I would like to thank the 8,000 people from the Muskoka area who have signed this petition. Basically, they wrote up this petition because the board of directors of Muskoka Algonquin Healthcare is looking at closing the hospital in south Muskoka and moving all of the beds to Huntsville. The residents and the people in south Muskoka, the 8,000 people who signed the petition, are opposed to this. They want to keep the hospital in south Muskoka open, with an emergency room, with in-patient beds. So they are asking for two things. The first one is that they want changes to how the board of directors for Muskoka Algonquin Healthcare—that’s the hospital corporation that looks after south Muskoka and Huntsville—to be duly elected, so they have a say. Second, they want to make sure that the hospital in south Muskoka stays open.

I support this petition. I will affix my name to it and ask page Farah to bring it to the Clerk.

Every other province in Canada has made agreements with Bell Canada to make sure that 911 was available everywhere. It is time for Ontario to do this.

The tourist season is coming in my riding. If you’re good enough to swat out the mosquitoes and blackflies, you’re welcome to Nickel Belt—and I hope you don’t run into problems, but if you do, remember to memorize the 1-800 number, because 911 doesn’t work.

I support what Beaver Lake is trying to do. I will affix my name to it and—

There are about 200 people who have signed because most of them live either on Joe Lake East or on Dixon Lake Road. Those two roads in Nickel Belt used to be maintained when they were part of the city of Valley East. When the city was amalgamated to become part of the city of Greater Sudbury, the city of Greater Sudbury only maintained a part of Joe Lake East, and they are supposed to maintain it all. The Dixon Lake Road has been graded and plowed on occasion but not maintained on a regular basis. So they want the province to make sure that the city of Greater Sudbury respects the act that basically said that they have to maintain the road.

I’m happy to sign this petition, and I will ask page Farah to deliver it to the Clerks.

As you know, Speaker, in northern Ontario, we don’t have access to all of the health care services that exist in Ontario, but we do gain access through the Northern Health Travel Grant that pays for part of the travel and accommodations when we have to come to Toronto or Ottawa or London for tertiary care that is not available in the north. Unfortunately, the rates for compensation for your travel and accommodation are so low that a lot of people end up in a situation where they cannot afford to come down south. They will forgo the treatment and the care that they need because they can’t afford it. The accommodations used to be $100; it will soon be $170 a night—but it is impossible to find a hotel room in Toronto for $170 a night; the same thing with the mileage. They are asking for a full review of all of the different parts of the travel grant, so that people in the north have equitable access.

I fully support this petition. I will affix my name to it and ask page Emily to bring it to the Clerk.

Mr. Sarkaria moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 197, An Act to amend the Highway Traffic Act / Projet de loi 197, Loi modifiant le Code de la route.

I recognize the Solicitor General to continue debate.

I’m delighted to follow my colleague the Minister of Transportation and speak on Bill 197.

I want to congratulate my colleague the Minister of Transportation, the Associate Minister of Transportation and the parliamentary assistant for continuing the government’s message that public safety matters. It matters to Ontarians morning, noon and night.

When the minister just spoke, he spoke of the government’s commitment to extend our confidence in public safety by addressing a few issues that are very important.

The minister spoke about those people who think it’s okay to steal our cars; it’s not. And regardless of where we sit in this chamber, we all agree that no one should confront somebody knocking down their door at 5 in the morning who demands that the keys be turned over so they can steal our cars and send them off to another place in the world. This is completely unacceptable.

And when I stood with the Minister of Transportation just a couple of weeks ago, we highlighted that for those people who steal the cars, there would be maximum sentencing of suspending licences. The minister spoke of that, and I want to thank him.

Madam Speaker, I want to talk for a minute about why stealing cars is so unacceptable and why Bill 197 makes consequences for people who think it’s okay. Let me take you back to the recent auto theft summit in Ottawa.

Madame la Présidente, comme je l’ai dit récemment, lors de la conférence à Ottawa sur le vol des voitures, je prends la sécurité publique très au sérieux. Nous sommes préoccupés par l’augmentation récente des vols de voitures. Je suis préoccupé par l’augmentation de la criminalité. Mais, en même temps, notre gouvernement propose des solutions et des stratégies pour assurer la sécurité de l’Ontario.

When I went to that conference, it became obvious that we have an auto theft crisis. Bill 197 acknowledges this threat to our inherent right to live safely in our communities.

Again, I want to say, and I’ve said this before, we’ve never had a Premier, we’ve never had a government in my lifetime that has prioritized public safety more than our government, led by Premier Ford. And thanks to the minister and the associate minister, we have prioritized having some of the safest roads in North America.

Our new legislation would improve safety and protect families and communities by targeting road users who engage in reckless behaviour, including impaired driving and stunt driving, as well as those convicted of auto theft. And that is absolutely a preoccupation of this government—eradicating auto theft. Nobody should be confronted with having their car stolen, and this government is doing something about it.

The Safer Roads and Communities Act, if passed, would also introduce measures to improve safety for e-bike users and enhance commercial vehicle enforcement.

Impairment still exists in our communities, and it’s totally unacceptable. A driver’s reflexes and decision-making abilities are slowed, making it difficult to react quickly to sudden changes or hazards on the road, such as pedestrians and other vehicles. This often leads to risky driving behaviour such as speeding, aggressive driving or failure to obey traffic signals.

When speaking to police services, we see that impaired drivers are more likely to be involved in high-speed or head-on collisions, which tend to result in more severe injuries or fatalities. The aftermath of such accidents involving impaired drivers has profound consequences on the families. And I have to tell you, too many of us in this chamber have heard stories of people who have been impacted by somebody who was drunk or impaired and should not have been behind that wheel.

That’s why this government is introducing legislation that, if passed, would implement the toughest sanctions in Canada for impaired driving.

We have to tackle auto theft. I’m proud to be part of a government, led by Premier Ford, that came forward with the provincial auto grant. This $51 million—monies that are flowing across Ontario today in municipal and First Nations and OPP police services are proof of how seriously we’re tackling it. The $51-million investment over three years has started to pay dividends.

Just yesterday, Peel police service, as an example, made an announcement of a tremendous auto theft bust. I want to give a shout-out to Chief Nishan Duraiappah and everyone at Peel police service who made a difference, found our cars and are sending a message to those people who are stealing them: We’re going to put you on notice, and we’re putting you out of business.

Impaired driving in 2022 alone caused 110 fatalities and over 1,000 injuries.

We live in a province that everyone needs to feel safe in, especially those people who come here to discover Ontario, to see what our province is all about. We have people coming into our province as guests, as tourists, and we want to make sure they know that they can feel safe here.

It’s also unfair to the front-line people who keep our communities safe every day—and I’m thinking of our police officers, our firefighters, our correctional probation and parole officers, the auxiliary and special constables, and the 911 call operators. There is a network in the Ministry of the Solicitor General that works hand in hand with the Ministry of Transportation to ensure that our roadways are kept safe by being vigilant.

As part of the bill that we’re talking about today, we want to make sure that convicted drivers who operate a vehicle without regard to being impaired are aware that there will be substantial consequences. I might add that they may also be charged further under the Criminal Code of Canada or the Highway Traffic Act for improper use of a vehicle, and that’s something that’s important.

This legislation will also tackle stunt driving. Stunt drivers, as the Minister of Transportation said, are problematic because of their reckless behaviour—and they do so speeding; they do so weaving through traffic and performing dangerous manoeuvres. These actions not only endanger the drivers themselves, but everybody else on the road. Stunt driving contributes to anxiety and reduces road safety. Street racing also creates a public nuisance, and the minister spoke about that. It often generates excessive noise, disrupting the peaceful enjoyment in our local community.

Madam Speaker, I’ll end where I started. This bill is another example of our government’s commitment to public safety, our government’s commitment to accept our inherent right to live safely in it, to drive on our roads safely, to ride our bikes safely, to be able to go to work safely and to come home at the end of the day, and to shop and to play in the park and to pray, and to do so safely. Road safety is just as important. It has been a privilege to work alongside my colleagues the Minister of Transportation and the Associate Minister of Transportation to make sure that the message across Ontario is uniform. We live in the most amazing province and jurisdiction anywhere in the world, but it should be safe for everyone.

Madam Speaker, it has been a privilege to speak on this bill today.

Over to the Associate Minister of Transportation.

Thanks to my colleague and friend the Minister of Transportation and the Solicitor General for this bill and for their overview of the Safer Roads and Communities Act and its potential to revolutionize road safety in this province.

Madam Speaker, our government is proud to take a stand against criminals threatening the safety of hard-working Ontarians.

The Safer Roads and Communities Act, if passed, will have some of the strongest penalties in Canada for impaired driving.

I would like to use my time today to draw attention to the serious issues of impaired driving. This is not just a lapse in judgment. Impaired driving is a choice—a terrible choice—that costs innocent lives, people’s lives, and causes irreparable damage to the families impacted by these tragedies. We have all heard heartbreaking stories about impaired driving leading to catastrophic results, and many of us have seen them first-hand or have been personally impacted by these stories. Our government has a responsibility to do everything within our power to protect road users so that they can get home safely each night. We take that responsibility seriously. Impaired driving is something that we will not stand for.

Between 2012 and 2022, the number of fatalities on our roadways increased by 7%. Much of this blame is given to impaired driving, a factor in one third of road fatalities in Ontario.

As my colleague the Minister of Transportation mentioned, the Ministry of Transportation conducted a roadside survey in 2022 that found one in five drivers tested positive for drugs, alcohol or both. This is simply unacceptable.

To create a safer environment for all road users, we must take bold, decisive action to deter unsafe and high-risk driving and to hold those who jeopardize the safety of others accountable.

When we introduced the Safer Roads and Communities Act, we were proud to have an endorsement from Steve Sullivan, the CEO of Mothers Against Drunk Driving Canada. Mr. Sullivan echoed our sentiment, that, frankly, too many people are still making the dangerous and life-threatening choice to drive impaired.

We also heard from Carolyn Swinson from MADD Toronto, whose son and father were both killed by impaired driving in separate collisions. These horrific tragedies have had life-altering impacts on Ms. Swinson and her family, and she’s not alone in this.

People who have first-hand experience with the devastating consequences of impaired driving have thrown their weight behind this bill. They have put their stories forth to underscore the importance of this legislation.

We need to ensure that sanctions for impaired driving hold drivers accountable, and we need to ensure that we come down hard on repeat offenders, plain and simple. That’s the only way to send a clear message.

With this bill, Safer Roads and Communities Act, we are using every tool in our tool box to prevent fatalities and other tragic outcomes on this province’s roadways. That’s why we are toughening sanctions for impaired driving across the board. If you kill someone while driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs, you will face consequences.

These criminals do not just magically understand the weight of their actions; we need to be tough on these individuals who choose to drive impaired and put lives at risk. We need to send a strong and clear message.

That’s why the Safer Roads and Communities Act would introduce a lifetime driving suspension for anyone convicted of impaired driving causing death under the Criminal Code. That is the harshest penalty at the Ministry of Transportation’s disposal, and it is what we need to do to deter impaired driving. Going to prison is not enough.

The Safer Roads and Communities Act—if this bill passes, you will forfeit your privilege to drive if you’re convicted of killing someone while you are impaired behind the wheel. If that sounds like we are being tough on crime, it’s because we are. It is only fair. Our government has no sympathy towards these criminals who choose to open their car doors, sit in the driver’s seat and put their foot on the gas. It is a choice, and that choice must have lasting consequences. That is especially true when they take the life of an innocent individual. In fact, every day, I think of the innocent Ontarians whose lives have been destroyed by impaired drivers. These tragedies are already unimaginable for most people, and we need to do everything we can so no one else has to experience them.

If you kill someone while you’re driving impaired, the criminal court will deal with you, but the Ministry of Transportation will also apply severe consequences to your driver’s licence. We’re going to use every option available to come down as hard as possible on individuals who selfishly make the choice to drive while impaired. If the Safer Roads and Communities Act passes, that’s exactly what we’ll be able to do.

Anyone who makes the terrible decision to drive impaired and doesn’t end up killing someone should count themselves lucky. They could have destroyed the hopes and dreams of an entire family, but they didn’t, and we’re going to make sure that they think twice before they ever take that risk again. They will not just get off scot-free and think, “That was a close call.” We are keeping our eyes open, ensuring convicted drivers install an ignition interlock device.

Currently, drivers convicted of impaired driving can bypass the ignition interlock requirement by choosing to sit it out and not drive during their ignition interlock term. But why should we give them that option when they could have killed someone with their recklessness? What kind of message does that send if we’re trying to deter people from driving impaired? What message does that send to families whose lives have been upended by impaired drivers?

We are sending a clear message by requiring anyone convicted of impaired driving to install an ignition interlock device for a prescribed period of time, varying based on occurrence. If you want to drive again, you will have to work hard at it. You will have to pay to install an ignition interlock device, and your car will not start if you’re about to make the same poor decisions again.

We don’t want anyone convicted of impaired driving to complete their ignition interlock requirement and then go back to their old ways. That’s why we’re also going to subject people convicted of impaired driving to a time-limited zero-tolerance condition once they’ve completed their ignition interlock period. The zero-tolerance condition would apply to the presence of both alcohol and drugs.

Our government is not going to let impaired drivers off the hook with a slap on the wrist. The people and families across Ontario deserve our best foot forward, so that is what we are doing. We’re coming down hard with these proposed measures in this bill. The longer suspensions for drug- and alcohol-related occurrences are another tool that we can use to keep roads among the safest in North America.

Currently, drivers receive an immediate three-day roadside licence suspension for the first drug- or alcohol-related occurrence. For the second occurrence, they receive a seven-day roadside licence suspension.

Those suspension lengths are simply inadequate if we want to take a tough stance against impaired driving in this province. That’s why, if this bill passes, first-time drug- and alcohol-related occurrences will get you a seven-day roadside licence suspension. Make the same choice a second time—you will face a 14-day roadside suspension. These suspensions are all in addition to monetary penalties, reinstatement fees, remedial education and treatment requirements, which escalate for every occurrence.

Make no mistake; if this bill, the Safer Roads and Communities Act, passes, there will be absolutely nowhere for impaired drivers to hide from the police. Some drivers may think they can pull off a highway onto a private property to avoid a Breathalyzer test when they are being followed by a police officer, Madam Speaker. However, I will say now and time again that this is simply untrue. If this bill passes, we are going to make it eminently clear and by enshrining it in law. The bill would amend the Highway Traffic Act to clarify that police do have the authority to stop a vehicle that pulls off a highway for the testing. So you may try to run, but, for sure, you cannot hide. If you have got drugs or alcohol in your system and you’re hoping to evade the police, if this bill passes, that is not happening anymore in this province. As my friend and colleague the Solicitor General stated, our government is proud to give the police the tools they need to be tough on crime, and that’s what the Safer Roads and Communities Act would do.

In addition to cracking down on impaired driving, the bill will ensure harsh penalties for stunt driving. In 2021, our government passed the Moving Ontarians More Safely Act, also known as the MOMS Act. The MOMS Act introduced one-year licence suspensions for those convicted of stunt driving. Two-time offenders are subject to a minimum three-year suspension, and subsequent offences are subject to a lifetime driving suspension. But these suspensions require a court order, which means drivers convicted of this serious crime that put lives at risk don’t always face a licence suspension. But this bill, this Safer Roads and Communities Act, if passed, would amend the Highway Traffic Act to ensure anyone convicted of stunt driving would face a minimum mandatory licence suspension. That’s one year for the first conviction, three years for the second and a lifetime suspension for the third conviction.

Stunt driving has the same potential to destroy families’ lives, as I mentioned impaired driving does, and these are serious crimes. Ensuring licence suspensions for anyone convicted of the crime will help make our roads safer.

Every action our government takes, whether it’s building new highways or building subways or improving access to transportation in the north or enhancing road safety, is done with one goal in mind: We want to make sure Ontario remains the best place to live, work and raise a family. That means rolling up our sleeves and getting our hands dirty to build the transportation infrastructure we need to support our rapidly growing population here in Ontario. It means jumping into action when we see any barriers to making Ontario the best it can be. And it means taking bold steps, decisive action to keep roads safe so Ontarians can get home to their families each and every day.

No one should have to live in fear when they get behind the wheel or take their family on a road trip, and no driver who knowingly puts the safety of others at risk should get away with slap on the wrist. That’s why this bill, the Safer Roads and Communities Act, if passed, would forge a path towards a safer and more prosperous Ontario.

We take our responsibility to protect road users with the utmost seriousness. By getting tough on impaired driving, we’ll send a clear message to anyone who even thinks about getting behind the wheel with alcohol or drugs in their system. By cracking down on stunt driving, we’ll protect people across the entire province.

This bill also includes measures to combat auto theft and bolster commercial vehicle enforcement, which my colleague and friend the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Transportation will discuss now, Madam Speaker.

It is an honour to rise today on behalf of the people of Hastings–Lennox and Addington and to join the excellent Minister of Transportation and Associate Minister of Transportation as well as the Solicitor General and add to their words on the Safer Roads and Communities Act.

Speaker, this legislation has the power to transform road safety by taking criminals off our roadways. This bill, if passed, would not only help to maintain Ontario’s position, already amongst the safest jurisdictions in North America, but it could also raise Ontario’s position—and it demonstrates how our government is working every day to protect the hard-working people across Ontario.

Motor vehicle theft has become an epidemic in Ontario. This isn’t just about cars being stolen from driveways; it’s about violent criminals that are terrorizing our roadways, making everyone feel less safe behind the wheel.

Since 2021, Toronto has experienced a 78% increase in violent carjackings. Can you imagine arriving at home from work only to have a gun pointed at your head to give up your keys? No one deserves a traumatic experience like that.

In Ontario right now, a car is stolen every 14 minutes. This hits home in the big cities and the smaller communities. Just next door to my riding, according to the city of Kingston police’s 2022 annual report, there were 178 incidents of auto theft in 2021 and 284 in 2022, more than a 60% increase. Earlier this month, over $3 million worth of stolen vehicles were found in the small town of Stirling, right in my own riding of Hastings–Lennox and Addington.

These numbers are simply unacceptable—and our government will not just sit by while car thieves run wild in our province. We’re focused on finding innovative ways of deterring automotive theft and using every tool that we can get our hands on to get thieves off of our roads.

If passed, the Safer Roads and Communities Act would do just that by introducing licence suspensions for those convicted of motor vehicle theft under the Criminal Code. If the court finds that there’s an aggravating factor—such as violence, use of a weapon, threat or pursuit for financial gain—that was involved in committing the offence, then we don’t think car thieves should be allowed to drive. My friends and my neighbours deserve better than that. Your communities deserve better than that. Families across all of Ontario deserve better than that. We will not let convicted car thieves continue to terrorize our roadways.

To deter potential car thieves, we need to come down hard on people convicted of these cowardly crimes in order to keep our roads safe. Escalating licence suspensions will serve as a strong deterrent. A 10-year suspension for the first offence, a 15-year suspension for the second offence and a lifetime suspension for subsequent convictions show that we mean business. This is exactly the type of innovative policy we need to address this crisis of auto theft here in Ontario.

That’s why the Safer Roads and Communities Act has such widespread support from so many stakeholders across the province, and I do hope the members opposite will join us in that support. The Insurance Bureau of Canada, auto retailers, vehicle manufacturers and big city mayors have all voiced their support for this bill. Just like myself, the minister and the associate minister, they see this bill’s potential to make Ontario that much safer—and they appreciate what our government is doing to protect families across this province.

No one in the province deserves to live in fear. That’s why we’re putting our foot down to say enough is enough. We’re showing the people of this great province that its government has your back and will continue to have your back.

Auto theft is a crime we’ve all had enough of, so we’re taking swift and decisive action to keep dangerous car thieves off our roads. But, Speaker, there’s actually more. The Safer Roads and Communities Act aims to improve commercial vehicle safety and enforcement, as well. One of the best ways we can do that is by enhancing MTO enforcement officers’ ability to carry out the commercial vehicle and enforcement program.

If the Safer Roads and Communities Act passes, it will amend the Highway Traffic Act to allow MTO officers to exceed posted speed limits for the purposes of enforcement. Drivers would be required to pull over to the side of the road when MTO enforcement vehicles have their lights and signals flashing, like other emergency vehicles. These measures would build on the progress we’ve made at improving commercial vehicle safety, particularly in northern Ontario, Speaker.

As the Minister of Transportation mentioned earlier, our increased enforcement presence on northern Ontario highways last year was met with great results. Our new commercial vehicle inspection station at Shuniah marks another milestone in our ongoing mission to make our roads as safe as possible. Every time we take an unsafe commercial vehicle off the road, we’re preventing a potential tragedy. We’re preventing lives being changed forever, lives ended too early.

Our government will continue to do everything within our power to keep our roads and highways safe. That means giving enforcement officers the authority they need to carry out their duties effectively.

The Safer Roads and Communities Act would, if passed, take an important step towards improving e-bike safety, as well. The bill would create the regulation-making authority in the Highway Traffic Act to categorize e-bikes into distinct classes with their own operator and vehicle safety requirements such as speed and weight.

Ontario has long been at the forefront of e-bike innovation, with our cargo e-bike program demonstrating our willingness to embrace these new ideas and this modern technology. The Safer Roads and Communities Act represents the next step in that journey, a journey to improve safety for those who ride e-bikes and the other road users around the province.

Speaker, I’d like to emphasize the tremendous potential this bill has to make our roads safer than ever before. The bill shows the people of Ontario that our government is not just talking about coming down hard on impaired driving; we are serious about it. We’re here to make this happen.

There’s absolutely no excuse for getting behind the wheel when you’re under the influence of drugs or alcohol. And if you make that terrible decision, you will pay a steep price—a price you deserve to pay. From longer roadside licence suspensions to mandatory ignition interlock requirements and a lifetime suspension for impaired driving causing death, our message is loud and clear: If you are convicted of impaired driving, there will be real and severe consequences for your actions.

We’re also coming down hard on stunt drivers. Stunt driving has the same potential to kill innocent law-abiding Ontarians as does impaired driving. Speaker, it is not a victimless crime. It’s putting the lives of Ontarians at risk. It’s why we’re taking action to ensure that stunt drivers face mandatory drivers licence suspensions following a conviction.

It’s truly difficult to think of a more selfish act than stunt driving. I personally can’t fathom the mindset of someone who has absolutely no regard for the safety of others. My father always taught me that driving is a privilege, not a right. So the people practising stunt-driving—if you don’t mind the pun, it really grinds my gears. And I would like to reiterate that with this bill we are steering in the right direction. If stunt drivers don’t realize just how dangerous their actions are, we are going to make them realize it. Mandatory minimum licence suspensions will make everyone think twice before putting innocent lives at risk.

Speaker, we are very proud of our road safety track record, but it doesn’t get there from just sitting by and watching it happen. Top road safety comes from concrete action and determination. That is exactly what our government is doing. Consistently ranking amongst the safest jurisdictions in North America, it is a testament to the policies and programs that we have in place to protect Ontarians.

But even one fatality, one injury, is too many. We need to use every tool in our tool box to continue to make our roads safer, and the Safer Roads and Communities Act will allow us to do just that.

To the members: We have an incredible opportunity here to protect Ontarians across this province, to improve safety outcomes for all road users. Speaker, I reiterate, driving is a privilege, and it comes with a great responsibility. It is not a right. Those who disrespect the rules of the road, if this bill is passed, will simply lose the privilege of driving. I hope this House takes that step.

Further debate?

I’d love to address my question to the Minister of Transportation.

This is a penalty-heavy piece of legislation that the government has brought in. But most motorists who kill or seriously injury someone are not necessarily impaired. They may not face criminal charges and usually can plea down to lesser charges carrying little more than a fine of a few hundred dollars.

I have a bill that is stuck in committee, Bill 15. We’ve also proposed Bill 40.

I’d like to know what this government, focused on the penalty side—shouldn’t drivers also face increased consequences, as the NDP has proposed with Bill 15 and Bill 40?

Our person who was going to do the question had to step out, so she left me, just in case—it talks about how Bill 197 proposes to get tough on car thieves by threatening them with longer suspensions if convicted. But would it not be more effective to identify vehicle identification numbers to prevent stolen cars from being registered with fake VINs? We’ve heard from the member from Oshawa several times on this, so it’s not a new question to you. We know that transferring VIN numbers, erasing VIN numbers, creating new VIN numbers has become a new way that is quite easily done. Would it not be easier to take care of these VIN numbers in the registration instead of this legislation today?

We’ll now move to questions for the members.

Good afternoon. Thanks to my colleague for a great presentation. Part of this legislation includes trucking—the trucking industry. We understand on this side of the House how critical commercial vehicles and large trucks are in keeping our economy moving and keeping them safe as well. Can the member explain how this proposed legislation improves commercial vehicle safety?

As the critic for infrastructure, transportation and highways, it was my privilege, not quite a joy, to sit at committee for Bill 282, the MOMS Act. We sat through clause-by-clause—which I’ll share in my speech—dealing with e-bike regulations. The government got it wrong, now is repealing those, and now is back in consultation. I have questions, because the definition of “power-assisted bicycle” has been removed now from the HTA with this bill. It will mean e-bikes will now fall under the definition of “motor-assisted bicycle,” with vehicles like mopeds that require class M licences, plates and insurance.

I guess my question, because it has been such a mess for so long—can the government provide more details about its plans for new e-bike regulations? Do you agree that e-bikes provide a safe, non-emitting alternative to gas-powered cars; that their use should be encouraged, without imposing needless red tape? Tell us more about these regulations, please.

I’m glad to be able to speak about Bill 197, which is the Safer Roads and Communities Act, 2024. This bill makes various amendments to the Highway Traffic Act relating to impaired driving, high-risk driving behaviours, car theft and a few other important areas.

There has been much talk about this bill because there have been a lot of announcements, and the government certainly has done a few press conferences to get people interested in the topic of car theft and impaired driving and stiffer penalties. All of that is important, but there are a few other things that we want to raise today in this House about ways to go that extra mile—pun intended—with the roads, but also to listen to the folks who have been weighing in on these issues when it comes to road safety for a very long time.

The rise in auto thefts has been a nightmare for communities across the province, especially in the GTA. We need to see real solutions to prevent auto theft, like cracking down on re-VINing stolen cars, and working with manufacturers on tracking technology and various other options.

Policies like this put in front of us are important, but will they deter car thefts? I guess it remains to be seen, and we’ll talk more about that.

This government is, on the one hand, claiming to be very tough on crime, with the toughest penalties against impaired driving, and yet we’re downgrading driving-while-impaired charges in court.

Ontarians need a government that can deliver the promises they make—not just providing lip service.

I will say, as someone who went through this process with a very similar bill—it feels a lot familiar, actually. It’s reminiscent of Bill 282, the MOMS Act, the Moving Ontarians More Safely Act. We spent a lot of our time talking about stunt driving, we spent a lot of our time talking about dangerous driving behaviours and the need to crack down on that, and we talked a lot about e-bikes. We’re having the same conversation that we had before, with a few more pieces thrown in. The problem, as someone who still remembers the MOMS Act and recognizes that, at committee, there were a number of thoughtful amendments to fix the problems that the government had put into that legislation—and the government at the time basically told us we were wrong. However, those changes to the e-bike classification stuff and all of that never got proclaimed. There was another consultation launched at the same time as committee, and now that whole section is being repealed in this act. So we’re starting the same chapter again, but with a new consultation. It turns out there were problems back then. But don’t worry; I have an hour, and I’m going to lay them out for you.

What I will say is that this government speeds through the process and creates awkward legislation, which is what we saw with Bill 282 and the e-bike section of the MOMS Act.

Here we have another bill where they are trying to figure out how to write effective government legislation, and I’ll talk more about that, because the process on the e-bike consultation or how we’re going to classify them is yet to be determined. Again, we’re here with statute, but we’ll figure that part out later.

Much of this bill deals with penalty and punishment after a crime, which is very on-brand for the Conservatives—that they’re going to rain down when someone makes a bad choice or when someone breaks the law. Fine. But nowhere in this bill is there anything preventive to keep road users and drivers safe, like the NDP has put forward with Bill 15 and Bill 40. The threat of losing a licence may or may not deter car thieves. I’m going to hope that I’m wrong when I say that I don’t know that it’s going to be an effective deterrent.

I think, though, that frustrating organized crime by protecting the VIN registry might be a practical solution to implement. As the minister said, it is not okay to steal cars, but I will say that in the province of Ontario it is easy, and that’s a problem.

At the front end of this, we should be looking at preventive solutions, not only the flashy, stomp-and-declare-after-the-fact, crime-and-punishment piece.

Speaker, I’ve got lots of thoughts. I’m going to come back to the bill specifically and break it down.

Section 1 of the explanatory note in the bill says, “A new section provides for the indefinite suspension of a person’s driver’s licence if the person is convicted under the Criminal Code … of operating a vehicle while impaired and causing the death of another person.”

Steve Sullivan, the CEO of Mothers Against Drunk Driving Canada, said in the release that he is pleased by the proposed new measures. He said, “Despite progress, too many people are still making the choice to drive impaired, and we need to ensure sanctions hold drivers accountable while focusing on reducing recidivism.”

Let’s talk about ways to reduce recidivism, which is what Mr. Sullivan said is needed when we’re fighting the fight against impaired driving.

I would say what would support recidivism, not reduce it, would be to make alcohol far more accessible. I don’t think it’s going to make recidivism—people aren’t going to find it easier to stay away from alcohol when it’s in 8,500 convenience stores or whatever the number is, everywhere. These convenience store booze nooks are going to be in front of drivers all the time.

On the one hand, the government says, “Nobody should ever drive impaired.” They have said that the opposition has chosen to stay silent. That is malarkey—and I can withdraw it if I need to, but that is malarkey. The opposition has never stayed silent on anything—especially me. We are going to say that we’re adding a challenge to those individuals who are trying to make good choices, by putting beer and booze in front of them at every turn.

“Beer, beer, beer, beer, beer, beer, beer” needs to be the bumper sticker for this Premier, because the beer Premier, his plan—

Next question?

We’re going to continue to further debate.

I want to thank my colleague for his comments this morning—along with the minister, the associate minister, and the Solicitor General.

Earlier this year, I had the pleasure of attending the automotive theft summit in Ottawa, and we learned a great deal. What we learned is that of the 80% of the stolen cars that are going overseas, that’s through organized crime; and that the money and the returns on that are fuelling other aspects of organized crime in our communities; and that it is also siloed in terms of a chain right from the theft of the automotive to getting it down to the port in Montreal and shipped out of there.

So my question to the member is about how these increased penalties are going to help to stop that food chain. We’re seeing not only vehicles being driven to Montreal, but if they are getting pursued, they go over 160 kilometres an hour. The police stop the pursuit. So there’s stunt driving involved, but there are also accidents with fatalities involved. How is this going to increase the safety of Ontarians?

To the member: It has been very interesting to listen to you and our colleagues who were speaking to this bill this afternoon.

We know that almost a third of the fatal accidents that we see on Ontario roads involve a driver impaired with alcohol or substance abuse. In light of the fact that we have now legalized cannabis, I think a lot of young people, or people of all ages, are not necessarily acknowledging the fact that they can drive impaired if they are using cannabis.

Can you speak to the importance of this bill in tackling impaired driving—alcohol-related and drug-related—on our highways?

The opening part of the member’s question referenced that not everyone who dies on our roads dies because of impaired driving. But over a third of all fatalities on our roads are the result of impaired driving due to alcohol or due to drugs. That is a decision being made by some drivers in this province that needs to be addressed. This legislation will continue to address that and make more severe penalties for people who make the wrong decision. I’m always reminded of the statement that driving is a privilege. And if you blow it, you lose that privilege.

This bill is about the safety of individuals who are making the good choices, but it’s even about the individuals who are making the bad choices. People who have made bad choices will lose the privilege of driving in this province for extended periods. If they continue to act in this way, they will lose that privilege for a lifetime. Keeping those people off the roads will not only keep the other drivers and the other road users safer, but it will actually, in many cases, save their own lives. It is sometimes the criminals themselves who face the stiffest penalty of their own stupidity, that being the injury or death in that accident. So we want to ensure that everyone is safe by making sure that, as much as possible, these criminals are off the road.

More specifically, on e-bikes, we know that this is an industry, this is a transportation tool that is growing in use and continues to evolve. It has evolved very quickly over the last little while, which is why it is most appropriate that the minister work with his people, work with his staff, work with all of the stakeholders to take the time and get the regulations right so that we have the categories of the various bikes and ensure that we then apply the appropriate safety measures both to the vehicle and to the drivers. I’m sure that the minister will take that task very, very seriously.

One of the benchmarks, one of the milestones in most people’s lives is the moment when they get their driver’s licence. It is something to seek to achieve in most teen lives. Unfortunately, when people are teenagers they don’t always make great decisions.

With this legislation in place, we will be making a very, very clear statement to those teens, to those young people who are relatively new drivers, that they cannot—

Wow. You said “beer” 12 times in your speech.

Stop, all of you. It’s my turn.

The Premier is spending a lot of money—

Interjections.

This Premier is spending a lot of money and prioritizing spending a lot of money, whether it’s $225 million, whether it’s half a billion, whether it’s a billion—there are lots of numbers out there—to break a contract to get beer and booze in the convenience stores faster so that people can grab a roadie, which is the Premier’s plan, I guess, for re-election. I don’t know. That’s not something I would vote for, however.

We’re supposed to believe that impaired driving is a concern for the beer Premier. His priority is selling—what do kids call them these days? Is it a “traveller,” a “roadie,” “one for the road”—at the convenience store in cute packaging. But this government is going to rain down if you get caught.

Speaker, another part under this act—currently, under the act, a driver’s licence may be administratively suspended for increasing periods of time if the driver is found to be driving while having a specified level of alcohol or drugs in their body. The bill increases the periods of time from three days to seven days for a first suspension, and from seven days to 14 for a second suspension. So stronger, stiffer penalties—there’s no argument here.

But in the MOMS Act, didn’t we try to deter criminals with penalties? I don’t know if it has been successful. We were talking a lot in this House about stunt driving and how stiff the penalties were going to be if they got caught. So my question is, what has that looked like? I don’t know the answer, which is why I’m asking. Has that been a roaring success? Did you catch them all? Have they all stopped? Why are we here talking about stunt driving again if it was effective? Let’s do this, but what else could we be doing?

I will say, though, that it’s one thing to say we’re going to crack down, but during COVID, the government lowered the charges for impaired to help with the backlog—we’re still seeing lesser penalties for impaired. So what is the message here?

The police chiefs in discussion with the government over impaired driving downgrades—this bill proposes to get tough on impaired drivers, but when the government has a policy allowing impaired drivers to plead down to non-criminal offences under the Highway Traffic Act, avoiding criminal convictions, what message is that sending?

While the bill proposes to get tough on impaired drivers, many impaired drivers can avoid those criminal convictions thanks to this government’s policy that allows drivers to plead guilty to lesser, non-criminal charges. This policy was put in place during COVID, during a pandemic, in an effort to relieve court backlogs. The policy remains in place, as does the court backlog, resulting in even more serious criminal cases being tossed out due to unconstitutional delays, including sexual assault cases, which we have been talking a lot about in this House—not enough, but some.

The bill hopes to deter car thieves by threatening longer licence suspensions but does not address the Ford government’s failure to verify VIN identification numbers—I’ll come back to that—and it is unclear that the risk of a suspended driver’s licence would be much more of a deterrent for a prospective car thief as compared to the existing penalties under the Criminal Code. If a car thief is not deterred by the prospect of spending 10 years in prison, are they going to be deterred by the prospect of spending 10 years taking the bus? I don’t know.

There are new sections in this bill that provide for the suspension of a person’s driver’s licence if the person is convicted of motor vehicle theft under the Criminal Code and the circumstances of the theft include certain factors such as violence, weapons or the pursuit of financial or material gain. The suspension is for 10 years upon a first conviction, 15 years upon a second conviction, and there is an indefinite suspension for a third subsequent conviction.

Okay. Again, and it’s sort of the obvious question, if people aren’t deterred by a 10-year prison sentence or jail sentence, are they going to be deterred by the prospect of 10 years of public transportation, or having somebody drive them and dropping them off at the car theft location?

I have to be careful because I don’t want to mock this because I do want people to get in trouble for doing terrible things. People are living in fear of having their cars stolen. As the government has talked about—is it every 14 minutes that someone in Ontario is having their car stolen? That’s the number I’m repeating, I think, from the minister. That is not okay, but we do have to be creative in approaching this, in solving it. Because, after the fact, once you’ve had your car stolen, are there other things we could do to deter it so that you don’t get your car stolen?

The penalty is important. Again, the prevention also needs to be important, and we don’t see that. Car theft is huge. It’s also driving up insurance rates, so there’s the fear—no one needs the fear. I mean, be fearful if we’re at risk. But we’re also having people not be able to be insured when they accidentally buy a stolen vehicle because it’s been re-VINned. There are all sorts of things going on. We’re creating market conditions here in the province—or we’re allowing a very lucrative scenario for would-be car thieves to become car thieves.

Telling them that if they get caught, they’re going to lose their driver’s licence for 10 years, maybe somebody who’s a rookie—look, I don’t know anything about organized crime, but I imagine that a low-level person who wants to make a name for themselves, if they lose their licence, they’re going to get a driver, aren’t they? So if you lose your licence, someone is just going to drop you off. Then, you don’t have an extra car to deal with? I don’t know. So the logistics beg a few questions.

Interjection: Use an e-bike.

The beer Premier.