Section 12(4), buildings under construction: We agree that there should be provisions to permit the use of the

fire code in certain situations. However, we believe the way this section is written may result in a conflict with the Ontario Building Code Act, particularly in circumstances where an unsafe condition may exist. A possibility may arise that an order from the Building Code Act or this legislation could be issued by two different municipal officials for the same condition.

Subsection 12(5), municipal bylaw prevails: Our question is, why would this section be written into the bill without a concerted effort from both the office of the fire marshal and this government to enact a number of amendments to the fire code submitted by the fire service and other stakeholders over many years? To maintain consistency in the province, it is imperative that this government enact these amendments and limit the municipalities' powers to pass bylaws with respect to fire and life safety. For example, many municipalities have passed bylaws for the installation and maintenance of smoke alarms, storage and handling of flammable and combustible liquids, and fire access routes. These bylaws are not consistent throughout the province.

Part V, "Right of Entry in Emergencies and Fire Investigations," section 13: As noted in our comments on subsection 6(6), persons having rights of entry for the above tasks must be appointed by the fire chief. If they are not the members of the fire prevention division, community safety officers or other members of the fire department, they may not be able to carry out their duties. However, if they were assigned designations as assistants to the fire marshal, there would be no problem with these persons carrying out their duties as fire prevention officers and community safety officers.

Part VI, "Inspections," section 22, limitation on orders relating to structural repairs: As the present building stock continues to age, we believe this section may limit the adoption of new technology and lifesaving systems as they are developed. The mere fact that a building complied with a code when built does not mean the life safety endeavours of an inspector should be limited by outdated technology. We are suggesting that the door be left open to ensure the residents of Ontario are provided with improvements in life safety which may originate through improvements in technology or through coroners' inquest recommendations.

Part VIII, "Recovery of Costs," sections 35 to 40: As the province continues to download responsibilities to the municipality, there must be provisions in this legislation to have all fines levied for convictions under the fire code and this act be recoverable by the municipality. This would return much-needed revenues for improvement of fire prevention programs in each community. The government must also recognize that unfunded enforcement may cause municipalities to reduce enforcement of the fire code if fine revenue is not made available to municipalities to offset the costs of legal services and staff associated with prosecuting these violations.

Conclusion: Our 500 members' sole purpose is to prevent fires, through the application of fire prevention programs and enforcement of the fire code, from touching the lives of people and businesses in Ontario. We know only too well the human tragedy that occurs over and over again. This legislation focuses attention on the need for fire prevention to become a part of the residents' everyday life in our province, and for this we are glad to support those aspects of the bill.

In addition to these comments, we have added some other material in our package that may be of use to the committee in their deliberations. Included are copies of the Ontario Municipal Fire Prevention Officers' Association position paper on a code for existing buildings, and a discussion paper with respect to enforcement of the Ontario fire code and associated jurisdictional issues.

Also included are eight resolutions passed by our members at general meetings on matters related to fire and life safety issues. A review of this material will, we hope, assist the individual members in understanding the background and results of the various aspects of the proposed legislation.

On behalf of the executive and members of the Ontario Municipal Fire Prevention Officers' Association, I would ask the government to take our concerns into consideration so the citizens of our province may be afforded the best protection possible. We look forward to working with the legislation when it is finalized and enacted with input from stakeholders like ourselves.

Mr Ron Johnson: Thank you both for your presentation. We had a presentation yesterday from the fire marshal which indicated that of course the majority of fires can be prevented through behavioral change, and to cross-reference that against the part of this piece of legislation which calls for mandatory fire prevention and public education programs in municipalities, I want to get your thoughts on that. Just give me some input on what you think about the province's initiative with respect to that.

As well, just a brief comment with respect to the revenue going to municipalities: I believe that's a good suggestion and it's something the committee should seriously consider.

Mr Webb: Maybe my colleague Mr Chalk would like to answer this.

Mr Chalk: We believe the fire marshal of Ontario is definitely on the right route with the fire prevention initiatives they are pushing. That's why our association is behind the fire prevention aspects of Bill 84. We currently are enjoying fire prevention activities to a level we've never achieved before in this province. We applaud the government for its proposals to make it mandatory. Some of the states in the US have mandatory fire safety education in the school system. These are things that maybe in the future we would look at in the province, to continue to improve it.

On the other part of your question, about the revenue going back to the municipalities, we feel it has to go back to the people who are actually doing the work so that the efforts can continue.

Mr Ron Johnson: It's a good suggestion. Thank you.

Mr Ramsay: Thank you very much for a very substantial presentation with some very constructive ideas for amendments on an area of the bill that's very important but quite frankly doesn't get all the attention because of some other very controversial areas of the bill.

Like Mr Johnson, I think the idea that the municipality should be able to retain the revenues from fire enforcement is an excellent idea that would help fund a very valuable activity at the local level. That is, as we've been pointing out over the last couple of days and included by you, a very important activity, and I think that's an excellent idea.

Mr Webb: The biggest difficulty we have in the fire service, fire prevention, is trying to fund the public education portion of this. Due to all the cutbacks with budgets in municipalities, it makes it very difficult. I know with our budget we have $1,000 to try and print material to go out to the public. It makes it very difficult without private input as well.

Mr Kormos: I am interested in particular in your comments about section 5, the seeming division between fire prevention and fire suppression which is suggested by section 5 and reinforced, I'd say, by section 2 in the way that section 2, although to everybody's pleasure, makes it mandatory that municipalities develop public education programs with respect to fire safety and fire prevention programs. It then omits fire suppression and goes on to talk about the balance of "fire protection services as it determines may be necessary."

It's very weird drafting, quite frankly. It's just weird, because it implies things that the government may not want to imply. Quite frankly, it implies that now fire suppression is discretionary, whereas fire prevention and fire safety programs are not. I'm not quarrelling with the fact that they're not discretionary, but when you read that and then you read section 5 -- I want to make sure I understand. Your argument is that all these things have to happen at the same time by the same team of people, that it's got to be a coordinated effort.

Mr Webb: That's right.

Mr Kormos: You can't isolate this stuff.

Mr Webb: No, not at all. In fact, it's a team effort that the fire suppression division supports the fire prevention division. When they're out doing inspections and also when they're fighting fires, they're noticing fire prevention matters that they can correct onsite while they're there. But they also support the fire prevention division in public education and going around and doing commercial and home inspections, which is an integral part of the fire service.

Mr Kormos: Thank you kindly for your submission.

The Chair: Gentlemen, I compliment you on your submission here today. Thank you very much.

This hearing will be adjourned to the Valhalla Inn, ballroom 1, Thunder Bay, Ontario, at 11:30 am --

Interjection: 12 noon.

The Chair: Sorry, 12 noon rather than 11:30, so you can sleep in.

The committee adjourned at 1712.