“There will be consequences. We are going to get you.” But those charges are going to be thrown out 35%-40% of the time if they are lesser Highway Traffic Act infractions.

I’m not a police officer, and I won’t speak for them, but I must imagine it would be frustrating to lay a charge and know that “Oh, well”—I don’t see it as respecting the work that they do.

Also, you have to have a strong and supported justice system, especially if you are going to mete out all these punishments to the lawbreakers. You do have to fund the justice system so that there can be justice and access to it.

While we are talking about justice and access to it—while the bill increases penalties for drivers convicted of certain criminal offences, Bill 197 fails to establish additional consequences, like hearing victim impact statements, for drivers who kill or seriously injure a vulnerable road user. Think of vulnerable road users, like a pedestrian, cyclist, a flag worker who is marking a construction site, the people who have business on our roads either because they are working on them or beside them or they are playing on them—well, we don’t play on roads, kids—riding their bicycles, walking. Those are vulnerable road users.

I’m very proud to have introduced legislation—this incarnation of it is Bill 15, the Fairness for Road Users Act. This bill started in 2002 when a couple was killed. I’ll give the backstory. William James Duff turned left in between three motorcycles on Highway 17 near Batchewana, Ontario. The resulting collision immediately claimed the lives of David and Wanda Harrison, tourists from the United States. Mr. Duff was convicted of an unsafe turn and received the maximum penalty allowed under the Highway Traffic Act at the time, which was $500.

The Bikers Rights Organization has been advocating for the increase of penalties since the Harrisons were killed in 2002. And the Bikers Rights Organization—I’ve met with them a number of times. They have been to the Legislature a lot of times—

Interruption.

For the folks who are wondering why I just stopped suddenly, the lightning and thunder that is going on—I think I have full universal support for what I’m going to say.

Interjections.

Interjection.

Speaker, I tabled Bill 15, but I had introduced it before under a different name. This is a bill that comes from the advocacy of the Bikers Rights Organization, a group of bikers who are very concerned about road safety and advocacy. They have written letters to the Ministry of Transportation over the past 17 or 18 years. They’ve gathered and presented petitions; more than 6,000 signatures they have garnered. The bill was introduced, I think, first in 2015. It was Bill 154. That was the member from Niagara Falls who first tabled it. I inherited it, tabled it as Bill 122, and then I think it got another number. I reintroduced it as—I don’t even remember—Bill 62, I think, and then most recently Bill 15, which is the Fairness for Road Users Act (Contraventions Causing Death or Serious Bodily Harm).

Speaker, this bill would make it so that—its intent is that judges have tools to reach for at sentencing. If someone sets out in the morning, they don’t intend to kill someone, but if they make a improper left turn, if they flip an illegal U-turn, if they do something that’s a lower violation of the Highway Traffic Act and someone is catastrophically injured or killed, right now the only thing that the judge can reach for is a maximum $500 penalty. Anecdotally, we heard from the families, and they were hearing in the courtrooms that the judges said, “I wish I could do something else.” I think, on a case-by-case basis, the judge would be able to use his or her discretion. Maybe this is a familiar face, somebody who drives like a menace on a regular basis. And there are other, I’ll say, mitigating factors. But there’s nothing else that can enter into the decision at sentencing—that is the most.

This is a government that is focused on punishment, and here is a bill—my bill—that is focused on the penalty, on increasing the penalty framework so that judges have different tools.

I met with the former Minister of Transportation—talked her ear off, chased her into elevators kind of thing—and met with her staff. Her staff was accessible to me on a regular basis, and we worked this out. And do you know what? This government and that ministry called my bill to committee, and that was kind of a first. There have now been a few others of us, but it was a big deal for me. It was the very first time that I sat and not only defended the bill but got to discuss it, brought voice and invited community to come and talk about why this was important. Brian Burnett from BRO, Gerry Rhodes from BRO—

Interjection: BRO?

It was a great committee process, but it isn’t over yet. We’re on a break, so we didn’t get to clause-by-clause, because there were some challenges during committee that came up, and I’m trying to figure out with the government—I’d love to figure out with the government—and the minister, his last comments were, “We’ll work with all members of this House.” I was so excited to hear that today, because I now have the third letter in the series—sorry, no props. Whatever. There it is—letters to this current Minister of Transportation. I want to find out how we move forward with that bill, or I want to be told, “Forget it, Jen. You can’t. We’re done with that. That was the last Minister of Transportation’s priority.” I don’t know. We’re just left in limbo. It went through committee and stopped before clause-by-clause, admittedly because there were some challenges that needed to be fixed. So I’ve worked with legislative counsel on various amendments and told the minister, but I can’t get a call back and I can’t meet with staff to even figure out if any of them are workable, or if there is a better way forward.

I thought maybe, when I saw this bill—I went over to the minister and I said, “Hey, is my Bill 15 in this one?” Because I don’t need my name on it. I don’t actually need my bill to pass—I’d like it to—but I need it to be law. I need the government to take it and put it into legislation. If they’re not willing to give me credit, whatever. Been there, done that. It needs to be fixed.

The letter that I had written to Minister Sarkaria:

“Dear Minister…,

“Congratulations on your new cabinet portfolio. I’m hoping to work with you and your ministry to find a way forward for my private member’s Bill 15, the Fairness for Road Users Act…

“I was pleased to work with the previous minister on the need to pass this legislation, and am hopeful we can work together to see it through the legislative process.

“This is a bill about fairness for survivors and families who have suffered unimaginable harm and loss on Ontario’s roadways. It is the result of listening to advocacy groups and vulnerable road users who know our courts do not have the tools they need in terrible cases where someone has been killed or suffered catastrophic injury.

“It was a big deal that my private member’s bill was brought before committee on July 12, 2023. It was clear at committee that there is an interest from all parties in addressing the harms caused by the existing penalty framework. I was pleased to present my bill to the committee and to learn from the safety advocates and community voices who spoke on this issue.

“I believe that we both want safer roads in Ontario, as well as improved justice for survivors and families of those who have been injured or killed on our roads. My bill has been frozen in time and I would ask the minister to please let me know how we can work together to find a path forward.”

I thought the government might have had ideas on how to fix it, because the last ministry team did—and that was October 26.

And on March 26, it was like, “Hey, it has been a busy session. Remember me? I’m over here.” Sorry—more eloquent than that:

“I am eager to work with your ministry to move Bill 15, Fairness for Road Users Act forward. My staff and I would be very glad to meet with your team to come up with a plan to make that happen.

“I have attached my previous letter....”

And May 28:

“We are approaching one year since Bill 15, Fairness for Road Users Act was brought before committee. There has been interest from all parties in passing this legislation and addressing the harm caused by the existing penalty framework. I know that in collaboration with your ministry, we can improve this bill and ensure better justice outcomes for those most gravely affected by contraventions of the Highway Traffic Act.

“I have attached my previous letters….”

Really? I’m not trying to shoot myself in the foot here by ticking them off, but I have never, in the 10 years that I have been doing this job—I’ve chased ministers into elevators, and sometimes they even hold the door for me and pretend they’re letting it close on me. That was Kevin Flynn; I remember that day. I have worked, and will continue to work, with ministers, but I can’t answer my own emails or call myself back. I am hoping that the government will hear me and do something about this. Anyway, enough about me.

Speaker, there are a lot of folks out there who are interested in vulnerable road user protections. The member from Ottawa Centre has been an active transportation enthusiast and advocate. In fact, he toured communities from Ottawa to Toronto and stopped in Oshawa. He rode his bike and was stopping in communities along the way to talk to folks about active transportation and the need to keep vulnerable road users safe by educating others, by adding vulnerable road user classifications, and by prioritizing people who use our roads.

There’s nothing to support vulnerable road users in this bill. This has been a priority for New Democrats since I got here, and there has been zero willingness by any of the governments that I have seen to actually bring that vulnerable road user piece into legislation. The vulnerable road user community wants better from this government, so we’re planning to put forward amendments, and I really hope that the government pays attention to that and passes them.

Speaker, I’m glad to talk about amendments. This government has not provided any details about its proposed e-bike regulations following years of ineffective consultations and false starts, including the MOMS Act, Bill 282. I got hundreds of emails from moms and families that rode e-bikes that said, “Hey, government, these changes that you’re proposing in Bill 282 are going to make my popular e-bike illegal.” “Hey, government, the cargo e-bike pilot that they are proud of? You’re making those bikes illegal.” Like, with the statute and the classifications and the dimensions and the weight limits and the wheel dimensions—what is a wheel? Does it include the rim? Like, we were so in the weeds during that process. I still have dreams about e-bikes, and I don’t have one, but a lot of people do, and there were concerns.

During the MOMS Act, this government heard from hundreds of e-bike users worried about their e-bikes, that they were going to be deemed illegal due to this government’s absurd and unsupported, unresearched, arbitrary classification change—which, by the way, those changes in Bill 282 haven’t been proclaimed and now you’re repealing them in this bill.

I can tell you that when my constituents saw that there was a bill called safer roads and communities, they were very encouraged. My constituent Deb Rowes, who lives in Geneva Lake off of Highway 144, reached out, and she wants to know how many people need to die on Highway 144 before the government makes the roads safer. You see that, two weeks ago, there was a crash that closed the roads. A 43-year-old man from Sudbury died. On May 1, earlier, the highway was closed due to an accident. There were three road closures in March due to big accidents, followed by three accidents in February that closed the road. There was another three-vehicle accident in January where a 61-year-old man died. That is nine road closures—two deaths—in five months on Highway 144. Do you see anything in this bill that will make Highway 144 safer for the people I represent?

Yes, we actually did, and looking back at the MOMS Act—I see, unbelievably, that I’m running out of time—that legislation had raised flags for people. They were quite concerned. The London Bicycle Café, Ben Cowie—we were having middle-of-the-night phone calls with these advocates, trying to figure out what the amendment should say to fix the problem based on the wording of what the government had put forward, and it was a wild ride. The London Bicycle Café had put out a call: “We’re concerned about the MOMS Act. We need your help, and your stories.” They got hundreds of people to send us pictures of themselves with their dog in the front basket and their groceries in the back and saying, “Please don’t make me illegal,” and everybody remembers those pictures. It was highly effective.

During our clause-by-clause part of committee—like, when we were breaking it down—the government launched a side consultation. I wasn’t even sure that that was allowed or that we were doing our due diligence, but that consultation—it’s continuing. The government is still consulting on e-bike classification, and I want to read something—God, if I had hours. I would take two hours if you let me.

During clause-by-clause, I said, “I will just remind all committee that we are debating these amendments in statute today, but we won’t have a second kick at the can. Once we do this today, we can’t amend it again, so I know that with the consultation and a lot of the community involvement in this bill—if anybody thinks that we can go back and change what’s written in legislation after today, we can’t, so just factor that in when we’ve got thoughtful amendments before us. That’s all. Please pass the amendments that we will never get a second chance to pass and that are needed. Thank you.” And I said that a bunch in different ways.

Anyway, it turns out I was wrong. You can redo legislation. You just have to repeal the whole last chunk and then start over. Not the best use of people’s time, kids. Okay.

I wanted to read so much more of that, but I guess—we have questions. Like, can the government provide more details about its plan for new e-bike regulations? Does this government agree that e-bikes are welcome in our community, that we should be encouraging them without imposing needless red tape? This government removed the definition of power-assisted bicycle. Are they now going to be considered mopeds? We have questions, and we don’t have answers, and I would love it if the government would talk about that.

The government has signalled it intends to use the new regulatory authority in Bill 197 to make new regulations governing e-bikes, but it hasn’t provided details except “the proposed legislation would enable the government to categorize more dangerous e-bikes into distinct classes such as by maximum weight or speed.”

It’s possible these new regulations may continue to allow the use of lighter, lower-speed e-bikes without licences, vehicle plates or insurance, but it isn’t clear. It is not even clear what the government considers to be an e-bike, never mind a dangerous e-bike. So I’m going to say it, and I mean it: This government doesn’t seem to know what it’s doing with respect to e-bikes. You didn’t back with Bill 282, and here we are again. Those e-bike provisions remained unproclaimed. Now they’re being repealed. When we raised concerns of e-bike advocates and made a number of thoughtful amendments that they felt would have fixed it—these are the people who ride them, the people who sell them, the people who make them—the government basically made us feel like, “You have no idea what you’re talking about. We’re right.” And here we are, and we were right and the government was not—

Okay. Speaker, there are other pieces in this bill that I won’t have time to get into, specifically around the Ministry of Transportation enforcement officers. I had submitted four questions on the order paper, written questions, about transportation enforcement officers, regarding speed rules, understaffing, their job descriptions. I asked about a PAVA launcher pilot.

I had raised important issues, because they are stretched too thin. There are 14 transportation enforcement officers with mechanics licences. They cover over 13,000 registered inspection stations—148 TEO officers for the whole province of Ontario. It’s generally not more than 100 working at any one time. You’ve got the Kingston district, which covers from the 115 in the west, close to Ottawa and Pembroke in the east and as far north as Chalk River. It’s served by 17 officers, one officer per 1,000 square kilometres.

I can go on about how thin they are stretched. But this is a government that’s talking about safe roads, and I would encourage them. I mean, has it made a change in here that has been asked for? Sure, but they’ve been asking for a lot more that would make all Ontarians who use our roads and highways feel a lot safer and actually be a lot safer. So I will ask for the government to continue to talk to those who want to keep the rest of us safe.

The other thing is I’m going to assume, because so many ministers were answering my two questions, that the government is indeed talking. But I can’t see that. It’s not in the bill. And when law enforcement, former law enforcement and insurance companies are quoted in articles saying that they are raising this issue with the government, it needs to be fixed and it hasn’t, but they don’t want to go on record, because they don’t want to besmirch the good name of the Ministry of Transportation, this government has a problem that they need to fix and I did not suggest it has been fixed.

We tried to tell you.

With e-bikes.

We’re going to go to questions.

We’re going to return to the member for Oshawa to respond to the question.

I know it is the role of the opposition to criticize legislation that we bring forward, but, Bill 197, if passed, will provide some of the toughest legislation when it comes to impaired driving anywhere in this country. I was just doing a quick search on the number of repeat impaired drivers that we see in headlines across Ontario. The first one that popped up: “‘Frustrating Is an Understatement. Repeat Drunk Drivers Ongoing Problem in Caledon.” And this headline is repeated over and over again.

If passed, this legislation will restrict drivers from driving at all. It will take away their licence, and it will also include a lock on the steering wheel. I’m just wondering if the member opposite could speak to the measures that this bill proposes and whether she would support toughening legislation against impaired driving.

No.

I do see that the government is making announcements about training, but we don’t see it in the bill. We’ve certainly heard from Truckers for Safer Highways—I’ve heard it directly from the transportation enforcement officers—that there is a need for better training for truck drivers, that there is a need for inspections. When you have so few transportation enforcement officers, then you’re unable to staff those truck inspection stations. And when truck drivers know that that one is always going to be closed because there are cement barriers out in front or the weigh scales haven’t been calibrated in how long, then we’ve got a problem as Ontarians on those roads.

So I’m focusing on trucks because when something goes wrong with a transport truck, things go really wrong. People die. A number of solutions and suggestions have been raised to this government on keeping northern roads safe. We should be seeing it in this bill, and we should hear it from this government moving forward.

The other thing is, putting these booze nooks in every single convenience store in the province, give or take, is going to put alcohol in people’s—what, gloveboxes—more easily? I don’t know. But I think the government does need to factor in prevention as well as punishment.

Look, I’d like it to be effective. We don’t want car thieves out in our communities. We don’t want people breaking the law and doing harm. I don’t know if a licence suspension is going to be effective.

A lot of these individuals who break the law on a regular basis—we learned it from the MOMS Act—those who stunt drive, many of them are driving other people’s cars. They’re driving without insurance. Why on earth do we think that they are not going to drive just because they don’t have a licence?

So, that’s stunt driving, but I think, car thieves—if you’re going to take away the licence of a car thief, what if they’re the ones who got dropped off to steal your car? Do you get the guy who drove the getaway car? I don’t know, and I’m not meaning to make light of it, but I don’t know how effective it will be. I do think, though, that making it not so easy to steal a car in the province is also a place to focus. Thank you.

Mothers Against Drunk Driving have done a quick guesstimate on the number, and it’s massive, right. Anything we can do to keep people safe is important, but also, if this is a government that is going to talk about penalties and going to talk about being tough on crime, then people who are charged with impaired driving should be able to have the criminal charge that goes with it and not dodge that, as this government has allowed.

I’d like to thank the member for her very thoughtful presentation, and for her comments. Right now, it’s really a problem of organized crime. That’s where you’re going to have to get at these car-theft rings. Just simply saying you’re not going to allow them to drive—but if they’re already stolen a car and they’ve already got a record, I’m not sure that that’s going to be a deterrent. I’m not saying that’s not why they do it. I don’t think it’s going to solve the problem.

The question that I have, though, is, we all want tougher rules around drunk driving, and the government made that very clear about two weeks ago, and then we find out three days later that they’re pleading down impaired driving charges, and then on top of that, they can’t tell us how many. They can’t tell us how many people are repeating the offence because they’re not measuring it. So, if you’re serious about stopping drunk driving, don’t you think the government would try to do something like that?

I want to thank the member for her very thoughtful, well-researched presentation and debate of one hour. Thank you for that.

I want the member to tell us how hardened criminals—people willing to rob, steal, home invade and maybe even do worse—will be deterred from stealing cars by taking away their licence. Tell us how this is going to work.

We’ve heard submissions from a government that loves to talk about growth—growth at all costs. We hear from the Minister of Job Creation talking about growth in certain industries, jobs and all that happening, but there are some forms of growth that this government doesn’t talk about: growth of people waiting in food bank lines, growth in terms of the lineups waiting for a surgery in a hospital, growth in many different ways. But there has been a growth in—I don’t want to call it a sector, but one area that incidentally dates back to the beginning of when this government took their first oaths of office in 2018, and this has been a steady growth we’ve seen year after year, increasing, increasing, increasing. It's gone up 100%, 200% and, in some cases, some have said 300%, and that—

Now, I can tell you, I was so excited to hear that we would be debating legislation to tackle auto theft in Ontario, truly something that I’ve heard government members talk about as an epidemic. They said they were going to take decisive action, and the members got up and they were proud. You could see. They stood straight-backed, ready to talk about the solutions to this scourge in Ontario. So I’m so proud because, I’ll be honest, I was a little worried, because as I’ve watched these numbers continue, and I was looking for leadership from this government to talk about the scourge, and we waited and we waited and nothing was coming up, and I began to think that the only part of the car they were interested in was its battery. But no, now we are debating legislation around auto theft to, in some cases, say that they’re going to be taking car thieves completely off the road, and I’m so excited about this.

There’s a lot of solutions to that, right. The member from Oshawa has talked about VIN registration. In fact, we’re not just a hub where car thieves from around the world are coming to Ontario under the sleepy watch of this government; stolen vehicles are coming here because we’re not bothering to inspect the VIN, right? So, of course, the legislation is going to be dealing with that, and I know that that’s what we’re dealing with here, right? It’s the VIN?

Three million dollars.

Next question?

We’re going to move to further debate.

No.

No.

Buddy, the Criminal Code is federal, man. Come on. You know that.

Order.

Oh, okay; sorry.

So we know that it’s an issue and we’re going to stop cars at the borders, right? Now, I know the ports are in Montreal and the west coast. But people have been tracking stolen cars by police, and where do they end up? In the back of a rig, a trailer, a container. We all saw that frustrating episode of Marketplace where a guy tracked his car to a railyard and the police couldn’t get into it because of jurisdictional issues. So, of course, this is probably going to be an appeal to the federal government to deal with those jurisdictional issues, right?

Interjection.

Okay, all right, so maybe they’re not talking about that. How about stiffer penalties? When you watch on the occasion when these criminal rings are captured—it’s usually not one guy; it’s usually 20 faces. You see them on the screen, on CP24. I mean, are we talking about tougher penalties and punishments? Because, you know, it’s not just the person stealing the car. Sometimes, it’s a young person compelled by organized crime, a gang. How do they end up in these rings? How do they end up in a container? Are we talking about maybe going after shipping companies, ensuring that we get to the bottoms of these rings, and stopping it in many ways? We’re talking about that, right?

All right, so they’re not coming up with stiffer criminal penalties. How about—okay, I’ve got one. This is something that’s been working in Quebec. We know that as we increase technology of these—for car thieves, now, you just have a remote starter and they can capture your signal or they could plug into a port. There’s lots of stuff that they can do in that area. So, surely, we’re debating legislation here where this government is going to be reaching out to auto manufacturers and ensuring that cars sold in Ontario are of the highest standards and protections, right?

Government members, that stuff I’ve talked about is in the bill, right?

This is a government that really talks tough when it comes to at least blue-collar crime because we know that they consider white-collar crime as innovation in some cases, but I’ll leave it at that.

But the thing is there is no way because this is a government that loves police so much that just to spend more time with them, they’re willing to be investigated even, right? And so I’m expecting that there’s got to be more to this. Does someone have a copy of the bill?

Okay, let’s see, section 41.0.2, Suspension related to theft of a motor vehicle—suspension of their licence? Oh, and we’ve got three—so, first conviction, 10 years; 15; and then an indefinite suspension of your licence as a deterrent. That will take the thieves off the road? No, this is not possible. Is this the bill?

So, Speaker, let me understand this. Hardened criminals willing to go to a person’s home, home invade them in some cases, rob them maybe while they’re in their vehicle, or do worse, are going to be deterred by losing their licence indefinitely, not on their first—

Interjections.

No, you know what? Upon thinking about it, you know what? Maybe this is a very serious resolution. I mean, imagine never being able—and of course, we know, for a criminal, the last thing—I could see some of these hardened criminals; you could imagine them on those police shows. I mean, really, we’re talking beyond sociopathy, psychopathy. There are lines for a criminal. There are some things you’re not going to do, right? There’s a line you’re not willing to cross in some cases, and I think everyone here has got their line, whatever it is. But I could see someone, certainly a thief who’s willing to go to your house, break in, assault you to get those keys to steal your car and drive away with it—but no way they’re going to leave their house without their licence. There is no way of that. I could totally imagine that right now. I mean, some thief that day has decided they’re going to go out there and make the world a worse place by stealing someone’s car, and they’re going to get into that car; now they’re going to say, “I can’t do this. What am I going to do? Take a bus? Am I going to have to ride a bike, maybe a unicycle or, even worse, walk?”

Imagine that. Or imagine the embarrassment of having to reach out to someone and say, “Look, can you give me a drive?” “What do you need to do?” “I’ve got to steal a car.” “Oh, okay. No, I’m not going to”—and maybe other thief friends or whatnot. It would be a massive embarrassment to them to actually have to do that.

So, to give credit to the government, forcing criminals to have to rideshare—imagine. And getaway drivers are going to be put out of business. This could be an end to getaway drivers, and that is serious. That is serious. That is, I guess, a big deterrent.

This government—usually, we criticize them for consulting. Once in a while I find out they consult. Of course, they don’t always consult the people you want them to consult. So I don’t know if they reached out to the car thief syndicates or organized crime—

Interjection.

Maybe I’m not being fair. Maybe this is, in fact, a deterrent. I can see how, if you’re a hardened criminal, the one thing that you’re not going to do is leave your house without a licence. When you steal a car, when you’re about to commit crime, you’re going to ensure that you have all your full documentation with you: licence, health card, maybe passport, whatever it is. This is a piece in a puzzle of taking that away from them, so I can see that it could be a little bit of a deterrent when it comes to doing that.

I guess I would love to understand, too because this does beg the question: Who writes some of this legislation? I want to know whose angry uncle gave them this advice to put this as a solution, or what was it? Which armchair—we all got those people that will tell you how to fix all the problems.

No; sorry.