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 thank the member opposite for the question. I do recognize that the VIN number challenge is out there. But we need to understand that 80% of the vehicles that are stolen in this province are shipped overseas. We continue to fund our police. We’ve added more funding. I believe it’s $18 million—I don’t have the note in front of me—added to our police services to ensure that our police have the tools to track, find and prevent car theft in this province. We must do our part as well.

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.

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.

I’m not convinced that they could use an e-bike because after the last—so I’m being heckled by my own about e-bikes.

I will say, though, that if the folks lose their drivers’ licences and have to turn to e-bikes, I’m telling you right now that the MOMS Act made basically all popular e-bike models illegal. So that’s maybe not any better.

Speaker, I’d like to share from this opinion piece in TVO: “Auto Theft Is a Serious Problem. But”—I’m not supposed to say people’s names—the Premier’s “Approach Won’t Solve It.”

“The Ontario government is proposing to suspend the drivers’ licences of convicted auto thieves in a bid to look like it’s taking crime seriously.… A first offence will earn offenders a 10-year licence suspension. A second offence escalates to 15 years. A third offence will result in a lifetime driving ban. The suspensions will apply when the thefts are accompanied by aggravating factors such as violence or stealing for organized crime.

“Politicians love to get ‘tough on crime.’ It’s cheap and easy policy. Never mind that it rarely works and, indeed, often makes things worse … it’s very much in keeping with” the Premier’s “approach to governance—lots of showmanship, lots of faux-populism and few results.”

He goes on to say, “Ontario is also planning to suspend the licences of stunt drivers … Stephen Hebscher, a lawyer with the Criminal Law Team in North York, suggested the penalties may violate the constitution by creeping into criminal-law territory.… Hebscher, like many others, also notes that the penalties may not work—that is, they won’t reduce thefts.…

“The government would like to remind us of that as it repeats the line that a vehicle is stolen every 14 minutes or so in Ontario. That is a problem, as are the violence and organized crime inextricably linked to growing theft.…

“As we often see with” this “government, it’s not quite clear what its plan is here beyond trying to look like it’s tough on crime and treading on federal territory to do so.”

It goes on; it’s the same thing: “Governments … ought to be more concerned with results than adopting show policies that won’t do anybody any good.”

For the folks at home who want to read that one, it’s: “Auto Theft Is a Serious Problem. But Doug Ford’s Approach Won’t Solve It.” That’s David Moscrop in TVO.

Speaker, another one, Toronto Star: “Car Thieves Could Lose Driver’s Licence for Life … Government Says.”

“Adam Weisberg, managing partner at Weisberg Law Criminal Lawyers LLP, called the proposed law ‘misguided’ and ‘completely ineffective.’

“‘The perpetrators of these crimes are already not deterred by the prison sentences they face.… There is little that the provincial government can do to combat auto theft, other than direct police resources at investigations into these auto-theft rings,’ he said, adding, ‘It’s just a frustrated attempt from our province to signal that frustration to the public.’”

Not flattering stuff, but the government can’t be surprised to hear it. People are desperate to have this be effective, to have legislation be effective, to be able to sleep at night knowing that they are protected.

Here’s a piece, “‘Slap on the Wrist’: Critics Call on … Government to Scrap Impaired Driving Rule.” This one is interesting, though. This moves into—actually, hold on. I’ve got way too many different pieces here, and I don’t want to lose any. I’m going to hold on to that one. Can you give that back when I need it?

One of the things I’d like to talk about, as I have said, there’s a need for preventative measures, right? An ounce of prevention is worth getting to keep your car, to coin a phrase. This is not the only solution, but it is one that I tripped over and I want to give voice to this issue again here today: Having a VIN solution would help.

The government doesn’t have any solution suggestions in this piece of legislation. I’m going to assume for a moment that the various ministries involved in ServiceOntario counters and VIN registry—I’m hoping that they’re talking because when I have asked questions in this Legislature about protecting the VIN registry, it has been answered by just about every minister over there. I actually had the minister responsible for ServiceOntario, so the Minister of Public and Business Service Delivery, who wasn’t allowed to comment, didn’t answer either of those questions. I saw him at a community event and he said, “Oh, I want to talk to you about that. I know the answer to that one.” I was like, “Cool,” but we didn’t have time to talk. So I am willing to concede that the government knows this issue and hopefully is talking about it, and I really hope they’re going to do something about it—again, a missed opportunity in this piece of legislation.

But my question has been, in recognition that car thefts are on the rise, why aren’t we doing everything we can to prevent theft? OPP Commissioner Thomas Carrique told a House of Commons committee that inspections of vehicles with problematic VINs should be mandatory, but Ontario doesn’t do it. In Ontario, someone can steal a car, register it and no one checks. That’s not just a loophole; that is a drive-through lane for car thieves, and people are understandably worried about having their vehicles stolen. It is so common, Speaker. For those Jeopardy fans out there, we didn’t feel very good as a province when we were a punchline on Jeopardy about, like, how prevalent car theft is.

The stolen vehicles in shipping containers—we see that on the news, right? There’s the federal component that has to happen. I get it. But 10% of stolen vehicles are staying right here in Ontario. They’re being re-VINned, being resold and re-registered at ServiceOntario like any other vehicle. It’s been reported that there is no VIN verification in Ontario. There’s no system for flagging suspicious registrations for inspection, and the integrity of the VIN database is not being protected. It’s currently being flooded with false records and stolen vehicles.

I asked those questions of the government and I got all sorts of nonsense back, but I hope that that was just kind of show and not a lack of understanding, because this is an easy—I won’t say it’s an easy fix, but it is a fix. It is a piece that needs to be tackled.

I asked again about protecting the VIN registry, and this time the Minister of Public and Business Service Delivery—I asked that ministry. Car thieves are actually gaming the system. They’re able to get new VINs for stolen vehicles at our ServiceOntario counters. This government has reportedly been getting advice from current and former law enforcement and insurance experts about how to prevent re-VINning. As I said, it’s more than a loophole; this is a highly lucrative scam that this government knows about, but isn’t fixing.

Speaker, I want to say, though, that three years ago, in June, the government posted a summary of proposals seeking feedback on how to improve the assigned VIN program. The stated objective was “to reduce fraud and help recover stolen vehicles by preventing bad actors from fraudulently applying for an assigned VIN.”

I asked this government then and I’ll ask them again: What did you learn and what are you doing with it? Why aren’t you protecting the VIN registry and its integrity? Because, again—so I’ve never been in organized crime and I’ve never stolen a car; I’ve never even wanted to steal a car. But if I wanted to, I’d move to Ontario, where we don’t look after our VIN database. Come on.

This government, for at least four years, according to reports, has been hearing from former and current law enforcement and insurance folks.

Yes.

The member’s riding.

The people that they’re supposed to listen to the most, and the people who know what’s going on and are measuring it and are tracking it. So, work with them, please.

Even in your own summary proposal—and this is from Ontario’s Regulatory Registry 21-MTO039. The posting was dated June 24, 2021. Comments were due August 8, 2021. I guess I have questions after reading the summary proposal, because this was based on the meetings that the previous Minister of Transportation—meetings that she was having with the former law enforcement folks who know what they’re talking about.

So, the ministry at that time, that version of the ministry, with those folks, were curious and wanted information—not this current ministry; not this version of it; a totally different group, by the way. I’ll get to that later.

If the government members are thinking, “Is what she’s talking about real? Do we actually have a problem with our VIN registry? Hmm, I wonder where she heard that,” let me tell you. Here’s an article that folks can follow along with—CBC. It was posted April 24 of this year—called “Just Bought a Used Car? There’s a Chance It’s Stolen, as Thieves Exploit Weakness in Vehicle Registrations.” Derek Crocker is the focus of this article, who bought a truck.

I’ll pull some pieces from this story. It’s an interesting one. “Derek Crocker bought a used Ford F-150 pickup truck from a dealership in Toronto in 2022.” Then he went on the app. He tried to enter “what should have been the truck’s unique VIN in Ford’s app,” which would remotely start the vehicle. It “never worked” and, in fact, that app told him that his truck was “located in the United States and indicated a different amount of fuel than his own vehicle tank was holding.” Curious. Curiouser and curiouser, Speaker.

“But it wasn’t until his F-150 was in an accident and required body work that the problem with the VIN was revealed. The repair shop ordered parts based on the VIN it saw on the dash. But the parts did not match.

“‘So I Googled the VIN number that was on my truck, and I found a truck for sale in Utah,’ said Crocker.

“It turns out that was the true VIN, which thieves had cloned, placing fake VIN stickers with the Utah truck’s VIN on top of the true number for the truck Crocker bought.”

Crocker bought a new-to-him truck from a dealership in Toronto. He bought a stolen vehicle with what looked like a good VIN on a truck at a dealership.

“Crocker’s own insurance would not cover his loss because he’d—albeit unknowingly—purchased a stolen vehicle. After a long discussion with the dealership that sold him the stolen truck, his money was returned.”

So, Speaker, how could two cars with the same VIN be registered? “Provincial centres that administer vehicle registration, such as ServiceOntario, do not have a system that checks if VINs already exist in other jurisdictions.” Basically, it’s that simple. We don’t check.

Interjections.

Okay, Speaker, I will continue. This is the crux of what I’m talking about. This article was the first one by CBC. Andrew Lupton wrote this piece. He had reached out for comment from the official opposition, from me, and it just started this unpack of quite a story. It’s called, “Other Provinces Inspect Vehicles with Problematic VINs, Why Not Ontario?

“Former OPP officer says lack of inspections makes it easy to sell stolen vehicles in Ontario.

“After a 32-year career as a theft investigator with the Ontario Provincial Police, John Tod started working for a business that helps provincial governments sniff out phony vehicle registrations as a way to curb vehicle theft….

“The 17-digit VIN is a vehicle serial number, intended to help governments, police and insurers link a vehicle to its owner to prevent all manner of auto theft and fraud.

“In Alberta and Saskatchewan, in cases where a clerk in the vehicle registration office or insurance company finds an issue with the VIN of a vehicle being registered, the vehicle is flagged for inspection….

“However, those inspections do not happen in Ontario, which makes it easy for thieves to sell stolen vehicles in Canada’s largest province with little fear someone will ever check on the vehicle’s history, Tod said … he said the lack of an inspection program in Ontario is actually making the province a destination for thieves to register vehicles stolen in other jurisdictions.

“‘I’ve been warning the Ontario government about this for four years,’ he said.”

This is a former OPP officer. You guys have one of those. He and I have talked in the halls. I wish more of you would really focus on this, because this is a fix that the ministry could put into legislation.

By the way, the former minister—and I’m going to say this once: I had many times called for the resignation of the former Minister of Transportation, and I meant it when I did it. But I kind of miss her, because she would answer emails.

Also, this individual, this former officer, Tod, had the government’s ear at the time, the ministry, and that’s where the summary proposal, the call-outs for people’s input, came from—those discussions about what Alberta and Saskatchewan were doing and what did people think about doing it here.

So I will ask you again, because your government did this consultation, what did you learn? Is it not okay? Are we not going to do it? And why? Look, I’m a lefty New Democrat; I’m all for strengthening the public sector. I think that we could do inspections in-house. I’m not looking to farm that out. But we don’t even check. If someone at ServiceOntario thinks, “Ooh, I don’t think this is a real VIN,” what happens then? Does the clerk say, “Oh, well. Here you go”? Because there is no flag system, to my knowledge. Someone can correct me if I am wrong, but I keep asking in this formal space and everybody stares at me blankly.

So, maybe if the ministry staff are watching—I keep sending letters and emails. I’ve walked across to the minister to ask this a number of times, various issues, and I cannot get the courtesy of a response. So I don’t know what’s going on with the ministry these days. I kind of miss having access to ministry staff under the last minister, and I will admit it.

Okay, moving on—yes, I just totally derailed myself in there.

Anyway, coming back to this article, this former OPP officer said, “We’re now talking about 10,000 to 20,000 vehicles a year being entered onto the Ontario registry that in other jurisdictions would require a mandatory inspection. That undermines the integrity of the registry. We know for a fact that there are vehicles being re-VINed that are stolen.”

Police are starting to raise the issue, particularly in response to the growing auto theft problem.

“OPP Commissioner Thomas Carrique, speaking in his role as head of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, told a House of Commons committee ... that mandatory inspections of vehicles with problematic VINs should be mandatory. He also called for a national system of vehicle registrations. Right now, each province manages its own system.”

Arguably, Ontario manages its own. Well, it manages its own, but there are problems. And if I’m wrong and I don’t understand the system, you guys should be able to stand up and defend it.

“CBC News reached out to Ontario’s transportation ministry for comment about the issue … but did not receive a reply.” So it’s not just me; it’s the CBC too.

Speaker, we want to know that the vehicles out on the road are safe. We want to know that they’re not stolen. The concerns that have been raised by police, former police, insurance, me—these are concerning. The concerns raised about the VIN database are concerning. And if the government isn’t sure what their system is, we have a problem. Fix it.

Speaker, I want to talk a bit about stunt driving penalties.

“Amendments are made to the penalties imposed for driving in a race or contest, on a bet or wager or while performing a stunt. The court is given discretion to extend the period for which a person’s driver’s licence shall be suspended.” That’s in this piece of legislation.

As we learned during the MOMS Act process, people are stunt driving right now—maybe not right this second; probably later tonight, when it gets a bit darker. People are stunt driving without insurance, and often they’re driving someone else’s vehicle. So what makes us think that they’re going to worry about driving with a valid licence? That was what we were hearing from road safety experts, from the law enforcement folks who came to committee who weighed in on this. Those were their concerns. So the idea of prevention has to enter into this; not only the law-and-order penalty side. I think you can’t have one without the other. We do have to work to make it not so easy to steal a car. As I said, the minister was very clear that it’s not okay to steal cars, but I will add, it is easy.

Speaker, I had a meeting not that long ago with our local police services board. One of the issues raised—and there are many. Of course, we all know that when we meet with our local police, there are a number of priorities. Regarding Highway Traffic Act offences—I’d like to know, where is the investment in the justice system?

In Durham region, of which Oshawa is a proud part, only two out of the four courtrooms are open on a good day at the regional headquarters in Durham. We can’t handle the cases that we have.

I want to know why the government—and obviously, it’s not in this bill; this is a transportation bill. But broadly, why isn’t the government investing in our justice system? There’s a lot of interest in King’s Counsel or ensuring judges have gotten the partisan nod. But there isn’t enough money to staff our courtrooms, and that is absurd.

I’ll tell you, one of the things raised at the police services board meeting—they talked about how many cases had been tossed, the POA mass withdrawal, and I thought, what are they talking about?

We’ve been talking in this room about, I’ll say, high-profile, very big cases that have not had their day in court because of the backlog; sexual assault cases that didn’t get to go to court; terrible things like that. That’s not partisan. That’s upsetting to everyone.

And not to make light of it, but most people who get a speeding ticket are going to be happy when that is thrown out, when they don’t get their day in court for their speeding ticket.

With that in mind, I’m going to read from an email that had been sent to DRPS legal earlier in the year. This was shared with me so that I could have the clear numbers.

March 2024: “Prosecution services has scheduled approximately 11,000 part 1 and part 2 certificates to be marked withdrawn. This is a combination of charges laid by all our enforcement agencies in years 2021-2023”—so from 2021 to 2023, 11,000 part 1 and part 2 certificates to be marked withdrawn.

“The region of Durham POA Court cannot accommodate these matters within the time frame as set out in the” Supreme Court of Canada “decision of R v. Jordan.

“Despite a concentrated effort to prioritize the most serious cases involving high public interest, our region is facing an unprecedented backlog that cannot be solved without provincial intervention.

“Durham region is a four-courtroom POA model location. Since 2021, it has been reduced to one to two courtrooms. This is less than half of the customary judicial resources in a jurisdiction that is growing in population and enforcement activity. In fact, our charge volumes have doubled since 2019.” So, more charges—but from 2021 to 2023, 11,000 gone. We can’t imagine that that’s all speeding tickets; there’s no way.

“With only one to two courtrooms functioning, there has been a growing lack of judicial resources.

—“In 2022, there were 28 presiding days where no justice appeared for scheduled court.

—“In 2023, there were 27 presiding days where no justice appeared for scheduled court.

—“This year, there have been 15 presiding days where no justice appeared, and an additional eight days where courts were combined due to one courtroom not having a justice available.”

These are our courtrooms, guys.

“The regional municipality of Durham is faced with a significant lack of judicial resources due to the province of Ontario not allocating sufficient justices of the peace to adjudicate in this region.”

So the Durham Regional Police Service received this, and it said, “Of the 11,000 charges being withdrawn … approximately 35%-40% of those were laid by DRPS.” So our local police laid 35%-40% of those 11,000 charges that are being thrown out.

“We will continue to prioritize our most serious cases involving high public interest.”

So people who break the law—albeit, if it’s a speeding ticket, I will say, a lesser Highway Traffic Act infraction—are going to think it’s a happy day when they don’t have to go to court.

When the government stands on the principle of “If you break the law, you will”—I don’t know—

Interjection: Consequences.