CONTENTS
Tuesday 22 April 1997
Fire Protection and Prevention Act, 1996, Bill 84, Mr Runciman /
Loi de 1996 sur la prévention et la protection contre l'incendie, projet de loi 84, M. Runciman
STANDING COMMITTEE ON ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Chair / Président: Mr Gerry Martiniuk (Cambridge PC)
Vice-Chair / Vice-Président: Mr Ron Johnson (Brantford PC)
Mr RobertChiarelli (Ottawa West / -Ouest L)
Mr DavidChristopherson (Hamilton Centre/ -Centre ND)
Mr BruceCrozier (Essex South / -Sud L)
Mr EdDoyle (Wentworth East / -Est PC)
Mr Garry J. Guzzo (Ottawa-Rideau PC)
Mr TimHudak (Niagara South / -Sud PC)
Mr RonJohnson (Brantford PC)
Mr FrankKlees (York-Mackenzie PC)
Mr PeterKormos (Welland-Thorold ND)
Mr Gary L. Leadston (Kitchener-Wilmot PC)
Mr GerryMartiniuk (Cambridge PC)
Mr John L. Parker (York East / -Est PC)
Mr DavidRamsay (Timiskaming L)
Mr DavidTilson (Dufferin-Peel PC)
Substitutions present /Membres remplaçants présents:
Mr BobWood (London South / -Sud PC)
Mr LenWood (Cochrane North / -Nord ND)
Clerk / Greffier: Mr Douglas Arnott
Staff / Personnel: Ms Sibylle Filion, legislative counsel
J-2143
The committee met at 1532 in room 228.
FIRE PROTECTION AND PREVENTION ACT, 1996 / LOI DE 1996 SUR LA PRÉVENTION ET LA PROTECTION CONTRE L'INCENDIE
Consideration of Bill 84, An Act to promote Fire Prevention and Public Safety in Ontario and to amend and repeal certain other Acts relating to Fire Services / Projet de loi 84, Loi visant à promouvoir la prévention des incendies et la sécurité publique en Ontario et modifiant ou abrogeant certaines autres lois relatives aux services de lutte contre les incendies.
The Chair (Mr Gerry Martiniuk): We will continue with clause-by-clause consideration of Bill 84. When we left this matter yesterday, we were into discussion of section 2 of the act and Mr Kormos had the floor.
Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): Thank you, Chair. I appreciate your courtesy yesterday in accommodating the committee by permitting them to vote on Bill 103.
Section 2, as amended, had been moved and I began, I believe, by expressing the concern that I had about the distinction between clause 2(1)(a) and clause 2(1)(b).
This brought comment throughout the course of the two weeks, one of four days and the other of three days, of public hearings. Clause 2(1)(a) makes mandatory the provision of public education with respect to fire safety and fire prevention. Quite frankly, every participant who spoke to the committee during the course of the hearings had nothing but praise for this component of the bill, and there is no quarrel, certainly from this quarter, with that requirement. It was demonstrated oh-so-clearly that fire prevention and fire safety and education were significant elements in saving lives and in preventing loss by fire.
I made reference to the Windsor fire department's process whereby they had a very strong, a remarkable smoke alarm public program wherein smoke alarms were distributed literally door to door. Any householder or tenant who wanted one, it appears, could simply call the fire department and a fire officer would deliver it. I was left very much with the impression that they would actually install it, and I join all those who applaud the introduction of this mandatory requirement.
However, Chair, you know, as does the committee, at least those members who were able to be present during the travelling and the two days in Toronto that there was much concern expressed about the fact that 2(1)(b) was separate and distinguished from 2(1)(a). It's remarkable because, of course, the government may well say -- the first line of subsection 2(1) is "Every municipality shall." That appears to be mandatory, and I suspect that some of the government members, when they expressed views and tried to rebut the position of participants and of opposition members, pointed to that.
But in terms of "shall", the mandatory requirement as to fire protection services, that is, "such other," which includes fire suppression because fire protection services of course are defined in subsection 1(1), the definitions, is only "as it determines may be necessary in accordance with its needs and circumstances."
Again, here we've got interesting language, I suppose, utilizing the qualifiers of "needs and circumstances," and I appreciate the issue of needs. One wouldn't expect a community to participate in fire protection services that were, for instance, well beyond its needs, but circumstances is what causes concern, especially when you go over to where the government has tried to rewrite the rules of arbitration and talks very clearly. Of course, there have been amendments tabled to address that, where the government tries to rewrite the rules of arbitration and would permit arbitrators -- not permit them, require them -- to take into consideration things like the economic circumstances of a community.
I'm referring specifically to paragraph 54(7)1 that an arbitrator "shall take into consideration...1. The employer's ability to pay in light of its fiscal situation." It says the "employer's," not the municipality's, "ability to pay" because this is part and parcel of the open door to privatization.
On to paragraph 3: "The economic situation in Ontario and in the municipality." That's very weird. I make reference to that because again a municipality shall "provide such other fire protection services as it determines may be necessary in accordance with its...circumstances."
We then have reference in paragraph 54(7)1 to:
"1. The employer's ability to pay in light of its fiscal situation.
"3. The economic situation in Ontario and in the municipality.
"4. A comparison, as between the firefighters and other comparable employees," not just in the public sectors but "in the public and private sectors."
I don't purport to be an expert or anywhere akin to an expert on arbitration law, but I understand that there has been historically developed in the law of arbitration in determining awards or settlements regarding salaries and pay a comparison as often as not to, let's say, police officers, policing. This would appear to expand that to "comparable employees in the public and private sectors."
What would happen there would be that if a community was adjacent to a community that had private firefighting services like those from Rural/Metro, for instance, and Rural/Metro being the type of company it is, profit-driven, was paying firefighters $10 or $11 an hour, it seems to me that a comparison between the firefighters and other comparable employees in the private sector, you would have there an arbitrator being forced to consider -- "shall" because it's mandatory -- what Rural/Metro is paying its firefighters in determining an award to what might at the moment remain municipally employed firefighters.
1540
There has been a lot of concern expressed about 2(1)(b) and the fact that it's omitted from the mandatory requirements. It would have been so easy for the drafters of the legislation, for the government, to have simply said "Every municipality shall provide fire protection services," which includes public education, includes fire prevention programs and fire suppression along with all the other things that are listed there.
The government members, in response to those concerns, kept saying: "Read the section. It says `shall.'" Well, it could have said "shall" in an oh-so-much-clearer way and could have said it so easily. It could have said, "Every municipality shall establish fire protection services in accordance with its needs." The other crazy thing is that when it talks about other fire protection services in clause (b) it says, "as it determines may be necessary in accordance with its needs and circumstances," and I think "circumstances" is the hook here.
Mr David Ramsay (Timiskaming): The operative word.
Mr Kormos: The operative word, as has been pointed out. But it doesn't say that with respect to public education and fire prevention. I don't know what gives here. The government is trying to hide under this feel-good message of it requiring fire prevention and fire education services.
You heard the argument that prevailed from government members -- not all of them. People like Ron Johnson, who is the former Vice-Chair, and people like Gary Carr, the former parliamentary assistant, were far more sensitive and seemed to be far more aware of the real issues. You heard the constant argument because on the one hand the government said, "There isn't a lowering of standards here," but then there seemed to be an acknowledgement of the fact that there was a lowering of standards.
I put to you that subsection 2(1), clauses (a) and (b), is specifically a part and parcel of that lowering of standards. The government said, "If there is a lowering of standards, no municipality would ever descend to that lower level of standard." It talked about the responsibility of councils and administrative officers and their wanting to fulfil their responsibilities.
What we did learn, though, is that more than a few municipalities, and we heard some very direct evidence about that, did not meet the standards that are currently established by the fire marshal in terms of, let's say, staffing of a pumper. We learned through discussion about the Rhode Island study in terms of worker safety on the part of firefighters when you de-staff the pumper from four down to three staff. We also learned from the Ontario fire marshal's own study, along with others, that when you reduce staffing on a pumper from four down to three staff, you incapacitate that crew from doing internal fire suppression. I take that to mean, I think it's obvious, putting out fires inside of a building.
In other words, these poor guys, when you're understaffed to that extent, can only stand outside and listen to the screams of occupants of burning buildings and try to throw water on them, because it talked about when you reduce staffing from four down to three, you can't do internal fire suppression, and the other most dramatic one is you can't do rescues. You can't enter a building to effect rescues.
We saw and heard from the young man in Hamilton who was there with his sister and his mother and who talked about literally being rescued and having, as I recall it, displayed that state where there were no vital signs there, but firefighters with great courage entered the building, and that, we learned, was only possible through minimum staffing.
That's why I get down to the failure of the bill to address any real standard, which is necessary, because we learned that municipalities have indeed reduced staffing on pumpers, not just down to three, but we heard of circumstances where they're doing it down to two staff people. We know, there's simply no quarrel, no quarrel whatsoever, there can't be, with the fact that part-time firefighters, whether they're volunteers -- and nobody on this side has anything but the highest regard for volunteer firefighters, either in those integrated or blended firefighting services where volunteers complement the professional firefighting services or in those communities, and heck, there's whole pile of them, one right down in Niagara region, Niagara-on-the-Lake, which is an entire 100% volunteer firefighting service -- no quarrel with the commitment and the important role of volunteer firefighters. But we learned that part-time firefighters, whether they be volunteers or the type of part-timers who appear very much to be contemplated by the government, do not have the same response time.
Let's just deal with response time for a moment because there were other concerns raised. There was some very candid evidence in at least a couple of communities, once in Hamilton and at least one other, where nothing but praise for volunteers, but an acknowledgement -- and I'll speak to this more in a few seconds -- that the part-time firefighter, be it volunteer or be it the paid firefighter who is on the payroll but a part-timer, simply doesn't have the same response time. There's no issue with that.
The other concern that was raised, and this is what I said I was going to speak to in a few seconds, was the whole business of qualifications. Then there's a third factor, of course, which is the element of teamwork, and I'll speak to that after I speak to the business of qualifications. We heard uncontested, unrefuted submissions that indicate -- and I think it was young Mr Clark, the former mayor of Belleville, who one could not construe as anything other than impartial. Here was a young person who had almost a decade of experience as a mayor of a sizeable Ontario community, no longer doing that for his livelihood, who came before the committee it appears with nothing other than eagerness to participate: no axe to grind, no bone to pick whatsoever.
He, among others, talked about the fact you'd have to have a part-time firefighter with some 10 years', minimum, participation before he or she could even begin to come close to having the necessary time on the job and in training that a first-class professional firefighter does. We learned that it takes some four years for a first-class professional firefighter, as a full-time professional firefighter, to acquire that first-class status. It isn't difficult to do the math.
Then there's the third factor, which of course was that strange and sometimes undefinable element of teamwork: simple plain teamwork. The strong suggestion across the board was that teamwork is essential, it's crucial, it's part and parcel of the whole role of firefighters. When we looked at the Durham study, where they had used part-time firefighters -- you remember that, I'm sure, because the research staff accommodated us and got hold of that study after it had been referred to by several presenters and in particular one presenter in Kingston. What had happened in Durham back it appears in the 1970s, and they experimented with it for a good decade or so, was that they blended, if that's not an inappropriate word, the police services with the firefighting services. They used police officers effectively as part-time firefighters.
What they learned, which caused them I believe around 1985 to abandon this utilization of police officers as part-time firefighters, was that response time simply wasn't there. They learned that the role of policing was distinguishable from the role of firefighting and the types of relationships that those officers have with each other.
It was confirmed, and this has been consistent across the board in all the participation in this series of hearings, that there has to be an ability to communicate without the spoken word, that there isn't time. We learned -- and I'm grateful to everybody from the fire marshal's office and firefighters in firefighting services across the board -- a great deal about the fact that mere seconds are crucial, literally seconds -- that you don't have time.
1550
We'll talk later about the demand for more management staff. You don't have time to get on the phone and talk to the chief or the deputy chief or however many managers this government may want to extract out of a firefighting force. You don't even have time to engage, it appears, in verbal communication, one firefighter with the other. You work, supposedly, organically. You work in that highly developed team where people are oh-so-sensitive to each other, and I suppose there becomes a communication that's difficult to define.
You don't have time -- I enjoyed some of the sports analogies that were used from time to time by various people on the committee -- to sit down and plan out a play. You don't even have a scrum. You just go in there and do it. Nobody's giving you signals or using code to identify the type of play that's going to be used. You just do it.
It's hard to understand, and I suppose in a minute I'm going to ask the parliamentary assistant -- because I'm dealing with subsection 2(1), not with the other subsections of section 2 -- why the government would not have responded to the -- maybe I won't ask, because I can anticipate the type of answer I'm going to get, which is "Because." It's like talking to a four-year-old. Well no, quite frankly, the conversations I've had with four-year-olds have been far more productive than the conversations I had yesterday with the parliamentary assistant. Four-year-olds are less inclined, the ones I know at least, to simply say "Because." They're more inclined to engage in some sort of analysis and responsible response to questions.
Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex South): That's how my parents used to answer: "Because."
Mr Kormos: Okay, "Because." Yeah, and that's how the PA is doing it: "Why?" "Because." "Why?" "Because." That simply doesn't cut it. What we're dealing with here is far too serious.
I'm going to tell you right off the bat, the way subsection 2(1) is structured, the way it clearly exempts fire suppression among other things from a mandatory service, is highly objectionable. It contradicts everything that the government has said about the intent of this bill in terms of safety and it again, quite frankly, when you look at subsection 54(7) -- the radical, dramatic and very oppressive changes to traditional rules of arbitration -- you start to realize that this isn't as happenstance as one would expect, that there's something going on here in the course of this bill.
The government members have been denying it, denying it, denying it, but they've been denying it with such a vehemence that it supports our suspicion. It has moved beyond suspicion, because I think some of the pieces of the puzzle are starting to fall into place. Subsection 2(1) once again, right off the bat, eliminates and denies all of the claims made by the government.
That's confirmed further, because take a look at what subsection 2(2) does. Look at what subsection 2(2) says about clause (b) of subsection 2(1), because it makes reference, of course, it expands on subsection 2(1) and it says what a municipality shall do if it's going to comply with subsection 2(1). Fair enough, but aha: "a municipality shall, (a) appoint a community fire safety officer or a community fire safety team." Fair enough. That's clearly to comply with clause (a) of subsection 2(1). But then it says, "or (b) establish a fire department," and a fire department of course would be all-inclusive because a fire department as defined means a group of firefighters to provide fire protection services, and then you have the full definition of fire protection services.
Look how subsection 2(2) complements and reinforces what my position is -- or rather our position is -- with respect to singling out fire prevention and fire safety and distinguishing it from overall fire protection services, because it says: "In discharging its responsibilities under subsection (1)" -- all of subsection 2(1), clause (a) or (b) -- "a municipality shall" have a choice of either merely having a fire safety officer or a fire safety team. It fulfils its obligations under subsection 2(1) by merely having a fire safety officer or a community fire safety team. That's what subsection 2(2) says: It fulfils its obligations under subsection 2(1).
If that doesn't stick out like a sore thumb in support of the obvious shortfall of subsection 2(1), nothing does, because it can do that or it can establish a fire department, which has all of the duties of fire protection services. The government has moved well beyond even sucking and blowing here. I mean, the government is pretty transparent in the new low standard it is creating. In effect, they are telling communities that it isn't mandatory to provide fire protection services in addition to mere public education and fire prevention.
It's clear that this legislation does not require a community to establish a fire department. Look, it could be a volunteer fire department. I understand that. There are a whole lot of communities -- Niagara-on-the-Lake, one of them down in Niagara region, where I come from has a 100% volunteer fire department. A community can be exempt from establishing a fire department.
If this government is serious about enhancing fire safety -- and I understand that a fire department, once again, could be 100% volunteer -- and if the government members truly understood the legislation and believed in what they were saying, they would have expected the requirement be to establish a fire department. It could be a volunteer fire department. It could, depending on the size of the community and the capacity of the community, be a professional fire department with a small component reinforced by the complement of volunteers. I understand that.
Nobody is suggesting here that every village, town, burg has to have a 25-person-staffed fire department. It may simply not be possible or practical for a whole lot of those communities, and clearly isn't, because we've got those communities and Niagara-on-the-Lake, quite frankly, is a sizeable one with a strong assessment base. Niagara-on-the-Lake is not a poor community, but Niagara-on-the-Lake has chosen a fire department and it has a fire department, but a volunteer fire service. So there's something really stinky here, quite frankly. It smells to high heaven. The odour rises from the pages of the bill and it's a little frightening.
Now let's take a look at subsection 2(3), Chair, please. That's on page 6 of the bill as printed. Once again, it talks about the role of the fire marshal in compliance with subsection (1), and what does it say? It says that "a municipality may seek the advice of the fire marshal," not "must" seek the advice of the fire marshal, not "must" pass any standards created by the fire marshal, but in complying with either clause 2(1)(a) or clause 2(1)(b) it "may seek the advice of the fire marshal."
Well, Lord love a duck, what's new there? This is nothing but a little bit of surplusage, as they say, and they may seek the advice of the fire marshal. Heck, the fire marshal is there now and, as I understand it, can be available to communities for that advice and indeed provides that guidance now. We saw the fire marshal of Ontario's report which talked about less than four staffers on a pumper being an inadequate amount of staffing for a pumper. People on a pumper, when there was less than four, were unable to provide, among other things, internal fire suppression and rescue.
1600
Subsection (3) confirms our worst fears about the inadequacy of this bill vis-à-vis real fire protection and real fire safety, or safety of the community, as compared to the open door, the red carpet rolled out. That red carpet is rolled out all the way to the Peace Bridge where the gang of private, corporate, profit-making, profit-driven firefighting services is lined up, along with the same gangsters who are going to take over water and sewage systems, who have already started to take over ambulance services -- six municipal ambulance services bought by Rural/Metro; a few more I'm told about recently purchased by Laidlaw. You surely have read about Laidlaw and are aware of their reputation in a variety of areas, and there's more waiting.
I was corrected by one of the Liberal caucus who pointed out that waiting at the Peace Bridge be darned. I think Mr Ramsay said they're not that patient. They're not simply there waiting. Mr Ramsay pointed out that they're here. They're in your back yard. Rural/Metro was up at the meeting, according to a press report, with the CAO of the city of Waterloo and made the pitch to the CAO because these guys know that municipalities are getting whacked big time by the downloading -- big time.
Chair, did you know that in Niagara region alone the downloading is going to create new property taxes of over $73 million? And you're talking about a region in this province that continues to be hard hit by unemployment with one of the highest unemployment levels in this province, that continues to be hard hit by Brian Mulroney's free trade agreement. Well, you've got to deindustrialize. It began the deindustrialization of Niagara region.
Mr Ramsay: They were Tories too, weren't they?
Mr Kormos: The Tory Brian Mulroney, the free trade agreement, and we fought the hard fight, as people did across Ontario, and we lost in 1988. I remember it well. Brian Mulroney kept his promise too. He signed a free trade agreement, he and Mr Reagan.
Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): On a point of order, Mr Chairman: I think it would be useful if Mr Kormos stuck to the bill. I'm sure he enjoys his usual rant but I'd be interested -- he's made some comments which I've been listening to but he has for the last little while veered substantially from section 2.
The Chair: I think he has been straying a bit. Mr Kormos, if you could come back to section 2.
Mr Kormos: I appreciate the comments from the former parliamentary assistant to the Attorney General.
In any event, we're talking about a --
The Chair: May I correct you, Mr Kormos. No one has been removed or changed as of this moment. There has been no resolution that has gone through the House.
Mr John L. Parker (York East): Although, Mr Chair, someone was removed as Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations.
Mr Kormos: Oh, you bet your boots I was.
The Chair: I just correct you in that regard. No one has changed position as of this moment.
Mr Kormos: I wouldn't pucker up as compared to my colleagues in the Tory caucus who keep a perpetual pucker on their faces. I'm sorry, my apologies. Mr Carr and Mr Murdoch and Mr Skarica must be sadly mistaken. Lord knows they've burned a lot of bridges without --
Interjection.
Mr Kormos: That's right. They're going to have to buy up a lot of old Toronto Stars and burn them. They didn't know they weren't fired. I'll be damned. In any event, the soon-to-be parliamentary assistant to the Attorney General. But there's still a chance, if he puckers long enough with the right folks. Anyway, that is digressing and that's not on point. It certainly doesn't relate to section 2, least of all to subsection (3).
But I tell you, when I make references -- I have to, I come from Niagara region, I'm very familiar with Niagara region and Niagara region is as representative as any part of the province when it comes to the various types of firefighting services. You've got strong professional firefighting services with a strong volunteer complement. It's -- what do they call it? -- microcosmic. Is that the -- okay, Chair, close to that, I suppose. It's microcosmic of all of Ontario. If you were to slice Ontario down the middle you'd end up -- Niagara region is as representative of that as any, so I'm going to talk about Niagara region to attempt to explain our position vis-à-vis this bill, and in particular now section 2. I'm not going to be much longer because I do want to get down to subsection (10) of the section.
I'm trying to say I understand that not all municipalities are going to have professional firefighting services. Some municipalities are going to have volunteers. But I'm also telling you, Chair, that subsection 2(3) reinforces the opting-out provision and contradicts the title of the bill. It is totally inadequate. This diminishes the standard.
These members, not all of whom were at all places during the committee, and that's not unusual because from time to time people substitute for each other -- Mr Carr was there through all the committee but for the last day, and he would be in a good position to, having heard all of the submissions but for Windsor's -- Mr Carr, who I guess hasn't been fired, beats me, I only know what I read in the funny papers -- but Mr Carr would know what I'm speaking of, having heard all of the submissions and the concerns that were raised. Mr Johnson, beats me --
Mr Ramsay: Where is he?
Mr Frank Klees (York-Mackenzie): Playing golf.
Mr Kormos: Maybe he hasn't been fired as Vice-Chair either, in which case he's still getting paid and not here and he's slacking, but I'm not sure that that's the case, because he's not a slacker by any stretch of the imagination. Mr Johnson was among the hardest-working members of any committee that any government backbencher could ever be.
Mr Ramsay: Now you've upset the Tories.
The Chair: I think it's personally refreshing to have Mr Kormos defending a member of our caucus.
Mr Klees: Point of order, Mr Chair: That's stretching the truth.
Mr Kormos: Mr Johnson was harder-working than any current member of this committee from the government benches, I'll tell you that much, and that I know with certainty.
Mr Ramsay: He who falsely compliments.
Mr Kormos: I'm disappointed in the fact that Mr Carr isn't here because he had an opportunity to hear all of the submissions and he, I'm sure, would have shared our views regarding subsection 2(3) of the bill. This is a real loosey-goosey kind of approach to drafting legislation.
The other thing that concerns me, and I appreciate the Chair moving these -- and I'm not sure, I haven't checked with the clerk, but I don't think there's anything wrong with the Chair moving -- the section's going to be moved anyway. But it would be oh-so-nice for the parliamentary assistant who is with us --
Mr Ramsay: What's he doing here?
Mr Kormos: That's right. If Mr Carr wasn't fired as parliamentary assistant, what the hell is Mr Wood doing here? It just struck me. It's an imposter. Mr Wood has no business being here, because Mr Tilson, who hasn't been fired as parliamentary assistant to the Attorney General -- and it's not as if Mr Tilson didn't pucker up. That guy puckered every day of his career at Queen's Park and he still gets dumped.
In any event, subsection (3), I would appreciate my concerns being addressed. I would love -- and I'd sit patiently while the parliamentary assistant took me through subsection (1), subsection (2) and subsection (3) of section 2, and said no -- it would be easy for the parliamentary assistant to say, "Oh gosh, Mr Kormos, you're wrong." That's easy to say.
I've been wrong. From time to time, I've been wrong. I have definitely been wrong. I remember during leadership conventions some 15 years ago I was wrong and I've acknowledged it since, with great candour and with great openness. I'm not afraid to acknowledge that I'm wrong. I was wrong some 15, 20 years ago and I acknowledge that. I have no hesitation in stating that and putting it clearly on record. Mr Ramsay, quite frankly, in view of his history, might have some things to say about that as well.
1610
Mr Ramsay: I made a mistake 12 years ago too. That's right.
Mr Kormos: We've all made mistakes. Mine was 20, 25 years ago; Mr Ramsay's was 12 years ago. There you go. Neither Mr Ramsay nor I are reluctant in any way to acknowledge errors that we've made.
I'd love to have the parliamentary assistant address this. I'd love for him, with some rationale and some logic and some analysis and some patience --
Mr Ramsay: You're asking too much.
Mr Kormos: Look, however feckless my optimism becomes from time to time, I remain an optimist. Who knows what could have happened to Mr Wood overnight that would excite him into having acquired some even interest in the bill, never mind some understanding of it.
Subsection (4), in itself, I don't think there's any real quarrel with. I don't think anybody has lambasted the basically joint efforts, joint endeavours, on behalf of two or more municipalities. Then again, I suppose that recognizes -- it's unfortunate, because you could have municipalities, because the only mandatory thing is fire prevention, fire safety, that want to give short shrift to it. Although it wanted to build in all sorts of quotas about managerial positions in terms of size, the government hasn't put any qualification on when two or more municipalities may jointly share a fire prevention officer or a community fire safety team or even a fire department.
One could question the wisdom of failing to do that, because you could have municipalities, beaten up by the downloading, really circumventing their true obligation by having municipalities which are in a position to have full-time fire prevention officers or fire safety teams in their own right merely giving lip-service as such to the legislation. You know what the criticism was of the automatic aid agreements and the concern that this would promote yet more inadequacy in terms of minimum staffing.
I put to you, Chair, that there is a crisis right now in this province in terms of the inadequacy of staffing and the failure to abide by the fire marshal's own Ontario guidelines for minimum staffing; that there are, on a daily basis, accidents waiting to happen; that lives of victims have been lost as a result of the inadequate staffing and the failure of this being addressed; and that firefighters' lives and health and safety have been impacted for that very same reason.
Firefighters have fought in their own right in a number of ways, by direct appeal. I understand there have been some arbitration cases with varying degrees of success dealing with the issue of minimum staffing. I share their concern that the provision of subsection (6) is one which will allow, just as the emergency call provisions -- we'll get to that later on in the bill and I know there are amendments from the opposition to try to rectify the error in the bill. So subsection (6), and again when you look at subsection (4) and recognize that it's a companion to subsection (6), these things compound each other.
I'll move on to subsection (7), and that's interesting because once again there's a lot of distinction here between mandatory and discretionary. It doesn't say that the fire marshal "shall" monitor and review firefighting services provided by a municipality; it simply says that the fire marshal may. I think it's very peculiar that this section would be in here at all without it being mandatory: "The fire marshal may...."
We heard over the course of the public hearings concern about the adequacy of the fire marshal's office, not its competence by any stretch, but the adequacy in terms of staffing and the resources that were made available to it to supervise fire departments, fire protection services across the province and/or the narrower public education and fire prevention provided for in (a).
Chair, has the new parliamentary assistant been fired? We've lost a parliamentary assistant.
The Chair: Yes, we seem to have, Mr Kormos.
Mr Kormos: I'll interrupt my comments there on a point of order. I understand that neither the standing orders nor the rules of committee require that a minister or parliamentary assistant be present during carriage of the bill, but it is also a long-held practice -- this is on a point of order -- and procedure, indeed a strong precedent, that either the minister or the parliamentary assistant have carriage of the bill through the committee and legislative process.
I interrupt my comments on section 2 by this point of order. I'm compelled to by the disappearance of the parliamentary assistant, who is the only conduit we have to the minister. Ineffective as he appeared to be, we were hoping that his participation over the course of Wednesday in Windsor last week and yesterday here in Toronto and today -- and I should be fair, Chair. My House leader's office was advised that Mr Wood, the parliamentary assistant, would have to leave at 4:30. I expected that the minister, Mr Runciman, would be taking his place.
On a point of order, Chair, I ask you to rule, and I welcome input from other members of the committee, that it is most improper and impossible for this committee to carry on with consideration of clause-by-clause in the absence of either the minister or the parliamentary assistant. I suppose there's a whole pile of reasons why that has been the procedure or practice. He or she is, as I say, the conduit to the minister. That's the reason for the requirement of the presence of the minister or the parliamentary assistant.
It also lends some semblance of legitimacy to the hearing process. The fact that the Solicitor General or parliamentary assistant would be here at least allows them to invite the inference that these public hearings and the clause-by-clause consideration have some relevance. It wasn't as if the parliamentary assistant became ill, because we were told he was going to be leaving at 4:30. I truly expected the Solicitor General to be here in his stead.
I put to the Chair that it would be appropriate for this Chair to respond to my point of order by adjourning this committee process effective -- What do lawyers call it? Sine die? I think that's what they call it; I'm not sure. It's one of those Latinisms -- until such time as the parliamentary assistant can return or the Solicitor General can be here.
I don't know if other people want to participate in that point of order but I raise that point of order, reserving my right to carry on with my comments regarding section 2.
The Chair: Is there any further discussion in regard to that point of order?
Mr Len Wood (Cochrane North): Having been involved in government over a five-year period and having watched proceedings of previous governments, I think it's quite true what Mr Kormos has pointed out, that we either have the minister himself or his designated parliamentary assistant, who is responsible for carrying the bill through committee or through the House, present as we're talking about very important amendments that are being brought forward on Bill 84.
There are a large number of amendments that have to go through. We know that Premier Mike Harris has changed the parliamentary assistants. At least people are telling me they saw that in the newspaper and on the radio and TV, that he had demoted three parliamentary assistants because they wouldn't follow the party line and replaced them with other ones. Now we find out that the new parliamentary assistant, Mr Wood, had to leave. I want to make sure it's Bob Wood from London and not myself who is being quoted in the Hansard.
1620
It's very unusual that we wouldn't have followed the tradition that has been followed over the last 15 or 20 years. I support Mr Kormos on his point of order that proceedings should not continue if we don't have a continuation of what has traditionally been either the minister or the parliamentary assistant taking responsibility for the bill and the amendments that are sitting here on the table.
The Chair: Is there any further discussion?
Mr Ramsay: I just wanted to know what maybe the reason was. Is it from a lack of interest from the ministry's point of view that we don't even have the parliamentary assistant here today? I know it is customary for ministers, with their schedules, to assign the carriage of a bill to a parliamentary assistant, and this was most ably done by Gary Carr for most of the time that we were under deliberations for Bill 84. As we all know, there was some sort of change, though the official status seems to be put in question today at this committee, but we understand there is a change and Mr Bob Wood has been here up until now. It does seem a bit strange now that we don't have any representative from the minister's office.
The members accept that ministers can't be here all the time and we certainly appreciate the attendance by the parliamentary assistant, but in this case we have a brand-new one who is just trying to get up to speed on the bill, was only able to attend one day of hearings, that being in Windsor last week, came to clause-by-clause yesterday, and has now left, and we don't seem to have a reason. I was wondering if another representative of the governing party or possibly the ministry might have a reason to give us why the parliamentary assistant is not here.
Mr Klees: Perhaps I could speak to that. In response to Mr Ramsay's suggestion that perhaps Mr Wood's departure is as a result of a lack of interest, I want to assure him and this committee that that certainly is not the reason. As we're all aware, changes have taken place over the last couple of days. Mr Wood unfortunately had a previously scheduled commitment which he could not break, and that was before he was asked to assume the role of parliamentary assistant here.
As a result, I was asked if I would take his place for the balance of this hearing today. We were hopeful that members of this committee, in the interest of moving the process forward, would accept that and would be willing to work with us in moving these amendments forward. That was our hope.
Mr Kormos: Chair, it appears now that Mr Klees -- and no disrespect for Mr Klees, who has been participating in this committee I think consistently, every day, from day one through to today. Mr Klees has not been a peripatetic member of the committee; he's been here. I don't agree with his perspective on the interpretation of the bill, and so be it. I have no quarrel with Mr Klees's efforts.
However, please, Mr Klees is not the parliamentary assistant. For Mr Klees to purport to be in a position to respond to questions in the course of this committee is entirely improper and inappropriate. It is for the minister -- in this case the Solicitor General -- or the parliamentary assistant to sit at the head of the committee and be here. Again, the parliamentary assistant isn't necessarily a member of the committee; I understand that. He isn't necessarily, that is to say, a voting member, but that's again part of the practice of the presence of the Sol Gen or the minister and the parliamentary assistant, to be here to respond to questions that are raised if he or she so wishes.
Mr Klees is not the parliamentary assistant. As a mere member of the committee, he's not in a position to fulfil that role of parliamentary assistant. I'm not prejudging in any way, shape or form Mr Wood's reason for being here. But, darn it, we raised the prospect last week on Wednesday in Windsor of deferring the clause-by-clause consideration of the bill to put Mr Wood in a position, as the new parliamentary assistant -- contrary to what Mr Tilson would have us believe, we suggested a deferral for a mere two weeks of the clause-by-clause consideration. If this was, as Mr Klees explains it, a previous commitment that was impossible for Mr Wood to break, then it would have seemed appropriate for Mr Wood, who was, if I recall correctly, outspoken in opposition to that proposition, to have been perhaps somewhat more open to the prospect.
I'm sorry. Mr Wood makes around $89,500 a year, close to $90,000, give or take a few cents, as MPP and then parliamentary assistant. That's a hell of a lot more than any firefighter in this province makes, and it seems to me entirely inappropriate that Mr Wood would simply up and leave without so much as a howdy-do, literally walk out of the committee without explaining his departure, without putting a single word on the record, and then expect that Mr Klees can just jump in and become interim parliamentary assistant. That is really playing fast and loose with process.
That is the balance of my comments on the point of order, Chair.
Mr Klees: Mr Chair, if I might make further comment, with regard to Mr Kormos's concerns that all of his questions or questions that the committee may have perhaps couldn't be adequately addressed by me, I want to point out that we have staff here who are very capable of supporting me in this process. Any questions that I may not be able to reply to to members' satisfaction I'm sure we could ask staff to address. So I would ask that the committee accept that as the extenuating circumstances and that we get on with this.
I further would ask Mr Kormos to point out to us, if he would, which standing order he has raised this point of order on. Failing there being a standing order on which he's raised this, I would suggest it falls to the committee to determine whether it would be acceptable for us to proceed.
Mr Kormos: Mr Chair, I was going to end my comments, but then Mr Klees provokes me and causes me to comment further. I indicated at the onset, Mr Klees -- I made it quite clear -- that there is no standing order or rule that requires the parliamentary assistant or the minister to be present. I indicated that it was a matter of practice, precedent.
You'll note that the standing orders do -- and I'm sure the clerk will assist the Chair in this regard -- provide that where no standing order or rule exists, reference shall be made to practice or an effort to create, find, an analogous situation. That is in the standing orders, and that's a recognition of the development of precedent. So I made it quite clear. There is no standing order rule, but there is strong precedent and practice and there are rules of the House which apply to this committee which require that when a standing order or rule doesn't exist, you have to make reference to precedent or try to find an analogous or a comparable scenario. That's number one.
Number two -- and again, no disrespect to you. As Frank Klees, you've been an active member of this committee. I have nothing but regard for that: a lot of disagreement, but that's not the point. I have nothing but regard for the fact that you've been with this committee from day one and have sat through the submissions. I respect you for that, but you are not the parliamentary assistant yet. Who knows? By tomorrow morning, if Mr Wood doesn't pucker up on command or doesn't pucker up long enough or doesn't pucker up in the right position, the story could change. You could be the parliamentary assistant.
Interjection.
Mr Kormos: Don't pucker up with me. I'm not the one who's got the power to make you a PA. Wait till you're sitting beside Mike in the House. But with all due respect, you're not the parliamentary assistant.
Again, staff are here as a complement to the active members of the committee and/or the parliamentary assistant. Your government may have adopted a process wherein the staff, the backroom boys -- it's almost inevitably boys, although Leslie Noble is a woman; Tom Long is certainly a man. The backroom guys and gals run the show. Again, I've heard that criticism come from members of your own caucus. They've made reference in language like "dictatorship" and "lack of democracy," and how the backroom folks run the show.
But you're not the PA. It's not for this committee to elevate you to that position. I believe the Chair has to consider my first point of order.
Mr Ramsay: We could vote on that. I'd vote for Klees.
Mr Kormos: Quite frankly, your interest appears to be far more acute than Mr Wood's, even though you don't make $90,000 a year; you only make $78,000.
Mr Ramsay: He's cuter too.
Mr Kormos: There you go. You're taller than Mr Wood and you have more hair, more hair than I do even at this point in time.
Interjection: Since you got a haircut.
Mr Kormos: Yes. I went to Mr Palladini's barber.
Facetiousness aside, you're not the parliamentary assistant and we can't carry on like this. This is not doing credit to the hundreds of people who spent a lot of time and energy developing comments on the bill and it doesn't do credit to us.
Mr Klees: Chair, if I might just make one other comment, I don't want this committee or anyone else to be left with the impression that Mr Wood simply walked out of this committee without giving notice. It's a fact that all three caucuses discussed this. Mr Kormos's caucus was advised of it, as was the Liberal caucus. There was an understanding that Mr Wood had a previous commitment and that we would make the suggestion here that I stand in, although I'm not the parliamentary assistant, and neither do I aspire to be the parliamentary assistant, to this ministry. I am very proud to be the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Community and Social Services.
In light of the fact that Mr Kormos said and I heard Mr Ramsay also say that both of them would vote for me, I would like to suggest that perhaps we put this to a motion and have the committee make a decision on this.
The Chair: Is there any further discussion? If not, I will recess for 10 minutes in order to render a decision. We will reconvene at 4:45.
The committee recessed from 1633 to 1646.
The Chair: I call the meeting to order. I am considering the point of order raised by Mr Kormos, which is most interesting. He states up front and candidly, as always, that the standing orders do not in any way indicate whether or not a minister or his designate or PA should attend at committee hearings when dealing with clause-by-clause of a particular bill, so the standing orders do not help us. However, Mr Kormos suggests that there is tradition or practice that in fact ministers or their parliamentary assistants should be present during clause-by-clause consideration of a bill in order to answer questions, and that quite frankly seems most reasonable to me.
My difficulty is, what is the repercussion if in fact a minister or a parliamentary assistant refuses or neglects to attend this clause-by-clause hearing? Following Mr Kormos's logic, it is incumbent on me to immediately adjourn consideration of the bill, which leaves the Chairman in a difficult position, because I have then forgone my authority and the authority of this particular committee, which is vested to hear a particular bill, and handed that to a minister who can terminate a hearing on a bill by simply not attending. I cannot find that logical.
I believe we have an inherent jurisdiction under the rules, and to find that a minister, by neglecting to attend or send a PA, can adjourn this committee without this committee doing anything about it or without this Chairman having authority I find abhorrent.
I agree with Mr Kormos. I certainly feel that the tradition of having a minister or a parliamentary assistant to answer questions in committee would be the preferred method of procedure, and I can levy no excuse for that. However, I do not feel I'm vested with the authority to adjourn it just because neither the minister nor the parliamentary assistant is present.
Mr Ramsay: Thank you, Chair. Maybe then I would like to move a motion of adjournment of these proceedings to next Monday. I know that would then affect our schedule in regard to Bill 105, but the reason I would say that is that in speaking to representatives of the two firefighter organizations just a few minutes ago, and brought to my attention initially by Mr Klees, those representatives have met with the minister today. They were happy with the progress at that meeting and feel that they're back at the table talking to the minister and may be able to solve some of the differences they have.
So the exercise that we're going through here I think is wasting everybody's time, because what Mr Kormos and I wish to do is to buy some time so that the minister and the representatives can come to some agreement. We know they're not going to solve all their problems, but at least they're happy that they're talking again and there seems to be something going on there. I think we should allow that process some time to develop.
The Chair: Mr Ramsay has moved an adjournment of this committee hearing until next Monday, April 28, 1997, at 3:30 pm. Is there further discussion in regard to that motion?
Mr Klees: I'm going to support Mr Ramsay's motion for the very reason that I do believe that for us to spend an additional hour here today would not be very productive under the circumstances. As I pointed out to Mr Ramsay and to Mr Kormos, there are some productive discussions taking place now and I think there are one or two outstanding issues that we're very close to resolving. Based on that, I really do feel it would be appropriate for us to adjourn and to continue with this particular bill the next time this committee meets. The only outstanding issue would be the rescheduling, because we were scheduled, I believe, to deal with Bill 105. Assuming that we can deal with that rescheduling issue, I think it would be appropriate for us to adjourn.
Mr Kormos: Very briefly, I support the position taken by Mr Ramsay and indeed the position taken by Mr Klees -- my God, a remarkable thing in itself. But let's look at the fact that amendments have been tabled by the Liberal caucus and by the New Democratic Party and understand that of course they are an effort to address the concerns raised by opponents to Bill 84. But note that they are very realistic; they don't ask for the world. They're an attempt to moderate and, in the best spirit of good faith, achieve some concessions. Having said that, I think it important that the motion be supported.
I would also note that this is the same committee, obviously, that deals with Bill 105. The committee is going to convene on Monday at 3:30 in any event. Scheduling can be done one way or another around Bill 105 or around Bill 84 at that time. All that Mr Ramsay is moving is that this matter of Bill 84 be adjourned to 3:30 at that time. Subject to whatever discussions take place, it can be proceeded with or it can be deferred to Tuesday, what have you. I think there is that flexibility, and it's obviously ideal that the committee is meeting in any event at 3:30.
The Chair: If there is no further discussion on the motion for adjournment, I'll put the question. All those in favour? The motion is carried. We are adjourned until Monday.
The committee adjourned at 1653.