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.