Hillier Debates Bill 126 on Behalf of Rural Ontario

- Randy Hillier, MPP, Lanark, Frontenac, Lennox & Addington (Queen’s Park) – MPP Randy Hillier found himself in familiar territory at Queen’s Park today having to once again stand for the freedom and responsibility of the individual against the state. The ongoing debate on Bill 126, An Act to amend the Highway Traffic Act, continued today with fierce opposition to the infringements the Act placed on rural Ontario.

---

Hillier opened his comments with the current situation at Queen’s Park. “The Liberal agenda is as Milton said ‘Of vain wisdom and false philosophy’. It is an agenda that demands we the people surrender all our freedoms, and subject ourselves to the monster of inefficiency and incompetence known as the Liberal nanny state,” Hillier asserted. Minister Bradley, bristling from such a huge outcry from young drivers and rural families retreated from the most controversial section of the Act that would limit the number of passengers in vehicle earlier in the day. “I don’t need a poll to tell me what I believe, or to know difference between what’s right and wrong,” Hillier asserted. “This Liberal Government has made their agenda clear. The mill of red tape, regulation, and nanny state policies this government is so fond of is in constant motion, 24/7. “It appears that this government’s prerogative is to limit judgment, deny responsibility, restrict freedoms, and break our long held traditions of common law and respect,” Hillier concluded. For Mr. Hillier’s full comments please the Hansard below. Contact: David Shostal 613-267-8239 Hansard Official Reports of Debates 39th Parliament Legislative Assembly of Ontario Randy Hillier MPP Lanark, Frontenac, Lennox and Addington Second Reading, Bill 126, An Act To Amend The Highway Traffic Act Mr. Randy Hillier: I do have prepared notes to speak to today with this debate. But in addition to some prepared notes, I have some comments from constituents from my riding. But before I do that, I would like to add a little context to the debate. I’ll start with a reference to the Minister of Transportation this morning who of course said, “Our roads are always declared to be the safest in North America. There’s much more we have to do however, and that’s why we introduced the legislation that, if passed, will help make them ... safer.” I think we do have the safest roads. Nobody’s denying that. But we want to make them safer. Now, just how safe do we want to make them? And remember, whenever there is an action there is also a reaction. The only way, it appears, that this government wants to make our roads safer is by diminishing the numbers of people on the roads; restricting and preventing people from driving. I represent a rural riding, a riding where a personal automobile is the only form of transportation. We do not have access to GO trains; we do not have access to subways; we do not have access to public transportation. Personal automobiles and motorcycles are our form of transportation. I do recognize that the minister has mentioned some amendments to this bill. I hope that he didn’t look on Facebook because we all know that’s banned for MPPs and civil servants. I hope he didn’t sneak a couple peeks at Facebook to see the opposition building to this bill. But we have safe roads, we have the only means of practical transportation in rural Ontario, and it is under threat with Bill 126. Mr. Jim Brownell: It is not. Mr. Randy Hillier: It is under threat— Mr. Jim Brownell: It’s not under threat at all. Mr. Randy Hillier: Well, the honourable member from Stormont–Dundas would like to interject. I guess he does have the TTC up in Stormont–Dundas, but not last time I was there, though. I agree with comments from our other colleagues that it’s been hastily drafted, poorly consulted—and I will have to also mention in the leadup here, the member from Huron–Bruce said they are demonstrating their commitment to public hearings and openness and transparency. Of course, there’s been no debate from the other side on this bill. I guess that’s what they mean by demonstrating their public commitment. Another Liberal priority has come before this House, and it’s clear to me and to everybody in my riding what the true Liberal agenda is. The Liberal agenda is not our hundreds of thousands of lost jobs, nor is it the long wait times and our doctor shortages. It is not about securing quality education and it’s not about providing a safe, secure and just society. No, the Liberal agenda is, as Milton once said, a vain wisdom and false philosophy, and it is an agenda that demands people surrender our freedoms and subject ourselves to this monster of inefficiency and incompetence, the Liberal nanny state. There is a role for us. There is a role for government, important and significant roles: a role to create a responsible society, not to diminish individual responsibility. Our role is to ensure we have economic opportunities for prosperity, that our children have opportunities to receive quality education and that everyone has access to timely medical care. Mr. Randy Hillier: But instead the Liberals bring closure to the debate to all those fundamental obligations. I do understand the Minister of Transportation has back-pedalled on 126 somewhat, but Bill 126 is a piece of legislation that will enshrine discrimination of age in statute and make discrimination lawful. Bill 126 does not stop there. It also empowers the police to be both judge and jury for drivers under the age of 22. Mr. Randy Hillier: It appears to me that this government’s prerogative is to limit judgment, deny responsibility and restrict freedoms, and break our long-held traditions of common law and respect for those under the age of 22. I’ve come to know in the last year, and as a representative of Lanark–Frontenac–Lennox and Addington, and as a legislator in this House, that you can never be sure what will come out of the mouths from the other side. One day, it’s against discrimination; the next day, it’s in favour. One day, their hand is writing about law, order and justice, and at the same time, the other hand is crafting up legislation to seize private property. I would like to just mention—talk a little bit about the comments that I’ve been receiving about Bill 126, and let everybody in this House know what the people in my riding think of this Liberal nanny-state legislation. I’ll start with a fellow named Austin Kirsh. I can’t repeat what he prefaces his quote with, but it is: “... a piece of legislation that disenfranchises someone else is introduced by an entity such as MADD. Charities are for giving assistance to others, not preventing law-abiding citizens from sharing the same freedoms as other law-abiding citizens.” He went on to say: “... honourable is not eliminating the freedoms of many to accommodate the extreme ideology of a few.” That is from a constituent named Austin Kirsh. I believe he’s about 20 years of age. Ms. Lisa MacLeod: Smart, though. Mr. Randy Hillier: Smart fella, articulate, and even he—our youth—can see through this. I would like to just—there is a quote—I remember listening to Mike Huckabee earlier last year, and I think this would be an important one for the minister and all members of this House to remember. Mike Huckabee said, “I don’t need a poll to figure out what I believe.” Neither do I. I don’t need a poll to understand what is right and what is wrong. These ought to be intuitive to every member in this House. If it is not intuitive, what is right and what is wrong, then you’re in the wrong House. I’ll go on to speak about what Dana Dennis from Carleton Place said: “... the proposed changes are draconian and will have no impact on the safety of roads” in Ontario. And: “I only hope my provincial government has better things to do than enact such foolish legislation.” From Dana Dennis. We can all see that government does have better things to do. I talked about it briefly in my notes. We have real priorities in this province. We have people out of work, we have infrastructure falling about, and here we are going to debate Bill 126, that allows that if you’re under the age of 22 and you get caught speeding, you can have your car taken away. I would hazard a guess that every individual in this House who has a driver’s licence has sped beyond the speed limit at one time or another. However, only if you’re under 22 are you subject to these new and terrible regulations. Here is what Tom Morrow from Carleton Place said: “I am disgusted that our government would take such actions against our youth. Clamp down on speeders, drinkers; but if someone passes all the hurdles to get their licence, then treat them as equals.” “Treat them as equals”—isn’t that a novel concept? Treat people as equals once they have demonstrated their competencies. This is from Allan Niittymaa from Perth: “... while I sympathize with those who have suffered a loss, this limitation is too restrictive for the majority of responsible youths.” Allan Niittymaa from Perth. Allan Niittymaa from Perth. I can just imagine—I’m glad this one amendment has been proposed by the Minister of Transportation because, otherwise, we would not be having RIDE programs, but we would be having birth certificate inspections on the road. I’m glad that they have seen that light from their public opinion polls. Here’s one from Pat Campbell: Too often, laws are made for the people in the city. Rural Ontario is affected way more than our politicians realize. Let’s get out of the House from time to time and actually see what the consequences are, see what the harm that is being done. Bear in mind, again, that our law, our tradition of common law recognizes the inherent and innate responsibility of people and common law is a little bit different than most other laws. Common law doesn’t tell you what you can do. It tells you what you can’t do. It doesn’t prescribe a process; it rejects illegitimate actions. That’s our tradition here in this province, in this House, common law. Piece after piece of regulation we see that that concept is foreign and absent to members of this Liberal government. Here’s one from Frank Pinder from Inverary, “Government is stepping too far into governing the lives of young people and families with some of these rules.” Mr. Michael A. Brown: Which one? Mr. Randy Hillier: Here’s one from Kerry Ferguson, “This is nanny state legislation which will severely curtail the activities of all young people and their families because of the careless actions of a few. It will result in teenagers”—oh, this is a good one, but this was written before this morning’s announcement. “It will result in teenagers still carrying multiple passengers to and from events and activities, but now they will be hidden down on the backseat floor with no seat belts. Don’t laugh, it will happen. You will read about it when the first tragic accident happens.” Thankfully the minister recognized that we ought not to be encouraging our youth to be hiding in the backseat without seat belts. Here’s one from Chuck Andary, “All I’m asking here is that this generational discrimination ends.” I think that’s a pretty fair comment, a pretty sensible comment, one that we all ought to be able to agree with. We have so many Here’s one from Eddie Doran, “A great imposition on the personal freedoms and civil liberties of Canadians and visitors to this country alike.” An imposition on personal freedoms and liberties. Remember that, for ourselves and for our visitors. Everybody can see that there ought to be and that there are significant priorities that we ought to be dealing with, but this Liberal government just keeps churning out—they’ve got a mill that operates on a 24-hour nanny mentality. It just keeps turning them out day after day. It never stops. Here’s one from Katie-Marie McNeill, “This is complete and utter discrimination against a group of people based on age.” What are we doing in here? What are we doing on the other side of this House bringing in legislation that is discriminatory, bringing in legislation that breaks with our traditions? Is there any time to reflect and think about what you’re doing on the other side, or are you just too busy going to photo ops and handing out cardboard cheques? I don’t know. There ought to be some time to think about what we’re doing. Here’s from Pat Campbell, “We live in the country. Everything involves travel.” Everything. Speaker, it is clear to everyone that this bill is a distraction from the important concerns and priorities of the people of this province, but it doesn’t fool anybody. You’re not going to dupe anybody. You’re still going to have to step up to the plate someday and address the real concerns and the real priorities of the people in this province. You can keep that nanny state red-tape mill working all the time, it doesn’t fix anything. Stand up to the plate. You’ve been elected by the people of this province to stand up and hit them a homerun, not just knock out foul balls all the time. Let’s stand up and do your job. Let’s respect people, respect their freedoms and respect justice, even if they’re under the age of 22. Let’s respect them all. Mr. Randy Hillier: I want to thank members from Beaches–East York, Parkdale–High Park and Bruce–Grey–Owen Sound and, of course, the member from Algoma–Manitoulin. It was interesting when I heard him trying to justify the merit of discrimination, why we should discriminate. Well, all his justification and rhetoric about why discrimination is acceptable is still not acceptable to this representative here. I would like to make mention to the member from Bruce–Grey–Owen Sound. He mentioned that the odd time the House does work, and he was congratulating the Liberals on that—and that’s very true. Unfortunately, it is the exception, not the rule, and we ought to be elevating our expectations here in this House that it does work all the time, and the days that it doesn’t work would be the exception. Wouldn’t that be an interesting thing? I’m going to end off by putting one more quote here in Hansard, because I think it puts things in the proper perspective: “The public good is in nothing more essentially interested than in the protection of every individual’s private rights.” That was written by Blackstone, if the member from Algoma–Manitoulin hadn’t read about that. That’s what it is: equal private rights, not justifying discrimination of age under any other dubious distraction. You are receiving this email because you are or were a member of the media or 'opted in' to receive such communications from our office. If you are receiving this email in error and/or wish to be removed from this list, please use the reply function of your email and insert REMOVE in the subject line. We apologize for any inconvenience.

---