CONTENTS
Monday 28 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
Election of Vice-Chair
STANDING COMMITTEE ON ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Chair / Président: Mr Gerry Martiniuk (Cambridge PC)
Vice-Chair / Vice-Président: Mr E.J. Douglas Rollins (Quinte PC)
Mr DaveBoushy (Sarnia PC)
Mr RobertChiarelli (Ottawa West / -Ouest L)
Mr DavidChristopherson (Hamilton Centre/ -Centre ND)
Mr BruceCrozier (Essex South / -Sud L)
Mr JimFlaherty (Durham Centre / -Centre PC)
Mr Douglas B. Ford (Etobicoke-Humber PC)
Mr Garry J. Guzzo (Ottawa-Rideau PC)
Mr PeterKormos (Welland-Thorold ND)
Mr GerryMartiniuk (Cambridge PC)
Mr DavidRamsay (Timiskaming L)
Mr E.J. DouglasRollins (Quinte PC)
Mrs LillianRoss (Hamilton West / -Ouest PC)
Mr BobWood (London South / -Sud PC)
Mr Terence H. Young (Halton Centre / -Centre PC)
Substitutions present /Membres remplaçants présents:
Mr EdDoyle (Wentworth East / -Est PC)
Mr FrankKlees (York-Mackenzie PC)
Mr Gary L. Leadston (Kitchener-Wilmot PC)
Mr DanNewman (Scarborough Centre / -Centre PC)
Mr John L. Parker (York East / -Est PC)
Mr TrevorPettit (Hamilton Mountain PC)
Also taking part /Autres participants et participantes
Mr BudWildman (Algoma ND)
Mr BernieMoyle, fire marshal, Ministry of the Solicitor General
Clerk / Greffier: Mr Douglas Arnott
Staff / Personnel: Ms Sibylle Filion, legislative counsel
J-2153
The committee met at 1548 in room 228.
FIRE PROTECTION AND PREVENTION ACT, 1996 / LOI DE 1996 SUR LA PRÉVENTION ET LA PROTECTION CONTRE L'INCENDIE
Consideration of Bill 84, An Act to promote Fire Prevention and Public Safety in Ontario and to amend and repeal certain other Acts relating to Fire Services / Projet de loi 84, Loi visant à promouvoir la prévention des incendies et la sécurité publique en Ontario et modifiant ou abrogeant certaines autres lois relatives aux services de lutte contre les incendies.
The Chair (Mr Gerry Martiniuk): Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen and members of the committee. This is a continuation of the hearings of the justice committee, consideration of Bill 84. We are here to consider approximately 160 amendments and 104 sections of the act. We are presently dealing with section 2, and Mr Kormos has the floor.
Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): I recall having gone through section 2 and each of the subsections indicating our caucus's strong opposition to it and relating it to other sections in the bill, indicating how they fit together, they meshed. I don't want to test the patience of committee members. I think committee members get the drift, understand where we're coming from, and I'll be requesting a recorded vote on this when it comes time to vote on section 2.
This is part and parcel of what the real agenda is here, and that's the privatization of fire services and the devaluation of firefighting, and we want no part of it.
Thank you kindly, Chair. There may be others of course who want to comment. There may be some who try to persuade me of the error of my position, and I'd be pleased to listen to them. If their arguments ring true and have any semblance of logic to them, I'm sure I'll be overwhelmed.
The Chair: Is there any further discussion?
Mr David Ramsay (Timiskaming): I'm pleased to be able to address section 2 of the act here before we vote on it.
I was a little bit surprised also that we have no amendment coming from the government side on this part because I think it really comes to the heart of this legislation in that if we are to be dealing with public safety through fire protection and prevention, then it's important that we make a very strong signal through this legislation to say that not only is the education and prevention component of fire safety in Ontario important, but fire suppression is important also. I think that we haven't gone the further step in mandating municipalities to organize themselves so they can create departments that offer fire suppression is an error. I certainly accept the statistics that show that a large percentage of fires can be prevented through education and inspection and that's important, and I applaud that it is being mandated in this legislation.
It's also important for at least those 20% of fires that we know will happen regardless of what other programs are in place that we have a first-rate fire suppression system right across this province. We know we have very unequal opportunities and resources in the varying municipalities across the province, but I think there's got to be a provincial interest in suppression of fires.
It's interesting to note that in part IX of the act, the labour relations part, it would appear the government does believe that fire services are essential because they have outlawed the ability of firefighters to strike, yet on the other hand they don't show that fire suppression is essential by, in section 2 here, mandating that service to be delivered to Ontarians across the province, and I think that's sad.
As we go down section 2, we get to talk about organized municipalities and then eventually we talk about territories without municipal organization. Most members of the Legislature from southern Ontario probably aren't very familiar with what we call in the north "unorganized municipalities," but there are literally thousands of people in Ontario, primarily in northern Ontario, who live in unorganized municipalities.
It's interesting to note, and this relates to my point about the essential nature of fire suppression services, that a previous Conservative government, the government of Bill Davis, with Leo Bernier as the Minister of Northern Affairs, as it was called in those days, actually developed a program that supplied what they called a rapid attack truck to unorganized municipalities. This afforded the opportunity for small, at that time probably, local roads boards, because they didn't have a fire services board, to organize themselves into volunteer fire departments, and basically the province of Ontario gave them a truck. This rapid attack truck was sort of a combination of a pumper, an emergency vehicle and a tanker truck, an all-in-one emergency response vehicle that over the last 20 years has served the people of northern Ontario in unorganized communities very, very well, and I was very pleased to see that program.
I just make that point to say that the Harris government in its Common Sense Revolution made a commitment to municipalities not to download responsibility to municipalities without also giving them the resources to carry out those responsibilities. The program I've talked about in the past that a previous Tory government brought forward transferred those resources to those unorganized municipalities that allowed those unorganized areas of the province to provide a fire suppression service, and I think if this government was serious about that, they would proceed. I would hope this government will, at a later date, give that a second thought.
The Chair: Are there any further comments or questions in regard to section 2? If not, I will call the question. I believe Mr Kormos has asked for a recorded vote. There are no amendments to section 2, so the question is, shall section 2 pass?
Ayes
Doyle, Guzzo, Klees, Leadston, Parker, Pettit, Rollins, Bob Wood.
NAYS
Crozier, Kormos, Ramsay.
The Chair: Section 2 is carried. We are now dealing with section 3, as amended. We already have dealt with the amendment. Is there any discussion or questions in regard to section 3, as amended?
Mr Kormos: Let me try to group these together because this again becomes curious, and curiouser, I suppose, the more one looks at it and looks at what's happening.
You've got sub (1), and I appreciate it's not just the fire marshal who may enter into agreements but also a services board -- fair enough -- "or a prescribed person or organization." Those still leave me scratching my head as to what is being contemplated.
That's dealing with subsection (1), but let's go on. It's fire protection services. That's what subsection (1) provides, that they "may enter into agreements to provide fire protection services." Fire protection services of course is a broad range of services as defined in section 1. Then you go on to subsection (2), though, and it narrows it down from fire protection services. All of a sudden it becomes optional again, because the agreement to provide fire protection services need only provide for no more than fire safety by virtue of appointment of a team or an officer or "the establishment of a fire department."
Obviously if the agreement to provide fire protection services entails only an agreement for the appointment of a community fire safety officer, my question then is, how does subsection (1) have any significance in terms of an agreement to provide fire protection services, because the community safety officer is but one narrow component of fire protection services as defined in subsection (1)?
I am asking the parliamentary assistant or the ministry staff to explain how those two jibe. Clearly if the agreement only provides for the appointment of a community fire safety officer, there isn't an agreement for fire protection services. It appears here that the broad range of things which is entailed in fire protection services is being made optional by virtue of the "or," and it only being in clause (b), because it says "the establishment of a fire department" and it's optional; it doesn't have to be the establishment of a fire department. Obviously if it is the establishment of a fire department, similarly you go back to the definitions and see what a fire department has to do. A "fire department" means "provide fire protection services," which is that broad range of services.
I suppose the question is, what's the scoop here? Is it the case that territories without municipal organization don't have to have fire departments, nor do they have to provide full fire protection services?
Mr Bob Wood (London South): The member has to bear in mind that there are certain remote areas where suppression is not practical and the fact of the matter is you can't provide suppression. All you can really do is provide fire safety officers and that's all that can be done to show people how to deal with a crisis if it arises. So there are certain areas where in fact it's not practical to provide suppression services.
Mr Kormos: I appreciate that response. I wonder again, appreciating that the person or organization that could be contracted with or agreed with under subsection (1) -- the expanded subsection (1), by virtue of the government amendment, says "prescribed person or organization," so we assume that's restricted to a person or organization that's provided for by regulation or that's defined or listed in the regulation. Once again, what does the government contemplate? Is there any anticipation of what a "person or organization" might be under these various circumstances?
1600
Mr Bob Wood: I think the key to the answer to that is what you just said, which is various circumstances. I think it's going to be looked at case by case to find out what would suit a particular case. I don't think there's a specific answer to that question at this time. Whatever seems to help in a particular area is what's going to be done to facilitate as much protection as possible in the unorganized areas.
Mr Kormos: Following up on that, is it conceivable that a Rural/Metro would be a corporate person or organization that would be prescribed by the regulations?
Mr Bob Wood: I think it entirely depends on what would provide the most service that's feasible.
Mr Kormos: I'm assuming then, or at least I'm drawing the inference, that it's not the government's intention to exclude private so-called firefighting services like Rural/Metro?
Mr Bob Wood: I don't think the government excludes any option that will provide the maximum fire protection service possible.
Mr Kormos: I appreciate those responses. I expressed concern when the government moved its motion. We didn't support the amendment to subsection 3(1), and it's consistent with, I think, amendments that take place other places in the act.
My interpretation of this is that this again is part and parcel of the goal of this government to open the door, to pave the way, to lay out the red carpet for privatized, for-profit corporate firefighting services. Although we agree with a provision in general, in principle, wherein the fire marshal would -- I guess the analogy I'm making, which is becoming obsolete in its own right, is the role that the OPP has played in policing for large parts of Ontario, where they have provided policing in areas which either couldn't maintain a municipal police force or a regional police force or simply historically didn't have one, or in places where there wasn't the same municipal organization. In my mind, I've been making that type of analogy with section 3 of the bill. In principle, who can quarrel with that? It would seem to be a way whereby the fire marshal's office would supervise the development and maintenance or supervision of some elements of firefighting in those unorganized areas.
But by virtue of the amendment here and the concerns that I still have for the option contained in subsection (2), and hearing what the PA says, seeing that there isn't even any middle ground in terms of some fire protection services, because a fire department is required to provide fire protection services, I think it's as much a victim of poor drafting -- no criticism of the skilled people who drafted this, but I suspect it wasn't as much their shortcoming as confusion about where the government wanted to go with this.
We're not going to be supporting section 3, especially amended as it is. This amendment in subsection 3(1) reinforces our worst fears about the future of firefighting in Ontario, which is to say that the future is one of privatized firefighting services with low-trained, low-skilled, poorly qualified if qualified at all, low-wage so-called firefighters of the ilk entertained by operators like Rural/Metro in the United States.
Mr Ramsay: I have a question for the parliamentary assistant, and maybe the staff might have that. I'd be curious to know what number of organized municipalities in Ontario do not provide a fire suppression service, and maybe, of the unorganized municipalities, what percentage do not provide a fire suppression service. I don't know if that's at hand, even a ballpark figure.
Mr Bob Wood: We'll see what we can find out.
Mr Bernie Moyle: There are about four --
The Chair: I'm sorry, Fire Marshal, you'll have to speak up to the microphone.
Mr Moyle: There are currently about four municipalities that don't have fire suppression services and there's a fairly large number of unincorporated communities that do not have fire suppression services. I can't give you the exact number but I could probably find out for you over some time.
Mr Bob Wood: Could you investigate that number, and if it's available, provide that to Mr Ramsay?
Mr Moyle: Yes, but there are varying levels of fire suppression in those unincorporated communities, and many of them do not have local services boards, which makes it very difficult to organize fire protection in those communities.
Mr Ramsay: What I'd also find interesting, Fire Marshal, if you could supply it, is how many people, how many homeowners, property owners in Ontario, are living without a basic fire suppression service. That would be interesting to know.
Mr Moyle: There's a very small number, but I can get you that number.
Mr Ramsay: Good. Thank you very much.
The Chair: Are there any further questions or comment? If not, I'll put the question.
Mr Kormos: Recorded vote, please.
The Chair: Yes. Shall section 3 pass, as amended? A recorded vote is requested.
Ayes
Doyle, Guzzo, Klees, Leadston, Parker, Pettit, Rollins, Bob Wood.
NAYS
Kormos, Ramsay.
The Chair: The motion carries.
We are proceeding to section 4. We have dealt with the amendment. Is there any comment or discussion in regard to section 4, as amended?
Mr Kormos: Once again, I made reference in the discussion over section 3 of the bill where the amendment added to fire marshal as being the authority entitled to enter into an agreement, and that same expanded list of persons, organizations etc permitted to provide these services is contained once again here. The same arguments are valid.
Again there seems to be, unless the government was hell-bent, as I believe it is -- let's see. If it wasn't hell-bent, as I believe it is, on encouraging private firefighting services, there would be no need to add "prescribed person or organization." The mere agreement with the fire marshal, in my view, would be a loose enough sort of thing that any number of even creative ways could be utilized for the fire marshal to provide those services.
I'm concerned about those amendments. It's for that reason that we're not going to support section 4 either, indicating all the while, throughout the discussion over section 4, as we have with respect to other parts of the bill, that we support, and I don't think there's a single sector in the community that doesn't support, the government's encouragement by virtue of legislation of fire safety and fire prevention, fire safety education and fire prevention education. That's not the issue here. It's common ground, and that's the one area, the one aspect of the bill, that has been applauded by every single group, individual, participant from whatever background at this hearing. But because this has been amended to become part and parcel of that privatization agenda, and consistent with what we embarked on earlier today with the announcement from the government -- it's not hiding its light under a bushel in that regard -- we won't be supporting section 4.
The Chair: Any further discussion in regard to section 4, as amended?
1610
Mr Ramsay: I would have another question for the fire marshal. What type of fire safety program would you have in mind for these very small unorganized areas? Would there be any resources or other type of assistance provided to these small fire organizations in these unorganized areas so that they can fulfil the mandate of the bill?
Mr Moyle: The approach we'll be taking is with community fire safety teams which will have a life safety focus -- in other words, family escape plans, fire extinguishers in the home, smoke alarms and those kinds of things -- to ensure that if a house does catch fire, they will get out safely. That's really in those communities that just don't have the financial means or the human resources concentrated in an area to form a fire suppression unit.
We will always encourage every municipality, even unorganized communities, if at all possible, to have some kind of suppression, but that just isn't always possible, and that's why the legislation is drafted like that. There are areas in the province that just can't mount that. Although we would like to see it, the reality is they can't, so that first line of defence will be community fire safety teams.
The Chair: Any further discussion? If not, I'll put the question.
Mr Kormos: Recorded vote, please.
The Chair: Shall section 4, as amended, carry? A recorded vote is requested.
Ayes
Doyle, Guzzo, Klees, Leadston, Parker, Pettit, Rollins, Bob Wood.
NAYS
Kormos, Ramsay.
The Chair: Section 4, as amended, carries.
We are now proceeding to a proposed to new section 4.1. Mr Ramsay has the first motion, which is item 8 of your amendments.
Mr Ramsay: I move that the bill be amended by adding the following section:
"Fire suppression services
"4.1 No person other than a firefighter working in a fire department shall provide fire suppression services."
I think this motion and one soon to follow after this motion strike at the heart of what this bill is about, and certainly the perception of what this bill is about, and that is the privatization of fire and emergency services in this province.
I think reasonable people on both sides, after hearing the way many fire departments have maybe organized themselves in the past, the way other emergency services have organized themselves, have looked at a separation between fire suppression and fire safety services, and maybe some of the other functions that happen in a fire department. For instance, you may have a small community that has its own municipal police force and it also has a fire department. It might make sense for that municipal organization to have one person do the dispatch work for those emergency services.
There may be some other efficiencies to be found in looking at reorganizing some emergency services, but what really struck all the members on all sides, I believe, and especially a couple on the government side who aren't here today, one thing that should be preserved, is that fire suppression services in Ontario should remain in the public domain.
There are some interesting points to be made about why, but first off, what's interesting is an examination to see, is this a service maybe that needs fixing today in Ontario? From what we heard, the vast majority of the presenters who came before our committee had stated to us over the last few weeks that what people expect of their government is probably the type of service that the fire department delivers today.
As the chief from Phoenix, Arizona, said when he spoke to us in Hamilton, "What other government service responds to you immediately after asking only two questions: `Where are you?' and `What's the problem?'" If there ever was a government service that gave people their money's worth, that responded immediately and did so in a very efficient and effective way, it's got to be our fire and emergency services here in Ontario. I don't think there's really any dispute about that, and the overwhelming majority of presenters before our committee felt we should not be fiddling with fire suppression services.
It's paramount that we make sure we have a first-rate fire suppression service. That's why in this motion I have differentiated between total fire and emergency services and suppression services, because I think we've all felt that the suppression side at least should remain in the public domain for the efficiency that's there and also for the accountability.
The other thing about these types of services that I think is important -- and if you'll remember, we had Michael Prue, the mayor of East York, here and they started to go down the privatization trail a few years ago. They started with their tax collection services, with their parking fine violation services, thinking these are services that, even if they didn't work that smoothly in the beginning, hopefully would be cost-effective. It turned out they weren't cost-effective in the end, according to Mayor Prue, but at least if they were going to start to sort of fiddle with these things to try to find some cost efficiencies for their ratepayers, these were services where if there were initial complaints, at least nobody's life was put in jeopardy. Maybe billing was slow or the fines weren't all collected properly, but people could learn on the job and there really wasn't much harm done, and hopefully in a few months, with the initiation of the new service, people in the community would be served well and things would start to be running efficiently.
One thing he said was that they really did differentiate between that type of basically clerical work and public safety and security work that a fire and emergency service would provide; they did not want to touch that. Many other representatives of municipalities and chiefs representing very large municipalities said they were not interested at all in privatizing their fire services. I think the reason for that and what's really important, after hearing all the sort of American anecdotes that have come out of primarily the southwest United States, was that a company's mandate is obviously to do well, to do well for itself and for its shareholders. That's the way our system works. By and large that works very well in the consumer society that we have. It's the private sector that is able to afford us a tremendous selection in consumer goods and services. Our system flourishes and thrives on that.
But when it comes to emergency services, services where lives are at risk, it's very important that we employ a group of men and women who are directly in the government employ so that they are there to do the public good, so they are there to do good for the public and not just do well for themselves. I think that's a very important philosophical point that really must be kept uppermost in our minds when we go down this track of reinventing government. In our rush to find ways to become more cost-effective and deliver government services in an efficient manner, it's very important that we look at public accountability in a direct fashion when it comes to public safety and security.
Privatizing especially the fire suppression part of a fire department would absolutely be the wrong way to go and I think it's very important that we have amendments in place in this legislation that would prevent that.
Mr Bob Wood: I'd like to speak very briefly to this. I think members already know the government's view on this matter, which is that the matter of quality control is best dealt with by giving the fire marshal the authority to investigate the adequacy of fire protection and the cabinet the authority to make orders if needed. That's our approach to quality control, which of course is different from those of the two opposition parties.
1620
Mr Ramsay: I would certainly be looking at the day when the Harris cabinet orders an Ontario municipality to beef up its fire service. If that's necessary, I hope that would happen, but I'm not sure that will happen. That's why I'd like to see some safeguards built into this legislation before we even offer that chance of something going wrong out there and people in some municipality not being afforded the very best protection they deserve.
Mr Kormos: First, I want to indicate I'm going to support the Liberal amendment. Having said that, I also want to make it clear that I don't share Mr Ramsay's rather benign view of the corporate world, but I do support the amendment.
I want to address first the comment made by the parliamentary assistant, because we've heard that reference to subsection (7) of section 2 throughout the course of these hearings. The government members from time to time flash that as some sort of icon or some way of soothing all the fears. But when we were discussing -- and I appreciate that it was last week -- subsection 2(7), we pointed out that first of all, subsection (7) says that the fire marshal "may" monitor and review the fire protection services. So it's entirely discretionary. There isn't a requirement there on the part of the fire marshal that there be monitoring and review.
There are questions that have been raised during the course of these hearings about the capacity of the fire marshal's office, unless it receives significantly more resources, to undertake the monitoring and reviews that it would be called upon to perform and the lack of real authority. I don't want to dwell on section 2 overly much because obviously the government's passed that. The opposition people opposed it. But it's strange that the government here wouldn't incorporate legislatively minimum standards. It's prepared to do that under section 2, subsections (7), (8), (9) and (10), on a discretionary basis on the part of the fire marshal, and on an ad hoc basis. In other words, there can be standards set for one municipality that don't apply to other municipalities. That's what the bill says.
We heard a lot, and good stuff. We heard some really good stuff about the fundamental principles of minimum staffing, for instance, and how municipal fire departments across Ontario are still failing to abide by standards that are expressed by the fire marshal that are consistent with standards internationally. I make reference again to the level of staffing required on a pumper truck if those firefighters are going to adequately perform the services.
I don't buy into what the parliamentary assistant says there about subsection 2(7), and I'm not sure he really believes it either, because I know he's read that over and over again and scratched his head as to how effective that's going to be when it's purely discretionary. Late at night he's had reservations about it and has wanted the time to sit down and ask some of these same questions himself of the staff and of the minister, but everybody's been busy lately.
I'm interested to see how the committee responds to this new 4.1. I'm supporting it. I hope it gets passed. The committee then will be called upon to consider another amendment which by its nature then would have to be presumed to be 4.2, which I believe is very much in order because it doesn't contradict 4.1; it builds on that. Section 4.1 is the bare bones, the minimum. The movers of this amendment have been very generous in suggesting that they're prepared, and I understand that, at the very least, the actual fire suppression, the hands-on, most dangerous of work, dirtiest of work, the one that is the most critical, be performed by professional firefighters working in the public sector.
This doesn't, of course, eliminate volunteers, because if you take a look at section 1 and the definition of "firefighter," you'll see that firefighter as it's defined includes volunteer firefighters. So there's no exclusion here or failure to recognize the value or the important role of volunteer firefighters in any number of communities and at various levels, some places where 100% of the fire suppression services are performed by volunteers, others where the volunteer are a complement in a integrated or blended fire service.
It strikes me as again curiouser and curiouser that the government wouldn't embrace this amendment and say, "Here's a way to make this bill do what we say we want to do." It leaves one to suspect that maybe the government doesn't really want to do what it says it wants to do, but rather intends to do what a more careful analysis of these sections and amendment indicates.
So I thank you. I'd love to hear from some of the government members on this committee as to whether or not they're going to support this amendment and why. I am eager to hear from them. I know their constituents would want to hear from them as well, and the firefighters in their communities, whether it's Doug Rollins, the firefighters in his community, whether it's Ed Doyle and the people in his community, whether it's Gary Guzzo and the people in his community, whether it's Frank Klees and the people in his community, Gary Leadston and the people in his community or John Parker and the people in his community.
Their firefighters and the people in their communities would dearly love to know where they stand on this amendment and why, and here's an opportunity for them to get on the record. I can assure them that my office will accommodate them, that my office will undertake to distribute their comments to key people in their respective communities. I'd be the first to get copies of the Hansard from this committee and distribute it to Mr Klees's community, for instance, especially the firefighters there, to let them know where Mr Klees stands on this amendment and where he stands on privatization of firefighting services, and if he's prepared to put his money where his mouth is. By God, I'm looking forward to telling the firefighters in his community what Mr Klees has to say in this committee.
The Chair: Are there any further question or comments? If not, the motion is by Mr Ramsay amending the act to provide for a new section 4.1. I put the question. Shall the amendment carry?
Ayes
Kormos, Ramsay.
NAYS
Doyle, Klees, Leadston, Parker, Rollins, Bob Wood.
The Chair: The amendment is lost. We are proceeding to item 9, a proposed amendment by the third party. Mr Kormos?
Mr Kormos: I was getting just a quick comment on a judgement that was rendered in an ongoing trial -- other than mine. It was interesting. It's not part and parcel of this committee hearing, but again it was quite interesting.
I move that the bill be amended by adding the following section:
"Fire protection services
"4.1 Where a municipality has established a fire department, no person other than a firefighter working in a fire department shall provide fire protection services."
The amendment shares some of the qualities of Mr Ramsay's. In some respects it's a little broader and perhaps less generous to the government in that regard than Mr Ramsay's might at first blush appear to have been. But at the same time, it qualifies it very much by pointing out that this is applicable only in municipalities that have established a fire department. My suggestion is that the language here is clear, that it takes it outside of the realm of those areas, for instance, the non-organized areas that we've talked about, where the fire marshal or the private operators would be providing services.
1630
Once again, and I don't want to read things into it, but I suspect part of the Liberal motivation for their amendment was out of a sense of concern for the government members on the committee. Several of them have, over the course of these hearings, insisted that they don't support private firefighting services.
Mr Ramsay: Where are they?
Mr Kormos: Here are two amendments: first, the Liberal amendment which sadly was just defeated. Here's a chance for a second kick at the can, folks. To the government members on the committee, you've wanted to be quoted in your local press, I am sure, and by firefighters from your area who have appeared in front of the committee as being in opposition to privatization of firefighting services.
I know that Mr Carr, the former parliamentary assistant, had growing reservations about privatized firefighting services. Mr Johnson, who is, I know, one of the hardest-working members of the Conservative caucus --
Mr Ramsay: Absolutely.
Mr Kormos: Well, he is. I don't want to belittle any of the others, but he quite frankly has impressed me as harder working than any other member of his caucus, and I say that being intimately familiar with what his day consists of. There is a person who doesn't let a moment pass without utilizing it for somebody's benefit, as often as not his own.
But here's a chance for government members to indicate -- and again, I know Mr Johnson, Ron Johnson from Brantford, would have taken advantage of this opportunity. I am sure he would have. And I know Mr Carr would have, had he not been pulled from the committee because of -- I think he was sort of being seen as starting to get soft on them firefighters, those special-interest groups, you know, those women and men who put their lives on the line on a daily basis, on an hourly basis, to protect life and property.
So I say to the government members, here's your chance to redeem yourselves in your communities, to point out that you supported an amendment. Do you know what would be neat, Chair? Right now, because we have small caucuses -- Lord knows my caucus is even smaller than Mr Ramsay's and there's even fewer of us. Mr Ramsay's here; I'm here.
This government, with Mr Wood voting, would only need -- some of the government members could vote for this amendment, could support this amendment, and not risk the fear of having it pass. That's a little weaselly, but here you are. There are only two of us over on this side at the moment. Government members, if you wanted to take advantage of this opportunity to be able to go back to your community and say, "Well, I tried, at great risk to my political future in this Harris regime" -- you could say to your people, "Look what happens to people who buck the trend, people like Bill Murdoch, people like Gary Carr, people like Tony Skarica."
Mr Ramsay: Adios, Pierre.
Mr Kormos: Mind you, people in all likelihood have a stronger likelihood of getting re-elected and they've endeared themselves to their constituencies by identifying the Premier as a dictator and by pointing out that the government is run by a small group of backroom people in the dark, smoke-filled back rooms of the Whitney Block.
So I say to government members, here's your chance to put your money where your mouth is. I suppose that's a phrase that might be appropriate. I want every one of them to have a chance to support this, so perhaps they'll be requesting a 20-minute adjournment, when the vote is called, to caucus.
Mr Ramsay: Think about it.
Mr Kormos: I implore them to consider that. This is yet another variation of the Liberal amendment. It's one that qualifies this, so it's not going to tie the government's hands but it's going to give most communities and the citizenry in those communities a little more assurance that it won't be -- I think one of the presenters talked about the Keystone cops type of firefighting, the Rural/Metro types of examples, that it's not going to be that sort of sad, tragic horror show, but professional firefighters providing fire protection services.
I appreciate the chance -- and again, to those government members who want to support this, I will call your local press at 6 o'clock to tell them that the MPP from their riding did their humble best to take on or confront a government that has become increasingly dictatorial, and that they were prepared to take their chances and risk favour with he of the links in the course of pursuing the best interests of their constituents.
Mr Ramsay: I think it should be really spelled out for the government members that we in the opposition are giving you this afternoon at least three chances -- through the previous amendment, this one that Mr Kormos has placed and the next one that I am going to place soon, unless of course you vote for this one and I would withdraw mine -- an opportunity to vote the way I think many of the members on this committee have felt over the presentation period as we travelled the province, that it probably was inappropriate for municipalities to privatize the fire services.
It's unfortunate that a couple of the members who actually had voiced support for the content of these amendments are no longer here. That's sad, because what was happening in those days that we travelled the province and listened to all those presenters was that many of the reasonable arguments that were being presented by the public to the committee were starting to resonate with not only the opposition members, who were supportive all along of these sorts of amendments, but some of the government members were starting to understand the importance of keeping fire suppression services especially in the public domain.
Quite frankly, it was refreshing to me when these remarks from the government members on this committee were being heard, in some of the cities that we travelled, that actually we weren't wasting our time on these trips, that by going around and listening to people and getting a message over and over again, it started to sink in with some people. I thought we were making some progress.
Unfortunately, the actions two weeks ago of the Premier in changing not only parliamentary assistantships but membership on the committees has really changed all that. I fear this motion will not be long-lived.
I will cease my remarks on this one and allow it to go to a vote.
Mr Kormos: I just realized how selfish I've been, Chair. I realized here you are, you've been sitting as Chair through these hearings, you make that extra $8,000-plus a year --
Mr Ramsay: It's $10,000 now.
Mr Kormos: There are only eight members of the whole 83-member Tory caucus who don't get something in addition to their base paycheque. There are only eight members who aren't at the trough. But here you are, you make the extra $8,000 or so a year, and you're stuck as Chair. You don't get to think, you don't get to contemplate, you don't get to reflect on the bill or whether you should support an amendment or oppose a particular section, yet you have a constituency too. I know folks in your communities are concerned about privatization of firefighting services.
Chair, I'll tell you what I'm prepared to do. For the purpose of this vote, I'm prepared to assume the chair, knowing that I won't have a right to cast a vote, so that you can sit there and let your position be known. Once again, I'd be the first person to get a hold of your local firefighters and tell them where you stood on privatization of firefighting services.
1640
I'm prepared to assume the chair. Nobody in the committee will mind and it's perfectly legal to assume the chair for the purposes of the vote so you can cast a ballot. You might even have some things to say about it so that your community can know where you stand on firefighting services so they can use that when they exercise their judgement as to whether or not they want to support you. Because right now they're asking you to support them. Being the Chair puts you in a position where you're being forced to hide your light under a bushel, and nobody should have to hide their light under a bushel, Chair.
I'm prepared to take it on with no pay. I realize I'm not going to be compensated for it. I won't get a fraction of that $8,000-plus a year you earn, but I'm prepared to take over the chair for the minute and a half it takes for you to vote on this amendment so that you can, with confidence, go home tonight or tomorrow night or on the weekend, whenever, and tell your folks back home you not only said you opposed privatization of fire services, but by God you voted that way too.
The Chair: Thank you very much for your kind offer.
Mr Kormos: Think nothing of it, Chair.
The Chair: I can assure you that the firefighters in my area are well aware of my views. We've had discussions. I shudder to think what you could do in a minute and a half in this chair.
Mr Ramsay: He could probably burn the place down by then.
Mr Garry J. Guzzo (Ottawa-Rideau): How long did Bob Rae leave you in cabinet?
Mr Kormos: He left me in caucus. But you know what, Judge? He's not here and I am.
Mr Guzzo: That's right. Never forget it.
Mr Frank Klees (York-Mackenzie): I'm pleased to see the decision you made about the offer that Mr Kormos made. For a moment I was quite concerned that you may even be slightly tempted to hand over the chair for a minute and a half. For the same reason, I was going to appeal to you that we not allow even the smallest room for Mr Kormos to have his way.
I also wanted to thank Mr Kormos for offering to do some public relations for me. I want to publicly decline that offer for the same reason. I am sure the firefighters in my riding understand very well where I stand on this particular bill and I am sure they also understand that, as a member of this committee on the government side, I have certainly done my job in ensuring that the public interest is served in the passing of this bill, and I'm confident it will be served well.
Mr Kormos: I feel like a salmon that's just had a fly cast over its head; I can't resist rising to the occasion. I have no doubt that the firefighters in Mr Klees's riding know his views and where he stands when they read the Hansard of this committee hearing and the recorded votes that put Mr Klees on record, knowing that his vote could have made a difference. Gary Carr made a difference. Ron Johnson made a difference. Tony Skarica made a difference. Bill Murdoch is going to keep making differences for the rest of his political career. I have no quarrel with that.
Mr Klees: How much are they paying you?
Mr Kormos: Run that past me again.
At the same time, Mr Klees having declined my generous offer, I just may end up in his community at some point, in any event.
Mr Klees: You're welcome.
Mr Kormos: I've always felt welcome in your community. The folks there have treated me well, and indeed I'm sure Mr Klees would as well. But come on, folks. Let's not hide your lights under bushels. Here's your chance to stand up and be counted. You're going to pick a side on this vote. You're either for the firefighters or you're agin them; you're for community protection or you're against it. I encourage you, I urge you -- what's the phrase, Member Guzzo? -- I exhort you to do the right thing.
Recorded vote, please.
The Chair: Are there any further questions or comments in regard to Mr Kormos's motion? If not, I'll put the question.
We are voting on Mr Kormos's motion to create a new section 4.1.
All those in favour of the amendment?
Ayes
Kormos, Ramsay.
The Chair: All those against?
Nays
Doyle, Guzzo, Klees, Leadston, Parker, Ross, Bob Wood.
The Chair: The motion to amend fails.
We are proceeding to item 10 of your proposed amendments. That is an amendment proposed by Mr Ramsay.
Mr Ramsay: I move that section 5 of the bill be amended by adding the following subsection:
"Fire suppression
"(2) No person other than a firefighter working in a fire department employed directly by the council of a municipality shall provide fire suppression services."
As you see, this is somewhat similar to the previous motion, somewhat similar to the motion previous to that, but I think you'll see that in the last one and this one, each of us critics for this bill was really trying to, in very plain language, narrow down our understanding of the component part of a fire department, that we're talking about people employed directly by a municipality and specifically we're talking about fire suppression services only -- at least I have in this one, and I've done this on purpose.
If I was allowed to title this amendment, it would be called the Ron Johnson memorial amendment. Really, this was a gift for Ron, because over the time that Ron, the member for Brantford, was on this committee, starting in Toronto, and heard the various deputations that were brought before us in the justice committee -- he carried on travelling across the province with us until about Hamilton. It was sometime in the mid-afternoon of Hamilton that all of a sudden he just wasn't there.
It was sad to see that he was turfed. My feeling is that he was turfed from this committee because he was starting to understand the concern that many citizens of this province brought forward to this committee through our deliberations as to the threat to the people of Ontario and to their lives and livelihood by the privatization of fire services.
For a Tory, Ron was pretty reasonable. He said, "I'm not absolutely forbidding the privatization of fire departments or total fire protection services," but for sure he said he was against the privatization of fire suppression services.
That's why I developed this particular amendment, so that Ron would have the opportunity to put his vote where his mouth was, and I believe still is. In fact, I had tremendous faith, and I think the government did also, that he would have supported this motion.
I almost feel like calling for a minute of silence here, to give a eulogy or something, but it really does sadden me that Mr Johnson didn't have the opportunity to publicly put on the record his growing strong feelings about the foolishness of allowing municipalities to privatize fire suppression services in Ontario.
Again, I want to remind the government members that while the previous motion dealt with fire protection services, this one now narrows it down to fire suppression services only. I would ask the government members to really think about that. If it is not the intention of the Solicitor General of the province to encourage municipalities to privatize their fire suppression services, why not make an expression of Ontario interest, that it is in the interests of this province to guarantee and encourage the very best fire suppression services in this province, that it's the view of this province that that service should remain in the public domain?
1650
I would make a plea for the government members to consider this. I think this is your last opportunity to really come down to where we heard the majority of the presenters bring us that message, that at least as a minimal effort from the government, fire suppression services should not be privatized. I would ask the government members to consider this.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Ramsay. I can only hope I receive the same glowing accolades from you when I move on.
Mr Ramsay: Chair, you will. There's no doubt about it.
Mr Kormos: Gosh, Mr Ramsay's generosity of spirit in proposing a moment of silence was fascinating.
Mr Ramsay: Do you want a hankie?
Mr Kormos: No. I think Ron would rather prefer that we pass the collection plate. After all, he got stiffed out of a little stipend of around $4,500 a year for being a Vice-Chair. Being a Vice-Chair is a very onerous position. If you're the Vice-Chair, you pick up $4,500 or so on top of your parliamentary salary. You've got to make sure that the little name tag is inserted that says, "Vice-Chair" under your name, that the clerk hasn't inserted it upside down, for instance.
Ron Johnson fulfilled his responsibilities as Vice-Chair with enthusiasm, vigour and commitment. He is one of those eight people out of 83 in the Conservative caucus who has been forced away from the trough, who gets nothing but his $78,004 a year -- that's the minimum wage here at Queen's Park, $78,004 -- plus 5% on top of that that's put into an RRSP on your behalf by the government, that becomes in additional income of $4,000 a year, give or take. That's the minimum wage around here.
I can't understand. I've looked for a firefighter in the province, one of the women or men who are out there fighting fires, saving people, doing fire prevention, who makes anything near that. I haven't found any yet. It's quite remarkable that so many, all but eight, are at the trough. Ron, of course -- I'm surprised, because he hasn't been as outspoken as Mr Skarica or Mr Murdoch or Mr Carr -- we should never forget Mr Carr. But then again, as Bill Murdoch said, the style around here is if you want to get ahead if you're in the Tory backbench, you've got to pucker up. Maybe Ron's working on his pucker; I don't know.
Mr Klees: You're getting closer to the truth all the time.
Mr Kormos: I just wanted to indicate that I support this amendment of the Liberals. I should note Mr Klees indicated that it appears I'm getting closer to the truth all the time. I don't know whether he was praising my insight or commenting on Mr Johnson's preparedness to pucker up again, to be restored to grace.
Mr Klees: Oh, I thought you said he was practising his putting.
Mr Kormos: If Mr Klees is referring to Mr Johnson's ability on the golf course, I'm sure that's one of the things that endeared him to the Premier. After all, it was the Premier who jetted down to Atlanta while the House was sitting, to watch the Master's tournament there. We haven't got our FOI back on who paid for that trip and whether government credit cards were used to finance any part of it, or hotel rooms or meals.
Heck, Mr Johnson's well-known affection for the links certainly did nothing other than put him in good stead with a Premier whose affection for the links took him from Ontario in some of the most critical moments of the Legislature, to fly down to Atlanta and visit the Master's tournament down there.
I'm supporting this amendment. It's interesting that here it's a part of section 5, and I think that distinguishes it from when it stood alone as 4.1. It makes it a similar and analogous but very different amendment, and one, again, that I'd love to see even a couple, even one government member show the courage of their convictions to vote in support of. I think that's why recorded votes are good things, because you get a chance to stand up and be counted, or in this case sit down, raise your hand and be counted.
The Chair: We're dealing with Mr Ramsay's motion to amend section 5. I'll call the question.
Mr Kormos: Recorded vote.
The Chair: We have a recorded vote requested.
Ayes
Kormos, Ramsay.
Nays
Doyle, Guzzo, Klees, Leadston, Parker, Ross, Bob Wood.
The Chair: The amendment is lost.
We're proceeding to item 11.
Mr Bob Wood: I move that section 5 of the bill be amended by adding the following subsections:
"Same
"(2) Subject to subsection (3), the council of a municipality may establish more than one fire department for the municipality.
"Exception
"(3) The council of a municipality may not establish more than one fire department if, for a period of at least 12 months before the day this act comes into force, fire protection services in the municipality were provided by a fire department composed exclusively of full-time firefighters.
"Same
"(4) The councils of two or more municipalities may establish one or more fire departments for the municipalities."
This amendment gives municipalities the option of establishing one or more departments with one or more chiefs. This provides for more flexibility, and complements provisions in the Municipal Act and Bill 26 that permit municipalities to retain existing fire departments in amalgamations.
Mr Ramsay: I have a question to the parliamentary assistant. He just explained that this would allow councils to establish more than one fire department and municipalities -- the same thing, I guess -- to establish more than one fire department with more than one chief. We've just gone through an exercise of amalgamating the municipalities in Metropolitan Toronto into one, and one of the things we were saying was that there were six fire departments and that was very inefficient. Now we're setting up an amendment here that will allow a municipality to have more than one fire department. What's the real reason for that?
Mr Bob Wood: The reason for that is to give flexibility to the municipalities on how they organize their firefighting efforts. If you take a look at the proposed subsection (3), if it applied to the recent amalgamation, it would not permit numerous fire departments.
Mr Kormos: Before I comment on it, I want to put a couple of questions to the PA as well. I noticed that "municipality" isn't defined in the bill to say, "`Municipality' means a regional municipality or a city that's a part of a regional municipality."
Am I being overly suspicious here if I see this as a complement to some other legislation not yet prepared that would regionalize firefighting services, say, in the regional municipality of Niagara, where this would complement legislation that would give the regional municipality control over firefighting services, but if it wanted to be political and maintain some distinction between the Niagara Falls service as it exists now and the Welland service or the Port Colborne service, that would be a condition wherein it could establish more than one fire department? Is there something going on here that's not apparent?
Mr Bob Wood: Not that I'm aware of.
Mr Kormos: Okay.
Further, when you say, "composed exclusively of full-time firefighters," when you say "full-time" -- I apologize for not having anticipated this -- does that exclude volunteers? When you say "composed exclusively of full-time firefighters," does that mean a fire department without volunteers, who would be considered less than full-time firefighters?
Mr Bob Wood: Volunteers are not full-time firefighters.
1700
Mr Kormos: Okay, so any fire department that had volunteers as part of its overall firefighting service would be among those excluded by subsection (3)?
Mr Bob Wood: I think it would be the reverse. If you have volunteers, you're not included in subsection (3). Volunteers are not considered full-time firefighters. I think it's the reverse of what you said.
Mr Kormos: So it's only if you've got 12 months before the day the act comes into force that a municipality is pure, 100% full-time firefighting services, without volunteers of any ilk or shape or form or sort, that it's excepted from the council's power to establish more than one fire department.
Mr Bob Wood: I'm sorry, I missed the last half of your sentence.
Mr Kormos: I'm not sure -- and I'll tell the fire marshal now I'd like a handle on how many fire departments we'd be talking about that are full-time and have no volunteer component, because that wouldn't mean volunteer firefighting areas, because they're obviously 100% part-time; it wouldn't mean any fire department wherein you had a composite firefighting team of full-time professionals and volunteers. So I suspect we're talking geographically about a very small part of the province and very few cities that would meet this condition, where it's 100%, full-time firefighters.
Mr Bob Wood: Perhaps Mr Moyle can address your specific question. I'll address the general policy questions.
Mr Moyle: There are 32 full-time fire departments now in the province of Ontario that employ exclusively full-time fire departments.
Mr Kormos: Could we have an example, just to get a handle on this?
Mr Moyle: An example is the six fire departments in Metropolitan Toronto, Hamilton, I think Cambridge, a few of those are exclusively full-time. They're large fire departments, for the most part.
Mr Kormos: With no volunteer component.
Mr Moyle: With no volunteer component. There are approximately 32. It changes from time to time, but it's approximately 32.
Mr Kormos: Thank you kindly. Before you respond, just so we can try to put this all together in one, you've got to run past me again what would be the desired goal here, what would be the desired end and why you would restrict it, or why you would accept -- because we've only got 32 communities that will fall into this exception, which means 770 Ontario communities, give or take, would be subject to this power. Why would you want to do that? What's the motive here and why are you excluding those 32 communities like Toronto, the Cambridge area, the Hamilton area etc that have 100% full-time professional firefighters with no volunteers?
Mr Bob Wood: The overall purpose is to give flexibility to the municipalities on how they set up their firefighting services. It does not appear to us, however, that there's any purpose in splitting up those 32 departments, plus or minus. We don't see any value in that being done. So we're giving flexibility, but limiting it where we see no purpose in that flexibility being used.
Mr Kormos: Okay, but again, can you give an example, albeit speculative, about how a municipality would use this power to, I trust, acquire efficiencies or economies? Give us an example, please, of where this would happen, where you would achieve efficiencies or economies. I'm really trying to visualize it, and I can't.
Mr Bob Wood: Our view on that is that ball should properly be in the municipality's court. If they indeed think having more than one fire department is going to provide the same or better service at the same or less cost, we're prepared to let them do that and be responsible to their voters. It is, of course, subject to the overall control mentioned earlier of the fire marshal and the cabinet.
Mr Kormos: I'm eager to hear what Mr Ramsay has to say.
Mr Ramsay: Amendments like this just don't come out of thin air. For me to have an understanding of what this is about, pursuing the line of questioning of my colleague here -- maybe I could ask the fire marshal, without naming the names of the municipalities, what sort of problem has occurred in the past that has caused this to be placed in this bill, that obviously somebody thinks it's going to provide better firefighting or fire protection services for Ontario.
What's the problem this tries to address? Did municipalities come forward and say, "Gee, if we had more flexibility of somehow having more than one fire department, we could better protect the people"? Everything we've been working on in this bill, it seems to me, has been to make fire departments more efficient, you wanted more management people in it, and now we're talking all of a sudden about more fire departments in a municipality. It doesn't seem consistent with the rest of the bill.
Mr Bob Wood: We would regard it as consistent. The municipalities have said they are ready for more responsibility, and we think that's right. They've also said they're going to exercise that responsibly, and we think that's right. So we're going to give them the flexibility they say they need in order to achieve the goals of better protection and affordable cost.
However, subsection (3) is there because we can see no benefit in those 32, plus or minus, municipalities splitting the fire departments up. So it's quite consistent with the overall scheme of the act, and indeed with general government policy.
Mr Ramsay: Could the reason be that if you had a composite fire department you could privatize the full-time part of the fire department and still, maybe in some of the more rural areas of your municipality, keep that as a volunteer basis and therefore you would have to have two or more different fire departments? Would that be the reason?
Mr Bob Wood: The reason really is as stated, to give them the flexibility they say they need to achieve the goals that I just outlined.
The Chair: Are you two done?
Mr Ramsay: I am.
Mr Kormos: Once again, it's getting curiouser and curiouser, because when the fire marshal says that cities like Toronto, at least the new megacity; Hamilton, which we know has been targeted for amalgamation and merger; Cambridge I can't speak to in that regard -- let me get this clear. Let's say that after this megacity fiasco, people were elected to the new megacity council who were forced to live with Bill 103 but who said, "No, we still want to maintain some semblance of municipality for our historical municipalities." They would be precluded from permitting the East York fire department from maintaining its individual and distinct status.
Mr Ramsay: For 12 months.
Mr Kormos: No, not for 12 months, because it doesn't control the time frame in which you can do it. "If, for a period of at least 12 months before...fire protection services...were provided." So that means forever and ever and ever -- and similarly in Hamilton.
I heard you say, "giving municipalities the flexibility." Heck, then, why don't you let municipalities determine what "fire protection services" means? Why don't you let them determine any number of other things? This is just a little mind-boggling, why a municipality would want to have more than one fire department, unless there was something more going on here.
The other thing I'm fearful of is, is this a ruse whereby even though the government's been very generous with its empowerment of municipalities to determine who's management, to pull people out of the collective bargaining unit, is this a ruse to chop up a fire department into several fire departments, each with its own chief, deputy chief, what have you, so that you give the municipality even more power to make a fire department management-heavy? Because that would seem to be one of the impacts of permitting more than one fire department in a municipality.
I'm not quarrelling with the fact that you say municipalities have requested this type of flexibility. Further to what Mr Ramsay's queried of you, what kinds of municipalities have sought this particular power and for what conceivable reason? I just can't for the life of me think of where it would. I'd love to hear of a scenario. It would calm my fears.
Mr Bob Wood: It's in response to the strong message we've received for the past two years from municipalities. They want more flexibility in order to best deliver the best possible service at the most affordable cost, and this is part of our overall plan to do precisely that.
It is true, of course, that if a municipality wants to do things that are counterproductive, it's entitled to do that, I suppose. However, they're responsible, number one, to their own voters and, number two, they're ultimately responsible to this Legislature. We think they're not going to do that. We think they're going to do it responsibly and we think when they say they're up to it, they are up to it.
1710
Mr Kormos: Thank you, parliamentary assistant.
Chair, if I may put a couple of questions to the fire marshal on this.
First, I'd like to ask the fire marshal -- I think it's clear that he was part of the group that worked with the ministry in developing Bill 84, and that's no criticism of him, but that's part one of his roles as a civil servant. I would ask the fire marshal if he was aware or was party to the proposal that resulted in the amendments on subsections (2), (3) and (4).
Mr Bob Wood: I don't think it's up to the fire marshal to get into how government policy is determined.
Mr Kormos: Okay, I'll not ask him that. If I can, then, ask the fire marshal what he understood the rationale for (2), (3) and (4) to be.
Mr Bob Wood: No, he's not going to get into that sort of question.
Mr Kormos: You can't fire him, so you'll just gag him. The fire marshal wasn't born yesterday; he ain't no average dummy; a wink is as good as a nod to this fire marshal. Okay. This is getting fascinating. I wanted to speed this process up, but I see we're reaching one of those impasses. Some people are starting to roll their eyes, but by God, impasses happen. Things have been coming along quite nicely.
To the fire marshal: Is the fire marshal aware of any communities that have requested the power to create more than one fire department within their municipalities?
The Chair: You have to move over, Mr Moyle. You'll have to move up to the microphone.
Mr Bob Wood: I'm satisfied that you answer that question.
Mr Moyle: Yes, there has been a request in the Kingston area. Also, I live in King township, and King township for many years has had three separate fire departments.
Mr Kormos: What would be the desired effect by a community having more than one fire department? What's the purpose being achieved there?
Mr Moyle: When you're dealing with volunteers, there's a strong community identity within the volunteer community, in volunteer fire departments. I was involved in an amalgamation of a volunteer fire department. I think there are two things: It keeps the identity of the volunteer community, and it can also act as a transitional model at times. If you're going to an amalgamated system, you may want some time. I think in that particular case it could be of some value.
Mr Kormos: So this is contemplating amalgamations.
Mr Moyle: Not necessarily, because we have a model now that's been in existence for many years where they have had three separate fire departments, like Nobleton, King City and Schomberg. They kind of thrive on that local identity and it seems to work well in that particular community.
Mr Kormos: So you're saying the status quo permits a municipality to have more than one fire department in name?
Mr Moyle: They have three separate fire chiefs and three separate fire departments.
Mr Kormos: These are volunteer fire departments?
Mr Moyle: Yes.
Mr Kormos: So there wouldn't be any quarrel in those circumstances with the prospect of management versus collective bargaining, because you're not dealing with the collective bargaining unit, are you?
Mr Moyle: They have their own associations.
Mr Kormos: Yes, and we heard from them when they were here. But you're not dealing with a collective bargaining unit in that instance.
Mr Moyle: Not in the same context you would with the firefighter associations and full-time firefighters. Of course not.
Mr Kormos: Do you know why subsection (3) --
The Chair: Excuse me, Mr Kormos, this is not a trial. I thought he was there for information. In effect, you're cross-examining the fire marshal.
Mr Kormos: I thought he and I were getting along real good.
The Chair: You're not doing it badly, but you are cross-examining him.
Mr Kormos: Do you call that cross-examination?
The Chair: I call that cross-examination, because every answer is eliciting a new question.
Mr Kormos: Boy, if I ever got really turned on you'd hit the roof.
Mr Ramsay: Let's defer to Mr Guzzo.
The Chair: I'd ask you to wind it up.
Mr Kormos: Do you know why they wouldn't have simply identified volunteer fire departments as being capable of -- there being volunteer fire departments in a municipality, as compared to including obviously -- what do you call it when they're blended, when you've got volunteers with professionals?
Mr Moyle: Composites.
Mr Kormos: Composites, yeah -- why they would only exclude full-time? Why wouldn't they just say in the legislation, "A municipality can have more than one volunteer fire department"?
Mr Moyle: I guess that's a matter of government policy decision on that, but as I said earlier, I think this pertains very much to volunteers and their identity and possibly some kind of transitional model. That's all I see in that, quite frankly.
Mr Kormos: Down where I come from, we've got the Thorold south volunteer fire department and they're from Thorold south; and then we've got the guys over on the west side; and then we've got the Port Robinson fire department, all in the city of Thorold. Down in Welland, we've got Stop 19, we've got the Crowland firefighters and they have various stations. Heck, we've been doing that for a long time, so I didn't think that was a difficult proposition.
Thank you kindly. I'm sorry the parliamentary assistant was so tough with you in terms of trying to dummy you up. Maybe we'll run into each other some time after this place shuts down, some time after this sitting.
Mr Ramsay: I don't know why it's so difficult to get the information on this committee, that you've got to go into, as the Chair has said, almost a cross-examination of a government official to try to get a simple answer of what is the rationale for an amendment.
It seems like through a series of questions now, there may be one sinister and one not-so-sinister reason why this is here. The sinister one might be, as I said earlier, that a municipality might have a privatized fire department working in a dense urban centre of its municipality and may, for some of its other areas, decide to use volunteers. That may be one reason.
The other may be, as the fire marshal had stated, the not-so-sinister one, that really, with all the amalgamations that are going to be shoved down people's throats here by the Harris government in Ontario, if you've got an amalgamation of say, nine or 10 rural townships, each being 36 square miles large, it would not be practical to somehow amalgamate all those fire departments. You'd still want, as the fire marshall said, some local identity. You've still got a group of volunteers having to service 48 miles of road, for instance, as is the case in the township that I live in, and probably you'd want to keep that fire department intact, yet it would be under the umbrella of a new, restructured municipality.
I don't know why that's so difficult to state, and why we didn't get that information to begin with, but it would be helpful to all the committee members if the parliamentary assistant was more forthcoming as to the rationale behind these amendments.
The Chair: Any further comment?
Mr Kormos: Yes, Chair, please. We're getting close, obviously to voting on the government amendment. I'm not going to support the amendment.
On this particular one, I wanted to find out what the government had in mind. I have no quarrel taking at face value what the fire marshal tells me, but then I reflect on my communities and I say, heck -- because I mentioned the Stop 19 volunteer fire department, the Crowland fire department down there in the south end of King Street, the Port Robinson volunteer department, the Thorold south. Without establishing separate fire departments, these have maintained their very unique and distinct identities, and Crowland doesn't even exist any more as a municipality. I was born in Crowland; that's down in the south end, south of Ontario Road. Then, east of Crowland Avenue was the new immigrant, ethnic and industrial -- still is -- part of town.
1720
I meet often with these volunteer firefighters and with their professional counterparts, and quite frankly there's almost some of the same identification on the part of the professionals with their traditional community. As matter of fact, Chair, I used to joke, when Bob Rae was introducing his casino legislation, that Bob Rae thinks he's introducing gambling to Ontario, but obviously he's never been at a Saturday night stag down at the Crowland volunteer firehall. Bob didn't find it funny; neither do you. But the guys in Crowland thought it was good for a chuckle.
We were getting along so well this afternoon. I feel like the dentist when the novocaine hasn't gone far enough down into the nerve and you're drilling and all of a sudden Mr Wood yelps out in pain, arms a-flailing because we hit a nerve. His reaction to some pretty innocent questions has bothered me -- not that he had the reaction; I guess I'm quite pleased.
There's something going on here; there's more here than meets the eye. Whether it has to do with mergers and forced amalgamations of communities, whether it's very Toronto-specific, because clearly Metro Toronto, soon to be megacity Toronto, is the largest single group of communities -- and the fact that it comes as an amendment means that it was an afterthought. It wasn't something that was contemplated in the original bill.
I accept the fire marshal's explanation of a scenario wherein the practice might be relatively benign, where there's no evil intended. If that were the case, then the amendment would simply say that where you have volunteer fire departments, you can establish more than one volunteer fire department in a municipality.
I accept the fire marshal's explanation and I accept cases where it might be legitimate. Then simply say, "You can have more than one volunteer fire department, each with its own chief." God bless. Let there be 100 chiefs in volunteer fire departments, because you're not dealing with the same concerns that professional firefighters are when you're seeing a bill that wants to undermine the strength of the collective bargaining unit with professional firefighters.
This amendment has an aroma to it that at the very least speaks of decay, if not outright irreversible rot.
I'm going to be voting against the amendment. Then I dearly want a chance to speak to section 5, as amended, if indeed the motion passes.
The Chair: Are there any further comments or questions in regard to the proposed amendment by Mr Wood? If not, I'll put the question.
Mr Kormos: Recorded vote.
Ayes
Doyle, Guzzo, Klees, Leadston, Newman, Parker, Ross, Bob Wood.
NAYS
Kormos, Ramsay.
The Chair: The motion is carried.
We are now considering section 5, as amended. Any comments or questions in regard to section 5, as amended?
Mr Ramsay: It's very sad that we're now at the point in time where, as a committee, we're to consider voting on section 5 as a complete section, because it gave an opportunity for government members to really rethink the whole idea about privatizing fire suppression services in this province. Through a series of amendments that both critics had presented, there was an opportunity to rethink this, especially fine-tuning it down to the point where a few government members previously had stated they would support such an amendment.
It really shows that this process, up to this point, in dealing with the privatization, where we went out and listened to people, we collected the views of citizens right across the province, was really starting to have an effect. People were starting to rethink their positions and this committee was functioning the way a committee should function in not having its mind made up before hearings, but actually went out with an open mind.
It appeared that a couple of government members who had done so, had listened and were prepared to act on that advice, are now gone. We find ourselves now without that voice on the government side, and the government representation now has been fully restacked with backbenchers who will tow the government line. That's really a sad day for democracy and I guess this is our last opportunity for these members to think again about this issue.
Mr Kormos: This is a weird bill. Let's take a look at section 5, because it's mandatory. It says, "A fire department shall provide fire suppression services and may provide other fire protection services...."
That forces us back to what we know are the definitions. Fire protection services are that broad range of services. So a fire department shall provide fire suppression. You'll recall that when I talked about subsection 3(2), where you've got the agreements in the areas without municipal organization, "the establishment of a fire department" per se is discretionary, and so is community fire safety or a community fire safety team.
In subsection (2) it's apparently not compulsory for a municipality to have a fire department, and that was confirmed earlier when we talked about those areas. But if it has a fire department, it appears that the only requirement for the fire department is to provide fire suppression and not the other things: "may provide other fire protection services."
I think what we've got here once again is either just bad drafting or yet another open door for privatized services. What's interesting is that some of the government members, even Ron Johnson, who got fired of course as Vice-Chair because he was friendly to firefighters, were suggesting, "Would it be okay if a non-firefighter provided public education and did work in fire prevention?"
It was argued in response that no, those functions should be no more in the realm of privatized services than any other because of the importance of having them closely integrated with other fire protection services. So everything other than fire suppression does not have to be done by a fire department, which means that when it's privatized, it doesn't even have to be done through privatized firefighting services.
That means fire prevention, fire safety education, communication, training of persons, rescue and emergency services and the delivery of all those services don't have to be performed by a fire department pursuant to section 5. The only thing a fire department has, even a privatized fire department, is the need to provide fire suppression.
We're looking at privatization stage two, where the bill is going to permit the privatization of a fire department, which means that a privatized company will provide fire suppression and then other rinky-dink operators will be providing the rescue and emergency services. That's kind of interesting. I suppose that includes ambulance services. So all this stuff is meshing; it's all coming together.
The parliamentary assistant -- I saw your eyebrows raise and you eyes roll just a little bit, Chair, when he mentioned Bill 26.
The Chair: Excuse me, Mr Kormos. I did think we had an agreement that my facial expression would not be entered into the record, as I'm an independent person. Indicating some approval or disapproval of statements made by yourself puts me in a very difficult position, I have to correct you, and I would just suggest that I am independent. I try to appear neutral. I'm sorry I don't have the poker face you require. However, would you leave my facial expressions out of the record. I would really appreciate it.
1730
Mr Kormos: The Chair grimaces while addressing the member for Welland-Thorold.
Mr Ramsay: It was a grimace. It was definitely a grimace.
Mr Kormos: Chair, it wasn't in response to anything I said. That's the problem with body language. Everybody knows when you cross your arms like this you're being defensive and unresponsive.
It happened to be when the parliamentary assistant said Bill 26. Maybe you were thinking about something that had nothing to do with Bill 26, in which case it was entirely inappropriate to suggest that you raised eyebrows and rolled eyes in response to the parliamentary assistant's mentioning Bill 26.
Gosh, lighten up a little, Chair. I'm just making a simple observation. My eyes rolled too when the PA mentioned Bill 26 because I thought the government was going to steer so far of that. Everybody knows that was the cornerstone and this is the first course of bricks on top of the foundation.
Interjection.
Mr Kormos: That's right, and this was no baby found in the bulrushes, let me tell you. There's no Immaculate Conception here. We know exactly what's been taking place before this thing was given birth to.
This section 5, again, is pretty devious stuff and I'm not going to touch it. I just ain't going to come even close to endorsing it; I'm going to oppose it and I'm going to vote against it. I'd be pleased to hear government members rebut my comments and indicate where my fears are groundless. Until I'm assured of that, I'm going to be afraid for communities, for firefighters, for the safety of our families and our neighbours and our seniors and kids, the same sorts of kids we saw in committees.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Kormos. Any further discussions or comments in regard to the question? If not, shall section 5, as amended, carry? A recorded vote is required.
Ayes
Doyle, Guzzo, Klees, Leadston, Newman, Parker, Bob Wood.
NAYS
Kormos, Ramsay.
The Chair: Section 5, as amended, has carried.
Actually, Mr Klees, I had asked you for a motion before.
ELECTION OF VICE-CHAIR
Mr Klees: I'm more than happy to take this opportunity to move the appointment of my colleague Mr Doug Rollins as Vice-Chair of this committee.
The Chair: Mr Rollins is not available at this time. In any event, we have a motion appointing Doug Rollins as Vice-Chair. Is there any discussion?
Mr Kormos: Are there going to be nominating speeches here? We should know something about the member before we're called upon to vote for him.
Mr Bob Wood: He's so good it's not needed.
The Chair: I can recommended him highly.
Mr Kormos: Oh, wait a minute.
Mr Ramsay: Can there be other nominations from the floor?
Mr Kormos: Chair, if I may, just so people understand: These are not real elected positions. What happens is that there is a deal. It happened with the last government too and it happened with the government before that.
The Chair: I think it's a tradition rather than a deal.
Mr Kormos: No, no. I've been around here a little longer than you. Trust me, Chair, they're deals and what happens --
Mr Klees: This is a good deal.
Mr Kormos: No, no.
Mr Ramsay: It is for the recipient.
Mr Kormos: That's right. To be fair, I'm not being critical, because everybody played the game. It was during the 1987 government, and 1985-86 might have been part and parcel of it in terms of accord, but these are the perks, these are the extra salaries people get. As I said, being a Vice-Chair is such an onerous responsibility. It is so demanding it just sucks the lifeblood out of you and you leave this place exhausted, barely able to crawl into your taxicab.
Again, people have been known to have anxiety attacks, serious nervous problems as a result of being Vice-Chair. People have been known to have quit within a matter of mere hours because the pressure is so intense. That $4,000-plus a year simply doesn't compensate for having to sit up at that end of the table. So what happened was that deals were struck and opposition members bought into it because governments have to pay off as many of their backbenchers as possible to keep them in line and happy. If you don't have something to take away, then there's no carrot or no stick effect, so governments use Vice-Chairs and things like that for the carroting, for the sticking, and --
Mr Ramsay: Do they?
Mr Kormos: Oh, yes. We saw some stick-handling last week.
It's a matter of distributing more money among obedient government members. But so that the opposition doesn't get overly ornery, they buy in. For instance, the deal is that the Chair of the government agencies committee is an opposition member, a third-party member, so there's an election for that person too, but the government members are whipped to, say, vote for the third-party member because that's all part of the deal. Then there's one the official opposition has as well. They spread it around a little bit. So that's why, to move this and to vote, when you vote on it, it makes it look like it's democratic; it makes it look like the committee is genuinely electing a Vice-Chair. The fact is that those elections are shams, have been throughout the course of two years of this government, were throughout the course of five years of the last government and have nothing to do with elections. I'm pleased to see that Mr Rollins has begun the ascent. I wish him well, Chair.
Mr Ramsay: The ascent to the trough.
Mr Kormos: I don't know why they don't just get down to brass tacks, all these House leaders, and acknowledge that to purport to elect a Chair is the phoniest scam to hit this place since the $2,000 vacuum cleaners that are being sold door to door and then selling the paper off to the finance companies.
I think I will abstain from voting for that, because it's just a scam. It's a way of getting people at the trough and it's also a way of keeping people in line, because once you've got that $4,500 you don't want to lose it. I understand why people go down for the count, why they bite the canvas. But to do it for a crummy $4,000 a year or even, quite frankly, at the end of the day $8,000 or $8,500 a year I find particularly tragic.
Having said that --
Mr Guzzo: But you justify a PA in there. A PA you can handle.
Mr Kormos: A PA? No, they make $11,000 or $11,500 plus an extra staff person.
Mr Guzzo: You're telling us your price now. Bob Rae couldn't afford you.
Mr Kormos: That's right. Again the process is one that is yes, sordid and unpleasant and so typical of Queen's Park.
Interjection.
The Chair: I had understood that you acted as Chair during the last government. Just for the purpose of the record, I think we --
Interjection.
Mr Ramsay: Of course this is the neutral Chair.
Mr Kormos: It was one of the finest pieces of legislation --
The Chair: I know Mr Kormos would like all the facts to be out.
Mr Kormos: -- which your government repealed by virtue of Bill 7 and put workers under attack, put collective bargaining units under attack, put health and safety very much at risk in the workplace and brought scabs back on to the landscape of Ontario.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Kormos.
Mr Kormos: Scabs is what this government endorses.
The Chair: We are dealing with a motion to elect Mr --
Mr Kormos: That's right, but you did raise my chairmanship with the committee that stick-handled --
The Chair: Well, I just wanted to make sure everyone was aware of that.
Mr Kormos: -- Bill 40 through the Legislature, Chair, and there you go.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Kormos. We have a motion on the floor. All those in favour? All those against? Carried.
Mr Doug Rollins is now Vice-Chair of this committee.
We are now proceeding to a government motion, being item 12 of your amendments, to amend section 6. Mr Wood.
1740
Mr Bob Wood: I move that subsections 6(1) and (2) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:
"Fire chief, municipalities
"6(1) If a fire department is established for the whole or a part of a municipality or for more than one municipality, the council of the municipality or the councils of the municipalities, as the case may be, shall appoint a fire chief for the fire department.
"Same
"(2) The council of a municipality or the councils of two or more municipalities may appoint one fire chief for two or more fire departments."
These basically are sister amendments, or brother amendments as you may prefer, to the section 5 amendments.
Mr Kormos: Can the PA, because he's deleted "shall appoint a fire chief for the purposes of this act" -- "shall appoint a fire chief for the fire department" and "the councils...may appoint one fire chief for two or more fire departments" -- the original subsection (1) is contained in the new subsection (1), but the new subsection (1) simply adds the capacity to have more than one fire department in one municipality. Otherwise everything is the same.
Mr Bob Wood: This flows from the amendment to section 5.
The Chair: You still have the floor, Mr Kormos.
Mr Kormos: Thank you kindly, Chair. I won't be long on this because the same comments apply here as apply to the amendments to section 5. The PA was candid about this being a complement to the amendments to section 5. I still find that a very odious proposition and will not be supporting the amendment for that reason, but look forward to being able to speak to section 6, either as amended, if the amendment passes, or otherwise, for a whole lot of reasons.
The Chair: Any further discussion in regard to the amendment of Mr Wood? If not, shall the amendment carry? All those in favour? A recorded vote.
Ayes
Doyle, Guzzo, Klees, Leadston, Newman, Parker, Ross, Bob Wood.
NAYS
Kormos, Ramsay.
The Chair: The amendment is carried. We are now dealing with section 6, as amended.
Mr Kormos: The PA may not be aware of this because he of course was only able to join us -- he replaced the fired Mr Carr, who was the PA. In subsection (3):
"A fire chief is the person who is ultimately responsible to the council of a municipality that appointed him or her for the delivery of fire protection services."
I've got to say that quite frankly on its face strikes me as an appropriate provision.
You know that some of the municipalities were before the committee, if I'm correct -- if I'm not correct in this regard, say so -- talking about, "Oh, this denies the new types of structures where you've got CAOs and where you've got other individuals in the corporate structure of a municipality who are the people who report directly to council."
I think it's important that a fire chief report directly to the council, that there be more direct contact with a council rather than less. Was there any consideration of these various concerns that were raised, particularly by municipalities, and to what end? Obviously there isn't an amendment changing subsection (3). Or does the parliamentary assistant think the language of subsection (3) still permits "ultimately responsible to the council"? Responsibility is one thing, but the chain of command is another in terms of whom you have to report to. Does this still accommodate those municipalities that say, "Oh no, we want a fire chief to do his or her reporting to," let's say, "the CAO"?
Mr Bob Wood: We think a minimum is what's set out in subsection (3). In other words, we think that's necessary for the proper governance of a fire department. We think we have answered the concerns about flexibility which have been expressed by many municipalities in the various other changes, the increased management exclusions and so on. We think the flexibility is there but the buck has to stop somewhere, and that's the reason for subsection (3).
Mr Kormos: We'd better take a look at Sections 14, 19 and 20, because we're talking about the delegation powers there. That isn't what I had in mind. That's strange.
One of the practices, to the parliamentary assistant, that I'm familiar with is that -- this is in response to the sense of urgency on the part of this government to make fire departments top-heavy with management. Granted, we had a whole lot presentations, including the majority of fire departments from Niagara region, where the fire chiefs came and endorsed Bill 84 and talked about the need for more management positions, but they came from municipalities most of which hadn't even used the power to appoint deputy chiefs. Just in response, I wanted to check sections 14, 19 and 20 really fast because none of them deal with this.
One of the concerns raised was that if a chief is out of town, then nobody is the chief. Down where I come from, and I think in other parts of the province as well, any number of firefighters are appointed chief for a day. Well, they are there, and when we listened to the people from Windsor and Peterborough and Toronto as well we heard about team approaches. There are a whole lot of people in these fire departments who can readily assume the role of chief as acting chief or acting deputy chief. It hasn't got a whole lot to do with this section. Well, it does a little bit because the section focuses on powers of delegation and on the person to whom the chief is responsible, but is there any statutory provision, because that's been a practice for a good chunk of time, that's required to give chiefs the power to appoint acting chiefs in their absence?
Mr Bob Wood: We feel that the more flexible management structure this bill envisages is going to give them the means to provide for the normal procedures you would have in any organization where officers are absent. By that I mean chiefs or whoever.
Mr Kormos: Thank you.
The Chair: We are dealing with section 6, as amended.
1750
Mr Kormos: I wanted to hear comments from government members on section 6 of the bill, especially on the amendments that were moved by the government that create this wacky proposition where a municipality can create more than one fire department. I say it is wacko, it's weird and I just can't figure it out. If it is restricted to volunteer fire departments, why didn't they say so?
Under those circumstances I've got to tell you that I can't support section 6. With respect to both sections 5 and 6, I think the government has been less than straightforward. They've been less than frank. I'm concerned about what they've got in mind with multiple fire departments within the municipality and I want to indicate I'm going to be voting against it.
Again, I'd be pleased to hear from government members who would explain to this committee why they're taking the position they are. I'd be eager to hear them put on record, if they're going to be supporting sections 5 and 6 -- here section 6 is amended -- as to why.
The Chair: Is there any further discussion before I put the section? If not, all those in favour of the section? A recorded vote is requested. Shall section 6, as amended, carry?
Ayes
Doyle, Guzzo, Klees, Leadston, Parker, Ross, Newman, Bob Wood.
Nays
Kormos, Ramsay.
The Chair: The section is passed.
For convenience, sections 7 to 13 are not amended, so I would ask for discussion. We can break it down if you wish, but I would suggest that we might deal with them as a group unless there is objection. I am therefore suggesting that we deal with sections 7 to 13 of the act, inclusive, as there are no amendments.
Mr Kormos: Up to but excluding: My problem with that, and I would agree to --
The Chair: Just tell me what you agree to.
Mr Kormos: Hold on. I've got to lay a foundation here. Just as Bill 26 is the foundation for private firefighting services and this is the first course of brick, I want to lay the foundation for my proposition.
Section 7 belongs to part II. Part III is "Fire Marshal," sections 8 through 11 inclusive, and then part IV, beginning with section 12, is "Fire Code." If we're going to break these down for the purpose of discussion, why don't we break them down according to parts and then go back and vote, for instance, on section 7, but go back and vote on sections 8, 9 and 10? That's my proposition.
The Chair: We don't have unanimous consent for that. I would therefore -- we're dealing with section 7.
Mr Kormos: You mean we're going to do them one at a time?
Mr Bob Wood: Mr Chairman, I think there may have been some misunderstanding here. I think there might be some interest in unanimous consent for Mr Kormos's proposal.
Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): I think Mr Kormos suggested that we deal with section 7, then 8 to 11 as a group, then 11 to 13 after that.
Mr Kormos: But, Mr Wildman, the Chair indicated there wasn't unanimous consent.
The Chair: We're dealing with section 7.
Mr Kormos: That's the next section, and then we can deal with 8 to 11.
If that was the suggestion, I will try to suck up because they're going to want to try to get this thing pushed through. Boy, oh boy.
The Chair: We are dealing with section 7. Is there any discussion, any questions?
Mr Kormos: I'd like the PA to elaborate on this and talk about who are contemplated as coordinators and what are contemplated as other duties assigned by the fire marshal very briefly, please.
Mr Bob Wood: I'm sorry. I managed to get interrupted as you were saying that.
Mr Kormos: In section 7, fair enough in terms of appointing fire coordinators, but I'm interested in "perform such other duties as may be assigned." That's primarily what I was interested in. What's being contemplated?
Mr Bob Wood: This of course is the same as section 3.2 of the Fire Marshals Act. To my knowledge there's no change in the current practice being contemplated, so I think the answer is, no change is contemplated at the moment.
Mr Kormos: Thank you.
The Chair: Is there any further discussion? Is there any further discussion in regard to section 7? If not, shall section 7 carry? All those in favour? All those against? The section carries.
We are now dealing, at Mr Kormos's suggestion, with sections 8 to 11, inclusive. Is there any discussion?
Mr Kormos: Granted, we're dealing with these in a sort of omnibus way, part III. Bill 26 was an omnibus bill as well.
We talked earlier about the fire marshal's power, and when we look back at subsection 2(7) it says, "The fire marshal may monitor and review the fire protection services provided by municipalities...." We expressed concern about that because it was not a mandatory role. This is empowerment which confirms our concern, quite frankly, about the discretionary role here: "The fire marshal has the power to monitor, review and advise."
This has been raised from day one, from the very first day when the fire marshal was part of the introductory addresses to the committee on the bill. If the role is discretionary -- "the fire marshal may," not "the fire marshal shall" -- is the fire marshal then going to be restricted by or is the breath of his monitoring going to be a matter of funding? What's going to determine when the fire marshal shall monitor and review and advise? I think more than a few of us are having a problem with that.
Mr Bob Wood: As you know, this is a new responsibility being given to the fire marshal. What it really comes down to is that the fire marshal is going to do that pursuant to government policy. Certainly the policy of this government is that we want and are going to do all we can to get adequate fire protection throughout the province.
If it turns out that the change is not as forceful as it should be, certainly at another time we can look at it again, but we think this will be adequate to ensure the fire protection everybody needs. We don't think a stronger section is needed. However, if experience shows we're wrong, obviously we'll look at it again.
Mr Kormos: Thank you.
The Chair: Are there any further questions or comments? If not, I shall put the question.
Mr Kormos: Mr Chair.
The Chair: Yes, Mr Kormos, you wanted a recorded vote?
Mr Kormos: No, no. I'm just going to indicate that this part, part III, has not been a major stumbling block, I think, for any of the participants. Again, that was the one area of concern I had, how the fire marshal is going to do that job when it's discretionary and when there's no guarantee of funding.
I'm not opposed to any of those sections in part III. They're not what the concern is about. In and of themselves, they're relatively innocuous.
I'd like a recorded vote. If the Chair is going to go through sections 8 through 11, I would like a recorded vote on each section, but I'd like to be relieved of having to ask for one. I don't anticipate debating any of those sections as you call them for vote.
The Chair: Are your suggesting the vote will be the same for all the sections?
Mr Kormos: Yes.
The Chair: Okay. Perhaps I'll just put section 8 and then ask if the vote is the same. Shall section 8 carry?
Ayes
Doyle, Guzzo, Klees, Kormos, Leadston, Newman, Parker, Ramsay, Ross, Bob Wood.
The Chair: Shall the vote be the same for sections 9 to 11, inclusive?
Mr Kormos: Same vote.
The Chair: Carried.
There are two more sections that we might complete before we rise today: sections 12 and 13.
Mr Ramsay: The House is no longer sitting.
The Chair: Okay. It would seem that the House has risen. We are adjourned till 3:30 tomorrow afternoon.
The committee adjourned at 1800.