CONTENTS
Tuesday 24 June 1997
Comprehensive Road Safety Act, 1997, Bill 138, Mr Palladini /
Loi de 1997 sur un ensemble complet de mesures visant la sécurité routière, projet de loi 138, M. Palladini
STANDING COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT
Chair / Présidente: Ms Annamarie Castrilli (Downsview L)
Vice-Chair / Vice-Président: Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-Walkerville L)
Mrs Marion Boyd (London Centre / -Centre ND)
Mr Jack Carroll (Chatham-Kent PC)
Ms Annamarie Castrilli (Downsview L)
Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-Walkerville L)
Mr Tim Hudak (Niagara South / -Sud PC)
Mr Frank Klees (York-Mackenzie PC)
Mr Gary L. Leadston (Kitchener-Wilmot PC)
Mrs Lyn McLeod (Fort William L)
Mrs Julia Munro (Durham-York PC)
Mr Dan Newman (Scarborough Centre / -Centre PC)
Mr John L. Parker (York East / -Est PC)
Mr Richard Patten (Ottawa Centre / -Centre L)
Mr Bruce Smith (Middlesex PC)
Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma ND)
Substitutions present /Membres remplaçants présents:
Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South / -Sud ND)
Mr Tom Froese (St Catharines-Brock PC)
Mr John Hastings (Etobicoke-Rexdale PC)
Mr Pat Hoy (Essex-Kent L)
Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South / -Sud PC)
Also taking part /Autres participants et participantes:
Mr Ross Burns, senior counsel, legal services branch, MTO
Clerk / Greffière: Ms Tonia Grannum
Staff / Personnel: Ms Laura Hopkins, legislative counsel
The committee met at 1546 in room 151.
COMPREHENSIVE ROAD SAFETY ACT, 1997 / LOI DE 1997 SUR UN ENSEMBLE COMPLET DE MESURES VISANT LA SÉCURITÉ ROUTIÈRE
Consideration of Bill 138, An Act to promote road safety by increasing periods of suspension for Criminal Code convictions, impounding vehicles of suspended drivers, requiring treatment for impaired drivers, raising fines for driving while suspended, impounding critically defective commercial vehicles, creating an absolute liability offence for wheel separations, raising fines for passing stopped school buses, streamlining accident reporting requirements and amending other road safety programs / Projet de loi 138, Loi visant à favoriser la sécurité routière en augmentant les périodes de suspension pour les déclarations de culpabilité découlant du Code criminel, en mettant en fourrière les véhicules de conducteurs faisant l'objet d'une suspension, en exigeant le traitement des conducteurs en état d'ébriété, en augmentant les amendes pour conduite pendant que son permis est suspendu, en mettant en fourrière les véhicules utilitaires comportant des défauts critiques, en créant une infraction entraînant la responsabilité absolue en cas de détachement des roues, en augmentant les amendes pour dépassement d'un autobus scolaire arrêté, en simplifiant les exigences relatives à la déclaration des accidents et en modifiant d'autres programmes de sécurité routière.
The Chair (Ms Annamarie Castrilli): Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for being here. We are beginning the clause-by-clause summary of Bill 138.
You should have received a number of documents. The first is the revised Target '97 summary. There are also a number of submissions which have been sent in that you should have. There is a list of summary of recommendations which has been prepared by research. Finally, there were a number of questions asked during the course of these hearings. I want to report to you that they've all been answered with the exception of two, and I just want to note those for the committee. The first is question 6, which was posed by Mr Bisson. Essentially, the question was, which of the Target '97 recommendations require either regulation or legislation to be implemented? That has not been answered, as far as I know.
Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-Walkerville): I've got that.
The Chair: Do you have that?
Clerk of the Committee (Ms Tonia Grannum): That's been handed out.
The Chair: Super. So we do have that. Question 12, posed by Mrs McLeod -- why is the introduction of the interlock system being delayed in Ontario, and the status of the ignition interlock in Ontario -- is the only other outstanding one.
Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): Just before we start, does the clerk have a copy of Target '97, by any chance?
The Chair: We'll check. If we have one, we'll give it to you.
We then pass to clause-by-clause consideration of Bill 138. We'll start with section 1 of the bill.
Mr Bisson: I have an amendment I'd like to move.
I move that the bill be amended by adding the following section:
"0.1 Part I of the Highway Traffic Act is amended by adding the following section:
"Report to assembly
"5.1(1) The minister shall lay a report annually before the assembly.
"Same
"(2) The annual report shall include the legislative and regulatory activities that the ministry has undertaken in the following areas,
"(a) truck wheel assembly and preventative maintenance;
"(b) brake inspection, maintenance and adjustment;
"(c) overall mechanical fitness of trucks;
"(d) safety ratings for trucks and carrier operations;
"(e) the commercial vehicle operator's (CVOR) system;
"(f) truck maintenance and inspection standards;
"(g) hours of work for drivers;
"(h) class `a' driver licence testing; and
"(i) class `a' driver training."
The reason the NDP caucus is putting forward this particular amendment, and I as the NDP transportation critic, is that all sides of the House, all three parties, recognize there is a problem out on our highways with regard to truck safety. There has been a concern expressed by the public and by ourselves as members of this assembly. We know the industry, along with other stakeholders, worked closely with the ministry to develop some good recommendations in Target '97, not all of them perfect but certainly good recommendations, to address the issue of how to make the industry safer for the travelling public and for the industry itself.
There was a fairly extensive process gone through to bring forward the recommendations found in the document called Target '97. By way of background, when Target '97 was first announced a while back, a little less than a year ago, the Minister of Transportation identified correctly that a number of these recommendations needed to be moved and dealt with fairly quickly to deal with what he termed at the time a fairly urgent situation.
The minister then in February introduced Bill 125 in the House to deal with one of the issues with truck safety, namely, flying truck wheels. For a number of reasons, that wasn't dealt with. The government, because it was moving on other legislation, namely, the megacity and other bills they wanted to get through the House, the minister was not able to get 125 through the Legislative Assembly process. The government House leader had other important business he wanted to deal with, and the minister couldn't get Bill 125 --
Mr Frank Klees (York-Mackenzie): Remember the filibuster?
Mr Bisson: Yes, there was a 10-day filibuster in there, but the point is that you guys have a majority in the House. You control absolutely everything that happens. The Minister of Transportation introduced the bill to be dealt with. He told us at the time it was important, then basically introduced it knowing he didn't have the support of his House leader.
Here we are some time later. Both I and the other opposition critic and the public and the families of the victims put pressure on the government to move on the whole issue of truck safety. The minister promised us at the time that he was going to give us comprehensive truck safety legislation.
I was in the Legislature along with the rest of you. I remember explicitly the Minister of Transportation saying this was urgent, that we needed to deal with it, that he needed to bring forward comprehensive truck safety legislation. He wouldn't deal with Bill 125 on its own as it was only one piece of the puzzle; in his own words, a whole bunch of other issues had to be dealt with. We waited patiently for the minister to bring forward comprehensive truck safety legislation. I talked to the minister personally and I know the critic from the Liberal Party did, and our House leaders as well, to say we were prepared to give the government support to move forward on what is called comprehensive truck safety legislation.
What does the government bring forward in Bill 138? They bring forward a bill that's positive -- we're going to vote for it -- and certainly a step in the right direction, but it falls far short of being comprehensive truck safety legislation. The amendment I've put forward today says, "The government has certainly taken a step forward, but we need some assurances that the government is going to move on some of the recommendations within Target '97." The industry wants it, the public wants it, the families of the victims want it, the government hopefully wants it, and I know the opposition parties want it. We're saying, let's put an amendment in the bill that says to the minister: "We have your feet to the fire. You have to perform. You can't slough this off to the political whims of whatever happens." If we're serious about truck safety, let's adopt the amendment and let's move forward.
The Chair: Further debate. Mr Hastings?
Mr Klees: Call the question.
The Chair: Mr Hastings is just making his way. We'll give him an opportunity, if he wishes, to debate.
Mr Klees: Call the question.
The Chair: Mr Klees, let me be the Chair, will you? Thank you.
Mr John Hastings (Etobicoke-Rexdale): Let me respond by pointing out that Bill 138 is, in its short title, the Comprehensive Road Safety Act, 1997. It deals with the issues, some out of the Target '97 recommendations, some out of bus safety, and another major component deals with the drunk driving provisions and the severe penalties we are presenting in this particular legislation.
I find it rather ironic that the NDP transportation critic maintains in the House that we're moving too quickly with legislation, yet in this committee is pushing very strongly that we're not moving quickly enough. In my estimation, that's a clear contradiction. I don't want to get into all the politics of that, but I think it needs to be essentially placed on the record that we are moving in a very orderly and comprehensive way.
As we go through these amendments and through the legislation, we will have at the end of the day a comprehensive road safety bill that deals with the major concerns coming out of the trucking industry, coming out of the public's requirements and demands for action on drunk driving, and also dealing with some of the concerns raised by members of both the opposition and the government regarding school bus safety. That's my statement dealing with the rationale for this bill and how it got here.
Mr Bisson: I don't want to delay this a whole bunch, but I have to make a point. We in the NDP say Bill 138 deals progressively with a couple of very important issues. We support that and we haven't got a problem. We congratulate you for having done a good job on the drunk drivers issue and a few others in the bill.
But that doesn't take away from the fact that the government promised it was going to move forward and give us comprehensive truck safety legislation to deal with what's happening in the deregulated trucking industry. We have a lot more trucks out on Ontario highways. They're all competing to try to make a buck. We understand that. In the competition to make a buck, safety is one of the things that's thrown out the window.
We heard a number of people present at this committee, as we had at other committees before, that something needs to be done to find a way to make the industry safer and to level the playing field, to use Brian Mulroney's term, for all the operators within the trucking industry.
We're not suggesting by way of this amendment that we force the government to do something all of a sudden really quickly and pass Target '97 holus-bolus without due process. What the amendment talks about -- and the parliamentary assistant is being fairly selective. We want to put a requirement in Bill 138 that says the government every year has to report where it's at: Have you moved on comprehensive truck safety legislation? If you choose not to, that's your choice, and you will either pay for that or reap the rewards at the next election, whatever the voters decide. We put ourselves in their hands. That's the nature of our business.
We're not saying that by a certain date everything in Target '97 be done. That's not what we're asking for in this amendment. All we're asking for is that every year the Minister of Transportation must come to the Legislature and must state what he has done when it comes to truck safety vis-à-vis Target '97. Let the minister at that point decide the timelines for when he wants to decide things.
The problem we have and the reason we bring forward this amendment is twofold. First, once Bill 138 passes, I don't think the Minister of Transportation is going to get another opportunity to deal with truck safety legislation. I'm trying to give him an opportunity and some support to make sure this does come back and we're able to deal with it.
Again, we're not asking that Target '97 be dealt with holus-bolus by Tuesday morning, like the government would like to have with the rule changes. We're saying: annual reports; let the minister tell us where he's at; let him report to the assembly every year what he's done to deal with the whole issue of truck safety. If the minister decides to do that quickly or slowly, that's a decision he's going to make.
I would argue that we do it right, get it right, work together to make the highways safer for Ontarians, that we don't play politics with this. That's what this amendment was for. I could quite easily have brought in a thousand amendments to try to play with this. The only point I'm thinking is that you've got some good legislation here in Bill 138, but you could have done a lot more when it comes to truck safety. The families of the victims ask you to move, the trucking association asks you to move, the public wants you to move. This is going to make sure the minister in the end does what he should, and that's dealing with truck safety for all Ontarians.
Mr Gary L. Leadston (Kitchener-Wilmot): I think it's important to indicate that there were deputations that appeared before us who were strongly in support of the bill in its entirety. Although this is my first term, I do have a fair amount of experience at the municipal level, and I don't know of any municipal bylaw, or in my experience so far here I don't know of any bill we've passed and/or has gone through the various committees, that's going to satisfy every element and every party and every citizen. There will always be something the members of the opposition -- that's their role -- will either find fault with or take exception to. Individuals will appear who will find exceptions; they would like this included, they would like less of this, more of that. That's the nature of the beast.
However, I wanted the record to reflect, contrary to what the member said, that there were individuals who appeared here who supported this bill in its entirety and wanted it completed, wanted it passed and in effect.
1600
Mr Bisson: Let me be quite clear. We support Bill 138. The public wants you to pass 138. That's not the question. The point is that the Ontario Trucking Association and a number of people are saying that in Target '97 there were 79 recommendations, of which only one is found in Bill 138. Let's not hold up 138; let's pass it. It's a step in the right direction. No problem; we support that.
But there is far more that needs to be done when it comes to truck safety legislation than passing Bill 138. What about the other 78 recommendations of the 79 in Target '97? We want some assurances that the government is going to move forward with a process where the public is involved, the public associations, the trucking associations, the ministry and others, to make sure we move on the recommendations of Target '97. We studied this to death. We don't want the report sitting on yet another shelf collecting tons of dust. I want to work with you so we can make highways safer for Ontarians. There is some good work here. Let's move on it. That's all this amendment is saying.
Mr Klees: We agree with Mr Bisson. Where we differ is that he feels we should be entrenching in the legislation his amendment. I can understand that. You take ownership of an amendment, and even though you've heard the rational explanations of the parliamentary assistant and my colleague you still want it passed as an amendment. We're saying we agree with you in principle that there is yet much to be done. The minister said that in his statement to this committee. In fact, the minister gave his undertaking that much more would be done, but he also indicated that he intended to consult appropriately with the industry to ensure we get it right.
Most of the things you're referring to should be done most appropriately by regulation. It's my understanding that that is the intent -- it was clearly articulated here by the minister -- and we would proceed accordingly.
Mr Bisson: The explanation of the parliamentary assistant was that we're on one hand trying to say to the government that they're moving too fast in the House, and that on the other, somehow I'm trying to force you guys to deal too quickly on the recommendations of Target '97. That's not at all what I said. I'm not going to repeat it; I made the comments a little while ago to Mr Leadston.
What I'm getting at, to be blunt, is that the minister promised us comprehensive truck safety legislation. That's what he promised us before Bill 138 was put in place. That's what we expected -- not what I expected. That's what he said and that's what everybody expected.
Mr Klees: It's a matter of definition.
Mr Bisson: Well, what am I to believe when the minister stands in the House and says publicly to the critic: "Just wait. I'm coming forward with comprehensive truck safety legislation. It'll be here this spring"? The Premier stands in the House when asked questions on Bill 125 and says the same thing: "Just you wait. We're coming with comprehensive truck legislation."
Mr Klees: That's what it is.
Mr Bisson: This is not comprehensive truck safety legislation. That's the point.
The Chair: Mr Bisson, could you wrap up?
Mr Bisson: The rules allow me to make the point, and I am going to use the rules as long as we have them, Chair.
Mr Klees: Another filibuster.
Mr Bisson: No, it's not a filibuster, not at all. We all, on all sides of this House, take our jobs very seriously. I know that government members come to this committee, as they come to the Legislature, to do the right thing. So do we.
When the minister and the Premier stand in the House and say they will move forward on comprehensive truck safety legislation, that raises the expectation of the public, the transportation industry and, yes, the opposition, and I would think the members of the government as well. This is not what this bill is all about. All we're asking for by way of this bill is for you guys to accept this amendment. If you're not going to do that, the question I have to the parliamentary assistant is simply this: When do you expect to come forward with legislation to deal with what is in Target '97? Do you expect legislation tabled in the next week, month, two months, three months? When do you expect to come forward if you're going to move on it?
Mr Hastings: We will introduce legislation required under Target '97 for those particular items that require legislation. For example, the private vocational schools act for truck driver training and certification would have to be brought in under a separate scenario. In terms of the timing expectations, we're looking probably in the next six months or so. It will have to be ascertained in terms of what the House leader, in negotiation with the two opposition House leaders, see as legislation that -- and what the government sees as its priorities when we return on August 18. It certainly isn't going to be in the next two to three days, as Mr Bisson has alluded to, perhaps.
Mr Bisson: You couldn't; the rules wouldn't allow you.
So what you're saying to me is that the government plans on moving forward with legislation that deals with the legislative requirements of Target '97 within six months.
Mr Hastings: That's a realistic hope. I think it's buttressed, to a certain extent, by what the House leader and the caucus also sees as a priority.
I would also like to respond that in terms of Target '97 there were 79 recommendations brought out of that exercise; 35 will require regulation of one sort or another; seven will require legislation; 27 will require either a major policy change or a process implementation. And one of them is a federal responsibility, and we don't necessarily agree to all the dimensions of that specific recommendation.
Mr Bisson: I've always said to the parliamentary assistant that we don't expect they're going to be moving on the entirety, every one of the 79. I do recognize there's one that's federal, and you've already done one of them.
There's a second part of the question, on the regulation portion. You're saying in six months you're going to introduce legislation to deal with those items in Target '97 that need legislation. In terms of the regulatory part of Target '97, when do you expect to move forward on that, and how will you notify the public and the opposition of the changes in regulation?
Mr Hastings: I think announcements by the minister, which he's done before --
Mr Bisson: Have you ever tried to get an answer from the minister in the House?
Mr Hastings: -- and also by questions that can be brought out by members of the opposition or the government. To me, those are very appropriate ways and the appropriate forum in which to deal with the list of items, which in my estimation are to a great extent out of order.
The Chair: Mr Bisson, I've allowed you a lot of latitude. I would ask you to restrict yourself to the amendment. We're going beyond the amendment at this point.
Mr Bisson: I'm not going beyond the amendment. I'm dealing with what's within Target '97. The last question I have: Do you plan on moving within the next six months on the regulatory portions of Target '97? It's a very simple question.
Mr Hastings: To answer that, Monsieur Bisson, we have to look at a prioritization of those items in Target '97 that are going to require some extensive regulatory work. We'll do our very best, in terms of that prioritization, to get those out that we believe are absolutely essential for the motoring public, for its safety and also for the trucking industry.
Mr Bisson: Would you say a majority of the regulations within six months?
Mr Hastings: No. I would say you're looking at closer to a year for the majority of the regulations.
Mr Bisson: Thank you very much.
The Chair: Shall this motion carry?
Mr Bisson: A recorded vote, please.
Ayes
Bisson, Duncan, Hoy, McLeod.
Nays
Froese, Hastings, Klees, Leadston, Munro, Parker.
The Chair: The motion is defeated.
Are there any further motions?
1610
Mr Duncan: I have several motions at this point. First, I move that the bill be amended by adding the following section:
"0.1 Part I of the Highway Traffic Act is amended by adding the following section:
"Truck Safety Review Committee
"5.1(1) Within 30 days after this section comes into force, a committee shall be established to be called the Truck Safety Review Committee in English and the Comité d'étude de la sécurité des camions in French.
"Composition
"(2) The committee shall be composed of five persons appointed by the Lieutenant Governor in Council.
"Function of committee
"(3) The committee shall make recommendations to the Minister of Transportation and the Solicitor General and Minister of Correctional Services on the implementation of the following:
"1. The recommendations of the Target '97 Task Force on Truck Safety.
"2. The recommendations of the coroner's jury in the inquest into the deaths of Angela Worona and James Tyrrell.
"Reports to Speaker
"(4) Every four months the committee shall make a report on its activities to the Speaker of the assembly, who shall cause the report to be laid before the assembly if it is in session or, if not, at the next session."
And this one's for Mr Klees, a sunset clause:
"Committee dissolved after five years
"(5) The committee shall be dissolved five years after the day this section comes into force."
I had originally proposed this in my private member's Bill 133, and I was pleased at the number of groups that came here and endorsed this, including the CAA. I should tell the PA that notionally, the idea of implementing your recommendation of the regulatory changes in one year -- we have heard testimony and statements from others to say that is not doable, that a number of the regulations could take upwards of five years for full implementation if done properly.
We believe the process should be clear. We believe it should be transparent. We think it's in the government's interest that this committee be there. The government has made, I think, legitimate undertakings with respect to truck safety. We now have back the answer to our question -- I thank the parliamentary assistant for that -- with respect to the implementation of the various recommendations of Target '97. I should point out that there were also 31 Worona inquest recommendations in total. I placed an order paper question some weeks ago; it was responded to according to the standing orders, and the answer was that we couldn't respond to it in this time frame.
We're simply suggesting that the government appoint this committee; that it be clear and transparent. I think the government acted in good faith when it appointed the original Target '97 group. The truck industry, the CAA, others who had an interest in the issue were part of it. I think this will assist the government in making sure the public understands what's going on in terms of the regulatory environment and to ensure accountability.
This particular motion is really at the heart of what we're concerned about. As an opposition, I believe this is the first time we have agreed to support a government bill. We do so in good faith because we believe the government has acted in good faith. We hope this amendment, this type of committee, would allow everyone, in the public particularly, to have the sense that the regulations are being proceeded on. We saw what happened with Bill 125. When the government decided not to proceed with it, it created a whole fire storm around that.
I should say to the government members of the committee and the parliamentary assistant that if you have this type of review body in place -- it has no power to change them; simply to review and look at them on a periodic basis -- I suspect the number of questions raised publicly, the allegations that the government is not concerned about safety will die right out. There will be a transparent process that doesn't cost anything and is sunsetted to help ensure that the regulations that the government intends to bring forward -- even though there is a process in the regs, it ensures that everybody feels an ownership of this and has an input. That's why we propose this.
Mr Bisson: What has been said has been said. I just want to indicate that our caucus supports this amendment. It's in keeping with what we're trying to do, which is to make sure there's public accountability about the implementations of Target '97 and, I repeat, to make sure there is some pressure brought on the government to move forward on the recommendations of both Target '97 and the Worona coroner's inquest.
Mrs Lyn McLeod (Fort William): I just want to add to the comments made by Mr Duncan that I trust the government has looked seriously at the proposed amendments. This amendment is one of the ones we think is particularly in keeping with the good faith that's gone into this bill and is very beneficial for government in the longer term. Quite clearly, it has been presented by my colleague in a way which leaves it totally within the control of government.
It addresses the major concern we've heard in these rather brief hearings, which is that the bill does not go far enough, and what is going to happen to the balance of the recommendations under Target '97? This provides a forum, with the appointments entirely within the hands of government, and which is, as my colleague has said, solely advisory, to provide that reassurance that there is a clear public process and that there is a way of ensuring that in areas that have not yet been addressed by this legislation there will be some future action taken.
I trust this is the kind of recommendation which the government would see as being very much in keeping with the cooperative effort that's gone into the bill and would in fact be beneficial for government in the longer term.
Mr Hastings: The ministry's and the government's response is the following: I find it rather unusual that members of the opposition parties are proposing an exercise or a process by which they are giving away their opportunities to ask questions in the House to the minister. It seems to me you're setting this up quite contrary to this particular government, which when it came into power two years ago found a whole plethora of advisory groups and bodies which we went through a red tape exercise to reduce and eliminate, particularly where we had unaccountable groups spending an unaccountable amount of money on a variety of issues.
We find, and I also find it personally, this particular operation another body of bureaucracy being added to the whole operation. In my estimation, the minister has made a very serious commitment, as has the group that constituted the Target '97 task force group, to make sure these recommendations will be implemented. Some of them do take some time, on the regulatory side. In my estimation as well, few issues have had more popular opinion and media exposure than this particular issue of road safety in all its dimensions: school bus safety, drunk driving provisions and truck safety.
As well, the number of deputants to this committee were involved in the public consultation process. This very standing committee on social development afforded an opportunity for deputants to make their views known. In addition, these deputants, and others who didn't have the opportunity during the three days of presentations, will be keeping a very close eye on the whole operation and how we implement Bill 138, as well as the Target '97 recommendations which aren't part of Bill 138, although the opposition parties continue to insist they ought to be.
Furthermore, and finally, I think we need to point out that standing committees and this type of process are clearly demonstrable ways of having accountability. When you add another advisory body, an additional level of governance, even if it is only advisory, it takes it out of the public eye and puts it into a more backroom approach, a backroom agenda. To me, it is needless, in terms of its rationale. Therefore, the government rejects this particular proposition in this amendment.
Mr Bisson: I don't know where to start. It's quite an interesting comment by the parliamentary assistant. The government argues that having a public forum, a commission, is a backroom approach to dealing with a public issue. I don't know if I find it most regrettable or most -- I don't know what to say. Quite frankly, I'm really at a loss for words about such a comment.
I say again, this is a good motion brought forward by the opposition critic. He's trying to do two points we've debated ad infinitum here: to have some public accountability and to make sure that recommendations of Target '97 are moved forward.
We support it. The Liberals support it. We think it's good stuff. I know the Ontario Trucking Association supports it. I know the CAA supports it. The public and the families of the victims support it. Only the government is offside. The comments we get that giving the public a voice on the commission is just another commission, another bureaucratic body akin to backroom deals -- my God, I don't know what to say at this point. I guess it says something about this government.
1620
Mr Duncan: I just want to appeal to my colleagues across the way. We have tried to act in good faith on this bill. I don't see how a five-member committee with a sunset clause, designed simply to provide advice, a committee appointed by government that does not have to be remunerated, can be construed in any way, shape or form as being contrary to what I think the intent of the members of the Legislature is. That is to ensure that the regulations -- I'm not even concerned that the government will deep-six them because the government doesn't care. I'm just more concerned that in the balance of business we have in the House and what we have to deal with and what the ministry has to deal with on a day-to-day basis, these things can get lost, that the meeting that was supposed to be next week has to be postponed because the minister has an urgent commitment somewhere else.
We've brought this forward in good faith, tried to keep the hyperbole and the rhetoric to a minimum, because we believed and we said at the time that the government has acted in good faith. We think this will enhance the bill. We think it will save the government a lot of grief in the future. I hope my colleagues opposite will give consideration to this amendment.
Mrs McLeod: I really find the ministry's response to this quite appalling. I think it makes it very clear that any pretence of sincerity or good faith or cooperation in actually wanting to deal with the issue of truck safety was short-lived. The parliamentary assistant has suggested to us today, and he has said it more than once in the last few moments, that the only reason the government has acted is because this became a major public issue. It's equally clear that they want this off the table as fast as possible so it will no longer be a major public issue.
The parliamentary assistant is well aware that the only time this issue can come back to this committee for public hearings is when the government brings forward future legislation. It is entirely back in the government's hands. I'm very much afraid that until we get into a situation where there are more tragedies, so it once again becomes an issue that's foremost on the public's agenda, there will be no public forum to continue to do the good work that was actually started in this bill.
Mr Bisson: The point has been made that we in the opposition acted in good faith on this bill. We could have tried to delay it. We've tried instead to give you speedy passage. We're putting forward friendly suggestions to make our highways safer and we're told that somehow or other we're not sincere in what we're trying to do and that we're trying to play some game here.
Listen, you can't come to us and say, "We want your cooperation," and hit us on the head once you're in clause-by-clause. There has to be a two-way street when it comes to cooperation. If you're not going to listen to us, at least listen to the public. The public wants this. You guys should be moving on this. This is ridiculous.
Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): I'm sorry. I was a few minutes late, and I apologize.
The Chair: Apology accepted.
Mrs Marland: I've been in a meeting with the Speaker on a security matter.
Mr Klees: Everything's okay.
Mrs Marland: Yes, everything's okay at the moment.
The Chair: If we could stick to the amendment, I'd appreciate it.
Mrs Marland: I may not have been here to hear the parliamentary assistant say you weren't sincere.
Mrs McLeod: It's the government that's not sincere.
Mrs Marland: Okay. I would doubt that our parliamentary assistant would say the two opposition parties are not sincere. Speaking as a government member, I'm completely confident that the reason that we've held our public hearings and we're now in clause-by-clause is because every single person in the Legislature is sincere about this bill and the road this bill takes us down, literally.
To Dwight, when you're talking in this amendment about a committee that is sunsetted after five years, are you suggesting that the committee makeup be the same people for five years?
Mr Duncan: It would be appointed by the Lieutenant Governor in Council. That would be entirely at the discretion of the government.
Mrs Marland: As to whether it would be a five-year term?
Mr Duncan: Yes.
Mrs Marland: Where you talk about the reports to the Speaker, have you got any other example? I can't think of any other example where an outside agency, board or commission appointed by the government of the day reports back to the Speaker rather than to the legislative body within whose sphere that responsibility lies.
Mr Duncan: There are a number of examples where agencies or boards report back to the Legislature.
Mrs Marland: This says "to the Speaker," though, and there's a difference.
Mr Duncan: If an amendment is required to provide for a proper mechanism, I would be prepared to support that, certainly to look at it. My intention -- when you take away the gazetting, there's no public process or public review. I'm simply suggesting that if we can find a mechanism by which a small group of people, to be appointed by the government to serve at the government's pleasure, with a specific sunset clause incorporated by this amendment in this bill, reports back to the Legislature, be it through the minister, be it through a parliamentary assistant -- I don't know what the proper mechanism is -- if we can find that, my own view is that it'll make the legislation work better. In my view, it will also afford the government the opportunity, by the way, to demonstrate when it's making progress on regulatory changes.
It doesn't have to be extensive. That's the other point I wanted to make. I'm looking at this thing we got today; it's only two pages and it just details -- we're very specific about what we want. The mandate we contemplate in the amendment is very specific. It's not the sort of thing that's going to take on a life all its own.
I personally feel that, even more, it will allow stakeholders such as the CAA and the OTA, which participated in Target '97, to continue to have ownership of that. The Target '97 initiative was an outstanding initiative. In my mind, it served almost as a precursor to this. That's why I'm a little troubled by the government's reluctance to have it there to deal with these regulatory changes as the government is making them. It gives a little bit greater accountability than the normal gazetting process. I think that serves the public interest in this case. As the parliamentary assistant said, there has been such public interest in the whole range of issues but particularly in the truck regulation issues.
Mrs Marland: Further on my same point, we have in the past had standing committees of the Legislature write reports with recommendations that there has to be a report from the appropriate ministry back to that standing committee as to where they are. I'm just wondering -- and I'm strictly thinking aloud here -- whether we could have a commitment made by this committee, which we could do by motion, that as a follow-up to the passage of this bill the Ministry of Transportation report back to this committee on a regular basis. That would give the opposition members and the government members a chance to find out how things are going, ask questions of the ministry, and also, if they wanted to, make suggestions or, if there are concerns, express concerns, and in fact make formal recommendations in a committee setting to further amendments to the bill.
Frankly, I see Bill 138 as a giant step. From where we are now, it's phenomenal. It is a giant step. It's not quite a step on the moon, but it is phenomenal compared to where we stand today. I'm very anxious to get this bill passed even with its -- I don't want to say with its warts, but nothing is perfect. Nothing any government ever does is perfect, but the way you get improvements is by making amendments to existing statutes. Once this is passed, it becomes an existing statute and we can make amendments in the future.
1630
As committee members, we're an elected body, and if we as a committee decided we should ask that the minister report back in six months' time about where the Target '97 recommendations are, and if it's necessary to make further amendments to the Highway Traffic Act to cover what we're not fulfilling with the passage of 138, it's a guarantee that what you're looking at is that the government keeps on top of this subject. I think that's the concern I hear you sincerely expressing.
Mr Duncan: The only difficulty I have with what you're suggesting -- and I've met with the OTA and we've heard their testimony -- is that if you review the Target '97 recommendations, a lot are very technical in nature and really don't, in my view, require the attention of a legislative committee, save and except on what I would call the broad picture. That is, how much progress are we making?
Whether or not a year down the road we're discussing some obscure part of one of the Target '97 recommendations, which are very technical in nature -- I don't think you'd want to bring that to a legislative committee. I think you can achieve what we're hoping would be achieved simply by implementing this type of small committee.
With respect, there does have to be further legislation brought down in terms of the Target '97 recommendations. The parliamentary assistant, prior to your arrival, gave us his commitment that some of that legislation would be forthcoming, probably within six months, I think he said, and that's good. But again, once it's out of this committee, we have no way of knowing when they will bring it back. Even with the good intention of the government, as we all know, we don't know what could happen to stymie those efforts.
In my view, Margaret, just by way of summary, this is simply a very inexpensive, efficient way of allowing the Target '97 process to finish itself out. There's an outside body. We have a very well-defined group of interests here -- the trucking industry, the CAA -- and it gives those folks an opportunity to see through the development of the regulations. Despite what the ministry said earlier, I've been told by the ministry and by others that it could take up to five years for some of these regulations, simply because of their technical nature and because of the scope of impact they have on the industry. To our way of thinking, it's a very simple process which will assure not only the opposition but, more important, government members and the public that the regulations are being dealt with in a timely fashion.
My own view is that the notion of bringing this back to committee -- you might find that some of it's very obscure, and really that's not necessary. Perhaps the broad picture is, but on some of the more obscure things, I don't think it would be a particularly efficient use of a committee's time, other than, say, in the broad picture.
Mrs Marland: I'll be very brief, just to finish the single response. Even if it is technical, we assume a huge responsibility when we're elected to public office. I'm quite willing as a committee member to say maybe what we can do is pass a resolution that the minister come back before this committee and report in six months' time on where we are, and then we can decide whether it's another six months.
That way, I know I'm the person who's elected to make sure we have improvements in these areas and then I know the outcome of what's happening with those regulatory changes. I don't know that I really want to pass off my responsibility to a committee that -- I don't know who they are. This of course doesn't give us enough detail about how the committee would operate.
I really want to take that responsibility myself. I'm going to be here voting on this bill today. We're going to be voting, hopefully, tomorrow on the final passage of this bill. I don't want to have my responsibility usurped at the end of all that to another body.
Mr Bisson: I'm encouraged by the comments of the member for Mississauga South. They indicate to us at least, in the opposition, that you're prepared for some sort of process that indeed gives us as legislators and the public, more importantly, the opportunity to know this stuff will be moved forward.
Mrs Marland: We have nothing to hide.
Mr Bisson: I'm not arguing otherwise. I would ask for unanimous consent to move an amendment that would do what the member for Mississauga South suggests, that the minister come back to this committee in six months' time to report on progress made, and at that point we can decide where to go from there. I would ask unanimous consent --
Mr Duncan: I think we should deal with this amendment first.
Mr Bisson: I was just about to finish with a caveat. Once we finish this amendment, I'd like to move that. The reason I jumped the queue was that I just wanted to point out one thing to the member for Mississauga South. When this amendment says "the committee shall make a report on its activities to the Speaker," it's to trigger a report to the House, that the Speaker would bring it back to the House. I just point that out. On the second page of that amendment, it's not just to the Speaker; it comes into the House.
Mr Klees: I have no problem in principle with what Mr Duncan is trying to achieve here. All of us sitting here want to ensure that the ministry follows through with the commitment the ministry has given all of us around this issue. My concern is that we be very careful about the precedent we're setting here as legislators in entrenching in legislation a requirement to police, if you will -- that's really what we're doing here -- what has been clearly stated is the intent of the minister, as a follow-through on this legislation.
If that's the path we're going to take on this piece of legislation, then every time we bring legislation forward I would see a companion piece of legislation or an amendment saying we have to establish a public body, appointed by order in council, to ensure that the ministry follow through. I just don't know --
The Chair: Mr Klees, perhaps we could wait until we see what the amendment is before you continue.
Mr Klees: I thought we have an amendment before us here.
The Chair: This is an amendment to the amendment.
Mr Duncan: There are lots of examples where ministers, in statute, are required to report back to the House on a periodic basis, be it on an annual basis or what have you. This particular process -- I can't think of other examples comparable to it, so perhaps there's a point there.
My problem with Margaret's suggestion -- if you were prepared to look at an amendment that would put a line in the bill that says the minister will on a periodic basis report back on regulatory initiatives, be it to the standing committee, the committee in the amendment or the Legislative Assembly, that would go further than simply a resolution of this committee.
My understanding of the rules of committee, and I stand to be corrected on this, is that ministers are not compelled, even by resolution, to report back. If we could contemplate an amendment that would amend the bill that the minister shall report back to this committee or to the Legislative Assembly on the progress of implementation of the Target '97 recommendations over some specified period of time, that might work for me, rather than simply a resolution of the committee asking the minister to come back.
Mr Klees: Madam Chair, if I might -- I don't know why I was interrupted. I wasn't finished my train of thought. Maybe you thought I was heading down the wrong track, but --
The Chair: I'm trying to --
Mr Klees: I am speaking to the amendment that's before us.
The Chair: All right.
Mr Klees: What I was going to suggest is that while I couldn't support an amendment to this legislation, I very much agree in principle with what Mr Duncan is trying to achieve here. My suggestion is that perhaps what we should be doing as a committee is looking to another mechanism that would give us a sense of confidence that we are moving in the right direction. That may be through the Provincial Auditor, who has the responsibility to report to the Legislature on a regular basis as to the performance of the ministries. Perhaps what we should consider as a committee is to make a specific request to the Provincial Auditor that on this particular piece of legislation we would like a report on the progress the ministry has made on these particular issues.
1640
Mr Duncan: My only concern with that is that the auditor is not required to respond to individual members or to committees of the Legislature in terms of what he or she does. The reason I'm familiar with that is that I wrote to the auditor on another issue some time ago asking him to review a particular issue, and the specific response I had -- I'd want to get a clarification, but as I recollect, he is not obligated to respond to individual members or committees of the Legislature in terms of what he does in any given year, what he reviews. That would be my only concern there.
We could, in good faith, do that, and the auditor could write back to us and say, "I've got so many requests on my plate that I can't respond to individual requests like this." I suppose, coming from a committee of the Legislature, it might have more weight, but the Provincial Auditor is not, as I understand it, required to respond to those particular requests.
Mrs Marland: He only takes direction from public accounts.
Mr Hastings: We may be getting a little bogged down in this whole thing, but I think it's essential that we find some way to deal with the opposition's concerns about timely reporting. My observations and experience with the public accounts committee is that as members of that committee you can ask and make a motion that certain things be done.
The member for Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings, Mr Fox, and I made a motion back in February of this year requesting that the Provincial Auditor's office report by the end of July on the costing of the maintenance of disadvantaged children, kids at risk, in institutionalized versus non-institutionalized settings. So there is a specific example by which public accounts can exercise what we may be trying to grapple with here today.
In terms of a specific advisory committee, we in the ministry believe that's not the way to go, particularly because, if the composition of that advisory committee is going to be ordinary folks, even if they're the most prominent citizens we can find in society, they will have no greater expertise on a technical matter than we as members of the Legislature would have.
With those points of observation, perhaps we can find a way that will satisfy Mr Duncan in terms of timely reporting, without the full implementation of this specific amendment. I think we can speak for the ministry in saying we're more than prepared to see how we could explore that situation, either through public accounts or simply through some mechanism of this committee, that the minister could come and make some report on a half-year basis or an annual basis or as the committee required, but certainly not through a specific external advisory committee as set out in this amendment.
Mr Leadston: We have 130 members in this House, and I think each one of those members will be an auditor with respect to this bill. More so, we'll hear from the police, we will hear from the victims, we will hear from the trucking industry and we'll hear from those who impound the vehicles. We are going to hear from the media. We're going to hear from the community.
If there are flaws in this bill, if there are errors or if it needs correction, we are going to hear, I don't think in five years; we're going to hear immediately. This is probably the most topical, most important piece of legislation that we're passing. I think we are going to be monitored, this committee, this Legislature, and this bill in particular is going to be monitored so closely and scrutinized by the driving public, by the victims, by the trucking industry, by the community at large. They are going to monitor it more closely than the auditor, than anyone could ever do, than the minister or a panel of five or 10, and we will hear rather quickly whether this bill has an impact, whether it's working or whether it's not working.
Mrs McLeod: We've had extensive debate. We have a number of other amendments that are important, and I'm concerned that we're going to reach a point where they're considered to have been read. I'm thinking it might be time for us to deal with the amendment. Should it not be supported, rather than again have an extensive discussion of the nature of the motion and a debate on the motion, I suggest we continue with the amending process, and perhaps Mrs Marland would be prepared to put her recommendations into a motion form that could be considered by the committee at the close of clause-by-clause.
Mrs Marland: Yes, I would be.
The Chair: Mrs McLeod, I want to respond to your first point. We're not under time allocation, so we --
Mrs McLeod: But we only have one afternoon.
The Chair: But we could seek unanimous consent to sit beyond 6 o'clock if that's the case.
Mrs McLeod: I appreciate that clarification.
The Chair: Your point was that --
Mrs McLeod: That rather than deal with a motion which is an alternative to amendment, we deal with the amendment; should it be defeated, there would be a motion placed that would be considered at the conclusion of clause-by-clause, rather than continuing to interfere with the process of amendment.
The Chair: Very well. Is there agreement to proceed in that fashion? Fine. Mr Duncan, you were still on the list. Do you want to speak to this?
Mr Duncan: I think we've covered it.
The Chair: Very well. Shall this motion carry?
Mr Duncan: Recorded vote.
Ayes
Bisson, Duncan, Hoy, McLeod.
Nays
Froese, Hastings, Klees, Leadston, Marland, Munro, Parker, Smith.
The Chair: The motion is defeated.
Mr Bisson: I want to ask for unanimous consent for the committee to move a motion similar to what we just discussed.
The Chair: We can't deal with it at this time, Mr Bisson. We'd have to come back to it when we're finished with the existing amendments. We can entertain it at that time.
Mr Bisson: You can do anything by unanimous consent. I'm asking for unanimous consent.
Mrs Marland: Why don't you write it out so we don't waste time?
Mr Bisson: I've already got it written out.
Mrs McLeod: I suggested that consideration of motions be deferred until we've completed the amendment process.
The Chair: That was my understanding.
Mr Bisson: As long as we can come back to section 1. That was my only concern.
The Chair: We can indeed. That's open to us to do.
Mr Bisson: I ask for unanimous consent that we're able to revert back to section 1 to move this amendment after the remainder of these amendments.
The Chair: It's not necessary, but we'll ask for unanimous consent, if it gives you comfort. Is there unanimous consent to come back to an amendment dealing with this subject matter in another form after we've considered all the other sections?
Mrs Marland: No. What we talked about was moving a motion, not an amendment. I'm happy to read his motion. I think we should do it at the end.
Mr Bisson: I'm sorry. I didn't catch that, Margaret.
The Chair: I think we have general agreement that we will come back to introduce a new motion at the end of the existing motions we have before us. I would like to point out that we have spent about an hour and 20 minutes on two motions. We have some 17 sections and at least 16 other amendments to go. We can of course sit, via unanimous consent, as long as you wish, but you should be aware of some of the realities we have in front of us. Let's proceed with the next motion, Mr Duncan.
Mr Duncan: I move that the bill be amended by adding the following section:
"0.2 Part I of the act is amended by adding the following section:
"Annual report on national safety standards
"5.2 The minister shall, beginning at the end of the fiscal year in which this section comes into force, and continuing at the end of each fiscal year for the next four years, prepare an annual report on the progress of the ministry in conforming to national safety standards and shall lay the report before the assembly if it is in session or, if not, at the next session."
With respect to that, one delegation appeared before us that said they were concerned that Ontario was not in conformity with national standards. The government has also urged the federal government to deal with national standards in a more timely fashion. We've proposed this amendment to recognize (1) that there's a need for national standards, because a number of the accidents we've witnessed in Ontario have come from vehicles outside of our province, and (2) to keep the focus also on the fact that there are national implications to all these questions.
1650
Mr Hastings: Primarily, we respond the following way. The national standards Mr Duncan is asking everybody to get on board with are in fact exceeded by the province of Ontario. On all 15 -- the one relating to first aid exceeds national standards. The province of Ontario is the actor providing that exceptional leadership.
I need to point out as well that the minister has made several attempts to get the national government to deal with implementation and enforcement of national standards, and there wasn't a great deal of attention or interest paid on the part of the federal government on this issue. Therefore, we regard this particular amendment as redundant.
Mrs McLeod: I'm delighted to hear that the ministry believes we are exceeding the national safety standards, in spite of the witnesses who made presentations to our committee. Should the ministry be accurate, the report should be not only easy to do but should result in a very positive ministerial statement. I'm sure the government will want to support this recommendation so that the evidence the parliamentary assistant has just provided can be provided to the entire Legislature.
The Chair: Further debate? Shall this motion carry?
Mr Duncan: I'd like a recorded vote.
Ayes
Bisson, Duncan, Hoy, McLeod.
Nays
Froese, Hastings, Marland, Munro, Parker, Smith.
The Chair: The next motion, Mr Duncan.
Mr Duncan: I move that the bill be amended by adding the following section:
"0.3 The act is amended by adding the following section:
"Operators with poor safety ratings
"17.2(1) The following apply with respect to an operator with a safety rating that falls below the minimum safety level prescribed in the regulations:
"1. The carrier shall not enter into a contract with the province of Ontario and any contract entered into in contravention of this paragraph is voidable at the option of the province.
"2. The carrier shall not carry any goods prescribed in the regulations.
"Offence
"(2) Every carrier who contravenes paragraph 1 or 2 of subsection (1) is guilty of an offence and, on conviction, is liable to a fine of not less than $2,000 and not more than $50,000."
This is one of the recommendations in Target '97 that requires legislative change. We thought we'd provide the government an opportunity to do that now rather than wait six months or so. Basically, it says that if you've got a poor safety record, you ought not to be carrying hazardous goods in the province and the government of Ontario ought not enter into a contractual relationship with you.
Mr Bisson: On behalf of the NDP caucus, I would like to give our support to this amendment. As has been said, it's a recommendation of Target '97. I've been told such an amendment would fix some of the problems we currently have. I don't know if this is true, but I've been told by someone that Muscillo, the company involved in a fatal truck accident last year, is still subcontracting to a contractor who does business for the Ministry of Transportation. Certainly this would prevent that kind of thing from happening. We shouldn't be rewarding trucking companies that don't have safe operating records and giving them government contracts. I think this would adequately fix that problem. We support that motion.
Mr Hastings: MTO has already started this policy in April of this year for all contracts dealing with the Ministry of Transportation. We're encouraging all the other ministries to follow suit. As well, the major business players in Ontario are following closely the same trend.
Mr Duncan: Then it should be easy to support. By your own report to this committee today, you say it requires legislative change. We're simply proposing to deal with it now and not have to come back to the Legislature again. We think it makes infinite sense. If it's policy of the government already, it should be supportable by the government.
Mrs Marland: Just a point of clarification. Does "poor safety ratings" have to be clarified?
Mr Duncan: It will eventually by the Target '97 recommendations, yes, once the government acts on the regulatory proposals in Target '97.
Mrs Marland: So you couldn't implement this amendment until there is a definition of "poor safety rating"?
Mr Duncan: Mr Hastings has indicated that they've already done it, so I assume this could be enshrined in legislation.
Mrs Marland: I ask the ministry staff, do we have a written definition of "poor safety ratings"?
Mr Hastings: To respond to you, Mrs Marland, the ministry also uses the commercial vehicle operator's registration system. That's fee-based, and any shipper has access to find out what shippers have good or bad records. Furthermore, we're working on this policy and it has been implemented. It isn't necessary to do it by statute.
Mrs Marland: I understand that part, if that's what the ministry is saying. The question is, does the ministry have a definition of "poor safety rating"? If I were fighting in a court, I would be saying on behalf of my client, "That's not a poor safety rating, because you don't have a definition that defines that." If you have one that defines it, it narrows the scope of argument when I'm defending a client. That's one thing. Does the ministry staff have a written definition of "poor safety rating?" Is it on a scale of 1 to 10?
The Chair: Mrs Marland, for clarity, do you mean "poor safety rating" or "minimum safety level," as indicated in this amendment?
Mrs Marland: We're talking about "Operators with poor safety ratings." Then we're saying "an operator with a safety rating that falls below the minimum safety level." I think you need a definition for both those to make it effective.
The Chair: I just wanted to clarify that point. There are really two questions there as to what we have in terms of definitions.
Mr Hastings: We'll take that under advisement, Mrs Marland. I think it's important to re-emphasize that the CVOR is the record by which a shipper can access whether a carrier has existing sanctions against him or her.
Mr Duncan: I think it needs to be pointed out that the Target '97 recommendations call for this legislative change and also call for prescription in the regulations. If the PA is suggesting today that there are no carriers in Ontario with bad safety records carrying hazardous materials, I would submit you're wrong.
I would think the Legislature and the government in particular would want to say very clearly to the public of Ontario that if a carrier has a poor safety record, they ought not by law -- not simply by regulation but by statute -- be carrying hazardous goods, as was recommended by Target '97, as the government in its own report today says requires legislative change.
We can do this, the consequential regulatory changes can be made, and finally, through whatever process we establish through motion reports on this issue, it can come back to the Legislature. God forbid, given what we've heard today, that any truck with a bad safety record carrying hazardous goods gets into some kind of accident. This is an issue out there.
Mrs Marland: Where I'm coming from in asking for clarification of our staff on this is that having been a resident of Mississauga in 1979, with the famous derailment -- as a result of that train derailment, which admittedly is another form of transportation, we developed federally the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act.
Maybe I can ask an easier question. "The carrier shall not carry any goods prescribed in the regulations." I say to the ministry -- I don't know who wants to answer these questions. Sometimes it's helpful if the ministry staff can sit at the table and answer questions on the record. It's hard, in fairness, for the PA to get the answers and for us to get them secondhand.
I'm reading "shall not carry goods prescribed in the regulations." That gives the government full scope in the regulations to describe what would be a hazardous good, a hazardous cargo. Am I correct?
1700
Mr Ross Burns: My name is Ross Burns. I'm senior counsel, Ministry of Transportation. Mrs Marland's question is, does paragraph 2 authorize the creation of regulations specifying the goods? I think that's what it's intended to do, and that could include any class of goods, I assume, including dangerous goods under the federal regulations.
Mrs Marland: So item 2 isn't taking any control away from the government; it gives them full scope to decide what goods will be prescribed in the act. So I don't see that we would have any difficulty with that.
To our staff, if we're already doing this, how are we doing it if we don't have a definition of "poor safety rating" or a definition of "minimum safety level"? Do we have that? As counsel, I guess you need to know that. If we're now enforcing this recommendation from Target '97, we have to have a benchmark to enforce it, I would suggest.
Mr Burns: The language has to be very precise and exact in order to enforce it, because there is an offence for the carrier, and to be an offence it has to be clear. If it's ambiguous or unclear, it's unenforceable. That's sort of trite law, but --
The Chair: If I may, there was a very specific question that was put: Is there a definition of "poor safety rating"? Is there is a definition of "minimum safety level"? This isn't something you can take under advisement. Yes or no, are there definitions? That's really what she wanted to know.
Mr Burns: Not at the present time, there is not.
The Chair: All right. There are no definitions, is the answer to your question.
Mrs Marland: At the moment we have no definitions, yet we're saying we're already enforcing this.
Mrs McLeod: That was exactly the basis for my question. The amendment to the legislation, as it's worded, is very unambiguous and is intended to be protective of government, so that should they find they have entered into a contract with a carrier that does not meet the regulations, that contract can be voided. As my colleague has pointed out, you need legislative change to have that kind of protection, to get out of a contract you may have entered into.
There's no trap here. This is to ensure that there are not dangerous goods being carried by carriers that don't meet regulations. If the government says they are enforcing something when they don't have the regulations, that's an entirely different problem, but I think the amendment still is an important one for government to have.
Mrs Marland: For example, our government would not want to be in a contract with a certain company that we've had in court over and over again, so I don't know really what the difficulty with this is.
Mr Hastings: I believe there are two considerations you have to look at. By contract law itself, where government isn't involved, that supplier and that party to the contract ensure that there are specific provisions regarding hazardous goods and other materials right in the contact between the shipper and the owner-operator of the trucking company.
With respect to the ministry, we already have the information in the CVOR and the shipper can access that on a very modest fee basis. As well, the ministry has undertaken to ensure that the policy will be carried out as recommended by -- we believe the policy approach is the appropriate way to carry this item out through Target '97, not by legislation per se, as outlined by the opposition critic on this particular amendment.
Mrs Marland: My question to the parliamentary assistant is, if that is the case, why does your own document on the implementation of Target '97 say that legislative change is required to deal with this issue?
Mr Hastings: Legislative changes can be brought forth on this particular matter, but not through the Comprehensive Road Safety Act.
Mr Duncan: So it's not comprehensive.
Mrs McLeod: But it's perfectly in order to do it through the road safety bill.
Mr Hastings: When we set out to deal with this particular set of legislation, there were the three thrusts in it. We didn't get into the whole stipulation of other items, of recommendations from Target '97. I think we're mixing apples, grapes and oranges into this.
Mrs McLeod: I thought we were talking about truck safety.
Mrs Marland: Madam Chair, I'm going to suggest, with the concurrence of the mover of this amendment, that perhaps we could stand this amendment down and move on and come back to it. I think we should have a little five-minute recess, but let's keep going now so we can discuss this.
Mr Duncan: Margaret, I'd just make one point. I concur with that, but I want to point out to the government members that this particular amendment was part of my private member's bill, Bill 133. I've said on umpteen occasions that we're going to bring this amendment forward. I don't mind standing it down as long as we can deal with it at the end of the day today. It's pretty clear and pretty straightforward.
I believe there are laws in Ontario that -- Margaret or any member here before 1985 will remember the spills bill and the obligation that was passed by the Davis government, proclaimed by the Peterson government. I believe there are regulations and legislation that deal with hazardous goods, what has to be defined. I'm not an expert in that field, but I believe something is out there.
In any event, I'm prepared to stand it down and move on.
The Chair: Is there agreement? Yes.
Mr Duncan: That means we would have to stand down the next amendment, on page 5.
The Chair: Yes, because it's a related item. All right. The next motion?
Mr Duncan: I move that the bill be amended by adding the following section:
"0.5 Section 32 of the act, as amended by the Statutes of Ontario, 1993, chapter 40, section 2, and 1996, chapter 20, section 3, is further amended by adding the following subsections:
"Classes of licences for trucks
"(14.1) Regulations under clause (14)(d) shall prescribe different classes of driver's licences for the following classes of trucks:
"1. Trucks that do not have air brakes, are not bulk liquid tankers and do not have more than one trailer.
"2. Trucks that are not bulk liquid tankers and do not have more than one trailer.
"3. All trucks.
"Definition of `truck'
"(14.2) In subsection (14.1),
"`truck' means any combination of a motor vehicle and towed vehicles where the towed vehicles exceed a total gross weight of 4,600 kilograms."
Again I take this out of my private member's bill. It provides for a graduated truck driver licensing system. Trucks with air brakes would be the first step above normal licences; trucks with bulk liquid tankers and multiple trailers would be an additional licensing step above trucks with air brakes. These are all amendments that are consequential to Target '97, and we believe we should deal with them legislatively now rather than in six months. It still allows the government the flexibility it needs with respect to prescribing regulations related to this.
The Chair: Mr Duncan, the problem with the motion you just read, and I apologize for letting you read it all the way through, is that it's out of order because it deals with a section which is not under consideration in the bill. The only way we could consider this is if there's unanimous consent of the committee. I will have to ask for unanimous consent as to whether we can consider this motion. Is there unanimous consent? There's no unanimous consent. The motion is out of order.
The next motion, Mr Duncan?
Mr Duncan: I move that subsection 41(1) of the Highway Traffic Act, as set out in subsection 1(1) of the bill, be amended by inserting "(1.1)" after -- and there's a typo here; it should be -- "41.1(1)" in the first line.
This is a consequential amendment to the following amendments to section 2 of the bill, subsection 41(1) of the act, which requires an ignition interlock device to be implemented after the first and second impaired driving convictions.
1710
Mr John L. Parker (York East): I'm going to suggest that we stand this down until we deal with the substance of the proposal, given that this is a consequential amendment.
The Chair: Is there agreement with respect to that? Is anyone not in agreement? Very well, we'll defer this. That means we'll have to defer voting on section 1. We'll move to section 2.
Mr Duncan: I have a motion there.
I move that subsection 41.1(1) of the Highway Traffic Act, as set out in section 2 of the bill, be struck out and the following substituted:
"Reinstatement of suspended licence
"(1) Where the registrar is satisfied that a person whose driver's licence is suspended under clause 41(1)(f) has completed the prescribed assessments and remedial programs that are applicable to the person, if any, and meets the prescribed requirements that are applicable to the person, if any, the registrar shall reinstate the driver's licence upon the expiry of the suspension, subject to any other suspension under this act, and subject to the condition that the person not drive a motor vehicle on a highway for one year unless the motor vehicle is equipped with an ignition locking device in accordance with the regulations.
"Same
"(1.1) Where the registrar is satisfied that a person whose driver's licence is suspended under clause 41(1)(g) has completed the prescribed assessments and remedial programs that are applicable to the person, if any, and meets the prescribed requirements that are applicable to the person, if any, the registrar shall reinstate the driver's licence upon the expiry of the suspension, subject to any other suspension under this act, and subject to the condition that the person not drive a motor vehicle on a highway for three years unless the motor vehicle is equipped with an ignition locking device in accordance with the regulations."
This amendment adds additional restrictions to the reinstatement of licences after the first and second impaired convictions. After the first conviction, there is a one-year licence suspension. This amendment adds a one-year period following the suspension where the driver must use an ignition interlock device. After the second conviction, there is a three-year licence suspension. This amendment adds a three-year period following the suspension where the driver must use an ignition interlocking device.
We had ample testimony here and were presented with documented studies that say the ignition interlock device works. It works particularly with chronic offenders. We applaud the government's initial bill and the member for Mississauga South on all her initiatives. This goes a step further, basically tightens it up. We found the evidence presented with respect to the effectiveness of these interlock devices compelling and would urge the adoption of this amendment.
Mr Hastings: Au contraire.
Mr Bisson: Au contraire, Madam Chair?
The Chair: Vive le français.
Mr Hastings: The documented evidence Mr Duncan alludes to is somewhat premature, particularly the study from the University of Maryland. Furthermore, we can do this proposal by regulation, as set out in Target '97. It's not actually part of the comprehensive road bill to start with.
Mr Duncan: Target '97 deals with truck safety, not drunk driving.
Mr Hastings: But they're both combined in terms of driving behaviour.
Furthermore, it seems to us that when you add the ignition interlock in the context in which Mr Duncan is proposing it, we weaken the compliance provisions, the driving suspensions and other related matters which are part of the whole set of strategies proposed in the legislation. We believe you create an incentive, in effect, for the interlock proposition and weaken the suspension of licensing, which is part of the bill to start with.
Furthermore, in our estimation, the studies need to have a longer sustainable time frame to prove the benefits of having ignition interlock proposed for first and second offences. We believe the combination of what we already have in the bill, plus the other related provisions, particularly those focused on driver suspension, are more than sufficient to be a very serious deterrent to aggressive drivers in Ontario and anybody else coming from other jurisdictions.
Mrs Marland: I have a question of Mr Duncan, because I haven't found that part in the bill yet. Dwight, is your amendment to apply to first convictions of drunk driving?
Mr Duncan: What it does, Margaret, is that after the first conviction, there's a one-year licence suspension. This amendment adds a one-year period following the suspension where the driver must have an interlock device. We base this recommendation on the testimony that came forward that suspension, coupled with the interlock program, really is an effective deterrent. We were also presented with I believe three studies, and one of the studies confirmed that.
While we applaud and certainly support what the government has done, we think this takes it a step forward. We think we're being quite consistent with the government's position. We've just added something based on testimony that came forward. We look forward to bringing in these provisions based on the evidence that was presented around the effectiveness of suspension combined with an interlock program.
Mrs Marland: Essentially, what you're moving here is what John Bates came in to ask for.
Mr Duncan: Was it John Bates? Let me get my notes out. Is that who it was?
Mrs Marland: Yes. Mothers Against Drunk Driving is John Bates. Can you take me to the page number in the bill? I'm trying to find it.
Mr Duncan: It is section 2 of the bill, subsection 41.1(1) of the Highway Traffic Act.
Mrs Marland: Page 3 of the bill.
Mr Duncan: Yes. "The act is amended by adding the following section: 41.1" -- I have struck that out and reinstated sub (1). It's at the top of page 3, Margaret.
Mrs McLeod: I appreciate Mrs Marland's interest in this. I know her response to the presentation from Mothers Against Drunk Driving was similar to ours, which is one of the reasons the committee requested the studies that were tabled for us, and I appreciate the fact that those studies were made available on short notice.
I'm a bit puzzled by the parliamentary assistant's dismissal of the amendment on the basis, as I understood what he was saying, that lengthy suspensions are sufficient to address the problem. I don't pretend to be an expert after having had only a short time to look at the studies, but my impression both from reading the studies and from reflecting on the evidence before the committee was that there is no evidence that lengthy suspensions are effective in avoiding accidents related to drunk driving; in fact, the longer suspensions may lead to increased numbers of drivers driving without a licence, which actually adds to their danger on the road.
The research seemed to suggest that when you combine moderate suspension times with an ability to get reinstatement provided you have an interlock device on your car, it results in a very significant decrease in recidivism in terms of drunk driving charges. I had hoped the government was prepared to look at the evidence that was presented to us in the research, which suggests moderate suspensions with an interlock device as an incentive for reinstatement, so you don't have drivers driving who are suspended and don't get caught until they kill somebody.
Mrs Marland: I guess I'm going to have to clarify where I'm coming from at this point. I'm having a great deal of difficulty, because having been the proponent of doing something to stop people drinking and then driving in this province for almost four years now -- I've had two private member's bills on the subject -- it's very difficult for me not to wholly embrace anything that improves the situation in terms of where we are today. The difficulty for me is that I may well be 100% in favour of this amendment, the next amendment or any section that tightens up the drunk driving, but as I just said to you, Dwight, a few moments ago, take me to where this fits in with the bill. That may sound absurd, but what time did we get these amendments?
The Chair: They were required to be filed by 1 o'clock. I believe they were well in hand early in the morning.
1720
Mrs Marland: I'm not criticizing that they were late. I'm just saying that in any case we got them today, and that's all been part of the process. It's not a criticism. I know they weren't late, but the point I'm making is that since these were filed or, counter to that, it would be since any of ours were filed with you, and I think we only have two anyway, there's been absolutely no time for me to sit down with these amendments and go through them in combination with what is already in the act.
I think the position I'm going to take very clearly is this, and it is a little bit critical, that this act as it stands is going to be the toughest legislation in Canada to combat drunk driving. There may well be very feasible amendments, and I say that with respect to the critic for the Liberal Party, and there may well be something that Mr Bisson is bringing on behalf of the New Democratic Party. I don't see Bill 138 as being the end of the road, and I'm not using that example to be funny. I see this act as being historical. It's making history, not only in Ontario but in Canada. Indeed, we only have about four or five out of the number of states south of the border that have anything tougher than this.
My dream would be that we have the toughest in North America, because whatever it takes to get the carnage stopped, we need to do. Now, where I'm not going to be very pleasant is to suggest that for all of the years that I sat in opposition, we did not have similar legislation from either of the previous governments. The good thing is that I suppose, other than Lyn and Gilles, you don't have to defend that, Dwight, because you weren't here.
But the point is this: At any time in the last 10 years, once we found that the increase in repeat offenders in drunk driving -- we've got a huge irony when we're dealing with the subject of drunk driving, by the way, and that is that the number of people who drive drunk is actually declining, but what is increasing is the number of people who drive drunk, are convicted, do it again and are convicted again. We have 10, 15, 17 convictions for one person. We know very clearly that the problem is not even so much the single conviction. We know that when I started my drunk driving bill, the repeat offenders were 59% of 30,000 drunk convictions in a year. Today that 59% has gone up, tragically, to 66%. There's no denying that the repeat offender is the problem.
It may well be that an ignition interlock system should be part of the combination of the penalty to that first-time conviction. If I had my druthers, I would have zero tolerance. The first time you're convicted of drunk driving, you lose your licence forever, but I couldn't get support for that. I moderated my bill. When I say I couldn't get support for it, it wasn't only in my caucus. I did a lot of work in the other two caucuses to see what I had to write into my private bill that would get through the House as a private bill with all party support.
When I tabled the first bill in, I think it was, October 1994, if there had been a real commitment to resolving this -- and I say this with respect, Gilles, not as a personal attack on you because you happen to be the representative here. What I really wanted in October 1994 was for my bill to go through or, I didn't mind, turn it into a government bill, the same thing that's happened now with our government. Whatever you do, just take it, run with it and pass it in time to be introduced and to be implemented in the RIDE program for the Christmas season that year. Not only did that not happen -- of course the House rose at Christmas, it was never called back and then Premier Rae called the election for June of that year.
What I would like to suggest is, and I'm trying to do this with sincerity and diplomacy frankly, I don't want to deal with amendments that -- I don't how many people sitting on the committee today have had time to read these. We've been in the House in question period --
Mr Duncan: And so have I.
Mrs Marland: Yes, so have you. Part of the problem is that I know we're compressed with time now. I know it isn't easy, but what I'm suggesting to you is, I'm willing to vote for Bill 138 as it sits because I know what's in the bill. I don't know whether the amendments are in the right place. I don't know if they're as strong as they need to be or could be stronger. I'm not prepared to gamble at this time. I'm prepared to support the government bill which implements most of my private member's bill because I know that subject inside out.
I know there's a question about ignition interlock systems, and I know there are different systems. I know that all of those are possibilities. I also recognize that they're all possibilities with regulations. If we go through and pass this bill today, as I said a few minutes ago, it's not the end of the road. Why could we not just go through the bill and if there are major concerns that something is wrong with the bill, we deal with that, but at least get the bill through?
Who knows? If my bill had been passed three years ago, at 500 a year on average who are killed by drunk drivers, we might have saved 1,500 lives. But it didn't happen. I don't want to sit here and worry about how many people might die in the next few months if we don't at least go with what we've got and then look at tightening down the screws. I'm happy to tighten down the screws on drunks who drive.
The Chair: I just want to recap a few things. At the moment we have deferred three of the six motions that have come before us. We have another one that is going to come back in some amended form. We've only dealt with two motions so far. We have quite a number yet to do. I should tell you that we have a vote at five to 6; we shall have to recess for that purpose. I will require from you some expression as to whether we can get unanimous consent to continue afterwards. Otherwise, you have 20 minutes to finish this whole bill.
The other thing I'd like to point out is that we could ask the House leaders to allow us to sit tomorrow to continue the work we've started today, which would give people an opportunity to review the amendments which have been put before you and maybe alleviate some of your concerns. Those are the options we have before us. I thought you should know before we start.
Mr Duncan: Just in response, I really wish we had more time to deal with this. I wish we wouldn't have had that one bill introduced and then pulled. I wish that I had the confidence that something will come up later, but based on the --
Mrs Marland: But that bill didn't have the drunk driving in it.
Mr Duncan: I agree, Margaret, but if I can finish, I didn't set the rules of this committee. You know what it was like in opposition. We were able to write these amendments with the assistance of legislative counsel. We heard testimony. We should be prepared to sit till midnight tonight, if the House is sitting, to review these things. You can vote them down. As I've said right from the beginning, we will vote for this bill as it stands.
1730
We have simply tried to incorporate some of our own findings, the findings we've heard in this committee about the changes. We've pulled out the studies now that confirm the evidence that was presented to this committee. I believe that backbenchers like myself and others have a responsibility to bring forward these amendments. I would hope, given the spirit of cooperation we've acted in with the government, that they would give serious consideration. We have proposed these amendments in good faith according to the rules that were established and agreed to by this committee. We accepted one or two government amendments today. I will be supporting, certainly, the major amendment the government has put forward. I had a chance to read it in the context of the bill.
I guess perhaps what's unusual here is that I'm saying to you, "Yes, I will vote for this bill." I've said that; our party has said that. It's an unusual circumstance. We have tried to leave the political hyperbole outside the door in terms of this particular bill, in terms of the amendments we're putting. We're not being critical of the government for not bringing them forward. The government brought forward a good bill.
We've heard testimony. We've introduced some amendments we think are effective. We're going to support the amendment the government has brought forward on school bus safety, in good faith again. I wish we had more time to discuss these too. I wish we weren't condensing things as quickly as we are.
The subcommittee, which was attended by representatives of the government party as well, agreed to this process, and my understanding is that we agreed that in this time frame and given the bill we have before us, we could accommodate amendments. I'm putting these amendments forward because I think they're good amendments to the bill. That's not to say that I'm critical of the bill. I'm going to vote for the bill. I'll speak in favour of the bill, as I did earlier. These changes, I think, make the bill better. Unfortunately, it appears as though most of them --
Mrs Marland: But if we don't get finished today, we lose it now.
Mr Duncan: Well, we can sit till midnight.
Mrs Marland: I'm on House duty.
Mr Duncan: So am I.
The Chair: Mrs Marland, we have two options which I've laid out. Could we speak to that just very briefly so that we can move on. Mr Bisson, you're next on the list. Is that what you want to speak to?
Mr Bisson: No, I wanted to speak back to the point that was made by Mrs Marland.
Mr Klees: I'd like to speak to it.
The Chair: All right, Mr Klees. What we're speaking to is having unanimous consent to go beyond 6 o'clock or asking the House leaders to allow us to reconvene tomorrow, or both, for that matter.
Mr Klees: First of all, with regard to asking the House leaders to reconvene tomorrow, I would suggest that may present serious difficulty. We all have other commitments and obligations and were not counting on this committee sitting tomorrow, so I certainly wouldn't be in favour of that.
With regard to this particular bill, certainly if need be, I would be prepared to reconvene, although I can't personally be here beyond 6:30 today, again because of other commitments. What I would like to see us do -- and I share Mr Duncan's concern about the amount of time. It would have been helpful to have some additional time to work through some of these, but it's not the end of the day from that standpoint. I think what we have to recognize, as a committee, is that there will be opportunities. The minister has already committed to come back on this issue and that some of these matters can be considered in a subsequent legislative package. What I'd like to see us do is be able to close this off before five minutes to 6 when this bell rings, on the understanding that the government amendment that Mr Duncan suggested he would be supporting would be included in this piece of legislation.
Mrs McLeod: I understood from what you said earlier that there was no time allocation on this.
The Chair: That's right.
Mrs McLeod: There is a de facto time allocation if there's not going to be an agreement of this committee to extend the hours. Mrs Marland has just had a lengthy amount of time to speak on the issue of the ways in which we deal with drivers who are driving while drunk. It's an issue which is of great personal concern to me as well, and I really want an opportunity to have some further discussion of it so that it doesn't simply die, to be picked up at some future day.
There is a further issue that we haven't dealt with beyond the truck safety and the drunk driving, and it's that the government decided to make this an omnibus bill and include all of this in one bill. The issue is school bus safety. Mr Hoy is here, as is Mr Froese, because they have both done extensive work as private members in order to deal with the issue of school bus safety. I think it's absolutely essential that we have the time in committee to give due consideration to the recommendations they've brought forward, because I think we all share their concerns.
I think the government has put us in a position where there is a great deal of substance that we have to have some time to discuss tonight, and I would ask that this committee be prepared to extend the hearings past 6 o'clock. I'm concerned about an agreement with the House leaders to reconvene tomorrow because if that agreement wasn't forthcoming, we will then have lost our opportunity to speak. So I hope that whoever can resume after 6 o'clock will come back so at least we have some chance to speak to the issues.
Mrs Marland: I could come back after 6 if you didn't call quorums, because I'm on House duty after 6.
Mrs McLeod: You've got a lot of members over there, Margaret.
The Chair: Could we then have unanimous consent to extend beyond 6 o'clock?
Mr Bisson: Unfortunately, after 6:30, I can't. There's a constituent from my riding who's being awarded by the Lieutenant Governor this evening. I have to be at that function. I want to be here to deal with what is an important bill and, as the critic, I wouldn't be able to be here for the biggest part of the amendments. It's unfortunate, but it's just where we're at.
Mr Klees: I think those awards are about an hour in length, and if Mr Bisson could come back to that, I would certainly support that, that we extend the hours on the understanding that we close this off before the end of the day.
Mrs McLeod: I think we recognize that we may not have a quorum at committee, but this committee doesn't require a quorum to at least continue to have a discussion.
The Chair: That's right.
Mrs Marland: Could we have agreement on that point then, that the committee would continue even if there wasn't a quorum in the committee? If I have to be in the House, I wouldn't want the committee to fail for lack of a quorum.
Mr Bisson: The only thing I'm concerned about is I want, at the end of the bill, to introduce by way of unanimous consent a motion that we talked about earlier, and if that happens to happen within the time that I'm here -- it's like, tough luck. I certainly don't want to be in a position where we haven't had an opportunity to move forward on what was I think a consensus on what we need to do about reporting back to this committee the work done around Target '97. I just don't want to miss that opportunity. Basically I've got to be in two places at the same time. If a constituent calls, that's where I've got to be.
The Chair: Your concern is with one specific proposal?
Mr Bisson: Well, all of them are equally important, but I'm saying one in particular I might get --
The Chair: Could we have an agreement, if there is unanimous consent, to go beyond 6 o'clock to deal with the issue that Mr Bisson has raised first so that he can attend his other duties? Would that be agreeable to everyone? Yes.
Mrs Julia Munro (Durham-York): A question of clarification: I thought the intent there was to deal with it at the end.
The Chair: That's right, because we were looking at a question of time, but we're now looking at whether we could prioritize it in order to facilitate Mr Bisson's participation and still deal with everything at once.
Mrs Munro: I understand the commitment that Mr Bisson has, but I guess my concern is simply the logic of having made the decision to put it at the end.
The Chair: The logic would actually be to continue as long as we could, but we're not in exactly a logical situation at the moment. This committee can do anything it wishes, Ms Munro, by unanimous consent.
Ms McLeod, is this a new point? Because I really want to get to the substance.
Mrs McLeod: Yes, it is. It's to do with the issue of a quorum. I made the statement that I didn't think this committee needed a quorum for discussion, but I think it does require a quorum for votes. So issues of the motions that might be placed and so on might be appropriately dealt with if we didn't have a quorum, but I think we need to keep a quorum for the issues of the amendments. I'm not sure if that's true on motions.
Mrs Marland: Or can she see a quorum.
The Chair: It is of course up to the members to raise the issue of a quorum at any particular time.
Mr Duncan: I will give you the undertaking of the official opposition that we will not play games on quorum calls in this committee, and we will not play a game where we try to force a vote when there are not enough government members present.
The Chair: With those stipulations then, that the issue of a quorum is as agreed upon and that we deal with Mr Bisson's concern as the first item after we come back after the vote, do we have unanimous consent to sit beyond 6? Agreed? Terrific. Fine. We now have 10 minutes. We're still on page 8 and the amendment to section 2. Further debate?
1740
Mrs McLeod: I wanted to just make a comment and I won't make it at length. This is an issue that concerns me significantly. I guess, Margaret, I'm a little bit distressed that you would need to go into a history lesson in order to seemingly defend following the government's direction that this amendment is not to be supported, because challenged on the history, I look back to having been part of a government which introduced some of the toughest fines we've had in dealing with drunk driving, and that led to the development of designated driver programs. I think that's recognized as being one of the significant progressive pieces in dealing with drunk driving. I have no need to go back and say, "Was that enough?" I think this is progressive and I think at each step along the way we want to make as much progress as possible.
One of my concerns and one of the reasons I'm very anxious that we not simply ignore the issue of the interlocking device, I didn't know about the interlocking device until I was sitting at committee here last week. It concerns me when I look at the studies and I see that this is not new. There's a longitudinal study that was done out of Hamilton county in Ohio where the study, at the end of the longitudinal period of assessment, was produced in 1992. My reason for concern, and if this sounds critical, so be it, is that the ministry at no point has even brought forward to people like yourself, who have clearly been concerned about the issue of drunk driving --
Mrs Marland: I've talked about ignition interlock systems for four years. I knew about them. I've had them demonstrated to me.
Mrs McLeod: Then what distresses me -- I will also support this legislation, as I supported your private member's bill, but from a personal perspective, one of my daughters, along with several of her friends, was involved in a very serious car accident where the driver was drunk, was driving with one arm and was under suspension. Lengthy suspension periods would not have done anything to prevent that man being on the road.
When I see research that suggests that lengthy suspensions may in fact increase the numbers of people who drive without a licence and without insurance, it worries me, even though I'm going to support the bill. When I see that there is another possibility of combining the interlock device with a more moderate suspension and that the recidivism rate is so much less for that, I don't want that issue to die. I don't want it to just be ignored for another four or five years. It has been out there for some time. Nobody has dealt with it in this province that I know of.
I just believe we've got to find some way, if this amendment isn't acceptable because it comes too quickly, of making a commitment that we will look at whether this is a better approach than simply having lengthy suspensions, because I don't any more of those accidents with people who are under suspension and figure they're never going to get their licence back anyway, so they might as well drive without one.
Mr Bisson: Just very quickly, the member for Mississauga South in her comments, and I'm not going to paraphrase this correctly, so correct me if I'm wrong, said that she didn't want to hold this bill up with regard to the drunk driving part of it. I want to assure you, from the NDP caucus, that we have no intention of doing that. We think this is important legislation and we wholeheartedly support it.
The second point, I must say, is that when your private member's bill came forward in October 1994, there were a number of members on the government side, along with some of the opposition members, who supported your efforts and, quite frankly, we ran out of legislative time. That brings us to the point of where we are here today. A lot of us are worried that some of the recommendations of Target '97 may have the same fate, that if there's not enough legislative time for the minister to deal with them, we won't get that done. I just want to make that point.
The Chair: Any further debate? Then I'll put the question. All in favour of the motion? Opposed? The motion is defeated.
Mr Duncan: That defeats the previous and then the next amendment as well that I have presented.
Mr Bisson: Seven is gone?
Mr Duncan: Seven and nine.
The Chair: Subsection 1(1), subsection 41(1), is that the one you are saying?
Mr Duncan: Yes.
Mrs McLeod: Madam Chair, given the fact that we are entertaining motions that relate back to defeated amendments, could I ask permission to bring forward a motion that would allow this issue to come back to this committee, the issue of the interlocking device and the research that has been done on that to be brought back in report to the committee at a subsequent date by the ministry, along the same lines as the motion that was discussed earlier?
The Chair: We are free to do that at any time.
Mrs McLeod: I don't need to give notice?
The Chair: No. With what Mr Duncan has just said, could I ask for a vote on section 1, because we're not going to be dealing with the deferred amendment. We are voting now on section 1. All in favour of section 1 as in the bill? Opposed, if any? Section 1 is carried.
Section 2: All in favour? Opposed, if any? Section 2 is now carried.
Mr Bisson: I just -- no, it's okay. Forget it.
The Chair: We had two amendments to section 2 which did not pass and therefore I called the vote on section 2.
Very well. We move on to section 3. Any amendments? Any debate on section 3? All in favour? Opposed, if any? Section 3 is carried.
Section 4: Shall section 4 carry? Anyone opposed? Carried.
Section 5: Amendments? All in favour? Opposed? Section 5 is carried.
Section 6: All in favour? Opposed? Section 6 is carried.
Section 7: All in favour? Anyone opposed? It's carried.
Section 8.
Mr Duncan: I have an amendment to section 8.
The Chair: That's on page 10? That's section 8.1, so that would come after section 8. All in favour of section 8, as written? Opposed? Section 8 is carried.
Section 8.1.
Mr Duncan: Madam Chair, I move that the bill be amended by adding the following section:
"8.1 Part IV of the act is amended by adding the following section;
"Review of truck driving schools"
This is an amendment to section 58.1 of the Highway Traffic Act.
"58.1 (1) The Minister of Education and Training shall review the Private Vocational Schools Act and its regulations in order to ensure that a truck driving school may not be registered under that act unless its courses of instruction and examinations are designed to meet a minimum standard of competency for truck driving.
"Annual report
"(2) The Minister of Education and Training shall, beginning at the end of the fiscal year in which this section comes into force, and continuing at the end of each fiscal year for the next four years, prepare an annual report on the progress of his or her review under subsection (1) and shall lay the report before the assembly if it is in session or, if not, at the next session."
This amendment would require the minister, as it says, to review the implementation of the PVSA as it applies to truck driving schools to ensure that they meet a minimum standard of competency. Members of the committee will recollect we had presentations to that effect here.
One of the recommendations in Target '97 was that the truck driving schools be required to have more formal requirements as to the certification they offer drivers based on real world competencies. For example, practising driving a car with a boat trailer attached should not be acceptable training for a large truck-trailer experience requirement. The PVSA already provides the Minister of Education with broad regulatory authority to control how driving schools train people, including what equipment is used.
The amendment is designed to compel the Minister of Education to use this regulatory power to prescribe the methods and equipment that truck driving schools use. These changes have been supported by the Truck Training Schools Association of Ontario.
The Chair: Debate? Mr Hastings.
Mr Hastings: It's clearly outside the purview and scope of Bill 138. We'll deal with these matters under separate legislation as set out through Target '97.
Mr Bisson: I think the parliamentary assistant is suggesting that the amendment is out of order.
The Chair: That's for the Chair to decide.
Mr Hastings: I would never make that comment.
The Chair: This is not out of order.
Mr Bisson: No, that's exactly why I was raising the point.
Mr Hastings: It is an incorrect inference.
Mr Bisson: Again, we heard a number of submissions. I can think of two particular submissions that were made to this committee that spoke directly to this. I think this is a friendly amendment that tries to deal with what is a real problem when it comes to how we train drivers in this province. I think it is an amendment that is worthy of support, and our caucus would do that.
The Chair: Further debate? Very well, we'll put the question to a vote. All in favour of this amendment? Opposed? The motion is defeated.
Section 9: All in favour of section 9? Opposed, if any? Section 9 is carried.
Section 10.
Mr Duncan: I have an amendment to section 10 of the bill.
I move that section 82.1 of the Highway Traffic Act, as set out in section 10 of the bill, be amended by adding the following subsection:
"Notice of damage to goods
"(18.1) If the goods that are removed under subsections (15), (16), (17) or (18) are damaged as a result of being removed or as a result of a delay in the trip caused by the inspection or by the order to impound and suspend, the operator shall immediately notify the shipper and intended recipient of the goods of the damage."
This amendment, members of the committee will recollect, was requested by the Canadian Industrial Transportation League and is designed to ensure that when carriers have their vehicles impounded for the 15-day truck licence suspension, they notify the shipper and intended recipient of the delay.
Mr Hastings: The MTO's position is that this particular amendment is redundant. Furthermore, this whole kind of relationship between the operator and the shipper is carried out through commercial law. The MTO sees no strong rationale for getting involved in items that are purely of a private nature between the parties to the transaction under commercial law. Furthermore, it's enhanced in their own particular contracts as would be dealt with through contract law.
Mrs McLeod: Perhaps we could cut down on the length of time our committee is taking if I could just ask the parliamentary assistant whether MTO has concluded that almost all the evidence presented to the committee is either redundant or false.
Mr Hastings: Certainly with respect to this particular amendment, we believe that is redundant. No, there is clearly material that has been brought forward by deputants in the three days of hearings that has significant policy ramifications and we will ensure that it is undertaken in additional legislation as is required in the example of the previous amendment dealing with the Private Vocational Schools Act.
We will deal with these matters and they will not be put under the carpet, as you earlier alluded to in comments about an hour and a quarter ago, that somehow or other media exposure that I mentioned would be one of the key items for ensuring that we do carry out the implementation, either through legislation, through policy changes or through regulation.
Mrs McLeod: You can be sure, Mr Hastings, that we will attempt to make sure that this issue does not go away from either the media or the public attention. But in the course of the last period of time you have indicated that we are exceeding national safety standards, which is directly contradictory to evidence that was presented to the committee. You've indicated that the ministry is already enforcing the carrier of dangerous goods provisions, even though there has been testimony by your own counsel that no regulations exist for you to be able to enforce that policy, and you have now indicated to us that this particular recommendation, which was requested specifically by one of the presenters at the committee, is redundant and unnecessary. Therefore I'm coming to the conclusion that anything which was presented to the committee has been dismissed by MTO and that you just might as well give us a thumbs down and then we can at least make our statements and move on quickly.
The Chair: Mr Bisson?
Mr Bisson: The point has been made.
Mr Pat Hoy (Essex-Kent): I agree to some extent that the public will be watching and be that very watchdog over this legislation and this government as it pertains to this bill. However, it may be that the public will become more aware after some catastrophic occurrence has happened, and that's not what we're looking for.
My comment in regard to this motion is I'm thinking of perishable goods where a vehicle has been impounded and there may be refrigeration required, and I mean in a constant way. There may be the simple fact that it's not moving from point A to point B swiftly enough that it would be unloaded into a place where it would be put in a proper climate. I really wonder about stating that this is not something to worry about. I think this is a good motion and protects the people who are using the carriers and their goods within.
The Chair: I propose that we defer further debate on this until after the recess. May I thank all of you for your sincerity and your willingness to sit beyond the appointed hour to get this done. I think it's marvellous. We'll reconvene immediately after the vote.
The committee recessed from 1755 to 1811.
The Acting Chair (Mr Pat Hoy): I welcome the members back. We had agreed that we wouldn't need a quorum and that there would be more government members here at the time of any discussion or vote.
We are on section 10. We were speaking in regard to damages resulting from delay. Were there any other speakers to that motion? Seeing none --
Mr Duncan: Is there another amendment on section 10?
The Acting Chair: -- I'll call the question on section 10.
Mr Duncan: No, on the amendment.
The Acting Chair: On the amendment. Agreed? Opposed?
Mr Parker: Where are we?
The Acting Chair: It's number 11 in your package, section 10 of the bill, subsection 82.1. All those in favour? Those opposed? Defeated.
Can we have agreement to pick up on a motion that Mr Bisson was going to put forth and accommodate him and his time schedule here this evening where he feels he might have to leave early.
Mr Bisson: Where's Margaret?
The Acting Chair: We have copies. Can we have unanimous consent to move back to a motion that deals with section 15.1 of the bill?
Mr Duncan: We are going to deal with Mrs McLeod's as well. Are we going to deal with that later in the evening?
The Acting Chair: Yes.
Mr Duncan: Did we agree to that?
Mr Parker: The agreement I made was that we would go straight to Mr Bisson's amendment now.
The Acting Chair: Yes.
Mr Parker: That's the only agreement that I'm aware of.
Mr Duncan: But we had said earlier, Mrs McLeod has a motion to bring to the committee at the end of business.
Mrs Munro: It's at the end.
Mr Duncan: At the end, yes. Is there agreement on that?
The Acting Chair: There is agreement to do Mrs McLeod's but not at this time, but in order to deal with Mr Bisson and his time schedule we will deal with this one now. Agreed? Copies are coming.
Mr Bisson: I take it we have unanimous consent because of that prior arrangement, and I read:
"I move that section 15.1 of the bill, section 228 of the act, be amended by adding the following section:
"15.1 The act is amended by adding the following section:
"Report to assembly
"228(1) Every six months after this section comes into force, the minister shall report to the assembly on the progress made on implementing the recommendations of the Target '97 task force on truck safety.
"Same
"(2) The report shall be given to the standing committee designated by order of the assembly."
Mrs Marland: Are you placing a motion?
The Acting Chair: Mr Klees wanted to make a comment first.
Mr Klees: I'll speak to the amendment. I cannot support this amendment. I was certainly prepared to entertain a motion of this committee that would be a direction from this committee requesting that the minister report back, but as I had indicated previously in my remarks, I didn't believe it was appropriate for that to be put forward as an amendment to this piece of legislation. I think it's appropriate for this committee to express its will to have a report back from the minister and I believe my colleague Mrs Marland has prepared a motion that would speak to that.
Mr Bisson: Just to expedite it --
The Acting Chair: I have Mr Duncan first.
Mr Bisson: If I can get a copy of her amendment, then that might expedite things.
Mr Duncan: While I support the thrust of this amendment and will vote in favour it, I must say the government was quite clear earlier today in suggesting that we deal with a motion at this point in time, not a further amendment to the bill.
Mrs Marland: Because I thought we had agreement that I would place the motion, Gilles, I went and drafted the motion.
Mr Bisson: That's fine. Let me read it.
Mrs Marland: It's quite straightforward.
Mr Bisson: Can I just have two minutes to read it, please. I just got it.
Mrs Marland: Mr Chair, do you want me to read it into the record so we know what my motion is?
The Acting Chair: We have one here now and perhaps if Mr Bisson has a chance to read it --
Mr Bisson: Just give me two minutes, because we have to deal --
The Acting Chair: -- in regard to his own, and I'll grant him a few seconds to read it, then we'll deal with his, depending on what he might decide.
Mr Bisson: Okay. I won't debate it at any length. I understand what the member for Mississauga South is doing. I've only moved this amendment based on the discussion that we had earlier in the committee and ask members to support this amendment. If not, the next one.
The Acting Chair: Any other comment on section 15.1 of the bill?
Mrs Marland: My question to Mr Bisson is, because we had agreement that I would move the motion, will you withdraw your amendment?
Mr Bisson: That's fine. I'll withdraw the amendment, under the understanding that you're going to be moving this amendment.
Mrs Marland: I am going to move that motion.
Mr Bisson: I agree to withdraw.
Mrs Marland: So your amendment has been withdrawn and you'd like me to move my motion?
Mr Bisson: Yes. Just to be clear for the record, I withdraw the amendment I just put forward, with the understanding that the member for Mississauga South will move a similar amendment of her own in order to accomplish basically the same thing.
Mr Klees: Point of order, Mr Chair.
Mr Bisson: No, no, it's fine.
Mrs Marland: He's saying amendment, but it's a motion.
Mr Bisson: It's a motion. It comes out to the same thing.
Mr Klees: I just wanted it to be clarified that this is not an amendment, it is a motion.
Mr Bisson: It comes to the same thing.
Mr Duncan: We will support this motion. We regret that the government has consistently today lost its nerve when it comes to truck safety and drunk driving safety. We will be voting for the bill. We will vote for this motion.
We will be debating the bill again back in the House, but given that the government wasn't prepared to do what we think would have been a more effective process, a more cost-effective process and a process that could in fact work, we will, in an effort to again demonstrate our commitment to road safety, and recognizing this bill as a significant step forward, support the motion, though we will continue to advocate that we wish the government hadn't lost its nerve on road safety and on drunk driving and had done what expert evidence has told us to do.
That being said, we support the motion and applaud the member for Mississauga South on her efforts in the past on drunk driving and understand that she too and the government members of the committee are anxious that the regulatory changes that are contemplated in Target '97 be reviewed by the public in some form.
The Acting Chair: I wish to interrupt just for a moment --
Mrs Marland: I think I need to read the motion into the record in order for us to discuss it.
The Acting Chair: That's right. First of all, we need unanimous consent to bring about this particular motion. Agreed. Then we would ask you to read it into the record.
Mrs Marland: I will move the motion and then speak to it and we'll take Mr Duncan's comments as read.
I move that the committee require the Minister of Transportation or his assigns to report back to this committee within 12 months of the proclamation of the bill for the purpose of giving a report on the status of the Target '97 recommendations' implementation and/or regulatory changes to address those recommendations.
I would say to the critic for transportation, having been a critic for 10 years, that I realize there are some things you have to do and some things you have to say, but I feel I must say in response to your comments that there is no way this government has lost its nerve this afternoon and voted against your amendments. We have not lost our nerve. In fact, what I will say with great pride is that we have had the nerve, the courage, the commitment to bring forward Bill 138.
In this bill we will have, as I said earlier this afternoon, the strongest remedy to drunk driving that exists in Canada today and in the majority of the United States, and we have done this within two years of being given our mandate. We did not have similar legislation from the former NDP or Liberal governments in the five years each of their mandates. I would not have been so political except in response to my friend.
1820
Mr Bisson: Or the last 42 years of Tory government.
Mrs Marland: In the 42 years that we were the government before that, how you handled the subject of drunk driving was not quite the way it could have been handled in the last decade.
I'm very proud to support the bill. In fact my motion is saying that obviously we are committed to Target '97 recommendations. I know when the minister comes back and reports you will be pleased. It may well be that we will have further amendments to the Highway Traffic Act to provide the remedy to the killing and the maiming that takes place because of people who drink and drive and the hazard of the unsafe operation of truck transportation in this province.
Mr Parker: Virtually everything I was going to say on this point has now been said by my colleague from Mississauga South, so I am happy to waive my time.
Mr Bisson: I have two points. The first one is, with all due respect to the member for Mississauga South, to make the comment that nobody ever did anything on drunk driving for the 10 lost years of the NDP and Liberal regimes and to insinuate that the problem changed during the time that we were the government and wasn't an issue for the 42 years that you were the government before then I think is making a bit of stretch and being a hell of a lot more partisan than you need to be.
I'm really, really tired of listening to that rhetoric, that all of a sudden, in the last 10 years of the Liberal regime and the NDP regime, everything had changed, all the stars had lined up and it was an issue that we had to deal with drunk driving then, and because the governments didn't it was a failure, but for the 42 years of Tory regime before that, it wasn't an issue. Hooey, Margaret.
Mrs Marland: We established the countermeasures office in the early 1980s.
Mr Bisson: There were also initiatives by both the Peterson and the Rae governments on the issue of drunk driving. The RIDE program was instituted. There was a lot of money spent on educating the public on drunk driving which has been very effective.
Mrs Marland: We initiated the RIDE program.
Mr Bisson: There was increased financial support from both the Peterson government and the Rae government when it came to the whole issue of increasing awareness of drunk driving, and I'm tired of getting that rhetoric, quite frankly, Margaret.
On the second point, we were dealing with Target '97 and we got into drunk driving. Now I get back to the point of the motion. I'm glad that you've brought forward this motion in order to get the minister to come back here. Maybe you didn't want it standing in the name of one of the opposition parties. For whatever reason, it's here. We're going to say, "Let's not be partisan about it." The issue is truck safety, the issue is safety for the motorists of Ontario, to make sure that we try to minimize as much as humanly possible the tragedies that are on our highways because of the unsafe conditions we have on our highways.
I will not be partisan and I will support your motion even though the government didn't see it in their way to support either the NDP motion or the Liberal amendments that were made that would basically do the same thing.
Mr Duncan: I think this government has lost its nerve. We brought forward a bill just a month ago that goes well beyond this. Yes, the bill you're bringing forward, on a scale of 10, is a seven and our bill is a nine. Our bill will give safer roads to Ontario. I will make a prediction right here and now, even though I'm going to support the seven instead of the nine, that most of the recommendations in Target '97 that are not dealt with yet will not be implemented because of the way the government is conducting itself in these hearings.
We've supported your bill. We've said it's a good bill. Ontario is the lead jurisdiction in Canada on transportation issues, be it on this issue or any number of others, just as it's the lead jurisdiction in any number of other provincial areas. We should be out in front. But I suggest to the government members that our measures ought to take into account the expert testimony we've had, and if we can have nine instead of seven, we should go for nine. I think you've lost your nerve. That doesn't mean we won't vote for your bill, it just means that in two years we'll bring in these amendments when we're the government and we'll toughen it up, because you're not doing enough.
The Acting Chair: Any further debate? Not seeing any, I'll call the question.
Mrs Marland: Recorded vote.
Ayes
Bisson, Duncan, Froese, Hastings, Marland, McLeod, Munro, Parker, Smith.
The Acting Chair: It's carried.
Mrs Marland: Thank you very much. I'm now going to go and do my House duty. You're not going to call a quorum, correct?
Mr Duncan: Correct.
The Acting Chair (Mrs Lyn McLeod): We can proceed then. I believe we're on section 10 of the bill.
Mr Duncan: Yes, I have an amendment. It's amendment number 12 in the packet that the members have.
I move that section 82.1 of the Highway Traffic Act, as set out in section 10 of the bill, be amended by adding the following subsection:
"Operator not relieved of contractual obligations
"(32.1) Nothing done pursuant to an order to impound and suspend that is issued under this section relieves an operator from contractual obligations, including contractual obligations prescribed by regulations under the Truck Transportation Act with respect to the carriage of livestock, animal specialties and general freight."
Again, this amendment was requested by the Canadian Industrial Transportation League and is designed to ensure that when carriers have their vehicles impounded for the 15-day truck licence suspension, they are not exempted from their contractual obligations to the freight's recipients.
Over the break we contacted some people who have expertise in commercial law and they told us that this particular type of amendment recommended by the Canadian Industrial Transportation League will afford greater protection to the shippers and to the recipients of goods than straight commercial law would, and therefore this type of amendment would be desirable in terms of protecting businesses in this province, in terms of protecting both shippers and recipients and ensuring that liability for these problems rests properly.
Mr Hastings: As per usual, there are two sides to the story. The ministry would maintain that the existing current commercial law ensures that problems arising out of contractual obligations and transactions between businesses and businesses is significantly sufficient and that this would place MTO in a rather intrusive role in the relationship between the two parties under commercial or contract law.
The Acting Chair: Any further debate? If not, are you ready for the question?
Mr Parker: Madam Chair, could I call a 20-minute recess?
The Acting Chair: Is there agreement to the proposal?
Mr Bisson: You're playing games here.
Mr Duncan: What's going on? Why are you calling a recess?
The Acting Chair: Do you want to explain?
Mr Parker: Do I have to give a reason?
Mr Duncan: We had an agreement.
Mr Bisson: We had an agreement. You guys have got no class.
Mr Duncan: We had unanimous consent. You're out of order.
The Acting Chair: I understand that technically, when a question is called, you can ask for a 20-minute recess. With every amendment that's to be called, a 20-minute recess can be requested. Members of the opposition can do that on every section of this bill.
1830
Mr Duncan: If we're here until midnight, I'm easy. If you want to keep your members here, you go right ahead.
Mr Bisson: We'll call a 20-minute bell with every bloody vote tonight.
The Acting Chair: Excuse me. If I may ask the members of the committee, I'll use the latitude of not being traditionally in this chair to suggest that since there is unanimous consent for the committee to continue sitting and since this bill was presumably being approached in the spirit of cooperation, I think the committee is deserving of some explanation and some understanding of where the rest of the evening is going.
Mr Parker: I've sat on many committees and participated in many votes, and there have been many calls for recesses. I have never known the members of the committee or the Chair to call for an explanation for the reason. It's within the rules; I am exercising my --
The Acting Chair: That's fine. I was asking, given the spirit of the evening sitting, for a voluntary offering.
Mr Duncan: I move that we have a 20-minute recess after each amendment. If you want to stay until midnight, we'll stay until midnight, no problem. Good for you. I have no problem. I have House duty tonight, and I can go in and speak.
The Acting Chair: As a matter of fact, there is no indication that we have to adjourn at midnight. I'm not aware of there being a limitation on the time at which the committee has to adjourn this evening.
Mr Parker: Madam Chair, given the degree of controversy that my suggestion has given rise to, I'm happy to withdraw my request.
Mr Duncan: Are you sure that's what he told you to say? Are you sure you've got that right? Maybe you should get it in writing, a memo.
Mr Bisson: It's an awful job being a stand-in.
The Acting Chair: Proposal withdrawn, then. Shall we proceed to take the vote?
Mr Duncan: I move a recess for 20 minutes. I can do it for every amendment. We had agreement. We've been cooperating, we've been trying to deal with this properly, and then this guy walks in and starts giving you instructions. Come on. I'll withdraw that motion, but let's not play games. We've tried to be cooperative.
Mr Bisson: The point the government has to understand here is that on Bill 138 the opposition has gone to every length to give the government speedy passage of the legislation. We've been trying to cooperate as much as we can around all the amendments we've been dealing with today with committee of the whole.
In fact, the motion we just passed effectively did what both the NDP and the Liberal caucus had attempted to do by way of amendment to the bill. We lost our amendments and allowed the Conservative member's amendment to stand because the Tories would be seen as doing it themselves rather than the NDP or the Liberals having forced them to do it. We don't care. In the end it's highway safety; it's about people, it's about lives, it's about safety of our highways.
We haven't been coming here and playing games. I really find it offensive that you would come into this committee all of a sudden and, after there has been unanimous consent that we would make sure this bill was passed, that there were no games played, that the government got its bill, that you come in with that motion. I don't know. You guys sometimes take the cake.
The Acting Chair: We have an amendment before us. I've called for the question on the amendment. I will take the question. Should there be requests that further the business of the committee, I'm certainly prepared to entertain those at the present time. I have a motion to place. Have you called for a recorded vote on this?
Mr Duncan: Yes.
Ayes
Bisson, Duncan, Hoy.
Nays
Froese, Hastings, Munro, Parker, Smith.
Mr Duncan: Recognizing that the committee is meeting at an unplanned time, if the government desires a recess to allow another member to come in and deal with a particular amendment, we'd be happy to accommodate that. If the government desires that an amendment be set aside until another member is able to be here, we would be happy to accommodate that request as well.
The Acting Chair: I'm going to exercise the prerogative of having stepped into the chair to suggest that the whole purpose in continuing to meet tonight was to do justice to amendments that have been proposed, I think in good faith on all sides, and to have some discussions of those and also, based on the proposed motion and one I was prepared to table earlier, to have the committee continue to look at issues that are of shared concern to the committee.
If there is a desire to have a recess, whether it is to bring in another member or just because there is a desire to have some further discussion, I would be happy as Chair to entertain those requests. But if people are simply wanting to stall the business of the committee, whether it is technically necessary or not, there's some obligation to let committee members know there are people who have come here especially for this committee to present their input on private members' bills that they've had passed by the House. They have reason to believe that by staying they're going to be able to discuss that.
I will make it clear that I'm not aware of anything which restricts us from sitting past midnight and I believe as Chair that we are going to have a full and fair discussion of every amendment that's before us. I would hope that's the spirit in which we continue the discussion.
Mr Duncan: I move section 10 of the bill.
The Acting Chair: All those in favour? Section 10 is carried.
Mr Duncan: I move section 11.
The Acting Chair: There are no amendments to be considered in section 11. All those in favour of section 11 being carried? Section 11 is carried.
We move to section 12 of the bill. Are there any amendments to section 12?
Mr Duncan: I have an amendment to section 12.
I move that section 12 of the bill be amended by striking out "section" in the second line and substituting "sections" and by adding the following as section 84.2 of the Highway Traffic Act:
"Attachment of wheels of commercial motor vehicles, etc.
"84.2(1) No person shall attach a wheel to a commercial motor vehicle or to a vehicle to be drawn by a commercial motor vehicle except in accordance with the manufacturers' specifications.
"Maintenance of wheels
"(2) The owner of a commercial motor vehicle or a vehicle to be drawn by a commercial motor vehicle shall ensure that the wheels of the vehicle are maintained in accordance with the standards prescribed by the regulations.
"Regulations, maintenance standards
"(3) The Lieutenant Governor in Council may make regulations prescribing standards for the maintenance of wheels for the purposes of subsection (2).
"Offence
"(4) Every person who contravenes subsection (1) or (2) is guilty of an offence and, on conviction, is liable to a fine of not less than $2,000 and not more than $50,000.
"Definitions
"(5) In this section,
"`commercial motor vehicle' and `wheel' have the same meaning as in section 84.1."
Again, this amendment is copied from my private member's bill. It comes out of Target '97. It ensures that truck wheels are assembled to manufacturers' instructions. You heard testimony during these hearings with respect to the issue that carriers have and the OTA has about absolute liability. We think inserting this clause will help give greater certainty to court challenges on absolute liability, that absolute liability will stand up in court.
There is a considerable difference of opinion with respect to the notion of absolute liability, and we've brought this forward because it was a recommendation of Target '97, and also hopefully to buttress the case for absolute liability at whatever time it comes to court.
Mr Hastings: In response, let the record show that under the mandating of the Ministry of Education and Training and in cooperation with the Ontario Trucking Association, we have already put into effect an insulation and reinsulation program for wheels and wheel fasteners. We feel as a government that this particular amendment will make it much more inflexible by putting into statute what we're already doing by regulation.
Mr Duncan: Your regulation is not being enforced now. I will produce for committee members written evidence to that effect from the Ontario Trucking Association. Yes indeed, it will be stronger than regulation, and we're honestly concerned that the way the government has designed the bill and the absolute liability provisions, they've designed it to fail in court. We want to try and prevent that from happening.
Mr Hastings: I'd just like to further point out that under the recertification program and in cooperation with the Ministry of Education and Training and the OTA, we've already had over 10,000 people go through the program. I don't think this is any indication of intent or that the government is getting reluctant fingers to deal with this problem or any other problem.
I'd appreciate receiving from Mr Duncan specific instances of where there has been a lack of enforcement so we can deal with that appropriately. Even if you had it in law, you could still end up with a situation where you didn't have certain failings under this program enforced. Just adding it into law does not automatically guarantee that you are going to have strong implementation. You could argue it either way. If it's under regulation, which we're doing this by, we simply need to ensure that we have sufficient resources to check out those specific examples of where we've had failings.
1840
Mr Duncan: Again, we think the government has lost its nerve on truck safety, but we will take half rather than nothing and vote for the bill. We don't think you're going far enough. We don't think you're committed to enforcement. We think your reluctance to deal openly and honestly in the legislation with the regulations that are required in Target '97 demonstrates quite amply what was demonstrated by the Premier when he forced the minister to withdraw Bill 125.
We think if you're committed that you will look at the evidence. We ask government committee members to look at the evidence. The regulations with respect to maintenance and installation are not being enforced in Ontario, and we look forward to debating this issue further.
Mr Hastings: I would simply add that for a bill to be described as something that's half better than nothing certainly indicates that the opposition, in my estimation and the ministry's estimation, doesn't really appreciate the intent of this legislation. I still haven't heard from Mr Duncan whether he accepts the challenge to provide us with those specific instances where we're failing to deal with enforcement.
The Acting Chair: I believe, Mr Hastings, that Mr Duncan began by offering to provide that information to the committee.
Mr Duncan: Yes, I will provide that.
The Acting Chair: Is there any further debate? If not, all those in favour of the amendment?
Mr Duncan: Recorded vote.
Ayes
Duncan, Hoy.
Nays
Froese, Hastings, Munro, Parker, Smith.
The Acting Chair: The amendment is defeated. The next Liberal motion: I'm advised there is before you another amendment on section 12.1 of the act, but I'm informed that this amendment is not in order because it amends a section of the Highway Traffic Act, section 87, which has not been opened by the bill that's before us, so that amendment would be ruled out of order.
Mr Duncan: On the question, what we are simply trying to do is: The government's providing for annual inspections of trucks, and we're suggesting they ought to be every six months. We're asking the government if it would consider opening that section of the bill so that this amendment could be inserted and so that we could reinforce our commitment to road safety in Ontario.
Mr Hastings: We maintain that the existing approach by regulation is much preferable in terms of flexibility for being able to get our precious resources to those areas where there are failings in the system, because that is the way in which government has to operate today within the overall context of restraint. You sharpen and focus your resources, legal, manpower, regulation, so that you can deal with those specific problems that need to be dealt with, so that we do have an overall record of a safe public highway system, a road system in the province.
It is out of order, and in my estimation, if the Chair has ruled it out of order, it indicates that despite the Liberal transportation critic's intent to strengthen this bill, in point of fact this is an example of what I would term carelessness. Since the government hadn't opened the section in the bill to begin with, it seems to me that this is a rather poor research effort.
The Acting Chair: Mr Duncan, I'm sure you will wish to respond to that, whether it's in order or not.
Mr Duncan: This has been recommended by a number of interested parties. The Chair has ruled it out of order on that particular ruling. I think it points out to members of the committee, when the government talks about a comprehensive bill, that in fact it's not a comprehensive bill. It deals with a number of important issues and we think it's a positive step forward.
Our intention is to show, by this particular amendment especially, that it is not comprehensive. You don't deal with something as fundamental as the frequency of inspections. We again challenge the government to open this section, let us deal with it; let us not accept that the carnage we've seen on our roads is acceptable. If you're truly intent on doing comprehensive legislation, you will open section 87, you'll increase the frequency of inspections because the minister has argued -- and we still haven't seen the final figures but we've argued that you have more inspectors. We think that's good. We think there ought to be more inspections and we think Ontario should lead the way with six months instead of one year.
The Acting Chair: I am also informed that there are no subsections of section 12; therefore, before we proceed to any further amendments we have to take the vote on section 12. Should there be any further amendments, they would be renumbered and would no longer be section 12.
Mr Tom Froese (St Catharines-Brock): There is a section 12.1, 14A. Is that a new section?
The Acting Chair: I will proceed to consider further amendments should they be in order, but I understand that should they be in order and should they be passed, they would be renumbered to be new sections and therefore we must deal with section 12 as it now stands and then move on to the amendments. We will move on to those further amendments.
Mr Duncan has moved that section 12 be passed. All those in favour of the motion? Those opposed? Section 12 is carried.
The next Liberal motion we've already indicated is not in order.
The government motion, 14A.
Mr Duncan: Have we got another amendment on section 12.1?
The Acting Chair: We've got 14 on 12.1, which was the Liberal which was not in order. We are now at 14A, which is the government motion. Is that correct? The government motion I'm informed --
Mr Duncan: We had another motion on 12.2.
The Acting Chair: We will come back to that.
Mr Duncan: I'm sorry. I apologize. Never mind.
The Acting Chair: I think the committee should also be aware that government motion 14A in your package amends a section of the Highway Traffic Act, which has not been opened by the government's bill, and therefore the government's motion is out of order.
Mr Froese: I would seek unanimous consent from the committee to discuss the amendment.
Mr Duncan: I suggest that we could do that if we could reconsider the motion that I had put earlier in the day around the appointment of a committee as part of the legislation. I'd be more than happy, because if we're going to apply to the rules I think they ought to be applied fairly. Yes, my previous motion was out of order because again it introduces something that wasn't dealt with in the bill. I suppose that if the government is prepared to consider seriously a couple of our amendments, one of our amendments that we see as a priority, we could deal with that one.
Mr Froese: If I can ask, what you're looking for is consent to deal with the motion that we turned down or that was out of order.
Mr Duncan: We would have to have the support of the government members on one of our amendments in order to consider this, because if we reopen it, that's simply not enough. The government will obviously pass your amendment. We don't have the guarantee that you'll pass our amendment.
Mr Froese: You're not willing to give unanimous consent unless we not even just deal with but pass your amendment in favour or you're not going do this one?
Mr Duncan: I would like to see your amendment pass. But the government didn't choose to deal with this in its bill. We would be prepared to agree to unanimous consent if the government is prepared to --
Mr Froese: You're not agreeing to unanimous consent on this issue.
Mr Duncan: We might, if you were prepared to accept one of ours. Perhaps Mr Hoy's could be accepted, which is another bus bill matter, or we could at least debate Mr Hoy's because I believe that his might be found to be out of order as well.
The Acting Chair: I'll ask whether or not we could determine whether Mr Hoy's amendment would be in order before we enter that into the discussion. In the meantime, Mr Hastings can make his comments.
Mr Hastings: Might I suggest we take a five-minute recess to deal with the matter of Mr Froese's amendment and also the item proposed by Mr Duncan.
The Acting Chair: You're requesting a five-minute recess in order that the discussion not be on record?
Mr Duncan: That's fair.
Mr Hastings: Could we have that?
The Acting Chair: Is that in agreement with the committee?
Mr Bisson: Could I lay money on what's going to happen here?
The Acting Chair: Mr Bisson, were you requesting something seriously or are you okay with the five-minute recess?
Mr Bisson: The five-minute recess. That is fine.
The committee recessed from 1850 to 1853.
The Acting Chair: If you're all back and are willing to resume, let's proceed. I believe Mr Froese had asked for consideration of his motion which is out of order and would require unanimous consent of the committee to be considered.
Mr Froese: I would ask Mr Duncan, if I could have clarification, that they give unanimous consent to bring forward this amendment if we agree to have unanimous consent or give unanimous consent to have Mr Hoy's motion brought forward.
Mr Duncan: My understanding is that number 17 is in order but 18 is not in order. We would agree to give unanimous consent. We would hope the government would also give its undertaking to vote in favour of Mr Hoy's bill, which we did in the Legislature, so that can become law as well. We're trying to work with you folks and we're trying to pass your bill, which was passed by the Legislature last Thursday. The problem and difficulty we have is simply opening it to debate.
We think if the government is sincere in wanting to debate bus safety, you'll deal substantively and approve Mr Hoy's amendments as well.
Mr Bisson: Mr Froese suggests that we give unanimous consent to allow his motion to be debated by way of unanimous consent, and in exchange they will allow Mr Hoy's amendment, page 18, to be debated as well, even though it's out of order. Do I understand correctly? Then I'll carry on.
The Acting Chair: You understand correctly the request from Mr Froese and the proposal from Mr Froese. Mr Duncan's request, as I understand it, is somewhat different. They would consider unanimous consent on Mr Froese's motion provided there was an undertaking to pass Mr Hoy's motion.
Mr Bisson: The point I want make here is that by virtue of the government having a majority on the committee, they're not offering us a heck of a lot. You're saying, "Give me a chance to bring my motion that's out of order into the committee by way of unanimous consent, and by virtue of the majority of the committee we will have that passed because you will vote for it." Even if you didn't, it wouldn't matter. You've got a majority on that side of the committee, and then just because we have Mr Hoy's amendment come forward that needs unanimous consent to be dealt with, we're not getting anything here because you'll vote against it and we get nothing.
Mr Froese: I think you're making an assumption.
Mr Bisson: You're darn right I'm making an assumption.
Mr Froese: You could very well --
Mr Bisson: I've been around this place long enough to know what you're doing here.
Mr Froese: If we go with what Mr Duncan requested, then what would be the sense of debating the issue? This amendment would be passed.
Mr Bisson: That's what we're asking for.
Mr Froese: We've already incorporated in the bill part of Mr Hoy's private member's --
Mr Bisson: Still haven't finished.
Mr Froese: Oh, you haven't finished yet. Sorry.
Mr Bisson: What I'm going to suggest --
The Acting Chair: I called on Mr Froese to speak. Are you on the speakers' list again, Mr Bisson?
Mr Bisson: I had it on --
The Acting Chair: I already moved to Mr Froese.
Mr Bisson: You had moved? Okay, back on the list.
Mr Hoy: Let's not mince words here. Your private member's bill is here today. Mine is here today, not all of it, but portions of it, so we know that. We've had other members talk about drunk driving bills that pertain to private members' bills and whether they made it anywhere, in part or in full, and we've had eloquent speeches in the House these last two weeks around rule changes and the importance of private members' bills. So we're seeing parts of, and in total, I believe, Mr Froese's private member's bill that was passed at second reading last Thursday.
But consistent with my private member's bill this motion, amendment, we'll call it 17, is in order. There's no doubt about it. We made certain of that. Number 18 is housekeeping, dependent on 17; and in order to be consistent and always have a bill put forward or amendments put forward that meet the requirements of the law, that is why 18 is there.
I submit to you that both would be in order.
Mr Duncan: We would like to see Mr Hoy's private member's bill, which is approved by the Legislature already, so we are not prejudging anything, adopted in its entirety as well.
You're saying we're prejudging. Perhaps we are. We will put it to the test at the appropriate time, but I would think if the government is sincere -- we're being as sincere as we can by putting our cards on the table -- if you're being sincere and you're telling me, "We will respect the will of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario," which voted I believe in November for Mr Hoy's bill, if you're telling me that, if you're giving me your word and your undertaking, then we'll certainly agree to unanimous consent to open your sections with the undertaking that you will support Mr Hoy's bill in its entirety.
Mr Bisson: The point I wanted to make was basically that the House in private members' hour supported both of these private members' bills, so we're not prejudging anything; that's the will of the House. If it's the will of the House and you ask for yours to come into this committee to be put into the bill, we ask for the same for Mr Hoy's. That's a pretty even trade, I think.
Mr Parker: What we're into right now is debate --
Mr Duncan: Horse-trading.
Mr Parker: No, debate on the merits of these two motions is what we're into. That's exactly what we're into. You're saying you're going to vote for both of them and "What are you, the government, going to do?" Until we commit to what we're going to do, you're not going to make any commitment --
The Acting Chair: If I may make a suggestion, and I would do it because I have a little bit of concern about what Mr Parker is suggesting, which is that the government is being asked to make a commitment prior to a vote on the bill, although I think the opposition members have made very clear the fact that their granting of unanimous consent to consider Mr Froese's amendment is contingent upon that: If the committee wishes to have the debate, it would require unanimous consent to consider Mr Hoy's second amendment and to debate those two amendments at this point in time and take a vote on them. We could certainly entertain that so that you're not being committed prior to the debate.
Mr Froese: I appreciate your interjection and your advice on the way we should do it. I don't think that's going to make one bit of difference one way or the other. The opposition is not going to give unanimous consent if they can't get approval of Mr Hoy's section of the bill.
Mr Duncan: We didn't say that.
Mr Froese: Of course you did.
Mr Duncan: I asked you for an undertaking.
Mr Froese: What's the difference? Mr Duncan has said, "Vote in favour of our amendment and we'll give you what you want, but if you don't do that, we're not going to give you what you want." It's at a standstill. They're playing politics here with something that is a non-partisan issue.
Mr Duncan: Let's do Mr Hoy's first.
The Acting Chair: My suggestion was that if members are uncomfortable giving pre-commitments on the vote, they could consider Mr Hoy's amendments prior and vote on them. Quite clearly the government needs unanimous consent to consider Mr Froese's amendment, and that is a dilemma which cannot be resolved unless you give unanimous consent.
Mr Froese: Madam Chair, without delaying this whole process, would you rule on the request?
The Acting Chair: Mr Froese has requested unanimous consent in order to have his amendment considered for debate and consideration by this committee. Is there unanimous consent?
Mr Bisson: Can we have two minutes?
Mr Duncan: I move a recess.
The Acting Chair: I would accept a recess.
The committee recessed from 1902 to 1906.
The Acting Chair: Mr Froese, did you want me to place the request for unanimous consent?
Mr Froese: I thought the opposition wanted a two-minute recess to discuss this and I assumed they were going to come back with something.
Mr Duncan: We did that.
Mr Froese: I will withdraw my request and, as you suggested, I will request that we have Mr Hoy's motion brought forward.
The Acting Chair: Does that meet with the agreement of the committee? Is there unanimous consent to consider amendment 18 in order? I understand 17 is in order. The request has been made that we debate 17 and 18.
Mr Froese: Are 17 and 18 the same with respect to Mr Hoy's --
The Acting Chair: Yes, those are the two amendments. I just need unanimous consent of the committee, as I will on your amendment, Mr Froese, to consider 18 because 18 is not in order. It requires unanimous consent to be considered by the committee in any order. Is there unanimous consent to consider 18? The debate would first be, at the request of the committee, on 17 in our package. Is there a mover for this amendment?
Mr Hoy: I move that section 13 of the bill be amended by adding the following subsection:
"(2) Section 175 of the act is amended by adding the following subsections:
"Same: vehicle owner
"(19) If the driver who contravenes subsection (11) or (12) is not known, the owner of the vehicle that was driven in contravention of subsection (11) or (12) is guilty of an offence under subsection (17).
"No imprisonment or probation
"(20) An owner of a vehicle convicted under subsection (19) shall not be liable to imprisonment, a probation order under subsection 72(1) of the Provincial Offences Act or a driver's licence suspension as a result of the conviction or as a result of default in payment of a fine resulting from that conviction."
The minister has addressed some portion of school bus safety within the comprehensive bill we're talking about here tonight. He has increased the fine levels proposed under this bill to a higher degree than what we've seen before. I said in the Legislature that this initiative by the minister was a small step towards protecting the children who ride our buses every day here in Ontario.
Mr Froese and I and many others are interested in the safety of children. Under the current law, drivers of school buses have the ability to lay charges and bring them forth against those persons who pass a school bus when the red lights are flashing. However, they must identify the driver of the offending vehicle. In essence, they have to describe their face -- very difficult, if not impossible, to do. I've canvassed drivers, policemen, parents and others who have taken an interest in this and they all agree that it is near to impossible to identify a face when passing a school bus. In some of those instances, and I want members to understand this well, we have a lot of vehicles with blacked-out windows, so it's very difficult to see inside the car. The speed at which the vehicle is passing the bus is also a factor.
In the case of Ryan Marcuzzi, who was hit by a car and killed a year ago this past January, that vehicle, if I recollect, was going -- and I'll use miles per hour -- 50 miles per hour. So the speed of a vehicle passing a bus can be a significant factor in trying to identify who is passing that bus at the time.
If one passes the bus from the back to the front, one can only see the back of the head. If you're sitting at a stoplight and someone has maybe gone through a stoplight -- it occurs on occasion. Or they go through on the amber, which is only a warning and set up so they can be stopped by the time it turns red. I'm sure many of you have seen this happen. While you were stopped at a stoplight someone went by you, maybe not going at a great rate of speed, and I defy you to identify the person who was driving.
So yes, the minister has increased the fine levels, but they're a moot point if we can't get convictions. Let's remember that there were fine levels before, it's just that they were lower. Bus drivers say they are being passed twice a day, twice per shift, four times on one day -- it could vary -- but often enough. There are 16,000 buses in Ontario, and if they are passed on average twice a day, you're looking at far, far too many incidents where people are jeopardizing the lives of young children.
The point has been put by others that children should look both ways. However, they are as young as five years old and they depend on those flashing red lights to protect them. Maybe they do look both ways, but how do you know that car way down the street is not going to stop? Are they going to stand there forever and wait? I've had parents say that they stand on the road now and flag the traffic down with their arms to protect their children. There's one area in Essex where they do that. They won't let the kids out on the road; two or three mothers go out on the road and they wave their arms and make darn sure the cars stop. Now we've got people out in the middle of the road.
It was also reported to me that people understand fully what the law is today, that they have to identify their face, make a positive identification, so when they pass the school bus they're putting their hands up and they're driving by like this. They understand the law. They know full well the reasoning and how they can escape conviction.
What we have here is the minister bringing in new fine levels, which are all very well and supported by myself. They vary from my private member's bill, but I don't think the fine levels in themselves are the total point. We need now an enforcement mechanism. The police and others -- municipalities, school boards, parents and those persons who aren't parents any longer perhaps -- are telling me that this is the only way to give teeth to the law, adequate protection to children who ride school buses. We must remember that in the last 10 years 11 children have been killed and over 80 injured and far, far too many incidents which we would call close calls.
I support Mr Froese's bill. It's very laudable. He wants to protect children as well in regard to school bus safety. I haven't been able to find out on my own time and resources, but I think in your backgrounder you have not shown where anybody has been injured or killed in the two instances within your bill. That's great. We don't want anybody killed before we change the law. I think if you have this initiative now, down the road hopefully you will be certain -- or at least minimize the incidence of a death or an injury.
But in this case, and I'm talking about vehicle owner liability, we know there have been 11 deaths and 80 injuries in the last 10 years, and in many jurisdictions the police have given up trying to apprehend people or even go out and talk to the bus driver because it cannot be proven who was driving the car in most instances. Just think of those other examples I cited.
Let me tell you about one court case. The bus driver was adamant -- I assume it was a she but maybe I shouldn't do that. The bus driver was adamant that they knew a description of the person, the offending driver. They went to court. The defence got up and said, "Is this the person who passed your bus?" The driver of the bus said yes. Then he went and had this person's sibling stand up, who was near in age, same gender, and the bus driver said, "Now I'm not so sure." The family resemblance was so strong that she said, "Now I'm not so sure." If we had the vehicle licence plate -- in all probability in court you'd need to have the make, model and other circumstances, but of course the vehicle licence plate will be the optimum thing here.
I want to make it clear to the members, because I've been asked by government members and others, what we are talking about: If we can make positive identification of the driver there would be a conviction attempted there, and if we have vehicle liability there would a conviction there, but we are not seeking to penalize both the owner and the driver. It's one or the other, not both. Some people have thought that that's what I was seeking.
We certainly need vehicle liability. It's called vicarious liability. It is not nearly as onerous as absolute liability. We have had vehicle liability within other laws.
Mr Parker: I don't think there is anyone in this room who does not support the goal Mr Hoy seeks to achieve with this amendment, that being greater safety for children, particularly safety for children on our roads. I don't think anyone on this committee is not concerned over the safety of children in the area of school buses and is not outraged and chagrined by any hint of danger to children in the area of school buses. I think we all applaud Mr Hoy for bringing this issue forward in his private member's bill. The government has accepted a portion of his bill, as he points out, in the present Bill 138, in the form of the higher fine levels for violations of this sort. But the particular elements in this motion should give us all serious concern.
The Court of Queen's Bench in Saskatchewan has ruled on a matter having to do with a similar concept, and I'll quote from the court:
"In my opinion, fundamental justice encompasses the concept that a person should not be punished in the absence of a wrongful act."
That is at the core of the difficulty of this particular amendment. This amendment does not address the person who committed the wrongful act. It addresses the owner of a vehicle that is allegedly involved in a wrongful act. The owner is not necessarily involved in the act. This is something that should give all of us great concern if we are going to open that particular door in legislation.
There is also the question of how workable and how practical this recommendation is. As a question of evidence, Mr Hoy has pointed out that it is often difficult to get a positive identification of a driver of a vehicle as it passes a school bus. I understand that. It's also difficult to get the licence number right. The questions that would come up in evidence in a trial under this section would be the same questions that would come up in trial under the question of the positive identification of the individual:
"What was the licence number? How can you be sure that was the licence number? Here's another licence number with two figures transposed. Couldn't this have been the licence number? How can you be so sure you've got the licence number right? Why were you watching licence numbers instead of watching children? Are you really watching the right thing here? Are your priorities in the right area? Shouldn't you be spending all your time watching the children, watching the road, watching traffic? Can you tell this court seriously that you're spending all your time watching licence plate numbers at the expense of the safety of the kids?"
Those are the kinds of questions that would be brought forward in a trial based on a prosecution under this amendment. The questions of evidence that would be brought forward would be quite similar to the questions of evidence that are an issue at the present time.
1920
As a question of policy, do we want school bus drivers paying that close attention to licence numbers or do we want them to have a clear mandate to dedicate their efforts, their energies, their attention to the activities of the kids, to the safety of the kids and to the conduct of the traffic? Do we want to do anything to encourage the bus drivers to take their attention away from those vital elements of their duty and divert their attention to recording licence numbers? I'm going to suggest that as a Legislature we don't want to be sending that message to school bus drivers. It's important to all of us that they put their priorities in precisely the right area.
Mr Hoy makes the further point, and the bill itself says, that prosecution of the owner would only take place if the identification of the driver couldn't be ascertained. That creates a situation where there's going to be pressure on the owner to finger the driver. The scenario we're setting up here is that instead of paying attention to who the driver was, all you have to do as a prosecutor is nail the owner and let the owner nail the driver. That's the scenario that's going to be brought before the courts. You'll have the crown bringing in the owner of the vehicle, and it'll be the owner of the vehicle providing evidence as to the identity of the driver and then the charge would be laid against the driver.
The courts have frowned on that sort of approach, where the owner in this case was not involved in the commission of the offence. The owner merely had the misfortune of owning a vehicle that was used by a third party in an offence. That is another area we should be very careful about endorsing as a Legislature and putting into legislation.
There are these practical difficulties with this particular amendment and there is, I repeat, the difficulty and the serious concern, as a matter of principle, that this amendment, as worded, would punish a person who is not involved in the commission of the offence. That is in violation of what has been established as a principle of fundamental justice. That's, with all respect, what this motion invites us to do.
In that respect, my recommendation is that this particular amendment not be adopted but that the issue of school bus safety, having been quite correctly and quite appropriately brought forward for our consideration, to the concern of all of us -- that we find a way of addressing that concern in a manner that is effective and that stands up to the accepted, established principles of justice.
Mr Hoy's bill has served us well by bringing this issue forward. As I say, elements of the bill have been adopted in the present bill that's before us, Bill 138. This particular motion, though, I urge the committee not to adopt.
Mr Duncan: First of all, we're dealing with a Highway Traffic Act offence, not a Criminal Code offence. Second, I would submit to the member to at least be consistent in his arguments. My goodness, we're dealing with absolute liability in other sections of the bill. Even considering the fact that we're dealing with a Highway Traffic Act offence, not a Criminal Code offence, and we're dealing with absolute liability in another part of the bill, the least you could do is be consistent in your arguments. Why wouldn't we let it go forward? It has been supported by police forces. It has been supported by municipalities. It has been supported by everyone who has seen it. It has been passed by the Legislature.
If you are suggesting we can deal with this further in some other forum, even though the Legislature has passed it, then I would submit we can deal with Mr Froese's amendments at the same time. Your arguments are not consistent with other parts of your bill, and you're treating this as though it's a Criminal Code change. It's a Highway Traffic Act change.
I would submit on that basis that this can be passed, and let's see what the courts do, but let's say unequivocally that we want this kind of protection for our kids. Don't lose your nerve on this as well. Don't be afraid. Show leadership, as Mr Hoy has done, as the government itself did in voting for Mr Hoy's bill in the Legislature, and show that you're going to be consistent not only through this bill but through your votes based on what you did in the Legislature as well.
Mr Hoy: The member, Mr Parker, made a number of comments I'd like to address. When asking owners of vehicles to be responsible for the actions of those whom they have, we'll say, loaned their car to or allowed them to drive, I've talked with many people who, if they knew that the driver of their vehicle was flagrantly going by school buses, would want to know, and the owner would be delighted to say in a court who was driving on that day.
You mentioned evidence and licence plates and how they could be in error. So too might someone describe someone robbing a bank in error. That's why we have the courts to determine whether justice will prevail, whether there's a correct amount of evidence. I also stated that quite likely someone would be asked to say what was the make of the car, perhaps, other circumstances such as colour, time, date and place of when this occurred. So in giving evidence, I suspect that it's always the defence's position that there are errors, but we have to give bus drivers the tools to bring about the convictions Mr Palladini wants in the level of fines he has set.
Remember there were fines before, and people are flagrantly disobeying the law at an alarming rate and the incidence of passing school buses is twice the provincial average here in Metro Toronto. I was amazed to find that out. I thought this would tend to be a rural issue, but the incidence of passing school buses is twice the provincial average here in Metro Toronto, so it's Ontario-wide that we are speaking of.
We have a thing we do here in Ontario. When we ticket people for leaving their car too long or in the wrong place, guess who gets the ticket? The owner of the vehicle. Here in Toronto I understand -- I've never had this occur to me and I hope it never does, but I've talked to others who have had their car towed away, if there's a fine for parking in the wrong place or too long or whatever the infraction was, and if we didn't get to the owner, I suppose the fee for impounding the car would be worth more than the car was at some time. It's very, very expensive to get your car back here in Metro, and guess who we give the ticket to? We give it to the owner -- vehicle owner liability.
1930
We also have situations where high-ranking staff of companies could be liable for injury or death or harmful effects of a product their company produces. That company may produce this hundreds of miles from the head office where that man or woman works. There's a liability that occurs to certain persons if a product were to hurt, injure or even kill someone.
You're quite right: We're talking about an amendment to the Highway Traffic Act; we're not talking about some of these things I've just mentioned. But in parking tickets, clearly there is a precedent set for vehicle owner liability. Quite frankly, anyone might be asked to identify a vehicle by licence plate, such as hit-and-run victims. How many times have the police come out and said, "Did anybody see the licence plate?" If that person was hit by a car, was injured and maybe died later or died instantly, they say, "If anybody saw the licence plate, please call the police; here's the number," and it will flash on the TV screen.
It was amazing to me that on the day Mr Froese's bill was being debated here in the House, that morning I turned my TV on and the police were asking people to call them if they saw aggressive driving, dangerous driving or whatever terms they might have put to it: "Give us a call. Give us a licence number. We want to know." Right after that the Minister of Transportation flashed on the screen. He was out doing a photo op. It was all part and parcel of the same story.
There have been bus watches here in Ontario where the police have asked the public and, more important, school bus drivers to report licence plate numbers. In one jurisdiction they get 40 a month. They send the owners a notice, "You've broken the law; you're jeopardizing the lives of children," but they can't enforce it. They can't lay a fine. They just say, "Don't do it again." Here's the sad part and the one government members should listen to: The same licence plate numbers come up time and time again because they know they can get away with it.
Mr Bisson: It's like drinking and driving. The same idea.
Mr Hoy: Can you imagine? The school buses in the morning and in the afternoon tend to be just about drive time for a lot of other people. They're heading to work as the children are heading to school and they're heading home from work just as the children are heading home from school. They both happen to be using the highways at approximately the same time of day. So the buses are out there with a high degree of traffic flow moving on and on.
One thing the member also mentioned was that school bus drivers should be doing other things rather than looking for licence plate numbers, and I agree. But guess what they do? They stop the bus, they take a look, they feel that all the traffic has stopped and then they open the door. The child walks out, and the offending vehicle, which may be coming from some distance or from someplace in a line behind them, comes along and hits that young boy or girl. The driver of the vehicle may feel that all the children are off the bus and "Oh, I'm going." But the little fellow at the back dropped his knapsack or his lunch pail or his shoe is untied and he's just a little later getting off the bus than the rest of them, maybe he even takes shorter steps, and this person has endangered somebody's life by thinking, "Oh, I can go now. I see five children off. That must be all of them," and the sixth one is still coming. It has happened.
They pass on the left side of school buses, they pass on the right side, they go down shoulders; they do all manner of things. The bus drivers are white-knuckled. They are white-knuckled with fear that this is going to have terrible repercussions. I spoke with bus drivers after Ryan Marcuzzi was killed. They weren't even involved in the accident and for weeks they were petrified. They say, "Yes, we have a fine level on the books, one that's being increased now, but it's a moot point because we have no enforcement mechanism."
What is better than having an eyewitness account of someone flagrantly breaking the law? These bus drivers care for their most precious cargo, as they call it. They call the children their very own. They call them "my kids," because for that 45 minutes, hour, hour and 15 minutes in the morning and at night they are their children. They believe they are their children and they are in their custody. They say, "We must have something that sends out a strong message and is a deterrent to the driving public that this cannot continue."
I say just to government members that unless you have vehicle liability it will continue because there is no enforcement mechanism except if the bus driver can get positive identification. There is no empowering of bus drivers by going to vehicle owner liability, because they have the power now to identify drivers. I don't know about the government's idea about giving them more power when they identify a vehicle. They have the power currently to have charges laid.
I urge the government to vote in favour of this, because what is happening in Ontario to 16,000 school buses today, two times per shift, 810,000 children getting on and off, some as young as four and five, is happening far, far too often. Fines alone will not stop this from happening. Education, I agree, would help, but it alone will not work. We've had education programs on drunk driving, and look what you had to do: You had to toughen up the laws again. So I urge you to use your conscience and think about --
Mr Bisson: And your common sense.
Mr Hoy: Perfect sense, I'd call it. Use perfect sense and think about the children and their safety that the mothers and fathers and the 30,000 people who signed petitions asking for this are depending on you for.
Mr Bisson: Let me try to make the point as clearly and succinctly as I can. The argument Mr Parker put forward is that members should not support this motion on the basis that vehicle liability would not stand up in court. That's the long and short of what he's arguing. I would just say to the members opposite to remember how the law already applies when it comes to vehicle liability. There is actually legislation in place now that has that principle in it.
If you go out and rent a car and you get caught for a speeding ticket or any kind of contravention in regard to using that car, who ends up getting the ticket? It goes to the car, in other words, the rental company. The rental company then goes after the person who rented the car on the date the offence took place. That's vehicle liability.
In the case of photo-radar, a bill I remember quite well, our government, under Mr Pouliot, the former Minister of Transportation, introduced the concept of making the car liable for the speeding offence. I remember at the time there was an argument, on behalf of I'm not sure if it was the Tory or the Liberal opposition, that it would not stand up in court, that if we introduced vehicle liability, when it came to a speeding conviction charged under the photo-radar system, it would not stand up in court. It went into law. It actually would have stood up in court. Unfortunately the government withdrew that particular initiative. I think that was a debate for another day. I think it should have stayed in place. In the case of Alberta and other jurisdictions, vehicle liability has stood up in court. It's not a foreign concept, something that's never been done.
In the oldest of all traditions, parking tickets, if I lend Mr Parker my car because he's without his vehicle tonight and he goes out and gets a parking ticket wherever it might be in the city of Toronto, who is going to get the ticket? It's not going to be Mr Parker, it's going to be Mr Bisson's car. It's my responsibility as the owner of the vehicle to go after whoever I might have lent my car to that evening and get the money. So I think there are ample examples of where vehicle liability exists in present Ontario statutes and has actually stood up to court challenges.
The other point I would make is that -- and it's already the practice -- as Mr Hoy pointed out, we accept within the courts, and this is the longest of all traditions, that we can identify the person. If, in the case Mr Hoy pointed out, the bus driver sees the person and says, "Aha, it's Mr Parker who passed the bus with the flashing lights and I'm going to bring him to court," what do you think is going to happen? It's going to stand up in court. If I can make a positive ID and can with certainty convince the judge -- not a jury, obviously -- that within all probable doubt it was you, it's going to stand.
1940
I think it's easier to identify a licence plate than it is to identify a person. Mr Hoy made a point in one of the stories he told that I think was quite telling. A person had identified a particular driver, a particular person, and when it went to court, the defence had the brother, who looked similar, stand up and the person who had done the identification said, "Oh, I might have been wrong."
The point I make is, we remember numbers far more easily than we remember faces. It's easy to remember a phone number. It's easier to remember a licence plate number than to remember the face of an individual. I think both from a practical standpoint and within what's been tried in law and what already exists in statutes, vehicle liability has all kinds of examples of where it already exists and already works and has stood up to court challenges.
The last point I would make is that if the government is worried -- Mr Parker said, "We don't support this legislation because we think it might not stand up to a court challenge" -- what about absolute liability under wheel safety? I don't subscribe to the view. I think that when it comes to flying truck wheels, absolute liability will stand for the trucker who happens to be driving that particular truck. But there were people who came before this committee and said the government should not adopt this particular law on the basis of absolute liability because they believe it will not stand up to a court challenge.
What does the government do? The government says: "Oh no, it'll stand up to a court challenge. We're going ahead with it." That's your right, but you can't have it both ways. You can't say on the one hand, "When it comes to the flying truck wheel legislation, we think it will stand up," even though there are some legal opinions on the part of the opposition critic, Mr Duncan, that say it won't. Sabourin came here and presented and said it won't stand up, the OTA said it wouldn't stand up, you guys have said it will and you're going forward.
I'm saying what's good for the goose is good for the gander. You can't have it both ways. Vehicle liability stands up in court. There's all kinds of jurisdiction that shows it does; there's all kinds of precedents that show it does. It has been done in other jurisdictions. It's being done in Ontario. Vehicle liability exists, and you can't argue it both ways. You can't say on the one hand, "When it comes to the flying truck wheel part of this legislation we think that absolute liability will stand." Others say not, and you say: "We believe ourselves. We don't believe them."
I wrote down the last point I wanted to make. I don't know why. It's the fourth point. Sometimes we write down a fourth point and we don't remember why we did. I'll just stop at that point. Thank you.
Mr Parker: Mr Bisson suggests that my argument boils down to simply this: that I am urging the committee to vote against this motion because it will not stand up in court. Not only is that not an accurate summary of what I said, I never even listed that as an element of my argument. That's not my point in urging this committee to, or recommending that this committee, vote against this motion. I expressed no opinion as to whether this motion or Mr Hoy's bill would or would not stand up in court. That's not my point.
I am suggesting that there is more than one consideration that we as a Legislature must bear in mind as we examine material before us, as we pass bills into law. In this case we've heard a very strong and passionate argument about why the safety of children should be a very important consideration for us to bear in mind as we consider this bill and this particular amendment.
I support those arguments. I agree that that is a very important consideration that we must bear in mind. I'm suggesting that we must also consider other principles. I'm suggesting that there is the principle of fundamental justice that we must consider. I hear that this is the Highway Traffic Act, not the Criminal Code, so it doesn't matter. "Why are you talking about justice? That only matters when it's the Criminal Code." I think we want justice in all of our life, whether it's the Criminal Code or whether it's the Highway Traffic Act or --
Mr Duncan: On a point of order, Madam Chair: I did not say it did not matter. I simply stated that a Highway Traffic Act offence was much different from a Criminal Code offence. If you're going to argue on those lines, you should be clear about it. It certainly does matter, and we believe very strongly that not only will this bill stand up --
The Acting Chair: A point of order is to clarify, correct your own record, but not to enter into the debate. You are next on the list.
Mr Parker: To me, it's not terribly important whether it's a Criminal Code offence or a Highway Traffic Act offence. I want this Legislature to respect principles of justice as it considers matters before it.
Mr Duncan: Do you believe in absolute liability?
Mr Parker: "Absolute liability." The suggestion is made that somehow absolute liability lacks the essential elements of natural justice. Let's look at what absolute liability is. Absolute liability is not indifferent as to who is responsible for the wrongful act. This amendment is. This amendment does not care who committed the wrongful act. This amendment merely looks at who owned the vehicle that was involved in the act. Absolute liability looks at who was responsible for the condition which resulted in a violation of the bill.
In the case of this particular example, in this bill, of the truck wheel separation, the question will be, who was responsible for maintaining that wheel in good condition? When that answer is established, then that person who is found to have been responsible -- the person who is responsible -- is absolutely liable. It's not saying, "You owned the vehicle, therefore per se you are liable." That's not what this bill is about and that's not what absolute liability is about, but that's what this amendment is about. This amendment says that regardless of who committed the wrongful act, the owner of the vehicle involved in that act will be found liable and will pay a penalty. It is that element of this amendment which violates the principle of fundamental justice. That's altogether different from absolute liability and that's altogether different from absolute liability as it appears in this bill that's before us.
The point is made that this amendment is essentially the same as the private member's bill which passed second reading, so if we're all consistent, it passed second reading and it should pass in this bill. Remember that second reading is approval in principle. Then matters go to committee to examine in detail and pick the precise elements apart and see if they should proceed to third reading.
The principle in the private member's bill -- there were a number of principles -- is that essentially there should be greater attention paid to the need for safety of children in school vehicles and there should be a higher penalty for violating the Highway Traffic Act in respect of school vehicles. Those principles were in that bill, those principles were approved on second reading and those principles are addressed in Bill 138.
There was also the element in the private member's bill that there be vehicle liability. That's part of the private member's bill and that's the part I am examining now. I'm suggesting that is an element of the private member's bill that should not proceed at this stage. The other elements are very important. They were approved in principle on second reading and they are respected in Bill 138.
1950
The point was made that you often find that the same car is involved in an offence time after time and it's about time we got these guys. I can't argue that we shouldn't do a better job, the best job we can, of getting the people who are involved in breaking the law in this way. Does the answer lie in dispensing with our principles of justice and going after the owner of the vehicle, whether the owner of the vehicle is involved in the infraction or not, or does the answer lie in better enforcement of the laws we have?
One element the government has brought forward in Bill 138 in that respect is the higher fine that is associated with violating the prohibition against passing a school bus. Bill 138 addresses that. Maybe there are other ways that should be addressed; maybe there should be a greater effort by local municipalities to direct prosecutions against violators. Maybe the police should do a better job of catching the people involved. If they know which cars they are and when these violations are occurring, maybe it's a simple matter for the police to be in a position to wait for the next violation and catch the driver who is responsible.
The answer lies in better enforcement and better efforts to catch the people actually responsible for the infractions. That's not what this amendment is about. This amendment is not about doing a better job of catching the people responsible for the infraction; this amendment is about doing something altogether different: penalizing someone who may not have had any involvement with the infraction. That is a violation of fundamental justice and that should weigh heavily on our conscience as we vote on this amendment.
Mr Duncan: The principle of vehicle liability is well established in the Highway Traffic Act. I submit to you that Mr Hoy's amendment is not a violation of fundamental justice, number one. Number two, the OTA sat before us here and spoke in those same terms. Having read their legal opinion around the question of absolute liability, not to mention others, the issue of fundamental justice is raised quite extensively there.
In order to be consistent, we should be consistent in our arguments. I think what this is about is that you don't want Mr Hoy's bill to pass. I think you want your government to take credit. We're going to vote for your amendment, we're going to do that, and we think you should quit playing politics. You know what? You talked about second reading. Mr Hoy's bill, even though it was ordered for second reading, never got to second reading.
Mr Bisson: It never got to committee.
Mr Duncan: I'm sorry, it never got to committee. We never had the chance to pull it apart, to poke and prod. We didn't get that opportunity. You talk about natural justice, fundamental justice. It didn't get there. This is about you doing what you're being told: to kill this, to pass a bill that, yes, is half a cup, but it's not the whole cup.
We submit that if you were really serious about dealing with these issues once and for all so that we don't have to wait, then you'd deal with them up front. You're killing it for political reasons. Your arguments aren't based on law; they're not based on fact: "We're going to pass the Tory amendment; we're going to kill the Liberal amendment." Let it be said that the Liberals voted and will vote for your amendments. We're voting for your bill, but we will bring in his in two years' time. We will bring it in and it will be passed by the Legislature because you know full well the principles of vehicle liability are well enshrined in the Highway Traffic Act.
You know full well that all this is about is politics. Yes, I applaud your efforts. I applaud the member for St Catharines-Brock on his amendment. We applaud you. We supported it in the House. We will be consistent and we will vote for it. You are about to kill his amendment. You've left out the key parts of the bill. You're playing politics with children. You're playing politics because you want the credit for it. You don't want to sit here and give backbenchers and opportunity. You want to control, control, control.
Mr Froese: That's not true.
Mr Duncan: It is true.
Mr Froese: No, it's not.
Mr Duncan: Then pass his amendment. Pass one of our amendments. You're not interested in that. You're doing what you're told. You're going to pass a bill that we'll support, and we'll support your amendment. We applaud your effort, but we challenge you to do the right thing. Do what the police forces in this province have told you to do, do what most major editorial boards in this province have told you to do, do what the parents of one of those victims have told you to do: Pass it. It's very simple, and it's right in law and it's right in fact. Stop playing politics.
Just like 125, we're seeing it all over again. We do a press conference, we bring in a bill and then the Premier cuts the legs out from under it. You bring in another bill, a good bill, and we'll vote for it. It doesn't do what you said it'll do and we just think it's a shame that when the opposition -- and you often criticize us; I've heard the criticism in that House, particularly in the last week. Here we are, we're passing your amendment; we think it's good. We're voting for the bill. We had concerns about absolute liability. We're going to go with you on this one. We think you're going in the right direction. A difference of opinion perhaps -- and I've seen them. We've read them; we've had evidence presented.
It's just unfortunate that you people, despite all that, want to play politics. I think Mr Hoy is to be congratulated. He's the author of the bill and he's telling you that the parts of his bill you accepted aren't enough. I challenge you to pass this amendment, to put your money where your mouth is. Otherwise, this is a futile exercise and the notion of opposition and government cooperating on a bill is lost and you're just interested in scoring political points. It's too bad.
Mr Bisson: The point Mr Duncan makes I think is a good one. I want to follow up on that.
To get back to Mr Parker's point in regard to the principles of due justice, you argue that you want to make sure the principles of due justice are followed, and if we introduce vehicle liability, somehow or other that's going by the wayside. I've made the arguments before and I'm not going to make them again, that there's already that process in place when it comes to vehicle liability. When it comes to speeding tickets with rental cars or any kind of infraction against the Highway Traffic Act -- parking tickets -- vehicle liability already exists.
I want to say that if you feel so strongly that there shouldn't be this kind of intrusion, or whatever you want to call it, called vehicle liability in this bill, where's your bill to withdraw vehicle liability from every other bill that exists in Ontario that already allows that to happen? You can't have it both ways. You can't on the one hand come in here and say, "I don't agree with vehicle liability because I think it goes against the principles of due justice," and then turn a blind eye to everywhere else it exists, in the Highway Traffic Act and other acts, here in Ontario. It really smacks of trying to walk on both sides of the fence at the same time, even though you're not a Liberal -- excuse me; I shouldn't have said that.
I want to come back to the point my colleague made. Those of us who have been around here for a little while understand that the whole idea of private members' hour has always been to give individual members the ability to bring forward pieces of legislation that are important to them, their constituents and the community as a whole called Ontario. We're not supposed to mix into private members' hour the whole idea of bringing in government policy.
You wonder where I'm going with this, but let me just make the point that we've seen over the past while more and more government members -- not all members, but some members of the government -- being utilized by the government to introduce primarily what are government policies by way of private members' hour. How I relate that back to all of what we're saying here is you're playing with the process. I think what we need to recognize is that Mr Hoy and Mr Froese came forward with private members' bills -- did the research, did the groundwork, worked within their communities in order to bring those bills forward -- and they deserve our support because we gave them that support when we were at private members' hour. It really makes me uncomfortable when I see us playing around with the intent of what private members' hour is all about.
2000
The other thing is -- and I'm trying to be non-confrontational here but I guess I'm going to have to be; it's the only way I can deal with this -- that I think Mr Duncan is right. I think the government -- and maybe you might not feel comfortable with this; maybe this is what you're being told by the people at the minister's office -- really doesn't feel comfortable about supporting an opposition member's bill, and I think that's wrong.
We need to recognize that we're all honourable members, we all come here to do our job, and to not support a bill on the basis of its being from a Liberal opposition member, I think is wrong. I've voted for many bills at private members' hour, as I've voted against them, and I try not to vote them based on party politics. Private members' hour is supposed to be about the common sense of the bill and whether it should stand on its own.
I say to the members, let's not walk down that road. We've passed this at second reading. We allowed both Mr Froese's and Mr Hoy's bills to go at second reading. Vehicle liability already stands up before the courts. We're not changing anything and we're not doing anything that doesn't already exist. Let's just move on, and let's do this for the people of our province, who we're here to support and to represent.
Mr Hoy: I want to touch on the absolute liability and give some of my comments in response to Mr Parker.
My understanding of absolute liability is it's far, far more onerous than vehicle liability. Clearly, I've stated already that we have vehicle liability here in Ontario, but absolute liability that you're proposing under this bill is somewhat more than that. Owners of, let's talk about trailers on these trucks that travel Ontario, may not have the foggiest notion of whether that trailer sat in Denver for two weeks, Winnipeg for a week, Montreal for five days, before it went out on its next route, may not even have ever met the man or woman who worked on that trailer and maintained it, and yet he could be liable. So don't tell me that you're worried about vehicle liability in the instance of school bus safety, when we have absolute liability put forward by the government here today.
This government has talked about snitch lines -- talk about rights. "Give us a call. If you've got something on somebody, give us a call. We'd love to hear it." Whether they act on those snitch lines, I don't know, but it seems to me to be not the best way of pursuing problems in today's society. I think the courts are far better. You're talking about snooping on WCB claimants and sending out these snoops, and I'm only talking about vehicle liability, something that Ontario has had for a long time.
The government's musing about fingerprinting everyone. Talk about infringements.
This bill, as mentioned by others, but I want to give you a chronological order of what happened here, was introduced, my staff told me, exactly a year to the day before Mr Froese's bill last week. I knew it was in June, but I didn't know Mr Froese's bill was introduced a year to the day that mine was a year prior. First reading.
Second reading was November 28 last year. We have been seven months waiting to get it to the resources development committee, where it was deemed to go by a vote in the House. Seven months. Unless something happens in a positive sense here tonight, a full school year will go by again and these same drivers, same children, same parents are going to be fretting and worried for the little ones that are riding our buses here in Ontario.
I have spoken to the press and have always had great optimism for this bill. It has wide, wide, widespread support and I have never, ever mentioned that I thought the government was stonewalling. I always had faith and stayed away from that in order to put the government in a good light. The bill itself never put the government in a bad light. It's a new phenomenon here in Ontario, a growing phenomenon. I shouldn't say it's new; it's happened many times before.
I had a mother whose daughter was killed I believe 30 years ago travel here to support me at a news conference, and she said: "We need to have the laws changed. The existing laws don't work. My daughter was killed 30 years ago and nothing has changed."
Seven months we waited patiently for the government, and there were months and months, and days, when the resources development committee had nothing before it. Nothing. It wasn't until we got to about this time of year, when the government's trying to rush a bunch of bills through as the House winds down, that resources development got very busy at all. Months went by and we could not debate the merits of Bill 78 that indeed has vehicle liability.
The minister said in the House that the only law more serious than school bus law is failing to remain at the scene of an accident. I tend to agree. That's a serious offence. Did you know, Mr Parker, that failing to remain at the scene of an accident is a vehicle liability offence? Isn't that something? So we have precedent. The minister's own words were that failing to remain at the scene of an accident is maybe somewhat more shocking than passing a school bus and the fines and the convictions for that come under vehicle liability -- the very same thing that so many supporters of Bill 78 want, so many people.
I wonder what the members opposite would say about someone who has been convicted of failing to remain at the scene of an accident under vehicle liability. It must have been handled in the courts in a logical, fair way or it would have been found out of order. This, by the way, is why we have courts: to make sure that things exist for both parties.
I want to also say that the second part of this amendment, where we talk about no imprisonment or probation, happens to come from existing legislation here in Ontario in regard to vehicle liability. It's not something that my staff or I concocted. It's something that exists here in Ontario to meet certain criteria in regard to vehicle liability. We have worked very, very hard on this bill to make sure that it's a sound bill, that it will stand the rigours of some of your questions and, more importantly, the law here in Ontario.
One must remember, as legislators, we are creating a new law. That's exactly what we're doing. We're saying that if we cannot identify the driver of the vehicle, and if adequate information is given, bus drivers will be able to attach convictions to a vehicle owner. That owner can come forward and say, "No, it wasn't me driving that day; I happened to be 500 miles from here. I have a bill from my hotel room 500 miles from here at that given time, that given day. I couldn't have done it," and I don't suspect that person will be fined, not at all. As a matter of fact, I know of a hit-and-run case where they thought they had apprehended the guilty party and he was miles and miles and miles away from there. He could prove it, and nothing was done about it.
I believe that the bus drivers of Ontario are excellent people. They are committed. They do a fine job. They care about the children they have in their custody and they're not going to use this in a frivolous way.
If the minister thinks they are going to be frivolous, they could have done it now. They could have identified people left, right and centre in the courts. They may not have been telling the truth, though, and that's why the courts are there. Conversely, the same information on vehicle licence plates will be required as it would for describing one's face.
2010
I continue to tell government members that this is an eyewitness account of a crime. If you were trying to seek out the best information as to who did it, I suspect one of the questions would be, "Well, did you see the car?" "Yes, I did." "Did you see the licence plate number?" "Yes, I did. They almost hit that young person." "Sorry, we can't do much about it under the current law."
We can change that here tonight and bring about vehicle liability, which so many groups in Ontario, including the police, believe to be necessary. The citizens for responsible driving believe it is necessary. Municipalities think it's necessary. School boards support it, parents, teachers, educators. I think we must address this problem that is going on far too often here in Ontario. I'm disappointed, quite frankly, that the bill wasn't brought to the resources development committee long ago. There should have been no need to bring this amendment to the comprehensive bill.
I wonder why Mr Froese didn't go the way of a private member's bill. I wonder why he thought it was necessary to put it into this bill. I don't know. Maybe he saw what happened to mine. Maybe he said: "I'm not going to wait seven months for the government to query me about this legislation of mine. I'm not going to wait for Mr Hoy to ask me why he feels buses and tandems must have their lights on, all of them." Maybe he didn't want to wait seven months. Maybe he wanted to protect the children of Ontario now. That's what we must do here.
I think I've proven conclusively that vehicle liability exists in Ontario. It works in those instances where it has been applied. We need to give school bus drivers the mechanism so that we can have enforcement. You could raise fines to $10,000 but if you can't catch anybody in a blacked-out vehicle driving too fast, time of day -- members might be surprised to know that they pick up children in the dark. It wasn't supposed to happen in my particular county way back when restructuring was going on and the small schools changed to large schools. It wasn't supposed to happen, but guess what? They pick up children in the dark. How are you supposed to identify somebody who passes a school bus and it's dark out? These are the frustrations that the school bus drivers have. I urge the government to give all my words some sober thought and do it for the children here in Ontario.
I told the minister, "Bring in your own bill with vehicle liability." It didn't have to be mine, necessarily. I rarely call it mine. I call it Bill 78, but since we're getting into some political conversation here, I will. But I have always referred to it as Bill 78. It wasn't meant to put the government in a bad light; it was meant to protect the 810,000 children who ride school buses here in Ontario.
Mr Hastings: I'll try to be as brief as possible, but there are certain points that I think we need to put on the record that indicate where the government's coming from, without trying to be too confrontational or political.
First off, let me say that we would like to compliment Mr Hoy for presenting the bill dealing with protecting the safety of children while they're travelling and getting on and off buses, whether in rural or urban Ontario. I think it's important, however, to point out that Mr Hoy's staff was briefed on these issues back in May and we were pointing out that owner liability is not workable from either a practical or a legal viewpoint. My colleague Mr Parker is much more eloquent in terms of elucidating the quagmire of what constitutes absolute liability and vehicle liability and whether Mr Hoy's proposition could be dealt with in the courts in a very responsible manner.
As I understand it, absolute liability attached to a mechanical defect, in this case wheel separation, can be done without a constitutional challenge. Although I may not be totally correct in this, in trying to get my brain around the differences or distinctions between vehicle liability and absolute liability, the basic fact is that in the case of vehicle liability we have it attached to parking offences, which has been brought up, not moving offences. In my personal estimation, the moving offence that is cited in Mr Hoy's bill is quite different from when you attach a liability through a parking ticket. It's not moving.
Mr Hoy: Leaving the scene of an accident is a vehicle liability. They're moving when they're leaving.
Mr Hastings: There are other considerations to be brought forward when we're dealing with this dense legal issue. Even you, Mr Hoy, brought out the fact, in the case that you cited of your concern for protecting children while they're getting on and off a bus, a particular case where the defence lawyer challenged the bus driver as to the identity of the driver, that in point of fact it could almost be a twin brother or very close resemblance. That creates a problem in terms of identifying the person. That is going to absolutely be a key point in whether you could get a conviction in front of a judge in this province. You not only would have to identify the driver of the vehicle which created the offence, but you also would have to provide, as you have noted, a description of the vehicle, including the licence plate. It would be shown in many courts, and I've seen it in front of some judges, going to help people when I was a city councillor, that many judges disapprove of schemes which are designed to get an individual who is charged with an offence to identify another wrongdoer. In other words, the bus driver who is testifying in front of the judge could be just as vulnerable to attack in a court as their testimony is to the description of the driver.
The other concern we have is that owners who are driving could elect to be charged as owners, and thereby they also avoid the six demerit points involved in an offence.
Mr Duncan has alluded to the point: "Just act in a simplistic manner and pass this law because this is good law in terms of protecting children." He attributes our lack of will in dealing with this situation as something that we are directed to do, or I am in a sense scripted every day as to how I think or don't think. The proposition is absolutely preposterous. We would agree that there ought to be some strong leadership on this, but I think it's also important to recognize that you want to have leadership on this issue that is well informed, well intentioned, foresighted and could resolve the issue in a court of law. I'm not so sure that Bill 78 in terms --
Mr Duncan: We are.
Mr Hastings: Yes, I know you are, Mr Duncan, but I challenge you to also cite your legal opinions in terms of how absolute liability will fail when we get to a constitutional challenge, if we do, in terms of the mechanical or wheel separation defects under that section of the trucking legislation.
I think tonight we have had some impugning of motives and I think that's extremely unfair. Somehow or other, because we disagree with you in terms of how the second provision of Mr Hoy's bill could be implemented doesn't necessarily mean that we don't accept or recognize that there is a problem in this whole area.
2020
What I find fascinating is that Mr Hoy said, and I'm taking him at his word, that there has been good research done around this, when in point of fact the courts on the points I've raised tend to look askance on somebody identifying an individual who is charged with an offence by identifying another wrongdoer.
It seems to me that what we need to find out -- and I haven't heard from Mr Hoy on this, although perhaps he can fill in the blank -- where in other jurisdictions, either in the US in state law or federal law under the highways administration down there or provincially, we have had successful prosecutions of cases where you have this offence in which a bus driver identifies the offender for all the reasons you set out. If there have been some, we would be interested in seeing those. I'm unaware of them. Perhaps the ministry staff are aware of them, but they certainly haven't been presented in briefing notes, which leads me to think this concern about identification of driver, description of plate etc is a problem inherent before the courts in other provincial jurisdictions.
I would summarize that it's not a matter of whether we lack the will to handle or deal with or pass Mr Hoy's second provision of his bill, but whether the grounds for creating good law are here, that you would end up getting successful prosecutions under the way it is written. I think we have gone some way in being sincere in accepting the higher fines, and I have asked counsel whether there is a third way, a separate way of structuring legislation that would deal with the problem which you have so courageously identified. As far as we can see, public education has to be the way at this point in time.
Finally, we simply have a political difference of opinion. It doesn't mean that we are less sincere than you are in terms of trying to grapple with this problem. It's simply that we want to have a law that will succeed on a prosecution basis in the courts, and we would submit that the way the second provision of your Bill 78 is written will fail in that regard.
I'd simply say that it's not a matter of us trying to be political; there's a difference of opinion here on how you proceed. I think Mr Duncan has offered his good will today in trying to get this bill through, but then turns around and whiplashes us because we don't proceed with that section of the bill. If we could find a way that you could structure a strong, legal, solid alternative, then I think we'd be prepared to look at it. It's in that light that we should be accepting this legislation, Bill 138, the minister's recommendation, and include it for higher fines in the bill.
I would just simply leave it at that. We'd rather prepare to work with you to find a solid alternative that would end up in some prosecutions. You'd actually have a case and say, whatever the circumstances were, that the crown would feel comfortable in taking forward a piece of legislation, a section of law dealing with this issue on which there were some real prospects of getting a prosecution. Lots of cases are taken to court by defence lawyers, because they want to get paid, that fail on constitutional issues. I've seen it in condominium law, as an example.
All I would suggest is that we need to look at this in a stronger light. We accept your intentions. We think they're honourable. We just disagree on the methodology of it. It doesn't mean that we are playing political games. I don't accept that comment. I'm sure it was probably voiced in some frustration.
Mr Hoy: My comment may have been in frustration. After waiting seven months for the bill to go to committee, I think any reasonable person might be frustrated; also due to the fact that that committee had nothing before it for weeks and weeks and weeks on end. At subcommittee meetings I was told, "We didn't know you wanted it to go to committee." Why did I rise in the House and ask for it to go to the resources development committee? It could have gone to the committee of the whole. We asked on other occasions to have it go to committee -- many -- and it never happened.
The parliamentary assistant asks about what laws exist in other jurisdictions. Guess what? We can be leaders here, because we're getting calls from provinces, states from the United States, asking us about this. They say, "We have this problem as well and we'd like to get some handle on it so that our youth aren't jeopardized every day virtually on every route that the buses travel."
Yes, the calls have come to me and said: "This is something we'd like to investigate; we've got to do something about it. More people have cars; more people are mobile. We have more buses."
I walked to school, uphill and downhill; there were no buses. Now we have buses with 40 and 50 children on them. They're getting off in groups of two, three, four and five at a time, and this occurrence of people flagrantly passing the buses is happening too often. Lights are flashing on the back. It says on the back of the bus that you must stop. It's in the written word. There's a stop sign that comes out on the left-hand side near to the driver, which is not the point of law that one would be convicted under; it's the lights at the back of the bus. Some buses have put lights on top of the bus to get people to recognize they have to stop. Buses are a brilliant colour so that people can see them so visibly.
Yes, people from the United States and other jurisdictions in Canada have called and said, "We're interested in what you're doing there; we have the same problem." Can I cite where they may have a law like this? No, I cannot. But we want to be leaders and save the children.
The parliamentary assistant, at one point talking about certain aspects of the bill, failed to recognize what I've said here at least twice -- I don't know how many times: vehicle liability exists in Ontario. I'm not trying to introduce anything that is completely foreign to the province. It exists. We want to have owners be responsible for those who are driving their vehicles on the highways today.
Mr Duncan: It's a big responsibility.
Mr Hoy: It is a big responsibility. Driving is a privilege; it's not a right here in Ontario.
To the question of whether it will stand up in court, I've made arguments about that already, to the fact that vehicle liability exists. Why are we sitting here trying to be the judges tonight? We are introducing a law that will clearly help in protecting the children of Ontario, and we're all sitting around trying to be a judge. That's not what we should be doing. We should be thinking about formulating a law that will protect the children, in light of the fact that vehicle liability already exists and that this government wants to bring in absolute liability. I can't believe some of the notions that are being put forth.
2030
The parliamentary assistant says, "We're a little opposed to what you're doing," but then on the other hand you want absolute liability. I, for one, cannot understand the rationale. So then what do you think? One has to think this bill's been around for seven months, nothing's happened, the government won't allow it to get into committee. The members say they don't like vehicle liability, although it exists today -- and let me tell you that the vehicle liability under which photo-radar existed in Ontario is still on the books. It's still there. The only thing is the government has chosen not to enforce it.
It's simple. If someone came along tomorrow and wanted to bring that back, they could do it just like that because it's in the statutes now. It's just that they -- "they" being the government -- have determined they don't want to bring it in.
How can you say that you don't like vehicle liability? If you vote this down, I expect someone on the government side of this committee to introduce a private member's bill to get rid of vehicle liability as it pertains to anything we have in this province forthwith because they're philosophically opposed to it. I'm going to be waiting for that one, when the government comes in and gets rid of vehicle liability in the aspects of everything in the jurisdiction called Ontario. If the government doesn't act on this when this bill receives royal assent, I will be pleased to tell the bus drivers who want vehicle liability, who know it's the only thing that will help us out in this situation: "Guess what? If you can see that driver's face in the dark of the morning, in the fog, in snowstorms, in the heavy rain, the minister will fine them a little bit more." That's what he wants to do. He'll fine them a little bit more.
Fines in themselves are not the total answer. I raised the fines myself in Bill 78, but it's not the total answer. As you see, I went further. Public education, I can agree, will help. I'd be foolhardy to say that public education around school bus safety in any manner would not help. Public education certainly would assist the driving public, the bus operators, the bus drivers, everyone involved, parents, teachers, children. But as I said, we've had huge campaigns in regard to drunk driving and all manner of other driving situations, huge campaigns.
What was it, Elmer the Elephant? Wasn't there an Elmer the Elephant at one time that went all through the schools and told the young children how to obey the laws? Look both ways. We had huge campaigns, brochures, bulletins.
Mr Duncan: Big bucks.
Mr Hoy: Yes, we had huge campaigns, but did it remove every driving infraction from Ontario because we told people that some of their actions were wrong? No, it did not. Unfortunately, it did not. People continued to disobey the law. Most obey the laws, but there are those few, some of them repeats, who do not obey the laws, and for the life of me, I cannot understand why the government doesn't like this aspect of enforcement when the police like it and the school bus drivers say it's the only thing that will assist them.
Then they have this conversation that they might be philosophically opposed to something that exists here in Ontario that I'm trying to apply to another part of the Highway Traffic Act to protect children.
I've met with the families of those who were killed by people going by school buses when the red lights are flashing, and they don't want their sons and daughters to have died in vain. They want some action. They request some action. There were 30,000 people who signed petitions seeking action.
Mr Duncan: Thirty thousand people.
Mr Hoy: Over 30,000. So the public is aware of this. They're keenly aware. We get mail from all corners, points, towns, large and small in Ontario. Editorials have been written and, in recent days, having seen a comprehensive safety bill, editorials have come out and said: "The minister missed the mark. He didn't put in vehicle liability." The editorial boards cannot understand why this government won't allow this to happen.
I think that all of the government arguments against this amendment have failed miserably. Vehicle liability exists, they want absolute liability in some parts of the comprehensive safety bill, and all of their arguments have failed.
The argument that licence plates may be difficult to see: If they're not complete, nothing is going to happen. If some licence plate is erroneously put forth with only five digits, nothing is going to happen. You have to have a full plate.
Mr Duncan: You have to have lights on licence plates.
Mr Hoy: That's right, and the police tell me they're not enforcing keeping lights on licence plates these days either. There are too few policemen. Their roles are changing. As a matter of fact, they've told me that there are licence plates now that are almost completely rust. You know why? We buy little stickers every year and we put them down in the corner. Some of those plates are ancient and the people can't read them. They have turned almost completely to rust. In those cases, I guess those people are going to get away with something that they should not have.
Maybe, in the fortunate circumstance where we have a rusty plate, the bus driver is going to be able to identify the driver, because sometimes they meet them at the next stoplight. They look down and say: "Now I've had a good look at this person. I think I can lay a charge here." Of course I imagine when they get to court, they say, "What was that person driving that day?" They can't just get away with saying a car. They'd likely give more description than that. Even when they're giving the facial description of the driver, I surely expect that they're asked a little bit about the vehicle.
Arguments about making a mistake about one's face and making a mistake about one's licence plate number are equal in argumentative points. Some people could be described on one day and look quite different the next. Should they shave their beard? Should they take their moustache off? Should they grow one? Should they change the colour of their hair? Should they shorten their hair? Many of these features can change overnight. But a licence plate attached to an owner stays there.
So I would request that the government give strong, sober thought to supporting this amendment, one that is so vitally important to the young people here in Ontario. I say to the government members, your arguments have failed tonight.
The Acting Chair: Is there any further debate? There being none, all those in favour of the amendment?
The Acting Chair: A recorded vote.
Ayes
Bisson, Duncan, Hoy.
Nays
Froese, Hastings, Munro, Parker, Smith.
The Acting Chair: The amendment is defeated.
We'll proceed to the next amendment, which is numbered page 18 in your package. You'll recall that we had unanimous consent that this amendment, which is not in order, would be considered by the committee and that the debate on this would proceed, returning to the debate on 14A.
We need a mover for this amendment.
Mr Bisson: Just before the question, I have one point. I take it we're voting on Mr Froese's amendment. Is that where we're at?
The Acting Chair: We are returning to that subsequent to the presentation of the motion which is on page 18 of your package.
Mr Hoy: The motion, as we're calling it, number 18, was a housekeeping motion in regard to had the previous motion passed. I believe it was even said that this motion was not in order, but it would have been in order should the previous motion have passed. It's redundant now. The government has not seen fit to adequately protect the children of Ontario in regard to school bus safety and people passing those buses when the reds lights are flashing. So I would withdraw this amendment, as we've called it, number 18.
2040
The Acting Chair: The motion is withdrawn and we will return to the amendment that is on page 14A of your package. This requires unanimous consent of the committee in order to be considered because it is out of order since it deals with a section of the Highway Traffic Act which was not opened under the bill. Is there unanimous consent to consider this motion? There is. Mr Froese, the floor is open to place the motion.
Mr Froese: I wish to thank the committee members for the unanimous consent. I move that the bill be amended by adding the following section:
"12.1 Section 174 of the act is repealed and the following substituted:
"Public vehicles required to stop at railway crossings
"174." -- and there's supposed to a subsection (1) in there, as I understand it -- "The driver of a public vehicle upon approaching on a highway a railway crossing that is not protected by gates or railway crossing signal lights, unless otherwise directed by a flagman, shall,
"(a) stop the vehicle not less than five metres from the nearest rail of the railway;
"(b) look in both directions along the railway track;
"(c) open a door of the vehicle and listen to determine if any train is approaching;
"(d) when it is safe to do so, cross the railway track in a gear that will not need to be changed while crossing the track; and
"(e) not change gears while crossing the railway track.
"School buses required to stop at railway crossings
"(2) The driver of a school bus within the meaning of section 175, upon approaching on a highway a railway crossing, whether or not it is protected by gates or railway crossing signal lights, unless otherwise directed by a flagman, shall,
"(a) stop the school bus not less than five metres from the nearest rail of the railway;
"(b) look in both directions along the railway track;
"(c) open a door of the school bus and listen to determine if any train is approaching;
"(d) when it is safe to do so, cross the railway track in a gear that will not need to be changed while crossing the track; and
"(e) not change gears while crossing the railway track."
Mr Bisson: Let me get to the point. I'm going to be consistent. I'm going to vote for your amendment because I believe that private members' hour is an important time for the members of this House to be able to support what is the right thing to do. I will not do what the government just did on Mr Hoy's bill, which I think quite frankly was wrong, was wrongheaded, and I think the word "despicable" is the closest thing I can get up to in describing it. But I will vote because I want to be consistent. I supported this at second reading in the House when it came to private members' hour, the same way government members supported Mr Hoy's bill at second reading, and for that reason I will support it.
Second of all, I will support it because it's the right thing to do. This is something in the end that's going to assist and hopefully save lives, and that's what I care about when I come to this committee, not about what my party tells me to do when it comes to being able to deal with what was a private member's bill.
The other thing I would just say: I wonder what would have happened if Mr Hoy's bill had been advanced by a Tory member. I wonder if the arguments would have been the same or if the government members would have voted against their own member's bill. I think not. I think what we've seen here is the politicizing of the private member's process, something that I think is wrong. It's a dangerous road to be going down. More and more as we go into private members' hour, we're seeing this government using private members' hour for what are primarily political purposes or for advancing the government agenda, and I think that's wrong. That bastardizes the process of private members' hour and I think it's wrong.
I will vote for your bill because it's the right thing to do. It's about saving lives and I ain't going to play politics with this.
Mr Duncan: I'm pleased to support your amendment as well, and like my colleague in the third party, I don't understand how two minutes ago you could have defeated Mr Hoy's bill. I heard what I would consider to be one good argument put against that, one that I hadn't considered, and that was the question around points. It just shows, in my view, that we are not interested in meaningful participation by government backbenchers or by opposition members. We're prepared to support this amendment. We think it's good public policy, we think it's good law, just as we thought Mr Hoy's was good public policy and good law.
The government has argued it's leading the way in parts of this bill. We agree with them and we're glad that's the case, and we would have been leading the way with Mr Hoy's bill. It's unfortunate that the one time we have an opportunity to cooperate on a bill, the government members opposite -- and I don't blame the parliamentary assistant or the ministry or the public servants here -- the one time we have an opportunity just as legislators of all parties to cooperate on something and do something meaningful, you've chosen to defeat every one of our amendments.
We tried to take the partisanship out of this. The key amendment that I put forward today was defeated and I voted in favour of Mrs Marland's motion. Your motion: I applaud your efforts and I know that you'll communicate your efforts to your constituents in your own riding and those people who have an interest in this bill. I think you should be commended for that. It's just unfortunate that the same kind of appreciation couldn't be extended to my colleague, although frankly, given the opinions of the police, the lawyers we've spoken to, the parents, the school boards and everyone across this province who agreed with what Mr Hoy did and proposed, they know full well that what we put forward is as important and as legal and as good as the amendment you put forward, and I'm pleased to support it.
I'm pleased to be able to add this to the bill. It takes the bill from -- I suppose it would have been a seven, maybe up to a seven and a half. It could have been a nine, with Mr Hoy's amendments and some of our amendments; It's unfortunate you've all lost your nerve on this. I don't understand why; I don't think there have been good arguments put. But we'll be pleased to support your amendment. We congratulate you on your efforts as a member of provincial Parliament and we look forward to Ontario's school children being a little bit safer. We recognize that your bill was brought forward without a political label attached to it.
Mr Froese: I'd like to say at the outset of my comments, I appreciate the comments from the members with respect to this amendment. I also appreciate the comments that were made in the House on second reading by Mr Hoy, Mr Bisson and my colleague Mr Smith in support of the bill.
It is a non-partisan issue and it's about children, our most precious resource. It's about protecting them and keeping them safe. The amendment stems from my private member's bill that was passed in second reading last Thursday to come to this committee. I appreciate the support of the minister and the parliamentary assistant for incorporating it in the bill at my insistence.
In regard to the issue that been debated before with Mr Hoy's bill and the comments that we're politicizing what has just happened here because mine will pass and his wasn't passed, Mr Hoy and the opposition members have to remember that there are portions of his bill within Bill 138. There's a large portion of his concerns put into Bill 138, this bill. There are also 72 of the 79 amendments -- maybe I'm not correct -- that Mr Duncan had recommended also in Bill 138. So there has been cooperation, there has been listening.
I didn't get everything that I wanted from my private member's bill into Bill 138. As a matter of fact we had very, I wouldn't say vocal discussions, about the other section of my bill, and that was where there are buses travelling in tandem and the second bus, like the first bus, would have to put on his flashers and extend the arm so that people behind all the buses that were in tandem could understand that children were being taken off and put on the bus. As one of my constituents had witnessed, because that wasn't happening and because only the first bus was required to have its lights flashing and the arm extended, the drivers behind the second and third bus pulled out and nearly hit children.
2050
I wanted that in this bill as well, but what I had to do was negotiate what is going to come forward and what isn't going to come forward. My understanding is that that same privilege was given to Mr Hoy. So I think there is cooperation if you want to cooperate. I don't think this is politicizing it.
Mr Bisson: Just like Len Wood saying this is like Jonestown, being told to drink the Kool-Aid.
Mr Froese: As far as my understanding, and I could be corrected on that, there has been a tremendous amount of cooperation in putting through Bill 138. Having said that, I didn't get all I wanted to put into this bill.
Mr Duncan: You didn't get anything.
Mr Froese: The member says, "You didn't get anything." Well, I'm not so sure, as my comments already alluded to. It's a difference of opinion. That's what it comes down to. I appreciate the support from the members of the opposition and I look forward to this being passed when we finish all the amendments.
Mr Hoy: I mentioned earlier in the evening and I mentioned at second reading of Mr Froese's bill that I would support it, and I support it here again tonight. It's interesting to note that he hasn't spoken very much about why this is required, but I will put it on the record for him.
He believes and the Ontario School Bus Association believes that there should be some continuity as to whether buses stop at marked and unmarked railway crossings. They prefer and believe that buses should stop at the crossings regardless of whether they're protected or unprotected. It takes the confusion away from the public, and I think that's good. I think it's very good that the driving public not be second-guessing what the buses are doing on the highway in regard to stopping at railway tracks. They shouldn't be wondering, "Are they going to stop or are they not?" Conversely, the public shouldn't be confused about whether they should stop or not stop when the red lights are flashing and they pass with reckless abandon and nothing is done about it.
The member says maybe he didn't get all he wanted in this particular amendment to the bill, and I recognize that. His private member's bill talked about buses that stopped in tandem. Part of the argument about that particular amendment is that anybody behind a bus with red lights flashing is supposed to stop. It doesn't matter whether it's a bus, a semi, a motorcycle, a car, a truck, a van or a utility vehicle, everyone is supposed to stop behind a bus when the red lights are flashing.
I think I know why there is an opinion that buses in tandem should put on the lights, but since it's not part of the bill, I won't speak to it tonight. But I think I know why people feel it should be that way.
To say that you have incorporated much of what I wanted in my bill is wrong.
Mr Duncan: Dead wrong.
Mr Hoy: The fines are there, yes. The minister did increase the fines. Yes, he did talk to me and say: "Pat, your fines are too high. I don't want them very high because they're not particularly enforceable. I don't want them too high."
He has told me almost from the moment the bill was introduced that he didn't want to empower bus drivers. Members opposite have come to me and said, "We can't deputize bus drivers." That's not what we're doing at all. Vehicle liability exists in Ontario. If you want to say it, they are currently deputized to give eyewitness accounts of a person in a physical sense. They have to physically describe who the person is. You're not deputizing anyone, and if you want to use that term, you already did it or some other government did it long ago. I don't like the term myself, but these are some of the things the government opposite talks about, and it's absolutely silly.
Mr Froese said he had to negotiate what got into the comprehensive bill flowing from his private member's bill with the ministry, the parliamentary assistant and staff. He is very pleased with that and thanked them all. I don't recall the minister coming to me and saying, "Pat, let's negotiate what's going to happen from your bill in my bill." Clearly the minister and I disagree on the use of vehicle liability. I told him it was not negotiable, because to do otherwise would not have provided for the safety of the children in Ontario. The whole point of the exercise was to have vehicle liability introduced. But I'll support Mr Froese's efforts here. Anything to protect the children of Ontario in regard to school buses is important and I'll be consistent on that always.
I'm not going to belabour the point, but there are other aspects of children going to school in regard to people stopping their vehicles and driving straight at them and it doesn't have to do with getting off the buses. We'll have to attack the safety of our children one bill at a time. Some people across Ontario have called me and cited other instances where children are at risk and we're going to have to deal with that.
We now have school buses with advertising on them. I don't know if that's a good idea. I don't know if it's a good idea to take these yellow buses and plaster them with advertising. I think some day we're going to have to address that. Advertising by nature draws your attention away from what you are doing.
Mr Duncan: Paying attention to the road.
Mr Hoy: I have some thoughts in regard to advertising on school buses.
In an effort to bring consistency to the driving public, as the member wants to do, in regard to the safety of children and whether buses are stopping at unmarked or marked crossings, he is saying, "Let's have them stop at all of them," and I agree with that: consistency so that the driving public knows what we're doing.
It's too bad the government didn't want to send the same strong message to the thousands of people who pass school buses with flagrant abandon. I agree that raising the fines was perhaps an important part of it -- my bill did the same, except higher -- and education may be an important part of it, I agree, but those two components without the vehicle liability for the enforcement under Bill 78 in this comprehensive bill is a total failure by the government members.
I know the people who support Bill 78, and there are thousands of them, are going to be very, very disturbed with the government. I won't coach them, but they can see through what the government did here tonight. They will see through it all: a private member's bill passed on Thursday and incorporated into a comprehensive safety bill the next day by invitation of the minister, perhaps. I can only expect the minister knew. I can't imagine that a backbencher would slide this in like that without the minister knowing.
In less than a week, a government private member's bill is law or heading to be law, and we have been a year trying to convince the government to at least give Bill 78 a fair hearing, which up until today they have not. I think Mr Froese was out of the room when I mentioned that my bill was introduced exactly to the day -- my staff looked it up -- a year prior to yours, June 19. We have been a year trying to get the government to bring Bill 78 forward to protect the children of Ontario. I think the public is going to see through this, far too clearly, what happened here tonight.
2100
The Acting Chair: Is there any further debate?
Mr Hastings: Yes, Madam Chair. Let the record show that there were difficulties with a certain portion of Mr Hoy's bill. Mr Hoy's staff -- I don't want to belabour the point -- were briefed on the difficulties in implementation of that section. We have cited certain specific problems if it were passed. Let us also show for the record that private members' hour has not in any way whatsoever, as far as I can see, been usurped so that we can get government policy through.
Let me cite a specific example; I think there are others, but I'll use the one of my own. In Bill 27 of a year ago, the Children's Law Reform Amendment Act, it was also attempted by members of the other two parties -- there were administrative and bureaucratic problems in dealing with that specific act and it got retitled by so many people as a grandparents' access act or grandparents' rights act when it wasn't any such thing. That's just one specific example.
Let me cite other examples, as a government member from other committees, where we have had cooperation. The city of Ottawa a year ago brought forward legislation that would have almost rigidified the business improvement area there in terms of the farmers' market. What happened? If you go back and look at the record --
Mr Bisson: I was there.
Mr Hastings: Yes. We had division among government members regarding that specific bill in the regulations committee. I don't think you could cite for a moment that that was ordered by somebody, which is what seems to be put on the record, the impression that the opposition parties want to create. Can you imagine that the product of that particular bill came out of a coalition, an alliance, or whatever you want, between members of the opposition party and the government party?
Members of the Conservative Party on that particular day voted for, and some voted against, that specific bill. There is another example of where you have sometimes cooperation dealing with an issue. In this instance, many of us thought that would be bad law, and I think in that context it's appropriate to cite the problems that could have been brought about if we had passed the second section of Mr Hoy's bill in terms of its implementation.
We can cite other examples, and one final one I'll cite is the cooperation we've had from both parties regarding the referendum legislation.
The Acting Chair: Mr Hastings, I'm going to ask you, since the hour is late, whether this is relevant to the amendment before us.
Mr Hastings: It's relevant in the overall context of setting the record, Madam Chair, in terms of the impression that wants to be created that somehow or other certain people are winners and others are losers. I don't accept that proposition at all. Those are my final remarks.
The Acting Chair: Mr Hastings, I would suggest that if you are determined to bait the bears, you will get a response. Since you have considered it to be relevant, I will then recognize both Mr Bisson and Mr Hoy, but I do draw the committee's attention to the fact that this evening is progressing.
Mr Bisson: I would just point out you have woken up the bears again. The litmus test is, how many opposition private members' bills has this government accepted since you've come to office? Zero. Not one. How many members on the government side have had an opportunity to have their bills incorporated into government legislation or actually dealt with? Far more than what you see in the opposition. Yours is one and Margaret Marland's is another one, one that we accepted.
The point I want to make is this: When the parliamentary assistant says, "We're not using private members in order to advance government policy," I beg to differ. This Thursday morning we're going to be dealing with a motion on the part of Mr Pettit -- I think it's Hamilton Mountain, or whatever his riding is -- saying that we should move to make one big megacity in the city of Hamilton. That's pretty darn close to government policy as it's stated in the city of Toronto. All I'm saying is, that's wrong, that's not what we should be doing.
In the time of David Peterson's government and in the time of Bob Rae's, there were a number of examples where private members in opposition brought forward pieces of legislation that did get government support and move forward. I can think of Dianne Cunningham's bill --
The Acting Chair: Mr Bisson, we do have an amendment before us.
Mr Bisson: Yes, I know.
The Acting Chair: I realize Mr Hastings has broadened the debate, but I would ask that you think of all the committee members, that we not be too --
Mr Bisson: All right. I will just end it at that. I will just say the test is simply this: How many opposition private members' bills has this government actually dealt with? Mr Hoy's was there for over a year along with every other one. I'll leave it at that.
Mr Hoy: I'll try to be brief, Chair. I do recognize the hour of the night. However, I have a long history with this bill and know many more things about it than I've spoken here tonight. To suggest that we're being frivolous in our criticisms of how the government voted on the past amendment and this one and other things that have occurred -- let me say those problems the minister felt may have existed with my bill, as asked through the Solicitor General and the Attorney General, have never been given to me in written form. We requested those in written form and we never had them. What is one to suspect? Do they exist? I don't know, but we asked for those determinations in written form so we could be prepared to argue, debate or amend Bill 78. We have never got them in written form.
The history of Bill 78, to the parliamentary assistant, is very long indeed. I remember a lot and I know what has occurred to Bill 78 to date, and let me tell you it hasn't been all that pleasant. I'm not going to go into it all here, but let me assure you there have been occurrences through the last year that lead me to believe that the government may deliberately not want Bill 78 to go to the resources development committee, as requested by the whole House, all three parties.
The Acting Chair: Let me be very specific in the question of whether there's further debate on the amendment. If there's no further debate, I'll put the question.
Interjection: A recorded vote.
Mr Bisson: I'm on that side.
The Acting Chair: A recorded vote. Can I take it for Hansard? Mr Bisson, can I go ahead?
Ayes
Bisson, Duncan, Froese, Hastings, Hoy, Munro, Parker, Smith.
The Acting Chair: The motion is carried.
We will proceed to the page numbered 15. It is a Liberal motion. I understand this motion is not in order because it has adding a subsection to section 92, and 92 has not been opened. You would therefore require unanimous consent for this to be considered.
Mr Duncan: Yes, certainly I'd seek unanimous consent.
Mr Bisson: What's this? I agree.
Mr Duncan: Amendment number 15.
Mr Bisson: I've got to say, the members of the opposition are a reasonable bunch and I think we should give them the support. What do you think, guys?
The Acting Chair: The hour is indeed getting late. Is there in fact unanimous consent? Mr Duncan has sought unanimous consent. There's not unanimous consent; therefore, the motion cannot be placed. I believe that makes the next Liberal motion no longer in order. It will take us to government motion on page 16A, and I'd ask direction as to whether this motion is in order. This motion is in order. Is there a mover of the amendment?
Mr Duncan: Madam Chair, you kind of lost me there.
The Acting Chair: Page 16A. Is there a mover of this amendment?
Mr Hastings: Yes.
The Acting Chair: I need somebody to place the amendment.
Mr Hastings: I move that subsection 175(17) of the Highway Traffic Act, as set out in section 13 of the bill, be amended by striking out "subsection (1)" in the first and second lines and substituting "subsection (11) or (12)."
This is purely a change in the drafting. Originally I think it was section 1. It was an error in the cross-referencing of the subsections, Mr Bisson.
Mr Bisson: I throw myself in the competent hands of the parliamentary assistant, if only because of your tie.
2110
Mr Duncan: I would have thought it should read "subsection (2)."
Mr Hastings: It's 16A.
Mr Duncan: Well, we'll let that go.
The Acting Chair: I don't see a 16.
Mr Hastings: It's 16A.
The Acting Chair: Right, 16A is the page but we're referring -- you've already placed the amendment. Mr Duncan, are you asking --
Mr Duncan: Well, perhaps I've misread it. I haven't looked very carefully at that section, Madam Chair.
The Acting Chair: The amendment is in order to the best of legislative counsel's awareness.
Mr Duncan: It has been made clear to me now by legislative counsel. Thank you, Madam Chair.
The Acting Chair: Is there any further debate? All those in favour of the motion? The motion is carried.
Shall section 13, as amended, carry? Section 13, as amended, is carried.
Section 14: I do not believe that there is an amendment to section 14. Shall section 14 carry? Section 14 is carried.
Section 15: There are no amendments to section 15. Shall section 15 carry? Section 15 is carried.
Section 16: There are no amendments to section 16. Shall section 16 carry? Section 16 is carried.
On section 17: Mr Duncan?
Mr Duncan: This is the short title of the act section, the Comprehensive Road Safety Act, and the opposition has attempted to display throughout our debate in the Legislature and here at clause-by-clause that, "Yes, this is a bill that we're prepared to support," and it is a good start. We don't think it goes quite far enough. We've proposed a number of amendments which I believe have all been rejected. We've supported the government's amendments to the bill. We don't believe the bill is completely comprehensive, but we believe it's a good start, and therefore will support this section in the bill, but again we stress that although we might grade this a seven out of 10, had you accepted our amendments to this piece of legislation, we could have made it a nine or a 10 out of 10, and we regret that the government lost its nerve on the issue of road safety in Ontario.
The Acting Chair: Is there any further debate on the motion to carry section 17? Mr Bisson?
Mr Bisson: Well, no. It's okay. The point's been made.
The Acting Chair: Any further debate?
Mr Hastings: I simply want to point out, Madam Chair, that it is a comprehensive road safety bill within the components introduced.
The Acting Chair: You are determined to bait the bears, Mr Hastings. Mr Bisson?
Mr Bisson: I want to bring you fishing. I know some great lakes up north where you and I could have fun. You throw the bait out on to the water and the trout just goes, bang, and takes off with it.
The Acting Chair: I'm not sure if Mr Bisson wants to contribute to the debate at this point. I do remind you, we are not finished, in case the committee members sense that they are leaving. We have two items that we have to return to before the committee adjourns.
Are we ready to consider the motion on section 17, the short title of the bill? All those in favour? We are voting on section 17. There is no amendment. It is the short title of the bill. Shall section 17 carry?
Mr Bisson: Recorded vote.
Ayes
Froese, Hastings, Munro, Parker, Smith.
Nays
Bisson, Duncan.
The Acting Chair: Section 17 of the bill is carried.
We now return to what was on page 4 of the bill. This is deferred, and it has already been moved, I believe, by Mr Duncan. Are people with me in terms of where we are? Is there debate? This is number 4. It was section 0.3 of the bill, adding section 17.2 to the Highway Traffic Act. It had to do with the carrier carrying goods not prescribed in the regulations.
Mr Duncan: I moved that and I'll speak in favour, if you want you me to address it now.
The Acting Chair: We can resume debate. I believe it has been moved, so we'll resume debate.
Mr Duncan: This is again the hazardous goods issue that we raised earlier. Now I understood the government had some arguments against this particular amendment that it felt were salient to the debate. We've stated the case in favour of this. If it's the government's intention to put its case now, I'd be prepared to hear what it has to say.
Mr Bisson: Could we call the member for Mississauga South down here? She's the one that started all of this.
The Acting Chair: Is there further debate? Seeing no further debate, I'll put the question.
Mr Duncan: Recorded vote.
Ayes
Bisson, Duncan.
Nays
Froese, Hastings, Munro, Parker, Smith.
The Acting Chair: The amendment is defeated. I therefore believe the next motion would be to carry the bill. Shall Bill 138 -- oh we need to place the long title. Yes, Mr Bisson?
Mr Bisson: Very quickly, I'd like to comment, if we're allowed on this one, because it's on the entire bill. I just want the record to show that both the opposition parties in this case I think have tried very hard to work with the government to pass what we think is a progressive piece of legislation. I think it's an example of what could happen if the government was only to try a little bit harder next time. I hope through this process you will at least remember us, if nothing else, and recognize that we can't always be rigid in the ground in regard to what our party colours are. We should be working more to try to represent our constituents rather than just listening to what our caucus whip has to say. Thank you.
The Acting Chair: Thank you, Mr Bisson. The next motion for the committee to consider is, shall the long title of the bill carry? Is there any debate? Seeing none, all those in favour of the long title of the bill carrying? The motion is carried.
That takes us to Bill 138, as amended. Shall Bill 138, as amended, carry? The motion is carried.
Shall Bill 138, as amended, be reported to the House? All those in favour? The motion is carried and the bill will be reported to the House.
Before the committee adjourns, there was one further item of business that was deferred to the end of our session, and since it was a motion that stands in my name, I wonder, Mr Smith, if you'd be so kind as to take the chair so I can present the motion.
The Acting Chair (Mr Bruce Smith): Mrs McLeod.
Mrs McLeod: Thank you very much. I'll place the motion, which is being distributed to you.
I move that the standing committee on social development request a report from the Minister of Transportation on policy related to the use of interlocking devices. This report is to be presented to the committee before the end of 1997 and is to include an analysis of research on the use of the interlocking device in other jurisdictions as well as an assessment of this research as it supports or calls into question current Ontario policy in dealing with drunk driving. The report will be considered in committee in public session.
I presented the motion in genuine concern that the interest of the committee in the interlocking device and the material that was presented to us, both through witnesses and through the research reports, will not have a chance to be fully considered. I think it's fair to say that in the couple of days that we've had the material we have not been able to do justice to the information that's there.
I point just to one piece of the research, since it is late, but one of the pieces of research that struck me was that the re-arrest rate over a 30-month period in this particular study was significantly less for offenders with the ignition interlock device than for those with licence suspension.
As all members of the committee will realize, the legislation that we've just passed puts a very heavy stress on the use of suspensions as a way of controlling drinking and driving. I've already expressed in committee my concern, and it seems to be borne out by some of the research, that long suspensions may in fact encourage people to drive without licences and without insurance and could, in spite of our best intentions, aggravate the problem we're trying to deal with. I don't think anybody would want to see that happen.
There appears to be research that is substantiating the fact that if you use the interlocking device in conjunction with shorter or moderate suspensions, you get a lower recidivism rate. I really believe that's something the committee would want to consider further. My motion is simply to allow the committee to receive a report and to consider it further. I think I've provided for a sufficient space of time for that to be realistic.
The Acting Chair: Mr Hastings, did you wish to respond to that at all?
Mr Hastings: I accept it.
Mrs Munro: I wanted to ask a question. When the Addiction Research Foundation made a presentation, I believe it was yesterday, I specifically asked them that question because we had had that earlier submission on the issue of the ignition technique. Their answer, as I recall, and obviously I don't remember it verbatim, was that they would want to look at some research into that. That suggested to me that they had none that was Ontario research. I don't have a problem with the suggestion you've made, but I raise this simply because of the fact that there seemed to be no pertinent Ontario research when I asked them that question.
Mrs McLeod: I don't pretend to be an expert on this -- that's one of the reasons I'm anxious to see it come back to committee, because I acknowledged I had only become aware of it in these committee hearings -- but my understanding would be that the research has been done in jurisdictions that have had some experience with the program, and therefore they've been able to do the longitudinal research and the comparative research. Ontario obviously has not had experience with it.
I asked the CAA people the same question you asked outside the committee rooms, because they do have a national perspective. They said they thought the research looked very interesting but they simply hadn't had an opportunity to address it as an association and had not surveyed their members, and their evidence to us was based on the survey of their members.
I think the questions are legitimate ones in terms of what could be considered in a report to this committee. I'm just anxious that it not be lost.
Mrs Munro: If I might just follow up, obviously my question in asking them was in the same line of thinking as yours. I was just surprised that their response was to answer by being very specific in terms of not having looked at other jurisdictions. I was surprised at that reaction. I only raise the issue in terms of whether or not it would provide any kind of impediment to the time frame that you've suggested, given that they as an Ontario research foundation indicated they had no research themselves.
The Acting Chair: I don't want to curtail discussion, but perhaps those thoughts could be conveyed to the parliamentary assistant, who I'm sure would welcome those thoughts as they consider the resolution further.
If there are no further comments or discussion, the committee stands adjourned --
Interjection: We have to vote.
The Acting Chair: Oh, I'm sorry. Everyone's aware of the motion that's before us. You all have a copy of that, I presume. All those in favour? It's carried.
Thank you very much. The committee stands adjourned until the call of the Chair.
The committee adjourned at 2124.