FORT FRANCES PROFESSIONAL FIRE FIGHTERS ASSOCIATION
THUNDER BAY COALITION AGAINST POVERTY
THUNDER BAY AND DISTRICT LABOUR COUNCIL
THUNDER BAY AND DISTRICT INJURED WORKERS SUPPORT GROUP
CANADIAN ASSOCIATION OF FIRE FIGHTERS
THUNDER BAY PROFESSIONAL FIRE FIGHTERS ASSOCIATION
KENORA PROFESSIONAL FIRE FIGHTERS ASSOCIATION
CONTENTS
Wednesday 9 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
Fort Frances Professional Fire Fighters Association
Mr Frank Sheppard
Mrs Joleene Kemp
Thunder Bay Coalition Against Poverty
Ms Christine Mather
Mr Douglas Tennant
Dr Michael Pustina
Thunder Bay and District Labour Council
Ms Evelina Pan
Thunder Bay and District Injured Workers Support Group
Mr Francis Bell
Shelter House/Thunder Bay
Mr Keith Milne
Canadian Association of Fire Fighters
Mr John Hay
Lung Association, Thunder Bay
Ms Kathryn Forbes-Kaipio
Mrs Mary Roy
Mr Ted Mill
Thunder Bay Professional Fire Fighters Association
Mr Ron Gorrie
Mr Lorne Long
Kenora Professional Fire Fighters Association
Mr Ken Peterson
STANDING COMMITTEE ON ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Chair / Président: Mr Gerry Martiniuk (Cambridge PC)
Vice-Chair / Vice-Président: Mr Ron Johnson (Brantford PC)
Mr RobertChiarelli (Ottawa West / -Ouest L)
Mr DavidChristopherson (Hamilton Centre/ -Centre ND)
Mr BruceCrozier (Essex South / -Sud L)
Mr EdDoyle (Wentworth East / -Est PC)
Mr Garry J. Guzzo (Ottawa-Rideau PC)
Mr TimHudak (Niagara South / -Sud PC)
Mr RonJohnson (Brantford PC)
Mr FrankKlees (York-Mackenzie PC)
Mr PeterKormos (Welland-Thorold ND)
Mr Gary L. Leadston (Kitchener-Wilmot PC)
Mr GerryMartiniuk (Cambridge PC)
Mr John L. Parker (York East / -Est PC)
Mr DavidRamsay (Timiskaming L)
Mr DavidTilson (Dufferin-Peel PC)
Substitutions present /Membres remplaçants présents:
Mr GillesBisson (Cochrane South / -Sud ND)
Mr GaryCarr (Oakville South / -Sud PC)
Mr W. LeoJordan (Lanark-Renfrew PC)
Mrs MargaretMarland (Mississauga South / -Sud PC)
Mrs LynMcLeod (Fort William L)
Clerk / Greffier: Mr Douglas Arnott
Staff / Personnel: Mr Andrew McNaught, research officer, Legislative Research Service
The committee met at 1201 in the Valhalla Inn, Thunder Bay.
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 standing committee on administration of justice considering of Bill 84. On behalf of the committee, we are most pleased to once again be in the great city of Thunder Bay, enjoying the hospitality of your city. The committee welcomes Mr Bisson, member for Cochrane South, who is serving on the committee instead of another third party member.
Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): We could mention his name is Peter Kormos, the member for Welland-Thorold.
The Chair: Okay.
Mr Bisson: Yay. Oh sorry. I can't be partisan here.
The Chair: The only other thing I should mention -- I'm sure there isn't a need but I have an obligation as Chairman of the committee -- is that demonstrations in the galleries are not permitted, pursuant to the standing orders of the Legislature. We can now proceed.
FORT FRANCES PROFESSIONAL FIRE FIGHTERS ASSOCIATION
The Chair: I'm pleased to announce that our first presentation will be made by the Fort Frances Professional Fire Fighters Association, Mr Frank Sheppard.
Mr Bisson: Chair, as the deputant is making his way up, I wonder if I could just for a second explain to people that normally on committee you would see more MPPs here, but as you can see, there is one opposition member from the Liberal Party, Mr Ramsay from Timiskaming, and myself from Cochrane South, and fewer government members than normal. I think you'll understand why. As we speak there is a filibuster still happening in the House on Bill 103, so many of the members are still in Toronto trying to hold the government accountable on Bill 103. On behalf of those members who can't be here, I would like to extend their apologies for not being here, but understand why they're not, that they're at the Legislature today.
Mr Ron Johnson (Brantford): Mr Chair, just a brief point that I'd like to make: I know that Mr Bisson understands that filibuster is costing the taxpayers $10,000 per hour.
The Chair: Excuse me, that's not a point of order.
Mr David Ramsay (Timiskaming): And that's not true at all.
The Chair: Let's not deal with that subject. We have our hands full with this particular bill so let's proceed.
Welcome, Mr Sheppard. We have allotted 15 minutes for your presentation including any questions and I'd ask you to proceed.
Mr Frank Sheppard: I'll certainly try not to create a filibuster here.
Mr Bisson: Chair, could we have a copy of the gentleman's presentation. I have others but not his.
Mr Sheppard: I'm sorry, sir, I did not bring one down. I'll certainly make it available to you.
Mr Bisson: Thank you.
Mr Sheppard: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. My name is Frank Sheppard, as you know. I'd like to thank you for the opportunity to speak before this hearing. I'm speaking on behalf of the Fort Frances Professional Fire Fighters Association, of which I've been a member for 11 years. I'm also an owner of a marine construction company. We employ five full-time people and 12 part-time staff, depending on the time of season.
I have to say that I absolutely wholeheartedly support portions of this bill as well as other parts of legislation that the present government has put forward. Positive moves, such as mandating the requirement for fire prevention and education, can only improve the quality of public safety. You must be congratulated for that.
At the same time, recognition has to be given to the areas of legislation which place the public in peril. To suggest that full-time staff can be replaced by either part-time or voluntary staff is foolhardy at best and negligent at worst.
I'd like to draw your attention to a survey of 41 fire departments. This is an independent survey that was done in the northwest region by the Thunder Bay District Health Council. It surveyed 238 full-time, 44 part-time and 766 volunteer firefighters in this region. Basically, 22% of the services felt that they were understaffed, and all of the services that did were made up of voluntary workers.
To bring an example of that, less than half of the people who are firefighters in this area have mandatory CPR and first aid certification; 43% actually are trained in CPR and 51% are trained in first aid. It should be noted as well that all full-time staff maintain that level of standard.
It has become an accepted standard that firefighters are going to be able to help if it's needed. I don't want to diminish the intent or the actions of part-time firefighters or volunteer firefighters, but it just has to be recognized that the opportunities for the training and the actions that take place within the capability and the amount of time that's required are just not available. As a result, as I said, half of the departments in this area are unable to provide even that basic level of service.
To talk about additional resources, all of them indicated that significant improvements would be made in response times by improving staff numbers and also by increasing the training values. Some of the reasons that the respondents listed for not being able to maintain these training levels and not being able to go to off-road calls as an example were personnel, equipment and resources, a lack of manpower or time. A lot of them believe that we're only a volunteer department and that we are a fire department and the only things we really do are auto extrication and extinguishment of fires.
That's long since ceased to be a fact. Nobody recognizes that as a reality any more. Fire departments respond to an absolute myriad of situations: Hazmat, public education -- that's in this bill -- and the prevention portion; high-angle rescue, water rescue, I could go on and on.
I'm not suggest that people have any less desire because they do it on a voluntary basis. I'm just suggesting to you that they don't have the time and they don't have the commitment. It's not going to be a very effective system if you put any legislation in place which diminishes the ability for people to react and respond in this manner.
Tiered response: In our area here, 50% of the fire departments have a capability of tiered response. Yet the ones that don't, the volunteers -- and these are their impressions and their feelings, not mine -- feel that they are presently overtaxed timewise. I had to throw that one in there. Certainly the equipment and training is also a problem. As I said, it is not even my impression; this is an independent study that was done, and I'll certainly to happy to make that available to you.
For the government to suggest that changing the already existing staffing levels would possibly be a benefit and not put the public in peril is very irresponsible on its part.
A lot of the standards of action and a lot of the things that we get used to doing in this province come from the initiatives that begin in these larger serviced areas with full-time firefighters and professional staff. What happens is that the actions and the information trickle down to the rest of us, whether it be a composite department or a volunteer department.
Thunder Bay, as an example, presently is doing an automatic defibrillation program where they go and assist and do initial response to heart attack victims. It's certainly going to become even more relevant than it is today with the reductions that they have in health care.
1210
The centres that have the well-trained and equipped staff set the expected standard and the rest of the departments in the area gain immense benefits from any full-time professional staff that are willing to make themselves available to us. To suggest that you're going to get that same level if you reduce those staffing requirements and allow an influx of part-time personnel into those positions certainly is never going to be a benefit. I guess to support to the point that I'm trying to make, we have a large number of both volunteer firefighters and volunteer chiefs who have signed petitions that I have with me today who would certainly also believe the same fact.
One of the other portions that I wanted to talk about briefly was the collective bargaining portion of Bill 84. I believe that when the present government was elected they were elected on the basis of reduction of bureaucracy and maintaining present service levels, and that's a goal to be commended by anyone. It's hard to argue. I just fail to see how removing front-line firefighters out of the bargaining unit and placing them into midlevel management jobs is necessarily going to foster a positive response.
I certainly don't see how leaving a well-recognized opening for privatization is going to benefit anyone in this province. If nothing else, some of the lessons that have been learned by the private fire companies in the United States should be well recognized here. The province and the municipalities really do not have a labour problem with firefighters and I am just amazed that the present government, in part IX, is attempting to create problems.
You have an option: You could leave things as the status quo. The system is working. It has worked for a number of years. The evidence of no strikes, no problems that way -- yes, there have been some arbitration hearings, but for the most part all of the municipalities negotiate with a reasonable degree of fairness with their employees. I certainly don't treat my own employees this way, nor do I believe that my current employer, being the town of Fort Frances, would treat me in the same fashion that you're allowing within this bill.
Further to that, our council members actually signed our petition and have sent out the association cards that also indicate the support for our concerns with this bill. Nobody wants to see the protection level reduced, because we already have some problems with it.
Growth in efficiency has to come from an environment of cooperation. To create punitive action and put out legislation that's only going to create antagonism does absolutely nothing to help the ability for the citizens of Ontario to receive a good service. As I said, with the additional costs, even the municipalities, and certainly our associations, will be feeling the brunt of the additional conciliation requirements.
This committee has the power to recommend amendments and you people have the ability to turn Bill 84 into a very solid piece of legislation. I have to tell you, from somebody who really loves his job -- otherwise I'd be working in my own business and not doing this -- and on behalf of the people of my region, I have to ask you to reconsider some of them and to give some very serious thought to making the changes that have to be made.
I am going to thank you for all the commitment and hard work, and I am certainly willing to answer some questions if you have some for me.
Mr Ramsay: Thank you, Mr Sheppard. First of all, about some amendments, I am certainly going to be bringing an amendment that would prevent municipalities from privatizing their fire services. One Conservative member was on the record yesterday as saying he is against that, so I hope, if I can do my job and convince some others, maybe we could get that through.
I allude to that as really giving the councils kind of a loaded gun. Many of the people here have said municipalities aren't going to do that. Then why is the Harris government giving this loaded gun to the municipalities but saying, "Don't fire it"? I think we should just make sure it doesn't get loaded in the first place; that is, put an amendment here to prevent the privatization of fire services. That's certainly my intent, and I hope we'll get some of the government members to support that also.
Mr Sheppard: I would thank you if you would. It would be a very positive amendment that would go a long way to solving a lot of the problems that most of our associations and a lot of the residents I speak to, certainly in our area, have. One thing that is a strong belief is that nobody wants privatization here. The system isn't that bad.
Mr Bisson: Thank you very much for your presentation, Frank. This whole notion of changing the bargaining relationship by moving things into the OLRA: In your opinion, why is the government doing this? As you say, there hasn't been a problem in bargaining, no strikes in some 75 years. Things have been going fairly well. What's your idea of why the government is all of a sudden deciding they've got to change how you guys are certified and the whole bargaining relationship with your employers?
Mr Sheppard: We've been waiting for about 50 years for changes to this legislation. I honestly believe it may not even be with malice aforethought, but I think in a lot of cases legislation that's hurried, without consultation to the associations and the people you work with, creates the problems.
Mr Bisson: The second part, flowing from that: Prior to the last election, even during the election, there was a pledge and a promise by Mike Harris that there would be consultation with the firefighters, that you guys would be plugged into the process and guaranteed that you're part of this legislation. Are you feeling that commitment is being followed?
Mr Sheppard: No, not at all. As I said, that's probably one of the reasons you're seeing these hearings and probably one of the reasons you're seeing some the problems in the Legislature right now. I honestly think a cooperative move is far better to maintain some kind of reasonable solution to a problem. If there's a problem with the legislation, let's fix it.
Mr Ron Johnson: Thank you very much for your presentation, sir. I want to focus a little on your concerns with respect to part-time firefighters, who aren't currently defined in legislation but will be after this bill passes. To give an example, right now we've got somewhere around 20,000 volunteer firefighters working in the province who are trained to a certain standard. If part-timers, as defined in this legislation, will be trained to the same standards as full-time or their volunteer counterparts, would that satisfy your concerns?
Mr Sheppard: It would, as long as the training is not established in its present format. I am a trainer within the current OFM system, and a lot of the training standards are established on a sugar-coated basis. We're putting paper out there that says people are trained, but the actual physical and consistent ability to respond to an incident is not there.
What we're doing is we're creating a paper trail that's saying we're doing it, but we're not necessarily doing it. I work with volunteer departments in our area as well, and I really believe that's a fact. I think if you had volunteer people who are involved in the system right now, they would have a lot of the same answers.
The Chair: Could I just ask, what's the composition of the Fort Frances --
Mr Sheppard: We have 12 full-time firefighters and we have 20 part-time.
The Chair: And no volunteers?
Mr Sheppard: They're considered volunteers, but they're actually paid a wage so we consider them part-time. They're an absolutely integral part of what we do.
The Chair: I really appreciate your attending this morning. Thank you very much.
Mr Ron Johnson: As a request for more information with respect to the part-time, could I ask the ministry to give the committee some information with respect to those in Ontario who are volunteer firefighters currently operating part-time, how they are compensated and the various models used, so we could cross-reference that against the part-time proposal we have in the legislation.
The Chair: That's a request for the ministry. It will be accommodated? Thank you.
1220
JOLEENE KEMP
The Chair: Our next presenter is Joleene Kemp. Good morning and welcome.
Mrs Joleene Kemp: Thank you very much and good day to you. My name is Joleene Kemp and I would like to thank you for the opportunity of presenting my concerns with respect to Bill 84.
I have worked with the firefighters primarily in two areas: When I was a teacher with the Lakehead separate system, firefighters were coming into the school looking after fire prevention; and most recently, when I wear another hat, I've had the pleasure of working with them as a volunteer in the community with the Thunder Bay annual Christmas Cheer drive.
Personally, we've had involvement with firefighters on two very separate occasions, and I think it sets a context for the comments I'm about to make. Number one, my father was in an accident, and if it weren't for the firefighters and their jaws of life, he wouldn't be alive today. Second, one of the superintendents in our system lives in a rural area that is not presently serviced by full-time firefighters. It is serviced by volunteer firefighters. The home in which he was living was totally destroyed because the response time was so slow. It's not disrespect for the volunteers, but it's simply to have them come together, and at that particular time it was very slow. Within one week of that fire there was another fire where another employee in our system, who lives in the city, was serviced by the fire department. Her house was on fire in a similar nature, yet her house was saved because the response time was considerably less and there was a full team ready to go.
In my written and oral presentation today I have chosen to list the major areas of Bill 84 which I find most distressing. I normally am very quiet when it comes to anything the government is doing, but I am particularly concerned by what I perceive to be the direction this government is heading. A solicitor with whom I frequently work always begins discussions of issues by asking the question, "What's the mischief?" I find myself asking the same question with all the government's present pieces of proposed legislation.
In placing each of the most recent pieces of legislation on chart paper, because I am a visual learner, it has for me become very clear that the perceived intent of the government is to decentralize, to privatize, to fragment and to download; to appear to be doing, by placing dollars from one area into another, the exchange of dollars usually occurring from an area whose clients have little voice to one whose recipients appear to be initially pleased.
The reality to date in all cases is that no new dollars are available for actual reinvestment. Those who have had a bad experience are now in a position of what one would say power, so it's their turn to do as they might wish. Those who are the weakest and the most vulnerable, those with whom we deal on a daily basis, are being further humbled.
Bill 84, the Fire Protection and Prevention Act, is an omnibus act that combines some 13 fire-related pieces of legislation into one. From a politician's perspective, one would think this is a very good thing because one is streamlining and supposedly eliminating duplication and needless red tape. But is that really the case? As one begins to look more closely at the proposed legislation, one discovers significant gaps and potential problem areas. Being a layperson, not involved in firefighting at all and simply looking at the pieces of legislation, that's the context within which I make my remarks.
The new act makes provisions for mandatory fire prevention and fire education programs -- excellent, first-rate, what is needed. However, the costs of these mandatory programs have been left to municipal governments to fund. Municipalities like the one I live in, Thunder Bay, whose councillors are, according to the media and according to sitting at council meetings, grappling with escalating costs due to provincial downloading, aging buildings, a stagnant population -- Thunder Bay is showing no real new growth -- and no new real investments within the community, a community whose taxpayers are themselves indicating an unwillingness and an inability to pay more, are going to be placed in the proverbial catch-22 situation.
It would most likely be very easy for municipal governments, unfortunately, to allocate moneys that are for fire suppression to date over to fire prevention, thus cutting back on emergency capabilities, and then laying the blame at the provincial level.
Other danger areas being proposed by the Ontario government include the privatization of fire services. Private enterprise will be permitted to submit lowest-tender bids to deliver fire protection to the residents of Ontario. This system has proven to be ineffective and inefficient in the United States, where only one half of 1% of fire services are in the private sector. The bottom-line concerns of a corporation should not have any bearing on the level of fire protection a citizen enjoys.
Specifically, the new definition of an employer in section 41 of the act invites the privatization of fire departments. It would put at risk one of the best fire and emergency services in North America. It threatens to dismantle the excellent emergency services that the citizens have come to expect and should be able to have.
The new definition of a firefighter in section 41 will inevitably lead to less-qualified part-time firefighters. This is clearly a cost-saving measure and will jeopardize public safety. Fire and emergency services are not a part-time occupation. Studies in the United States, specifically Michigan and North Carolina, have shown that part-time firefighters are less effective than full-time ones because firefighters tied up in other activities are slower to respond to alarms. The absence of firefighters from the station between fires interferes with training, maintenance and fire planning. Part-time firefighters have a hard time getting adequate experience. The abovementioned came right off the Internet and was found by some secondary students in one of our high schools when they were doing an investigation with regard to career training.
Certification procedures will also lead to various problems. Fractured representation for firefighters which involves a variety of collective bargaining approaches will become a labour relations nightmare. There is no need to superimpose a procedure for determining representation where representation has never been a problem and indeed where collective bargaining can occur in the absence of a formal trade union or association affiliation or membership.
Section 52 appears to eliminate the long-standing right to negotiate hours of work. It also has the potential to roll back or limit firefighter pension benefits. This section appears to be regressive in the extreme and to set labour relations back decades.
The bargaining unit exclusions are open-ended, ambiguous and far exceed anything that apparently has been discussed at the fire departments' annual review committee or other provincial meetings with the Solicitor General.
In section 53(5), what exactly are the costs of conciliation? Are the costs of the parties' legal counsel included?
Many references are made to regulations. Without knowledge of the content, any adoption of the legislation is like putting the cart before the horse. As a politician, you would hate to believe things are going to occur and then be disappointed when the actual regulations are not what you had anticipated.
In section 54(3) the arbitrator appears to have too much control over time periods. This could then pose a problem for both the parties at the table. We in education see arbitrators very often, and when an arbitrator decides that he or she is going to take a walk and determine what will take place next, it makes it very difficult for both parties.
In section 54(15), what are "one half of the costs of the arbitration"? What does that equate to? Why is this placed in this particular piece of legislation but it's not found in any other piece currently in place or proposed in the particular allocation mentioned in the firefighters' one?
Under the present Fire Departments Act, Bill 84 is ambiguous and open to various interpretations, which will undoubtedly lead to confusion and an adversarial system of labour relations. This will most likely lead to grievances, court challenges and resentment rather than the present highly successful and cooperative labour-management process that seems to have been taking place.
In the "Operation of Collective Agreements" section, it would appear that collective agreements in this area will terminate and the terms and conditions of employment will cease operating. Do the firefighters cease working at that particular point? Existing legislation has served the citizens of Ontario well by providing for the continued operation of collective agreements through periods of dispute over wages and working conditions and during periods of internal disputes over particular association memberships and affiliations.
Under the existing legislation as it relates to labour relations matters, there has never been an opportunity for nor has there ever been a threat of interruption in the quality and delivery of fire service to the citizens of Ontario's communities. Why, then, would anyone introduce changes that may alter this unprecedented level of comfort for Ontario residents and taxpayers? Matters as important to the parties as the process of appointing arbitrators and conciliators should not be left to the regulations. The process should be put up front and subject to the scrutiny and criticism of the interested parties. We still are presently operating under the notion of a real democracy.
1230
Many firefighters could be turned into midlevel managers. The government has stated that an increased number of managers is essential to enhance fire protection for the residents of Ontario. However, this particular process would appear to be at odds with the general trend in both the public and private sectors, where middle manager positions have been eliminated or substantially reduced.
Municipal governments concerned more with the bottom line than public safety, because of the changes taking place so rapidly at their level, will staff their fire departments with a minimum of full-time personnel. The new legislation permits the municipal government to reduce the level of staff on duty, because fire departments will have enhanced abilities to call firefighters back to duty or to call upon part-time employee staff to attend the scene of an emergency. There are no second chances or instant replays in the fire service. When at the scene of any emergency, correct actions must be taken in a timely fashion. To be forced to wait for sufficient staff to arrive slows down the process and worsens the problem.
When all the abovementioned concerns are combined, the teamwork aspect of firefighting is placed in jeopardy. Having confidence in the abilities and knowledge of your partners allows professional firefighters to enter hazardous situations to assist those people whom they are hired to protect.
Professional firefighters have called for mandatory fire protection and for minimum staffing levels for apparatus, both of which would dramatically improve fire safety in the province. Coroners' juries in Ontario have recommended mandatory sprinklers in nursing homes, minimum firefighting staffing levels and minimum response capabilities. None of these improvements seems to have been addressed in Bill 84, an act that purports to enhance fire safety in the province.
In conclusion, speed, experience and teamwork make the difference, because in an emergency you do not get a second chance. In another life I belong to the funeral association, so I know those second chances are very few and far between.
Study after study has shown that the key factors in an emergency situation are rapid response time, fully staffed emergency vehicles and effective teamwork. Until now, Ontario's professional firefighters have been meeting the challenge: Emergency response time is four to six minutes on average, over 40,000 resuscitations occur each year and over 22,000 fires are put out each year. That creates a first-rate safety record every year.
The government says it is concerned about safety, but it ignored dozens of recommendations from panels and coroners' juries that would have improved public safety.
Fighting fires is a tough job but it's only part of the job. According to the latest statistics, about 60% of a firefighter's work is in non-related emergencies, which is to our credit, one would hope. But those types of situations include auto extrications; medical emergencies; defibrillations; high-angle rescues; hazardous material spills; ice water rescues, that now occur very frequently in Thunder Bay; gas leak explosions; broken power lines; and confined-space entries.
It truly takes a full-time professional firefighter four years to gain the skills and experience needed to be a first-class firefighter ready for any emergency. I would ask that you please rethink the proposals in Bill 84 and then go forward with change. Change is important, but do so, so that it is for the betterment of all those concerned. Thank you very much.
The Chair: Thank you. We have two minutes per caucus.
Mr Bisson: Thank you very much for your presentation and for taking the time to come to this committee. Far too often, people don't realize the importance of taking the time to come out to our committees and say how they feel so we, hopefully, can get legislation to a much better level.
I want to come to the whole concept of team, because that's something that maybe needs to be spoken to for the record as we go through this legislation and look at what amendments need to be brought forward. I'm not sure, in looking at this legislation, that there's really an understanding that when you have a group of firefighters training together, working together, spending long periods of time together, as happens, the whole sort of esprit de team is built and how important that is to safety of the public and the safety of the firefighters themselves when it comes to entering a building. I wonder if you can speak to that a little bit for the record.
Mrs Kemp: Just what I've witnessed: It's like when you do exercises where you're building trust. If you can't trust the person you are going fall back on and know they are going to catch you because they are capable of catching you, then you really are in jeopardy. With firefighters, if you cannot trust that the person who is at the bottom of the ladder is going to ensure that ladder is still there, or that if you need assistance with additional movement of a particular hose, whatever the case may be, because you're not sure if that person has the proper credentials and criteria, then you become --
Mr Bisson: It's second-guessing.
Mrs Kemp: You would be second-guessing. Second-guessing takes seconds and that could endanger the life of a person who's trapped in a particular situation.
Mr Bisson: It brings me to the next question, which is introducing this whole concept where the hours of work are spelled out in legislation rather than left at the bargaining table. My first, immediate reaction when I looked at it -- and I sat down with firefighters in Timmins; people came to that whole thing -- was that if you're able to establish the hours and utilize part-timers, it sort of breaks up that thing. Do you think that's what they're trying to accomplish by that introduction? Should it be left in the legislation or put in the bargaining unit?
Mrs Kemp: I believe that if you put it in the bargaining unit you allow the people who are directly affected to determine what is in the best interests. As well, if people are part of the solution, they will tend to do a better job, rather than creating more of a problem if they're left outside. Bargaining allows that.
Mr Bisson: This is a good question for you.
The Chair: I'm sorry, you're already 30 seconds over.
Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): What I wanted to ask you about is the aspect of teamwork. Having sat in on the committee yesterday, we heard very similar arguments -- in fact very similar text to your presentation -- about teamwork. The concerns that are expressed I find difficult to understand. I wondered if you could elaborate on it because the majority of firefighting in the province is done by part-time firefighters now, I understand. If you count all the numbers in the rural communities, the people who depend on part-time firefighters and volunteer firefighters, you wouldn't want to suggest that they care any less and don't develop teamwork and the support system on the job, would you?
Mrs Kemp: What I would want to say is that if we are looking at what's in the best interests of all people, perhaps you can come up with a model where there is equity, where all people are full-time because when you're full-time at something then your focus is there and you don't have alternative focuses that you're coming to.
Mrs Marland: Is there evidence to prove that in the rural communities the firefighting is a different standard of teamwork and caring and support for each other?
Mrs Kemp: The personal experience that we in our local board office have gone through would demonstrate that where there is a part-time department in the rural area of Thunder Bay, specifically in Shuniah, because it's part-time, because the response time was longer, an individual lost their home. The same situation, the same type of fire to the nth degree, unfortunately, occurred where there were full-time firefighters. The response time was quicker because everyone was there, everyone was ready and everyone was in place and everyone knew their job. You're not looking in a derogatory manner at those people who are part-time; they did the best they could, but they were not all focused immediately on their task because that was not their first job or their first line of defence.
1240
Mr Ramsay: I'd like to continue along that line of questioning because some people maybe like to pussyfoot around this business. Margaret seems to want to pretend that volunteers, who are great people -- and I live in a rural area, so I helped actually get the rural fire department going on a volunteer basis -- are somehow as good as a professional fire department. Margaret, they're not. There's no way we could have a volunteer fire department in Thunder Bay or Toronto or any major urban centre. There's no way in these urban centres we could have part-timers doing most of the work. That's just not the case. In urban centres with dense population, for sure, you need a professional full-time fire department.
As you have pointed out, this bill now gives the opportunity for municipalities to start to bring in more part-timers. Part-timers have other jobs. As you've said in your presentation, they cannot be as up to speed as a full-time professional who, while they're at the firehall, can do retraining, can do pre-fire planning, all the different, various work of a firefighter.
I don't know why the Tory members seem to think many of the towns -- and I live in one in my township -- do very well with volunteers. That's all we can afford. My neighbour's a quarter of a mile away from me. It's a whole different situation. But to say that a volunteer fire department would work well in Thunder Bay or Sudbury or North Bay or Sault Ste Marie or even the bigger centres in southern Ontario is just wrong.
I think that's the point you've made and I don't know why people are afraid to say it. They do their very best, they do their training a couple of nights a week, but there's no way they can be up to speed as much as somebody devoted to it full-time. That's the reality and we shouldn't shy away from saying that.
The Chair: Mrs Kemp, thank you for assisting us here today.
THUNDER BAY COALITION AGAINST POVERTY
The Chair: Our next presentation is the Thunder Bay Coalition Against Poverty: Christine Mather, accompanied by Beulah Besharah. Welcome.
Ms Christine Mather: Good morning, everybody. Thank you for the opportunity to present this morning. My name is Christine Mather and I am the coordinator of the Thunder Bay Coalition Against Poverty. This is Beulah Besharah, our board president.
The Thunder Bay Coalition Against Poverty is a grass-roots organization of people concerned about the depth and extent of poverty in our community. We believe that people with low incomes find it difficult to have their opinions come to the ears of politicians. Their voice is not heard. It is one of our primary goals, therefore, to bring that voice to such hearings as these. We believe that we are well able to represent the poor. Approximately 80% of our members are on some form of social assistance as are 75% of our board of directors. In addition, we operate a food bank at which we supply food to between 250 and 350 people every two weeks.
At this point I would like to emphasize that our presentation today is an opportunity for the members of this committee to hear from poor people. I'd like to tell you somewhat about the process that we used to produce the briefs that we present. We do consult, we caucus with low-income people. We go to our food bank and we talk to them about what we should be saying. "This is what the legislation says." I believe this is a unique opportunity for the members of this committee to hear the voices of poor people.
Our concerns with Bill 84 fall into four main categories: labour relations, public safety, the bill's effects on low-income people and concerns with the process used to arrive at Bill 84 and bring it into law.
The first section is labour relations. Low-income people are concerned about labour relations. Contrary to much of the pronouncements of this government and much of the poor-bashing in the media, low-income people are very concerned about joining the workforce. They realize that it is in their interests that employment standards and labour relations be protected.
Since election there has been a clear campaign on the part of this government to weaken the collective bargaining rights of workers and to undermine the strength of unions generally. Bill 84 continues this trend. We have eight specific points to make under this heading. We chose the ones that we thought were most important.
(1) Section 41(2) of Bill 84 states that firefighters who carry out managerial functions or who are "employed in a confidential capacity in matters relating to labour relations" will be excluded from the bargaining unit. This will allow for considerable reductions in the size of bargaining units and a concomitant weakening of the firefighters association.
(2) The bill does allow for appeals to firefighters being removed from the bargaining unit to be heard by the labour relations board. However, section 58(3) provides a formula for use by an employer to calculate the number of workers who can be designated as managers based on the total number of workers in the department. We read the bill to state that no challenges are allowable to workers being so designated through the use of the formula. The employer has "sole discretion."
(3) If it is necessary for management positions other than those currently in existence to be created, new positions should be designed based on consultations with the professional association.
(4) Bill 84 prevents strikes by firefighters. Publications of the government have referred to this provision, section 42, as "clarifying the issue." However, this is in fact a brand-new stipulation as the previous legislation was silent on the issue. Given that the constitution of the Ontario Professional Fire Fighters Association already prohibits strikes, as do most of the collective agreements negotiated by firefighters, we cannot help wondering if the government has included a no-strike clause because it realizes that Bill 84 will hurt firefighters and they are therefore anticipating and preventing any resultant workplace action.
(5) The bill legislates employment conditions generally arrived at through the collective bargaining process.
(6) The bill allows for the termination of a firefighter upon only seven days' notice, whether or not the termination is for cause. Quite simply, this is draconian and a step backwards from the terms of the majority of collective agreements. The situation for probationary firefighters is worse as they are denied even the right to an independent review of the termination.
(7) Bill 84 adds another layer to the collective bargaining process for firefighters through the mandatory conciliation process -- this from a government which has as a stated aim the reduction of bureaucracy.
(8) We are opposed in principle to any legislation which requires a labour arbitrator to take into account "the employer's ability to pay in light of its fiscal situation." Section 54(7) of this bill contains such a provision. We would suggest an amendment to the bill requiring the arbitrator to take into account the employees' need for an increase in pay. Paragraph 3 also states that the arbitrator must take into account "the economic situation in Ontario." Does this imply that if the province can't afford qualified firefighters we shouldn't have any?
The next section we'd like to deal with is public safety. We have three specific points to make under this heading.
(1) Bill 84 introduces a new category of firefighter, the part-time firefighter. Our understanding of the way things work now is that firefighters function together in teams of qualified members. These teams develop a cohesive way of working together. Weakening these teams through the introduction of part-time workers will endanger firefighters and the communities they serve.
(2) There is the potential under this legislation for municipal councils to understaff firehalls by relying on the call-in of part-time firefighters. Response times under such conditions would be affected, and in such a geographically stretched-out community as Thunder Bay this is of serious concern.
(3) Section 41 of Bill 84 defines an employer as "a municipality, person or organization that employs firefighters." This clearly opens the way for the privatization of fire services. Although the privatization of public services is a clear part of this government's agenda, it is not the will of the people the government was elected to serve.
There is a profound incompatibility between the provision of a public service and the profit motive. Example after example is available of how privatization has lead to a decrease in service and an increase in costs and the introduction of user fees. In the case of fire services, privatization will also lead to a decrease in public safety. We note with alarm that the US company which has recently bought ambulance services in southern Ontario, Rural/Metro, is the same company which has a disastrous record in the provision of fire services in the US.
The next section is concerned with Bill 84's effects on low-income people. The majority of the legislation passed during this government's term of office has favoured the wealthy and harmed ordinary Ontarians. The Ontarians who have been consistently harmed the most have been low-income people. They have seen their incomes slashed by 22%, their chance to receive a higher education reduced, their health concerns ignored, services slashed and their dignity eroded through a concerted and vicious campaign of poor-bashing. Bill 84 continues this trend.
We have three specific points to make under this heading.
(1) Privatization leads to increased taxes and user fees. Increased taxes and user fees hit hardest on the poor. User fees for public services are a form of regressive taxation whereby wealth is redistributed from the poor to the wealthy.
(2) Professional fire services with quick response times are particularly vital to the safety of poor people because many of them live in substandard housing. "Firetraps" is not too strong a word to use to describe some of the homes we have visited.
(3) A survey we carried out at our food bank showed that more than 60% of the people had to move to a cheaper home during the last 12 months, and for "cheaper" you can read less safe.
The final section is concerned with the process of introducing Bill 84. Our primary concern about the process used to arrive at Bill 84 is that there has been a lack of consultation with the professional firefighters association. It would seem to us that the government and our society would benefit from the expertise of those most intimately involved with the provision of fire services.
In summation, Bill 84 will weaken the professional association, introduce privatization and decrease public safety. One of the things we attempt to do through our coalition is to help poor people understand politics. We begin by explaining the structure and different levels of government in Canada, and then talk about how to understand legislation or policies. One of the questions we encourage people to ask is, "Who benefits from this legislation?" So let's ask that question about Bill 84. You guys can pretend you're poor and I'll pretend this is one of my focus groups, okay?
Does this legislation benefit firefighters? No, we don't believe so, and neither do the firefighters. Does it benefit society? No, it allows for reductions in both the quantity and quality of fire services. Does it benefit low-income people? No, it reduces their safety and allows for privatization, which will increase costs.
Who does Bill 84 benefit? We believe the answer is clear: It benefits the corporate sector, which will be allowed to purchase fire departments that we have paid for and thereby make a profit from reducing public safety. We believe that is what this bill is all about. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you very much for your presentation here today. Your time has elapsed, so we'll proceed.
We are now in a position of adjourning to 2 o'clock sharp this afternoon so we can get started.
The committee recessed from 1253 to 1406.
DOUGLAS TENNANT
The Chair: We shall proceed with the first presentation, a Mr Douglas Tennant. Welcome, Mr Tennant.
Mr Douglas Tennant: Thank you, Mr Chair and members of the committee. I appreciate being afforded the opportunity to make this presentation today. I'd just like to give a short introduction of myself. I'm currently employed as a full-time fire chief in the province of Ontario. I have approximately 18 years of fire service experience. I have an overlap of volunteer firefighting and full-time firefighting in Ontario.
I currently also serve, for a second term now, on the Ontario Association of Fire Chiefs, but I'm here today to present my views and my presentation on Bill 84 as a private citizen, based on my previously outlined experience and my review of the proposed legislation.
Bill 84, as I have read the material presented around the province on it, focuses primarily on public safety, and I think that is paramount in this bill. There has been a lot of information presented here today, and I can imagine elsewhere, about full-time firefighters and the need to address their concerns, and those are valid and quite appropriate in these hearings.
But I would today like to present a focus on something that you may not have had a lot of information on, and that is from a rural-urban interface: small towns, villages, townships in the rural parts of Ontario, which encroach even in some cases on to the larger urban areas, such as down into the Metro area. Sometimes the volunteers, as I've heard today in other presentations, are talked about, and I thought it necessary to come and present some information and attempt to do it in a balanced format.
Bill 84 addresses mandatory fire prevention and public safety education with regard to fire matters. This is an immense benefit to everyone in the province. It not only helps the firefighters, full-time, part-time, volunteer or otherwise, but it truly does affect each and every individual in the province. I think that speaks volumes with regard to fire safety, and I urge the committee to continue their focus on the public fire safety aspect of Bill 84.
Bill 84 outlines, with respect to volunteers and how it could affect them, standards, certification and training, and I urge the committee to consider recommending, however they can, a quick and thorough implementation of legislated firefighter training centres. There are already many good standards available for firefighters right up through to the fire chief. They are currently used by hundreds of fire departments in Ontario, and they have been and will continue to be of great benefit to the public as firefighters reach a common level of training throughout the province.
The provisions in Bill 84 for automatic aid will improve, in my opinion, a very good service provided by volunteer and composite fire departments in Ontario and will improve ever more by perhaps having a seamless coverage of fire and emergency services throughout the province. That's very important, an automatic aid provision. I would like to see that continued and remain in the bill.
Again, training, I mentioned earlier: reinforcement of the office of the fire marshal and its commitment through the Ontario Fire College in Gravenhurst, the outward- and forward-facing issues of training for volunteers and composite firefighters, full-time, especially in the areas of wild fire. The Forest Fires Prevention Act is becoming more important to rural areas and up in this area. Merchantable timber has to be protected and, if other fire services are not available, I think it's very important that the volunteers and composite firefighters who will be providing that training get the desired and requisite training. I think this act will see to that and I'm very encouraged about that.
Code enforcement will allow a more defined and assured outline to volunteers who are currently, many hundreds and thousands of them, out doing code enforcement in the province, doing wood stove inspections, making sure that the fires that could start are prevented. There's nothing more apropos in this legislation than saying that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. More and better training and the moral support that the dedication of this bill will bring to volunteer inspectors and composite inspectors is worth the hundreds of thousands of dollars that fire trucks cost, more stations and more salaries for more people and the more support in code enforcement that the volunteers can receive I believe is very important, especially in the rural areas.
I would like to see, if possible, the committee consider making an amendment or including in the legislation a requirement for a mandatory smoke alarm in every family dwelling in Ontario. Currently it is provided in new construction, but I believe firmly that this bill is an opportunity, a window, to see that some kind of fire prevention aspect is made with regard to smoke alarms in every home in Ontario. Right now, it is not mandated in every home, just in new construction under the building code. There are some municipal bylaws that address it, but this act is a window of opportunity to address that.
Just to reiterate, I think it's important to see if you can get quick movement on having the minister or whoever will ultimately be empowered to make regulations with regard to firefighter training. We've heard presentations that there may be the concept that there is a differing level of training. This is a very adequate, although minimum, level of training and a standard that is available in Ontario, and I think that it's very apropos that Ontario take the opportunity to put into legislation mandated training and standards. That would be a real good thing, and again of benefit to the public.
The local option idea: Communities with their local elected officials being able to look at their needs in their communities, whether Metro Toronto or South Porcupine or Dryden or Thunder Bay or wherever -- I think the elected officials have a very good tool in Bill 84 to continue with the flexibility allotted to them to ensure that their citizens are protected to the needs that their risk management requires.
There are many competent volunteer departments and, obviously, thousands of full-time firefighters who do just an excellent job in Ontario, and in their urban areas they do a truly remarkable and sometimes a thankless job, and I think everyone, unfortunately, at some time takes them for granted. I just wanted to make sure that the volunteer service, of whom there are 20,000 volunteers/part-time in Ontario, also get the recognition they deserve. They too are putting their lives on the line getting up for sometimes little or no pay and, in some cases, receiving fairly good compensation packages, but again their dedication and commitment to the communities that they serve, under their risk needs, are truly commendable.
But none of these smaller, rural and fire emergency services are put in place by happenstance. It's still a partnership between the fire chiefs and the administration of the local communities and the elected officials who sit down and bring a well-defined package that is locally suited to their needs. I think Bill 84 must continue with that flexibility and that reinforcement to the municipalities that they can set the level of service for their local community.
Part IX of the act is obviously something that is causing a lot of concern for the full-time firefighters, and I'm aware that even the firefighters association of Ontario has provided some support at the volunteer level for their full-time firefighters that they serve along with. I question the sudden reversal in the FFAO's position but it's something that they, as an organization, have made, and I would encourage the committee to ask some questions as to why that support has waned a little bit.
The part IX portion I would like on speak on deals with the management exclusion aspects of Bill 84. I support the management exclusion component in the legislation as proposed and I would like to explore, just for a moment, the fact that if a definition does come out indicating that perhaps thousands of volunteers could be defined as part-time firefighters, there would be an opportunity to certify as union members thousands more firefighters in Ontario.
Many volunteer departments that currently are served by a chief and a deputy with volunteers could end up having hundreds of unionized firefighters. I feel Bill 84 addresses that future possibility by allowing for management exclusions, to help manage in this potentially new unionized environment.
The commitment and dedication of the tens of thousands of volunteers throughout Ontario, I believe, will be enhanced by all of the provisions that are currently outlined in Bill 84. I would like to say that the fire fatalities have dropped in Ontario by something like 60%, according to the office of the fire marshal, and I believe it's through the dedication of all of the firefighters, and I mean all of them, full-time, volunteer and composite, who are protecting the citizens. They do a marvellous job and, because of that, we do have a very impressive fire service record. I believe Bill 84 will provide an even better prevention tool towards increasing and enhancing public safety.
Bill 84 also will still allow the flexibility for local elected officials, the people at the local level, to determine their needs and to set in place their levels of service. I'd ask you to consider the suggestions I have about smoke alarms and training standards.
Thank you again for allowing me to make a presentation here today.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Tennant. The committee welcomes Lyn McLeod, member for Fort William. We have a little over a minute per caucus and we start off with the opposition.
Mr Ramsay: Thank you very much, Mr Tennant, for your presentation. I agree with you. I think most of this legislation is really excellent, especially in the areas that you had cited, except for the part IX that you also talked about. I just don't know, and I wanted to ask you, why the Harris government would break a commitment to firefighters and literally poison a wonderful piece of legislation by putting in that part IX and demoralizing the firefighters right across this province.
Mr Tennant: There are certainly parts that have caused some consternation. I believe the committee has received information and that you'll be able to make possible recommendations or amendments that would come up with an amended bill that would meet the needs of the public in Ontario.
Mr Ramsay: Do you think it would be good to have an amendment there that might prevent municipalities from privatizing fire departments?
Mr Tennant: I believe public safety is paramount and, as long as the training standards and the service levels are not changed, my personal belief is that when I call 911 I would like to have the best available service come to my emergency.
Mr Ramsay: Do you think a privatized operation can do that?
Mr Tennant: If it can be shown that it can and not jeopardize public safety, then I think that is in order. Again, it's a local option and that's, I think, what is good about Bill 84. It allows that local flexibility.
Mr Ramsay: Do you think there's an error in omitting the definition of a deputy chief? Because that's a very strong management person in a fire station.
Mr Tennant: No, I don't think so. I think the management exclusions as provided for in the bill will ensure that whatever the label that's put on to the management, they will still be able to do their job and manage the fire department effectively.
Mr Bisson: Thank you very much for your presentation. I'm not going to get into all of the details, but I have great problems with much of this legislation. Part of it, you're right: The fire prevention side and the public education side are steps forward. I don't think firefighters or municipal politicians or opposition members or government members disagree those are steps in the right direction, but there lies the problem.
When you look at this act it talks about the mandating of fire prevention and the mandating of public education, but we don't mandate fire suppression, which is a big problem here. If we're really serious about making our fire departments the best we can possibly get as efficiently as we can pay for them, it seems to me that I would be mandating the fire suppression side. There's my question.
We are living in a land where the federal government is dumping on the provincial governments with downloading and the provincial governments are dumping on to the municipal governments their responsibilities through downloading and cuts. How are we going to be able to pay for fire suppression if we mandate fire prevention and public education and we don't get the dollars to do that? Is there a danger that the dollars to do this job are going to come out of fire suppression?
Mr Tennant: I don't believe so. I believe there are other provisions in the bill that will address the funding aspects of public education, such as the Fire Marshal's Public Fire Safety Council. Their ability to partner with private industry and other community groups should, and I'm very positive, be allowed to continue. I believe that is a very economical and feasible way to fund the public education portion, especially in the rural areas, where the volunteers need that support.
1420
Mr Bisson: Part of the difficulty --
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Bisson.
Mr Bisson: Chair, there's about five questions. I just had one.
The Chair: Yes, because you took two minutes asking it.
Mr Bisson: No, I did not, Chair.
The Chair: Yes, you did. Are we going to get through this? Mr Ramsay finished within his allotted time. He only used one minute and 45 seconds, to be exact, and you used two minutes of your time. I don't see why you have a problem, sir.
Mr W. Leo Jordan (Lanark-Renfrew): Thank you, Doug, for taking time to give such an excellent presentation. I was wondering if you might review once again the bill relative to privatization, volunteer and part-time. What is there in this bill that appears to be causing unrest with some, as to a positive reaction to the bill?
Mr Tennant: Personally, I haven't heard or been made aware of, in the smaller rural composite departments, concerns about privatization. Certainly the bill will strengthen the local flexibility to meet the needs that are required. It is a very strong step forward from permissive current legislation, where you don't even have to have a fire department or any fire prevention or public safety, to at least mandating fire safety and prevention.
Prevention is proactive; suppression is a very reactive and very expensive way to fight fire. It's very important to realize the two differences there. Privatizing of a fire department, as I said earlier, hasn't really been a concern at the level that I serve at.
Mr Jordan: Why should it be one now?
Mr Tennant: I'm here today to present the views of the smaller departments, the volunteers who are doing a very adequate job. People are not dying in their beds, as alluded to by some. The record speaks for itself. We have a very good fire death record. Unfortunately, we have a long way to go and such things as mandatory smoke alarms will also improve that record.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Tennant.
Mrs Lyn McLeod (Fort William): Mr Chair, may I ask a point of order as a newcomer to the committee? As a northerner, I'm also always very conscious of how far people have to travel to come to committee hearings. I think Mr Tennant has travelled a particularly long distance. Are the committee hearings so restricted that it's not possible to accommodate, for example, Mr Tennant, closer to a home locality, that he would have to travel this distance to make a presentation?
The Chair: The subcommittee and committee decided to derive the witnesses from three lists, each provided by one of the three parties. Mr Tennant was one of those persons on a particular list allocated to this location.
Mrs McLeod: Right, so the Conservative members of the committee were able to keep those people close --
The Chair: I didn't name the party involved. It might have been yours. I have never seen the list.
Mrs McLeod: I appreciate that, Mr Chairman. It was a long distance to travel to make a presentation.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Tennant, for travelling a long distance to assist the committee.
Mrs Marland: Mr Chair, I'll make a point of order comment similar to Ms McLeod's. I think it's significant, having sat on the committee yesterday and from what I've heard today, that actually Chief Tennant's presentation was particularly succinct and particularly clear and helpful, no matter what side of this issue you're on, and I would compliment him very much for his presentation.
Mr Ramsay: I would second that.
The Chair: Neither is a point of order. In any event, we shall proceed.
Mr Bisson: I would like to add that there have been a lot of other presentations that have been just as succinct and just as clear and just as helpful, with respect.
The Chair: That is not a point of order either. It's now 2:15 and we're slightly behind.
MICHAEL PUSTINA
The Chair: Michael Pustina. I understand you are Dr Pustina. You are a medical doctor?
Dr Michael Pustina: Yes, I am. I am a chiropractor.
The Chair: Welcome. We have not -- oh, I'm sorry. We did have some medical evidence at an earlier hearing. I'd ask you to proceed.
Dr Pustina: First, I'd like to express my appreciation to you, the committee, for permitting me to appear here before you in order to voice my concerns regarding the enactment of Bill 84.
As you are aware, my name is Dr Michael Pustina. I am a local chiropractor and I have been in practice now for nine years. I feel very privileged to have been active in the treatment of many of the firefighters here in Thunder Bay and in being able to attend to their health care needs. It is an honour. It is because of this particular involvement that I would like to express my concerns to you the committee.
So what concerns me? What are those concerns? Number one: Bill 84 results in understaffing. When we talk about understaffing, we are going to slow down the response time. The response time is of the utmost importance and significance when it comes to life-threatening situations. I will allude to this fact later.
Second, we now have fully staffed emergency vehicles which are the very key in emergency situations. Bill 84 will shorten staff on these vehicles.
Third, Ontario has two categories of firefighters right now: one, the full-time professional firefighters; secondarily, there are volunteers. Bill 84 proposes a new category which will be part-time firefighters. This could seriously impair the effectiveness, the efficiency and the experience behind the firefighters that they now have. If we do this, we will undermine property and personal fire protection. I don't want to do this.
Bill 84 creates other areas of concern to me as well. Doors will open to privatization. I am substantially concerned with this. I lived in the United States for over five years and they have significant problems with privatization to date. When you bring the profit motive and the bottom line into the same equation, necessary manpower and material will ultimately be sacrificed under a cloak of necessity which is designed to create a profit for the owners, whoever these new owners may be. Privatization cannot be a factor in the provision of effective firefighting services, which is simply an essential here in our community.
Bill 84 creates bureaucracy. More managers in emergency situations will create more roadblocks and more concerns. We don't need that in an emergency situation, especially the roadblocks. We will decrease teamwork as well. If we're planning on decreasing the number of full-time firefighters and increasing the number of part-time firefighters, what will happen is that -- teamwork right now is so vital, it is so important, it is an integral part of firefighting. If we compromise that we will lose the teamwork capacity and their abilities. I don't want to do this. This will adversely affect our community.
1430
I would like to take the time right now to share with you a personal experience in which I was involved and which is why I am concerned with Bill 84, which brings me back to the first point I raised, the loss of rapid response time.
June 18, 1995, Father's Day. My family and I were involved in boating on the Cam River for an afternoon. We were involved in a very serious boating accident, extremely serious. The boat had lost control and struck a large, 150-foot dock. There was nobody around when the accident happened. So there we were, my family. I have two children -- they were three and five years old at the time -- my wife and myself. As a result of the accident, we were all unconscious, profusely bleeding and the boat was sinking.
Because of the nature and the extent of our injuries, time was the most significant factor here. Time. There was nobody around to even witness this accident. The emergency vehicles, including the firefighters, were on the scene in less than six minutes from the time that they were called. It took less than 20 minutes before we were put into emergency at McKellar -- emergency at McKellar; I won't belabour that with this committee.
Had it not been for the quick response time in our accident, neither I nor any of my family members would be here to speak with you today. This is how important it is to me. The firefighters were an instrumental part of the team that saved my life and my family's lives. If they had needed part-time firefighters, the response to that emergency may have been compromised significantly, enough that I would not be here today to tell you this story. You cannot put a pricetag on the value of human lives and health. It is priceless.
The firefighters I deal with here in Thunder Bay are in great physical and mental health. They have excellent mental attitudes and physical abilities. I ask that we not jeopardize these, especially the moral attitude that will happen should some of these things be passed. As a doctor, based on my past and present experience, I can guarantee this and this only: Once you lose your health, you have nothing.
I'd like to read this to you. It's called The Touch of the Master's Hand:
'Twas battered and scarred, and the auctioneer
Thought it scarcely worth his while
To waste much time on the old violin,
But held it up with a smile:
"What am I bidden, good folks?" he cried,
"Who'll start the bidding for me?"
"A dollar, a dollar"; then, "Two! Only two?
Two dollars, and who'll make it three?
"Three dollars, once; three dollars, twice;
Going for three -- " But no,
From the room, far back, a grey-haired man
Came forward and picked up the bow;
Then, wiping the dust from the old violin,
And tightening the loose strings,
He played a melody pure and sweet
As sweet as a caroling angel sings.
The music ceased and the auctioneer,
With a voice that was quiet and low,
Said: "What am I bidden for the old violin?"
And he held it up with the bow.
"A thousand dollars, and who'll make it two?
Two thousand! And who'll make it three?
Three thousand, once, three thousand, twice,
And going, and gone," said he.
The people cheered, but some of them cried,
"We do not quite understand
What changed its worth." Swift came the reply:
"The touch of a master's hand."
And many a man with life out of tune,
And battered and scarred with sin,
Is auctioned cheap to the thoughtless crowd,
Much like the old violin.
A mess of pottage, a glass of wine;
A game -- and he travels on.
He's "going" once, and "going" twice,
He's "going" and almost "gone."
But the Master comes, and the foolish crowd,
Never can quite understand
The worth of a soul, and the change that's wrought,
By the touch of the Master's hand.
Where would any of us be if and when we should need their help? Who are "they," you ask? "They" I refer to as the people who are involved in responding to saving people's lives. I ask you, is there anything more important than the value of human lives? Are we willing to sacrifice the master, the value of the master's hand, for the sake of the dollar? "`No, not I,' said he."
I hope not, because no pricetag can be placed on the value of human health and human lives. I thank you for your time.
The Chair: Thank you, Doctor. We only have about one minute per caucus.
Mr Bisson: I was touched by the story you gave about what happened to your family, the short story. I don't think you said it in your presentation, but in the end, if we move to a system of hybrid, such as is possible with this bill, where you have the mixture of volunteers with full-time firefighters or part-timers, do you think your family would be in any more danger because of the response time it might take to get the volunteers to come in?
Dr Pustina: Definitely.
Mr Bisson: You have an opportunity to say to the government what it is you have to say. What advice do you give them?
Dr Pustina: To make amendments to the bill that are with the needs of the firefighters today. It works as it works now. Why change what's working?
Mrs Marland: I too would like to thank you for your presentation. I'm just not clear where the criticism of the part-time firefighters is coming from. Maybe you can help me with this. I'm getting a little upset about the fact that we have so many lives saved around this province by volunteer and part-time firefighters, and suddenly they're becoming second-class citizens in debating this bill. Particularly I'm surprised that a lot of the comments are coming from the New Democratic Party. You must have worked with part-time and volunteer firefighters and I'd like to know your opinion on that.
Also, do you think your local municipal councils would not prioritize in terms of human lives and safety in setting the budget for fire protection?
Dr Pustina: First I'd like to answer, what is the importance of full-time versus part-time? Full-time brings experience. I find the best doctors we have are well-experienced doctors. The ones who are part-time emergentologists, even family physicians who step into the emergency to supply emergency services, are not quite well established or not quite well versed with the knowledge of treating emergency situations. So we prefer full-time emergentologists rather than the family doctor who likes to come into emergency and treat these patients. People with experience get results. We need experience and I don't want to compromise that with the part-time.
The Chair: We must move on.
Mr Ramsay: Margaret, I'd like to answer that, because it's very clear. Forgetting the experience difference -- Margaret, I'm going to answer your question for you -- the point is that the part-timers and volunteers aren't at the firehall when the call comes in. So if you've got, in a big city especially, some big emergency that you've got to get to fast, as we've talked about, response time is paramount. That's what we're talking about. We're not denigrating the skills and the dedication of the part-timer or the volunteer.
What we're saying is, in big urban centres and areas where there are all sorts of rescues, unfortunately incidents that happen, defibrillation requirements in big cities that happen, to have a full-time professional firefighting squad on call is what is required. That's the difference. In a rural area where I live, where we don't have those sorts of action calls all the time, yes, we can get along with a volunteer fire department. That's the difference. What we don't want to see is municipalities under the pressure of the Tory downloading having to go to volunteers and part-timers and put the public in Ontario at jeopardy. That's the point of this whole hearing.
Mrs Marland: What council is going to --
The Chair: I'm sorry, Mrs Marland, you're out of order.
Mrs Marland: I just got a lecture from the Liberal member. Is that in order?
The Chair: He's entitled to use his time as he sees fit, and he has just done so. In any event, Doctor, your time is up and I thank you very much for taking the trouble to attend before us and assist us here today.
Dr Pustina: I thank all of you for your time today.
1440
THUNDER BAY AND DISTRICT LABOUR COUNCIL
The Chair: Our next presentation will be by the Thunder Bay and District Labour Council, Evelina Pan. Welcome, Ms Pan.
Ms Evelina Pan: Thank you very much. I'd like to introduce myself. I'm Evelina Pan, the president of the Thunder Bay and District Labour Council, and we'd like to thank the standing committee for the opportunity to speak here today.
I'd like to point out -- this is not a strip show -- that the T-shirt I'm wearing today is for the Thunder Bay Day of Action, which is on April 28. I'm sure you all know that April 28 is the day of mourning for workers killed and injured on the job. We're quite afraid that the effects of Bill 84 will mean that more workers, and in this case of course firefighters, will be injured and, heaven forbid, killed while working. The Day of Action on April 28 gives our community the opportunity to protest the reactionary and regressive legislation that both senior levels of government -- and we're not targeting just the provincial government, but the federal government as well -- are imposing on us in the communities. This hearing is another opportunity for us to make our views known.
Public hearings such as this one on Bill 84, the Fire Protection and Prevention Act, follow the same fatally flawed form of all other Harris government consultations. The flaw of course is that it's only the illusion of consultation, but not true, meaningful and honest venturing out of the hallowed halls of Queen's Park to hear what people think. How can they hear when they're talking?
An issue of secondary concern is the relatively short amount of time we've had to prepare for this session. The current Ontario government is very good at this. They appear to want to hear what we have to say but they don't really provide a realistic time frame. What's the great hurry to get this and other regressive legislation passed? Can it be because the government, which was elected by barely one in three voters, doesn't expect to be around after this term of office, so it will do everything it possibly can in its very brief tenure to grant the wishes of its corporate masters?
Researching the history of Bill 84 shows that the professional firefighter associations have not been taken seriously. What a mistake. These are the men and women who every day of our lives are out there fighting fires, preventing fires and providing other emergency services. We hope the hearings being held here today, those in Toronto that you had over the last couple of days and then in the other four communities around the province will have an impact on the final version of this legislation.
We appreciate that the government is trying to consolidate nine acts that govern issues around fire services in order to streamline and avoid duplication, but this proposed piece of legislation goes far beyond that noble quest.
We'd like to start our discussion of Bill 84 with a look at some of the basic definitions in part IX, section 41(1).
Employer: Up until now, municipalities were the sole employers of firefighters and have operated fire departments. The new definition is expanded to include "person or organization." Is this a sneaky way of saying that private enterprise could be an employer? We all know what contracting out of public services to the private sector means in reality, and that's a decrease in the quality and types of services, a significant cut in pay to those who provide the services, fewer people to actually do the work and no democratic accountability. When the Bill 104 Fewer School Boards Act hearings were here a few weeks ago, they were able to ferret out only one case of where contracting out would result in savings and a larger number of employees.
The next section -- managers, not firefighters: Under the proposed Bill 84, more firefighters can arbitrarily be deemed managers, which takes them out of the bargaining unit and increases the rank of middle managers.
Firefighter: Two words -- fire fighter. There is nothing in the proposed bill that indicates firefighters should be full-time, only that they be regularly employed on a salaried basis. In the real world, and we've heard it from the other presenters here today, especially for matters so critical as life and death -- and we are talking life and death -- there needs to be the continuity and the consistency provided by full-time permanent staff who receive regular training and upgrading to keep current with changing technology.
It boils down to a matter of public safety, to ensure that those men and women who fight fires are full-time professionals who, because they work together regularly, know each other well enough to completely entrust their very lives to their teammates. When firefighters are at the scene of a fire, it's crucial that each one of them is devoting every bit of their attention to fighting the fire, and not worrying if the part-timer with them is up to the challenge because they might have just come off shift from another part-time job flipping burgers perhaps.
Bill 84, section 41(2), contains provisions to deem persons not to be a firefighter if,
"(a) in the opinion of the board, he or she exercises managerial functions or is employed in a confidential capacity in matters relating to labour relations; or
"(b) if he or she is a person designated under subsection 58(3)."
In the first method, the firefighters' association can appeal to the Ontario Labour Relations Board for the removal of firefighters from the bargaining unit. The second method is completely arbitrary and not subject to review by the labour relations board or any other body. This is a most dangerous tool that employers can use to muzzle firefighters and deny them representation by the firefighter associations.
As one who has been part of a number of sets of negotiations, I'm very well aware of the importance of both parties bargaining in good faith and making every reasonable effort to achieve a collective agreement. However Bill 84, as proposed, doesn't provide any specific mechanisms for ensuring that this will happen.
Section 41(4), "transition," is too vague. A broad interpretation might give full successor rights, but because it doesn't explicitly provide that the collective agreements remain in effect, and certainly doesn't provide that associations, which have referred their collective agreements to arbitration, can continue with the arbitration process, the implications of this section are so important that the four lines it takes are completely inadequate and raise the possibility of many disputes with employers.
Another example of the undemocratic nature of the Harris government as evidenced in Bill 84 is section 42, which prohibits firefighters from going on strike and of course employers from locking them out. The panel should be aware that no other labour relations legislation makes such a stipulation. Every firefighter collective agreement in the province has a no-strike and lockout clause. In the almost 100-year history of professional firefighters here in Thunder Bay, there has never been even one occasion of a strike or lockout. So why is the government discriminating against firefighters by including this section?
Section 52(1) restricts the firefighter associations from being able to bargain for hours of work. Section 43 caps the number of hours a firefighter can be assigned to firefighting duties at 48 hours in an average week and ensures a minimum of one 24-hour period each week during which a firefighter is not at work or on duty, but there are no provisions for challenging improper assignment of working hours by an employer. All other union groups can bargain for hours of work. Why not firefighters?
Section 52(2) stipulates that the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing -- remember a little while ago we talked about the Ministry of Labour? now we're talking about the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing -- can determine the maximum amount of pension benefit available to a firefighter. Why are firefighters prevented from bargaining pension benefits better than what the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing allows?
In closing, we'd like to reiterate our main areas of concern with Bill 84:
(1) This proposed piece of legislation is the first step in privatizing fire services, the most dangerous aspect of which is making profits the ultimate goal of fire suppression, fire protection, fire prevention and other emergency services, to the detriment of the community. This idiocy was abandoned last century. Our safety and wellbeing cannot be subordinated to the profit goal of some corporation.
(2) This government, which proclaims its desire to reduce costs, is increasing the level of middle management by increasing the number of firefighters excluded from the bargaining unit.
(3) This legislation does not stipulate that firefighters have to be full-time. Part-time personnel -- and I know you've heard this before and you'll probably hear it again -- just cannot keep up with the changes in training and technology or gain experience in the same way as full-timers. Permanent full-time firefighters work in life-and-death situations. Their safety as well as public safety has to be the primary concern.
(4) Every party to collective bargaining negotiations must be able to bargain freely and fairly, including on such matters as hours of work, no strike or lockout and pensions. The Harris government's hatred of working people comes through loud and clear in this paragraph.
This proposed legislation is just another example of the Harris government rushing off, madly imposing half-baked schemes without considering the implications. The government should stop right now, look at the current Fire Departments Act and, in serious consultation with professional firefighters' associations, make any changes if they're necessary.
We hope that on April 28 -- let me stand up once again so you can see my shirt -- you think about us here in Thunder Bay and our Day of Action, as we fight back, take back -- that's our slogan, "Fight back, take back" -- our communities from the rapacious governments at Queen's Park and on Parliament Hill.
1450
Mrs Marland: Oh, you're against the federal government too.
Ms Pan: Absolutely. If you had been listening, you'd have heard it; I said it earlier.
The Chair: Excuse me. We only have one minute per caucus. We'll start off with Mr Johnson. One minute, Mr Johnson.
Mr Ron Johnson: Thank you for your presentation. I keep hearing negative things about volunteer and part-time firefighters. My wife is a nurse at a hospital, and she's a part-time nurse. I can tell you that if you were to go into an emergency room in a hospital, you wouldn't know whether or not you had a part-time or a full-time nurse looking after you. The bottom line is that there are certain standards these people have to meet, as there are with firefighters. They have significant standards that they espouse, so I don't understand the concern there.
I would also look at the fact that all over the place you've got volunteers and part-timers working all the time to serve rural areas. I would ask you this: If Thunder Bay doesn't have any volunteer or part-time firefighters now, which they can -- they can have volunteer firefighters now in Thunder Bay; they don't, and there's probably a reason for that. I would ask you what you think that reason is.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Johnson. Your time is up, and we turn to Mr Ramsay.
Mr Ramsay: I think it might be because of the Harris government downloading.
I would like to ask you a question because I share your concern about privatization. While we have seen letters from the minister saying, "I'm not encouraging the municipalities to privatize," I certainly see this legislation as being very permissive, and I was wondering why you think the Harris government, through this act, is allowing the privatization of fire departments.
Ms Pan: Let's think about who the Harris government is supported by, who funds them, who calls the tunes. Those who call the tunes in the Harris government are not the taxpayers. We're the poor folks out here who are getting dumped on, day after day after day. If anybody with half a brain were to think about it for a moment, that individual would find that it's the corporations, the big corporations, not the little mom-and-pop places but the big corporations, that are behind the Harris government, that are pushing the Harris government and that are pushing for privatization, pushing for all the kinds of things that hurt working people, hurt poor people and hurt the communities, because all this downloading stuff, whether it's from the federal government or the provincial government, affects the communities, and you're killing us. You folks are killing us.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Ramsay. Mr Bisson.
Mr Bisson: I'll give you a chance to answer his question.
Ms Pan: Part-timers: If the government is serious about respect -- and I don't believe they are -- and if they're serious about consultation on an issue such as this, Bill 84, to do with fire protection, fire suppression, fire prevention, they would listen to the firefighters' associations. These are the people who do the work.
Now, if we respect the work they do, and I'm sure we all do, then we would listen to them. When I hear the firefighters say to me, "We don't want part-time people; we want full-time people," then we should listen to them. Why do they want full-time people? They want full-time people so they can have that camaraderie. With all due respect to your wife and all other people who are part-time nurses, part-time whatevers, I'm not particularly interested -- are you? -- in having open heart surgery on an emergency basis by a part-time volunteer doctor.
Mr Ron Johnson: Well, they do it.
Ms Pan: Part-time, volunteer?
Mr Ron Johnson: Many doctors work part-time.
Ms Pan: Volunteer?
The Chair: Our time has elapsed. Thank you very much for your presentation.
Mr Bisson: I think it's the brain surgery that is done part-time, not the heart surgery.
Mr Ron Johnson: Only on the NDP.
THUNDER BAY AND DISTRICT INJURED WORKERS SUPPORT GROUP
The Chair: Our next presentation is the Injured Workers Resource Centre, Francis Bell, executive director. Welcome, Mr Bell. Please make yourself comfortable and when you're ready, proceed.
Mr Francis Bell: It's an opportunity to be here and I appreciate it. I hope today the information we're going to provide you you will find interesting, that you will review it and, more importantly, not only listen to it now, but when you go back into third reading and second reading, going clause-by-clause, that you look at this information.
I want to tell you at the outset that I come here slightly different. As you see, I walked up with a cane, because I'm an injured worker. I also come from a highly volatile industry, that of mining. What do I know about firefighting? I'm not a firefighter, and I'm proud to say it, but I'm also former mine rescue personnel, second person, assistant to the captain on a mine rescue team. With this, I come here to you today with some experience, and I ask that you think about that.
The group I represent here today covers roughly a quarter of a million square miles. Think about that. You've come a long way, but as you start flying over the Sault, you come to the rest of Ontario; some of us in the north like to say that's the better half of Ontario, because we don't seem to squabble as much as what we see on TV in southern Ontario. I don't know if that's because we don't have the Legislature up here, but it certainly doesn't impress many of my colleagues and it doesn't impress my kids. There's something wrong, and you people have to grow up.
This bill is an example of not listening to people. This bill is an example of saying to the firefighters, especially those in Thunder Bay, because that's where you are today, "You really don't know what you're talking about, because we at Queen's Park know better."
I've had the privilege of sitting down with the firefighters and talking about this bill, and I find this kind of ironic that an injured workers' group can sit down and talk to the firefighters and understand that they have some concerns and be advised that this panel cannot tell the firefighters the answers and allay their concerns. You haven't met your obligation. I'm not going to talk to you about it from a worker perspective; I want to talk to you about it also from a community perspective.
I'm not prepared to see businesses in this town -- and I'll say this again so you understand it -- I'm not prepared to see businesses in this town get burned down because you guys have decided you can limit the size of fire crews and they won't be able to go in and do a rescue. I deal with death and fatalities, I deal with injured workers on a daily basis. I'm saying this here, with all great respect to every firefighter in this room and across this province, I don't want them to become an injured worker. Is that clear? I hope so, because this bill is saying, "It's okay, you can jeopardize firefighters." I'm telling you, you better not jeopardize the firefighters of this province.
If you had this legislation in power prior to your government taking office and you had your red tape commission, they would take a look at this bill and just go, "Oh, are we going to have fun now," because this bill is riddled with problems.
I ask that you slow down, think about what you're doing and that both the government and the opposition say, "Let's make sure we can resolve every question, make sure we can come up with clear answers and make sure we don't put anybody at risk." Firefighters are at grave enough risk as it is.
I also have a labour relations background, and I want to tell you now that if you were trying to open this up for lawyers, you've done an excellent job. Every lawyer in town will be happy, because of the fact that as you change an act, you put a whole bunch of new sets of litigation into process. I'm telling you that this thing is riddled for lawyers. If I was a lawyer, I would say: "I don't have to worry about an income for the next 10 years because by the time we get through litigating this bill and this act, guess what, folks? I could be a millionaire." You guys have made it great for lawyers, but you certainly haven't resolved the labour relations issues.
I'll give you an example. When does what act take over? If a workplace has a fire team, a first-response team, which act takes precedence? Is it the Labour Relations Act, is it the Occupational Health and Safety Act or is it the Fire Protection and Prevention Act? I tell you, there'll be a bunch of lawyers happy to litigate it, and there will be some judges happy to litigate it, as you have already found out.
You have also an issue of existing agreements. I do not see anywhere in the bill that existing agreements can be resolved, that you've made plans for those existing agreements and, more importantly, what is the result? When you take people out of a bargaining unit, you change the whole concept of what that bargaining unit is. Does that mean that all agreements that were signed previously with people who are now removed are no longer in force? Does it mean that because there's a new act and they're under the Labour Relations Act, all existing agreements are gone? Does it mean that these associations now have to become unions and meet the obligations under the Labour Relations Act? Again, folks, litigation, litigation, litigation. Lawyers are happy; firefighters aren't happy.
1500
With regard to protecting people, isn't the real obligation to protect the community? If this bill in any way inhibits the protection of people in the community, have you not failed? How many lives have to be put at risk? How many lives have to be lost? How many firefighters and members of the community have to be injured before you'll say, "Oops, we made a mistake." I'm asking you to say now, "I'm willing to slow down, I'm willing to look at those questions, and let's design a bill that truly meets our needs." If it doesn't meet the community's needs, it doesn't satisfy the most important people -- and those are the people on the front line -- then you haven't done a good job. I ask that you slow down and think about it.
On pages 13 to 15, the challenge we offer to this committee is this: If you're prepared to ram through this legislation, then you should be prepared to stand up and say to the citizens of this province, "Bill 84 will in no way increase the risk for you, your property or your community." If a situation occurs where a municipality cuts back on its crew size and you are willing to take the legal risk and willing to make the legal payments for loss of life, loss of home, losses in the community and stand up to me and tell me I'm wrong, I want you to take this pledge. I would refer you to pages 14 and 15. I hope you'll do it today, if you really believe in this bill. If not, and you don't stand up, then I think that sends us a message.
"Because I believe in this bill, Bill 84 so much, I" -- please state your name -- "wish to go on record now saying that I believe that Bill 84 will in no way interfere with the firefighters' ability to react to a firefighting situation, will no way interfere in the rescue of citizens of the province of Ontario. Further I" -- state your name -- "believe Bill 84 will not result in the partial or full burning and/or water damage to a home, businesses or property. I" -- state your name -- "believe that Bill 84 will not be a contributing factor to an injury or disease. I" -- state your name -- "believe that Bill 84 will not be a contributing factor to a loss of life."
April 28 is the Day of Mourning. It's the day we pay respect to injured workers and to their families, those who have lost people at work. I now think this is so perfect that you're in town prior to that, because on April 28, wherever you are, I ask that you think about this bill and say, "Because of my decision, am I going to add one more person, two more people or more to that situation, where those will be names added to the list of people we'll be paying respect to on April 28?"
I thank you for the time, and I welcome your questions.
Mrs McLeod: Thank you very much, Francis. I understand the pledge is unique in the presentations that have been made to the committee, but I wanted to ask you about something else that's unique in the legislation. That is the fact that firefighters under this legislation would not have the right to grieve hours of work. I wonder if you could comment on why you think that kind of unique provision would be in this legislation -- I don't believe it exists elsewhere -- and what you think the risks of that might be, not just to public safety but to firefighters themselves.
Mr Bell: The problem when you have something like that is that you have a situation where you give one side, in this case a municipality or a city or a corporation, the power to make the final decision. In that process, there's no way to say, "This is wrong." We all know that in any workplace, we have differences. In fact in Thunder Bay we've just gone through that. There are going to be times when we have differences, and if you take away their right to do something about it, what you're saying is that it's okay to work multiple hours.
I come from an industry where we had people working 10 and 12 hours in an underground situation. I can tell you as a former chair of the health and safety committee that as we went into longer hours, guess what? Our accident rate went up, something you can draw comparisons on pretty quickly. I have a concern if you leave that type of thing unfettered, and leave it in the power and control of one person. You're asking for a problem.
Mr Bisson: We've heard in your presentation and in other presentations earlier that the labour relations side of this bill in effect sets up full-time firefighters as a second class of workers. How we treat successor rights is different; how we treat the hours of work, ie, you cannot negotiate hours of work; there are limits put on how much you can negotiate your pension benefits for; the probation provisions basically say that if you don't have a unionized environment, you have a 12-month probationary situation; how we fire employees; the second-class worker firefighter, there are going to be differences; there's no right to strike.
Why, in your mind, would the government try to set up the firefighters as a second-class -- I shouldn't say "second-class"; that's maybe not the right term -- as a different class of workers as compared to the rest of workers in the province and take away what are fundamental rights to somebody working in a local mine or working at one of the Abitibi mills or wherever it might be across northern Ontario?
Mr Bell: I think they're doing it because they've been caught in a one-sided argument and haven't bothered to sit down and listen to other people. I can tell you that if you do that, what you're saying to firefighters is not only are you second-class, but I think you're going a step further and you're saying, even though we're telling the public we want them to fit in the Labour Relations Act, we really don't want them to fit in there. We want a separate act for them, but we don't want to call it a separate act because we're trying to meet our idea of consolidating acts.
The reality is, I'm telling you folks, you're going to litigation. As somebody who has done representation, I can tell you some lawyers are going to be very rich, but the municipalities are going to pay for it, the employers are going to pay for it, the associations are going to pay for it. In the long term, everybody's going to pay for litigation.
Mrs Marland: One of the advantages of having travelled this province now for 12 years on committee is that I can sit here as a member of the Conservative government and quite enjoy the opposition of injured workers to the legislation, because for 12 years I've seen injured workers' groups and other unionized groups -- I'm not saying the injured workers are unionized groups -- oppose other bills of both the previous Liberal and, amazingly, the NDP government. Certainly, as you know, the social contract was opposed by everybody. So I guess I'm not surprised that you're here opposing a government bill, because I have seen this done for 12 years, no matter who the government was. You mention your background in mining. I travelled on the mining legislation too.
I'd like to ask you, apart from your opposition to provincial government, how you feel about your local municipal government. Do you think your local municipal councils across this province, who have protected their citizens by decisions they've made in the past about fire protection, are not going to make that a priority, to protect their citizens by their decisions in the future as to standards of service?
Mr Bell: I want to first answer the first part of your question. Yes, I remember speaking to you. I remember you telling us that those people who work in the industries such as mining should be the ones calling the shots because you understood how dangerous it was. It's a shame you're not doing this in firefighting.
With regard to municipal, I ask that you watch in June and July what my position is, because you're going to see it quite clearly. At that time I will be donning a hat that I don't currently wear, but I have a concern and I've talked to people. Don't be surprised if you see my name in the political arena for municipal, because I'm concerned that this bill is going to go through and the risk is going to be put there from the present council. That's why you may just still happen to see my name in the political papers at that time. I'm prepared to take action.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Bell, for taking the trouble to come and make your presentation here today. We appreciate it.
We had a cancellation at 3. Shelter House/Thunder Bay was our next presenter. They have just come in, so perhaps we can proceed.
Mr Bisson: On a point of order, Mr Chair: The cancellation is the City of Thunder Bay Fire Services?
The Chair: Yes.
Mr Bisson: They cancelled? Is that because they've been given a gag order such as their chief has been given?
The Chair: I don't know. We are just told they cancelled. I wasn't necessarily given the reason.
Mr Bisson: I'm just wondering, because I understand that the fire chief has been given a gag order by council and I'm wondering if that extended to the fire service people themselves. Can anybody answer that?
Mrs McLeod: The firefighters are coming here later.
Mr Bisson: They are? Okay.
The Chair: I don't think we should get involved with the local politics. I really don't know.
SHELTER HOUSE/THUNDER BAY
The Chair: We now have Shelter House/Thunder Bay, Mr Keith Milne, manager. You're early, sir. We appreciate it.
Mr Keith Milne: I rushed to do that.
The Chair: We've allotted 15 minutes for your presentation. I'd ask you to proceed.
Mr Milne: I won't take 15 minutes, I promise you. I appreciate the opportunity to speak to you for a few minutes about the issue of Bill 184, or whatever it is.
The Chair: It's 84.
Mr Milne: I'll get it out here so I know what I'm talking about.
As I begin, first of all, I don't know much about the technicalities of firefighting, but I do know that it's one of the things that happens within our community that is a matter of life and death. As the manager of Shelter House/Thunder Bay, we are a shelter that shelters homeless people, so on any given night we're responsible for 35 or 40 people who are sleeping under our roof, and hundreds of people throughout the day. That's a responsibility for safety and refuge.
I can sleep at night when I go home and I know that my staff are there to watch over things and to make sure we're doing what we're supposed to be doing, but also in knowing that if anything happens, we have emergency services in our community that are there to back up and provide that service. So when one of our services such as firefighters is being threatened, I think we have to speak up and let you know that we're not too happy.
It's only common sense to realize that expertise and reliability and response time are crucial elements in having success in fighting fires and saving lives. Saving lives is a lot more important than saving dollars. How one can try to balance the two is a great challenge, but we must realize that it's very important to preserve life. That's what makes the role of the firefighters so crucial to our community.
When I read through documents such as the proposed act and I see things like the concept of privatizing firefighting services, that gives me cause for concern when studies have been shown that if you privatize a service such as this, you don't have the same positive effect. You save dollars maybe, but you don't save more lives.
The concept of having part-time firefighters causes me great concern. We have had a few occasions over the last few years where, due to the alertness of our staff but also because of the quick response time, we have not had to suffer loss, and that's very important. I'm sure there are lots of presentations around the importance of having quick response time and how that saves lives and property and leads to success in fighting a fire.
1510
At one time, we used to joke when I would leave at night, "Don't phone me unless there's a fire." Then we had a couple, and we had one actually right in our dormitory. We don't joke about that any more because we realize how serious the consequences could have been. But we know that because our firefighters were quick in responding, lives weren't lost. We could have lost 30 or 40 lives.
I don't know how I can communicate to you how important this is or how absurd it is to think that saving any kind of dollars makes sense in relationship to saving lives. I don't know how I can communicate that to you other than what I've said.
If you want to sum it up, I have one simple message: How dare you try to save money under the thinking that fiscal responsibility can lead to irresponsibility for lives. People's lives are a lot more important than dollars. We can pay off debts; we've got lots of time. We can't pay off somebody's life. That's my submission. Thank you.
Mr Bisson: You touch on something in your presentation that I think needs to be said. First of all, fire services are just that: They are a public service that we, through our tax dollars, pay for. We chose some years ago to make it a public service so that we don't look at dollars when it comes to fighting fires, we look at lives.
If we go back in our history to the early beginning of fire brigades, a lot of people might not know that fire brigades were actually creations of insurance companies. There used to be a time in the 18th century in England, when fire brigades first came up, that if you didn't have the mark of the insurance company on your door and there was a fire and the fire brigade showed up, the house burned down. It was very simple: You didn't have the insurance, you didn't have the mark, and that meant to say the fire brigade didn't come out and save your building from burning or possibly even try to save a life.
We've learned through our history that fire services are a very important public service that needs to be given in order to ensure there is safety of our citizens in our communities. This bill introduces the possibility of privatization. I, as one, have some great difficulty with that, because although I believe the private sector has its role to play in our marketplace economy, I don't believe that the private sector should be in the business of delivering what are essentially public services. The comment I would make is that in your presentation you make that point quite clear. I think something that needs to be said is that we can't look at the two of them as being the same. You cannot assign a value to human life. That's what we pay our taxes for: to ensure that we have good fire protection services to protect us in our own communities.
Mr Milne: I would agree with you that philosophically there are some essential services that as citizens we feel are our right. I don't think even this government could go so far as to say that this is not an essential service. So I would agree with Mr Bisson that this is an essential service, and it's there and protected as an essential service because of its importance. We can't be putting our fire departments under such situations where they have to start choosing between saving dollars and saving lives.
May I add, though, I don't expect that there will be a lack of responsibility. Certainly it has to be within reason. I don't expect the fire departments to go out and be able to spend and spend and spend, but within reason they need to be protected from having those kinds of headaches where they would be given those kinds of choices.
Mr Bisson: Here's hoping you never have to be called when there's a fire, when you're home and away from your work.
1520
Mr Ron Johnson: Thank you, sir, for your presentation. I want to talk for a minute about the privatization issue, because I happen to have some difficulty with the wording of the legislation and how it could expand the possibilities. You indicated in your submission -- and we've heard this actually from the Thunder Bay Coalition Against Poverty as well; they said the same thing -- that there were a number of studies that show that privatization of these types of services has hindered public safety. Can you tell me to which studies you're referring?
Mr Milne: First of all, I've not done extensive research, but some of the material that was given to us in preparation looked at some of the departments like in Arizona.
Mr Ron Johnson: Can you tell me where you got the material from?
Mr Milne: Oh, Jeez, it arrived on my desk, probably from the firefighters' association, which is a group that we have communicated with about this act.
Mr Ron Johnson: Maybe I'll look to them for those studies, then.
The other question I have, because you indicated that part-time firefighters was a concern of yours as well, can you explain to me the difference between a volunteer firefighter who is on a compensation package of $6,000 or $7,000 a year and a proposed part-time firefighter as we've outlined in this legislation. Can you tell me the difference between the two?
Mr Milne: I've lived in communities where there are part-time or volunteer fire departments, guys who are working full-time and they have to be called away from a job to fight a fire. Their response time, realistically, cannot be the same as those that are on duty, prepared to go at any moment.
Mr Ron Johnson: I've had experiences in Brantford where it has been the opposite in fact, where depending on the location of the fire -- not everybody lives next door to a fire station. In the township and in Brantford they have an agreement where they go to the closest, and in fact sometimes the volunteer firefighters are there first.
Mr Milne: I'm sure that might happen, but in an urban setting, particularly like this, the fire stations are set up strategically so that the response time is consistent and is as quick as possible. That's not going to happen when you have your firefighters scattered all over the city.
Mrs Marland: Mr Milne, I really want to emphasize to you that there isn't any government that's going to prioritize in terms of lives versus money, and there is nothing in this bill that says that.
I too wanted to ask you one thing very quickly about this question of availability of part-time firefighters. We haven't had part-time firefighters; we haven't had prioritization of the fire services in our municipalities. How do you see that decision being made for any large urban area? It just wouldn't be practical. Why, if it hasn't been made before, would it be made now?
Mr Milne: Whether it has been done before or not, this piece of legislation allows for it to happen; it could happen.
Mrs Marland: It allows for it now without the legislation.
Mr Milne: Is that right?
Mrs Marland: Yes.
Mrs McLeod: I notice that the government members tend to make a lot of assumptions about what municipal councils will and will not do. I'm hoping that the committee Chair might consider adding the time that would have been taken by the Thunder Bay fire service that was cancelled to the Thunder Bay firefighters' time so that they'd have an opportunity to answer a number of the questions that I think the government members have been raising. It would be interesting for Mr Johnson to know, for example, what effect the legislation has on the kind of cooperative agreements that exist in this area to respond outside the urban area.
But the question I most want to pick up with you, Keith, is the one that has just been raised by Mrs Marland and has been raised by Mrs Marland in the past, and that's why would any city council jeopardize public safety by looking either at an increased number of part-time firefighters or by privatizing to somebody at the lowest possible bid? My question about the government that I'd love to have answered is, if they don't think the councils are going to use the part-time option or the privatization option, why provide the flexibility in the legislation to let it happen?
Keith, what I'd like to explore with you, given your experience in dealing with city councils, in having to make representation for support for emergency shelter, which is obviously keenly important to the community and to people in the community -- I also know you've been concerned about the issue of downloading and how many new social services are going to be a municipal responsibility along with sewers and ambulances and health units and highway maintenance. I'd like your thoughts on what pressures a municipal council is going to be facing that might lead them to have to take some steps they would hope wouldn't jeopardize public safety but could.
Mr Milne: I have this theoretical thinking, basically, about the responsibilities of the levels of government. I think the responsibility as you go higher is to protect the groups at a lower level. I was going to say why I think part of the responsibility of a provincial government is to protect the citizens against the stupidity of some municipal governments, but I don't know if Richard had the cameras rolling for that.
But I think there is definitely a pressure that is created at a local level of government that is much more intense than at a provincial or federal level. Municipal governments are then much more prone to being pulled every which way because of the local pressure and the persistence of local people trying to deal with their local issues. They could be put into a situation where they'd have a great amount of pressure to try to trim costs here to help someone else or if someone in their neighbourhood wants something. I think we'd be putting them in a position where it would be much more difficult. The more difficult the job becomes, then overall in the long term the less qualified and the less able people will actually run for representation, and we'll end up with a much poorer level of government.
The Chair: Mr Milne, thank you very much for your presentation here today.
CANADIAN ASSOCIATION OF FIRE FIGHTERS
The Chair: The Canadian Association of Fire Fighters, John Hay. Welcome, Mr Hay.
Mr John Hay: Good afternoon. Thank you very much for the opportunity to speak to you today. Firefighter Greg Hankkio is a professional firefighter for the city of Thunder Bay. My name is John Hay, and I'm a firefighter for the city of Thunder Bay, and I've been with the department for the past 14 years. For the last 10 years, I've been co-chair of the joint health and safety committee locally.
Two years ago I was appointed chairman of the Canadian Association of Fire Fighters health and safety committee. My committee represents the health and safety interests of nearly 5,000 professional firefighters across Canada, many of them from Ontario. I am here before you today in that capacity, representing the health and safety interests of firefighters.
My message to these proceedings and to the government of Ontario will have two main focuses: (1) that this legislation has some serious flaws which will make the profession of firefighting in the province more dangerous than it already is; (2) the inescapable relationship of public safety and the ability of firefighters to do their job as safely as possible. I will be referring to this relationship consistently during the course of my presentation.
Firefighting today is not at all like you see on television or in the movies. The individual hero defying superiors, braving unbeatable odds to miraculously run out of a burning building with a baby in his arms just before it explodes, does not do justice to the profession. The rescue comes from the coordinated efforts of a sufficient number of highly trained professional firefighters who arrive together quickly on appropriate apparatus that is properly equipped.
I would like you to pay particular attention to the previous statement as I will make reference to it again.
You would be hard-pressed to say whether this statement is an argument for public safety or for firefighter safety. That is because you cannot separate the two. As I stated earlier, the relationship is inescapable.
Response times are a critical component of public safety and in turn firefighter safety. Increasing response times with less apparatus, fewer halls or having the remainder of fire crews for a particular apparatus arrive subsequent to the truck will have just that effect.
An increase in response times will mean fires will have progressed and the extinguishment will be much more difficult and dangerous. The chance of survival of victims diminishes drastically in a very few minutes. These increased response times will most certainly be reflected in increased property losses.
The Canadian Association of Fire Fighters has commissioned a study on the effectiveness and safety of crew sizes. The study involved all the initial tasks to perform search and rescue, ventilate and attack the fire. The study will show larger crew sizes on the initial response fare much better, performing the tasks more efficiently and more safely. When I refer to the initial response, that's the first truck showing up with a full crew on it, not waiting for the rest of the crew to show up offsite.
Firefighting as a profession has evolved from bucket brigades to a multidiscipline profession responding to auto accidents, medical emergencies, rope rescues, confined-space rescues, water rescues, and we deal with hazardous materials. That's just to name a few; those are the highlights.
Fire crews must be proficient at all of these and more. This awesome undertaking requires extensive training and practice with your crew to reach the levels of proficiency necessary to perform these evolutions in a safe and effective manner. Inexperienced or part-time firefighters would just not be up to this challenge. I risk offending potential firefighters or possibly volunteers whose dedication and strength of conviction could very well be equal to mine, but the acquired skills necessary would not be there. They do provide a valuable service to their communities, but they do not provide the level of service professional firefighters do.
1530
From a legislative standpoint, were it not for exclusions firefighters are subject to according to the Occupational Health and Safety Act, the working conditions that may very well result from the passing of Bill 84 as it stands would be illegal in any other workplace in Ontario. It is illegal not to train workers to safely accomplish the tasks they are given. Part-time firefighters would not be trained to safe levels.
The act also requires the employer to take all reasonable precautions to provide a safe working environment. If this piece of legislation were to affect any other group of workers in Ontario, it would be illegal. The government of Ontario is partners with all the stakeholders in the province who are responsible for the delivery of fire service, including the office of the fire marshal, the Ministry of Labour, the fire chiefs of Ontario and the professional firefighters of this province.
This fire service advisory committee produces guidelines which, in lieu of regulations for the fire service specifically, carry the same weight as regulations. This is produced by the government. These are our health and safety laws. Some of the provisions of Bill 84 fly in the face of the spirit, the intent and the letter of these guidelines, to which this government and previous governments were active contributors.
At this point, I'm going to refer back to the key statement that rescue comes from the coordinated efforts of a sufficient number of experienced, highly trained professional firefighters who arrive together quickly in appropriate apparatus that is properly equipped.
The proposed legislation enables municipalities to close halls, reduce responses or supplement an insufficient response with part-timers or volunteers who would show up later. This, coupled with the increased response times, is a recipe for disaster. You may try to point out that the legislation itself does not mandate such changes. The pressure on municipal politicians to cut costs is immense. The cuts in transfer payments and the downloading of responsibilities from the provincial government have created this environment. To think that politicians will not avail themselves of these opportunities is folly.
I can illustrate my concerns quite clearly with a recent event that occurred in this city. A young person had climbed out a sixth-floor window of one of our hospitals. This person could not or would not get back into her room. The person was standing barefoot on a narrow ledge, fingernails holding on to a thin piece of aluminum flashing. A pumper crew, a rescue truck and an aerial platform were dispatched. The 27-metre platform could not reach the person on the ledge. The only available option was to attempt a rope rescue. The high-angle equipment was dispatched, and a crew of four firefighters and a captain were tasked with performing a pickoff and then deciding a course of action once the person was secure, whether to return her to the building or safely to the ground.
There were several factors that made this evolution extremely difficult: This happened at night in the dead of winter, the roof provided no suitable anchors for the ropes, and the person had been out in the cold for a considerable time already.
Because of the extensive training the members of the Thunder Bay fire department receive in high-angle rescue, the crew was able to rig the harnesses and associated hardware in the dark while other members of the crew, using their experience and skills, solved the anchor problem in short order by tying anchors around the window frames on the opposite side of the wing a floor below. This enabled two firefighters to rappel off the roof and effect the rescue.
There is no way a rescue like that could be performed without every member of that crew being highly trained and experienced professionals who responded appropriately equipped and arrived together in sufficient numbers together.
This particular event is very vivid to me. I was one of the firefighters who stepped off the edge of the building that night. Even though I am very happy our efforts had a positive result, I am more proud of the fact that, though I could not see it, everything was done right and I was going to have a chance to help this person out of difficulty.
Again, I make reference to this statement: The rescue comes from the coordinated efforts of a sufficient number of highly trained and experienced professional firefighters who arrive together quickly in appropriate apparatus that is properly equipped.
Anything -- person or circumstance -- that reduces the ability of the firefighters to perform their duties as safely as possible places the public in greater danger. Conversely, anything that increases public danger makes the job of the firefighter more difficult and dangerous. This relationship is inescapable.
I urge you to amend Bill 84 in consultation with the professional firefighters of this province, as Premier Harris had promised. Failure to do so will cost lives.
The bill in its present form will hurt and kill firefighters, possibly not today or tomorrow, but it will. Can you go home and hug your children with a clear conscience knowing that you did everything you could to help a firefighter do his job safely? Because if this legislation passes as it stands, there will be firefighters' children not getting a hug.
I'd like to thank you for the opportunity to speak to you today. This concludes my deputation.
Mr Ron Johnson: Thank you, sir. I'm going to be very quick so it will give you a chance to answer the question. With respect to the comments you made, "I risk offending potential firefighters or possibly volunteers whose dedication and strength of conviction could very well be equal to mine, but the acquired skills necessary would not be there." A quick question: If as a condition of employment a part-time firefighter would have to meet the same training standards as yourself and acquire those skills, would that satisfy your concern about underqualified firefighters on a part-time basis?
Mr Hay: No, it would not, because part-time firefighters would not be able to attain the skill level required.
Mr Ron Johnson: Are you certain?
Mr Hay: They would not have the time to do it.
Mr Ramsay: Something I really find curious about this bill is this no-strike provision. That really sticks in my craw and I'm sure it does yours. By that you would say they have deemed your business an essential service, but on the other hand they do not make fire suppression mandatory in the bill, so in essence it isn't an essential service or they'd make it mandatory. I don't understand that. I was wondering if you could come up with any rationale why you're not allowed to strike yet fire suppression is not mandated.
Mr Hay: It was probably because it was a very easy thing to do. There is no provision for strike or lockout in Ontario right now. Before this, all the associations in Ontario voluntarily negotiated strike and lockout wording into their contracts, every single one of them. There's never been a labour dispute that ended up in a service disruption to this point. When I first heard about it, my concern was that Bill 84 was going to be so onerous that it might possibly force firefighters into using that option. But we negotiated that away a long time ago and there's never been a disruption of service. I really am at a loss to know why they brought that out, specifically right at the beginning.
Mr Ramsay: It's kind of a slap in the face, isn't it?
Mr Bisson: Thank you, first of all, for a very powerful presentation. You brought that together in both technical and personal terms that I thought quite helpful.
Before I get my question in, I guess I have to say to Mr Johnson and other members of the committee that we should take the time to go to our firehalls. A lot of the questions we're asking here can be answered if we'd sit down and talk to the professional firefighters in our full-time firehalls. That's what I did. That's what I've done over a period of time and I found it useful.
Mr Jordan: Don't waste your time.
Mr Bisson: It's not a waste of time. My Lord.
Mr Jordan: It is a waste of time. We know more about our firehalls than you do. You don't even know where they are.
The Chair: Order, Mr Jordan. You're intruding on Mr Bisson's time.
Mr Bisson: I rest my case.
The question I have for you is simply this: What is the exclusion in the act that you refer to, what is it there for and how does it affect firefighters' rights?
Mr Hay: Firefighters in the province right now cannot refuse unsafe work under an exclusion in the Occupational Health and Safety Act, section 43.
Mr Bisson: Why is it there? What is it there for?
Mr Hay: I guess originally, if it wasn't there, I would be able to refuse to go into that burning house. That's probably the reason it is there. Firefighters have long struggled for different inclusions in the act and there's presently some committee work going on with this fire service advisory committee to get a firefighter regulation.
The Chair: Gentlemen, thank you very much for your presentation today.
1540
LUNG ASSOCIATION, THUNDER BAY
The Chair: The next presentation is the Lung Association, Thunder Bay, Kathryn Forbes-Kaipio. I know I did a very bad job in pronouncing your name, Kathryn. You might be able to assist us.
Ms Kathryn Forbes-Kaipio: It's a good Finnish name. I am appearing before you today wearing two hats. First, I would like to speak with you as a private citizen. I will stray from what is printed here for a moment. As a private citizen, residential fire has struck my family three times in my lifetime, causing the death of my sister recently. After my first perusal of this bill, I felt personally moved to do something that I believe in. I'm not politically inclined with this. I'm extremely inclined in terms of a moral responsibility to come forward as a private citizen to urge you to take another look at some of the parts of this bill. As a member of the Lung Association, I will explain that later.
Thank you for coming to Thunder Bay to hear our deputations. I hope our weather will be kind to you here and that the deputants so far have been kind to you. I got a little frightened when I heard the shouting back and forth a few minutes ago. I have had the pleasure of speaking with a standing committee only once in the past and it was to the social development committee studying what is now known as Bill 119, the Ontario Tobacco Control Act, on behalf of the Lung Association. Today I speak to you with no less passion, as this subject is important to me as an individual and also from my professional perspective.
It is extremely important that you, the members of the government and all the members of the provincial Legislature, understand that in this proposed legislation there are many areas that leave the bill open for problems to arise in the future. Overall it is a good document and I will later highlight some of its positive aspects, but I reiterate that there are areas that require in-depth analysis, as the impact of the bill's current position could result in serious negative outcomes for the citizens of Thunder Bay and the firefighters themselves.
It is premature to consider the passing of this legislation. We do not want imposed upon us legislation that could pose hazards for us in the future. I think we all can relate to that when we see that there are bills -- and one I can relate to very quickly, because again it's something that I've had to deal with in my professional life, is the Mental Health Act. It is something that leaves people with their hands tied because it's a piece of legislation, and until that gets changed, lives are lost and people's lives are in incredible disarray. So prior to making any legislation, I really urge you to consider the passing of this legislation so we won't have to deal with problems in the future.
I must admit that this is not an area of vast knowledge for me. However, on reading Bill 84 in its present condition, I believe that public safety and firefighter safety will be ultimately compromised because of bureaucratic decisions made by cash-strapped municipal politicians who cannot know the countless repercussions their decisions will cause long after they are made. We all know that in these last few years of downsizing, re-engineering and offloading of provincial responsibilities on to municipalities, Band-Aid solutions are found for short-term remedies, but the long-term issues are fraught with difficulties. I believe there is no long-term vision for the future with the changes to the provisions that are contained in Bill 84 as it is today.
Has your committee effectively consulted with the professional firefighter associations regarding the revision of this bill? I think not. After reading it, that's my personal opinion. There are numerous concerns on behalf of firefighters that should have been examined, discussed, and they would be obviously be reflected in this new bill. I find the wording of the changes in this bill ambiguous and open to various interpretations which will undoubtedly lead to confusion and possibly an adversarial system of labour relations in the future.
Presently, my interpretation of the act provides for a highly successful and cooperative climate in labour-management processes. I believe it is dangerous to consider the following. These are my concerns.
The funding provisions, or lack thereof, for the mandatory fire prevention and fire education programs: I believe in the fire education and prevention programs, but the costs of these mandatory programs have been left to municipal governments to fund. I am concerned that current budget allocations for fire suppression will be shifted over to fire prevention, thus cutting back on emergency capabilities. Does the committee care how the municipality finds these funds or does the committee feel that once it is no longer a provincial responsibility it is also not a provincial concern? There must be some plan for funding in place before this burden is heaped on the municipalities.
We have heard countless horror stories about the privately owned fire services. Will Bill 84's lack of clear direction, subsection 41(1), be responsible for municipalities also offloading fire services to private enterprise? Again, the recipients of fire services, the taxpayers, are submitted to further jeopardy. Private enterprise will be permitted to submit lowest-tender bids to deliver fire protection to the residents of Ontario. We know this system has failed miserably in the United States, where only 0.5% of fire services are currently in the private sector. The bottom-line concerns of a corporation should not have any bearing on the level of fire protection that a citizen enjoys. A bill that allows for dollars to be placed in importance over citizen safety is cruel and irresponsible.
This bill also allows for the coupling of police and fire services. It allows for it, I think. It doesn't seem to me that it directs it, but it leaves it open for the coupling. How can two very specialized services be combined into one? How can we expect police officers to execute the often wordless precision work performed by highly trained, highly experienced people who have their work so finely tuned that we rarely hear of such things as failed rescues or slow response time? We've heard that in Kalamazoo, Michigan, the fire and police services were merged and it just didn't work; 80% of the firefighters lost their jobs and fire services deteriorated badly.
Under this bill, there is no requirement that firefighters be full-time. Rather the definition of "firefighter" would appear to include both full-time and part-time firefighters. We now have a common training standard for firefighters. I believe this standard will be in jeopardy where part-time employees are concerned. Now the minimum-staffing clause states that, for example, there are four firefighters on each pumper, and where there is a major emergency and additional personpower is needed, experienced firefighters are called in on an overtime basis. I believe this is still possible with Bill 84; however, if part-time employees are part of the staffing plan, I doubt that the employer will continue to call in the experienced overtime staff but rather will cut costs and send in the part-time employees.
I cannot believe that people who do precision teamwork that requires strong, constant bonding and communication can feel secure and safe in their work when they are joined by part-time employees, who do not fit into the collective mind of a skilled, first-class firefighting team that is capable and ready for any emergency.
1550
The Chair: Excuse me, ma'am. You only have five minutes left, and you're not going to get your thing on record unless you speed up.
Ms Forbes-Kaipio: All right, I'll speed up.
Additionally, about 60% of a firefighter's work is in non-fire-related emergencies which include: auto extrications, medical emergencies, defibrillations, high-angle rescues, hazardous materials spills, ice water rescues, gas leaks and explosions, broken power lines and confined-space entries. How can a part-time employee be armed with the finely honed skills expected of a firefighter in these situations? I can hardly believe we will see the same speed, experience and high level of teamwork from a fragmented team. Currently, a skilled full-time team begins a trained mindset that is on the nature of the call as soon as the alarm goes off. There are no second chances in firefighting. Who could, with any conscience, allow for the possibility of a failed rescue attempt because of a lack of a finely tuned team?
Finally, I have an enormous problem with the potential for tampering with the current bargaining process. Now we enjoy, and it is our right to enjoy, a high level of safety, a high level of response time and a high level of safety for our firefighters. Bill 84 allows for the creation of a new middle management that could very possibly be manipulated by the employer.
The creation of a middle management allows -- this does not mean it dictates or approves -- for discretionary exclusions from the bargaining unit. Many firefighters will be turned into midlevel managers. It seems that this move would create a process that would be at odds with the general trend in both the public and private sectors, where middle manager positions have been eliminated or greatly reduced. Is there a hidden agenda here? Why is the bill so loose? I see this as leaving a dangerous gap in direction for the employer. Imposing a management level also separates the team. How often do we hear about management and non-management working side by side? Hardly.
As this bill raises the possibility that firefighting may be transferred to private concerns, it also raises the possibility that firefighters who are employed by private sector organizations may lose their current bargaining rights. The prohibition on strike action section again makes me question the reasonability of the authors of the bill. Traditionally, firefighters have not exercised economic sanctions and there has not been in place any statutory provision excluding them from exercising the right to strike. The inclusion of this section arouses my curiosity with regard to the vision of the authors for the long-term future of Ontario's firefighters. What do they see down the road for our firefighters that they now feel it is necessary to impose a prohibition on strike action? Will this bill leave our firefighters like sitting ducks, without defence, when they'll need it most?
Part IX of the bill contains very significant changes in the area of firefighter employment and labour relations. I'm asking that the committee take this proposed piece of legislation back to consultation with professional firefighter associations and, in a climate of trust and good faith, negotiate the amendments that are posing hazards as soon as possible.
I applaud the bill with regard to the mandate that provides for fire education. As a health educator with the Lung Association, I work extensively with people who, due to their severely damaged and diseased lungs, have great difficulty in breathing, many of whom are on oxygen. These people, our clients, are so very vulnerable due to this great disability that they cannot run or even walk quickly; many can only walk a few steps at a time without having to stop and regain their breath.
Good, proactive fire education will help prevent fires in homes where the elderly and disabled live, will assist less able people to learn and prepare for an outbreak of fire and, where so many of the elderly still smoke tobacco products, will educate them about that specific and common cause of house fire and preventable death.
The Lung Association and the firefighters are partners in this community for public safety. So many of our issues interface, for example, dangerous chemicals, indoor air quality, carbon monoxide poisoning and cigarette-related fires and deaths.
In closing, I ask you sincerely to slow down the legislative campaign for this bill. Go back and adopt a new and effective consultation process with the associations with the bottom line being what it should be: fire safety.
I am asking Mr Harris to listen to his people. Daily I applaud Mr Harris and the courageous moves he and his government have taken to improve the economic stability of this province, but I cannot support this bill, and I believe he must consider revisiting these amendments with the people who give us that only, very precious chance of surviving so many life-threatening situations: our professional firefighters.
Thank you for your time, and I thank you in advance for the right decision I know you will make with respect to amending this bill.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Ms Forbes-Kaipio, for your presentation here today. Perfect timing.
Our next presenter is Mary Roy.
MARY ROY
The Vice-Chair (Mr Ron Johnson): Good afternoon, Mrs Roy.
Mrs Mary Roy: Thank you for allowing me to speak here today, Mr Chairman and members of the committee. I come before you first as a concerned taxpayer, mother, wife and daughter worried about the safety of my family. I am fortunate to say that I have never needed the fire department to respond to my home, but I live half a block away from the Hodder Avenue firehall and see the trucks responding to calls on a daily basis. I became the spokesperson for a neighbourhood group called the Hodder Avenue Citizens for Safety, studying and responding to other safety issues. The sentiments of many of these residents are also reflected in my comments here today. I have no personal vested interest in the implications of this bill, no family members employed in this profession, only a concern for safety.
From what I have read on this issue, the critical components are response time and the quality of the staff responding. When every second counts and my life is in the balance, I want to know that help is on the way immediately and that the professionals who arrive at my home or accident scene are fully trained and ready to respond to my emergency.
If the municipality has the power to include part-time firefighters, how in the world will they be adequately trained? In the 1990s, there are many citizens working more than one part-time job because of a lack of full-time employment. This is a fact of life. I doubt that a part-time firefighter would be in a better financial position than most and wouldn't have to find other work. When my call goes in to 911 for help, do I want to depend on somebody who has to leave his present workplace, in whatever part of the city that may be, and reach my emergency as best he can? Do you? How can this possibly be safe?
I expect this bill will provide me with unreliable protection for my health and safety and that of those I love. In speaking to Fire Chief Hamer about the extensive training required by firefighters and their ongoing training as part of their regular duties, I can't imagine how the province expects part-time personnel to be trained sufficiently in the first place and have the time necessary to maintain an ongoing training schedule.
1600
The other concerns I want to express today come from a different mindset in that I have put my name forward to run for city council in the November election. Is it really the opinion of those writing this bill that the power to allocate taxpayers' dollars to fire prevention and away from fire protection should be in the hands of municipal leaders who do not have knowledge, experience or expertise in this complicated field?
In my effort to be a responsible candidate for the election, I have reviewed budgets and personally interviewed all 34 department and division managers in this city, including the mayor, several aldermen and Fire Chief Hamer. Every city manager will tell you, as they did me, that money is very tight. Our city has gone through a major reorganization, eliminating 40 middle management positions. It seems that a totally contradictory approach is being taken in this bill, creating more middle management positions. I have no idea why you see this as an improvement, and other taxpayers concerned with wasting our tax dollars agree with me on that.
Every city department will be facing the same challenges next year of providing less services or raising taxes to a level that is unaffordable. There will be a great deal of public pressure on the municipal leaders to make these decisions. This is the one line I highlighted, and I hope you all notice that: There really is no price you can put on safety.
I love the way the province continues to enact legislation that puts more responsibility on the municipality without providing my provincial tax dollars to fund the changes. It worries me that after attending many, many city council meetings, decisions to privatize are being considered strictly on a financial basis. Fire protection is an essential service -- I hope you notice I have that in bold letters -- in my opinion, that cannot be compromised. I hope and pray that every municipal leader in this province feels the same way. I have seen poor decisions made in this city, with the most important consideration simply being dollars and cents. There is a great deal of pressure from taxpayers to spend their tax dollars wisely, and that is your responsibility as well.
In asking that you consider the challenges and questions brought forward in these hearings and respond in a responsible manner, please remember that most of us are intelligent, safety-conscious people. We take the precautions to keep our loved ones safe. We have smoke alarms and a fire extinguisher, but accidents will always happen. I also live on a main arterial roadway where dangerous goods are trucked past my front door on a daily basis. This puts me at a risk I can't control. I want to sleep at night knowing the professionals are there and able to respond in my time of need. Our lives are in your hands. Thank you.
Mr Ramsay: Thank you, Mary, for making a presentation and congratulations for deciding to run for municipal politics. I wish you well.
Mrs Roy: Thank you.
Mr Ramsay: You bring up some very good points in your presentation. I wanted to talk a little bit about some of these. I share your concern about the fire prevention aspects of this bill versus fire protection. While this bill is excellent when it comes to mandating how important fire prevention is -- I think we all agree that if we could do more fire prevention we could probably stop some more fires, though, unfortunately, there are always going to be fires because of accidents and other circumstances -- by not then mandating fire protection equally, it is going to put some pressure on a municipal politician. You're somebody who is thinking of being one. I'd like you to expand on that and what sort of pressure you think that's going to put a municipal council under that already has a fire department and has both suppression and prevention, yet one is mandated and the other isn't and you've got shrinking dollars coming in.
Mrs Roy: Basically what you're doing is leaving the power in the hands of people who may not understand the roles of both sides. I don't know what it's like in the cities you come from, but on a weekly basis I attend city council meetings and I see the amount of paperwork these people have to deal with on a weekly basis and make decisions on. I just don't know, even if the information is there, that they'll all absorb it. I don't know that all the councillors, honestly, have ever visited a firehall recently, as I did, or spoken to our chief or realized the other roles that the fire department do when they're not suppressing a fire, when they're rescuing somebody off the ice. Those tend to make the media, but I'm not sure that city council has the knowledge to make those decisions.
I worry about them taking it away from suppression. That is where we need it. The education is always going to be an important aspect, but I think you may be putting the power in the wrong hands.
Mr Ramsay: The other area that you talk about too of course is, when they mandated this prevention aspect of fire safety to the municipalities, it's sort of, unfortunately, a broken promise of the Harris government. Mike Harris said in the Common Sense Revolution he would not mandate any new service provision to municipal government without providing the revenue. In this case, as you know, with all the downloading it looks like there's going to be less revenue for municipalities, which is going to make your potential job a lot tougher. But here you have a new service that's now mandated. It's doubly why I salute you for what you're going to do, because being a municipal councillor in the next term is going to be a lot harder than it was in the past, because of your new responsibility.
I don't know if you want to comment on that. There may not be enough time. But I wish you well.
Mrs Roy: I agree with what you're saying. I have had my psychiatric evaluation; I'm up for the job.
Mr Ramsay: Luckily we don't have to have those.
Mr Bisson: First of all, I'd like to congratulate you for your decision to run for municipal politics. I can assure you politics is an honourable profession, unlike what some people would like to make it. Good things can come of municipal and provincial and federal governments when people decide to exercise their democratic right, not just to vote but to get involved and to be involved in those things that are a passion to us, in this case public safety.
I want to ask you the question around the whole question of who should have the responsibility for setting the standards, because it's a problem that's not new just with the creation of this provincial government, in regard to offloading some of the responsibility for the standards of fire services, to a certain extent, to municipalities by some of the provisions of the bill.
But we are seeing at a national level a government that is saying we are going to move from the Canada assistance program to pay for health care, where you are able to enforce standards in health care across the country, to a block transfer, where provinces can to a certain extent really diminish those standards that are set by the federal government in the Canada Health Act. We're seeing that in housing, we're seeing it in other things, where the federal government is offloading its responsibility to the provinces and thus lowering the standards.
Is there still, in your mind, a responsibility for the provincial government to set the standards necessary for things like fire services, and what level of services should be offered to the municipality? Should the province set those standards and, if so, to what degree?
Mrs Roy: I believe the reason I pay provincial tax dollars is that this is an essential service and that is the service I expect from the province. I don't know how we compare to other cities, but there are smaller municipalities that may be worse off than us. Certainly if the province wants to download all these things on us, at least give us the money to do it.
Mr Bisson: My big fear with the downloading and the offloading of responsibility to municipalities when it comes to all kinds of services -- fire services, welfare, housing, you name it -- is that once you start throwing that on to municipalities you can end up in a situation, and probably will, where municipalities will ratchet down their services and attempt to save money because they haven't got the dollars to pay for it, but more important, as a way of being able to compete with each other when it comes to offloading each other's responsibilities, whether it be to welfare recipients or whatever it might be.
Do you think that the direction the government is going in offloading all of this stuff on to the municipalities could lead in the end to municipalities saying, "I can't afford to pay for the welfare costs any more; I'll ship them off to Timmins or Sudbury," or wherever it might be?
Mrs Roy: I think we actually have probably a lot to lose, being the main hub of northwestern Ontario. I'm sure if there are problems in Nipigon and they can't handle their welfare cases, they're going to end up in my backyard and I'll be paying for them.
1610
Mr Gary Carr (Oakville South): Thank you very much for a very fine presentation. I wish you well in your endeavours in the political field. I agree with a lot of people who feel that a lot of our local politicians, and we've got many in the Legislature from all three parties, sometimes make the best decision. As our friend Hazel McCallion always reminds us, if the federal and provincial governments had been run by governments of all political stripes as well as municipalities had, we would have been a lot better off. So I encourage you to get out there and be part of that process.
One of the arguments that people have used, and it keeps coming back when we talk about the province having responsibility, is why would somebody in the community, like yourself, who has friends, family, neighbours in the community, care less about the safety than the provincial bureaucrats down in Queen's Park who would have overriding responsibility?
I think that's where people like Margaret Marland, who has come from the municipal sector, and all members have, there have been many -- they know that those people care. I'm under no illusions. There are going to be tough choices, very tough choices, because municipalities are going to have long-term care, social assistance, just like the tough choices at the federal level in health care and the province in education. It's not going to be easy, but I honestly believe there are going to be good decisions made by good councils and that most of them are responsible.
What do you feel will change here in your area? If the bill passes as is and if there hasn't been privatization, if there hasn't been part-time, why do you think that all of a sudden things are going to change because this bill passes and that these municipal politicians would then jeopardize safety by entering all these areas? What would change, in your estimation?
Mrs Roy: Because I have already dealt with council on other safety issues that our Hodder Avenue group has brought to them. Hopefully we will see some major changes in November, but the present council's priority is dollars, not safety. I worry that the people who are sitting in council now -- and I'm sure I'm going to hear a lot about this as I campaign -- have the power to think of money over safety, and they have done in other decisions.
If it's just a safety issue, you have to have the right people in place. I still feel that is your responsibility, and the privatization does worry me. I have also spoken to Chief Chambers, who is head of protective services as head of the police and the fire department. Privatization is not something that is out of the question in this city, as a tax dollar saving. I think it's a very scary proposition. Our present police chief, who is head of protective services, would love to amalgamate the two departments. It's something I vehemently oppose as another threat to my safety.
The Vice-Chair: Time has expired. Ms Roy, thank you very much for your presentation. Good luck in November.
TED MILL
The Vice-Chair: The next presenter is Mr Ted Mill, please. Good afternoon, sir.
Mr Ted Mill: Thank you for allowing me to air my opinions on this very important matter, because although I've been out of the fire service since 1988, I still have an interest in fire department matters and in public safety.
Though it addresses the fire service, this particular act is of vital importance to every resident of Ontario and indeed everyone who even passes through the province. It will affect you, your family, your friends, in the home and school, in church or at work, because accidents and fires can happen at any time, anywhere, and in all these cases, you will need the services of a highly trained, professional, full-time firefighter.
My name is Ted Mill, and though I haven't had much to do with the legal documents, this is my face value assessment of parts of Bill 84 and its effect on the fire service of Ontario.
A little bit about myself: I sailed for a few years when about 15 years old on a merchant ship. I worked in the shipyard as a steel fitter. I put in three years in the regular army as a gun mechanic, then spent a number of years in the militia and until recent years in the supplementary ready reserve. Much of the foregoing helped immensely when I joined the Port Arthur fire department in 1959. I worked through the ranks as a lieutenant, captain, deputy chief and, until my retirement in 1988, as chief of the Thunder Bay fire department.
I stated the probable effects of this bill and that everyone will feel some of the repercussions that will be sure to follow if it is passed. The most logical question is, why? You want to take a bill, the present fire act, which, though it has a few flaws, is working quite well; you want to scrap it and come up with some obviously flawed bill called Bill 84, a bill that along with the glaring shortcomings, will also introduce a whole mess of problems that will arise when it goes, if it goes, into operation.
As I said, there are weaknesses in the old fire act, but they could be fine-tuned without the scrapping of the whole system. I learned a long time ago that if a machine is working okay, apart from service and maintenance, leave the darned thing alone. If it can be improved, do it, part by part, but don't discard everything, the good, working parts along with the bad.
With the time available, I will discuss a few points that I feel could do a lot of damage to the fire service, with the consequent effect on the general public.
First of all, the municipality's choice of fire services, section 2: The municipality must establish a fire education program and may establish a fire department suppression unit. This suggests that if everyone is taught the fire prevention rules, there will be no need for firefighters and you won't need a fire suppression team.
The fire prevention staff of the Thunder Bay fire department has been educating the public for years with inspections, lectures, demonstrations, pamphlets. They visit industries and schools and hospitals and, though it no doubt has helped, we still get fire accidents and deaths. No matter how well people are taught, there's still the human factor.
I'd like to ask everybody in the room, for example, have you ever cruised a stop sign? Have you ever driven over the speed limit? Have you ever passed on a solid line? You all know the Highway Traffic Act and what could happen when you do things like that, so why do you do it? You also know that you should check your smoke detectors; you know the properties and dangers of gasoline; you know that leaving matches and lighters where children can get them is a dangerous thing to do; and you know about the storage of flammable materials. You know these things, but here are a few things that have happened.
A young fellow was repairing his motorcycle; he was washing the parts in gasoline. Where was he doing this? In the living room of his apartment.
Two young teenagers were looking for a job and they were given a job to scrub a floor of a warehouse below ground level. They gave them a couple of pails of gas and said, "Go to it." They barely escaped with their lives.
A fellow was painting. He did all his painting and he took his brushes and he was washing them off with a couple of gallons of gas. Then he dumped the gas down the sewer. The fumes came up next door. We went in there with a sniffer and we found that the explosive range was all through the basement, into the house next door, never mind the place where it started. Who was the fellow who did this? A professional man, a medical doctor.
A six-year-old fellow, a little guy, had just been given a new pair of white running shoes. His mother told him to stay away from the street. They were oiling it. Of course, the little guy has got to get into the tar and the next thing you know he's got Bunker C all over his white running shoes. But he knew his Dad had stored gasoline in the basement for his chainsaw, so downstairs he goes. He's scrubbing the white shoes off with the gasoline, and 15 feet away is a gas furnace. There was a flash. The young fellow was burned pretty badly, and after the smoke cleared all we found of the white running shoes were six or eight little eyelets on the floor. Everything had gone.
Another little fellow was known to play with matches and lighters, which should have been kept away from him. When the fire occurred, we couldn't find him; he was lost in the fire.
These things occurred in spite of knowledge; people knew. In all cases, it was a fire suppression team that responded, not the fire education officers. Education is important, but suppression is vital.
1620
So many unforeseen things can happen, for example, spontaneous ignition -- we're aware of it, yet we're not aware of it; we don't practice things that will avoid it -- in grain, in rags, in mops, and even the action of low-temperature pyrolysis, a long-term thing where suddenly buildings will erupt for no apparent reason.
A station wagon was parked on the street and sunlight shining through the window hit a lamp lying on the car seat, which hit a reflector and was focused on a blanket in the vehicle. The vehicle was destroyed. The children who were in the vehicle got out, no problem.
A kitchen fire occurred because a chap decided to fix his coffee maker. He decided to change the fusible link with a piece of copper strip -- substantial damage to the house.
Then of course there's lightning, which occurs all the time; it's quite common in the city. We've had lives lost from that cause.
With all this, we're also responsible for industrial accidents. There are many factors involved with these things, so they're hard to predict and hard to defend against.
In the shipyard, there were three workers working down in the ball thruster compartment of a ship and there was a leak in an oxygen line, an O2 line. The oxygen, because of the cold temperatures that morning, we assume was raised to something like about 64% oxygen, over the 21% that's normal. A fire occurred and three people died a terrible death in a matter of seconds.
Two chaps were working with oxyacetylene equipment in the country. They were reasonably conscious of the danger, but as with a lot of accidents, various things were involved. There was an explosion; one was dead and one injured.
A ship in the harbour came in and there was a flash fire aboard -- 16 people dead.
A grain elevator on the waterfront suffered a $10-million loss in product and in the structure. The factors included grain dust explosion. That was only one of the factors involved, of course.
All these were subject to information and inspection, and they still happened.
Then of course we come to arson, the set fire. That's one of the more dangerous types of fire we encounter. Some of the devices we encountered: flammable liquids; punctured gas lines; multiple starts. At one fire was found a stick of dynamite complete with black clover fuse, detonator and igniter set, all ready for us. It's beyond the reach of fire safety instruction, isn't it?
The Thunder Bay fire department has an excellent fire prevention team, and what they do are some of the following: routine inspections of commercial, industrial, institutional buildings; public information through talks, lectures, demonstrations at schools, hospitals, commercial and industrial; teaching the use of first aid extinguishers; fire escape plans; and information about industrial processes and chemicals.
They're a source of information for the fire suppression teams with fire routes, standpipe and hydrant information, hazardous buildings, areas and processes. They also assist in fire investigations with the fire marshal's office. They assist with hydrant and standpipe flow testing, alarm system surveys, home inspections on request, and so on.
There's no doubt that due to their efforts fire and accident frequency is reduced, but we still get fires and accidents. The fire suppression team are the first line of defence against the ravages of fire, but without the cooperation of the prevention, mechanical, training and clerical divisions, their job would be quite difficult. It's a team effort.
Let's look at another part of the act: the use of part-time firefighters.
The Vice-Chair: Excuse me, sir. I'm not sure how long your presentation is, but you are down to three minutes, just so you know how much time you have left.
Mr Mill: All right, sir, we'll do the best we can. Part-time firefighters and volunteer firefighters have some things in common. Through no fault of their own, their training and expertise level is often not equal to that of the professional full-time firefighter. I have worked with volunteers both in training and in actual emergencies and have nothing but respect for them. Many would be full-time firefighters if they had the chance.
So what's the problem? Training is vital to all firefighters. It takes many forms, such as formal training sessions in the professional fire department every day; in volunteer fire departments, it's usually once or twice a week. Every fire emergency, even a minor fire, is a training session. Vehicle maintenance and upkeep, even washing the vehicle, is a learning experience, because you learn the location of equipment and the condition it's in. Area familiarization, street and hydrant location, are done constantly. Post-fire assessment: After most fires, there's some formal and some informal talking about what happened, what did we do right, what did we do wrong, and so on. Of course the firefighter is quite adept at talking shop; it occurs at lunch and coffee, but again it's a learning experience.
Incentive in training is another thing. Of course training leads to promotion. This particularly applies to professionals. They're going to take a lot of interest in training and training programs. The part-timer and volunteer is not exposed to all this; the professional is, and much more.
Apart from training, what are some of the problems? The physical condition: We don't have any control over the volunteer or the part-time firefighter. He may have a job that doesn't keep him in good shape, and if he's not in good shape, he won't last long at a fire.
Response times to an occurrence: First of all, they may not locate the emergency; they're responding on their own and they may not even find where the darn thing is.
Overzealous response by the part-time team: They're pumped up with adrenalin and this may result in dangerous driving. They do not have the protection lights, siren or distinctive colour, shape or size of emergency vehicles to protect them.
The condition of the responder: He may be ill, he may be tired, he may be on medication or under the influence of alcohol, but he will still want to respond if the phone rings.
The late arrival will not be aware of fire plans or whatever, fire conditions, casualties etc. Other than holding up the hose, he really wouldn't be too much use.
Because of these factors, a little bit too late is the response.
When a fire recruit is exposed to fires and the discipline around the fire station, he develops a difference: He develops comradeship, a pride in his unit, a trust in his fellow firefighters, and he earns the trust of his comrades. Morale is high, and because of the high morale he'll participate in projects and functions for the fire department way beyond the scope of normal job requirements. This spirit is evident in Thunder Bay at least. They formed a fire rescue team. They formed a high-level rescue team. They constructed a foam trailer to carry AFFFATC to tank farms and large chemical and gasoline spills.
Mr Bisson: To carry what? I didn't catch that.
Mr Mill: AFFFATC, a foam concentrate used on flammable liquid fires.
They devised a makeshift fireboat system in the harbour, two of them, as a matter of fact. They developed an information film called Oxygen, The Friendly Gas -- this was as a result of the problem in the shipyard -- and with the cooperation of channel 7, occupational health and safety and Canadian Liquid Air, this film was made and is now distributed all through the United States and Canada as a warning of oxygen enrichment atmospheres.
The Chair: Mr Mill, your time has elapsed, I'm afraid. Can you wrap it up? I'll give you 30 seconds more and that will be it.
Mr Mill: All these different things the fire department does are a reflection of pride, esprit de corps and morale of the department, something Bill 84 in its present form will surely destroy or dampen.
I have a little comment here, something to think about. I don't want to scare anyone who's flying. However, due to similar cost-cutting by the federal government, they have reduced the size of the CFR crew at Thunder Bay airport from three people to two people or even one man. Picture one or two firefighters trying to evacuate and rescue over 100 injured passengers from the flames of a pranged-in DC-9 or 737, or perhaps 70 or 80 from an F-28 or a Dash-8. They can't do it.
My final --
The Chair: That was your final, Mr Mill. Thank you very much for coming today to assist the committee in its deliberations.
1630
THUNDER BAY PROFESSIONAL FIRE FIGHTERS ASSOCIATION
The Chair: Our next presentation is from the Thunder Bay Professional Fire Fighters Association, Mr Ron Gorrie representing them. Welcome, Mr Gorrie.
Mr Ron Gorrie: Thank you, Mr Chair. I'll just wait till my helper gets the TV warmed up and I find my glasses -- getting old. Good afternoon. My name is Ron Gorrie. I am the recording secretary of the Thunder Bay Professional Fire Fighters Association. With me is Mr Les Newman, the first vice-president of the Thunder Bay Professional Fire Fighters Association. We'd like to take this opportunity to express the concerns and viewpoints of the members of this association with respect to Bill 84.
Back in the spring of 1995, candidates contesting for provincial election were interviewed by this association and others. I'd like you now to hear the viewpoint of one very prominent spokesman for a party.
Audiovisual presentation.
Mr Ramsay: Mike Harris was such a young-looking man there.
Mr Gorrie: The pressures and tensions of office.
We would venture to say that these words are clear and concise: Thorough consultation and fully costed changes prior to introduction of legislation.
If the government of Mike Harris had thoroughly consulted professional firefighters prior to introducing Bill 84, it would have understood the importance to public safety of a timely, efficient and competent emergency response. Instead, Bill 84 permits and encourages persons partially trained and working in locations remote from firehalls to respond in a haphazard manner to emergency situations. Response times will increase, delays at the scene of an emergency will occur and errors in tactics will all contribute to increased public danger. It goes so far as to actually permit fire-for-profit agencies.
If the government of Mike Harris had consulted firefighters, it would have understood the necessity of teamwork. There are a great many reasons why firefighters enter into dangerous situations knowingly while others are exiting; teamwork is one reason. Confidence is built and reinforced through training, experience and time spent together as an identifiable unit. This very essential aspect of delivering fire service is diminished as Bill 84 advocates the removal of essential team leaders and permits the inclusion of part-time personnel into the team.
If the government of Mike Harris had thoroughly consulted professional firefighters, it would have understood that professional firefighters endorse and for many years have called for education and prevention enhancements. It would have further understood that education and prevention are not the ultimate means to successfully protect the public from all the dangers that fire departments and firefighters respond to.
Bill 84 states to citizens that through the avenues of education and prevention, necessary personnel that deliver suppression activities can be reduced. We the professional firefighters of Thunder Bay say to you that not all the literature or classroom hours affordable to municipal governments will remove a trapped person from a wrecked automobile, climb down the side of a hospital or stop up a hazardous spill.
If consulted, firefighters would have advocated that the costs of education be borne by the Ontario fire marshal's office. Otherwise, the costs of bearing these new mandated services will come at the expense of suppression because of municipal governments' already tight dollars.
We submit further that Bill 84 is flawed in that it fails to include provisions that would go to great lengths to enhance the abilities of fire departments to deliver services to the public. If the government of Mike Harris had consulted professional firefighters, it would have an understanding of all the many services fire departments and firefighters provide to the public. Bill 84 purports to enhance the delivery of fire safety to the public, yet it fails to provide the very basic component required to provide that safety, namely, mandatory fire departments.
If the government of Mike Harris had thoroughly consulted professional firefighters, it would have understood the importance of responding with a crew of firefighters of sufficient size to immediately commence interior rescue and attack activities. It would have been told that the Ontario fire marshal deems that a minimum of four fully trained and equipped firefighters must be onsite in order to start to perform these various activities. Without sufficient personnel onsite, firefighters will be compelled to attempt rescue with less than adequate manpower or to do nothing, just stand there and wait for people to arrive. We submit that neither scenario is acceptable. Bill 84 fails to address the vital aspect of minimum crew sizes.
If the government of Mike Harris had consulted professional firefighters, it would have been told that many fire departments do not have sufficient equipment to do the job. Firefighters are compelled to rappel off buildings when ladders would work but ladders aren't purchased by municipal governments, despite recommendations of chiefs. Bill 84 fails to include language mandating minimum equipment standards for fire departments.
If the government of Mike Harris had thoroughly consulted professional firefighters, it would have been told of recommendations made by coroners' juries, recommendations made in order to enhance public safety and avoid situations that were proven to lead to the death of residents of this province. It would have heard of the importance of sprinkler systems, minimum response times, man-down alarms, a minimum number of firefighters entering buildings, mandatory fire departments, minimum communications capabilities and much more. Bill 84 is silent in all these areas.
If the government of Mike Harris had thoroughly consulted professional firefighters, it would have understood that in the opinion of the Ontario fire marshal, the citizens of this province presently enjoy one of the best, if not the best, fire services in the world. The fire marshal is on printed record stating that. The government of Mike Harris would also have learned that the public places a very high value on the service presently provided and has no desire to see that service compromised by reductions.
This association conducted a public awareness poll this past summer, and we've included the results of that in the back of your brief. The results of that poll stated that over 95% of the residents of this city do not wish to see any reduction in the capabilities of the Thunder Bay fire department. Some 50% of those respondents freely offered comments that the chief of the Thunder Bay fire department should be independent of the police chief and that he should have the right to freely express his viewpoint with respect to the fire department and the delivery of public safety services by that fire department. As an aside, just today our fire chief was gagged. He cannot come before you today and deliver his opinion on what Bill 84 should or should not do. Bill 84 doesn't give that power to the chief.
The members of this association have also gathered petitions. Right now we have over 9,300 signatures -- I'd ask you to change that figure in your brief -- requesting that the Ontario government not implement portions of Bill 84 that will jeopardize their safety.
Firefighting is not an area of public safety that can tolerate change simply for the sake of change. Ill-founded changes will only be hazardous. Correcting these errors after the event has happened will be too late for those innocents paying the price for political interference and meddling.
Mr Harris's second pledge, that any changes would be fully costed prior to introduction, also has not been kept. The members of this association state categorically that the true costs of Bill 84 will be increased death, increased injury, increased heartache and an overall decrease in the level of services presently provided by fire departments across this province.
Bill 84 is flawed. It does not do what it states it is supposed to do. The legislation, as written, will decrease public safety with respect to fire department responses. As an aside again, this committee has heard in Toronto that there is widespread opposition to Bill 84 in every part of the firefighting community. As you've heard, many volunteer firefighters are critical of Bill 84. Many chiefs are critical of Bill 84. Professional firefighters certainly are critical of Bill 84. Medical professionals are critical of Bill 84. The same criticism is levelled here in Thunder Bay. In fact, not one single person from this area has appeared before this committee today to speak in support of Bill 84.
Mr Ron Johnson: That's not true.
Mr Gorrie: From the Thunder Bay area, I said, sir.
The Chair: Please don't interrupt Mr Gorrie.
Mr Gorrie: Thank you very much, Mr Chairman. I appreciate that.
The members of this association strongly urge you to fulfil the election promise of the Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario and thoroughly consult the professional firefighters of Ontario in order to draft a piece of legislation that can be endorsed by all the parties -- and I say that again strongly, all the parties -- that are involved in the delivery of public safety with respect to fire to the citizens of this province.
Thank you for the opportunity to speak before you today, and thank you for the time you're going to spend when amendments and revisions of this bill are put forth, debated and hopefully adopted. Respectfully submitted.
The Chair: We only have one minute per caucus, unfortunately. Mr Bisson.
1640
Mr Bisson: God, I'd like to have five minutes. There's a whole bunch of questions I'd like to ask you. I guess I'll ask both questions and let you respond.
The first one is that we've heard the government members say over and over again, don't we trust municipal councils to do the right thing? In this particular case, your fire chief tried to stand up and speak on behalf of firefighters and he was gagged. I think that's a fairly good indication of what some municipal councils, and I'll say some because not all would do that -- of some of the problems we might run into with transferring all of these responsibilities on to the municipalities. I'd like you to comment on that.
Second, as a question, if no one supports this legislation, or hardly anyone supports it, why do you think the government is going forward with it?
Mr Gorrie: The last question first: Why are they going forth with it? Because it's some agenda to go ahead, to make change. I don't understand why they didn't consult. Change could be constructive if done in concert with all the parties. Firefighters are willing to sit down and negotiate, talk, discuss, and agree upon.
The first question: Do I trust municipal councils? No. They're strapped for cash. They'll be grasping for every avenue in order to save the budget dollar. If they have the avenue of reducing the cost of the fire department and maybe it'll only cause one or two more deaths in a year, well, they'll live with that.
Mr Ron Johnson: Thank you for your presentation. All through your presentation you attacked the government for what you called a lack of consultation. I think it's important that you don't confuse consultation with agreement. In fact, there has been a substantial amount of consultation. Both firefighter associations, as well as the associations for the fire chiefs, had meetings with the staff of the Solicitor General's office prior to the introduction of the bill. There were also discussions following the introduction of the bill. There have also been discussions between counsel who have represented your associations and counsel at the Solicitor General's office.
Discussions on this bill have been ongoing for a very long time, and I don't think it's fair for you to criticize the government for lack of consultation simply because you don't agree with the outcome of that consultation.
Mr Gorrie: I would ask you to listen to Mr Harris's comments again. His key words there: "Prior to the introduction of legislation I'll consult." He did not consult. I'd like to have you, Mr Johnson, give to me and my association a list of times, people, and locations when hours of work, multiple methods of exclusion, part-time workers, privatization, change of definition, removal of the Fire Departments Act, inclusion under the Labour Relations Act were all discussed by any one of the three or four parties.
Mrs McLeod: Thank you very much. You've made it very clear that if there had been a genuine consultation followed by a listening reflected in the act, the act would look very different. I guess what I'd like to ask you is that, as you pointed out, there's a lot that's missing from an act that is supposedly a fire safety act. You've pointed out all the coroners' recommendations that don't find their way into this act at all.
There's also a lot in this act that you wouldn't expect in a fire safety act, including much that is a direct attack on professional firefighters. Why do you think there would be so little in a fire safety act that has anything to do with fire safety and so much that's a direct hit on professional firefighters?
Mr Gorrie: The fire safety aspects of this bill I firmly believe are good. I believe it's an enhancement long overdue, but in order to get around and to justify axing labour relations legislation that has worked, and worked well, for 50 years, it has been folded into code enforcement, empowerment to the fire chiefs and the fire marshal's office. There's no need to have a labour relations section in legislation with respect to that. Have we now included into the Highway Traffic Act the OPP labour relations law, if such a thing exists? That's exactly what the government has done with Bill 84. I think it's untoward.
The Chair: Mr Gorrie, thank you very much for making a presentation on behalf of your association.
LORNE LONG
The Chair: Our next presentation is Mr Lorne Long. Good afternoon. We're running a little bit behind time but we're almost there, so I'd ask you to proceed.
Mr Lorne Long: I don't think I'll be too long.
The Chair: Don't hurry. You've got your 15 minutes.
Mr Long: Compared to what you've been hearing, I would class this as a fireside chat.
First, I do thank the committee for the chance to speak at this hearing and I hope my little talk will contribute in some small way to enlighten the committee on the problems that we as firefighters have to live with here in the great northwest.
My name is Lorne Long. I was hired on the Fort William fire department May 1, 1946, came up through the ranks and retired as platoon chief January 31, 1980, after serving almost 34 years. For those here who perhaps do not know or are not familiar with fire department ranks, it means that I was a foreman of one of the four shifts.
I can tell you all in all sincerity that I know of no other occupation quite like that of a firefighter. It is unique. When the alarm sounds, it could be anything from a simple garbage bin to a building fully involved, each one different in some way.
I well remember a young man just recently hired and he was placed in our shift. He was, and still is, a well-built man with a carefree attitude. He said to me after he had got a few fires under his belt: "I like this job. Where I worked before, I did the same thing day after day. It was so boring. With this job, each alarm is different and interesting and exciting." He was a joy to work with, and getting dirty and wet didn't bother him at all. That's the kind of attitude that this job calls for.
It helps a lot also if you are physically strong because most of our duties call for manpower. It also requires a lot of grit to carry on with the assignment when you are both wet and cold.
If you are the man in charge, it can be very lonely and trying at times, especially on night shift when people are sleeping. I noticed, as I grew older on the job, I became more conscious of the possibility of losing lives. I guess it comes with age. You're more sensitive to that possibility.
You people from the east might say Thunder Bay is a small city; serving it with fire protection should not present any problem. Our population is only approximately 113,000 people. However, in geographical area it's a very large city. The area totals approximately 323 square kilometres, or almost 210 square miles. We also cover the Indian reserves, in which there are two villages, Mission Village and Squaw Bay, on the shore of Lake Superior. Chippewa Park is also located on an Indian reserve but is city-owned, and of course we cover that.
To make things more complex, the Canadian National Railway line runs right through the approximate centre of the south ward. Today, with the unlimited power of a diesel locomotive, the train can be well over a mile in length. The greater the total train tonnage, the more diesel units are hooked to the train.
This large area means long runs for fire apparatus. To minimize this problem, satellite stations have been located throughout the area. This helps to get some apparatus to the scene as quickly as possible.
Under the heading of "Isolation," this is another problem we have to live with in Thunder Bay. We do not have the luxury of calling up our neighbour and requesting a loan of an aerial ladder and crew. Our closest source of help of any amount is hundreds of miles away. We have Winnipeg on the west, 400 miles, and Sault Ste Marie on the east, another 400 miles. We're stuck with what we have.
1650
I remember talking to a firefighter from North York while attending the Ontario Fire College. He said he had no idea we were so isolated. He said they can call and call for help, but we cannot. We use what we have and that's it.
Under the heading of weather: We live in a very scenic part of Ontario. It has often been referred to as God's country. We are close to good fishing and most outdoor recreation. A nice summer day here is hard to beat. Unfortunately, our summers are not as long as we would like, but you can't win them all.
I well remember a little humour that my doctor told me some years ago. He was from Kitchener. I take it that Dr John Spence was interviewing him as a potential member of the local Spence clinic staff. Dr Spence had his late father's good sense of humour. When the young doctor asked him about our summers here, Dr Spence thought for a moment and then said, with great emotion, "Now let me see, what did we do on that day last year?" That doctor recently retired from practice but still lives here. I guess he's hooked on our beautiful countryside.
The cold temperature does make our job more difficult. We have to be ever mindful of pumps and hose lines freezing and not forget the personnel working the fire. I was in the north-central fire station recently while in the area, walking through the ground floor. I was admiring the lovely, modern and abundant apparatus, just beautiful. You are short, however, in personnel to operate it, scraping the barrel pretty thin.
I live in the Westfort area, Brown Street station. They used to only go as far as Sprague Street on first alarm; now they go all over the south ward on the first alarm, leaving our area uncovered a great part of the time. They only man one pumper at the main stations now, so stations have to cover a greater area. Manpower is very important and a necessary item in the fire service. It takes manpower to rescue victims, to raise ladders, to lay in advance hose lines and to repair the equipment as quickly as possible for the next emergency.
Reference is made in Bill 84 to onsite manning. I take it this means that remaining fire crews arrive after the apparatus gets there. I admit that onsite manning is new to me, but surely this system would increase the response very significantly. I believe professional firefighters strive for a maximum of six minutes until some apparatus and manpower arrive.
Before I close I would just like to say a few words about one of our former mayors, the late Walter Assef. Walter was a very conscientious and honest man. He knew I lived in Westfort, as he did in his younger years. He always had a smile for me, accompanied by a few words about Westfort.
Walter worked very hard as mayor for everyone but his heart was especially soft for what he called the lunch-pail-carrying man. He had an expression that he used quite often, "There is no such thing as a free lunch," meaning of course that you pay for something one way or the other. I submit that this will apply in this case. If you're going to thin out the professional firefighter force and make it up with others, you'll lose a great deal in efficiency, I feel. Let us not be penny wise and pound foolish. Really, I never thought I'd see the day when we'd be in such a mess over this fire business, but anyway, I'd like to thank the committee once again for giving me this chance to address the gathering.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Long. We only have about 30 seconds a caucus in the event you wish to comment.
Mr Bisson: It's a very quick question. You've been in the fire services business for a lot of years. If we transfer a lot of the powers on to the municipalities, do you think that they will be responsible with those powers?
Mr Long: This I don't know. I've often wondered about it, though. That seems to be the way to go today, imposing more and more on the municipalities. But they haven't really come out and said how it's going to affect us, have they? Certainly the municipalities can't finance everything that is being financed now under the system they're using. I just don't know; it's going to take a lot of weeding out.
Mr Carr: Unfortunately, 30 seconds doesn't leave enough time, but -- I think I speak on behalf of all the members -- we appreciate your taking the time to come forward and bring your experiences and share them with us. It's very helpful. On behalf of all of the members, I want to thank you very much for doing that and sharing your thoughts with us here today. We wish you luck in your endeavours in the future.
Mrs McLeod: My question would have been the same as Mr Bisson's. I will just also say that I appreciate your presentation, and not only the experience you bring to it, but the tremendous concern you have. I hope that concern will be duly noted and taken into consideration by the committee members.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Long. I appreciate the gentleness of your presentation. It's fast escaping in this modern world. Maybe it has something to do with age, maybe we come from the same age, but I appreciate your approach.
Mr Long: Thank you very much, sir. I appreciate your remarks.
KENORA PROFESSIONAL FIRE FIGHTERS ASSOCIATION
The Chair: The Kenora Professional Fire Fighters Association, Mr Ken Peterson, president.
Mr Bisson: If I might beg indulgence of the committee, being each of us alone in caucus, I have a call that I've got to go make that I've been putting off for some time. I'm not going to be here for the last presentation. I have the brief and I want to thank you.
Mrs McLeod: Do I get your question time?
Mr Bisson: I want to move that she gets my question time.
The Chair: We can't do that but we like the sentiment in any event. There may not be any question time, in any event.
Mrs McLeod: This is a strict committee.
Mrs Marland: They wouldn't let me do it yesterday.
The Chair: Mr Peterson, welcome, good afternoon.
Mr Ken Peterson: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. I would like to thank you for giving me the opportunity to present this brief at these hearings today regarding Bill 84.
My name is Ken Peterson and I am president of the Kenora Professional Fire Fighters Association. I have 27 years' experience presently in the fire service industry. I started out as a young guy, five years fighting forest fires with the Ministry of Natural Resources, and the last 22 years as a municipal firefighter for the town of Kenora. I feel confident in speaking before this committee today because of these years of service.
My employer, the Kenora fire department, is a composite department consisting of 15 paid firefighters and 15 volunteer firefighters. The town of Kenora, situated 500 kilometres west of Thunder Bay, has a population of approximately 10,000 and is in a built-up area with a total population of 25,000 to 30,000 people.
I stand opposed to Bill 84 as it now reads because in my view it will limit the ability of all Ontario firefighters to achieve the goals of their respective mission statements. I would like to dwell a bit on mission statements as they state the objectives and the ultimate goals of most corporations, companies and industries. Most mission statements in the fire service industry would read as follows, just a generic one: to preserve life, reduce injuries and conserve property from the tribulations of fire and other dangerous situations.
This statement would apply equally to all of the broad range of services firefighters deliver to the general public. This list would include such things as firefighting, fire prevention, public education, auto extrication, ambulance assistance, hazardous materials responses and a host of other rescue services, like ice water rescue, that type of thing. The ultimate goal of course would be to reduce our losses to zero. I've attached to your copy of this brief an article on fire department mission statements. You can peruse that at a later date if you'd like.
The government of Ontario and through them the office of the fire marshal have a mandate to the people of Ontario to help protect them from the ravages of fire by providing them strong legislation relating to fire safety and providing strong leadership in the shaping of fire service delivery. In my view, they have failed on both these counts to be as effective as they could be.
To clarify this statement, strong legislation is the backbone of the fire service. Bill 84 has many very good sections of proposed legislation, but it is all overshadowed by the poorly written and hastily assembled part IX, the labour relations area. When introducing Bill 84 to the House in October 1996, Mr Runciman stated that the government is committed to safer Ontario communities. In a backgrounder on municipal responsibilities that was published along with the introduction, it is stated that the proposed legislation will allow municipalities to improve safety and reduce costs by enabling them to match effective prevention and public education with an appropriate and affordable level of fire suppression. One of my questions was, who would decide what is appropriate and who would decide what is affordable?
1700
If you go back to the Gulf war when Canada decided to join the multination service over there, I believe it took us almost six months by the time we outfitted a ship and got the people ready and everything. So we have a responsibility to be efficient in our services.
Another backgrounder on Bill 84 states that the primary role of the province is to provide leadership and support to municipalities with regard to fire service delivery. The language in part IX will allow the thinning of fire suppression capabilities. Is this providing leadership and will this make Ontario communities safer?
The language in part IX will allow for privatization of the fire service. Is this providing leadership and will this make Ontario communities safer?
The language in part IX will allow part-time firefighters to replace full-time firefighters. Is this providing leadership and will this make Ontario communities safer? Absolutely not, is my answer. Short-staffed suppression crews may save money in the short term but will ultimately cost lives in the long term. It seems to me that we're in the business of saving lives, not the other way around.
Private firms that deliver fire protection for profit should never be allowed in this province. I am appalled that the leaders of Ontario would even consider this option, given the track record of the private firms operating in the States.
Part-time firefighters mean only one thing to me: part-time hours and experience, part-time training, and most importantly, part-time dedication to the job and to the public whom we serve.
I spoke earlier about the requirements of strong leadership to maintain a viable fire service in Ontario. Strong leadership can make or break an emergency service in a real hurry. One just has to observe the Canadian Forces in the last few years to appreciate how critical an issue leadership really is.
I believe the fire marshal of Ontario, regretfully, has abandoned the paid firefighters of this province by endorsing this proposed legislation as it stands without amendments.
Bill 84 was announced with great fanfare. The cornerstones of the legislation were to be mandatory public education and fire prevention in all communities that would be monitored by the office of the fire marshal. Although firefighters are pleased to see these issues are finally being legislated, it is no great revelation to us that we must focus our attention in these areas.
Virtually all organized fire departments have in place already comprehensive programs that address these issues. It is no great mystery to us that, in order to achieve the goals of our mission statements, we must prevent the fires from even getting started. The departments that don't employ these measures now are mainly small volunteer departments that don't have the funding and don't have the manpower to implement them. The government produces the legislation but won't help with the funding, which leaves these departments in a catch-22 type of situation.
Firefighters are not alone in their opposition to this bill as it now stands. The general public stands behind the firefighters when the impact of the legislation is explained to them. I would like to read a letter of endorsement from a family in Kenora: Two teenaged boys are still alive today because firefighters were on the scene quickly and performed their jobs efficiently. That's also attached to your brief. I'll read it to you.
The letter is from John and Shelly Barnard from Keewatin, Ontario. It's addressed to Mr Mike Harris, Premier of Ontario:
"Dear Mr. Harris:
"We are writing due to concerns about the impact Bill 84 will have on this area if passed. As we are sure you are aware, northwestern Ontario bordering the Manitoba border is a vast recreational area -- both in winter and summer. Lake of the Woods is host to a large population of boaters and snowmobilers.
"The emergency response teams, mainly trained firefighters, have saved numerous lives in this area due to their training, experience and dedication. We have them to thank for our son being with us today.
"Our oldest boy, Jay, and his friend (16 years of age) went through the ice on their snowmobiles at approximately 9 pm one night last winter. A child saw their lights disappear in the bay, heard the cries for help and called 911. The response team was onsite immediately and began rescue operations. They were well-trained, had the proper equipment and fought to save the boys' lives. It was a harrowing rescue, and the team put their lives on the line during the process. The hospital staff informed us that our son had been brought in just in the nick of time.
"Without the dedication, hard work, training and experience of these people, we would be mourning the loss of our son. Cutting these programs has a very negative impact on the hardworking and committed individuals that put themselves on the line to help, protect and save others in the community. We understand that there has been rampant spending and excesses during the past. This is not an area that should be sacrificed.
"Our story is not the only incident. There have been numerous heroic rescues, from people going through the ice, to boating mishaps, search and rescues and on and on....
"Thank you for your consideration.
"Sincerely,
"John Barnard and Shelly Barnard."
I was at that scene that night and it was after dark, really bad ice. It was a very, very dangerous situation and there's no doubt in my mind that if we didn't have a paid department those two boys would not have lived. When you're dealing with hypothermia, you're dealing with a critical amount of time, five or six minutes at the most.
In closing, I can only ask that this committee recommend to the House that this bill not be passed into law without amendments. It is imperative that the government fully consult with the people who will actually be delivering the service to the people. I think with cooperation among all the players, it is possible to pass into law a revised Bill 84 that we all can be proud to say is the best fire service legislation in the country.
Once again, I thank the committee for allowing me to express my views on this very important subject of life safety for the citizens of Ontario, and I'd like to thank you for your hard work on this project.
Mr Ramsay: Thank you very much for your presentation. I find it always very helpful to hear stories of real-life rescues like this because it enhances our appreciation of the good work that fire departments do right across the province. This is our third day now and I've heard many of these stories. It's really helped me in understanding the nature of your work.
One thing that puzzles me, and I maybe could ask some of your thoughts on this, is the dilemma that small communities such as Kenora may be put under by this act when now fire education is mandated but not fire suppression. I know the pressures all communities have because of the Harris government cuts in Ontario, but there's a midsized community in Ontario, Kenora, and what sort of pressure are the councillors going to have, and do they have the appreciation of all the work they do, and also the importance of education but also putting that fire out?
Mr Peterson: We have had very good support from our council in past years. We're a very small town compared to southern Ontario, yet we've maintained a viable 30-man department, 15 paid and 15 volunteer. We work hand in hand with the volunteers every day. I've got nothing but good things to say about them.
But there's bound to be pressure. Every municipality in the province is fighting, trying to balance budgets. So far I haven't heard anything. I guess they're in full support of us, but maybe in the future, who knows? "Maybe we can cut back two or three men to do other things." I think that would be the wrong way to go.
Mr Ramsay: The other thing this bill allows, and certainly in a very straightforward way through its definition of who the employer is, is that it could be any organization, not just a municipality. That really opens that up. My concern is that the Harris government, through Bill 84, is handing a loaded gun to the municipalities. They're not saying, "Go and use it," but they're saying, "Just in case, here it is." That's a real problem. The reason they might want to give that to the municipalities is that because of all the offloading, the downloading they've caused the municipalities, we know the local tax bills are going to go up and councillors in the next term are going to have a lot of hard choices to make. I was just wondering what you would think of a privatized fire department and how it would work in Kenora.
Mr Peterson: I would hate to see them anywhere in Canada, to tell you the truth, but I don't think there's anywhere, any emergency service, where a private firm for profit should be involved. I don't think there's enough -- how would you say? -- with a municipal department, you have to answer to your mayor and to your council.
Mr Ramsay: Accountability.
Mr Peterson: Yes, the accountability piece of it. I would hate to see that anywhere in Ontario or Canada for that matter.
Mr Carr: Thank you very much for your presentation and for coming here and giving us your thoughts.
On the first page you talk about the 15 paid firefighters and the 15 volunteer firefighters. Is there any way you could explain or help the committee with how the coordination works? How do you define the responsibilities and how have you set it up now for the duties between the paid and the volunteers? Could you share some of the thoughts of how you do it presently?
Mr Peterson: A composite department: There's a full-time volunteer department, fully volunteer; there's a full-time department with no volunteers at all; then there's us middle-sized guys with composites.
What we have is 15 full-time volunteers. That leaves three firefighters on duty at all times on the floor for your two shifts. We first respond to any calls, and then if it's more than a one-alarm fire we'll call in our volunteers. They basically work as a backup to us guys, help us out in any way. It has worked well with us in the past and they're quite happy with their role in that they don't have to -- there are no officers per se in the volunteer section. They're just more a manpower type of thing, and that's worked well over the years, in Kenora anyway.
Mr Carr: One other question: As you know, there are no standards right now across the province.
Mr Peterson: Standards relating to --
Mr Carr: To the fire standards and what services will be provided.
Mr Peterson: Oh, yes.
Mr Carr: Individually, different levels have come about, and because of the good men and women, I think we've done an excellent job, but there really are no standards to say, "This is what you need in a community." There is a tremendous amount of flexibility right now between standards.
Is there anything the province can do to ensure the standards? One of the things this does is give the fire marshal for the first time the power to step in, in the event there is a problem in a particular area, for whatever reason, which I think is a good thing. That hadn't been there. Is there anything else the province can do to ensure that the high standards that are met by the people of this province can be ensured right across? Is there anything else the province can do?
Mr Peterson: Funding is certainly one, when you go and legislate certain areas. In Kenora we do all our prevention programs. We're up to speed on everything. But there are a lot of smaller and volunteer departments and they are very dedicated guys, but they only have so many hours. They're going to have trouble with the proposed fire prevention and public education end of it. It's good legislation as far as I'm concerned, but it's really going to strap a lot of these small volunteer departments because they're really going to have a tough time putting in the hours to have an efficient program, one that's worthwhile.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Peterson, for your presentation here today.
Our agenda is completed today. We'll be adjourning to Thursday, April 10, 1997, in the city of Sudbury, Ambassador Hotel, salon A, at 10 am.
The committee adjourned at 1715.