Committee Transcript 1997-Apr-14 | 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): Good morning, ladies and gentlemen, members of the committee. I'd ask the members of the public to sit down. I'd ask you to continue your conversations out in the hallway if you could. Otherwise, we will be proceeding.

This is a continuation of the hearings of the standing committee on administration of justice, consideration of Bill 84. The committee is very pleased to be here in the historic city of Kingston today. The committee welcomes Leo Jordan, member for Lanark-Renfrew and John Gerretsen, member for Kingston and The Islands.

As one of my duties, I am here to keep order and I would remind members of the public that the standing orders provide that no demonstration can take place in the audience, and that includes applause and statements of disapproval. It's my jurisdiction to make sure that the individuals making presentations are not subject to any influence, and that's the reason for that.

Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): Chair, if I may, that does not include people shaking their heads in disgust at Bill 84, does it?

The Chair: I usually am not concerned with observing that type of behaviour, but we have not had a problem in the past and I'm sure we won't have a problem now. It's just I must point out the rules before we start.

BROCKVILLE FIRE DEPARTMENT

The Chair: If we can proceed, I am welcoming the Brockville fire department, Fire Chief Harold Tulk. I'm sorry, it's Wayne Shields, deputy fire chief, as well. Welcome, fire chief and deputy chief. We have allotted 15 minutes for your presentation, including any questions, and I would ask you to proceed.

Mr Harold Tulk: Mr Chairman and members of the committee, my name is Harold Tulk, and I have been in the fire service for 27 years. I've been a fire chief since 1984 and served as county fire coordinator as well. I was employed by the office of the fire marshal for four of those 27 years and travelled across this province.

As a fire service adviser, I have instructed at the Ontario Fire College and the Canadian Emergency Preparedness College. I have served on the Minister of Labour's section 21 committee, deliberating on occupational health and safety as it relates to the fire service. I have served as co-chair of the Ontario professional standards-setting body for the fire service. I was a member of the board of directors of the Major Industrial Accident Council of Canada, and I have served on the executive of the Ontario Association of Fire Chiefs since 1987. As I was duly corrected this morning, I am currently in my fourth year as the organization's president, and I have been on the fire service legislative review committee of the Ontario Association of Fire Chiefs since it was established in 1988.

I am pleased today to be afforded the opportunity to address your committee on behalf of myself and the fire chiefs and deputy fire chiefs of the united counties of Leeds and Grenville, which consist of 17 municipal fire departments serving 25 communities. They are in the audience behind me, to my immediate right.

We believe that Bill 84 is a very positive piece of legislation for Ontario's fire service. The shift in emphasis to public education and fire prevention from fire suppression is providing the dynamic leadership required to form the framework of Ontario's fire service needs today and into the next century.

The results of effective public education and fire prevention initiatives are demonstrated in the fire marshal's statistics which were released to you at the beginning of these hearings. The value of the Learn Not to Burn program is well realized in Leeds-Grenville. This is where the shift in emphasis from suppression to public education, with the introduction of the Learn Not to Burn program, was initiated in this province. We are pleased to see the program move across the province and indeed our country.

I believe this legislation will become the envy of every fire jurisdiction in Canada and the United States. The Solicitor General and this government, along with other members of the Legislative Assembly, should be very proud of the legislation in its final form. We realize that Bill 84 represents change and that there has been a great deal of speculation and remarks declaring Bill 84 the ruin of the fire service and a major threat to public safety across the province. We believe just the opposite and offer our comments to the committee to assist you in securing approval of Bill 84.

Fire service standards: Ontario's communities are very diverse in makeup and spread over large geographical areas. The needs of the communities are as diverse as their makeup in fire protection. Ontario's fire service has evolved over the years into a very large volunteer, composite and full-time fire protection package. We have full-time people where they are required and we have volunteer people where they are required, and they work well together.

The balance that has been achieved in this province would have been difficult for the best of planners to predict. Mutual aid systems, volunteer firefighter associations and professional firefighter associations have done a remarkable job in the clear absence of any reference legislation to provide leadership in this process.

We believe the key to sustaining this progressive development is expressed in Bill 84 with the authorization of the fire marshal to monitor levels of fire protection and having the ability to make recommendations to correct imbalances that may be identified in the local community. The office of the fire marshal in this province has been the key resource to the fire service. They maintain a global contact with full-time, composite and volunteer fire departments and act as the catalyst which ties the system together as a cohesive fire protection package across the province.

Definition of a fire chief: The need to legislate the appointment of a fire chief to research required fire protection development processes and ensure that resources are properly managed is absolutely essential to maintain a balance in the development of public safety policy and proper application in the field. The province has provided the leadership and flexibility within Bill 84 which ensures that life safety from loss due to fire and other emergencies receives the appropriate attention for the citizens on a global basis, with the local elected representatives deciding local community matters in public fire safety.

The fire chief is council's agent and technical specialist in fire protection, as a police chief is to a police commission. Council knows the attitudes in the local community, and the fire chief is the one person who can provide the professional advice on technical standards and the ability of the resources in the community to provide the level of service that is appropriate as directed by council.

It is imperative to understand that accountability and consequences for the loss of life and property will continue to be examined in the future as we change the way we do business in local government. Coroners' inquests, civil court actions, boards of arbitrations, Ontario Municipal Board hearings, criminal investigations and any other process that requires a full explanation of local policy and resource application call on the fire chief to explain the local community resource development; they do not call on local bureaucrats that support the infrastructure. The accountability rests with council and the fire chief, and it is our view that the legislation should reflect actual practice in today's changing world.

The reporting relationship set out in Bill 84 ensures that the appropriate level of consultation can prevail between council and the local fire chief. This will provide a forum that will facilitate the management of change in a safe and reasonable way in local communities, whether they have a full-time, composite or volunteer fire protection system.

The labour relations process: The comments and remarks about the labour relations provisions in Bill 84 are overpowering the valuable and responsible principles that will advance public safety in fire protection in this province. This particularly applies to municipal bureaucrats and professional firefighters. Professional firefighters are highly skilled in collective bargaining. Municipalities have matched those skills in recent years. Responsible collective bargaining results will continue to evolve as each side becomes better prepared. Neither municipal bureaucrats nor firefighters should require the province to legislate a position of advantage. They bargained their way into these agreements and they should be obliged to bargain any adjustments within a process that is fair and reasonable for both parties. Adversarial collective bargaining mentality has no place in the public safety forum.

Having said that, we also realize that consensus cannot always be achieved even though it may be desirable. The extremes of both positions must be adjusted if we are to move forward in a safe and reasonable way. This process represents a significant change, and we can stick our heads in the sand and perpetuate status quo or we can accept the challenges and see the fire service flourish in this province.

The management exclusions process will provide the resources required to create a management team that is appropriate for the size of communities we must serve. All parties involved in the process must conduct themselves in a responsible way in the transition. Clear and concise rules of behaviour in labour relations entrenched in law will ensure that any party proposing to establish fire protection treats employees the same. We believe that the municipality must invariably remain the employer by definition to ensure that the service provided remains in the best interest of the public. Council must also have access to all of the options in the delivery of service, and this includes even analysing part-time, private or otherwise. As long as everybody is on a level platform, we think it will be a fair process.

Firefighters are the best people to represent firefighter concerns. Trade unions bring congestion to the labour relations process. Should they enter the fire protection environment, I suspect that the open dialogue between union representatives and management representatives will be restricted to contractual matters between the employee and the employer. Firefighter associations do far more than contract negotiations with a fire chief. In many cases, public education programs, fire prevention and training programs are discussed in an open forum without any restriction. They identify problems in the workplace at early stages and enhance our ability to provide a quality service.

We believe the quality of life and proactive relationships in the workplace will be altered in a negative way without our firefighters across the table representing their fellow employees. I cannot imagine a person who does not work in the police environment representing police constables at the bargaining table. Volunteer firefighters have associations that represent firefighter issues. We believe it is in the best interests of the government and the citizens we serve to continue with professional firefighters representing firefighters issues such as working conditions and labour relations in the full-time environment.

1010

Our professional firefighters are the finest in the country, and given the opportunity, I believe they will accept the challenges and assist with required changes in the bill which will establish the fire service environment as a flexible and productive workplace in the best interests of the citizens they serve.

Changes to the structure of a fire department are necessary if we are to respond to the service requirements in the future. We all have a duty to foster the best results that will provide a transitional process that is reasonable and safe in service to our firefighters, and most important, the citizens they serve. Bill 84 will not threaten public safety; however, it does mean we will conduct our business in a different way.

Conclusion: There are certainly challenges in Bill 84 for municipalities, fire chiefs and all firefighters. However, we have continually asked the government to provide leadership in public safety. You have done so. You have given us Bill 84 and the challenges that go with it. We welcome the challenges within this bill and the opportunities that this legislation will provide. You have done all the right things for the future of Ontario's fire service in the interest of public safety. We are sure that the hearings process will provide the necessary information required to make adjustments where you can, to ensure that we make the shift in behaviour in a safe and reasonable way. Thank you for your leadership in public safety and the opportunity to be here today. All of which is respectfully submitted for your consideration.

The Chair: Thank you, Fire Chief Tulk. We only have a little over a minute per caucus. The first, continuing in rotation, is the Conservative caucus.

Mr Frank Klees (York-Mackenzie): Can you help us as a committee understand what it is about this bill that has precipitated the kind of communication by some who are saying that this bill in fact threatens safety? You have made it very clear that you believe this bill is in the interests of safety and will enhance it. What is it that has caused the kind of campaign to the contrary that we've seen across the province?

Mr Tulk: I think one thing that's very clear to me and to the fire chiefs in Leeds and Grenville -- we've studied this process -- is that the professional firefighters have represented themselves in a very reasonable way over the years. Not only are they losing what they perceive to be ground at the bargaining table; they are being challenged with trying to keep their own identity as the representative person for the professional side of the fire service.

We believe that has caused a major problem, the certification process, bringing the trade unions into an environment that really has no place for extensive labour relations processes, so if the trade union issue and certification were dealt with, I believe we could probably proceed in a more comprehensive way. That was my experience even at the fire service review table.

Mr David Ramsay (Timiskaming): Thank you, Chief Tulk. I'd like to continue on that too because I think it is refreshing to hear you say this. I hope the government members are listening, that this part is of concern to firefighters and that we could have a trade union war out there. Is that what you mean by "trade unions may bring congestion to the labour relations process"?

Mr Tulk: If I understand the certification process correctly, and I'm only recently starting to study it, we could be preoccupied a lot of time with disciplining ourselves, not speaking to certain issues with our employees, which has been the custom in the past. I just think it's going to be counterproductive in the long run. There are some things that you want to accomplish in labour relations as a government, as a provincial body, and I think they can be accomplished with firefighters representing firefighters. I don't think there's anything to prevent you from doing that. To add another step in the process is going to complicate it in a significant way.

Mr Kormos: I'm interested in your comments on the prospect of privatization and part-time firefighters. I have to ask you whether you think private firefighting services can provide the same quality of service; a private, corporate, for-profit like Rural/Metro in the United States which I'm told has been visiting the city of Waterloo, making a pitch to them. Do you believe that private firefighting services can provide the same quality and committed professional firefighting services that public firefighting services can, as historically has been the case?

Mr Tulk: Mr Kormos, I don't believe it's an issue of can they or can they not. I think the issue is that if they have to put up a service model and a level playing field where all the rules are the same, if they have to meet the same standards, if they have to treat employees the same, if they have to do all those things, then they have to provide the level of service set out in the standards.

On a level playing field, if they can do it and make money, if the rules are the same for both sides, it's only reasonable that a municipality should be able to do it for less. There has never been anything to prevent them from privatizing in today's world. They could come up and make submissions at any time. I believe that every time they come up and make a submission and have to meet the criteria in Ontario, it's going to give them great trouble because they can't make money doing it. It's not a profit venture, so they won't do it.

Mr Kormos: The mayor of East York, Michael Prue, when he appeared in Toronto, expressed great regret about his municipality, East York, having privatized three areas of service -- not firefighting yet -- and indicated that at the first opportunity, when those contracts expired, those services were going to be returned to the public sector. I think it's an interesting proposition. I don't quarrel with your right to say it, but I think there's far more there than meets the eye.

The Chair: Thank you, Fire Chief Tulk, for attending and making your presentation here today.

FRANK COLEMAN MAUREEN SCOTT

The Chair: Our next presenter is Frank J. Coleman. Good morning, Mr Coleman. If you have somebody with you, I'd ask you to identify her for the purposes of the Hansard record.

Mr Frank Coleman: I thank the committee for this opportunity to speak. My name is Frank Coleman and I have with me Maureen Scott who will be sharing my time here today. Maureen will speak first and I'd ask her now if she would proceed with her comments.

Ms Maureen Scott: Thank you, Mr Chairman, for this opportunity to speak to you and other members of this commission. My name is Maureen Scott from the small city of Trenton, population 17,000, soon to become the great city of Quinte West, population 47,000. I'm not married to nor do I have any firefighters in my family. I'm a long-time resident of Trenton and one who has been involved in virtually every aspect of her community, from minor sports to the arts to community care to ratepayers associations.

It is with some knowledge of my area that I appear before you to speak of the concerns that our citizens have with respect to Bill 84. I do not profess to understand all of this bill, nor for the most part do I criticize some of the recommended changes, nor am I here to debate the provincial restructuring process, for I believe it to be, for the better part, necessary and beneficial to all of us.

1020

What concerns me today is the possibility of Bill 84 being unable to guarantee the safety of not only my children and my grandchildren but indeed our entire citizenry by the inference that the structure of the existing Trenton fire department, or for that matter any fire department in the entire province, would, could or will be left, through the suggested restructuring of the chain of command, with the suggested increase in the bureaucracy and the resulting paperwork, to reliance on a volunteer force or, might I add, even worse, through privatization of this service.

Of course I refer to the proposed inclusion of full-time firefighters into the management structure and the proposed reliance on the volunteer firefighter to the front-line emergency response team.

I have on numerous occasions from my residence -- and in relation to the location of our firehall, and through the use of a scanner -- been able to personally time the sound of the sirens leaving our station for fire calls. It has been remarkable and somewhat overwhelming and unbelievable. I wonder if the structure from full-time firefighters to the use of volunteer firefighters in these emergency situations would be the same -- and notice I am saying "same" as opposed to "nearly the same" -- as it is now, as I speak to you.

Because I am acquainted with many volunteer firefighters and their lifestyles and work commitments, plus location of these commitments, either lifestyle or business, along with their dependence on personal vehicles to get to these emergency situations, I suggest that the response time would not be the same. Again, I am using the word "same" as opposed to the phrase "nearly the same." I need to know that the response time would be the same. I need to know this.

Situations of stress and trauma call for a team effort, best described as if in a hockey game with two forwards and a centre going down the ice and the centre passing to his wing man and knowing without looking or hesitating that his wing is there waiting for him to pass. That comes through personal dedication to the game, faith in your line mate, knowledge of the game, hours of practice, training and determination that you will succeed towards that ultimate win.

Fighting fires, in my mind at least, is and must continue to be a team effort. Firefighters must know they are going into an emergency situation with the very best of team effort if they are to succeed. They must know that. There is no room for a second guess, a second chance, whats, ifs or buts. They must know that everyone first on the scene is part of the first-line response: highly trained, truly professional and focused on situations so there leaves no room for error through wondering if his wing man is in place, so he can pass the puck and win that game.

I said earlier that it is not my intention to take up this valuable time to expound on the whys and wherefores of this bill. I just want to leave you with this feeling that, for all the years to come, after the restructuring process is totally in place, all of us gathered here today will be able to say, "At least we didn't screw up the process of emergency response time, whether it be firefighting, policing or ambulance." I have mentioned ambulance response time.

I leave you with this thought: I am very glad that the majority of Ontarians do not possess scanners, for if they did and if they used them for the purpose that I do, I am afraid another hearing such as this would be convened and I would be back here again speaking to you as I have today about the importance of response time in any emergency situation.

We have a fine department. Please let them do their job. Please let the bureaucracy do theirs. Let me go home and tell Trentonians that, yes, rationalization and realization prevailed here today in this hearing. All of us will go home and get a good night's sleep knowing that our fire departments are staffed with the very best qualified people possible.

Mr Coleman: My name is Frank Coleman, as I mentioned, and I am a retired firefighter, having served 29 years with the Trenton fire department. I'm aware of the changes in restructuring being proposed by the provincial government with respect to municipalities. I am aware also that some of these changes are necessary to facilitate expenditure control and efficiency.

While modifications are undoubtedly necessary, it would not be prudent in my opinion for the province to enact legislation which could diminish the level of fire service presently existing in Ontario.

Bill 84 as proposed appears to provide for a wide range of options available to municipalities with respect to providing fire protection services. Municipalities may, for example, elect to test alternatives to the use of full-time firefighters by utilizing part-time, volunteer or contract employees in a false attempt to reduce expenditures.

With respect to volunteers, I have personally experienced fire situations where only one or two volunteer firefighters from a roster of 18 were available to respond to an alarm. This sort of inefficiency would surely result in higher insurance costs and a much greater concern by citizens for their safety and protection.

Experience has shown that fully trained firefighters ready to respond instantly are the only way to provide adequate protection to persons and property.

It is my hope, then, as a private citizen, that the provincial government will reconsider any proposal which could diminish the level of fire protection presently available in Ontario, and that it will amend Bill 84 to provide more fully for a fire service which will maintain at least the present level of protection that we all deserve.

This completes my comments and I thank the committee for the opportunity to speak on this issue.

Mr Ramsay: Thanks to both of you for your presentation today. You've brought up very good points that I think are important to be addressed through amendments in this bill.

Mr Coleman, I think your point about the part-time firefighters is just excellent. None of us on this committee have anything against part-time firefighters except, as you say, that when the call goes out you can be assured that the full-time firefighter who is stationed at the station is going to be there and the response is going to be made. I think that is so vital.

This bill is so tempting to municipalities to say, "We could really make a lot of cuts in our fire department," but as you know, that response time is so important to save lives. I've certainly learned a lot through the last week of hearing about how important response time is. The fact is that only a full-time firefighter at the station will give us that response that's going to save lives, and I think you made that point very well. I thank you very much for coming forward today.

Mr Kormos: Thank you, Ms Scott and Mr Coleman. We've just received a copy of a report done by the municipality of Durham, North Carolina, back in 1985, when they reversed the decision they had made in 1971 to consolidate police services with firefighting services using police effectively as part-time firefighters. They reversed that decision because they found that there was a delayed response time, a lengthier response time, in this case, by part-time firefighters: police officers who were out doing police work and then were called upon to do firefighting services.

There's also emphasis in everything we've received on the concept and the need for teamwork. Ms Scott, you put that in an analogy that I know Mr Carr will understand because of his background.

I just can't for the life of me understand -- there's been an argument made saying, "Well, the part-time provision is only for fire prevention officers." If that were the case, the bill should be amended to say so, and even having said that, it has been commented that a fire prevention officer has less credibility when she or he is not in fact a firefighter in their community, with young people, with families, what have you.

Can you in any way understand why there would be a proposal -- how would a part-time firefighter conceivably fit into the team system of firefighting? I'm sure you've reflected on this. Is there any way that you can identify a role for a part-timer in the team approach to firefighting, which is the successful tradition here?

Mr Coleman: I certainly have reflected on this. It's been indicated I think that it's critical that a firefighter be available to respond immediately. It's also critical that he be fully trained. I feel with part-time firefighters there would certainly not be the degree of training that full-time firefighters receive. There would be no assurance of course that even if it were legislated that training be carried out. While volunteers per se can serve a good purpose as a complement to full-time firefighters, nevertheless, in order to have immediate response to fire situations, it is necessary to have full-time firefighters as we know today, for that purpose.

1030

Mr Klees: Ms Scott, I particularly appreciate your example of the professional hockey team and the fact that we're in eastern Ontario, I can understand why you used that analogy. I assure you, it hasn't come up in Toronto. There's probably a reason for that.

I'd like to just focus in on your concern regarding volunteer versus full-time firefighters. You're aware currently that your fire department has the latitude to use volunteers as well as full-time people?

Ms Scott: Yes, sir.

Mr Klees: And there's a reason why they're staffing their department as they are.

Ms Scott: May I clarify, sir, that I am here just strictly as a citizen. The politics and the structure I prefer not to get into because I cannot debate that logically.

Mr Klees: I understand that but I do think it's important for the public to understand that departments today have the latitude to staff with full-time as well as volunteer -- and/or. There is a management responsibility that is assumed by all fire departments now. The fact that your department is now currently staffed and is delivering the kind of emergency response time as it is is a credit to their management function and their sense of responsibility.

I just want to make it very clear that there's absolutely nothing in this bill that interferes with that. The same people, the same municipal politicians, the same management staff will have the responsibility to ensure that their citizenry is appropriately served. I think it's important for you to know that. Ultimately the responsibility is with the people who manage that department. This bill will not interfere with that.

The Chair: We must move on. On behalf of the committee, I thank you for your presentation today.

RAY BUSHFIELD

The Chair: Our next presentation will be made by Mr Ray Bushfield. Good morning, Mr Bushfield. How are you sir?

Mr Ray Bushfield: Very good, thank you. Good morning, Mr Chairman, members of the committee. My name is Ray Bushfield. I own and operate a business out of Brockville, Ontario. The business is called Kaizen Systems. I began the business in 1987. Our primary function as a company is to work with the development of teams. It's because of that experience over the last 10 years and because of the 400 corporations and associations that I've worked with in that time that I'm here to talk to you this morning.

You'll see in the handout I've given you that my involvement with teams has been mainly in the private sector. I've worked with companies like Ford of Canada, 3M with their self-directed process, Price Waterhouse and so on.

During the last 10 years of working with all these teams, one of the things I've found is that there are really six factors that impact a team's performance at a high level and I've highlighted those six factors to you: purpose; communication; cooperation; process; commitment; and trust. I'd like to briefly talk about those six factors because I believe that Bill 84 in its current format may have a dramatic impact on those six things.

Teams that perform at a high level, contrary to the last speaker's presentation, I really don't see it like a professional hockey team. When you have a group of professional athletes who are highly trained, highly skilled and make it to that level, you can take one right-winger from one line and put him with another centre man from another line and they'll function well because they've all been trained similarly, they're all at a very high level, they're all professional athletes.

When you start working with people who are not at that level and you start bringing in someone with college experience who has not made the National Hockey League and you start putting a right-winger from a college team on the line with a centre man, now you're starting to really work with the mix. I think those kinds of adjustments, although conceptually they may seem to work, in reality they don't.

One of my customers is a company, 3M. They make tape. Statistically, what we've proven and seen is that when you take someone who has a varying degree of experience off a work unit and put them in with a different unit, the quality of that output will go down. It will go down noticeably and immediately. There's a period of adjustment. After that period of adjustment, what will then happen is that the quality may go back up, provided that new person entering that team can work through these six factors.

Let's just talk about these factors for a moment. Purpose: You would think that everyone operating on a team would have the same sense of purpose and you would hope they would get that from their mission statement or whatever it is they would look to. My experience has been that you can have three teams from the same company or the same corporation and they have three totally different senses of purpose. One might be quality-driven, one might be service-driven, one might be customer-driven. When you take one person off one team and have them go to another team, where their purpose is different, they just don't fit. That's why I just don't see how adjusting people from crew to crew can really be positive and successful.

The second thing is the communication. I agree with the prior presenter when the person said you really want that centre man to look at the winger and you don't even really want them to look; you just want them to know where that individual is. I believe that when you have a core group of people who have worked well together for a period of time, there is not only communication but a sense of trust. It's the trust in each other's competence. I just can't imagine going into a high-risk situation with people who have not been as trained as I am and as competent as I am and have my trust factor. I just can't believe you want to put people in that situation.

I'm not totally familiar with all the things that are asked of a person when they're fighting fires. I do believe that when you look at these six factors, you'll agree that there does need to be cooperation, there does need to be the same sense of commitment, there does need to be the same sense of trust. When you look at a part-time person versus a full-time person, here's where my concern is in terms of commitment: I think when you have someone who is part-time, they obviously have to be working elsewhere to subsidize their income. Therefore, when you need that individual, I'm not all that sure we have a workforce in Canada or in the province that can respond. In other words, you have someone who's working part-time in another position. All of a sudden you need that individual right at this moment. Will they have the flexibility that they can leave whatever they're currently doing and rush to the situation? I'm not sure they can do that. I'm not sure the employers across the province will allow that.

I guess what I'm really saying to you is that in my mind it's kind of like making a cake. There are six key ingredients. If we start adjusting the ingredients, we won't get the same flavour; we won't get the same cake. There's a core that I believe you need to have. I'm not sure if that core crew size is four people, five people, six people, eight people; I'm not sure what that core is. All I know is that until there's a lot of research and work done on that, I wouldn't want to adjust that core, because I think once I do that, I'm increasing the level of risk I'm exposing the firefighter to and also the public to.

The second issue I wanted to talk to you about deals with the ratio between managers and firefighters. From what I understand, Bill 84 may allow some adjustment with that. Crew captains may become part of the management team. From my interpretation, it seems to me that you may have a substantial increase in the quantity of management people in a firehall. Let me tell you, if that interpretation is right, why I feel very strongly against that.

Number one, it goes against the current grain of all business. What everyone else is doing in the private sector successfully, I believe, is downsizing the quantity of management. Why is that? Part of the reason for it is that people who are in the workplace today want a whole lot of different things than my father and mother wanted when they were working. What people in the workforce want today is a sense of being involved in decisions. They also would like to be part of the whole team that is getting the job done.

If you take a hockey team, the analogy that was used prior to this, and you have an on-ice captain, you have someone like Randy Cunneyworth in Ottawa, since we're in eastern Ontario -- if you now make that person a management individual, the way the team will respond to that individual will be highly different. Their benefit package might be different, their responsibilities might be different, their title might be different. If you take that on-ice captain and make him part of the management group, I just don't think the team will function as well. I say that to you because of all the years I've had being involved with teams.

Those are really the two issues I wanted to talk about today. My concern, and that's why I'm here this morning, is that we may make decisions without really looking at these six factors, because we may not know that those six factors actually exist.

1040

Mr Kormos: Yours is the first of its kind by way of submission, not the general theme, but in terms of being very analytical about what makes a team. Of course, there's been a lot of discussion about the need for teamwork. Again, some of these same American reports where they've tried to blend firefighting with police services indicate that the two jobs are entirely different. Policing is very much an individualized type of approach and firefighting is very much a team approach.

The management area that you discuss is interesting as well. Some of the very municipalities and fire chiefs who have supported this proposition of the need for the employer to designate more management positions come from firefighting services that haven't even utilized their right to have a deputy chief. It's something very out of whack there. Here these people are saying, "We need more management people," but they haven't even designated deputy chiefs. I'm a little cynical about some of this; you've got to understand, that's my nature. Do you have any suspicions about the motivation for municipalities to want to designate more managers in this arbitrary way that's provided in the bill? What's the motive? What would be served?

Mr Bushfield: I really wouldn't know the motive, to tell you the truth. I can only guess at it. My feeling is that in an ideal world what a lot of us would like is a higher number of people who we can have direct responsibility over and have direct impact on their day-to-day behaviour, but that's contrary to the function of how teams work.

If I have my company, what I would like is every single person reporting to me and I would like to be able to say to each one of these people, "Here's when you're going to work and here's how you're going to work and here's what you're going to do and here's what you're not going to do." From a situation of directing people, that's what I would like, but I'm also smart enough now to realize that although in my father's generation you could function that way, in my generation you can't, because you just can't find people who will operate in that kind of system and operate at a high level. If you could, in my mind you'd see 3M, Ford, Price Waterhouse increasing the number of managers they have rather than doing completely the opposite. They recognize that the way you maximize team performance is to reduce management numbers, increase the skill and the effectiveness of the people who are actually doing the job. Every company that I worked with in the last five to 10 years, that in effect is what they've done.

Mr Gary Carr (Oakville South): Thank you very much for bringing that unique perspective. We appreciate your coming in and speaking with us this morning. I agree. Fortunately, I think somebody studied a little bit of management. The old master-slave relationship is going out, although in some firms not as quickly as others. But I think you're right, getting people to do something and being part of the team.

One of the things the government is struggling with not only in this area but in other areas is having the same people making any discipline decisions that are in the same bargaining unit. It's the same right now for principals, for example. They're in the same bargaining unit as teachers. I would like to give principals more authority and responsibility. Right now it gets bumped up to the trustees and to superintendents. Take that layer out, give the principal the decision with all of the parents and the teachers to make decisions on discipline and so on.

I understand we've got a good team spirit now working in our fire departments. Is there any validity in some of those people saying that you cannot have managers who are in the same bargaining unit, that there may be conflicts as a manager, and balancing that off with having the good teamwork, which we do now because they do work together? Is there anything that can be done to alleviate that, or should we not worry about having the same people who may be managing in the same bargaining unit as the people they're managing? How do we struggle with that?

Mr Bushfield: Just two quick things on that, sir. One is that I'm not really sure I would want someone as a manager in the same bargaining unit. I would rather not have that person be a manager.

The second thing is, in terms of discipline, if some of the strategy were to be to give more disciplining power and authority to the people inside the management of the fire station, and again I can only comment from a team perspective, that is 180 degrees from what's happening in the rest of the private sector, where what we're really trying to do is get the team to discipline itself. What does that mean? To me, what that means is that you need to have people who are highly professional, highly trained and know how to give that kind of discipline and feedback to each other. I think that's very attainable, because it's happening in the private sector.

In order to reduce that management-slave kind of mentality, you really have to give the right people the right skill. If we give the manager that skill, we're going back in time in terms of labour relations; if we give the team that skill, we're advancing to the year 2000. I think it's a question of where we place that skill.

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and The Islands): I guess the main concern has been about the labour relations aspect of the bill, part IX. Are you familiar with them, sir?

Mr Bushfield: Yes.

Mr Gerretsen: Do you think it's somewhat unusual for a government to start legislating working conditions? It seems to me that what we're really talking about here to a large extent are contracts that have been fully negotiated between different departments and the municipality etc, and there's almost an attempt here to take away some of the things that have been freely negotiated. That's the main concern that we certainly have and that a lot of the presenters have had as well, the way I understand it. Isn't that somewhat unusual, that a government would just unilaterally take away some rights that have been freely bargained for and negotiated by a group of people?

Mr Bushfield: I would say it's highly unusual but reasonably consistent with things that have happened in the last six months. I don't know, Mr Gerretsen, if I can really comment on that. I'm kind of surprised by a lot of things.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr Gerretsen, Mr Bushfield.

Mr Ramsay: Do we have more time?

The Chair: Yes, you have, actually, one more minute. Sorry.

Mr Ramsay: Thank you very much for your presentation. You really contrast, with the management exclusion, the different styles of management we have in Ontario. It surprised me that a chief like Peter Ferguson of Toronto, with about 3,500 firefighters, is quite happy with the way he manages that group, and chiefs in Windsor and Peterborough and other towns of varying sizes, and yet some of the chiefs are in that old command-to-control mode and want more management positions. I find the contrast is really stark.

I think you're right. I think what we're looking at today and will be developed in fire departments really is more the modern style of flattening your middle managers out. This bill looks to be wanting to bring it back. I think your analogy of having a captain who is a player there but not a manager is very perceptive too about how people perceive that person when you change the subteam he's on, management versus being on the bigger team. You bring some very good perceptions here, and I hope the government members have really learned from your presentation, because I know I have.

The Chair: Mr Bushfield, I thank you on behalf of the committee for lending your expertise to our deliberations.

1050

VICKI SCHMOLKA JANE ANDERSON GAVIN ANDERSON

The Chair: Vicki Schmolka and Jane Anderson. Good morning.

Ms Vicki Schmolka: My name is Vicki Schmolka. This is my daughter, Jane Anderson, and my partner, Gavin Anderson. We've come to talk to you about a fire we had at our house at 61 Richardson Drive on February 27 of this year.

Mlle Jane Anderson : Bonjour, je m'appelle Jane Anderson. Aujourd'hui je vais vous parler d'un feu chez moi.

Papa faisait notre souper, des patates frites et de la viande. Jamie, mon petit frère, et moi et Papa mangeons en regardant la télévision. C'était mon émission favorite, les Simpson. Papa a entendu un bruit. Il est allé dans la cuisine. Il a crié : «Un feu, un feu. Jane, mets tes bottes et va dehors avec Jamie et restez là.»

Moi et Jamie sommes sortis de la maison, mais en sortant de la maison, j'ai mis le petit manteau de Jamie. C'était drôle. Nous avons rit.

Le papa de notre voisin Scott arrivait avec Scott. Il voyait ce qui s'est passé. Il nous amenait chez Scott. Scott et moi avons joué «allez à la pèche» et «les huit fous». Nous avons mangé de la crème glacée à la menthe avec des brisures de chocolat dans les cornets. Jamie aussi.

Les pompiers sont venus tout de suite. Ils ont éteint le feu.

Notre cuisine était toute sale, le plafond était noir, le poêle était tout brûlé. La fumée est allée partout dans la maison. Nous ne pouvions pas rester dans la maison. Ma famille et moi sommes restés à l'hôtel Ambassador pendant une semaine. Après, nous avons déménagé au chemin Notch Hill. Nous restons là toujours mais nous retournons à notre maison bientôt.

J'ai appris deux choses importantes : Une, les pompiers sont des personnes très spéciales. Elles ont sauvé notre maison. L'autre chose c'est qu'il faut prendre garde quand vous faites des patates frites à la maison.

Mr Gavin Anderson: Merci, Jane. I am Jane's father. It was me who set the fire, by accident. All I want to add to Jane's story is that after calling 911, my heart pounding, worried about my children's safety and what was going to happen to our house and everything that was in it, I ran out on to the sidewalk. By the time I hit the sidewalk, I could already hear the sirens from the first fire truck. I cannot tell you how welcome a sound that was. I've heard many, many sirens over the course of my life and have been pretty casual about hearing them, but from now on whenever I hear a siren, I'm going to think about who is standing out on a sidewalk waiting to be rescued and what police car, ambulance or fire truck is on the way and how many minutes or seconds might it be delayed through some process of going backwards rather than forwards in terms of keeping our neighbourhoods safe. It really was a frightening experience, and that siren of the fire truck was the instantaneous relief of knowing that things would be all right after all.

Ms Schmolka: You might ask where I was. I was in Montreal. My mother was in hospital in emergency, and I was there taking care of her. I came back to find that my kitchen was burned, our children were safe but our house was in quite a bad state. In fact, because the firefighters got to our house so quickly, there was very little damage to any of our personal possessions. We lost our fridge, our stove and there was smoke damage throughout our house. We're still not living at home. We hope to go home this week. We've been living in a small townhouse down the hill from where we lived, which we were very lucky to find. Jamie, Jane's younger brother, is three, and believe me, staying in a hotel, however nice, after a week with a three-year-old is no present. It was very good to find somewhere where we could cook our own meals.

The point I want to make is just that it was a very terrible time in my family's life not only with the fire but with my mother ill. The destruction in our house would have been so much greater if the firefighters hadn't come so quickly. We understand that if they had taken three minutes more, they would have been fighting the fire with axes and water; if they had taken five minutes more to get there, they would have had to fight the fire from the outside of our house, which means there would have been a risk to our neighbours and our house would have been totally destroyed and would have had to be rebuilt. As it is, we didn't really suffer any major damage to anything. We didn't lose our photographs of our children when they were young; we didn't lose any of our family heirlooms; we didn't lose any of our possessions. I didn't lose any of my personal work. With the kind of contract work I do, it would have been a serious loss to me if I had lost some of my professional work.

It was amazing that the firefighters could get there so quickly. They got there in less than three minutes. It was just a simple grease fire. Gavin made french fries for the kids because he knew that would be relaxing, and they went to watch TV because they were all worried about Gran. I just can't tell you what a difference it made that the firefighters got there so quickly. They knew what to do when they got there. They didn't spray water all over our house on our grease fire. They put that fire out.

The intensity of the heat of the fire is unbelievable. I understand something about fire I never understood before. They say crawl when you're in a fire. You should have seen our walls. The bottom two feet are just white. It gets greyer and greyer and blacker and blacker as you go up towards the ceiling. If you're ever in a fire, please remember to crawl, because I can see how it could save your life.

Our kitchen is sort of an L with our dining room-living room. I had a big fern plant on the top of a buffet, I would say 15 feet from where the fire was and around the corner, and that fern was just scorched. Her little brother had a plastic bottle in the drain in the kitchen sink; it was melted. Our fridge was wrecked not because the fire touched the fridge but because the heat touched the fridge. The mouldings around our kitchen were scorched; around the doors, the wood mouldings were completely scorched. All of that had to be replaced.

Our fire, even though I can tell you we didn't lose anything personal or dear to us -- I don't have a passionate relationship with my fridge or stove, which have had to be replaced -- we didn't lose anything that was really personal and valuable, still cost about $30,000 for the damage that was done in our house in terms of redoing our kitchen, new cabinets, new fridge and stove, new carpeting in one area. They had to paint the whole house. It has taken a very long time to get the smoke smell out of the house. They've had to use ozone in our house and blow fans and clean everything. All our clothes have had to be dry-cleaned. All our couches have had to be specially treated at the warehouse. The damage is amazing.

You can just imagine how much more the damage would have been if the firefighters had been any slower in getting there. It's scary for me to think about. It was terrifying for me to come home and discover there'd been a fire in my house and to see the damage and to just be grateful the family was okay. It could have been so much worse. I can't tell you, when I think about the kind of cost that would have been involved if the fire had gotten any further into our house. It really was contained to the stove and yet the damage was enormous. I'm eternally grateful to the firefighters of the city of Kingston who came so quickly to our house. We were very lucky that we had the competence of those firefighters working for us.

My big concern about Bill 84 is that this won't be there in the future, that Bill 84 opens the door to a different kind of fire service that won't be as good, that won't be as efficient, that won't be as reliable, that won't be as fast. The issue of fast: for me, I saw it in my own home. Seconds later we would have lost more. I can't tell you what a difference it makes just losing a fridge and stove instead of losing all your possessions. It's hard enough living in another house and making do, but if we had lost everything, it would have been just crushing. My mother did die and then her companion died. We've had a very rough time personally as a family, and if we had lost everything in our house, it would have been a disaster.

Related to this is the whole issue of insurance. Our insurance is picking up the cost of the fire. Thank goodness for insurance, like people say. We were very lucky that our insurance company turns out to be one of the reliable and good ones who seem to be taking their job responsibly. We haven't had any complaints about how our claim is being handled. As I said, I estimate it's about $30,000 to fix what we lost.

If the firefighters had been slower, we would have lost more, there would have been more damage, there might have been damage to our neighbour's property and the costs would have gone up astronomically for our one insurance claim. I believe the kind of fire we had in our house is commonplace. We were with some friends the other day, and she works for an insurance company. She said: "Oh, a grease fire in the kitchen. It's an accident. People forget, and it happens." We're not irresponsible people. It was just one of those things; it just happened.

I really am concerned that if firefighting response times go down, if the competency of firefighting units goes down, then we're going to see insurance rates go up as fires become more serious, the damage they cause is more serious, the injuries and deaths go up, the claims against insurance companies go up. Our $30,000 claim for really a simple kitchen fire could have easily been a $200,000 claim for all our possessions, rebuilding our house, moving us somewhere -- not where we're staying now -- at a much higher cost for a much longer period of time.

Our family is never going to pay back the insurance company. If we live to be 100, all of us, we're never paying back the insurance company for the claim against our house. That's the nature of insurance. It's everybody out there, all our neighbours, all the people in the community, all the people of Ontario, who are supporting our claim for our insurance. If we see decreases in response times with firefighters, insurance rates are going to slowly go up, go up, go up, who's going to pay for that? It's going to be individually out of our pockets.

1100

I feel we have a service that is exceptionally good. Why are we trying to destroy that service? Why are we trying to ruin something that seems to be working so well, that worked so fantastically for our family and our neighbours and our community? Why wreck a good thing that we have? Why open the door to changes that risk causing real tragedies for people? We were on the brink of a total tragedy. We're very lucky that we didn't suffer more damage.

I really fear the consequences are going to be raised insurance rates. You're going to save some money in the short term by changing the nature of firefighting protection in communities in Ontario but in the long term every single Ontario resident is going to pay more in insurance costs. We know the whole basis of insurance is we all pay into a pool to cover things like what happened in our house. We're all going to have to pay more into the pool if we don't maintain the level of service we have right now.

I would really ask you to look carefully at the changes you're proposing in Bill 84 and consider what the impact is going to be, not only on firefighting services and response time, but on the actual costs to the people of Ontario and insurance rates.

The Chair: We've used all our time, so I'd like to thank you. We tend to deal in theories in this committee and you've given us very practical, personal experiences which are very valuable to us. We thank you both, and you too, Jane, for your excellent presentation here today.

OTTAWA-CARLETON REGIONAL FIRE CHIEFS

The Chair: Our next presentation will be the Ottawa-Carleton Regional Fire Chiefs, Gary Richardson, coordinator.

Mr Gary Richardson: Good morning. My name is Gary Richardson. I am the regional fire coordinator in Ottawa-Carleton. I'm also the fire chief in the city of Ottawa and I am speaking to you today as the regional coordinator representing the Ottawa-Carleton chiefs. I have some members of that group with me. To my immediate left is Hubert LaBelle, the chief of Gloucester fire department; to his left, Rick Larabie, the deputy in Gloucester; Dave Smith, the deputy chief in Ottawa; and, Randy Foster, the deputy chief in Cumberland.

The Ottawa-Carleton Regional Fire Chiefs represent nine fire departments providing fire prevention and emergency response services to over 700,000 citizens in one of the largest municipal regions outside of the GTA. Also of significance is the fact that all service delivery models are incorporated in that coverage, from fully paid urban to composite -- paid volunteer -- and full volunteer. We suggest that this will allow us to comment on Bill 84 from a more eclectic point of view than many of the other presenters you will hear during this process.

The legislation is, as we see it, a well-balanced approach to effect change and amalgamate several complex and dated pieces of legislation. As such, it is in itself somewhat complex and for this reason we have not taken a micro-approach in our presentation. To do so would, again in our opinion, jeopardize the passage of this bill which is integral to making the changes which are necessary in the fire service of today.

As this hearing process unfolds you will hear from a variety of stakeholders representing a diverse set of views and opinions. Associations and groups representing fire chiefs, firefighters, human resources departments, municipal managers, individual citizens, politicians and special interests all have specific issues which they feel are particularly relevant. Many of the positions iterated will be extreme in nature, leaning towards one or the other side, because for a variety of reasons the legislation has polarized the Ontario fire service.

Some will indicate that as a result of this legislation severe damage will be done to the fire service and public safety will be jeopardized. I believe you've already heard that this morning. Others will have you believe that just the opposite will occur and that without this proposed legislation, the public will suffer through high costs for service delivery and inefficiency.

As fire service administrators, our primary concern is public safety and on most aspects of the legislation our views mirror those of our provincial representatives, the Ontario Association of Fire Chiefs. We firmly believe that nothing in this legislation will jeopardize the safety of the citizens, and in fact the proactive focus on prevention and public education will significantly enhance the ability of the fire service to protect those we serve.

Overall, this is a proactive piece of long-overdue legislation. It does not make any sense in the face of today's reality to argue that legislation written in the 1940s has much relevance in the 1990s. The status quo is not an option. The choice then is to achieve the balance alluded to earlier in this presentation.

In our view, this goal has been reached by the legislation. That is not to say that the bill does not require some modification in its present form. There are negatives, but we feel that they are certainly surmountable and that there is no need to throw out the baby with the bathwater. Simply changing some wording or eliminating a few clauses will result in improvement. We are confident that these problems will be clearly evident to you after these hearings are completed, and in keeping with our macro- approach in this presentation, we will not subject you to a clause-by-clause analysis.

Part IX of the bill will be the subject of intense scrutiny because it presents the greatest challenge to existing paradigms in the fire service. As fire chiefs, we, like other civic managers, must operate within the parameters of the collective bargaining process and standards of labour-management relations. We do not, under the present system, negotiate directly with the associations. Rather, in concert with the human resources departments in our respective municipalities, we act as a resource in these negotiations. Our role is to try and maintain a balance between public safety and fiscal reality, and it's a formidable challenge in today's climate.

Upon the completion of the negotiations, however, we are tasked with maintaining these relations through utilization of the resulting collective agreements. For this reason our position differs from that of the firefighter associations and the municipal managers.

While it is true that many of the issues in part IX were not raised by the fire chiefs, they will certainly impact upon our ability to manage our departments and therefore we will comment on a few of the more contentious sections of the act.

We've already heard this morning about management exclusions. We agree completely and without reservation with the management exclusion formula as presented in the bill. A management team approach simply fits the new philosophy. The skill set necessary for these positions mandates a selection process that allows for flexibility and reliance on merit and experience. Limiting these selections through prohibitive collective agreement wording is counterproductive and serves no one, including the members of the organization.

Hours of work: We feel that fundamental workers' rights such as hours of work should remain a component of collective bargaining and have no place in public safety oriented legislation. Their inclusion only serves to exacerbate dissention and jeopardize achievement of the many positive aspects of the bill. For this reason, section 52 should be reworded to exclude any arbitrary ability for employers to dictate hours of work for firefighters.

Part-time firefighters: The inclusion of the definition of "part-time firefighter" constitutes a major change which will have a significant impact on overall costs if managed properly, although there may exist a potential for abuse. Many presenters to these hearings will no doubt be quite vocal on this issue. We've already seen that this morning.

The answer lies in management which maintains the balance necessary for success. As fire service administrators, we must maintain service level and quality in order to effectively meet our mandates. The union opinion on this issue is that less trained part-time firefighters will endanger the public. This is an example of one of the extremes mentioned in our preamble.

As the people responsible for the training levels in our respective departments, it will fall to us to ensure that no person is utilized whose training level could in any way diminish the safety of those we serve. Simply stated, the level of a firefighter's training is a totally separate issue from his or her employment status.

A second argument that you will hear is that the team concept is crucial to effective and safe firefighting and that part-time firefighters, by virtue of the inconsistency resulting from their use, diminish the effectiveness of this team. It must be emphasized that no fire chief concerned with public safety would wish to replace full-time firefighters with part-time people. However, there is value and efficiency to be realized through judicious use of part-time people to maintain minimum staffing levels. We would work with the associations to ensure this balance in their use and that the level of training meets or exceeds that which is currently provided.

Privatization: The bill will facilitate a municipality's ability to consider different options for the provision of their emergency services. One of those options may be to offer this service to a private provider on a contract basis. While we do not believe that the profit motive has a place in the provision of emergency services, we do not see the inclusion of this ability to privatize as entirely negative. It could act as a driver for change by forcing competition.

We are confident that we could work with our respective unions to make these changes positive. If we cannot offer effective and efficient services without legislated protection, then our system is flawed. The public is entitled to make choices as to their service providers which reflect community needs. After all, they pay for the service. That is why there are different delivery models.

Volunteer firefighters: Volunteer firefighters render a valuable service in those communities where they provide all or part of the fire protection. High turnover rates are of concern to fire chiefs. It is important that we preserve this important component of the fire service, in part by ensuring that demands placed on volunteers do not exceed their capacity to serve. Regulations developed under the contents of this bill should recognize and support the role of volunteer firefighters in protecting their communities.

1110

Conclusion: This legislation brings forward a break from tradition and is a very complex document. Of course there are parts of it that can be improved. We have suggested a few and this panel will hear many more throughout this process. That, after all, is the reason for the process.

Throughout our presentation the word "balance" continually surfaced. As a government, you must continually balance the needs of your constituents with those of a myriad of special interest groups. This legislation will achieve that goal and must be passed into law. Together we can improve it through cooperation and flexibility.

One cannot abandon necessary change because everyone is not 100% happy with the results. There will continue to be a strong and effective fire service in Ontario after this act becomes law; it may be different than it is today. Whether these differences are perceived as positive or negative will depend not only on the legislation but on how all of the stakeholders in the service work within the new parameters as defined by Bill 84. Reflection and moderation will be the key elements.

We, the chiefs of Ottawa-Carleton, would like to take this opportunity to pledge our support for this piece of legislation and thank you for the opportunity to present our views to this panel.

The Chair: Thank you, fire chief. We have one minute per caucus and we start off with Mr Gerretsen.

Mr Gerretsen: I'm very concerned with the one statement that you made and that is that this act is a driver for change by forcing competition. I just can't get my mind around that. We heard from the people who were here just previous to you about the excellent service that we have, and undoubtedly this is so throughout Ontario. Competition in the normal sense of the word means that you can compare it to something else. However, with the fire service, we don't have it. You either have a good service or we don't know what we're going to get.

How can you talk about competition when we really don't know, if some of this privatization takes place, whether or not the end product is going to be as good as the product that we have now? When you do compare it, unfortunately it'll be too late, when we come to the conclusion that maybe by going the privatization route, we've put so many more people at risk or the response time isn't as quick as it is now.

Mr Richardson: Don't get me wrong. I'm not for privatized fire services. Our point was that sometimes you need a bit of a kick in the pants to do the necessary things. If the threat of privatization enters an area, it may force two neighbouring municipalities to get together and talk about different ways of providing the service in more effective and efficient ways. Service levels will always be our concern. We're not talking about trying to compete on costs with a private company, we're talking about competing on service levels.

Mr Gerretsen: That's what you said in your presentation here, and just so that I'm clear on it, are you, as an association, in favour of privatization of the fire service or not?

Mr Richardson: No, we are not.

The Chair: The government has one minute.

Interjection.

The Chair: I'm sorry, Mr Kormos. How could I have forgotten? I apologize.

Mr Kormos: I think we should award me double the time as some sort of compensation.

The Chair: You take it anyway, Mr Kormos.

Mr Kormos: I would have spoken up in any event. I appreciate that fire chiefs are not ad idem across the province. There's been a variety of views. Chief Ferguson from Toronto presented some views that were very much contrary to yours, and God bless.

Twice you spoke of "special interests" that would be participating in this process. You distinguished them, for instance, from our constituents because you speak of reconciling the needs of our constituents with those of a myriad of special interest groups. Once again, those special interest groups are my constituents as well.

My concern is that there seems to be consensus that this bill in many respects lowers the standard, by permitting the use of part-timers, by contemplating the prospect of privatization and opening the door yet further. My concern then is that the minimum becomes the maximum, which is a tendency that seems to exist in a whole variety of areas.

It's interesting that the bill would want to require that municipalities -- because it says "shall" implement fire prevention services. On the other hand, the government would say, "Well, it's okay to open the door to privatization and permit part-time firefighters because no municipality would ever abuse its governance power by doing so." My response to that is, why was it necessary to make it mandatory that municipalities engage in fire prevention? Maybe you don't have the same difficulty with that as I do. I'm just wondering.

Mr Richardson: We don't see the bill as lowering standards. It's our job to maintain standards, and as fire chiefs we're going to keep doing that.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr Kormos. We must move on.

Mr Carr: Thank you very much for your presentation. One minute doesn't give us enough time, but I want to thank you for taking the time. As you know there are many people out there concerned that this bill will lower a lot of the standards. I think I can safely say on behalf of all the members we have the best fire services anywhere in the world, and it's a tribute to the men and women, a lot of them in the room, and yourselves and the great firefighters we've got.

You're saying there won't be much change as a result of it. Can you give us some indication of what you see happening when this bill passes? What, if any, changes will result?

Mr Richardson: It's hard in a minute to give you those results. We see the fire service becoming a little more effective and a little more efficient; a better balance than we have right now. The entire system right now is heavily reliant on arbitration processes and intervention from outside parties. We see this bill as turning that around and bringing us back to the table with our association so that we can define the direction the fire service is taking.

We're not too concerned with part-time firefighters, for instance, because we're the ones who are going to govern how they're used, and we're going to use it judicially if we get that ability. It all comes down to management and, as fire chiefs, it's incumbent upon us to do the best we can with what we have. This bill just gives us a little better tools to do it.

The Chair: Fire chiefs and deputies, I thank you very much for lending your expertise here today.

1120

CANADA SAFETY COUNCIL

The Chair: Our next presentation is the Canada Safety Council, Emile Thérien. Good morning, Mr Thérien.

Mr Emile Thérien: Thank you very much for letting the Canada Safety Council present here today. I should let you know that the current chair of the Canada Safety Council is Claude Bennett, who was a long-time member and cabinet minister in the Ontario Legislature. I think one of his confrères, Garry Guzzo, is a member of this committee.

The Canada Safety Council is Canada's national not-for-profit public safety organization. Information on Canada's national safety council has been made available to you.

Focusing on safety education as the key to long-range reduction in avoidable deaths and injuries, CSC serves as a national resource for safety programs, working with and through partner organizations who fund these programs.

In the public policy area, CSC suggests, supports and promotes legislation and regulations, with strong emphasis on gaining public understanding and acceptance of such laws and regulations. An example of this is our position on fire-safe cigarettes, and you have it in front of you.

The Canada Safety Council does address fire safety issues and concerns. We recently commissioned a major national Angus Reid poll which reveals that Canadians are very conscious of fire safety. Information on that poll is also available in front of you. Canadians from coast to coast are alerted to the dangers of fires from fire safety materials and releases published and disseminated by the Canada Safety Council. It should be noted that we have developed public education materials targeted at Canada's aboriginal communities, which experience a disproportionately high incidence of fire deaths and injuries.

The council is a very strong advocate of ensuring that fire departments across this country, including Ontario of course, in this era of shrinking budgets, receive adequate funding and resources to get the job done. I'm sure this is a position shared by many individuals and organizations concerned with public safety and fire prevention.

Without question, the proposed Fire Protection and Prevention Act, Bill 84, tabled in the Legislature last October will challenge fire departments to continue to provide a most important compulsory public service efficiently and effectively.

In our opinion, the proposed legislation fails to take into account certain realities: economic, social and political. Nevertheless, one cannot deny that some parts of the proposed legislation are very progressive and deserve support.

At this time, all organizations are being forced to justify their existence. It is incumbent on those same organizations to position their cause by demonstrating worthiness, relevance and impact. Fire departments stand tall in this regard. It is not difficult to highlight some of the past and ongoing contributions and achievements of fire departments.

First, they are very instrumental in the reduction of fires, residential, commercial and others, plus reduction of fire fatalities, resulting in favourable and competitive insurance rates. Fire departments are a highly cost-effective service.

Second, firefighters have had significant impact on building codes and fire codes.

Third, firefighters have much experience and training in fire prevention, fire protection and fire suppression.

Fourth, firefighters have a very good-guy image. They work with the MD societies, the burn centres etc. The public perception and image of a fire department is that of a humanitarian service. They will put their lives at risk at any time.

Last is the expansion in work functions and responsibilities: dangerous goods, EMS and so on. They have assumed these duties and responsibilities voluntarily and willingly.

There are major challenges facing the fire services. These include, among others, population growth, the reality of an aging population and long-term economic uncertainty compounded by high unemployment. I feel it would not be difficult to show a correlation between high unemployment and the incidence of fires -- residential, commercial and all others. This certainly will have an effect on insurance rates. This raises a very important concern, namely, the effects of Bill 84 on insurance. I hope the Insurers' Advisory Organization, or IAO, appears before this committee to discuss the proposed bill and its possible effects on insurance rates, certainly a concern to all policyholders across this province.

There are particular concerns with Bill 84. The Canada Safety Council does not and will not welcome changes that will undermine and jeopardize the level of fire protection in Ontario as a result of that proposed legislation.

We are concerned that the legislation will replace full-time firefighters with part-time employees. Historically, as we all know, firefighters have been classified into two categories: professional and volunteer. Each has a very separate and distinct role. My reading of the proposed legislation is that a new category, the part-time firefighter, would be introduced. This, in our opinion, would lead to a reduction in the number of highly trained, professional firefighters, threatening the safety of both professionals and volunteers and community fire protection at large. In our opinion, the proposed bill fails to adequately define a part-time firefighter. This must be addressed. In addition, an explanation is in order as to how part-time firefighters will enhance fire protection and fire services across this province.

Without question, the proposed bill contains a number of new measures designed to improve fire prevention and fire safety. We applaud these new measures. Some of these were based on the recommendations of 30 coroners' juries that examined fire fatalities in recent years across the province. It is indeed gratifying to see that public input was sought and incorporated into this legislation via recommendations arising from various coroners' inquests.

These provisions include: (a) a requirement, and I emphasize at long last, that all municipalities provide fire protection and public education services; (b) a fail-safe program that will give the provincial fire marshal the authority to review municipal fire protection plans, and where there is a danger, to recommend and order change; (c) allowing the province to draw up guidelines that will help local governments to prepare fire protection and prevention plans.

These provisions are sound, progressive and very good. They will help to ensure that all Ontarians enjoy at the minimum an adequate level of fire protection. However, these provisions call for a larger role for the office of the Ontario fire marshal. The question must be asked: Is that office equipped to handle the additional duties and responsibilities? This question must be answered.

To satisfy these provisions of the legislation, the office of the OFM will have to command the full respect and support of municipalities from every corner of this province. It will have to act and operate in a non-condescending, non-arrogant, non-bureaucratic fashion, but efficiently and competently. It will have to communicate and consult. It will have to develop relationships that are based on partnerships with shared interests and concerns and not on superior-subordinate ones. The will must be there to make this happen, otherwise confrontation and lack of trust between Ontario municipalities and the Ministry of the Solicitor General will prevail.

Reductions in fire losses are being realized in jurisdictions across Canada, including Ontario. There are critical factors contributing to these reductions. However, as revealed in Fire Losses in Canada -- and I show it to you here -- for 1993, the last year for which stats are available, Ontario experienced over 10,000 residential fires, and I'm talking about reported fires. Dollar losses for that year exceeded $168 million for residential fires alone. The total number of fires in Ontario that year was 22,747. Total fire losses amounted to over $350 million; 137 residents died as a result of fires that year and over 1,400 were injured. These, you will agree, are not insignificant figures. There is still so much to be done.

The keys to fire safety are education, prevention and protection. This strategy must include ongoing public education and public awareness, smoke detectors, periodic inspections, effective fire codes and building codes, and a government commitment to provide fire departments with the resources needed to do the job. Anything less is not acceptable. Bill 84 must in no way whatsoever compromise that level of fire protection.

The Acting Chair (Mr Garry Guzzo): We'll start with the third party, Mr Kormos, please. We have about a minute.

Mr Kormos: I don't know whether you're one of those special interest groups, but I thank you for your contribution because you've got strong credentials in this area, and others obviously, and no axe to grind other than saving lives. I suppose that is a worthy special interest.

I'm interested in the stats because you've got 1993 -- the press release -- showing a 3.99% increase from the year before, but then you have the 1996 press release --

Mr Thérien: Which is updated a bit.

Mr Kormos: -- which shows a modest drop. We have to assume that's in large part due to the use of fire alarms and the public education in fire prevention that's engaged in. What's interesting is that clearly not all fire services were doing that, because not all municipalities were requiring it. Otherwise it wouldn't have been necessary for the government to have made it mandatory in this bill.

The Acting Chair: Thank you, Mr Kormos.

Mr Kormos: Thank you, Chair. Your timing is impeccable.

Mr Klees: Mr Thérien, thank you for your presentation. I notice from your About the Canada Safety Council brochure that all six of your objectives deal with the interest in promoting safety. I find it interesting, then, that that is in fact the objective of your organization, that you make comments about this bill in face of the statements made by the Ottawa-Carleton Regional Fire Chiefs -- I'll read it to you in case you weren't here -- "We firmly believe nothing in this legislation will jeopardize the safety of the citizens." The fire chiefs, by the way, are responsible for the hiring of the men and women on the front lines who are going to deliver that service. In spite of that, you make comments about the fact that this is a threat to insurance rates in the province; it's a threat to safety. Are you aware who hires the men and women on the front lines who are responsible? It's not the rank and file, sir.

Mr Thérien: No, I understand that.

1130

Mr Klees: When we have heard from the fire chiefs who say that this bill in fact will strengthen safety in the province, how can you, in your position, make the statements that you did?

Mr Thérien: If you heard me, we were saying that the bill must not jeopardize any of the achievements or the accomplishments, and one of our major concerns is an aging population.

Mr Ramsay: Thank you, Mr Thérien, for your presentation. I certainly accept your credentials and accept your advice on this and many of the points that you bring up. I would say that you brought up a concern about fire insurance rates; you're saying we might get some more information later on. Have you done any more work on that in your organization?

Mr Thérien: We have, but I think it's absolutely critical that the Insurers' Advisory Organization appear before this committee.

Mr Ramsay: Chair, could I ask the government --

Mr Thérien: We're talking about all policyholders across the province here.

Mr Ramsay: Yes. I think it's an important point. Maybe I could ask a question for the government: Have they done any impact study of Bill 84 on fire insurance rates across the province? If we could get an answer for that.

The Acting Chair: I don't want to take the time away from the witness.

Mr Thérien, thank you very much. You can see how much easier it is to answer questions here than with your own board. They take all the time to ask the question and don't give you time to answer. But thank you very much for your presentation.

Will you take the question under advisement or do you wish to deal with it?

Mr Carr: We'll be getting a reply back for you.

Mr Gerretsen: What's the answer? I didn't hear the answer to that.

Mr Carr: We will be getting an answer back for you.

Mr Klees: On a point of order, Mr Chairman: I think when the parliamentary assistant seeks that information, as a committee, we should make it very clear that the impact on insurance should be based on the facts of the legislation, not on the implications or the innuendo or the suggestions that are being made by some as to what the potential outcome would be. I suggest very strongly that that be based on the presentation that we heard from the fire chiefs, who are responsible for hiring and maintaining service in the province.

The Acting Chair: I think we can trust our staff to do that.

Mr Kormos: Mr Chair, let's not forget the professional firefighters who are responsible for addressing the dangerous issues onsite.

The Acting Chair: Thank you, Mr Kormos. That's very appropriate.

BRUCE MORGAN JOHN PECEK

The Acting Chair: The next presentation will be made by Dr Bruce Morgan and Mr John Pecek.

Dr Bruce Morgan: Good morning, Mr Chairman, ladies and gentlemen. Thank you for permitting me to address this distinguished panel.

Why are we here? Common goals require us to examine more carefully the implications of Bill 84. As firefighting and medical professionals, we have a common objective in preventing loss of life and reducing pain and suffering. As taxpayers, like you, we also have an interest in reducing the call on the public purse.

For my part, for over 30 years I have been involved in the management of burns. In my experience, suffocation from smoke inhalation is the most likely outcome of fires and its prevention is very difficult to manage. Therefore, response time by firefighters and a disaster plan for evacuation are critical in reduction of damage to individuals due to fire, with the death rate increasing according to age, infirmity and severity. Fire drill instruction and home escape plans are of the utmost importance for all ages of the public so that fire victims may avoid confusion and waste of critical moments for safe evacuation from the fire and danger area. Thus, the education of the public is one of the vital, ongoing jobs of firefighters.

Equally important is the continuous updating of education for the firefighters themselves. This becomes obvious when we consider the many new hazardous materials in common use today, as well as the tremendous increase in electrical wiring for appliances and telecommunication systems at home and also in the workplace.

At our Belleville hospital, we do not have a large enough number of serious burn patients to justify the maintenance of a burn unit with its specially trained emergency physicians, a plastic surgeon and all the necessary 24-hour backup nursing personnel. Following initial treatment, as in any community hospital, we must refer any serious burn cases to a tertiary care centre, the closest being in Kingston here, an hour's drive from Belleville.

Since the establishment of such burn units, as in the Hotel Dieu Hospital here in Kingston, I have confined myself to reading about any new developments in burn treatment from the extensive literature now available. I hasten to add my thanks to our medical librarian at the Belleville General Hospital, Cheryl Martin, who has surfed the Net for me to add the latest information available.

I will review some of this material briefly in the course of my remarks, not to impress you with the wonder of modern medical science, but rather to emphasize to you the urgent need for education of the public by the firefighters, and of the firefighters, for the prevention of fires; the mandatory availability of an instant response to an alarm, rescue and/or treatment of victims by a professional firefighting team; and the long and painful periods of specialized hospital care required in serious burn care, not available in home situations, even with professional home care attendants.

Those patients who survive frequently suffer lifelong negative effects on their lives, as do their families, despite modern advances in treatment and surgery. I'd like to emphasize too, there's the needless public, as well as private, expense resulting from unnecessary or preventable accidents and fires, with their tragic loss of life or lifelong disabilities.

Before proceeding further, perhaps I should differentiate between the degrees of burns. A first-degree is that commonly associated with sunburn, which is painful but superficial and does not usually blister or scar. A second-degree burn does blister, is exquisitely painful, such as resulting from scalding liquids. When infected, it can cause significant scarring, which I have seen in my lifetime. A third-degree burn is the most severe caused by flames. It is painless to touch because the nerve endings are destroyed. If not removed, the skin will separate spontaneously and almost invariably will require skin grafting, another long, painful and expensive act.

As you know, and I as a doctor certainly know, the major driver of governments today is to reduce costs, and in the case of health care, to reduce costs through downsizing hospital admissions and stays. The adverse effect of this policy is that of increasing unemployment of nurses and other hospital personnel at a time when our population is aging and requiring more and more expensive treatment for heart disease, injuries and cancer, not adequately served with home care alone. This compares with the government's efforts in Bill 84 concerning firefighters.

Medical articles demonstrate that the medical profession is sympathetic and aware of the need for economic measures to reduce costs. One article recently published suggests that patients with extensive secondary burns may be treated with a new plastic called biobane, which results in patients being discharged earlier, thus relieving expensive hospital beds. Nevertheless, patients suffering third-degree burns still require the specialized care given in one of the 25 to 30 burn units in Canada, presently caring for 25 to 73 burn patients per 100,000 population in 1991. Mortality was reduced from 5% in 1981 to 3.5% in 1991. This figure indicates again that professional expertise pays dividends.

1140

This point is emphasized by the firefighters in their professional role in early fire and burn-and-fire management and their education of the public in prevention. For example, medical journals from elsewhere suggest that the proper handling of petrol in the home can markedly reduce the number of severe burn accidents. It is too late for burn victims to learn this after the fact.

In medicine we also accept the paramedical personnel as a necessary and valuable part of the team, but we do not expect health care aides, however well trained, to perform surgery in an emergency. Similarly, professional firefighters cannot accept volunteer firefighters as equals in fires where every minute counts, as Bill 84 seems to suggest.

Unlike most serious medical procedures in elective surgery, where planned performance is carried out, a fire obviously is not in the same situation. The management of a fire must be in the hands immediately of a trained professional firefighter as the leader of the team. A volunteer firefighter might be able to perform this function under certain less serious situations, but the unknown or unexpected factors arising, even from a seemingly less serious fire, can lead to disastrous consequences at any time, but especially with lesser-trained personnel.

My support for our firefighters has been drawn from these comparisons between their profession and mine.

Bill 84, it is feared, may bring changes through cost reduction which will reduce the efficiency and response time of our firefighting teams at the expense of life, property and the happiness of citizens who might otherwise be healthy and contributing members of society, in return only for an apparent and temporary monetary benefit. That's one firetrap we cannot accept.

In conclusion therefore I urge the decision-makers to recognize the logic of my remarks, as I firmly believe them to be reasonable, even though I as a taxpayer am sympathetic with the need to reduce costs where possible. I trust that the priorities of safety, efficiency and long-term cost-benefits will be uppermost in the minds of those debating any supposed benefits of Bill 84. I thank you for your attention.

The Acting Chair: Thank you, doctor, for your presentation. We have approximately a minute and a half for each party. I'm sorry, Mr Pecek, were you going to add to this?

Mr John Pecek: Yes.

The Acting Chair: I apologize, sir. Please proceed.

Mr Pecek: Thank you. Good morning. My name is John Pecek and I'm a Belleville professional firefighter. I hold the rank of acting captain within that department. I oppose Bill 84. If Bill 84 becomes law, it will change the rules for fire safety in our community. Firefighters from across this province are greatly in opposition to some of these changes. Quite clearly, Bill 84 threatens to undermine the speed, experience and teamwork that saves lives in an emergency. Some of these changes are definitely for the worse.

As an example, Bill 84 will make it possible to understaff firehalls and only call firefighters to respond when there's an emergency. That may or may not save money, but it could be too late to save lives. Calling in firefighters after an alarm slows response time. This often results in too little too late. Response time is critical, as a fire can double in size and intensity with each passing minute. That's why coroners' juries almost always identify response time as a key factor in saving lives, yet response time is exactly what Bill 84 will sacrifice. Can we really risk a delay when lives are on the line?

Under Bill 84 full-time professional firefighters can be replaced with part-time people. Never before in Canada have we reduced the level of a full-time professional firefighting force into becoming just another part-time job. If we look at our past, governments took great pride in establishing full-time departments. Many of these came about as a positive forward progression, having begun as a part-time volunteer department. How can it now be a good idea to go backwards? Quite simply, Bill 84 will expose our communities, which now have a full-time professional fire department, to a lower standard of protection when an emergency situation occurs.

Today we are calling on the government to listen to professional firefighters and amend Bill 84. Your firefighter knows the grief, the agony and the suffering an emergency can bring about. It's our job to reduce or, better yet, eliminate that from happening. The obligation of a firefighter to all citizens simply states, "For the protection and preservation of life and property." Bill 84 makes fulfilling that obligation more difficult than ever.

The Acting Chair: Thank you, sir. We have now less than a minute.

Mr Carr: Doctor, as you know, the contentious part of this bill is part IX. The rest of the bill I think everybody is pretty much pleased with. Not to put words in their mouths, but I think even the opposition is pleased with the rest of it. It's just part IX. Taking out part IX, the labour part, are you pleased with the rest of the bill from what you've been able to see?

Dr Morgan: I don't have that much familiarity with the bill to be able to answer your question, sir.

Mr Carr: Thank you very much. Good luck.

Mr Gerretsen: I think you were right on, doctor, when you said that the major driver of the government is to save costs here. Of course in a place like Kingston, where $28 million is being added on to the property tax rolls as a result of the downloading, there will be pressures on local council to find savings. One of the savings they'll be able to find is in this area by hiring part-time people, volunteer people and what have you. They may not do it right away, but it will happen and it will allow them to do it.

I think what's very interesting is your comment that, yes, there may be some savings that way -- public safety is going to be at risk -- but in effect we may end up paying more because people will be in the hospitals more, at a higher cost, and as we've already heard from the earlier presenter, insurance rates may go up as well, because obviously there won't be the same quick response times and fires will cause greater damage. Do you agree with that assessment?

The Acting Chair: Doctor, I'm afraid there's no time for your answer. That's why Mr Gerretsen is no longer practising law and why he's in politics.

Mr Gerretsen: Just for the record, I am still practising law.

The Acting Chair: I wonder how much longer it can continue.

Mr Gerretsen: In fact you're no longer a judge.

The Acting Chair: Mr Kormos was well trained by some very disciplined judges in his day. Yes, sir. You've got about 40 seconds.

Mr Kormos: Doctor, I appreciate your comments. Your medical colleagues from Wellesley Hospital, from the burn unit there, addressed the issue in a very similar way with a little bit different perspective, and I hope you're not considered a special interest group. All you're concerned about is saving people's lives and protecting burn victims from the tragedy.

Dr Morgan: I hope so, having seen so many of them.

Mr Kormos: Mr Pecek, as a firefighter --

The Acting Chair: I'm sorry, Mr Kormos. I apologize, sir, but I want to thank you --

Mr Kormos: -- what motivates the chiefs of fire departments to be --

The Acting Chair: Excuse me, please. Thank you kindly. Mr Pecek, Dr Morgan, thank you kindly.

Mr Gerretsen: I move that the Chair take over again, the real Chair.

The Acting Chair: I've been trying to get him back, John, I assure you.

1150

JOAN LEVY EARLE SALLY NICHOLSON

The Acting Chair: Joan Levy Earle and Sally Nicholson. Good morning, ladies, and thank you for attending. Please proceed.

Ms Joan Levy Earle: My name is Joan Levy Earle and I live in Cornwall, Ontario. Appearing with me is Sally Nicholson, who will speak directly after me.

I do appreciate your taking your time in the matter of Bill 84. Like the birthdates of our children, we never forget the dates of our fires. A fire is a traumatic and life-changing experience. The sound of a fire engine on its way to a fire never fails to remind me to pray for the safety of those involved, both the firefighter and the victim.

My first fire happened on Tuesday, February 10, 1981. There was a knock at the front door of my home at 10:30 that night and a friend told me that she thought my art studio was on fire. My studio was located in a large building just a block away from my home, and when I rounded the street corner, I saw a fireman on an aerial ladder breaking into the front upstairs window of my studio. This older building also housed about 40 tenants, a bank, photo shop and two stores. Because of the quick response of the fire department, only my facility received damage. Although it was a total loss for me, fortunately the fire only gave minor smoke damage to the rest of the building.

Vandalism was determined to have been the cause of this fire, as there had been a forced entry into my studio and a burglary call had been received by the police just prior to the fire call. It took a well-trained and experience firefighting team to get that fire under control so quickly; otherwise, it could have meant economic disaster for many of the tenants, especially those without fire insurance on their apartment contents.

My second fire experience occurred more recently on Valentine's Day of this year, 1997, just two months ago. My husband and I were awakened about 2 am by flashing lights outside our bedroom window. We live over our business, which is a stationery-bookstore. When we saw the police put a barrier across the intersection a block away, we suspected that this was not a false alarm.

My husband went out first to get details, and the fire captain told him to evacuate our family and to take our valuables because this was a serious fire and our building was being threatened. We spent the next five hours on the street, watching and praying that this intense fire with 30-foot flames just two doors away would not destroy both our home and our livelihood. Unfortunately, a few neighbouring businesses located on the ground floor of the historic three-storey hotel were not as fortunate. Several businesses were destroyed, but the fire was contained to that one large building. About 10 other downtown businesses, all attached to each other, were protected. The fire was under control by morning, but the firemen were still working at it for another full day.

This recent fire was proof to me of the need for firemen to be at the ready, prepared to be awakened and physically capable of enduring hours of firefighting through all the elements, even ice and snow, to put out a fire. I am confident that our fire department's quick and dedicated response protected our downtown business from being destroyed.

There is such a demanding physical effort required by a fireman to sit on a curb in subzero weather and hold a heavy hose for hours on end. I also observed the stamina and determination to see a job completed that is a major part of their role. When I watched several of these men put on heavy gear to go into the burning building, I realized just what a unique profession firefighting is, and because it is a unique profession, I feel that firefighting should be regarded by both provincial and municipal governments as requiring special consideration.

I am here today to caution you to protect this profession from the folly of simply being a service contract to be put out for tender. The fire department should be community-based with a community conscience. Section 41 of your bill may open the door to privatization and, in my opinion, that would be a mistake.

The job of fireman, like that of a policeman, is not a career that suits everybody. It is also not a job that can be contracted out to the lowest bidder. Yes, we're living in tough economic times, but we can't lose sight of reality. My job is in retail and the staff of our store has been reduced this year in order to cut costs of operation. Our business will survive in spite of short-staffing because our customers usually don't mind waiting for service on an especially busy day.

An understaffed or poorly trained staff in a fire department could result in the loss of human lives and personal property. It is admirable for a provincial government to give a municipality more control over its own destiny, but I feel that it is the responsibility of the provincial government to regulate firefighting in such a way that a naïve city council will not have the authority to shortchange the community. Severe cost-cutting measures may hamper efficiency and the ability of a fire department to handle quick response. I suggest that you protect municipalities from being able to hire part-time firefighters who may not have the training to satisfy the community's needs. We deserve a full-time, well-trained team effort on every shift.

As a member of the Cornwall business community paying unrealistically high property taxes, I would like some of those tax dollars to provide me and my family with first-class fire protection. Just like the fire insurance that we all pay and hope we never have to use, let us be insured by a well-staffed, well-trained, full-time fire department and pray we will never have to dial their number.

Thank you very much for the opportunity to express my views.

The Acting Chair: Thank you. Ms Nicholson.

Ms Sally Nicholson: Hi. I have been a resident of the city of Kingston for 38 of my 49 years. I am a concerned citizen. I have had some exposure to fire training and the trauma others have experienced due to a fire, through work experience on a mine rescue team in northern Saskatchewan and through my volunteer work. I was a volunteer firefighter. When you experience a fire, you never forget it.

Are we willing to sacrifice our families to save a couple of dollars? I don't mind paying taxes for proper emergency services. We should stand together to keep our fire services to the standard that they are presently at. The figures show that it only costs approximately $100 per annum per person for our emergency fire services. I believe all of you would agree that our lives are worth that.

A fire doubles in size and intensity with each passing minute.

Kingston has approximately 170 high-rise buildings, five major hospitals, being Hotel Dieu, KGH, Rideaucrest, St Mary's of the Lake Hospital and the Kingston Psychiatric Hospital, along with our college and university. Because of that, our firefighters need different types of training than is required for fires in rural areas and/or the townships.

Response time is a key factor in saving lives. With good response times, I have seen firefighters save humans, animals and homes. The current system promotes teamwork, which is vital during a fire. At the present time, there is a response time of approximately three minutes. However, if we go to volunteer or part-time firefighters, there will be a drastic change in the response time. Firefighters would have to be called in from work, home or wherever they might be and have to attend the station first, then head for the fire scene. On top of that, it is normal to experience a large turnover when working with volunteers. I know this because I have belonged to many volunteer groups. Therefore, the basic training would be constantly required and there would be a lack of continuity.

Due to the history of excellent response time by our fire department, we were able to get defibrillation in our community. The Kingston fire department attended 2,400 calls last year; the township, which has volunteer firefighters, attended to 500 calls. That's quite a difference.

With a delay in response time, fewer lives and properties will be saved. Property insurance could possibly skyrocket for everyone. We are also going to cut the fire service by leaving ourselves vulnerable to foreign investment. Only 1% of emergency services in the United States are privatized. This leads me to believe that privatization is not the most effective service or their preference.

Our firefighters not only care about extinguishing the fire but also care about the victims and call in assistance from other agencies to assist the victims of such a traumatic experience. Victims are assisted by helping them find warmth, shelter, food and support. Due to excellent training and experience, our firefighters are up to date on what is available to help victims of fires in our city. There are agencies that provide emotional support and referrals to fire victims and have an understanding of what they may be experiencing; they are often used by the department.

Keeping our fire engines mechanically fit is also a high priority, since downtime is unacceptable and vital; this may well be threatened if we go to part-time or volunteers.

I ask some of you to visit the burn unit of the hospitals and speak with some of the doctors and nurses about the fire victims they have seen. I have seen some victims of fire, and it's disheartening. We must be empathetic towards victims and protect our families with the expertise of properly trained firefighters. Please do not wait until someone close to you or you yourself have to experience the problems that may happen with Bill 84. All I ask is for you to care, do your research and listen to your heart. Please remember that speed, experience, teamwork and excellent preventive maintenance are what save lives.

Thank you very much for your time.

Mr Ramsay: Thank you very much for your presentation. I'm really pleased that you've brought to our attention the fear of what a privatized fire department may do to this area. The government is saying, "We're not encouraging municipalities to do that," but I look at Bill 84 as really passing on a loaded gun to our municipalities, and what the government is saying is, "If you can't take the fiscal pressure we're putting on your through all our downloading, here's a tool you can use" -- this loaded gun -- "to put down your fire department and make the changes you might see to be necessary."

I agree, as stated in both of your presentations, that this should be a provincial concern, absolutely, a very strong provincial concern, and that we should have in this bill an amendment that would forbid the privatization of firefighting in Ontario. I'm glad you brought that forward. In the Liberal caucus, we're going to be pushing for that in the coming weeks.

Mr Kormos: Thank you to both of you. You've brought perspectives to this that are very important, because in addition to the firefighting we're talking about firefighters, these women and men, being there in incidents of heart attacks, strokes, falls, motor vehicle accidents. The response time is as crucial in those areas as it is in a firefighting scenario. Last week in Toronto we learned about how effective and important response time is when you're going to do CPR and how, seconds literally count and make the difference between survival and a fatality.

I'm looking at data that talk about the need not only for response times but response times with sufficient staffing, because if firefighters are being sent out two and three at a time to the sort of fire we heard about from the young family that was here a couple of presentations ago, again, response time being there, inadequate support is similarly going to diminish the firefighters' ability to literally save lives.

Mr Carr: Time is too short, but we really appreciate that. I don't know if you're aware, but right now if a municipality doesn't perform, there isn't anything the province can do. This bill gives the fire marshal more power to step in in a case where there's any abuse by any municipality. Fortunately we haven't had that up to this point in time. But it does give the fire marshal more authority and power than is presently there to be able to step in in an instance where a municipality doesn't do a very good job. Are you in favour of that provision allowing the fire marshal to step in if a municipality has a problem in a particular area?

Ms Levy Earle: Who are you addressing it to?

Mr Carr: Either one; whoever feels comfortable, or both of you if we have time.

Ms Nicholson: I would want to have time to think of the pros and cons of it before answering that question.

Ms Levy Earle: I would simply say that there are many features of this bill that are excellent. But there's no such thing, I'm sure you all know, as something that's already perfect. That's the reason you have hearings. I'm sure there are changes that could be made, but there are probably some very strong assets to the bill.

The Acting Chair: Thank you very much, ladies, for your presentations.

We now stand adjourned till 1 o'clock.

The committee recessed from 1204 to 1305.

CITY OF KANATA

The Chair: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. Our first presentation this afternoon will be made by the Kanata fire department, Fire Chief Gord Kemp. Welcome, Mr Kemp. We have received a written presentation from Mr Kemp, and he has 15 minutes starting now.

Mr Gordon Kemp: Good afternoon. My name is Gordon Kemp. I'm presently the director of protective services and fire chief for the city of Kanata. I'm also a member of the board of directors for the Ontario Association of Fire Chiefs.

Bill 84, the Fire Protection and Prevention Act, is a well-balanced approach to effect change and amalgamate several complex and dated pieces of legislation. The Ontario government is showing positive and appropriate leadership in the development of a public fire safety policy. First let me say that I am in support of the positions put forward by the Ontario Association of Fire Chiefs and the Ottawa-Carleton regional fire chiefs.

The proposed legislation is directed towards fire prevention and public education, and this is the direction the fire service should be heading. This bill provides the flexibility for municipalities to deliver the appropriate level of fire prevention and protection in each community. While the bill makes it mandatory to establish fire prevention and public education programs, it also endorses and provides for several flexible means of providing fire suppression if a municipality deems it necessary. The emphasis of the legislation reinforces the current fire service practices and will certainly enhance and improve public safety.

Overall, this is a proactive piece of long-overdue legislation. It does not make any sense in the face of today's realities to argue that legislation written in the 1940s has much relevance in the 1990s. Again, the status quo is not an option. Bill 84 addresses some areas of the current legislation which certainly need revisions and updating. It provides for standards to be established by the Ontario fire marshal's office and gives municipalities several choices by which to provide the protection they deem necessary for their particular jurisdiction. The bill allows for the Ontario fire marshal to recommend a defined level of protection where it is deemed the existing level is not acceptable to ensure public safety.

There are only a few parts of the bill I would like to comment on in particular. In the area of management exclusions, one of the important changes being recommended in Bill 84 is that those managers who manage or supervise unionized staff not be members of the same union. At the present time, everyone except for the chief and deputy chief are members of the firefighters' union. This inhibits the organization in establishing a true management team with which to manage the department.

An example of this happened just last week in Kanata. Luckily our deputy chief recently moved on to another job in the province. As a result of this one vacancy in the management team, it became necessary to have the manager of administrative services from the community and recreation services group sit on a selection committee for probationary firefighters. There was no one else from the fire department who was allowed to sit on the selection committee for firefighters.

The bill would provide for the exclusion of present managers and supervisors from the union and allows for the selection of future managers on the skills set necessary for the position without being limited through prohibitive collective agreement wording. For an organization which provides around-the-clock service in something as important as fire protection, it only makes sense that the direct supervisor on duty would not be subject to supervising fellow union members and, by extension, be subject to union policies and pressure.

Other municipal service groups and departments have had managers and supervisors outside the bargaining unit for many years. By including the managerial exclusions concept of the Labour Relations Act, the bill provides both management and unions the same level playing field as all other unionized workplaces.

In the area of collective bargaining, Bill 84 has made some changes which have been long sought after by municipalities. The addition of the step of conciliation before proceeding to binding arbitration allows for a third party to try to effect a collective agreement before the costly step of proceeding to arbitration.

The inclusion of factors which an arbitration shall take into consideration now include the employer's ability to pay; the extent to which services may have to be reduced if current funding and taxation levels are not increased; the economic situation in Ontario and in the municipality in particular; the comparison between firefighters and other comparable employees within the municipality and public sector; and the employer's ability to attract and retain qualified firefighters. These factors are certainly a lot more relative when establishing a firefighter's salary than some of the factors that have been used in the past by arbitrators.

In the area of part-time firefighters, the definition of a part-time firefighter is included, which will have a significant impact on overall costs without compromising the quality or level of service. Many other professions, such as teachers, health care workers, tradesmen and municipal government, have utilized part-time staff who are qualified to perform the job, the only difference being his or her employment status and the number of hours of work. A person's qualifications or training is a totally separate matter.

1310

As a fire service administrator who manages the mandate of council, there would be nothing gained by me or council by utilizing unqualified or poorly trained firefighters of any type. However, there is value and efficiency to be realized through judicious use of qualified part-time people to maintain minimum staffing levels in the case of sick leave or vacation. Instead of utilizing the expensive practice of paying time and a half to bring back firefighters on overtime, the municipalities would be able draw upon a pool of qualified part-time firefighters.

The bill facilitates a municipality's ability to consider different options for the provision of their emergency services. Some of the options are automatic aid, nearest fire station responds even if it is outside the municipality, contracting the service to a private provider or other municipality and even considering if the service will be provided at all. There has been no restriction, except in collective agreements, to considering these options in the past. The council of the municipality, which represents the citizens, should be entitled to make the choice as to the service provider which reflects the community's needs.

There has never been any serious consideration of an alternative method of providing fire protection in Kanata or any other municipality, to the best of my knowledge. It is my belief that the taxpayers of Kanata and Ontario are provided an excellent level of fire protection as well as prevention and education. The utilization of professional on-duty, part-time on-duty and volunteer on-call firefighters is an efficient and cost-effective manner of providing the protection which we have come to expect and are receiving in Ontario.

The need to define the position of a fire chief in law has been a concern of fire chiefs for some time. In this day and age of liability and responsibility, this definition is essential. The fire chief is the individual who has the expertise to provide professional advice on fire-related matters to the municipal council. Ensuring that the appropriate duties and responsibilities are outlined and provided in law will protect the public and the fire chief. The explanation of authority, duties and responsibilities will also improve the ability of the fire chief to manage the delivery of fire protection and prevention programs for a municipality.

In conclusion, Bill 84 is legislation which brings forward a break from tradition and gives a municipality the ability to determine the proper level of fire protection and prevention it deems necessary for the taxpayer. It gives the council the flexibility to determine the method of providing the service. There is nothing in this bill that would inhibit the provision of the proper level of public safety to the residents of Ontario, and I urge you to pass Bill 84, the Fire Protection and Prevention Act, into law as soon as possible. I want to thank you for this opportunity to present my views.

The Chair: Thank you, Fire Chief Kemp. We have two minutes per caucus.

Mr Kormos: Thank you, chief. I appreciate that you qualified "part-time" as "part-time on-duty," because you know some of the concerns that have been raised about part-time is that they would be used on an on-call basis to accommodate understaffing of a fire department. I trust you reject that.

Mr Kemp: Yes.

Mr Kormos: You also make the proposition that nothing would be gained by a chief or by council by utilizing unqualified or poorly trained firefighters. Again, that's an argument that's been made counter to the opponents to this legislation. Would it similarly be the case that there would be nothing to be gained by a council or a chief by understaffing?

Mr Kemp: True. A council and the fire chief are responsible to provide the proper level of service for that community.

Mr Kormos: Understaffing is rife among municipal fire services across Ontario, isn't it?

Mr Kemp: No, I don't agree with you on that point.

Mr Kormos: Do you agree with the Ontario fire marshal's study of 1993 that says that a mere three-person crew is very limited in its firefighting capabilities, including the conduct of interior-suppression or rescue operations?

Mr Kemp: Yes, I agree with that.

Mr Kormos: So you would never send a three-person crew out of your fire department, I trust.

Mr Kemp: The level of service that the municipality deems and determines it wants to deliver is the level of service for that community. If it doesn't entail a five-man pumper, then that's the decision that council has the jurisdiction and the responsibility to make.

Mr Kormos: So councils could and would authorize crews of three.

Mr Kemp: Yes.

Mr Kormos: Notwithstanding the Ontario fire marshal's study of 1993.

Mr Kemp: The Ontario fire marshal's report of 1993 clearly states that they would be limited in what they would be able to do. If the council determines that's the limitation it wants to put into it, then I believe it should be free to make that choice, knowing full well that the crew of three or less will be limited in what it will be able to do.

Mr Kormos: But they're putting lives at risk.

Mr Kemp: No, I don't believe they are putting lives at risk.

Mr Kormos: You see, the Ontario fire marshal says that a three-person crew cannot safely accomplish, as I say, interior-suppression or rescue operations, the establishment of a water supply from a static source within a reasonable time limit, deployment of backup of protection lines and ventilation operations requiring access to the roof. I disagree with you in that regard. It seems to me that a council that would permit that is putting lives at risk.

Mr Klees: I'd like to just follow up on Mr Kormos's point. Given the scenario Mr Kormos brought to your attention, wouldn't it, then, be helpful to have some part-time people available to backfill that requirement, to move it from a three- to a five-man unit?

Mr Kemp: Yes. That would be a responsible and cost-efficient way of being able to move from a crew that is too small to a crew that you wish to keep on duty all the time. In order to have a minimum crew of three, you would have to have on staff a crew of between four and five in order to keep at your minimum staffing level.

Mr Klees: Mr Kormos perhaps wouldn't understand the word "efficiency," and that's why this province is in the mess it's in today.

I'd like you to comment --

Mr Kormos: I understand fires that kill six in a family. Don't talk to me about efficiency.

Mr Klees: Mr Chair, I didn't interrupt Mr Kormos.

The Chair: You have the floor, Mr Klees.

Mr Klees: I'd like you to comment, if you would. The campaign we've seen launched over the last number of weeks against Bill 84 refers almost exclusively to the issue of safety. The bill largely supports the need for improved safety and has many provisions around that. Would you agree that the real objection to this bill from the association is one based on labour issues and not safety?

Mr Kemp: Yes, I would agree with you. I believe the two are getting mixed up and safety is being used to justify labour issues, which should be kept separate and off to the side and dealt with as labour issues, not as safety issues.

Mr Klees: Part of the benefit of this process is to ensure that we bring some clarity to what the issues really are. I think it's important for the public to understand that this bill very strongly enhances the safety of firefighting in this province.

Mr Ramsay: Chief, I'd like to follow up on some of what Mr Klees was saying. You just made the comment that you don't think safety should be mixed up with labour relations issues. Then why is it you're supporting a bill where the government has done that very thing? They have mixed up labour relations with a very good safety and fire prevention bill. That's the error and the flaw in this bill.

1320

Applause.

The Chair: Not everyone may have been here this morning. For those who have just arrived, demonstrations in the audience are not permitted. I do not have the facilities to eject one person for causing a demonstration, which includes applause. Therefore, my remedy is to clear the gallery. I would be very reluctant to do so but I will if that type of behaviour continues.

Mr Kormos: It wasn't them, Chair, it was me applauding.

Mr Ramsay: Chief, that's really the crux of this whole thing, because as you have said, and I agree with you, there are many good aspects of this bill. I think we could get every member of the Legislature to give immediate approval to this bill if we deleted part IX of that bill so we could work on that in cooperation with everybody involved. But what the government has done -- and I see that part IX as being a poison pill to a very good act -- is mixed labour relations with safety and prevention, which we all should be very concerned about. The government has done and you're supporting exactly what you said shouldn't be done.

Mr Kemp: I don't agree with you, because I believe they belong in the same bill, but when people debate the labour relations part of it, they should debate the labour relations part of it, not debate the labour relations part and the outcome is the safety part of it, because that's not true; there's nothing in the labour relations part of it that reduces staffing or compromises public safety in any way. All the labour relations issues in part IX deal with are the labour relations issues.

Those people who are against the bill are against the labour relations issue, but I haven't heard the debate take place on the labour relations issue. They keep throwing in that it's a safety issue that's being compromised by the labour relations. The labour relations issues are issues in themselves and should be debated on that aspect only; don't complicate them.

Mr Ramsay: There is a relationship. We've just talked here about the use of part-timers, and you talked about supplementing, say, a three-person crew and then bringing in some part-timers. Would you say today that supplementing, say, a three-person crew with a couple of part-timers would be as safe as a full-time permanent crew that goes out on an emergency call?

Mr Kemp: Properly trained and qualified, they would be in the same position as ambulance operators, as teachers. There are lots of professions that use qualified and properly trained part-timers to keep their staffing at the levels they want to have on duty. I can't see where firefighting is so different than other professions.

The Chair: Fire Chief Kemp, thank you very much for your presentation here today.

DIANE DALPEE MURRAY WORKMAN

The Chair: Our next presenters are Diane Dalpee and Murray Workman. Good afternoon to both of you. You're going to be sharing your 15 minutes, I take it. I'd ask you to proceed.

Mrs Diane Dalpee: My name is Diane Dalpee, and I'm from Belleville. With me is Mr Murray Workman, who will be speaking following my presentation. I would like to take this opportunity to thank you for allowing me to voice my opinion on Bill 84.

My husband is a full-time firefighter and has been for 20 years. He knows his fellow workers as well as his own family. During an emergency they work as a team, knowing the other person's next move and thoughts. This takes experience. Since he has been on the department, he has been personally involved with five victims dying in a fire; three of them have been children.

My husband's first experience with fire and death was in 1960, when his home burned outside of Windsor, claiming the life of his mother, father and youngest brother, who was nine. An older brother was home at the time but escaped. However, it has left him scarred inside and out.

I myself am an assistant administrator of a nursing home. Our home has three storeys and 59 residents. Of these 59 residents, 44 are in wheelchairs. On our evening shift we have five staff members, and on our midnight shift we have four.

Every three years, with the cooperation of the fire department, we conduct a complete evacuation of our home, which has been a very successful learning experience for all involved. It is the teamwork that makes it successful. In the fall of 1993 we had a planned evacuation with the fire department. In October of the same year we had a gas leak from the furnace. Under the direction of the captain of the fire department, a decision was made to evacuate the home. In 27 minutes the home was evacuated of 47 residents. This shows that with the department manning full-time firefighters who keep themselves familiar with high-risk areas, seconds can save lives.

If Bill 84 is passed, I have great concerns for the safety of my husband, his fellow workers and the 59 residents plus staff whom I owe a responsibility to. Everyone's greatest fear is fire. My staff presently have a comfortable feeling that the fire department is operating with full-time staff and that all emergency vehicles will respond immediately. Take this away and I don't want to think of the outcome.

In concluding, I would like you to take a hard look at Bill 84 prior to passing it. Please don't take away the high standards and the teamwork of our professional firefighters and add fear for people like me who are responsible for the elderly and the disabled.

Mr Murray Workman: Good afternoon, Mr Chairman and members of the committee. My name is Murray Workman. I'm a retired school principal with 35 years' experience and have served the city of Trenton as an alderman on city council since 1980. I'm here to provide a municipal perspective, as I see it, to Bill 84 and specifically part II, section 2, and that's what I want to focus on.

This section does two things, as I read it. It mandates the provision of public education in fire safety -- and I think that's a commendable part and a strong part of this particular bill -- but then it turns around and becomes permissive in providing the services such as firefighting. This permissiveness allows options to municipal councils that will provide savings in fire department costs, but in doing so could dangerously lower the safety of our citizens and lower the effectiveness of our firefighters. I think you've heard during the course of the day to this point that the fire response time is the critical aspect, the critical factor in respect of firefighting.

With Bill 84, the provincial government had the opportunity to mandate firefighting services that could be cost-effective but provide at the same time the highest level of service -- and here's the important part -- protection to our services and our citizens. Gentlemen, the opportunity was missed when it became permissive. There must be a balance between cost saving and firefighting efficiency. Bill 84, in my opinion, does not provide this balance; its focus is on cost saving. We have, at the municipal level, mandated police services, and I believe logically that firefighting services should also be mandated. Again, I'm emphasizing firefighting services.

The last point I'd like to make is that this government has been aggressive on many fronts, particularly in the last year and the last few months. We have experienced that aggressiveness in the cost saving and the downloading to municipalities on the premise of providing cost-efficient and effective services in areas such as health, education and social services. It is my opinion that it is not aggressive at the same level with the issue of firefighting. It does not adequately address the issue of providing safe and effective firefighting protection to the citizens, and in the end they will be the losers.

1330

Mr Carr: Thank you very much for the presentations from both of you. As you may or may not know, right now the province and the fire marshal don't have any powers if a particular municipality like Trenton wasn't providing proper services. This bill gives the fire marshal broad powers to step in in the event that a municipality isn't providing fire services. I take it you agree with that section?

Mr Workman: I'm looking at part II, section 2, where it says, "A municipality shall (a) appoint a community fire safety officer...or...establish a fire department." That's the part that bothers me. That's why I focused on that section, because it is permissive. The first part, part II, subsection 2(1), regarding the public education with respect to fire safety, I think is commendable, and enforcing that and strengthening it is a move in the right direction. But then you turn around and say the municipality may or may not have a fire department.

In firefighting, it is my belief, and that of those on the council I serve and the citizens in town, that the response time, the first two or three minutes of arriving at a fire are the critical ones. You have to have a department. You cannot depend on a strictly volunteer department to provide that kind of response time.

Mr Carr: I understand you might not have had a chance to read it, but subsections 2(7) and (8) do give the fire marshal, and the government through the Lieutenant Governor in Council, broad powers now to step in on a municipality. They don't have that now. I just wondered if you as a municipal politician agree with that section which says, in essence, subsections (7) and (8), if the fire marshal deems it to be a problem, he can step in and make recommendations to the council.

Mr Workman: What will have to happen, sir, for that problem to come to light? That's my problem.

Mr Gerretsen: Murray, would you agree with me, as a municipal councillor, that with all the downloading taking place right now -- and we've heard it from all over Ontario; here in Kingston it's over $28 million if the same level of services were provided etc -- there's going to be a great temptation for councils to want to save money. They don't want to pass a 25% or 30% tax increase to the local taxpayers. They will be very tempted to try a lot of these different manoeuvres with respect to firefighting.

Mr Workman: Mr Gerretsen, that's exactly why I said the bill missed the point on mandating fire protection services, for that very point: There is the temptation. I would say without any problem at all that municipal councils are responsible and responsive bodies but, and particularly in today's milieu, we have that problem of the downloading and the issue of property tax and so forth, and that very point you raise is the fear.

Mr Gerretsen: If I could just raise one other point, it's interesting that this government is great on coming up with long names for bills. This bill is called An Act to promote Fire Prevention and Public Safety in Ontario. It doesn't talk about firefighting at all.

Just to take issue with Mr Carr, when he talks about subsection 2(7), it says, "The fire marshal may monitor and review the fire protection services...." It's not a mandatory service at all, sir.

Mr Carr: It's a stronger provision than we have now, John, and you know it.

The Chair: Mr Gerretsen has the floor.

Mr Gerretsen: With all due respect, the government members here have been suggesting that the fire marshal is going to have much greater power in the future. The fire marshal may want to get involved, he may monitor these situations, but he may also decide to ignore it. He's got no more power than he had before, sir.

Mr Carr: He can't do it now.

Mr Kormos: I appreciate your reference to subsections 2(1) and (2), sir, because it would have been oh so easy, if that were the government's intention, to have included fire suppression in subsection (1), which outlines the mandatory services. There's something very telling in the failure to do that, and very clearly, putting it into subsection (2), which, as you say quite rightly, is permissive.

You were here a little earlier when some government members tried to say, "Oh, the labour issues are separate and apart from the rest of the bill," but when we look at what's happening here -- maybe I'm a little overly suspicious, you'll forgive me for that, but we've got a denial of successor rights. We've got a denial of a right to strike, even though professional firefighters have never struck in this province. We've got a refusal of the right to bargain workhours in a collective bargaining agreement. It's interesting that Rural/Metro, the private firefighting service from Arizona which is a disaster in the United States, comes to Kitchener-Waterloo and says that one of their solutions, which will allow them to make money and still provide what they call firefighting, is to increase the workweek to 66 hours.

Your observations about the distinction between fire prevention being required and fire suppression being permissive, I suspect, sir, that part IX, the labour relations, is very much part and parcel of the rest of the bill, because it's a blank cheque. It's an open door to private, corporate, for-profit firefighting services that don't want to have to negotiate hours of work, that don't want to have to be burdened with successor rights, that don't want to have to face a workforce that has the right to strike. It seems to me there's far more here than meets the eye.

Your comments about section 2 are pointed; dead on. If the government had really meant what they're trying to say now, they would have included fire suppression in the mandatory subsection which deals with fire prevention and education. I'd appreciate at some point the government telling us why it wasn't simply included among the mandatory sections. It would have been so easy, Mr Carr.

The Chair: Mrs Dalpee and Mr Workman, thank you very much for helping us in our deliberations here today.

MARGARET LAKE

The Chair: Our next presentation is by Margaret Lake, who has also given you a written statement.

Mr Gary L. Leadston (Kitchener-Wilmot): Mr Chairman, just to make a correction, Mr Kormos alluded to Kitchener-Waterloo as considering privatization, and that's totally in error. I know the city of Waterloo had been approached by a company. They realized that the cost to privatize the service -- they couldn't do it. It was far more cheaply done by the municipality. To my knowledge, Kitchener has not had any discussions about privatization, although you alluded to Kitchener-Waterloo. I just wanted to correct the record.

Mr Kormos: Press reports indicate that the CAO -- and it has been dealt with numerous times in the Legislature and in committee -- has been approached by and met with Rural/Metro. Part of their pitch was a 66-hour workweek for firefighters. It's to the credit of Kitchener-Waterloo that they didn't invite them. I'm not sure that other communities, with your massive downloading of costs, like $73 million --

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Kormos.

Mr Gerretsen: Are we in a debate?

The Chair: Mr Kormos tends to go into debate if you don't watch him.

In any event, we do have guests before us, gentlemen. Mrs Lake, you are accompanied by two individuals. Are they going to take part in the oral presentation?

Mrs Margaret Lake: No.

The Chair: Please proceed.

Mrs Lake: Good afternoon. My name is Mrs Margaret Lake. I am the widow of professional firefighter Captain Bill Lake and the mother of our four children. I live in the city of Belleville, where Captain Lake was a member of the Belleville full-time professional fire department. I am here today to speak against Bill 84.

In 1978 my husband entered his 21st year of service with the Belleville Fire Department. At the age of 41, that same year, he died due to a work-related injury. This injury was the result of a rescue attempt to save two children from a house fire in which both children perished.

The years following my husband's death were filled with loneliness. My life and the lives of our four children, aged 10 through 20, and the lives of the family who lost their two children will never be the same. Many times I ask myself, why? Why did this have to happen?

Today I am proud to say that two of our sons are Belleville professional firefighters. I am here today for them and all residents of Ontario to protest Bill 84. If passed in its present form, it could undermine the level of service and fire protection in our province. Nothing is ever the same when you lose a loved one, and to die in such a tragic way, you have to ask the question why.

As a widow and still asking the question why, I plead with you to reconsider this bill in its present form. Please listen to the professional firefighters and carry out the amendments they are proposing. These are the front-line people who do the job and know what has to be done. This bill, in my opinion, gives each municipality the tools of grave destruction as it allows them to reduce the level of service and fire protection within our communities. I hope to never again have to ask myself the question why for another loved one. One per lifetime is one too many.

I hope in speaking here today, my story will have some impact on reducing the chance of a tragedy striking. With proper manpower, professional training and very quick response to an emergency, I feel much needless grief and suffering can be avoided.

In conclusion, I implore you to listen to our professional firefighters. Make the bill a better one before it's too late. It is my greatest hope that no one will ever have to ask that question why. I thank you for your time today.

1340

Mr Ramsay: Thank you, Mrs Lake, for coming before us today. This must be difficult for you. I really appreciate your coming forward because really for the first time today I think you put a light on a whole other aspect of what this bill is about.

Up until now, in regard to fire safety, most of us have been discussing response time, the ability to get to a fire, the ability to suppress that fire and save the occupants at that residence or business. But you've brought up another point, and that is the safety of our firefighters, and this is very important. While we have debate about the use of part-timers to supplement firefighters and debating whether that's safe or not or in a good response time, the point is that I don't know of too many other jobs where we in society ask people, in this case firefighters, to put their lives in jeopardy to save ours. That's a pretty enormous demand that we make upon a profession. For us now to start to consider diluting the teamwork ability, the full-time professionalism of that group I think is wrong. I think, as you can attest, accidents happen. This is a very dangerous profession. Firefighters lose their lives and sometimes firefighters are also injured, and we should never do anything to put firefighters in jeopardy.

I know that right now all we seem to be talking about as governments is somehow the bottom line. We want to reduce taxes, we want to make government more efficient, and I'm sure we all believe in that, but also what's very important is that we have issues that I think government still needs to retain as a core function, and that is public security and public safety. A firefighting department is something that we have to ensure is absolutely professional, first-rate and full-time, so that not only is the public assured of a department that can respond in the appropriate fashion but that the men and women we ask to put their lives on the line on a daily basis for us are also safe. I think we owe it to them and to you, their families, so that when they go to work they can have confidence that they'll return to their homes that evening or at the end of their shift, whenever that may be. I think that's very important. I'd like to thank you for bringing that point home.

Mr Kormos: I too, Mrs Lake, have to express all of our gratitude for your coming forward today and speaking about something that's very personal. I don't know -- I'm sure there are some people in this room who do know -- the circumstances in which Mr Lake suffered those injuries, but I do know there's a Johns Hopkins study that says that fire services with less than four members on a crew had an injury rate that was 36.3% greater than those that had crews of four people or more. Similarly, a Providence, Rhode Island, fire services study showed that when you increase the crew size from three to four, there's a 55.4% drop in firefighter injuries. So not only does the crew size of professional firefighters, as a team, facilitate the ability to effect fire suppression and rescues, it also protects firefighters from injuries and sometimes deadly injuries.

You've heard, I suspect, the government talk about the fire marshal having the power to oversee what's happening in municipal fire services. You've also heard about the prospect of municipalities being prepared to use three-person crews if nothing more is required of them, and perhaps to supplement them with part-timers, which must mean calling them in, otherwise they'd be full-timers. Would you encourage the government to build some standards into this legislation, starting with a minimum requirement of a four-person crew, in view of how that permits safety for firefighters and enhanced fire suppression and rescue of victims?

Mrs Lake: Yes, I would.

Mr Kormos: Your husband, at the age of 41 -- he was a young man, a very young man, with obviously young children at the time --

Mrs Lake: He also that night was two men short. He was working two men short at the early morning fire.

Mr Kormos: I suppose what you remind us is, if it comes down to dollars and cents, firefighters and their families are taxpayers too and firefighters' widows pay taxes too. You're saying this isn't a matter of dollars and cents, it's a matter of lives, both firefighters and victims of fires. God bless you, ma'am.

Mr Carr: Thank you very much, Mrs Lake, for a very moving presentation. Like my other colleagues, I think it takes a great deal of courage to come here and explain your story. You've obviously been through a tragedy and you've been able to take that and use it for the good. I think you can be very proud of your husband and his work. Obviously your two sons, you say here, are continuing on in that tradition. It just goes to show that we still have some good people who are prepared to go out and put their lives at risk for other people. Obviously, in spite of your tragedy, you can be very proud of both your husband and your sons, as I'm sure you are.

Is there anything else in the bill that you would like to see us do? Is there anything specific that you would like to see, any parts or sections you'd like to see amended that would help?

Mrs Lake: I'm not totally familiar with the whole bill, just the manning part. I think manning should be at a level at least what it is now. That's my feeling as a citizen of a city. That's what I feel.

Mr Carr: Again, thank you very much for bringing your thoughts to us here today. I think I can speak on behalf of everybody and wish you and your whole family, and your sons in particular, all the best. We appreciate the service that you've given to your community. Thanks again.

Mr Klees: Thank you also for your presentation. I think it's important for the record and for your knowledge that none of us disagrees with the points you've made. I can assure you that the government is very concerned about not only maintaining the levels of service and safety but in fact increasing them. Whatever happens in this bill, I want it to be very clear that we too recognize clearly that we have to go beyond fiscal issues and dollars and cents and make sure that at the end of the day whatever changes are being brought forward are within the context of ensuring safety for the people of this province. There is no compromise on that. Thank you very much for your presentation.

Mr Gerretsen: Where's the evidence of that?

The Chair: Mrs Lake, thank you very much. I know how difficult it must have been --

Mr Klees: Don't be so cynical.

The Chair: Excuse me, may I properly thank the presenter? Thank you very much. We know how difficult it must have been to come here today, and we appreciate the effort.

1350

MAURICE JEFFERY

The Chair: Our next presentation is Maurice Jeffery. Good afternoon, Mr Jeffery. Please make yourself comfortable. Please proceed, sir.

Mr Maurice Jeffery: Thank you, Mr Chairman and committee members, for the opportunity of being here. I am Maurice Jeffery, born and raised in Trenton, Ontario, and for the past 35 years an independent insurance claims adjuster and holder of an all-lines adjuster's licence issued by the office of the superintendent of insurance of Ontario. Over those years, I have worked closely in the investigation of fire losses with most of the municipal fire departments in Trenton's part of the province.

Bill 84 in its present draft, in my opinion, does not prescribe or set out expertise and training qualifications required as a firefighter. Bill 84 says who but Bill 84 does not say what as to the qualifications of a firefighter, does not specify or state that a part-time firefighter must be a trained and qualified firefighter or a qualified operator of firefighting equipment. Response time is certainly influenced by distance and route to a fire scene. I don't feel it requires a rocket scientist or an engineer to determine that the use of non-professional, inadequately or untrained firefighters will result in longer response time, which can jeopardize the safety of both the public and the firefighters and cause greater damage to property. This has been brought up several times since I've been here this afternoon.

Bill 84 does give powers to the fire marshal's office such as monitoring, reviewing and advising, but I do not see in the present draft of Bill 84 any stated "must" or "will" by the fire marshal down to the municipalities. In my opinion, Bill 84 as presently drafted will cause municipalities to be left floundering on their own, for example, regarding increased liability and negligence exposure in the use of non-professional, unqualified, inexperienced and inept firefighters, in particular in major fires resulting in multiple deaths in facilities such as hospitals, seniors' and children's facilities and multi-unit apartments. The above greatly influences the market and availability of liability insurance to municipalities, business and the public and insurance risk underwriting in their setting of even higher insurance premiums.

Lifesaving services such as the jaws of life are presently provided within existing fire departments and thus require no additional facilities or staffing.

Firefighting is a life-threatening race. Professional firefighters are a trained team, in my opinion, not unlike the pit crews of a 500-mile car race. The winners of those races do not have a group of good old boys in the pit, nor do they have them driving their winning car, nor do they have privatized pit crews.

In further downsizing firefighting forces and equipment, which is predictable in delegating the decision-making to municipalities, which Bill 84 will allow, there is a concern that such decision-making at the municipal level only -- I mean by that other than Queen's Park -- will be based on politically influenced whims of elected officials, which could be one giant step to losing the fire race.

I understand presently that, due to province-wide general cutbacks, existing municipal full-time fire departments are presently undermanned to the extent that the safety of the public and the firefighters could be in jeopardy in the event of a major fire. I feel the above situation could be even more a factor in regionalization, presently in process.

I feel there is a need for amendments to Bill 84 as drafted, and before -- I say again -- and before Bill 84 is legislated. At least road test this vehicle before legislating the public to use it. Thank you for your time and ears.

Mr Kormos: Thank you, Mr Jeffery. You're only the second presenter -- the earlier one was in Toronto -- who has brought to light, from the industry perspective -- you're part of the industry -- what this means in a dollars-and-cents way, but it's certainly one of the considerations. You're not totally supportive of the bill, and I've heard some of the comments that have been made throughout the day. You're not a firefighter. You've reached your own conclusions in this matter. Obviously, you've dealt with legislation of all sorts throughout your career as an adjuster.

Mr Jeffery: Within the insurance umbrella, yes.

Mr Kormos: Sure. So you're capable of assessing this, and you're not being paid to do this by firefighters.

Mr Jeffery: No.

Mr Kormos: You haven't been duped by them or taken away to a motel room and hypnotized so that you'd come here and speak out against the bill, I trust.

Mr Jeffery: I'm a little too old for that.

Mr Kormos: I'm not being facetious, because some people are trying to create the impression that the firefighters have some sort of interest other than public safety and their own safety. You heard Mrs Lake here earlier. She lost her firefighter at the age of 41. Why the hell shouldn't these guys be concerned about their own safety as well as public safety? They're the ones who've got kids and spouses who are expecting them to grow old with them.

Mr Jeffery: Unfortunately, Mr Kormos, as the lady said, a professional firefighter, in my opinion, puts the safety of the citizen at risk first, his own safety second. Yes, the safety of the firefighter is certainly up front, but the use of non-professionals, whether you're getting your car repaired or taking golfing lessons -- I'll use the phrase -- it doesn't take a rocket scientist to know what the results are.

Mr Kormos: Thank you, sir. I appreciate your time.

Mr Carr: Thank you very much for your presentation. We appreciate your bringing your expertise to us here today.

Are there any particular parts of the bill you have concerns about? As you know, it's a very comprehensive bill with many sections. Are there any particular ones you'd like to focus on that you'd like to see changed?

Mr Jeffery: My focus was in the presentation you just heard, and copies are up front. Like Councillor Workman before me, it's section 2 that I focused on.

I'm a little surprised that time is being taken up by the committee here for labour relations and who should answer what questions. As far as labour, I don't think that's the job of this committee. We've got a bill here that's going to change a lot of things, a lot of it for the better, but as I said, let's take a look at the car before we go out and buy it.

Mr Klees: Is there any more time left?

The Chair: Yes, we have one minute.

Mr Klees: Sir, you're in the insurance industry?

Mr Jeffery: Yes, I'm an independent insurance adjuster, a claims adjuster.

Mr Klees: Are you an actuary?

Mr Jeffery: What do you mean? What kind of actuary?

Mr Klees: Well, a professional actuary.

Mr Jeffery: Yes, I'm a professional independent insurance adjuster.

Mr Klees: No, no. There's a difference between an adjuster and an actuary. An actuary is someone in the insurance industry who sets rates.

Mr Jeffery: Oh, no, I don't set rates.

Mr Klees: Okay. I'm interested in your comment that you felt liability insurance rates would increase as a result of this bill. I was just wondering what professional expertise you're basing that assessment on.

Mr Jeffery: Insurance rates and premiums are based on many things, but primarily risk, location, the capabilities of a firefighting professional, non-professional, whatever. A good example: In the city of Kingston here, they have many high-rise buildings, and if the insurers know that the firefighting forces that would respond to a disaster there are inadequate, untrained or whatever, you can insure anything, but you're going to pay a bigger buck for it than if you have a professional firefighting team.

1400

Again, the fire marshal's office is a great office, but this bill gives them powers. I have the power to sit here and speak to you in the room, but that's as far as it goes. This bill, in my opinion, doesn't go far enough, that the fire marshal's office will tell municipalities, "You will do whatever; you must do whatever," because if we have elected officials down the line at the municipal level who are making decisions, I feel there will be some shortcomings in their decisions.

Mr Ramsay: Thank you, Mr Jeffery, for your presentation. You bring up a couple of interesting points. I'd like to get a clarification on one of them from the ministry at some time, and that is if the ministry has done any impact study on possible increased risk of liability to the municipality if they cut down on fire services. That's something you brought up that I thought was very interesting. It would be interesting to see.

The other point you brought up is the pressure municipal councils are now going to have in regard to cost cutting. I think we really have to talk about this a little bit, because over the days of the hearings many of the government members have said, "Municipal councillors are not going to put their townspeople at risk; they're not going to do that." Of course, they wouldn't do that and wouldn't want to do that. But what's different today of course is the tremendous financial pressure our municipalities have now been put under because of the tremendous downloading of the Harris government.

You'd have to ask yourself, if the Harris government didn't anticipate municipalities exercising some of the options that are available to them in Bill 84, why would we have this Bill 84 before us in this form, if they weren't going to present these options to our municipalities? It really does concern me now, that this, as I call it, loaded gun is being handed off to the municipalities. The minister's saying: "We don't necessarily want you to use it. We're certainly not going to promote your using it, but it is there if you wish to put down your fire department." That's what they could do. Do you fear that?

Mr Jeffery: If I were seeking answers to those questions, I would go to the authors of Bill 84 and ask them directly. Deputants did not author this bill; we're here to express our opinions and concerns on what we feel may be shortcomings. I would trust that following this process here somebody is going to get back to the authors of Bill 84. It didn't work with no-fault auto insurance; it might work for Bill 84 if we can get back to the authors before they publish the book.

Mr Ramsay: You had mentioned that you were concerned about the use of part-time firefighters, and I agree with your concern. You had said that when it comes to emergency situations, we want to make sure that we have the most highly trained and effective people on hand. You gave some examples of where we wouldn't want to depend upon part-timers or people who maybe don't have the skill level. Do you think a part-time firefighter would have the same skills and be as up to speed on a daily basis as a full-time professional?

Mr Jeffery: Bill 84 does not answer that itself. It says who a firefighter is; it does not say what a firefighter is, be they part-time or full-time. Bill 84 does not say that. It says who a firefighter will be. That's why I use that phrase about the pit crew. With this Bill 84, in my interpretation, you could have a bunch of good old boys in the firehall, and that's a danger.

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

CANADIAN ASSOCIATION OF FIRE CHIEFS

The Chair: Our next presentation is the Canadian Association of Fire Chiefs, Fire Chief Don Warden, vice-president, representing Ontario. Good afternoon, fire chief. Welcome. We have 15 minutes set aside for your presentation. I'd ask you to proceed.

Mr Don Warden: It's my pleasure to be here this afternoon in front of this very important panel to discuss the enactment of Bill 84.

"The Canadian Association of Fire Chiefs is a national organization of municipal, federal, provincial and industrial chief fire officers. Our primary objective is to reduce loss of life and property and to enhance the science and technology of the fire service throughout Canada. It is not our purpose, however, to become involved in provincially regulated labour union issues, and therefore, our presentation will focus on supporting those portions of the legislation that focus on improving the municipality's and the fire chief's ability to more effectively provide fire protection and related safety services.

"Our association works closely with the Ontario Association of Fire Chiefs in developing and promoting quality fire safety programs. In addition, we work collaboratively on issues which enhance fire department effectiveness. The Canadian Association of Fire Chiefs therefore supports the position of the Ontario Association of Fire Chiefs on this legislation.

"Our presentation specifically supports the development and implementation of the following objectives contained within Bill 84:

"(1) The proactive approach of the legislation in dealing with matters of fire and life safety,

"(2) The increased emphasis on a proactive approach to fire prevention and public education,

"(3) The training and certification of firefighters,

"(4) The requirements that all municipalities provide a minimum level of fire prevention and fire safety to their residents,

"(5) The ability to establish effective out-of-scope fire department management teams based on municipal and department size and realistic needs.

"On behalf of the Canadian Association of Fire Chiefs, I would encourage you to give consideration to these important elements contained within this bill. We believe that it will establish the legislative framework needed to ensure effective and efficient fire and life safety within the province of Ontario for both today and the foreseeable future."

That letter was composed by our president, William J. Hewitt, Saskatoon fire department.

A brief history of the Canadian Association of Fire Chiefs: The association was founded in 1908 in Toronto, Ontario. It was incorporated in 1965 as an independent, voluntary membership, non-profit association and has its head office in Ottawa, Ontario. CAFC is dedicated to reducing the loss of life and property from fire and advancing the science and technology of fire services in Canada.

Our membership in CAFC totals more than 1,390 individuals. Members include fire departments, business and industry, health care facilities, federal and local government, education facilities, fire equipment manufacturers and distributors and several other fields. All paid and composite fire departments in Canada are members of the CAFC, and also many volunteer fire departments bring further strength to this association.

The mission of the association is to "strive for excellence in representation, information, education and service delivery to our members and customers."

Our goals are to provide a national voice on fire service issues; to inform members of current activities and future trends of the fire service; to enhance the knowledge, skills and professionalism of our members; to provide the members with products and services to meet their needs and secure revenues to realize this mission.

1410

I now will go into the presentation dealing with each issue that we outlined in our opening letter.

Fire and life safety: The proactive approach of the legislation in dealing with matters of fire and life safety will definitely enhance the capabilities of municipalities to provide all Ontarians with a minimum level of safety from fire in the most efficient way. The proposed legislation will further enhance public safety by providing new powers to the office of the fire marshal to review fire services and make recommendations to the Solicitor General to introduce regulations to ensure municipalities are providing the level of protection they require. Due to the risk analysis being identified in their communities, this certainly is a positive step forward when you're dealing with life safety.

The enactment of an automatic aid agreement will definitely result in reduced response times to an emergency incident. This will ultimately provide greater protection coverage in a more efficient manner, and the legislation should definitely reduce the threat of fires and increase the level of life safety. We believe the proposed legislation will enhance public safety.

Fire prevention and public education: The increased emphasis on a proactive approach to fire prevention and public education will dramatically refocus the efforts of municipalities and fire departments towards prevention to ensure that prevention must be the first tool enacted in fire safety.

The proactive approach of the legislation to ensure that fire prevention and public education are mandatory in every community will ultimately reduce the loss of life and property from fire, and enhance the knowledge of the citizens of Ontario.

The legislation certainly recognizes the diversity in the province of Ontario and has put forward the necessary options to allow all municipalities to comply with the legislation. The Canadian Association of Fire Chiefs strongly supports the concepts of mandatory fire prevention and public education.

Training and certification of firefighters: The training and certification of firefighters is extremely important in today's work environment. Whether firefighters are full-time, part-time or volunteer, it is crucial that they are trained and certified to the highest standards available. This training and certification process will ensure that firefighters are capable of performing the required job skills in a competent and safe manner.

The training and certification process that has been developed in Ontario has some of the best training standards in Canada, and they should be mandatory in every fire department. The Canadian Association of Fire Chiefs is a very strong advocate of the training and certification process and we definitely support the training and certification process that the proposed legislation provides. The certification process should ensure to the municipality that they are receiving the best possible service when emergencies occur in their communities.

We alluded at the start that we did not like to get involved in labour relations issues, but we would like to make a statement in regard to management exclusions. The Canadian Association of Fire Chiefs believes that labour relations issues should be dealt with at the provincial or municipal level. However, having said that, we would like to comment on the management exclusions portion of the proposed legislation.

We firmly believe that it requires more than the two current positions to be outside of the bargaining unit. In today's ever-changing society it is important that we keep abreast of these changes and the requirements that are attached to the changes. The fire service continues to take on more tasks and responsibilities, and to complete these tasks and responsibilities in a more effective and efficient manner requires more people to manage without conflicting loyalties to labour-related organizations and employers.

The ever-changing roles of the fire service demands that there be a solid management team developed in all fire departments. The sliding scale identified in the proposed legislation would appear to be very flexible and it certainly could be adapted to the various-sized fire departments in Ontario.

There are a number of other provinces that currently enjoy having more than two positions out of the bargaining unit, and it appears that the process works extremely well, and their departments are definitely being operated to a greater degree of efficiency. We strongly support the concept for management exclusion in the proposed legislation.

In conclusion, the Canadian Association of Fire Chiefs as an organization is committed to promoting the enhancement of public safety policies and we support the legislative leadership this bill provides to the Ontario fire service.

We also believe that the new legislation provides for the necessary flexibility and leadership that is required for a modern fire service, and the increased emphasis on public education and fire prevention will enhance the safety of the citizens of Ontario.

We strongly urge the government of Ontario to implement Bill 84, as this will lead to providing a fire-safe environment in the province of Ontario.

Mr Carr: Thank you very much for your presentation. This might be a difficult question, and I'll understand if you can't answer it. In terms of ranking as a Canadian association, how would you see Ontario versus the other provinces across the country? I'll understand if it puts you on the spot a bit, but how do we see ourselves? How is Ontario doing, versus the other provinces?

Mr Warden: Ontario has always been considered as the leading edge of the fire service in the nation of Canada.

Mr Carr: That's good to hear. With this bill, do you see anything changing? Will it improve, get worse? What's your thought?

Mr Warden: I feel this will only enhance the feelings of the Ontario fire association and the government right across Canada. I know, talking to my colleagues, there are a number of other provincial organizations sitting in the wings waiting to see if this bill does pass. They think it's a terrific piece of legislation and are looking forward to bringing parts of it forward in their own provincial governments.

Mr Carr: Good luck to you.

Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex South): Good afternoon, chief, and welcome. The International Association of Fire Chiefs has a markedly different view of this piece of legislation than does the Canadian association. Why, in your opinion, is that?

Mr Warden: Could I ask for a clarification first? Are you sure it's not the International Association of Fire Fighters, not fire chiefs?

Mr Crozier: My advice is the International Association of Fire Chiefs.

Mr Warden: I cannot comment on their documents, sir, because I have not read their publication in regard to that. I would have to sit down and discuss their issues to see why they do have a difference of opinion.

Mr Crozier: That's fair.

There are chiefs of significant departmental size in the province that differ with your association. Can you help me understand why that would be?

Mr Warden: I would think their presentation and their ideas of the legislation are dealing only with their own communities. They in fact know the risk analysis of their own community. We reviewed the bill as a positive bill for all of Ontario and all of the citizens of Ontario, and there are a great many municipalities that can't provide the top-notch service that the city of Toronto or some of those other jurisdictions can.

Mr Crozier: Has your brief been circulated to all of those departments and have they commented on it prior to its presentation here?

Mr Warden: No, sir. This brief is done by myself, through the executive committee of the Canadian Association of Fire Chiefs. We discussed this bill in Ottawa last week at our executive committee meeting and this was a position that was put forward from that meeting.

Mr Crozier: I'm interested: How can just a few of you sitting around a table come to the conclusion in a brief that this committee is supposed to believe is presented on behalf of all of the departments, of course outside of those that disagree with it?

Mr Warden: At our meeting in Ottawa we also had the current first vice-president of the Ontario Association of Fire Chiefs who expressed his views on the bill. We stated in our first paragraph that we are supporting the position of the Ontario fire chiefs.

1420

Mr Kormos: Chiefs and their associations have every right to adopt a position with respect to the bill that they deem is appropriate. I certainly have no quarrel with that. I appreciate, as all of us do, you're representing the association's views here.

Here we are, this is the second week of these hearings, and there's a marked distinction between the position of firefighters, their associations and federation and fire chiefs. Although Mr Crozier raised the international association of chiefs and you haven't read that brief, and that's fair enough, you surely are aware that firefighters and their associations and federation are opposed to this bill. What's the problem there? Where are the loggerheads between chiefs and the thousands of firefighters who are doing firefighting services?

Mr Warden: I don't think it would be fair for me to voice an opinion on labour relations issues. As we indicated, there is only one area that I would speak to, and that is on management exclusion. We definitely feel we need more people in the management team to be able to put forward better business operation and management of a fire department. I realize there are always going to be conflicts in regard to management and firefighters. Unfortunately there are labour issues, but the fire chiefs have a difference of opinion only because of their management side of the table. That part of the legislation should be dealt with by AMO or the human resources organizations, not the fire chiefs, as I see it.

Mr Kormos: I understand it's a very pro-management bill.

Mr Warden: I disagree with that statement.

Mr Kormos: Okay. I'm sorry, I misunderstood you, then, when you said that the fire chiefs are looking at it from a management perspective.

Mr Warden: I did not say that it's a proactive management bill. I feel it's a very positive bill for the residents of Ontario, to provide them with a greater degree of public education and fire safety.

The Chair: Our time has elapsed. Mr Warden, thank you very much for your presentation here today.

INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF FIRE FIGHTERS

The Chair: Our next presentation will be made by the International Association of Fire Fighters, Sean McManus, Canadian director. Welcome, sir.

Mr Sean McManus: Thank you. With me this afternoon is Jim Simmons. He's the vice-president for the Provincial Federation of Ontario Firefighters and a firefighter with the city of Burlington.

Good afternoon. My name is Sean McManus, Canadian director for the International Association of Fire Fighters, a union representing over 225,000 professional firefighters in Canada and the United States. The IAFF represents over 12,500 professional firefighters in Canada and approximately 5,000 professional firefighters here in Ontario. I am very pleased to be here today to represent the views of the IAFF in its opposition to Bill 84, and on behalf of IAFF General President Alfred Whitehead, who unfortunately was not able to present our statement in person.

At the outset, Bill 84 threatens public safety by jeopardizing the wellbeing and property of Ontarians. It sets the stage for a future of ill-prepared firefighting personnel responding to emergencies utilizing substandard equipment. That is not the type of future the citizens of Ontario should expect from their government.

Bill 84 threatens to turn back the clock on collective bargaining in Ontario in that the rights and obligations the IAFF and its members have fought for will be seriously eroded with the passing of this bill. This is not fearmongering on our part. Professional firefighters in Ontario are understandably proud of the absolutely vital service they provide to the citizens of Ontario, and all they are asking for in return is to be provided with fair and decent working conditions within a collective bargaining environment which provides them with a sense of dignity. Bill 84 takes away that dignity and compromises collective agreements which have been negotiated in good faith over the decades. Paid, professional firefighters deserve to be treated with decency as they risk their lives on a daily basis to protect the public and property of the citizens of Ontario.

How does Bill 84 threaten to do all of this? Time does not permit us to itemize each and every deficiency in this proposed legislation, so we will confine our comments to part IX of Bill 84, which deals with the labour relations component.

Subsection 41(1) of the bill waters down significantly the definition of a firefighter. Under the proposed definition, a firefighter is no longer assigned exclusively to fire protection services. That subtle change can have damning consequences for professional firefighters. The scenario could easily develop whereby the training and qualification standards for firefighters will be lowered, as well as staffing levels. Without the current level of training, both the public's and individual firefighter's safety is jeopardized. There is too much at stake already for firefighters when responding to an emergency; they should not have to worry whether everyone at the scene has the same level of training and expertise to get the job done. As we are sure has been mentioned in other presentations to this committee, there are no second chances for firefighters responding to a situation, and the public deserves to have the best-trained personnel on the scene to save their lives.

Bill 84 goes further to weaken the professional standards and training of firefighters in that there is no longer a requirement that firefighters be full-time. Opening the door to the use of part-time firefighters sends a message to Ontarians that this government does not care about the public's wellbeing. What do we mean by that? Part-timers by their very nature do not have the ability to achieve the same level of training and definitely do not have the same level of experience as a full-time firefighter. In firefighting, seconds mean the difference between life and death. That is the reality of the services they provide to Ontario's citizens. Again, the public deserves the right to have full-time firefighters with experience responding in their time of need.

The definition of firefighter must be read in conjunction with subsections 43(9) and (10) in that the employer could have a staff complement of full- and part-time firefighters, allowing fire stations to have personnel who would not be as well trained as the fire station down the road. Subsection (10) would also paint a scenario of a fire station being chronically understaffed, as a major emergency is undefined in the bill, allowing an employer to determine that the emergency only exists when there is a fire. That is an intolerable and unacceptable situation but one which is a reality in the world of Bill 84. Public safety will be seriously compromised and people will die if amendments are not made to safeguard standards and ensure that enough staff are present within the first few minutes of an emergency to adequately protect the public from loss of life and property.

The exclusion provisions of section 58 allow for a wider exclusion of firefighters from the bargaining unit. The section allows an employer to arbitrarily determine who should and should not be in the bargaining unit. This unfettered discretion afforded to the employer will allow it to create new levels of bureaucracy within the department which are not open to any type of challenge by an association before the labour relations board.

An employer wishing to deal with what it perceives to be an adversary within the bargaining unit will be able to strip that member of the protection of the collective agreement by deeming him or her to be a manager when it is obvious to all that he or she is not exercising any managerial functions. To add insult to injury, the association does not then have the ability to present a case of anti-union animus or other such argument before the labour relations board. A review of applicable labour legislation across Canada illustrates that this is clearly the exception rather than the rule.

We are not submitting that management rights should not exist, but section 58 far exceeds acceptable labour law principles and introduces a heavy-handed method to unilaterally determine the composition of bargaining units. An unscrupulous employer would now have the ability to decimate the ranks of the bargaining unit, thereby creating a substandard working environment.

There are other serious flaws in terms of labour relations within Bill 84, such as the obligation on both the employer and associations to bargain in good faith, but with no stated remedy for breaching the duty, what good is such a provision?

Additionally, there are no provisions for successor rights contained within Bill 84. Such protection is provided for all other employees governed by the Labour Relations Act, but this government wants to treat firefighters in Ontario as second-class citizens. Firefighters who risk their lives on a daily basis deserve a better fate from this government. Incidentally, successor rights provisions are found within all applicable labour legislation across Canada as it pertains to paid, professional firefighters.

1430

This brings us to the most troubling aspect of Bill 84: The proposed definition of an employer, as set out in subsection 41(1), includes not only a municipality but also persons or organizations which employ firefighters. This clearly opens the door to privatization of firefighting services in Ontario. It is impossible to put a pricetag on the cost of saving an individual from death, but that is what this government is saying to the citizens of Ontario should the definition of employer remain unchanged. This government is saying to Ontarians that the bottom line will now dictate whether a person can be saved from immediate danger.

Private operators promise municipalities that they can provide the same level of services which presently exists in the public sphere at lower overall cost to the community. That is the promise. But examine the track record of these operators in the United States: Private operators in the US have been awarded contracts for firefighting services only to have that same contract revoked because of inadequate personnel, equipment and supplies. We do not need such a scenario here in Ontario.

This government cannot afford to take a chance on jeopardizing public safety by handing services over to a corporation which has to show a profit and is willing to compromise the public's safety to achieve that result. The IAFF is opposed to privatizing firefighting and emergency medical services not only because it undermines the standards set for these services but also because the public has a right to know that services will be there when there is an emergency. Corporate influence can negatively alter the mission of government by allowing the profit motive to affect decisions. Profit becomes the ultimate motivation and, when that occurs, services suffer.

To allow for profit in a competitive bid, private operators must cut service levels by reducing the number of apparatus in service, having fewer personnel to respond or by giving personnel lower wages and benefits. When services are reduced, the public is obviously at increased risk for loss of life and property. By privatizing, personnel will not have the experience nor will they know such basics as address location, type of building or the location of hydrants. This is in addition to the high staff-turnover rate.

This government was not elected on a platform of putting the safety of the public at risk, but that is exactly what it is advocating by allowing the for-profit motive to dictate the level of fire protection in Ontario. Therefore, there has to be a section added to Bill 84 which specifically prohibits the privatization of firefighting services. The public's safety is much too important an issue to allow private operators to cut corners and decrease services to the community.

The IAFF asks this committee to recommend changes to Bill 84 that will reflect that this government recognizes the vital services being provided by paid, professional firefighters in Ontario, thereby not sacrificing public safety at the altar of private, for-profit interests.

In conclusion, the IAFF is opposed to Bill 84 because it has real ramifications for the public's safety by placing them at risk. The changes to the collective bargaining arrangement threaten to undermine a system which has developed over the decades in an environment of mutual bargaining between employers and associations. With Bill 84, this government is saying that it does not think firefighters deserve to be treated in the same fashion as other workers in Ontario. Finally, opening the door to privatization will start a process which will lead to inadequate and poorly trained personnel trying to protect life and property. We trust this is not the type of Ontario that this government wishes to create.

I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today and am prepared to answer any questions you may have.

Mr Ramsay: Sean, thank you very much for your presentation. I'm glad you spent as much time as you did on the threat of privatization to our fire departments. I think it's very important. What needs to be understood is that the mandate of a private company is to do well for that company; the mandate of a public fire department is to do good, to do the public good; through that comes that public accountability that I think is very important.

I think that's why whatever experiments governments want to toy with when it comes to restructuring and reinventing government, those core functions of public safety and security delivery mechanisms have to remain in the public sector so that the public good is paramount and the temptations of trying to make a profit from that sort of service are not incurred. I think that's very, very important, and I'm glad you made that point today.

Mr Kormos: Thank you kindly. I appreciate your submission. I made this observation last week in Toronto, but it seems as if the government is trying to run firefighting services the way Wal-Mart runs its department stores. I'm not even sure it works that well for Wal-Mart, never mind for something people depend upon for their public safety. It's not just fire suppression, but it's medical emergencies where firefighters are there first almost inevitably.

I'll tell you right now, and Mr Ramsay has said as much and he'll correct me if I'm wrong and I'll say so as well, if this government were to announce now that it would repeal part IX, I don't think there would be much quarrel from either the Liberal Party or the New Democrats about the bill. There are things that maybe we should be criticizing, but we'd live with that and we could move on. You draw a connection between part IX and the labour relations changes and the prospect of privatization, don't you? You think one inevitably leads to the other?

Mr McManus: Absolutely.

Mr Kormos: It's designed to accommodate the private firefighting services out of the United States like Rural/Metro. There's no other reason for it.

Mr Klees: Thank you for your presentation. You're obviously aware that there's nothing now to hold municipalities back from privatizing or having privatized their firefighting services, and they haven't done so. There's obviously a reason why they haven't done so, and I would expect that those same reasons for not moving in that direction would apply after Bill 84.

Having said that, your reference to training is very important, and it's very important to us as well, which is why this bill sets the framework for the appropriate training and certification to take place. Is it not a fact that right now in Ontario there is in fact not a recognized standard of training or certification for firefighters?

Mr McManus: If I could get back --

Mr Klees: No, could you please answer that question. Is there or is there not a recognized standard of training?

Mr McManus: Yes, there is.

Mr Klees: Could you tell me about that? Where do I find it?

Mr Jim Simmons: The recognized standard has been developed out of the fire marshal's office, and it simply hasn't been adopted by all of the municipalities in the province.

Mr Klees: So there is one; it hasn't been adopted across the province, it hasn't been recognized across the province. Who has it been recognized by?

The Chair: Excuse me, Mr Klees, that is a good line of questioning, but our time has elapsed.

Interjection.

The Chair: Well, I think all of you ask questions well.

In any event, Mr McManus, I thank you for appearing before us today.

STEPHEN CLARK

The Chair: Mr Stephen Clark is our next presentation. Welcome, Mr Clark. All members should have received a written presentation by Mr Clark. I'd ask you to proceed, sir.

Mr Stephen Clark: Thank you very much, Mr Chair and members of the committee. Ladies and gentlemen, it's a great pleasure for me to have this opportunity to address the committee, in my very honoured capacity as a private citizen, about some concerns I have with respect to Bill 84.

To give you a little background about myself, and I'll keep that definitely to a minimum, I served the citizens of Brockville for nine years as their mayor, from 1982 to 1991. I had the great fortune of being elected to that office the day after my 22nd birthday. During the time I had in office I was even more fortunate, because I was young and I didn't have a job at the time other than being mayor, to work full-time at that vocation for over half of the nine years I was in office. It afforded me an opportunity that not too many individuals at that young age could have to learn some insights into municipal government. I felt very fortunate and very honoured that I had that opportunity for such a long period of time.

During my term in office I also became keenly interested in municipal government workings through the Association of Municipalities of Ontario. I started and served on some of their committees, eventually on their board of directors and subsequently on their executive and was honoured to be the president for a year in 1988.

Following my year as president of AMO, I was appointed to the Fire Departments Act review committee, appointed by the Solicitor General's office, which met numerous times to come up with some consensus and changes about that particular piece of legislation.

1440

The committee actually had a very unique form. It was comprised of all the various associations involved in the fire service, all the interested parties. We made, I believe, great progress on a number of necessary changes. Eventually, because of certain changes that occurred in government, our recommendations were shelved, and they were never implemented.

That's one of the main reasons I'm here today: my involvement in that committee a number of years ago. In terms of the committee, I want to again stress that the cooperation and the consensus building we had with that group was quite outstanding in my opinion, and I was very disappointed that the recommendations we put forward were never acted upon. I'm even more disappointed that the bill I've reviewed doesn't capture the spirit of the deliberations some seven or eight years ago. I hope this committee, over its various hearings, will listen to the players involved and make changes to improve and strengthen the fire service.

There are a few things I would like to touch on this afternoon that I hope are worthy of change in Bill 84. My first concern, which was discussed just a few moments ago by a previous deputant, is the issue of privatization in the fire service. It is my belief that the issue of privatization need not be strengthened in this legislation. In fact, given some of the statistics that have surfaced because of Bill 84, I really wonder why the issue is still being discussed. I've seen the media reports on US television and newspaper reports recounting disasters caused by private sector interests in the fire service. These companies, in my opinion, lack public accountability, and further, homeowner subscription services that these companies ultimately offer result in private billings, fees for additional services and ultimately increased fire insurance costs.

Municipal councils in Ontario, their fire chiefs and professional firefighters have demonstrated efficient, cost-effective service. I'll put a well-managed municipal fire department up against one of these private companies any day of the week, and I'll serve the taxpayers more safely and cost-effectively. Training and experience shouldn't be sacrificed to American-style, for-profit companies.

This brings me to my next point, the well-managed municipal fire department itself, ensuring the best response time with properly trained staff and properly staffed equipment. One of the last municipal committees I served on as mayor was a subcommittee of our council that was called the future facilities planning committee, and it did just that, it planned for a variety of civic facilities in our community. Our plans resulted in both a new police and fire station being constructed, but it did open council's eyes on the many issues surrounding the building of a new firehall. You can't build a new facility today without looking at the total impact of the fire service; it is not a matter of just building a facility.

Our group looked at response times and wanted to make sure that our equipment and staffing would maximize public safety. Response time saves lives. You must have the staff and the equipment at the scene as quickly as possible. Bill 84 should not allow response times to increase.

I'm concerned that this bill may dismantle the cities that have made protection to persons and property a priority. While every municipality is different, the goal or result should be that standards shouldn't be lowered. That is why I'm concerned about the provisions in Bill 84 with respect to the creation of part-time firefighters. In my opinion, it is an issue of reliability and experience as well as a big question mark in the area of training.

To become a first-class firefighter, it takes four years and 9,000 hours of duty. It would take a part-time firefighter eight to 10 years at a minimum to attain this at an average of 20 hours per week. Assuming the person has other job commitments, the part-time firefighter would never receive consistent training compared to their full-time counterpart. Crew training occurs at different times on different subjects. Consistency coupled with the experience issue causes me a big problem. I can't understand how a part-time employee can have the same training as a full-time employee when they aren't there full-time. I don't believe creating a minimum standard ensures experience. A minimum standard is just that, minimum.

Finally, the issue of full-time relationship. The firehall is a place that is different from any other municipal building I've ever been seen. Seeing this at first hand, there is no doubt in my mind that you want a team responding to an emergency situation, not a mixture of personnel with various levels of training. The teamwork in that facility does not compare with any other municipal employee group in this regard. Teamwork is there, and it's a part of their lives; their lives depend on it.

Staffing and training must be at the highest level possible, not just a standard. The staff who respond should be the best trained, not trained until they get a piece of paper that says they can do the job. The whole spirit of this bill should be to get the people involved in this service together to collectively discuss the issues. All parties working to improve the system is the answer.

A well-managed municipal fire department is what should be in existence to serve the citizens of Ontario. Let's make sure that happens and continues. The goal of any fire legislation should be improvement across Ontario, like the area of fire prevention. I hope that collectively your committee and your colleagues in government will make this happen. I'd like to again thank you very sincerely for allowing me this opportunity.

Mr Kormos: Thank you, sir. I appreciate your comments, especially with your background and the perspective you bring with you. Again, back to this issue of part-time, earlier today one of the participants in the hearings, who agreed that a three-person crew was unsafe based on the research that has been done, said, "That's what we could use part-time firefighters for; we could top up the crew." That struck me, because if you only had a three-person crew and you had to top it up, you needed a four-person crew, which meant full-time firefighters. I didn't see how part-time firefighters figured into that.

I'm getting suspicious about this part-time firefighter stuff, because we haven't seen an illustration of how that would really replace -- because if two part-time firefighters replace one full-time firefighter, why not have a full-time firefighter with all the training and experience? Have you got a handle on the proposition for part-time firefighters?

Mr Clark: In terms of if I have a handle, I can run numbers, just as anyone around the table can. In terms of the issue, as I mentioned, with the 9,000 hours of duty, if you've got someone who's involved in a 20-hour-a-week, part-time position, I just can't run the numbers. If it takes them eight to 10 years just to get the duties, I just can't work the numbers. To me, 10 years later, somebody theoretically could be 15,000 hours behind in training, because crew training is together, it's consistent. I just can't understand what type of proposal would combat inconsistency.

Mr Klees: I'd like to get to the heart of this safety and training issue with you. While you were mayor, did you rely on the advice of your fire chief?

Mr Clark: Did I rely on the advice of my fire chief? I think any council relies on the total staff they employ.

Mr Klees: Do you have any reason to believe that the fire chief of any municipality would not in fact ensure the appropriate training is in place, the appropriate number of people are staffed? Why would you not be able to have that same degree of confidence in the fire chiefs of this province as you had when you were mayor?

Mr Clark: First of all, unless I totally missed something, I don't believe I was saying I didn't believe that municipal staff are competent to do the job. What I'm saying is that I think the spirit of the committee I served on many years ago was a cooperative spirit. It had all the parties together. That's what I was accustomed to. What I enjoyed about being involved in municipal life in the city of Brockville was the fact that our department heads and our employees collectively discussed issues through those proper channels. It worked very well.

1450

The Chair: We must move on.

Mr Gerretsen: First of all, it's always nice to see my former colleague from Brockville here.

You were talking about the committee that came up with some recommendations. I might say that I was on a similar committee back in 1982 that came up with similar kinds of recommendations that were never implemented either. Do you not find the whole process strange here, that all of a sudden we're into a bill and the firefighters have never sat across the table from the chiefs, with AMO and with all the other groups and tried to negotiate a settlement like was done twice before that were never implemented? Do you not find the whole process strange?

Mr Clark: I think the issue I mentioned earlier was the fact that I had just finished a term as president of the association, so this committee was very refreshing for me because it did have all the players around the table. I think all the players who were around the table and had those discussions were very satisfied with the progress that we made. It was an exemplary process. Again, that's something that I was very disappointed in, that nothing arose from those discussions.

Mr Gerretsen: For the record, the first government I'm talking about was the Davis government, and the second government very well may have been a Liberal government, and then I think there was a change of government that happened. But the point still is that you get a heck of a lot further with getting everybody around the table and coming up with a process than just having a bill dumped, which by the way was something that Mr Runciman was never all that much in favour of. He said he would never make any changes to any of these acts without actually sitting down with the firefighters and discussing the differences.

The Chair: Mr Clark, I thank you very much for taking the trouble to attend before the committee today.

KINGSTON PROFESSIONAL FIRE FIGHTERS ASSOCIATION

The Chair: The Kingston Professional Fire Fighters Association, Mr George Harris and Mr Fred LeBlanc. Good afternoon. We have your written presentation and I'd ask you to proceed.

Mr Fred LeBlanc: My name is Fred LeBlanc. I'm a full-time firefighter with the city of Kingston and I'm president of the Kingston Professional Fire Fighters Association. To my right is George Harris. He's also a full-time firefighter with the city of Kingston and the secretary-treasurer of the Kingston Professional Fire Fighters Association.

I would like to address the ramifications that may flow from what I refer to as a very dangerous piece of legislation. To preface my opposition to Bill 84, I will give you a brief outline of the city of Kingston's fire department.

The Kingston fire department has undergone changes as a result of this government's cuts in transfer payments. These changes have come in the way of increased responsibilities and fewer firefighters. The total staff for 1997 is 96. This takes this department back 23 years; 1974 was the last time the department was at a total staff of 96. If you look at appendix A, you'll see the differences between 1974 and 1996. The big differences are the duties that we perform now in 1996-97 compared to 1974, and the total calls are doubled, all that with the same staff.

This has resulted in the Kingston fire department grasping to stay at the recommended minimum staffing levels put out by the Ontario fire marshal's office. As you can see in appendix B in conclusions, the best-known practice for any fire department is to ensure that at least four firefighters, including an officer, are dispatched to the scene on one vehicle, typically a triple-combination pumper. Like I said, the Kingston fire department is grasping to stay at that level.

Kingston firefighters, like many others across this province, are becoming recognized as much more than the traditional firefighter. Their responsibilities have increased, resulting in an even greater reliance on the fire service to provide the public with necessary emergency services. The recognition of our service is reflected in a recent survey done by Kubas Consultants in appendix C. The survey reveals the fire department is the highest-rated service, with 50% of the adults surveyed rating our service as excellent. Why impose changes on a fire service so highly rated?

If I could just take your attention to appendix H, the final sheet of this brief, just this past weekend in Kingston was a perfect example of how quickly a fire spreads and why it is imperative to keep full-time firefighters on duty at all of our stations 24 hours a day, seven days a week.

At 2 am on Friday, an abandoned warehouse caught fire. Initial response to this call was 12 firefighters and three trucks on the scene in just over three minutes, with the first truck arriving with four firefighters in only two minutes 15 seconds. Soon after arrival at this fire, all remaining on-duty firefighters were dispatched to the scene. This resulted in five fire trucks and 17 firefighters concentrating their efforts on this fire. Eight off-duty firefighters were called in for standby. Fortunately, four firefighters and one more truck were able to respond to assist at the warehouse fire. The remaining four off-duty firefighters and another truck remained on standby to respond to any other emergency calls in the entire city. Without all stations being staffed by full-time firefighters 24 hours a day and off-duty firefighters responding to this call, I fully believe that the adjacent business and the apartments above it would have also been destroyed.

Just after Saturday midnight, early Sunday morning, a business at 471 Macdonnell Street caught fire. Initial response to this call was three trucks and 11 firefighters in three minutes and five seconds. The size of this fire was such that it required all remaining on-duty firefighters to respond. An off-duty crew of four firefighters was called in for standby.

While on standby, a call was dispatched to a fire involving a car that had smashed into a house. Not only was the car on fire, but the house and the neighbour's garage were also on fire. The response to 34 Churchill Street at 2 am was one fire truck and four firefighters arriving in three and a half minutes. More firefighters were required at 34 Churchill Street, so one truck and four firefighters were taken from 471 Macdonnell Street as the fire there had been essentially knocked down. These firefighters responded to Churchill Street in approximately five minutes.

As private companies are in search of a profit, I find it difficult to believe that a private firm would deliver fire services to this community in the same manner. I challenge this committee to drive by 670 Montreal Street, 471 Macdonnell Street and 34 Churchill Street to see for yourselves the damage that fire can do in such a short time. I encourage you to talk to the citizens at these locations. You've heard the response times to these fires; now try to imagine the amount of damage with longer response times and who knows how many firefighters and/or fire trucks.

Bill 84: I'll concentrate on part IX of this bill, as you are no doubt aware of the public campaign supported by firefighters and the public at large opposing part IX of Bill 84. First off, I think it's appalling that this government would not consult with firefighters even though Premier Mike Harris made that promise of thorough consultation with all stakeholders during his election campaign. This legislation will have a profound and devastating effect on public and firefighter safety if passed as written. The last discussions with firefighters regarding the changes to the Fire Departments Act took place from May 1990 to July 1991. The differences between those discussions and what we see in this bill can only be summed up as insulting to those who put the time and effort into what was then called the Fire Services Review Committee.

Part IX of Bill 84: The definition of "employer" opens the door for privatization of fire services. The United States has experimented with privatization for over 50 years with very little success. Fewer than 1% of all departments in the United States are privately run. The history of privatizing fire departments is cluttered with horror stories of slow response times, understaffing and poorly maintained vehicles, all of this in search of a profit. The very issues that coroners and public inquiries have cited as key elements in saving lives are properly staffed vehicles and sufficient response times. For-profit or private companies have no place in the fire service. This would result in removing the public from a service that is there to protect them.

The change to the definition of "firefighter" is very significant. This allows for the creation of part-time firefighters. Firefighting is very much a team effort relying on the experience of that team for success on the fire ground. In Kingston it takes three and a half years at 42 hours a week to become a first-class firefighter with the training and experience to be proficient in all aspects of the duties listed back on appendix A. An ongoing review-training program exists so one can maintain this level of proficiency. I cannot fathom how somebody working part-time could be expected to perform all that is expected of today's firefighter. This new curriculum that's coming out from the fire marshal's office is just a bare minimum, so I don't want anybody at this committee level to be fooled that once you pass that curriculum you are indeed on line with a first-class, full-time firefighter.

To supplement full-time firefighters with part-time firefighters is an unfair and dangerous system all around. The public cannot tell when firefighters jump off the trucks who is full-time and who is part-time. All they want and expect is that the firefighters know what to do and how to do it. This is, conversely, unfair to the part-time firefighter who may not be experienced or trained in all aspects of firefighting, but the public expects him to be. This is also unfair to the remaining full-time firefighters, as we train, eat and practically live together; thus we know each other and can expect each other to react similarly in emergency situations. By including part-timers into the mix, an unknown is added which could have tragic results.

"Managers not firefighters," the definition: It stipulates that a person shall be deemed a manager in the opinion of the board, the board being the Ontario Labour Relations Board. But in clause 2(b) it states, "he or she is a person designated under subsection 58(3)," where "An employer may assign a person...in the opinion of the employer...who exercises managerial functions." Section 58 continues, to say a board is to decide the status, the board has exclusive jurisdiction to determine any question as to whether a person exercises managerial functions. Yet in subsection 58(3), the employer has sole discretion to designate a person described in subsection (1).

These sections and subsections contradict who has the authority in determining managers and will only encourage challenges to the Ontario Labour Relations Board, resulting in more costs to the taxpayers. Even the Ontario fire marshal has stated that the current system promotes teamwork during an emergency.

1500

Off-duty hours and recall, subsection 43(10): This opens a very dangerous door to give the fire chief discretion to call in as a result of a major emergency. "Major emergency" is not defined and gives the chief too much discretion to allow short-staffing in order to save costs. The fire service review committee made a recommendation on this subject -- see appendix D. The recommendation is accompanied with the statement that changes must protect firefighters from understaffing that could result if some departments attempt to use recall procedures as part of their normal operating procedures. I do not see that protection in this current wording. This is a subject that should be left to collective bargaining.

Not just fire protection would suffer from the short-staffing of firehalls and longer response times. As indicated in appendix E, the impact fire departments have made in the medical field have been significant. I just refer you to that letter. This is from Brian Field, the director of base hospital, southeastern Ontario.

"To qualify for the `paramedic phase' of the study, Kingston had to demonstrate its ability to respond to 90% of its cardiac arrest calls with eight minutes or less. The response standard is important because without it, research has shown that defibrillation, as well as paramedic services, will have dramatically reduced patient benefits.

"Kingston regional ambulance service was unable to meet this standard and would not have qualified for the paramedic study. The participation of the fire departments has made the attainment of this important response standard possible."

As I said, in Kingston the addition of defibrillation to the fire service has resulted in Kingston becoming eligible for and in receipt of these paramedic services. This is especially important in a retirement community which is number two in Canada, and with the ongoing changes to hospital care. I would hate to see this community lose those services as a result of this legislation.

Section 44, the termination of employment: This section is ambiguous and there are no guidelines on how the review shall be conducted when one's employment status is being reviewed. Subsections (5) and (6) contradict each other. Although these subsections both deal with the termination of employment, in (5) the firefighter is suspended with pay; in (6) the firefighter is suspended without pay during the review.

The only difference is being terminated with cause. I would hope that a firefighter would require cause to be terminated. This is also contradictory to discussions during deliberations of the Fire Services Review Committee of the early 1990s. You can see that on appendix F. It suggested there that while a firefighter is awaiting an independent review or grievance procedure, the firefighter should remain entitled to full salary and benefits.

Subsection (8) of this same section: This subsection flies in the face of fairness. For no reason other than being a probationary firefighter during the first 12 months of employment, a probationary firefighter may be terminated without cause and would have no access to any review process. Firefighting is currently a popular career choice for many people. It often involves taking pay cuts to come into this line of work. These are qualified people with an obvious desire to be firefighters, but with subsections such as this, there will no doubt be a negative effect on the ability to attract the highest-qualified candidates.

Collective bargaining, section 52: The exclusion of section of 43, hours of work, as a negotiated item will put firefighters in a very compromising position. If the employer has the unilateral right to change the hours of work, it makes me wonder what kind of incentive will be there for the employer to comply with section 51 and bargain in good faith. This will make firefighters a second-class labour group, as all other organized labour groups have the right to bargain hours of work.

Arbitration, subsection 54(7), criteria: The issuance of criteria is not only unnecessary but insulting to arbitrators. Again, this bill does the opposite of what was discussed during deliberations of the Fire Service Review Committee. You can see that in appendix G. Arbitrators must consider all issues that are placed before them during a hearing. The establishment of specific criteria brings the independence of the entire process into question. These criteria, while taking away from the independence, will only add to the costs, as hearings will take longer and require more specialized evidence.

Part 4 of the criteria, comparison to other employee groups, both public and private: I find it ironic that this government wants to compare firefighters to these workers but refuses to give firefighters comparable labour rights under the Labour Relations Act, specifically successor rights and unfair labour practices.

Trade union certification: Totally unnecessary. Firefighter associations have represented firefighters' interests responsibly for over 50 years. During this time there has never been a strike or work disruption. Firefighters have made a commitment to public safety.

Although we are taught as children to trust firefighters, this government seems to have forgotten that trust and feels that it is necessary to include a no-strike clause in Bill 84, despite our commitment and past record.

As shown throughout this presentation, Bill 84 contradicts not only previous recommendations and other pieces of legislation, but itself. Bill 84 requires amendments addressing unfair labour issues and, most importantly, public safety issues.

I urge this government to listen to the firefighters' and the public's concerns. We are counting on you. We don't deserve this.

On behalf of the Kingston Professional Firefighters Association, I'd like to thank the committee for stopping in Kingston and giving eastern Ontario a chance to be heard on this bill.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr LeBlanc. Unfortunately, we only have 30 seconds per caucus.

Mr Carr: Just very quickly, thank you for your presentation. I'll try to get in quickly. The management exclusions, there's some concern on behalf of the associations that management could use that to get somebody moved into management and then fire them. Is there anything we can do to change that wording to prevent that from happening, in your estimation?

Mr LeBlanc: Changing the management exclusions?

Mr Carr: The fear from some of the associations is what some unscrupulous fire chief could do is bump you into management, you don't have protection of the association, and then fire you. Is there any wording we can do to prevent that from happening?

Mr LeBlanc: Yes, remove it. There are many vacancies at the deputy chief level.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr LeBlanc. The time is up. We must move on.

Mr Gerretsen: Thirty seconds certainly don't allow me enough time other than to say that the survey results clearly indicate something that I've always found, that our fire department services are held in extremely high regard by Kingstonians. I can tell you it's one of the services that I have never received a complaint about.

Why do you think it is that this government didn't set up a committee structure like previous Conservative governments have done to bring all the various interest groups together and see if something couldn't be worked out, rather than going this route of just coming down with a bill and having, in effect, the chiefs against the firefighters and other people? Have you got any suggestions on that at all?

Mr LeBlanc: Yes. That is opinion and this will be my opinion. I just feel that this government, with the changes to occupational health and safety, bills such as this, workers' comp, I'm not so sure that they're interested in what the worker has to say out there.

Mr Kormos: I'm interested in appendix A which shows over the 22 years, from 1974 to 1996, there has been no growth in the size of the fire services here, yet a 100% increase in the number of the calls, and of course, a massive increase in the types of services, clearly, most particularly, the health emergency services. We've been assured that no municipal council would ever underfund its fire department or fire services to the detriment of the public. What gives? Same number of staff after 22 years.

Mr LeBlanc: Our staffing complement did go up to as high as 103 at one point but with the cuts to transfer payments, the city of Kingston had to cut its budgets all across the board resulting in retirements not filled in the Kingston fire department, bringing us back to this number.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr LeBlanc, for your presentation on behalf of the association. We appreciate your coming here today.

1510

CITY OF NEPEAN FIRE AND EMERGENCY SERVICES

The Chair: Our next presentation is the Nepean fire department, Mr Chris Powers. Welcome. You should have all received a written presentation. I'd ask you to proceed, sir, when you're comfortable.

Mr Chris Powers: Thank you, Mr Chairman. It's a pleasure to be here today. My name is Chris Powers and I'm fire chief for the city of Nepean. I welcome this opportunity to present to the committee my views on Bill 84.

The city of Nepean has a full-time fire department and provides fire prevention and emergency services to 118,000 residents. The department currently employs 135 employees. The majority of these employees are firefighters assigned to fire suppression and rescue duties.

I wish to indicate my support for Bill 84 and to endorse the positions of the Ontario Association of Fire Chiefs and the Fire Chiefs of Ottawa-Carleton. This legislation is long overdue, and once passed and implemented, will provide the citizens of Ontario with a new and effective approach to fire safety.

I do not intend to comment on all parts of Bill 84, but to limit my comments to some of the major issues as I see them. As a fire chief, my primary concern is with the safety of the public and of the firefighters.

Some groups and individuals on both sides of this issue have taken extreme positions on this legislation that are largely without merit. Some argue that municipalities will reduce fire protection standards and place the public and firefighters at risk. We do not believe that this will be the case. While currently not a mandatory service, the vast majority of municipalities provide fire protection services and recognize that fire protection is an essential service expected by the public.

Maintaining adequate standards for public and firefighter safety: With changes provided under this bill, municipalities will be able to provide appropriate and adequate fire protection services at more reasonable costs. However, to avoid possible concerns that services and safety may suffer, the office of the fire marshal must be given adequate resources to ensure that minimum standards of fire protection appropriate to the needs of the individual municipality are maintained.

Management exclusions from the bargaining unit: The very restrictive nature of exclusions from the bargaining unit in the current Fire Departments Act has resulted in an inability to manage fire services in an efficient and cost-effective manner. It has limited the ability to develop the management team that is essential for effective operation of the service.

It is very difficult to promote officers with the best skill sets and qualifications due to inappropriate qualifying factors set out in collective agreements. Despite the restrictions in collective agreements, some good officers do emerge, but this is largely by exception and not by design. Even then, these officers are required to remain in the union, and in many cases cannot function effectively in the management role expected of them.

Management exclusions for the fire department officers are needed if the departments are going to meet the challenges of the next millennium.

There is concern that exclusions from the union will place officers at a greater risk of job loss due to downsizing or cutbacks. Provisions should be made that permit any excluded officer to revert to a previous position within the union, should downsizing affect their excluded position, and provide that their seniority is maintained.

Hours of work: Both the current Fire Departments Act and Bill 84 permit average work weeks of 48 hours. Most collective agreements provide for a 42-hour workweek. We believe there are opportunities to provide alternative work schedules that would maintain or enhance service levels at reduced costs. As competitive pressures are brought to bear on fire departments to provide more cost-effective services, alternative shift schedules must be considered. We believe, however, that these changes should be negotiated and not imposed.

Part-time firefighters: We support the position of the Fire Chiefs of Ottawa-Carleton in the recommendation of the judicious use of part-time staff. A major cost of providing fire services is the staffing required to provide coverage 24 hours per day. Well-trained, part-time firefighters available to cover vacancies due to vacation, sick leave, training leave, etc will allow us to maintain staffing levels at a significant savings over the cost of paying overtime rates.

In 1996, our overtime cost was in excess of $240,000, largely to cover vacation and sick leave. To pay time and a half just to maintain staff on duty who may not be needed to respond to a call during their overtime shift cannot be afforded or justified in today's climate of fiscal restraint.

In conclusion, I commend the government for the initiatives proposed in Bill 84 and for finally addressing the need to replace fire service legislation designed in the 1950s with appropriate legislation designed for today's needs.

The fire service in Ontario must change, and change causes concern and unease. I believe that my position and the positions of the Ontario Association of Fire Chiefs and the Fire Chiefs of Ottawa-Carleton reflect a balanced approach to change.

I believe that Bill 84 is intended to and that it will provide the residents of Ontario with efficient and effective fire protection services, and that public safety will be enhanced with its enactment.

The Chair: Thank you, Fire Chief Powers. We have about two minutes per caucus.

Mr Gerretsen: Chief, I'm very concerned with this one statement that you make, "To pay time and a half just to maintain staff on duty who may not be needed to respond to a call during their overtime shift...." How do you know if anybody's ever really needed? What you're really saying there is that you almost want a volunteer force that you call in when they're actually required. I think it's a bit of an irresponsible statement. How do you know who is needed when? If we could predict when fires break out, I suppose we could put everybody on a standby basis, but you certainly wouldn't suggest that, would you?

Mr Powers: I didn't say that. I said that I didn't believe that we should be paying time and a half to staff positions when we could pay it at straight time at a much reduced cost to maintain staffing. I'm not talking about reducing staffing. I recognize the need that staffing is an essential part of the effective provision of fire service. We're not recommending reducing staffing, we're recommending reducing costs.

Mr Gerretsen: You've lost me there.

Mr Ramsay: Chief, some of your positions, though, seem a little more reasonable than some of the ones I've seen from other chiefs. I think you've addressed some of the concerns that firefighters have here, especially when it comes to management exclusions, because the problem here, besides the debate about whether there's more management needed in the fire department, is that a firefighter will have no say as to being put into management. Then, as you say here, if there was later some downsizing or cutback, that person could lose their job. I applaud your idea that if that would happen, they could retain their position of seniority in the union, if their job became redundant. I think that would help alleviate some of the concern in that area that firefighters have.

The same with hours of work. I think you're one of the first chiefs to come out and say that these hours of work should be negotiated, not imposed. Again, it's not necessarily so much what the bill does at times, but how it does it that really upsets firefighters. I think you're giving a more conciliatory attitude here and I hope the government members would look at some of your ideas for supporting some amendments.

The Chair: Thank you very much for your excellent question, Mr Ramsay. We may move on to the government caucus.

Mr Carr: Not surprisingly, I agree with Mr Ramsay. I think you have, on both the management exclusion and hours of work, attempted to be practical and add some changes. We appreciate your coming forward. I agree with Mr Ramsay that you are trying to make some of those changes.

You talked about the part-time and the overtime situation. Would you know, is the use of overtime very high right across the province? Is it just some areas more than others, or do we have a real problem in terms of overtime right now in the province, would you say?

Mr Powers: I think it's one of the concerns in many departments. My concern is that the fiscal pressures to reduce cost will affect staffing. I think this is an alternative that will help us maintain staffing and also increase the level of training and expertise. I don't agree that part-time translates into lower standards or less-trained people. I think that we can actually enhance it. With initiatives using community colleges and other training programs, I can see the training levels actually improving from what they are today.

Mr Carr: Thank you very much, and good luck. We appreciate your help.

The Chair: Thank you very much, fire chief, for your attendance here today.

1520

FRONTENAC-KINGSTON COUNCIL ON AGING

The Chair: Our next presentation is the Frontenac-Kingston Council on Aging, Christine McMillan. Good afternoon, Ms McMillan. All members should have received a written copy of the presentation. I'll ask you to proceed.

Ms Christine McMillan: I would like to introduce the executive director of the Frontenac-Kingston Council on Aging, Nancy Matheson. Although I'll be making the presentation, Nancy will be here to answer questions which you may choose to stump me with.

Just in response to the last speaker, as a senior in this community I'm very glad that I live in Kingston and not Nepean. I would be very concerned about having firefighters not allowed to have overtime. I assume overtime happens when firefighters are fighting at a fire. I'd hate someone to say: "Sorry, it's 5 o'clock. Where's that part-time guy who's supposed to be coming in?" That's my comment on that.

Anyway, welcome to Kingston. We appreciate the opportunity to share with you our perspective on the impact of Bill 84.

The Frontenac-Kingston Council on Aging is one of a network of 18 councils in Ontario, and as a council on aging, we are concerned not only with today's seniors but also with future generations as they age and retire.

The majority of older adults are conscientious and informed voters with a lively interest in political issues and social issues. I'd just like to mention to you that a recent study by Health and Welfare Canada reports that between 85% and 90% of all seniors turn out to vote, so I hope you'll take good note of what I'm going to be saying.

I'm sure you will agree that the guiding principle of any legislative reform dealing with fire and emergency protection should be to maximize and not compromise public safety. We are concerned that this legislation is primarily about compromising public safety. We are concerned that this is primarily about privatization of fire and emergency protection. This act folds into the Fire Departments Act, which assumed that the municipality is the employer. Under part IX of this new act, subsection 41(1), it states that the employer includes not only the municipality but a person or organization that employs firefighters. I notice that some member of the committee already referred to them as "fire workers," which added to my concern. As a result of this interpretation of the word "employer," the bill's primary purpose would seem to be to establish employment standards for the new world of private firefighting and emergency services.

Here's the reason we feel this way: Bill 84 prohibits strikes, although there has never been a strike by professional firefighters in Ontario in all of our history. Is this bill being brought forward to prevent strikes during the transition period of privatizing an essential service? It has to make you wonder.

Bill 84 legislates cooperation between fire departments, although there has been excellent cooperation between fire departments of the surrounding areas. Is this legislation now required to ensure cooperation between potentially private firefighting companies and municipal professional and volunteer fire departments? Again, you have to ask that question.

Bill 84 introduces part-time firefighters and establishes the right of the employer to call in firefighters only after an emergency occurs. This creates fear that our fire stations and emergency vehicles will be understaffed and slow in responding. Are we sacrificing safety in order to create a larger profit margin for private companies by reducing operational costs?

You have reported, and it was reported in Hansard, that it was pointed out that municipalities have always had the right to purchase fire and emergency service. This government has now provided the need and the reason to do it, and that's why we're so concerned.

Municipal councils are predicting they will be cash-strapped if the proposed legislation to download social services to municipalities becomes law. We know municipal councils are going to have few options in dealing with the proposed downloading legislation. They're going to be asking, "Do we raise taxes or will we privatize essential services?" From our position, we think that privatization is going to be a better option for them, because they can distance themselves from the inadequate services of reducing the budgets of fire departments and the cost of operating the services, because they can pass it right off on to the property owners. We're all going to pay. It's not going to change the amount we pay; it's just we're going to get a lot less for more.

Bill 84 also mandates additional layers of management within fire departments, and this seems to be strange coming from a government whose mantra has been to tell municipalities that they should be developing local solutions. Is it to ensure that private firefighting companies have adequate supervisory staff?

Bill 84 is very unsettling for seniors, and we're living in a very unsettling time. Last night on the news it was reported that 55% of Canadians are now feeling very disturbed and very unsettled by the way their governments at federal and provincial levels are acting.

Here are our main concerns. Seniors are on fixed incomes. Privatizing this essential government service is certain to bring about higher user costs. Southam newspapers reported on March 19 that in Paradise, Arizona, each homeowner pays up to US$931 annually to a private company called Rural/Metro for fire protection. The city of Kingston is twinned with Scottsdale, Arizona, and that's the head office of Rural/Metro. It's a company which sells its fire service directly to individuals. Lest you think we're like Chicken Little calling out that the sky is falling, you should take note that Rural/Metro has just recently reached agreements to buy ambulance operations in Hawkesbury, Port Colborne, Lindsay, Owen Sound, Port Hope and Prescott, and in fact made a presentation to the city of Waterloo for their fire department.

It's crucial that people of our age get help for heart attacks in the first four minutes. In our community, the fire department is always within reach. It only takes four minutes or less for them to get there. They'll start the essential first aid required until the ambulance arrives, usually within eight minutes. As seniors, we therefore have a very vested interest in our local fire department.

It has been reported on television and newspapers that Rural/Metro take between 10 and 30 minutes to respond to a call. One can imagine how costs for property insurance will soar as a result.

Bill 84 doesn't include the recommendations of many coroners' juries regarding seniors' residences. These recommendations include mandatory working smoke alarms and enhanced mandatory sprinkler systems in all seniors homes. Legislation must require fire safety training for not only staff but seniors in this type of independent living. Many seniors have hearing or vision deficits and have limited mobility. In addition, many people with disabilities also live in this type of housing. It is imperative that special and adequate training be provided on not only when but how they should leave their apartments.

I'd just like to take you to page 4, in which we've put our recommendations. I will go through those directly from our presentation. We urge you to withdraw Bill 84. We reject this proposed statute which enshrines in law the establishment of private, profit-motivated fire and emergency services. We're not interested in having our taxes cut in order to be less safe. We urge you to introduce new legislation which consolidates and clarifies but doesn't change the intent of the various statutes which address fire protection and public safety.

We strongly recommend that a new bill include the recommendations of coroners' juries regarding mandatory working smoke alarms, enhanced emergency etc for seniors' residences. Currently seniors' residences only have to meet the requirements of the Landlord and Tenant Act, which is far from satisfactory.

We support the introduction of mandatory fire safety education, but we are concerned with the direction of Bill 84 which will enhance private sector participation in the delivery of fire safety education.

I'd just like to let you know I was a policy adviser for many years with the Ministry of Labour at 400 University, and Zurich Insurance brought in some private sector people to provide fire training to us and it was quite a terrifying experience. They insisted that those people who were buddies with disabled people meet right outside the elevators after the fire alarms went. That was fine when it was just fire drills. I was a buddy. We all did exactly as we were told. In those days, the Ministry of Labour had a program called the handicapped employment program, which provided consultation to employers about hiring people with disabilities. At that time the ministry had a very high number of people with disabilities, and on one occasion I was on the ninth floor with 10 people who were either blind, visually impaired, pregnant or in wheelchairs, and there we sat. We didn't want to leave where we were told to go, but at that time there was a real fire in the restaurant below and the smoke was coming up, and all the wardens left the floor with all the people.

So the group of us took off to one of the offices and wrote what we thought would be adequate fire safety instructions. We were not able to get it through that private firm to take it to the fire marshal's office, nor were we able to get the fire marshal to listen to what we were saying, and we'd had firsthand experience. We wanted to have a safekeeping area, we wanted a bucket with some water, we wanted a blanket and we wanted some duct tape and we wanted a strobe light in a window. That wasn't possible. That was my experience with private people getting involved in fire safety. Firefighters have been there. They know what they're doing. I've said in my report that as children we respected them. They came to our schools, we knew that they knew what they were talking about and they listened, and it meant a great deal.

In addition to that, there's a high rate of work-related injuries among firefighters because of the physically demanding and dangerous nature of their work. Workers' compensation requires an employer to make every effort to accommodate an injured worker who is not able to fulfil the essential duties of his original job. Public education on fire safety is an excellent choice for firefighters requiring light work.

If you remove the role of fire safety education from fire departments, you're going to increase the WCB assessments to the employer, whether it's the municipality or whether you go ahead and make sure that we just have private fire departments in Ontario. This increased operational cost to fire departments will be passed on to the property owners.

Bill 84 appears to cap the hours of work to a maximum of 48 hours per week. This strikes me as passing strange given that there are currently amendments to the Employment Standards Act which are recommending that the hours of work be increased to 50 hours a week. So I'm wondering who's doing cross-referencing of acts. It used to be that all the acts went to all the departments in the ministries and all the ministries commented and made sure there weren't errors. It doesn't seem like that's happening.

1530

Bill 84 also obfuscates labour relations for this group of workers. Since firefighters belong to a professional organization, it is our understanding that they will not have access to the labour relations board. In fact, the Labour Relations Act currently excludes firefighters from using their offices. So again I wonder why this legislation is before the House. It's incomplete and inadequate.

We strongly recommend that a new fire code be developed and accompany any proposed new statute on fire and emergency services at the time it is introduced in the Legislature.

In closing, just let me say that we were reading Hansard and we saw that our local MPP, John Gerretsen, had stated in the House: "I think most of us will agree that what this bill is really all about is the quality of life and the standard of living that we enjoy here in the province of Ontario."

From our perspective, if you are getting support from an uninformed or weary-of-politics public, we believe that support for this type of harmful legislation will be short-lived as the effects are personally felt. When fire chiefs who are supporting this legislation no longer have jobs with a private firefighting company, God forbid, but if our house is on fire and no fire truck comes for 30 minutes, or a loved one has a car accident and there are no jaws of life operated by firefighters to extricate them from the car, or a loved one has a heart attack, a stroke or a serious fall and no firefighter comes in time to save their lives, at that time we no doubt will cry out, "Why did we allow this to happen to our Ontario?"

The Chair: Thank you very much, Ms McMillan, for your presentation on behalf of your association. We've run out of time, but we thank you as a committee.

TOWNSHIP OF SOUTH FRONTENAC

The Chair: Our next presentation is from the amalgamation committee of South Frontenac region, Larry Redden. Good afternoon, Mr Redden.

Mr Larry Redden: Ladies and gentlemen, I'd like to thank you very much for the opportunity to appear before you and give you some of our concerns. I am the chairman of the fire committee for the amalgamation of the new township of South Frontenac, which takes in four municipalities.

We, the members of the fire committee for the newly amalgamated township of South Frontenac, have very few concerns with Bill 84, An Act to promote Fire Prevention and Public Safety in Ontario, at a cost our citizens and taxpayers can afford. Our fire departments are made up 100% of volunteers.

In our amalgamated township, we have put forth a proposal that our four fire departments be area-rated, each one of these fire departments to have its own volunteer chief. We feel this will still give that same excellent and professional service our people have become accustomed to over the years without the expense of a full-time fire chief to serve the four fire regions. It is hoped that Bill 84 will not jeopardize this form of fire administration. On October 4, 1996, we received confirmation for this setup from Solicitor General Robert W. Runciman, MPP.

Another concern is the inspections and public education which are carried out by our fire departments on a voluntary basis. It is hoped that Bill 84 will not force us to hire full-time inspectors or training officers to increase this type of education and safety. This would defeat the reason for amalgamation by a substantial increase in our fire budget, thus saving the taxpayer nothing.

Even with area rating of the fire departments, we will also be rearranging some of our boundaries to better serve our citizens at a reasonable cost. To govern these fire departments, the committee has recommended that a board be formed consisting of the chiefs, deputy chiefs and/or captains from each department, plus two councillors from the new council. This committee would then elect a chair to liaise with the new council.

I thank you very much for the opportunity and hope this will help us meet our end to save money. That's the reason we are amalgamating and we hope Bill 84 will work with us.

The Chair: We have considerable time. Mr Kormos, we'll start off with you.

Mr Kormos: I would ask that Mr Carr, who is the parliamentary assistant, respond to some of these, because you asked questions -- and that's fair enough -- and I'd like to hear the answers too.

The Chair: He does not have these answers presently available.

Mr Carr: We will put them in written form to you, Mr Kormos, and to you, sir.

The Chair: Are there any questions by the government members?

Mr Carr: I was interested in just what's transpiring with the amalgamation and how your group was put together. Could you expand a little bit on how you were formed and what's happening in your area?

Mr Redden: In the fire department?

Mr Carr: What's happening with the whole amalgamation.

Mr Redden: We've agreed to area-rate them, which means that each municipality will still be paying for its own fire services and we are going to have one chief for each department. That's contrary to what the fire marshal at one time recommended, but we felt that when you hire a full-time chief and he travels the distance we have, and there are volunteers, we would be losing the personal touch that the volunteer has and there might be some resentment if your chief is making a big salary.

Mr Carr: I was also interested in how much time it took working this out and the details. Were you able to come to a consensus about what you wanted to do?

Mr Redden: The committee consists of a representative from each municipality and the fire chief of each municipality.

Mr Carr: And you've got an agreement on what you want to do?

Mr Redden: Yes.

Mr Carr: Good luck and thanks very much for your presentation.

Mr Klees: I don't know if you've heard any of the presentations today, but there's quite a bit of concern being expressed about the fact that if we allow municipalities to have more of the responsibility with regard to hiring, with regard to allocation of funds, then there is going to be a reduction in the safety that people in the community can count on. I'd be interested to hear from you what the degree of confidence is that you and the people in your municipality have in the kind of recommendations that would come forward from the fire chief, for example, with regard to staffing levels, with regard to equipment requirements.

Are you satisfied, first of all, you would get advice that would be in the best interests of your community and, second, do you feel that your municipality, the decision-makers at the council tables, would support those recommendations and allocate sufficient dollars to make sure that the level of service is delivered that's required?

Mr Redden: Yes, we already have done that. I think this area has one of the best volunteer fire departments in the province. We have had many commendations. Our response time is approximately four to five minutes. They also have a medical service and we have the latest in updated equipment. We supply large sums of money to train our men which our council does not begrudge; they feel it is money well invested. I think our service is excellent and we hope it can stay that way and it's also at affordable costs to the taxpayer. We're trying to keep it down so they can afford it and have the best.

Mr Klees: Why do you feel then that there's such a very strong campaign going on in this province right now that safety would suffer as a result of this bill? Where's the problem in this?

Mr Redden: Did I indicate that I felt that --

Mr Klees: You haven't, no, but there's a very strong campaign across the province that's saying that will happen, clearly saying that fire chiefs won't do their job, that the municipalities won't do their job to staff appropriately and so on. Why is that happening?

Mr Redden: With my interpretation of it, I don't feel that is the problem. Our only concern was that they didn't force us to have one chief for such a large area, because we felt that they were performing very well as it was.

You see, with the amalgamation we cover a large area. When you take four townships which from one end to the other would probably be 35 miles and approximately 45 miles the other way, you've got a large area. When you bring in a full-time chief, I think you're bringing in a different type of morale. That is where our concern was.

1540

Mr Gerretsen: Thank you very much, Mr Redden. First of all, let me just say that I don't think there's ever been a suggestion that councils won't do their jobs or that fire chiefs won't do their jobs. The jobs will be an awful lot tougher under this act, particularly with the downloading that's taking place of other social and health care services as well.

Just so that I'm sure, Larry, how many voluntary firefighters do you have within the four townships that'll form South Frontenac, just roughly?

Mr Redden: The average is between 30 and 35 each.

Mr Gerretsen: Thirty-two per municipality, and they're all on a voluntary basis?

Mr Redden: Yes, 100%.

Mr Gerretsen: As you have mentioned already, there's been absolutely no problem with respect to any of the mutual aid, cross-boundary services that may be needed from time to time in this particular area. Is that correct?

Mr Redden: No. I think the mutual aid is excellent and we get excellent service from Kingston township and Fire Chief Gow, and Ernestown, all of them. It is something that people can afford. We don't want to change it. We don't want to decrease the service or the safety but we also don't want to increase the costs. That's where we're coming from.

Mr Gerretsen: Just so that I'm clear, the labour relations aspects of this bill -- part IX, which you may have heard something about today -- really don't affect your situation then, because most of your people are volunteer, not full-time firefighters. Is that correct?

Mr Redden: Yes. We didn't touch that phase of it, that's why.

The Acting Chair: Thank you, sir, for your presentation.

ROBERT ANDRUS

The Acting Chair: Next, Mr Robert Andrus. Please proceed.

Mr Robert Andrus: Good afternoon. My name is Robert Andrus, a taxpayer in the city of Belleville, Ontario. After completing over 37 years as a firefighter, I am now retired. During those years I was a volunteer, a full-time firefighter, an active member of the firefighters' association engaged in negotiations and contractual agreements, and over five years as the deputy fire chief directly involved in the day-to-day management of the city of Belleville's fire department. I provide the above information to this committee so that as I express my concerns and beliefs today it is with a fair magnitude of knowledge and experience.

In the preparation of this bill, it is said that extensive consultation occurred over the past years. It is no problem to see what consultants were listened to: The Association of Municipalities of Ontario, as an example, where their pleading and wringing of hands over the past years has finally borne fruit by having the provincial government propose to legislate out of existence an important share of the AMO's members' responsibilities. Very likely another consultant: The Ontario Association of Fire Chiefs dabbling in politics and total lack of representing their dues-paying members, more explicitly the deputy fire chiefs.

Both of the above organizations, I believe, intentionally failed to emphasize the importance of the position of deputy fire chief for a fire department -- AMO, because it is one less restriction for their members, no matter its importance; the fire chiefs, I don't know, possibly a sense of survival.

How many other businesses responsible for millions of dollars each year, as senior management of fire departments are, with employees numbering from tens to hundreds, do not have a vice-president or an assistant manager? How many of these same corporations would expect their accountant or human resource person to direct their company?

Your legislation is suggesting that individuals of lesser rank, training and expertise can do the job of the deputy fire chief. Where are they going to learn the work and responsibilities, fulfil the responsibilities of senior management and still perform the functions of shift captain, as an example? Something or someone is going to get the short end of the stick. Is this going to be the firefighter or the taxpayer requiring emergency assistance?

How many employees would it require to have someone available to function in that management capacity when at the same time they are expected to work shifts -- nights, days and weekends -- and be available to answer emergency calls and be in outlying fire stations?

The present provincial government and many municipalities do not provide sufficient education and training for management positions in the fire departments of Ontario. Nearly all of the training is on-the-job type.

This legislation, not requiring deputy fire chiefs in the fire departments of this province, leaves it open for municipalities to save money at the expense of good management. Over the past few years some municipalities got the bright idea to do without deputy fire chiefs. How can management honestly believe they need more management when the present situation is not fully utilized? Let's not forget, this creates an avenue for a municipality to draw from the firefighters' association the most experienced members and often the leaders. Could this be the prime intention of this legislation?

It is proposed in this legislation that certain working conditions will cease to be negotiable items. Considering the collective agreement that I am well aware of, in the Belleville fire department, all of the items contained in section 43 of this bill are within this collective agreement solely due to negotiations, not arbitration, not mediation, put there because two parties employer and employee conferred with the view to reach an agreement.

No arbitration, no strike, no threats but the democratic process of sitting down and working out their differences to an amiable conclusion: free collective bargaining. For this to occur both parties must have believed they have the best solution for their purposes. This new legislation strikes down the word "free." I guess four-lettered words are not the in thing today anyway.

The latest information I have states that the following provinces have no restrictions on these working conditions as proposed in this bill: British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Quebec, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, and the Public Service Staff Relations Act covering employees of the federal government.

Should this information be correct, one can only conclude that we are "Americanizing," a good word, our democratic process. Going out in uncharted waters is a recipe for disaster. Why not follow a proven practice, a practice that is accepted across this country. There are no justifications to outlawing these rights and responsibilities.

It is being proposed that conciliation become part of the process before proceeding to a board of arbitration. To what advantage? In one of the years with the most turmoil in collective bargaining, 1979, 5% of all provincial collective agreements were the result of arbitration -- only 5% -- affecting only 8.4% of the total number of employees involved.

Bryan M. Downie of the school of business at Queen's University in 1979, after examining the arbitration process in Canada, the US, Australia, New Zealand and Great Britain, observed that in those situations where compulsory arbitration is provided for, the greatest majority of disputes continued to be resolved by voluntary negotiations and, "Arbitrators almost invariably are conservative with respect to change."

Conciliation increases the cost of reaching an agreement to employees, especially to small groups of employees. Conciliation increases the cost of reaching an agreement to the employer, thereby increasing the cost to the taxpayer. Increasing the steps in reaching a settlement is a totally unnecessary and costly procedure. In this case, if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

1550

The ability to pay is being recommended as part of the considerations an arbitrator or arbitration board must take when making a decision. Arbitration board chairman O.B. Shime QC in 1976 stated, "Public sector employees should not be required to subsidize the community by accepting substandard wages and working conditions." Mr Shime also noted that an employer may be required to carry on services at a loss but that loss does not justify employees receiving substandard wages. The total community which uses the service should shoulder the financial loss and the employer should be a fair employer.

Arbitrator Teplitsky, dealing with wages in the city of Windsor police board, 1981, stated, "It is a well-established principle that the ability to pay of a public sector employer should not be considered." Inability to pay is an irrelevant criterion so far as public sector employers are concerned since public sector employees ought not to be required to subsidize a public service by accepting substandard wages.

This proposition was first advanced by Mr Justice Emmett Hall in a railway arbitration and has since been universally accepted. I would be remiss if I did not qualify the above statements by stating that the responsibility of the negotiating parties must include moral, legal and reasonable considerations in this area.

For some 50 years the word of the full-time firefighters of this province, "We will not strike," has been good enough for past provincial governments, but that's not good enough for this government. Oh, no. The way I see it, this government decided it needed to legislate no strike for no other reason than they think the changes they have proposed are so out of line with today's common sense that they must force the changes on the employees of the fire departments in Ontario.

The key issues in this proposed legislation do nothing towards benefiting the employee. Examples:

The right to negotiate the hours of work -- in fact the opposite, the employee has no say and will be required to work longer hours -- the right to negotiate the manner in which the hours of work are carried out and, as important, the remaining hours with their families. A profession requiring a 24-hour-a-day, 7-day-a-week performance affects the family and should be part of the due process at the bargaining table.

The lack of consistent management by not ensuring a deputy fire chief.

The changing of the definition of a firefighter, thereby allowing municipalities to replace the time spent for training, suppression, inspection and equipment maintenance, as an example, with some other type of municipal work.

Is it the intent of this bill to follow in the footsteps of the province of Quebec where the firefighters also hand out parking tickets? The average taxpayer believes the fire trucks they see responding to a fire call are fully manned. The number of firefighters on these trucks is less today than a year ago in most cases, a very dangerous situation for firefighters and citizens alike.

What surprises me is the fact that the insurance companies aren't taking a good look at cities cutting back on their manpower in the fire department.

To consider it necessary to make the number of changes that are proposed in this bill suggests it is seen that the pendulum is in the extreme favour of the employees. If this is the case, why not rectify the problem by being more conservative and applying a little common sense to the proposed changes? Have that pendulum move in a less dramatic fashion thereby creating a more equal swing, instead of going to the other extreme as proposed in the changes in this case.

I believe that no matter where you are in your life, in this case the negotiating table, a successful barometer to use at any time and under any circumstance is: Is it morally right? Is it legally defensible? Is it reasonably practicable at this time? Should it not pass all of the above, chances are little or none for success.

Why do I speak today? Before decisions become final, fault lines can be monitored, cracks can be repaired, plans re-examined, and people's suffering should never be dismissed.

Chairman and members of the committee, please note my appreciation for being provided this time to make my concerns known, and I fervently hope adjustments will be made in this bill to continue the rights of all the citizens of this province. Thank you.

The Acting Chair: Questions? The government. One minute each.

Mr Carr: I'm sorry we don't have a heck of a lot of time as usual, but thank you for your presentation. Outside of part IX, I think the opposition agree with some of the other parts. Do you have any difficulty with any sections other than part IX that you'd like to see changed? I know you've focused on some of the other parts, but are there any other parts in the other sections that you agree or disagree with?

Mr Andrus: This is my personal brief and it's from my own beliefs and my own positions. I couldn't certainly spend sufficient time presenting a brief to cover all the areas, so I chose two or three that I found very important to myself personally and that's what I presented.

Mr Carr: Thanks for your help.

Mr Crozier: Mr Andrus, good afternoon. Your point about the elimination of the deputy chief -- I assume there are a number of occasions and various reasons, right from vacation through to other responsibilities, that might take the chief away from the community, away from the fire hall and where you most normally respond to duty. If there is no deputy chief, who would then be in the capacity of being in charge, in your opinion?

Mr Andrus: I myself have never experienced the situation, but I would have to assume it would be someone in the fire department. That's the best I can tell you. It certainly isn't going to be someone who has been accepted as management on a 24-hour, seven-day-a-week basis.

Mr Crozier: I take that as being your point then, that if there isn't a deputy chief to be in charge in the chief's absence, there's a void left.

Mr Andrus: Right. And if there's no deputy chief, as in many departments like Niagara Falls, possibly, and Thunder Bay, large places, why are they asking for more management if they're not already utilizing the present positions?

Mr Kormos: That's exactly the point, Mr Andrus. I can't speak for some of the fire services up here, but tomorrow we're going down to Hamilton-Niagara where I know there are some fire services which have declined to fill the position of deputy chief, yet the chiefs' association and AMO are crying out for these extra management positions. So that's the question. You're quite right. I hope you don't mind if I plagiarize it and put it to people down in Hamilton-Niagara tomorrow: "What's the scoop here? You want more management positions yet you decline to use the ones that are available to you now." Something's out of whack.

Mr Andrus: True.

Mr Kormos: I appreciate your comments.

The Acting Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Andrus.

Mr Klees: Mr Chair, on a point of order: I may have misunderstood this presentation, but I wonder if we could have clarification from the parliamentary assistant. Is there something in this legislation that precludes municipalities from appointing a deputy chief?

The Acting Chair: Can you answer it in one sentence or less?

Mr Carr: What I'm going to do, just so everybody's got it in writing, is have the legal staff give you a full letter outlining what it is.

Mr Kormos: Can we have unanimous consent for him to answer viva voce now? We'll take your word for it.

Mr Carr: Last time you didn't want my word for it. It'll come in letter form, Mr Kormos.

The Acting Chair: You'll get it in writing, I gather.

The next presenter is Susan Elliot. Ms Elliot is not present. Do we have a written submission? We do not.

1600

ONTARIO MUNICIPAL HUMAN RESOURCES ASSOCIATION

The Acting Chair: We'll move on to the Ontario Municipal Human Resources Association, Mr Bishop. Is Mr Bishop available? You have no objection to proceeding a few minutes in advance of your slotted time? Thank you. Please proceed at your convenience.

Mr Bill Bishop: Thank you, sir. My name is Bill Bishop and I'm here today on behalf of the Ontario Municipal Human Resources Association. First, I would like to take this opportunity to thank you for allowing me to appear before you and to present certain positions respecting Bill 84, the Fire Protection and Prevention Act.

I am here today on behalf of the Ontario Municipal Human Resources Association. The submission contained herein has been endorsed by the association and a copy has been filed with the Solicitor General, Mr Runciman.

As you can well appreciate, the association's member municipalities have certain responsibilities related to fire services in Ontario. Municipal governments are responsible and accountable for fire protection and prevention as part of the municipal service structure. The human resources professionals within municipalities are part of the partnerships that exist within the municipal structure and help make the delivery of efficient and effective fire services possible.

You have heard from AMO president, Terry Mundell, at which time he outlined many of the recommended changes that AMO would like to see encompassed in Bill 84 to further enhance the delivery of fire protection and prevention services in the province. The Ontario Municipal Human Resources Association adds its voice of support to those recommendations, as well as those found in this submission.

I will not attempt to read the entire submission, but rather will briefly highlight some of the recommendations that we wish to bring forward to you.

In reference to part II, the act deals with issues that speak to the responsibility of fire protection services. It must be made clear that the responsibility for the overall administration and structure of the municipality will be vested in the head of administration. It must follow then that the fire chief, like other municipal department heads, must report to this head of administration. There is no doubt that the fire chief and his or her staff must provide guidance and direction in all matters pertaining to fire services, and this will be best accomplished by operating within a proper structure, through the administrative head to council.

In reference to part VI, section 19 addresses who is an inspector under this act. The area should be amended to: (a) recognize the existence of fire inspectors now performing this function, and (b) provide municipalities with the flexibility to enable fire inspections to be performed in conjunction with other municipal staff such as building inspectors.

Part IX of the act deals with various aspects of employment and labour relations. This submission respectfully requests a number of changes and additions be made to Bill 84 to assist the parties in dealing with these issues.

The definition of firefighter should be expanded to exclude any other employee of the employer not employed as a firefighter or assigned to fire protection services. This would clarify the status of employees in other departments within a municipal structure who regularly provide service to a fire department.

It is recommended that sections of the Ontario Labour Relations Act respecting unfair practices, strikes and lockouts and their enforcement be included in this act. This would provide definition, guidance and remedies to the employer, fire association and employees respecting things like fair representation, employer interference, illegal strike/lockout situations and the obligation to bargain.

The inclusion of a mandatory conciliation process is a very positive step. Sections dealing with conciliation and arbitration should be clarified as to the costs incurred during these processes. Each party should be responsible for their respective costs and split the costs 50-50 with respect to any conciliation officer or arbitrator.

With respect to the issue of management exclusions, the act does not meet the goals and objectives municipalities have long pursued. It is recommended that sections be added to the act to provide for additional exclusions in the eventuality that single-tier fire services are realized in our large centres such as Metro and Ottawa. In these cases, fire departments of 1,000 or more employees would be realized.

If one could point to the section of Bill 84 that causes the greatest concern in the delivery of fire services, it is that section dealing with automatic aid. There is no doubt that tools such as automatic aid will greatly enhance the efficient and effective management of fire services. This tool will, however, go largely unused unless relief from the current no-contracting-out provisions, in some form, is provided for. There are many examples in this province of situations where a fire station belonging to one municipality is within a few hundred feet of the houses of another municipality, and yet, because of geographic boundaries and the no-contracting-out provisions contained in the collective agreement, that station cannot respond to a fire if it were to happen. This is an intolerable situation and does nothing for public safety, which is a goal of this act.

Some mechanisms must be found and incorporated into Bill 84 that will allow municipalities to utilize the fire services of neighbouring municipalities in an automatic aid situation. Similarly, municipalities must be provided with relief from these no-contracting-out provisions so as to enable resources to be shared and utilized across the municipal structure. Most cost reduction and reorganization has been done to the vertical silos we call departments. Many municipalities are not looking horizontally across these silos to achieve further efficiencies. Areas such as mechanical, training, inspections and communications are examples where the sharing of these functions across a municipality may realize additional efficiencies.

In closing, on behalf of the Ontario Municipal Human Resources Association, I would like to convey overall support for Bill 84. This bill has been a long time coming. I would ask, on behalf of the group I am representing here today, that the committee support the adoption and recommendations contained herein.

The Acting Chair: Thank you, sir. We have approximately six minutes, two minutes per caucus. We'll start with the Liberals.

Mr Ramsay: Mr Bishop, this submission looks familiar to me, and I just asked the clerk if we'd seen this before. Several paragraphs seemed to be the same. I asked the clerk to look up if your organization had made a presentation before, and yes, they had, in Sudbury on Thursday. Dail Levesque of your organization made this presentation on Thursday. Were you aware of that?

Mr Bishop: I wasn't aware that Mr Levesque spoke in Sudbury. Mr Levesque is a member of our association, so he could have spoken there, but I'm not aware of that.

Mr Ramsay: I believe he was representing the Ontario Municipal Human Resources Association, so I take it this is the presentation that has been written on behalf of the organization, for the organization?

1610

Mr Bishop: Yes, sir.

Mr Ramsay: Where are you employed?

Mr Bishop: I'm employed here, in the city of Kingston.

Mr Ramsay: Okay, thank you very much.

The Acting Chair: Any other questions from the Liberal caucus? Thank you. Mr Kormos?

Mr Kormos: I have no questions. Thank you kindly, Mr Bishop.

The Acting Chair: Government?

Mr Carr: Thank you very much for your presentation. I appreciate your taking the time out to put it forward. I was wondering if it would be possible for you to expand a little bit on the automatic aid. We heard some concerns -- I forget where it was, whether it was Toronto -- from one of the groups; it may have been AMO or it may have been you. One of the chaps Mr Ramsay was referring to came from Orillia and came up to one of the meetings in Sudbury, if recollection serves me.

Do you have any examples of where some of the problems are happening now with regard to automatic aid? Is there a major problem with this across the province? I think one person talked about going by one fire station to get to a fire. We've heard numerous accounts of how speed is important. Could you expand on where some of the problems are with regard to automatic aid in the province?

Mr Bishop: When this issue was reviewed at our committee level, there were a number of areas across the province that were cited as benefiting from a mutual-aid type of scenario. We have a situation here in the city of Kingston, as an example, where one fire department is closer to the other municipality's boundaries. We have municipalities in the Ottawa and greater Ottawa area where a like situation also exists. We have municipalities across the province, for instance, the city of Owen Sound, where a township firehall is located within the boundaries of the city of Owen Sound but does not respond to any fire calls within the boundaries of that particular city. For many of their calls, they pass the city of Owen Sound's fire station on the way to responding to a call. At the committee level, many of the representatives referenced other township fire departments as well existing within the boundaries of a municipality and yet that particular fire department would not respond to the call.

Mr Carr: But surely this gets worked out. We've heard continually how speed is a big factor. It was my impression that it wasn't happening, that it may have happened in a couple of areas, but you're saying it's fairly widespread, where we are, for want of a better word, sacrificing speed in order to have a particular municipality respond just because it happens to be that municipality. Why would that be happening? Why couldn't we just, among all the players, work out a deal, some type of arrangement where this wouldn't happen? With speed being the essence, how can that happen in the province, that we're essentially hurting speed for the sake of boundaries?

Mr Bishop: An appropriate mechanism can be worked out in terms of meeting the objective of the legislation, which is to improve the safety of the public. The area the fire departments very easily could work out: Who is in the best position to respond to a fire within a certain distance from each fire station?

Mr Carr: In your estimation, where is the problem resting? Why can't we do that now? Is there any particular reason it's not being done?

Mr Bishop: Currently the problem rests in many areas. The current collective agreements that apply to the fire departments restrict contracting out, they restrict the servicing of various areas on a first-call basis.

The Acting Chair: Excuse me, I'm going to have to interrupt you there. I'm afraid we're out of time, Mr Bishop. I thank you very much for your presentation.

PETERBOROUGH PROFESSIONAL FIRE FIGHTERS ASSOCIATION

The Acting Chair: The next presenter will be the Peterborough Professional Fire Fighters Association, Mr Brown. Welcome, sir. Thank you for coming. Your associate is Mr Hynes?

Mr Paul Brown: My associate is Mr Hynes, yes. He's the vice-president of the Peterborough Professional Fire Fighters Association. My name is Paul Brown. I am the president of the Peterborough Professional Fire Fighters Association. We represent 88 employees in the city of Peterborough fire department, and we're also appearing on behalf of many of the citizens of Peterborough whom we have spoken with over the past three months with respect to Bill 84.

I'd like to first point out that I've been a firefighter for 29 years in the city of Peterborough. I'm still an active firefighter. I respond every day to all types of alarms. One thing, on a personal level, I haven't heard made an issue is that no matter what the call, almost, firefighters are the people running into the situation when other people are trying to leave. Whether that's into a hazardous atmosphere, whether that's into a building that's on fire that has untenable conditions, those are the people we're talking about, and those are the people who, I hear suggestions made, should be supported perhaps by part-time people who don't have the level of training.

On a personal level, I somehow think that's unreasonable, when you're asking me, or any other full-time firefighter, to enter into these types of atmospheres and asking us not to expect to have highly trained people on the exterior prepared to support us and, if necessity happens, to bring us out of there. I think that point has to be made, and that's who firefighters are, and that's who I am and who Bob is.

It's interesting that during the course of my employment, obviously I've had a lot of opportunity to talk to citizens of Peterborough, and if there's one common message I've received from the people in Peterborough when we talk to them, it's that they expect the fire department to arrive, they expect it to arrive quickly, with a team of experienced and well-trained firefighters. They want those firefighters to take action. They don't want them just to arrive; they want them to take action when they arrive and resolve the emergency.

On one particular occasion, in responding to a fire in an apartment on the fifth floor of a high-rise, a woman was seen briefly at a bedroom window on our arrival. One crew advanced through the interior of the building, and another crew used an aerial ladder to rescue the collapsed woman from the bedroom. While this was going on, the second crew forced the door into the apartment and found the living room heavily involved in fire that had to be extinguished before they could advance.

Only the speed, the experience and the teamwork saved this woman's life, only because those two crews knew what the other crew was doing. They knew that the people on the outside were going to get that woman out from the exterior, so when they were advancing through the interior of the building, they took the time to do it right so they didn't force the fire out of that living room into the bedroom, where she still was, and at the same time protected the rest of the people in the building by extinguishing the fire as soon as that woman had been rescued. That's the kind of teamwork and experience people have come to expect from their firefighters.

It's interesting that the introduction of Bill 84 has created an opportunity for all firefighters, I'm sure, and Peterborough particularly, to get out and talk to people, to explain the services we provide and to come to understand how people view their fire department. Citizens have told us they continue to want rapid intervention in emergencies, be they medical, be they fires, all types of emergencies that firefighters respond to. They believe it should be mandatory for a municipality to provide fire suppression services, and under no circumstances are they interested in having a private business provide fire suppression and emergency response on a for-profit basis.

1620

In particular, they would approve the following:

Amend section 2(1) to ensure that municipalities provide fire protection services, and fire protection services are defined in the act to include fire suppression, training, all of the services that fire departments now supply. It's not a major change, just a simple word.

Amend 41(1) to ensure that "employer" means a municipality. I only have to ask you to go out and talk to people. Ask them if they've ever considered if they would want a fire department run by anybody other than their municipality. I think almost without exception the answer is no; they want a department that's run by their municipality.

Amend sections 52 and 43 to ensure that firefighters will continue to be able to negotiate hours of employment and related working conditions.

Amend sections 58 and 41 to ensure that the firefighting team remains intact. You don't want to create an unnecessary bureaucracy.

Amend sections 43 and 41 to ensure that stations are manned by full-time firefighters, not part-time personnel.

Citizens I have met with since the introduction of Bill 84 have been clear in their position that municipalities should continue to be responsible for and run their own fire department. They believe there are certain services that should be supplied by the municipality as part of its social responsibility to its citizens. These services, such as fire departments, are part of the safety net that people have come to expect and that determine the quality of life we enjoy in Ontario.

Whether a municipality should supply fire suppression services has never been an issue. I am certain if you asked most people, they would tell you that emergency response is the fire department's primary responsibility, and it is that primary service they expect to receive. That isn't to belittle fire prevention. It isn't to belittle education. All those things are important as well, and I'm pleased to see those in the bill. But I think if you speak to the majority of people in Ontario, what do they expect and require from their fire department? First, they expect an emergency response team to be there to resolve the emergency. All of the remainder is fine, it's important, but given a choice, which segment would they want? They would want the emergency service.

It has never occurred to most people that providing fire suppression service is not mandatory. I'm sure the majority of people are fully convinced -- it never occurred to them that the municipality didn't have to provide fire suppression. You might say it's only common sense for the municipality to be mandated to supply fire suppression services. This is only putting into law a condition that almost every citizen agrees with.

Section 52 removes the firefighter's ability to negotiate with respect to hours of employment, the way those hours are scheduled and indeed any of the working conditions set out in the hours-of-work section of the proposed section 43. Is this fair or reasonable? Clearly it doesn't meet the criteria that firefighters have used for years to determine if their position is appropriate. Those criteria -- the last speaker referred to them; we were probably educated by the same person -- are that it has to be morally sound, it has to be legally defensible and it has to be reasonably practicable. If you use that test on the actions we're putting forward on our position and your position, if it meets that test, it's probably a reasonable proposition.

We would urge you to amend these sections of the bill to ensure that firefighters continue to be treated in a fair and equitable manner, that is, the same manner in which other employees are treated.

As noted earlier, teamwork and experience are essential to ensure that fire department emergency response teams continue to function in the manner people have come to expect. People do not want more managers; they want more firefighters in the field. Clearly the situation in Peterborough illustrates the fact that more people out of the bargaining unit are not needed. The present legislation allows two people; the city of Peterborough is using only one -- the fire chief.

In addition, to suggest this person is somehow alone is not a true representation of the situation. The fire chief is supported by a team of experts, including the human resources department, for hiring, firing, contract negotiations, advice on benefits and city policies; the finance department, all their staff, for budgeting, payroll and financial planning advice; the purchasing department, for advice and purchasing of all equipment and services; the city's legal department, for advice on all legal matters relating to collective agreements and other fire department issues. Those are all part of the chief's staff. Clearly this team of professionals is part of the chief's staff for all intents and purposes. That's in addition to his staff who help him on issues of emergency response. This is a support group that the chief has at his disposal.

You heard earlier from Peterborough's fire chief, Lee Grant. I believe he would agree that the fire chief's ability to manage doesn't revolve around the number of people in or out of the bargaining unit but on the ability of the fire chief himself to be an effective manager and leader. Mr Grant, who appeared before you, meets that criterion. I have heard from someone that people in their firefighting staff can't be consulted on hiring. In Peterborough the people in the bargaining unit are part of the hiring process. They have expertise on what we require in a firefighter. They are consulted. Their opinion is taken. We have a fire chief who knows how to lead. He uses the people as resources and also gives them the responsibility and authority to act on his behalf. It's a two-way street.

In Peterborough firefighters know their job. Whether they are in the association or not in no way affects their ability to do that job. When decisions are fair, reasonable and directed towards creating a highly trained, effective emergency team, those decisions are supported, they are expected and they're required by all members of the department.

The issue of part-time firefighters is a complex one or a simplistic one, depending on which direction you come from, but under no circumstances should they be confused with volunteer firefighters. Volunteer firefighters are career firefighters who have taken on the task of providing smaller communities with emergency services. These volunteer firefighters are trained and committed to their community. They supply a volunteer service. They are there for the long term and generally have a full-time occupation or business. There is a great danger that these volunteers will become overextended if we continue to ask more and more of them. We have seen the demands on them increase in some areas to the point where they cannot respond.

When demands reach that point, it becomes necessary for communities to employ full-time firefighters. Full-time firefighters are always available to respond to all types of emergencies, and because they continually train on a daily basis and have a lower response time, they are able to provide a higher level of service.

The crux of this issue is that neither of these two groups, volunteer or professional, is prepared to have someone respond with them who is only part-time, who has not trained and worked with them as part of the team. To have a part-time person working with them only endangers both themselves and the people they are going to assist. It's not an issue of full-time versus volunteer; you need a team. Some teams are better trained just by their nature: they have the time, they have the number of calls to respond to to get the experience. It doesn't say anything about their dedication. Volunteers are a very dedicated group. They train to the best of their ability. They don't have the opportunities.

In conclusion, Bill 84, An Act to promote Fire Prevention and Public Safety in Ontario, has the potential to have a powerful and positive impact on the fire service of Ontario. My comments have only related to two parts of the bill. However, I urge you to consider these issues and take the course of action that citizens of Ontario expect. These citizens expect and are entitled to a high level of experienced emergency response personnel. This level of service is best provided by firefighters who have the dedication and the determination to make firefighting a career.

The Acting Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Brown. I regret to advise that we do not have time for questions. You have exceeded your time allotment by a minute or so, but I do thank you very much for your presentation and for coming down today.

Do we have any other submissions?

Mr Ramsay: Chair, on a point of order: I'd like the permanent Chair to make an investigation as to how we had a duplicate representation on this committee from the Ontario Municipal Human Resources Association. As the Chair may remember, we had a Mr Levesque come to our Sudbury meeting with the very same presentation that was made here today, representing the Ontario Municipal Human Resources Association. We had Mr Bill Bishop from Kingston come to us today, again representing the Ontario Municipal Human Resources Association, with the very same presentation.

I know each party submits a list, and I suspect which list this organization was on, but that it was on twice I think is really breaking the privilege that we offer the citizens of Ontario to make representation here. We only have seven days, and I think we need closer scrutiny of these so that we give all Ontarians a chance to make representation before the justice committee.

The Acting Chair: Mr Martiniuk, as Chair, will you take it under advisement?

Mr Martiniuk: Yes, and I'll report to the committee.

The Acting Chair: Anything else? We're adjourned then until 10 am in Hamilton tomorrow. Thank you very much.

The committee adjourned at 1632.