SPECIAL REPORT: Speed limiter debate heats up as rule climbs legislative ladder

QUEEN’S PARK — The three Ontario party leaders may be in agreement over mandatory speed limiter legislation, but a handful of individual MPPs — including a former Transport Minister — are apparently more skeptical.

Bill 41, which would require all trucks operating in Ontario to activate speed limiters set at 105 km/h, cleared second reading in Parliament Tuesday and received approval in principle.

It was referred to the Standing Committee on Justice Policy (which will further flesh out the bill, consider changes, and set dates for public comment), but not before the concept was batted up and down the legislative floor for a while.

With the top brass of each party on the record in favor of the bill, it appeared that the proposal faced little resistance in its journey to becoming law. But over several days of debates (the first few taking place in April before being adjourned to this week), some opposition members expressed deep concern with the legislation, including one former supporter that is seemingly having second thoughts.

PC member John O’Toole (Durham) told Parliament that when he first looked at it, he thought that the bill “(made) very good sense.” But he now questions the “substance” of the plan.

Acknowledging that the rule is being strongly urged by the Ontario Trucking Association — “they have the direct ear of the minister on this” — he also wonders if officials are listening to independent lease- and owner-operators who overwhelmingly oppose mandatory speed limiters.

“Who is speaking up for the small independents … trying to hustle a few dollars, getting goods to market on time in off hours? What about truckers that are transcontinental — that are going in multi-jurisdictions, where they have a governor and they can’t keep up with the traffic in other jurisdictions where this kind of legislation is not in place?”

“I think there are more important issues, quite honestly,” he continues. “I think that having a posted, enforceable speed on (Hwy.) 401 would be a good start. Having a system of licensing and testing would be a good start.”

Despite new debate among politicians, some supporters
think a speed limiter law is all but a done deal

In total agreement on this front is former PC Transport Minister Frank Klees (Newmarket-Aurora), who argued in the first part of the debate that the province is trying to enact speed limiters as a way to cover up its lack of funding for speed enforcement.

“As I’ve said many times, effectively what this legislation means is that we are failing in this province … to enforce the speed limits that we have. We already have speed limiters. They’re those signs on the highway and the law that says you can’t do any more than 100 or 80 or whatever the speed limit is,” he said.

“With regard to the enforcement here, what we’re doing is overlaying another level of bureaucracy and cost, and I suggest to you that it all comes down to resourcing the legislation that we have.”

Klees also disputed that most truck-related crashes (of which, statistically, there are very few), are speed-related. “They are, in fact, caused by mechanical failure. I say to the government and to the Minister of Transportation that what we need to do is focus on that, more so than on the speed.”

Of course, most MPPs look as if they’ll toe the party line on this one. Laurie Scott (Haliburton–Kawartha) said the concept is a “no brainer,” as it would reduce the severity of truck crashes and save fuel, which in turn, cuts emissions.

“Using speed limiters to reduce trucking speed is a strategy that is supported both by the trucking industry and by environmental experts. Sometimes that’s a hard combination to get together, but they did so in this situation,” she says.

As for inter-jurisdictional competitiveness, says Scott: “Truckers are used to coming back and forth through different jurisdictions, with different rules and regulations. They’ve certainly done that with different parts-axle weights etc. and they’ve been able to accommodate. I know there were some issues in respect to that which I think we can deal with.”

In fact, Scott reserved most of her criticism for the governing Liberals, some of which, she points out, voted to kill a similar private member’s bill she tabled as a PC backbencher in 2006.

There’s certainly not many Liberals who are voicing any opposition to the plan these days. Most who spoke during the debate sessions happily championed the idea. “This is one of those bills that I call a win-win bill, where you’re trying to achieve two purposes (safety and the environment), two objects, in one particular bill-a two-in-one deal, as I would say,” Yasir Naqvi (Ottawa-Centre) quipped.

Doesn’t like tactics

A few MPPs, however, were not above exaggerating the impact trucks make on total road safety and the environment to advance the bill.

“The government has heard the public’s concerns about speeding trucks on Ontario highways that pollute our environment and create unnecessary risk for others,” says Mike Brown (Algoma-Manitoulin), Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Transportation.

Professing that limiters would make a “significant impact on reducing greenhouse gas emissions” was a common statement among politicians — even though statistically, transportation (all sectors) makes up only a third of all GHGs; and of that, only a miniscule percentage of total savings could be directly linked to the introduction of speed limiters for trucks not already voluntarily governed.

Of course, the fearmongering card wasn’t just played by the Liberals.

Adds PC Christine Elliott (Whitby–Ajax): “.. it is an important bill. We do need to do something about speeding on our highways to end the carnage that we see, particularly as we enter the spring and summer holiday season.”

Seriously?

Collectively, the NDP also back speed limiters, but Peter Kormos (Welland) is perhaps the most outspokenly opposed MPP. In previous arguments, he complained how dissenters are being painted as anti-safety in the ongoing debate, including independent truckers, the Owner-Operators’ Business Association of Canada (OBAC), and the Teamsters Union, which advocate speed safety, but don’t support a blanket mandate specifically for truckers, Kormos points out.

“Look, we know the tactic. If you don’t support the legislation, somehow you support speeding trucks on our highways,” he said.

“I’m not sure that this bill constitutes a solution, because I’m not sure that it adequately defines the problem. Let’s understand that while the Ontario Trucking Association supports and advocates this legislation, others don’t.”

Like Klees and O’Toole, Kormos wants the government to instead focus its attention on dangerous driving — especially passenger car drivers. “Do you want to give effect to a 105 rule? Then have zero tolerance (for all vehicles) in terms of speeding on our highways,” he suggests.

Despite the concerns raised by a smattering of members, it’s unclear whether the committee phase and public comment period would significantly alter the legislation as it’s currently written.

The OTA thinks not. “Given the fact that the Liberals have a majority government, it is very unusual for government bills to be significantly altered at this stage of the game,” it said in a press release.

The OTA says the government intends to develop the necessary regulations over the summer and have the law ready for implementation in 2009, with a six-month educational period.