ONTARIO FEDERATION OF AGRICULTURE
CONTENTS
Monday 5 December 1994
Highway Traffic Amendment Act (Slow Moving Vehicle Signs), 1994, Bill 176, Mr Hayes / Loi de 1994 modifiant le Code de la route (panneau de véhicule lent), projet de loi 176, M. Hayes
Ministry of Transportation
Paul Levine, manager, road user policy office
Farm Safety Association
Joseph Andrews, farm safety consultant and member, Highway Traffic Act committee
Ontario Federation of Agriculture
Ken Kelly, second vice-president
STANDING COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
*Chair / Président: Cooper, Mike (Kitchener-Wilmot ND)
*Vice-Chair / Vice-Président: Wood, Len (Cochrane North/-Nord ND)
Conway, Sean G. (Renfrew North/-Nord L)
*Fawcett, Joan M. (Northumberland L)
*Jordan, Leo (Lanark-Renfrew PC)
*Klopp, Paul (Huron ND)
*Martel, Shelley, (Sudbury East/-Est ND)
Mills, Gordon (Durham East/-Est ND)
Murdock, Sharon (Sudbury ND)
Offer, Steven (Mississauga North/-Nord L)
Turnbull, David (York Mills PC)
Waters, Daniel (Muskoka-Georgian Bay ND)
*In attendance / présents
Substitutions present / Membres remplaçants présents:
Daigeler, Hans (Nepean L) for Mr Conway
Hansen, Ron (Lincoln ND) for Ms Murdock
Haslam, Karen (Perth ND) for Mr Mills
Hayes, Pat (Essex-Kent ND) for Mr Waters
Villeneuve, Noble (S-D-G & East Grenville/S-D-G & Grenville-Est PC) for Mr Turnbull
Clerk / Greffière: Manikel, Tannis
Staff / Personnel:
Richmond, Jerry, research officer, Legislative Research Service
Schuh, Cornelia, legislative counsel
The committee met at 1550 in committee room 1.
HIGHWAY TRAFFIC AMENDMENT ACT (SLOW MOVING VEHICLE SIGNS), 1994 / LOI DE 1994 MODIFIANT LE CODE DE LA ROUTE (PANNEAU DE VÉHICULE LENT)
Consideration of Bill 176, An Act to amend the Highway Traffic Act with respect to Slow Moving Vehicle Signs / Projet de loi 176, Loi modifiant le Code de la route en ce qui concerne le panneau de véhicule lent.
The Chair (Mr Mike Cooper): I'd like to call this meeting of the standing committee on resources development to order. Today we'll be doing the committee's consideration on Bill 176.
Mr Pat Hayes (Essex-Kent): Thank you, Mr Chair and committee members. I'd also like to thank the opposition for allowing me to say a few words and for bringing this bill forward.
I'm very pleased to be here today because this is a bill that we feel certain will improve safety on the highway and the Highway Traffic Act, and of course also will improve the government's road safety agenda. We would ask the committee also to support the amendment to the bill.
This has been an ongoing concern for many years and I'd just like to say that all farm organizations -- the Farm Safety Association, the Ontario Federation of Agriculture, the Women's Institute and just pretty well every organization involved in agriculture -- along with people who are involved from the Ministry of Transportation, and I think that's very, very important. Hopefully, these slow-moving-vehicle signs will reduce accidents, especially in our rural communities. It'll also allow people in the Ministry of Transportation or the police forces to enforce the rules and these signs will be used only on slow-moving vehicles and not other areas where they really don't mean anything.
I'm very pleased to be here and, without taking too much time, I thank everybody for their continued support, from all three parties here, and push forward with this bill. Would you want me to read that amendment now, or wait until we get into that section of the bill?
The Chair: We'll do that when we get to the clause-by-clause analysis.
MINISTRY OF TRANSPORTATION
The Chair: I'd like to call forward our first presenters, from the Ministry of Transportation. Would you please come forward? Good afternoon and welcome to the committee. Just a reminder that you'll be allowed up to 20 minutes for your presentation. The committee would appreciate it if you'd leave a bit of time at the end for questions and comments from each of the caucuses.
Mr Paul Levine: I'm Paul Levine. I'm manager of the road user policy office of the Ministry of Transportation. Accompanying me this afternoon is Catherine Brooks, a safety policy officer with the road user policy office.
I'd like to thank the committee for inviting the Ministry of Transportation to present our thoughts on Bill 176. As I'm sure most of the committee members are aware, Ontario has a goal of making our roads the safest in North America. This bill, along with other initiatives such as graduated licensing and demerit points for non-use of seatbelts, will help us meet our road safety goal.
Just how does the slow-moving-vehicle sign contribute to road safety? As with any highway-related sign, it is vital that drivers have immediate recognition and understanding of the intended message to enable them to take appropriate action. A slow-moving-vehicle sign has been designed for the purpose of identifying vehicles which are travelling well below the posted speed limit. It is of uniform design and appearance throughout North America. When motorists see an SMV sign, they should slow down to avoid a collision and only pass the slow-moving vehicle when it is safe to do so.
Currently, the sign is being misused on mailboxes and as driveway markers along the highways. Such misuse breeds disrespect and erodes the sign's effectiveness. Also, the use of the sign for these purposes poses a real hazard as mailboxes could be mistaken for farm vehicles and farm vehicles mistaken for mailboxes, particularly at night or in severely inclement weather. It is for these reasons the ministry supports the proposed bill to regulate the use of the slow-moving-vehicle sign.
The ministry advocates the prohibition of the use of these signs anywhere on or near a highway except on vehicles for which they are intended. In addition to prohibiting the misuse of the sign, the ministry agrees with extending the use of the slow-moving-vehicle sign beyond farm machines to all vehicles not capable of sustaining a designated speed in normal operation. The extension would make Ontario's laws consistent with nine other Canadian provinces and territories. Each of these jurisdictions has legislation which specifies a maximum sustainable speed of 40 kilometres per hour, below which vehicles must use the slow-moving-vehicle sign.
The ministry does, however, have some concerns. The bill, as it now stands, gives authority to exempt horse-drawn vehicles driven by persons whose religious convictions or beliefs prohibit the display of these devices. The ministry supports this exemption. It was prompted by segments of the Amish and Mennonite communities who consider slow-moving-vehicle signs to be ornamentation and contrary to their religious beliefs. But for safety reasons, the ministry would like the authority to be able to prescribe an alternative means of improving the visibility of exempted vehicles.
Prior to prescribing any alternative, the ministry would work with the affected parties to find a device which does not contradict their religious beliefs. Without an alternative, the exemption will provide an excuse for individuals who are in non-compliance, and enforcement will be virtually impossible. A motion to amend the bill will be brought forward during clause-by-clause consideration.
The second amendment we would like is to include a standard clause providing regulation-making authority in respect of slow-moving vehicles in the event that any issue may arise which has not yet come to our attention.
In closing, I'd like to reiterate that the ministry advocates prohibiting the slow-moving-vehicle signs anywhere on or near a highway except on vehicles for which they were intended. We support exemptions on a limited basis but do desire the authority to prescribe alternatives.
On behalf of the Ministry of Transportation, I'd like to thank Mr Pat Hayes for bringing forward this bill intended to save lives by making our roads safer.
The Chair: Thank you. Questions?
Mr Hans Daigeler (Nepean): I didn't quite understand that regarding the religious exemption. What did you say you were going to propose? I haven't read the amendment yet or seen the amendment.
Mr Levine: We propose to identify some form of enhancement for the visibility of the vehicles that is acceptable to the two groups that we are aware of, segments of the Amish and Mennonite communities. Some of their membership refuses to use the standard slow-moving-vehicle sign, the triangular orange sign, because they believe it to be ornamentation. Early meetings that we've had with these groups have resulted in their identifying to us that they would not object to something along the lines of white reflective tape being required on the vehicles. This is on their horse-drawn carriages.
To this point we haven't drawn up any firm proposal for what shape or dimensions that alternative might be. We would propose that if the amendment goes through, prior to proclamation of the bill, we would meet with the two groups and ensure we have an acceptable method of identifying and increasing the visibility of these vehicles, especially for night-time and bad weather use.
Mr Daigeler: What kind of amendment -- I guess I do have to ask it -- are you proposing? Certainly I support the idea of sitting down with them, but putting an amendment so the Ministry of Transportation can sit down with religious groups --
Mr Levine: No, it's an amendment that provides us with regulatory authority to prescribe an alternative device to the standard orange triangular device.
Mr Daigeler: I see. You want authority to possibly designate a different sign.
Mr Levine: That's correct, although it wouldn't be a different sign but rather potentially minimum dimensions of reflective tape.
1600
Mr Daigeler: That's a different sign by any stretch of the imagination. You're asking for the minister to have authority to make regulations that -- I saw, which is rather interesting, this exchange of correspondence between Ontario Hydro and the deputy minister. That matter has been settled, I guess. At least I take it from the deputy minister's answer that he feels that this law, if it is passed the way it is written, would not apply to these signs that are on top of hydro towers.
Mr Levine: I think the response from the deputy would not suggest that we would want to provide an exemption from the legislation for Ontario Hydro. However, it would be left up to the discretion of Ontario Hydro whether those signs would be visible from the highway. The way the legislation is written, we can only prohibit the use of the sign where it's visible from the highway. There could be situations where even if the sign is 50 feet up on a transmission tower, depending on the topography of the ground and the geometry of the road, the headlights of a car could pick up those signs. It would be difficult for us to say out of hand that they never would.
Mr Daigeler: Has there been any further response from Hydro, or was that it then?
Mr Levine: I don't think we were anticipating any further response.
Mr Daigeler: So they seem to be satisfied with the answer?
Mr Levine: We haven't had a response since September.
Mr Noble Villeneuve (S-D-G & East Grenville): Thank you for coming back and supporting slow-moving-vehicle signs. Slow-moving-vehicle signs I think are very, very important. We had a very unfortunate accident not very long ago where a horseback rider was killed riding a horse along a right of way. I don't know how you look after that. I know in Mennonite country I still would hesitate to have anything taken away from what has traditionally been the slow-moving-vehicle sign which is on slow-moving vehicles.
Question: Let's say I have a grain box, or two grain boxes, set on a truck that can go more than 40 kilometres an hour. I took it off wagons and I put it on the back of a truck. It has a slow-moving-vehicle sign on the back of it. Is this illegal? Would this be illegal under this type of legislation?
Mr Levine: If the truck were now to head out on a highway and travel at a speed greater than 40 kilometres per hour, the signs should be removed.
Mr Villeneuve: Most of these signs on our grain boxes are stuck on there kind of permanently, so we'd pretty well have to rip them off.
Mr Hayes: Use brackets.
Mr Villeneuve: The ones I have on mine are stuck on there.
Mr Ron Hansen (Lincoln): They were just hammered on.
Mr Villeneuve: No, no. They're stickers. It's a triangular -- well, I'm sure you know of what I speak. This would be illegal, I gather.
Mr Levine: Yes, it would be illegal if the vehicle were travelling more than 40 kilometres an hour along the road.
Mr Villeneuve: Because this would be a flatbed truck and some of them have two and three grain boxes on them going to the elevator. A lot of them have the sticker on the back of the grain box, which is a traditional thing. So I guess right now it would have to be covered up.
Mr Levine: Yes. I think the easiest solution would be to cover the sign.
Mr Villeneuve: We are coming up with some wagons that trail pickups pretty well, but not very often will they be going over 40 kilometres per hour. So a conventional farm wagon or two farm wagons behind a farm pickup would be legal with the slow-moving-vehicle sign?
Mr Levine: Yes, as long as they --
Mr Villeneuve: They're trailing.
Mr Levine: -- they trailed and they were going less than 40 kilometres.
Mr Villeneuve: I'm not telling you they'll never be over 40. They could be, but chances are they won't.
Mr Levine: If the normal operation trailering these two wagons would be below 40 kilometres per hour, then they should have the sign. It would certainly enhance the safety of the operation.
Mr Villeneuve: That's been traditional, because if they're behind a farm tractor, they won't be going over 40 kilometres an hour; if they're behind a farm pickup, they could, but chances are they wouldn't. So that would be left to a police officer and likely not be illegal.
Mr Levine: That's correct.
Mr Leo Jordan (Lanark-Renfrew): I'd like to go back to this Ontario Hydro issue for a minute. They're asking you here if their structures could be exempted from the legislation or if subsection (4) could be modified so that a sign being affixed to a fixed object at an elevation of 50 feet above the highway would not be caught by that subsection. I don't see where that's been dealt with.
Mr Levine: We haven't dealt with it in the bill because we don't feel that we can accommodate the request. Although the sign may be 50 feet up on a transmission tower, it depends where that transmission tower is in relation to a roadway. The transmission tower could be down in a valley and the road up on a hill and a vehicle's lights could pick up that slow-moving-vehicle sign on the tower, and especially in bad weather, we wouldn't want a motor-vehicle operator picking up a reflective sign and thinking that this was a vehicle ahead of him and driving off into the ditch, which is quite possible.
Mr Villeneuve: That makes sense. They're single-use things; that's what you want to make of them.
Mr Levine: Yes.
Mr Jordan: So what are you going to do? I'm driving down the highway and Ontario Hydro has a -- these signs, by the way, are there for helicopters patrolling the lines.
Mr Hansen: Keep your eyes on the road, Leo.
Mr Jordan: That's right. That sign indicates to me, the pilot, that there's danger ahead and the sign is usually 500 metres ahead of the object that I want to take care of. Oftentimes it's a case of where one line has crossed over another one, and when I'm patrolling with a helicopter, I won't see that crossover so that triangular sign warns to be careful to go up, to raise my elevation.
Mr Levine: In the extreme, my suggestion to Ontario Hydro would be to alter the sign that it has chosen to use in this situation.
In something less than the extreme, a lot of these signs may not be anywhere near a highway. If they're not visible from the highway, then we have no concern, but certainly I think that this particular sign has been known as a slow-moving-vehicle sign. It's not only in use in Ontario, but it is a uniform traffic control device throughout North America and it has a single-purpose that we're trying to enhance here by prohibiting its use.
Specifically, we've mentioned to try and get them off mailboxes and as driveways markers, which we often see in rural Ontario. We just recognized that this increases the potential hazard of having people drive off the road, thinking that they are attached to a moving vehicle.
1610
Mr Hansen: I think Mr Daigeler sat on stable funding, if I'm not mistaken, that gave the exemption to the Mennonite community. I notice in Toronto here that the Metro mounted division has a strip around the back of the horse, and it's like a fluorescent white to give people an indication of the horse. Especially a dark horse on a street, it's pretty hard to tell. I know the buggies are a problem at night. It's so black out there, especially in the country.
The other thing is, I've sort of got a question: You see backhoes out on the road now, and they don't normally travel over 40 kilometres. We've been talking about farm vehicles. There are farm vehicles that are backhoes and front-end loaders which farmers have, but the construction industry also.
The other point is, what about a motorized wheelchair? Would that be a slow-moving vehicle? There are some places where there's no sidewalks and the only place to travel is on the road. Would they be required, or would they go into the exemption the same as the religious --
Mr Levine: We're still working with a definition that should apply to a motorized wheelchair, or a personal mobility device, as we've been calling them lately. We haven't yet determined that they should be considered to be vehicles. In fact, our leaning, although it hasn't been reflected in legislation yet, is that they are extensions of the individual's body and should be treated more as a pedestrian, although I do concur with your thoughts that if there are no sidewalks and they are out on the road, it certainly wouldn't hurt, and I don't think anyone would ever be charged for having a slow-moving-vehicle sign on the back which would increase visibility of that kind of device.
Mr Hansen: It should give them the opportunity to be able to put them on for the safety of the occupant, but not only that, the safety of the person driving the particular vehicle.
Maybe I was going to bring it up a little bit later, but the enforcement of this: Now we've got maybe thousands of signs on mailboxes. What would be a level of fine or a warning? What type of regulation is going to come in? Is it going to be if it's on a highway the OPP and municipally it would be the municipal police would say that the person remove it immediately, while he's there, or would he have a time period of seven days to remove it without a fine and if it wasn't removed a fine would be assessed?
Mr Levine: Certainly when the legislation is proclaimed, our proposal is that we would have a number of communications avenues to try and get the information out to the public, including news releases and information coming through the OFA and the FSA. We would certainly hope that we're able to encourage police officers not to lay charges immediately but rather give warnings, again, initially. We are not introducing any specific penalty section, so it would fall back to the general penalty, which has a set fine of $90. Again, with some advance warning and the opportunity to get some communications out there, we would hope that people would see the merit of removing those signs from the mailboxes into their driveways.
Mr Hansen: I imagine that if my colleague Noble and myself we put it in our flyers from our office, if anybody wants them, take them down, we would willingly take them down, because we're always short of the triangles out there.
The Chair: It seems we've generated a bit of interest, and there is more discussion to come from the Ministry of Transportation. You'll be here for the rest of the afternoon?
Interjection.
The Chair: We'll call them back after our other presenters.
Mr Daigeler: Are we finished with the time allocated?
The Chair: For this group, yes. So we'll call them back after our other two presenters, before we go into the clause-by-clause, and then we can just go around and get all the technical questions that arise and they can be asked then.
FARM SAFETY ASSOCIATION
The Chair: I'd like to call forward our next presenters, from the Farm Safety Association. Will you please come forward. Good afternoon and welcome to the committee.
Mr Joseph Andrews: Good afternoon and thank you. My name is Joseph Andrews. I'm farm safety consultant and the resource person on our Highway Traffic Act committee for the Farm Safety Association. With me today is Jim Gibb, past president of our association and at the current time chairman of our Highway Traffic Act committee. There's a handout of material that's going out to you there.
This is not a recent phenomenon with the Farm Safety Association. I've been personally working to this end for 18 years. We see the slow-moving-vehicle sign as being a key component in a safety awareness program that we would see develop from having this sign have some meaning within the law.
The Farm Safety Association over the years has developed recommendations based on information from the farm community, and noted in your handout material there is a list of the groups that participated in that developing of those recommendations. I've also included part of a place-mat in there that says, "This symbol means caution...slow moving farm vehicle."
The largest number of claims going to Ontario mutual insurance is related to farm vehicles being struck on the highway by other vehicles. The reason they're being struck is that the general public doesn't appreciate the slowness of the farm vehicles. They're not appreciating the sign when they see it, because they see it everywhere else being misused on slow-moving trees and slow-moving mailboxes and so on. What we would like to see is that misuse limited.
Some of you perhaps the last time around saw some of the uses of the sign that have been made over the province. People are continuing to use them and misuse them. We would like to see that come to an end, and we are prepared as a safety association to work along with developing this awareness program that this sign is a life sign. It can save the lives of the people who are operating the equipment on the roadway and it can save the lives of the general public out there who don't appreciate the farm machinery that is on the road.
We know there's a lot more happening out there than is highlighted in the number of deaths that occur. There are lots of accidents out there with farm machinery. There are lots of people running the equipment off the roadway because the person following in the Trans Am didn't identify that vehicle as a slow-moving vehicle and appreciate the difference in the closure time.
We had recommendations in the past from the Ontario Task Force on Health and Safety in Agriculture, and the province recommended that the Highway Traffic Act be reviewed and that every 10 years thereafter it be reviewed as to the meaning of the signs and the meaning of legislation as it applies to the farm vehicles on the roadway. We've had juries in the past where there have been fatalities recommend that the legislation be clarified and that a means of making that information known to the public be undertaken. The task force on health and safety, again, recommended that things be reviewed.
The need for awareness has been identified by the enforcement agencies out there. We have a police officer who approached the safety association and wanted to make a video that would highlight proper use of the sign on the vehicles on the roadway and highlight proper handling and so on. There's a lot of potential out there for accident and injury, and we would like to see the sign made something that is meaningful.
We're prepared to entertain any questions at this time.
Mr Villeneuve: Well, I certainly agree with you. The slow-moving trees you refer to can be very confusing, and certainly since the initial meeting I've been kind of watching. I think we're having less misuse, and it's very important when this legislation comes in.
My concerns remains, I guess we should never see a slow-moving sign on a road like 401.
Mr Andrews: No. Thanks to legislation that was passed fairly recently by MTO, farm vehicles are not allowed on the 401.
Mr Villeneuve: Except in certain --
Mr Andrews: No.
Mr Villeneuve: Are there not any --
Mr Andrews: No exemptions now.
Mr Villeneuve: No exceptions?
Mr Andrews: No exemptions. You can check that with Paul later, but that was my understanding.
1620
Mr Villeneuve: My concern remains that I guess as a farmer I would want a slow-moving-vehicle sign on two grain boxes that are maybe bolted to the back of a flatbed.
There may be instances there where you may be going 50 klicks an hour. In the field you certainly wouldn't, but on the highway you may get going. If you're coming home late at night and you've emptied at the elevator, you may be going 50 klicks an hour. I don't think that should warrant the penalty of a $90 fine. Could you comment on that?
Mr Andrews: I suppose that's similar to all of us who drove here today. Some of us drove 10 kilometres over the speed limit and we're here without having any tickets or without having to pay out any dollars. Now, maybe six months from now --
Mr Villeneuve: I can tell you where the photo-radar was this morning coming in.
Mr Andrews: -- I'll be getting that thing in the mail. Jim drove today, I should add.
For the most part, on most farm machinery, the tires are rated on them not to be driven over 25 miles an hour.
Mr Villeneuve: Miles or klicks?
Mr Andrews: Well, it's been miles in the past because that was the --
Mr Villeneuve: Standard.
Mr Andrews: -- criterion, yes. But I don't see a lot of problems in the area that I service, which includes Niagara. There are a lot of converted vehicles in the area, and they're very capable of going over that speed, but the reason they've chosen to cut that vehicle down and use it for a specific use is so they can use it without having to pay taxes on the gasoline and safety of the equipment and so on.
Mr Villeneuve: So this is an unlicensed vehicle.
Mr Andrews: This is an unlicensed vehicle. If it has the SMV sign on it, it's converted for a specific use. Certainly a lot of them may be capable of going faster, but I wouldn't personally want to travel at a higher speed with a lot of this equipment, particularly when it's loaded.
Mr Villeneuve: Yes, but like I'm telling you, when you're coming back from the grain elevator, it's midnight and you don't have a load on, you may be going 50 or 60 klicks an hour with a standard flatbed farm truck, licensed with a farm vehicle on it. I would hope those people would not be charged.
Mr Andrews: You're talking about a permanent conversion.
Mr Villeneuve: I'm talking about, you know, you may bolt those grain boxes on for the harvest time and then after harvest you've just got a flatbed.
Mr Andrews: I'd suggest that in that case perhaps the definition would be that it's not a completely converted vehicle and that someone might want to check with the police on that situation.
Mr Villeneuve: That's the only grey area.
Mr Andrews: It's supposed to be converted for a specific use and not be able to be used for something else later on.
Mr Villeneuve: But if it is a farm-licensed vehicle, with the farm plate on it --
Mr Andrews: Then you wouldn't require the SMV sign, because the SMV sign is not to be on licensed vehicles, as I understand it.
Mr Villeneuve: All right. That clarifies it for me.
Mr Hayes: I really don't have a question, I have a comment to make, and I want to thank you for the work and support in helping us with this bill. But I found it very interesting. I was telling the committee that this has been a bill that the Farm Safety Association and other farm organizations have been trying to get in for 15 years. Joe, as a matter of fact, showed me this clipping. It's from the Brantford Expositor on May 20, 1965, and it shows where:
"Brant County Farm Safety Council recommends slow-moving vehicles (SMV) display the new SMV emblem to avoid rear-end highway collisions. Charles E. Misener, of RR 8, Brantford" -- who was the president of the county association -- "mounted the first safety triangle in the area on his tractor. The bright reflector is a product of research conducted at the Ohio State University, and is now compulsory in Manitoba and may soon be adopted by the Ontario Department of Transport. It is recommended by the National Safety League of Canada and is available in Brant through the Brant County Junior Farmers' Association." They were busy back then too.
Actually, it's almost 30 years. We're saying that 30 years ago, here was a sign that pretty well everybody who was involved in transportation and in the farming community felt was the sign that should be used, and we're glad to have it here.
Mr Paul Klopp (Huron): Thank you for your time and for some of your clarification. Maybe just for the record, it's my understanding that any vehicle that goes over 40 kilometres an hour at any time, you're not supposed to have a slow-moving-vehicle sign on it, period, if it's a licensed vehicle?
Mr Andrews: That would be the proposed legislation, that the speed limit is attached to the sign. If you put the sign on the vehicle, then that limits your speed, even though you're capable of going more.
Mr Klopp: All right. Thank you for that. Also, under this proposed bill we're not changing the amendments with regard to unlicensed versus licensed? We're not changing that in the act? Because in your questionnaire, which I happened to answer all right, "Under the Highway Traffic Act, a farm wagon remains a farm wagon regardless of the towing vehicle." We're not changing that; we're not making amendments to that. Is that your understanding?
Interjection: Yes.
Mr Klopp: Okay.
Mr Andrews: There was at one time an interpretation a few years back that a farm wagon, when towed behind a tractor, was a farm wagon. If you towed it behind a pickup truck, then it became a trailer. The ministry is saying the interpretation is that a farm wagon is a farm wagon.
Mr Klopp: And that's still staying under this act.
Mr Andrews: There are no changes that I can interpret in that.
Mr Klopp: Okay, good. Neither have I, so that covers that.
Mr Hansen: I think Mr Andrews was talking about down in the Niagara area with orchard wagons. We have quite a few of them running around.
I've got to commend Mr Hayes for bringing this bill forward. It came before the government rural-agricultural caucus about three years ago and was discussed at that point.
There's only one thing: It would be nice that it became law that any piece of equipment that would be going out on the road that already had on the slow-moving sign, when that was sold, that would be on. Maybe that's one step further. Maybe Mr Cooper or Mr Villeneuve can come out with a private member's bill to have each vehicle have it on, because sometimes you say, "I'm going to get one next week for that vehicle." Any comment on that?
Mr Andrews: One of the discussions we've had around the table at the Farm Safety Association is that when this sign is put out for marketing, there be something on the back of that sign that says it's only for a specific use, on vehicles that are travelling less than 25 kilometres an hour. That would help with those people who are going to buy it to misuse it. Certainly once it becomes a law and it starts to get respect, perhaps we can convince the Ontario Retail Farm Equipment Dealers' Association to make contact with the manufacturers with regard to making that sign a permanent fixture on the vehicles.
Mr Hansen: To donate it.
Mr Andrews: Yes.
Mr Daigeler: My question, and you must excuse me, is a question from an urban member who doesn't have too many slow-moving vehicles in his riding, at least not farm vehicles. Certainly if our Agriculture critic were here, he wouldn't ask this question, but unfortunately his health is a little bit not too good right now. I hope he'll be back soon. He'd be very interested, certainly, to participate in this and to support it.
My question is, where do you get that sign currently? Is it sold at Canadian Tire or --
Mr Andrews: Oh, yes. It's widely available in TSC Stores, United Cooperatives of Ontario, Canadian Tire. It's readily available.
Mr Daigeler: I see. So you could just go to the store and pick it up, and I presume that will continue to be the practice.
You indicated already you would wish that perhaps something is going to be attached to that sign. Have you got any plans to get in touch with the producer? I don't know who produces it. I have no idea.
Mr Andrews: There are probably one or two makers of the signs within the province, and that wouldn't be a problem whatsoever. We've been approached by them for alternative use of the materials that they have left over in the past, and we didn't feel that any signs should be produced that would demean the meaning of the SMV sign. So no, the sign is readily available, will continue to be and, possibly as a result of our awareness campaign that we would develop, more people would be aware of what it is, where it is and how to get it and how to use it.
1630
Mr Daigeler: I don't know whether you have this kind of information -- perhaps it would have been a better question to the ministry official -- but are there any kind of actual statistics in terms of how many slow-moving vehicles were involved in accidents over, say, the last 10 years or something like this? I mean, what are we talking about?
Mr Andrews: One of the difficulties in the past has been the identification of the vehicles on the roadway as farm vehicles. In the past, the identification in the ministry's statistics has been one word: tractor. If the vehicle that had the accident was recognized as a farm vehicle, readily recognized, then it would be identified as in the statistics. But there are a lot of accidents out there where we know, from discussions and meetings that we attend, where people have had accidents but they've never been reported, or the tractor is run off the road by the car that was coming so fast that he knew he had a choice: Go in the ditch or get struck by the car.
In terms of fatalities, I would guesstimate that we've had perhaps two to three fatalities a year over the last number of years. We certainly identified them in our statistics.
Mr Daigeler: Due to the speed differential?
Mr Andrews: Yes, due to tractors being run into on the roadway or due to the person going so close to the shoulder of the road to make room for that other vehicle that's coming by that they end up flipping the tractor or going down into the ditch. But it's the leading cause of costs and claims for the Ontario Mutual Insurance Association. It's been consistent over the years -- it's over $7 million a year now -- the claims that they pay as a result of vehicles on the roadway being struck.
Mr Daigeler: That's an interesting figure.
Mr Andrews: There's a lot more happening out there than some of us would think.
Mr Daigeler: Frankly, I am surprised. I must admit that, coming from Nepean, I'm not involved with this, but I did not expect it, first of all, to be two or three fatalities a year, and, secondly, $7 million. That's a considerable number.
Mr Andrews: If we went to Statistics Canada, we would probably find that there are more fatalities, because invariably people are injured in the roadway accident and then, if they die months later or something like that, we may not hear about it through clippings and through other information. But what we're talking about here is not just the safety of the 3% that represents agriculture; we're talking about the 6,600,000-plus drivers in Ontario, plus those who are visiting.
I would add that this is similar legislation to probably at least 29 of the states in the United States -- the misuse law, the speed limit. Also, I have a pamphlet here on Amish country, and it shows that in the States they're using the SMV sign down there now. I don't know if it's the same sect, but that's perhaps something we can discuss.
This is not something new to Ontario, or just Ontario's idea. The member Pat Hayes mentioned the SMV sign in 1965 going on the tractor in Brent county. At that time, Manitoba already had a law for the SMV sign. It took several years before Ontario -- I believe it was 1968 when the law came in in Ontario, so we've been a long time with the sign. But how many of us had our licence before 1968?
The Chair: On behalf of this committee, I'd like to thank you, Mr Andrews and Mr Gibb, for bringing --
Mr Jordan: Sorry, Mr Chairman, I just want a quick question. What is the proper colouring for this sign?
Mr Andrews: Yellow-orange.
Mr Jordan: So the other ones that you see that are other colours --
Mr Andrews: They fade after a few years, depending on their exposure to weather. There's a standard that they must uphold for a certain period of time, but they do fade and they turn yellow. We've been advocating that those yellow ones be replaced because that centre portion is the daytime, and that's when most of the accidents happen, in daytime, good lighting conditions and good road conditions. But that's also when the people are driving fast too.
The Chair: Once again, Mr Andrews and Mr Gibb, on behalf of this committee I'd like to thank you for taking the time out of your busy schedules and giving us your presentation today.
ONTARIO FEDERATION OF AGRICULTURE
The Chair: I'd like to call forward our next presenters, from the Ontario Federation of Agriculture. Good afternoon.
Mr Ken Kelly: My name is Ken Kelly. I'm second vice-president of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture, and with me is Peter Jeffery from our research department.
The Chair: I understand congratulations are in order for your re-election as second vice-president.
Mr Kelly: Thank you very much, sir.
On behalf of the 38,000 farm members and the 28 organizations that make up and form the Ontario Federation of Agriculture, I'm very pleased to be here and welcome this opportunity to address the resources development committee on Bill 176, the Highway Traffic Amendment Act (Slow Moving Vehicle Signs).
As has been mentioned by a number of people here today, this issue goes back to the mid-1970s and before. Not only is the issue about slow-moving-vehicle signs; I think the whole issue is slow-moving itself. Quite frankly, this issue has outlasted three parties in power and numerous governments. I'm very happy to see that this slow-moving issue has actually finally come nose to nose with a faster-moving member.
Having said that, the Ontario Federation of Agriculture fully supports Bill 176. if I might, I'll just search through some of the things that we have here in front of you. We did bring some bedtime reading for you.
The Highway Traffic Act requires every farm tractor, self-propelled farm implement or vehicle towed by them to display the slow-moving-vehicle sign when operated along a highway. While its distinctive triangular yellow, orange and dark red sign must be displayed on all farm vehicles when operated on a highway, there are no corresponding penalties to deal with its misuse.
The intention of the sign is to alert motorists on rural roads that they are overtaking farm machinery travelling at a speed much below the posted limit, and this is not only for the protection, of course, of the people who are farming and operating these vehicles on those roads, but for our urban cousins when they come out into the countryside and come across vehicles that travel at speeds and in manners that they're not used to. The rapid closing time on these situations can lead to serious accidents.
Public awareness of the proper meaning and purpose of this sign is therefore eroded by misuse. In parts of Ontario, a slow-moving-vehicle sign is widely used to mark lanes and mailboxes. We've received reports of most slow-moving-vehicle signs on vehicles that are not-slow moving within the intention of the act, and also on hydro towers and other stationery objects. Many and varied abuses of the sign lead to confusion for motorists travelling on the highways of rural Ontario.
Slow-moving-vehicle sign misuse is not unique to Ontario. The slow-moving-vehicle sign is recognized across both Canada and the United States as the identifier for slow-moving farm vehicles. In order to address misuse, a number of American jurisdictions have enacted misuse laws combined with speed limits.
We are concerned, however, that there may be some ambiguity in the wording of the act in its application of a speed limit to slow-moving vehicles. Paragraphs 76(2)1 and 2 define what are slow-moving vehicles. Paragraph 1 refers to "tractors and self-propelled implements of husbandry". Paragraph 2 refers to "vehicles (other than bicycles, motor-assisted bicycles and disabled motor vehicles in tow) that are not capable of attaining and sustaining a speed greater than 40 kilometres" -- or 25 miles -- "per hour on level ground when operated on a highway." Does this mean that farm tractors and self-propelled implements of husbandry are not restricted to a 40-kilometres-per-hour speed limit, or does it mean that they are?
1640
We recommend that the slow-moving-vehicle sign be limited in its usage to farm vehicles. The more uses for the slow-moving-vehicle sign, the more problems of correct awareness it will create for the travelling public. Simplicity of use will heighten awareness.
Finally, we would encourage the Ministry of Transportation to undertake a broad-based public education program on the use of the slow-moving-vehicle sign. Such an education program should not be limited to rural Ontario but be directed at all licensed drivers in Ontario.
In past briefs to cabinets, the OFA has recommended that the Highway Traffic Act and regulations be amended to restrict the use of the slow-moving-vehicle sign solely to those farm vehicles travelling at a speed of less than 40 kilometres per hour. We further recommended that such amendments include a prohibition against the misuse of the sign and penalties sufficient to deter misuse. We urge the Ontario Legislature to rectify the problems inherent, due to widespread misuse, and swiftly pass Bill 176, the Highway Traffic Amendment Act (Slow Moving Vehicle Signs), 1994. We'd be pleased to deal with any questions you might have.
Mr Hansen: I was going to just make some comments. Mr Daigeler was talking earlier about statistics. Wiley Farms: Mr Villeneuve knows them quite well; Noble was down there for a farm visit. They were on a road up near Guelph delivering juices. There was a pole that had an identified triangle on it. A woman braked quite quickly to avoid hitting what she thought was a farm wagon sticking out on the road and went into a spin.
They were behind them in the truck, were able to stop in time without injuring the woman, but in the course of that close accident, some of the juices in the bottles shifted. Some of the cases broke, and they were the top cases and actually ruined the load that they were carrying. That would never show up as a statistic, but they would have to go back to the plant and repack all those cases, which was a day lost by Wiley Brothers on delivery.
We don't always see the total cost involved, but there are a lot of cases out there. I just wanted to bring that to light because the close calls never get counted, but there are a lot of them out there.
Mr Klopp: Thank you for your brief and reminding us about trying to get this ahead. You were here a little earlier and, I think, heard Ontario Hydro concerned about its signs. You've had experience with Ontario Hydro a little bit, I think, over the years. Don't you think it's kind of odd that Ontario Hydro is borrowing something from us and has the nerve to question us? My experience is, if we would ever touch anything that's under their regulations, they'd have the power of Mohammed Ali on our heads as farmers. What do you think about their argument with regard to their using our sign and then their demanding that we work with them like this? What's your feeling?
Mr Kelly: Well, Mr Klopp, I'm a farmer by profession, not a politician. I might well just maybe share a commonsense viewpoint on it. I noticed that in Ontario Hydro's letter they mention that they might well have as many as 1,000 of these slow-moving-vehicle signs being misused across the province. The last time I'd bought one of these, it cost me $4.95 down at the local co-op. I would suggest that the total cost is in the neighbourhood of somewhere around $5,000, a tremendous capital expropriation that pales by comparison to rainforests in Guatemala or power companies in Peru. I think there's smoke, I think there's mirrors and I think this does not need to be an issue.
Mr Hayes: Thank you very much, Ken, I appreciate your support. On that one concern you had in your brief that there are no corresponding penalties to deal with the misuse, however, there are because it falls under the Highway Traffic Act and it's section 214. It states that, "Every person who contravenes this act or any regulation is guilty of an offence and on conviction, where a penalty for the contravention is not otherwise provided for herein, is liable to a fine of not less than $60 and not more than $500." So it is in there. That'll become part of the act.
Mr Kelly: I appreciate hearing that, Mr Hayes, because we don't need toothless laws; we need good laws when farmers' lives are at stake.
Mr Daigeler: It's not really a question to you, but a question that arises from your presentation. I don't know whether Mr Hayes perhaps can answer that. There was a question in Mr Kelly's presentation. It was asking whether tractors and self-propelled implements of husbandry can drive faster, at speeds greater than 40 kilometres. What's the answer to that point?
Mr Kelly: I'm sorry, I had my attention diverted for a moment.
Mr Daigeler: As I say, the question is not really to you, but you were asking in your brief whether tractors can go at speeds higher than 40 kilometres.
Mr Kelly: I think there are a number of issues around this, and we have had some discussions with MTO and with the Solicitor General's office regarding some of these issues. But it would appear to me that there are a number of vehicles that are being used that are, I think according to the words of the act, designed, manufactured, redesigned or altered for specific use in agriculture, that are quite capable of going more than 25 miles an hour, 40 kilometres per hour.
I guess the analogy I would use is that I came down here in a car. According to the speedometer, it's capable of doing 140 kilometres per hour. My son tells me it will, but I wouldn't know. However, the onus is on the operator to respect the privilege that he's been given to operate. If he wants to go beyond a prescribed speed limit, there are penalties. He runs the risk of paying the price. If he wants to conform to that speed limit, and to that responsibility or that privilege he's been granted, then he should have no fear.
I'm not sure if I've answered your question. Maybe I'm getting as political as Paul in my old age.
Mr Daigeler: You've got the answer yourself, because you were asking in your brief, does this mean that farm tractors and self-propelled implements of husbandry are not restricted to a 40-kilometre-per-hour speed limit?
Mr Kelly: What we're saying in our brief is that it was not clear, in our reading of the act, whether there was to be a speed limit put in place with the use of the slow-moving-vehicle sign. That was not clear to me when I read it. I've heard some testimony here today. I've heard some assurances here today. If there is a speed limit at all, go with it at 25 miles per hour, 40 kilometres. I think we can support that. We've supported that for a number of years in our organization.
We asked this question in this manner for the purpose of ensuring that when it gets third reading it's very, very clear that there are prescribed penalties for going more than 25 miles an hour or more than 40 kilometres. The information we had at the last meeting between ourselves, MTO and the Solicitor General's office is that there is no speed limit presently attached to the slow-moving vehicle sign. That was their interpretation. Our fear is that they may well be right.
The Vice-Chair (Mr Paul Klopp): If I could be helpful, did you want to comment on that, Mr Hayes?
Mr Hayes: No, I think I already have. It is in the act, and if you want a clarification, maybe it would be better that I ask --
Mr Daigeler: We'll come back to it.
Mr Hayes: Perhaps Mr Levine would come up and represent the ministry.
The Vice-Chair: Any further questions?
Mr Kelly: Just for clarification, and I maybe talk too much, but it's not clear that when we read this particular act there is a speed limit. For years, we've supported a speed limit.
Mr Daigeler: Is there a speed limit?
Mr Levine: It's a matter of interpretation, and in this case the interpretation that I would apply to it is the 40 kilometres per hour. If a vehicle is travelling at greater than 40 kilometres per hour, it should not have attached to it a slow-moving-vehicle sign.
Mr Daigeler: But there's no other provision that would prohibit that vehicle to go faster.
Mr Levine: No.
Mr Hayes: Maybe you could mention about the licence, whether it's licensed or not.
1650
Mr Levine: Okay. I'm not sure that the actual licensing issue comes into play here in terms of assigning any speed limitation. The choice does have to be made as to whether a vehicle is a farm tractor or implement of husbandry, but certainly that wouldn't be -- the consideration that one has to make with respect to licensing is that if you choose to operate a vehicle unlicensed, you must be able to justify that it's been redesigned or specifically designed for a specific use in farming. If you're able to do that, you can get away with not having that vehicle licensed and can still operate it on the road. I don't think you would find too many enforcement officers who would be too pleased to see a vehicle like that operating at regular speeds on the highway, trying to keep up with other traffic.
Mr Villeneuve: Just for clarification, you emphasize slow-moving farm vehicles. Are you saying that slow-moving signs should be attached to only farm vehicles?
Mr Kelly: I think the sense we have of it is that the fewer things they're used on, the less confusion there's going to be in the minds of the travelling public. So we tend, from the federation point of view, to look at the issue of slow-moving-vehicle signs as things that we put on farm vehicles, farm equipment, farm machinery. I think we would want to suggest that that's where the slow-moving-vehicle sign belongs, and nowhere else.
Mr Villeneuve: In other words, a backhoe that may or may not be used on a farm, construction equipment --
Mr Kelly: I think that's a moot point. I think a tractor is a tractor, whether it's used to haul a backhoe around or used to haul a bailer around.
Mr Villeneuve: But a backhoe driving down the highway you feel should not have a slow-moving sign on it.
Mr Kelly: I would consider that it's similar to a self-propelled vehicle of husbandry, yes. You got me on that, Noble, and I would agree with you.
Mr Villeneuve: Anyway, Ken and Peter, thank you. Back in the mid-1960s I was reporting for the farm safety association for my county and I was surprised for the several years that I did that how many accidents we had. We were reporting everything from a twisted ankle to death. It's a very dangerous business, and this certainly would alleviate some of the problems that we have on our highways.
The Chair: Mr Kelly and Mr Jeffery, on behalf of this committee I'd like to thank you very much for taking the time out of your busy schedules and bringing your presentation to this committee today.
Mr Kelly: On behalf of the OFA, we want to thank you for allowing us to be here. We hope this bill can move along very swiftly to its full accomplishment.
The Chair: I once again call forward the Ministry of Transportation.
Mr Daigeler: Just to finalize this, and again it just shows my ignorance about rural affairs, I guess, to have to admit, but is there a provision that tractors are not allowed to go faster than 40 kilometres?
Mr Levine: No.
Mr Daigeler: So they could go any speed, but they would be in contravention, obviously, to put on that sign. If they don't have that sign on, they can go any speed they wish, within the posted speed limit?
Mr Levine: Within their capability as well. There should be some recognition given to the fact that I don't think too many farm tractors can sustain a relatively high speed. Higher than 40, perhaps, but --
Mr Villeneuve: Not much more.
Mr Levine: Not much more.
Mr Villeneuve: Not unless they're those guys who are in the pulling competitions.
Mr Daigeler: Really, then, the answer to the specific question that was in this brief, "Does this mean that farm tractors are not restricted to a 40-kilometre-per-hour speed limit?" is yes.
Mr Levine: The way the legislation is worded, we have identified the farm vehicles separately from the other vehicles that we talk about being capable of maintaining 40-kilometre-per-hour speed but, combined, this does in fact imply that if it is a farm vehicle, in order to use the slow-moving-vehicle sign, it still must remain at a speed lower than 40 kilometres per hour.
The Chair: Mrs Fawcett.
Mr Daigeler: I do have another question, but --
The Chair: Oh, go ahead. We'll just open it up now.
Mr Hansen: We'll take you in the rural caucus after this.
Mr Daigeler: We'll see whether you want to answer the question or not, but when we spoke on second reading, certainly all the representatives of my party, and Mrs Fawcett in particular, were very supportive of this idea. At the same time, there are of course many other private member's bills before the House. I see Mr Hansen here. He has one before the House that frankly I'd be very supportive of as well. I'm just wondering, was the ministry involved at all in prioritizing which private member's bills would get discussed still now? In particular, why is it that Mr Hansen's bill regarding the shared shippers --
Mr Levine: I'm not in a position to answer that question.
Mr Daigeler: -- and truckers doesn't get the floor, whereas this particular bill does?
Mr Klopp: This is not a relevant question.
Mr Daigeler: I'd just like to know from the ministry --
Mr Hansen: On a point of clarification --
The Chair: Order.
Mr Daigeler: Just a minute. I have the floor. You can speak afterwards.
Mr Hansen: On a point of order, Mr Chair: That is not a relevant question.
The Chair: There is no point of -- one moment. He did say he didn't know whether the ministry would want to respond. I will respond if the ministry chooses not to.
Mr Daigeler: Mr Chair, I would appreciate it if you could continue to let me have the floor when you gave it to me.
The Chair: You have the floor, Mr Daigeler.
Mr Daigeler: I would like to know from you, from a ministry perspective -- and I understand that you do represent the Ministry of Transportation today, since I don't know who else speaks for the Ministry of Transportation today here -- what, from the Ministry of Transportation, has been done with regard to the other private member's bills that also affect the transportation sector.
Mr Levine: As we are aware of private member's bills, we are called upon to analyse or contribute our own analysis, but in terms of priorities or anything that has to do with decisions as to which bills would move forward or not, we have no role to play in that at all, to my knowledge.
The Chair: If I may respond, Mr Hayes's bill was referred to this committee, and being that there is no government legislation which would take priority, that's why this bill was called forward to go to committee.
Mr Daigeler: That wasn't my question. We'll get an opportunity to ask that again later on. Thank you, Mr Chair.
Mr Hayes: Just in response, what has happened here is, yes, this bill was sped up, and it was sped up with the cooperation of all three parties. I talked to the critics in the other parties and they agreed, especially in the subcommittee, really, I should say, that this was a very important bill and it concerned safety and we all agreed unanimously that the bill be brought forward. That's why it's here.
The Chair: Thank you. On the same subject?
Mr Hansen: On the same subject, my particular bill had first reading only. My ballot time will come up at the end of March or April, so that's why it hasn't gone forward to a committee as yet. It was just on the wrong end of the docket.
Mrs Joan M. Fawcett (Northumberland): I'm wondering, and I meant to take time to do a little research but I didn't, so maybe you can answer the question for me: Is it mandatory that slow-moving vehicles also have their flashing lights on, or is that just something people do?
Mr Levine: It isn't, because as a matter of fact not all slow-moving vehicles would have any flashing lights.
Mrs Fawcett: All right. That's what I thought.
Mr Levine: Many farm vehicles don't have any electrical equipment.
Mr Villeneuve: What about after dark? After dark they have to.
1700
Mr Levine: They have to have some. Some of the horse-drawn vehicles, however, would be carrying kerosene lamps, for example, so there wouldn't necessarily be flashing lights to turn on.
Mrs Fawcett: As far as safety goes, where possible I'm sure the farmers do, but certainly with today's traffic it would -- and I'm thinking now of hilly Northumberland, when you come up over a hill and suddenly there is a slow-moving vehicle in front of you. Maybe at certain times of the day it would really help out as well if the vehicle had flashing lights, but I can see where not all vehicles do, so that's another debate for another day, I guess.
The Chair: Further questions from the PC caucus? No? Mr Hayes? Mr Klopp.
Mr Klopp: Just back to that 40 kilometres -- and it's too bad we got off on another topic, but that's the decision of the Chair. And I think we're splitting hairs. As a farmer, I know most tractors don't go over 25 kilometres an hour, but I also tried to follow a combine the other day that was doing about 30. I certainly know it's not an intent of this organization, who I think and I hope all want to pass it -- I certainly do. But I don't think we want to get bottlenecked when we're actually, after all these years, finally getting this done, that we don't accidentally pass a bill today which, because it says 40 kilometres an hour, somebody out there, be it a police officer who has a bad hair day or something, decides to go after a farmer by picking a rule and says: "Well, that combine was doing" -- I'll stick with kilometres -- "45 kilometres an hour. You've got a slow-moving-vehicle sign in the back. I'm charging you because you should have had that sign off because this vehicles is doing 45 kilometres an hour."
I think we just need that clarified, that all farm vehicles, whether it be husbandry vehicles or whatever, are supposed to have a slow-moving-vehicle sign on and whatever speed they're going at any time is not the point here, that they're farm vehicles, if we could just have that clarified. I think that's what we were doing here, but I want that clarified that they're farm vehicles and we're not talking about the speed issue in the context that I think I heard some people talk about here. As long as it's clear in your mind's eye, then let's get on with it.
I'll put it to you in a question. If I have a combine that does 45 kilometres an hour -- and I'm positive the other day that's what that combine was doing -- and they've got a slow-moving-vehicle sign on, under this legislation are they going to demand that the slow-moving-vehicle sign comes off that combine because they're going over 40 kilometres an hour?
Mr Levine: If the combine is going 45 kilometres an hour and has the slow-moving-vehicle sign on, subject to the interpretation of an enforcement officer, I would think a charge could be laid.
Mr Klopp: We don't want that, I don't think.
Interjections.
Mr Hansen: When are you going to drive a combine at 45 kilometres an hour?
Mr Klopp: Okay. As long as you're happy with that, then let's pass it.
Interjections.
Mr Hansen: I've got no questions.
The Chair: Any further questions? Seeing no further questions from the committee members, I'd like to thank the Ministry of Transportation for their presentation to this committee. Legislative research now.
Mr Jerry Richmond: I was chatting with the Chairman. I do have a summary. Our job today is very easy because we've only had three deputations, compared to some six-week marathons that we've all worked with across the province with various other committees.
What I undertook with the Chairman is to get the members a written copy later in the week. However, very simply, the summary I have prepared does reflect the support for the bill by the Ministry of Transportation and also the two deputations from the farm community that came before us. It also reflects the Ministry of Transportation's concern with regard to the regulation-making power, and I think MOT's concerns are reflected in the government amendment that I've seen. I don't know whether either of the two opposition parties will be proposing further amendments. That's a matter for the parties and the committee to consider.
The other point the summary does reflect, in addition to the support from the three deputants, is the --
Mr Daigeler: What summary are you talking about?
Mr Richmond: I'm just saying I'm going to get you one later in the week. I'm just verbally highlighting what will be in there, because time is of the essence here and I understand we are going to be going into clause-by-clause. So I'm just verbally highlighting what will be in the summary. I will, Mr Daigeler, get you and the other members a written copy later in the week that you can refer to, and it will follow the usual format of these summaries. I'm sure you've seen many of them.
The other concern that the summary reflects is the concern of the OFA, where on page 2 of their deputation they recommend that the SMV sign be limited in its usage to farm vehicles.
That really concludes what I have to say. So you will get a written summary in due course.
The Chair: There seems to be a fair bit of discussion going on, so if I could, we'll have a five-minute recess before we proceed with clause-by-clause analysis. This committee stands recessed for five minutes.
The committee recessed from 1706 to 1714.
The Chair: I'd like to call this committee back to order. If we may, could Mr Levine from the Ministry of Transportation come back and clarify one small matter?
Mr Levine: I return humbly to the table. With respect to the question of whether a farm vehicle must adhere to a 40-kilometre speed in order to still retain the slow-moving-vehicle sign, I was incorrect in my previous answer. In fact, all farm tractors and self-propelled implements of husbandry are defined as slow-moving vehicles, which must carry the sign. The further definition relates to all other vehicles that are not capable of attaining and sustaining a speed of greater than 40 kilometres per hour. So the combine, being a self-propelled implement of husbandry, would retain the privilege or the requirement to use the slow-moving-vehicle sign even if it were capable of travelling at a higher speed.
The Chair: Thank you. The committee appreciates that clarification.
Mr Daigeler: Could I ask you, is that the Highway Traffic Act? Where is that definition?
Mr Levine: In this bill, it is section 1 of the bill, subsection 76(2) of the Highway Traffic Act.
Mr Daigeler: You mean to say that with this bill now, all tractors are automatically defined as slow-moving vehicles? Does that have then any --
Mr Levine: That's no different than the current law.
Mr Daigeler: So they are already presently defined as slow-moving vehicles? That was my question.
Mr Levine: Yes.
The Chair: If we can, we'll proceed with the clause-by-clause analysis.
On section 1 --
Mr Daigeler: I just wanted to say that I thought Mr Hansen earlier on, even though some of the members didn't want me to ask the question, gave a good answer, because I think he's right, and I forgot about that, that his bill received only first reading whereas Mr Hayes's bill got a whole hour of discussion and the support from all three sides of the House. So I think that's a legitimate reason why his should get the priority over Mr Hansen's, but I do hope Mr Hansen's bill will, in some form or other, still see the light of day as well, maybe as a government bill.
Mr Hansen: I wasn't able to talk my colleagues into giving up their spot for their particular important bill to let me in for my important bill.
Mr Daigeler: I'll put in a push for you.
The Chair: We have a motion by Mr Hayes.
Mr Hayes: Do you want me to do the amendment now or wait till we get --
The Chair: We're on section 1.
Mr Hayes: I move that subsection 76(7) of the Highway Traffic Act, as set out in section 1 of the bill, be amended by adding the following clauses:
"(c) prescribing the type and specifications of a marker or device, requiring that it be displayed, instead of the slow-moving-vehicle sign, on a horse-drawn vehicle when driven by a person described in clause (b), and prescribing the location of the marker or device on the vehicle;
"(d) respecting any matter considered necessary or advisable to carry out the intent and purpose of this section."
I think it's straightforward. I appreciate everyone's support.
The Chair: Any further discussion on the motion by Mr Hayes? Seeing no further discussion on the motion by Mr Hayes, all those in favour? Opposed? Carried.
Further discussion on section 1?
Seeing no further discussion on section 1, shall section 1, as amended, carry? Carried.
Shall section 2 carry? Carried.
Shall section 3 carry?
Mr Daigeler: Normally, we have questions and comments or something like that. Before we pass number 3, because this pretty well concludes the matter, I think it is in order to congratulate Mr Hayes on having brought this matter forward.
Mr Hansen: "Do we want to report it to the House?" first.
Mr Daigeler: Even though it was a short hearing session before the committee, at least we did get an opportunity to hear from some of the affected parties, which I think was useful as well, and I think somebody did their homework and advise them. So that is to the credit of whoever did it; I guess Mr Hayes did it.
I just want to again indicate the support, certainly, of the Liberal Party, as was indicated already when the matter was brought forward during private members' hour. Mr Eddy spoke; Mrs Fawcett and Mr Cleary as well. They all took part in the debate and expressed their support for this initiative. So even though they can't be here today, as Transportation critic, and in that sense perhaps least affected by it, I certainly add my support for this as well.
Mr Len Wood (Cochrane North): I'd just like to add the comment that I'm pleased that Mr Hayes has been able to gain the support of the other two caucuses as well as the Farm Safety Association and the Ontario Federation of Agriculture, and I'm looking forward to this bill coming in for third reading.
The Chair: Mrs Haslam.
Mrs Karen Haslam (Perth): I was just afraid that Mr Hayes was getting a swelled head and I was going to say something derogatory, but there's just nothing derogatory I can say about Mr Hayes at this time.
Mr Klopp: On behalf of the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, it's an issue that's been around there a long time over the years and we're just really glad that Mr Hayes took the initiative in his private member's bill to bring this forward because of tight schedules and that. We're really pleased that this is getting forward for the farm community. There are people in my riding who have been working on this for years. They're going to be quite happy that this got through and survived one government anyway. So let's pass it and get on with it.
The Chair: Shall section 3 carry? Carried.
Shall the preamble carry?
Interjections: Carried.
Interjection: There is no preamble.
The Chair: Oh, there is no preamble. My mistake.
Shall the title carry? Agreed.
Shall the bill, as amended, carry? Carried.
Shall I report the bill to the House? Agreed.
One further piece of business: There is a document that was handed out to all the committee members, which is the Ministry of Labour's undertakings given during the standing committee on resources development on Bill 165. Being as this committee has already disposed of Bill 165, it will just be for the committee's reference.
Seeing no further business before this committee, this committee stands adjourned to the call of the Chair.
The committee adjourned at 1723.