Bill 118 definitions

Just when we thought Bill 118 was a dead issue comes the details of the definitions and exemptions. In section 14 we find this curious exemption:

Exemption for pressing buttons

14.  (1)  A person may drive a motor vehicle on a highway while pressing a button on a hand-held wireless communication device to make, answer or end a cell phone call or to transmit or receive voice communication on a two-way radio if the device is placed securely in or mounted to the motor vehicle so that it does not move while the vehicle is in motion and the driver can see it at a quick glance and easily reach it without adjusting his or her driving position.

(2)  A person may drive a motor vehicle on a highway while pressing a button on a device that is worn on his or her head or hung over or placed inside his or her ear or is attached to his or her clothing and is linked to a hand-held wireless communication device to make, answer or end a cell phone call or to transmit or receive voice communication on a two-way radio or a hand microphone or portable radio.

Needless to say an email was sent this morning to ministry staff asking for clarification. Sure reads like a typical vhf/uhf installation with microphone attached. Part 2 reads like a handie-talkie with an external microphone with a clip on the back to affix it to the operator’s clothing.

4 Responses to “Bill 118 definitions”


  • Hi Peter,

    Thanks for highlighting this part of the regulation. It really does seem that the MTO are trying to accommodate the operators of two-way radios as much as possible, while still maintaining the ‘spirit’ of hands-free communication, i.e. you shouldn’t actually be able to see a driver holding a microphone or HT in his/her hand. The exemptions do seem to provide plenty of options for mobile operators, with just a little tinkering and imagination.

    I look forward to reading about any light you can shed on the subject through further investigation; in the meantime, this certainly does seem encouraging. Whether or not we get a permanent exemption after Jan. 1, 2013, I think most people could work with this reg even as it is currently written; we should not be discouraged.

    73

    Joe, VE3LNU

  • This is not over yet. I have written a letter to my MPP to point a few things out. They may be starting to realize they have no authority over ‘hand mics’ anyway. The definition of terms in the Radio Communications Act is very clear:

    From the Radio Communications Act:
    1993, c. 40, s. 23
    “radio apparatus”
    *appareil radio+
    “”radio apparatus” means a device or combination of devices
    intended for, or capable of being used for, radiocommunication;”

    This makes it pretty clear that the Microphone is part of the ‘apparatus’.

    They can’t dictate our use of ‘hand mics’ any more than they can tell CFRB to move from 1010 to 1060 and reduce power to 5 KW!

    Rac needs to take them to court with a ‘constitutional challenge’ to Bill 118.

    I’ve written to RAC as well along with a copy of my letter. I’ve not heard back as yet. I’m looking forward to hearing from RAC’s legal council.

    Anyone intersted in my letter can contact me thru RAC email.

  • “while pressing a button on a device that… is attached to his or her clothing and is linked to a hand-held wireless communication device to… transmit or receive voice communication on a two-way radio or a hand microphone or portable radio.”

    Seems to me if we duct tape our mic cords to our shirts while driving, we’re good to go…

    VE3FYN

  • Brian,

    There is strength in numbers but we are a small club. We would like to draft a petition that we hope to circulate amongst the different clubs in Toronto. Would you be willing to provide us a copy of your letter so that we may include your arguments in the petition? Thank you.

    Walter Cang
    President
    South Pickering Amateur Radio Club

Leave a Reply