Committee Transcript 1997-Apr-10 | Legislative Assembly of Ontario

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 morning, ladies and gentlemen and members of the committee. These are the sittings of the standing committee on the administration of justice consideration of Bill 84.

On behalf of the committee, may I say we're pleased to be in the great northern city of Sudbury, receiving the hospitality of the citizens of Sudbury.

MARIE MURPHY-FORAN

The Chair: The first person on the agenda is Marie Murphy-Foran. Good morning. Please sit down and make yourself comfortable. We have allotted 15 minutes for your presentation, and I'd ask you to proceed once you are seated.

Mrs Marie Murphy-Foran: Good morning, Mr Chairman, members of the standing committee and members of the public. Thank you for this opportunity to address you on the issue of Bill 84.

My name is Marie Murphy-Foran. I'm a resident of Elliot Lake, Ontario and I have been there for 16 years. I'm also a small business owner. I have served the city of Elliot Lake in the capacity of chairman for the tourism subcommittee and have been a member of the economic development committee for the past three years. Today I want to address you as a resident who lives in the community.

In 1981 my husband and I made a conscious decision to move to northern Ontario. We lived in London, Ontario, and we made that decision to come to the north based on the fact of quality-of-life issues around a better-rounded lifestyle, enjoyment of the outdoors, and for sure the opportunities that existed in northern Ontario. Since our arrival we've had two children, Caitlin and Patrick, and in the last 16 years I can honestly say that at no time have I ever felt that the safety or security of my family were in jeopardy. I believe that in those 16 years we enjoyed a quality of life that was unsurpassed by many of our southern Ontario people and friends.

When it came to fire protection, Elliot Lake was very blessed, and still is very blessed, with a community program tailored to businesses, tailored to the school system and tailored to home inspections which involved wood stoves and chimneys as part of the services offered.

During that time, we had backup protection from our two mines. Rio Algom and Denison certainly were strong proponents within our community and contributed as corporate sponsors over all of those years. These mines have since shut down, and as a result of those closures, this community has had to look at diversification.

In Elliot Lake there are four major areas of diversification. I think as a community citizen, it's really important for me to make decisions about where I'm going to live based on the community I'm living in. Retirement living is one of those diversifications, tourism, small business and education opportunities, including the new development of the Northern Institute for the Arts.

I don't know if you are aware of the significance of the retirement living program to our community. Elliot Lake has marketed itself to seniors nationally, providing the opportunity for people to call Elliot Lake home. Since 1987, 3,000 seniors have moved to Elliot Lake. They call it home and they love it. During that time, over 4,000 people have come to take a look at the opportunities. In my discussions with the retirement living people, because part of my business services seniors, they have as many people coming to take a look at calling Elliot Lake home. It's quality-of-life issues that we talk about, and quality-of-life issues include fire protection and safety, or the perception of fire protection and safety, and that's part of my address today.

Retirement living is the largest organization in the province that caters to seniors. They have just over 1,400 units. The impact has translated not only into a more secure municipal tax base but has also meant big business for renovators, for small businesses like mine and for a variety of service industries that have sprung up to cater to that marketplace.

In 1993 I had the opportunity to work with a variety of seniors on behalf of a consultation that was done regarding safety and security issues. In all cases the seniors I worked with, and it was well over 100 in a catchment area that I talked to, felt they were safe and secure. With the available services for police, fire and ambulance, they had the perception that they were very, very safe. Perception, when you have 24 hours a day to think about -- it's a long time.

I'll give you an example of the role and the significance of the fire department or fire protection services. We had a power outage in Elliot Lake for two hours last week. I was sitting at home and I was thinking, "Well, two hours, so what?" It's nice to put on candles. The kids are having a blast. But then I thought about the person who was in the apartment building. We have two apartment buildings that have well over 100 people living in them and they're totally dependent on elevators. Some of them actually were caught in the elevators, and it was the fire department that actually went and got them out, because if we call the elevator people, they have to come in from Sudbury. It's those types of protection services that are inherent in the retirement living program and to the people we invite to live in our community.

Bill 84 not only jeopardizes the fire protection we rely on, it also jeopardizes this type of fire protection program. We are located 18 miles off of the Trans-Canada, and in good times that's not too far. But in the winter, when a power outage is there, 18 miles can be a considerable turnaround to get some support in there. The other thing is that we're the only full-time fire service between Sault Ste Marie and Sudbury, so if we were to have a major problem in our community, we would rely on volunteers being called in and then on the two other services being called in. The turnaround time is quite significant.

Bill 84, by its nature, undermines the perception of safety within the community. Should the municipality follow through with elements of this bill, then emergency and rescue services in Elliot Lake could certainly be diminished. This in turn will be difficult to attract seniors, whom we have invited to call it home, but it will also have a negative impact on the diversification efforts. Lots of money, lots of time, lots of effort from municipal as well as provincial dollars have gone into the development of this program, and should we have the perception of it not being a safe community, it could have a very, very negative impact. It's been a saviour of our community. It's bridging us as we move into the other diversification areas.

Due to strong community awareness programs and the fact that we are a growing community -- we're 40 years old. I don't know whether you know that, but 1957 was when we started. We're 40 years old. We were all new buildings for the last 40 years. Structurally, they were all sound. The last homes were built in 1981. We moved there when they was actually started the new subdivision, the new town site, so they're relatively new buildings. We were and we are a fire-safe community.

Retirement living has been very successful, and the community has also embraced tourism as another diversification strategy. Emergency response plays a very significant role in ensuring a safe environment for visitors and all-season adventurers. Horseback riding, hiking, canoeing and rock climbing, along with snowmobiling, fishing and hunting provide memorable adventures for Elliot Lake and area visitors. Part of the plans I've been working on over the last few years to ensure that tourism is successful is to work in conjunction with the city, firefighters, police and ambulance service to ensure an educated pool of volunteers to service this ever-growing market.

Of course, it's great to say we'll have volunteers, but somebody has to train these volunteers. With reduced personnel in full-time firefighting, it will make the reliance on volunteers greater, but with reduced training and experience. I think that Bill 84 has the potential to make us more reliant for people's safety in the bush, and I can give you another example. If you have a snowmobile accident in the middle of the bush -- the middle of the bush for us is 50 miles north of us, and our fire department responds to those sorts of things -- by the time they get there, do the extraction, get the people back, if we have to rely on people who are trained, the availability, there's a whole variety of things that make it unsafe. I think Bill 84 has to look at the transition time. There's no money or human resources that I'm aware of to support this transition. You can't go from having it to having nothing.

The one thing that is really dear to my heart, as far as the tourism development, is cottage lots. We're a full-service community. We have no cottage lots. If you look at the Muskokas and at any of the areas that have cottage lot development, they have an incredible amount of wealth. We don't have any of that, but it's in the plans. These lots will be in more remote areas, meaning they won't be in the city and on Elliot Lake; they'll be north of the city or within the parameters. The parameters of Elliot Lake are 20 kilometres south and 20 kilometres north of the city that we service. A lot of it is bush area, and a lot of the remoteness of it is quite significant. There are little lakes and all those sorts of things.

If we move towards this cottage lot development, a decrease in fire services and a greater dependency on volunteers means there will be higher-risk insurance, adding to the cost of living in northern Ontario as well as enjoying the recreation of the north.

I think that when we're talking diversification numbers, if my premiums go up by $500 a year, somebody else is going to be making the money, and I think you have to take a look at whether or not that $500-a-year increase could actually support some of the initiatives that we're looking at disbanding.

1010

I know that I was quite shocked when I moved to northern Ontario and I was told that my car insurance premiums would go up. I was shocked. I had no idea. I thought, "How could they do this?" But they did, and it was based on remoteness, it was based on availability of services, and it was also based on the fact that I was living in a community where people made an exceptional amount of money, and should I hit a car that held some miners, I would have gotten nailed pretty big time. But the local citizen doesn't equate that through. So I think Bill 84 can have a big impact as far as insurance rates are concerned, and from a diversification and personal point of view I think that's a real issue.

The fire department currently does annual inspections of businesses that ensure property owners keep their buildings in an acceptable and safe standard, thus reducing the risk of fire in the downtown core and the industrial sites. This is fire protection, and I know the business owners don't like seeing these guys come around, but it certainly makes it safe for me, as a business owner, to go and rent a space that has been fire inspected. Basically I can say, "I trust that fire department because they're trained professionals, they are objective and they are basically keeping my interests in the forefront as somebody that's leasing from one of these land owners."

Bill 84 puts the standard of safety in our community in the hands of the municipality, which can result in a negative manner to the restructuring of municipal services. I guess that wouldn't be so bad if that was the only thing, but we have a massive turmoil that has been delivered by this government to all of our communities. We have education, we have social services, we have health, we have welfare, we have all of those other things.

When you have fire protection, you don't realize how valuable it is. It's when you need it that you realize what you've lost. I can honestly say I haven't called the fire services in all my years of living in Elliot Lake, but I know that if I need to, I want that service and I want it available. Bill 84 places the emphasis on cost-cutting but does not mandate maintaining appropriate emergency service and response levels. Unfortunately, before we can measure the bill's true costs, lives will be taken, property lost or injuries will occur.

Members of the standing committee, my question to you is: Have you walked a day in the shoes of the senior citizen who relies on the perception of safety and quick emergency response, the rock climber or the individual who's out in the bush whose equipment may have failed or who may have been hit by a flash flood or lightning, whatever it might be, who's left out there hanging, a head-on collision of the snowmobiler or the community citizen who needs the jaws of life to get them out, which the fire department services? Who will take responsibility for these emergency teams?

It's a real issue; it's a passionate issue for me. It makes a big difference whether or not we stay in northern Ontario, and as business owners and as people that contribute, it's quality of life.

I would also like to say that today I speak on behalf of the Elliot Lake Chamber of Commerce, who unanimously oppose Bill 84 as they believe it will diminish fire protection in the Elliot Lake community.

I hope that you recognize that Bill 84 is a quick cost-cutting measure that will tempt municipalities to save money at the cost of reduced quality of life.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Ms Murphy-Foran, for your presentation here this morning.

SUDBURY FIRE DEPARTMENT

The Chair: Our next presentation will be the City of Sudbury fire department, Fire Chief Don McLean. Welcome.

Mr Don McLean: Before I get into my presentation, I was privy to be in Toronto for the first hearing on Monday, and a lot of the material that you're hearing is probably repetitious, so I've scaled back on my presentation so I would leave some time at the end for questions. I noticed in Toronto there was no time for questions, so I've scaled it back on purpose. In this way, it will give the members time to ask some questions.

Mr Chair and committee members, I wish to give you some background information about myself. I have been a member of the Sudbury fire department for 33 years. I have served in the fire suppression division and the fire prevention division and am currently the fire chief of the city of Sudbury, a position which I have held since 1990. I am also the fire coordinator for the district of Sudbury. For information purposes, the city of Sudbury is a composite fire department with a staff of slightly over 100 full-time and also 31 volunteers.

I am pleased to present today on behalf of myself and the corporation of the city of Sudbury. Also I will be presenting on behalf of the Ontario Association of Fire Chiefs, of which I am one of the board members.

To begin, I wish to congratulate the Progressive Conservative government and the Honourable Bob Runciman for introducing legislation that will replace the archaic legislation that we have been performing under for the past 50 years. It is refreshing to see this legislation introduced that deals with public safety and public education and will enhance management to be afforded changes to more effectively and efficiently manage their fire departments.

During my career as fire chief, and for many years prior to that, the fire chiefs of the province of Ontario, through resolutions at their annual conference, have pleaded without success with all -- and I mention all -- political parties to amend the Fire Departments Act.

During the term of the previous NDP government, I was privileged, as the second vice-president of the Ontario Association of Fire Chiefs, to meet on numerous occasions with the Honourable David Christopherson, who at that time was the Minister of the Solicitor General and Correctional Services, to discuss changes to the fire services act.

Through discussions with him -- we had long and lengthy discussions with Mr Christopherson on this subject -- he stated that he was prepared to introduce legislation if there was common ground between the Ontario fire chiefs and other associations. When I say "other associations," I mean the different unions, the volunteer associations etc, so we all had some input into discussions with Mr Christopherson.

This common ground between the parties was never agreed upon and the amendments to the act were subsequently not introduced to the House. Just after the last meeting with Mr Christopherson, the election was called.

I at this time wish to make comment on the introduction of the Fire Protection and Prevention Act. As earlier mentioned, I wish to commend the government and Mr Runciman for introducing legislation that will focus on prevention, public education and public fire safety in Ontario. This piece of legislation is long overdue and will go a long way in restructuring public safety in this province.

I wish to make comments on other proposed changes to the act. As a fire chief, I have been asked on numerous occasions if the act will jeopardize public safety. It is my belief that the public safety aspect will be enhanced with the introduction of prevention and public education. This proposed legislation will allow the fire service to deliver protection at a lower cost and just as efficiently.

Management exclusions: It is my position, and the position of the Ontario Association of Fire Chiefs, that exclusion of management is imperative in this legislation. It is obvious that only the exclusion of the fire chief and the deputy fire chief does not allow the fire department sufficient managerial positions to properly oversee the effective operation of the fire service. We have been in this position, as I said before, for the last 50 years and we as an association, the Ontario Association of Fire Chiefs, have introduced resolutions from many of our conferences on this subject also.

Dealing with the part-time firefighters, part-time firefighters would be utilized to maintain minimum staffing levels due to vacation scheduling and absenteeism. There are arguments that this would impede team concepts. It is imperative, and I mean imperative, that the part-time firefighters would have to be trained to an acceptable level prior to commencing employment.

I would like to use some comparisons throughout the other professions. If we look at other professions, we find part-time teachers educating our children today for the future. The nursing profession uses part-time employees who must meet the qualifications and criteria set out by that profession. Ambulances in the province of Ontario and in Sudbury are staffed with part-time, qualified employees and they also deal with life-and-death situations on a daily basis. The issue of part-time firefighters should not be whether they belong in the firefighting scope, but how they should be used and training qualifications. As you realize, the majority of the province receives protection from volunteer firefighters and I commend the men and women of the province who give freely of their time to serve the citizens of this province.

1020

I also wish to bring to your attention that part-time firefighters was one of the corporation of the city of Sudbury's demands as a contractual change to the current collective agreement. This proposal by the corporation was submitted prior to the introduction of Bill 84. Just for information purposes, this was submitted probably about a year prior to Bill 84, so I guess we're ahead of the bill, in that aspect anyway.

Privatization: It is my belief that this matter is not a fire chief's decision, but a decision of the municipal council on what level of service it will provide for its citizens. Municipal councils are responsible for delivery of service and should have every opportunity to examine any alternative in the provision of services for their citizens. I think that is one area that you will probably get a lot of differences on, but as the fire chief of this municipality, I think the material has to be there for the council to at least have a look at. Their decision will be the decision they make on the level of service they wish to provide their citizens.

One of the other areas I'd like to touch upon is the definition of a fire chief. This definition of a fire chief is not solely mine; this is the definition that comes from the Ontario Association of Fire Chiefs. Basically, we drafted this one at one of our meetings, so I just want you to be aware that this is from the executive and the membership of the Ontario Association of Fire Chiefs.

The need to define the position of a fire chief in law has been a concern of the Ontario Association of Fire Chiefs for some time. We have recognized, in this day and age of liability and responsibility, that this definition is essential. The fire chief is the individual who has the expertise to provide professional advice on fire-related matters to the municipal council. Ensuring that the appropriate duties and responsibilities are outlined and provided in law will protect the public and the fire chief. The explanation of authority, duties and responsibilities will also improve the ability of the fire chief to manage the delivery of fire protection and prevention programs in a municipality.

The definition of a fire chief as proposed in Bill 84 recognizes that every municipality that has a fire department should have a fire chief. The Ontario Association of Fire Chiefs recognizes that some jurisdictions have an elaborate reporting structure which may include CAOs and commissioners, while others are basic in terms of reporting structure, with the fire chief reporting directly to council.

This definition provides the desired flexibility requested by municipalities and ensures that accountability and responsibility are balanced between policy development and ensuring that those public safety policies are administered and delivered in the best interests of public safety. The members of the OAFC have consistently requested this change in the interest of public safety. We strongly urge the government to incorporate the definition and reporting process in the final legislation.

In conclusion, this proposed legislation will change the way the fire service does business, but it will be a positive step to making Ontario a more knowledgeable and fire-safe province.

In closing, I wish to thank the government for introducing Bill 84. I strongly support the new legislation. I also wish to thank the panel for the opportunity to present my views on the Fire Protection and Prevention Act.

Mr Ron Johnson (Brantford): Thank you, Mr McLean, for your presentation. I just want to refer very quickly to the situation here in Sudbury where you indicated you had about 100 full-time and 30 volunteers. What I found interesting is that you said that part of the collective agreements that were just negotiated included the use of volunteers.

My question is, we've heard a lot of criticism over part-time since we've been on this committee. What part of this bill gives more power to municipalities now than they already have had to negotiate part-time firefighters? My understanding is they could negotiate it already, much like they did with Sudbury, but they're called volunteers. The legislation, in my opinion, defines what already exists. Is that the case, in your view?

Mr McLean: Not exactly. The part-time would be a little bit different than the volunteers. Part-time would be used to fill in for vacation relief, for absenteeism. They would be on some type of a list -- it could be on a hiring list -- but they would serve as a full-time firefighter in a part-time position.

Mr Ron Johnson: So it's a different role than what you're seeing with volunteers now?

Mr McLean: That's correct. The volunteers are on a call-out basis right now. What we're anticipating through negotiations or through the change of legislation is that we will have a group of individuals that will be trained as full-time firefighters that we'll be able to use for relief.

Mr David Ramsay (Timiskaming): Chief, on the top of page 6 in regard to privatization you say that it's your belief that "this matter is not a fire chief's decision, but a decision of the municipal council on what level of service it will provide for its citizens." Are you saying you think it's permissible or acceptable that the city of Sudbury, because of the fiscal restraints they're under by the Harris government, can lower the standards of fire service they provide to the citizens of Sudbury?

Mr McLean: No. What I'm saying is that the fire chief of any municipality does not have the authority or the power to have input into this type of thing. I know that it's municipal council that will direct the fire chief to the level of service they want for their community.

Mr Ramsay: Are you saying you, as the fire chief, should not be standing up for the people of Sudbury and making sure that the council provides the very best fire protection for the citizens of this area?

Mr McLean: I agree with you on that part. Yes, I do. But finally, the council's decision will be their decision. There are other areas too that the fire chief gets involved in and has some say in but doesn't necessarily have the input that he wants into it. I'm just saying that in privatization I think the decision will be the council's, because they do direct the level of service we're going to provide to the citizens of the city of Sudbury.

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): Thank you, Chief, for your presentation. At the beginning of your presentation you talked about the process you were part of under the former Solicitor General, David Christopherson, from our government at the time in trying to find common ground in order to be able to make the changes that you think need to be made in fire services. Would you say there has been common ground found in this legislation?

Mr McLean: With the associations?

Mr Bisson: Yes. Between the associations and the chiefs, is there common ground that is found in this legislation that is acceptable to fire chiefs, municipalities and fire services people?

Mr McLean: No, I don't believe that there still is common ground. I think that's probably the reason you're getting mixed reactions to the bill. Basically, if there had been common ground, we would have had changes introduced by Mr Christopherson. It's just that we could not get common ground between the associations.

Mr Bisson: Would it be fair to say that this bill is more pro city, management, more pro towards those who run fire services than those who actually work in fire services?

Mr McLean: Not necessarily, because the issues I'm bringing up here are the issues that were brought up between the associations and the fire chiefs and Mr Christopherson. The issues are still the same; it's just that we couldn't get enough common ground between all the associations to come to a conclusion.

Mr Bisson: In other words, the decision was made to side with the fire chiefs and the municipalities, not with firefighters.

Mr McLean: In this past --

Mr Bisson: In this bill.

Mr McLean: In this bill. Yes.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Fire Chief McLean.

1030

DONALD DONALDSON MIKE OUELLETTE

The Chair: Our next presentation is from Donald Donaldson and Mike Ouellette. Good morning. Mr Donaldson is showing us a short movie clip. We always look forward to film clips at this committee.

Mr Bisson: It depends on what the clip is.

The Chair: It doesn't matter; we still enjoy them. I'd ask you to proceed.

Mr Donald Donaldson: Mr Chairman, members of the committee, ladies and gentlemen, good morning.

Speed, experience, teamwork. The emergency incident we will discuss today will outline how these three key terms are so important to professional firefighters. By providing a detailed unfolding of events at a fire, we hope to offer insights regarding the challenges and danger that firefighters must face at the emergencies they deal with on a daily basis.

On July 28, 1993, at approximately 7:15 am, a call was received for a fire at 416 Kathleen Street in Sudbury. First-arriving crews were confronted with heavy smoke and fire billowing from the front, east side and rear of a three-storey, multi-unit apartment building. A mother was screaming that her son and another child were trapped inside; others reported up to eight people unaccounted for.

Mr Mike Ouellette: That day my partner, firefighter Blake Desjardins, and I were part of a unit called the SCAT, meaning special crew attack team. We ran up the exterior rear stairway, passing others who were frantically trying to leave the burning building. Our initial entry was made without the benefit of a charged hoseline for protection due to the urgency of the rescue situation.

Entering the rear of a second-storey apartment, we reached a room. Conditions were deteriorating rapidly. Flames raced over us, and we were pinned to the floor by the punishing heat of a flashover, meaning that the contents of the room all ignited at once.

Mr Donaldson: The backup crew, consisting of myself and firefighter Terry Larocque, soon arrived at the rear bedroom area, along with a charged hoseline. As a team, we focused all of our efforts on opening and maintaining a safe corridor to the children's room, holding back a wall of flame in an attempt at a rescue.

As the conditions worsen, you wonder as a firefighter if you are able to effectively intervene or if the situation has already claimed its victims, let alone if it will take your own life.

While on the hoseline nozzle, I observed fire through the floorboards. This is one indication that the structure of the floor is possibly on the verge of failure. Again, very unpleasant thoughts wreaked havoc with my mind: Was I going to be injured or die in this fire if the floorboards gave way and I fell into the raging inferno below? At one point, part of my protective bunker suit caught fire and had to be extinguished by another firefighter. As a hose crew, we held firmly to our position; the lives of all of the crew members and the success of the operation depended on it.

Mr Ouellette: During the search, we were in constant communication with each other to relay information about deteriorating conditions, layout of the bedroom and rescue efforts. Upon finding the bed, blinded by total darkness, I had to determine with my thick-gloved hands if the rubbery form I was holding was truly a child. Feelings of relief, horror and urgency immediately fought for my attention.

Rushing out with the child, I raced through the smoke and out of the building. Firefighter Larocque made his way into the darkness to attempt to rescue the second child. He discovered a limp body on the top bunk of a bunk-bed. The heat in the room was layered, and the temperature where he found the boy was intense, even for a firefighter in his protective clothing. Again, a firefighter raced out of the bedroom on his way to safety carrying the body of a child.

The two boys who had shared a bedroom the night before now shared a section of the sidewalk and lawn, plus the attention of firefighters and ambulance personnel desperately trying to revive them.

We are now going to show you some video footage of this fire. The graphic scenes you are about to see represent actual working conditions that firefighters are faced with.

Video presentation.

Mr Ouellette: As a result of the actions taken at this fire, four firefighters from Sudbury were honoured by Governor General Romeo LeBlanc for the role they played in this operation. These men were presented with the Meritorious Service Medal, which recognizes the performance of a deed or activity performed in a highly professional manner or as a very high standard that brings benefit or honour to Canada.

Before presenting the decorations, the Governor General had read the following summary:

"On July 28, 1993, firefighters Desjardins, Donaldson, Larocque and Ouellette demonstrated the highest form of professionalism as they worked to retrieve two children trapped by fire in an apartment building in Sudbury, Ontario. As they worked their way through the burning building, the four made excellent use of their knowledge, training and experience as firefighters. Despite the rolling smoke, intense heat and resulting flashover, the rescuers worked as a team to find the children, while persisting in their efforts to fight the spreading fire. Unfortunately, only one of the children survived."

To us this clearly demonstrates that teamwork and experience are critical factors in the success of firefighters in their ability to function at fire and emergency incidents.

Mr Donaldson: In order for anyone to have a chance of being rescued from such an untenable environment, they have to be rescued within four to eight minutes or the brain suffers damage from lack of oxygen. A full complement of firefighters has to arrive at the scene with a minimum interior crew of two to conduct search and rescue. Additionally, a backup crew of two other firefighters is very rapidly required on scene.

The time frame for effective rescue is dependent on a number of factors, such as how long the fire has been burning or smouldering; how long it took for someone to notice; how long it took to notify the fire department; how far the location of the call is from the responding fire station etc. These factors are out of the control of the fire department at that time. However, the fire department has to be able to have control over the number of firefighters responding, along with their training and experience level.

Full-time fire fighters who do their job day in and day out, who train every day, have a much better chance of being an effective team than those who are part-time and do not have the opportunity to do these tasks daily, to train daily or to work at team-building on a daily basis. Our ability to efficiently provide intervention in times of crisis should not be compromised by being handicapped with the presence of lesser trained or qualified individuals.

Mr Ouellette: As was very clearly indicated in our explanation of the actions we took at this fire, we could not have been effective without working as a team, without putting our own lives in the hands of our partners or other team members. To us, being part of the team is not just a cliché, it is our very existence. We eat, live and work together, round the clock, allowing us to build trust in each other. This trust only comes from working as a team to be the best we can be.

When a fire occurs, speed is also of the essence due to the fire growth curve. Fire grows in an exponential fashion, such that it doubles in intensity every minute. Essentially what this means is that a fire can double its size in one minute, grow to four times its original size in two minutes, and so on.

Mr Donaldson: Experience is another critical factor in the ability of firefighters to perform their jobs effectively. Fire poses a danger every time it breaks out, and being experienced in dealing with such dangers provides one with the confidence to be able to tackle such a formidable enemy. There are numerous instances of professional firefighter deaths due to lack of experience, including Port Colborne, Ontario, 1991, where a firefighter died on his first day on the job at a water rescue due to lack of training and experience, and Stockton, California, February 1997, where a firefighter at his first fire was killed inside a burning house.

1040

Experience gained as a firefighter is a lifelong learning process. Every emergency incident a firefighter attends brings with it a different set of challenges and problems, which add to the experience and knowledge base of that firefighter. We do not believe that part-time firefighters who may only work one or two shifts in a week or a month are ever going to gain the experience to safely and effectively deal with emergencies; nor are they going to be able to form bonds and become part of the team. This team building does not come easy, but because we work at it on a daily basis we are able to leave the firehall as a united front to attempt to safely bring the emergency at hand to a conclusion, while minimizing loss of life and property.

Part of what we are asking of you today is to reconsider part IX of Bill 84 and to take out the provision allowing for the introduction of part-time firefighters in Ontario.

Mr Ouellette: In firefighting the words "tunnel vision" describe a dangerous state of mind where you can focus so intensely on one aspect of an emergency that you become oblivious to other critical factors as they are developing. Our effectiveness depends on maintaining our concentration in highly stressful situations; the ability to take in as much information as our senses will allow; and to develop a clearness and persistence of aim in the performance of our duties.

Bill 84 could create a situation where municipal officials who make structural changes to their fire departments could easily develop tunnel vision solely based on economics. Administrators in charge of fire protection services, leaders at the provincial level, and I would include some fire chiefs, might never have had the opportunity to experience or might have lost touch with the essentials of firefighting.

The greatly expanded role of modern fire departments into new areas such as Hazmat or medical aid has created a complex and dynamic profession. It is understandable then how the people making decisions may have a limited perception of the reality on the fire front and the ramifications of their decisions on the front-line firefighters.

Bill 84 must represent the concerns of all groups in the fire service to ensure that this bill reflects the wide range of services we provide. The effectiveness of this legislation and any amendments depend in part on this committee's ability to maintain a broad view of the challenges facing each stakeholder and to develop a clearness and persistence of aim in drafting the new structure for fire protection services.

Mr Donaldson: Through our insights into speed, experience, teamwork, which we have shared with you today, we believe we hold valuable counsel in the structure of fire protection. We thank you for your time and attention to our presentation and urge you to listen to us as career firefighters and to consider the information we offer.

The Chair: Thank you very much, gentlemen, for your presentation here today. Most valuable.

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): I know that you're saying that there's no time for questions.

The Chair: Yes, there is no time for questions.

Mrs Marland: I know you're saying that, but before these two gentlemen, Mr Ouellette and Mr Donaldson, leave I would like to express on behalf of all of the committee members our sincere congratulations on your receiving the Meritorious Service Medal.

Mr Bisson: I wonder if, by unanimous consent, we could allow a minute of questioning to the previous presenters, each of us, one minute each.

The Chair: You can do anything you want by unanimous consent. It simply means that you're favouring one group over another. I have cut off very distinguished mayors in Toronto and everything else. Everyone gets their 15 minutes. As soon as you start giving one group other ones, you're putting everyone in a very difficult position.

Mr Bisson: I've been in the Legislature for some time and I'm aware of what I'm asking; I'm asking for unanimous consent. Will you ask, please?

The Chair: Okay. Do we have unanimous consent for one minute per caucus for questions of these two individuals? We do not have unanimous consent. Gentlemen, thank you very much.

CLARENCE SOULE

The Chair: Clarence Soule. Good morning, Mr Soule. How are you? I will ask you to proceed once you're comfortable.

Mr Clarence Soule: Very good. My name is Clarence Soule. I'm chairman of the Rockview Towers Seniors' Association and the Sudbury Seniors' Coalition with a combined membership of 4,000 members.

I want to, first of all, thank you for giving me this opportunity to speak on behalf of the seniors in Sudbury. They're very interested in having good fire protection. We are greatly opposed to Bill 84 in its entirety, particularly where it cuts back service and threatens people's lives to save money. It is our feeling that an individual's life is more important than the almighty dollar.

I would like to bring the following questions to your attention: Number one, are we creating a stronger economy when we are contemplating eliminating more full-time jobs? Number two, how can we hope to have high-quality fire protection service with part-time employees and volunteers who are not as well trained? We feel this is an impossibility and statistical information clearly spells this out even more.

Take response time, for example. Statistics clearly indicate that if you don't have enough firefighters the first eight minutes, the fire will spread and the risk of injuries increases. After 12 minutes your chance of a successful rescue is only 46%. After 15 minutes it is only 5%. This bill will likely reduce response times, which will in turn risk the lives of citizens.

Then there is the problem of having part-time firefighters. The first thing we would point out is the lack of training and experience of part-time firefighters compared to our full-time professionals. Studies have indicated this creates slower response times. Several cities in the United States, such as Durham, North Carolina, had to abandon this system because of too many problems.

It's the same story with trying to use full-time firefighters working part-time in other areas. We need them when we need them, right in their home base so that they remain ready at all times.

There are also problems with volunteers because they have other jobs to attend to and are not always available when needed. They also have less experience which means they are slower and have less opportunity for training.

Privatization also reared its ugly head, and after studying the poor results they had with this in Sun City and Youngstown, we don't feel it would be wise to introduce it here in Canada. They had problems with response time, poor staffing and malfunctioning equipment.

The firefighters had the argument thrown at them that they were only trying to protect their union dues. However, they have pointed out that even the fire marshal says the current system is better for teamwork in an emergency. It is public safety they have in mind, not their union.

Then we have to ask ourselves why this bill is so bad for teamwork. First of all, adding part-timers with less training and experience makes it harder to function as a team because you don't know how the guy next to you is going to react in certain situations. Using firefighters at management levels also separates the team aspect, which is contrary to what the fire marshal had recommended.

Understaffing also creates a lot of confusion because you don't always know how many people are available. This would be like a professional football team that only puts six players on the field, but every so often added amateur players. We ask ourselves how many games they would win. Our guess is they wouldn't win any.

Understaffed emergency vehicles can't do the job properly. When there are only three firefighters on a truck, search and rescue operations fall to 80% effectiveness and it's impossible to enter the building to fight the fire. I don't think this is the level of firefighting service we want in our community.

1050

A lot of people think firefighters sleep and play poker all day in the firehall. What they don't realize is that they look after more than fire. Other calls they get include such things as extrications, hazardous material spills, medical emergencies and water rescues. They get non-fire-related calls 60% of the time. When they are not at emergencies, they're repairing equipment, doing drills, planning and doing fire safety information.

Some say this bill unties the hands of municipalities to make a more efficient firefighting organization. However, after carefully studying this bill, you find it is a plan to privatize use part-time help and to add bureaucracy, which will weaken the system and threaten the lives of people depending on this vital service.

In closing, I would just like to say that Bill 84 certainly doesn't impress the seniors in the community. There is nothing in it other than the potential to jeopardize the lives and safety of many people and the possibility of creating more unemployment in Sudbury. We recommend that this Bill 84 be rescinded so that we can continue to enjoy a feeling of security in our homes, knowing we still have good fire protection.

Once again, thank you for giving me this opportunity to express the view of seniors on this very important issue. It has been an honour and pleasure being here.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr Soule. We have two minutes per caucus and we start off with Mr Bisson.

Mr Bisson: Two questions: The first one relates back to a presentation we heard earlier from Chief McLean of the Sudbury fire department. He mentioned that under the previous NDP government there was an attempt to draft legislation in order to modernize the fire safety act and there was an unwillingness to do so on behalf of the New Democratic government because common ground could not be found between the needs of firefighters and the needs of municipalities on the fiscal side.

In your presentation you touched on the issue that you feel that this particular bill deals with the economic side rather than the practical side of firefighting. In your own words, I guess what I'm asking you is, do you think there has been common ground found between the needs of firefighters and the needs of municipalities? The second question is, where does this lead us in the end?

Mr Soule: I think definitely there's a need. The need is there and the same high-quality fire service we've been getting in the past we want in the future. Like I explained in my presentation, we've certainly got enough unemployment around now without doing away with full-time jobs.

Mr Bisson: The presenters who were here before us, firemen Donaldson and Ouellette -- and this is a bit of a subjective question and the government may get a little bit upset -- do you think it would have been possible for them to save the life of that one child if there had been part-timers coming together into a loose team concept?

Mr Soule: No, I don't think so. If you hadn't had the expertise and professionalism that firefighters have now, I don't think the child could have been saved.

Mrs Marland: Thank you, Mr Soule, for your presentation. How long have you lived in Sudbury? Just approximately.

Mr Soule: About 40 years.

Mrs Marland: Are you aware that the Sudbury fire department does have part-time firefighters now?

Mr Soule: No, not to my knowledge.

Mrs Marland: Well, they do. Apparently about a third of the firefighters in Sudbury are part-time. I know the concern that you have about a council making decisions on the basis of the economy and the dollars and so forth, but as a former city councillor for seven years I know that you wouldn't have a municipality anywhere in the province that didn't prioritize in terms of human need and it would start with --

Mr Bisson: On a point of order --

Mrs Marland: Excuse me. You're using my time.

Mr Bisson: I will gladly give you some of my time in the next questioning round.

Mrs Marland: No, that doesn't work.

Mr Bisson: But that needs to be clarified because part-timers are not used in the fire services department of Sudbury, only volunteers who augment the present full-time team concept.

Mrs Marland: Is this off my time?

The Chair: No, no.

Mr Bisson: You can take it off my time.

The Chair: We've added 30 seconds more then.

Mrs Marland: Fine. I'm sorry. Maybe I used the wrong word. But my point is that you elected your municipal council and I don't think municipal council is going to put their citizens, their electorate at risk. I'm just wondering if you had reason to feel they would make that decision, because policing and firefighting, I would think, would be the biggest priority in their budget and no matter how short of money they were, they would always have money and would start with those human safety requirements first. I wondered if you would agree with that?

Mr Soule: I presume they would and certainly hope they would take that as a very high priority and would put the lives of citizens ahead of the --

Mrs Marland: If they didn't, you could vote them out of office and ensure you had people who made the right priorities on your behalf.

Mr Soule: Yes. Like I said in my presentation, I feel a life is more important than the almighty dollar.

Mrs Marland: There's no question, and we feel that very strongly. There's nothing in the bill that says a municipality must do one thing or the other. If your municipality has been making the right decisions up to now and obviously hiring very high-quality, well-trained personnel in the fire department -- the example of Mr Donaldson and Mr Ouellette -- I wouldn't think that in Sudbury you have anything to worry about.

The Chair: Mr Ramsay, I apologize. As you properly pointed out, I did not take the proper rotation. You should have been first and I'll make sure you're first next time. Now you have two minutes.

Mr Ramsay: Mr Soule, thank you for your presentation. I don't want you to be fooled by Margaret Marland here because she's living in a fairy tale land. Municipalities used to have money and they could make the very best decisions for the people of Sudbury and other cities, but with the Harris squeeze on municipalities through all the downloading, this Bill 84 represents a loaded gun that the Harris government is giving to the Sudbury council to say, just as the chief has said, that it's up to the Sudbury council to determine what level of fire service people here are going to get.

The way things are going, they're not going to be able to afford to get first-rate fire service and Bill 84 is going to allow them to do that. That's why we should have something in here that says: "It's a provincial interest that everybody in this province gets the very best fire service available, and regardless of the downloading, we're not as a government going to scrimp on public safety and security. We're not going to allow privatization in a fire department because an operation running for profit is not going to provide for the public good, because their motive of course, as it is for a company, is to make money for their shareholders. We have no business doing that in the public service for public safety and security issues."

That's what this bill is about. It's about getting all the Tory friends lined up to run a fire department for the people. They're going to cut corners. They're going to cut equipment. They're going to cut salaries. They're going to cut men and women on the line and we're not going to get the fire services we deserve. That's what Bill 84 is all about. Thank you for your presentation.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr Soule, for taking the trouble to assist us here today.

Our next presenter may not yet be here: the Sudbury and District Association for Community Living, Sid Blanchette. Is that you, sir? Oh, good.

Mr Bisson: Mr Chair, for the record, I would just want the record to show that the city of Sudbury does not use part-time firefighters as claimed by the Conservative member Mrs Marland. Just for the record they use a full-time force augmented by volunteers, when needed.

Mrs Marland: I corrected myself.

Mr W. Leo Jordan (Lanark-Renfrew): What's the difference between a volunteer --

Mr Bisson: What's the difference between a volunteer and a part-timer? If you haven't figured this out, that's why we're having problems with this bill, Leo.

Interruption.

The Chair: I would remind the gallery that the standing orders do not provide for any demonstrations.

Mr Bisson: It's okay, we're using the sitting orders today.

The Chair: I would discourage it because my only remedy is to clear the gallery and I would be very loath to do so. However, I will if called for. So I'd ask you to restrain yourselves. I know it's very difficult at times because there are things you do agree with and things you don't, but we have to do it and we ask you to do it too.

1100

SUDBURY AND DISTRICT ASSOCIATION FOR COMMUNITY LIVING

The Chair: Mr Blanchette, please proceed.

Mr Sid Blanchette: My name is Sid Blanchette and I represent the Sudbury and District Association for Community Living. I'd like to thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak to you about Bill 84.

I'd like to start by explaining first who we are and what we do. We provide services to 520 adults and children who have developmental handicaps. One of these services is to provide the clients with a place to live, short term or long term, in one of our 10 different locations, which include group homes, supervised apartments, and settings in regular apartments in the community.

Another service is to provide day programs in four different locations of the city where clients can learn life skills and work skills. Some of these locations provide a service for up to 45 clients at a time. There are several other agencies in the area that also provide services to people with developmental handicaps, and just off the top of my head, in Sudbury alone I can think of at least seven more group homes.

Hopefully, this gives you a partial picture in your mind of the types and the size of services being provided to people with a developmental handicap. So far I've mentioned 17 residences and four day programs in the Sudbury area, and that's just part of the picture; it's not everything.

A while back we asked for someone to come in and talk to us about Bill 84 because we were unclear what it was about and how it would affect us. We had two firefighters come to one of our meetings and talk to us about Bill 84 and how it would affect us. More clearly, they talked to us about the changes that could happen and how they might affect us.

In reviewing this information afterwards, as an organization and as individuals, we felt we had to make our opinion known regarding the changes, and voice our support for those who would like to ensure that the ability of a firefighter to respond to emergency situations does not get watered down by changes in legislation.

Over the years the Sudbury and District Association for Community Living has developed a close working relationship with the Sudbury fire department. They know who we are and where we are, and many of them know our clients. They have helped us set up our programs in a safe manner and have helped us develop our fire evacuation plan. In 21 years, I can't think of any injury related to fire that we've had in any of our programs. I think that's quite a record, and part of that is because of the Sudbury fire department helping us provide safe programs.

To give you one example of the sort of thing they've done for us, last summer they came into one of our group homes which has six clients who in addition to being developmentally handicapped also had severe physical handicaps. They helped us develop a fire plan for that building. If you can picture yourself in a home in the middle of the night and having a fire, if some sort of emergency happened, you've got six people who are in wheelchairs who can't help themselves, who can't move, and you've got two staff on. That's the sort of scenario we have in that one particular building and we have variations of that scenario in many of our other buildings.

What the fire department did was come in and help us develop a fire plan, and they held a mock fire drill. They came in on the assumption that it was the middle of the night and there were only two staff on and those six clients were in the building. They came in and evacuated the building. They came in and made use of all the resources they'd helped us plan and it worked very well. The whole exercise was taped as a training method for the firefighters and for our own staff in other buildings.

The point I want to make is that all our emergency plans for fire are based on the fact that the fire department will respond in minutes, not in 10 minutes, not in 15 minutes, but in minutes. We have had several alarms over the years and the response time has always been excellent. It has been in literally minutes, three or four minutes. It's like they're around the corner and those few minutes, we believe, make the difference between life and death, at least for our clients, and I'm sure for many other people within the Sudbury community.

You'll not get this type of response plan if firefighters have to be called in because the station is understaffed, and you certainly won't get it if you're using part-time workers who have to be called in from another job or haven't been training together regularly to have that team approach, that fast response down pat.

Our fear is that if municipalities are given the power to save money by cutting the number of full-time firefighters or going to part-time workers, when push comes to shove, they will do it because it will save money. It'll be a short-term solution to a long-term issue.

Common sense tells us that if you slow down the response times, there are going to be injuries and there may be deaths. As we speak here today, our organization is participating with the provincial government in a long-term plan to move people with developmental handicaps back into the community from institutions, most of those down south.

While we are doing this, the same provincial government is telling us the support is there for the clients in the community. At the same time, they seem to be cutting those community supports. We are moving vulnerable people into the community while the provincial government attempts to introduce legislation which would give the municipality the power to cut what most people consider core or essential services.

At a time when people are being sent home from hospital earlier, when older people are staying home longer and when the general direction from the government is to support your vulnerable people in your community in a safe and effective manner, it does not make sense to tinker with or to change the way emergency services work, especially when they work as well as ours do.

Our organization believes the services provided now by the Sudbury fire department should continue at the same level we have become accustomed to. This means full-time, well-trained professional firefighters. Fire stations and emergency vehicles should be adequately staffed at all times to be able to respond to emergencies as quickly as possible. We do not support the use of part-time firefighters as we believe part-time firefighters will slow down the response time which is critical to the safety of every individual in Sudbury.

I don't care what anybody says, when you compare full-time people to part-time people, in any profession, you're going to lose something by using part-time people. That's not to say anything against them, but I know that part-time people in our organization receive a certain amount of training but can't keep up with the full-time people, can't keep up with the amount of experience the full-time people have. There's a wide difference when you get down to the crucial point, crucial times.

The part-time people will not have the same amount of training as the full-time firefighter. They may receive a certain standard of training but they won't have all the same training that a full-time firefighter gets, and in these days you need more training than ever before.

Just some of the examples: I'm on the joint health and safety committee within my organization. You can spend all your time just keeping up with training with regard to hazardous materials out there in the community. The part-time people are not going to receive the same amount as the full-time people, regardless of what anybody says, in terms of training.

Medical emergencies, confined space entries, auto extrications, water emergencies: These are all things the fire department has become more and more involved in as time goes on, more than they have in the past. You need full-time employees doing these sorts of things all the time to gain the experience and the training to do the job effectively.

Part-time people can hamper the team effort, when everyone needs to be working as one. You need to train together and you need to learn to work together. This is done on an ongoing basis. It's not done on a part-time basis.

As a second point, we do not support privatization in any way, shape or form. I don't know about anybody else, but I certainly would not want a for-profit company providing an essential service to me, because I know a for-profit company is at some point in time going to cut corners to save costs, and if cutting those corners means endangering my safety, I as an individual and our organization don't want anything to do with that.

There was an interesting comment made by a gentleman in the newspaper the other day regarding privatization. When you privatize something, things look pretty good at first. The company comes in, they provide a good service, they provide it at a low cost. As years go on, and you have no equipment left and no control over those services any more, the scenario can change quite drastically. The cost can go up and the service can go down. You don't have any say in it any more. It's a case of applying a short-term solution to a long-term problem. We need to keep our services at the same level they are at presently.

As a third point, we do not support any bureaucratic expansion within the fire department. Like any other business or agency these days, you need the front-line workers, not managers or bosses. For everyone you turn into a manager or for everyone you turn into part of the bureaucracy, that takes away from the front line, and of course in these days of cutting costs, you're going to end up cutting on the front line once you put those managers in. You need to keep all your resources, or as many of them as possible, on the front line for training, equipment and for the full-time professional firefighters.

1110

In conclusion, I would like to say we do not want to become Americanized by privatization of any or all of our core essential services. Saving money is not everything, and our quality of life has to be considered. Our fire department is an essential support to our community, and as an organization and as an individual, I would prefer that it not be touched in any way, shape or form except to better those services. Thank you very much.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr Blanchette. We have less than one minute per caucus.

Mr Ramsay: Sid, thank you very much for your presentation. I truly agree with you that when it comes to emergency services such as the fire emergency services we have, we've got to continue to rely upon full-time professional firefighters in this case.

Many of the government members seem to think that part-timers would work just as well, and I'm sure part-timers work very well in other industries. But these people sort of live on the edge. They're in a special kind of zone, all the day dealing with these emergency services and calls, and somebody's who's back at the plant, in the mine or at the office most of the time and then getting the call to come in, or even if they're at the firehall for a couple of days, they're just not as 100% involved in it, nor could they be, as the professional front-line firefighters. I truly agree with you, and I hope through these hearings, hearing more stories like you, maybe we can convince the government members to prohibit the use of part-timers.

Mr Bisson: I want to thank you very much for your presentation, because I think you added to what needs to be understood by the government members when it comes to the difference between the use of part-time and full-time firefighters.

In the time I have, I just want to say that the NDP caucus will be introducing amendments. I guess I'm giving notice in the time that I have that we'll be introducing amendments to this legislation. I guarantee it won't be 12,500, as with other legislation, but there will be amendments put forward to clear up the definition of firefighters not to include part-timers, for some of the reasons we've heard today, along with some other very important amendments around the introduction of privatization and other concepts in this bill that we think are inappropriate for fire services in the province of Ontario.

Mr Gary Carr (Oakville South): Thank you very much for your presentation. We don't have much time. As you know, across the province right now, the province does not dictate to municipalities how they will staff fire departments. It's a wide range. I bet the people in Sudbury think they have the best fire department, which they do. I've heard great reports here today. The people in Brantford probably think they do. We in Oakville think we do. We don't set, as a province, the standards; it's up to each individual municipality, and they've done a great job right across this province.

What do you believe is all of a sudden going to change with these municipalities, the same people there on council who have put together the Sudbury fire department? I'm under no illusion that there aren't a lot of other pressures because of a lot of funding, but why is it all of a sudden going to change, that they're not going to make the right decisions for the people of Sudbury?

Mr Blanchette: From what I understand and from what I see, it's my understanding that municipalities will be given the power to make changes within the fire department. I guess it's a higher profile now that the bill's come out or something, but I don't want the municipality to be looking at using the fire department to save money for other areas. I think a number of municipalities may look at the short-term gain and again not at the long-term gain in terms of the fire department.

Mr Carr: They'd be doing that now if they were going to do it. They've got pressures. They would be doing that now. I don't see anything change, although I'm under no illusions it's tough in municipal politics. It's tough being a federal politician. There are tough choices now. But what I'm saying is that those pressures would be there now, and I don't see anything as a result of this bill that's going to change the council's mind to all of a sudden rush out and privatize or rush out and go to part-time. Is there anything I'm missing on that?

Mr Blanchette: Maybe they're not going to rush out and do it, but every day the pressures get higher and higher because the costs are increasing for everything else within municipalities, and they're going to be looking for different directions to go in terms of saving money. This is one area where it can be done. They may not do it tomorrow, and I'm hoping the municipality hears that we don't want any changes. It's our hope that regardless of the bill, the municipality will keep things at the same level that they have now, or better. But I think the municipality or other people see the bill as giving them more power, although it may not, and more power to make changes.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr Blanchette. Our time is up.

Mr Bisson: Mr Chair, and I beg the indulgence of the committee, people in the back, as I walked out, told me that they are not able to hear adequately the presentations. I'm wondering if the technical people can try to remedy that so that people in the back can hear what's happening here.

The Chair: We'll try to do that. Thank you, Mr Bisson.

RAY PORATTO

The Chair: I would call on Mr Ray Poratto. Welcome, Mr Poratto.

Mr Ray Poratto: Thank you, Mr Chairman and committee members, for permitting me an opportunity to present some private sector views on the question.

Mr Bisson: That's allowed.

Mr Poratto: Thank you. The fire protection act has come to my attention over a period of time, and I have some interest in making some comments on that point.

My name is Ray Poratto. I am a private citizen from the private sector. I'm an employer, have been for many years, employing anywhere from three to 103 people, a taxpayer, and at the present time I'm semi-retired, so I had the good fortune to take the time to look at a number of pieces of legislation that are coming down the pipe.

I guess it's interesting to me as an impartial observer to look at the developing public sector-private sector fandango, I call it. It's been going on for some considerable period of time, particularly more recently. By public sector-private sector fandango, I use that term because it resembles kind of a dance of some opposing forces, if you will: the private sector point of view on how the government should function and the public sector point of view on how it should function, and the considerable disparities between those two points of view.

I've watched with considerable dismay, quite frankly, the power and the growth of the public sector of the province. I'm dismayed because I see the advance of numbers, the advance that's taken place over the last number of years in payroll. The last recollection I had to observe was that there were approximately 900,000, or close to one million, people in the public sector in this province attempting to share the resources and the revenues and the rest of the pieces that were left on the table.

I also listened to the almost endless lament of that public sector that has accumulated such a vast power and such a vast part of our resources, and I watched them demanding often more and more, at greater and greater cost. The worst part of it all is that I see a tremendous resistance to changing any of that accumulated momentum. That's the part I fear, the tremendous resistance to change.

I observed in the health care sector, for example, the tremendous need for change and the changes going on that will be beneficial to all of us, and I'm not speaking as a partisan politic position here; I'm speaking as a private citizen and taxpayer who sees the resistance to change in the educational institutions, in civil service personnel, in police departments, garbage collection, fire departments. You name it, it's going on, and I'm dismayed by that.

I see the constant ranting, striking, marching, coercing the public that is paying the piper, and on and on ad nauseam. I have to say that at this point I'm tired of it, and that's the reason I elect to appear, because I'm tired of listening to that and watching the wasted resources that occur.

1120

I suppose at some point in time we have to realize that the changes have to take place in the way we pay for services and the way we pay our public sector and how they've grown.

In the small business sector that I come from, the private sector, I watched for 50-odd years the kind of changes that have taken place in my businesses as well as in my associates' businesses. The changes have sometimes been brutal, often costly, but they were made frequently. The alternative was to go broke. It was that simple so many times. If you've never met a payroll, you may have difficulty understanding the brutality of the marketplace and how it doesn't listen to the whining and the whimpering and the lamenting about the fears and the stress and all the rest of it that I hear from so much of the public sector.

In the private sector, the status quo is not an option; it never was and never will be, because we'll be faced with that huge grey hand of the marketplace that hovers over us and says, "Change, or else." You know, we're all a little like Linus, the small boy from the comic strip with his blanket when it's in the dryer. We're terrified of that little bit of change.

I like some of the provisions of the new act. I've looked at it. I haven't studied it meticulously, but I understand how to read an overview. I like the focus on prevention. I think it's excellent. I think all we have to do is look at the health care sector to see how much work is being done there in prevention and how that will save money. Perhaps it might even result in some fewer jobs, because if good prevention activity takes place, we don't need as much in the way of service, and of course that saves dollars. So I'm glad to see that aspect of it.

I like the flexibility recommendations in some of the act that I read: cooperative, interdepartment, volunteer changes and so on.

I like the removal of management people from the bargaining unit. I've faced that in the past. You only have to look at the education system to see how perhaps we have to review that whole question of management or people at that level being removed from the bargaining unit.

I like the integration ideas, integrating fire services with better fire protection, with public education. I can't think of anything finer than a lot of public education effort.

I like the formation of a public fire safety council. I'm sure that would enhance private sector participation. I like private sector participation in all these questions. It brings a good balance. It can be very objective. It can avoid the bias of: "What am I going to do if I lose my job? What am I going to do if I can't get a promotion or better pay?" When you get private sector participation, they have a lot of answers to that question, and by answers to it, I don't mean chainsaw answers. We answer them every day to our employees and other people, so we have a pretty good idea of how that kind of participation can have beneficial effects.

I know and you all know that there has been a very extensive review and consultation over many, many years attempting to introduce changes that go back to aspects of the act 40 or 50 years, I read, where changes haven't taken place. Great resistance over these many consultations and reviews have been experienced, great resistance and refusal to support those reviews and implementing those consultations. I see that the majority of the resistance comes from people who are affected in terms of their jobs, their income, their security and their status.

I'm going to give you some abbreviations here rather than read them all: OMPA and PFFOF and OPFFA and firefighters associations and the union -- read "union" for all that stuff. It keeps it a lot simpler. There's been a good deal of stonewalling, plain and simple in my view, as a result of the overview that I've taken of it. That's not new. I've seen that stonewalling in many other sectors over many, many years, many, many times.

The refusal to change, to adapt to this legislation, I'm sorry to see so much of it. As I said, I've seen it all before and I've seen how it can be overcome.

As taxpayers, as private sector people, this is not an uncommon or untypical situation. However, I have to say to you that the changes should go forward, that the resistance has to be overcome, that we have to proceed. You know there are entrenched positions in all of these things. Sometimes they get entrenched so deeply and our attitudes are so unchangeable that it's very difficult to root them out. I've had that experience with employees. I don't have it with customers and clients because I make the changes immediately, sometimes frequently, sometimes drastic changes. But I see it elsewhere.

My simple recommendation is to proceed with the implementation of the changes, not spend another 30 or 40 years in the stonewalling process that has gone on for the last 30 or 40 years in trying make these changes.

Having said all that, I want to say to the firefighters behind me there that we know they do dangerous work. We know they work under difficult conditions frequently. We know that. They save lives. We know that. But that doesn't mean that we can't improve the system we're working under and get better results at lower cost.

That's my simple submission to the committee, that I recognize the forces we're working with here. I have faced them many times. I have overcome them many times. Sometimes I fail to overcome them. You know, that big grey hand in the marketplace that hovers over me every day, it changed it all. I didn't have any choice.

That's my suggestion to the committee here today, Mr Chairman. I thank you for the opportunity to come.

The Chair: Thank you very much for taking the time and the trouble to appear in front of us and help us in our deliberations, Mr Poratto.

1130

ANDY HUMBER

The Chair: Our next presentation is Andy Humber. Good morning, Mr Humber.

Interjections.

The Chair: Excuse me, can I have order. Let's give Mr Humber our attention, ladies and gentlemen of the committee. Please proceed.

Mr Andy Humber: Thank you for letting me speak today. I'm a businessman and you may think I support this bill, but I object to certain parts of it and this is why I'm here today. My concern is about part-time firefighters.

My background is, for 19 years I worked selling compressed gases and medical gases. I worked 10 years for a company called Union Carbide, and then for nine years I owned my own welding/industrial/medical gas business. I sold it about 10 years ago and moved to Sudbury and semiretired. I now own approximately 350 apartments here in Sudbury.

Excuse me, I'm going to be a little nervous until I get comfortable with this. It's the first time I've had to do this.

The Chair: I sometimes get nervous too so don't worry about it.

Mr Humber: I'm going to talk about what I used to do and what I do today and why I'm concerned about this bill. When I sold industrial and medical gases -- I'm not sure if you know how a fire works but when you light a match it burns because of 20.8% oxygen in the atmosphere. The air is composed of 78% nitrogen, which is inert. Things burn because of oxygen. We sold compressed oxygen in the cylinder form you see in hospitals and welding shops. It's 99.9% pure. We sold it in bulk tanks. You see big medical oxygen cylinders sitting next to hospitals. It doesn't burn; oxygen is non-flammable. It supports combustion, makes things burn much better.

When we store gases in my welding supply shop -- they're usually sitting in residential areas -- we store hundreds and thousands of oxygen cylinders; we store acetylene cylinders -- acetylene's an extremely flammable gas; we store hydrogen, nitrogen, argon and all other sorts of specialty gases. If we have a fire in a welding supply house, you better be sure that the fire department gets there in two or three minutes. My concern is, of course, if you have a part-time firefighter, is that response time going to be there?

I had an incident in Timmins, which is where I had my welding supply business, when an acetylene cylinder ignited on my cylinder dock. Acetylene is like that. You can shake it, move it and it can ignite just on impact. If you took an acetylene cylinder and dropped it off the top of a building it would explode, just on impact. We take the acetylene gas and we dissolve it in acetone.

I'm not trying to get too complicated here but this is the business I was in and I understand it. Probably the only other people who understand it as well as I do are firefighters. They know that welding supply houses are high-risk areas. They know where they're at and they know what do when they get to our shop.

In this case I had an acetylene cylinder ignite on my cylinder dock with oxygen cylinders and hydrogen cylinders and all other types of cylinders laying around. The fire department got there within a couple of minutes and they knew exactly what to do. They got a hose on it. They hid behind their fire truck obviously for fear of an explosion and got water on the cylinder and cooled it down. It was burning. Once they got it cooled down they were able to get it on the back of a truck and get it to a dump site and let it burn itself out. Nothing happened because of the fact that these firefighters knew what they were doing. They're full-time, professional firefighters. They are well aware of the hazards that we sold.

In this city there are five or six welding supply houses. There's one over near the new Sudbury shopping centre in a residential area. It stores hundreds of thousands of cubic feet of oxygen and other gases. There's one on Lorne Street. There are a couple on Kelley Lake Road. There's one up on Falconbridge Road; it had a fire a couple of years ago and fortunately the firefighters were there, contained it and we didn't have an explosion.

I'm not trying to scare anybody but I will tell you that if you have an incident, you will lose a neighbourhood. Normally industrial compressed gas houses or places that store these gases are in larger cities where you don't have volunteers, or if you do have volunteers they would not do this type of work. Normally, these places sit in populations over 50,000. You wouldn't have my business in a town of 8,000 or 9,000 people, because they couldn't support my business. There are usually five or six of them, and they sit in highly populated areas and they're spread all over town. The firemen know these are high-risk areas, as I mentioned, and they know what to do when they get there, but they've got to get there fast.

That's one of my concerns. Then I'm going to move on to my next concern, if that's okay, or does anybody have any questions?

The Chair: Just proceed.

Mr Humber: When I got out of this business, I moved to Sudbury and I became a landlord. I bought a piece of property about four years ago -- I believe one of my tenants spoke here earlier -- and it's a 181-unit apartment building. It's 18 floors high and it's the tallest building in Sudbury.

When I bought the building, the first thing I did was call the fire department and say, "Can you tell me if this building is safe?" They came over and did a wonderful nine-page survey of my building that I was thinking about buying and told me what I should do to make it safe. They didn't charge me for this. They did a complete study. Maybe if it was a private company that was running the fire department, they would have charged me thousands of dollars for this report and maybe I wouldn't have had it done, but I did it because the service was available. Then I did everything they told me to do. I spent around $200,000 to retrofit the building to the new fire codes. I did it because the building is full of older adults. There are approximately 300 or 350 people in the building. It's 18 floors high, and I don't know if you know, but the ladder only goes about nine or 10 storeys high.

Then I had a fire in the building. A couple of years ago I had a fire on the eighth floor. Would it be okay if I read this article that was in the paper, or parts of it?

The Chair: Sure, go right ahead. It's your time.

Mr Humber: "Hundreds of apartment dwellers were evacuated from their homes and a senior citizen was sent to hospital following a Saturday morning fire in the city's tallest building. The Sudbury fire department was called at 9:17" -- by the way, they had a three-minute response time -- "to Rockview Towers, 1250 Ramsey View Court, where fire gutted an eighth-floor apartment in the 17-storey building.

"Everyone in the 181-unit building, which houses more than 350 tenants, was evacuated. Tenants had to use the stairwells to get to the main floor, since elevators cannot be operated during a fire.

"The lone tenant of the apartment building where the fire broke out, Audrey Loney, was helped down the stairs by a neighbour and taken by ambulance to hospital. `She was in shock, but she was conscious,' said Andy Humber, owner of the 20-year-old building. Loney was treated at Sudbury General Hospital and released in the afternoon. `She's fine; a little upset but she's doing okay.'"

It talks about renovations but: "Other tenants said they were grateful their building is well-constructed and the fire did not spread to other apartments. `We just had to go downstairs for a while and then we came back up,' a seventh-floor tenant said. `We didn't even smell smoke.'

"A 14th-floor tenant said she and her husband smelled a little smoke, but that was all: `We heard the fire bell. We walked down and we went out for coffee. When we got back at noon, everything was fine. You could smell smoke a bit, but that was all,' said the woman, who did not want to be identified."

I'll stop at this part of it. The reason they didn't smell smoke was because again the firefighters were there within three minutes. They had their fans on and they got the smoke out of the building. We had retrofitted it as per what they had told us to do. We had a situation where an apartment was completely gutted out and there was no other damage to the building. All older adults in the 181-unit apartment building; there are no children. Most of the people are in their 50s, 60s, 70s; I have tenants into their 90s.

I believe the fact that we have full-time professional firefighters is why nothing happened in this case here. The fire department worked with me before I bought the building, I retrofitted it as per their instructions and I believe I had a safer building. After the fire, we had to do a fire watch. The firefighters worked with us on it. From start to finish it was -- I shouldn't say a pleasant experience, but I think it could have been worse, and I believe this is because we have a three-minute response time and they're able to get there as quickly as they do. I believe this could have been a worse situation.

I also own a 98-unit townhouse project in Sudbury, in the south end of town. I had a fire in a townhouse there about a year ago. These townhouses are all connected together in units of six, 10 or 18. In this case a tenant had stored flammables in the basement. A can of ether had leaked, had hit the furnace, when the pilot light came on we had an explosion. I checked the response time of the firemen and it was three minutes again. It's in the same area. They got in, they contained the fire, did what they had to do and they were able to keep it in the one unit. We had about $50,000 or $60,000 worth of damage. But again they were there quickly and they did it professionally.

My concern is that we're going to lose that service that's available to us. You can't put a price on some things and I don't believe we can put a price on that. As a business person, I can understand that cutbacks are necessary, I realize that, but there are a couple of things we can't touch and those are policing and firefighting. I don't think we can put a dollar value on what these guys do.

That's about all I have to say.

The Chair: The time has elapsed in any event, but we appreciate your coming forth and telling us about your personal experiences in relating to the fire services here in Sudbury and your business. Thank you very much.

1140

JENNIFER KECK

The Chair: Our next presentation and last for the morning is Jennifer Keck. Good morning, Ms Keck.

Ms Jennifer Keck: I have to admit I'm as nervous as the last speaker, but I'll try and overcome it.

I want to thank you for the opportunity to make this presentation. My name is Jennifer Keck. I'm an assistant professor at the school of social work at Laurentian University, but I'm not presenting today in my capacity as an academic; I'm presenting very much as a private citizen. I have several concerns about this legislation and what I perceive as a potential threat to public safety.

I should state at the outset that I am not an expert on fire prevention or safety, but I do have a personal connection. My father was a professional firefighter and a prevention officer, and I was raised to respect firefighting as a profession and an essential service that requires considerable training and skill, where workers have to respond to dangerous and potentially life-threatening situations on a regular basis. I also have some understanding of the rigours of shift work and the nature of this work and the impact it has on working conditions and family life.

I'm proud to have been raised in this environment. It gave me a fundamental respect for the nature of public service, but I fear the impact that many of the changes outlined in this legislation will have, both for public safety and the conditions of work that firefighters face on a day-to-day basis.

Bill 84, as you know, consolidates several pieces of legislation and sets out a new regime for collective bargaining. It's probably not a bad move to be consolidating this legislation, but I think it's unfortunate that it includes several conditions that have the potential to threaten public safety.

My comments today are restricted to two main areas you've heard about already from a number of presenters. They are the use of part-time firefighters and the potential for privatization in the bill.

The definition of firefighter under the existing legislation refers to full-time firefighters assigned exclusively to fire protection or fire prevention duties. Bill 84 refers only to persons assigned to fire protection services. There is no requirement that firefighters be full-time. This could include part-time workers as long as they are employed regularly and on a salaried basis.

There's little rationale for this change except to cut salary costs. There is simply no good reason to turn to a part-time model. It won't be more efficient and it will reduce the quality of service.

Part-time workers do not make a stable and steady workforce. This is one of my big concerns with the legislation. Simply put, qualified, trained staff will not be able to afford to do this work part-time. Part-time workers won't have the same access to training and there will be a slower response time. I think the speaker who just presented before me gave a very compelling story for the reasons behind a quick response time. At the present time it takes four years to become a first-class firefighter.

The argument that municipalities are not obligated to turn to part-time workers I don't think cuts it here. Cash-starved municipalities are going to be looking to any possibility to cut costs. They are going to turn to part-time workers, as soon as the opening is available in the bill. They will do this because the province has forced them into that position. The question earlier was, if municipalities haven't been doing it up till now, why do we think they're going to use provisions in the new bill? Well, why are we putting them there if we don't think they're going to use them?

I have tremendous respect for volunteer firefighters. In the rural township where my cottage is located, we have a dedicated team of volunteers who battle fires. In fact, we had a recent fire last summer where they did an incredible job. They are people with regular jobs who have to find the time to train, practise and put effort into building a team, and they do that at considerable cost to themselves and to their families. I don't think this the way to run a full-time professional firefighting force in a large urban setting. I think the fires you've heard about this morning are good indications of why we can't depend on that type of service.

I understand no one was talking about expanding into volunteers. But I think the problem arising around part-time workers is going to diminish your full-time stable workforce.

The second issue I have is the definition of employer in part IX. Under the existing legislation, the Fire Departments Act, municipalities are considered sole employers of firefighters and operators of fire departments. The provisions in Bill 84 allow for the term "employer" to apply to persons or organizations that employ firefighters.

The threat of privatization I think is very real in this bill. The private sector does many things well, but running essential public services is not one of them. The prospect of running a service that is as fundamental to public safety as fire protection strictly for a profit motive does not make sense. Ask any small business person. The primary motive for running a business is profit. What price do we put on a life saved from a fire rescue? I think the stories we heard from the two firefighters this morning are compelling in that context.

The experience in the United States with this type of operation has not been successful.

Recently, government members have tried to play down this part of the bill: Municipalities will not be forced to privatize their services. I think this gets back to the earlier question. I'm sorry, I don't know who raised it, but if municipalities have been doing a good job up till now, why are we concerned that they're somehow going to jeopardize service? Municipalities will not be forced to privatize their services, but I don't think the province can back out of this question easily.

Provincial governments must take responsibility for setting standards. How are these standards going to be met when some of the services are public and others are private? What pressures are municipalities going to be under after this latest spate of downloading to cut whatever costs they can? This is a new world. I assume all of you know that from your work at the Legislature. Municipal governments in particular, with the cuts that are coming down right now, are going to be looking for ways to cut costs. If the government isn't serious about allowing for the possibility of privatized services, and there seems to be some indication from the news reports that people are saying, "We don't think it's going to happen," if we don't think it's going to happen, take it out is my suggestion.

I concentrated just on those two changes, but I think it's very important that we understand this will have an impact on safety. It will allow for understaffing, slower response time and more poorly trained staff. Studies have confirmed that the key factors in an emergency situation are rapid response times, qualified staff and effective teamwork. These changes in working conditions I think could have an impact on public safety.

However, there's a broader question in this bill, and the earlier presenter Ray Poratto touched on it at least from his particular political perspective: Just what is the role of government? I think it's wrong for us to see this bill as somehow a split between the private and the public sector, and I think the person who presented before me made an excellent case for why the private sector has a firm stake in a strong public service.

The people who argue these changes in the public sector argue that it's a way to reduce government, fight the deficit and free the taxpayer from the heavy hand of government; downsize the public sector and the private sector will run things more smoothly. Yet there are few examples of where this has actually been the case, particularly in essential services like firefighting.

1150

Firefighting was not always considered an essential service, but that certainly has been the common view of it since the Second World War. There have been tremendous changes, particularly since the 1960s, and we've seen them in Sudbury since the 1970s, advances in technology, increased training and added responsibilities, but most people still view firefighting, like police protection, as a fundamental and essential service. We don't want it taken over by the private sector and, yes, we do want a full-time professional firefighting force.

I'm speaking to you today as both a citizen and a taxpayer, and I'm saying that I think it's very important that we have a full-time firefighting force. The changes in the legislation, as I read them, are a threat -- at least these changes. There are lots of good things in this consolidation and I'm sure you're going to hear from people who are going to talk about some of the other strengths, but I think it's unfortunate the bill includes these provisions that, in my view, are definitely going to be a threat to public safety and to the working conditions of the people who maintain these services.

Mr Bisson: Thank you for coming to make your presentation. More of a comment than a question is that we heard from earlier presenters, and you repeated in this presentation, about the whole issue of private sector versus public sector. There seems to be, on the part of this government, a very strong belief that there should be a lessening of the responsibilities of the public sector and a transferring of those responsibilities on to the private sector.

Like you, I don't have a problem ideologically with a strong private sector in businesses such as mining or forestry or retail or building cars. Clearly they have a role to play, and I wouldn't want to see the public sector involved in that area, but when it comes to essential services, certainly to God we need to understand that the key word is "service," not "business," and it's important we say that.

The other thing is that one of the early presenters -- I forget the name -- talked about how people speaking out in opposition to this are just unionists, those rabble-rousers who are always out there trying to foil every advance ever made in society. I would say to the government, thank God there were unionists in our society for the past 100 years, because many advances that working men and women have made in this province and in this country would not have happened if it hadn't been for those rabble-rousers asking for just little things, like livable wages and working conditions that we take for granted today.

More importantly, I think we've seen in these hearings that there have been far more than just troublesome unionists who have come forward. I've heard the chamber of commerce, the bastion of support of this government, in the town of Elliot Lake, like others, saying, "Listen, there are problems with this legislation."

We agree that there are some components, when it comes to fire prevention and public education, that are good. My party agrees with that, but there are some real problems. I agree with you when it comes to the question of privatization, the question of the introduction of part-timers and other provisions in the legislation. I hope the government hears your call that we make amendments to make this a strengthening of fire suppression and of public education, fire safety education, rather than a lessening of services in Ontario.

Mr Ron Johnson: Good question, Gilles.

I have a question for you. I want to thank you for your presentation. You had, I heard, two huge concerns. One was privatization, which I completely agree with you on. I've got some significant concerns with that, although I think it's important that we define the bill in terms of privatization about fire suppression. There are fire departments now that privatize things like dispatching services, for example. I don't think that the government, in this legislation, should take that option away. On fire suppression services, however, I happen to agree with you completely.

On the issue of part-time, what if the bill specified part-timers as being suitable for something like community education training as opposed to fire suppression services? Would that satisfy your concern?

Ms Keck: Not really, because I think the issue -- why are we talking about part-time workers in the first place? If we're saying that we have these needs and these requirements for work in a fire department, what's the rationale for going to the part-time worker? Why not stay with the full-time complement?

Part of the problem, and I think this picks up on Gilles Bisson's issue earlier, is that the underlying part of this act is: "Let's cut costs. How can we provide adequate services" -- I'm assuming the same level of service we're offering now -- "with fewer people? Let's try to figure out ways we can do that."

I'm arguing that I don't know if that's a particularly good rationale for doing that. I'm not an expert in terms of how the division of work is organized within a fire department, but I do think it's very important that we understand that fire prevention is at least as important as fire suppression services and that we should be looking at that requiring full-time workers.

Mr Ramsay: Jennifer, thanks for your presentation. I share your view. I especially liked the way you finished off contrasting one of the previous presenters who just felt the world could be one big glorious private sector enterprise and that there maybe wasn't really a need for good essential public services. I think it's a balance, like you say, a partnership, and as Mr Bisson said, there's a place for both sectors. I think we can work together and not see it as a conflict. I think that's important.

You make a very good point too on privatization. If the government is not intent on suggesting to municipalities to privatize, and this is what the Solicitor General says, then why not clean up the act and make it a clear intent to the people of Ontario that thou shalt not privatize the fire department? I think that would be the way to go and would relieve a lot of concern.

I'm just wondering, with all that's in here, why you think we have a Bill 84. Why do you think that, as I call it, this loaded gun is being handed to the municipalities to maybe do all the things you're against, like part-timers and privatization?

Ms Keck: It's a sneaky question, but I think it's part and parcel of a very similar theme we're seeing in other government legislation right now. I don't think it's any secret that I have a great deal of difficulty with many others of the changes the government is making right now.

I think one of the big concerns is the context in which this is being introduced, and this gets back to the question I was trying to answer earlier, where the question was, "If municipalities have been doing a good job and have been guarding public safety up till now, why are we saying this is something new that we have to -- why do we have these fears?"

I think the fears are very real, because if you're going to talk about considerable restructuring of municipal finances and then you put into it where municipalities are going to be looking at cutting costs, and then you take a bill that actually consolidates a number of pieces of legislation that should be consolidated, and then you put these kinds of loaded clauses in them, it took me -- I'm university trained and I know that doesn't always mean a whole lot necessarily -- quite a while --

Interjections.

Ms Keck: My speech is to everybody here. Some of the opposition members are picking up on the criticism I have on it and that's very important, but I think the government has to hear that this is a broad public issue.

I'm hoping this committee is going to go at this in the true spirit it should be at, that you want to look at what are the benefits, the strengths and the weaknesses of this legislation. There are some good things here, but you can't load it with these other things and introduce it in the context that you're introducing it and not expect that cost-cutting isn't going to be a major part of what people are going to do with it when they have to implement it.

Mr Ramsay: I apologize for these sneaky questions.

The Chair: You are quite right. You've got to watch these lawyers especially.

Mr Ramsay: I'm not a lawyer.

The Chair: Oh, you're not a lawyer, Mr Ramsay. You sure act like one sometimes.

Mr Bisson: Excuse me, Chair, have you just insulted my colleague from the opposition party?

The Chair: That wasn't an insult; that was a compliment.

I thank you very much, Ms Keck, for taking the trouble to attend and assist the committee in its deliberations today.

We will now be recessing until 1 pm sharp.

The committee recessed from 1159 to 1302.

CITY OF OWEN SOUND ONTARIO MUNICIPAL HUMAN RESOURCES ASSOCIATION

The Chair: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. Our next scheduled presenter is the Ontario Municipal Human Resources Association, Mr Dail Levesque. Welcome and good afternoon.

Mr Dail Levesque: Thank you very much, Mr Chairman and members of the committee. It's good to be back in Sudbury. I drove up from Owen Sound yesterday, but this is my home town so it was a homecoming exercise for me as well. I stayed with my mom and dad and got a great meal last night, which I bet you can't claim.

Mr Ramsay: A good night's sleep too.

Mr Levesque: Darned right.

Mr Carr: We can go to your mom's tonight.

Mr Levesque: I'll invite you all over. My mom would be glad to cook for you.

I'd like to take this opportunity to thank you for allowing me to appear before you and to present certain positions respecting Bill 84, the Fire Protection and Prevention Act.

I'm here today representing two groups, actually. First, I'm here on behalf of the city of Owen Sound. The elected council has reviewed the positions contained in this submission, has endorsed those positions and has allowed me to come and present them to you on their behalf. Second, I am here on behalf of the Ontario Municipal Human Resources Association. We represent the HR practitioners in many of the municipalities across the province. In fact all of the full-time fire departments in this province are serviced by members of our association in the municipalities in which they exist. The submission contained herein has been endorsed by the association and has been filed with the Solicitor General, Mr Runciman.

As you can well appreciate, both of these groups have certain responsibilities related to fire services in the province of Ontario. Municipal governments such as the city of Owen Sound are responsible and accountable for fire protection and prevention as part of the municipal service structure. The HR professionals within these municipalities are part of the partnerships that exist within the municipal structure that help make the delivery of efficient and effective fire services possible.

On Monday past I was with Terry Mundell, the president of AMO, at his side, and appeared before you, at which time Terry outlined for you the recommended changes and positions of AMO respecting Bill 84 and the fire protection and prevention services in Ontario. The city of Owen Sound and the Ontario Municipal Human Resources Association add their voices of support to those recommendations as well as those additional ones found in this submission.

I won't attempt to read the entire submission, but rather will briefly highlight some of the recommendations contained herein.

Part II of the act deals with issues that speak to the responsibility for fire protection services. It must be made clear in this act that the responsibility for the overall administration and structure of the municipality will be vested in a head of administration. That is in keeping with the changes to the Ontario Municipal Act and this should coincide with the direction that's taken place in that particular piece of legislation. It must follow, then, that the fire chief, like any other municipal department head, must report up through the head of administration. There is no doubt that the fire chief and his or her staff must provide guidance, and will provide guidance and direction, in all matters pertaining to fire services. This will be best accomplished by operating within a proper structure up through the administrative head to council.

Part VI of the act, in particular section 19, addresses who is an inspector under the act. In reading this, we think it should be amended so that (a) it recognizes the existence of the fire inspectors now performing this function and (b) provides municipalities with the flexibility to enable fire inspections to be performed in conjunction with other municipal staff such as building inspectors.

Part IX of the act deals with various aspects of employment and labour relations. This submission respectfully requests that a number of changes and additions be made to Bill 84 to assist the parties in dealing with these issues.

The definition of a firefighter should be expanded to exclude any other employee of the employer not employed as a firefighter or assigned to fire protection services. This would clarify the status of employees in other departments within a municipal structure who regularly provide services to a fire service.

It is recommended that sections of the Ontario Labour Relations Act respecting unfair practices, strikes and lockouts and their enforcement be included in this act. This would provide definition, guidance and remedies to the employer, fire association and employees respecting things like fair representation, employer interference, illegal strike or lockout situations and the obligation to bargain in good faith.

The inclusion of a mandatory conciliation process is a very positive step. We think some changes should be made here, however, dealing with the conciliation and arbitration process to clarify the payment of costs. Each party should be responsible for their respective costs when participating in a conciliation-arbitration process, but the cost of the arbitrator and/or the conciliation officer should be split 50-50 with respect to their services provided at the time.

With respect to the issue of management exclusion, this act does meet the goals and objectives that municipalities have long pursued. It is recommended, however, that sections be added to the act to provide for additional exclusions in the eventuality that single-tier fire services are realized in our large urban centres such as Metro, Ottawa and Hamilton-Wentworth. In these cases, fire departments of approximately 1,000 or more employees could be realized.

If one could point to that section of Bill 84 that causes the greatest concern in the delivery of fire services, it is that section dealing with automatic aid. There is no doubt that tools such as automatic aid will greatly enhance the efficient and effective management of fire services. This tool will, however, go largely unused unless relief from the current no-contracting-out provisions in some form is provided for.

There are many examples in this province of situations where a fire station belonging to one municipality is within a few hundred feet of the houses belonging to another municipality, and yet because of geographic boundaries and the no-contracting-out provision contained in the collective agreement, that station cannot respond to a fire if it were to occur. This is an intolerable situation and does nothing for public safety, which is one of the goals of this act. Some mechanism must be found and incorporated into Bill 84 that will allow municipalities to utilize the fire services of neighbouring municipalities in an automatic aid situation.

Similarly, municipalities must be provided with relief from these no-contracting-out provisions so as to enable resources to be shared or utilized across the entire municipal structure. Much cost reduction and reorganization has been done to the vertical silos that we call departments in municipalities. Municipalities are now looking horizontally across these silos to achieve further efficiencies. We must be allowed the flexibility to include fire services in this exercise. Areas such as mechanical, training, inspections and communications are a few examples where the sharing of these functions across a municipality may realize additional efficiencies.

1310

In closing, I would like to convey on behalf of the city of Owen Sound and the Ontario Municipal Human Resources Association overall support for Bill 84. This bill has been a long time coming. Our executive director, Mr Terry Hallman, has been actively trying to renegotiate the terms and conditions of this fire act for in excess of 25 years. Not one t has been uncrossed, not one i has been undotted.

I would ask, on behalf of the groups I am representing here today, that the committee support the adoption of the recommendations contained herein. Thank you very much.

Mr Carr: Thank you very much for your presentation. I just want to ask a couple of questions regarding the automatic aid that you talked about on page 3 of your submission: "This tool will, however, go largely unused unless relief from the current `no-contracting-out' provisions in some form...." What's happening out there now as a result of some of these provisions? I would assume we still have a situation where the closest fire station would respond. We've heard a lot about how speed is very important in this business. I don't think we're having a lot of abuse of the system, but am I wrong in that regard in what's happening in the province now?

Mr Levesque: With all due respect, the closest station cannot respond. I will give you an example in the regional municipality of Ottawa, where you have stations that the city of Ottawa has constructed right on the boundaries between the city of Ottawa, the city of Nepean and the city of Gloucester. They can literally spit out their windows and land in the city of Gloucester or the city of Nepean. They cannot respond to a fire call in those municipalities. A city of Gloucester or a city of Nepean firehall responds to those calls regardless of how far away they are from it.

I fully respect the good work that these fire departments have done in locating these firehalls within reasonable response areas, but none the less it would be a lot more efficient and a lot easier. There are situations in Toronto where one fire truck rolls right past another station in another municipality to get to another part of its geographic area.

Mr Carr: Thank you. That was a good clarification.

Regarding the issue of conciliation and arbitration, as you know, there's much debate with many people in the labour field of the validity of conciliation and whether it works. There are a lot of people who say conciliation, while it might not always solve the problem, will narrow down the issues so that even if you have to go to arbitration, it's part of the process that works. There's no doubt there are people on both sides, regardless of your political stripe, that like some sections of it and some don't.

You're in favour of it. How do you see the conciliation helping before you go to arbitration? There's some who argue that if both parties don't want to and they're headed to arbitration, why have conciliation if you're just going to not come to a resolution? Is there any validity to trying to get the number of items that they're debating down through conciliation, and how do you see that working?

Mr Levesque: My experience with conciliation is a very positive one. I have been about 25 years in the municipal sector, started here in the municipality of Sudbury. I started on the labour side. I was a CUPE rep for a while. I am now the director of human resources for the city of Owen Sound. Conciliation has, in my experience, solved problems. It has been beneficial in narrowing down the issues before they go to, for example, an interest arbitration with a home for the aged.

There is no doubt in my mind that a conciliation officer providing those services between an employer and a fire association could have a benefit in terms of narrowing the issues. That has a direct impact on the costs. If you ultimately go before an arbitrator with one or two items, it's a lot cheaper to pay an arbitrator for a day rather than five or six days when you're arguing 200 items or 30 items or whatever it may be. The fewer items you get before an arbitrator, the less time and the cheaper the cost.

Mr Ramsay: Thank you for your presentation, Mr Levesque. I just want to ask you to clarify for me your second paragraph under your part IX submission, that the definition of firefighter should be expanded to exclude any other employee of the employer not employed as a firefighter or assigned to fire protection, that this would clarify the status of employees in other departments within a municipal structure. I don't quite understand that. What does that mean?

Mr Levesque: Currently, you have a fire department that may provide its own mechanical services. They may have their own mechanic. In other municipalities, you will have a municipality with a large public works garage that could provide the mechanical services. There are municipalities where that does happen. There is always an argument whether those mechanics are part of the fire association or part of the CUPE bargaining unit, and I have been in situations where that argument has arisen.

With respect to the inspectors, one would be able, without getting into a jurisdictional dispute with either a CUPE bargaining unit or a fire bargaining unit, for example, in a municipal structure, where you could utilize building inspectors, fire inspectors, health and safety inspectors, health unit inspectors to perform tasks that may be interrelated. These are training issues. Just as a firefighter who comes to a municipality is a raw recruit and is given the skills and the training through the municipality, through the fire college, through all of those excellent vehicles, there is no doubt in my mind that, given other training opportunities, other inspection-type people couldn't be utilized across the municipal structure who would be able to perform some of these duties; I'm not suggesting all, but there have to be and there are ways of doing this.

The Chair: Thank you very much, sir, for your presentation here today.

BRUCE WALKER

The Chair: Mr Bruce Walker. Good afternoon, Mr Walker. Welcome to the committee. I'd ask you to proceed.

Mr Bisson: Do we have a copy of Mr Walker's brief?

Mr Bruce Walker: I don't believe so.

Mr Bisson: All right. We'll just take notes. Thank you.

Mr Walker: Mr Chairperson, members of this committee, good afternoon. Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to speak to you today. My name is Bruce Walker. I am a full-time firefighter in Elliot Lake. I was a volunteer firefighter for five years and have been a full-time firefighter for the last 14. During my 19 years of service, I have responded to all types of emergencies. In nearly every case, I was a little fearful of what I was being called upon to do.

I am also quite fearful of what Bill 84 has in store for me if it is passed as it is presently written. I am opposed to Bill 84, as are all the firefighters in Elliot Lake. In particular, I am opposed to many of the proposals under part IX, because they affect my safety and the safety of the public I serve. I would like to discuss a few of the sections of part IX, which deal with firefighter employment and labour relations.

The definition of a firefighter in section 41 of part IX refers to "a person regularly employed on a salaried basis in a fire department." This definition does not specifically refer to a person as being employed on a full-time basis. The definition, thereby, infers that a firefighter could be employed on a part-time basis, and that's the area of concern for me.

In Elliot Lake, most of the firefighters have graduated from the Ontario Fire College and have been firefighters for at least 12 years. Because of their training and experience, I know what to expect from them and I can count on them under emergency situations. Part-time firefighters, though, obviously will not have the same level of training and experience as the full-time crew. I cannot have the same level of trust and faith in someone who is only a part-time firefighter. My safety, as well as the safety of the citizens of Elliot Lake, will be put in jeopardy if I have to work alongside part-time firefighters. In a fire emergency, we need the skills and experience of trained, full-time firefighters in order to deal with that emergency in an effective, quick and safe manner.

1320

Furthermore, if Bill 84 is passed without changes to this definition of a firefighter, then city managers could start to use part-time firefighters to actually replace full-time personnel. They could bring in part-timers to fill absences like vacations, statutory holidays or other scheduled leaves. They could even call in part-time people for emergency responses to fires, to auto accident extrications, hazardous materials spills, medical calls, whatever. How can I be expected to perform my duties with the same diligence and the same level of safety under these conditions? Taken to the extreme, the city could even try to eliminate all the full-time positions and give us all part-time status. If this government doesn't care about its firefighters, then I think it should at least care about the people whose lives we are here to save.

I urge this committee to make changes to the definition so there is no confusion about the meaning of just who is a firefighter.

Another area of part IX that concerns me is section 52. This deals with the scope of bargaining in collective agreements. In particular, section 52 states that "members of the bargaining unit shall not bargain in respect of the working conditions described in section 43." Section 43 deals with hours of work. This means that I will no longer be able to negotiate my hours of work, something which the firefighters have always been able to do before. It's totally unacceptable to me that the city of Elliot Lake should have the sole right to determine my hours of work.

Under section 43(2), the city could make us work up to 48 hours a week or any number of hours they choose up to 48. They could reduce my workweek to 30 hours, and I couldn't have anything to do about it; I wouldn't have any say in the matter. Would they make up the rest of the week with part-time firefighters? The only reason I can see for them to do this kind of thing would be to save a few dollars, but I think the real cost of these changes is going to be measured in terms of human lives.

Furthermore, under section 43, fire department managers will have the exclusive right to change my shift schedule any time they want. This strikes me as being both unfair and disruptive to the normal working relationship that exists. I don't know of any other profession or any other labour group that cannot sit down and negotiate or discuss their work schedule with their employers. I would surely hope that you as a committee would make recommendations and make appropriate amendments to this section of the bill before it is passed.

The last section I would like to address is section 58. This deals with the number of managers in a fire department. Subsection (5)(a) of this section would allow the city of Elliot Lake to designate two firefighters as managers, and thereby remove them from the bargaining unit. These new managers would be in addition to the chief and the deputy. This would mean that we could have four managers for six remaining firefighters.

Less than four years ago, before our department downsized and restructured due to the loss of the mines in Elliot Lake, we had one manager and 13 firefighters. Now under Bill 84 we could have four managers for six firefighters? It makes no sense to me, unless this section was put into the bill simply to make it easier for the city to reduce the number of firefighters.

Furthermore, those firefighters named as managers will have no choice in the matter, no say about it. If they refuse the position, they could simply be terminated. The city has the exclusive right to designate these positions. It's not open to negotiation. It's not open to discussion. Reducing the number of firefighters in this way, if that's the reason for that being in the bill, or any other way will have a severe, negative impact on the safety of the public as well as the safety of the firefighters.

To add insult to injury, subsection (4) of this section states that these positions "may be revoked by the employer at any time." These new managers will have no protection for their jobs because they will be out of the bargaining unit. Can you imagine the anxiety that our senior fire officers, some of them with 20 and 22 years of service, must be feeling these days? Believe me, every time they come to work, they want to know what's going to happen with this section.

In very large fire departments, there may be a need for more managers, but I cannot see the advantage in a small department like ours. Clearly this section has to be amended in the interest of public safety and, I would suggest, to prevent the misuse of authority that could result if it stays in the act.

These are only three of the many areas of part IX that concern me as a firefighter. My job is hard enough at the best of times. To consider passing legislation which will deliberately make it more difficult to perform that job effectively and safely is nothing short of gross negligence.

I implore this committee to listen to these concerns, to listen to other concerns made by firefighters and the general public. I urge you to make the necessary amendments to part IX of this bill. I'm not asking you to remove part IX, I'm not asking you to scrap Bill 84, because the bill does have a lot of merit, especially in its focus on fire prevention and fire safety education; I'm just asking you to make some badly needed changes to correct some serious errors and perhaps some serious oversights. We must not allow public safety and the delivery of fire services in this province to be weakened, as it surely will be if Bill 84 is passed in its present form.

I want to thank this committee for the work you're doing, as well as for letting me speak to you today on this very important matter. I would be happy to try and answer any questions you might have about the issues I have raised here today. Thank you all very much.

Mr Ramsay: Thank you, Mr Walker. I think you've really illustrated some of the shortcomings in this bill, especially when you talked about the management exclusion. I think that's exactly what it could be: to try to reduce the number of firefighters and possibly even break the union within a fire department. You could have a fire chief with the old command-and-control style, who didn't really work closely with the women and men in his department, say, "Bruce, you're a great, enthusiastic supporter of the union, but I really need you as our new director of human resources," and then next year say, "Bruce, we're having to cut down now -- pressure from the council and everything -- and sorry, we just can't renew your contract this year." So there's four of you gone right there in the case of Elliot Lake.

I don't know why the Harris government is mounting this attack on firefighters, but they seem to be doing that, and why you especially. I don't know any other group in Ontario that won't be able to, for instance, negotiate their hours of work. Can you shed any light on why firefighters seem to be the victims on this?

Mr Walker: Why we're being targeted or hit in this way is beyond me. I think the bottom line here of the government is cost-cutting. If it's just cost-cutting they're after, the cost is going to be human lives. That's just unacceptable to me.

1330

Mr Bisson: I want to get to the basics of understanding something. With fire departments across the province, the present shift systems that have been negotiated with various fire departments, as far as I understand, have never been a problem for either the management group or the firefighters themselves. If I'm wrong, correct me, but if that's the case, why would you need to be precluded from bargaining to negotiate your hours of work? What's going on here?

Mr Walker: That's my question. I don't know why they would take away what I would consider a basic right of any group: to discuss with their employer how many hours they're going to work and the scheduling of the shifts to complete those hours. It just astounds me that something like this might occur. I really don't have an answer for it.

Mr Bisson: Is the shift system a problem in your community for either council?

Mr Walker: No, and it never has been. I'm not saying it will be a problem, but why put into the legislation the possibility that it's going to create problems?

Mr Carr: Thank you very much for your presentation. I want to talk about the issue Mr Ramsay raised. Originally when I looked at this, I thought: "Nobody would do that. Who would do that?" But we have to make legislation that ensures -- there could be some people out there who would do that. Looking at the good side of people, I wouldn't see that there would be people doing that, but unfortunately there are some who may do that to get back at someone, as in the situation Mr Ramsay described.

Is there an amendment we could make to this section of the bill so that, for example, if they came to you, you could refuse, keep your same salary, and they could choose somebody else? Is there anything we can do to change it so that we protect you with the ability to say no and red-circle you at your salary? Is there anything we can do that would alleviate some of your concerns?

Mr Walker: Just what can be done I'm not too sure. In a small department like ours I personally don't see the need for us having another manager: four years ago, we had 13 firefighters well managed by a chief. We went to eight firefighters and a deputy as well as a chief, so now we had two managers for eight. I just don't see the need to go to more managers.

The Chair: I'm sorry, but our time is up. Thank you very much, Mr Walker, for your presentation.

SAULT STE MARIE PROFESSIONAL FIRE FIGHTERS ASSOCIATION

The Vice-Chair (Mr Ron Johnson): Our next presentation is the Sault Ste Marie Professional Fire Fighters Association, Mr Randy Richards.

Mr Randy Richards: Mr Chairman and members of the committee, thank you for allowing the Sault Ste Marie Professional Fire Fighters Association to make this presentation this afternoon. My name is Randy Richards and I'm the spokesperson and president of the Sault Ste Marie Professional Fire Fighters Association.

It is with great trepidation that we come before you this afternoon. We, the professional firefighters of Sault Ste Marie, believe that the safety of the citizens of Sault St Marie could be at risk if this bill becomes law.

Bill 84 evolved through intense lobbying by AMO, which is the Association of Municipalities of Ontario, the fire marshal of Ontario, the Ontario Association of Fire Chiefs and other municipally funded associations. Firefighter groups, such as the Ontario Professional Fire Fighters Association, were initially involved, but the agenda was already struck. It appears that Bill 84 is one of the carrots being dangled to go hand in hand with some of the provincial downloading.

However, the fire service does not belong to the unions. The fire service does not belong to AMO. The fire service does not belong to the fire marshal. The fire service does not belong to the fire chiefs. The fire service belongs to the public. The public must be aware that reducing fire department staff could affect their safety.

This has already happened in Sault Ste Marie. The Sault Ste Marie fire department eliminated five people last year: three front-line firefighters, one fire prevention officer and one apparatus officer. Fire departments do more than just fight fires. We are a multifaceted emergency service. Firefighters also respond to motor vehicle accidents, hazardous material incidents, public assistance calls, water rescue, high-angle rescue and any other types of emergencies. Our responsibilities do not end with emergency response. Departments also include fire prevention, training, communications and the mechanical divisions. Speed, experience and teamwork save lives. When you eliminate any of these divisions, you affect the quality of service.

Bill 84 makes changes that can jeopardize the fire protection that the citizens in Sault Ste Marie rely on. Under Bill 84, full-time professional firefighters can be replaced with part-timers with much less training and experience. Taking into account the results of a citizen survey in Sault Ste Marie last year, we believe the taxpayers of Sault Ste Marie want a full-time professional fire service, ready to answer their call for help any time of the day or night.

I'd like to talk about privatization and contracting out. This bill opens the door to privatization and contracting out of the fire service. Do we want an American-style, for-profit fire service in Ontario or in Sault Ste Marie? We don't believe the public wants that. However, the city of Sault Ste Marie, plus many other cities, are exploring the possibility of merging or contracting out fire prevention duties, communications operations and mechanical duties. These changes will affect the safety of not only the firefighters but the public we are sworn to protect. Remember, there are no second chances fighting fires.

Bureaucratic expansion: Bill 84 will turn firefighters into managers. The fire marshal for the province of Ontario and the fire chiefs' association are advocating increasing managers by removing some officers from bargaining units. Our association believes that fire departments have a large resource of managers to call upon already. These include the CAO's office, human resources department, legal department, finance department and council.

Councils across Ontario have already reduced the number of middle managers. Why would the fire department increase the number of managers? This would do nothing to increase the level of fire service to the public. All this would do would increase the cost of the fire service, as these new managers would move into higher management pay scales and improved benefit packages. How will this improve the fire service? We don't believe it will.

We, the professional firefighters of Sault Ste Marie, are not afraid of change, but we, the providers of the fire service, are not involved in any of these changes. We have spoken with the citizens of Sault Ste Marie. They want and deserve a fully trained, fully equipped, full-time professional fire service.

Our association spoke at city council a couple of weeks ago with some of these kinds of concerns, and the fire chief from Sault Ste Marie, who is here today, explained at that meeting that he liked the way things are working right now. It's not his intention to have part-time firefighters or contract out the services we're already doing. That's what he believes and that's what we believe.

Thank you for listening to our concerns. Please don't allow this what we consider to be disastrous legislation to destroy the fire service in Ontario and in Sault Ste Marie.

1340

The Vice-Chair: Thank you for your presentation. We have two minutes per caucus. As the NDP caucus isn't here, we'll go to the government side.

Mrs Marland: Does the opinion of the chief about the use of part-time not give you assurance? If he is responsible for the protection of the citizens and that's his opinion, what would give you concern that that would change? Do you feel the council would override him?

Mr Richards: Yes, I believe that's what would happen. I believe the council, human resources officers, AMO will tell the fire chiefs what they have to do, and I believe a lot of the fire chiefs don't want some of these things.

Mrs Marland: The Association of Municipalities of Ontario hasn't told a municipality yet what to do, and I say that as a seven-year councillor in Mississauga. I'm not concerned about AMO. Do you not give credit to the elected people at the local level who have made decisions to equip fire departments?

I guess I'm a little biased about Mississauga's fire department, but every time the fire chief, who we felt was the professional, came to us and said, "There's a new kind of coat" or "There's a new kind of boot," we said, "Go for it," to protect our firefighters who in turn were protecting our citizens. Can you see that changing? Why would the bill change it?

Mr Richards: If there are a lot of fire chiefs in the province who don't want part-time firefighters, why would it be in the bill if there's nobody out there who's in the service who wants it?

Mrs Marland: I would suggest to you, with respect, that part-time firefighters exist.

Mr Richards: I'm not aware of any part-time firefighters.

Mrs Marland: I heard a professional yesterday in Thunder Bay tell us that there are 20,000 in Ontario, and there are 843 municipalities in Ontario. That much I knew. If we already have part-time existing in municipalities where they simply can't afford a full-time fire department, you wouldn't want to exclude them; they have to that protection.

Mr Richards: I'm not trying to exclude anybody. I think the public wants full-time professional firefighters and most of the fire chiefs I've talked to want it. I can't see why the bill would allow it to have something nobody really wants.

Mr Ramsay: Randy, thanks very much for coming over the Sault. As a northerner, I appreciate the distances within northern Ontario, and we're glad to see you here today.

You mentioned quickly in passing that Sault Ste Marie was maybe going to flirt with the idea of merging emergency services, that that's an idea that's there. I understand that just down the road from you on I-75 the town of Kalamazoo, Michigan, had flirted with that too. Do you have any experience with what Kalamazoo tried to do and what happened there?

Mr Richards: The only thing I would say is that it didn't work out like all the gurus thought it would.

My understanding is that in Sault Ste Marie some of the divisions of the fire service, some of the senior staff -- it's their position that maybe we can merge some of these departments, maybe fire prevention with the building inspector or the mechanical division with the board of works. But the equipment we have has to work when we need it. We're an emergency service. We don't want some of our equipment or trucks in a board of works garage at the back of the list to get fixed. We have competent, well-trained people right now; we want to keep them there. I think that's the best way to go.

Mr Ramsay: I agree. This whole notion of privatizing firefighting service, which this bill would allow, could really jeopardize firefighting in Ontario. As you probably know, there's been some experience of that in some of the United States; again, it hasn't been very successful. Do you think privatization would work here in Ontario?

Mr Richards: Privatization wouldn't work at all. You have to physically have the people at the firehalls, with the training to respond to calls for help. You can't have somebody who just does that once in a while to go. When people need help, they want it and they want some well-trained people to come to their house. That's why the citizens in Sault Ste Marie want a full-time fire department with professionals.

Mr Ramsay: I agree. Thank you.

The Vice-Chair: Mr Richards, on behalf of the committee, thank you for your presentation.

SUDBURY PROFESSIONAL FIRE FIGHTERS ASSOCIATION

The Vice-Chair: Our next presenter this afternoon is Mr Marc Leduc of the Sudbury Professional Fire Fighters Association. Good afternoon, sir.

Mr Marc Leduc: My name is Marc Leduc. I'm the president of the Sudbury Professional Fire Fighters Association, which represents 102 members. Our association has represented firefighters in the city of Sudbury for over 60 years. I'm also a district vice-president with the Ontario Professional Fire Fighters Association as well as being a firefighter in the city of Sudbury for the past 20 years.

I would like to thank the committee for allowing us the opportunity of speaking on Bill 84. However, with the time allotted we can only scratch the surface of the many concerns we have with the bill before us.

Last year our department responded to over 2,500 calls. As well as extinguishing fires, our suppression division responded to many other types of emergencies, such as motor vehicle accidents, hazardous material spills, water and ice rescues, gas leaks and explosions, broken power lines, confined space rescues and medical aid calls, including defibrillation.

The defibrillation program is relatively new to the Sudbury fire department and has proven to be very successful. In the first 18 months of this initiative, 13 persons in this community have been able to walk away from the hospital, thanks to early medical intervention. This is more people than were saved for the five previous years combined. Providing these services requires speed, experience, teamwork and ongoing training. Bill 84 will jeopardize all of these important factors which are essential in providing professional emergency responses that are expected and deserved by the residents of our community.

Bill 84 proposes to expand the bureaucracy within the fire department. At a time when most organizations are reducing their level of mid-management, the government is advocating an increase of these positions for the fire department. The city of Sudbury currently employs a large management staff over and above the current four non-union positions in the Sudbury fire department.

On a regular basis we deal with the director of human resources, the commissioner of community services, the health and safety officer and the city manager as well as many other staff from city hall. Collectively, these persons are involved in almost all aspects of the operation of the fire department, including negotiations, setting budgets, establishing the level of service, and discipline.

Bill 84 will create an unnecessary level of bureaucracy. Furthermore, removing officers from the bargaining unit will have a negative impact on the teamwork that is absolutely essential for the safe operation of an emergency response. The people of our community want firefighter personnel on the front lines where they are needed and they are not interested in creating another level of bureaucracy.

Bill 84 expands the employer's ability to call in firefighters in case of emergencies. Firefighters have had no problem coming into work on their off-duty time to respond to major fires, floods and other disasters. We have done this in the past and will continue to do so. However, with the new definition of firefighter and no real definition of an emergency, this proposal will cause serious problems. Municipalities will be tempted to further understaff fire stations, only calling in firefighters once an emergency has occurred. Of course this will slow response times, placing the public and firefighters at greater risk. The precious amount of time required to conduct a safe and successful rescue operation will be lost.

1350

Another great area of concern to our members and to the residents of Sudbury is the issue of privatization of the fire protection services. Bill 84 paves the way for municipalities to privatize their fire departments. Private fire protection has been around in the United States for a number of years. However, only a very small segment of their population is served by private fire protection. In these areas, for-profit firefighting has resulted in numerous problems. We do not need these problems in Sudbury or any other part of Ontario.

During the many conversations we have had with the residents of our community, they have expressed shock and total disbelief that this government would even contemplate such a proposal. The community expects fire protection to be provided by the municipality and they want and expect accountability for this very important service. In a recent citizen survey, the residents of Sudbury clearly indicated that fire protection was an extremely important service and ranked it number one in many parts of the questionnaire. The people are not interested in having their fire protection provided by large American companies that will tend to cut corners to maximize profits. In our business, cutting corners will only result in higher fire losses, increased risk to the wellbeing of the public and firefighters and inevitably higher insurance premiums.

In response to the government's suggestion this morning concerning the privatization of fire prevention divisions, the committee must understand the role of the public educator in the fire service. The fire prevention officer is equally as important a role as the role of a member of the fire suppression. In order to fully understand the seriousness of the threat of fire to persons and property, it is critical that these persons come from the field of fire suppression. In order for the two fields, education and suppression, to work as a cohesive team, they need to be able to communicate on equal levels of experience and understanding.

Another area of great concern with Bill 84 is the introduction of part-time firefighters. This bill changes the definition of firefighter to include part-time firefighter. This should not be confused with volunteer firefighters, an area where we've seen a lot of confusion already this morning. Volunteer firefighters are absolutely essential to provide fire protection in many parts of the province in very low-populated areas. We have a lot of admiration for what they do, but they are a different kind of firefighting force. This bill would allow for part-time firefighters to make up a part of our on-duty fire suppression force and/or replace full-time firefighters with part-time firefighters.

Full-time firefighters in Sudbury work an average of 42 hours per week. It takes them four years to become a first-class firefighter and acquire all the skills required to perform the job as expected by the municipality and by the public. Even once a person becomes a first-class firefighter, much training is required to keep the necessary skills and to learn new techniques, running procedure, and the proper operation of the many pieces of equipment. Full-time firefighters in the city of Sudbury are required to do training during every shift. This is only so that we can keep up our skills. During an emergency we have to be able to do the job right the first time. We do not get a second chance.

Furthermore, over and above regular training, experience is a key factor when dealing with emergency operations. Not only would it be impossible for part-time firefighters to do the same amount of training, they would never gain the amount of experience as full-time firefighters. The introduction of part-time firefighters will lead to less experienced and less trained fire departments. This will have a detrimental impact on teamwork. The team will be much less effective.

Staff at the city of Sudbury have already indicated to our association that they intend to introduce part-time firefighters in the city of Sudbury. This may help the municipality meet their budget concerns but does absolutely nothing for the safety of the community and will make our already dangerous job even more risky than it is currently. Consideration must given to public safety and firefighter safety. Therefore, the provision for part-time firefighters should be removed from the bill.

Further concerns we have with the bill deal with other labour provisions contained in part IX. For example, this bill would eliminate firefighters' rights to negotiate the number of hours they work or the scheduling of those hours. This is totally unacceptable. The hours of work should remain as a basic bargaining right, as is the case with most other workers throughout Ontario in and out of municipal government.

Bill 84 does not allow for successor rights. Successor rights for firefighters should be clearly spelled out in Bill 84. These rights are there for other municipal employees, and firefighters should have the same protection. Further, in some cases the lack of successor rights would allow municipalities that amalgamate or restructure to lower fire protection standards because they may not be bound to meet standards that have been negotiated over the years.

During the past few months, we have actively gone into the community to discuss Bill 84. Many people in the Sudbury area have expressed a deep concern with this piece of legislation. Over 7,500 people have signed petitions asking the Legislative Assembly to please listen to professional firefighters and amend Bill 84 to eliminate the threat to fire safety. We have also received support from 184 volunteer firefighters in the Sudbury area. They have indicated their support for the prevention elements of Bill 84. However, they do not support part IX of the bill.

Our association is greatly concerned with the direction that Bill 84 is taking the quality of fire protection and the labour relations with firefighters in Ontario. We are asking the government to listen to our concerns and those of the residents of our community. Public safety is much too important to ignore. Please listen to the front-line firefighters, the persons who are doing the job on a daily basis in our community and throughout Ontario. Make the changes needed to fix this bill.

Twenty years ago I signed on as a firefighter to help ensure the safety of my family, friends and all Sudburians. I and other professional firefighters have risked our lives willingly on many occasions. With this bill, you want us all to put our lives at further risk because you believe it will save a few bucks. Well, I think this is totally unfair.

On behalf of our association, I thank this committee for taking the time to listen to our presentation.

The Vice-Chair: Thank you, Mr Leduc. You have used up the entire 15 minutes. Thank you for your presentation.

1400

SHARON MURDOCK

The Vice-Chair: Our next presenter is Ms Sharon Murdock, please. It's my understanding that Ms Murdock is a former member of the New Democratic government. Am I right?

Ms Sharon Murdock: That's right.

The Vice-Chair: It's a pleasure to meet you.

Ms Murdock: It's a pleasure to meet you.

Mr Carr: A fine member she was.

Ms Murdock: A fine member, yes.

The Vice-Chair: Ms Murdock, you'll have 15 minutes for your presentation. You can begin any time.

Ms Murdock: I first of all want to apologize. I know we need 15 copies whenever we come, but I'm one of the flood victims in the city so I have been spending most of my time Shop-Vac-ing and, as a consequence, only gave one to each party and one to the clerk, but there will be copies for you later.

Good afternoon. It's interesting being on this side of the table instead of listening. I know I listened closely, so I hope you'll do the same. I thank you very much for the opportunity to place my comments before you. No doubt you've heard from many across the province about some of the concerns and the issues regarding Bill 84. I'm only going to deal with two of them that are of particular interest to me. I know we have been allocated 15 minutes, so I'll try and keep within that so you can ask me questions at the end.

Having been involved in the political spectrum in Sudbury and Ontario, I want to clearly state that my appearance here today is not going to be a partisan diatribe, you'll be happy to hear, about the wrong turning of the present government. Rather I'm here to speak on behalf of myself and all those who have opinions in this community on the subject of the kind of fire service they have and we have and will have in the future. However, most of them would not venture into this arena, so I'm going to speak on their behalf.

Fire safety is important to all of us. It seems like such an obvious kind of sentiment that it doesn't need any kind of statement to be made. Yet it expresses an underlying reliance by all of the people on a service that many of us in today's world take for granted. We just assume that we have the service, so it's always going to be there.

When I was elected, I worked for quite a while with our local chief and local firefighters on the recognition of the volunteer category of firefighter. We had lengthy discussions and consultations both here and in Toronto with those who actually perform the duties -- just as your secretary is really the one who knows what's going on, not the upper echelons or the bosses, so you talk with the actual people who do the job -- in trying to determine what kind of training and staff development volunteers would require to ensure quality service and how the work of volunteers could enhance the work done by the full-time, professional firefighters.

At that time and still today, volunteers were the norm in small communities -- we have them here in Sudbury -- but new legislation would enact their roles and the training and development aspects of the volunteer force would be emphasized. In that way, it was felt that the smaller communities across Ontario would more nearly have the similar kinds of services that larger urban centres get.

Strong considerations were aimed at the safety factor, not only for the community but also for the very firefighters themselves. It just makes good sense to have trained people handling all the ramifications of fire, without worrying about whether someone would get injured due to inexperience or lack of training.

For Bill 84 to now consider allowing part-time people to fight a blaze is quite mind-boggling. Like anything else in this world, diluting expertise does not make something better when it comes to skill, knowhow and knowledge necessary in making the myriad kinds of decisions one is called upon to make in the area of firefighting. I never realized, truthfully, how complicated firefighting was and the kinds of knowledge one would have to have to do that job. Nor is it a job I feel I would be capable of doing, I want you to know.

I want to know, I personally as a community person in this city and anywhere else that I choose to live, with certainty and not just a degree of certainty -- I want to know for sure that if my office or my home or my parents' home or my neighbour's home is on fire or smoking, the people who respond to it know how fire moves, what walls to look at etc, and put it out so that it doesn't reignite. I want to know that. I don't want to have to wonder whether they have the requisite training or whether they have been pulled off a part-time police job or whatever to come and save my house. This argument is not phenomenally intellectual but just makes good, basic, common sense.

While in government, we were very instrumental in finally getting defibrillating equipment on fire vehicles. It took us a long time. It was a long time coming and a lot of conversation and consultation. Training on defibrillation followed that. It has been slow going, but it is being done. It meant that response time for heart victims was only a fire call away.

On a personal note, both my parents have now passed away. Both of them had heart problems and in both instances we had occasion to use the Valley East fire department, rather than the Sudbury fire department, because they're just a mile up the road. It's just nice to know, and you feel more certain and safe and secure that they are so close. I would like to know too that the people at those stations have the defibrillation training that's required. People in the community didn't have to wait for an ambulance if the ambulance was in another zone. I think that's important for the people.

Part-timers are just not going to be able to fulfil that need, in my view. Part-time workers, as we can see clearly in many other areas of work, do not receive the same kind of extensive training, nor do they have the opportunity to utilize what training they do receive to the same degree that the professional does. You can think of it in anything if they're only on on a part-time basis and only have so many hours per week. Employers, when they do provide training, try to provide it within the hours that they're working and not have to pay extra. You can see that if we allow this now and open the door to this, eventually all of our firefighters will be part-time in the not-too-distant future. I have real concerns that the skills needed for that service will not be as readily available with a part-time brigade.

We are soon going to be entering the 2lst century, yet we seem to be reverting to a Little House on the Prairie mentality as to how our community will be served. In truth, if all our communities were the size of Walnut Grove, this idea of part-timers might work given the technological advances since that time. But Sudbury and other communities like us are not the size of Britt. Nor should the people of Ontario be expected to accept, at the behest of any government, a regression of fire service for their homes and families. At the very least, in the area of fire protection, leave it as it is.

In the concept of part-time firefighters I see the writing on the wall that those individuals would be a part-time firefighter and a part-time other government worker, where training for both jobs would be required. This possibility does not bode well either for the deliverers of the service or for the recipients. In other jurisdictions where the concept of part-timers has been attempted, the record is abysmal, and this leads me to my second concern.

Philosophically, given my political stripe, I don't believe in privatization of a lot of the services that governments provide, and I see some of the changes in Bill 84 as clearing the path to an American version of privatization. I don't want to be an American. I've chosen to live here. I've had the opportunity to work in the States and have chosen not to do that. Nor do I want the lifestyle associated with the way Americans deliver services, be it health services, insurance coverage, education or firefighting.

I highly recommend that all of you read a book called Reinventing Government: How the Entrepreneurial Spirit is Transforming the Public Sector by David Osborne and Ted Gaebler. It's quite good actually. I've recommended it as must reading for a lot of people because I think the time of some of the concepts has come. It talks directly to the issue of privatizing government services. All of it is very thought-provoking and some of the ideas are definitely worth looking at. However, it also talks about some of the problems that ensued following the implementation of these numerous experiments. It's all across the States, through all different-sized communities, and firefighting is actually discussed in a number of the examples. So I would strongly urge you to get a copy and read it.

It's an unfortunate thing to say but when the bottom-line profit margin is the prime consideration in the delivery of services such as firefighting, it is things such as cost of training, equipment maintenance, response time etc that get lost in the shuffle. It's not as if you can go to another store if you don't like the service; in firefighting you take what you get. Besides which, you've lost your worldly possessions in the meantime.

1410

With all of the downloading on to the municipalities presently being done and being considered, it only makes sense that municipal politicians, who will be fewer in number, are going to try and make their plate more manageable by downloading to the private sector. Although Bill 84 does not specifically talk about privatization per se, it is more than a real possibility.

I think it's very likely that if this bill is passed, it's only a matter of time before private companies will be vying to provide fire services. Municipal governments will be seriously looking at it, as they're doing with bus transportation right now. The consequence to the government in the future is major litigation. It is no coincidence that Americans are listed as number one as the most litigious country in the world, given how they handle the delivery of what I consider government services.

As I conclude, I want to make clear that parts of the bill relating to fire prevention aspects are very positive. It is not the entire bill that is of concern to me. It's in the areas of safety and how my home and your home will be protected, and it is there that I ask you to reconsider the language in the bill. I thank you for your time.

Mr Ramsay: Nice to see you again, Sharon. I appreciate your reference to David Osborne's book because I read that a few years back too, and I agree with you, it's very thought-provoking, and you're right, I think there are some ideas in there that are worth looking at. Like you, I certainly draw the line at public health and security services that I think have to be retained by the public sector.

I think the reason is, for any sort of government-public service function, that the private sector rationale is to do well for the company. That's why they're there and that's a great intention and so they should. The public sector deliverer, especially in safety and security matters, is there to do good, to do the public good. Not only is that the mandate, but also through that is the direct accountability, through the local council, that they are there, mandated to do that for the people that elected that council. I think that's very important and I believe there should be a restriction in this bill so that fire services and police services are not privatized.

Ms Murdock: I think that would be a very smart idea, actually.

Mr Bisson: Thank you very much, Sharon, for your presentation. You have a unique perspective on this because not only are you a former legislator but you're also, by trade and by education, a lawyer, plus you were the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Labour dealing with labour legislation. I've heard a couple of people make reference at this committee about how part IX and other sections of the act that deal especially with the labour relations side of things are going to lead to more litigation. Can you expand on that to some degree?

Ms Murdock: I think actually, having listened to Marc Leduc, the presenter before me, he probably explained it far better than I in one minute could possibly answer. But yes, the concept of successor rights and amalgamation, as he stated, I think would be of real concern if the municipalities are handed this.

Like I said, you're putting restrictions on the number of local politicians, you're giving them more work to do that the province used to do. You're limiting salaries for that work that they're going to do, and they're just not going to be able to function. They're not going to be able to do that work, so they're going to be looking for ways of joining things together, getting private companies to look after it for them, and I can see where there is going to be severe labour strife if a lot of these things go through.

The Vice-Chair: Ms Murdock, we have to move on.

Mr Carr: Unfortunately, Sharon, I don't get to ask a question but I just wanted to thank you for coming out. As a matter of fact, Pat and I were talking on the way up, we didn't know you were coming here. We had some good recollections of some of the stories of down there.

Ms Murdock: I'm watching the House now with great interest.

Mr Carr: And you wish you were not there. So good luck. Mrs Marland did have a question. Thanks for coming out.

Mrs Marland: You're watching the House right now with no envy at all, I'm sure. That's why we all have bags under our eyes.

Sharon, you do have a lot of experience. What I wanted to ask you, I don't know what you're referring to when you're saying "fewer politicians" in terms of municipal politicians.

Ms Murdock: I know that the present government is asking for a lot of the areas to look at -- we're regional government here -- regional versus local municipality.

Mrs Marland: Does regional look after the fire department?

Ms Murdock: Yes.

Mrs Marland: Oh, it does. It doesn't in our area.

Ms Murdock: I also know that a lot of the municipalities are looking at joining services because of the downloading situation, and they're looking at reducing the number of politicians, just as you're reducing the number of trustees and school boards and so on.

Mrs Marland: And MPPs.

Ms Murdock: And MPPs. Yes, well, that's a mistake too, but we won't get into that one. So that it's --

The Vice-Chair: Ms Murdock, I'm sorry, we do have to move on. Our time has expired. Thank you very much for your presentation.

Ms Murdock: Nice to see all of you.

RON ROSS

The Vice-Chair: The next presenter is Mr Ron Ross, please. Good afternoon, sir.

Mr Ron Ross: I would like to begin by thanking the committee for the opportunity to speak about this bill. I stand before this committee as a citizen who is interested in any legislation that may affect me, my community or my province.

From concerns expressed by some parties involved, this bill certainly piqued my attention. News articles warned that this legislation may endanger lives. It is at this time that I decided to examine this issue and the bill more closely. I reviewed different information and different views. I also reviewed different media accounts. I also obtained the proposed Fire Protection and Prevention Act. In addition, I received some material from the Solicitor General's office. I also had the opportunity to speak with a fire chief of Sudbury and the president of the firefighters' union along with other firefighters. I reviewed all the information I gathered and it is with this background that I've formed these opinions.

It seems the government's objectives for this bill are clear. The government wanted to improve public safety, streamline services and reduce costs. I'm certain these are worthy objectives, objectives that can be agreed on by both proponents and opponents of this bill. It is with these objectives that I have formed the criteria that I used and that I think all concerned should use to evaluate this piece of legislation.

In my research I have identified what I consider important issues within the proposed bill that have direct effect on this community and other communities in the province.

There are three main sections to this bill that I would like to discuss today. First, the bill streamlines the fire protection industry by consolidating nine old and in many cases defunct statutes. As an example, the Egress from Public Buildings Act has been irrelevant since 1980. In fact, this is the first time in nearly 50 years that issues surrounding fire services are seriously being dealt with. I think it's about time. Discussions with all parties concerned have transpired for many years and through different terms of governments. I applaud this government for its perseverance and determination that previous governments lacked in pursuance of this type of legislation.

The second section of this bill I would like to discuss is mandatory public education. In my research I discovered that 80% of fires are accidental and could have been avoided with greater fire prevention and public education. Fire prevention is the most effective way of reducing loss of life and property due to fire, especially in small communities. Over 30 coroner's juries concur with these facts and have called for a more coordinated approach to fire safety and fire protection.

In the past 25 years, fire deaths have dropped by 60% due to an increase in fire prevention and public education. I understand that fire prevention and public education are already practised in Sudbury and in most municipalities in this province, but fire prevention and public education, being so integral to a major decrease in fire deaths, should definitely be incorporated and even mandated into law. We must remember that being proactive is always better than being reactive.

1420

Next I would like to discuss the concerns that some parties involved have with this bill, that the bill will leave the door open for municipalities, and in turn fire departments, to hire part-time firefighters. When I first investigated this area, it seemed strange that there was no part-time help available or even acceptable by law. Some opponents to this bill cite that part-time firefighters would not be as good as full-time firefighters and that this will endanger lives.

I think that's a statement that is almost an insult to all volunteer firefighters past and present who have actually founded fire protection in this province. I agree that training and experience are ingredients that make a good firefighter and I'm confident that part-time firefighters will receive great training, and experience will come in time, as it does with all firefighters.

The part-time position may be considered the first part of a graduating system that will see a new firefighter move up the ranks and become a first-class firefighter. It would seem that opponents of this section, namely, the firefighters, may indeed be primarily concerned with their own jobs.

Discussion with the fire chief of Sudbury outlined what the benefits of part-time firefighters would accomplish in this region. Presently, any firefighters on short-term leave, long-term leave or even on vacation time need to be replaced by a full-time firefighter at a cost of time and a half. Hiring a part-time firefighter to handle these shifts in personnel could greatly realize savings without cutting manpower. This section would definitely reduce the costs and could actually improve public safety, and therefore fit into the government's objectives.

In conclusion, I believe this act is a sound piece of legislation that meets all its objectives and lays the framework for fire services in this province to fulfil the needs of the communities in which they serve.

Mr Bisson: Thank you very much. First of all, congratulations for having come forward. You've obviously demonstrated an interest in the issue. I don't necessarily agree with your point of view, but that's your point of view and I think you have every right to present that.

Part of what you said I agree with and I think there's nobody who's arguing -- anyway, I haven't heard firefighters, fire chiefs, municipalities or opposition members talk about being opposed to the fire prevention and education components of the bill. Wherein lies the problem is the other parts of the bill that deal with the introduction of part-timers and the privatization issue. You categorize that as basically like politics of self-interest. Is that clearly how you see this, as just firefighters worried about their jobs and we shouldn't listen, they're just whining anyway? Is that what you're saying?

Mr Ross: I think firefighters have some legitimate concerns. I don't believe their concerns are well founded. I don't think what they foresee in the future will eventually happen.

Mr Bisson: The problem is it's not just firefighters. I've heard chambers of commerce, business people, apartment building owners, people from a multitude of different walks of life come forward and say, "We like part of the bill that deals with education and fire protection because we think that's a step in the right direction," but when it comes to the other side of it, there are some real concerns.

I thought there was a most excellent presentation this morning from two firefighters who demonstrated by way of video in their presentation a rescue in which they were somewhat successful, unfortunately not totally successful but successful in being able to save the life of a young person, the point being made is that unless you've got people working together, understanding --

The Vice-Chair: Mr Bisson, we have to move on. Sorry about that. Moving over to Mrs Marland, two minutes.

Mrs Marland: Mr Ross, I too would like to commend you, because you are the first, if I may say with respect, younger person, and you've obviously done a lot of homework. It's great that you're interested and that it mattered to you enough to do that research.

There is an example I would like to give you, coming from admittedly a large municipality of almost 600,000 people: In Mississauga we have full-time firefighters who live in rural communities, and obviously there are lots of other densely urban areas where the firefighters also choose, probably very wisely, to go home to a rural or less urban community. Those full-time firefighters go home to those rural communities where they are protected in a lot of cases by volunteers -- never mind part-time, but volunteer firefighters -- yet they feel they're safe to be living in a community where it isn't a fully manned, full-time force.

I'm wondering if, in your research, you came across any discussion of the risks being greater with volunteer forces, knowing how many volunteer forces exist around the province and the protection those people enjoy, including full-time firefighters who choose to reside there.

Mr Ross: I don't believe I stumbled upon any discussion, but when comparing volunteer firefighters and part-time firefighters, I believe they get all the same training as full-time firefighters, so I don't see that as a big problem.

Mrs Marland: It's interesting that the full-time firefighters don't see it as a problem to live in those communities either.

Mr Ramsay: Ron, I also want to salute you for coming out. It's good for a young person as yourself to get involved in things like this. I just feel, though, when you do your research like that, that you need to be careful not to confuse between volunteer fire departments that serve our smaller communities. I live in one, Margaret, and as a matter of fact we didn't have fire protection for years and finally --

Mrs Marland: And do you feel safe?

Mr Ramsay: As safe as I can, but I wish we could afford a full-time professional fire department.

Mrs Marland: You wouldn't live there if you didn't feel safe.

Mr Ramsay: But it's important not to confuse the issue of volunteers and working in a low-density municipality and doing what they can there with part-timers entering as potential teammates in emergency situations in high-density urban centres with full-time professional firefighters. There's a very different degree of alertness and training that's required. Professional firefighters, who sometimes are out three or four times a shift, get into kind of a zone that this is their job.

They do it every day. They don't have to leave work. They don't have to do some of their training in the evening after a heavy day at the plant or the mine. This training is there, as one firefighter said, every shift. They're always having to do some pre-fire planning to try to keep up to speed with all the myriad of changes that are out there today and the chemicals they have to do. While volunteers do a great job, there's no way they've got the training, the expertise and the skill level as honed as somebody who does it every day on a professional level.

The concern I have for the people of Sudbury or any other centre that has a full-time professional firefighting squad is that I don't think public safety should be jeopardized because we are worried about budgets and deficits. There are some things that we have to say, that regardless of the cost of the service, it is of the utmost importance for the people of Sudbury to have a first-rate professional firefighting squad so we can prevent as many deaths as we can.

You mention here that 80% of fires can be prevented, and with better fire prevention maybe we can do a better job on the 80%, but still there are those 20% that we all agree for sure are going to happen anyway. We always have fire, unfortunately we always will, and we need a first-class professional firefighting squad to go out there and protect all of us.

Mr Ross: When I was considering the idea of part-timers -- first of all, I agree that we should have a core of professional firefighters who are experienced -- but considering part-time to full-time, at one point every firefighter is inexperienced, and they become experienced by working on the job. I thought a good idea would be -- maybe this committee could look at this -- a graduating type of approach, where a firefighter comes in as a part-timer, moves into full-time and then becomes a first-class firefighter. That's just the way I looked at this issue.

Mr Ramsay: You see, it's important to have the day-to-day experience, to work every day with them, to get that experience.

The Vice-Chair: Mr Ramsay, I'm sorry, we're out of time. Mr Ross, on behalf of the committee, thank you very much for your presentation.

1430

KEN FRASER

The Vice-Chair: Our next presenter is Mr Ken Fraser. Are you Mr Fraser or Mr Newman?

Mr Mike Newman: I'm Mr Newman.

The Vice-Chair: Apparently, just for the committee members, in my understanding Mr Fraser is ill, and Mr Newman will be reading his deputation on his behalf. Am I right?

Mr Newman: That's correct, sir.

The Vice-Chair: You can begin any time, sir.

Mr Newman: Good afternoon, committee members. Like I say, Mr Fraser fell ill and was not able to attend, although he did want to discuss with you in great length, I know, Bill 84, which is before the House right now. He did, however, send this short letter. It's not going to take 15 minutes, I can guarantee you, but he does make his feelings known on the situation.

"My name is Ken Fraser. I am now retired after serving 40 years in the fire service, first with the Canadian air force, and then I was hired by the North Bay fire department. I retired as a captain in fire suppression in 1990.

"I now live in a condominium complex in North Bay that primarily houses seniors. Since moving into this condominium I have become a member of the board of directors. I have taken on the responsibility of coordinating, with the help of the fire department, an evacuation and overall fire plan for the building.

"Of the 56 units in our building, 50 house senior citizens. We have several wheelchair-bound members living on the third and fourth floors. Others requiring various walking aids are found in units throughout the complex.

"I and the entire board of directors at the Woodlands II complex became deeply concerned after hearing of the proposed changes that will affect our fire department under Bill 84.

"For everyone fire is a scary thought. But once you become a senior, especially one living in a multiple-storey building, the thought of fire and being trapped becomes deadly. This government has to realize that with an aging population in Ontario, emergency services need to be enhanced, not cut back.

"From my 40 years' experience as a firefighter I can assure you I understand how having part-timers and less than minimum full-time manning of fire trucks will erode fire department effectiveness. It takes manpower to fight fires and perform rescue safely and effectively, and you need that manpower fast, not whenever they can make it in.

"Full-time firefighters provide a valuable service in North Bay and the rest of Ontario that cannot be mea-sured in dollars and cents. We did not vote for this kind of government policy or for a government that puts saving money ahead of saving lives.

"I urge this government to rethink parts of Bill 84 that will hurt the way full-time firefighters work. We pay a lot of taxes in Ontario and we expect quality service, full-time service, not part-time.

"Bill 84 is fundamentally wrong. Change it and consult the firefighters first.

"Sincerely, Ken Fraser."

The Vice-Chair: Thank you, Mr Newman. There is some time left. If you have any thoughts of your own that you might like to add, you're certainly more than welcome to add them.

Mr Newman: I'm not prepared to do anything more than read his letter.

The Vice-Chair: Understood. I just thought we'd give you the option.

Mr Newman: Thank you very much.

The Vice-Chair: Thank you very much, sir.

Mrs Marland: May I just say something?

The Vice-Chair: Briefly, go ahead.

Mrs Marland: I would like, Mr Newman, for you to convey to Mr Fraser that we too share the concerns about fire protection for everyone, but particularly I want to refer to the example he gave about seniors and people with immobility in high-rise buildings, because those are a special burden for fire departments as they exist. Although this bill doesn't deal with building code changes, if I'm correct having read it, one of the building code changes that I personally would like to see, which I think would address Mr Fraser's concern, is that we have mandatory sprinklers in high-rise buildings, seniors' buildings and retirement homes.

I'm from Mississauga, and we had the tragedy in the Meadowcroft retirement home. Frankly, if that building had been sprinklered, we wouldn't have had the tragedy. It just wouldn't have existed. We would have still had the fire start, but the sprinklers would have been the solution.

We as a government are looking at making sprinklers mandatory, because in the long run they'll be cheaper for new buildings than building in standpipe systems and certain other building code requirements that exist today, supposedly to stop the spread of fire. I feel very strongly about the points Mr Fraser has made, and I appreciate hearing his letter.

The Vice-Chair: In fairness, Mr Ramsay would like to make a couple of comments.

Mr Ramsay: I also have some thoughts you could pass on to Mr Fraser, and I want to thank you for doing that for him, because I know it's not easy to come up before a committee such as this and make a presentation. I thank you for that. It follows along the line of the member for Mississauga South, who just spoke.

It would seem to me that if the Harris government was really concerned about fire safety, they would make those amendments that Mrs Marland talks about to the fire code and make the changes that coroners' juries that have studied deaths by fire in Ontario have recommended year after year after year. Those are the things that really could save people's lives, rather than just attacking firefighters, how they work, and attacking their ability to negotiate their working conditions. This is more about labour law than it is about fire safety. I think there are a lot of good things out there that we could incorporate, and hopefully, working with all the members, we can do that.

Mr Newman: Certainly I'll pass that on.

Mrs Marland: I just have a point of information for the committee.

The Vice-Chair: Okay. One moment, please. Mr Newman, thank you very much for your presentation on behalf of Mr Fraser.

Our next presenter will be Linda Gomes.

Mrs Marland, you had a point of information.

Mrs Marland: Yes. Just as Ms Gomes is coming up, I think it's important to tell the committee members who don't know that the government is bringing in those changes to the building code that I just addressed, and others. There are apparently something like 80-odd recommendations from the fire chiefs and the firefighters themselves, and those changes are going to be made. It's kind of interesting, because they're very straightforward changes that the two previous governments could have made had they chosen to as well, but didn't.

The Vice-Chair: Thank you, Mrs Marland. We're going to move on to our presentation.

LINDA GOMES

The Vice-Chair: Miss Gomes, you'll have 15 minutes for your presentation. You can begin any time.

Miss Linda Gomes: Mr Chairman, members of the standing committee and members of the public, thank you for this opportunity to address you on the issue of Bill 84. My name is Linda Gomes, and I am the current vice-president internal of the student union at Nipissing University in North Bay.

As an elected student representative, I believe in what I work towards and have faith in our student government. My job as a representative of students is much like yours in representing the people of Ontario. I feel we have a purpose, and it's our duty as leaders to ensure that the needs of those we represent are met within the community.

Student politics, however, is very complicated within itself. There are many issues at hand and there's often much red tape involved with these issues, very much like what you are trying to accomplish with this bill. Thus, it's easy for us to sometimes lose sight of what our main purpose is -- that is, for me, to protect student rights; and in your case the rights of citizens -- and somehow fall into other issues and routines and slowly distort our priorities.

I must admit I have little experience with fire prevention issues and do not claim to be an expert on Bill 84, but my concern as a student leader is for public safety, and my contention is the basic definition of a firefighter and how fire protection and prevention will operate if Bill 84 is in place.

In the past three years at Nipissing University I've lived in residence. Residence at Nipissing means 87 houses, six students per house, perched on the top of a hill in North Bay. It's a beautiful place to live, but it's also in a precarious location. For instance, during the winter, classes are often cancelled because vehicles can't even traverse the hill. Can you image if we had a fire? Now, let's just say some firefighters are able to overcome the obstacle of the weather and make it up the hill. In this case we need quick response, and that to me means a full-time firefighter. When firefighters arrive, students want the best trained, best equipped, and to me, that also means having full-time firefighters.

1440

The second issue that concerns students and that may arise from Bill 84 is dealt with in subsection 41(1), the redefinition of an employer of a firefighter. It redefines the employer of firefighters from the principle that municipalities were the only employers to a situation to include persons and organizations which could become the employer, which means privatization.

Now, for students isolated on the top of a hill, this may be scary. What was once considered a high standard of public safety may be reduced to a business where profit would be a major concern. Some things should not be controlled by the almighty dollar. Safety is one of those things.

In closing, I think we've lost sight of what it means to be a firefighter. We cannot afford to reduce the standard of protection as demonstrated through speed and teamwork. We depend on this.

Subsection 43(10) gives me the perception that we may at some time feel the need to operate a fire protection organization by calling in, hopefully, adequately trained individuals to miraculously come together as a team and attack a situation where speed and teamwork are vital. This to me is somewhat of an oxymoron.

The bill appears to allow the opportunity for an employer to have a staff of both full- and part-time firefighters, which would in turn allow for fire stations to be staffed at different levels. Since the term "major emergency" is quite ambiguous, an employer would have the flexibility to recall firefighters in various situations.

Ladies and gentlemen, I don't pay taxes, but it won't be long before I and other students are part of the labour force and contributing economically to society. I can assure you that public safety is something we would be happy to contribute our tax dollars towards and is something we do not want to see jeopardized.

Thank you for giving me this time to speak, and good luck in your deliberations.

The Vice-Chair: Thank you for your presentation. We have about three minutes per caucus.

Mr Ramsay: Thank you for your presentation. You must be almost around exam time now.

Ms Gomes: I am actually in the middle of exams.

Mr Ramsay: Well, good luck on your university career. Thank you for coming, and I appreciate the perspective from a student leader. I think that's very important and makes an important contribution to the committee.

I agree with you. What you're saying is that it's important to have full-time emergency services. You make a good point that this type of service really shouldn't be run as a business. It sounds very attractive: "Well, if we just run everything like a business, boy, everything will be just so efficient. That would be great, and we could cut all taxes." But it's like buying insurance, having those firefighters at the firehall. Sure, it might be nice to say, "Well, gee, maybe they could be off patrolling a neighbourhood as a community police officer or something," but that's not going to give us the insurance when the fire breaks out. While that may be attractive at first glance, especially to a municipal council that's really under fire from the provincial government and has a big reduction of revenue resources, it's just not practical in the real world where a fire can break out at any moment.

Thank God we have those professionals there, ready to go at a moment's notice. As you probably have heard from some of these presentations, the response time in Ontario is very, very impressive, in some cases three and four minutes. An entire fire squad is at the scene of a fire and extinguishing it very, very early and saving lives.

I agree with you, and thank you for making the presentation, and again, good luck with your exams.

The Vice-Chair: Thank you, Mr Ramsay. Seeing no one from the NDP caucus, we'll move to the government side.

Mr Carr: We're both trying to be kind and ask the other one if they want to take it, so I'll take it. Thank you very much for your presentation. I appreciate it.

You mentioned section 41 of part IX regarding the definition. Is there anything you'd like to see in that definition? Is there any idea of how you'd like to see that section worded? You've got some concerns. Is there anything you could suggest, how you'd like to see that particular section worded to alleviate some of those concerns?

Miss Gomes: You mean the definition of firefighter exactly?

Mr Carr: Yes.

Miss Gomes: Probably I don't really have any suggestions, but I think we're just steering away and making it a larger definition when it's very simple. I'm not really sure, but I just feel that in the bill they're steering away to include people who aren't as qualified as we've thought firefighters to be, and as experienced and with the proper training.

Mr Carr: Actually this doesn't have anything to do with the bill, but I was curious as to what you are taking at school.

Miss Gomes: Psychology.

Mr Carr: Well, good luck. We could use a couple of them around here. Good luck with your exams. I'm sure you'll do very well and hopefully you'll have a great future. I guess Mrs Marland has a question.

Mrs Marland: No, I don't have a question, but I wanted to say to you the same thing that I said to Ron Ross, that I really am impressed that you're here, and especially if you're in the middle of your exams. It's wonderful to think that the future of our province is going to be in the hands of young people like you and Mr Ross. It's really commendable that you've made the effort to research the bill and write your presentation, which you made in a very excellent way. No wonder you're president.

Miss Gomes: Vice-president.

Mrs Marland: Vice-president.

Mr Carr: President next year.

Mrs Marland: Yes. But no wonder that you're already in a leadership role, and congratulations for that.

The Vice-Chair: Miss Gomes, thank you very much for your presentation.

NORTH BAY PROFESSIONAL FIRE FIGHTERS ASSOCIATION

The Vice-Chair: The next presenter would be Mr Grant Love, North Bay Professional Fire Fighters Association. Good afternoon, sir.

Mr Grant Love: Thank you. Mr Chairman, members of the standing committee, OFM staff and members of the public: My name is Grant Love and I am here today as president of the North Bay Professional Fire Fighters Association.

We have always encouraged and advocated the advancement of fire protection and public education. However, despite all the increases in prevention and education, emergencies from fires, vehicle accidents, hazardous materials spills, medical trauma and ice/water rescues, just to name a few, will continue to be realities and require quick, effective response to save lives.

The North Bay fire department and the firefighters have been providing dedicated service to the citizens of North Bay for more than 104 years. The implementation of Bill 84 threatens our ability to deliver the same professional service in the future.

Probably the greatest asset professional firefighters have while performing during life-threatening situations is the aspect of teamwork. This is built on from the first day a new recruit walks through the door. Every member, once basic training with the training division has been completed, is assigned to a platoon, and they continue and in effect become an extended family to that person when they're on the platoon. Acceptance is based on performance and attitude and is gained from living and working under stressful situations with the rest of the team. Full-time staff ensures that the team is cohesive and they always work well and try to help each other.

In existing legislation, the fire chief can call in off-duty firefighters to respond to an emergency only when there is a fire, flood or other disaster which requires the service of every full-time firefighter. Bill 84 would permit the employer to call in off-duty firefighters to respond to any major emergency, and this would make it easier for an employer to call in off-duty firefighters to respond to any call. This encourages employers to set lower on-duty staffing levels and supplement its department with less-trained, part-time municipal employees on a call-in basis.

The situation created by this call-in provision will be dangerous, not only to the full-time firefighters and the part-timers who may be coming in, but also to the public, who will be getting less service than they currently expect and are currently paying for. We see no problem with the existing legislation, as it does allow for what we have done in North Bay. We have negotiated a call-in procedure where they can call in with flexibility as to what is happening.

In recent years the North Bay fire department has been the subject of three studies. These studies have always been at the request of the city council. They were done by the Underwriters of Canada, the Ontario fire marshal's office and a private consulting firm, Donald Baird and Associates. In none of these studies was it ever mentioned that the citizens in North Bay were overprotected by their fire department. In fact, all of the studies were critical of our staffing levels at best.

To quote from the Ontario fire marshal's report handed down in May 1991: "North Bay minimum manning for vehicles must be four to each pumper, including an officer, two to the rescue truck and at least a driver assigned to every other piece of in-service apparatus." The fire marshal has also concluded that anything less than a four-person pump crew cannot handle interior fire attack or rescue operations or be expected to establish a water supply from a hydrant in a reasonable time.

Studies from Ohio State University and the Providence, Rhode Island fire department found that firefighters' injuries decrease 43% to 46% by having four-member crews over three.

1450

The current language in Bill 84 encourages less than safe minimum standards for fire safety, standards that are endorsed by the National Fire Protection Association, the Ontario fire marshal and other professional fire protection agencies. We are also urging the government to listen to us, the people who currently deliver fire protection and rescue services in Ontario, to take a moment and to look at the whole idea of privatization of the fire service, something this bill seems to endorse or at least opens the door to. Private firefighting companies are very rare, and why is this? Because it doesn't work.

Rural/Metro of Scottsdale, Arizona is one of the most known private fire companies. Without getting into dozens of facts and figures, as we're sure you've already heard them or they've already been put before you, we will only say that after their poor record, it speaks for itself.

During a recent petition drive in North Bay, we discussed with the public the possibility of their fire department under Bill 84 and also how privatization is a very real concern. They spoke out with more than 8,500 signatures and were firmly against privatizing any emergency service in our city. In fact, for the second time in two years they told us they did not want to see anything less than they presently receive now.

Fire fighting for profit risks both firefighter and public safety. As you've heard before, a fire doubles in intensity with every passing minute, and coroners' inquests routinely identify response time as a key factor in saving lives. The reason most fires in North Bay do not provide newsworthy damage is that we have an average response time of four-and-a-half minutes, which allows us to extinguish fires quickly.

During a meeting on November 22, 1996, with our member of provincial parliament, Mr Mike Harris, we discussed various parts of Bill 84. When we asked about part IX and its intent, he responded, "There's no doubt about it: Part IX is put in to allow municipalities a way to save money." In our view, this is in light of the massive transfer payment cuts to municipalities, and now the government needs to provide them with easy solutions. If in fact any part of Bill 84 is a financial offering for the municipalities to recoup some of the lost income from transfer payments and other areas, and not the poorly disguised "act to promote fire prevention and public safety in Ontario," as is touted, we are very disappointed.

Mr Harris was also surprised to hear that certain items expressed under part IX would no longer be able to be negotiated between the parties.

We, as professional firefighters and taxpayers in Ontario, understand that the public purse is not a bottomless pit. We cannot understand the backward approach to fiscal restructuring pursued by part of this bill, especially when safety is not promoted first. Full-time firefighters were never consulted, as promised, about possible changes to the act.

The question is, will money be saved by downgrading fire protection services? After increased fire losses, user fees, insurance premium hikes, law suits and unfortunately loss of human life, we don't think it will.

In August 1993, the North Bay fire department responded to a call to a fire. This was in a fifth floor apartment. When the equipment arrived, the aerial operator immediately put up the ladder to assist in the rescue. If all the equipment had not been able to respond together, the following letter, which we received to present to the committee, would not be here now.

"Late one night in August 1993, fire broke out in my fifth floor apartment on Lakeshore Drive in North Bay where my family lived. Both my husband and I were out, but our two children Ryan, who's now 7, and Kassie, who's now 5, were at home with my niece Tina. Before they knew what was going on, they were all trapped inside this raging inferno. I cannot tell you what these circumstances mean to a mother. I don't believe either of my children or my niece would be here today if it wasn't for the dedication, commitment and fast reaction of local firefighters.

"Reaction time was everything in this case. Firefighters hardly waited for their trucks to stop before they were inside our burning apartment. The first arriving truck crew quickly scaled the stairs to the fifth floor, where they encountered heavy smoke. Upon finding the involved apartment they quickly doused the flames in the living room area and went to my children's screams. Finding the first child, they quickly brought him to safety. Upon re-entering and searching the apartment, it was discovered that arriving crews had set up the aerial and gained access to our fifth floor apartment and rescued my other child and my niece Tina.

"Without the firefighters' quick response they would have been helpless, as is often the case in a devastating fire. It wasn't just first arriving heroic firefighters, it was the coordination by the entire response team at the scene, combating the fire and the search and rescue of people trapped inside the building. My family and I had lost everything we owned at the time, but our children and niece are here with us today. Until your family is the victim of fire, and I hope they never are, you don't know how important it is to have full-time professional firefighters on the scene in the quickest time possible.

"When I heard what was being proposed in Bill 84, I had to write this letter to tell you how important quality fire service is. We literally owe our lives to these men. We can't allow people to perish because of the lower service that would result from Bill 84.

"Sincerely,

"Thalina Dool."

Good governments listen as well as act. We are asking you to make some reasoned amendments to protect the safety of our community. Please stand up for public safety by going back and telling the government that Bill 84 has some serious problems. However well intentioned Bill 84 may have been, part of it has a negative effect on public safety. Tell the government how to fix the problems we all know are there. Don't add a bureaucracy to firefighting, don't encourage the use of call-ins, don't encourage the use of part-time firefighters or private fire service, and don't approve a bill that disrupts almost every aspect of the firefighters associations, for no reason.

The North Bay firefighters urge the committee to listen to front-line firefighters like us and tell the government public safety is too important to ignore. Make the changes that are needed and fix the bill. On behalf of the North Bay professional firefighters, I want to thank the committee for the opportunity of providing input into Bill 84. We appreciate the work of this committee and your concern on the public's safety. It is definitely not an easy job when dealing with changes to public safety in time of restraint, and we thank you for doing it.

The Vice-Chair: Thank you, Mr Love. Mr Bisson, one minute.

Mr Bisson: In the minute that I have, your last comment that you made, that it was important that governments listen as well as act, I think is a point well taken. In fact, there is, as we speak, a filibuster happening at the Legislature which is all about that whole issue of trying to get this government to finally listen to some of the people in this province about some of the things that people are upset with.

I'd be really interested in getting some of the information you have in regard to the meeting you had with Harris, because I think that's quite an admission on the part of the Premier to have said, contrary to the Solicitor General, that this will result in the ability of municipalities to lessen fire services. Is that indeed what he said?

Mr Love: What he told us was, there was no doubt about it, the fact that part IX was definitely made to save the municipalities money. When we asked him about the safety aspect, he said he didn't know how that would change.

Mr Carr: Thank you very much for your presentation. There isn't much time in one minute. It certainly is difficult now in the public sector, not only in your area -- I think Randy from the Sault said he'd already had five members laid off. It's tough with nurses. We've got federal employees being laid off. There is no doubt it is a very difficult time. You mentioned that you had some problems already, even before this bill passed, that you're dealing with on the number of men on the trucks and so on.

As you know, some areas have done well, others have had some concern. There isn't much time, but is there any way you can expand on some of the problems you're having right now, even before this bill passes?

Mr Love: We've been able to build up, through the chief and through council, to where we are now, which is a reasonable staffing level. We have four to a pump, two to the rescue, one for the aerial, but they had to work at it. In fact, council keeps asking for studies every couple of years to try and show that we should be able to cut back. Our concerns are, what are essential services when you're comparing that some members of the council say it could be an arena or a firehall we have to close type of thing?

Mr Ramsay: Welcome, Mr Love. I'd like to follow up on that line of questioning, referring to what the fire marshal said in his report in regard to the manning of a pumper using four firefighters and that this bill could certainly allow a lesser manning of a vehicle like that. Has anything changed since 1991 that would allow a fire department to safely and effectively lower the manning of a pumper from four to less men or women on there?

Mr Love: I don't believe so. In fact, the last study that was just done, which was completed in the last year and a half, sort of congratulated and said: "You're at where you are now. The minimum should be kept at four."

Mr Ramsay: What you're saying is that there's still pressure from the council, though, to try to reduce that load if they can.

Mr Love: Definitely.

The Vice-Chair: Mr Love, on behalf of the committee, thank you for your presentation.

1500

LYNNE BENNETT

The Vice-Chair: The next presenter is Ms Lynne Bennett, please. Good afternoon. You'll have 15 minutes for your presentation. You can begin any time.

Mrs Lynne Bennett: I won't take 15 minutes of your time. Mr Chair, members of the committee, my name is Lynne Bennett. I have been a resident of North Bay for 14 years and I have been a city councillor for the past 12 years. I am currently the deputy mayor and chair of the budget committee. While I'm not here today representing the views of council -- actually I wish I was -- my municipal experience is the context for my remarks. I thank the committee for this opportunity to speak to Bill 84.

I'm here today to show my personal support for North Bay firefighters in their efforts to keep our community safe. They have good reason to be concerned that Bill 84 will make it easier for municipalities to understaff fire stations, use part-time staff or even privatize our fire department. These are exactly the kinds of options our council considered during its recent budget discussions and I have no doubt will consider again next year.

It is not easy to run a municipality these days. North Bay has seen a reduction of close to $4 million in transfer payments over the past two years. This year we propose to raise taxes to maintain levels of service, but what about next year? The prospect is overwhelming when I consider the extensive downloading that is occurring at such a rapid pace with little or no information about implementation or cost.

While Bill 84 in itself appears to be less dramatic in the grand scheme of things to come, it is none the less significant. It is a clear indication to me of how this government believes business should be done and it offers municipalities a quick fix for our financial predicament without considering the consequences. It paves the way to privatization. We all want to see less expensive and more efficient government and services, but at what cost? I certainly believe it should never come at the cost of risking the safety of our community and our firefighters.

In conclusion, I believe this legislation heads in the wrong direction when it suggests we need fewer firefighters and relies on firefighters on call. Are we prepared to compromise the quality of service and risk delays? I also believe that privatization is not the answer to providing all services. We need only look to the American experience. Should people's lives depend on how much profit can be made? Do we need these problems here? I think not.

I am not as prepared as some of my colleagues are to buy into this government's agenda. My job as a municipal politician is to try to do what is in the best interest of my community. I don't believe those parts of Bill 84 I've referred to serve that interest. I thank you for this opportunity to share my views with you and I hope you will give them serious consideration.

Mr Carr: Thank you very much for your presentation. I agreed with the part where you said it's very difficult being government, whether you're municipal, federal or provincial. There's no doubt about that. I wish we were in the better times of the days past in all areas. But you also go on to say that some of the things that people have concerns about -- privatization, understaffing and part-time -- you've already considered, which means you could already do that if you want.

There are some people who lead us to believe this bill will allow you to do it but you can't now. What the government is saying is that you could do it now and nobody has done it. There's an argument saying, "If you don't want it done, preclude it." But what the government is saying is, this doesn't change anything.

What you seem to be saying is that that's the case. You've looked at, as you say in your presentation, privatizing, use of part-time and so on, and you've rejected that. But nothing in this bill changes that from where it is now. They could do it. You seem to be saying that you already looked at doing that. So what in this bill changes from what's already there and what you've already looked at and rejected?

Mrs Bennett: The reason it was rejected by our council in its discussions was they were under the impression that the collective agreement precluded them from looking at part-time staffing, but they were very interested in that possibility. Some of the problem was lack of information about Bill 84, which I don't blame on anybody here at this table, but when you look at the enormous amount of things that are coming in our direction, that's going to be one of our problems, that things like Bill 84 are just one of many. In our municipality we're part-time councillors, so you're asking a lot of us when it comes to looking at issues we're not usually accustomed to dealing with. This is probably one of them.

Mr Carr: What about privatization? How did that come up?

Mrs Bennett: The only reason privatization is rejected at this time is that our municipality really isn't positioned as far as policy around privatization. So as a general principle, privatization hasn't been looked at, but at every budget discussion, whether it's around transit or any other services, certainly the question of privatization is there and there are a number of members who are quite anxious to move towards privatization. This year is a different year because we're not dealing with what we're going to be dealing with next year, but I have no doubt next year is going to be very difficult.

Mr Carr: One of the things that municipal politicians have said against all three political parties is: "Don't give us so many regulations and tell us what to do. You've given us all the downloading." That isn't to be partisan, because they said it about us, they said it about the NDP, they said it about the Liberals. They're saying, "You have to stop mandating all these programs and then telling us what to do." In this area, though, you seem to be saying you want the province to tell you what to do with regard to not privatizing as one of the issues. How do you justify to the other municipal politicians who are out there saying: "Don't tell us what to do. Don't have Big Brother province telling us what to do"?

Mrs Bennett: I'm just saying that for those parts of the legislation I'm referring to, I would just as soon you didn't change them and left them as they were and let us deal with our collective agreements and our own firefighters. What I'm concerned about is there seems to be such a hurry to do things, and the fact that the previous government couldn't come to some common ground I think identifies a very common problem -- I deal with it in some of my committee work -- and that is, it takes a long time sometimes to sit at a table with diverse interests and come to the common ground, but I think it's a worthwhile exercise when you do that because the end result is more effective than when you mandate and legislate people to do things.

Mr Ramsay: Ms Bennett, thank you very much for coming. I'd like to continue the discussion that Mr Carr initiated with you, because it begs an interesting point. Where Mr Carr left off is, how much should a province mandate? I think what municipalities have been saying is, "Get out of our lives on the little stuff," but when it comes to public safety and security, I think there needs to be a provincial interest for sure. I'm not ashamed to say, "Yes, I want to give freedom to municipalities but I think there are certain areas where there needs to be a very strong provincial presence and interest." This is one of them.

I wish Mrs Marland was here, because she said, "What municipality would ever consider lowering the standards of their fire service?" You've already told us that North Bay -- and I'm sure it's unintentional; it's because of the pressures they're under -- are looking for where to cut. They don't want to jeopardize anybody's life. I don't think anybody does. But they're under this pressure. So they're under the impression, "Maybe we can cut some corners at the fire department." That's what we're saying with this bill, that this gives them the ability to do that even more than you had before. Some of us think that's wrong and I guess others think, well, let you guys decide. That's a problem. Again, what do you think of that, our just saying, "Here, go ahead and do what you want with the fire department"?

Mrs Bennett: Obviously I agree with you. I feel the role of government is to protect and to defend some of the values we have. My fear is that when we hand it down to the municipalities who will want to privatize it, then who have we handed off those things to? Then they become out of the control of anybody who is accountable or elected by the public. That's a great concern I have.

As well, as we look at next year and the possibility -- well, we have municipal elections, and then we're looking at this blue plan for municipalities. That raises a very serious question in my mind. If we're going to have an extension of the Conservative Party pushing the agenda in the municipalities, where's the distinction now going to lie? It's not been any secret that that's what the plan is.

1510

Mr Bisson: On the question of, should the government mandate minimum levels of service, I say definitely yes. Imagine if government didn't mandate services, for example, in the field of health care. The federal government up until recently mandated through the Canada Health Act what levels of services the provinces had to deliver when it came to health care and then enforced that not only by legislation but by way of penalizing your transfers if you didn't do what you were supposed to do.

Up until recently our system of health care really hasn't been in jeopardy. It's only when the federal government started removing some of those minimum standards that were set and started removing the conditions that tied to the transfers that provinces had the ability to start doing some of the stuff they're doing across this country. So I say, yes, federal and provincial governments have a responsibility to make sure that in the case of the federal government they mandate provincial governments to maintain minimum standards across the country, where applicable, and so do provincial governments have with the municipals.

I want to come back to the blue plan that you talk about, because that's something that hasn't been said. We have for the first time in the history of this province an all-out move on the part of the Conservatives to say, "We want to put in place as many Tories as we can on municipal councils." I look at some of the tools that we're giving them in this toolkit, Bill 84 and a whole bunch of other stuff. I'm really fearful about what that means, because I can tell you what it means on the provincial level. Once you get down to the municipal level and they have the ability to enact this legislation, I think we're going to be all the worse for it. I want to thank you for having presented and making that point. I think it needed to be said.

As far as questions, I think your presentation answered my question, which was, will a municipality take advantage of this legislation to reduce services? I'll let you answer that question again.

Mrs Bennett: I can't predict in next year's discussions because I don't know who will be at the table, but I think there's a really serious possibility that at least part-time staffing is very appealing, so yes. When I hear the previous speaker talking about what this is all about, it's all about saving money. The bottom line is the buck, and we're going to be forced into those same considerations as we take on -- I mean, it's supposed to be a wash, but with no information, I'm not convinced it's a wash at all anywhere.

The Vice-Chair: Ms Bennett, on behalf of the committee, thank you very much.

GORDON HENDERSON

The Vice-Chair: The next presenter is Mr Gordon Henderson, please. Good afternoon, sir. You can begin any time.

Mr Gordon Henderson: Thank you very much. First of all, I'd just like to thank the committee for allowing me this opportunity to make this presentation. It will be brief. My name is Gordon Henderson. I'm broker-owner of Sutton Group real estate in Sault Ste Marie. I'll admit my knowledge of Bill 84 may be somewhat limited; however, there are a couple of issues I would like to address.

A lot of people have alluded today to part IX. It's the possible allowance of part-time firefighters under the provisions of this act.

You probably all remember back to when you were in elementary school and every once in a while they would run a fire drill. I always believed when I was a child that the reason for doing this was so that they could see how long a couple of hundred kids could stay outside in minus-30-degree weather, without their coats on, of course: some sort of retribution for the teachers. Of course we all know what it was for. It was so that there could be some form of structure, some organization, and that in the unfortunate event of a fire, we as children would know which exit to use, how not to panic, and to familiarize ourselves with the layout of the school.

Let's expand that premise to Sault Ste Marie. Our full-time firefighters are based out of four halls. Every firefighter knows the layout of every street in his area, the location of all schools in his area and the layout of every school in his area. Besides schools, there are apartment buildings, colleges and universities, senior citizens' complexes, arenas, theatres, and the list goes on. They know the layouts of these buildings because that is their job. They need to know and react and respond with speed and organization.

Our largest industry in the Sault, which is Algoma Steel, has its own firefighters. Why? Because fires cost. They not only cost in the horrible event of death, they also cost in business.

A while back in Sault Ste Marie, the city conducted a survey. I believe someone alluded to that earlier. It broke down different services that the city provides and it asked respondents to rate in order of priority the services they felt were most important, less important and of little importance. I believe there were about 21 categories of services in this and firefighting and fire suppression was in the top three of priority. It is very important to the citizens of Sault Ste Marie. The people want their present fire department safeguarded against any downsizing, against any detrimental change. Part-time firefighters would be detrimental.

My spouse has been a health care worker for over 16 years now. She has seen the effects of having part-time health care workers. How someone can possibly keep up with new technology, patient history and new and ever-changing diseases by working part-time is beyond her comprehension. I believe the same can be said for firefighting.

What will be the reaction -- or maybe a better word would be "choice" -- of a part-time firefighter if he has a call at 4 am; it's the middle of January, it's freezing cold, the equipment is freezing, the firefighter is freezing, but by 7 o'clock the fire is under control. There's still a lot of work to do. There's cleanup, they've still got to put the fire out, and the choice this part-time firefighter has to make is what job he is going to be doing at 7:15. You see, this firefighter has another job at Algoma Steel and that starts in 15 minutes. I'm sure his foreman at Algoma expects him to be there. I'm positive the citizens of Sault Ste Marie expect him to finish his first job -- that's the fire.

I would now like to address the issue of how it affects my industry and small business in general. I read an article about three or four years ago that estimated that by the year 2000, nearly 40% of small businesses or employees of small businesses would be home-office-based. I think we already see it in the government quite often, where people come in on a contract basis and actually work out of their homes. Technology is wonderful. A slow response time to these homes could put small business out of business. About 70% of my 27 employees are home-based.

Over the past few years, both federal and provincial governments have come up with various programs and incentives to make home ownership more affordable: the use of RRSPs, the registered home ownership savings plan, the rebate of land transfer tax and the 5% down payment options -- all great ways to make home ownership more affordable. But what will be the reaction to part-time firefighters by the insurance industry?

In the past, the insurance industry has not been known for its compassion when it comes to premiums. A little research into rates told me that for a $100,000 home in Sudbury with semi-fire-protection, that being a volunteer fire department with firehalls, the annual premium would be increased by about $200. For us in the north, a $100,000 home is an average home. Think about what it would be in southern Ontario, where your average home price might be two and a half or three times that. It's not exactly an incentive for affordable home ownership. If part-time firefighters were the norm, what would the reaction of the insurance industry be?

Mr Humber, in his earlier presentation, alluded to the services that the Sudbury fire department provided to him when he purchased an apartment building. A free inspection was provided to ensure the safety of his tenants. My industry makes requests daily on behalf of homeowners and purchasers alike. The issue of retrofit comes up daily. It's a benefit to all citizens to have a full-time, knowledgeable firefighter conduct this inspection.

In closing, I would like to just reiterate that the public demands a full-time professional firefighting service. In our city, we pay for it. It's part of the deal. We expect it. Firefighting is not something that gets cut back and we're merely inconvenienced by longer lines. Firefighting is a matter of life and death, and protection and safety of people and things we hold dear.

I, as a husband, father and small business owner, demand and expect the best in fire protection. A full-time firefighting service with full-time firefighters is the best in fire protection.

I would like to thank the committee once again for its time. Should you have any questions, I'd be happy to answer them.

The Vice-Chair: Seeing no Liberal member, we'll move to Mr Bisson for two and a half minutes.

Mr Bisson: You raised a point that I'd forgotten all about, which is that a lot of industrial employers across northern Ontario, the ones that I'm familiar with, have their own fire brigades, for the reasons that you point out. I think it's good that you brought this to the committee because I think it demonstrates two things.

First of all, they do that because of the importance of being able to know the lay of the land, what dangers exist, proper training for the type of materials and possible dangers that exist within the workplace, but probably just as important is the whole issue of response time. I think it's something that needed to be said and I want to thank you for bringing that in.

The other thing is that you have a specific knowledge about what it means economically to homeowners. I'm wondering if you can expand on that a little bit, because you talked about the difference you're going to pay for insurance on a home if you have full-time fire services or you don't.

1520

Mr Henderson: Although I'm obviously not in the insurance industry, I was able to obtain some information which broke down different levels of fire coverage or fire protection for homeowners. I guess it would depend on where the shoe would fall as to how the insurance industry would react to it and if it became the norm, like I mentioned, what would be the premiums. In the past they haven't been overly sympathetic to people, whether it's car insurance or whatever it happens to be. I just can't imagine what their position might be in that part.

Mr Bisson: The last question is, a previous presenter -- and I forget the gentleman's name; I think it was the president of the Tory riding association -- had commented that the people who were speaking up in opposition to this bill were people of special interests. What special interest do you represent, sir?

Mr Henderson: I suppose I am a small business owner. I am also a husband and father. When I found out what some of the possible ramifications of this bill could be, it really stunned me. I couldn't figure out why. In Sault Ste Marie, maybe we had a death a couple of years ago, but I think before that it had been 10 years since there had been a death due to a fire. It just speaks volumes for our first-rate fire department in the Sault. I also was aware of the survey that was conducted by the city --

The Vice-Chair: I'm sorry. We do have to move on to Mr Carr.

Mr Carr: Thank you very much for coming and doing your presentation. As you probably know, section 9 is contentious; the rest of the bill I think there's broad support from the associations. Even the opposition likes some parts of it. Right now there are not standards across the province. One of the things it tries to do is give more power to the fire marshal to ensure standards are met.

The other parts of the bill, outside of the labour parts -- are you in agreement with that part of it or is there anything you can say you either don't like or like about the other sections, which I think do have fairly broad support? Do you agree with the other parts of it?

Mr Bisson: That's the part-time issue.

Mr Henderson: I understand "part-time" refers to the possibility of part-time firefighters?

Mr Carr: The labour --

Mr Henderson: Contracting out and the labour issues, that way?

Mr Carr: Yes, the other part of it.

Mr Henderson: As I mentioned, my knowledge of the bill is somewhat limited. A major concern to me was this particular part of it and I have not looked into the other parts further.

The Vice-Chair: Mr Henderson, on behalf of the committee, thank you for your presentation.

CANADIAN AUTO WORKERS, LOCAL 103

The Vice-Chair: The next presenter is Mr Brian Stevens, please. Good afternoon, sir.

Mr Brian Stevens: I've got enough water up here to put out a fire.

The Vice-Chair: You'll have 15 minutes. You can begin at any time, once you unload all that water.

Mr Stevens: I should probably come clean and tell you I'm a special interest group because I have a job and I'm a union member, and that's a special interest group in Ontario.

Good afternoon. My name is Brian Stevens. I'm the president of the Canadian Auto Workers, Local 103, the Ontario Northland in North Bay. We represent about 250 men and women who work in various locations across northern Ontario: North Bay, Englehart, Kirkland Lake, Timmins, Hearst, Moosonee and parts in between.

We work in the rail yards, mechanical shops and hotel. Our jobs take us on the road, involve work at train derailments and expose us to hazardous substances and at times dangerous situations. With an average response time in the area of four to six minutes, we rely on the speed, experience and teamwork of professional firefighters responding to our call for help, not only as homeowners but also as workers in the province of Ontario.

The Fire Protection and Prevention Act, 1996, introduced as Bill 84, replaces nine existing acts with a single omnibus act covering all aspects of fire protection and prevention. Clearly there are good aspects of this approach; however, much of it is lacking in structures and systems to actually improve overall public safety.

We view part IX of the proposed bill as a continuation of the attack this government has waged on workers in the province since it first took office. What this government is proposing to do to the professional firefighters is take the worst -- or, as Harris sees it, the best -- of Bill 7 and Bill 49 and repackage it in Bill 84.

In Bill 7 you took away the anti-scab legislation; in Bill 84 you've taken away the right to strike. Professional firefighters have never gone on strike in Ontario. Under the existing system, firefighters have voluntarily set aside their right to strike in exchange for a system which refers contractual disputes to compulsory arbitration.

Under the proposed Bill 84, if the parties fail to reach an agreement through collective bargaining, the dispute would be referred to a conciliator and then to binding arbitration if necessary. In the absence of the right to exercise economic sanctions, what motivation is there for the employer to bargain in good faith, especially in the absence of any enforcement mechanism to ensure that all obligations under the act are fulfilled? Bill 84 does not confer any authority on the labour relations board to hear and determine complaints concerning violations of the act.

Firefighters must retain the right to strike. Their track record demonstrates a solid commitment to their membership, to their employer and to the public of their desire to bargain, in good faith, a collective agreement to its conclusion.

Bill 84 provides, in a similar manner to the current act, the arrangement of firefighters' hours of work in a shift system or platoon system. It goes beyond and contains a significant change with respect to how hours of work are to be determined and assigned. The bill requires that no firefighter who is assigned to firefighting duties be required to work or be on duty for more than 48 hours in an average workweek. That's up from the current average workweek of 42 hours. This change alone will allow employers to reduce staffing levels by up to 20%.

If that isn't enough, Bill 84 leaves scheduling largely up to the employer. If an employer chooses not to adopt the platoon system of scheduling, subsection 43(6) would permit it to adopt any other system of scheduling it wants. The only protection for firefighters is a provision requiring a minimum rest period of 24 hours per week. Subsection 52(1) of this bill specifically excludes negotiations over hours of work and is unclear how it would handle existing collective agreements which contain such provisions.

It reads in part, as paraphrased: "The parties may bargain in respect of the remuneration," which includes pension benefits, "and working conditions of members of the bargaining unit, but shall not bargain in respect of working conditions described in section 43, as it refers to hours of work."

Professional firefighters should not be treated as a different class of workers in the province. I ask the government members to defend this discriminatory provision in this bill. Even the Ontario Association of Fire Chiefs is questioning the origins of this provision.

Just on an aside, I turned on the parliamentary channel last night and I noticed that the committee of the whole House engaged in a series of negotiations around hours of work, so if they can do it, certainly that should be left to the professional firefighters.

Pensions with limits: While Bill 84 does permit bargaining with respect to pension benefits, as I said, it can only do so within the limits set by the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, if only we could all have his gold-plated pension plan. The typical employment legislative framework is to set a fair and equitable platform with an enforcement component for the benefit and protection of all workers. What Bill 84 proposes to do is not set the platform, nor does it set the ceiling; rather what it actually does is race itself directly to the bottom.

It is unacceptable that a government would limit the scope of bargaining, particularly on an issue so important and so vital to the long-range life planning of professional firefighters.

1530

Bill 84 would require the bargaining agents, as said earlier, to go through a system of conciliation where a government-appointed conciliation officer is required to mediate collective bargaining disputes before arbitration. However, unlike trade unions and employers under the Labour Relations Act, firefighters and municipalities -- that's if they remain the employers under this government -- will be required to each pay for one half of the cost of the services of conciliation officers. The minister has the authority to determine those costs and that decision is final and binding. That's down and dirty downloading by this government.

The right of a dismissed firefighter to have his or her case reviewed by a municipal council, which dates back half a century, I'm told, would be removed in Bill 84. For firefighters covered by a collective agreement and entitled to arbitration, Bill 84 denies them the right to have a hearing by council.

For probationary employees, unless the collective agreement provided otherwise, they would not be entitled to any form of a hearing or review in their first 12 months of employment. For non-probationary employees not covered by an arbitration provision in a collective agreement, Bill 84 allows a review by any person not employed by the fire department in place of a hearing before municipal council.

With the new definition of employer to include "a municipality, person or organization that employs firefighters," this clearly paves the way to push aside municipal councils and for the privatization of firefighter services in the province of Ontario.

Bill 84 also expands the employer's ability to call in firefighters in emergencies. Currently the fire chief can call upon off-duty firefighters to respond to an emergency only when there is a fire, flood or other disaster which requires the services of every full-time firefighter. The new bill would allow employers to call in off-duty firefighters to respond to any major emergency, even if it was not large enough to require the services of all firefighters. This will allow the employer to set lower full-time staffing levels, especially at non-peak times, and supplement its force with a pool of part-time, on-call firefighters in case of, as a yet defined, emergency.

This provision in itself jeopardizes the fundamental principles in emergency response. Firefighters will not be where they are best positioned to respond to a call. In understaffed firehalls, precious time will be wasted in securing appropriate response teams.

While the system of interest arbitration of collective agreements remains, Bill 84 provides that such disputes may be referred to a board of arbitration or, where the parties agree, to a single arbitrator. Beyond that, subsection 54(7) of the bill mandates the ability to pay as one of the criteria to be considered, together with other criteria such as the economic situation in the municipality and the province.

I'll pull out subsection 54(7) which says: "In making a decision, the arbitrator or the arbitration board shall take into consideration all factors he, she or it considers relevant, including the following criteria" -- I may be boring some of the government members but I think it's important for the public to hear this.

"1. The employer's ability to pay in light of its fiscal situation.

"2. The extent to which services may have to be reduced, in light of the decision, if current funding and taxation levels are not increased.

"3. The economic situation in Ontario and in the municipality.

"4. A comparison, as between the firefighters and other comparable employees in the public and private sectors, or the terms and conditions of employment and the nature of the work performed.

"5. The employer's ability to attract and retain qualified firefighters."

This provision had been legislated as part of the government's notorious omnibus Bill 26 and is now seeping its way into the firefighters legislation.

Our conclusions: We submit that if Bill 84 is enacted in its present form, it will result in an erosion of the rights of the firefighters' associations and a significant shift in power employers would have over their workers.

Firefighters would lose their right to strike, for a questionable and expensive arbitration process. Their hours of work would expand, yet they would have no ability to negotiate them. Conversely, they have the ability to negotiate pension benefits but only to a limit as prescribed by the minister.

A broader definition of firefighters coupled with the revised call-in provisions, will allow employers to deliberately understaff firehalls with full-time firefighters and supplement all emergency calls with a pool of part-time firefighters.

Finally, the change in the definition of employer would allow municipalities to engage the services of private contractors. The horrors of the US experience in privatization of fire services should stand as a stark reminder to this government that all is not well in the land of the free.

On behalf our full membership, do not undermine our fire services. Abandon this course of action today. Speed, experience and teamwork make the difference. There are no second chances in an emergency. Bill 84 will take away the only chance many Ontarians have in their life-and-death situations. Thank you very much.

The Vice-Chair: Thank you. A minute and a half per caucus.

Mr Bisson: I guess the simple question I have is that when we look at section 9 of the bill, the government is saying, on the one hand, that they want to give firefighters the rights that other workers have in the private sector found under the OLRA. Yet when you read section 9, many of the rights that every other worker enjoys -- maybe don't enjoy any more because the OLRA's been amended; let me rephrase that -- are not in there, such as the things that you talked about: negotiating pension rights, hours of work, having to pay for 50% of the cost of conciliation. Why are they setting up firefighters differently when it comes to labour relations, in your view?

Mr Stevens: It's absolutely clear. It's to reduce services, clear the way for privatization, cutting services, getting out of providing these services and clearing the path for their friends on Wall Street and Bay Street.

Mr Carr: Thank you for your presentation. I just wanted to see if you could help us with some clarification. As you know, subsection 43(10) says, "the fire chief may call in off-duty firefighters if, as a result of a major emergency, the fire department needs the services of more firefighters than are on duty." One of the problems with doing this -- and I can see both sides of it -- the people who write the bill say you need to have, in major emergencies, the ability to call in more people than are there because of the unanticipated. I can see what you said: The other side of it is that they will understaff and then just call everybody in for emergencies.

In drafting the legislation, it's difficult to get that balance, because it could be abused either way. Is there any way you could word it, change "major emergency," so that you clarify that, so we wouldn't have these two problems?

Mr Stevens: I would think perhaps you should have asked that question of Grant Love, one of the presenters here previously, because he did indicate to the government that in fact North Bay has negotiated the call-in contract language, so I would suggest that if it's best left to the parties, that they would negotiate that. If you want to get out of their lives, then perhaps that's one of the things you should be --

Mr Carr: The other is the right-to-strike provision, as you know. It's difficult in an essential service, particularly when we're talking about people's lives, having the ability to strike. Of course, in other professions -- in the auto industry if one goes on strike, if General Motors goes on strike, you can buy a Ford, and so on. With an essential service, that isn't the case. What do you say to those who say that we shouldn't have a strike in an essential service such as firefighting?

Mr Stevens: I think the firefighters have been very professional in their approach to collective bargaining. If there was an abuse of it, then there might be some public outcry but wherever I go across this province, I do not hear people telling me, "Brian, we have to take away the right to strike for firefighters." No one's telling me that, and my guess is that I don't hear municipalities telling the government that either.

The Vice-Chair: Mr Carr, I'm sorry but we do have to move on to Mr Ramsay.

Mr Ramsay: I would almost like to follow up maybe what you were just going to ask: If it hasn't really been a problem, why does the government need to have this in this act? As you've said, the firefighters themselves, either through collective agreements or through their firefighter professional organizations, have said they would not do this, take any work action that would jeopardize anybody, yet the government sees fit that somehow they think the firefighters might be tempted now, because of the poison pill of this part IX. I don't know why they're doing it. What do you think?

Mr Stevens: I would suggest that perhaps it would be because they are clearing the way to privatize the fire services of the province of Ontario and want to hand over to their friends a docile, controllable workforce.

Mr Ramsay: That's a good point. In other words then a municipality tendering out the job of fire prevention, suppression, could guarantee to the future potential employer, "By the way, you'll get a workforce that will not be able to strike." I guess this is an added incentive for those people.

It's interesting also to note that while they say this is an essential service and thou shalt not strike, they have not mandated in this bill that all municipalities have to have a fire suppression service. They have fire safety and education -- all municipalities have to have some sort of program -- but not fire suppression, so it's kind of an interesting conundrum there, that while it's not really deemed essential and you don't have to provide it, if you do provide it, they can't strike. It's kind of interesting.

The Vice-Chair: Mr Stevens, on behalf of the committee, thank you very much.

1540

JOSEPH BOOKS

The Vice-Chair: The next presenter is Mr Joe Books, please.

While we're waiting for Mr Books to come up, the other day I requested some information from the ministry with respect to volunteer firefighters and the different types of compensation that's made available to them, and their roles. That information has been presented to me now and will be distributed by the clerk for the committee members. Good afternoon, sir.

Mr Joseph Books: Good afternoon.

The Vice-Chair: You'll have 15 minutes. You can begin any time.

Mr Books: Fifteen minutes? I don't think I'll be that long. I hope I won't be that long.

My name is Joseph Books. I'm a retired captain from the Sudbury fire department where I was a captain for 23 1/2 years. I'm presently fire chief of the town of Walden, which has an 80-man volunteer firefighting force.

I'd like to thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed legislation in the Fire Protection and Prevention Act, Bill 84.

The Ontario Association of Fire Chiefs has consistently supported changes to the fire service legislation in the interest of public safety. Fire prevention programs in schools and workplaces will raise the profile of fire risks and the dangers of fire. These are initiatives that are supported by all members of the fire service, not just the fire chiefs but the firefighters as well.

The legislation will put prevention first and, unfortunately, it looks like it's going to put fire suppression last. There should be no distinction between prevention and suppression. They should have basically equal priorities. They're both very important.

You can educate the public on the dos and don'ts related to fire safety at home, in the schools, in the workplace, but accidents do happen. People don't listen. Systems break down. Shortcuts are taken on the job. People fall asleep while cooking at odd hours. Yes, there are a lot of fire injuries that could be prevented through greater use of fire prevention and public education programs. No one is denying this. Prevention is important. Fire suppression is also very important.

The fire department used to be one big, happy family unit where gentlemen and firefighters would get to know each other and trust each other and work well together. Now they want to bring in part-time firefighters. A part-time nurse, a part-time school teacher, part-time ambulance attendants -- these were career choices at the time and these people went full-time to become a nurse or a school teacher or an ambulance attendant. Where they couldn't get a full-time job, they took a part-time job, but they had all the proper training. There was schooling for this position, where there is no full-time fire school to become a firefighter. It's a lot of on-the-job training.

Part-time just doesn't cut it. You can't have people coming in 10 hours a week or 20 hours a week and expecting to work beside people who are are full-time, who trust each other, know each other, know their limitations, who can go into a burning building and be on a stairwell where one person is running in, doing a rescue and know that that person is going to be there to help you out if you're in trouble. This is from knowledge and getting to know people, where part-time you just don't get to know anybody.

I'm with a volunteer fire department and you might say, "They don't get the same training either." We don't get the same training as a full-time fire department does but we still get to know each other. We're a group. It's a small community; it's not a big community. If you bring in part-timers or volunteers in the city of Sudbury, for example, they would be coming in at busy times of day. You never know who you're going to get. You could have a call out on volunteers and you don't know if you're going to get a full turnout, one man, two men, and so on. The full-time have to be there.

Eight years ago there was a fire death in part of this city and one of the recommendations after that fire death was that if the fire department was manned full-time, this death might not have happened. Now we're going to pull all that back again. We're going backwards.

Unfortunately, the people who suffer are the public. Firefighters are here to serve the public the best they can. That's their duty and that's their gut feeling, that's what they want to do. They are there to help.

They want to introduce more management teams. A fire chief and a deputy fire chief can certainly manage a fire department. They always have in the past. Have we become so involved in paperwork and meetings all the time that we have lost touch with what's happening in our own backyard? It just seems to me that they're always away at meetings, nothing's being accomplished, they lose touch with their manpower and they're just losing their focus of what the job is all about. A fire chief should be standing up for his firefighters and demanding that you don't cut the working man. That's what we seem to be doing: We're going into a part-time society. What are our children going to have any more? Oh, good, maybe we can grow up to be a part-time firefighter.

Mr Bisson: Have two part-time jobs.

Mr Jordan: That's what I was thinking.

Mr Books: Well, that's what we're going to need, two or three part-time jobs.

Isn't it strange when municipalities need guidelines to help them make informed choices -- they call it informed choices -- on fire protection? Wasn't that always the duty of a fire chief? Wasn't it the duty of the head of the fire department? If now we're going to leave it up to municipalities, we might as well leave it up to the police chief to run the fire department as is done in other municipalities. If you can have part-time firefighters, it's possible you can also have part-time fire chiefs or part-time deputy chiefs. What are the criteria?

I'm basically saying in the firefighting, and I'm speaking from the heart and a lot of experience in fighting fires, the camaraderie and being together is so important that you just can't tear it apart. There have to be certain amendments made where proper training -- this new government certification or fire marshal's certification could take anyone up to 10 or 15 years to become certified as a firefighter, and yet maybe they have never been into a fire. They've just gone through all the paperwork. There's nothing that beats experience. It's a learning process, and it's an on-the-job learning process. You just can't go out and learn in a school. It's just not there.

Every resident in this municipality has a right to fire protection. Every firefighter in this municipality has a right to be concerned for his safety and for the safety of the residents. And we are concerned. We're concerned about ever-increasing workloads. We're doing medical aid calls now, defibrillator calls, advanced first aid, and you're going to put this on to where response times are so critical in saving a person's life that you can't delay them. It's taken a long time to get where we're at and now we want to dismantle the whole thing again.

1550

Part-time: Maybe there is merit to some of it, if you can handle the job. Ex-firefighters have gone through all the training and chosen another profession. They could possibly go in and handle it if they've worked in that community and are known by the men, as long as you know people. But again I'd like to stress we're becoming a part-time society and it has to end someplace.

Part IX of the legislation: Especially the part-time and the right of municipalities to override a lot of decisions of fire chiefs are basically the keys to this. It shouldn't be left up to municipal politicians, who know nothing about firefighting or know nothing about firefighters, to tell them how to run their business. It just doesn't work that way.

It seems that every decision being made lately is being made by people at all levels of government, but key people are being left out. The bottom-line worker is being left out. A lot of people have a lot of good ideas, not just the higher-ups; not just the bosses have good ideas. They don't have monopolies on all the solutions. I feel that unions and management or associations and management have to bury the hatchet, try having a little bit more meaningful dialogue, and cut the confrontations. Everything is a confrontation today.

I feel the proposed legislation will provide an effective fire prevention service, but I feel effective fire protection or suppression is at risk.

I thank you very much for your time.

Mrs Marland: I was interested, based on your experience, in your comments about all the different things that firefighters have to do now. They've had to become experts in multimaterial handling and ice/water rescues, extrications in highway traffic accidents. Do you think actually that municipalities have been asking their fire departments to be responsible for too much?

Mr Books: No. Firefighters are a strange breed. We're like sponges; we can take on many different tasks. We're jacks-of-all-trades. Sitting around being bored is terrible, but going out and being in the action -- the more we can help the public, even if we have to go out and help direct traffic or help an ambulance attendant with a stretcher or something, that's all part of our job. This is part of our public service, and that's what we're there for, public service.

Mrs Marland: So it's the emergency services that you're saying are okay?

Mr Books: Yes.

Mr Ramsay: Mr Books, thank you very much for your presentation. It's from the heart and from a lot of experience, and that's helpful for me. It really occurred to me when you were speaking what this is all about, and I guess it's all about money unfortunately. It's sort of, "Show me the money," Ernie Eves to all the different ministers, that he's got to claw back money and some of it's going to come from municipalities and so the municipalities are under pressure to look at what are all their different budget departments.

Firefighting is an expensive service. There's no doubt about it. But to me it's like insurance. I suppose over the years we've all paid enough insurance to buy a car or do whatever in our lives, but we're glad to have it and we're glad to pay for it. Especially house insurance: We hope we never have to claim on it but we know we have to have it.

It's the same with fire services. I think there are some things you just can't cut, and this is one of them. If we want to have a first-rate fire service and ask of you to keep doing more and more as the world gets more complicated, then I think we have to come up with the money and pay for it. That's why I think this bill is wrong, because it's going to start to give the municipality the ability to cut, and that means people will suffer.

Mr Bisson: I have a comment more than a question. You made a comment earlier that unfortunately in our society everything is done by confrontation. I don't agree with that view because I've seen many, many examples -- I know personally examples that I was involved in in negotiating collective agreements as a negotiator with the Steelworkers and also as a government member working with various bargaining units when they were going through difficult times through the social contract. In many cases people are able to sit down and try to come to some sort of arrangement that's beneficial to both sides. Unfortunately, in our society all you hear about are those confrontations because that's newsworthy, that's a sound clip that you can use. I wanted to just mention that because I think there are lots of examples where people actually do things by cooperation.

Mr Books: I didn't mean totally, everything all the time is confrontation, but it just seems that things a lot of the time are confrontation and that dialogue is missing.

Mr Bisson: Yes, it is. Sometimes there's no news in trying to report good news, and I think that's a problem that the government is suffering these days. We can't find too much good news.

The Vice-Chair: Mr Books, on behalf of the committee, thank you very much.

MIKE LAPIERRE

The Vice-Chair: Our next presenter is Mr Mike Lapierre. Good afternoon, sir.

Mr Mike Lapierre: Before I start, I would like to draw your attention to the TV. I have somewhat of an emergency rescue on myself that was performed in Timmins three years ago and I just want to show you what it was all about.

As you can see, there's a van that's partially submerged in the river. I was the driver of that van. Fortunately I was able to survive, thank God. There were a lot of volunteers who were there at the time, but nobody was able to go into the van and get me except for the full-time firefighters, one of whom is Danny Keizer, right there, and other gentleman by the name of Gerry Sabourin. I'm sorry there's no audio.

Mrs Marland: You went through the ice? You went off the bridge?

Mr Lapierre: What happened was, I had a mishap in front of a Tim Horton's and I continued going into oncoming traffic. The river follows the highway in Timmins, if anybody's ever been there before, and I veered towards the guardrails and followed the guardrails until they ran out. I was unconscious the entire time until I hit the water. Once the guardrails ran out, the van flipped in the air a few times, broke a tree and landed right side up in the water facing the other way. I woke up while I was in the van, but the water was going into the van and there was no way of getting out. It was impossible to get out. The current's too strong and I drowned within moments. I'll just go with my speech and I'll explain the story.

I'd like to say good afternoon. I know it's been a long day for all of you and it is kind of warm in here. I bet you drank a lot of water today.

I'm here today as a member of the general public over concerns on Bill 84. I've come forward today in protest of this bill because in August 1994, as you can see, I was a victim of a vehicle accident in Timmins. My rescue was just one of many that are performed each year by these brave and unselfish public servants of the fire departments throughout Ontario.

I was involved in a single vehicle accident where my van had entered the frigid and fast-flowing waters of the Mattagami River. Although there was a handful of people on scene, like I mentioned before, no one was able to go into the river to try to save me. Nobody would have or they would have been victims themselves. The van was filled with water. The windows weren't busted or anything. I guess I had the windows rolled down and she filled up pretty fast and, like I said, the current is very strong. After I had drowned, my lifeless body was pushed to the back of the van, pinned at the bottom of the doors behind the spare wheel.

My only hope for survival was in the hands of the Timmins full-time firefighters who were dispatched immediately following the accident. The brave men involved in my rescue were informed that the call was an auto extrication, so they were surprised when they showed up on scene. They had no idea that it was going to become a water rescue.

When they arrived on scene, Danny Keizer and Gerry Sabourin acted upon instinct to dress up in their wetsuits to perform the difficult act of extracting my lifeless body from the wreckage. Unlike the individuals on scene, these two men, without hesitation, entered the vehicle to hopefully save my life. Without fear for their own lives, they managed to grab me from the clutches of death and extricate me from the vehicle.

1600

The hardest part of my rescue was complete. However, with no signs of life in my body, the rescue seemed pointless at that time. My body had gone without oxygen for 12 to 15 minutes and it took doctors 40 to 45 minutes to revive me. Rendered in a coma, everyone knew that my chances to bounce back were pretty grim. Permanent brain damage was the main concern, due to a lack of oxygen for such a prolonged period of time. Two and a half days later, I regained consciousness and seemed to have sustained minimal brain damage to where my short-term memory was affected. That was then and this is now.

We, as a society, understand that cuts must be made in all areas of government and the services provided by all levels of elected officials. However, no one has the right to put a price on public safety and the general welfare of Ontarians.

Let me stress what factors are important to any emergency situation, and that included my own. Be it fire or non-fire-related emergencies, speed, teamwork and experience make the difference in any emergency situation. You may ask why these factors are so important. This is simple to explain. Most emergencies don't give you a second chance in saving lives. Either they act according to their specialized training or they react by instinct because firefighting is their chosen profession. It's a career that brings great satisfaction to those who serve it. All studies dealing with rescues and fires identify speed, teamwork and experience as the most important factors related to these circumstances.

On average, it takes firefighters between four to six minutes to arrive on the scene of an emergency. Bill 84 may jeopardize these response times because it makes it possible for municipalities to understaff fire stations, call in firefighters from the home or other jobs only after an emergency arises. These alternatives delay response times, thus creating unneeded risks and potential life-saving problems that would not occur with a full-time firefighting team on hand.

As for teamwork and experience, firefighters who work together for years create a bond between each other that would not be possible with Bill 84. I see that with the crew in Timmins. They're very well-knit. These men and women have to rely on each other in dangerous situations every time they get called out. These circumstances allow these individuals to comprehend how their coworkers would react in any given situation. This creates the teamwork needed to ensure the safety of the emergency crews and the victims involved in these situations.

Bill 84 will eliminate the opportunity for this environment to exist, thus creating higher risks for failed rescues and injuries to those who participate in these rescues. The victims involved won't be alone any more because firefighters now risk becoming victims themselves.

The chances of rescuing someone in trouble are reduced and even eliminated due to a lack of experience, poor teamwork and an increase in response times. These factors that are ever so important in rescues and firefighting endanger the public and its servants if they are compromised. All parties involved in my rescue believe to this day, including myself, that a fast response time, the teamwork and the invaluable experience those two firefighters have is what saved me from death or permanent brain damage. Without them, I wouldn't be here today to give testimony to the importance of keeping Ontario's firefighters where they are needed and utilized to their best capabilities, and that is saving lives, which Bill 84 will jeopardize if passed in the Legislature.

If any of you ever have to go through this trauma that you've seen on TV and that I experienced, whose hands would you prefer to have your lives in? Part-time firefighters or full-time, trained firefighters? I know who I would choose. Thank you.

Mr Ramsay: Mike, thank you very much for coming in. It's very illustrative for all of us that people such as yourself who have had a dramatic rescue come forward and share that experience with us. It really increases all of our appreciation of the value of fire services in this province. I think a lot of us, with our very limited experience, look at the fire department as a group of people who go and put out fires. Through all the hearings that I've been at now for this week, I've really had a greater understanding of the scope of what a fire department does and the skills and the knowledge that a firefighter requires, and boy, you're living proof that it's work and it's important to have that professional staff on hand. Thank you for sharing that with us.

Mr Bisson: Mike, I remember that day well. Actually, Mike delivered parcels to my office on a very regular basis and was late for a delivery that particular day and we wondered why. I think it needs to be stressed that most of us in the community, when this happened, didn't think that you were going to survive. In fact, somebody anywhere beyond eight minutes of being underwater, five to eight minutes, normally doesn't come back. I tell you, I for one was surprised, and thank God that you did come back and are able to tell your story here today.

I guess the only question I have is that the members across the way here from the Conservative Party are not bad people, they're not evil people who want to hurt people and do all kinds of things. But I wonder, and I guess it's your opportunity to have your say, if everybody who's pretty well presented here has said, "Listen, there's a problem," what do you tell them? What can you tell them, other than your testimony, in order to try to get them to rethink some of the stuff they're doing?

Mr Lapierre: I think Mr Books summed it up pretty well a while ago. The service that we have right now is good, but to take some of that service away I think is the wrong approach. Maybe there are some parts of Bill 84 that are beneficial to all sides, but part IX would have to have some amendments in it to make it better for everybody involved.

The Chair: The government caucus, one minute.

Mrs Marland: A minute isn't very long, but I too would like to thank you for bringing your very personal story. It's an incredible story to hear, and I know there are many stories like that around this province and this country, delivered as a result of courageous work by many men and women. We did start this morning with two firefighters who had received the Meritorious Service Medal from the Governor General of Canada, and those stories in my opinion only go to endorse the high level of professionalism that our firefighters have been trained for. I hope all firefighters, whether they are part-time or full-time or volunteers in very small communities, have that level of training, to be there to save people.

We are truly grateful for your story and grateful that you did survive because of their ability. Thank you for telling us.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Lapierre.

1610

DON WARDEN

The Chair: Our next presentation is Mr Don Warden. I believe it's Fire Chief Warden?

Mr Don Warden: That's correct, sir.

The Chair: Welcome. Good afternoon.

Mrs Marland: You didn't come with your braid?

Mr Warden: No, I didn't. I'm here on a personal presentation.

Mr Bisson: A gag order?

Mr Warden: No, I didn't. I will be discussing my views on the Fire Protection and Prevention Act, 1996. I would first like to thank the Chair and committee for affording me the opportunity of presenting my opinions on this very important and needed legislation.

I am currently the fire chief for the town of Wasaga Beach, and I am the immediate past president of the Ontario Association of Fire Chiefs. My career started some 26 years ago with the Department of National Defence fire department in Camp Borden as a civilian firefighter in 1972. In 1974 I moved to Wasaga Beach and became a probationary full-time firefighter in the town of Wasaga Beach and throughout the years worked myself up through the ranks, including first-class firefighter, fire prevention officer, first full-time deputy fire chief and then fire chief in August 1980.

I've had a small composite department that I've administered over the last 17 years. A small composite department is made up of 10 full-time firefighters, a deputy chief, myself and approximately 20 volunteers who also work as part-time firefighters and are identified as such in the collective agreement, to enable us to continue to provide the service that we wish to provide our municipality when our full-time firefighters are off on leave or sick or for some other reason are not on duty.

We do in fact utilize part-time people, and that's enshrined in the collective agreement at this point in time. The wording is such that any work normally performed by the full-time firefighter shall not be contracted out to any other person other than under the provisions that currently exist. We just couldn't operate if we didn't have that provision.

I am here today to strongly support the new proposed Fire Protection and Prevention Act. In my opinion, it is totally irresponsible of the government to even consider not changing the current legislation that we try to administer in today's ever-changing society. It is the unequivocal right of every citizen in this great province to be afforded the opportunity of receiving the best possible fire prevention and fire protection legislation that can be supplied. This new act definitely provides the government with the necessary legislative changes to ensure that the citizens receive the necessary fire protection they so rightly deserve.

The current fire service of today is composed of three different levels of service, and they all have a very important role in protecting the lives and property in this province. The new legislation, in my opinion, will strengthen the abilities of all three levels to provide a more efficient and effective fire service to the public.

We in the fire service have been attempting to secure changes to the outdated fire service legislation for many years to reflect the very changing aspects of our profession. Bill 84 provides the flexibility for municipalities to deliver the appropriate levels of fire prevention and protection in every community, and it's long overdue.

The proposed act is directed towards fire prevention and public education, and in my opinion this is extremely beneficial to all Ontario residents. Is it not better to prevent a serious incident before it happens rather than after the fact? Public education is the only way to proceed to obtain the results that are required. The government must do everything it can to retain the need for mandatory services.

The fire service has consistently tried to establish a strong management team, and we definitely require more positions in the management structure to ensure that the best possible operations are being provided. It is definitely draconian in today's world to expect only two managers to be totally responsible for the operations of a fire department 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. We currently have other legislation in this province that requires management representation, and in many departments that are of a large size, we must negotiate to have an association member represent management's position. This is certainly not a very reliable system.

The provision of an enhanced management team within the legislation is another positive step. I definitely support the need for exclusions from the bargaining units of all positions for which a management responsibility can be demonstrated.

The proposed legislation is definitely fair and reasonable to all parties, and I urge the provincial government to be extremely firm when dealing with those concepts outlined in the legislation.

Protection services: I support wholeheartedly the concept of mandatory fire service in the province of Ontario. It is definitely required to deal with the issues of public safety. Bill 84 contains requirements for municipalities to establish fire prevention and public education programs. The bill confirms in law what is a practice among many municipalities.

It is a positive endorsement and appropriate leadership in the development of a public fire safety policy.

I do feel that suppression should also be considered mandatory, but I also think the proposed review process regarding the delivery of municipal fire services will ensure that the public safety is not compromised.

Fire prevention programs: The introduction of mandatory public fire safety programs is a very proactive approach to public safety. I firmly believe that fire prevention is the key to reducing loss of life and property in the province. Fire prevention services are best provided by personnel with fire prevention and protection experience. The fire service utilizes both full-time and volunteer resources, and the emphasis of the legislation reinforces the current fire service practices and will enhance the concept of public fire safety.

I support the proposed legislation, and encourage a firm commitment to the concept of public fire safety and prevention programs from all stakeholders in the fire service.

Public education programs: The proposed legislation will enhance the education of the public with respect to fire prevention programs, and it will raise the profile of the fire risks and the dangers of fire. If the public is educated to recognize the dangerous situations and if they obtain the proper knowledge to deal with those dangers, then it will definitely help to reduce the incidents of fires and save lives. This is extremely important, and it must be moved forward.

Definition of a fire chief: I have had a definite concern for the lack of a definition in the existing legislation. In this day and age of liability and responsibilities, this definition is essential. The fire chief is the individual who has the expertise to provide professional advice on fire-related matters to the municipal council. It is imperative that the appropriate duties and responsibilities are outlined and identified in law, so that the public and the fire chief are properly protected. Furthermore, the explanation of authority, duties and responsibilities will enhance the ability of the fire chief to manage the delivery of fire protection and prevention programs for a municipality.

The definition of a fire chief, as proposed in Bill 84, recognizes that every municipality that has a fire department should have a fire chief. This definition provides the desired flexibility requested by municipalities and ensures that accountability and responsibility are balanced between policy development and ensuring that these public safety policies are administered and delivered in the best interest of public safety. I strongly urge the government to incorporate the definition and reporting process in the final legislation.

Firefighters' employment and labour relations: I do not wish to dwell on part IX, which deals with the majority of issues pertaining to labour relations. However, I do wish to comment on the management exclusions. As I indicated earlier, I am definitely in support of excluding members from the association who undertake managerial functions. In today's society, to continue with only the fire chief and the deputy chief excluded from the bargaining unit is totally ludicrous. This practice is definitely inconsistent with good management and business practices. The proposed legislation is definitely fair to all stakeholders, and I urge the government to incorporate the management team and the management exclusions process in the final legislation.

I further would like to speak on the deputy fire chief's position. I strongly urge that the government seriously consider re-examining the legislation to also include a definition for the deputy fire chief's position. It is extremely important that he be identified as the one individual who can assume the role of the fire chief in his absence.

In conclusion, I believe the proposed legislation will provide the necessary direction and guidance that is required to ensure that all of the province of Ontario receives the effective fire protection and fire prevention service that it so rightly deserves, and further, that the legislation will enable the fire service to deliver an efficient and effective delivery of fire prevention and protection services into the next millennium.

I would also like to express my sincere congratulations to the Solicitor General, Robert Runciman, and the fire marshal, Bernie Moyle, for bringing this excellent piece of legislation forward. It's long overdue and we certainly need it. Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr Warden. Could I just ask you, what's the composition of your force in Wasaga Beach?

Mr Warden: I have a composite fire department. I have 10 full-time firefighters, a deputy chief and myself and approximately 20 volunteers, two stations.

The Chair: Mr Bisson, we've got about three minutes for you.

Mr Bisson: I guess the first question would be around good business practices in your case. The simple question I have is -- you have 10 full-time firefighters working for you; I take it there are two people in your management position, yourself and your deputy chief -- how many managers do you need to watch over 10 people?

Mr Warden: In my current situation I have adequate people out of the bargaining unit. My comments are reflected to support the working scale that's in the document that's being proposed, that the larger the department the more people you should have out to manage the department.

Mr Bisson: I just wanted to clarify. You weren't suggesting for a second that we have three or four managers for 10 people?

Mr Warden: Not at all.

Mr Bisson: Okay. You were scaring me there for a while.

The other thing is that you talked about mandating provincial standards, I think is what you said. Are you indeed saying that the province should take the responsibility of making sure that we mandate both fire prevention services and education? First of all, should that be mandated?

Mr Warden: Definitely.

Mr Bisson: The second thing to that, I guess, is the whole question of fire suppression. It is not mandated in the legislation. I think -- I'm not sure -- you said it should be.

Mr Warden: I said it should be seriously reconsidered.

Mr Bisson: Is this a deficiency in the act, in your view? That's all right, you can say it.

Mr Warden: Yes.

Mr Bisson: Okay. We can have a little bit of fun at this sometimes. Actually you've answered my questions. I had three questions and we got them all out. Thank you very much.

Mr Carr: I wanted to explore how you work with your full-time versus the volunteers. As you know, in the field, the teamwork is essential. How have you been able to do it between the various members, the volunteers and the full-time? Is there anything you do special? Maybe you could just outline for the committee what you do in order to ensure that teamwork is there between the various parts of your team.

Mr Warden: All of my staff are trained to the same level. We all train to the IFSTA third-edition training manual. Everyone is required to write small tests at the end of every section of the training. The full-time and the volunteers train together the second and fourth Tuesday of every month, and any additional Saturday training sessions that we organize. They all took the 100-hour provincial course that's supplied by the fire college, and all successfully passed it. I very strongly support that training should be the same for every level of fire service in Ontario. In my opinion, the new legislation will enhance that capability.

Mr Carr: I think you're right, and as you know, that is the intention, to have that. You probably have had opportunity to look at other areas across the province. The other areas that have full-time and the volunteers working together, are you an exception to the rule or do the other ones have as good a working relationship between all of the members of their team?

Mr Warden: I think it depends on the magnitude of the department. I think once you get to a certain size, there is a feeling that, "We really don't need the volunteers," type atmosphere. I think the departments that don't have that problem, then there's a workable situation. I have travelled across the province many times, and there are other departments out there that do operate in the same magnitude that I do. There aren't very many of us, but they are out there. We could not afford to provide the service we're doing unless we operate the way we do.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr Carr, and thank you, Mr Warden, for your excellent presentation here today.

Ladies and gentlemen of the committee, that concludes our business. I thank you very much. It's been a very long day, but a very productive day.

We are adjourning to our next sitting, which is Monday, April 14 at 10 am in Kingston, Ontario. We will see you then.

The committee adjourned at 1625.