CONTENTS
Monday 5 May 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 E.J. Douglas Rollins (Quinte PC)
Mr DaveBoushy (Sarnia PC)
Mr RobertChiarelli (Ottawa West / -Ouest L)
Mr DavidChristopherson (Hamilton Centre/ -Centre ND)
Mr BruceCrozier (Essex South / -Sud L)
Mr JimFlaherty (Durham Centre / -Centre PC)
Mr Douglas B. Ford (Etobicoke-Humber PC)
Mr Garry J. Guzzo (Ottawa-Rideau PC)
Mr PeterKormos (Welland-Thorold ND)
Mr GerryMartiniuk (Cambridge PC)
Mr DavidRamsay (Timiskaming L)
Mr E.J. DouglasRollins (Quinte PC)
Mrs LillianRoss (Hamilton West / -Ouest PC)
Mr BobWood (London South / -Sud PC)
Mr Terence H. Young (Halton Centre / -Centre PC)
Substitutions present /Membres remplaçants présents:
Mr GillesBisson (Cochrane South \ -Sud ND)
Mr CarlDeFaria (Mississauga East \ -Est PC)
Mr John L. Parker (York East \ -Est PC)
Clerk / Greffier: Mr Douglas Arnott
Staff / Personnel: Ms Sibylle Filion, legislative counsel
J-2193
The committee met at 1531 in room 228.
FIRE PROTECTION AND PREVENTION ACT, 1996 / LOI DE 1996 SUR LA PRÉVENTION ET LA PROTECTION CONTRE L'INCENDIE
Consideration of Bill 84, An Act to promote Fire Prevention and Public Safety in Ontario and to amend and repeal certain other Acts relating to Fire Services / Projet de loi 84, Loi visant à promouvoir la prévention des incendies et la sécurité publique en Ontario et modifiant ou abrogeant certaines autres lois relatives aux services de lutte contre les incendies.
The Chair (Mr Gerry Martiniuk): Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen, members of the committee. This is a continuation of the justice committee's consideration of Bill 84.
First, Mr Rollins, you have a motion?
Mr E.J. Douglas Rollins (Quinte): Yes, Mr Chair. I'd like to move that Robert Wood be named a member of the subcommittee, replacing David Tilson.
The Chair: Thank you. Agreed? Carried. Possibly after today's meeting we could have a very short subcommittee meeting if that's convenient for everyone.
We last dealt with section 58 of the act, and that was passed as amended. We are now dealing with section 59, item 126, being a government motion.
Mr Bob Wood (London South): I move that subsection 59(1) of the bill be amended by striking out "trade union" wherever it occurs and substituting "bargaining agent."
I will give explanations if requested.
The Chair: Is there any discussion in regard to that amendment? If not, all those in favour? Carried.
Shall section 59, as amended, carry? All those in favour? Carried.
We are proceeding to section 60, and there is an opposition motion, item 127.
Mr David Ramsay (Timiskaming): I move that section 60, exclusive of the clauses, be struck out and the following substituted:
"Working conditions not to be altered
"60. If notice to bargain has been given under section 50 and no collective agreement is in operation," and that will be the end of the amendment.
The purpose of this is to try to bring back to the firefighters some of the bargaining rights that have been taken away in this Fire Protection and Prevention Act.
Mr Bob Wood: We're opposing this amendment because we have our own which we believe is more complete.
The Chair: All those in favour of Mr Ramsay's amendment?
Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): Recorded vote.
Ayes
Kormos, Ramsay.
NAYS
Flaherty, Rollins, Ross, Bob Wood, Young.
The Chair: The amendment is lost. We are proceeding to 128, which is identical.
Mr Kormos: Withdrawn.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Kormos. Now we have 129-R, which is a replacement motion by the government.
Mr Bob Wood: I move that section 60 of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:
"Working conditions not to be altered
"60(1) If notice has been given under section 50 by a bargaining agent for a unit of firefighters or an employer and no collective agreement is in operation,
"(a) the employer shall not, except with the consent of the bargaining agent, alter the rates of wages or any other term or condition of employment or any right, privilege or duty of the employer or the firefighters until the right of the bargaining agent to represent the firefighters has been terminated; and
"(b) the bargaining agent shall not, except with the consent of the employer, alter any term or condition of employment or any right, privilege or duty of the employer, the bargaining agent or the firefighters until the right of the bargaining agent to represent the firefighters has been terminated.
"Arbitration if no agreement
"(2) If notice has been given under subsection 50(2) and no collective agreement is in operation, any difference between the parties as to whether or not subsection (1) was complied with may be referred to arbitration by either of the parties as if the collective agreement was still in operation and the arbitration shall proceed in accordance with section 57."
Mr Kormos: What about subsection (3) of your amendment?
Mr Bob Wood: There is no subsection (3). The amendment proposes to strike out the existing section 60 and substitute what I just read.
Mr Kormos: Well, I've got a government motion --
Mr Bob Wood: It's 129-R. It's revised. If you get that, you'll get what you're looking for. Do you have 129-R?
Mr Kormos: Now I do. The material change here is, "until the right of the bargaining agent to represent the firefighters has been terminated." I'd like the parliamentary assistant to put on the record why that was added. I mean, that's the material alteration there, rather than changing "trade union" to "bargaining agent." Why is that addendum there?
Mr Bob Wood: Okay, what I'll do is, if there are any other questions, I'll answer all of them.
Mr Ramsay: If you would just give your explanation.
Mr Bob Wood: The amendment replaces the words "trade union" with "bargaining agent" in accordance with the other change removing certification-decertification provisions. It also provides for a statutory freeze of wages and other terms and conditions of employment after the expiry of the collective agreement and before a new agreement is entered into.
Subsection 60(2) allows the arbitration of statutory freeze provisions. That's similar of course to subsection 86(3) of the Labour Relations Act.
Mr Kormos: Subsection (1) says, "and no collective agreement is in operation." Fair enough. Why is the language "until the right of the bargaining agent to represent the firefighters has been terminated" germane to your amendment?
Mr Bob Wood: I'm sorry. Give me the last two sentences of your question again.
Mr Kormos: How is the language "until the right of the bargaining agent to represent the firefighters has been terminated," germane to your amendment?
Mr Bob Wood: It's removed, because it's in section 60 now.
Mr Kormos: I know you're adding it to section 60. I'm asking, what is the intent there? What does that do? What does that add to section 60? Because it says the only time section 60 kicks in is when no collective agreement is in operation.
Mr Bob Wood: It's in the bill now, and if it wasn't drafted as it now is, they could ask another association to represent them prior to the right of the existing association being terminated. I thing the drafting has to --
Mr Kormos: Okay. That's your reason for having it in there?
Mr Bob Wood: Yes. The answer is, until you're terminated you have bargaining rights.
Mr Kormos: Okay. Fair enough.
Mr Bob Wood: That's the short answer to your question.
Mr Kormos: God bless you.
The Chair: Any other questions in regard to the proposed amendment? If not, I'll call the question.
Mr Kormos: Recorded vote, please.
Ayes
Flaherty, Rollins, Ross, Bob Wood, Young.
NAYS
Kormos, Ramsay.
The Chair: The amendment is carried.
We are now dealing with section 60, as amended by the government amendment. Is there any discussion in regard to same? If not, all those in favour of section 60, as amended?
Mr Kormos: Recorded vote, please.
Ayes
Flaherty, Guzzo, Rollins, Ross, Bob Wood, Young.
NAYS
Kormos, Ramsay.
The Chair: Section 60 shall carry.
We are now dealing with section 61, and the three items attached are all recommendations that this committee -- that includes the government -- vote against the section.
Mr Bob Wood: On a point of order, Mr Chairman: The government proposes to vote against sections 61 to 66, inclusive. I don't know whether there's any interest in dealing with them as a group or not.
1540
Mr Ramsay: Maybe to be helpful I could just read that into the record and include all those sections. I guess it's all parties, so why don't we just say that all parties recommend that we vote against sections 61 through 66?
Mr Kormos: Why doesn't the government throw in section 67, and we'll all be happy?
Mr Bob Wood: We can't deal with more than six at a time.
The Chair: The question before the committee is, shall sections 61 to 66, inclusive, carry? They are all lost.
We are now proceeding to section 67 and we have a Liberal -- no, a government amendment, being item 150.
Interjections.
The Chair: I'm sorry. There are no amendments, then.
Mr Kormos: Well, let me speak to section 67, then.
The Chair: Yes, that's what we're dealing with.
Mr Ramsay: So are we to read the amendment?
The Chair: There is no amendment.
Mr Ramsay: What about 148? We're recommending we vote against this.
Mr Bob Wood: That's not an amendment, though.
Mr Kormos: We're opposed to this. This is part of the attack by this government on collective bargaining rights. They want to have their cake and eat it too. They wouldn't know fairness if it bit them on the nose, and section 67 illustrates that. They want to be able to make the rules, own the process and indeed change the rules as they go along. We're opposed to section 67.
Mr Ramsay: I concur with my colleague. Section 67 is going to stack the deck against the firefighters by the government appointing their own conciliation officers and board of arbitration. I think we know where they would rule when it comes to any of these decisions they're going to be forced to make. I would recommend and the Liberal Party would recommend voting against this section.
The Chair: Mr Wood?
Mr Bob Wood: We're in favour of it.
The Chair: Is there any further discussion? If not, I shall put the question. Shall section 67 pass?
Mr Kormos: Recorded vote, please.
Ayes
Flaherty, Guzzo, Rollins, Ross, Bob Wood, Young.
NAYS
Kormos, Ramsay.
The Chair: Section 67 carries.
Sections 68 to 78, inclusive, have no amendments. Is there any objection to dealing with them as a group?
Mr Kormos: We'll be supporting sections 69 through 78.
The Chair: I'm sorry. We're dealing with 68 to 78, Mr Kormos.
Mr Kormos: We'll even be supporting 68.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Kormos. Is there any further discussion before I put the question? Shall sections 68 to 78, inclusive, carry? Carried.
We are now proceeding to section 79. We have a government amendment, being item 150.
Mr Bob Wood: I move that subsection 79(1) of the bill be amended by striking out "person's duty" in the sixth and eighth lines and substituting "person's power or duty" in each case.
Mr Kormos: I understand what the amendment does but I'd like some reference -- obviously there are certain duties and certain powers. If the PA could point out where the duties and powers are, obviously where the powers are, I'd appreciate it. I suppose section 74 might be one of the powers.
Mr Bob Wood: The short answer is, it's considered better drafting to say both "power" and "duty." To do more is to tell you more than is useful, I think.
Mr Ramsay: I just want to say that this section actually is very important for all firefighters across the province, whether they be professional, full-time firefighters or volunteer firefighters. Over the years there have been some civil suits that have been instigated against firefighters who have acted in good faith in trying to carry out their duty, in trying to save lives. I think these men and women who lay their lives on the line every day for us need some special protection and I think this is a very important part of the bill.
The Chair: Is there any further discussion in regard to the proposed government amendment? If not, all those in favour of the amendment? Carried.
I shall put the question. Shall section 79, as amended, carry? Carried.
We are now proceeding to sections 80 to 87, inclusive. They have no amendments. Is there any discussion?
Mr Kormos: If you would, Chair, we're prepared to support the following sections up to and including section 85.
The Chair: Okay. The question shall be, shall sections 80 to 85, inclusive, carry? They are carried.
We are now dealing with section 86.
Mr Kormos: I wonder if we could have some expansion on what 86 addresses; perhaps an illustration. It's clearly an indemnification and it's a very broad one. I appreciate that the word "accidentally" is in there, but I find it rather interesting, because even in an earlier amendment the government, for instance, took heed of circumstances wherein combustibles or accelerants might be on a property. I think it strengthened the standard for the presence of those, to permit a business operation, let's say -- combustibles or accelerants that would normally be there -- recognizing that there's some element of risk.
I appreciate that this is historical as well. There's precedent in the existing legislation, as I understand it, and I have some experience with this section. So this is a very broad indemnification. I'm a little concerned about the fact that it would bar somebody from litigating even though there was causation on the part of another, albeit within the realm of accident.
Mr Bob Wood: Apparently the law as stated in the draft section 86 is as it's stood for about 200 years. That's not to say that changes might not be warranted, but we don't feel they should be done in this bill. This is no change and we don't want a change in this bill. That's not to say a case might not be made for change.
1550
Mr Kormos: Precisely. I understand that. That's why I acknowledge that this is a traditional section. It seems to me that it relates to a period in time when fire safety was simply not practical because of the nature of the construction of buildings, the absence of standards, that sort of thing. It simply says where "fire accidentally begins."
What bothers me about this is that, for instance, in modern building lots, especially in big-city, high-density building lots, you've got minimal side-yard clearances. Quite frankly, if I were a homeowner and my neighbour had a house that wasn't built to standards and as a result of that a fire emerged and attacked my house, damn it, I'd want to be able to litigate. I don't think that person should be indemnified because it says where the fire starts accidentally. The fire could very well start accidentally but you could be in a building where there's been a breach of the building code or other standards and that would cause the damage to my property or premises.
I appreciate the intent here. I realize this goes back to the days when there were a lot of wood structures, minimal safety standards, wood-burning stoves and so on, where fires were far more common, but I don't think this is relevant to 1997 when we should be encouraging very high standards for fire protection and fire control. I think you understand what I'm saying.
I think the difficulty here is "any fire accidentally begins." Once it is established that the fire itself was accidental, even though the negligence or breach of standards by that property owner caused the fire to spread and/or damage adjoining property, as long as that owner can say it was an accidental fire, "You can't hold me liable for breaches of building code or other standards; I'm off the hook" -- I hope you understand what I'm saying here, Mr Wood -- I don't think this is up to snuff.
Mr Bob Wood: The bad news is that we don't want to make changes in this bill on this point. I think the Ministry of the Attorney General has an interest in taking a look at this problem and would be interested in some of the points you've made. Certainly, when something's been around for 200 years it's well worth looking at. I'm not dismissing the points you've raised, but I am saying that we're not prepared to address them in this bill.
Mr Kormos: I should indicate, Chair, that I have concerns and I'm going to be voting against that.
The Chair: It's an interesting point, Mr Kormos. The difficulty is the insurance on a single-family home would accelerate substantially because they would then be insuring all the buildings around them. The San Francisco fire would have cost a lot of money.
Mr Kormos: But you see, I believe in wrongdoers accepting responsibility and indeed liability for their misconduct.
The Chair: Is there any further discussion in regard to the proposed government amendment? If not, all those in favour?
Mr Bob Wood: There's no government amendment.
Mr Kormos: Recorded vote, please.
The Chair: Oh, I'm sorry. We're dealing with it as is.
Ayes
DeFaria, Flaherty, Guzzo, Parker, Rollins, Ross, Bob Wood, Young.
Nays
Bisson, Kormos, Ramsay.
The Chair: Section 86 is carried.
We're now dealing with section 87. Is there any discussion in regard to section 87?
Mr Kormos: Once again, I appreciate that this is an effort to modernize or update modes of service. I've got to tell you, Chair, in particular, subsection (2), regular mail -- I suspect you know that service in this mode has caused a whole lot of grief to a whole lot of people. In view of the exceptional ways there are, even let's say with telephone facsimile, it is possible to determine that the recipient received it, at least to some extent. I'm asking if the parliamentary assistant can address this and indicate whether this is the new universal standard for service that's being built into all the legislation. Is this a boilerplate standard of service, and if not, in view of the incredible consequences that can occur by virtue of a process here, why something as risk-ridden as regular mail service would be maintained for the purpose of service when we've got inexpensive registered mail, when there's another form of mail delivery that the post office does --
Mr Bob Wood: Certified.
Mr Kormos: Yes, certified mail -- why would regular mail even be considered any more?
Mr Bob Wood: Regular mail has been permitted under the rules of court for about 27 years. I think it's worked reasonably well. It certainly occasionally has problems, but considering the number of transactions using it, I think it's worked quite well. We're taking an approach here that is similar to the one used in the Ontario Court of Justice.
Mr Kormos: Once again, I think even if only one incident fouls up in a given year, it causes incredible grief to a member of the public, almost inevitably a member of the public, and I won't be supporting 87. I think the styles of service can be formalized without incurring great difficulties or even cost.
Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): Just a small matter: It's interesting that I happened to walk in in the middle of debate on clause-by-clause on section 87, because I noted while reading the bill that in subsection (3), almost at the bottom, the second-last line, "person$s" has a dollar sign through it. I realize that the government sees people as walking cash registers -- it can go and take money out of their wallets at any time, cut their services and do all the wonderful things that Tories do -- but I wonder if the parliamentary assistant can guarantee me that the dollar sign is going to be taken out of the word "person$s" in section 87.
Mr Bob Wood: We're not going to take it out, we're going to shorten it to an apostrophe. It should be an apostrophe, you see. The short answer is yes, it will be corrected.
Mr Bisson: The short answer is, you will be taking the dollar sign out of people.
Mr Bob Wood: There's a lot in that I'm not going to respond to.
The Chair: Do you need an amendment for that or is that just proofreading? It's just editing.
Mr Bisson: I have one other question and it's very quick actually. Under subsection (3), we're going to say that if notice is sent by fax it's considered that the notice has been given by the next day. One of the bugaboos that I've got is that even though a lot of people have fax machines, at times they don't receive them. You've probably had the same problem in your office where, for whatever reason, there's a fax transmission that doesn't quite make it to your office once it's been faxed. Is there any kind of provision to get around that?
Mr Bob Wood: This has been in the rules of court for about eight years, something like that. Indeed the mail sometimes fails to deliver and the fax machines, for whatever reason, sometimes fail to deliver. Where that occurs, there are of course provisions and rules of court for rectification, and indeed here.
To come back to the question raised by both yourself and Mr Kormos, on balance this system has worked quite well. There is flexibility so that where error does occur, as it does, mechanically or whatever, rectification can take place.
The Chair: Is there any further discussion? If not, I'll put the question.
Mr Kormos: Recorded vote.
Ayes
DeFaria, Guzzo, Parker, Ramsay, Rollins, Ross, Bob Wood, Young.
NAYS
Bisson, Kormos.
The Chair: Section 87 is carried.
We are now proceeding to section 88. There are four government amendments.
Mr Bob Wood: I move that clause 88(1)(a) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:
"(a) respecting the operation and administration of fire departments and community fire safety teams established or appointed by an agreement made under section 3 and respecting the functions of community fire safety officers appointed by such an agreement;".
Mr Ramsay: Could we have the explanation?
Mr Bob Wood: This allows the Bill 84 provisions to capture the operation and administration of fire departments and community fire safety teams established or appointed by agreement, such as in unorganized territories. It provides flexibility for unorganized territories to deliver services through their local services boards or through other mechanisms.
The Chair: Is there any further discussion in regard to the proposed amendment? If not, I'll put the question. Shall the amendment carry? The amendment is carried.
We are proceeding to item 152.
1600
Mr Bob Wood: To make sure, does everyone now have 152-R? Why don't I read this and hopefully there will be copies available.
I move that section 88(1) of the bill be amended by adding the following clause:
"(a.1) prescribing persons or organizations for the purposes of subsections 3(1) and 4(2)."
It flows from earlier discussions.
Mr Kormos: That's 3(1) and 4(2), as amended, as I recall them, because the amendments brought in the persons or organizations which the PA was challenged on as being the wide-open door to privatization. Is that correct, parliamentary assistant?
Mr Bob Wood: They are as amended.
Mr Kormos: Yes, but that was the challenge, that these were --
Mr Bob Wood: Without repeating the debate, they are as amended.
Mr Kormos: They're opening the door to privatization. That's why I'm opposing this amendment.
The Chair: If there's no other discussion, I'll put the question. Shall the amendment carry?
Mr Bisson: A recorded vote.
Ayes
DeFaria, Guzzo, Parker, Rollins, Ross, Bob Wood, Young.
NAYS
Bisson, Kormos, Ramsay.
The Chair: The amendment is carried.
We're moving to item 153.
Mr Bob Wood: I move that clause 88(1)(h) of the bill be struck out.
The Chair: If there are no questions or discussion in regard to the amendment, shall the amendment carry? The amendment is carried.
Item 154.
Mr Bob Wood: I move that clause 88(1)(k) of the bill be amended by striking out "firefighters" at the end and substituting "firefighters, including full-time, volunteer and part-time firefighters."
Mr Kormos: The important word here is "volunteer." No, I'm sorry, "part-time firefighters" not "volunteer," because when I go back to the definitions I see "firefighter" means a volunteer firefighter, so the word "volunteer" here is redundant. The essential word here is "part-time." This is nuts, because much of this hearing has been devoted to strong evidence that part-time firefighters are simply not the calibre of full-time, professional firefighters, and for that reason we're opposing the amendment. You're trying to sneak it in here, because you threw in "volunteer," and you didn't have to because "volunteer" is redundant because "firefighter" means volunteer firefighter. But you're trying to dress this up and you thought you were going to grease it up and sneak it through. But no, it didn't work, and we're voting against it.
Mr Bisson: A short question to the parliamentary assistant: What is it about full-time firefighters you don't like?
Mr Bob Wood: Nothing.
Mr Bisson: Then the subsequent question is, why do you want to introduce the idea of part-timers?
Mr Bob Wood: This is a question I was asked earlier and the answer is we want to give municipalities the flexibility to provide the service in the way they think is most effective and efficient.
Mr Bisson: Would you construe that as meaning that down the road, as this legislation is passed, you will see a decrease in full-time firefighters and an increase in part-timers?
Mr Bob Wood: I wouldn't want to speculate on what municipalities would do.
Mr Bisson: Try.
Mr Bob Wood: I never speculate. It gets me into trouble.
Mr Bisson: Especially with the Premier. Let me try it this way: Would it be safe to say that the introduction of this particular concept in the bill, part-timers, would mean that municipalities that now have full-time fire departments that employ full-time firefighters would rely less on full-time firefighters as the days go on and bring on more part-timers?
Mr Bob Wood: I think it depends entirely on what they feel, working with their firefighters and their community, is going to provide the best service in the most efficient way possible.
Mr Bisson: All right. Let me try this again: Would you say that municipalities with this legislation will be hiring part-time firefighters?
Mr Bob Wood: I'm not going to speculate.
Mr Bisson: Then why would the government introduce the concept of part-time firefighters if you're not willing to speculate if municipalities are going to use it?
Mr Bob Wood: I'm not proposing to engage in speculation. We're giving them an option which, if they think it applies to their community, they can use.
Mr Bisson: Let me ask you this then: Was it the government's idea to introduce part-time firefighters or was that a request of the municipalities?
Mr Bob Wood: It was the government's idea to introduce this bill. We listened to everyone and came to what conclusions are set out in the bill.
Mr Bisson: So I can conclude that it is the government's idea to introduce the concept of part-time firefighters.
Mr Bob Wood: I would conclude that we concluded that it was a good idea.
Mr Bisson: I'm going to ask the question straight. I conclude from what you've said that it's the government's idea to introduce the concept of part-time firefighters in this bill. It was your idea, the government's.
Mr Bob Wood: It was a conclusion we came to after hearing the views of all who expressed interest in expressing views.
Mr Bisson: If that's the case, if I'm the government, I've introduced this for a reason. Would you say the government introduced that for a reason?
Mr Bob Wood: I would.
Mr Bisson: All right. Would that reason be to allow municipalities to hire part-timers?
Mr Bob Wood: It might well be.
Mr Bisson: I would think so; would it not be?
Mr Bob Wood: I think that's a fair conclusion.
Mr Bisson: The point that I'm getting at is -- and I can get off this question real quick and move the committee on if you answer the next question -- in the future, as this legislation takes hold, is it safe to assume that municipalities will start hiring part-time firefighters?
Mr Bob Wood: I'm not going to speculate on what they're going to do. The whole plan is to give them the flexibility to make decisions that are right for their community.
Mr Bisson: Do you think that a community like Timmins or Thunder Bay or Sudbury or Windsor or London or Kitchener-Waterloo -- I can name them all but I won't -- will be utilizing this legislation to hire part-time firefighters?
Mr Bob Wood: I hesitate to repeat what I've already said. I'm not going to speculate on what they think is right for their community. The whole idea of this is to give them the flexibility they say they need -- and I think they're right -- to do the job in a way that's right for their community, and for that they are responsible to their voters. We're giving them responsibility they have asked for, and they're getting it, and they're responsible to their voters for doing the right thing.
Mr Bisson: So you think it's important to give the municipalities the flexibility to be able to hire part-time firefighters?
Mr Bob Wood: We do.
Mr Bisson: And you think that's a good idea?
Mr Bob Wood: We do.
Mr Bisson: Hey, that was quite an admission on your part. That was pretty good. I'll leave it at this point because I don't want to belabour it any more than it needs to be, although I wish I could, because I think this is a step in the wrong direction.
Mr Kormos: It's a free country.
Mr Bisson: Oh, good. But I just come back to the point where I started: I think we heard sufficient testimony in these hearings across northern and southwestern Ontario and Toronto and other places where all kinds of people came before us and spoke, almost presenter after presenter, on the importance of having, first of all, full-time professional firefighting departments in municipalities so that when an accident or fire does happen, we're able to respond on time. I come back to what everybody has told us, which is, if you introduce the idea of less full-time firefighters in municipalities, it will have an effect on the response time.
I guess the last question I will ask you is: Do you think this will lead to a lessening of response times on the part of fire departments in this province?
Mr Bob Wood: I think it would lead to an improvement.
Mr Bisson: That's interesting. I disagree with you wholeheartedly. I don't see how that would be possible.
Mr Bob Wood: If you give more flexibility, if local conditions warrant it, they should be able to improve in the response times.
Mr Bisson: Hang on a second.
Mr Bob Wood: We have confidence that the municipalities are going to do the right thing. We realize that others would do this differently, and that's a legitimate point of view.
Mr Bisson: This is challenging now. You think, give the municipalities power and they might do the right thing, but in the case of the cities of Toronto, you took away all the power the municipalities had because you thought they were doing a bad thing. I'm a bit confused here in the logic of the government.
Mr Bob Wood: I'm not going to enter into the Bill 103 debate.
Mr Bisson: I understand that and it's not the time or the place, but municipalities have all kinds of pressures on them. Would you say that's true? The federal government's downloading on to you and you're downloading on to the municipalities. Would you say municipal governments have more fiscal pressures now than they did 10 years ago?
Mr Bob Wood: I think they have more responsibilities and I think they have the means to meet those responsibilities. They say they're ready to do it and I think they're right.
Mr Bisson: Would you agree that municipalities have larger fiscal pressures on them now than they had 10 years ago?
1610
Mr Bob Wood: I think they have larger responsibilities and more means to meet those responsibilities.
Mr Bisson: I'll take that as a "yes." It goes back to the point that what this legislation does is allow them to trim dollars out of their fire services budget. Right?
Mr Bob Wood: It allows them to improve service.
Mr Bisson: Let's try this again: Will this legislation and this particular clause, as others, in the introduction of the idea of part-time firefighters allow municipalities to cut the wage component of their firefighting departments?
Mr Bob Wood: They can do that now if they choose to.
Mr Bisson: If you eliminate a position entirely, yes. I don't argue with you there. What I'm saying is that if you have now, as in the city of Timmins, a brigade of six full-time firefighters, with the captain, this legislation allows the introduction of part-timers. Theoretically, the municipality could decide, "We're going to have two or three full-timers and the rest of them are going to be part-timers; we'll call them in when we need them." Would you say that would save the municipality some money?
Mr Bob Wood: There are all kinds of permutations and combinations that one can use to organize any group that performs a function. What we're doing is giving the municipalities the flexibility to do that the way they think is best.
Mr Bisson: I hear you and I respect what you're saying, but the simple question is, will this legislation give the municipalities the ability to save some dollars in their staff budgets?
Mr Bob Wood: Certainly, if that's what they choose to do. No doubt about it, they can reduce their fire budget. What we are hopeful they're going to do is provide protection that's right for their community. As you know, in the bill we permit the fire marshal to address that issue and the cabinet to make binding orders, if that's needed, to ensure adequate fire protection, which is an improvement, I think, from the current situation.
Mr Bisson: There are parts in this bill that quite frankly are a step in the right direction. I don't argue with you on that side, on the education component of what we're doing in fire services; I think firefighters and the public and the opposition parties have said that. We haven't got a problem there.
What I'm talking about specifically is where you're changing the entire bargaining relationship of full-time firefighters. I ask you the simple question again: Will the changes that you're effecting through this legislation effectively allow municipalities to cut staff dollars out of their fire departments across this province? Will it or will it not?
Mr Bob Wood: They can do that now; they can do it in the future. But they're responsible to their voters for doing that and they're also ultimately now responsible to the government of Ontario for providing adequate fire protection.
Mr Bisson: The problem, though, is that in a community like mine --
Mr Bob Wood: May I add something?
Mr Bisson: Go ahead.
Mr Bob Wood: This is a point I made before but it may have been overlooked. There are two different approaches to resolving this problem. Our approach is to say, "We'll give you flexibility and we're going to monitor what you're doing to see whether or not the fire protection in a given community is adequate." That's the approach we're taking. Others would say, "No, you've got to dictate structure to them to a greater extent than this bill does."
Mr Bisson: I agree.
Mr Bob Wood: That's the other point of view, which has been well expressed by yourself and other members of the opposition. It's a difference of view. That's really what it comes down to. We think our method is going to provide the best fire protection and the most fire protection at the most affordable cost. Others take a different view as to how to accomplish it. It's an unanswerable question until we see how it works.
Mr Bisson: I would argue it's more than a difference of point of view; it's a difference in ideology. I submit to the view or the ideology that fire services are just that, an essential service in our community. If we are serious as municipalities and if we are serious as a provincial Legislature in making sure that citizens have the best possible protection against injury or death by way of fire, it's going to cost us some money. To do that we need to legislate what municipalities do when it comes to creating fire departments. I have no problem in saying that.
What I have a problem with is that this bill allows -- you're right in one thing. A municipality could decide tomorrow to try to reduce the number of fire services, but there are mechanisms for firefighters and others concerned to bring that issue to a formal hearing to make sure that adequate services are provided and that by reducing staff we don't put the public safety in jeopardy.
What this legislation does is allow municipalities across this province to say: "Come next year or the year after or the year after that, hey, we've got to save $300,000. One of the ways we're going to do it is to cut X number of full-time firefighters in our departments and replace them with part-timers and only call them in when we need them." Don't you see that's what this legislation could lead to?
Mr Bob Wood: The view you've expressed goes back to the point I made. We would do it the way we're doing it; you would say you've got to tell them how to set up their fire department, in effect. It's a difference of view. I can't say more than that.
Mr Bisson: I shouldn't ask you this question because it's not fair, but just to make this point: I was at the Timmins airport this morning coming in and was talking to the manager of the airport services and because of the decisions of the federal Liberal government to download the responsibility of airports on to municipalities, we're now in the position in the city of Timmins where they've made the decision that you're no longer going to have any fire services at the airport in the city of Timmins. They're closing the fire department right down.
The argument I get from city leaders in talking about this is, "We've never had an airplane crashing or a major fire in the city of Timmins in 35 years." I agree. That's great. I hope we never get one. Especially as a frequent flier, I wouldn't want to up my chances of being on one of those.
But the point is that if we want to make sure that the travelling public in the city of Timmins has a half-decent chance if there's a fire on board an aircraft while it's on the ground, you have to have some fire department, you have to have some capability of responding to the fire. In the case of the city of Timmins, response time from the firehall downtown to the airports is eight minutes. In eight minutes, everybody's gone. Nobody's going to survive a fire in an aircraft for eight minutes.
What I don't like about this legislation, just like what's happened federally with the abandoning of the responsibility of airports, is we're taking away the level of service and we're jeopardizing the safety of citizens for the fact of trying to save a dollar. I don't have an argument where governments have to try to balance budgets, but I think at one point we have to ask ourselves the question, "What is an adequate level of services?" and I think this legislation brings us right down the wrong direction.
Fire or six years from now -- I don't even think that long -- I think a year or two from now, we're going to see fire departments across this province reduced substantially from where they are now and nobody's going to argue that's going to increase services; that will decrease services.
The Chair: Further discussion in regard to the amendment?
Mr Kormos: Recorded vote.
Ayes
DeFaria, Flaherty, Guzzo, Parker, Rollins, Ross, Bob Wood, Young.
NAYS
Bisson, Kormos, Ramsay.
The Chair: The amendment is carried.
I shall now put the question. Shall section 88, as amended, carry? Did you want a recorded vote? No? Section 88, as amended, is carried.
Mr Kormos: Look, we're stuck with the hard realities of the government's policy in this area, one of privatization and encouraging part-timers. Here we are a few sections away from the end of the bill and I suppose we recognize that this government's got its agenda; it's going to forge ahead. At the end of day, if they're going to have part-time firefighters like they seem hell-bent on having, the prospect of having standards for them remains desirable.
My concern is that those standards, when they're regulated standards, as compared to legislated, are going to be far lower than what the standards are for full-time professionals. The fact that there's a standard-setting process will at least give us some entry point to start to generate discussion about that again.
The Chair: We are now dealing with a new section 88.1, which is Mr Ramsay's motion.
Mr Ramsay: I move that the bill be amended by adding the following section:
"Act to prevail over municipal bylaw
"88.1 This act has effect despite any bylaw or regulation of a municipality relating to its fire department."
I believe this is self-explanatory and I believe it also reflects a government amendment coming forward also.
Mr Bob Wood: It's our opinion it's always dangerous to get into legal opinions in such matters. We think it's unnecessary, as provincial legislation would supersede the municipal bylaw anyway. We agree with what's attempted here; we don't think it's necessary the way it's being done.
Mr Kormos: We support the amendment and indeed have tabled one with identical language. I think it's important, and I'm going to be speaking to the government's motion for a new section 88.1, which is a very difficult one. This is very distinguishable from the government's 88.1. It's an entirely different consideration. I think it's an important one. Firefighters should be able to rely upon their provincial legislation as the ultimate standard, and the failure to include 88.1, as proposed by Mr Ramsay, could well create muddied ground. We'll be supporting 88.1, as proposed by Mr Ramsay.
1620
The Chair: Is there any more discussion with regard to Mr Ramsay's proposed amendment? If not, I shall call the question.
Mr Kormos: Recorded vote, please.
Ayes
Bisson, Kormos, Ramsay.
NAYS
DeFaria, Flaherty, Guzzo, Parker, Rollins, Ross, Bob Wood, Young.
The Chair: The amendment is lost. I assume item 156 will be withdrawn.
Mr Kormos: Withdrawn, please.
The Chair: Thank you.
Mr Bob Wood: Item 157-R, of which I take it everyone has copies.
I move that the bill be amended by adding the following section:
"Municipal bylaws superseded
"88.1 A regulation, including the fire code, supersedes all municipal bylaws respecting fire safety standards for land and premises."
We don't think you have to have a provision in the law to say the law supersedes municipal bylaws. On the other hand, we do think you need a provision saying that regulations supersede municipal bylaws. This amendment is similar to subsection 19(4) of the Fire Marshals Act and allows for consistency across the province.
Mr Kormos: Again, I understand what the government is trying to do here, but language like "supersedes," what that in effect means to me -- I'd like the parliamentary assistant to explain how it isn't the case -- is that a municipality cannot set standards that are higher than the fire code or other regulations setting fire safety standards or building code standards. Why would the government want to be in that position? If a municipality deemed it appropriate to set higher standards than the provincial standards, why wouldn't a municipality be allowed to do so?
Mr Bob Wood: It depends on what the regulation says. If the regulation permits them to do that, they can; if it doesn't, they can't. My prediction would be -- I said I wouldn't speculate, so I probably shouldn't -- I don't think we're going to discourage municipalities from having higher standards than the provincial ones. The answer to your specific question is it depends entirely on the wording of the regulation.
Mr Kormos: Let's get this. A regulation, including the fire code -- we're talking about provincial regulations here -- "supersedes all municipal bylaws respecting fire safety standards for land and premises." So if the building code requires, and I'm just picking figures out of my head, for a certain hour rating for fire stop, for drywall in a hallway, if a municipality wanted to have an even higher rating, since the regulation supersedes it, they couldn't enforce it within their municipality.
If you have a provincial standard, God bless, and if people don't meet the provincial standard, they're in violation of the provincial standard. If you include this section, a person is going to argue this as a defence to a violation of a municipal standard, whereas if you allow a municipal standard and a provincial standard to coexist, a person can choose to meet one of the standards and risk violating the other, or none of the standards and risk violating both, or the person can choose to meet both of the standards, albeit one is higher than the other, and then violate neither.
You talk about municipal flexibility, Mr Wood. You talk about it. Why would the province not want municipalities -- and again, I don't want to speculate on when, where and why a municipality may want to do it --
Mr Bisson: I will.
Mr Kormos: God bless. Why would you want to infringe on their right to set standards that from time to time could be even in excess of what are probably quite good provincial standards? The word "supersedes" is the problem here. It's perfectly permissible. Why wouldn't you just have provincial standards coexisting with municipal and then the property owner, building builder or building owner can choose to meet both standards, none or one, and risk whatever consequences flow.
Mr Bob Wood: The answer to your question is, it depends on how the regulation is worded. We have to be in a position, however, to enforce minimum standards across the province and that permits us to do this. If the regulation's well worded, it will not prevent municipalities from imposing higher standards, if that's what we choose to let them do.
Mr Kormos: But please, sir, if you've got a provincial building code, that's the provincial standard, and people who violate are in violation of that code.
Mr Bob Wood: It depends on the wording in the regulation.
Mr Kormos: My position is very clear; your position is your position. I understand that it's your position. I don't buy it yet.
Mr Bisson: I've got to ask the question: I take it what you're saying through this amendment is you want to make sure that there's a minimum level of regulation when it comes to the fire code. Right?
Mr Bob Wood: What we're saying is that we want to be in a position where the municipalities cannot undercut the minimum provincial standards and you have to give the kind of powers we do under this subsection to permit that.
Mr Bisson: I don't disagree with you on that point, but I'm looking for a little bit of clarification of where the government is coming from. In this case, you're saying you want to make sure there's a minimum standard and that standard be enforceable to make sure we meet certain regulations within the fire code, right? A nod up and down means yes?
Mr Bob Wood: It means yes.
Mr Bisson: But in the case of the part-time firefighters, when we talked about that a little while ago, you were saying, "We think we need to give municipalities the flexibility." What gives here? It's like cherry-picking. You're picking and choosing where you want to give municipalities flexibility. Either you give them flexibility or you don't. Why is there a contradiction here?
Mr Bob Wood: There is no contradiction. We are enforcing the minimum standards to the powers given to the fire marshal and to the provincial cabinet in the case of the standards. By that, I mean the qualifications of those fighting fires. We're doing it by regulation in the case of the fire code. We're setting the standards in both cases.
Mr Bisson: I don't disagree that the province has to set standards as far as regulations are concerned, and you've got to make sure that you'll be able to enforce those regulations. But I come back to the point that it seems to me that the government, not only in this legislation but in all other legislation, is saying on the one hand, "We want to give municipalities the flexibility," but you pick and choose to your liking and to your advantage where you want to give them that flexibility.
Mr Bob Wood: We give them flexibility where we think it'll be for the benefit of the people, and we enforce provincial standards where we think that's necessary.
Mr Bisson: That's the point. Just to come back to the first point on 88.1, the one that my colleague the member for Welland-Thorold raised, am I going to go to the councils of the cities of Timmins, Matheson, Iroquois Falls, some time after this legislation is passed and say to them, "In the event that you're planning on making sure that the fire regulations in your municipality are above the standards set out by the province, don't bother; you're not going to be able to do it"? I need to know so when they ask me I can give them the answer, because I'm not sure now. I'm a bit confused as to where you're going with this.
Mr Bob Wood: I don't want to repeat what I've already said, but the answer is, it depends on the wording of the regulations cabinet passes. I think I would encourage those who are interested to make representations now to the minister as to any changes they think are needed in the regulations.
Mr Bisson: Let me make it easier this way: Let's say the fire code deals with adequate exits as far as being able to get people to evacuate a building in the case of an emergency is concerned and, for whatever reason, the provincial fire code is not found to be sufficient, for whatever reason the municipality or the city of Timmins comes to that point of view. If they decide to go above and beyond that, will they be precluded?
Mr Bob Wood: It depends on the wording of the regulation. I can't say more than that. If the regulation prevents them from imposing a higher standard, they can't impose a higher standard.
Mr Bisson: Help the commonsense thing happen here. I thought that's what you guys ran on. The municipality or the city of Timmins says: "We want to provide for better and more adequate exits from a building in the case of fire. We want to go above and beyond what the provincial fire code has to say." Therefore, if they go ahead and do it, will the municipality be precluded? Yes or no?
Mr Bob Wood: It depends on the regulations passed under this law.
Mr Bisson: Can I ask your legal counsel?
Mr Bob Wood: No.
Mr Bisson: I just need to know. I'm not being facetious here.
Mr Bob Wood: That's the answer. It depends what the regulations say.
Mr Bisson: The problem with that is the regulations are written by the cabinet. That's my problem. Once we get this out of committee, you're not going to get another kick at the can as a member of this assembly. The only time you'll get a kick at the can is if you sit at the cabinet table or you happen to be the Solicitor General. One day I'm sure we will be back with an NDP cabinet in this province, but I don't want to wait that long. We could be waiting two or three years.
1630
Mr Bob Wood: It could be a long wait.
Mr Bisson: Two or three years is a long time, in my view, and I don't like the idea that you're saying the cabinet of Ontario can write a regulation that precludes a municipality from exceeding the provincial standard. That's what you're telling me here.
Mr Bob Wood: I think that kind of power is needed in order to prevent them from undercutting the provincial standard.
Mr Bisson: I have no problem with you there. I have no difficulty if the parliamentary assistant is saying that cabinet will have the ability to write regulations and the municipalities cannot lower that standard. If that's what you're doing, I haven't got a problem.
What I hear you saying and what I see this saying is that the cabinet of Ontario, for the next two or three years, until there's a change of government, will have the ability to write regulations applying to the fire code and preclude municipalities from exceeding that standard.
Mr Bob Wood: If that's what they choose to do, that's what they can do.
Mr Bisson: It seems to me that's an awful lot of power to be giving the cabinet. I'll let my friend from Welland-Thorold go at it.
Mr Kormos: Simply enough, this amendment is going to cause real grief down the road. We're going to be voting against it. We're calling for a recorded vote, please.
Ayes
Defaria, Flaherty, Guzzo, Parker, Rollins, Ross, Bob Wood, Young.
NAYS
Bisson, Kormos, Ramsay.
The Chair: The amendment is carried.
We are now dealing with sections 89 to 91. There are no amendments in regard to those sections.
Mr Kormos: I can indicate we'll be supporting these sections.
Mr Bob Wood: Would there be interest in dealing with them together, Mr Chairman?
The Chair: I am dealing with them together.
Mr Bob Wood: Okay, good.
The Chair: Shall sections 89 to 91, inclusive, carry? They are carried.
We are proceeding to section 92. There is an opposition amendment.
Mr Ramsay: I move that clause 3(e) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, as set out in section 92 of the bill, be struck out and the following substituted:
"(e) except as provided in part IX of the Fire Protection and Prevention Act, 1997, to a person who is a firefighter within the meaning of part IX of that act."
This is to bring clarification, in referring back to section 41, which is the definition section of part IX, of "firefighter." I believe the third party and the government have similar amendments.
Mr Kormos: We support this amendment and indeed have tabled one in identical language. Quite frankly, it's superior to the amendment that has been tabled by the government, which speaks only of subsection 41(1). Reference to part IX is a much sounder basis for the purpose of section 92 in the amendments to the Labour Relations Act.
I'm encouraging government members to recognize that they've in effect tried to move the same thing, but the language here, being inclusive of all of part IX and requiring consideration of all of part IX and its spin from section to section, is a preferable one. I really would hope Mr Wood would recognize that and encourage his colleagues to support Mr Ramsay's amendment. It achieves the purpose in a much more effective way than does the mere reference to 41(1).
Mr Bob Wood: We feel our amendment is worded better. This amendment would not catch the management-excluded people, who would then be able to organize under the Labour Relations Act. The government amendment will exclude all firefighters from the Labour Relations Act. So we're not going to support the Liberal motion.
The Chair: Is there any further discussion in regard to Mr Ramsay's motion to amend?
Mr Kormos: Recorded vote, please.
Ayes
Bisson, Kormos, Ramsay.
NAYS
Defaria, Flaherty, Guzzo, Parker, Rollins, Ross, Bob Wood, Young.
The Chair: The amendment is lost.
Item 159: I believe you're withdrawing that, Mr Kormos; it's identical.
Mr Kormos: Yes.
The Chair: Item 159 is withdrawn.
We have a government amendment, item 160.
Mr Bob Wood: I move that clause 3(e) of the Labour, Relations Act, 1995, as set out in section 92 of the bill, be struck out and the following substituted:
"(e) except as provided in part IX of the Fire Protection and Prevention Act, 1997, to a person who is a firefighter within the meaning of subsection 41(1) of that act."
This amendment clarifies that the Labour Relations Act only applies to a firefighter to the extent that the part IX provisions of Bill 84 allow, which in essence is what I said earlier.
The Chair: Is there any discussion in regard to the amendment? If not, I'll put the question. Shall the amendment carry? The amendment is carried.
If there's no discussion, shall section 92, as amended, carry? That section is carried.
If there's no objection, we shall now deal with sections 93 to --
Mr Kormos: Chair, if I may, I've no quarrel at this point with you calling the balance of sections, moving them simultaneously, but Mr Wood is undoubtedly aware that there has been some concern about the repeal of the Lightning Rods Act. In Fort Erie, one of the few lightning rod manufacturers I believe has corresponded with Mr Wood -- he certainly has with me -- expressing concern about the repeal of the Lightning Rods Act and his concern about the forfeiture or abandonment of standards for lightning rod manufacturers.
I know at first blush this may seem almost whimsical to a whole lot of folks, but I tell you, lightning rods are in frequent use, in common use, especially in the farm and rural community. If I can ask, Mr Wood, what was behind the repeal of the act, if you could just flesh that out?
Mr Bob Wood: We see that as micromanagement that's no longer required. We think people understand that they have to take reasonable precautions to avoid fire and to contain fire, and that act is not required any more. We think it's outdated, in essence.
Mr Kormos: If I may, we're dealing with section 93, which is the last section. I would ask that you read up to and including section 101, because I'm going to express opposition. While we're here, can you fill us in on -- I trust the Hotel Fire Safety Act is now entailed in the building code, and everything that's relevant out of the Hotel Fire Safety Act and the Egress from Public Buildings Act is in the building code. Is that 100% accommodated within the building code?
Mr Bob Wood: And the fire code, yes. To answer your question more generally, we're getting out of the separate acts and trying to put them into one understandable manual.
1640
Mr Kormos: The Accidental Fires Act is the section we spoke about a few minutes ago.
Mr Bob Wood: It's now incorporated into this act.
Mr Kormos: The indemnification section was in the Accidental Fires Act.
We're prepared to support sections 93 through 101, inclusive.
The Chair: Shall sections 93 to 101, inclusive, carry? All those in favour? Carried.
We are now dealing with section 102, the repeal of the Lightning Rods Act.
Mr Kormos: I've heard the PA's explanation in that regard. It's incredible. All the talk we had about fire prevention and fire safety, that the government tossed around during the stickhandling of this act through committee, and then we've got the dismissal of the Lightning Rods Act as being a mere issue of micromanagement, as Mr Wood puts it.
The whole fire safety code is about micromanagement, and all positive stuff -- the requirement for smoke detectors in public and residential buildings. In the building code, the fire safety code, we're talking about very complex standards, yes, to build in minimum standards to protect against fires. It was very clearly brought to my attention that the Lightning Rods Act is part of what created effective standards for lightning rod manufacturers to ensure that homeowners, property owners, wouldn't be bilked by scam artists or by people building less than adequate systems.
We're opposing the repeal of the Lightning Rods Act.
Mr Ramsay: If I could add to the record a historical note on that, I was just mentioning to one of the staffers that I was a bit concerned about that also. I think it would be very prudent for people living in rural areas, where houses such as I live in stand alone, away from other buildings, to equip themselves still today with lightning rods. What will happen -- and it happened to me one time -- is lightning will hit, as you know, the tallest object. If you have trees around a house, it will enter the house to seek ground. The best ground nowadays is an electric system. It will go through all the circuits of the house. With today's sensitive electronic equipment, it would be very prudent to have a lightning rod system on a house.
Ironically, you probably don't need it on a barn any more, because most barns built after the war have their tin roofs directly grounded through a wire system; really don't need the lightning rod. But for a non-metallic surface it's probably a good idea. It's sort of sad to see this, especially in the days of sensitive electronic equipment in a home. If you are in a high-storm-incident area, it's probably a wise thing still to have a lightning rod on a house.
Mr Bob Wood: I would add that in repealing this act we're certainly not diminishing the importance lightning rods have to fire prevention, but we feel this matter's better dealt with under the building code than the fire code.
The Chair: Is there any further discussion in regard to section 102?
Mr Kormos: Recorded vote.
Ayes
DeFaria, Flaherty, Parker, Rollins, Ross, Bob Wood, Young.
NAYS
Kormos, Ramsay.
The Chair: The next section is section 103. Is there any discussion?
Mr Kormos: Recorded vote.
Ayes
DeFaria, Flaherty, Parker, Rollins, Ross, Bob Wood, Young.
NAYS
Kormos, Ramsay.
The Chair: The section is carried.
Section 104: Shall the short title carry?
Mr Kormos: Recorded vote.
Ayes
DeFaria, Flaherty, Parker, Rollins, Ross, Bob Wood, Young.
NAYS
Kormos, Ramsay.
The Chair: It is carried.
The next question is, shall the long title of Bill 84, as amended, carry?
Mr Kormos: Recorded vote, please.
Ayes
DeFaria, Flaherty, Parker, Rollins, Ross, Bob Wood, Young.
NAYS
Kormos.
The Chair: The long title is carried.
The next question is shall Bill 84, as amended, carry?
Mr Kormos: Recorded vote.
Ayes
DeFaria, Flaherty, Parker, Rollins, Ross, Bob Wood, Young.
NAYS
Kormos, Ramsay.
The Chair: The bill, as amended, is carried.
The last question: Shall Bill 84, as amended, be reported to the House?
Mr Kormos: Recorded vote.
Ayes
DeFaria, Flaherty, Parker, Rollins, Ross, Bob Wood, Young.
NAYS
Kormos, Ramsay.
The Chair: I am authorized to report to the House. I thank you very much.
The subcommittee will be dealing immediately afterwards with the scheduling of Bill 105, which is proposed to be dealt with on May 12 and 13, the two days of hearings remaining. Otherwise, this committee is adjourned at the pleasure of the Chair.
The committee adjourned at 1646.