CONTENTS
Monday 21 April 1997
Fire Protection and Prevention Act, 1996, Bill 84, Mr Runciman /
Loi de 1996 sur la prévention et la protection contre l'incendie, projet de loi 84, M. Runciman
STANDING COMMITTEE ON ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Chair / Président: Mr Gerry Martiniuk (Cambridge PC)
Vice-Chair / Vice-Président: Mr Ron Johnson (Brantford PC)
Mr RobertChiarelli (Ottawa West / -Ouest L)
Mr DavidChristopherson (Hamilton Centre/ -Centre ND)
Mr BruceCrozier (Essex South / -Sud L)
Mr EdDoyle (Wentworth East / -Est PC)
Mr Garry J. Guzzo (Ottawa-Rideau PC)
Mr TimHudak (Niagara South / -Sud PC)
Mr RonJohnson (Brantford PC)
Mr FrankKlees (York-Mackenzie PC)
Mr PeterKormos (Welland-Thorold ND)
Mr Gary L. Leadston (Kitchener-Wilmot PC)
Mr GerryMartiniuk (Cambridge PC)
Mr John L. Parker (York East / -Est PC)
Mr DavidRamsay (Timiskaming L)
Mr DavidTilson (Dufferin-Peel PC)
Substitutions present /Membres remplaçants présents:
Mr BobWood (London South / -Sud PC)
Mr LenWood (Cochrane North / -Nord ND)
Clerk / Greffier: Mr Douglas Arnott
Staff / Personnel: Ms Sibylle Filion, legislative counsel
J-2131
The committee met at 1550 in room 228.
FIRE PROTECTION AND PREVENTION ACT, 1996 / LOI DE 1996 SUR LA PRÉVENTION ET LA PROTECTION CONTRE L'INCENDIE
Consideration of Bill 84, An Act to promote Fire Prevention and Public Safety in Ontario and to amend and repeal certain other Acts relating to Fire Services / Projet de loi 84, Loi visant à promouvoir la prévention des incendies et la sécurité publique en Ontario et modifiant ou abrogeant certaines autres lois relatives aux services de lutte contre les incendies.
The Chair (Mr Gerry Martiniuk): May I call the standing committee on administration of justice to order. Today is our clause-by-clause consideration of An Act to promote Fire Prevention and Public Safety in Ontario and to amend and repeal certain other Acts relating to Fire Services.
There are two things I must do before we proceed with that. First, Mr Ramsay raised a point of order in which he required information regarding the duplication of two representatives, one from Sudbury and one from Owen Sound, both of whom seem to appear on behalf of the Ontario Municipal Human Resources Association. You will recall that there was a restraint as to time in scheduling these matters and the committee clerk advises that there was some real difficulty because of the changing. People would phone up, provide a name, not an organization, and he would slot them in, and then later on names would change and the organizations would change.
There were in fact other duplications. The Windsor fire department had both the chief and the deputy chief before us on two separate occasions, again because of the names and no organizations. The Windsor Professional Fire Fighters Association also had two individuals speaking on their behalf.
I can't help Mr Ramsay other than advising that individuals did phone and were representing their local municipalities, either the city of Owen Sound or the city of Sudbury, but they both seemed to be speaking also on behalf of the Ontario Municipal Human Resources Association.
Mr David Ramsay (Timiskaming): With the same brief, yes. Okay.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Ramsay.
In regard to the scheduling of the continuation of the police services, we have more individuals who wish to speak than spaces. You left it to me and the clerk to continue with the scheduling. I wanted, however, some direction in regard to the following. The Police Association of Ontario has requested an additional 15 minutes to answer questions. You recall they appeared before this committee. I thought, in view of the fact that it was a large stakeholder, we should give them that second opportunity and I have instructed the clerk to book them in. Is there any objection to that?
Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): On Bill 105.
The Chair: Yes.
Mr Kormos: We're dealing with Bill 84 here.
The Chair: Yes, I realize that.
Mr Kormos: I'm ready to speak to issues concerning Bill 84. Go ahead.
The Chair: I just want to clarify this, Mr Kormos. You also made a request regarding an individual whom you wanted and he cannot be booked. Rather than going into personalities and names, at this stage he would not be booked because we're booking them chronologically. Did you want to make any representation regarding same?
Mr Kormos: At the moment I'm here to deal with Bill 84 and I have no idea whom you're speaking about.
The Chair: Fine. We will proceed to the bill then.
The first order of business is the consideration of section 1 of Bill 84.
Mr Ramsay: Part I?
The Chair: Part I.
Mr Kormos: On a point of order, Chair: I received at 2:30 pm -- I made a note of the time when a page delivered the package of government amendments to me -- while I was in the chamber during question period, a set of what purport to be government motions. I haven't even counted them yet; I'm sure somebody knows off the top of their head how many there are. There is a significant number of them. Some of them appear rather summary; others are rather lengthy.
I appreciate that the committee declined to indulge the parliamentary assistant in Windsor on Wednesday past with a deferral of the clause-by-clause consideration. I'm raising once again, though, the need, in view of the number of motions presented by the government and the fact that a large number of them are lengthy, at least wordy -- and again, not having read them yet, I don't know whether they're complex or not. I suggest to you, Chair, that this committee is severely handicapped at this point by virtue of the large number of government motions, when committee members certainly -- and I'll not speak for other caucuses but certainly from this caucus, having received them only at 2:30 -- have not only not had a chance to (1) read them but (2) to analyse them and consult, quite frankly.
Look, I'm going to be very candid with you. Have we in the opposition consulted at length with the federation and association? You bet your boots we have. There are no two ways about it. Quite frankly, I think it's important that they have a voice in the course of this. I'll be very candid with you: They are among the people with whom I would like to consult about these amendments and about the impact they have on firefighting services and how meaningfully they change the act.
Chair, you will recall that the former parliamentary assistant, the one prior to Wednesday of last week, was very candid throughout the course of almost two weeks of hearings in indicating that the government was listening and was going to be responding to submissions with amendments. I quite frankly want to ascertain whether in fact these amendments constitute the response and the responsiveness that the former parliamentary assistant spoke of during those points in time.
I'm suggesting once again, for an entirely different reason than I spoke to this and made this motion on Wednesday past, a two-week deferral of clause-by-clause consideration. There doesn't appear to be any need for haste in the passage of this legislation through the House. This legislation is going to be long-lasting, or at least for two years, until the next government can rectify the errors of this government. But it's going to have great impact over the course of the next two years and I think it warrants serious consideration of a deferral for a mere week, in this instance, of clause-by-clause consideration so we can consider the impact of these amendments and also consider whether they reflect the commitment made by the previous parliamentary assistant that the government was going to respond to submissions made to it.
I am moving a one-week deferral of this clause-by-clause consideration for that very specific reason, sir.
The Chair: It is moved. Is there any further discussion in regard to Mr Kormos's motion?
Mr Bob Wood (London South): I can't support this motion. The timing of these discussions has been determined by the House leaders and certainly all the issues are now well known. I don't really think we're going to find that much out in the next week or two that we don't already know, so I think it's appropriate to proceed now. We're certainly here to answer any questions that the members may have and give clarifications where they are needed.
The Chair: Any further discussion? If not, I shall call the question.
Mr Kormos: Recorded vote.
The Chair: All those in favour of Mr Kormos's motion?
Ayes
Kormos, Ramsay, Len Wood.
The Chair: All those against?
NAYS
Doyle, Guzzo, Klees, Leadston, Parker, Rollins, Tilson, Bob Wood.
The Chair: The motion fails.
Mr Bob Wood: You'll note which Mr Wood voted for and which against, I hope. Thank you.
Mr Kormos: On a further point of order, Chair: The committee has present with it in the committee room currently many of the same people who were participants in the hearings; not all of them, but many of the same people. I am eager -- and I quite frankly don't know -- to determine whether or not the clerk has provided those people -- I know there are people here from the fire marshal's office, from the various firefighters' collective bargaining representative groups. I am eager to find out whether they have been provided with sets of the amendments.
Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): Are you going to go out in the streets and ask as well? How far are you going to go?
Mr Kormos: Please. I'm going to go as far as I feel I have to go for the sake of preserving some semblance of process here, Mr Tilson.
Interjections.
The Chair: Excuse me, gentlemen. We have a point of order. If I may, I'll read from section 75 of the standing orders: "When time permits, amendments proposed to be moved to bills in any committee shall be filed with the Clerk of the House at least two hours before the bill is to be considered, and copies of such proposed amendments shall be distributed to all parties."
I do not therefore understand your objection. You were talking about the public. What portion of the rules were you referring to in your point of order?
Mr Kormos: I'm referring to the fact that there are people present in this room who have indicated through their participation in the process over the course of the last two weeks of public hearings a strong and direct interest in these. I'm requesting that the Chair consider the availability to them. Once these things have been tabled with the Clerk, they're public domain, so to speak. I'm interested in ascertaining whether or not those same interested parties have received a copy of them, not pursuant to the rules but perhaps pursuant to fairness, if that's not beyond the capacity of the Chair.
1600
The Chair: I'm sorry, I would have to rule against you in regard to that. It is not covered by the rules, and I do not think that is a proper point of order, Mr Kormos.
Mr Kormos: Pursuant to that point of order, I am moving that the clerk make available over the course of the next 30 minutes copies of these amendments to interested parties, be they in this room or beyond. A 30-minute time frame isn't such as to be, what's the language, "dilatory," and would enable interested parties who have expressed an interest in this and indeed who have a strong interest in the outcome of this legislation to follow in a meaningful way the progress of the government amendments through the course of today and tomorrow afternoon.
I move that the clerk provide, within a period of 30 minutes, any interested parties -- some of them may well be in this room; I can see some of them nodding -- with copies of the government amendments. That is moved. There may or may not be a debate on it, but there will certainly be a vote and when there is a vote, I'm going to call for a recorded vote, please, sir.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Kormos. You acquired the floor on a point of order, which I ruled upon. You do not have the floor in order to make a motion. I was moving to the Liberal motion of amendment to subsection 1(1), definition of "fire department."
Mr Ramsay: On a point of order, Chair: I was wondering if we could set aside the definition in part I and move on to part II of the act, so that we could maybe deal with those at a later time. We could start with part II, as there are maybe some contentious areas in part I with the definitions and it would give us more time to think about those amendments. I'm certainly prepared to go down to part II, III, IV, V, etc and move on.
The Chair: The suggestion has been made by Mr Ramsay, in order to expedite our discussions of this bill, that we proceed to part II and come back to part I at some later time during the deliberations. To do so, I believe I would require unanimous consent. Is there anyone who stands in opposition to Mr Ramsay's suggestion of setting down part I?
Mr Bob Wood: I'm not quite opposed yet. What I would like to understand is, why wouldn't we deal with this numerically? Is it not confusing if we don't do them subsection by subsection? I haven't grasped the merit in not doing it number by number.
Mr Ramsay: It's only because it contains the definitions, and I think there are some contentious issues there. We might get on with some of the parts of the bill that there is probably agreement on first, and maybe get through some of that. I'm just thinking that might be a good way of doing it, and come back to part I later on. We could move on to areas I think we could move pretty expeditiously.
Mr Bob Wood: I'm probably simple-minded, but I think we'd better do it in order.
The Chair: We do not have unanimous consent.
Mr Kormos: Point of order, Chair.
The Chair: One second.
Mr Kormos: Thank you, Chair.
The Chair: No, one second, Mr Kormos. I was just dealing with it. We do not have unanimous consent and therefore Mr Ramsay's request cannot proceed. Therefore, we will be going back to part I. Now, Mr Kormos.
Mr Kormos: You seem to have been reluctant to have heard me in the past. You won't be having difficulty hearing me from this point on.
I'm going to move beyond that and seek unanimous consent that we go directly to part IX, which, as even the most simple-minded government member of this committee understands, is the viscera of the legislation. We only have two afternoons to deal with this. At the end of that, there will be no more consideration of these amendments or clause-by-clause. Part IX is the one the bulk of the amendments on the part of our colleagues in the Liberal opposition appear to address. That is certainly what the bulk of the amendments from the New Democratic Party address. I suggest that it wouldn't be overly complex to move to part IX, and avoidance of that would be a recognition that parts I through VIII will consume all of today and tomorrow and make any debate about part IX and the various amendments to the extremely complex part IX impossible.
So I'm seeking unanimous consent that we move directly to part IX and defer consideration of the others. Of course, if they aren't reached by the end of tomorrow afternoon, you know that the time allocation motion provides for them to be dealt with by reach of the time allocation motion. That seems to me to be a somewhat logical proposition, and I seek unanimous consent in that regard.
Mr Bob Wood: Consent is denied, Mr Chairman.
The Chair: Mr Ramsay?
Mr Ramsay: No comment.
The Chair: No, I'm sorry. I was proceeding, Mr Ramsay. We did not have unanimous consent, and therefore I am proceeding to the first motion of amendment, which I understand is a Liberal motion numbered "1."
Mr Ramsay: Thank you, Chair. I move that the definition of "fire department" in subsection 1(1) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:
"`Fire department' means a group of firefighters employed by a municipality, group of municipalities or by a party to an agreement to provide fire protection services made with the fire marshal under section 3."
The Chair: The motion has been made. Is there any discussion in regard to the motion made by Mr Ramsay?
Mr Kormos: We're supporting this amendment. Among other reasons, it's identical to the amendment that we proposed. No great surprise in that regard.
It appears, and I'm confident that Mr Ramsay will elaborate on this, to address the issues that were addressed by Mr Ron Johnson from Brantford and Mr Carr, the former parliamentary assistant. By God, neither of them are voting members of the committee today. Both of them had expressed some concern about the prospect of privatized firefighting services. Both of them had indicated to the public and to the committee, Mr Carr as parliamentary assistant, his gut opposition to privatized firefighting services and had suggested to a number of people that the government may well abandon that.
It seems to me this amendment does that. It would seem to give effect to the commitment made, at least at an informal level, by the parliamentary assistant, and it's a reasonable one under the circumstances and will certainly clear one of the most serious concerns that the general public has about the quality of firefighting services in the province if this bill passes without this amendment.
Mr Bob Wood: Mr Chairman, the government will not support this particular amendment. We agree that some modification of the definition is needed. We're going to present our own amendment.
Do we have copies of the first few government amendments now available? We're going to attempt for members of the audience to get copies of these amendments available so they can peruse them, if desired. So very soon, at the back, someone should appear with copies of amendments.
Mr Ramsay: I was certainly going to speak on my own amendment. I just read it into the record and I thought maybe you'd recognize me back, then, for comment, but that's fine. I'm pleased to have the support of my colleague from the third party on that amendment.
I think it's very important. As my colleague has said, it really strikes at the very crux of this legislation in that a lot of what this legislation is about is moving fire and emergency services out of the public domain and into the private domain. I think the Chair and others would agree that over the seven days of hearings that we heard, both here in Toronto and across the province, this was the number one issue expressed by the vast majority of presenters before us.
They're concerned that, with all our zeal to restructure and to reinvent government to try to provide better and more effective and efficient services for taxpayers, of all the government services that are out there, our fire and emergency services in Ontario probably act the way the public perceives all government should act, in that it's immediate and it's responsive. I think it's very cost-effective also.
It starts from the very beginning with the definition of "fire department." I'm sure the parliamentary assistant would see that the definition of "fire department" that stands in the bill at this time means a group of firefighters authorized by a municipality, and of course the difference in my motion is that a fire department means a group of firefighters employed by a municipality. Those are the operative words here: "employed by."
Time after time over the last two weeks, in all the locations that we travelled to across the province, presenters were adamant that if we were to continue to have a timely fire and emergency service -- and I think it was stressed over those two weeks that a timely, effective service is what made our fire and emergency services in Ontario such a success -- it had to remain in the public domain and that in fact we had that service right today, that we had the organization and the delivery of that service delivered in a way that the vast majority of Ontarians accept and applaud.
1610
It really is a crucial part of this bill. It comes right off the very beginning of this bill, and that is, what constitutes a fire department. I think we saw and heard examples over that two-week period of other jurisdictions where governments, in their zeal to restructure, thought that maybe contracting out for a fire and emergency service with a private concern was the way to go. It seemed to me that during those presentations, as my colleague has mentioned, many of the government members nodded their head and agreed, and in fact two of them, who are not here today, unfortunately, seemed to agree that at least as far as fire suppression services are concerned, for sure, it was not appropriate to privatize that aspect of the fire and emergency service in Ontario. Later on you will see some amendments that deal specifically with that, that will give those people, if they return to this committee, an opportunity to maybe voice that agreement.
But what we're dealing with here is the definition of a fire department, and that being in the direct employ of a municipality. I would hope that the government members, having heard -- and I'm not sure, Chair, what number it was that we heard, but in 15-minute intervals over seven days a large number of presenters in Ontario voiced their concern against the provision that Ontario municipalities could contract out their fire protection services -- that the government members would speak on behalf of and vote for this amendment today.
Mr Tilson: I have a question for Mr Ramsay on his amendment, and it has to do with the word "employed." My question has to do with the volunteer firefighters around this province. I know in my riding we have four of them. Is your intent that a fire department would not include volunteer firefighters?
Mr Ramsay: No, that's not my intent.
Mr Tilson: The difficulty is, that's what you've called a fire department. We have four fire departments in my riding. We have one in the town of Caledon, one in the town of Orangeville, one in the town of Grand Valley, one in Honeywood, I think -- I can't remember -- and they are all volunteer. They are fire departments. If you follow your definition, they are no longer fire departments.
The Chair: Mr Klees.
Mr Tilson: I'm interested as to what his response would be.
The Chair: Do you wish to answer, Mr Ramsay?
Mr Ramsay: Yes, I do. I guess I disagree with your interpretation, Mr Tilson, of that. My understanding is that a volunteer fire department is organized by the municipality and, as such, I suppose you could debate the definition of "employed," but certainly they are employed by the municipality to act as firefighters. They do that on a volunteer basis, but they are directly organized under the sponsorship of the municipality. So I do not believe that my definition of "fire department" would exclude volunteer fire departments in Ontario.
Mr Tilson: I can't support the amendment because I wouldn't be doing the service to the firefighters in my riding. Clearly, if that's what your definition of a fire department is, "employed" suggests a salaried firefighter. There are many salaried firefighters in this province and there are many volunteer firefighters in this province, and the volunteer firefighters are not employed. They do it in a volunteer fashion. So I can't support your amendment.
The Chair: Before we go to Mr Klees, we have 16 correlated copies of the amendments -- the ones you have are separate as to party -- and it's been suggested that we could distribute that to the stakeholders and later this afternoon provide each member with a correlated copy. How many members, stakeholders or individuals would be interested in receiving a correlated copy so they could follow the clause-by-clause?
Okay, that's going to take most of them. Is there any objection to proceeding in that manner? If not, I instruct the clerk to do so.
Mr Kormos: Not at all, Chair. I am pleased that you acted upon my urging.
The Chair: That's fine. Now, Mr Klees.
Mr Frank Klees (York-Mackenzie): Actually my question was really the same as Mr Tilson's on the issue of "employed," because in my riding we have three fire departments that are volunteer: Nobleton, Schomberg and King City. I know from my discussions with the municipality, as well as the firefighters, that they certainly don't consider themselves to be employed. That was my question.
But I have a second question as well. When you say that the group of firefighters are "employed by" and you refer to a party to an agreement, I am very interested to know who you mean by this third party to an agreement. If in fact the purpose of your amendment is to exclude a third party, someone other than a municipality, whom did you have in mind as being this party to an agreement?
Mr Ramsay: This could be a fire service board in an unorganized municipality. It's not really classed as being a municipality. It's the local service boards and so on that have agreements with the fire marshal. They're not recognized as being a municipality because they're unorganized.
Mr Klees: I think the way you've worded this amendment would certainly leave it open to interpretation that this could also be a private sector entity. Because of the fact that it does refer to "employed," and I think that volunteer firefighters are entitled to have their firefighting efforts within a municipality referred to as a fire department, and because of the lack of clarity in the reference to the word "party," I too will not be supporting this amendment.
Mr Kormos: Chair, why couldn't the parliamentary assistant, on behalf of the government, just cut to the chase and cut the crap here? The fact is that an amendment to this definition is necessary, as would be an amendment to subsection 41(1) in terms of "employer," if the government were serious about not entering into the brave new world of private firefighting services.
By denying this amendment, the government leaves the door open, and you'll note that the government's amendments do not include an amendment to subsection 41(1), which redefines "employer." If Mr Wood would only come forth and say, "No, the government is not going to support anything that isn't consistent with its desire for privatized firefighting services," this whole exercise could be abbreviated, although we're starting to get the picture here, we're starting to get the message. Clearly the government members want to promote private firefighting services.
The Chair: Is there any further discussion with regard to the amendment? If not, shall the amendment of Mr Ramsay pass?
Mr Kormos: Recorded vote, Chair.
The Chair: Yes, the clerk was just taking his seat, Mr Kormos.
Shall the amendment carry?
Ayes
Crozier, Kormos, Ramsay, Len Wood.
NAYS
Guzzo, Klees, Leadston, Parker, Rollins, Tilson, Bob Wood.
The Chair: The amendment fails. We will proceed to the next proposed amendment, which is that of the third party. Mr Kormos.
Mr Kormos: Withdrawn. The Chair could have moved it out of order.
The Chair: Yes, the clerk has just advised me of that. I thank you for your assistance. That amendment is withdrawn.
We will proceed to the third proposed amendment, which is a government motion.
Mr Bob Wood: I move that the definition of "fire department" in subsection 1(1) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:
"`Fire department' means a group of firefighters authorized to provide fire protection services by a municipality, group of municipalities or by an agreement made under section 3."
1620
The Chair: Do you wish to speak to it, Mr Wood?
Mr Bob Wood: Very briefly. This amends the definition of "fire department" in a broader way to allow municipalities flexibility in the configuration of how they actually structure the delivery of fire services. For example, fire services can be provided by a single municipality, a group of municipalities or by an agreement.
Mr Kormos: A question to the parliamentary assistant: How does the amendment, which merely changes the words "or by agreement with the fire marshal to provide fire protection services," to "or by an agreement made under section 3," change the original bill?
Mr Bob Wood: I think it changes it the way it changes it, basically. I can't add to what I've already said.
Mr Kormos: But the original bill must have meant something, and then the government must mean something else now that it has amended subsection 1(1). I call upon the parliamentary assistant to explain the intent of this amendment as compared to the original bill.
Mr Bob Wood: I really can't add to what I've already said.
Mr Kormos: I'm sure you can't.
The Chair: Is there any further discussion before I put the amendment? If not, shall the amendment carry? All those in favour? All those against? The amendment carries.
We are proceeding to an additional government amendment, subsection 1(1).
Mr Bob Wood: I move that the definition of "firefighter" in subsection 1(1) of the bill be amended by striking out "a person" in the first line and substituting "a fire chief and any other person."
Mr Ramsay: Chair, could I ask the parliamentary assistant what the significance of that is?
Mr Bob Wood: Perhaps I can give a brief explanation of this. The purpose of this is to change the definition of a firefighter to clarify that a fire chief is also a firefighter. It's felt by many that this is important symbolically to firefighters. The amendment still allows municipal flexibility in hiring options.
The Chair: Is there any further discussion with regard to the motion? If not, shall the amendment carry? All those in favour?
Mr Kormos: Recorded vote, please, Chair.
The Chair: A recorded vote is requested.
Ayes
Doyle, Guzzo, Klees, Leadston, Parker, Rollins, Tilson, Bob Wood.
Nays
Crozier, Kormos, Ramsay, Len Wood.
The Chair: The amendment carries. We are now proceeding to another government amendment, dealing with subsection 1(2).
Mr Bob Wood: I move that subsection 1(2) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:
"Interpretation of land and premises
"(2) For the purposes of this act, a reference to land and premises or to land or premises includes any buildings, structures or things situated on or attached to the land or premises."
This is a technical amendment. The amendment adds the words "or things" to clarify that the act and the fire code itself both apply to moveable things such as recreational vehicles situated on land, to boats attached to land, such as the dining boat moored in a local harbour or casino boats tied up at a dock.
The Chair: Any questions?
Mr Kormos: Would the parliamentary assistant please direct us to the section of the bill to which this definition is relevant?
Mr Bob Wood: Subsection 1(2).
Mr Kormos: No, but the definition is essential for concepts like "entry upon" or "entry into." I wonder if the parliamentary assistant would direct us to the section of the bill this definition is relevant to.
Mr Bob Wood: Subsection 1(2).
Mr Kormos: No, no. It says, "For the purposes of this act, a reference to land and premises or to land or premises includes any buildings, structures...." You're amending it by adding "or things." It says, "For the purposes of this act." I wonder if the parliamentary assistant could tell us where in the act there is a reference to land and premises or to land or premises, such that the inclusionary thing of land or premises or things applies.
Mr Bob Wood: This amends all of the act, so it applies throughout the act. The purpose if it, however, to focus on what I think you're attempting to elicit, is that if we don't do this amendment, it means that things like the boats on the river may not be inspectable, and we want fire inspectors to have the right to do that.
Mr Kormos: I'm just wondering if this applies only to inspections or whether it applies to actual fire suppression --
Mr Bob Wood: Throughout the act.
Mr Kormos: But does that include application to fire suppression so that it permits firefighters access on to or entry into those things, or is it restricted only to the fire marshal and other persons under his delegation of inspection authority?
Mr Bob Wood: I'm not going to repeat the answer a third time.
Mr Kormos: I want to know whether it includes not just inspection, because that's what the parliamentary assistant restricted his response to, or does it include also fire suppression?
Mr Bob Wood: It changes the definition throughout the act. That's the fourth and last time I'm going to say that.
Mr Kormos: Clearly the parliamentary assistant doesn't know spit from Shinola, but that's okay; we'll move on.
The Chair: Any further discussion in regard to the amendment?
Mr Kormos: Recorded vote.
The Chair: Shall the amendment carry?
Ayes
Crozier, Doyle, Guzzo, Klees, Leadston, Parker, Ramsay, Rollins, Tilson, Bob Wood.
Nays
Kormos, Len Wood.
The Chair: The amendment carries.
We're proceeding now to item number 6. I don't know whether they're numbered, because you probably don't have correlated -- some members of the audience do. In any event, this is a government motion.
Mr Bob Wood: I move that subsection 3(1) of the bill be amended by striking out "fire marshal" in the first line and substituting "fire marshal, a services board established to provide services in territory without municipal organization or a prescribed person or organization."
This is a technical amendment. It expands the scope of fire service agreements and territory without municipal organization.
Mr Kormos: I have a question. How does that expand, in view of the fact that we're dealing with territories without municipal organizations, when you're adding to "fire marshal" a services board or a prescribed person or organization? I wonder what would be contemplated by that in an area without municipal organization. Firstly, you prescribe "person," secondly, "organization."
Mr Bob Wood: I think it's a device that's in the act in order to permit what I outlined earlier.
Mr Kormos: I'm sorry, I didn't hear that.
Mr Bob Wood: It's a device put in the act in order to permit the expansion of the scope of fire service agreements in territory without municipal organization.
Mr Kormos: But, Chair, if I may, what is being contemplated by "prescribed person," in the one instance, or "organization," in the second instance, when the government presents this amendment with this new drafting?
Mr Bob Wood: Exactly what I said.
Mr Kormos: The Hansard should show laughter on the part of Mr Kormos, please.
The Chair: Is there any further discussion in regard to this amendment? If not, shall the amendment carry?
Mr Kormos: Recorded vote.
The Chair: A recorded vote is requested.
Ayes
Doyle, Guzzo, Klees, Parker, Rollins, Tilson, Bob Wood.
NAYS
Crozier, Kormos, Ramsay, Len Wood.
The Chair: The amendment carries.
Proceeding to item number 7, a government amendment.
Mr Bob Wood: I move that subsection 4(2) of the bill be amended by striking out "fire marshal" in the third line and substituting "fire marshal, a services board or prescribed person or organization to provide services."
This is, like the previous amendment, a technical one and expands the scope of fire service agreements in unorganized territories.
The Chair: Any discussion?
Mr Ramsay: On a point of order, Mr Chairman: Is there not an amendment for subsection 4(1)?
The Chair: That's 4.1. That would be the next one over.
Is there any further discussion?
Mr Kormos: Please, Chair, once again, in the original text of the bill, in subsection 4(2), it was indicated that "a community fire safety officer or a community fire safety team appointed by agreement with the fire marshal in territory without municipal organization shall provide a program which includes public education with respect to fire safety and certain components of fire prevention in the territory in accordance with the agreement." By expanding merely the fire marshal to include a services board or a prescribed person or organization to provide services in territories without municipal organization, does the parliamentary assistant contemplate regulatory powers that would designate prescribed persons or organizations?
1630
Mr Bob Wood: All I can do is give the same answer as I did the last question. It's the same.
Mr Kormos: Can we try it for this question so the Hansard can demonstrate that?
Mr Bob Wood: No.
Mr Kormos: That's a big effort. I understand that. This is getting tougher and tougher.
Mr Klees: You just don't get it.
Mr Kormos: Yes, I am really having difficulty getting it, that the parliamentary assistant could display the incompetence that he has displayed so far today, with no familiarity whatsoever with the bill or the amendments that the government is proposing to it, and display such arrogance in his reluctance or failure to respond.
I should indicate, Chair, that I was -- and I acknowledge when I'm incorrect -- incorrect. I was under the misapprehension that this bill was time-allocated, such that at the completion of two days it was deemed to have had all clauses moved and passed. I've been advised by a representative of our House leader that the time allocation failed to be specific in the instance of this bill that there were merely two days allocated to clause-by-clause consideration, and that those clauses that weren't passed in those two days and those amendments that weren't moved within those two days will, upon the expiration of those two days, not be deemed to have been passed but, by gosh, be deemed to be outstanding.
I am grateful to my House leader's office for having advised me of that because I feel a little bit like a dentist, one who's been unable to administer Novocain and has been compelled to pull teeth without the assistance of analgesic.
Here we are. The government appears to be wanting to play silly bugger with everybody involved in this. The parliamentary assistant has been sitting here being, quite frankly, silly in his responses to legitimate questions put to him. It's entirely appropriate for any of us to question the government's intent in amendments and the ill that those amendments cure or indeed the expanded definition or what have you. I think it's important. Here we are; we're being called upon to consider a whole whack of amendments from the government. I treat this bill seriously.
As I say, I already started to see a little bit of the writing on the wall when I saw that the government neglected to bring an amendment to amend 41(1) and when it rejected the Liberal amendment which would complement an amendment to 41(1), which would give effect to what government members, including Mr Klees, have stated wasn't their intention. It wasn't their intention to pass a bill that would accommodate or lay down the carpet, open the door, provide carte blanche to private firefighting services.
I see a little bit of the writing on the wall, and here we are with this amendment to subsection 4(2), very similar, mind you, to the amendment in terms of how it adds to the role of the fire marshal to include a services board established to provide services in territory without municipal organization or a prescribed person or organization. That, quite frankly, is very troublesome because it -- take a look, if you will. Why I raise this -- you want to take a look at the bill in part IX.
We could have gone directly to that. For the life of me, I don't know why the government didn't acquiesce to the generosity of Mr Ramsay when he was prepared to move beyond part I into part II. We could have gone directly to part IX, but the government -- and we were adopting a generous position at the time, an extremely generous one.
Look at the similarity of language that the government is incorporating now into other parts and other sections of the bill, because 41(1), the section of the bill for which there is no amendment presented by the government, speaks of employer as -- I'll read directly. "`Employer' means a municipality," -- fair enough -- "person or organization that employs firefighters."
Good counsel has interpreted that as being the carte blanche, the entry point for privatized firefighting services. As I say, that's in conjunction with the definition of "fire department" that the government stuck with, as compared to accepting the amendment of the Liberals, which was identical to the amendment proposed by the New Democratic Party caucus but of course was withdrawn because it was identical to the Liberal amendment that failed.
Now we've got the parliamentary assistant importing the language that would deal with parts of the province that don't have municipal organization being able to have firefighting services, among other things, pursuant to section 3, supervised by the fire marshal. Again I could be wrong and I would invite the parliamentary assistant to explain in what areas I've been incorrect, but he's talking about a prescribed person or organization to provide services.
That smacks to me of an expansion of the intent to privatize by this government, because it means not only privatization in municipalities where municipalities will be permitted by virtue of the new definition of "employer" in subsection 41(1) to contract with private firefighting services, but it appears that even those parts of the province with areas that do not enjoy municipal organization with a fire marshal would have had sole authority, under section 3, to provide. I presume that's a little analogous -- again I'd like the parliamentary assistant to comment on this -- to what the OPP have historically done where unorganized parts of the province have enjoyed policing by the Ontario Provincial Police.
Of course, now those municipalities are going to have to pay for it, but the relationship still exists with municipalities that are unable to provide their own police services because of their size or because of their huge geographic area and not having the tax base, and especially now after the downloading by this government on to municipalities. You were with us in Windsor when we heard about the huge costs of the downloading and the impact on small-town and big-city Ontario across the board, increased taxes for virtually every property owner in the province. But it appears now that the government is importing privatization even into those spheres where the fire marshal would have been able to supervise firefighting services for unorganized municipalities.
I find that very troublesome, especially because it contradicts what government members of the committee have been saying as they listened over and over again to the public's fear about private firefighting services, to the examples imported from the United States, Rural/Metro in particular, in Arizona, and we heard from the fire chief from Arizona --
Interjection: Brunacini.
Mr Kormos: You're darned right. He was a compelling witness before the committee and he as well told you that private firefighting is not for the birds, it's for great profits, but certainly needs to be rejected.
Again, I wish the government would simply come clean here. They've been trying to play cute over the course of the last two weeks about private firefighting services. They've tried to indicate that it was never their intention to displace professional firefighters in this province with private firefighting services like Rural/Metro, scoundrels in their own right, scofflaws. They're scam artists; they're ripoffs. Take a look at some of the stuff we've witnessed from them from newspaper reports out of Arizona.
I don't want them here in the province of Ontario. This government clearly does and this government wants them in as many places as possible, including those places which, in the original drafting of the bill, it had left to the sole jurisdiction of the fire marshal.
The fact that the parliamentary assistant would sit there and be -- gosh, I'm not hard-pressed to think of language to describe him; I'm hard-pressed to think of appropriate language to describe him. Supercilious, I guess, among other things.
We know what's going on; the parliamentary assistant simply doesn't know. He has no idea. He's got briefing notes in front of him and where the briefing note ends, his familiarity with the content of the bill ends. It's as simple as that. We gave him more credit than was due because I suggested that he was probably going to spend the weekend brushing up on the bill and on the amendments and try to put on a good appearance here at the committee hearings come Monday.
1640
Clearly all he's got are the briefing notes. He hasn't discussed these amendments with anybody other than his dog, and the dog wasn't answering. There's no two ways about it. I think the parliamentary assistant owes this committee and owes people who participated in the committee something of an explanation of what is contemplated by this government when it imports "prescribed person or organization."
Again I've noticed, and it's been pointed out to me by some of our staff and other people who have now had a chance to look at the government amendments, that some of them are very sloppy. The draftsmanship is less than desirable. I suggested that "prescribed person" might require regulatory power. I assume that when it says "prescribed person," you're talking about somebody or something. I'm not a corporate lawyer or anything of that sort, but I presume a person could be a corporation; that's where the private organization comes in.
You'll note when you take a look at subsection 41(1), and again it's important to do that because we're talking about similar language and there is no amendment to this, "`employer' means a municipality, person or organization that employs firefighters." It doesn't say "prescribed person." That's where the PA has got to do some explaining here. The organization isn't prescribed there nor is it prescribed -- although I don't know whether the government intends it to mean prescribed person or prescribed organization. In the employer definition, they've got "municipality, person or organization." They don't have "prescribed person."
Again, I will put it to the parliamentary assistant: Why in this context of the amendment to section 4, and in the earlier amendment to section 3, are they talking about prescribed persons or the prospect of prescribed persons or organizations, yet they don't require prescribed persons to be employers in the context of subsection 41(1)?
I suppose what I'm saying to you is that I feel compelled to vote against this in the absence of any explanation and also the fact that this is so late coming. If this were a mere technical cleanup -- and I understand that; I have no quarrel with that prospect -- surely the government could have put this forward a whole long time ago, so to speak. I don't think so. This isn't just cleaning up language or cleaning up punctuation or terminology. There's something going on here, and we're not being let in on the secret, nor is the public, except I don't think it's all that secret. I think it's relatively transparent in the total scheme of things.
Needless to say, I suppose there are going to be more questions down the road, I don't know. I should take a look down on here. I'm not sure whether there are any more of these government motions that amend any of these subsections in the same way. I'm going through the government motions; I'm up to clause 21(1)(d), 21(1)(e). No, I don't think so.
If only Gary Carr were here, because I'm sure he knew this stuff.
Interjection: He got fired.
Mr Kormos: But he got fired because I'm sure he was becoming increasingly sympathetic to the complaints and concerns about the bill. God bless you, Gary, wherever you are. We miss you.
We're voting against this subsection. However, I'd be more than pleased to hear debate, to hear comments from government members or other members of the committee. I don't have a closed mind on the subject; I could be persuaded. I'd love to hear a response, to hear debate, and I'd love to be able to respond in kind to any explanation about the need for this particular subsection.
Mr Ramsay: I just want to reiterate a point my colleague Mr Kormos brought up at the very beginning of his point in regard to this amendment where he stated it was his understanding, through his House leader, as it is my understanding through my House leader, that there is no time allocation for this bill in committee and that therefore it may require more than the two days that the subcommittee allotted. That was my understanding also.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Ramsay. Is there any further discussion in regard to the proposed government amendment?
Mr Len Wood (Cochrane North): I just want to see if there is some clarification coming out, because when you look at the previous amendment and this amendment, when we're talking about unorganized territory and areas where there is no municipal organization, having been involved for five or six years before, the Minister of Natural Resources used to have all kinds of firefighters out there who were fighting fires in these particular areas.
With the massive layoffs and the closing of fire stations and everything that has been happening over the last couple of years -- I'm looking for an explanation from the parliamentary assistant -- what is the intention? Does it mean that the fire marshal or whatever is going to take over the responsibilities that the Minister of Natural Resources has had for the last 50 years and contract out the fire services? There's no way that a fire crew, whether they be volunteer or whether they be paid by a municipality that's expanding into unorganized territory -- you're talking about thousands and thousands and thousands of square miles of unorganized territory out there. What is the intention of amendments of this kind or even including this in there? Who's going to pay for this?
Does it mean that some fire marshal is going to phone Texas and say, "We've got a fire circulating in the town of Hearst or the town of Longlac or whatever and it's all unorganized territory"? Which municipality is going to pay for this? MNR has abandoned these areas by closing down all the fire stations.
If the parliamentary assistant, Mr Wood, is not able to explain that, we should get an explanation from the parliamentary assistant for northern development and mines or the parliamentary assistant for natural resources. Who's going to look after the millions and millions of dollars that could be involved?
Mr Klees: Bill 84, Len. You've got the wrong page.
The Chair: Order, please. Mr Wood has the floor.
Mr Len Wood: I'm looking for answers.
The Chair: Is there any further discussion with regard to the proposed amendment? If not --
Mr Kormos: On a point of order, Chair: I'm requesting a 20-minute recess upon your calling a vote, as per the standing orders and my right.
The Chair: I had not yet put the question, so if you'd just wait. I'll pause, Mr Kormos, you can be assured.
I will put the question. Shall the government amendment, being item 7 in your correlated amendments, the amendment being to subsection 4(2), carry?
Mr Kormos: On a point of order, Mr Chair: I'm requesting a 20-minute adjournment, as per the rules.
The Chair: We are adjourned to 10 after 5, by my watch.
Mr Kormos: Thank you, Chair.
The committee recessed from 1649 to 1708.
The Chair: The time by my watch is now 5:10 and the question has been put. Shall the government amendment to subsection 4(2) carry?
Mr Kormos: A recorded vote, please.
The Chair: A recorded vote is requested.
Ayes
Doyle, Klees, Leadston, Parker, Rollins, Bob Wood.
Nays
Crozier, Kormos, Ramsay, Len Wood.
The Chair: The amendment is carried.
The next motion deals with a new section and the clerk has advised that I should put the question: Shall section 4, as amended, carry?
Mr Kormos: I'm sorry. You're now moving the section?
The Chair: Yes.
Mr Kormos: We need an opportunity to debate this section by section.
The Chair: Yes. I was trying to explain about 4.1. We're moving section 4, as amended, and the question is: Shall it carry? I've then asked -- I haven't put the question. Now I am asking if there are any questions or comments in regard to the proposed section. Mr Kormos?
Mr Kormos: If I may, Chair, first, I appreciate that you're now moving section 4 of the bill, as amended. Had similar motions been made for sections 1, 2 and 3?
The Chair: No. That's correct, Mr Kormos. Thank you for pointing that out. The clerk did point that out. I do not have my roadmap and I was following the bill. I neglected to put those questions, and I will be coming back to them. Thank you, Mr Kormos.
Mr Kormos: But in accordance with Mr Wood's desire that this be dealt with chronologically and that we not skip about, shouldn't we stick to that formula for the sake of consistency and to give some credit to Mr Wood's argument?
The Chair: Yes, I intend to go back to section 1 as soon as we have completed this. We are now debating section 4. Thank you, Mr Kormos.
Mr Kormos: Thank you, Chair. Here we are. I've got to tell you that without having heard the views of the committee on sections 1, 2 and 3, it's difficult to debate section 4, but thrust into it as I am, I'll do it. Of course the Chair will note that there is a section 4.1 by way of amendment. Hold on just a minute, Chair, because I don't have one of those compilations with the numbered pages so I'm at a little bit of a disadvantage, but there are two. No, wait a minute. There's an NDP motion moving a section 4.1 and then -- here it is, I've got the numbered pages. Thank you very much, Chair. Then there's 4.1 that's an NDP motion, page 9, and on page 8 is a 4.1 that's a Liberal motion. So I trust we'll be dealing with those. Those, of course, are 4.1 and not section 4.
My concern now is what the government has done by virtue of its motion in subsection 4(2). Of course, section 4 -- and we have to look at it in context. It would be improper to debate it without referring to the section. We don't want to digress. But for 4(1), and again the columnar reference, "Community fire safety officer or team":
"4(1) A community fire safety officer or a community fire safety team appointed in a municipality or in a group of municipalities shall provide the program established under clause 2(1)(a) in the municipality or in the group of municipalities, as the case may be."
For us to consider subsection 4(1) means we have to consider 2(1)(a) because this is a requirement that there be provision of the program prescribed under clause 2(1)(a), and so I'm reserving my right to debate should the Chair not rule in my favour. On a point of order, I'm saying your motion is out of order, because how can we consider a section that's dependent upon the existence of a prior section without that prior section having to pass?
So I'd ask you if the first thing you could do is rule on my point of order that it's out of order to move this section without having considered and indeed adopted section 2, and in particular clause 2(1)(a), which is specifically referred to in subsection 4(1). I raise that on a point of order as a preliminary matter, Chair, please.
The Chair: As usual, Mr Kormos, I have listened very closely to the very thorough and reasoned discussion and argument you have given me in that, and I think you're absolutely correct. I will withdraw the question and we will proceed to number 1, as amended.
Mr Kormos: Thank you, Chair.
The Chair: I apologize to the committee. As I say, because I do not have the usual roadmap before me, I neglected to call the questions in the proper order. Mr Kormos has quite properly pointed that out, and I have ruled on it. I therefore proceed to section 1, as amended, and ask for comments and questions and discussion with regard to section 1 of the act, as amended.
Mr Kormos: Thank you, Chair, and I am appreciative of the collection. I have 160 pages. I hope that's -- the clerk is nodding. I appreciate that.
Again, the definition of "fire department" of course was changed as a result of the government amendment. That was amendment number 3. The government also amended the definition of "firefighter" as a result of amendment number 4 in the collection of amendments. Those are in subsection (1), and it went on to amend subsection (2). Then in a strange -- see, here, it's nuts, because subsection 3(2) -- oh, boy, 1(3).
If you take a look at page 6, it's unclear because it says subsection 3(1), but I guess that refers to section 3. That's right, so we're just up to page 5 in terms of the amendments that have been made to section 1.
No quarrel with the fact that there's a need for a definitions section. I think that's common. Some concern about the expansion of the definition of "fire department," and in particular because part I, definitions, as amended, reinforces this government's agenda for privatization of firefighting services. I appreciate that this is part of the --
Interjection.
Mr Kormos: It does, there's just no two ways about it. When it refers to section 3, it's referring to the agreements that can be made with the fire marshal, because the definition of "fire department" has been amended to change, by an agreement made under section 3, the definition of "fire department" and the definition of "firefighter." Let's talk to the extent to which section 3 impacts on this, because certainly the definition of "fire department" has been amended to refer to "an agreement made under section 3," as compared to the original provision, "by agreement with the fire marshal to provide fire protection services."
That's what's interesting, because what's happened is that originally, when you had a fire marshal agreement, it was to provide fire protection services. This gets to what we were talking about in committee about the mandatory need to provide education and prevention but the fact that suppression was discretionary.
Look what's happening here, Chair. We raised concern about the fact that, it's interesting, government isn't requiring that fire suppression be mandatory; it's making that, in effect, discretionary. The parliamentary assistant can correct me if I'm wrong and I'm sure he would be eager to. Section 3 is optional, it's discretionary:
"(2) An agreement referred to in subsection (1) may provide for,
"(a) the appointment of a community fire safety officer or a community fire safety team; or
"(b) the establishment of a fire department."
1720
Do you get what I'm saying, Chair? It's discretionary. It can be one or the other, and obviously both if contemplated, because originally it said, "An agreement with the fire marshal to provide fire protection services," which is that omnibus definition which includes fire suppression, fire prevention, fire safety education etc. By changing that to read simply, "by an agreement made under section 3" -- section 3 provides for agreements with the fire marshal to be discretionary as to the types of services to be provided.
It says, "An agreement referred to" -- that is the agreement with the fire marshal -- "may provide for,
"(a) the appointment of a community fire safety officer or a community fire safety team; or
"(b) the establishment of a fire department."
What the government has done by amending those references to an agreement with the fire marshal to read "an agreement under section 3" -- the original agreement with the fire marshal meant there had to be the provision of fire protection services; that's what the original subsection meant when it was first drafted: fire department. What the government has done is really undermined the safety of -- wow. I'm sorry, because I've only just had a chance to really put these pieces together in the separate parts of the bill. Our original impression from the bill was that in those unorganized municipalities where there was an agreement with the fire marshal, that was to provide fire protection services, because that's what the definition was. That's no longer the case.
Fire protection services are all those services defined in the bill, which include fire suppression. What the government has done is made this consistent with what we now discover is its real intent with section 2. That is that it is discretionary for municipalities to provide fire suppression services. What they've done is they've moved that on into section 3, fire-marshal-supervised services.
This is insidious and more than a little bit devious. I recall just a few minutes ago having given the parliamentary assistant plenty of slack, lots of opportunity to explain this. I was suspicious at the time, I guess just because it was a government motion. But now I'm beyond suspicious; I'm overwhelmed. What this government has done is it has undermined the safety of those large parts, vast parts of Ontario, quite frankly many of them particularly vulnerable to fire: one, because you're talking about forested areas; two, you're talking about many areas that are remote, with housing and building structures and heating systems, to wit coal or wood, that are particularly dangerous, where you have a particularly high propensity or high levels of exposure to fire risk.
You can't pull this one off this time. We got you. That looked like an innocuous amendment to change the wording "by agreement with the fire marshal to provide fire protection services," to simply "an agreement made under section 3." It looked so innocuous. Had we been asleep at the switch the way Mr Wood was on Wednesday in Windsor, we wouldn't have caught this, but we have caught it and we're not going to support that type of undermining by any stretch of the imagination.
Somebody has been less than candid here; somebody has been less than forthright. I recall certain government members on the committee, some of whom are still blessed with membership on this committee, some of whom haven't been fired, insisting that this bill is going to strengthen fire prevention and public safety here in the province of Ontario. Horse feathers. Nothing of the kind. Now we start to understand.
We heard some of the civilian comments, and God bless: fire safety, fire prevention, fire education. We saw some of the data and nobody on this side quarrels with the need. We were impressed as all get out with the city of Windsor, that actually has a fire alarm program where they distributed them free -- not free; the taxpayer paid for it, but at the end of the day it's cost-effective. That was smart fire prevention in our books. But we heard from folks who came before the committee who had been victims who said: "All the fire prevention and fire education in the world doesn't prevent my neighbour" -- we talked to a couple of people who lived in flats, not a new building where you've got fire walls and so on, but an old converted house; they're all over the place and there's nothing per se wrong with them -- "from falling asleep with a pot of French-fry grease on the stove. I can do all the right things in the world, and depending on where the fire alarm or smoke alarm is located" -- wow.
The government here is trying to pull the wool over somebody's eyes. I'm a little shocked and disappointed. I'm looking forward to hearing some of the government members refute or attempt to refute my suggestion that they have weakened the role of the fire-marshal-supervised areas. I stand by it. Again, I could well be wrong, and I'm prepared to listen as long as necessary to debate from government members who would attempt to dissuade me, that I'm wrong. I'd be eager to be proven wrong, because it's disappointing to think that the government would be conducting itself in this manner when it's tried to tout this pathetic little thing, this Bill 84, as being something that's going to enhance fire safety, something that's going to protect the public and something that's going to preserve public professional firefighting services of the quality that, yes, we've enjoyed and been blessed with here in Ontario for so long.
Therefore, in view of the evil that the government has done to section 1, in view of the malicious amendments that have been passed, section 1 now becomes entirely unacceptable, and subject of course to consultation with the New Democratic Party caucus here, I anticipate that we'll be voting against this.
The Chair: Is there any further discussion or questions in regard to section 1, as amended? If not, I'll put the question.
Mr Kormos: A 20-minute recess please, Chair, as per my right pursuant to the rules.
The Chair: We will reconvene at 5:50 by my watch.
The committee recessed from 1727 to 1747.
The Chair: I'd ask the committee to reconvene. I have put the question. All those in favour of the government motion? All those against? Section 1, as amended, carries.
The next matter on the agenda is section 2. We're dealing with section 2, which was not amended. Is there any comment or discussion with regard to section 2?
Mr Kormos: Again, we have to very much consider section 2 in the context of it as having been amended by --
The Chair: Mr Kormos, do you intend to ask for another adjournment? If you do, we have a vote at 6, so you could simplify life for us by stating that in advance.
Mr Kormos: I can move adjournment.
The Chair: No, I wasn't asking that. Once I put the question, do you intend to ask for a 20-minute adjournment, which is your right?
Mr Kormos: You bet your boots, sir.
The Chair: Okay. On that basis, I don't see any sense in proceeding on this evening since we will be completed within seven minutes and we do have a vote in the House. I would therefore adjourn these hearings until tomorrow at 3:30.
The committee adjourned at 1748.