Legislative Assembly of Ontario

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

CONTENTS

Tuesday 29 April 1997

Fire Protection and Prevention Act, 1996, Bill 84, Mr Runciman /

Loi de 1996 sur la prévention et la protection contre l'incendie, projet de loi 84, M. Runciman

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE

Chair / Président: Mr Gerry Martiniuk (Cambridge PC)

Vice-Chair / Vice-Président: Mr E.J. Douglas Rollins (Quinte PC)

Mr DaveBoushy (Sarnia PC)

Mr RobertChiarelli (Ottawa West / -Ouest L)

Mr DavidChristopherson (Hamilton Centre/ -Centre ND)

Mr BruceCrozier (Essex South / -Sud L)

Mr JimFlaherty (Durham Centre / -Centre PC)

Mr Douglas B. Ford (Etobicoke-Humber PC)

Mr Garry J. Guzzo (Ottawa-Rideau PC)

Mr PeterKormos (Welland-Thorold ND)

Mr GerryMartiniuk (Cambridge PC)

Mr DavidRamsay (Timiskaming L)

Mr E.J. DouglasRollins (Quinte PC)

Mrs LillianRoss (Hamilton West / -Ouest PC)

Mr BobWood (London South / -Sud PC)

Mr Terence H. Young (Halton Centre / -Centre PC)

Substitutions present /Membres remplaçants présents:

Mr EdDoyle (Wentworth East / -Est PC)

Mr Gary L. Leadston (Kitchener-Wilmot PC)

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

Mr FrankSheehan (Lincoln PC)

Mr DavidTilson (Dufferin-Peel PC)

Clerk / Greffier: Mr Douglas Arnott

Staff / Personnel: Ms Sibylle Filion, legislative counsel

J-2171

The committee met at 1531 in room 228.

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

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

The Chair (Mr Gerry Martiniuk): Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen, members of the committee. This is a continuation of the administration of justice committee's consideration of Bill 84. We were last dealing with section 8 of Bill 84. I don't believe anyone had the floor, but I will ask the question: Is there any discussion or questions in regard to section 12?

Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): I'm sorry, we've completed part III. Is that correct, Chair?

The Chair: We last dealt with and passed section 11, as amended. We did not deal with section 12. So we are dealing with section 12 of the act, which is part IV.

Mr David Ramsay (Timiskaming): I understand that the government may be bringing in some further recommendations later on this year based upon coroners' inquests over the last couple of years. If that's my understanding, I'd be quite prepared to let this part IV pass.

Mr Kormos: As well, part IV is not contentious and we will be supporting it.

The Chair: Okay. I'll ask the question then. Shall section 12, being part IV, carry? All those in favour? All those against? The section and part are carried.

We are now dealing with section 13. There are no proposed amendments by any party. That's the first section of part V.

Mr Kormos: Can I suggest that we could probably deal with part V in an omnibus vote, in terms of passing part V, if that were acceptable?

The Chair: Unfortunately, I believe we have a government amendment to section 14.

Mr Kormos: Being well aware of that.

The Chair: Well, could we deal with 13? I'll try to combine as many as possible, Mr Kormos. You're quite right.

I will deal with section 13. Is there any discussion in regard to section 13? If not, I'll call the question. All those in favour? All those against? That section is carried.

We will now deal with a proposed amendment to section 14.

Mr Bob Wood (London South): I move that section 14 of the bill be amended by adding the following subsection:

"Same

"(3.1) A person who enters on adjacent land or premises under subsection (3) may exercise any of the powers mentioned in subsection (2) on or with respect to the adjacent land or premises."

This gives an investigator the power to conduct an investigation of a fire on land adjacent to where the fire occurred, such as, for example, where a burnt building falls on a neighbouring land.

The Chair: Is there any discussion in regard to the proposed amendment? If not, I will put the amendment. Shall the amendment carry? All those in favour? All those against? The amendment carries.

Mr Kormos: You are turning into Bert Johnson.

The Chair: I don't mean to. If I may deal with all of part V now, I will deal with section 14, as amended, and sections 15, 16, 17, as unamended. Is there any discussion in regard to sections 14 to 17, inclusive?

Mr Kormos: Similarly, these sections which constitute part V are not contentious and we will be supporting this.

The Chair: Any further discussion? If not, I'll put sections 14 to 17. All those in favour? All those against? Carried.

We are now dealing with section 18. There are no proposed amendments. That's the first section of part VI. Is there any discussion in regard to section 18? If not, I'll put the question. Shall section 18 carry? All those in favour? All those against? Section 18 carries.

We have two government amendments proposed to section 19.

Mr Bob Wood: I move that subsection 19(3) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:

"Time of entry

"(3) The power to enter and inspect land and premises without a warrant may be exercised at all reasonable times."

This amendment deletes the reference to specific hours in the legislation and replaces it with "all reasonable times." It allows flexibility and is consistent with the proposed Tenant Protection Act.

Mr Kormos: I should indicate very quickly that I have concerns about this, especially in view of the next amendment which is the deletion of subsection (4), because these are warrantless searches. With respect, understanding the motive here, that is, to permit the fire marshal or his or her designate to fulfil their duties in terms of protecting public safety, I also submit that warrantless entries are dangerous intrusions on civil rights. I will be opposing the amendment.

Mr Ramsay: I guess actually the proper place would be the next one because that's the point I really want to address, so I'll wait till the next amendment.

Mr Bob Wood: Might I speak to that?

The Chair: No. You're speaking to it next time. We're dealing with item 14 that you have already proposed. Shall the amendment carry?

Mr Bob Wood: I don't have a right to speak to this?

The Chair: Mr Ramsay was going to speak to the second part.

Mr Bob Wood: Well, you'll have to do without my comments, Peter. Sorry about that. I think I do, but anyway.

The Chair: All those in favour of the amendment? All those against? The amendment carries.

We are dealing with item 15.

Mr Bob Wood: I move that subsection 19(4) of the bill be struck out.

The Chair: Now, Mr Wood, this is your opportunity to speak to that amendment.

Mr Bob Wood: I think I did have an opportunity before but I didn't press the point. One is always concerned about warrantless searches, and we do not believe that these are going to be abused. If indeed we turn out to be wrong about that, It's an issue that should be addressed again.

Mr Ramsay: It really is very curious that you put the protection in the bill to begin with, as I think it should be. I think the amendment we just passed, "reasonable time," is reasonable with this safeguard, and I think the original constructors of the bill designed it that way for that safeguard. Now to delete the safeguard for these inspections -- and you're just talking about fire inspections; you're not talking about during the act of fire suppression, when obviously you've got to get into a neighbouring property, but this is just for inspection.

1540

To now delete, "An inspector shall not use force to enter and inspect lands or premises" -- we are in a law-abiding country, and if for government purposes such as fire inspections it is deemed important to go into certain premises, then certainly the fire marshal could go to the court and get a warrant if there was some sort of resistance to this. It would seem to me there is not much resistance. Most people, I would say the vast number of Ontarians, cooperate with the local fire department in facilitating fire inspection, because it's obviously in your best interests to do that. Even so, if there is resistance, there are mechanisms available to permit that. To just take that out, that you could start to have people using force to go in and inspect premises, I think that's really starting to move the way Ontario is organized into an undemocratic place. That's a very serious power you would be granting to fire departments. You had the caution there with the original drafting of the bill, and to take that out I think is reckless. You really have to reconsider that.

Mr Kormos: The previous amendment to subsection (3) causes me concern. This one I believe is repugnant to any sense of civil liberties. Section 20 provides for the power to obtain a warrant from a justice of the peace with a very low threshold, with a very low standard. Justices of the peace are readily available in the province now. I think this is a very dangerous amendment and I oppose it. It contradicts our heritage of law and individual rights and probably goes back to contradicting some very fundamental standards that were established by the Magna Carta. I think it's a very dangerous provision and I'm going to be asking for a recorded vote on this, sir.

The Chair: Thank you. Mr Wood and Mr Ramsay.

Mr Bob Wood: Why don't we let Mr Ramsay go first.

Mr Ramsay: Thank you. I have a question, Mr Wood. Since there's a fairly simple mechanism for a warrant laid out in section 20 to remedy this -- going to a local justice of the peace -- why is it necessary to rule out that an inspector cannot use force?

Mr Bob Wood: The force contemplated here, I think, is in the nature of pushing open an unlocked or stuck door, which is of course force. I don't think it's contemplated that there will be some kind of confrontation between occupants and those who are exercising this power. If that were to occur, obviously the police would have to be involved. I go back to my comment earlier: We don't think these powers are going to be abused. If indeed we find that they are, This issue would have to be addressed again.

Mr Kormos: Just think, if this kind of logic were applied universally, pushing aside a security guard wouldn't constitute an assault.

Mr Bob Wood: It may have to be the subject of legislation. Who knows?

Mr E.J. Douglas Rollins (Quinte): Does it now, Peter?

Mr Ramsay: Just one last plea to the parliamentary assistant. Governments have always said, "I don't really believe this sort of power would be abused," but that's why we have government in place, because many times, unfortunately, whoever these people are, power is abused. That's why we have laws to protect people. I think you're making a big mistake taking this out of the bill.

The Chair: Is there any further discussion? If not, I'll put Mr Wood's amendment.

Mr Kormos: Recorded vote.

Ayes

Doyle, Parker, Rollins, Sheehan, Tilson, Bob Wood.

Nays

Kormos, Ramsay.

The Chair: The amendment is carried. Is there any discussion in regard to section 19, as amended? I will therefore put the question. Shall section 19, as amended, carry?

Mr Kormos: Recorded vote.

Ayes

Doyle, Parker, Rollins, Sheehan, Tilson, Bob Wood.

Nays

Kormos, Ramsay.

The Chair: The section, as amended, is carried.

We are now moving to section 20. There are no amendments.

Mr Kormos: We're going to be supporting section 20. This is exactly the type of process that is preferable in a democratic country. I note that indeed the standard or the threshold for obtaining a search warrant is a remarkably low one. It's precisely because of the presence of section 20 that we opposed section 19, but we will be supporting section 20.

Mr Ramsay: I'd just like to ask the parliamentary assistant why you even need section 20 if you've just taken out subsection 19(4). If you've taken out the preventive measure to the use of force, then how is an inspector ever going to be denied entry to the lands and premises?

Mr Bob Wood: Certainly we've reduced the scope where that section can be used. There may be circumstances where that's required and we think the section should indeed stay in.

Mr Ramsay: How is this going to work? The inspector could be at a property and come across a locked or stuck door, as you say. As the law is going to be passed now, because we've just made the amendment, the fire inspector could kick the door in. Is this what you anticipate would happen then? This is what you're promoting because you have taken away the use-of-force clause? I'm just wondering what's the purpose. You took out that use-of-force clause.

Mr Bob Wood: We think it's wise to leave section 20 in, in case that indeed is required. If there's some form of dispute, that gives a means for a judicial resolution of it.

Mr Ramsay: In other words we're allowing the use of discretion by the particular fire inspection officer, whether he or she uses force or goes to the remedy of section 20: going before a justice of the peace.

Mr Bob Wood: It gives judicial backup to the powers that are given earlier.

The Chair: I'm somewhat confused. Just because you remove the right to use force does not mean you have the right to use force of entry. The common law would surely affect the section, would it not? Are you assuming, Mr Ramsay, that the right of entry implies the use of force?

Mr Ramsay: That's what I'm assuming. Obviously the original drafter of this had a concern and it was here originally. I'm not a lawyer, but having that there and now being taken away, it's a concern.

Mr Bob Wood: It's a backup to the powers otherwise given.

Mr Ramsay: Where's Mr Guzzo when you need him?

The Chair: Mr Guzzo's not present, unfortunately.

We are dealing with section 20. I'll put the question. Shall section 20 carry? All those in favour? All those against? The section is carried.

We are proceeding to government amendment 16, amending section 21.

Mr Bob Wood: I move that clause 21(1)(d) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:

"(d) to install and use specified equipment or devices as may be necessary to contain hazardous material on the land or premises and, in the event of a fire, to remove or transport the material."

This is a minor technical amendment to clarify that an inspector may order that material may be removed or transported in the event of a fire but hazardous material may be contained at any time. For example, dangerous chemicals can be contained to prevent a fire from occurring.

The Chair: Any discussion? Shall the amendment carry? All those in favour? Against? The amendment is carried.

We are moving to item 17.

Mr Bob Wood: I move that clause 21(1)(e) of the bill be amended by striking out "risk" in the fourth line and substituting "undue risk."

This is a minor technical amendment to clarify that an inspector may order that the manufacturing process may be discontinued if it creates an undue risk of fire. It recognizes that some manufacturing processes are inherently dangerous.

The Chair: Any discussion? If not, I'll put the amendment. Shall the amendment carry? Al those in favour? Carried.

Shall section 21, as amended, carry? All those in favour? Carried.

Shall section 22 carry? All those in favour? Carried.

1550

A government amendment, being item 18, to section 23.

Mr Bob Wood: I move that section 23 of the bill be amended by striking out "section 21" in the first line and substituting "subsection 21(1) or (2)."

The Chair: Shall that amendment carry? All those in favour? Carried.

Shall section 23, as amended, carry? All those in favour? Carried.

Shall section 24 carry? Carried.

Section 25, there are two amendments, the first being item 19.

Mr Bob Wood: I move that subsection 25(1) of the bill be amended by striking out "subsection 21(1), (2) or (3)" in the fourth line and substituting "subsection 21(1) or (2)."

This amendment makes a number of changes dealing with hydro inspections. Without these amendments under this section, these orders would be subject to an inordinate delay caused by unnecessary review by the fire marshal and appeal to the Fire Safety Commission.

An inspector may still lay a charge under the Provincial Offences Act or may seek an order to comply from the Ontario Court (General Division). This restores the practice under the Fire Marshals Act where these appeals were not available.

Also, Ontario Hydro has its own appeal process for its orders and it's not necessary to set up a parallel process by permitting reviews by the fire marshal and appeals to the Fire Safety Commission.

The Chair: If there's no discussion, shall the amendment carry? Carried.

Item 20.

Mr Bob Wood: I move that subsection 25(3) of the bill be amended by striking out "section 21" in the last line and substituting "subsection 21(1) or (2)."

The Chair: Shall the amendment carry? Carried.

Shall section 25, as amended, carry? It is carried.

We are moving to 26 and we have item 21, being an amendment by the government.

Mr Bob Wood: I move that subsection 26(1) of the bill be amended by striking out "section 21 or 25" in the third line and substituting "subsection 21(1) or (2) or section 25."

The reasons are the same as the last two.

The Chair: Shall the amendment carry? All those in favour? Carried.

Shall section 26, as amended, carry? All those in favour? Carried.

We are moving to section 27. There are no amendments. Shall section 27 carry? Carried.

We are now moving to three amendments proposed by the government, the first one being item 22 regarding section 28.

Mr Bob Wood: I move that clause 28(1)(c) of the bill be amended by inserting "subject to subsection (1.1)" at the beginning.

The Chair: All those in favour?

Mr Ramsay: Is there an explanation?

Mr Kormos: One moment. I'm not going to be supporting this because it appears to rely upon the next motion or the next amendment, which creates subsection 28(1.1), which I find repugnant. I'll be opposing this amendment. This amendment really facilitates 28(1.1), which is going to be moved by the government shortly.

The Chair: I am proceeding without giving Mr Wood an opportunity to give a full explanation in that most of them are technical. You can always raise it and then he can provide a full explanation, if that's suitable.

Mr Bob Wood: I think that's a hint not to give an explanation unless invited. So if the members will invite me, I'll do it. If they don't, I won't.

Mr Ramsay: You're invited on this one.

Mr Bob Wood: This amendment, together with the following one, confirms that a person who contravenes the labour relations portion of Bill 84 or part IX is not guilty of an offence. This can be done because we're reverting back to certain parts of the Fire Departments Act and the Fire Departments Act did not contain such a provision. It's a return to the status quo under the Fire Departments Act where there's no offence provision for labour relations matters.

The Chair: Is there any further discussion in regard to the proposed amendment? If not, all those in favour?

Mr Kormos: Recorded vote.

Ayes

Doyle, Leadston, Rollins, Sheehan, Tilson, Bob Wood.

Nays

Kormos, Ramsay.

The Chair: The amendment is carried. We're moving to item 23.

Mr Bob Wood: I move that section 28 of the bill be amended by adding the following subsection:

"Same

"(1.1) A person who contravenes a provision in part IX of this act is not guilty of an offence."

Mr Kormos: I reject this entirely. This was brought to the attention of the committee during the course of the hearings. Obviously there were some people who weren't pleased with it and the presenters who made those comments were ones who represented employers who would conceivably, at some point, where they so do decide, be guilty of contravention of the act under part IX. The act takes away some significant bargaining rights from firefighters, and this, had it been permitted to remain or were permitted to remain, would perhaps provide some modest relief for firefighters who were otherwise losing significant rights. I will be opposing this amendment.

Mr Bob Wood: This amendment and the previous one confirm that a person who contravenes the labour relations portion of Bill 84 or part IX is not guilty of an offence. This can be done because we're reverting back to certain parts of the Fire Departments Act as discussed.

The Chair: All those in favour of the amendment?

Mr Kormos: Recorded vote, please.

Ayes

Doyle, Leadston, Rollins, Sheehan, Tilson, Bob Wood.

Nays

Kormos, Ramsay.

The Chair: The amendment is carried.

We are moving on to item 24.

Mr Bob Wood: I move that subsection 28(2) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:

"Penalty

"(2) An individual convicted of an offence under subsection (1) is liable to,

"(a) in the case of an offence other than one described in clause (b), a fine of not more than $10,000 or imprisonment for a term of not more than one year, or both; and

"(b) in the case of an offence for contravention of the fire code, a fine of not more than $25,000 or imprisonment for a term of not more than one year, or both.

"Same

"(2.1) A corporation convicted of an offence under subsection (1) is liable to a fine of not more than $50,000.

"Offence, director or officer of corporation

"(2.2) A director or officer of a corporation who knows that the corporation is violating or has violated a provision of the fire code is guilty of an offence and on conviction is liable to a fine of not more than $25,000 or to imprisonment for a term of not more than one year, or to both."

This amendment restores the fine level of individuals and directors of corporations to $25,000 for fire code violations; restores what was done in the Fire Marshals Act under section 19(5).

The Chair: Is there any discussion? If not, I'll put the amendment. Shall the amendment carry? All those in favour? Carried.

Shall section 28, as amended, and sections 29 and 30 of the act carry? All those in favour? Carried.

We are now proceeding to section 31, and item 25, a proposed amendment by the government.

Mr Bob Wood: I move that section 31 of the bill be amended by adding the following subsection:

"No notice required

"(1.1) An application under subsection (1) may be made without notice to the person referred to in clause (1)(a) or (b)."

Mr Kormos: Once again, I appreciate this is an effort to enhance the powers of the fire marshal in the course of his duties, but this blanket provision of "without notice," without specifying any qualifications to illustrate circumstances in which it can be done without notice I believe is repugnant. We will not be supporting it and we'll be seeking a recorded vote.

The Chair: Any further discussion in regard to the proposed amendment? If not, all those in favour, please raise your hand? We're having a recorded vote.

Ayes

Doyle, Leadston, Parker, Rollins, Sheehan, Tilson, Bob Wood.

Nays

Ramsay, Kormos.

The Chair: The amendment carries.

Shall section 31, as amended, carry? All those in favour? Again a recorded vote, Mr Kormos?

Mr Kormos: No, sir. My opposition was indicated on the record.

The Chair: Carried.

We are proceeding to section 32. There are no amendments to section 32. If there's no discussion, I will put the question. Shall section 32 carry? All those in favour? Carried.

Moving to section 33, there are three government amendments. First is item 26.

1600

Mr Bob Wood: I move that subsection 33(1) of the bill be amended by striking out "section 21, 25 or 26" in the first and second lines and substituting "subsection 21(1) or (2) or section 25 or 26."

The Chair: If there is no discussion, shall this amendment carry? All those in favour? Carried.

Mr Bob Wood: I move that subsection 33(4) of the bill be amended by striking out "section 21, 25 or 26" in the fourth line and substituting "subsection 21(1) or (2) or section 25 or 26."

The Chair: Carried.

Mr Bob Wood: I move that section 33 of the bill be amended by adding the following subsection:

"Powers of commission

"(5) The Fire Safety Commission may, in addition to authorizing an inspector to cause to be done anything required to be done by an order under subsection 21(1) or (2) or section 25 or 26,

"(a) rescind the order; or

"(b) amend the order, or make such other order as the commission deems should have been made under the relevant section, and order the inspector to do the thing in accordance with the amended order or the other order."

Mr Ramsay: Could we have the explanation for that?

Mr Bob Wood: This amendment allows the Fire Safety Commission to have the same powers when considering whether to give an inspector authority to carry out work under an inspection order, eg, repair of building to make it safer, install equipment or devices, remove combustibles etc, as the commission would have had if it were dealing with an appeal. That's the obvious reason.

The Chair: If there's no further discussion, I'll put the question. Shall the amendment carry? Carried.

Shall section 33, as amended, carry? All those in favour? Carried.

Section 34: Is there any discussion? Shall section 34 carry? Carried.

Section 35: There is one government amendment, being item 29.

Mr Bob Wood: I move that clause 35(1)(a) of the bill be amended by striking out "section 21, 25 or 26" in the fourth line and substituting "subsection 21(1) or (2), section 25 or 26."

The Chair: Is there any discussion? If not, shall the amendment carry? Carried.

Shall section 35, as amended, carry? That is carried.

We are proceeding to section 36. There is one government amendment, being item 30.

Mr Bob Wood: I move that subclause 36(3)(b)(i) of the bill be amended by striking out "section 21, 25 or 26" in the fourth line and substituting "subsection 21(1) or (2) or section 25 or 26."

The Chair: Shall that amendment carry? Carried.

Shall section 36, as amended, carry? Carried.

Shall sections 37 to 40, inclusive, carry? Those sections are carried.

We're now proceeding to section 41. Our first consideration is an opposition amendment, being item 31.

Mr Ramsay: I move that subsection 41(1) of the bill be amended by adding the following definition:

"`collective agreement' means an agreement in writing between an employer and a bargaining agent that represents firefighters employed by the employer containing provisions respecting terms or conditions of employment or the rights, privileges or duties of the employer, the bargaining agent or the firefighters."

I just think this has been overlooked in the bill, that while certain rights have been taken away from firefighters in this bill, it's very important that the definition of a collective agreement be there so it can be referred back to by some other amendments coming later today.

Mr Bob Wood: We support this amendment.

Mr Kormos: Indeed, in view of the fact that it's the same amendment as we proposed by virtue of amendment 32, we support it as well.

The Chair: Shall this amendment carry? Carried.

The opposition amendment, being item 31, is carried.

Mr Kormos: Number 32 to be withdrawn because it's identical to the previous amendment, please.

The Chair: Item 32, being the third party proposed amendment to 41(1), is withdrawn.

We are now moving to item 33, being a government amendment.

Mr Bob Wood: The government withdraws this amendment.

The Chair: Item 33, the government amendment, is withdrawn.

We are proceeding to item 34, which is an opposition amendment.

Mr Ramsay: I move that the definition of "employer" in subsection 41(1) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:

"`employer' means a municipality, group of municipalities or a party to an agreement with the fire marshal under section 3."

The reason for this obviously is to prevent the privatization of firefighting in Ontario. This is the very contentious definition that is in the bill saying that it, by what it says here, really means that it's a wide-open definition of an employer and moves away from the old act. In the bill it says, "`employer' means a municipality, person or organization that employs firefighters," and of course that is the very contentious aspect of this bill that opens up the privatization of all aspects of fire prevention and fire suppression in this province. This definition would bring remedy to that.

Mr Kormos: We support that amendment. Our amendment number 35 is, of course, identical to this. It's imperative that members of the committee support this if they are indeed sincere in their commitment to public professional firefighting services and if they want to avoid the type of chaos and tragedy that operators like Rural/Metro have visited upon communities in the United States.

Mr Bob Wood: We are opposed to this amendment. We think the definition, as proposed, is adequate.

Mr Kormos: Yes, because the definition, as proposed, opens the door to privatized firefighting services. I think that should be made clear. Thank you.

The Chair: If there's no further discussion --

Mr Kormos: Recorded vote, please.

Ayes

Kormos, Ramsay.

Nays

Doyle, Leadston, Parker, Rollins, Sheehan, Tilson, Bob Wood.

The Chair: The amendment is lost.

Mr Kormos: Could amendment 35 be withdrawn, please.

The Chair: Item 35 is withdrawn by Mr Kormos.

Mr Kormos: If I may, Chair, I made reference to that as amendment number 35. I clearly am not adopting any sort of practice here or acquiescing to any sort of practice. I am very specifically doing that under these very specific circumstances and not doing so to indicate my acceptance of that, were it, in my view, to be inappropriate during a given set of circumstances.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr Kormos: You understand what I'm saying, Chair?

The Chair: I certainly do.

Mr Ramsay: Even if I don't, I won't ask.

The Chair: We are moving to item 36 and that is Mr Ramsay's proposed amendment.

Mr Ramsay: I move that the definition of "member" in subsection 41(1) of the bill be struck out.

The reason for that is the reference in the bill refers to trade union and includes a person who has applied for membership in a trade union. With what I think the government is going to change, they should be in favour of this as the firefighters' associations, I believe, are going to be allowed to continue to represent firefighters.

Mr Bob Wood: Mr Ramsay has correctly anticipated our position and we support this amendment.

1610

Mr Kormos: Again, there's an NDP amendment to the very same effect. Obviously, we're supporting this motion.

The Chair: Shall Mr Ramsay's amendment carry? All those in favour? Carried.

Item 37 is Mr Kormos's amendment, which he is withdrawing.

Item 38.

Mr Bob Wood: We withdraw item 38.

The Chair: We then go to item 39, which is Mr Ramsay's amendment.

Mr Ramsay: I move that subsection 41(1) of the bill be amended by adding the following definition:

"`trade union' means an association of firefighters that is a bargaining agent for the firefighters in a bargaining unit under this part."

This is for the very reason that I just explained, as far as allowing the association of firefighters to represent the firefighters in the province.

Mr Kormos: We agree with and support that motion, having tabled an identical motion on our behalf.

Mr Bob Wood: We think the existing definitions are adequate.

Mr Kormos: A recorded vote.

Ayes

Kormos, Ramsay.

Nays

Doyle, Leadston, Parker, Rollins, Sheehan, Tilson, Bob Wood.

The Chair: The amendment is lost. We are proceeding to item 40.

Mr Kormos: Withdrawn, please.

The Chair: Withdrawn by Mr Kormos.

We are proceeding to item 41, which is an amendment by Mr Ramsay.

Mr Ramsay: I move that subsection 41(2) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:

"Managers not firefighters

"(2) A person designated by an employer under section 58 shall be deemed not to be a firefighter for the purposes of this part."

This refers to 58, the management exclusion section of the bill. It has been very contentious and we feel that this section would help rectify that.

Mr Kormos: We support that and indeed tabled a motion with identical language. What this does is prevent abuses of the designation process. I think it's imperative that this be adopted if indeed we're going to retain the integrity of firefighting services in the professional and team-like manner that they've developed and maintained throughout the province.

Mr Bob Wood: We have our own amendments on this issue, which will come later, or course, and we don't think this amendment's the right answer.

Mr Kormos: Recorded vote.

Ayes

Kormos, Ramsay.

Nays

Doyle, Leadston, Parker, Sheehan, Rollins, Tilson, Bob Wood.

The Chair: The amendment is lost.

We are proceeding to item 42. Are you withdrawing that, Mr Kormos? It looks identical.

Mr Kormos: Yes, sir.

The Chair: Thank you very much. Item 42 is withdrawn and we are proceeding to item 43, which is an amendment proposed by Mr Ramsay.

Mr Ramsay: I moved that 41(3) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:

"Application of the LRA, 1995

"(3) Sections 110 to 112, 114 to 1118 and 120 to 123 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, apply with necessary modifications to proceedings before the board under this act and the board may exercise the powers under those provisions as if they were part of this act.

"Same

"(3.1) The following provisions of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, apply with necessary modifications to relations between firefighters, trade unions and employers:

"1. Section 47: Deduction of union dues.

"2. Sections 68 and 69: Successor rights.

"3. Sections 70 to 77, 81 to 85 and sections 87 and 88: Unfair practices.

"4. Sections 96 to 102 and 108: Enforcement."

These changes are deemed to be necessary and now some of this may have been corrected by some of the changes the government is contemplating, but these were the labour relations provisions that were of great concern to firefighters as expressed through our deliberations. Therefore, this amendment would reflect those needs.

Mr Kormos: We support that indeed. Motion 44 is one that's worded identically to this motion presented on our behalf. We heard some very positive submissions from firefighters and chiefs in the Peterborough area and the Windsor area which demonstrated very progressive approaches to labour relations.

The inclusion of 3.1 and the expansion of subsection (3) as contained in these amendments, in our view, will go a long way to encouraging progressive labour relations within fire departments and municipalities across the province rather than those old-fashioned, hierarchical and top-down types of administrations which do not create the type of team approach that we witnessed can be created and that is desirable among professional firefighters.

Furthermore, the rejection of this amendment would seem to me to be yet another green light for private operators who would want to abuse employees working in a privatized firefighting service.

Mr Bob Wood: We will indeed address certain of these issues in our own amendments. On the other hand, we think certain of these issues need not be addressed.

The Chair: We're dealing with item 43.

Mr Kormos: Recorded vote.

The Chair: Shall the amendment carry?

Ayes

Kormos, Ramsay.

Nays

Doyle, Leadston, Parker, Rollins, Sheehan, Tilson, Bob Wood.

The Chair: The amendment fails.

Item 44 is withdrawn. We have item 45 which is a government amendment.

Mr Bob Wood: I move that subsections 41(3) and (4) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:

"Application of the LRA, 1995

"(3) Sections 110 to 112, subsections 114(1) and (3), sections 116 to 118 and 120 to 123 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, apply with necessary modifications to proceedings before the board under this act and the board may exercise the powers under those provisions as if they were part of this act.

"Transition

"(4) An agreement made under section 5 of the Fire Departments Act, or a decision or award made under section 6 of that act, that is in effect immediately before the day this part comes into force shall, on and after that day, remain in effect and be deemed to be a collective agreement to which this part applies.

"Same

"(5) If a request to bargain was made under section 5 of the Fire Departments Act before the day this part comes into force, this part applies as if notice had been given under section 50 on that day."

I gather an explanation is not requested.

Mr Kormos: With some hesitation, we're going to support this. It expands the application beyond what was originally in the bill, does not meet the standard that was contained in the Liberal motion which was just defeated, the amendment which would have been yet more appropriate, but under the circumstances, we feel compelled to support this.

The Chair: If there is no other discussion, shall the amendment carry? The amendment is carried.

We are proceeding to Mr Ramsay's motion, being item 46.

Mr Ramsay: I move that subsection 41(4) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:

"Transition

"(4) An agreement made under section 5 of the Fire Departments Act, or a decision or award made under section 6 of that act, that is in effect immediately before the day this part come into force shall, on and after that day, remain in effect and be deemed to be a collective agreement to which this part applies.

"Same

"(5) An arbitration proceeding that was commenced under section 6 of the Fire Departments Act before the day this part comes into force shall be continued after that day as if this part had not come into force. The presiding body or person shall apply the substantive provisions and the procedural rules that would have been applied under the Fire Departments Act.

"Same

"(6) If a request to bargain was made under section 5 of the Fire Departments Act before the day this part comes into force and the matter has not, as of that day, been referred to arbitration under section 6 of that act, this part applies to the request as if notice had been given under section 50 on that day."

I move this amendment in order to bring an orderly transition from the old Fire Departments Act to this new act.

1620

Mr Kormos: We support this amendment. It goes a small way towards recognizing the professionalism and dedication of our public professional firefighters.

Mr Bob Wood: We have dealt with sub (4) and sub (6) in the earlier amendment. Sub (5) we don't think is the right transition provision. We're opposed to this motion.

The Chair: If there's no further discussion, I shall put the amendment and a recorded vote is requested.

Ayes

Kormos, Ramsay.

Nays

Doyle, Parker, Rollins, Sheehan, Tilson, Bob Wood.

The Chair: The amendment fails, and we are proceeding to Mr Kormos's amendment, being item 47.

Mr Kormos: Item 47, though having some modest different wording from the previous amendment, that moved by the Liberals, substantially seeks the same end and the government, having defeated the previous amendment, this one I'm confident the Chair would rule out of order.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr Kormos, for the withdrawal of that motion. All amendments having been dealt with, I'll now put the question: Shall section 41, as amended, carry?

Ayes

Doyle, Parker, Rollins, Sheehan, Tilson, Bob Wood.

Nays

Kormos, Ramsay.

The Chair: Section 41, as amended, has carried.

We are proceeding to section 42, and item 48 is a motion by Mr Ramsay.

Mr Ramsay: I move that section 42 of the bill be amended by adding the following subsection:

"Definitions

"(2) In this section,

"`lockout' and `strike' have the same meaning as in the Labour Relations Act, 1995."

I bring this definition to this section that refers to "strike" and "lockout" in order to bring clarity to that and to make sure that this act speaks of strikes and lockouts in the same meaning as the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

Mr Bob Wood: We support that.

The Chair: We have the support of the government and the opposition. If there's no further discussion, all those in favour of the amendment? All those against? Carried.

Item 49.

Mr Kormos: Withdrawn, please.

The Chair: Withdrawn. I understand the government is withdrawing item 42?

Mr Bob Wood: Excuse me. No, we're going to withdraw item 50.

The Chair: Item 50 I mean. Thank you very much. We have passed one amendment therefore. Shall section 42, as amended, carry? All those in favour?

Mr Kormos: One moment.

The Chair: Sorry. Mr Kormos. Yes, you had your hand up.

Mr Kormos: We'll not be supporting this. There was much comment on the fact that professional firefighters in this province, although having the right to strike, have never exercised that right, as a result of their dedication and commitment to fire protection services in their respective communities and throughout the province. This section was perceived as very much an insult to those firefighters.

As well, the importation of denial of the right to strike is accompanied by some serious infringements on traditional arbitration process and the common law as it applies to arbitration. Many workers in essential services have accepted being excluded from that group of workers who have a right to withdraw their labour, but there's always been a compromise and that is to say a fair arbitration process.

I would never encourage firefighters to do less than fulfil their responsibilities in meeting the requirements of fire protection services. However, when we see the balance so skewed in favour of employers here in terms of the importation of these unconscionable new standards for arbitration, I have to stand with firefighters on this one and oppose section 42.

As well, I've got to tell you, Chair, it's my strong suspicion -- it goes well beyond suspicion; it's the only inference that can be drawn -- that the inclusion of section 42 is once again designed to alleviate any fears that private sector, for-profit corporate operators might have about getting into the for-profit firefighting business in Ontario. My suspicion is that section 42 is as much to accommodate them as it is to achieve any other goal. Indeed, its primary purpose is to accommodate them. We will not be supporting section 42. We respect the professionalism of firefighters in this province.

Mr Ramsay: It's interesting. We've been working on this bill now for a few months. This bill has 61 pages in it and this one little sentence here that makes up in its entirety section 42 is probably one of the most contentious parts of this bill.

Not only that, but now this prevention of striking really signals a major change in labour relations in this province. For the first time, and with all three parties having up to this point governed this province, we now have a government that really breaks a trust that, as I said, all governments of all three parties up till now have had with firefighters across the province.

It's really sad that in a minute or so we're going to be voting on a section that will eventually end up in this legislation that really breaks that trust. I think it really says a lot about how this government views workers in this province, especially the men and women who risk their lives on a daily basis to protect all of us across this province.

It's very sad to see this here, after all the pleas we have heard from across the province in all the days that we travelled across the province to hear deputations before the justice committee of the Ontario Legislature, that we still see this section 42 here. I think it's a shame and I very proudly will be voting against it.

The Chair: Is there any other discussion in regard to the amendment?

Mr Kormos: No, the section.

Mr Ramsay: It was just section 42.

The Chair: Yes, the section, as amended.

Mr Ramsay: Recorded vote, please.

Ayes

Doyle, Leadston, Parker, Rollins, Sheehan, Tilson, Bob Wood.

Nays

Kormos, Ramsay.

The Chair: Section 42, as amended, carries.

We are proceeding to section 43, item 51, Mr Ramsay's motion.

Mr Ramsay: I move that subsection 43(1) of the bill be deleted.

The section referred to is the section that applies to firefighters employed in a municipality with a population of 10,000 or more. As you know, the firefighters in this bill lose the ability to negotiate the hours of work. I think that is wrong and this amendment is to correct that.

Mr Kormos: We join with the Liberal caucus in that regard and have tabled an identical motion because what subsection 43(1) implies is that the maximum workweek of 48 hours is applicable to communities with 10,000 or more population and that in small communities which constitute most of the municipalities in Ontario, there are literally going to be no limits on the number of hours worked per week.

Once again, this is exactly in tune with the proposition that Rural/Metro made to the CAO of the city of Waterloo when they proposed that were the city of Waterloo to go with Rural/Metro, with a private, for-profit, corporate American firefighting service, they'd have a 66-hour workweek for their firefighters. Granted, Waterloo is in excess of 10,000 people, but it's my respectful view that small towns, that is 10,000 or less, are going to be as inclined to look to privatized firefighting services as are big cities. This is all designed to accommodate Rural/Metro and its stockholders and is an anti-worker and certainly anti-firefighter section.

Mr Bob Wood: We have our own amendments that deal with some of these issues and we oppose this motion.

1630

The Chair: If there's no further discussion --

Mr Gary L. Leadston (Kitchener-Wilmot): Mr Chair, a point of order: For clarification, Mr Kormos and members of the opposition have on numerous occasions raised the issue and cited Waterloo as an example of seeking privatization. I'd like, for the record, to state that there was some exploration by the city of Waterloo. That's all it was. It never went any further. There was no serious intent to privatize the fire service in the city of Waterloo.

It was on previous occasions expressed that it was Kitchener and Waterloo. They are two separate and distinct fire services. Kitchener has not explored nor entertained the thought of privatization, and I emphasize that Waterloo explored that option and totally dismissed it.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr Leadston. That is not a point of order.

Mr Leadston: Clarification, then.

Mr Kormos: I wish Mr Leadston would stop filibustering this process. If it wasn't attractive before Bill 84, it'll be a heck of a lot more attractive to privatize after Bill 84.

Mr Leadston: I doubt that.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr Kormos. If there's no further discussion, I put Mr Ramsay's motion to a recorded vote.

Ayes

Kormos, Ramsay.

Nays

Doyle, Leadston, Parker, Rollins, Sheehan, Bob Wood.

The Chair: Mr Ramsay's amendment is lost.

Mr Kormos: Chair, item 52 is withdrawn. It's identical to the previous amendment.

The Chair: We are proceeding to item 53.

Mr Ramsay: I move that subsection 43(2) of the bill be amended by striking out "to work or" in the second line.

This again comes to the heart of the matter: that maximum hours of work are dictated to firefighters in a piece of legislation rather than through negotiation. That's the reason for the amendment.

Mr Kormos: We support this. Indeed our amendment is in identical language. This is a very generous amendment even to the government's intent. It recognizes that there may be circumstances in which a person might be on call, effectively, for hours in excess of their regular hours. This is an effort to compromise, which is difficult with this government. We were hoping the government members might accept that as the compromise it is and show some respect for professional firefighters by accepting this modest proposal.

Mr Bob Wood: We're opposed to this motion for the reasons outlined on the previous motion.

The Chair: If there's no further discussion, shall Mr Ramsay's amendment carry? A recorded vote has been requested.

Ayes

Kormos, Ramsay.

Nays

Doyle, Leadston, Parker, Rollins, Sheehan, Bob Wood.

The Chair: The amendment is lost.

Mr Kormos, item 54.

Mr Kormos: Withdrawn. It's identical to the previous amendment.

The Chair: We are moving to item 55.

Mr Ramsay: This is another attempt to try to bring collective bargaining back into hours of work. I move that subsection 43(3) be amended by inserting "Subject to the provisions of a collective agreement" at the beginning.

That's very self-explanatory. It is our belief that hours of work, shift arrangements, should be negotiated firehall by firehall, fire department by fire department.

Mr Kormos: We support this and indeed have an amendment to the same effect. This gives some modest recognition of the fact that workers in this province and in this country won the right to collectively bargain the hours of their work and wages, among other things. The failure to adopt this would constitute an attack on decades and generations of struggle for workers.

I know the government throughout the course of this hearing has said we can rely upon the goodwill and good faith and noblesse oblige of municipalities. If workers had to rely upon the noblesse oblige of their employers, kids would still be working in mines in northern Ontario and workers would still be getting paid 25 cents an hour with no pensions and with 12- and 14-hour workdays.

I think it's imperative that firefighters be accorded the hard-won right to negotiate their work hours and their work structures, the shifts they work. This is an attack on professional firefighters and an insult to the great contribution they've made to the welfare of our communities and the people who live in them; that is to say that the bill without the amendment is that attack.

Mr Bob Wood: We're opposed to this motion for the same reasons as the previous motion.

The Chair: We are dealing with Mr Ramsay's amendment, item 55. A recorded vote is requested. Shall the amendment carry?

Ayes

Kormos, Ramsay.

Nays

Doyle, Leadston, Parker, Rollins, Sheehan, Tilson, Bob Wood.

The Chair: The amendment fails. The next amendment is therefore out of order, Mr Kormos.

Mr Kormos: Withdrawn. It's identical to the previous motion.

The Chair: That's item 56. We are proceeding to the government amendment, item 57.

Mr Bob Wood: I move that subsections 43(1) to (8) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:

"Hours of work

"43(1) In every municipality having a population of not less than 10,000, the firefighters assigned to firefighting duties shall work according to,

"(a) the two-platoon system where the firefighters are divided into two platoons, the hours of work of which shall be,

"(i) for each platoon 24 consecutive hours on duty followed immediately by 24 consecutive hours off duty, or

"(ii) for one platoon in daytime 10 consecutive hours on duty followed immediately by 14 consecutive hours off duty and for the other platoon in night time 14 consecutive hours on duty followed immediately by 10 consecutive hours off duty,

"and the platoons shall alternate at least every two weeks from night work to day work and vice versa;

"(b) the three-platoon system where the firefighters are divided into three platoons, the hours of work of which shall be eight consecutive hours on duty followed immediately by 16 consecutive hours off duty, and the platoons shall rotate in their periods of duty and time off as may be arranged for the purpose of changing shifts at least every two weeks; or

"(c) any other system of platoons or hours of work under which the maximum hours of work or hours on duty on average in any workweek are not more than 48 hours.

"Other personnel

"(2) Firefighters assigned to duties other than firefighting duties shall work such hours as are determined, but in no case shall such hours of work exceed the average workweek of the other full time firefighters.

"Maximum hours

"(3)No firefighters shall be required to be on duty on average in any workweek more than 48 hours.

"Weekly day off duty

"(4) Every firefighter shall be off duty for one full day of 24 hours in every calendar week, but where a two-platoon system or a three-platoon system is in operation, the 24 hours release at the change of platoons shall not be regarded as a day off duty for the purposes of this section.

"Time off duty

"(5) Nothing in this part prohibits any municipality from granting the firefighters more than one day off duty in every calendar week."

This amendment deletes these subsections and replaces them with subsections 2(1) to (5) of the Fire Departments Act. It restores the status quo re hours of work, restores hours of work as a management right which may be collectively bargained by municipalities.

Mr Ramsay: Can I have a clarification from the parliamentary assistant? Are you saying this restores the ability of firefighters to negotiate the hours of work? Is that what you just said?

Mr Bob Wood: That's correct.

Mr Ramsay: Could you point that out to me? This says "shall work according to."

1640

Mr Bob Wood: This restores the current practice. When you see how we deal with section 52 you'll see the total picture, which will be to remove that section.

Mr Ramsay: When you read this amendment and the section from whence it comes, this is just like we're all of a sudden being transported back in time into a Dickens novel, dictating to workers how they're going to work. This turns the clock back at least a century in dictating how people are going to work right across this province in a particular profession, rather than, as has evolved in this century, the right of workers to sit down with their employers, take into account local conditions, the local situation, and negotiate how a certain workplace is to operate and to do that in agreement.

I don't see this amendment changing it much from what was originally proposed; firefighters are being dictated to, unlike any other group of workers in this province, through a piece of legislation. Like losing the right to strike, this is really turning back the clock on a very important segment of our society.

Mr Kormos: I think the parliamentary assistant had it right the first time when he said this creates management rights which could be collectively bargained, which means at the wish solely of management, should management wish to relinquish them. The parliamentary assistant basically says, "Trust me." Well, no more need be said in that regard.

This is as draconian and oppressive an amendment as could ever be presented. We're not going to support this. We're going to oppose it. This is a violation of the goodwill that firefighters have earned by their conscientious professionalism. We saw models, Windsor for example, where there are high levels of cooperation and strong rapport between the management and the firefighters in their professional firefighting department team. This will encourage and retain, for those communities that haven't developed that high level of cooperation, an antagonistic, adversarial relationship, one in which there's bound to be resentment.

I again say this is all about privatization. This is to ensure that the private, big-bucks, for-profit, corporate American operators are going to be able to dictate the work hours without fear of being forced to collectively bargain with firefighters. We're opposing it.

Mr Bob Wood: I'd like to re-emphasize that this is not a change but rather a continuation of the status quo from the Fire Departments Act. Whatever is bargained of course is subject to arbitration, which has been a system that's worked well.

Mr Kormos: That's the problem. Arbitration is no longer quid pro quo when you've amended the arbitration sections. Firefighters do not have a level field at the arbitration table any more. Your changes in the bill to the arbitration process slant arbitration virtually entirely towards the part of bosses, be they municipalities or, more likely, private, corporate, for-profit bosses. This doesn't cut it, not in 1997.

The Chair: Is there any further discussion? if not, I'll put the government motion. A recorded vote is requested. Shall Mr Wood's amendment carry?

Ayes

Doyle, Rollins, Sheehan, Tilson, Bob Wood.

Nays

Kormos, Ramsay.

The Chair: The motion is carried.

We're now proceeding to item 58.

Mr Ramsay: I move that subsection 43 (10) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:

"Exception for emergencies

"(10) Despite subsections (1) to (9) and subject to the terms of a collective agreement, if a major emergency such as a fire, flood or other disaster occurs and the major emergency requires the services of every firefighter in the fire department, the fire chief, deputy chief or any person designated under section 58 may recall to duty any firefighters necessary to meet the needs created by the major emergency.

"Fire suppression duties

"(11) No person shall be assigned to fire suppression duties other than a firefighter employed on a full-time basis."

This amendment tries to clarify two things. Subsection 43(10) is very unclear, as there's no definition of what a major emergency is; that's merely an easy way to allow the use of part-time firefighters in a full-time manner. The proposal I've made in subsection (10) really starts to define what a major emergency is so there would be a restriction on that; (11) spells out clearly that for fire suppression duties no firefighter other than a full-time firefighter be used.

Mr Kormos: We support this proposition. Indeed, I would propose an amendment now to the Liberal motion -- and I refer you, Chair, and the committee to amendment 59, which has been tabled -- that would delete their subsection (11) and replace it with an amendment which would read:

"Fire protection duties

"(11) No person shall be assigned to fire protection duties other than a firefighter employed on a full-time basis."

The Chair: I'm advised that we need that in writing before it's voted on, so it might be easier to deal with them separately, Mr Kormos.

Mr Ramsay: He's referring to 59; it's there. You can deal with them one at a time and --

The Chair: Yes, we are going to do that.

Mr Ramsay: Whatever.

The Chair: Is there any further discussion?

Mr Kormos: Having said that, we intend to support this motion and indeed will be seeking even broader coverage. Again, this motion is very generous because it only speaks of fire suppression. If government members were serious when they said what they've said through the course of these hearings about being pro-firefighter and pro-full-time firefighter and pro-professional firefighter, government members would be eager to support this modest proposal on the part of the Liberal caucus.

Mr Bob Wood: We are not going to support this motion. We feel that the definitions as proposed by the government are appropriate and that this is inappropriate.

The Chair: If there's no further discussion, shall the amendment carry? A recorded vote is requested.

Ayes

Kormos, Ramsay.

Nays

Doyle, Rollins, Sheehan, Tilson, Bob Wood.

The Chair: The amendment is lost.

We are proceeding to item 59.

Mr Kormos: I move that subsection 43(10) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:

"Exception of emergencies

"(10) Despite subsections (1) to (9) and subject to the terms of a collective agreement, if a major emergency such as a fire, flood or other disaster occurs and the major emergency requires the services of every firefighter in the fire department, the fire chief, deputy chief or any person designated under section 58 may recall to duty any firefighters necessary to meet the needs created by the major emergency.

"Fire protection duties

"(11) No person shall be assigned to fire suppression duties other than a firefighter employed on a full-time basis."

This amendment is obviously very similar to the previous one, except that it requires that full-time firefighters be used to provide fire protection duties, meaning the full ambit of duties as defined in section 1 of what will be the new act, should it pass. We believe in professional firefighters, we believe in full-time professional firefighters and believe that their expertise and commitment is necessary for the full provision of the broad range of fire protection duties. That's why we have presented this amendment, Chair.

1650

The Chair: Any further discussion in regard to the amendment?

Mr Bob Wood: We are opposed to it for the same reasons I outlined on the last motion.

Mr Kormos: I assumed that. I wonder if Mr Wood is unsure about the government caucus here, whether his noting that is to be on the record or whether it is to alert government caucus members who might feel some support for professional firefighters. That's just a comment as an aside.

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): We're all of one mind here.

The Chair: If there is no further discussion in regard to Mr Kormos's amendment, I'll put the question. A recorded vote is requested. Shall the amendment carry?

Ayes

Kormos, Ramsay.

Nays

Doyle, Rollins, Sheehan, Tilson, Bob Wood.

The Chair: The motion is lost.

I shall now put the question, shall section 43, as amended, carry? A recorded vote is requested.

Ayes

Doyle, Rollins, Sheehan, Tilson, Bob Wood.

Nays

Kormos, Ramsay.

The Chair: Section 43, as amended, is carried.

We are now proceeding to section 44, item 60, Mr Ramsay's amendment.

Mr Ramsay: Chair, I'd certainly like to congratulate you for the blitzkrieg speed with which you have been pursuing these amendments today. It shows how effectively and efficiently, with some fine chairmanship, a committee can work -- like a fire department; it's like teamwork.

I move that subsection 44(1) of the bill be amended by inserting "only" after "may" in the second line.

Just so that makes sense to everybody, I will read what the amended section would sound like:

"The employment of a firefighter may only be terminated upon seven days' notice. This notice may be accompanied by written reasons for the termination."

It's just to give clarity to this termination-of-employment section of the bill.

Mr Kormos: Obviously we support this, having proposed an amendment in identical language. Once again, this tries to soften some of the severity of this bill when it comes to its top-heavy, heavy-fisted, jackbooted approach by management to professional firefighters. I'm convinced that sections like section 44, if left unamended, are there only to accommodate private, for-profit, corporate, American firefighting services like Rural/Metro.

Mr Bob Wood: We don't feel this amendment is necessary.

The Chair: If there is no further discussion, shall Mr Ramsay's amendment carry? A recorded vote is requested.

Ayes

Kormos, Ramsay.

Nays

Doyle, Leadston, Rollins, Sheehan, Tilson, Bob Wood.

The Chair: The amendment is lost. Therefore, item 61 is now out of order.

Mr Kormos: I withdraw it. It's identical to the previous motion.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr Kormos. We are proceeding to item 62.

Mr Ramsay: I move that subsections 44(2) and (3) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:

"Independent review

"(2) A firefighter who has received notice of termination and who does not have the right to challenge the termination pursuant to a grievance and arbitration procedure in a collective agreement may, within seven days of receipt of notice of termination, request a review of the termination.

"Same

"(3) Upon receipt of a request for a review of a termination, the municipality in which the firefighter is employed shall appoint a person who is not an employee of the municipality to conduct the review."

This is to ensure the independence of this review, and that's why I make this amendment.

Mr Kormos: I hope that down the road, if the government members indeed don't support this, there's a challenge to subsection (3) in terms of the appointment of a person to review. I put to you that the bill, as it now stands, constitutes a denial of natural justice and that there will be people challenging the appointment of municipal employees to conduct that review. Without this amendment, the reviewing authority could well be, in view of the fact that it's appointed by the municipality, somebody who has strong inherent biases towards the municipality, which is ultimately the employer, or the contracting party in the case of private, for-profit, corporate, almost inevitably American, firefighting services.

I support the amendment. We have one which is a little more generous, which I'll be moving shortly, depending upon where this amendment goes. But I'm looking forward to the challenges of subsection (3) if it remains unamended, by parties who say it is a denial of natural justice, that it's absurd for a municipality to unilaterally appoint one of their employees, who has a responsibility, who has obeisance to that municipality, to conduct a review in the case of a disagreement on the part of an employee firefighter. I think the government, by not accepting this amendment, is treading on very thin ice, is inviting litigation. I'm pleased that this caveat is on record now.

Mr Bob Wood: We think the existing scheme is adequate and appropriate. If indeed any party to a dispute of this nature doesn't follow the general laws with respect to arbitrators, obviously a court challenge may occur and it will be dealt with in accordance with the applicable law.

The Chair: If there is no other discussion, I'll put the question. A recorded vote is requested. Shall Mr Ramsay's amendment carry?

Ayes

Kormos, Ramsay.

Nays

Doyle, Leadston, Parker, Rollins, Sheehan, Tilson, Bob Wood.

The Chair: The amendment is lost.

Mr Kormos: Chair, I'd like to withdraw motion 63. It has the same effect as the previous Liberal amendment.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr Kormos.

Mr Kormos: Thank you to legislative counsel.

The Chair: We are dealing with item 64.

Mr Ramsay: I move that subsections 44(5) and (6) of the bill be struck out.

These are provisions in regard to suspension of duties and same, for termination of cause, the issue here being the suspension of pay and benefits. This is extremely onerous. We have many cases in the news as of late --

The Chair: Excuse me, Mr Ramsay. You have the government's support on this.

Mr Ramsay: Oh, that's great. Then I won't berate them any longer.

The Chair: I'm not trying to cut you off.

Mr Ramsay: Thank you. I was going to say some nasty things, so you've saved me a great embarrassment. I'm very grateful, Chair.

The Chair: Mr Kormos, are you supporting this also?

Mr Kormos: You bet your boots, Chair, and we presented an amendment to the identical effect.

The Chair: Thank you very much. We will then put Mr Ramsay's amendment. All those in favour? That amendment is carried.

We are proceeding to item 65.

Mr Kormos: Withdrawn.

The Chair: Item 65 is withdrawn. Item 66, Mr Ramsay.

Mr Ramsay: I really appreciate that last intervention on my behalf. You really hate being nasty when you don't have to be.

I move that subsection 44(8) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:

"Same

"(8) The decision of the person conducting the review is final and binding."

This refers to probationary period. It reads now:

"The employment of a firefighter may be terminated without cause at any time during the first 12 months, unless a collective agreement provides otherwise. Subsections (2) to (7) do not apply with respect to a termination during that period."

I think this amendment brings clarity to that.

1700

Mr Kormos: We support that, having an amendment to a similar end.

Mr Bob Wood: Mr Chairman, we're opposed to this motion. The scheme set out in the draft act is similar to that provided for police and for the public service, and we think it's appropriate. We're therefore opposed.

The Chair: Is there any discussion? If not, a recorded vote has been requested. Shall the amendment carry?

Ayes

Kormos, Ramsay.

Nays

Doyle, Leadston, Parker, Rollins, Sheehan, Tilson, Bob Wood.

The Chair: The amendment is lost. The next amendment is Mr Kormos's, item 67.

Mr Kormos: Withdrawn. It in effect repeats the previous amendment, which was defeated by government members.

The Chair: I'll now put the question, unless there's further discussion -- yes, Mr Kormos?

Mr Kormos: We're going to oppose section 44. There's been a failure to accept even the most modest proposals to try to create a more even-handed approach for firefighters. This is a highly objectionable section, especially as it remains unamended.

The Chair: If there is no further discussion, I shall put the question. Shall section 44, as amended, carry? A recorded vote is requested.

Ayes

Doyle, Leadston, Parker, Rollins, Sheehan, Tilson, Bob Wood.

Nays

Kormos, Ramsay.

The Chair: Section 44, as amended, carries.

Section 45, item 68.

Mr Ramsay: I move that subsection 45(2) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:

"Exclusion

"(2) The bargaining unit does not include persons designated under section 58."

Section 58 refers to the management exclusion section of the act, part IX, and this is moved to bring some clarity.

Mr Kormos: We support this proposition. It's the most modest of proposals. If the government members had the regard and respect for professional firefighters that they want to tell their constituents they do, they would be supporting this amendment.

Mr Bob Wood: We're opposed to this amendment. We think the bill, as proposed, gives the necessary flexibility to the municipalities to efficiently manage the firefighting services.

The Chair: If there's no other discussion, shall Mr Ramsay's motion carry? A recorded vote has been requested.

Ayes

Kormos, Ramsay.

Nays

Doyle, Leadston, Parker, Rollins, Tilson, Bob Wood.

The Chair: The amendment is lost. Item 69.

Mr Kormos: Withdrawn, Chair.

The Chair: It is withdrawn.

Is there any discussion with regard to section 44, as amended?

Interjection.

The Chair: Oh, you're right. This is section 45, and it's unamended. I'll put the question: Shall section 45 carry? Recorded vote.

Ayes

Doyle, Leadston, Parker, Rollins, Tilson, Bob Wood.

Nays

Kormos, Ramsay.

The Chair: The section carries.

Moving on to section 46, item 70, Mr Ramsay's motion.

Mr Ramsay: I move that section 46 of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:

"Bargaining agent

"46(1) The majority of firefighters in a bargaining unit may request an association of firefighters to represent them and act as their bargaining agent for purposes of collective bargaining under this part.

"Transition

"(2) An association of firefighters that, immediately before the day this part comes into force, was a party to, or bound by the provisions of, an agreement made under section 5 of the Fire Department Act or was bound by the decision or award of a board of arbitration under section 6 of the act shall, on and after the day this part comes into force, be deemed to be the bargaining agent for the firefighters in the bargaining unit."

This section is extremely important to clarify -- we believe very strongly that the firefighter organizations today should be the organizations that continue to represent and bargain for firefighters.

Mr Kormos: We support this amendment and indeed filed one in identical language. I suspect the government members are going to adopt this amendment. I suspect they're going to vote for it, not because they have any real sympathy for professional firefighters but because this amendment alone, although it recognizes professional firefighters and their federations and associations, doesn't shut in any way the wide-open door this government has created for private, corporate, for-profit, American-style and American-based firefighting services.

Mr Bob Wood: We are opposed to this motion. We prefer our own amendment, which is item 72R. I'll explain why when we get to 72R.

Mr Ramsay: Chair, on a personal note to you, but on the record: As you know, and I'm not sure what all the reasons were, we were progressing at rather a snail's pace in the last few days and we're now going at a much faster pace. I've observed that maybe we are going a pace too far or fast for you, possibly. If we are going too fast, please let us know. We will try to moderate this.

Mr Tilson: You're doing a fine job, Mr Chair.

Mr Ramsay: I'm just concerned that maybe the two opposition members are putting too much pressure on the Chair. We're worried about you and we're concerned.

The Chair: I appreciate your concern, Mr Ramsay.

Mr Kormos: Chair, I'd be very cautious, if I were the parliamentary assistant, in wanting to play the game of saying they want to adopt their motion. If this motion is defeated, a subsequent identical motion might not be in order. Please. We've made some significant progress on this bill, addressing the bill in a forthright and I think timely way; let's not start playing games now.

The Chair: We are dealing with item 70.

Mr Ramsay: On that point, is it the judgement of the Chair and the clerk that the government is proposing a -- I don't think we have a government motion on this, though.

The Chair: Yes, 72R, and I believe they are different.

Mr Ramsay: Okay. I may be a bit confused, because I'm seeing all these Rs, all the replacements. There are a number of replacement motions.

The Chair: I can't rule on it, but I would assume that would be a different motion and therefore in order. We are dealing with Mr Ramsay's item 70, his amendment to section 46. Is there any further discussion? If not, a recorded vote has been requested. I put the question: Shall section 46 carry?

Clerk of the Committee (Mr Doug Arnott): Excuse me. Shall the motion that Mr Ramsay --

The Chair: I'm sorry.

Mr Ramsay: See what I mean, Chair?

The Chair: Yes, I see what you mean, Mr Ramsay.

Shall Mr Ramsay's amendment carry?

Ayes

Kormos, Ramsay.

Nays

Doyle, Leadston, Parker, Rollins, Tilson, Bob Wood.

The Chair: The amendment fails.

Mr Kormos, I assume you are withdrawing item 71?

Mr Kormos: Yes, sir.

1710

The Chair: Our next matter is item 72R.

Mr Bob Wood: I move that section 46 of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:

"Bargaining agent

"46(1) The majority of firefighters in a bargaining unit may request an association of firefighters to represent them and act as their bargaining agent for purposes of collective bargaining under this part.

"Transition

"(2) An association of firefighters that, immediately before the day this part comes into force, was a party to, or bound by, an agreement made under section 5 of the Fire Departments Act or was bound by the decision or award of a board of arbitration under section 6 of that act shall, on and after the day this part comes into force and until such time as a new bargaining agent is requested under subsection (1), be deemed to be the bargaining agent for the firefighters in the bargaining unit."

The (1) amendment provides that the majority of firefighters may request a fire association to represent them as a bargaining agent and restores the provisions of the Fire Departments Act in this respect. In (2) there's also a transition provision that, for all intents and purposes, effectively grandparents the existing fire associations.

Mr Ramsay: I was just wondering if I could get clarification on what the difference is between this government motion and the previous one that was defeated.

Mr Bob Wood: Yes. If you look at subsection (2) of motion 72R, the third-last line, I draw your attention to "and until such time as a new bargaining agent is requested under subsection (1)." It gives the firefighters the right to request representation by another association of firefighters. That's a substantive difference between motion 70 and motion 72R.

Mr Kormos: I think that's a very poor analysis of the replacement amendment. Subsection (1) exists whether or not it's referred to in subsection (2). But I'm certainly not asking the Chair to rule on the appropriateness of this amendment, and it constitutes a modest improvement over the bill. Quite frankly, the Liberal and NDP amendments, those being identical, were preferable, but we'll be supporting this amendment.

The Chair: You didn't ask me to rule on something?

Mr Kormos: No.

The Chair: Fine. Is there any further discussion? If not, we are dealing with Mr Wood's proposed amendment. Shall it carry? Carried.

I put the question in regard to section 46: Shall section 46, as amended, carry? Carried.

We are proceeding to section 47, dealing with item 73. Mr Ramsay.

Mr Ramsay: I want to recommend that we vote this down.

The Chair: Are we withdrawing it?

Mr Ramsay: No. I'm recommending that we vote section 47 down.

The Chair: Item 73 is out of order, Mr Ramsay.

Mr Kormos: I want to speak to section 47. I think it's bad --

Mr Bob Wood: We'll vote it down, Mr Chair.

Mr Kormos: It's bad drafting, it's bad in principle, it's bad in content, and we're not going to be supporting it. I suspect even the government members won't be supporting it, not because they have any sympathy for the dangerous job that professional firefighters do on a daily basis but merely because they've recognized that it isn't necessary to achieve their goal of privatized, for-profit, corporate, American-based or American-style firefighting services here in Ontario.

The Chair: Items 73 to 75 are not proposed amendments, so we are dealing with section 47 unamended, as it stands in the act. Is there any discussion in regard to section 47? If not, I will put the question. Shall section 47 carry?

Interjections: No.

The Chair: Anybody for?

Mr Tilson: Yes.

Mr Kormos: Recorded vote.

The Chair: I think that would be best. It was impossible to determine whether there was a majority in favour. Shall section 47 carry?

Nays

Doyle, Kormos, Leadston, Parker, Ramsay, Rollins, Tilson, Bob Wood.

The Chair: Section 47 does not pass.

Is there any discussion in regard to section 48?

Mr Kormos: We'll not be supporting section 48.

Mr Bob Wood: Mr Chair, nor will we.

The Chair: Shall section 48 carry? Section 48 fails.

Shall section 49 carry? Section 49 fails.

Section 50: We're dealing with item 82, a motion by Mr Ramsay.

Mr Ramsay: I move that subsection 50(1) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:

"Notice of desire to bargain

"50(1) If no collective agreement is in effect, a bargaining agent shall, at the request of the majority of firefighters in the bargaining unit, give written notice to the employer of their desire to bargain with a view to making a collective agreement."

This is to clarify this section under collective bargaining. I believe the government may be -- well, maybe not. The government has a similar motion, but anyway, I put this forward.

Mr Kormos: We support this and submitted and tabled an amendment in identical language. This clarifies what otherwise was a very obtuse and bad subsection, subsection 50(1), and it should be given effect to by government members.

Mr Bob Wood: We're opposed to this amendment, as we prefer our own, which I'll speak to when we come to it.

The Chair: I'll put the question: Shall Mr Ramsay's amendment carry? A recorded vote is requested.

Ayes

Kormos, Ramsay.

Nays

Leadston, Parker, Rollins, Tilson, Bob Wood.

The Chair: The amendment is lost. The next amendment, item 83, I assume is being withdrawn, Mr Kormos?

Mr Kormos: Yes.

The Chair: Thank you. The government, Mr Wood, item 84.

Mr Bob Wood: I move that subsection 50(1) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:

"50(1) If no collective agreement is in effect, a bargaining agent acting pursuant to subsection 46(1) shall give written notice to the employer of its desire to bargain with a view to making a collective agreement."

This amendment restores the Fire Departments Act provision that a bargaining agent representing firefighters can give notice to the employer that it wishes to bargain. It removes the references to "certification" and to "trade union."

The Chair: Any further discussion in regard to the amendment? If not, shall the amendment carry? The amendment carries.

Item 85, Mr Kormos.

Mr Kormos: I move that subsection 50(2) be amended by adding after "collective agreement" in the fourth line "or, if no collective agreement is in operation, within a period of 90 days before the commencement of the calendar year or."

1720

Again this is a modest proposal. It cleans up what some might benignly view as sloppy draftsmanship, what others might view as an impediment -- I certainly do -- in the bill as unamended to the collective bargaining rights of firefighters. That of course is consistent with the government's whole approach to firefighters, but this modest proposal would give some recognition to collective bargaining rights so hard-fought-for for so long by so many workers in this province.

Mr Bob Wood: I don't want to get into a debate about drafting, but we do not feel this is necessary. We prefer our own draftsmanship on this.

The Chair: A recorded vote is requested. All those in favour of Mr Kormos's amendment?

Ayes

Kormos, Ramsay.

Nays

Leadston, Parker, Rollins, Tilson, Bob Wood.

The Chair: The amendment is lost.

Shall section 50, as amended, carry? Carried.

Shall section 51 carry? Carried.

Section 52: We have item 86, Mr Ramsay.

Mr Ramsay: While not a motion, the Liberal Party recommends voting against section 52. The reason is that it defines the scope of bargaining; it starts that by defining what the scope of bargaining is in respect to remuneration, including pension benefits and working conditions of members of the bargaining unit, but with the caveat "but shall not bargain in respect of the working conditions described in section 43," which relates back to hours of work. That's why I'm recommending voting against it.

The Chair: I'm somewhat confused. Perhaps Mr Wood can --

Mr Kormos: Chair, there are a couple of amendments here.

Mr Bob Wood: We're going to withdraw them.

Mr Kormos: The amendments are withdrawn?

Mr Bob Wood: The amendments to section 52 are going to be withdrawn and we're going to oppose section 52.

The Chair: As I understand it, there are therefore no amendments now proposed to section 52 and all three parties have indicated that they will be voting against section 52.

Mr Kormos: If I may, Chair, we've been opposed to section 52 from the first day that we read it in this bill.

The Chair: Good. That's excellent. You got your wish, Mr Kormos. I'm pleased.

Shall section 52 pass? Section 52 fails.

We proceed to section 53, item 90, Mr Ramsay.

Mr Ramsay: I move that subsection 53(1) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:

"Conciliation

"53(1) After notice is given under section 50 or after the parties have met and bargained, a party may, with the consent of all the other parties to the agreement, request that the minister appoint a conciliation officer to assist the parties in their attempt to effect a collective agreement.

"Appointment of conciliation officer

"(1.1) Within five days of receiving a request under subsection (1), the minister shall appoint a conciliation officer."

This amendment is proposed to bring clarity to this section of the bill.

Mr Kormos: We support this amendment and indeed have tabled an amendment in identical language.

Mr Bob Wood: We oppose this motion. We think mandatory conciliation is worth a try.

The Chair: I'll put the question. Shall Mr Ramsay's amendment carry? A recorded vote.

Ayes

Kormos, Ramsay.

Nays

Doyle, Leadston, Parker, Rollins, Tilson, Bob Wood.

The Chair: The amendment is lost.

Item 91 I believe is identical.

Mr Kormos: Yes, sir. Withdrawn.

The Chair: Withdrawn. Thank you.

Moving on to item 92, Mr Ramsay.

Mr Ramsay: I move that subsection 53(3) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:

"Report to minister

"(3) Within 14 days after being appointed or within such longer period as the parties may agree upon, the conciliation officer shall report the results of his or her endeavour to the minister."

This change is to bring clarity to this section also, reporting to the minister.

Mr Kormos: We support that amendment and have tabled an amendment in identical language.

Mr Bob Wood: We're opposed. We think our wording is more flexible.

The Chair: If there's no further discussion, I'll put the amendment. Shall Mr Ramsay's amendment carry?

Ayes

Kormos, Ramsay.

Nays

Doyle, Leadston, Parker, Rollins, Tilson, Bob Wood.

The Chair: The amendment is lost. I assume item 93 is being withdrawn, Mr Kormos?

Mr Kormos: Withdrawn, Chair.

Point of order: Wouldn't we better move to item 96?

Mr Bob Wood: They could presumably be withdrawn, could they not?

Mr Kormos: No, your 96.

The Chair: Well, we're dealing with them in order.

Mr Bob Wood: That would be all right with me, if that's what you want to do.

Mr Ramsay: That's fine.

The Chair: Okay. We have to come back but we will move to item 96, which is a government motion.

Mr Kormos: We're in agreement with this.

Mr Bob Wood: I move that subsections 53(5) and (6) of the bill be struck out.

The Chair: All those in favour of the amendment? The amendment is carried.

Mr Kormos: Item 95 is withdrawn.

The Chair: Thank you. Shall section 53, as amended, carry? Section 53, as amended, carries.

We are proceeding to section 54, item 97.

Mr Ramsay: I move that subsections 54 (1) and (2) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:

"Arbitration

"54(1) After the report of the conciliation officer is submitted to the minister or, if the matter was not the subject of conciliation under section 53, after 30 days have elapsed since notice to bargain was given under section 50, either party may require that the matter be referred to arbitration for final and binding determination.

"Board or single arbitrator

"(2) A matter that is referred to arbitration under this section shall be referred to a board of arbitration composed of three persons unless the parties agree to refer it to a single arbitrator.

"Appointment of board

"(2.1) Each party may select one person to be appointed to the board of arbitration and the third person shall be selected by agreement of the parties.

"Same

"(2.2) The party who referred the matter to arbitration shall select an arbitrator within five days of giving the other party notice that the matter was to be referred to arbitration.

"Same

"(2.3) Within 10 days of receiving notice of the selection of an arbitrator under subsection (2.2), the other party shall select a second arbitrator for appointment to the board of arbitration.

"Same

"(2.4) The two parties shall select the third arbitrator within 20 days of the selection of the second arbitrator.

"Same

"(2.5) If a party fails to select an arbitrator or if the two parties fail to agree as to the choice of the third arbitrator, the minister may make the appointment.

"Extension of time

"(2.6) The time periods within which an arbitrator must be selected under subsection (2.2), (2.3) or (2.4) may be extended by agreement of the parties.

"Selection of singe arbitrator

"(2.7) If the parties agree to refer a matter to a single arbitrator, the parties will select the arbitrator within 20 days of the day notice that the matter is to be referred to arbitration is given. If the parties fail to agree as to the choice of the arbitrator within the 20 days, the minister shall, at the request of either party, select the arbitrator."

I think this amendment brings better clarity to the whole section 54.

1730

Mr Kormos: I agree. It not only brings clarity, but restores some of the long-held standards for arbitration process and prevents the bill from remaining as it is, which is a top-heavy one where firefighters are punished for being professional and hardworking and dedicated. We support this amendment and indeed have tabled one in identical language.

Mr Bob Wood: We are opposed to this motion. We think flexibility is needed in how arbitrators are appointed, and we think our draft achieves that.

The Chair: I put the question. Shall Mr Ramsay's amendment carry? A recorded vote.

Ayes

Kormos, Ramsay.

Nays

Doyle, Leadston, Parker, Rollins, Tilson, Bob Wood.

The Chair: The amendment is lost. Item 98 is withdrawn, I assume, Mr Kormos. It's identical.

Mr Kormos: Yes, sir, thank you. It's identical.

The Chair: Item 99, Mr Ramsay.

Mr Ramsay: I move that subsection 54(7) of the bill be struck out.

This refers to criteria that the arbitrator has to take into account before making his or her decision. In this section, the old bugaboos are put in there: that the employer's ability to pay in light of a fiscal situation is stated; the extent to which services may have to be reduced in light of the decision if the current funding and taxation levels are not increased.

When we're talking about firefighting, which includes fire suppression and emergency services, it is incumbent upon an arbitrator to make the very best decision for the people working in that particular service in that community.

Mr Kormos: Of course we support this. The opposition has been critical of subsection 54(7) throughout the course of these hearings. This subsection should come as no surprise to anybody who was reasonably astute during the last couple of years of the last government, because the new criteria were part of a private member's bill that was presented by a Conservative member during the course of 1994-95.

I should tell you that we pulled that bill and distributed it in Welland-Thorold during the last election to give people an indication of where the Tories were going to come from when it came down to arbitration. In that respect, the Tories didn't disappoint anybody.

Mr Wood spoke of flexibility when he made reference to his refusal to support some modification of his bill, the previous amendment, in terms of maintaining some fairness in the course of arbitration.

This subsection contradicts the common laws that have been developed with respect to arbitration. It expresses disdain for professional firefighters. When you conjoin this with the denial of the right to strike, it puts firefighters in almost a feudal position with respect to their employer.

It is repugnant, subsection (7), to any fairminded person, and we are opposing this in the strongest manner. I predict that this government will bring all sorts of grief on itself by virtue of this subsection and the emergence of this subsection in any other number of pieces of legislation, grief that I'll have no sympathy for because they will have brought it on themselves and they will earn the wrath of huge numbers of public servants in the province of Ontario.

Did I mention that I'm voting against this?

The Chair: Yes. Thank you. Mr Wood.

Mr Bob Wood: We're opposed to this motion. We feel that the criteria introduced last year were fair and will work, and that's what we're doing in this bill, introducing the same criteria.

Mr Kormos: Recorded vote.

The Chair: If there's no further discussion, shall Mr Ramsay's amendment carry? A recorded vote is requested.

Ayes

Kormos, Ramsay.

Nays

Doyle, Parker, Rollins, Tilson, Bob Wood.

The Chair: The amendment fails and is lost. I assume we are withdrawing item 100, Mr Kormos. It's identical.

Mr Kormos: Yes, sir, thank you.

The Chair: We have a government motion, item 101.

Mr Bob Wood: I move that subsection 54(8) of the bill be amended by striking out "the arbitration board" in the second line and substituting "the arbitrator or the arbitration board."

This in essence amends a drafting error by adding reference to the arbitrator and board.

The Chair: If there's no discussion with regard to that, I'll put the amendment. Shall the amendment carry? The amendment carries.

Proceeding to item 102, Mr Wood.

Mr Bob Wood: I move that section 54(15) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:

"Costs of arbitration

"(15) Each party shall assume its own costs in the arbitration proceedings and pay,

"(a) in cases where the matter was referred to a board of arbitration, the cost of any member of the board appointed on the party's behalf and one half the costs of the chair of the board; or

"(b) in cases where the matter was referred to a single arbitrator, one half of the costs of the arbitrator."

This clarifies that the parties must pay for their own legal costs in the interest of arbitration proceedings, as well as one half each of the cost of the arbitration itself.

Mr Kormos: Under normal, healthy circumstances, I'd be inclined to support this. But this government has skewed the arbitration process so far in favour of the employer that my fear is that firefighters, now being denied the right to a work stoppage, even though they've never exercised that, the arbitration becomes a sham when it's controlled by subsection 54(7).

I am not going to vote against this, but I am going to tell you, this is like telling an accused person to pay the cost of his own executioner, or even to share the cost. It's nuts. You're forcing firefighters into an arbitration process that has lost all semblance of fairness, where the government wants to exercise control over who gets picked as arbitrators. We know why. There's no secret about that. It has nothing to do with flexibility. Then to tell firefighters they're going to have to pick up half the tab of the chair of the board and the membership of the board when the board is basically going to be there to do the boss's wishes I think is absolutely nuts.

As I say, under normal circumstances, this type of proposition wouldn't be offensive. Under these circumstances, I think it's highly offensive.

Mr Bob Wood: I have nothing to add to what I said.

The Chair: Fine. If there's no other discussion, shall Mr Wood's amendment carry? The amendment carries.

Item 103, Mr Ramsay. You have government support on this.

Mr Ramsay: Okay, I'll read it into the record then.

I move that subsection 54(17) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:

"Non-application

"(17) The Arbitration Act, 1991 and the Statutory Powers Procedure Act do not apply with respect to an arbitration under this section."

I take it this was just an omission, and the government agrees with this, so we've now included the Statutory Powers Procedure Act in this.

The Chair: Shall the amendment carry? It's unanimous.

Item 104 is withdrawn. We are now dealing with item 105. It's withdrawn?

Mr Bob Wood: Withdrawn.

The Chair: Fine. We've dealt with all the outstanding motions and amendments with regard to section 54. Is there any discussion regarding section 54, as amended?

Mr Kormos: The inclusion, the maintenance of subsection (7), makes it impossible to vote for section 54. We are opposed to section 54 as a result of the inclusion of subsection (7) and are voting against it.

The Chair: Do you wish a recorded vote?

Mr Kormos: Please, sir.

The Chair: There being no other discussion, shall section 54, as amended, carry?

Ayes

Doyle, Leadston, Parker, Rollins, Tilson, Bob Wood.

Nays

Kormos, Ramsay.

The Chair: Section 54, as amended, carries.

1740

Proceeding to section 55: Shall section 55 carry? It is carried.

Section 56: Mr Ramsay, item 106.

Mr Ramsay: I move that subsection 56(2) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:

"Extension of term of collective agreement

"(2) Despite subsection (1), the parties may, in a collective agreement or otherwise and before or after the collective agreement has ceased to operate, agree to continue the operation of the collective agreement or any of its provisions for a period of less than one year while they are bargaining for its renewal with or without modifications or for a new agreement and the continuation of the collective agreement may be terminated by either party upon 30 days' notice to the other party."

It's my understanding that the government supports this. We think it's a great improvement to the existing section.

The Chair: Mr Kormos, will you support -- okay.

We have an amendment before Mr Ramsay, being item 106. All those in favour? The amendment is carried.

The next item is item 107.

Mr Kormos: We would have preferred that subsection 56(2) were simply deleted. The Liberal amendment does indeed improve subsection 56(2). By virtue of the last vote, I anticipate a response to a suggestion that it be struck out. Withdraw that amendment, please.

The Chair: Are you withdrawing that?

Mr Kormos: Yes, sir, 107.

The Chair: Thank you. Item 107 is withdrawn.

Mr Bob Wood: The government withdraws 108.

The Chair: Item 108 is withdrawn. Item 109.

Mr Kormos: I move that subsection 56(3) of the bill be struck out.

This government really wants to get its dirty little fingers into collective bargaining agreements -- sticky, grabby little fingers -- and tell people what they ought to be bargaining. Subsection 56(3) does it again. I think firefighters, like workers in every other sector, have a right to bargain and negotiate the contracts they have with their employers.

We resent interference with that collective bargaining right, and subsection 56(3) is yet another element of it. I am calling for support for the exclusion of subsection 56(3).

The Chair: Any further discussion?

Mr Kormos: Recorded vote.

Ayes

Kormos.

Nays

Doyle, Leadston, Parker, Ramsay, Rollins, Tilson, Bob Wood.

The Chair: The motion fails.

I'll now put the question. Shall section 56, as amended, carry? Against? It carries.

Section 57: Item 110, Mr Ramsay.

Mr Ramsay: I move that subsections 57(1) and (2) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:

"Arbitration of disputes

"57(1) Every collective agreement shall provide for the final and binding settlement of all differences between the parties arising from the interpretation, application, administration or alleged violation of the collective agreement, including any question as to whether a matter is arbitrable, by a single arbitrator.

"Same

"(2) If a collective agreement does not contain the provision mentioned in subsection (1), it shall be deemed to contain the following provision:

"If a difference arises between the parties relating to the interpretation, application, administration of this collective agreement or if an allegation is made that this agreement has been violated, either of the parties may, after exhausting any grievance procedure established in this agreement, notify the other party in writing of its desire to submit the difference to a single arbitrator.

"Selection of single arbitrator

"(2.1) If a matter is referred to arbitration, the arbitrator shall be selected by agreement of the parties within 10 days of the day notice was given to refer the matter to arbitration.

"Failure of parties to select

"(2.2) If the parties do not agree upon the choice of the arbitrator within the 10-day period, either party may request that the minister appoint the arbitrator. Upon receiving a request to appoint an arbitrator, the minister shall forthwith make the appointment."

This amendment is made to bring some fairness to the arbitration process.

Mr Kormos: We support this amendment and have tabled an amendment in identical language. I would think, having read the government's own amendment to section 57, that the similarity of their amendment to this one but for subsection (2.2) would not bar them from supporting this amendment. Subsection (2.2) is oh-so-logical, indeed it's commonsensical. It would seem to me that the government should be acknowledging that the inclusion of (2.2) in the opposition parties' amendments is indeed an improvement even on the government's own amendment, which says everything this amendment does but for (2.2). Subsection (2.2) is a very practical and reasonable inclusion, and I can't for the life of me think why the government wouldn't support this and withdraw their amendment.

Mr Bob Wood: We're opposed to this motion. We're going to be bringing in our own amendment, as members are aware. We feel that more flexibility is needed than this amendment provides.

Mr Kormos: If that's the new buzzword, "flexibility," it's going to be Pavlovian; it's going to drive fear into us every time we hear this government talk about the need to be flexible. It's scary stuff.

The Chair: Shall Mr Ramsay's amendment carry? A recorded vote is called.

Ayes

Kormos, Ramsay.

Nays

Doyle, Leadston, Parker, Rollins, Tilson, Bob Wood.

The Chair: The motion is lost. Item 111 is withdrawn, I believe, by Mr Kormos, being identical in wording. We move to Mr Wood and item 112.

Mr Bob Wood: I move that subsections 57 (1) and (2) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:

"Arbitration provision required

"57(1) Every collective agreement shall provide for the final and binding settlement by arbitration of all differences between the parties arising from the interpretation, application, administration or alleged violation of the collective agreement, including any question as to whether a matter is arbitrable, by a single arbitrator.

"Same

"(2) If a collective agreement does not contain the provision mentioned in subsection (1), it shall be deemed to contain the following provision:

"If a difference arises between the parties relating to the interpretation, application, administration of this agreement, including any question as to whether a matter is arbitrable, or if an allegation is made that this agreement has been violated, either of the parties may, after exhausting any grievance procedure established in this agreement, notify the other party in writing of its desire to submit the difference or allegation to a single arbitrator.

"Selection of single arbitrator

"(2.1) If a matter is referred to arbitration, the arbitrator shall be selected in accordance with the regulations."

Is an explanation desired?

Mr Ramsay: Yes.

Mr Bob Wood: This mirrors section 48 of the Labour Relations Act and provides for rights arbitration by a single arbitrator in conjunction with the regulations. If a collective agreement does not contain a provision for arbitration of rights disputes by a single arbitrator, subsection 57(2) will deem that it does contain the provision set out here.

The Chair: We have the amendment. If there's no further discussion, shall the government amendment carry? All those in favour? Carried.

We'll proceed to item 113.

Mr Bob Wood: I move that subsection 57(13) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:

"Costs of arbitration

"(13) Each party shall assume its own costs in the arbitration proceedings and pay one half of the costs of the arbitrator."

This of course clarifies that each party pays its own legal fees and half each of the cost of the arbitration itself.

The Chair: All those in favour of the motion? Carried.

Mr Ramsay, item 114.

Mr Ramsay: I move that section 57 of the bill be amended by adding the following subsection:

"Enforcement of arbitration decision

"(13.1) Where a party or firefighter has failed to comply with any of the terms of the decision of an arbitrator, any party or firefighter affected by the decision may file in the Ontario Court (General Division) a copy of the decision, exclusive of the reasons therefor, whereupon the decision shall be entered in the same way as a judgement or order of that court and is enforceable as such."

This is to give some teeth to arbitration decisions.

1750

The Chair: Is there any further discussion?

Mr Bob Wood: Yes. We're opposed. We feel that subsection 59(1) of the bill provides effectively for enforcement of decisions.

The Chair: If there is no further discussion, shall the amendment carry?

Mr Ramsay: Recorded vote.

Ayes

Kormos, Ramsay.

Nays

Doyle, Leadston, Parker, Rollins, Tilson, Bob Wood.

The Chair: The amendment fails. Mr Kormos is withdrawing 115.

Mr Kormos: It's identical; withdrawn.

The Chair: Item 116, Mr Ramsay. The government is in favour of this. Could you read it into the record, please.

Mr Ramsay: I move that subsection 57(14) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:

"Non-application

"(14) The Arbitration Act, 1991 and the Statutory Powers Procedure Act do not apply with respect to an arbitration under this section."

I think this is self-explanatory, to bring in the other act.

The Chair: Shall the amendment carry? Carried.

Mr Kormos: Item 117 is withdrawn, please; identical language.

Mr Bob Wood: Item 118 is also withdrawn.

The Chair: There are no further amendments, therefore, before us. I'll put the question: Shall section 57, as amended, carry? Against? It carries.

Section 57.1 is created by an amendment proposed by Mr Ramsay, item 119.

Mr Ramsay: I move that the bill be amended by adding the following section:

"Request for minister to appoint arbitrator

"57.1(1) Despite the arbitration provision in a collective agreement or deemed to be included in a collective agreement under section 57, a party to a collective agreement may request that the minister refer to a single arbitrator any difference between the parties to the collective agreement arising from the interpretation, application, administration or alleged violation of the agreement, including any question as to whether a matter is arbitrable." I sound like Bert here.

"Circumstances in which a request may be made

"(2) Subject to subsection (3), a request may be made under this section by a party to a collective agreement in writing after the grievance procedure under the agreement has been exhausted or after 30 days have elapsed from the time at which the grievance was first brought to the attention of the other party, whichever occurs first.

"Same

"(3) If a difference between the parties to a collective agreement is a difference respecting discharge from or other termination of employment, a request under this section may be made by a party to a collective agreement in writing after the grievance procedure under the agreement has been exhausted or after 14 days have elapsed from the time at which the grievance was first brought to the attention of the other party, whichever occurs first.

"Minister to appoint arbitrator

"(4) If a request is made under this section, the minister shall appoint a single arbitrator who shall have exclusive jurisdiction to hear and determine the matter referred to him or her, including any question as to whether a matter is arbitrable.

"Joining grievances

"(5) If one or more requests concern several differences under a collective agreement, the minister may appoint an arbitrator under this section to deal with all the grievances raised in the requests.

"Settlement officer

"(6) The minister may appoint a settlement officer to confer with the parties and endeavour to effect a settlement before the hearing by an arbitrator appointed under this section.

"Powers and duties of arbitrator

"(7) An arbitrator appointed under this section shall commence to hear the matter referred to him or her within 21 days after the minister receives the request and section 57 applies with necessary modifications to the arbitrator, the parties and the decision of the arbitrator.

"Oral decisions

"(8) Upon the agreement of the parties, the arbitrator shall deliver an oral decision forthwith or as soon as practicable without giving his or her reasons in writing therefor.

"Payment of arbitrator

"(9) Each of the parties to a grievance that is referred to an arbitrator under this section shall pay one half of the costs of the arbitrator."

Just to bring clarity, Chair.

Mr Kormos: We support this and indeed filed an amendment in identical language. It brings clarity, as Mr Ramsay says, and also brings back a little bit of fairness to a grossly unfair system designed by this government.

Mr Bob Wood: We are opposed to this. We think the arbitration provisions in our draft are adequate. I might point out that the parties themselves can expedite in whatever way they think is appropriate.

The Chair: Shall Mr Ramsay's amendment carry?

Mr Kormos: Recorded vote.

Ayes

Kormos, Ramsay.

Nays

Doyle, Leadston, Parker, Rollins, Tilson, Bob Wood.

The Chair: The amendment is lost. Mr Kormos, I assume, will be withdrawing --

Mr Kormos: Item 120, identical language, withdrawn, please.

The Chair: Section 58, Mr Ramsay, item 121.

Mr Ramsay: I withdraw that amendment.

The Chair: Item 121 is withdrawn. Item 122, I believe, is identical.

Mr Kormos: No, Chair, it's not.

The Chair: But the other one was withdrawn.

Mr Kormos: In fact, you'll notice there's a subsection (6) on it. But we withdraw that as well.

The Chair: Okay. Item 122 is withdrawn. Government motion 123.

Mr Bob Wood: I move that subsection 58(2) of the bill be amended by striking out "the board has" in the first line and substituting, "the board, on application of a bargaining agent, has."

Interjection.

Mr Bob Wood: I'd like to withdraw what I just read. I wasn't given a replacement motion, which I now have.

Mr Kormos: One moment, Chair. Perhaps we need some oxygen in the room.

Mr Bob Wood: Well, open a window. If you think you need it, Peter, we'll open a window.

Mr Kormos: No, not for me.

The Chair: Please proceed, Mr Wood.

Mr Bob Wood: By the time I'm done, you may need some, so be ready.

Mr Kormos: No, not for you. You almost caused some serious relapses here.

Mr Bob Wood: I move that subsection 58(2) of the bill be amended by striking out "the board has" in the first line and substituting "the board, on application of an employer, has."

The Chair: Is there any discussion?

Mr Kormos: I should indicate we're going to support that government amendment. It begins to address serious concerns that a whole lot of the Ontario community has with this bill.

The Chair: Shall the amendment carry? Carried.

Dealing with item 124, Mr Wood.

Mr Bob Wood: This is a revision.

The Chair: I'm sorry, item 124-A. Here it is right here.

Mr Bob Wood: I move that section 58 of the bill be amended by adding the following subsection:

"Same

"(2.1) Subject to subsection (3), a person shall remain in the bargaining unit until the board makes a determination under subsection (2), unless the parties otherwise agree."

The Chair: All those in favour of the amendment? Carried.

Mr Bob Wood: We're now on to 124.

The Chair: Proceed.

Mr Bob Wood: I move that subsection 58(3) of the bill be amended by striking out "subsection (5)" in the first line and substituting "subsections (3.1) and (5)."

The Chair: All those in favour of the amendment? Carried.

Item 125, a government motion.

Mr Bob Wood: I move that section 58 of the bill be amended by adding the following subsections:

"Consent required

"(3.1) An employer shall not designate a person under subsection (3) unless the person consents to the designation.

"If no consent

"(3.2) If a person does not consent to a designation under subsection (3), the employer shall assign the person to a position in the bargaining unit. If the position to which a person is assigned has a lower salary than the position held by the person before the assignment, he or she is entitled to be paid the same salary and to receive the same benefits after the assignment as he or she was paid and received before the assignment."

The Chair: Is there any discussion? All those in favour of the amendment? Carried.

Those are the amendments for section 58.

Mr Kormos: I should tell you that we still have great difficulty with section 58, notwithstanding the amendments which we supported. The power to designate and the fact that that creates this top-heavy, vertical structure, which is contrary to what should be the trend, is disturbing to people in communities across Ontario. We will not be supporting section 58, notwithstanding the amendments to it.

The Chair: I'll put the question. A recorded vote has been requested. Shall section 58, as amended, carry?

Ayes

Doyle, Leadston, Parker, Rollins, Tilson, Bob Wood.

Nays

Kormos, Ramsay.

The Chair: Yes, Mr Wood.

Mr Bob Wood: There was an inquiry yesterday with respect to the number of unincorporated communities that do not have access to some form of fire suppression services. We have an answer from the ministry, which I'm going to table with the clerk, who also has extra copies for any members of the committee or others who may be interested.

The Chair: We're proceeding now with item 126.

Mr Kormos: Chair, I note it's beyond 6 of the clock. That's a late show.

The Chair: Yes, okay. The time for the sitting has elapsed, and we will be adjourning the hearing until Monday, May 5, 1997, at 3:30 pm.

The committee adjourned at 1801.