Committee Transcript 1997-Apr-16 | Legislative Assembly of Ontario

Wallaceburg Professional Fire Fighters Association; Ontario Professional Fire Fighters Association; Provincial Federation of Ontario Fire Fighters

Mr Patrick Martin

Mr Rick Miller

Windsor Professional Fire Fighters Association

Mr Jack Fenton

Ms Ursula Veselka

Mr Joseph Egan

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE

Chair / Président: Mr Gerry Martiniuk (Cambridge PC)

Vice-Chair / Vice-Président: Mr Ron Johnson (Brantford PC)

Mr RobertChiarelli (Ottawa West / -Ouest L)

Mr DavidChristopherson (Hamilton Centre/ -Centre ND)

Mr BruceCrozier (Essex South / -Sud L)

Mr EdDoyle (Wentworth East / -Est PC)

Mr Garry J. Guzzo (Ottawa-Rideau PC)

Mr TimHudak (Niagara South / -Sud PC)

Mr RonJohnson (Brantford PC)

Mr FrankKlees (York-Mackenzie PC)

Mr PeterKormos (Welland-Thorold ND)

Mr Gary L. Leadston (Kitchener-Wilmot PC)

Mr GerryMartiniuk (Cambridge PC)

Mr John L. Parker (York East / -Est PC)

Mr DavidRamsay (Timiskaming L)

Mr DavidTilson (Dufferin-Peel PC)

Substitutions present /Membres remplaçants présents:

Mr GillesBisson (Cochrane South / -Sud ND)

Mr DwightDuncan (Windsor-Walkerville L)

Mrs SandraPupatello (Windsor-Sandwich L)

Mr BobWood (London South / -Sud PC)

Also taking part /Autres participants et participantes:

Mr HowardHampton (Rainy River ND)

Clerk / Greffier: Mr Douglas Arnott

Staff / Personnel: Mr Andrew McNaught, research officer, Legislative Research Service

J-2087

The committee met at 1016 in the Windsor Hilton Hotel.

FIRE PROTECTION AND PREVENTION ACT, 1996 / LOI DE 1996 SUR LA PRÉVENTION ET LA PROTECTION CONTRE L'INCENDIE

Consideration of Bill 84, An Act to promote Fire Prevention and Public Safety in Ontario and to amend and repeal certain other Acts relating to Fire Services / Projet de loi 84, Loi visant à promouvoir la prévention des incendies et la sécurité publique en Ontario et modifiant ou abrogeant certaines autres lois relatives aux services de lutte contre les incendies.

The Chair (Mr Gerry Martiniuk): Good morning, ladies and gentlemen and members of the committee. This is a continuation of the standing committee on the administration of justice, 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.

The committee welcomes Dwight Duncan, MPP for Windsor-Walkerville, and Sandra Pupatello, MPP for Windsor-Sandwich.

Our first presenter will proceed, but I understand Mr Kormos has a point of order.

Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): We're pleased to be in Ms Pupatello's and Mr Duncan's bailiwick. So is Wayne Lessard, who is with us today, who was our colleague from 1990 to 1995, and -- who knows? -- we anticipate once again.

On the point of order, Chair, I note that the committee met for four days last week receiving public input. This is the third and final day of public input here in Windsor. We were in Kingston on Monday and then Hamilton-Niagara on Tuesday.

I note that the parliamentary assistant, Gary Carr, who was with us through those hearings -- the parliamentary assistant's job is to carry this bill through the Legislature and to advise the minister as to appropriate changes that might be made in response to the public input. That's the committee process and that's what democracy is all about. That's why people prepare their submissions and analyse this legislation, along with other bills, and provide input to the committee.

Quite frankly Gary Carr, as the parliamentary assistant, in my view was performing an exemplary job. He was responsive to the presenters, he was evenhanded, fair and balanced in his assessment of them and he appeared to be particularly sympathetic to the views being expressed by citizenry and firefighters across the province.

Of course, as the newspapers indicate, he has been fired midterm, midway through this process, which is a most unusual thing to happen in view of the fact that this is the final day of public hearings. With great respect for Bob Wood, the new parliamentary assistant, and I congratulate him on acquiring that position -- he has not had the opportunity -- one questions of course is whether Mr Carr was fired because he was being responsive to the submissions being made. I'll leave that to others, because it's mere speculation, of course, notwithstanding that it's somewhat irresistible by way of a conclusion.

Noting that Mr Wood however has not had the same opportunity as Mr Carr to be as intensively involved and to listen to all the submissions, with respect for Mr Wood's new responsibilities, I suggest, and will make an appropriate motion, that after today's hearings clause-by-clause be deferred for a period of three weeks, rather than resuming on Monday, April 21, so that Mr Wood can thoroughly analyse and digest all the submissions that have been made.

I'm not sure that the Hansard of any of these hearings is even available yet, and if it is, it's only available for the first one or two. It's imperative that Mr Wood be given an opportunity to at least read Hansard. We wouldn't expect anything less of him. A mere viva voce briefing is not sufficient because it doesn't bring with it all of the content and all of the nuances, and is subject to interpretation by the person doing the briefing. If this process is going to retain any dignity or any credibility, it's imperative that this committee defer clause-by-clause for a period of three weeks to give Mr Wood that opportunity. As I say, I'm not suggesting that his capacity to read the Hansard is limited by any stretch of the imagination, but the Hansard simply isn't available and won't be available yet for some time.

In view of this extraordinary event, the firing of a parliamentary assistant who is sympathetic to the community and to firefighters, and the assumption of his role by a new parliamentary assistant, I move that clause-by-clause consideration be deferred for a period of three weeks.

Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-Walkerville): The official opposition supports that as well. The role of the parliamentary assistant indeed is to hear delegations and report to the minister on what those delegations have said. Mr Wood has just joined us today and has a daunting task ahead of him. It would be the view of the official opposition that in order that these hearings are meaningful, and if the government is serious about listening to what people say and not acting in a dictatorial fashion, as a number of members of the government said yesterday in response to the moves the Premier made, that clause-by-clause consideration ought to be delayed in order to allow the parliamentary assistant the opportunity to review what has been said throughout these hearings.

Second, it will demonstrate very clearly whether the government is in fact listening or prepared to listen or whether these hearings are simply a charade. It's our view that in order to allow the parliamentary assistant time and to allow the views that have been expressed throughout these hearings, clause-by-clause ought to be delayed to allow for a complete review of everything by the parliamentary assistant so that the government can be briefed by the parliamentary assistant.

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): I want to support the motion by my colleague Mr Kormos from Welland-Thorold. I'm not going to repeat in detail what he said, but essentially what Mr Kormos puts forward is quite important, I think, for the committee to ponder, and hopefully the government side of the committee will support it.

What's really clear here and what people need to understand is the process by which the committee deliberates over a bill. One of the people who plays a very important role in passing a bill and dealing with a bill is the parliamentary assistant. As Mr Kormos said, with deference to Mr Wood, he walks into this thing at the end. Today is the last day of public hearings on the road. We have heard submissions in northern Ontario, in southeastern Ontario, in Toronto and now in Windsor. Mr Wood, unfortunately, has not had the opportunity to listen to what people have had to say on both sides of the issue. If we were to try at this point to have the Solicitor General's office deal effectively and in fairness with the amendments that need to be put forward to this bill, I think it would be fairly difficult for Mr Wood to be able to do that in any kind of fair-handed way given that he hasn't had the opportunity to listen to what people have to say.

The point that Mr Kormos makes I think needs to be repeated. We know what's going to happen: The parliamentary assistant is going to be briefed by political staff of the Solicitor General.

Mr Kormos: Or by the Premier.

Mr Bisson: Or by the Premier. Oh, boy, that could be even scarier. The point is that the political staff of the Solicitor General, who is working for the Solicitor General who wants this bill in its present form, in my view is going to try to brief the parliamentary assistant in a way that would favour the views of the Solicitor General, which would include keeping in part IX of the bill, which is a very controversial part of this legislation. I imagine the Solicitor General, from the discussions I've heard through the media, in the House and on the committee, would not be willing to make changes to the definition of "firefighter," all of which are issues I think we've heard numerous testimony on to deal with why we need to make changes.

We could be here trying to ask for the committee hearings to start all over again. We want to appear as being reasonable, although that is something that I would favour, but at the very least what we need to have is an opportunity for Mr Wood, the parliamentary assistant to the Solicitor General, to take a look at that, free from being vetted through some political staff of the Solicitor General. If the parliamentary assistant has questions, he can pick up the phone and call firefighters and others who have presented, and also, very importantly, to give these people an opportunity to meet with Mr Wood over the two- or three-week period, to let him know on both sides of the issue how they feel and why they think it's important that amendments be made.

The last point I make is this: Government members on this committee have said in northern Ontario, in the southeast and again up in this end that they are sympathetic to the causes and issues that firefighters and others have raised in opposition to this bill. In fact, we've heard from some, as Mr Johnson, the Vice-Chair of this committee mentioned, that they actually have problems.

Interjection.

Mr Bisson: Is he former Vice-Chair? Don't tell me you got fired too? Seriously?

Mr Kormos: Another sympathetic Tory.

Mr Bisson: Hang on a second. Chair, is there a pattern developing here? Could it be that those government members who are actually trying to do their jobs are being fired by the Premier because they actually dare to speak out on behalf of the citizens of this province?

That'll be for another debate, but the point I get to is that the government members have said on a number of occasions, and Mr Johnson is one, that they are sympathetic to some of the issues that have been raised at this committee. To give this process an opportunity to work so that in fact the bill reflects what people have said I think would be very difficult to happen without giving the opportunity to Mr Wood to listen to some of the submissions through what the members of the government on the committee have heard, because I think they can play a useful role as well. I know they are honourable members and they would give, I think, a fair assessment of what they heard here in committee, especially from people like Mr Johnson, in order to give Mr Wood the opportunity to come up to snuff.

If the government doesn't accept this motion, I think it'll just describe in a very real way that this whole process actually is a farce if we don't go through that. I would ask government members to support this motion. It's done in a friendly way. We could have asked for the hearings to start all over again; we're not. We're saying give it three weeks, take your job seriously, brief your parliamentary assistant, let him know what you have heard so that he then could be part of this process and be able to do the job that needs to be done on the amendments that need to be put forward.

Mr Ron Johnson (Brantford): Call the vote.

The Chair: Before we proceed, there seems to be some confusion in regard to who is properly a member of this committee today and whether substitution slips have been provided. I'm going to ask for a 10-minute adjournment -- I apologize to members -- until we determine that, and then we can reconvene and further consider the motion. We will be reconvening at 20 to 11.

The committee recessed from 1028 to 1045.

The Chair: Ladies and gentlemen and members of the committee, I would ask you to reconvene. We are presently considering a motion made by Mr Kormos to reverse the decision of this committee that clause-by-clause would be held from 3:30 to 6 pm on Monday, April 21 and Tuesday, April 22, 1997. That has already been passed by this committee. Mr Kormos has requested that those two clause-by-clause days be deferred for three weeks, I believe. We've heard from Mr Kormos and Mr Bisson. Mr Klees, we're speaking to the motion.

Mr Frank Klees (York-Mackenzie): First of all, let me just say that I take exception as a member of this committee to the suggestion made by Mr Kormos that the removal or the changes that have taken place in assignments of responsibilities in our government have anything at all to do with individuals' views on a particular issue. That goes for Mr Carr and it also goes for Mr Johnson. There were, as we all know -- anyone who's read the newspaper -- many changes. In fact, most parliamentary assistants' roles were changed, mine being one of them. It has absolutely nothing to do, as the honourable members of this committee will know, with where an individual stands on a particular issue.

I also want to point out that I'm still here as a member of the committee and I think those who have been following these hearings know very well what my views are on this bill. Certainly my view is that it needs some amendments. We will be proposing some amendments based on submissions that have been made to this committee. In fact, members will know that I signed the petition that was brought forward by the firefighters and I stated that very clearly in a hearing in Toronto. Clearly there is room for improvement of this legislation. That's what this process is all about, that we go through a legislative hearing process so that all of us can have a role in ensuring that the final legislation is in its best possible form. That's why we're here.

I'd also like to remind the other members of this committee, and Mr Kormos and Mr Bisson know well, that the parliamentary assistant is one member of this committee, certainly with the responsibility for carriage of the bill, but all of us as members of this committee on the government side certainly have, I want to assure you, our influence and our opportunity for contribution to the discussions relating to any amendments. There are many of us here, in fact all of us, certainly from our caucus discussions, who agree that we have to improve this bill based on submissions that were made.

The fact that Mr Carr is no longer the parliamentary assistant doesn't in any way suggest that the work that's been done by this committee to this point, that the meetings that all of us have participated in at some length will not be considered.

I would say that I will certainly be voting in opposition to this motion. The reason is that I do not believe that the credibility of this process is at all interfered with as a result of the changes that have been referred to by Mr Kormos. I know that Mr Wood will make every effort to familiarize himself with the proceedings. We, as members of this committee on the government side, will be meeting with Mr Wood and certainly letting him know what our views are. I'm convinced that we can proceed with speed, with experience and with teamwork.

The Chair: May I say, we have three speakers: Mr Wood, Mr Kormos, Mr Bisson, and anyone else who might wish to speak to the matter. We have now delayed the beginning of our hearings. I get very uncomfortable when we keep our guest presenters waiting for a considerable length of time and I would therefore ask that you either keep it very short or consider putting that particular motion off to the end of the day so that we don't keep them waiting.

1050

Mr Bob Wood (London South): I'll try to be very brief. I'd like to thank all members for their congratulations and their interest. I've had the opportunity to follow this from the start of the introduction of the bill and I think I do have a reasonable feel for what the various views are. I've had the opportunity to receive more detailed briefings in the last couple of days.

One thing I hope may be possible is to meet with the two firefighters' associations, and I would invite their representatives here to speak to me afterwards. We can set something up at noon today, later today, tomorrow or the first of next week, because I think I would like to get that direct input, although I've received it from the firefighters in London.

The motion itself I think is indeed premature. I'd like to get a little better feel for the information I need that I may not have, and certainly, while I could not support this motion today, if we reach next week and I feel I need more time, I will be the first to request that. I'd like to thank all members for their interest in this matter.

Mr Kormos: Chair, you've indicated you feel uncomfortable with this debate taking place at this point on this point of order and the motion --

The Chair: No, I don't mind the debate at all, Mr Kormos. We're keeping our guests waiting. That's the only thing I feel uncomfortable about.

Mr Kormos: I understand that, sir. Having said that, it's an unprecedented scenario for a parliamentary assistant to be fired at this point in the carriage of a bill. I feel very uncomfortable with the impression most of Ontario is getting that this bill is being driven from the Premier's office and not by this committee, not by the parliamentary assistant, not even by the Solicitor General.

I note Mr Wood's comments. I also note that no Hansard is currently available and will not begin to be available for several days yet. If the parliamentary assistant is going to fulfil his responsibilities to make recommendations to the minister, in this case the Solicitor General, so that the Solicitor General can carry them on into cabinet, it's imperative that the parliamentary assistant hear or have the opportunity to read each and every submission that's been made to this committee, not just by firefighters. Mr Wood, the new parliamentary assistant, indicates that he's prepared to meet with them. I endorse that and I encourage the firefighters to do that. But this committee has heard from a broad cross-section of the community across Ontario, from victims of tragedies in fires, from people in the medical professions, from people involved with emergency response, from experts in fire safety and general safety and from just plain folks.

The Chair will note that notwithstanding the request of the New Democrats, certainly supported by our colleagues the Liberals, and by a motion supported by the government members, this committee was refused the opportunity to have its hearings in the Amethyst Room so that they could have been televised for the first two days of committee hearings in Toronto.

I appreciate Mr Wood's efforts to bring himself up to speed at the earliest opportunity, but I suggest that a half-baked exercise in that regard would do all of the participants in this hearing a great disservice; not the committee members but the public who have gone to great lengths, great expense, have exhausted a great deal of energy to analyse this bill and to bring their views to this committee.

As to Mr Klees, I appreciate his attempt to add some spin to this. Unfortunately, his colleagues in his caucus who were fired, Mr Carr among them, present, I put to you, a far more credible and reliable view. Toni Skarica, parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Education, fired yesterday afternoon, had this to say: "Anyone who spoke out has been canned."

The Chair: You're not speaking to the motion, Mr Kormos. We're dealing with Mr Carr's removal. That's the point you're making, and I'd ask you to discuss your motion and not Mr Skarica's views.

Mr Kormos: Mr Klees was given the opportunity to leave the impression that this is a normal turn of events. I'm suggesting to you, sir, that it's an abnormal, exceptional turn of events and it's one that impacts very much on the integrity of the committee process. When a parliamentary assistant who's been fired says that MPPs, backbenchers, ministers have no say, I say that's of some great concern. When Gary Carr, who was fired yesterday, says, "Mike Harris has got to realize this is still a democracy, not a dictatorship," I say that's relevant to what has happened in this most unprecedented way over the course of the last 18 hours.

I thought I was very generous in merely moving that there be a three-week deferral of clause-by-clause consideration. Quite frankly, it was a relatively conservative proposition, a modest proposal, if you will, and one unique or, perhaps over the last shy of two years, commonsensical. I'm not suggesting that the committee be suspended. I'm suggesting that Mr Wood is very capable of bringing himself up to date on the submissions, but I'm suggesting that the dismissal of Mr Carr and the firing of Mr Johnson were highly political and were in response to the views they have expressed on this committee. Mr Carr seems to have confirmed that in his comments to a variety of journalists yesterday and early this morning, and his position is upheld, as I say, by Toni Skarica and Bill Murdoch, who said, "Well, I can tell you two words for them," the government, "that you," the newspaper, "can't print," unfortunately. I suggest to you that more and more Ontarians are reflecting on the same two words with respect to this government.

I am submitting to you, sir, that for this committee process to retain any integrity that it might have had when it began, it's imperative that this not be regarded as a mere changing of the guard, as Mr Klees would have it. You don't change the guard in the middle of the process. It's never happened other than --

Mr Klees: Under Bob Rae it did.

Mr Kormos: No, it's never happened in the eight and a half years that I've been in the Legislature that a parliamentary assistant has been dismissed midway. If it were a mere changing of the guard, Mr Carr would have been permitted to carry on with this bill and then Mr Carr would have been relieved of the onerous responsibilities of parliamentary assistant. That isn't the case.

There's something very peculiar here, very unsettling, very frightening, quite frankly. I think this committee owes the public a three-week deferral of clause-by-clause to accommodate Mr Wood and to ensure that the parliamentary assistant's advice to the Solicitor General is based not only on the advice from his colleagues on committee, not only the advice from the political staff, the minions that the government sends out here to help keep its caucus members in line, but based on the actual evidence that's been heard by this committee in Toronto, in Thunder Bay, in Sudbury, in Hamilton-Niagara, in Kingston, and now that Mr Wood is here of course he can hear for himself what the people of Windsor and Windsor area have to say.

I reject the proposition of Mr Klees. It's unreasonable.

Mr David Ramsay (Timiskaming): As always.

Mr Kormos: It simply is out of sync with what Mr Carr, Mr Skarica and Mr Murdoch have had to say about the spectre of dictatorship, the spectre of abdication and abandonment of democracy and the spectre of these dismissals -- and in this case, we're talking about Mr Carr -- being oh so very politically motivated by a government that has less and less regard for democratic process, if it ever had any.

Applause.

The Chair: It's hard enough for me to listen to the debates without having demonstrations in the audience. I should tell you that under the standing orders, demonstrations, either approval or disapproval, are not permitted from the audience. Mr Bisson.

1100

Mr Bisson: I'm going to come right to the point. The parliamentary assistant, in his response just a few seconds ago -- and I had an opportunity to listen to his press conference -- said, basically, "I've had an opportunity to follow this bill as a member living in London," and is trying to make us believe as committee members, but more importantly, trying to make the public believe, that you, as a new parliamentary assistant, following this bill in the city of London, are up to date with what every presenter had to say about this bill. I find that unacceptable.

I am a member from Cochrane South. The only way I find out what people have to say about a bill is by being on the committee. You don't find out through the filters of political staff or the filters of the media, because that is only part of the story. You don't get the full read of what people had to say and what they were getting at. So I find that very odd.

The second point I would have to make is that he responded in the television interview a little while ago that he thought this was a fundamentally sound bill and that no major amendments have to be put forward with this bill because in fact this is a good bill. Well, I'm sorry, but for the last two weeks I've been on this committee, that is not what I've heard people presenting to this committee say. They say there are major problems with this bill, that there need to be major amendments to this bill, and in fact some have suggested the whole of part IX needs to be withdrawn.

In fact, Mr Wood, you're out of sync with the committee members. Your own government side has said there need to be some amendments to this bill. I think that demonstrates to me that the parliamentary assistant needs some time to sit down with the government members -- and I notice that you just told him something very quickly, Mr Klees, and I would have done the same -- but I think it demonstrates far too well that the government members need to sit down, along with the opposition members, with Mr Wood, and bring him up to date with what people had to say. This is a democracy.

To the point of the parliamentary assistant being fired and why we're asking for the three weeks, I think the Windsor Star says it all. The headline says, "Premier is a Dictator, Tory Dissenters Say." That evokes to me the comment that is being made through the paper, that the Premier is trying to control, with the Solicitor General, the outcome of these public hearings.

More to the point, as MPPs, members of provincial Parliament for all of our various constituents, we go to the polls every four to five years, and we are elected to represent our constituents and the broader constituents of the province of Ontario when we're on these committees. It is our responsibility to make sure that we listen to what people have to say and try to get into our laws that we pass through the Legislature a reflection of what we have heard. When I see comments such as this, this is pretty serious; the Premier being called a dictator by his own former parliamentary assistant for this bill. I think that says something about where we find ourselves.

The government members opposite are honourable members and I know they want to give this bill a fair hearing. They want to pay respect to the presenters who have presented to this bill. I urge them strongly to support our motion in order to give this bill some time before it goes to committee of the whole so we can introduce amendments.

We could have come to this committee and said, "We want public hearings to start all over again." If I had been a government member on that side, I would have dismissed that motion, because you would have read that into being: "You're just trying to stall this process for the sake of stalling it." We're saying, no, Hansard has done their job. They've recorded what's been said, and the members of the committee, government and opposition together, have heard what was put into Hansard by the people themselves. We have a responsibility as members of the Legislature of this province to bring Mr Wood up to speed. I go back again: When the parliamentary assistant says in a TV interview, "I've had an opportunity to look at this sitting in London, and I think this bill is fundamentally okay and there don't need to be major amendments," that tells me the parliamentary assistant in fact does not know what's going on with this bill.

The last point I make is simply this: I watched with great interest, as the members were caucused around the other side talking about this issue, the paid political staffer for the Solicitor General, the eyes, ears and mouthpiece of the minister, running from the telephone to give the members of the caucus some instructions, I presume, and all of a sudden the government members come back and say, "We don't need to extend it." I think that demonstrates to me that this is a political process when it is should not be. In fact, if the government members do not support this motion, I would say, in all seriousness, it sounds to me like the hand of the Premier has not only found a way to get rid of certain people who might be supportive of what they heard on committee but is influencing members of this committee, which I find objectionable. Committees are there to do a job, and that is to listen to the people and to make amendments on what we've heard.

I urge you to support this motion on the basis of making sure that the people who have been heard get a fair hearing. If you don't, I think this whole process is a farce. Quite frankly, it will be for nothing and it will demonstrate that this government is not listening and is not serious about listening to the people of Ontario and that the headlines in the paper are true, that Mike Harris really is a dictator.

Mr Ron Johnson: Call the vote.

The Chair: Are there any other questions? I call the vote.

Mr Kormos: A recorded vote, please.

The Chair: Yes, that will be held. The motion is to extend the clause-by-clause dates by three weeks.

All those in favour of the motion?

Ayes

Bisson, Duncan, Kormos, Pupatello, Ramsay.

The Chair: All those against the motion?

NAYS

Doyle, Ron Johnson, Klees, Leadston, Parker, Bob Wood.

The Chair: I take it the motion is defeated.

GABRIELLA FOWLER

The Chair: We will now proceed to our first presentation, Gabriella Fowler.

Mr Kormos: Mr Chair, let me applaud the courage of Toni Skarica, Gary Carr and Bill Murdoch. Let me hope for the balance of government members, including those on this committee, that they can somehow find the way to muster up the same or even a fraction of that courage.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr Kormos.

We have kept our guest waiting for close to three quarters of an hour. Thank you for that. Welcome, Miss Fowler. I welcome you to the committee and I apologize for the delay in permitting your presentation. I'd ask you to proceed.

Ms Gabriella Fowler: My name is Gabriella Fowler. I live at 5421 Reginald, unit 2. On February 18, 1997, I left for work. I'm a waitress at Charlie's Bar. I left my 14-year-old with my four-year-old and at approximately quarter to 12 at night I got a phone call saying that my house was on fire. My little girl was trapped in the bedroom upstairs. When I got home, the fire department had been there. They got her out and she was barely conscious.

From what I understand, what had happened was my 14-year-old decided to make French fries and poured grease into a pot. She took the bag of potatoes, went into the front room and started cutting the potatoes, but little did she realize that when she poured the grease into the pot, the grease went on the outside of the pot and went directly on to the burner. As soon as she was done cutting her French fries, she came out and the whole kitchen had gone. The cupboards had ended up catching on fire and the smoke was so thick she couldn't see two feet in front of her. She managed to get the burner turned off but by this time she had inhaled so much smoke that she couldn't get up to save her sister because she had already been feeling it and she couldn't really see too much in front of her. She called to my other daughter to stay upstairs and that she was going to go and get help. She ran outside and she went over to my neighbour's and called the fire department. My neighbour had called me at work.

When the firemen had gotten there, their response time was less then four minutes from the time they got the call. When they got there, they went upstairs and my little girl had crawled out of her bed and gone into her closet and lain on the floor of her closet. They still managed to find her within seconds. They heard her crying in the closet.

From what I understand, what you're trying to do here is put in a temporary fire department. If this bill is passed and if this fire was after that, it would have made a difference. I wouldn't have wanted to risk seeing, knowing, taking that chance of my daughter's life, on a risk, to see if it's worth it. All I can do is -- I'm not saying what's right, what's wrong, I'm speaking from my reality and the situation and from my heart. A couple of more minutes, my daughter wouldn't have made it.

Once we got out of the hospital -- my daughter was in there for a few days -- I did take her over to the fire department because I was very pleased in their response, and she met everybody. When I got the phone call to come down and speak, I jumped at it, because I think the fire department, the way that it stands now and not taking chances, did the best they could do. They saved my daughter's life as far as I'm concerned.

I don't know what more to say, but I just wanted to come down and say that.

The Chair: Thank you for sharing that, Miss Fowler. There may be some questions.

1110

Mr Klees: Thank you very much for your presentation. As we have said many times, we've had numerous representations across the province from people who have had similar experiences to yours, where the firefighters have played a very key role in saving lives. I just want to assure you that this is our objective as well, to ensure that not only will that level of service continue but that it will actually be improved.

Your concern is based on a fear you have that this bill has as its objective to put in, as you've put it, a temporary fire department. Let me assure you that there is absolutely nothing in this legislation that proposes that. That is not factual. I'm not sure where that information has come from, but I just want to allay your fears or anyone else's who may be observing these hearings that that is not the objective of this legislation.

Mrs Sandra Pupatello (Windsor-Sandwich): Thank you for speaking to us today. There are parts of this bill that do speak to part-time firefighters and also speak to privatization of the fire departments. We saw yesterday a film in my office that showed a private company called Rural/Metro. The most significant problem with the private company that runs in Tennessee is that their response time is so poor and fire damage is so significantly more that insurance companies will either refuse to cover or the insurance rates are dramatically higher because the fire loss is so much higher when they've gone to privatizing the fire department. So while Mr Klees would like to tell you or placate you and say, "Oh, there's nothing in this bill that's like that," the reality is this bill does allow for privatization, it does allow this expansion of part-time and on-call firefighters as opposed to being on a shift. Then it becomes a matter of who's going to be available at what time when the fire alarm goes off. I have no questions.

Mr Duncan: Thank you for your very compelling testimony. The story is well-known and has been repeated on umpteen occasions in Windsor. The only commentary I would like to share with you is that prior to being elected to the Legislature I sat on Windsor city council, and our fire department has been run in an exemplary fashion. Our firefighters are second to none. There have always been movements to make better use of resources within our fire department. There is a good climate of labour relations in our fire department. I think it needs to be said that things work reasonably well, and when they don't work, we're able to make them work better.

Unfortunately, the government -- as I don't agree with Mr Klees -- has taken the position that we have to shake the whole mixup. Anybody who's been involved with the Windsor department over the years knows that we have one of the finest services in the province, if not the country, and that the men and women who staff that and the leadership in the department, on both the labour and management sides, have worked together. Any time there have been problems, we've been able to resolve them and continue to offer first-rate service that can't be compared, in my view certainly, to any other private service anywhere. I think the kind of testimony you bring forward shows just how out of touch the government is with the reality of modern firefighting, particularly in a community like Windsor.

Mr Kormos: Thank you kindly, Miss Fowler. I don't think any of us is unmoved as you and others like you talk about some very personal and gut-wrenching experiences. We saw it this morning when we saw firefighters from Windsor rappelling down the side of this building. I don't know about the rest of the folks, but I was standing on the ground and I was shaking; I wasn't the guy or two guys up on top of that roof rappelling down, simulating a rescue.

As for Mr Klees, all of us stay up late at night sometimes. We watch those infomercials; you know, the ones that would purport to sell you a carburetor that will give you 200 miles to the gallon, and from time to time people buy them. I used to be critic for the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations, and they'd end up calling my office because of course there is no such thing as a carburetor that gets 200 miles to the gallon. But there are some operators who think that if they say it often enough and with a straight enough face, somehow they can turn it into truth.

Fact: As you have observed, this bill is going to permit part-time firefighters. Fact: Part-time firefighters have a slower response time; it has been proven across North America. Second, part-time firefighters are not going to be as well trained. We've heard from any number of sources that a part-time firefighter would have to be on for a good 10 years at least to even come close to the level of training of a first class firefighter. Third, part-time firefighters, simply because of the nature of being part-time, can't become a part of that unique, remarkable --

Ms Fowler: Team.

Mr Kormos: -- team. Fact: This bill opens the door, lays out the carpet, for the American corporate for-profit firefighting services, which have a disastrous record in the United States. It's a fact. It's there. You and others like you know that. Fact: This bill, among other things, prohibits firefighters from negotiating what their work hours are going to be and extends their workweek up to 48 hours. That's going to mean firefighters will be under incredible stress, unable to negotiate work hours, and it will put them, firefighters, and members of the community at risk.

This fire service bill has been properly identified as a real threat to public safety. I know what Mr Klees is doing here. It's his job. He gets paid quite well for doing it too, as a matter of fact. The minimum wage at Queen's Park isn't shabby at all.

Ms Fowler: Can I get a job?

Mr Kormos: At the same time, you know, the Kathie Lee Giffords and those of that ilk would get paid reasonably well for their pitches at 2 in the morning on those infomercials. I suggest that you no more believe that than you would believe some of the pap you're fed on those 30-minute-long televised commercials that would have you send them your Amex card number or your cheque or money order for products that are going to come nowhere close to doing what they say they're going to do.

The Chair: Thank you, Ms Fowler, for sharing your personal experiences with us. We're very pleased that your daughter is okay.

Ms Fowler: She's doing fine.

JACK CHANDLER

The Chair: Our next presentation is Mr Jack Chandler. You have a written presentation from Mr Chandler. Welcome. Please proceed.

Mr Jack Chandler: Good morning. Jack Chandler, Wallaceburg Fire Department. I'd like to hit on response times.

The possibility of having fewer firefighters on duty and counting on other firefighters to respond on a call-in basis worries me. We have this in Wallaceburg, and when we report to a fire scene it only takes a couple of seconds to realize that three of us can't handle it and we'll have to call back in for help. When we do put out the all-call for help, it's at least 10 minutes before other firefighters show up. You know how far a fire can go in 10 minutes.

At the fire scene we have to perform rescue, ventilation and fire suppression. We need to have enough guys on the scene to do all of this. If we are waiting for firefighters to come from home, one of these jobs will suffer. That's assuming that other firefighters are coming, that we know for sure help is coming. I've been at the scene numerous times in the summertime when people have gone camping, people have gone away, and people have never showed up. The police have gone out on the streets trying to find somebody to give us a hand when the weather is 90 degrees out and you've got pumper gear on. We've lost houses on account of that, because we're just short-handed.

1120

When we look at a call-in system, we don't know how many people are coming back, like I say. If such a system was in place, we would have the added expense of paying these firefighters for being on standby. Why not put the money towards having full-time staff on duty?

We've tried part-time firefighters. It didn't work out. We tried this years ago. They brought them in at part-time. Their first job is where they work. If we had them working on the night shift, they'd get up at 5 o'clock in the morning and go home because they'd say, "I have to be at work at 7 o'clock or 8 o'clock." They don't have the training. When you respond to a scene with a part-time firefighter, you have to keep an eye on the part-time firefighter, whereas with your brother firefighters you work with full-time, you know exactly what they're going to do and they know what you're going to do. But with a part-time firefighter, if you go into a burning home for a rescue or a suppression, you've got to keep an eye on that part-time man. I've seen it where they followed us in -- it's supposed to be a buddy system -- and two minutes later you turn around and he's gone. He says: "This is only my part-time job. If I get hurt, who's going to look after me?" It doesn't work. It was already brought up, the training; it takes years of training. They'd have to have years of training before I would feel comfortable working with these people.

We have been assured in Wallaceburg that this will not happen. With the restructuring going on and the cutbacks, the mayor promised us that we've been cut as far as we can go. I work three people on a shift, two firefighters and an officer. When you pull up to a scene, you have your officer trying to size up, you have your pump operator and you have one man coming off with an airpack grabbing a line. So you only have one man there for a few seconds to fight the fire until your pump operator can get on to an airpack and go in and back him up. Two people going into a burning building for a rescue, that's ridiculous. Like I said, if we call back for help, it could be 10 minutes, if you get any help. These part-time guys wake up in the middle of the night, it's 3 o'clock in the morning, it's freezing out, and they say, "I'm not going to go." I don't want to get on to it too much; I'll just get too pissed off.

Mr Ron Johnson: Join the ranks.

Mr Chandler: Look at it this way: Lives depend on it. If you need open-heart surgery, would you want the best possible surgeon or somebody who just operates part-time on the weekends?

Just a word on privatization. They have poorer training. These companies go into this to make a dollar, so they're not going to keep their equipment up. They'll bring in anybody off the street, pay him minimum wage, charge a user fee, which you've seen down in the States years ago. If you didn't pay that user fee, your house burned down.

In Wallaceburg it costs each household approximately $10 per month, which is cheap, for full-time protection, plus our firefighters are all trained as emergency first responders to back up the ambulance or take over if the ambulance is already busy. Are these part-timers going to be that fully trained to help? We do everything the ambulance personnel can do. We have trained paramedics in our department right now. Everybody is dedicated.

I agree with some improvements in the bill, to fire prevention and education. This has been long overdue. I want you to know I don't disagree with Bill 84; I just want to make sure we maintain safety in all areas of firefighting.

Thank you for your time; I appreciate it. If there are any questions, I'll try to answer them.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr Chandler. We have a couple of minutes per caucus. I'd like to ask you, what's the composition of the Wallaceburg force?

Mr Chandler: The chief, 12 full-time and 10 volunteers.

Mrs Pupatello: I wonder if the people in Wallaceburg realize that a good reason for the government to bring forward a bill like this that would allow for privatization is because of the significant cuts to municipalities across Ontario. They have to give the towns and cities some kind of a toolkit to find a way to save the money.

Right now in Windsor, for example, our local city councillors are highly supportive of our local fire department. Our fear is that next year when another cut comes to the city of Windsor every city and town is going to be looking for where they can find money out of their budget. At that point, they have to say, "I hate to look at the fire department, but we've got to have a look here too."

Bill 84, if passed the way it is, will allow them to look at privatizing fire departments. In the southern states, it's the smaller towns and cities that have looked at privatization, and some have gone for it, not necessarily the major urban centres. Would your city of Wallaceburg be one of those you feel, given the significant cuts that are coming still to Wallaceburg from the Conservative government, may look to privatization?

Mr Chandler: No. I have in writing from the mayor and council that we will stay the way we are on account of the industry we have in town. They had open hearings last year. We went from a 42-hour to a 48-hour week. They were thinking about cutting our fire department back. You should have seen the support we had from the people, and the mayor and council listened and kept it at 12 full-time, even though we would have liked to have more. But they kept the fire department where it is. It's in black and white; it has been on the radio, it has been on TV and it has been in the paper that we will maintain our fire department the way it is.

Mrs Pupatello: Are you a former chief or are you the current chief?

Mr Chandler: I'm chief right now.

Mrs Pupatello: Chief, did you ever think that as the fire chief you'd have to take on this kind of advocacy role just to maintain appropriate fire service in your community?

Mr Chandler: No. It seems to me that over the years fire services build up, with better training every year. Now it seems the government is trying to knock it down, put us back where we were 50 years ago.

Mrs Pupatello: Don't you do more as a firefighter today than ever, in terms of the kinds of rescues, the method, the places you water, a number of different areas that 50 years ago firefighters simply weren't involved in?

Mr Chandler: Oh, 50 years ago firefighters went out and "surround and drowned." Today it's fire prevention and education. You're talking to schools, you're taking courses, hazardous material and what have you. You've got to specialize, probably, in a dozen different things, which years ago you never did. Like I say, we do lots of shared responses with the ambulance. In Wallaceburg, the ambulance personnel go home at 2 o'clock in the morning. From 2 o'clock to 8 o'clock there's no ambulance service. They have to leave their home, go to the ambulance base, pick up an ambulance and go to the scene, which could be -- how many people would you lose, heart-attack time?

The Chair: We must move on. The committee welcomes Mr Howard Hampton, the member for Rainy River.

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): Mr Chandler, as the Chair has just indicated, I am not a full-time member of the committee. I observed for a while in Toronto, and I sat in for a while yesterday in Hamilton. I'm pleased to be here today. I want to ask you a general question based on what I've seen in the three days I've had a chance to observe.

My sense is that the government is prepared to gamble with public safety, prepared to gamble with public security and prepared to gamble with public health so that they can take some money out of fire services; in some communities, they'll also be taking money out of policing; and across the province, it looks like they'll be taking money out of ambulance services. That's the general impression I'm getting: They're prepared to gamble with those things in order that they can pull back some money out of fire protection, fire services, ambulance services and policing services. As somebody who is in the business, what's your sense of that? What's your sense of things?

Mr Chandler: I see the government doing that, the ambulance, fire, police. As I said a few minutes ago, it seems like the government is trying to set us back 50 years. Canada has come this far, and we're one of the leaders in health, ambulance, fire protection and police, but the government seems to be trying to take all this away from us and make everything part-time, like working at McDonald's part-time. To take these full-time jobs away, I don't really understand where they're coming from.

Mr Hampton: I want to put this to you squarely, because you've talked about it a bit. Do you think -- and I'll make the question more general -- part-time ambulance attendants, part-time police officers and part-time firefighters can at any time do the job as well and as consistently as full-time people who have full-time training?

1130

Mr Chandler: No. When it comes down to the crunch, they're not going to put themselves on the line, as a part-time person, where professionals will, they say, and they're trained for it. Part-time, they run in blind and end up getting hurt. A professional can look at a scene and size it up in a matter of seconds; but part-time, no, if they think there's any possibility of getting hurt, they're going to back off.

The Chair: We must move on.

Mr Ron Johnson: Thank you, sir, for your presentation. You indicated a couple of concerns; one was, obviously, the part-time issue, and much has been said about the privatization issue. I've been a vocal opponent of privatization since the start of the committee process.

Mr Duncan: We know.

Mr Ron Johnson: You know. I am still a member. Although I may not be a Vice-Chair, next week I will still be a member of this committee, I hope. As long as I am, I want you and those listening to know that I will continue to be vocal opposition to the privatization of fire suppression services.

I want to say, though, with respect to the part-time issue, that I have in fact asked many questions about the part-time issue. I want to ask you, where you are practising firefighting, do you in fact work with part-time -- not part-time, but you're working now with volunteers, is that correct?

Mr Chandler: Yes.

Mr Ron Johnson: When you go to a fire site, where you've got perhaps a house or whatever on fire, do you work hand in hand with those volunteers to put out that fire? How does that work? What's the system you have in place?

Mr Chandler: When there's a call-back, we're calling back all the rest of the full-time guys plus the volunteers. The volunteers will muster at one of the engines. We'll set them up, say, take one or two volunteers and put them with two of the full-time men to back them up, dragging hoses and so on.

Mr Ron Johnson: Do you work well with them?

Mr Chandler: Most of them.

Mr Ron Johnson: The point I'm trying to get at is, is there really going to be a difference -- and I don't know; I've never fought a fire in my life -- between how well you're able to work with a volunteer firefighter and how well you'll be able to work with a part-time firefighter?

Mr Chandler: Talking to my men, they don't feel as comfortable going into a home that's on fire with a volunteer as they do with one of their brother firefighters, because working together 24 hours a day, eating, sleeping, you get to know each other; you know how to trust each other, you what each other are thinking.

The Chair: Our time is up. Fire Chief Chandler, thank you for attending here today. We appreciate your input.

Mr Chandler: Thank you for having me.

DONALD MCGREGOR

The Chair: Our next presentation is Donald McGregor. Good morning, Mr McGregor.

Mr Donald McGregor: Good morning.

The Chair: Please proceed.

Mr McGregor: Mr Chairman, members of Parliament, ladies and gentlemen, good morning. My name is Donald McGregor and my interest in Bill 84. My wife and I have resided in the city of Chatham for the past 42 years. We have four children. All those children are married and live either in the city or very close to Chatham. They have blessed us with 12 grandchildren. I own property in the city of Chatham. Therefore, I am very interested in the protection of my property and the lives of my dear grandchildren and wife.

I'd like to share with you a very true story. I joined the Chatham fire department January 1, 1959. I worked my way up through the ranks to first class firefighter. It takes four years to become a first class professional firefighter. I was promoted to acting captain, training instructor, captain and deputy chief, retiring January 30, 1992. I'm a graduate of the Ontario Fire College technology course.

Very briefly, I would like to share with you one of my very first experiences as a first class firefighter. It was January 6, 1963. The alarm came in: 145 Victoria Avenue, corner of Forest and Victoria Avenue, Blessed Sacrament Church. First response was from station number 1, and that was unit number 5. On that unit was a captain, pump operator and two professional first class firefighters. On ladder unit number 3 -- I had just become a first class firefighter, so now I could drive unit number 3 -- that was me. I had a probationary firefighter with me. Response from number 2 station was another pumper, unit number 1: a captain, a pump operator and one first class firefighter.

If you've been keeping track here, the first response was a total of nine professionally trained officers and firefighters of the Chatham Fire Department. The time was early afternoon. The weather was cloudy and cold. The road conditions were wet with slippery spots. Response time was two and a half minutes.

I'm going to call the captain of unit 5 "Captain 5." Unit number 5, first on the scene. In his professional size-up, the captain indicated smoke from various areas of the church, under eaves and around the doors etc. Captain 5 to unit number 1: "Catch hydrant and lay it into unit 5 at the rear of the church." Captain 5 to ladder unit number 3 -- that's me again -- "Prepare to open the roof for ventilation." I positioned unit 3 and extended the ladder to the peak of the roof. Captain 1 then took charge of ventilation.

Captain 5 gave direction to charge hose line. When hose lines were ready, Captain 5 directed Captain 1 to ventilate. Captain 1 had unit 3 -- that was me and a probationer -- to open the roof. A firefighter from unit number 1 opened the front doors. Two firefighters advanced into the rear of the church with hose lines on the fog pattern. The fire was quickly extinguished with limited structure damage but extensive smoke damage. The next day in the Chatham Daily News the article stated that the estimated loss in the Blessed Sacrament Church fire was $150,000 to $200,000.

These are the points I would like to bring up to this committee today: the quick response time, two and a half minutes from the time of the alarm until we were there. The second point: at least minimum staffing of full-time, well-trained professional officers and firefighters who are trained in fire ground operations. Fire ground operations must consist of size-up, firefighting tactics, ventilation, stages of fires, hydraulic, hose lines, characteristics of water -- just to point out that one cubic foot of water when applied to a fire on a fog pattern will produce 1,700 cubic feet of steam, so you see the large expansion -- the need for proper communication, teamwork, and the list goes on and on with professional firefighters.

1140

I firmly believe the professional firefighting tactics that were carried out at this incident saved several millions of dollars in property damage. I am told the stained glass windows alone in Blessed Sacrament Church are insured for $3 million dollars. To replace that church today, it would be somewhere between $12 million and $14 million, they tell me.

This is just one of many incidents during my years of service on the Chatham fire department that I could share with you. Many times the news media would report a $20,000 or a $100,000 loss, which should have read "a $200,000 save or a $1-million save."

I've been there when we couldn't save the life or the property we tried so hard to save, because we weren't called in time or because the fire was just completely out of control by the time we got there. That hurts every professional firefighter.

This morning I humbly ask you, as a retired professional firefighter and deputy chief of the Chatham Fire Department, and as a father and a grandfather, to remember my little story during your deliberations on Bill 84. I thank you.

Mr Bisson: I want to thank you very much, Mr McGregor, for your presentation. I guess the simple question -- I think you've already answered it, but for the record I'd be looking for a clear answer -- is, if that fire you talked about that happened in 1963 had been responded to in a manner where you had maybe one or two full-time firefighters at the firehall and had to rely on the calling in of part-time firefighters to the scene of the fire, would the damage have been more extensive?

Mr McGregor: Most certainly. The $3-million windows I'm talking about that are still there today would have been lying in the parking lot or yard.

Mr Bisson: This is a tough question, and it might not even be a fair question: Can you estimate, in the time you've been a firefighter over the years, how much money you've actually saved the taxpayers, the residents and the insurance companies of this province in the fires that you were able to get to on time?

Mr McGregor: That would be impossible to say; a large amount of money, though.

Mr Klees: Mr McGregor, thank you for your presentation. You speak with pride about the Chatham Fire Department, and rightfully so. You're aware, of course, that the existence of that fire department, the staffing, the money that is used to ensure that there is a high-quality staff there, comes from the municipality.

Mr McGregor: Certainly.

Mr Klees: It's the responsibility of the municipality to make sure that those standards are there and that you have the resources with which to deliver your service. Is that right?

Mr McGregor: Right.

Mr Klees: As much as Mr Kormos would like to say that we're spinning this legislation, the truth of the matter is that nothing changes with regard to who has the responsibility to make sure that there's adequate staffing, that the standards of training are there, and in fact, whether it's part-time or full-time or volunteer, that still is the responsibility of, and the decisions for that will be made by, the municipality. Do you have any reason to believe the council, the local municipality, would in any way compromise the staffing levels or the level of service that is being delivered by your fire department now if this legislation were to provide the opportunity to have some part-time people involved?

Mr McGregor: I would certainly hope they wouldn't change what they presently have. At least maintain what we presently have in professional firefighting services.

Mr Klees: Precisely. The point is that it really is the responsibility of the municipality.

The Chair: We have to move on.

Mr Ramsay: Thank you very much for your presentation. I think what Mr Klees is not telling you is that the Harris government is going to be putting your council in an impossible situation with all the downloading. While I know your council wants to provide the very best firefighting and protection services they can for their citizens, this downloading is going to make it impossible for them not to be cutting in every place possible that they can at the local level.

Bill 84 is the loaded gun that the Harris government is going to pass to your council to put down your fire department. They can do a lot of things, and you referred to them, privatization being one, bringing in part-time people instead of relying on the full-time professional you talked about who is really needed in a professional fire department. That's the problem with this.

If all members around this table really believe we should look at fire protection especially as a provincial interest, we should be taking out those clauses in this bill that would allow, under tremendous pressure, municipalities to start to cut into a service that I think responds very well for the people in every municipality across this province.

The Chair: Mr McGregor, thank you very much for sharing your expertise with us today.

JAMES ANDERSON

The Chair: Our next presenter is from the Chatham Fire Department, Fire Chief Jim Anderson. Good morning, Fire Chief. I again apologize to you and other presenters here for the delay in getting started this morning. Members should have received a written presentation. I'd ask you to proceed.

Mr James Anderson: It is indeed a pleasure and a privilege to come before you this morning to present my views on Bill 84. I'll probably espouse some views on the other rhetoric that is happening but also on the specific bill itself.

I've given a copy of my presentation this morning. Good morning to all. My name is Fire Chief James J. Anderson. I am presently the fire chief of the city of Chatham, Ontario. I have held this position of fire chief since 1989. Prior to being assigned the role of fire chief, I was the deputy fire chief from October, 1983. Before that, I was a firefighter with the city of Chatham from December, 1963, until my promotion to deputy chief in 1983.

The previous speaker was a former deputy chief of mine, certainly a fine gentleman. He related a story to you. He didn't tell the whole story. I was the probationer riding with him to that church fire. We did make it in two and a half minutes, but the rest of the story is that we took off a telephone pole getting there, and we still made it in two and a half minutes and we still put the fire out.

Mr Ramsay: Was he driving at the time?

Mr Anderson: Yes, and he passed me on the ladder to put a hole in the roof. He was training me, and he did a remarkable job, I hope.

During that 22-year period, I was president of the Chatham Professional Fire Fighters Association for some 13 years. For several years now, I have been actively participating in the Ontario Association of Fire Chiefs, holding the positions of director on the board and second vice-president of that organization.

I am here this morning to present my views on the fire protection and prevention bill. For several years now, the fire chiefs have been working diligently to help to initiate change in the fire service of Ontario, with a view to ensuring the citizens of Ontario can enjoy a fire-safe environment. As of December 23, 1997, I will have completed 34 years in the fire service, and to say the least, I feel confident that I have contributed in providing a good level of service in fire-related matters. Over the course of those years, I have been privy to objective viewpoints from many people in the fire service in trying to update the legislation as it now stands and to meet the challenges of the 1990s and beyond.

There has been a great deal of input from all parties into this legislation. There has been a lot of consultation. There has also been much rhetoric. As I understand it, at this point in time we are in fact on the verge of changing legislation in a positive way for the citizens of Ontario.

1150

As I stated earlier, the Ontario Association of Fire Chiefs has had a very active role in helping to bring this legislation forward, and in recent years the legislation has been developed to enhance public safety and in no way diminish it. During the course of these public hearings, and indeed prior to them, you have been presented with a document prepared by the board of directors of the Ontario Association of Fire Chiefs, called The Fire Chiefs' Response, and that's this document here. As you are in possession of that document, I am sure, and are familiar with it, I just want to state that I support this document and the OAFC; that's, again, this document.

I would like to draw your attention to page 1 of the document, in particular "Association Objectives." These are:

"To promote interest in and the study of fire services for the greater protection of life and property from fire;

"To engage in research and the study of problems affecting fire services at the municipal, regional and provincial levels;

"To establish, support and aid in the establishment of programs, surveys and other activities which contribute to the advancement and development of fire services generally;

"To encourage cooperation with organizations in developing and stimulating public education in fire prevention for the preservation of life and property from the destruction of fire;

"To propose and support legislation, at all levels of government, for the advancement and development of fire services."

I believe those opening statements are correct and just about say it all.

On page 3 of that document, "The Overview of the Legislation," it states, "It is the view of the OAFC that the proposed legislation contained in Bill 84 is a positive step forward in public fire safety."

The fire chiefs have been calling for changes to the outdated fire service legislation for many years, to reflect the changing face of the fire service. Bill 84 provides the flexibility for municipalities to deliver the appropriate level of fire prevention and protection in each community, and I support that concept.

The proposed legislation is directed towards fire prevention and public education. The OAFC believes this is a positive move towards improved public safety for all Ontario residents. We encourage the government to retain the need for mandatory services through the process of legislative debate.

The OAFC has consistently called for flexibility to establish a strong management team to take the fire service into the future. The provision of an enhanced management team within the legislation is another positive step. We also support the need for exclusions from bargaining units of all positions for which a management responsibility can be demonstrated. We urge the provincial government to be firm on the concepts within the proposed legislation, as they are, in our opinion, fair and reasonable to all parties.

I would like to draw your attention to page 5, "Public Education Programs."

"Education of the public will enhance fire prevention programs and will raise the profile of fire risks and the dangers of fire. Recognizing dangerous situations and having the knowledge to deal with those dangers will help reduce the incidents of fires and save lives. We support this initiative in the proposed legislation."

Since 1983, the Chatham fire department has taken a proactive approach to fire safety education. With our own Sparky's Learn Not to Burn program and our real Dalmatian dog, we have entered into an educational program for the young people of our community that is proven to have worked. In my estimation, public education programs are the key to fire safety in Ontario.

I would like to draw your attention to page 8 and the conclusion of this document.

"The proposed legislation will provide through its direction and guidance, an effective fire protection and fire prevention service for all of Ontario. We support the concepts and principles within Bill 84.

"The members of the Ontario Association of Fire Chiefs believe this legislation will enable an effective and efficient delivery of fire protection and prevention services, into the next decade and beyond.

"We urge the government to adopt the legislation."

Having reviewed the fire chiefs' response to the Fire Protection and Prevention Act, 1996, I would like to now draw your attention to the proposed act itself.

Under part I, "Definitions":

"`firefighter' means a person employed in, or appointed to, a fire department and assigned to undertake fire protection services, and includes a volunteer firefighter."

In my estimation, this is a better definition than the present legislation, which states that firefighters would be assigned exclusively to fire suppression and fire prevention. Under the present act it is either/or, not both. In the new act, "firefighter" will mean a person employed to do all these things. I believe we've been doing it; I believe we should carry on doing it.

The second definition I'd like to draw your attention to is "fire protection services":

"`fire protection services' includes fire suppression, fire prevention, fire safety education, communication, training of persons involved in the provision of fire protection services, rescue and emergency services and the delivery of all those services."

My view is that this is a far better definition. Certainly, it is more concise and is more all-encompassing than the present legislation.

The third definition I'd like to bring your attention to is "automatic aid agreements."

"For the purposes of this act, an automatic aid agreement means any agreement under which,

"(a) a municipality agrees to ensure the provision of an initial response to fires, rescues and emergencies that may occur in a part of another municipality where a fire department in the municipality is capable of responding more quickly than any fire department situated in the other municipality; or

"(b) a municipality agrees to ensure the provision of a supplemental response to fires, rescues and emergencies that may occur in a part of another municipality where a fire department situated in the municipality is capable of providing the quickest supplemental response to fires, rescues and emergencies occurring in the part of the other municipality."

To me, this is a provision which has been talked about and bandied around for some 25 years or more. It's about time we did it. This is an excellent way to ensure a proper, timely response to emergency situations in the province. It is a definite improvement. We are here to save lives and we should be taking full advantage of that new concept.

Under part II, "Responsibility for Fire Protection Services:

"Municipal responsibilities

"2(1) Every municipality shall,

"(a) establish a program in the municipality which must include public education with respect to fire safety and certain components of fire prevention; and

"(b) provide such other fire protection services as it determines may be necessary in accordance with its needs and circumstances."

In my estimation, this is not just something to talk about; this will in fact do something about it. Fire protection services should be available to everyone in the province of Ontario, and the wording of the act will see that this happens.

1200

Regardless of the rhetoric coming from some organizations, I firmly believe that the municipal responsibilities have been and are being faithfully carried out by present-day mayors, councillors and management teams. I feel they would never allow their citizens to make do with less, and I respect and support that.

Under part II, section 6, "Fire chief, municipalities:

"Responsibility to council

"(3) A fire chief is the person who is ultimately responsible to the council of a municipality that appointed him or her for the delivery of fire protection services."

The key words are "ultimately responsible." There is no attempt here in any way to usurp the authority of a city manager or CEO. The responsibility lies with the fire chief to report through the CEO to council, but in the end it will be the fire chief who is ultimately responsible and answers to council for fire protection services. It has been this way for some years; I believe that is the way it should be. The fire chiefs also believe that's the way it should be and we firmly believe that is what the act delivers.

This legislation as presented has a good many parts to it, the majority of which are a fine compilation of fire safety for the citizens of Ontario. It's quite obvious some disagree, but that's their right and that's their responsibility. I wouldn't have it any other way.

Part X refers to "Fire Safety Commission." Under this, it allows for the Fire Code Commission to be established, appointment of its members and how it will do business.

Under Part XI, "Fire Marshal's Public Fire Safety Council," again this is a good, positive step whereby the fire marshal is given the authority to appoint a public fire safety council. It is established by legislation. This fire safety council can do the things that need to be done to ensure public fire safety education and safety information is promoted throughout the province. The establishment of the Fire Marshal's Public Fire Safety Council is definitely a step forward for the 1990s and beyond, and is a requirement I'm sure will prove effective and worth having to ensure that the citizens of Ontario have input into the direction the fire service and which way it's going.

Under Part XII, "Miscellaneous," protection from personal liability is outlined. Indemnification for firefighters is completely covered.

In conclusion of my presentation here this morning, I feel I can truthfully say that the provisions of this act will propel the fire service into the next millennium. It will give a clear understanding to everyone both inside and outside of the fire service as to what the obligations are, what the requirements are and what the protection is for everyone involved.

The Ontario Association of Fire Chiefs has promoted this new legislation, we have helped develop this new legislation, and we wholeheartedly, unequivocally lend our support to it. We see the passage of the legislation as being a giant step forward that will see the fire service excel and improve for the future.

We have before us some of the finest, most comprehensive fire service legislation in Ontario, Canada, North America and possibly the world. I wish to congratulate the Solicitor General, Robert Runciman, and his government for having the guts to bring it forward for open and honest debate, and hopefully its passage into law. Our citizens' lives may depend on it and on us in the fire service.

I have a couple of notes, if I may, Mr Chairman.

The Chair: I'm afraid, Fire Chief Anderson, the time has elapsed for your presentation. It's a little over 15 minutes. We thank you for sharing your expertise here this morning with the committee. We appreciate it very much.

Before we go to the next presentation, we are running somewhat behind and there are two alternatives. We can take lunches in rotation -- that will take the cooperation of all the caucuses -- or we have three more presenters yet this morning and then we can shorten the lunch-hour by a half-hour. What does this group want?

Mr Klees: Let's shorten the lunch-hour.

The Chair: So we're all here? Okay, we shall do.

Mr Kormos: On a point of order, Chair: Mr Wood is the new parliamentary assistant. This is his first day in this committee as parliamentary assistant. His role is probably the most important of any here, because his role is to listen to the submissions and advise the Solicitor General as to appropriate amendments in response to those submissions. He makes an extra $12,000 or so a year in addition to his $78,000 base salary as an MPP; he's paid for doing that work.

Please, Chair, I've watched him, as have others over the course of the last two presentations, and he appears to have been more preoccupied with his Toronto Star, or whatever that newspaper happens to be, than with the presenters. Would the Chair have him put the damned newspaper down somewhere so that he at least appears to be paying attention to the submissions being made?

The Chair: Mr Kormos, that is not a proper point of order, as you are aware.

CITY OF LONDON

The Chair: The next presenter is from the city of London, Anne Marie DeCicco, councillor, and Fire Chief Gary Weese. Welcome; good morning. I'd ask you to proceed.

Ms Anne Marie DeCicco: We appreciate the opportunity to be here and present the official position of the corporation of the city of London. While we do believe as a city that Bill 84 addresses many of the issues that have been of concern to local government, we have some suggestions for improvements to Bill 84.

The city of London supports the central theme in this bill, that being a focus on public education and fire prevention. No one can argue with the fact that preventing fires and their consequent damage to property and risk to life are very important strategies. While the city already has public education and fire prevention programs in place, we do support the notion of requiring all municipalities to have these services available to their residents, but we urge the government to provide assistance to those municipalities that have yet to develop those services. For many, that would be a costly venture.

The city of London does not support -- I repeat, we do not support -- the concept of privatization of such an essential service as fire suppression. It is our belief that two sections of this legislation, both of which establish definitions, could be interpreted to lay the foundation for privatizing the service. Those are section 1, which defines "fire department" as "a group of firefighters authorized by a municipality, group of municipalities or by agreement...." and section 41, which defines "employer" as "a municipality, person or organization that employs firefighters." Both of those definitions could well be interpreted to permit a municipality to authorize or contract with an individual or a company to provide fire protection services.

The city of London does not believe that this is an appropriate measure, and it is opposed in general to the privatization of essential services such as fire protection. Therefore, the city recommends that section 1 be amended to read "a group of firefighters employed by a municipality," and section 41 be amended to read "means a municipality that employs firefighters."

We also want to address the section of the legislation which addresses the appointment of a fire chief. While the city of London certainly does not argue with the basic intent of this section, we do have some concerns that the section as drafted does not address the different approaches that municipalities take to structure their organizations. Section 6 contemplates the fire chief being appointed by the council and could be interpreted to mean that the fire chief can only report to the council.

Many municipalities now have an administrative structure headed by a chief administrative officer or city manager or city administrator to whom the fire chief reports. In some municipalities, not only the reporting relationship but also the appointment of the fire chief is delegated to the administrative head.

We do not believe that the statute should interfere with the process of structuring and managing municipal organizations. Indeed, the reforms now being introduced to the Municipal Act will require councils to appoint one administrative head. We believe that consistency between these two statutes would be achieved by amending section 6 as follows:

In subsection (1): "If a fire department is established in a municipality or if one fire department is established in two or more municipalities, the council of the municipality or the councils of the municipalities, as the case may be, shall ensure that a fire chief be appointed for the purposes of this act."

In subsection (2): "If two or more municipalities have each established a fire department, the councils of the municipalities shall ensure that a fire chief be appointed for the fire departments."

We would also expect that subsection (3) be deleted.

As municipal governments re-engineer and restructure to meet local needs and circumstances in the most cost-effective way, new approaches to providing a number of municipal services, including inspections, are being considered. For example, some municipalities are considering the integration of their fire inspection program with their building inspection program. Part VI of Bill 84 as currently drafted would not facilitate that choice by an individual municipality. The city therefore recommends the following amendment:

In section 19(1): "The fire marshal, an assistant to the fire marshal, a fire chief or a qualified individual authorized by council is an inspector for the purposes of this part."

Part VII of the bill provides for situations where an offence has been committed, and prescribes fines and other penalties, including imprisonment for such offences. As the bill is currently written, those provisions could apply to matters addressed under part IX of the bill having to do with labour relations. We believe that the offences section should not address labour relations problems, given that there are mechanisms for dealing with those other than the courts. The city of London therefore recommends that a new subsection 28(4) be included which reads, "Part IX of this act should not apply under this section."

Further, there are many changes being proposed elsewhere in the government relating to the prosecution of minor offences, and the fine revenues that flow from those prosecutions. Under the existing fire legislation, the responsibility for prosecutions was given to the crown attorney and that responsibility has not been carried forward in Bill 84. If the municipalities are to be given responsibility for the prosecution of both minor and serious offences, then amendments also need to be made to the legislation to ensure that all fine revenues as a result of those prosecutions go to the municipality.

1210

Bill 84 contemplates the introduction of a mandatory conciliation process as another step forward in harmonizing labour relations in the fire service with the general labour relations scheme in Ontario. We believe that this alternative dispute resolution is a positive step forward, one that will promote free collective bargaining over interest arbitration and place more responsibility on the parties involved.

However, the city of London does have a concern with section 53(5) pertaining to the cost of the conciliation process. We believe the intention of the drafters was that each party pays its own costs and shares equally the costs incurred by the conciliator. Therefore, we propose that section 53(5) be amended to read: "The parties shall each pay one half of the costs incurred by the conciliation officer."

Municipalities do not have confidence that their interests have been considered and reflected in the decisions of arbitrators in the fire service. While we believe that mandatory conciliation will assist, we also propose that changes be introduced to the arbitration process as it pertains to firefighters in the province of Ontario. We recommend that a formal rotating list of provincially appointed arbitrators, with set terms of service, be put into place and that the appointment of an arbitrator in any dispute be from that list, assigned by the province. The selection of the arbitrator should not be the subject of decision by parties to the dispute, just as the choice of a judge is not left to the person charged with an offence.

We also recommend that a similar amendment be made to section 54(15) and section 57(13) to reflect the intention that the parties share equally the costs incurred by the arbitrator.

For many, many years, municipal departments have been artificially restrained by law in their ability to properly structure the management functions within fire services. The existing statute provides for only the fire chief and the deputy fire chief being excluded from the bargaining unit, regardless of the size of the workforce. Bill 84 introduces significant changes in this area, establishing by formula a set of automatic exclusions from the bargaining unit and providing for further management exclusions to be determined by whether or not those persons exercise managerial functions.

The city of London strongly supports these changes to the legislation and as well supports the position of AMO that section 58(5) should be extended to reflect the needs of the very large departments in Ontario.

Finally, we have some concern relating to the indemnification section, section 85. This pertains to our earlier comments on part VII, having to do with offences and enforcement, and we suggest that section 85(1)(c) also be amended to read, "in respect of any other proceeding except matters provided by part IX in which the persons," and it goes on from there. Again, this is simply a matter of separating the treatment of labour relations matters from the provisions having to do with both offences and indemnifications in the statute.

In conclusion, Bill 84 makes many positive steps forward in recognizing the pressures and needs of fire services in the 1990s. The city of London urges the standing committee to recommend to the Legislature that the changes be made to the proposed legislation as outlined in our brief as the corporation of the city of London.

Thank you and we're open for any questions.

The Chair: Thank you very much. We have one minute per caucus.

Mr Ramsay: I want to thank you very much for your presentation today.

Mr Kormos: There were two points raised that cry out for a response, so I'd ask the parliamentary assistant. The concern raised about the application of part VII, two violations under IX: first is that the intention of the government? Second, as to the subsection 53(5) which provides for sharing of costs of conciliation, would the parliamentary assistant please explain the intention of that as currently prepared by the government.

Mr Bob Wood: The intention is for us to listen to all the submissions and indicate any changes that may be made after we've heard all the submissions.

Mr Kormos: Questions have been raised about your drafting of the legislation.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr Kormos. Your time is up.

Mr Kormos: Why can't the parliamentary assistant respond to those --

The Chair: Mr Kormos, you're really grumpy today. Behave yourself.

Mr Kormos: You're damned right I am, Chair. When I see this government interfering with the committee process in the most undemocratic of ways, that makes me grumpy.

The Chair: You are totally out of order and unparliamentary. Mr Klees, one minute.

Mr Klees: There are a number of recommendations you've made that we certainly believe are relevant, and I think you'll some of your recommendations reflected in amendments that we bring forward.

I would like to ask you one point however. You object to sections 1 and 41, in which we define the firefighters as well as the employers, where basically there is an option that is built into the legislation to provide some latitude by municipalities, and yet on page 4 you do call for the municipality being able to make some choices. There has been a call consistently from municipalities to be given more latitude to make decisions. I'm just wondering why, on the one hand, you're asking us to close off that decision-making option and in another section you ask us to give it to you.

Ms DeCicco: That's a very good question, and I appreciate the opportunity to be able to respond, because I think there's a very, very big difference when you're talking about privatizing or opening the door to having a company come in from the outside that might be looking at making profit to deal with suppression of fires and an issue that might be dealing with inspections after all.

There's no question in the mind of the city of London that when it comes to dealing with emergency services the municipalities should be accountable. They should be responsible for that. Our community has made it very clear to them that they want us to be in charge of fire services, and the idea of privatizing or opening that door, given all the examples we've been given in the United States, it simply does not make any sense that this be an option at all. We're on record as being against that and do not believe that there should be an option when it comes to fire suppression.

The Chair: Mrs Pupatello is going to use the 45 seconds remaining of Mr Ramsay's time.

Mrs Pupatello: Councillor, I wonder if you have views personally that differ in any way from your position today as you're representing your city council of London -- yours personally.

Ms DeCicco: Again I am speaking on my own behalf because there are issues dealing with part-time firefighters which our municipality did not take a position on. I think that's one area where there's a very good argument that it's not a question of whether you get along with one another and can you do that, but it's a question of training and experience.

There's no question in my mind that if there's somebody part-time who has to go from one end of the city to another for a fire, whether they can get there at all, I want to make sure that they are there and have the experience from working and having the training on an ongoing basis. I would say that's probably one of the other issues which I wish our municipality had taken more of a position on. It's one that I very strongly believe should be dealt with, and I know there are many other presentations you've heard in that respect.

The Chair: I'm sorry. Our time is up. I do thank you very much for your very explicit presentation here today.

1220

PHIL WALSH

The Chair: Our next presenter is Mr Phil Walsh.

Mrs Pupatello: Is that a change?

The Chair: It's a change.

Mrs Pupatello: Is that replacing Bob Knowles?

The Chair: That is replacing our 11:30 am presenter.

The Chair: Phil Walsh, welcome.

Mr Phil Walsh: Thank you to the committee. My name is Phil Walsh, and I have been asked to speak on behalf of Robert Knowles, who is beside me, and a delegation of full-time firefighters and concerned citizens from the city of Sarnia.

I have been a full-time firefighter for just over 21 years, and Bob Knowles has been a full-time front-line firefighter for just over 30 years. Accompanying us to these hearings are a number of very concerned firefighters and citizens of our community who have a great and very real concern with Bill 84 and its many harmful consequences for the safety of the firefighters and the public.

They're here to tell you that this bill won't work. On their behalf, I'm urging the government to listen to the men and women of the front lines who know what does and doesn't work. These people fight fires every day. They respond to emergencies every day that they're at work, and as a result of that experience, they know the ramifications and the consequences of this bill. This bill makes firefighting even more dangerous for us and the people whom we serve. The government may have had some good intentions at first, but Bill 84 has very dangerous consequences.

I want to tell the committee of an event that occurred approximately a year ago in the city of Sarnia that reinforces in my mind the consequences of understaffing of the fire department. We had a fire call on October 29 at 5:10 am. We responded with two fire trucks from East Street fire station and a backup pumper from the next closest station -- that's our typical way -- to this reported structure fire. I was the first arriving officer and reported over my radio our arrival and the grey smoke that I saw coming out the front door and the flames that were coming out the east window of the building. They were very easily visible from the road in this rather typical one floor, single-family frame home. Within seconds of our arrival, I requested over my radio a second alarm. A second alarm in our case brings a platoon chief in his vehicle and another fire truck with a few more firefighters to the emergency scene.

One of the things I noticed when I first got there were the number of people who were standing around on the sidewalk, several of them in front of the burning house, and they were variously clothed. None of them had coats, none of them had jackets or shoes, and it was really cold outside. I asked them if everybody was out of the house, and the words that I heard back still echo in my mind on a regular basis, "My wife's still in there." That reply came from the man as he looked around and counted heads on the sidewalk, wanting to know his family was out. As I said, these words are in my memory and they're going to be there for a long time. They send shivers up my spine every time I think about it.

Had the fire truck I arrived on not had two empty seats, but instead, had those seats been occupied as they should have been by well-trained and experienced firefighters, fully dressed and wearing their breathing apparatus, then we wouldn't have had to wait the few seconds that it takes, and seems like hours, for the two firefighters who were in the truck behind me to don some more equipment, their breathing apparatus and their hoods, so that they could go in and perform the rescue, or try to perform the rescue. In the meantime, the man's wife, who was also the mother of a couple of teenage girls who were with him on the sidewalk, lay in the house.

During this time a neighbour, he was trying to help out but being inexperienced with fire, grabbed a garden hose and stuck it in the window and started spraying water in there. That is absolutely brutal to the firefighters who are going in there and any victims who are still in the house. He was pushing the heat and smoke and flames back into the building. This is a rather common mistake that I've seen made before by people trying to help, inexperienced people. They shove that heat back in there, where it is supposed to be venting out of the building. They upset the thermal balance that naturally occurs in fire situations. They've disrupted that and the tremendous heat is brought down to the floor. Experienced firefighters know that, they've been there, and they don't want to be there again. I don't want to be there again.

I can recall quite vividly the husband screaming in the rear door for his wife to come out and giving the panicked instructions that he gave us and to the firefighters of her last known whereabouts: "She's right there, just go up the stairs and turn left. She's right there in the bedroom." Then the almost panicked screams of "Lynda, come out; please come out, Lynda." The firefighters who were entering were pushed back a little bit by the amount of heat and smoke that was coming out that now had all this moisture in it, but they followed the instructions he gave them to her whereabouts. They went up three stairs, they turned left and they followed the short wall into the bedroom. The two firefighters proceeded in the heat and the smoke to search the bed, the bedroom floor, under the bed, in the closet, everywhere in the bedroom that she might have been. The radio report came to me from the lieutenant was in there in charge: "She's not in here. She's not in the bedroom. We've searched."

Just about that same time I turned around and another fire truck had arrived, the one that was coming from the next nearest station. Firefighter Kirk Morritt and firefighter Glen Harding got off that truck. They had their breathing apparatus on and they went into the house to assist in the search for the missing mother. They found her within two seconds of going in the door. She was right there. If they had been on that fire truck, the first arriving truck, if I had had those two firefighters, this women would have been out of the house a lot sooner. She might have been alive. She might have been here telling this committee the same thing. Amend this bill or scrap this bill or do whatever, but it is not right that we're running around with empty seats on fire trucks or understaffing in the firehalls.

Kirk and Glen followed the hose line in, but they only had to go about five feet and they came across the woman, Lynda. It was probably a matter of two seconds and the radio report came back to me, "We've found her." The thought has run through my mind hundreds of times since this fire, on almost a regular basis, that had those two empty seats on my truck contained the firefighters who should have been in them, then these teenage children who were there on the sidewalk might still be able to feel their mother's hugs. They might have been able to seek her advice on their problems and concerns, or any of the other things that normal families do, but they can't do that now.

I blame understaffing of the fire stations and understaffing of fire trucks with the delay in finding and rescuing this woman. It was only a matter of a few minutes until that second team was sent into the burning structure but that few minutes may have caused her death. She died at the hospital from the consequences of the fire a few hours after the firefighters brought her out of the house. I'm convinced that if we had had firefighters occupying those empty seats on the fire truck when I arrived at this house fire, then we would have found this victim one to two minutes sooner and she might have been here today.

The understaffing of the fire department and fire vehicles in the city of Sarnia has finally been recognized by members of our community, the media and the municipal council. Thousands of citizens of our community have signed petitions and voiced their concern to councillors and to our local politicians to correct this understaffing.

The local politicians have recently approved a resolution to maintain the necessary fire stations and hire 24 additional firefighters -- that's almost 30% of our department -- to provide the adequate rescue and fire attack teams that the people want, that the people are willing to pay for.

However, parts in this Bill 84 that's now before us are being cited as a reason to thwart this hiring and the maintaining of an adequate number of firefighters to provide an effective fire service and provide an adequate level of fire protection to the citizens of my community. The people want adequate fire protection. The people want and are willing to pay for adequate fire protection; fire protection that is provided quickly, effectively, by an experienced team of well-trained firefighters. The government shouldn't get involved in reducing or compromising what the people want and are willing to pay for.

One or two of our local aldermen have cited parts in the government's Bill 84, such as part-time firefighters, as perhaps the answer to our understaffing problems, but the front-line firefighters in my municipality know part-time firefighters are not the answer. We don't want untrained and certainly inexperienced firefighters backing me up or being on the trucks, responding to fires.

1230

Calling in firefighters during an emergency after the alarm has sounded, that's not the answer, because that only provides for slower response times to emergencies where life can be saved or deaths can occur.

I could relate numerous other incidents, events where the quick response and fast action by experienced firefighters saved peoples' lives or drastically reduced fire damage in my community: a recent Beaver Lumber store fire on London Road where the full-time firefighters arrived quickly and raised a telesquirt -- for people who are here, that's a mechanically operated ladder with a nozzle that's attached to it. They extinguished a very large fire that had started on the roof of a local building retailer. That fire occurred in early December 1996, just a short while ago, and the quick response and action by the experienced firefighters saved a very busy business.

The firefighters' quick action minimized the business interruption, it minimized the dollar loss, and in the process saved a lot of jobs through the Christmas season. The owner of the business and his employees were indeed grateful and thankful for the quick and effective response and instinctive actions of the experienced firefighters that saved damage, minimized the loss and protected their livelihood. Calling in firefighters after that alarm had activated would have slowed the response and resulted in increased loss.

Under Bill 84, I can't be certain that we would have been able to perform this kind of effective firefighting. The second truck into this Beaver Lumber fire was staffed with four experienced firefighters who knew instinctively what to do, and they reacted quickly and effectively. I'm not certain that inexperienced and possibly untrained part-time firefighters or that a mixture of part-time and full-time would have reacted in the same manner, as quickly or as effectively as this team of professional firefighters did.

In concluding my comments, we're not saying to tear up the bill or delete part IX. We're asking the government to make some reasoned amendments to protect the safety of our community. We're asking you to stand up for public safety by going back and telling the government that Bill 84 has serious problems. The bill was written in too much of a rush. There are errors and oversights in the bill, and however well intentioned that bill may have been, it has negative effects on public safety. We need you, and are depending on you, to tell them how to fix the problems we all know are there.

Finally, I want to thank the committee for taking the time to listen to my presentation. I know there is a lot of public concern about this bill. There is also appreciation for the work that this committee is doing, both now and after the hearings, to fix the problems in the bill. It's not an easy job and I thank you for doing it.

The Chair: Basically, our time has elapsed. I would thank you very much for relating the problems you're having in Sarnia and your questions in regard to Bill 84.

COMBER AND DISTRICT FIRE DEPARTMENT

The Chair: Our last presentation of the morning will be Comber and District Fire Department, Bob Miner, deputy fire chief. Good afternoon.

Mr Bob Miner: Thank you sir. It is an honour and a privilege to come before you. I appreciate having the opportunity to address yourself and the balance of your committee. Unfortunately, I personally have some problems that prevented me from having my presentation typed for you today, but I will have it typed and given to you after, as soon as I can have that done.

My name is Bob Miner, and you spell that with an "e," and yes, I am related to Jack Miner. He was my great- uncle. I am an insurance broker by profession. My wife and I and family operate a multibroker insurance office in Comber, 30 miles from Windsor, right on the 401.

One of several of my avocations is being a volunteer firefighter for the Comber and District Fire Department. By the way, this presentation, I hope I can read it in 12 1/2 minutes to give you a little time to ask any questions. I am on call 24 hours a day, seven days a week, and if that's not being full-time, I'll eat my hat.

I have now served my fellow citizens and communities for over 40 years. I have been the deputy chief in our department for 23 years. I am and have served as one of the founding members of the Windsor-Essex County 911 Technical Committee. I am one of the five chiefs appointed by the local fire coordinators during their tenure, originating with Chief Cecile -- by the way, all these men are chiefs of the Windsor Fire Department -- Chief Earl Turpin-Carroll, and Chief Fields.

We have been instrumental in convincing the CRTC to allow the billing for enhanced 911 to be billed on the telephone bills; that's in both Ontario and Quebec. We have been instrumental in house numbering and number signage on county roads, and the names on signs at all roads in Essex county. We have coordinated the enhanced 911 program along with all of the police services and ambulance services in the area, all serving on that committee.

I am one of two Ontario fire chiefs -- by the way, a deputy chief is considered a chief too, so I consider myself a chief -- serving on the Ontario Association of Fire Chiefs water supplies committee, since 1988.

The Comber and District Fire Department devised and perfected a water-tanker shuttle system of its own, which provides 200 imperial gallons per minute for a period of two hours, within a five-mile radius of our firehall; 200 gallons of water per minute is the required gallonage of a fire hydrant for the hydrant to be an approved source of firefighting water. This extends hydrant recognition from 1000 feet to a five-mile radius.

We performed a test in October 1988 for the Fire Underwriters Survey people. It is a firefighting inspection group funded by the insurance industry. They used our methodology to establish the standards for a completely new fire protection classification for the rural areas in Canada. Comber and District Fire Department was the first fire department in North America -- and for that matter, the world -- to receive that certification. We actually provided 650 imperial gallons per minute for the period of two hours, with the assistance of our neighbouring fire department.

Many fire areas across Canada now are water-tanker-shuttle certified and that goes across Canada, British Columbia included. Many insurance companies provide an average annual reduction of approximately $150 on their insurance rates for their homeowner's policy, and that's within that five-mile range. That is the same rate that is charged city dwellers.

The Ontario Association of Fire Chiefs water committee was instrumental in having the Fire Underwriters Survey people recognize dry hydrants as a hydrant source of water for fire rating. A dry hydrant is a pre-existing standpipe connected to a lake and river -- of which we have lots in Canada -- from which a fire department can pump water at 200 imperial gallons per minute for the two-hour period. They too are now being installed across Canada, for a saving of $468 per year on the average homeowner's policy, which is the difference between having a fire department with a hydrant and not having a fire department.

1240

The OAFC water committee is keeping the OAFC informed as to the testing results of a new-technology firefighting unit which the Windsor and Essex county fire departments have purchased; the insurance brokers have done that. It provided the funding of $10,000 towards that. Windsor has agreed to host that testing. That particular unit is purported to provide fire suppression to the extent of nine times, so that would make one gallon of water equal to nine gallons of water for fire suppression.

I welcome the opportunity to come before you to encourage you to remember in your deliberations on the wording and stipulations of Bill 84, which you now will be recommending from these hearings, that it must allow for and in fact encourage as well as accommodate the part-time and/or volunteers in the fire emergency forces in Ontario.

The Ontario fire marshal's office provided the following statistics in December 1996. There are 600 municipalities in Ontario. There are 26,000 firefighters in Ontario, 9,000 of whom work full-time or are better known as career firefighters, in 34 fire departments, leaving 17,000 as volunteers or part-time in Ontario. These volunteers save the Ontario taxpayers well over $1 billion per year.

We must not allow the emergency service providers to be personally penalized, either psychologically or financially, for coming to the aid of their fellow citizens when no one else will. Remember, emergency service providers are always going to a disaster, risking life and limb, while all others are fleeing in the opposite direction.

I am presently advocating that the Occupational Health and Safety Act be changed to remove the portions of that law which:

(1) Make persons charged for contravention of the act automatically guilty. They are not presumed innocent until proven guilty; they must prove themselves not guilty. This is the only law in Canada that does not presume innocence until proven guilty.

(2) Once charged, any levies or fines are the personal responsibility of the charged person. No insurance can be purchased to compensate them for that.

In the Port Colborne incident a few years ago, the fire chief and deputy fire chief faced being personally fined half a million dollars each. That went to the Ontario government.

If the Ontario Occupational Health and Safety Act cannot and will not be altered, I suggest that you must amend this bill you are presenting so that the penalties section of the proposed act protects the fire chiefs and firefighters from personal financial penalties, and its protection must supersede all other acts of the Ontario government.

I appeal for your support in my submissions to Premier Harris and to the Honourable Elizabeth Witmer, Minister of Labour, to change the Occupational Health and Safety Act.

Recently, certain public statements made by and/or issued by certain people or groups of people have indicated that volunteers and/or part-time firefighters are not properly trained nor capable nor do they meet proper standards. I submit to you that these statements are not true. Frankly, as a volunteer, I resent these accusations. We're not stupid, nor are we ill trained.

In 1990, Bernie Moyle, prior to his appointment to the position of Ontario fire marshal, introduced the Paradigm of Progress program to the OAFC, one of the 12 general areas addressed in the Ontario firefighters' standards.

In 1990, under the guidance of Bernie Moyle, then an Ontario fire chief, a standard training program was established, and now all firefighters, both career firefighters and volunteers, are training from a common course and study books -- and this is, by the way, one of a library of them -- and they are being produced and published by the International Fire Service Training Association, which is affiliated with the Oklahoma State University.

All career and volunteer firefighters, in many degrees, study identical educational information. We do not have to write any compulsory exams. However, if we wish to be certified in any of these study modules, we must pass the same exams produced by the Ontario fire marshal. The certification is recognized by any fire service, I suggest, throughout the world. It is my experience to date that most volunteers welcome this opportunity to have recognition for their training and to be able to prove it. By the way, none of our 26 volunteers are doctors, but we are all certified to operate our defibrillator.

I charge you all, as well as the whole Ontario government, with the responsibility of producing a well-balanced law. It should and must preserve one of the best emergency firefighting force networks in the world, both full-time and part-time. It must provide the avenue to proceed onwards to greater heights, for the safety of the citizens of Ontario. Remember, most of the area in Ontario is protected by volunteer fire departments, and approximately two thirds of the firefighters in Ontario are volunteers.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Fire Marshal Miner, for your presentation.

Mr Miner: Deputy chief, sir.

The Chair: Deputy chief.

Mr Miner: I got a promotion there, a big one.

The Chair: My mistake. Thank you very much for your attendance here today.

We're still running late, of course. I'd ask you to be here at exactly 1:30. We will recess till 1:30 and then start our afternoon sitting.

The committee recessed from 1249 to 1340.

LONDON PROFESSIONAL FIRE FIGHTERS ASSOCIATION WINDSOR FIRE AND RESCUE SERVICES

The Chair: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen and members of the committee. If we may proceed, our first presenter this afternoon will be on behalf of the London Professional Fire Fighters Association. Is a representative of the association present? Welcome. I would ask you to identify yourself for the purposes of Hansard and proceed with your presentation.

Mr Ron Vermeltfoort: My name is firefighter Ron Vermeltfoort of the London Fire Department. Chief David Fields of the Windsor Fire Department will be leading our presentation.

Mr David Fields: Mr Chairman, members of the provincial Parliament, ladies and gentlemen, my name is David Fields. I am fire chief of the city of Windsor Fire Department. I've been in the fire service for 30 years this year; I have had 14 years' experience with the Windsor Fire Department as a firefighter; I had nine years with the office of the provincial fire marshal out of Toronto; I had five years as a deputy fire chief in the city of Nepean; and in 1994 I returned to the city of Windsor after competing for the position of fire chief and was appointed fire chief in January 1994 in the city of Windsor. I make my comments to you based on these 30 years of experience.

My role as fire chief in the city of Windsor is to develop and recommend fire protection policies to the corporation of the city of Windsor council and to manage and lead -- I'd like to emphasize that -- the fire rescue services provided by municipal council.

In front of you, you have a package and I am going to cover a portion of this package. The deputy fire chief of the Windsor Fire Department will address you later on and support some of the other materials in that package.

I'd like to explain to that you the Windsor Fire and Rescue Services is comprised of 278 men and women dedicated to providing quick, efficient and quality service to the community. This service is delivered through the following divisions of the department: (1) fire rescue; (2) risk management or fire prevention; (3) emergency communications; (4) apparatus and equipment; (5) training; and (6) planning and support, otherwise known as administration.

Our mission in the department is to protect the lives, property and environment of the citizens of Windsor and surrounding communities by providing high-quality emergency services, which include an excellent fire prevention and public education program and arson investigation. Our mission is also to provide a firefighting force capable of handling emergencies, which may include structural firefighting, hazardous materials mitigation, rescues, miscellaneous emergencies, medical emergencies and catastrophes.

In this part of the program I'm going to stop right there. I'd like to allude to the back of the package. There are some support materials that I think will be very helpful. As a matter of expediency, because of the time we have, you'll find a letter in support of this package to the Honourable Robert Runciman, Solicitor General and Minister of Correctional Services, re Bill 84, the Fire Protection and Prevention Act. It's dated February 7, 1997, and I ask you to peruse that. It highlights in detail some of the problems I would like to mention today with Bill 84, in case I don't get the time, and obviously won't have the time to go into that great detail.

I am going to try to indicate to you that the major issues I have concern with are issues concerning part-time firefighters, privatization, labour relations, unclear definitions and the lack of regulations. That's going to be the bulk of my presentation today.

In your package and behind the support material that we sent to Mr Runciman, the next one is correspondence that I sent to Mr David Ramsay; it was concerning privatization. I ask you to give that attention. I've tried to capsulize my problems with privatization of fire services and I won't bore you with all the great detail, but those points are very important.

I end those points by saying: "Public fire departments render value-added service to the community through the volunteer participation of their members in community activities as well as financial contribution to community-oriented groups and projects."

"Public agencies anticipate growth and provide services prior to full occupancy while private companies endure...risk until it is profitable to provide the required protection."

There are several other bullets. I wasn't trying to be overly critical, but I say in my final paragraph: "If one can make a case for privatizing the fire service then one can make a case for doing away with government altogether and relying on the benevolence of the private sector for self-regulation and delivery of all services." I firmly believe that and I ask you to read that part of the package.

Next to that I have correspondence from the International Association of Fire Chiefs, of which I am a member. On the second page of the international fire chiefs' correspondence from executive director Garry Briese: "We believe that the fire service, as it is currently organized, can provide a cost-effective and cost-efficient service to the citizens of the communities they serve. We also believe that this goal can be best obtained through the development of a new relationship between fire service and labour management...the development of a fire service leadership partnership."

It is that part I would like to discuss with you. I believe part IX needs to be taken out of the legislation, totally revamped. It creates an adversary model of a relationship that has no place left in the fire service. If we're going to have new and modern legislation, we should have new and modern legislation to lead us into the next millennium, not have labour-management models that reflect the 1950s.

If you look at the Fortune 500 companies that are successful, it's people doing things with people. The fire service is about people doing things with people. Maybe not when it first began hundreds of years ago; it was very terrible. The service wasn't quite the science that it is today and people struggled with saving property, as we still do today. But a modern fire service -- and I'm going to point to a modern fire service when I describe the Windsor fire service -- is about people serving people, and this is what I'm most concerned about.

Under the existing legislation, and prior to anything to do with Bill 84, the Windsor Fire Department reorganized three years ago and decided to venture into a management-labour partnership, and we've done that. We were probably the first fire department in Canada to do that.

We took the example from the International Association of Fire Chiefs and the model from the United States and we met with our firefighters' association -- it's attached in the package. We have 10 principles of management. We have shared partnership and leadership with this fire department. Because of that, over the past three years the fire department has experienced unprecedented increases in productivity. Part IX of this bill will not produce any of these results. In fact, it will do just the opposite.

The expansion of public education from a program that was incidental to fire prevention code enforcement and inspection activities to an extremely effective, high-profile community activity serves as a shining example of the commitment and dedication of time by the members of the department.

Coordinated by a recently appointed public education officer and with the support and cooperation of the Windsor Professional Fire Fighters Association, programs such as Learn Not To Burn, the Fire Safety House and the adopt-a-school program were introduced. In addition to their regular duties and expanded training requirements, the members of this department attended schools in their stations and districts to deliver and support the programs. The time did not end with the school day or the school year. On weekends and during the summer months, firefighters attended countless community events to bring the fire safety message to the community.

1350

Our smoke alarm giveaway is another highly effective program in the municipality. Yes, we can prosecute people for not having a smoke alarm, and we all know that, but in the end does that serve anything? We're still dragging too many little babies out in the middle of the night. The firefighters, with the support of their community, by getting the public to support this financially, go in and put smoke alarms where they're needed. All you have to do in the city of Windsor is pick up the phone and one is provided, no questions asked. They're on every fire truck, they're in every fire station and they're provided free of charge.

We have reduced our risk, we have reduced our life loss and we have reduced our fire losses because of this proactive program. We have city councillors, other departments, members of the community who assist us, who walk and knock on doors and encourage people to use this program. It's a non-threatening program, it's free, and "We're here to serve you." It's people serving people.

Fire Prevention Week in Windsor has become a high-visibility event within the city. On-duty and off-duty firefighters, at no cost to this community, spend the better part of each day of that week delivering the fire safety message to the people of Windsor and making them more familiar with the services and equipment of the department and how to be fire safe.

In addition to providing public education services to the community, we've expanded service to the citizens in other areas. Just over a year ago, the department began providing medical assistance in cooperation with the Windsor provincial ambulance, carrying semiautomatic defibrillators. Again, this wasn't levelled by taxation, this was supported by public donations and the firefighters volunteering their time to train in a full-time fire department, probably opposite to what you've heard. We offer this service as an increase in productivity to the fire services in the city of Windsor.

In the past year the department has been addressing the deficiencies in hazardous materials response capabilities. Once again, members of the fire rescue division volunteered to become qualified to train the entire department to an appropriate level. Decisions by the office of the fire marshal and the Ontario Ministry of Labour had made it mandatory that specific training was required for any first responder and this training be in accordance with national fire protection standard 472.

At this point in time, after 10,000 staff hours of training, the entire department is up to the operations level of HazMat, and we have six members of the department who are up to the hazardous materials technician level and are proceeding further.

The following list is an outline of further activities that are in the research and/or training development stage in a manner similar to first aid and hazardous materials:

Your fire departments provide high-angle rescue services, which you saw today, people rappelling from this building;

Confined-space rescue -- people work in confined spaces, they get in trouble and they need help;

Auto extrication in auto accidents;

Water and ice rescue -- you can just look out the window and see the need for that;

Marine firefighting operations -- we have the first marine casino in Canada. That was quite a complex deal for us; we had to develop marine firefighting capability to protect our visitors participating at that casino;

The incident command system for greater fire ground management;

Personnel accountability system for the safety of firefighters deployed at the scene of emergencies;

Fire codes, standards and bylaws;

Fire investigation;

Fire cause determination.

All these things take a lot of time. The Windsor Fire Department has a master fire planning document and all the subcommittees in that document are served by firefighters. The firefighters volunteer their time, many of them off-duty hours, to make recommendations to the fire chief for the implementation of the plan and adoption by council. Our fire officers meet and spend considerable hours off duty. At the last district chiefs' and captains' meeting we had, of 32 members attending only two were on duty. This is all off duty, and they volunteer their time in order to have this input. I'm trying to give you a picture of what cooperation and joint management and leadership can help and do in this city.

I have worked under other systems. I've worked under the adversary system; I've been president of a firefighters' association and had to present at boards of arbitration; I've been head of a grievance committee, and I've been on the other end, receiving grievances. It's not a great way to go. We waste a lot of energy and time not doing what we're supposed to be doing.

I'm saying create a model. Let this government share and give leadership to its citizens and to its fire service and create a model that all of us can allude to and have and share in that would help us get on and serve. People serving people, that's all we are; our family serving your family. It doesn't change. It doesn't get any better than that. That's what it's all about and this is why we're here today.

We have very, very dedicated firefighters. Bill 84 threatens to build roadblocks to the successful continuation of these activities by shifting the focus from people to processes, from harmony to turmoil, from cooperation to confrontation.

Progressive organizations in the fire service recognize the distinction between management and leadership. Many of these organizations have taken to actively promoting these concepts throughout the fire service. The International Association of Fire Chiefs says that the goal of cost-effective and cost-efficient services to the community can best be obtained through a new relationship between labour and management, the development of a fire service leadership partnership.

I hope I've demonstrated that this is one fire department that wasn't sure, so we tried it, and it works. It's better than the other system, and our public is gaining and benefiting from that, and so am I as a fire chief, and so is this council. The management of the Windsor Fire and Rescue Services applauds the International Association of Fire Chiefs for its positive leadership in this regard.

People and the fire service: The fire service in Ontario is and should be people-based. The protection of lives, homes, property and general safety of persons in our Ontario communities is the object of our service delivery. The fire service is about citizens who are receivers of this service. They're our customers. We need a customer-focused type of service. They're old, they're young; they're healthy, they're infirm; they're employed, they're unemployed; they're rich, they're poor; they're homeowners, landlords, tenants, homeless; they're business owners, they're corporations, they're shareholders.

We've got some other folks in this, and they are the firefighters, the deliverers of the service. They're young and old; they're recruits and veterans; they're probationary up to first class; they're fire inspectors, communicators, operators, support staff, training officers, company officers, senior officers, fire chiefs and deputy fire chiefs.

We have governments and agencies that are providers and supporters of this service, and that is the Ontario government, the Solicitor General, ministry staff and advisers, and mayors and members of municipal councils.

While not specifically mandated, the provision of fire service is certainly something that is demanded and expected by the customers across this province. At this basic level, the fire service is how one group of people, funded and properly supported, provides service to another group of people.

I'm here to ask you to make changes to this bill, to not let Bill 84 stand, so that the focus in providing that service is that it should be quick, responsive to needs, uninterrupted, delivered skilfully, and valuable to the community.

The Chair: Thank you, Fire Chief Fields. Our time has elapsed. We thank you on behalf of the committee for an excellent presentation.

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH CLINIC FOR ONTARIO WORKERS

The Chair: There will be a switch. We will proceed to our scheduled 1:30 presentation now, Dr Deborah Hellyer and Jim Brophy. I apologize for the delays, but fortunately you're on, so please proceed.

Mr Jim Brophy: I wish to begin by thanking the committee for allowing Dr Hellyer and me to speak with you about Bill 84 and its implications for the health of firefighters in Ontario. If it suits the committee, I will start and Dr Hellyer will conclude our presentation.

My name is Jim Brophy. I'm the executive director of the Occupational Health Clinic for Ontario Workers in Windsor and I'm also a panel member of the Ontario Occupational Disease Panel. In both of these capacities I have had an opportunity to examine the risks and the potential hazards faced by firefighters in the course of their duties.

Everyone knows that firefighting is a dangerous profession. Racing into a burning building requires courage and a great deal of training and knowhow. Firefighting requires a large investment if the firefighters are going to be able to perform their duties safely and protect the public's health and property. Either allowing the fire departments to hire part-time firefighters or privatizing our fire services risks the health of firefighters and possibly the community at large.

1400

Firefighting as an occupation requires a very high level of teamwork and mutual understanding and respect. To perform their duties safely, firefighters need to know that the other people in their crews are well trained and knowledgeable. Each person counts on their co-workers to protect and support them. That sense of trust and teamwork requires time and understanding. To threaten this cultural component of their work holds serious ramifications for their safety.

As a member of the Occupational Disease Panel, I was involved in a major process that examined the potential health risks faced by members of the firefighting profession. We issued a major finding titled Report to the Workers' Compensation Board on Cardiovascular Disease and Cancer among Firefighters.

It was shocking to learn about the wide array of diseases that firefighting poses for the health of these people. In 15 epidemiological studies of firefighters, only three did not find excess brain cancer. Firefighters in Toronto, for example, had a statistically significant twofold excess of brain cancer. Six other studies found excess brain cancer ranging from twice to almost five times the expected.

Firefighters also bear an excess and disproportional cancer burden in other sites -- lymphatic and blood cancers such as leukaemia. Out of nine health studies of firefighters, a strong association was identified in six studies, ranging from as high as two and a quarter times greater than the rest of the population.

Benzene is a known cause of leukaemia. After carbon monoxide, benzene is generally the second most commonly found organic constituent of fire smoke, typically present in high concentrations in the fire environment. Bulk samples performed at various fire scenes found concentrations that were two to four times the current Ontario limit.

Measurements of individual samples were as high as 16 times this maximum allowable concentration. A recent study shockingly found benzene in excess of the legal limit inside the self-contained breathing apparatus of firefighters. In addition, the ODP reported a probable connection between firefighters and cancer of the colon, bladder and kidney, as well as certain other cardiovascular diseases.

To prevent such disease requires a strong commitment to extensive training and a real investment in state-of-the-art personal protective equipment. These steps only make rational economic sense if we have a stable, well-trained firefighting workforce that is linked and monitored from a provincial body that ensures that every firefighter has the training and equipment required to perform their jobs safely.

Certainly firefighting, which is an essential public service that all of us need and support, should not be weakened. As a society, we don't expect that the protection of our lives and property should be paid for by an increased risk to firefighters because they do not have the tools they need to prevent injuries and disease.

As a public health advocate, I believe that firefighters need more training and protection, not less. As a citizen in this community, I want to be assured that firefighters are fully prepared when and if a time ever arises that they need to protect me and my family from harm.

Dr Deborah Hellyer: My name is Dr Deborah Hellyer. I'm a respirologist or lung specialist and I've been living in Windsor for the last 13 years. I would like to thank you for this opportunity of speaking to you. I generally only come out and speak on issues that are really important to me, and this is something that I really feel strongly about.

When I initially came to Windsor, I came as an intensivist. I was responsible for looking after patients who required intubation and ventilation in the critical care units. One of my duties was going up to the burn unit, and I would look after patients who required intubation and ventilation who had extensive burns to their bodies and smoke inhalation. Often these patients would have 90% to 95% third-degree burns. Miraculously, these patients survived, and they survived for only one reason. That was because of the combined efforts of not only the firefighters in Windsor, but also the technology that was supplied by the burn unit, which is fully funded and supported by the firefighters here in Windsor.

I quickly learned to respect the rapidity with which fire destroys. It's very indiscriminate. It doesn't care who it kills or who it maims. It will kill a child or an adult very quickly. The only way we can fight this is by providing very rapid response and early prevention so that fires do not occur.

I also learned about the narrow window of opportunity that the firefighters have in fighting a fire and rescuing people. It's important that they arrive there quickly, that there's enough firefighter manpower to go in and actually fight the fire. It's important to get the person out quickly and to know what to do when any injuries occur. There's a very narrow opportunity for them to actually change a potential victim to a survivor of a fire.

In the past five years I've altered my practice somewhat. I'm now doing predominantly occupational lung disease. Subsequently, I have now seen the health effects that can occur with firefighters who have worked for many years in the firefighting field. Mr Brophy has reviewed many of these and I'm not going to go over these again.

This illustrated to me the importance of experienced professional workers who are really informed about the potential hazards. They know what they can expect when they go into a building. They know the appropriate precautions to take. They have the most up-to-date technological equipment available to them so that they can protect themselves and also protect the people they are rescuing.

Adequate firefighting means rapid, knowledgeable response with appropriate technological support and equipment. We have been rather fortunate in Windsor in that we have had this available to us. I am concerned that once privatization occurs, this is something that will not be consistently met throughout all communities.

The firefighters have become an integral part of our rapid emergency response team. They are trained in cardiac assessment, cardiac defibrillation and CPR. As part of this, if they are first on the scene when somebody is injured or if somebody has had a cardiac arrest, they know what to do, and lives have been saved because of that.

They have also been very visible in our community. As I mentioned before, they have done much for our burn unit. They have provided preventive measures; they speak to children; they let them know the importance of smoke detectors and how to quickly leave a building.

Health care trends are going more and more towards prevention and I think this would be truly lost if the firefighters became privatized. I have been vice-chair of the district health council and over the last five years we have been involved in the integration of health services. We are developing partnerships; we are developing liaisons so that we can provide better health care for the community. We do not need fragmentation of services, and this will occur.

My major concerns are with regard to the complexity of the fires that we're now seeing. With 10,000 new chemicals being introduced each year into industry, you have to have people who are aware of the potential exposures. You have to have standardization in firefighting. You have to have regulations. You have to have importance with regard to health and safety.

For all the above reasons, I feel it's important that we have consistency of training requirements, standards for health and safety, maintaining technological advances and maintenance of community education. I would really urge that Bill 84 be reassessed with regard to those aspects.

The Vice-Chair (Mr Ron Johnson): Thank you both for your presentation. One minute per caucus, starting with the Liberal caucus.

Mrs Pupatello: Thanks so much for coming today to speak to us about your concerns with the bill. You acknowledged up front that the Windsor council locally is very supportive, likely will always oppose privatization and did so in terms of its resolution passed the other day.

We see there's a different story in Sarnia, however, where they had support and unfortunately the mayor could not hold the rest of council to give appropriate levels of firefighting in terms of the hiring they were to do. Moreover, what we are looking at is an increase in taxes happening in Sarnia today because of the dumping of provincial costs on to the municipalities.

Dr Hellyer, you said that even if we're okay here, we have to be concerned that there are appropriate standards across Ontario in every community that faces chemical exposure. All these are not just Windsor issues; it's our concern to change things for the rest of Ontario.

In the face of Sarnia, as an example, increasing taxes as it is, how much longer can we expect that Sarnia will have to look seriously at a provision given to it by the Conservative government to privatize because it can't afford the dumping that the government has given to it -- and it is already obviously not on side in keeping an appropriate standard of firefighting --

1410

The Vice-Chair: Mrs Pupatello, I'm sorry, we're out of time. You just had one minute.

Mr Bisson: To both of you, and specifically to Mr Brophy, I'm a big fan of what used to be the ODP. I come from a mining community and was involved for many years in getting the compensation board to recognize industrial diseases for miners recognized as part of the act, because what that does is force employers to start addressing the problem, therefore trying to eliminate some of the risks that the workers find.

I acknowledge the work that you've done on the ODP in regard to firefighters. It's quite a tragic thing that this government has decided to basically kill the ODP, which means to say all the gains that firefighters would have made, that miners made not more than four or five years ago, are basically gone.

I think that's one of the big tragedies of this government. They just don't want to listen to people who know what the heck they're talking about when it comes to some of these issues. I want to thank you on behalf of those who care about this, about the work that you've done. I'm aware of the work that both of you have done on this. Thank you.

Mr Ed Doyle (Wentworth East): Thank you very much for your presentation, which was very informative. I do want to point out, however, that under Bill 84 -- I seem to get the impression that you thought this would automatically lead to privatization, which isn't necessarily the case. Under existing legislation privatization can happen in any case. In addition to that, under Bill 84, prevention and education are mandatory under this bill.

Mrs Pupatello: On a point of order: The government members have an obligation to give the facts, not fabrication.

The Vice-Chair: Mrs Pupatello, that is not a point of order.

Mrs Pupatello: Mr Doyle, you are required to tell the facts when you sit on this committee.

Mr Doyle: I wish you would tell a few facts. I've heard some of your facts over the months too.

Mrs Pupatello: The facts are, privatization currently is not allowed in legislation.

The Vice-Chair: Guys, listen, this is my last day.

Mrs Pupatello: You are obligated to tell the truth, Mr Doyle.

Mr Doyle: Why don't you try a little of that yourself?

Mrs Pupatello: Mr Doyle, you're obligated to tell the truth. The legislation as it is today does not allow for privatization. It encourages the employer to be only the municipality. Your bill is changing that.

Mr Doyle: You can still privatize today.

The Vice-Chair: Thank you both for your presentation. The next presenter is Mr Walter McCall.

Mr Kormos: Chair, on a point of order: I'm disturbed by Mrs Pupatello's concern. I read in the paper that Bill Murdoch, a deposed PA, says you have to kiss ass if you want to get ahead. Mr Doyle was only puckering up.

The Vice-Chair: We're already running behind, and if we could move ahead with the agenda it would probably help us get through.

Mrs Pupatello: On a point of order: If we could indulge legal counsel, the research officer, the clerk, someone, to confirm for me, right away if possible, that in the bill -- this is very important -- subsection 41(1) under "Definitions" has been changed to include, "`employer' means a municipality, person or organization that employs firefighters," and that in fact is a change from the current legislation as it is. Can you have the clerk confirm that immediately?

The Vice-Chair: Mrs Pupatello, we will ask ministry staff to get us that information and it will be presented at the earliest convenience.

Mrs Pupatello: We need it right away.

The Vice-Chair: You don't need it right away. It has nothing to do with the presentation that's coming forward.

Mrs Pupatello: It has everything to do with Mr Doyle's comments, which are false.

The Vice-Chair: Mrs Pupatello, I have ruled on your point of order. We will get you the information. We will now move on to our next presenter.

Mr Bisson: Chair, point of order.

The Vice-Chair: Is it same point of order? I've heard it.

Mr Bisson: It is a point of order. The people responsible to this committee are the clerks of the committee and legislative counsel. I want that information from legislative counsel, not the political staff of the minister responsible.

The Vice-Chair: We will have that information provided to the committee.

WALTER MCCALL

The Vice-Chair: Mr McCall, I apologize for the delay. You can begin any time.

Mr Walter McCall: What an act to follow. Thank you, Mr Chairman. Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.

I'd like to begin my remarks by expressing my gratitude for this opportunity to address this important public forum. As a lifelong fire buff and probably the only person in this room who owns his own fire engine, an ardent admirer and supporter of the fire service, but and even more important as a resident, property owner and taxpayer of the city of Windsor, I have serious reservations about some of the fundamental changes to the fire service which could become a reality with the passage of some portions of the Fire Protection and Prevention Act as now proposed.

While some of these changes are welcome and probably long overdue, particularly in Bill 84's public education and fire prevention components, other contemplated changes which could negatively impact the quality of basic firefighting services in this province are cause for real concern.

I'm speaking specifically about the potential understaffing of fire stations and apparatus, the use of part-time firefighters and the truly ominous prospect of the privatization of municipal fire departments.

My home here in Windsor is less than a mile from the nearest fire station. I frequently hear the pumper and rescue squad quartered at station 3 responding to alarms. I have always experienced a sense of real confidence knowing that both of these units are manned by the required necessary number of highly trained professional firefighters, to whom the minimum response time is everything. If for any reason manning falls below the carefully considered minimum, the apparatus is simply taken out of service.

As it stands, Bill 84 would allow municipalities to reduce fire station staffing, calling in additional firefighters only on an as-needed basis. I don't have to tell anyone in this room that this shortsighted policy is not only risky, it borders on folly.

Rapid response to an emergency and an adequate number of personnel to take action and operate the equipment are the basic requisites of this most vital of public emergency services. In addition to quick, decisive, sound judgment on the fire ground, it takes hands to stretch hose, raise ladders, ventilate a building and rescue or treat trapped or injured citizens or firefighters.

A fire can quickly mushroom out of control and lives can be lost waiting for additional help to arrive. Under Bill 84, extra manpower would be summoned only when it's already too late. A rapidly spreading fire is one thing. You can't wait when lives are at stake. There's a world of difference between the arrival of a second-alarm engine and calling in firefighters who may have to respond from a number of separate locations at varying distances.

Bill 84 would permit a mixed force of full-time professional and part-time firefighters. There's no substitute for the education that comes only through long experience -- experience gained not just through arduous training and retraining, but also the experience that comes with years of exposure to countless fire and emergency situations.

While I have the greatest admiration for the commitment and dedication of volunteer firefighters everywhere, there is simply no comparison with a regular urban firefighting routine. As for the volunteers, don't forget that every metropolitan and urban fire department in this province and virtually everywhere else started out as a volunteer force.

Under Bill 84, full-time firefighters could be replaced with part-time employees who simply don't have the same level of training and experience. The teamwork so essential to effective firefighting could be compromised with sharply varying degrees of skill and experience in what should be a close-knit fire crew.

Then, of course, there's the spectre of privatization. If passed in its present form, Bill 84 could permit profit-driven US companies to provide municipal or district fire protection on a contract bid basis. This prospect is the most frightening of all.

Private for-hire fire departments simply have not worked in the US and we'd be naïve to believe that they would work any better here in Ontario. The fear of privatization is very real. Overtures are already being made to some Ontario communities for both fire and ambulance service. The downloading of this vital municipal responsibility for a fixed cost is far too high a price to pay. A life-and-death public responsibility as basic as fire protection and emergency medical services should not go to the lowest bidder. As a taxpayer here, I certainly don't want to rely on Blazes R Us or Rent-a-Rig for the safety of my home, family, life and the lives and property of my fellow citizens.

In summary, as a citizen I'm deeply concerned about some of the fundamental changes in the level and quality of fire protection that could result from the passage of some provisions of this bill. I'm vigorously opposed to and generally fearful of any dilution or erosion of the level of professionalism we've come to expect from Ontario's firefighters. It's truly the thin edge of a wedge.

1420

I've been asked by my good friend Lorne Bradt of the Leamington fire department to present to this committee a letter on behalf of the Essex County Fire Service Association, outlining that association's concerns with the pending legislation. I have copies for this meeting, but with your indulgence I'd like to read it to you. It's fairly short, addressed to the Honourable Robert Runciman, Solicitor General and Minister of Correctional Services:

"Dear Honourable Sir:

"On behalf of the Essex County Fire Service Association Inc, which consists of 20 departments and their over 1,100 personnel, we are writing this letter to advise you that our association is not in favour of Bill 84, primarily because of the provisions of part IX of the proposed legislation and its impact upon the full-time firefighters in Ontario communities and their collective bargaining rights and agreements. In addition, there are numerous provisions within the bill that can negatively impact upon the fire service generally throughout the province, such as the omission of mandatory smoke alarms and the definition of deputy chief and part-time firefighters. While some portions of the legislation are to be lauded for their progressive nature, in total the bill fails the fire service.

"Our association urges you to pay heed to the critical comments being made by representatives from inside and outside of the fire service in this province. It appears obvious that more dialogue is crucial if serious mistakes are to be avoided. Our association is keenly aware of the fact that any legislation that is passed will have a prolonged impact on the future of the fire service, the quality and level of its delivery to the citizens of Ontario, as well as the future of the lives of this province's volunteer and full-time firefighters.

"As firefighters we are expected to do things right and to do the right thing. Our association urges you and your colleagues in the government to do the right thing in connection with Bill 84.

"Lorne Bradt

"Essex County Fire Service Association."

The Vice-Chair: Thank you, Mr McCall. Moving to questions, two minutes per caucus.

Mr Bisson: Thank you very much for your presentation. I want to read to you two definitions and I want you to tell me what you think. Under the current firefighters act that is presently in place, a fire department is defined as: "`fire department' means a fire department organized under the Municipal Act"; and "`deputy chief' means the one person who has been appointed by the council of the municipality," inferring that basically this is a body that is created and controlled by the municipal council.

Under the proposed Bill 84 it says, "`fire department' means a group of firefighters authorized by a municipality, group of municipalities or by agreement with the fire marshal to provide fire protection services."

Would you say the second one I read you under Bill 84 is more friendly towards privatization?

Mr McCall: It would seem to kind of go in that direction. I'm not an expert on legislation.

Mr Bisson: All right, second point: There is another definition of what a firefighter is, and I read again under this current act, the firefighters act that exists today: "`full-time firefighter' means a person regularly employed in the fire department on a full-time salaried basis," and it goes on to explain what their duties are.

Under the Bill 84, it reads, "`firefighter' means a person employed in, or appointed to, a fire department and assigned to undertake fire protection services, and includes a volunteer firefighter."

Would you say that the second definition under Bill 84 would mean it would include part-time and volunteers?

Mr McCall: That's the way I would interpret that.

Mr Bisson: Thank you very much.

So when you talk about not privatization, you should be more truthful about what you're saying.

The Vice-Chair: Mr Bisson.

Mr Doyle: You know very well we're waiting for a declaration.

Mr Bisson: You argue with the legislation. I'm tired of you guys coming here with a charade, trying to make people believe that you're not going to privatize fire departments.

Mr Doyle: And you know very well that under the existing legislation fire departments can be privatized; you know that very well.

Mr Bisson: The existing act provides for it and the current act is going to allow privatization. Get clean.

Mr Doyle: Quit playing up.

The Vice-Chair: Mr Doyle.

Mr Bisson: Instead of going around and sucking up to the public or to Mike Harris, be clear about what you're doing.

Mr Doyle: I don't need insults from a jerk like you.

The Vice-Chair: Mr Doyle, please. If we can move on to the Conservative questions.

Mr Klees: Thank you very much for your presentation.

Mr Kormos: I think he was talking to Mr Klees.

Mr Bisson: Was he?

Mr Bob Wood: It could have been you, Peter.

The Vice-Chair: Did you have any questions? Mr McCall, you ran away too early. We still have some questions.

Mr Bisson: Stop the charade, Ed. We're getting tired of --

Mr Doyle: Why don't you just shut up.

Mr Bisson: I won't shut up.

The Vice-Chair: Mr Klees.

Mr Klees: Mr Chair, I really would appreciate it if Mr Bisson would --

Mr Doyle: Give us our time.

Mr Klees: -- calm down and allow this hearing to take place in an orderly way. I don't think this is helpful at all. With respect, I think members of this committee owe it to the firefighters and to the public of Ontario to conduct themselves in a mature way here.

I want to thank you, sir, for your presentation. For the record, I think it's important that we clarify for you that when Mr Doyle made his statement that the act currently allows for privatization, he was referring to the Municipal Act. In Ontario today, firefighting services can be privatized. People here should know that is what he was saying.

Clearly there is a change in this act redefining "employer." The purpose of that is to bring it in line with the existing Municipal Act so there is not a conflict, and for clarification. That is a fact and I think it's important that the record would show that. No one is intending to mislead anyone and to make the suggestion that a member of this committee is intentionally trying to do that is inappropriate.

Mr Ramsay: Thank you, Mr McCall, for making your presentation. I think it's very important that private citizens such as yourself come forward and state what you believe in regard to support for fire services.

It's very interesting, coming on your comments, that while many of our citizens in this country and in Ontario feel that government has gotten too unresponsive and too large and too costly, when we look at our fire emergency services, we maybe have to ask ourselves: "Maybe we got this right. Maybe from all the evidence we've seen in Ontario our fire emergency services in Ontario are damn good; they're right and we shouldn't play around with them."

That's what these hearings are about. This government is somehow saying we have to reinvent our emergency services. I don't think so; we've got the best emergency services in the world here. Yes, it costs a bit of money and we have to accept that. Trying to cut costs in that area isn't going to be worth the lives or the property lost by our doing that. Yes, it's a service that costs money, but I think the vast majority of taxpayers in this province are willing to pay for it, and support both our volunteers and our full-time professionals who protect us in this province. You've made that point well and I think that needs to be reiterated for the record. Thank you for coming.

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

The next presenter is Mr Richard Boufford, please. For the committee's information, in response to Mrs Pupatello's request, the legal staff of the ministry is currently providing a written response for Mrs Pupatello and it will be forthcoming as soon as possible.

Mrs Pupatello: Will it be available by the end of the day?

The Vice-Chair: That is unclear. As soon as possible.

Mrs Pupatello: Can I make a point, Mr Chair, while we're waiting for the next presenter? I might ask either the committee members or the Chair or in fact the parliamentary assistant that, given the comments recently made by Mr Doyle about some question as to whether the former bill and the current bill allow for privatization, it seems to be implying then that in fact your government is not intending to allow for it. My question is, would the parliamentary assistant go on record to tell us and the community here that you'll be bringing forward an amendment to Bill 84 that specifically outlines not allowing municipalities to have a privatization --

The Vice-Chair: Mrs Pupatello, this is not a point of order.

Mrs Pupatello: I didn't ask for a point of order.

The Vice-Chair: Fine. Then you're out of order now. The bottom line is that if you have questions like that and you wish to raise points, you can do it during your time with members who are presenting.

PATRICK MARTIN

The Vice-Chair: Apparently Mr Boufford is not here, but the presentation will be made on behalf of Mr Bouffard, and if you could say your name for the record, sir.

Mr Patrick Martin: Good afternoon. My name is Patrick Martin and I'm a firefighter in the town of Wallaceburg. Mr Bouffard asked me to bring his written submission with me and he apologizes for not being able to attend. He has an illness that has recurred and he apologizes.

I'll read his submission for him. I'll have to apologize for my lack of presentation. I hope I can make it through this.

"To tell you a little bit about myself" -- this is of course in Richard Boufford's words -- "I am a retired fire chief from the town of Wallaceburg. I have devoted my life to the fire service and feel that it is important to express my concerns about Bill 84.

"I strongly oppose any consideration of privatizing the fire service. In my many years as a firefighter and fire chief I have seen communities in the US experiment with this idea and fail. This idea has not worked for them and it will not work for us. It is a fact that private fire departments in the US have had longer response times, poor equipment, poor training and staffing problems. I have personally spoken to people from these areas who have seen broken-down fire apparatus. They have seen fire trucks being push-started during emergencies. They have seen problems with water supply and lack of manpower on the fire ground.

1430

"This is the kind of fire protection you get when the priority is profit. I know that the people of our communities will not accept this kind of "fire" service. Our taxpayers have grown to rely on their fire departments and count on them. They know what protection they have now and expect that same level of protection in the future. We know that our system works and that the private fire departments don't.

"During my years as a fire chief I have seen city councils fight for control of their budgets, for which they are accountable. So I wonder, why would a municipality give up that control? I think what makes our municipal fire departments efficient is that we are accountable to the people of our community. They own their fire service. They tell us what they need and want. We provide the best possible service for their tax dollar. We give every penny back to them" in the form of "protection, training, people and service.

"When I think of a fire service for profit, I wonder, where will the profit come from? Let's pick a number. Let's say that the fire protection in our town costs the homeowners $10 per month per household (this figure is close). Right now our town does not make a profit providing fire protection, so how will someone else make a profit? Will they have to charge $20 per month? The taxpayers would not stand for this. They will not pay more just so someone else can fill their pockets. So if the costs must remain the same, where will the profit come from then? Will the private company reduce staff to achieve a profit? Will they reduce training, reduce equipment or reduce maintenance on equipment to achieve a profit? Once again I ask, where will the money come from? It will surely cost the people more. As a retired fire chief I ask you, what will a private fire service do for its community that a well-run and efficient municipal fire department isn't already doing?

"My years in the fire service give me the background to see the improvements Bill 84 brings to fire prevention and education. However, don't let us take one step forward and two steps backwards. Don't make it easier for municipalities to cut the fire service.

"Given the opportunity, someone will try anything. I speak from experience when I tell you this, because upon my retirement my community attempted to have a fire department with no fire chief. It appears to me that Bill 84 has addressed that issue. I am pleased to see that. It shows you that people will reduce safety at any cost. You must change Bill 84 to prevent that from happening in the future.

"I thank you for your time. Do you have any questions?

"Richard Boufford."

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Martin. I permitted you to read Mr Boufford's letter into the record as he is ill. I don't think you should be subjected to the questions that would properly be directed to him -- I think they would be out of order -- but I thank you very much for your attendance on behalf of Mr Boufford.

Mrs Pupatello: Mr Chair, may I use that time to advance a question to the parliamentary assistant, then? This is a 15-minute presentation.

Mr Doyle: What time? We're way behind now.

The Chair: Mr Boufford was not here to make his presentation.

Mr Martin: If I can offer an answer, I will.

The Chair: That's not the point.

Mr Bisson: Point of order, Chair: We can ask the individual a question. If he desires to respond, he can; if he doesn't, he won't.

The Chair: No, he's not on the agenda. The person on the agenda is Mr Boufford. He is ill. Since he was not here, we should have properly gone to the next presentation. However, I did exercise my discretion, because the man was ill. He obviously prepared something and I think he has a right to be heard, but Mr Martin is not the presenter.

Mr Bisson: Chair, I agree with you up to that point, but certainly we have the right to ask the question.

The Chair: I'm sorry, I think that's out of order. This person is not the presenter and therefore has no time. Mr Boufford had the time.

Mr Bisson: Mr Chair, I'd like to move a motion then. I would ask that we have the ability to ask the presenter a question if he so desires. Are you going to call the question? I've moved a question.

Mr Duncan: Quorum call.

The Chair: We have a quorum call.

The committee awaited a quorum.

The Chair: We presently have a quorum.

I believe there is a point of order from Mrs Pupatello.

Mrs Pupatello: Chair, given that some of the time was still allowed during the time that Mr Martin read the presentation on behalf of Mr Bouffard, and while Mr Johnson was sitting in the chair he was not allowing me to place my question to the parliamentary assistant unless we were within one of those 15-minute periods, and since we now have about five minutes left from the last presentation, it would then be in order for me to advance a question on record to the parliamentary assistant, if the Chair will allow that.

The Chair: I'll allow it.

Mrs Pupatello: To the parliamentary assistant, given that just a moment ago Mr Doyle was suggesting to one of the presenters that in fact the bill was never intended to allow privatization, could the parliamentary assistant confirm for me --

Mr Klees: He didn't say that.

Mr Doyle: That's not what I said.

Mrs Pupatello: This in my question, Mr Doyle.

Mr Klees: It's absolutely incorrect.

Mrs Pupatello: Would the parliamentary assistant confirm that this Bill 84 is intending to allow for privatization? It's a very clear question. Does the bill intend to allow privatization? Will the bill be amended to not allow privatization? That's the only question I have of the parliamentary assistant. Could you confirm?

Mr Klees: Mr Chair, could I speak to that, please?

Mrs Pupatello: It's a simple question, Chair.

The Chair: It's a question to Mr Wood; please answer the question.

Mr Wood: We are here today to listen to what people have to say. We'll be announcing our amendments early next week.

Mrs Pupatello: What a copout.

The Chair: Unfortunately the member from Windsor was not here when evidence was given by the minister that in fact privatization was permitted under the former act and is permitted under this act.

Mr Kormos: Chair, on a point of order: That is entirely improper. You have violated the standards expected of a Chair. We've also heard from dozens and dozens and dozens of deputants, including chiefs of fire departments, firefighters, analysts, observers, that this bill paves the way and opens the door to privatization in a way that no legislation ever did. Give me a break.

Mrs Pupatello: We've got thousands of firefighters marching on the hill because of what? One major issue is privatization --

The Chair: Excuse me, you are now out of order, Mrs Pupatello.

Mrs Pupatello: -- and now you're choosing to deny that it even exists in the bill? You either are doing it or you're not doing it. Have the guts to say what you're doing.

Mr Klees: Have you read the legislation?

Mrs Pupatello: Yes, I have.

Mr Klees: I don't think you have, because if you had read it, and if you understand the Municipal Act, you would know --

The Chair: We're all out of order. Ladies and gentlemen, we're all out of order. We're going to proceed to the next presenter.

Mrs Pupatello: Don't come to my town and try to BS the people here. Go back to Queen's Park where you BS the people there. Don't come to my town and do it here.

Mr Doyle: We've got a female John Wayne here: "Don't come to my town."

Mr Bisson: On a point of order, Chair --

The Chair: You're all being silly at this point. I'm going to adjourn for 10 minutes. If you haven't corrected your behaviour, I am going back to Toronto. You've already delayed this matter a considerable length of time and kept many people who are present waiting here and waiting. I don't think it's fair to the presenters.

My duty is to the presenters, to protect their rights, and I'm not doing a very good job because this meeting is getting out of control. I'm adjourning for 10 minutes, and I'm serious. if you cannot control yourselves and we cannot treat our guests with the courtesy they deserve before this committee, then I will not continue these hearings. Ten minutes will be 10 to 3.

The committee recessed from 1440 to 1453.

JENNIFER SHREVE

The Chair: Welcome back, ladies and gentlemen. This is a continuation of the hearings of the standing committee on the administration of justice. Our next presentation will be made by Jennifer Shreve. Welcome, Mrs Shreve. I'd ask you to proceed with your presentation, which has been distributed in writing to all of the members.

Mrs Jennifer Shreve: Good afternoon and thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak to you today. My name is Jennifer Shreve. I'm a resident of the city of Chatham. I am the mother of four children: David, Jessica, Justine and Dewayne.

I'm here today to let you know at first hand what the Chatham fire department has meant to me and my family. I was very upset when I found out about some of the changes that are taking place in regard to Bill 84: the potential of having fewer initial responding firefighters, part-time firefighters and allowing call-in personnel only after an emergency occurs. It is only common sense that these changes will affect response times and the present teamwork needed, as shown to me a few years ago in the city of Chatham.

My story begins back in July 1994, when I awoke to the sound of breaking glass, only to find the upstairs of my home that I had rented was filled with smoke and on fire. A neighbour had noticed smoke coming from the upstairs and alerted the fire department. They immediately came to the front door, where they entered and tried to make their way to the second level to rescue my two children, Justine and Dewayne. All I could think of was "Where are my children?" I knew two were with me downstairs and Justine was asleep in her room upstairs, but where was Dewayne?

My neighbours tried four times to enter the upper level to find my children and I also made three attempts myself, but each time we were driven back by the heavy smoke. The next thing I remember, the fire department had arrived with nine full-time firefighters in full gear and masks. They entered the upper bedroom area and immediately found Justine lifeless. I later found out that my child at that point was VSA, a term meaning "vital signs absent."

I watched as the firefighters performed CPR on my daughter Justine in the driveway. A few moments later, my son was found and brought outside, where he received CPR from another firefighter until the ambulance arrived. By the time I went to the rear of the house and told my husband that Dewayne had been found, both of my children had left the scene by ambulance headed to the hospital.

Unless you've been there, you have no idea what a hollow feeling I had at that moment in my heart, not knowing whether my family was going to become a family of four when just a few minutes ago we were a family of six.

At the same time as all the rescue and resuscitation efforts were happening, from the street I watched the rest of the fire crew continue to work as a team to ventilate and save the remainder of the place we called home, regardless of the events that just took place. They broke the upper level windows and continued with their job to let out the smoke and salvage what was left.

My two children are alive and healthy today because of the actions taken by the members of the Chatham fire department on that sunny summer morning. In November 1994 this province and its citizens honoured Firefighter Curtis Williams with the Ontario Medal for Firefighters Bravery as the person who found my children so quickly. The other members of Mr Williams's fire crew were also recognized locally for the team effort it took to save two lives that day.

The response time to my home that July day was only three minutes from the time of call to the time of arrival. Ask yourselves today, as I have many times over the last few years, what would have happened if the fire department had not arrived when it did. Would 10, 20 or 30 seconds longer in responding have been too long? I would not want to find out.

As I read bits and pieces about Bill 84 in the news, I knew I could not be silent on this issue. After being contacted by local firefighters, I agreed to share my life with you so maybe the changes that are proposed could be amended to keep the service that allowed my children to live.

You need to know today that a part-time force or a smaller initial response crew would have not have produced the same end results. Fully staffed emergency vehicles were a key factor that day in Chatham and I'm grateful for that service we've always had. We want to keep this service.

We did not have any smoke detectors in our rental unit at the time of the fire. If smoke detectors were present in our home, then maybe we would have had a greater chance at an initial rescue. I have been told that this government hasn't even legislated a simple item that saves lives, such as a smoke detector in every household. It is only common sense to have them in every home. Today a smoke detector is the first thing I look for when I look through an apartment before I rent it.

You may say this is an isolated incident, but it was not, because a similar circumstance took place the day we had a news conference in Chatham to celebrate Mr Williams's award. Not 60 minutes after we closed the news conference, that same crew answered almost the identical call: sunny day, around noon, single-family rental unit, children playing with fire in a bedroom area with no smoke detectors, and luckily no one was hurt. The mother managed to get the children out before they were caught in a deadly situation.

A few friends have asked me why I have chosen to speak today. All I have to do is look at my family, particularly Justine and Dewayne, who were saved by the firefighters, along with my other children that I see running around alive in my home. I ask myself, why do you want part-time or privatized service? The only answer is for the potential to save money. How much is Justine's life worth? How much is Dewayne's life worth? There is no price you can put on any person's life.

No matter how many laws, pamphlets or papers you have, there will always be accidents happening, especially when children are involved. We have an accepted level of fire protection in our communities today that I think should be maintained and increased as we grow as a community.

When you threaten to change and diminish the fire service I now have, then I have to ask, why? I believe the sections in Bill 84 that alter my protection need further consideration. This is not only for you as a committee to consider, but all people in Ontario need to know how things will change if Bill 84 is not amended. And keep the fire service we take for granted many times in our busy lives.

Again on behalf of my family and myself I would like to thank you for the chance to be here today and address my concerns on Bill 84.

1500

Mr Klees: Thank you very much for your presentation. We're certainly pleased and encouraged by your experience, which, by the way, has been recounted to us numerous times across the province by people who have had very similar and very positive experiences with their fire departments.

Just for the record I want to assure you -- and I know my friend Mr Kormos will suggest to you that by me saying this, I'm trying to put a spin on this legislation. Let me just say to you that this is not about spinning anything; this is about talking about the facts of this legislation.

There is absolutely nothing in this legislation that would suggest that the level of service you experienced in your circumstances would be in any way reduced. That's not the objective of this legislation and there's nothing in this legislation that would result in that.

What it does mean, though, is that there is some flexibility built into the legislation that allows municipalities some latitude in terms of how services are delivered. The objective is to make service better and more efficient. In fact there is an entire section of this bill that deals with fire prevention and deals with increasing the levels of safety.

Ultimately -- you should be aware of this, and perhaps you are -- the amount of money that is spent on firefighting in your municipality is determined by the municipal council, the councillors, the men and women around that council table who are elected to do that. That doesn't change. Those same people will still be there and they will still be making a decision about whether the same level of service is delivered. The fire chief in a municipality has the responsibility to recommend the level of staffing. We have every confidence that the fire chief in your community, that the municipal councillors in your community will continue to exercise their sense of responsibility to ensure that you and families like yours continue to be protected.

The Chair: We must move on.

Mr Ramsay: Thank you very much, Jennifer, for bringing your story to us. I think it's very important for all of us as legislators to hear the personal stories from citizens of this province who have greatly benefited from the emergency services we have in this province.

I want to tell you that it's my interpretation of this act that it will allow our municipalities to drastically change, if they wish to do so, how fire service is delivered in this province. The concern I have is that maybe under normal circumstances our municipalities would not be tempted to do so, but I think as you and everybody else in this room knows, we're not under normal or usual circumstances in this province. The Harris government has mounted a massive downloading of expenditures on to our municipalities. Never before have our hardworking municipal councillors been under the gun the way they are now. What Bill 84 does is gives them an out to radically change, if they wish to do so, how their fire services are delivered, to try to balance their books, with all the pressures they have.

Some key aspects to those outs are the increased ability to privatize those services and the ability for the first time for a full-time professional fire service to use part-time workers. Part-time workers cannot be up to the same speed as a full-time, professional firefighter. Obviously with our experience of volunteers in this province, they are hardworking and dedicated people, but if you have to leave another job, and have another job to raise your family, you can't be up to the same level as the full-time, professional firefighter. That's what I'm concerned about. I think we have very good service today and we shouldn't fiddle with it.

Mr Kormos: Thank you, Ms Shreve. Your narration of what happened is incredibly moving and, quite frankly, frightening because you raise the question of what-ifs. Is it a matter of five seconds? Thirty? A minute? We never want to find out.

We listen to the government members talk about how no municipal council would ever, ever fall below any sort of reasonable standard. But you know something, Ms Shreve? Across the province we've been told about municipal councils, for their very own reasons, that have permitted pumpers to be staffed with fewer than the required four people. We know that if there are only three people staffing a pumper, they cannot effect inside fire suppression or rescues. People die and/or firefighters get seriously injured or indeed die.

I quarrel with the proposition, "Oh, the government is lowering the standards here, permitting privatization, permitting part-time firefighters, but no municipality would ever allow firefighting services to descend to that level." The government is implicitly acknowledging that there is a lower level of service, a lower standard, by saying that. Yet the sad reality is that we've witnessed municipalities that have resisted firefighters' efforts to ensure minimum staffing, like a minimum of four people on a pumper which is necessary to effect rescues and inside fire suppression, among other things.

I'm scared of what this legislation will permit because I'm all too familiar with the proposition that the minimum becomes the maximum. This government is creating incredibly new, low-minimum standards that, in my view, are unacceptable to you, to me, to the vast number of Ontarians. If it's about their tax break -- a participant the other day said: "If it's all for the tax break, they can take that tax break and put it where the moon don't shine." I think most Ontarians agree with that too.

I appreciate your coming out here today. You've been really helpful for us.

The Chair: Thank you very much. It must have been very difficult to relate such an emotional story. We really appreciate your coming out today.

WINDSOR FIRE DEPARTMENT

The Chair: The Windsor fire department, Patrick Burke, deputy fire chief.

Before Mr Ramsay objects, because he did object to a duplication on another occasion, we did hear from the fire chief. However, he was listed under a different section and there was no way we could have prevented the duplication. So periodically our system does break down, and I apologize to Mr Ramsay. Would you object to this witness or may he go ahead?

Mr Ramsay: No, he can go ahead.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr Ramsay. Welcome, Deputy Chief Patrick Burke.

Mr Kormos: That wasn't a point of order, Chair.

Mrs Pupatello: That was out of order.

The Chair: I'd ask you to proceed, sir.

Mr Patrick Burke: Thank you, Mr Chair and members of the committee. I appreciate the opportunity to address you on this very important matter. The first thing I'd like to do, though, so that you've got some perspective of where my comments are coming from, is to give you a little bit of my background. I've been a firefighter in the city of Windsor for 29 years and three months. I spent 23 of those years representing firefighters in collective bargaining disputes, arbitration disputes. In fact, during that time I've presented over 100 arbitrations in disputes involving firefighters going back to the 1970s. I've sat as a nominee on boards of arbitration. I'm well aware of the way the process works.

I spent 18 years as an executive board member of the Ontario Professional Fire Fighters Association and from 1982 to 1986 I was the president of that association. I spent 11 years, appointed by the Tory government, on the OMERS board; two years as vice-chair and two years as chair of that board.

I have a law degree from the University of Windsor, which I acquired in 1990. I was called to the bar in 1992. I'm not practising at the present time, obviously.

I was involved in three coroners' inquests, representing the firefighters' associations in the deaths of firefighters in the province of Ontario. I have some understanding and I believe some expertise on how the existing legislation has worked and what some of the issues are.

What I'd like to do is to continue on where Chief Fields left off and cover some of the labour relations matters.

1510

First of all, I'd like to refer you back to the written presentation because I think the top of page 6 puts in a nutshell the concerns that the management of the Windsor fire department and the Windsor fire and rescue services has about Bill 84. Bill 84 threatens to build roadblocks to the successful continuation of all of those community activities and public education activities and fire prevention activities that Chief Fields alluded to. It does that by shifting the focus from people to processes, from harmony to turmoil and from cooperation to confrontation.

At the bottom of page 7, Chief Fields referred to where the focus should be, what the focus is from the receivers of the service, the customers out there, the citizens who expect that. It's gratifying to hear that a lot of the people who have been here speaking as individual citizens with experiences with fire departments have related to a number of these.

We want quick, responsive, uninterrupted, skilful, valuable service. All of these allow the citizens in this community and the citizens across Ontario to go to bed each night feeling comfortable in the realization that if tragedy strikes their home or their family, a well-trained, well-equipped fire department will respond quickly, with sufficient firefighters to mitigate the incident and safely perform the tasks required to save lives, preserve property, render first aid, isolate and control hazardous materials, perform extrication and perform specialized rescue.

In my view, it is incumbent upon the leaders in the fire service and in municipal and provincial governments to ensure that legislative changes, where they're made, complement rather than compromise the needs and expectations of the citizens: our customers. This requires the striking of some appropriate balances: cost and value; level of service and quality of service; safety and level of risk for the citizens; safety and level of risk for the firefighters; needs and expectations of the people in the community.

For more than 50 years, these factors have been in relative balance in the province of Ontario. A large measure of that balance has been the legislative framework within which all of the players have had to operate, particularly in the area of labour relations and collective bargaining and the methods applied to dispute resolution. There have been no strikes, there have been no lockouts, there has been no disruption of service and relatively few grievances.

Why is that? Well, the labour relations framework has promoted the peaceful resolution of disputes. There is automatic recognition of bargaining agents, which eliminates a measure of confrontation. There is the continuous operation of collective agreements, which eliminates another area of confrontation between the parties to a collective bargaining dispute. There are clear definitions in the legislation. Those clear definitions have been put to the test in the courts and they've been clarified for the parties. There is neutral third-party intervention into disputes.

I heard somebody suggest this morning that there should be a panel of arbitrators. That takes something away from the parties in a dispute. It's still important for the parties in a dispute and it's a more reasonable expectation they have of the result if they can agree on a third person. There are simple enforcement procedures in place for decisions. There is an arm's length from the Labour Relations Act and there's a measure of certainty in the expectations of the parties.

If you contrast this with what Bill 84 is going to introduce, in my estimation you have a recipe for turmoil. You introduce competition for a bargaining agency through certification. You have confusing definitions, at least two of which involve the definition of a firefighter. You have the introduction of the concept of decertification. You have the possibility of terminating agreements and, coupled with that, the complete cessation of the terms and conditions of employment for firefighters in communities in Ontario.

There are prolonged procedures for the adjudication of disputes. You have automatic increases in the hours of work, potential decimation of bargaining units and the introduction of part-time firefighters. There is one provision, the recall provision under the act, which I like to refer to as an indentured servitude, because it basically provides that every firefighter will be on call all the time. He will have to respond in a major emergency, and it leaves the major emergency blank. Nobody knows how to deal with that.

There are some fire chiefs and deputy fire chiefs in this province who have indicated to me that they will expect their firefighters to wear pagers 24 hours a day, seven days a week, and whenever that pager goes off, to respond. I submit to you, if they do not respond, there will be some more turmoil involved in that relationship.

Under Bill 84, harmony gives way to turmoil. There is the potential for a very negative impact on the quality of service and the delivery of service, not only related to specific provisions, which I'll get into shortly, but also to the overall tone of the legislation.

There are some general problems. Consolidation for the sake of consolidation makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. This is particularly the case where those responsible for drafting the language, as I perceive it, found it easier to cut and paste rather than to weave the legislation together so that one part is compatible with another. New words and phrases lead to new interpretations being sought in the courts. Words and phrases interpreted in the labour relations sections of Bill 84 will be imported into the enforcement and fire code enforcement and Fire Marshals Act portions of the legislation.

The logic applied to this consolidation, if unchecked, in my submission to you, could lead to a consolidation of the Police Services Act with the Provincial Offences Act, the Highway Traffic Act and other quasi-criminal statutes. In fact, if you apply parallel logic to all of Ontario, it would make sense to have one statute, the Province of Ontario Act, and we would just lump all the volumes of legislation and provincial statutes into the Province of Ontario Act.

It seems to me that what's happened here is that wherever the word "fire" appeared, that was the logic for consolidation. There should be some interrelationship between the pieces of legislation that lend themselves to consolidation and, in my submission, it doesn't do that here. That creates some difficult problems down the road.

The councillor from London spoke briefly about the problems with the offences section, and she recommended to you that what you do is just extricate section 9 from that section. If you take a look at that section and take a look at other provisions of the act and follow it to its ridiculous conclusion, it's possible for the members of the fire marshal's fire safety council to be charged in a quasi-criminal sense, to be required to go and appear and be arraigned before a justice of the peace for failing to establish a logo for the fire marshal's fire safety council. To me that doesn't make any sense. I hope it doesn't make any sense to you, but it's an example of what cut and paste can do without taking the time to build the legislation rather than just grab pieces and throw them together.

In terms of labour relations, in a word, Bill 84 is disastrous. If it's going to propel people anywhere -- it was suggested that it would propel us into the 21st century -- my suggestion is it would be the reaction of a boomerang and it would propel us backwards into the turn of the century, in the 1900s. It certainly is not in line with the trends towards labour relations that are emerging today all over North America.

Those who would tell you that Bill 84 has some good sections so we should pass Bill 84 because of the good sections would probably also tell you that cigarettes are good for you because the filter looks nice. It doesn't make sense.

The hours of work are basic to collective bargaining. That's being taken away. The costs of conciliation have been addressed by an earlier person here at the table. This is also a recipe for increased costs. People have talked to you about cost savings in some areas. The legal costs involved with having to go through hearings before the labour relations board, with having to go to the courts for judicial review on what arbitrators meant or what the legislation means when it sets out language, is going to tax the coffers of municipal budgets and municipal finances in this province tremendously.

1520

The potential for people to extricate out of the bargaining units -- captains, for example -- creates another cost. At a recent seminar I asked a management-labour relations lawyer, if all of the captains in a bargaining unit were taken out, wouldn't there have to be some special arrangement with the association so that people could move in and out in an acting capacity? He said, "Yes, that's true, or you would have to provide more captains." I would suggest to you that if Bill 84 passes, you're going to be providing more captains, because I don't think the associations will very readily allow for provisions to take place which are assisting in decimating the bargaining units.

If, for example, that is one of the lower levels or the primary level of promotion within that bargaining unit, you end up with a flat-line bargaining unit. That sends people to the bargaining table asking for increases in salary due to specialization. A lot of those things that Chief Fields talked about, that we get for paying absolutely no increase -- people don't get extra pay for being instructors -- will become bargaining points. They will cost more money to the municipality. They will be awarded by boards of arbitration, there is no doubt about that. They will be prone to increasing and creating some promotional opportunity within bargaining units. It's a real danger.

In general, there are some difficulties with who is going to be responsible. It's not clear how many ministers are going to be responsible, and the fire service, as a result, doesn't know who is going to be the voice of the fire service in the Legislature. For 50-some-odd years we all knew that the Solicitor General was there and you had some place to go. It's too easy to shovel off one way or another.

I have a lot more to say. I would have a lot more to say but I want to cut it off because there may be some questions and I want to be able to answer some of the questions.

The Chair: Just wind it up. There is no time for questions.

Mr Burke: I think what you should do is take a look at this, and I'm recommending a major overhaul in terms of amendments. I'm recommending severing the labour relations part. I'm recommending that you build on the existing Fire Departments Act. Use that as a template and make some changes, do some fine-tuning, rather than do an overhaul by a backyard mechanic. I would recommend that you take those into account very, very seriously. I thank you for your time.

The Chair: I thank you.

Applause.

The Chair: Many of you were not here this morning when I pointed out that the standing orders prohibit demonstrations in the audience which are signs of disapproval or approval, and I'd ask you to restrain yourselves. I know how difficult it is. I did not have this problem in other cities, nor with the police, and I expect I won't have it here.

WINDSOR PROFESSIONAL FIRE FIGHTERS ASSOCIATION

The Chair: Doug Topliffe is our next presentation.

Mr Doug Topliffe: Good afternoon. My name is Doug Topliffe. I'm a Windsor firefighter. I'm chairperson of the occupational health and safety committee for the Ontario Professional Fire Fighters Association. As a member of the employment family assistance program for the city of Windsor, and having certificates in critical incident stress debriefings, I will be raising some serious concerns on certain aspects of this bill.

Before I get started, I would like to make this committee aware that the council of Windsor, Ontario has passed a resolution concerning Bill 84 and we will be passing this out to you. This was passed on Monday. We just got a copy of it and everyone will get one before you leave today.

We have established that the passing of this bill, as it stands, will present significant change in our fire protection, threatening to undermine the speed, experience and teamwork that is in effect in every full-time fire department in Ontario. We do not want this to happen. We do not want public safety to be compromised in any city.

The shadow of understaffing firehalls, understaffing vehicles, along with the deterioration of training and experience, as we know it, looms overhead. Consistency of training and teamwork will be lost.

Not too long ago, a person felt very secure with the health care system. When you went to the hospital you knew you would have the best of care. In the emergency room, you knew that care was just minutes away. Now we have a problem in the hospitals due to overwork and understaffing. Hospital care facilitators suffer and the patients suffer. Although the hospital staff is giving the best they can, it is not as it once was. Why? Because the system has changed. You now have less people to respond to the immediate needs of the patient.

We do not want that to happen in the fire service. The citizens of Windsor are still secure in the fact that the Windsor Fire Department is just a phone call away. We are immediately responsive to your needs. We do not want to reduce our firefighting and rescue capabilities to save a few dollars.

The passing of this bill encourages municipalities to understaff fire stations and emergency vehicles, thus reducing the level of service the citizens are now expecting. This will slow the response time with an adequate number of firefighters getting on the scene, seriously jeopardizing the current level of rescue and fire control operations. It is no secret that coroners' juries consistently identify an adequate number of firefighters and response times as the key factors in saving lives.

We saw a little child up here this morning, and I really believe that just a few more seconds, if that had elapsed, we would not have seen little Cheyanne running around this room this morning.

This bill also opens the door to privatization, a concept that introduces a profit motive into the provision of emergency response and public safety. We Ontarians do not need emergency services delivered at levels that are dictated by the need for corporate dividends to be paid. Public safety and firefighter safety are paramount in the minds of every firefighter.

I would like to tell you just a little bit about firefighters. We feel firefighting is a prestigious job. We feel we do a special job, and believe me, we want to make a difference. Firefighting is an ultrahazardous, unavoidably dangerous job. We may be burned, killed, injured or suffer disease and illness from our occupation. Our citizens may suffer from the same dilemmas.

We can all suffer physically from a fire: broken bones, smoke inhalation, scarred lungs, burned arms or legs. These injuries can heal, but they change our lives. The scarring of a facial burn may be correctable by plastic surgery, a back or a leg burn may be hidden, however, there are times when no amount of surgery can correct the undeniable sight of a person who has been a survivor of a fire. For the rest of your life you are reminded of this event. You are stared at, ridiculed, your life is permanently changed. We want to continue to reduce the number of persons who are scarred. We can only do this with quick response times, training, teamwork and adequate staffing.

What about our minds? In a firefighter we call it critical incident stress. It is an all too common emotion in our service. If a person dies, especially a child, you remember it for the rest of your life. I will tell you, firefighters do not want to fail. We will not accept any reason for failure.

Citizens suffer. They most certainly can suffer physically, but what about their mental suffering? They hear the wails, the screaming, the pleas for help long before the firefighters arrive. They can't help the victims, they can't go in and put the fire out, they can't rescue the person in the fire. If the person dies, do you think those screams will be forgotten? Never.

These stresses will be multiplied in both the firefighter and the citizen if there is even a hint that something went wrong with the firefighting evolutions. Privatized fire departments would be devastating. Part-time firefighters in a full-time setting would be counterproductive. Both firefighters and the citizens would be shaken to the bone to wake up with the realization that part-time firefighters were not thorough in their efforts to save a loved one.

Full-time firefighters train, retrain and then train some more. They do not have to think when they go into a fire; it becomes second nature. Firefighters live for their job. They must know that everything possible was done. Strangely, the public must also know that everything was done. If they lose a loved one, they will be angry, but worse, they will never be the same knowing that something was left undone. Their loss will be greater knowing that inferior firefighting capabilities accentuated the causes of their loss. However, remember that the haunting sounds they heard while waiting for the fire department to arrive will be engulfed with the sounds of happiness when a rescue is performed.

1530

Speed, teamwork, experience and training save lives. Training and experience can turn tragedy into success. Remember the coroners' inquests again. They consistently state that quick response with adequate firefighters is paramount in saving lives. Some or all of these constants would be lost with part-time firefighting.

According to Dr Tony Felbaum, a psychologist who has done extensive work with firefighters, there is another phenomenon that could be created with the use of part-time firefighters. Because these part-timers will not have the benefits of the excess training that full-time firefighters receive, because they do not reap the benefits of the experience, they do not reap the benefits of the teamwork built up with your brother and sister firefighters. The confidence level and mutual trust that is so prevalent in the present fire service will not be there. Now the experienced firefighter will not only have to worry about the problems with the fire, he will have to worry about his new colleague and himself. It's an extra burden. Will this have an effect on the firefighters' safety and that of the victims? It is conceivable. Firefighters are concerned about the citizens in the province of Ontario.

In Windsor, we have proven this with such things as our smoke detector installation program. Firefighters, both on and off duty, installed smoke detectors in hundreds of homes. There is no residence in the city of Windsor that should be without a smoke detector. Fire Prevention Week at the Devonshire Mall is attended by thousands of people. Among many of the fire-related topics, adults and children alike learn safety tips and are educated in safely leaving a home when a fire is found. Our fire house travels all around Essex county and our fire starter program has had a tremendous impact on the youths of this city.

This campaign is not just about saving jobs; it is about saving lives. Firefighters and safety, believe me, go hand in hand. The fire marshal of Ontario is on record as saying, "The current system promotes teamwork."

For two consecutive years, the administration of the firefighters association and the city of Windsor have won the prestigious Fire Marshal's Public Fire Safety Council's safety award for our endeavours to promote safety and fire prevention. Fire prevention and education is a passion with almost every fire department in the province of Ontario.

Firefighting is a way of life. When we pull up to a fire scene, people are leaving as we attempt to enter. To know what it's like to be a firefighter is not easy. Let me attempt to explain a real life situation, if I may.

We pulled up to a house with smoke showing, along with the first licks of flame exiting the house. We were told a young boy was trapped in the upper floor. As we entered the house, the smoke thickened and there was almost no visibility. The flames were rapidly spreading, the heat was readily noticeable. After the first few feet we had to feel our way to find the stairs. The heat and flames made the stairs barely tenable. The lead firefighter heard a cry in the upper area. Although hot, and with some apprehension, we knew we had to advance. As it turned out, that one sound of that child would be overwhelming.

At that point it would seem there was no turning back. If there were any more cries they were overwhelmed by the sound of the burning in the house. We were extremely hot, with by now zero visibility, when suddenly the lead firefighter began to retreat. With steam and heat pouring off our firefighting gear, we fell exhausted to the ground. Yes, we were beat. We lost.

The firefighter had his ears and neck burned, injuries he would overcome. This firefighter is not on the job any more. The loss ruined his career and indeed had a major impact on his life. They found that young child shortly after the fire was knocked down. The lad was behind a door, within 10 feet of where the firefighter was forced to stop. Even though the firefighter was burned, he did not want to give up the rescue attempt. Although he gave everything he had to reach this young boy, in his mind it was not enough and he left the fire department.

Members of this committee, this is why we have firefighters last week like Pete Rivers and Don Johnston from the Windsor Fire Department who were caught in an extremely dangerous situation. Indeed their protective equipment was irreparably damaged. I don't know if this is really allowed, but I just want to show you what they came out of the fire looking like. This is their mask. This is their helmet. The mask was okay. The straps were burned. They went to the edge. They risked their lives. There was a child reportedly trapped in this structure. There was no question they had to attempt to save her.

Members of this committee, I urge you to listen to the deputations of the last few weeks. I want you to consider the names on the petitions that you have received. I want you to listen to the citizens. I'll tell you, as a homeowner and as a citizen I understand the concept of saving and cutting back, but never would I, in my own home, cut back at the price of safety for my family.

The firefighters in Ontario have never had a strike or a slowdown concerning firefighting. There's a reason: We will not jeopardize your safety. Please consider making major amendments to Bill 84. Please give the firefighters the respect they have earned and deserve. Thank you very much.

Applause.

The Chair: Thank you. Your time has elapsed. I thank you for your eloquent presentation. Again I would remind the audience that demonstration and intimidation of witnesses in this hearing are not permitted. You are intimidating anyone who might want to speak other than in favour of something you've got to say. I will not stand for intimidation on my watch. I'm sorry.

Mr Bisson: Chair, the public of Ontario is getting pretty intimidated by your government.

The Chair: That may be. Please come on up, sir.

Mr Klees: Chair, while the witness is coming up, I have a point of order I'd like to make: I'm concerned about the members of this committee who began that last applause. We know it's out of order. The reason for my concern is, first of all, they should be setting an example of how these hearings are conducted, and second, there should not be any indication by the fact that we, or that I am not applauding because I don't appreciate the presentation. That is not the message we should be sending in this committee, and I would respectfully ask that all members of this committee conduct themselves accordingly.

The Chair: Mr Klees, there is nothing in the standing orders that prevents demonstrations by members. What I am concerned about are demonstrations by the audience that could intimidate witnesses. I have had eight to nine days of hearings. We have been to many sittings. I come from Cambridge, by the way, and that's not the way we treat guests in my city. I expect you to abide by the rules that are laid down, not by me, but by the standing orders. It's as simple as that. I would appreciate it.

Mrs Pupatello: Mr Chair, on a point of order: Just for the record, because you are in the city of Windsor, I wanted to assure anyone who speaks to the committee here, regardless of your position, the people and residents of Windsor have a great respect for all opinions. You would be eminently safe here in Windsor, coming and going, and whether they applaud or not, truly it's a very safe and wonderful community, Mr Chair.

The Chair: That is not a point of order.

STEPHEN ORSER

The Chair: Mr Orser, please proceed.

Mr Stephen Orser: I can assure the whole committee, I'm most certainly not intimidated by applause by the audience or anyone here on any side of the argument.

My name is Stephen Orser. I'm from London, Ontario. I live in a seniors' complex named Cherryhill. Mr Wood is familiar with it. I believe he's my MPP.

What brings me here today is my grave concern over the Progressive Conservatives' Bill 84. This came to light to me through a notice I received from MTO. I'll read the bottom of the notice. It said, "Time is of the essence for firefighters and emergency response personnel." After reading this notice -- it came with my licence renewal -- I was going through the neighbourhood mall and there was a fire safety campaign by the London firefighters' association going on, at which time I picked up literature about Bill 84, signed a petition and volunteered my name to speak to this committee.

1540

In the past, I have experienced loss from fire. When I was a young man in my home town, I witnessed a fire in which Bonnie Faulkner passed away, and I was there to hear her last screams. We had a volunteer fire department -- and this is nothing against their efforts; it was a small town -- it took them roughly seven minutes to get to the fire. My involvement was that I was one of the local kids who would follow the fire trucks.

I was with the brother of Bonnie Faulkner as we realized it was his house on fire. I was there at what I now know, from the last few days, is called the flash point, when the house was consumed by fire. I heard her last cries. It was something that has stuck with me all my life, and as such I have an interest in fire matters.

At one time I was a superintendent for about 54 units near the University of Western Ontario, and it would seem almost every other day we'd have a fire response because of students and their wild partying. Many times a fire response would happen within minutes; and if it hadn't, we would have lost a lot of property and a lot of students.

My own direct personal experience flows from an ex-girlfriend who lost two brothers in Lucan due to lack of response time. My own direct personal experience is a fire I caused unwittingly when I left some items cooking on a stove and I went to a variety store. I came back roughly 15 minutes after leaving, and the fire department had already put the fire out and contained it. They had done so within five minutes of me leaving. It was my mistake for leaving the burners on high. There were 12 people in the house who would have most certainly perished if we didn't have a rapid response time.

I've done my best to understand the issues at hand. I was given a tape supplied by the firefighters' association that deals with the privatization issue as it has been dealt with in the States -- I believe it was Arizona -- with a company called Rural/Metro fire department.

I'd like a point of clarification from the Chair or the assistant of the Chair. On Bill 84, under the section that says "employer," there's a word in that section that says "organization." I'm wondering what the definition of an organization is under this bill.

Mr Bisson: He's asking you a question.

The Chair: Well, unfortunately, you're not in a position to ask questions. You can ask it rhetorically, and perhaps the other members would like to raise it during debate.

Mrs Pupatello: On a point of order, Mr Chair: This is the very same question a member did raise and has yet to have had a response on. So please don't suggest to this fine gentleman who has made a trip to be here that one of us --

The Chair: Mrs Pupatello, that is not a point of order. Please proceed.

Mr Kormos: Well, this is a point of order, Chair. Chair, on a point of order, please: The parliamentary assistant is here; he's the spokesperson for the government, for the Solicitor General. You've got a citizen who comes here and, as part of his 15 minutes -- and he's entitled to use it, I put to you, whichever way he wants, either to use it all with his own address or to leave any balance for others -- he has put a question to the parliamentary assistant. The parliamentary assistant should give him the courtesy of answering it.

The Chair: That's not a point of order. Sir, please proceed.

Mr Orser: Okay, fair enough. I guess then I'll have to read into what I can see the word "organization" as meaning, since I can't get a clarification from the committee. I would put it to you that in the event that I'm not sure what "organization" means, it would be possible for the Boy Scouts of Canada to take over as an employer for the firefighters in London. Would that be an incorrect statement?

Mr Bisson: As long as they win the contract.

Mr Orser: So any group can come in and privatize the firefighters in the city of London?

Mrs Pupatello: That's correct.

Mr Orser: That's correct? What I'm worried about in Bill 84, since it's evident that it is a direct bill towards privatization of the firefighting services in the city of London, where I live, is that after watching the video, I saw things such as subscription fees; I believe the number was $931 a year to subscribe to the fire service. In the alternative, when the private firefighting department showed up, if you didn't have insurance or whatever you call it, the subscription fee, you had to pay a fee of upwards of $5,000. I'd like to know, in this act, where the protection against these outrageous charges is for the citizens.

Mrs Pupatello: They are not there.

Mr Orser: There are none.

Mrs Pupatello: Right.

Mr Orser: I feel that privatization will be the downfall of proper fire services. I don't want to say who I voted for in the last election, because now I'm a little ashamed, but I believe that if this were an election issue, a party that would endorse privatization would not enjoy a majority. I speak to hundreds a week in my little business, and I have not found one person who wants to jeopardize fire safety with privatization.

We've seen problems in waste management with privatization. We've seen problems with the ambulance services with privatization. Essential services such as firefighters and police should have a brick wall of protection around them for the public benefit. I think, furthermore, that companies that are going to bring jobs to the city of London may take a serious look at going elsewhere if we privatize in the city of London.

I'd like to ask anybody here who is allowed to answer: In the event of privatization, is there going to be any mandatory, legislated response time? In other words, if somebody comes in and takes over the firefighting duties of the city of London, are they going to know that you respond in four minutes or five minutes or you don't get paid? I submit to you, if this is put into the law, that there's a mandatory response time to protect the citizens, you won't have one company come forward.

Furthermore, on the issue of part-time firefighters, I'd like anyone on the committee who would trust a part-time heart surgeon or a part-time brain surgeon to operate on them to put their hand up, because I know I wouldn't. Firefighting is as serious, if not more so, than the two aforementioned items.

It's evident by what's going on here that if this came to a plebiscite in our city, there would be an outstanding no. Now, I understand this committee can't recommend a plebiscite, but if it could, I'd appreciate it. Maybe my MPP would put that forward when he's in Queen's Park and let the citizens opt out of this type of legislation. I'd be pleased to answer any questions from anyone here.

Mr Kormos: That's a refreshing change; nobody has been prepared to answer yours.

Mr Bisson: Let me just be clear that as a member of the New Democratic Party I can guarantee you we would not be and are not in favour of any form of privatization of essential services.

I ask you a question. I don't have enough time to ask the question; I'm trying to figure out how to get to it really quickly. Sometimes that's a problem. Would you say that the person who fires somebody is the employer?

Mr Orser: Absolutely. To be able to fire, you have to be able to hire. That would imply an employer-employee relationship.

Mr Bisson: In the existing legislation on fire services, the employer is defined as the municipality. In the case of Bill 84 -- and I think you've answered my question -- the employer is either the municipality or an organization. Would you say this bill opens up to privatization?

Mr Orser: Absolutely, without a doubt, and I think it is an outrage that's trying to be slipped in the back door. I found out about this just through a fluke. I didn't see any ads on TV with Premier Harris talking about this bill. All I saw was him in a hockey rink and up against some type of electrical board. I couldn't understand what he was doing, but it didn't make any sense to me that such a serious issue wasn't advertised on TV so everyone would know. That would be the appropriate way to spend funds.

Mr Bob Wood: I have patiently awaited my turn to try to respond to some of your concerns. The reason I did that is that I want to give everybody a chance to put their concerns forward and then we'll try to answer those where we have time at the end. There's no change in the position with respect to privatization between the current situation legislatively and what will be the case under the new bill. So there's no change.

Mr Orser: That's the motion you're going to put forward to alter this legislation?

Mr Bob Wood: There's no need to alter it. That's the fact with respect to the legislation as now drafted: There's no change.

Mr Orser: Then, sir, with all due respect, that can be solidified in the legislation, that there will be no privatization whatsoever.

Mr Bob Wood: No. There's no change.

Mr Orser: We could clarify it for people like me who weren't able to understand that.

Mr Bob Wood: There's no change. I apologize for interrupting. If you want to make a further submission, go ahead. If you don't, I'll try to answer your last two questions. But it's your time, so you call it.

Mr Orser: I'd just like the opportunity to respond.

The Chair: Unfortunately, neither one of you has the time, because we have to go to Mrs Pupatello.

Mrs Pupatello: Mr Orser, firstly, it's refreshing to have you come to present here. You seem like a very decent individual putting forth very reasonable requests of the government, which they are not recognizing. We will on your behalf, however, be looking for very clear amendments which would outlaw privatization of firefighting services and rescue. That we will be doing.

I'd like to put every Conservative member who is in this room today who is suggesting that these thousands of people who have come forward so far are simply being petty, that privatization is really not an issue -- this is what they're trying to tell us: "It's really no big change. It has always been there." On behalf of everyone who stood at Queen's Park, in uniform, silently and with great respect trying to tell Solicitor General Runciman that this is not the case with this bill, we also will be doing that when we come to submit amendments to this bill.

I need to put this on record while we have an opportunity. This is a letter from the president of the chiefs' association.

The Chair: Your minute is up, Mrs Pupatello. I'm very sorry. The 15 minutes, Mr Orser, have been completed. I thank you very much for assisting the committee in its deliberations.

Mr Orser: I'd like to thank you, and I'd just like to close with saying that I think this bill should be buried, not human beings.

Interruption.

The Chair: It seems that no one in the audience wants to listen to me. I'm going to take a five-minute recess. I'm going to come back. There are a number of associations that are on record to be proceeding. If the behaviour continues, I will ask the audience to leave. If they do not leave, then I will have to adjourn the committee. A five-minute recess.

The committee recessed from 1554 to 1606.

The Chair: Could I ask everyone to get to their places so we can start the meeting this afternoon. We have four people we are going to hear from, two associations and two individuals. Again, we don't get advance warnings of what position people will take, so we'll have to wait to see.

WALLACEBURG PROFESSIONAL FIRE FIGHTERS ASSOCIATION ONTARIO PROFESSIONAL FIRE FIGHTERS ASSOCIATION PROVINCIAL FEDERATION OF ONTARIO FIRE FIGHTERS

The Chair: Our next presenters are Patrick Martin and Rick Miller on behalf of the Wallaceburg Professional Fire Fighters Association. Welcome, gentlemen.

Mr Patrick Martin: Thank you. My name is Patrick Martin. With me is Mr Rick Miller. I will do a short presentation and then allow Rick to comment as well.

I am a full-time firefighter in the town of Wallaceburg and also the president of the Wallaceburg Professional Fire Fighters Association. I am deeply concerned about the negative impact Bill 84 will have on the fire service in our province. Although Bill 84 does include some positive improvements to fire prevention and education, I feel the bad will outweigh the good.

Today I wish to express my concerns from two different perspectives: first, from the point of view as the president of the Wallaceburg Professional Fire Fighters Association, and also as a person whose family lost four members in a tragic house fire. Many years ago my wife lost two sisters, one brother and an aunt in a house fire in Wallaceburg.

As a firefighter I oppose any part of Bill 84 that will reduce the safety of the public and my fellow firefighters. I disagree with the concepts of part-time firefighters and privatization of the fire service. I oppose any legislation that will reduce staffing or increase response times.

The message from the professional firefighters of Ontario has been loud and clear. I'm sure during the course of our campaign and these public hearings you have heard our reasons for that concern. I would like to spend more than 15 minutes with you to discuss this in detail; believe me, I really would. However, since my time is limited, I will not repeat what you must already know.

I'm going to break from my presentation here and just comment. During the course of the hearings today, I heard some of the speakers being asked questions like, "With the downloading of the province to municipalities, do you feel that your municipality would consider things such as privatization, part-time, what have you, any form of reduction to the fire service?" I'll answer that question. The answer is very loud and clear, and it is definitely yes.

I can tell you that from experience, because last year in the town of Wallaceburg our community faced that situation, and it was very obvious. Our community was very vocal in saying, "Look, here are the cuts, here's the money we're not going to get any more, and we have to cut you by X number of dollars." They took the easy way out. They said, "We're just going to reduce your firefighter staff." They tried to put us back to just a two-man response crew, only two full-time firefighters on duty. Also they tried to operate our fire department without a chief. It just blows my mind. Obviously, with the chance, you're darned right they would consider privatization.

My chief was up here this morning and gave a presentation. He was asked basically that same question, would our community right now consider that? He answered no. He answered no because right now our mayor, in fact at a meeting on Monday night, guaranteed me they would never consider it. Right now we have a good relationship with our present mayor and council. The reason we have a good relationship is because the firefighters gave considerably and helped to achieve those savings. But that's him saying that. What kind of government are we going to have next month? With Kent county restructuring, our mayor may not be there next month. That's right now. Right now he says he wouldn't do that, but another mayor would reduce in the blink of an eye; you're darned right they would. My answer is yes, and I can say that from experience.

As I mentioned earlier, my wife, Lorrie, lost four members of her family in a house fire. Even though much time has passed since then, I'm sure you can imagine how this has affected all our lives. The memories will last forever. My wife still sees the vivid picture of her sisters being carried from the house as she stood in the front yard. My father-in-law still can't even talk about it. He couldn't deal with it. I think those are the people you need to see and hear from today, but I couldn't ask them to come here; I know they couldn't go through it. My wife's little sister was only six months old at the time. This proposed Bill 84 right here is now older than Katherine was when she died.

You guys have to listen. You have to listen when we say lives will be lost, because we've seen it, we know. I've seen it from both sides.

Do you believe that at the time that tragic house fire claimed those lives the standard practice for our fire department was to respond with only two firefighters? Think about that: two firefighters. Think about the mathematics here, gentlemen. You don't need your calculator. There are four people inside that house who are dying, and there are two firefighters out on the street waiting for help to arrive. This just doesn't make any sense. You might also be shocked -- I already mentioned it -- that our municipality attempted to return us to the two-man initial response team last year just to reduce the fire department budget. This proves that some people will try anything just to cut a budget. This action must stop.

Bill 84 makes it easier for municipalities to understaff their firehalls. Bill 84 makes it easier for municipalities to privatize the fire service. If prior to Bill 84 our municipality tried to make these cuts, what will happen if Bill 84 passes in its present form? The cuts to the fire service will be deep. We will return to the two-man response crew. We will see house fires like my wife's family experienced.

The cuts to the fire service that Wallaceburg attempted last year I suspect had an impact on Bill 84. If Wallaceburg was successful in eliminating the chief's position, the effect on communities across the province would be incredible. I believe that clause (6) of part II in Bill 84 was included to prevent this from being attempted again. Here again, I would think that the fire chiefs across the province would have stood up and just shouted loud and clear. The fire chiefs across the province who are very proud of their contribution to Bill 84 should have realized that any flexible language would result in this kind of cutting. There, again, we must amend Bill 84 to preserve our level of protection.

Back to the wording, I've heard some comments this morning. Obviously there's a different interpretation of the wording from each side here. I met with Mr Jack Carroll, our MPP, and actually that very thing came up. When we talk about a mandatory 48-hour workweek, he said, "You guys are just reading it wrong; you're misinterpreting it." Of course I'm hearing that again here today. I'm a firm believer in, "Mean what you say, say what you mean." If it's that unclear that nobody can understand it, then it's very poorly written and we'd better do something.

In view of what happened to my wife's family, I'm sure they wonder why I became a firefighter. I know they worry a lot. I can recall a time at a fire scene when I was working up on our aerial ladder platform and I looked down, and in the crowd was my father-in-law looking up at me fighting this fire. What must have been going through his mind?

Fire has already taken too much. You guys have the power to improve the odds. You must amend Bill 84.

Mr Rick Miller: Good afternoon. I am the pension chairman for the Ontario Professional Fire Fighters Association, which is a province-wide organization. I am here today on behalf of my organization and for the Provincial Federation of Ontario Fire Fighters. Therefore, I am speaking today on behalf of 9,000 full-time firefighters in the province of Ontario.

On behalf of these firefighters, I would like to voice our strong objections to section 52 of Bill 84. You have our written submissions, which detail our objections, but I would like to summarize these for you now.

Subsections (2), (3) and (4) of section 52 set out a mechanism for requiring approval of the Minister of Municipal Affairs for pension plan changes. This mechanism is totally out of date. It is our understanding that subsections (2), (3) and (4) of section 52 were put into the bill mistakenly as a result of a drafting oversight and, therefore, should be deleted entirely.

These provisions were intended to replace current language in the Fire Departments Act. However, the language in the Fire Departments Act has been obsolete since the introduction of the Ontario municipal employees retirement system; that's better known as OMERS, our provincial pension plan. That was introduced back in 1962. This language should have been deleted from the Fire Departments Act then. Similar language was deleted from the Municipal Act in 1990, further proving the need to eliminate section 52 from Bill 84.

We have a letter from the senior vice-president of OMERS stating that the mechanism in the Fire Departments Act has not even been considered when the plan seeks pension plan changes and approval from the Minister of Municipal Affairs. Further, I have a letter here in front of me, which I'll read a little bit of in a minute, from the Minister of Municipal Affairs that was sent to the OMERS board chair on August 22, 1996, which recommends that OMERS seek even greater control of their pension plan without any provincial government intervention. I'll read one line from that letter. It states, "The Who Does What subpanel suggested that the ultimate goal should be to hand over full control to the members and employers without provincial involvement." This is a letter from Mr Leach himself.

With this in mind, the OMERS board is currently preparing this concept for the government. Our research efforts show no other public sector members that are enrolled in OMERS are subject to any approval mechanism such as the one suggested in section 52. It is not even found in the Police Services Act, for example.

Even the old pension plans that were established before the introduction of OMERS, such as the Toronto and Ottawa superannuation funds, do not inform or seek provincial government approval when giving benefit improvements or implementing planned changes. Therefore, the language in section 52 is not necessary for these plans either.

We submit that section 52 should be deleted, but I would like to point out that, in any event, the language is seriously flawed and would result in serious inequities. Our written submissions detail the flaws in the language.

In closing, I strongly encourage the committee to delete these three subparagraphs of section 52 of Bill 84 to permit the existing procedures for the provision of pensions to Ontario firefighters to operate. Thank you. I would be glad to answer any questions you may have.

Mr Klees: I'd like to just address your concerns, sir, that you expressed about the level of protection that's being provided by a municipality, and I don't disagree with your concerns. As you're probably aware, apart from Bill 84, right now there is nothing at all in legislation that empowers the fire marshal to review the services being delivered by a municipality. Bill 84 in fact does that for the first time. It allows the fire marshal to assess the level of service that's being delivered at the municipality and, if necessary, to regulate the level of service that should be delivered. So I think from that standpoint there's a very positive component to this.

With regard to your concern about pension, we hear you and I can assure you that is something that we will be addressing.

1620

Mr Duncan: I just wanted to address the first presenter. To re-emphasize -- and being a former municipal councillor -- the way this government has done things historically: If we look at education, for instance, they cut funding or they download additional expenses and then give municipalities the power to do things that they might not otherwise consider, so if they're not forced by legislation they can be coerced by a lack of adequate funding or additional expenses that are placed on them. I think we have to recognize that.

We have to recognize that you can't consider this bill strictly in isolation. You have to consider it in light of the downloading; you have to consider it in light of the province's revenues, in light of municipalities' revenues. It's our view that this is just another attempt or another piece of legislation that is designed to force municipalities, that are going to be extremely hard-pressed to make changes, cuts to local services or to introduce user fees. To suggest otherwise, even if you can somehow ignore the wording of section 41 of the act, you cannot ignore the reality that municipalities are faced with in terms of the downloading that's gone on and the cuts in revenue they're going to experience.

The concerns, both from a legal perspective and from a financial perspective, are real and valid. Municipalities are going to be forced, I can tell you, to make some difficult choices. Let's not forget what was done in Bill 26 either, vis-à-vis what arbitrators have to take into consideration when settling awards for firefighters.

Mr Bisson: Three very short questions: Would you say that the person whom you negotiate with as an employer through your association would be deemed to be your employer?

Mr Martin: Yes, our municipality is our employer.

Mr Bisson: Okay. Second, in the current act it states under "Bargaining": "When requested in writing by a majority of the full-time firefighters, the council of the municipality shall within 60 days," blah, blah, blah. It talks about responsibility and negotiation. Would you say it's fairly clear there that the municipality is your employer?

Mr Martin: Yes, definitely.

Mr Bisson: The proposed Bill 84 talks about the parties in bargaining being the employer and the bargaining agents being the parties to the bargaining. Would you say that could be either a private sector employer or a municipality?

Mr Martin: It could be. It sounds like it could be, yes. It's vague. It could be private sector or --

Mr Bisson: So it's fairly clear under the old act that the municipality was the employer, but under the future act that's being proposed it opens the door wide to privatization.

Mr Martin: Exactly, wide open. It's very vague.

The Chair: Gentlemen, thank you very much for your presentation here today.

WINDSOR PROFESSIONAL FIRE FIGHTERS ASSOCIATION

The Chair: Our next presentation -- we have a written submission -- is the Windsor Professional Fire Fighters Association, and Mr Jack Fenton, the president, will be making the presentation on their behalf. Welcome, Mr Fenton.

Mr Jack Fenton: Thank you, Mr Chairman and members of the committee. You heard Chief Fields refer earlier to the young and older firefighters in the city of Windsor; I'm one of the older ones.

Just to give you a brief bit of my background, I've been a firefighter in the city of Windsor for 32 years as of this year. I hold the rank of district chief in the fire rescue division. I've been involved with my own union association here in the city of Windsor since 1972 and have served the last 10 years of that as president and currently still am the president of that association.

I've been involved as an executive officer of the Ontario Professional Fire Fighters Association since 1974, serving four and a half years as president of that organization, and still sit on the executive board as past president.

I'm been involved in negotiations, presenting at boards of arbitration, both rights disputes and interest boards right across the province, from Windsor to Fort Frances, for many years. I've been involved in presenting every brief to the provincial government, to the Solicitor General, on changes to the Fire Departments Act since 1974.

I served on the Fire Services Review Committee that was appointed in the late 1980s, established by the Liberal Party to review the fire service in the province of Ontario, and stayed on that committee until it kind of reached its conclusion when the current government took over things so we had a change.

I've had a fair bit of experience in what's gone on in the province as far as fire legislation and obviously with firefighting in my own capacity within the city of Windsor. That's just to give you a brief background. I'm going to touch on some of the things you've probably already heard from many firefighters right through the hearings you've had. The good thing, I suppose, from your point of view, is this is the last time you're going to hear it from a firefighter before you conclude your deliberations.

I'd like to go through my brief just to give you my points of view on what I believe about Bill 84.

The Fire Protection and Prevention Act, 1996, was developed under the premise that it would serve to improve the delivery of fire services and demonstrate a commitment to a safer Ontario. There are sections within Bill 84 that no doubt lead to safer communities with the introduction of provisions that will require every municipality to provide programs for public education with respect to fire safety and certain components of fire prevention. In communities where fire services are lacking, it requires the establishment of a community fire safety officer or a community fire safety team, or the establishment of a fire department.

The bill facilitates the ability of a municipality to share in the delivery of these services. Bill 84 provides a mechanism that allows the fire marshal for the province of Ontario to create standards for fire protection services in municipalities where in the opinion of the fire marshal there is a threat to public safety.

Unfortunately, Bill 84 goes far beyond those situations that may have an effect of improving the safety of the citizens of this province as it relates to fire and enters into an area that, in my respectful view, does absolutely nothing for the safety of the firefighters in this province and will have an adverse impact on the quality relationships that exist throughout the province between the firefighters and their respective communities.

Bill 84 encourages municipalities to examine their fire services and look to alternative methods of providing a cheaper service to the community by contracting out the fire service to private firms and through the introduction of part-time firefighters into municipal full-time fire departments.

The privatization of the fire service, in my view, will lead to the destruction of the delivery of the fire service in our communities as we know it today. The privatization of fire services began in the United States, in Arizona, and has not stood the test of time. Many of the communities entered into privatization plans thinking that they were going to save tax dollars and ended up realizing very soon that they were not getting the level of service that they once had, and they were indeed paying more for less.

Private firms are in the business to make a profit. They will provide staff, equipment and programs only to a level that will allow them to make money. There are numerous cases on file on the inadequacies of private fire companies. Some of the inadequacies include poor response times, insufficient firefighters responding to provide an appropriate fire attack team, equipment breakdowns and poor training.

The introduction of part-time firefighters into municipal fire departments is another recipe for disaster. Firefighting is a very highly skilled, team-oriented service providing a wide variety of services including firefighting, auto extrication, medical responses, high-angle rescue, water and ice rescue, confined space rescue, hazardous material response, and responses to natural and man-made disasters. In order to deal with each specific response type, it requires specific numbers of highly trained professionals to perform the tasks involved to ensure the safety of the public and the safety of the firefighters responding to that particular situation.

Integrating these teams of professionals with part-time people working occasional shifts or occasional calls reduces the quality of the service, places the public at greater risk, places the professional firefighter at a greater level of danger, and in fact also puts the part-time employee at a greater level of risk as well.

Firefighters are trained as teams, and work as teams under conditions that anyone who is not a firefighter could not possibly understand. If you had the opportunity over the past several years to see the movie Back Draft, you could get a clearer understanding as to how teams of firefighters were required to work under extreme conditions in dealing with a severe fire situation. Although there were scenes in the movie that were developed for public viewing, the situations that were portrayed throughout the movie were real. Picture, if you can, being a firefighter in this same type of a situation that you witnessed in the movie, without having the luxury of sight. Fire provides very little visibility for firefighters, or none at all. Every firefighter in these situations must know exactly what the rest of his team is doing, where they are, and how they are going to react should the situation worsen or they become trapped. These are not the types of situations that one wants to be in with someone who is an occasional firefighter.

Bill 84 goes even further to make other changes that allow the fire chief to maintain a skeleton crew of firefighters on duty, and give him the power to order in firefighters who are off duty to come in to work and assist in situations he deems emergencies. This means that a council could reduce the number of firefighters it has on staff by simply being able to order off-duty personnel back to work each time they considered it to be necessary. Instead of perhaps four firefighters responding with the engine to your residence and these four firefighters having the ability to begin some element of firefighting or rescue, this could result in having one firefighter responding with the engine and being able to do nothing upon arrival until a sufficient number of off-duty firefighters responded from their home or supermarket or local pub.

In municipalities where full-time departments are required, this type of situation must not be permitted. It puts the public at great risk, the firefighters at risk and will result in greater property losses. Just imagine having a fire truck pull up in front of a nursing home involved in a fire, with only one or two firefighters on that vehicle. By the time additional staff arrive, panic and confusion will already have begun and people will die, not only the residents of the facility but firefighters and others involved in making any type of an attempt at rescue. Why would the government want to open the door and even provide the opportunity for a reduction in the level of fire service?

1630

There are a number of items in Bill 84 that will have an indirect effect on the delivery of fire service in Ontario. Section IX of the bill provides for a number of changes that do not go to the issue of public safety and only go to the issue of reducing the rights of firefighters and turning the labour relations between management and the rank and file into an adversarial and confrontational format.

Bill 84 takes away the right of the firefighter to bargain his or her hours of work and their work schedule. This issue has never been a problem in the province of Ontario and has absolutely nothing to do with public safety. Because of the unique system of work schedules of firefighters, giving the employer the arbitrary right to alter or change the days of work or the type of schedule can have a dramatic affect on the firefighter and his or her family.

I just want to divert from the brief for a second. When we talk about privatization and those things -- the question was raised with some of the previous speakers, "Would your municipality enter into privatization?" and "The bill really doesn't promote or open the door for privatization" -- when you look at all those things that I've just talked about, changes in the hours of work, part-time firefighters, no provisions in the bill for successor rights, all these things are conducive to Rural/Metro and other organizations that want to privatize. That's, in my opinion anyway, why a lot of those things are in this bill.

When you talk about "would municipalities do it," I can tell you quite personally of my experiences across the province of Ontario. I don't think there's a municipality that has a full-time fire department I haven't been to on a number of occasions, either assisting with collective bargaining or with disputes or dealing with other matters of reduction of services in those departments. I had the opportunity to fly back from Kapuskasing with Mike Harris, who at that time was not the Premier. In Kapuskasing the mayor, who most of you know used to be a member of Parliament, wanted to eliminate the full-time firefighters. I was in there to assist with that problem and I can tell you quite frankly Mike Harris had no sympathy for my particular cause. Had the opportunity arisen and had we not been able to do the things we did, that department would have been eliminated. So there is a threat. Whether you wish to believe that or not, it's real and it's there.

The bill requires a mandatory obligation on both the employee and the association, the bargaining unit, to bargain in good faith and make every reasonable effort to effect a collective agreement. However, the bill does not provide for any specific enforcement mechanism with respect to this requirement. Under the Labour Relations Act, the labour board is provided with the authority to hear and determine complaints concerning violations of the act, but that authority is not specifically included in Bill 84.

Under the current Fire Departments Act, existing collective agreements continue year after year unless they are amended through collective bargaining or arbitration. This obviously provides for a smooth transition through the process of collective bargaining. Under Bill 84, collective agreements will terminate, meaning no collective agreement, no work.

Bill 84 provides for decertification of bargaining units. This provision does not exist in the current Fire Departments Act. This could result in a firefighter association being decertified at a specified time related to the expiry of the collective agreement, where a petition is circulated among employees and submitted to the Ontario Labour Relations Board and the petition indicates that no less than 40% of employees wish to terminate the bargaining rights of the existing trade union, whereupon a vote will be conducted by the labour relations board. If 50% of the employees vote to terminate the bargaining rights of the association, the association would no longer have the right to represent the employees and the collective agreement would terminate.

Under the current act, the fire chief and the deputy fire chief are excluded from the bargaining unit. In most departments, the chief and deputy work from 9 am to 4:30 pm, Monday to Friday. For the remainder of each day, the general operations of the department are controlled by the officer or officers on duty. In the event of a major emergency, the fire chief and/or deputy may be called to the scene and may or may not take command of the situation. Generally speaking, this system has been in existence for years and has not created any difficulty in firefighting operations that we are aware of.

Bill 84 provides for council to designate numerous people in the bargaining unit as managers and excludes them from the bargaining unit. There are two mechanisms in Bill 84 that allow this to happen. Section 58(3) allows for council to designate managers based on the size of the department. These designations are at the sole discretion of the employer and are not subject to review by the labour relations board. This means, for example, that in the city of Windsor with 275 employees, the employer would be allowed to designate four people as managers, arbitrarily and with no appeal.

The employer also has the right under the proposed legislation to identify certain employees as managerial or confidential and remove all those employees from the bargaining unit too, the only difference being that these positions are subject to review before the Ontario Labour Relations Board and it would be incumbent upon the association to file an appeal before the board.

What does this mean in terms of exclusions from the bargaining unit in the city of Windsor for an example? The corporation could designate, as an example, four district chiefs or four captains or four employees from any other division within the department as managers. The designated employees have no option but to leave the association and forfeit their rights under their collective bargaining agreement. The employer can also designate as many other people as it deems -- who it suggests perform managerial or confidential jobs and declare them to be managers.

The employer could, in the city of Windsor, for an example, appoint me as a district chief, appoint me as a manager and three other district chiefs as managers. It doesn't have to appoint the chief or deputy yet because now it can declare all these other people it wants as managers and now it's going to appoint -- your council will say, "Okay, the chief's a manager, the deputy chief." Obviously we're not going to be able to defend that before the labour relations board, so there are a couple more people gone.

Then we have to go through the process of defending before the labour relations board all these other people they deem to be managers who have already now been taken out of our bargaining unit before we have the opportunity to even go down there and then we have to go through all the process.

Firefighting is a very unique profession. As I stated earlier, the success of our tasks depends upon teamwork. Officers and firefighters working as a team have been the element of success since professional fire departments were established. The need to have a part of the team union and a part of the team management is simply not founded.

In summary, Bill 84, although providing some improvements in the delivery of the fire service, sends a message to municipalities, fire chiefs and firefighters that it is better to be confrontational and adversarial in the way we do business in the fire service because the bill will only promote that if it passes as it is written.

It is very obvious to me that Bill 84 was very hastily put together. Had proper and meaningful discussions and consultation taken place between all parties involved in the delivery of the fire service, perhaps it would not have been necessary to go through the exercises that have occurred because of Bill 84. This bill has created a sense of frustration and fear in the firefighters and members of our communities that should not have occurred.

I urge the government to reconsider the passing of Bill 84 at this time until reasonable solutions can be developed and a new act, if necessary, be created to benefit everyone involved in the fire service, especially the communities we serve.

Just to make a final comment: If you can see from my presentation the difficulties that are going to occur or have the potential to occur through Bill 84 if it's passed, think of the problems that have already been created. You've got fire chiefs fighting against fire chiefs. Already you've got associations throughout the province having difficult times at the bargaining table now, because you've got a human resources group which has submitted to the government, saying: "Bill 84 isn't good enough as it is. We need more. Add more to it." You have AMO doing the same thing -- we've got copies of all their briefs -- saying to the government: "Give us more. That's not enough. We want more. Take more away from them."

Yet, you've got a community like here in the city of Windsor where you have a council that doesn't endorse that. They don't endorse that philosophy. The reason they don't endorse it is because of what we've developed here in the city of Windsor. The only reason we developed is because of all the thing we talked about here about teamwork, that we run the city as a team. The city council, the firefighters and the administration work as a team to develop our entire program. It's successful and we did it under the current act. We didn't need all this and neither does anybody else in this province.

The Chair: Our time has elapsed, but on behalf of the committee I think I can say this is one of the best briefs we've had from any of the associations, a very reasonable approach. Thank you very much.

URSULA VESELKA

The Chair: Ursula Veselka, good afternoon.

Ms Ursula Veselka: Good afternoon. My name is Ursula Veselka. Thank you for the opportunity to speak to you today. Please excuse my voice; I've got a nasty cold.

When the Windsor police knocked on my door the morning of January 15, 1997, believe me, it was the last thing in the world that I expected. They said that my brother was in a fire and that it was bad and they expected the worst. They stayed with us and took us to the hospital.

I was in shock that day, seeing Tommy swollen, leaking and on a respirator. Seeing his room that day, it looked like a barbecue pit. Everything he owned was black and melted: his clothes, his shoes, his TV, his radio and so was he; 85% of his body was deep, third-degree burns and some fourth-degree, no skin, just roasting flesh. His lungs were badly burned and the inside of his mouth and throat as well.

Now it's three months later and Tommy is very much alive, but that's not what anyone expected. They had given him a few hours at the very best. He was on a respirator for only the first two weeks. My mother and I spoke into his swollen, oozing ears words of encouragement, prayers and told him that he'd be okay and not to be afraid, but that if it was too much for him, to let go.

1640

One day he opened his eyes. Within days he was talking. I got him his new glasses. They moved in a TV. There have been a couple of times that were scary due to infection, but with antibiotics, the excellent care of the burn team and Tommy's will to live, he bounced back.

We have developed a routine. I go to see him every day, at least a couple of hours. I wipe his eyes. I clean his glasses. I put Vaseline on his lips, and then we added sips of water. He can talk if I put my finger over his trach tube. The first time I gave him water, he said: "Not too strong, eh? Maybe the next one." So I know he still has his sense of humour.

It's a very long and painful process. Tommy is considered quite a miracle and continues to amaze the burn staff. I am very proud of him and his courage in dealing with his situation.

Tommy often says that he's ready to leave the hospital. He talks about leaving a lot. He doesn't like the pain of tubing and debriding and dressing changes. He's totally dependent on other people right now and that hurts his pride. But this I do know: He's glad to be alive. When I tell him of different people who ask about him, he says, "Just tell everybody I'm doing fine." He says the body will heal itself eventually and that he is not worried about it, that whatever will happen will happen. Last week when he complained about the pins in his fingers, I told him I understood that it's no fun being in there and he answered with, "It's no fun being dead either."

I guess I said all that to say this: No one expects anything like this could ever happen to themselves or a family member, but it could very well happen to you or to someone you love: parents, children, grandchildren, a spouse or a very close friend. It doesn't even have to be in your own home. In Tommy's case minutes, I'm sure even seconds, meant the difference between life and death. It was a team effort for the firefighters. They knew exactly what to do and they did it fast. They got him down the three flights of stairs and out to the ambulance, and then the team at the emergency did their part. In the case of someone you love, it could mean the difference between a burn and no burn or the difference between a bad burn and less severe scarring. Seconds could save fingertips, hands or toes, legs, perhaps a nose or an ear.

I really don't see how a community the size of ours can afford to give up the safety that comes with a trained and experienced fire department and a team of firefighters who can count on each other and count on their equipment for maximum efficiency in a number of very unpredictable situations: highrises, chemical fires, whatever. We have a system that works.

In addition to this, they also do a wonderful job in fund-raising. I can't imagine any private organization doing what they do. Actually, they have an auction this Saturday for the survivors of burns and they have their smoke detector program.

We have a system that works. Please don't risk your lives and others. Vote against Bill 84 unless it's amended.

In conclusion, I would like to present these petitions bearing the signatures of 27,542 citizens of Ontario concerned about Bill 84 and fire safety in our communities. They are in addition to the petitions you have already received. Please listen to the people.

The Chair: Would you like to answer a few questions? We have time. Do you feel up to it? It's totally up to you.

Mr Kormos: I can't think of a single question that hasn't already been answered. Ms Veselka, God bless.

The Chair: I think that's fair, Mr Kormos. Thank you very much, Ursula.

JOSEPH EGAN

The Chair: Our next presentation is Joseph Egan. Good afternoon, Mr Egan.

Mr Joseph Egan: Good afternoon, Mr Chairman.

The Chair: Get yourself settled comfortably and then you can proceed.

Mr Egan: Thank you very much, and I thank you for the opportunity to speak to this august body.

My name is Joseph Egan. I am a retired electrical contractor from Sarnia and I am frightened. Yes, I'm scared out of my wits. When I was asked by the Sarnia firefighters to come here today to tell my concerns about Bill 84, I was glad because I want to express my fears, not only of Bill 84 but of many changes the Common Sense Revolution is making.

I spent years on the North Atlantic during the Second World War. I operated a construction business for 35 years. We raised 10 kids. I was often scared but never this bad. I am frightened for myself, my family and the people of Ontario. I'm frightened about what Mr Harris is doing, often by regulation, under the guise of democratic government.

Just an example: I have a balance problem. My doctor decided I should see a neurologist. That took three months. Dr McGinnes, the neurologist, decided I should have an MRI, magnetic resonance imaging. That took another three months and a trip to London. Three weeks later the test results were available. No one has discussed them with me. The health system in Ontario is failing. I have a nephew who is a doctor, a specialist in heart and lung surgery; he works in North Carolina. I have a niece, a trained intensive care nurse; she works in California. I don't know what the problem is but when the group that drew up the blueprint for Metro hospital closings says the cuts have gone too far, I become very concerned. In Ontario we are becoming too complacent as our freedoms are eroded.

I will explain briefly how I came to be involved with the Sarnia Fire Department and the probable reason I was asked to be here today.

On January 25, 1985, our 25-year-old daughter died in a house fire. She had just moved into the second-floor apartment in an older house. It was the very first apartment she was not sharing with someone else, and she had grand ideas and plans. Unfortunately there were no smoke alarms. The poison gases from a fire in the apartment below hers killed her during the night while she slept.

Frances was one of 10 children. At the time, her next- older sister Vici was teaching in Nigeria with CUSO. Her village was hours from the nearest telephone and we had a hard time getting in touch with her. She reached London, England, knowing only that she had a sister who had died but not knowing which of her four sisters. Mary-Jane turned 29 the next day. She can never forget that birthday.

1650

The delay in completing funeral arrangements gave us time to think. It was very difficult to accept that a device costing $10 would have prevented this tragedy. One of our sons, Larry, recalled that the Sarnia Kinsmen had been promoting the use of smoke alarms. We were able to organize a scheme for the promotion of smoke alarms jointly with the Kinsmen. Andy Brandt became our honorary chairman. In lieu of flowers at the funeral, we requested donations to the Frances Egan Foundation. We tried to mitigate our grief by becoming very active in promoting smoke alarms. Our family and friends conducted blitzes in the older part of Sarnia. We installed smoke alarms and batteries. Local 530 of the IBEW volunteered to install the smoke alarms we provided. In recognition of our efforts and to encourage the use and testing of smoke alarms, our family and the electricians were presented with impressive plaques by the Solicitor General at a ceremony at Sarnia city hall. This continues to this day but not as often.

We were instrumental in having a bylaw passed by Sarnia city council making smoke alarms mandatory in residential buildings. Every school child in Lambton county now knows that regularly tested smoke alarms are essential in the home, but I find no mention of this in Bill 84.

We learned of a program the Ottawa fire department was using in the Ottawa schools. In a van with props they could simulate a house fire in the school auditorium. We brought the program designer to Sarnia with his van and demonstrated it to the Sarnia fire department and to several schools. I was able to convince the Sarnia Rotary Club to provide similar equipment to the Sarnia fire department. It is currently used to teach how to get out alive to Lambton schoolchildren and occupants of homes for the elderly, but because of understaffing, the firefighters often do this on their own time.

Seven years ago, at the time of the amalgamation of Sarnia and Clearwater, it was decided to close the Sarnia fire department main station on East Street and use as the main station the Wellington Street station, miles further from the hospitals and the old city. I organized the efforts of a lot of people and East Street station remained open. It is again the main station. City council had hidden behind a recommendation by the fire marshal's office that this was a good move but serious sensible study proved it wrong. Recently the fire marshal's office recommended closing the Wellington Street station. This decision was reached through the use of an infallible computer program.

City council was convinced by a petition by the Sarnia firefighters and the pleas of 11 concerned citizens, including myself, to maintain all five stations, properly manned. Last Monday the council reversed their decision and the question is again in limbo. We believe that some of the Sarnia city council are hoping that the passage of Bill 84 will permit them to properly man the stations with part-time people. This can only put the firemen and the public at grave risk for the sake of a few dollars.

But I'm afraid this government will pass this bill. Look at what is happening to the megacity legislation. Hundreds of people made excellent presentations and the majority of the citizens oppose it. But who cares? Only the dollars seem to be important.

For many years I have investigated fires, fatalities, explosions and accidents for insurance adjusters and law firms. Please believe me when I say that quick response by well-trained, properly equipped firefighters with confidence in their partners is essential for saving lives and property. That's what we have in Sarnia now, short-staffed, I'll admit, but we must not allow Bill 84 to lower these excellent standards.

I investigated a fire where three people died. The fire hall was less than a mile from the scene but slow response time cost three lives. It was a volunteer fire department.

I would also like to bring to your attention that draft Bill 84 states that a number of acts will be repealed; one of them is the Lightning Rods Act. I talked to Dave Horn in the fire marshal's office and was told it will not be replaced. On checking with lightning rod manufacturers, I found the situation which is so typical of the Common Sense Revolution: They had not been consulted.

When a majority government proposes an outrageous new law like Bill 84, parliamentary debate at least provides a chance for the opposition to tell the public exactly what the scoundrels they so foolishly elected are about to do to them. Sometimes, when a strong light is shone on their nasty work, the rascals will retreat. The more obstacles we can place in their paths, those who would run our lives, the greater will be our chance to run our lives ourselves. We should never give up the tiniest portion of our defences against despotism.

When I talked to one of the lightning rod manufacturers, he was surprised to know that this act was repealed. I asked him if he would check with the others and get back to me. This is what he sent me the other day, a fax:

"Dear Mr Egan:

"This letter is issuing a complaint against the issuing of the Bill 84...act, which if enacted will delete the Lightning Rods Act of Ontario from existence.

"In the interest of fire safety and protection of life and property, the lightning rod...regulations should be kept in place and active. For many years the lightning rod industry in Ontario has been licensed and monitored with field inspections by the fire marshal's office in Ontario to provide high-quality products and safe installations ensuring protection and safety for the people of Ontario....

"Heary Bros Lightning Protection Co Ltd family has been in business for over 100 years and I have been on the National Fire Protection Association Committee for lightning protection systems NFPA780 and proposed NFPA781 for over 30 years.

"Enacting of...Bill 84...is not in the best of interest to consumer protection and safety in Ontario. It will generate all kinds of unethical activity and personal damage to the people of Ontario and the installation of unsafe lightning rod systems.

"As of this date, Heary Bros Lightning Protection Co Ltd is the only company of three in Ontario who have been contacted and told the Lightning Rods Act of Ontario is being deleted in Ontario.

"The Lightning Rods Act of Ontario, which dates back to the early 1900s, would not have existed for all these years if there was not a need for the quality control and safety protection of the people of Ontario.

"Bill 84...should be sent back to committee for review as to the many systems that have been deleted by issuing this bill.

"In the interest of protection and for the safety of the people of Ontario, no system of such importance as the Lightning Rods Act should be deleted by Bill 84....

"Regards,

"Kenneth P. Heary, president

"Heary Bros Lightning Protection Co Ltd."

I have a terrible feeling that I'm wasting my time here today. I hope I'll be disappointed when I see the results. Thank you very much.

The Chair: Thank you very much, sir. Our time has elapsed. On behalf of the committee, thank you for your presentation.

Mr Wood advises he has three documents from the ministry that were provided in answer to questions raised by members. Rather than have him read them into the record, I will give them to the clerk and he will distribute them.

Mrs Pupatello: Mr Chair, is one of them concerning the issue of the interpretation of the privatization clause? If you could just report on that one quickly, please.

The Chair: Is it?

Mr Bob Wood: Yes, it is.

The Chair: Fine, just read it into the record then if that's the request.

Mr Bob Wood: I'm not going to read it into the record.

The Chair: We will file them and you can obtain copies from the clerk.

Mrs Pupatello: You guys are just ridiculous.

The Chair: As our hearings have been completed, we are adjourning to Monday, April 21, 1997, at 3:30. Thank you very much.

The committee adjourned at 1701.