Legislative Assembly of Ontario

The House resumed at 8 p.m.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I would like to inform the members of the House that the hon. member for Parkdale (Mr. Dukszta) has withdrawn his request under standing order 28(a).

HIGHWAY SAFETY SELECT COMMITTEE REPORT

Consideration of the October 17, 1977, report of the select committee on highway safety.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Before the House rose at 6 o’clock, the hon. member for Yorkview had been recognized to speak.

Mr. Young: Mr. Speaker, the final report of the select committee on highway safety was tabled with the Clerk on September 20 of this year. The committee was appointed back in May 1976. Its interim report was tabled in November and was discussed here in this House subsequent to that time.

During 1977 the committee had a very full schedule of meetings and investigations. We had experts in their field from pretty well across the continent and around the world. We had the advantage of a great deal of wisdom, not only on the part of committee members but on the part of these experts who came to us and gave us of their time and wisdom, and this was very much appreciated.

The problem we faced in the committee of course, was that here in Ontario we have been killing 1,500 to 1,800 people a year -- last year, we think because of the seatbelts and the lower speed limits, it was likely something over 1,200; so that is an advantage -- and we are maiming and injuring over 85,000 a year.

The total cost to society here is something like $500 million every year because of the mayhem on our roads. Our job was to recommend how this kind of damage might be mitigated -- how we could cut the accident rate, the death rate, the injury rate and the property damage rate.

As we started our work we realized, as all of us do, that there is no way that we can eliminate accidents on the road. People are subject to error and split-second error is all too prevalent in the accident situation. Then, of course, we have mechanical failures as far as vehicles and control equipment are concerned. We realized we are never going to cut that accident rate by 100 per cent. But we felt if we can cut it by something -- five, 10, 15, 20 per cent -- the payoff is going to be very large.

We also recognized as we started there are very strong vested interests against the work we were trying to do -- an industry which is more interested in selling cars than in safety; more interested in gadgets than in eliminating the kind of death-and injury-producing surfaces on their vehicles, which we saw all too often earlier on.

There are also the interests concerned with alcohol. They are determined they are going to brainwash our people from the time they begin to watch television and read newspapers, in spite of the fact that we do know now that the absolute consumption of alcohol in a society bears a direct relationship to the highway toll -- death, injury, property damage. And we know that ultimately the only way we’re going to solve this problem is by getting down the total consumption.

Then we have the parts manufacturers -- the Fuzzbuster people and others -- who are more interested in sales and in preserving their own particular interests, whether safety is served thereby or not.

Mr. Conway: Easy on former Tory candidates.

Mr. Young: Not the candidate -- one of his family I understand.

For many years the design of motor vehicles was left entirely to the industry and, as I said, their concern was sales. We had little appreciation, I think, of the connection between accidents and driver training, the roadside hazards and such features as alcohol. We didn’t worry too much about these things and we seem to take for granted that the increasing death and injury rate was something which we couldn’t do much about -- it was sort of an act of God.

But then by the mid-Sixties the government, pressured by people such as Nader and others, began to take action. I’d like to put the figures in Hansard, that after governments had begun to lay down safety standards and specifications, the post-1967 cars chalked up 23 per cent fewer occupant deaths than the cars between 1964 and 1967. Those same post-1967 cars chalked up 39 per cent fewer occupant deaths than the cars built previous to 1964.

Then at the same time governments began to think in terms of what the rigid poles were doing alongside the road, what the trees were doing in close to the pavement, what the abutments along the bridges were doing. We began to think in terms of break-away poles, cleaning out and making smooth that area adjacent to the pavement and eliminating the roadside hazards. All those things helped. But the toll is still too high and because it was too high, this committee was appointed. We believed then and still believe that the total can be reduced still more.

We made 52 recommendations designed to do three things: Prevent the accident toll on the highway; cut down the results of those accidents; and set up some sort of an ongoing research program to bring all the knowledge that we have accumulated through technology, coupled with government action, to bear, to continue to cut down on this toll.

Certain rather startling facts emerged. I’m only going to mention 10 of them, but they were to us somewhat revealing.

One, driver training is completely inadequate. The youngster who learns to drive from his uncle or brother is just as good a driver, it seems, and has the same accident record, as youngsters who learn through a high school driving course or through commercial driver training. There is no proof we could find that one is better than the other. So there is some shortage there.

Second, good drivers cause most of the accidents. If we took the advice of some people who say, “Plant these guys who are caught drinking and driving or in accidents in jail and you’ll solve the problem,” that just does not turn out to be the case. There is a different seven per cent or eight per cent of the drivers causing the accidents every year. You eliminate those seven per cent or eight per cent one year and a new group emerges the next year.

Up to one-half the drivers who have their licences suspended still drive. They’re a problem for police and for society.

Trucks take twice the distance to stop than the ordinary motor car. It’s something to give us pause when we see a truck barrelling down the highway just behind us and we run into a crisis situation.

Fifty-two per cent of all driver deaths are alcohol-related. Impaired 18- to 19-year-olds are 70 times more apt to die in accidents than the non-impaired average driver. The risk of collision for an impaired 16- to 17-year-old is 165 times as great as for a non-impaired average driver.

By far, the time of highest risk of accident, death or injury is from Friday afternoon, about dark, until early Sunday morning.

A drinking driver in Ontario has one chance in 2,000 of being caught by the police.

The last one I want to mention: We’re 100 breathalysers short for effective breathalyser enforcement in the province of Ontario.

These are just a few of the items that we faced during our study. Just a few, but rather startling. So, our recommendations were, we hope, practical. To meet some of these problems and many others. While we didn’t try to cost out the recommendations we made, we had a sort of intestinal feeling that they are cost-effective and that they’re worthy of very serious consideration by government.

We started with the driver, because of the items that I have mentioned. We made recommendations that the tests given to the driver at government level ought to be upgraded considerably; that the courses ought to be very much upgraded and much more safety-oriented; that the teachers ought to become professionals, that they ought to be very much more effective in their work -- and that means far more training. We believe that the community colleges ought to play a very strong part in this whole process. We think that this process of strengthening the whole driver-training process ought to start now. It’s a long-term thing but we ought to get started at it.

We recommended that a photograph should be placed on the driver’s licence, in order to prevent abuse; that a probationary licence for two years ought to be issued and the new driver should earn his right to drive, over those two years. He should be carefully supervised, sympathetically but toughly, so that by the end of the two years we would hope he’d emerge a far better driver than the average driver today at the end of that period of time.

We also recommended that the older driver, after 50, should have a medical certificate signed by a physician.

Mr. Nixon: That is old.

Mr. Young: This is one of the rather tough ones on the members of this House, perhaps, but we have to recognize right now that the medical profession is obligated, when they find something in the health of one of their patients, to let the ministry know if he's dangerous and apt to drop dead behind the wheel at some time in the future. The medical profession admitted that they feel that they can’t blow the whistle on a friend or an old patient; many of them won’t do this. So the recommendation came from the committee that, as a matter of routine, the doctors could sign a certificate of this kind. This ought to be done every three years after 50.

At the same time, we recommended special licences for people who are handicapped who might not drive at night or on the freeways and yet might want to go to church or to shop or to do certain errands within the limits of their capabilities.

[8:15]

Enforcement of the law, of course, presents a very great problem. So many people came before us and said; “All we have to do is let the police crack down on these beggars who break the law.” The police tell us that’s not so simple. There are never enough policemen, never enough black and white cars, never enough equipment. As I mentioned, the breathalysers are over 100 short in this province. Then there’s a divided jurisdiction in this province as far as enforcement is concerned. The basic problem is the fact that law enforcement ought to be a citizen responsibility, not just a police responsibility, and, by and large, I suppose, most citizens do feel a sense of social responsibility. But the law-breaker -- and there are those in our society, unfortunately -- doesn’t seem to respond too much to this business of punishment.

Every jurisdiction we visited or heard from, seemed to have the same experience -- tough punishment did not solve the problem. What was more important was a feeling that apprehension was pretty certain; a high expectation of apprehension.

A lot of people have the Fuzzbuster syndrome, They want to live just outside the law but they don’t want to get caught. In the case of the Fuzzbuster owner, he’s willing to spend a lot of dollars in order to have a machine which will allow him to cruise along just outside the law but will prevent him being caught in that law-breaking activity. There are people who feel that way but, by and large, I think most people are law-abiding and very concerned over this whole matter.

The police function, as far as we are concerned, is to prevent accidents, not to collect fines, not to produce revenue, not to apprehend after the fact, although that’s part of the function. But that’s not their main function, and as far as safety is concerned, we want to see them preventing accidents.

The committee believes the police can be more effective in improving traffic safety; more effective than they are now. It determined that apprehending violators is an effective safety measure only if the violations are likely to contribute to accidents. The committee suggested that to influence driver behaviour effectively, the police must, in addition to apprehending violators, be a visible presence on the road, focusing their efforts on selected accident-prone locations.

The committee recommends a careful evaluation of current enforcement practices aimed at road safety; adequate equipping of police forces to enforce current laws and in particular to enforce current laws relating to drinking drivers; providing legislation so that remote surveillance cameras working around the clock at accident-prone locations can be utilized; and banning such devices as the Fuzzbusters, designed primarily to allow drivers to speed with impunity.

As well, the committee recommends one government enforcement agency have the responsibility for co-ordinating the traffic law enforcement system.

We also recommend we tighten up on the points system, specifically that the violation date from the time of the incident, not from the time of the conviction in court. This means the person who deliberately delays court appearances so that some of his earlier points might drop off, thereby evading the full impact of his 15 points, will be prevented from doing this and the penalty will be exacted.

We also agree with the Attorney General’s suggestion the police should no longer have to chase offenders endlessly, but that at the time of the issuing of licence plates, there be a sort of balancing of the books. Anybody who has any outstanding fines or offences which he has not squared up with the authorities, will not be issued plates until that is done. With the computer age, this becomes possible.

A far as alcohol-related offences are concerned, this is an extremely vexing problem and one with which the committee wrestled for a long time. On one or two occasions, I think some of the committee members did some experimentation here. Ultimately, it’s social attitudes which count.

Mr. Conway: What was that all about? I don’t believe it.

Mr. Young: The car is here to stay. Alcohol is also likely here to stay.

Mr. Bounsall: No, we will wipe that out.

Mr. Young: One of the members of the committee says we will wipe that out. Good luck to him.

Mr. Conway: So does the member for High Park-Swansea (Mr. Ziemba).

Mr. Dukszta: Exactly. I speak for him as a member of my party.

Mr. Young: The member for High Park- Swansea is not here, but he is doing his best.

Mr. Conway: A contradiction.

Mr. Young: The fact is, as I pointed out before, that accident rates vary with the actual consumption of alcohol, the total consumption of alcohol in any society. It is very difficult for us to combine the two and not expect to pay the price.

What the committee did find out was that experiments have been conducted around the world, and some of them are going on right here in Ontario, in the segregation of offenders. The actual large part of the damage is being done by social drinkers who just refuse to face the fact that two or three drinks makes them dangerous on the highway, even a 0.04 blood test -- and our law says 0.08 -- makes them dangerous. He thinks he’s safe and therein lies the danger.

We have recommended that devices be worked out, and they are now known, so that the social drinker can be segregated and perhaps given a course on the danger he is running, not only to himself but to others, and that the habitual drinker, the one who just can’t help himself, be weeded out and be given treatment. There is some recorded success in this field in some jurisdictions. We think that’s worth doing here in the province of Ontario.

Young people are a particular problem in this field. In 1967, five per cent of the alcohol-related accidents involved young people aged 16 to 20. In 1971, we lowered the drinking age to 18. By 1973, that five per cent had become 15 per cent. By 1975, 37.5 per cent of alcohol-related accidents were among young people of 16 to 20. In other words, in those eight years the percentage has gone up from five to 37 per cent. That was a thing which rather startled the committee and I think startles all those who see those figures.

In facing that problem, we realized that not only must there be a stepped up educational process, right from the beginning of the school system, but we should be banning, as soon as possible, the lifestyle ads which equate alcohol with good times, in our television commercials particularly, that are brainwashing, as I pointed out, our young people every time they start watching television. We also recommended that the drinking age be raised, to 19 years as Saskatchewan did a year ago, and as Maine did just recently -- only Maine made it 20 instead of 19. Other jurisdictions are wrestling with this problem and are making recommendations.

We think and recommend that the breathalyser strength be brought up to date in the province of Ontario and that extra breathalysers be bought. The minister pointed out the other day that there is some problem in training people to do this job but, believe me, with a bit of money and bit of urgency, this training can be done rather quickly. The machines are available.

In addition to that, we are recommending the ALERT machine, a new device which the policeman can use himself, which shows whether the blood alcohol count is up anywhere from zero to 0.1 -- and it is at 0.1 that convictions generally take place. We recommend that the policeman who has that machine and who finds out that the driver is in that dangerous situation can rule him off the road, cancel his licence for 24 hours. In other words, the design of this recommendation is to prevent the accident happening.

This is already being done in Alberta, rather successfully, we think it ought to be done here. We think also that there should be a continuous re-evaluation of all the techniques that are being used in this field; because it seems that we have to have new techniques, and new devices, constantly to reinforce the old ones so that people realize the dangers that are involved.

When we looked at the vehicle, we realized that here, perhaps, was the greatest payoff in the saving of life and the cutting down on accidents. It’s not easy to change human behaviour but it is easy to change the configuration of a machine.

We realized that the setting of safety standards is largely a federal matter, but Ontario does have its own representatives on the committees dealing with safety at the federal level. Our voice, particularly where we manufacture almost all the motor cars in the country, should be a strong one there and should be heard.

We believe that things like amber turn lights should be instituted and we’re recommending this; that rear window defrosters ought to be installed in Ontario cars; that bumpers be of uniform height, with soft, resilient surfaces, which don’t create the kind of damage that present day bumpers are designed to create; we think that can be changed. We think, too, that a very close watch should be kept on the new, experimental safety vehicles now being developed at Calspan in Buffalo, in California and in other parts of the world.

There is some very significant work going on in the whole safety field, redesigning vehicles, particularly the small vehicles which are now coming on the assembly line. We think we ought to keep a close watch there and do a real job.

Seatbelts -- we believe they should be retained and that the enforcement of their use ought to be stepped up. The seatbelts and the lower speed limit have already saved a great many lives -- it looks to be around 300 or so in the province of Ontario during the past year -- that, combined with perhaps other features. But we think this can be improved, because about half our people don’t take the trouble to buckle up, so there should be stricter enforcement.

But along with that we are recommending that passive restraint systems be installed in all Ontario cars. The passive restraint system can be either an air bag system, which is there waiting; the sensors blow them up in one-twentyfifth of a second, and then deflate just as quickly to prevent any kind of backlash -- that has saved lives -- or it might be seatbelts which fasten automatically, as in the Volkswagen Rabbit, as the doors are closed. Either system, as far as we’re concerned, will save a great many lives in Ontario.

We also recommend that the inspection service, which is at present doing a good job in Ontario, be stepped up. As a beginning all cars which sustain $800 damage in an accident, should be inspected and all cars five years old or more should have an annual inspection. We think this is just a start. As the system is put in place then it might be dropped back to four, three or two years, whatever government at the time finds adequate.

School buses: We make this recommendation: We are concerned that school boards are making critical safety decisions on the basis of very limited and incomplete information. We recommend that the government gather, evaluate and disseminate information on the equipment, safety features and operation of school buses to local boards and that all vehicles under contract to school boards -- that is, the smaller ones below the bus level -- and used for transportation of school children, be given a safety inspection by a licensed mechanic every six months.

[8:30]

School buses are fairly safe. Their record is good, but the committee believes that more can be done. We make a bow to local autonomy as far as the local school board is concerned; we did not feel that at this point we should begin to set mandatory safety standards at the provincial level.

As far as trucks are concerned, the committee recommended establishment of a set of regulations for the loading and operation of all trucks driving in Ontario, and that establishment of a special licence to all owners of doubles be instituted. As well, the committee recommended that the United States 121 brake standard for trucks be adopted. The brake standard, which is now in effect in the United States but not yet adopted in Canada, means that the stopping distance of trucks comes down somewhere near the stopping distance of the average motor vehicle. We believe this is an improvement which should be undertaken.

The current 65-foot length limit for trucks travelling in Ontario should be maintained, we believe. National regulations for the transportation and labelling of hazardous loads should be introduced, and Ontario’s current dump truck inspection program should be extended on a phased basis to all commercial carriers.

The committee was rather handicapped because of certain events which took place. We were under rather great pressure because during the late winter it was felt an election was more or less imminent and so our work was a bit rushed. Then, when the election did take place and interrupted the job, our staff had to find work in other places. So again we were handicapped. But when the committee was reconstituted, we felt that our main job was to carry through the work we had already done and that our report should be brought together. As a result, some of the safety features of trucking were not touched, and I would hope that the government will give that careful consideration, underriding the back of trucks particularly and other features of that kind.

As far as roads are concerned, the committee felt that Ontario is doing a pretty good job -- one of the best jobs, I think, of any jurisdiction anywhere. But there are things which can be done. We felt the speed limit as currently established should be maintained; one or two of our committee members were a bit unhappy with that, but the fact is that that is our recommendation.

There is also growing use of electronics in the field of warning motorists, particularly in the wintertime, of hazardous conditions ahead. We felt that should be examined and looked into by government.

We also saw a tool that is in use in three or four places in Ontario; it’s a power tool that can be used by firemen or police. It can rip a motor car apart very quickly, because of its very great mechanical perfection, and can get people out of a car quickly when they are trapped inside the vehicle. That is a matter which we think ought to have very careful consideration by governments everywhere, because with crowbars it may often take an hour, two hours or three hours to get a person out and by that time it is too late from him to be rescued alive.

One of the very important matters which we felt needs to be done is a step-up of the administrative and research program in the province. The committee concerned itself with a means of establishing a point of focus within the provincial government for road safety and ensuring that the benefits of research are fully exploited. The committee therefore recommends that a road safety coordinator be appointed to develop and coordinate the overall provincial road safety program and make recommendations to ensure that the province is kept aware of promising safety developments around the world. Certainly, research is a matter which should be undertaken centrally by the federal administration -- the main research -- although provinces can assist wherever they can and in their own particular jurisdictions. But it is essential that research be ongoing and intensive. That may take money but we feel it is important.

These are the recommendations which the committee made. You might ask what is going to be the cost. As I said a few minutes ago, we didn’t try to cost all these recommendations. But a great many of them can be done with little or no cost and they should be undertaken almost immediately.

I might list them but I don’t want to take the time to do that because others want to sneak in this debate. But right now, the accident toll in the province of Ontario is costing us more than $500 million. Medical and hospital bills, to say nothing of the suffering, the care of families of people who are maimed and killed, it’s a horrendous total cost which is now being borne by this province. That must be kept in mind when we talk about the cost of implementing these recommendations. We must realize that a 10 per cent reduction in accidents would save this province at least $50 million -- and I am being conservative, if I can use that word, in this estimate.

Mr. Bradley: Is it all right to use that word?

Mr. Young: Well, perhaps what we need is a social budget. This country last year produced something like $185 billion gross national product. That’s a lot of wealth. Surely there is something there that we can put into this kind of accident prevention program in order to get out of it, on the other side, the social benefits to human life, to property, to welfare, the diminution of suffering. Perhaps we should balance these things off a little bit more.

Which ones of these are most cost-effective in our recommendations? We didn’t even try to assess that. But I want to pass on something that the Swedes said to us when we were over there. They said when we started to ask them, “Don’t ask us which one of these measures we are taking is going to save 10 per cent in accidents, another one five per cent and another one two per cent. Don’t ask us that. We are not even interested in that. What we believe is that all these things are good. And what we are doing is putting before our people a total package. And that total package will save a lot of lives and a lot of suffering and a lot of property.” And they are proving it. I think that is the attitude we ought to take. All these recommendations are good.

I urge upon this House and upon this government that it seriously look at these recommendations and the report which backs them up and that we see in legislation at the earliest possible moment these steps which can be taken and which must be taken if our social budget is going to be balanced.

In closing, I want to say a word of appreciation, as the chairman of the committee, to the members of the committee. They did an extremely effective job. They were there for almost all meetings. The attendance was very very high. Two members of the committee, William Ferrier and Phil Givens, served for most of the committee’s term but were unable to complete the final few weeks for reasons which we all understand. The member for Kingston and the Islands (Mr. Norton) was also a member of our committee for a short period of time and we appreciated the input which he gave to us during his term.

Mr. Nixon: He is even here tonight to listen to the debate.

Mr. Young: I want to read to members also a statement which I made at the beginning of the report, and I read it word for word:

“The committee highly commends the work and dedication of its staff. Alan Schwartz, brilliant counsel; Jim Fisher, a skilled consultant; Arna Crocker, tireless research assistant; and Andy Richardson, meticulous committee secretary. All worked beyond the call of duty on a project in which they all believed.

“The Ministry of Transportation and Communications, as well as other agencies of both provincial and federal governments, gave full co-operation. Their help was deeply appreciated. Harvey Mosher of the Ministry of Transportation and Communications staff was made available for full-time liaison work with the committee.

“Expert witnesses from Canada, United States and Europe gave unstintingly of their wisdom and expertise.” And this I want to underline and bring to the House’s attention. “Their deep concern for positive action towards greater road safety is reflected by the fact that, while they were paid out of pocket expenses, not one of them asked for consulting fees. For this generosity as well as their time and advice the committee is extremely grateful.”

We have tabled a report with the Legislature. We’re looking forward with great anticipation to the legislation that will emerge from this report.

Mr. Lane: In my role as parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Transportation and Communications (Mr. Snow) and as the member for Algoma-Manitoulin, which has suffered more than its share of automobile accidents, I am pleased to receive the report from the select committee on highway safety. The balanced and clearly presented report reflects the committee’s most thorough investigations.

Highway safety is a broad issue that crosses many jurisdictional boundaries. The committee’s report reflects this, touching upon many governmental responsibilities. Consultation among several responsible cabinet ministers will be required in developing detailed responses to the report. However, the final responsibility for safety on the highway system lies with the Minister of Transportation and Communications as the select committee recognizes. He will act as spokesman on the government’s response to the report. He will be giving his views in the future. I was asked to convey to the House tonight the minister’s regrets that he cannot be with you at this time.

Interjections.

Mr. Lane: I would like quickly to go through the recommendations to indicate my initial reaction and views as to the responsibilities. Since resources are limited it is necessary to approach new initiatives in order of priority.

I’ll deal first with driver training. In the area of driver training there are clearly joint ministerial responsibilities. There is an interministerial task force of MTC and the Ministry of Education, with broad terms of reference to develop and evaluate all facets of road user education. The task force is currently developing education materials on drinking-driving for young people. This was seen as the task force’s first priority and, I think, the select committee will concur. MTC will continue its support of police agencies and schools and safety education for young road users. I believe that task force was set up early in 1976.

MTC has already begun to study the licensing of driver schools and develop upgraded personal qualifications for instructors. Better training standards for instructors and new training facilities will be taken up with the Minister of Colleges and Universities (Mr. Parrott).

We have been looking for ways to encourage training for new motorcyclists. There is now a learner’s permit for motorcyclists and the ministry tried out a new, much tougher test for new riders, in co-operation with Transport Canada, this past summer.

We see driver education and road user education in general as a high priority area and will seek ways to accelerate development.

Next, we come to testing and licensing. In the testing and licensing area MTC is studying the feasibility of the first recommendation -- that is, making the merit points retroactive to the time of the offence.

[8:45]

Second, the photo on the licence is already under development.

Third, the recommended probationary licence for new drivers is close to our own thinking. This recommendation will be given careful study even in preparation of the government’s response. Before implementation, we will have to finalize resource implications for driver control, which may receive increased demands.

The fourth recommendation in testing and licensing suggests a medical certificate for renewal of a driver’s licence after the 50th birthday. This requires study as to potential benefits and the possibility of creating substantial costs for the health care system. The practical implications of this recommendation, in terms of benefits derived, inconvenience to the public and cost of administration, give us cause for concern.

I might add here, for the benefit of the members, that I have been 50 years old for several years. I drive 40,000 miles a year and, as a matter of fact, I have more than a million miles of safe driving to my credit. I would be a little upset if I had been asked to have a medical all these years that I have been 50. Personally, I would be a little upset with that one myself. What somebody else may have to say about it is something different.

Mr. Mackenzie: Talk to my grandfather.

Mr. Lane: That’s fine.

I suggest that the fifth recommendation, eye examinations for drivers over 70, is looked upon with favour. The ministry is considering restricted licences for some older drivers for implementation at an early date.

The committee’s views on testing and licensing generally seem slightly less in line with our own thinking than was the case in the previous area. We have some concerns that are not reflected in the report. As stated earlier, we have some reservations about the proposed medical certificate for drivers over age 50.

The impaired driver: There is an interministerial task force comprising officials of the Ministries of Health, the Attorney General, Transportation and Communications, the Solicitor General and Education. This task force will be considering the government’s response to the recommendations in this area. I believe this task force was set up in September 1977.

The last recommendation in this area stresses the importance of the evaluation of drinking-driving countermeasure programs. We cannot stress enough the need for orderly development and evaluation of programs in this area, where the stakes are high and the results so difficult to achieve.

The impaired driver is a high-priority safety area. However, it will take a great deal of work to resolve the basic social questions involved and to develop effective technologies for solving the various problems in this area.

The enforcement system: A number of recommendations on the enforcement system have practical implications for the Ministry of Transportation and Communications, but enforcement activities are the responsibility of the Solicitor General (Mr. MacBeth) and the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry). The Minister of Transportation and Communications will delegate to these ministers the responsibility for responding directly to these recommendations.

The automobile: The first recommendation in the automobile section is that the police should increase enforcement of the current seatbelt legislation. As stated, this is a police responsibility; however, we see increasing seatbelt use as a broader responsibility, and the government has already established a task force under MTC leadership to initiate steps to further seatbelt use.

New vehicle standards are a federal responsibility. MTC will continue to consult with and advise the responsible authorities in the development of new standards. Aftermarket vehicle equipment is a provincial responsibility, and preventing the sale and installation of unapproved equipment will be thoroughly studied. One thing that comes under this section that is still a responsibility of the federal government is the seat for a baby. Most other kinds of that type of equipment are the responsibility of the provincial government.

The proposed provincial standards for new vehicles would represent a major departure, with serious implications for manufacturers and consumers and with questionable potential benefits. I would not see as likely provincial action on this recommendation.

We think Ontario has a very efficient inspection system for passenger cars but, in the light of the committee’s recommendation, we will be re-examining the benefits and the cost of extending this program. Generally, we see the automobile as a somewhat lower priority area for provincial action. Speaking from experience -- I have been in the insurance business for over 22 years. We have always insured automobiles and we have had a lot of experience with accidents and the cause of them. The little saying that goes with the business is: “It’s not the nut that holds the car together, it’s the nut who holds the wheel who causes the accident.”

The school bus: The recommendation that the ministry provide information on school bus safety and equipment to boards is well taken. It happens in an informal way now but making the process more formal and systematic will be explored. A new and more rigorous system of inspection for school buses has been prepared and is nearly ready for implementation. This new system will meet the requirements suggested in the select committee’s recommendation.

The truck: The first recommendation on trucks suggests reflective material on the rear of trucks over 18,000 pounds. We have been more concerned with the question of underride protection on the rear of trucks, and this is currently being examined by ministry officials. Part of this would be a barrier underneath a truck to keep the car from going underneath it and cutting off the top of the car and driver, as has sometimes been the case in accidents.

The second and third recommendation in this area suggests the codification of the best industry safety practices for maintenance, driver control and loading of trucks. MTC has been working on regulatory improvements of this sort in the trucking industry. There is also a major research study under way on the stability of combination vehicles.

The adoption of the 121 brake standard for trucks is a complex technical issue. We will continue to consult with the responsible federal authorities.

MTC has been studying the revision of the 65-foot length limit for trucks. I note that the chairman of the select committee has indicated that he sees some flexibility in this recommendation. MTC is still developing evidence and information on which we will base the final decision. The minister will be reporting on this matter later.

The minister has been pressing the federal government to take action on the regulation of hazardous loads. In the meantime, we are moving to introduce regulations that would apply within Ontario.

We have recently made substantial improvements in the inspection system for commercial vehicles. We will look closely at the costs and benefits of the committee’s recommendation to extend to all trucks the periodic inspection now carried out on dump trucks.

The road: If I may speak for a moment on behalf of the minister and ministry officials, I would like to acknowledge and express appreciation of the committee’s tribute to the ministry’s efforts to create a safe and efficient highway system. MTC will consider in detail the committee’s recommendation on stop signs at railway grade crossings. We will be passing a recommendation on reflectorization of rail car sides to Transport Canada which has done research on grade crossing accidents recently and is the responsible agency.

The ministry has a continuous program of evaluation of new technologies in highway structures and hardware. A light, aluminum, fixed-base pole is already in use, and the ministry is looking at Swedish technology as recommended.

We are quite pleased with the effects of the reduced speed limits in the province and foresee no further changes.

The ministry will continue to monitor new means of communicating with drivers, as suggested in the recommendation on “condition-ahead” and weather-warning devices. I might say that a speed-warning system is presently being tested on a Highway 400/401 ramp.

The committee recognizes the high quality of the Ontario road system. We believe that this is an accurate perception but we are not prepared to rest on our laurels. We will continue intensive efforts through research and development and improved management to make the highways safer and more efficient.

Administration and research: MTC has a long history of giving high priority to safety in all relevant decision-making. It has recently improved its general administrative ability though the creation of explicit guidelines and various organizational changes, and these improvements should also be reflected in safety conditions.

As the select committee suggests, co-ordination between government agencies is important and special efforts are needed to ensure that it takes place. We already have a number of interministerial task forces, coordinating specific safety-related projects.

As mentioned earlier, the Minister of Transportation and Communications will serve as the government spokesman on highway safety, referring special issues to his cabinet colleagues. The role of co-ordinator within the MTC will be assigned to the assistant deputy minister for drivers and vehicles, reporting directly to the deputy minister.

The recommendation that better provincial support is needed for crash rescue will be examined in depth.

Considerable federal-provincial co-operative research has been taking place on road safety. The CCMTA and the conference of ministers responsible for motor vehicle administration have taken it upon themselves to give structure and direction to this activity. These co-operative efforts will become more numerous and more fruitful in the future.

I can only agree that high priority should be given to evaluation of effectiveness of current road safety programs. Resources are scarce, needs are many. Potential benefits are as precious as life itself. We cannot make the possible allocation to resources to programs unless we know how well the programs are performing. MTC has been a leader in developing evaluation techniques, and intends to maintain this position.

The committee recognizes that good organization and systematization are crucial to effective new highway safety initiatives. I see this as the main thrust to the report, and it squares nicely with our own views. We need systematic evaluation and development of existing programs and efficient organization for new developments.

These are fundamental to progress in highway safety. The select committee recognizes that expedient or hastily conceived programs will not give results in lives and dollars saved. Properly organized hard work will.

I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate the chairman, the member for Yorkview, and all the members of the committee and the very efficient staff of people that he mentioned. We think that this committee has produced a very good document, a document no doubt that will save many, many lives in the future. And I want to congratulate the committee on its success.

Mr. Nixon: I want to join with the last speaker in congratulating the member for Yorkview in his chairmanship of the committee. He never failed to be moderate in our deliberations. I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, he was convivial as always. He was, in my view, an excellent representative of this House when we met delegations both in this province and elsewhere.

Mr. Foulds: Is this the member for Yorkview that I know?

Mr. Nixon: Yes, it’s the one that you know, and I have known him longer than you.

Mr. Breithaupt: The one and the same.

Mr. Nixon: As a matter of fact, the first time I met the hon. member, if you will permit me a brief digression, Mr. Speaker, was just a few weeks before a by-election to be held in the constituency then known as Brant. I was working away in the education system in Brantford and there was a light tapping on the door. I opened it, and who should be there but this distinguished grey-haired parliamentarian-to-be who gave me some very good advice. He advised me that I should go into public life. I took his advice. So, I am here and he is there. But that was the first occasion, when he was doing a little proselytizing -- I was already a member of the United Church, so there wasn’t much he could do to improve that.

Mr. Lane: You both should be here.

Mr. Nixon: But he has certainly been shown to be a good parliamentarian and, to come to the business of our report, he has been a vocal proponent of highway safety in this House even before it was particularly popular. Before I’d ever even heard of Ralph Nader --

[9:00]

Mr. Foulds: We’d heard of Fred Young.

Mr. Nixon: -- the member for Yorkview was yammering away about safety. So it was a great pleasure to serve with him on the committee. There are a number of other members of the committee here tonight who will be expressing their views on the report and some of the aspects of it. Two or three of the members are no longer here in the House. Mr. Givens has gone on to other responsibilities.

Mr. Cunningham: But not as safe.

Mr. Nixon: At our concluding meeting, I thought it was very appropriate that the chairman asked Mr. Givens to come back and join with us as we, what you would call, wound things up. It was also appropriate that in his capacity as chairman of the police commission, he brought one of those handy-dandy breathalysers so that neither he nor any member of the committee would in any way exceed the bounds of the law. I suppose it might be something that the House should consider to provide one of those things for every member. It might give us the kind of moderation that we would hope for and keep us out of trouble from time to time.

Mr. Breithaupt: From time to time.

Hon. Mr. Norton: But not on this side.

Mr. Hennessy: Speak for yourself.

Mr. Cunningham: It would be a correctional service in itself.

An hon. member: The member for Fort William is having apple cider.

Mr. Nixon: Again? Actually, the other member that I was thinking of when I was trying to recall the members of the committee who are no longer with us, in the sense that they were members of the House, is Bill Ferrier. I understand that Bill also has, what you would call, lit on his feet and is advising Mr. Justice Hartt in his peregrinations in the north and in establishing the way the northern universe is to unfold. And from what I can gather about Mr. Hartt’s procedures and concepts of his job, Mr. Ferrier probably will be able to go directly into retirement when that job is completed.

I’m not sure whether there are other members who should come under our investigations here tonight, but I did want to say something particularly about the road system and what our findings were in this review.

I must also agree with the hon. parliamentary assistant, who in his own riding is known as “Four Lane,” for reasons that I have never been able to determine. I must agree with him that we have an excellent highway system. I have driven a lot on the roads of the province and I would be immodest enough to say that I have probably driven on them more than any other politician here. Mind you, my mileage has been somewhat reduced of late, but I’ve been into all those lovely communities in the north, south, east and west and even some of them in the middle.

I think our road system is excellent and the safety provisions governing it are in the most part excellent as well. I’ve got a few pet peeves that I will get to; the members of the committee have grown quite tired of me referring to them, but I can’t let this occasion go by without referring to them, however briefly.

Mr. Bounsall: We will have another committee so that you can air them some more.

Mr. Conway: Let’s not talk about trips now.

Mr. Nixon: No, this is not the time to talk about trips. But there will be another occasion for that too, and it may come sooner rather than later.

Mr. Breithaupt: Sooner than you think.

Mr. Nixon: I was thinking of some of the innovative provisions that have been implemented in terms of safety measures on the road system of the province. One that some people have commented on, even to the committee, were the great plastic barrels of sand that you see stuck out in the roads to keep drivers from killing themselves when they run into a concrete abutment or something like that. They’re rather ugly. We’re perhaps used to them, but the efficiency and record of usefulness of those sand barrels is one of the most amazing things that you could ever think of. We’ve seen the movies in our committee hearings of the way they are used.

As a matter of fact, one of the interesting aspects is that those blooming plastic barrels of sand have been patented by somebody down in the United States, and he is busy selling them to progressive jurisdictions like this one. It just goes to show that if you have any imagination and the ability to sell, you don’t really have to sit here and wait for your ship to come in. But that particular gentleman had a good idea. It’s amazing that it was patentable, but we’ve got those barrels.

You might be interested to know, Mr. Speaker -- I feel that you would -- that right outside the gate of our home farm about a week ago an unfortunate young man decided he was going to use the road system to end his life. He was driving a small truck at high speed. Just a quarter of a mile from our gate, there is a railway overpass with a heavy cement abutment right in the middle of the road, with two lanes on each side of it. It is well-protected by these sand barrels. He was going straight for the middle at the highest speed that his truck could achieve. When the sand stopped flying around and the smoke cleared away, he was almost uninjured. God forgive him, and I hope he is feeling better, but his best deliberate attempts could not allow his truck to even touch the concrete.

It really was a most amazing demonstration, even more impressive than the ones we saw on the films when we were shown these various devices.

As far as I am concerned, I want to add some congratulations to those people in the ministry who have been innovative in some of these respects. In my opinion, it is only when the politicians, and I refer to them selectively, those who are in a position to dictate to the ministry, decide to do things for reasons other than for efficiency and pure safety that I find some of our regulations are a little asinine.

Maybe quite a lot are asinine. There was a certain degree of frustration in the hearings of the committee. I am sure the other members would agree with me on that. Many of us would have preferred concepts about what was good and what was bad as far as driver safety goes.

For example, most of us were under the impression -- and I can remember Mr. Givens as a member of the committee enunciating this very clearly and forcibly -- that the great problem on the roads in Ontario was the number of impaired drivers and that the accident toll associated with that was heinous and sinful. Both of those adjectives, I guess, apply. It seemed all we had to do was instruct our police forces to crack down with laws and regulations which we would make as tough as any in the world.

In our investigations, however, we found that the laws of Canada and Ontario are and were as tough as any in the world, with the exception of a couple of banana republics where the penalty was death by firing squad. I am not kidding members, that is so.

Mr. Conway: Socialist, every one of them.

An hon. member: No banana republic is socialist.

Mr. Wildman: Firing squads all wear funny hats and they have all got red coats.

Mr. Nixon: The mistaken concept that most people have is that all we need is to have tough laws and that will stop the carnage on the highways.

The chairman was always talking about the carnage on the highways. It was a phrase he used repeatedly, and I suppose properly so when you see the statistics he put before us tonight.

However, the answer is not tough laws, it is not simply enforcement. The answer really continues to escape us. It is probably all of those things, plus somehow sensitizing, through public education of every type, the concern and responsibility of the individual. Frankly, after having been involved in public life for a number of years, I am not as optimistic about the outcome of that approach as I once was.

One of the interesting aspects in another jurisdiction -- I think it was one of the American states -- was that a chunk of money was made available for some very interesting experimentation in this regard. The individuals who had been convicted of impaired driving were given an option of going to jail or going to a special series of sensitizing classes where they were shown the results of those accidents and were put through a very carefully constructed series of educational and sensitizing procedures. The statistical rating of this thing was really appalling, because it turned out that the ones who had been found guilty but were not punished in any way had no different accident records afterwards than the ones who went to jail.

As a matter of fact, the ones who had been treated to this elaborate modern procedure of education turned out to have a higher accident rate and more recidivism as far as impaired driving is concerned than those who had had no modern treatment at all.

It really is an appalling thing because many people -- and I suppose it goes with Liberal philosophy -- have always had this tremendous confidence in the education process. All you have to do is get the individual and educate him properly and these social problems will disappear. I no longer believe in that aspect, and so my Liberal philosophy has to expand in other ways, perhaps just as valuable.

Mr. Warner: It is always flexible.

Mr. Conway: Nothing wrong with the right wing.

Mr. Foulds: That sounds like a move left myself.

Mr. Nixon: No, I’m for the firing squad; on a selective basis of course. Of course we’ll check their political cards before we make the decision.

Mr. Speaker, I don’t want to deviate unduly, but I’m talking about the frustrations, not necessary in this debate but in the hearings that we undertook. The second area had to do with driver training. Having been a teacher myself --

Mr. Wildman: In Sault Ste. Marie, wasn’t that?

Mr. Nixon: -- I was perhaps innocent enough to think that it would be possible to take a young person, very well motivated, anxious to get a licence, anxious to be able to get hold of his or her dad’s car and go out independently on the road, and all we had to do was see that they were properly trained; that they understood the rules of the road, the dangers and so on, and that that would reduce the accident toll at least for that group.

We examined it as carefully as we could. We had the opportunity of bringing here world authorities, the people who had used great stacks of public money to undertake the most elaborate surveys, using large control groups; using groups that had had the advantage of the most modern and appropriate driver training, those that had had ordinary training, and those that had obtained licences without any training at all.

The frustrating aspect was the statistical difference could not be detected. As a matter of fact, in one of the European jurisdictions that I believe some of the members of the committee flew to during their peregrinations --

Mr. Warner: Were they in a plane?

Mr. Nixon: -- I think it was Belgium -- as long as you have the age credential, you simply go in, pay a fee and get a driver’s licence without any instruction or any practical tests whatsoever. The results there, as far as accident were concerned, were exactly the same as in a jurisdiction such as ours, where we are quite proud of our training procedures in the high schools and where we want to strengthen the testing procedures before a licence is obtainable. So there were aspects of our investigations that were extremely frustrating.

However, I suppose even in spite of the statistical information that was made available to us, we still recommend strengthening the enforcement of the control of impaired driving and that sort of thing; and we want to change the whole procedure for training drivers and for awarding licences.

I suppose we just felt compelled to do so even though in most cases the statistical and research information did not indicate in any strong way, if indeed in any discernible way, that our recommendations were based on the kind of independent research we had at our disposal.

We had an extensive tour of the province. We were up in the Thunder Bay area, Sault Ste. Marie --

Mr. Foulds: That is just the near north.

Mr. Nixon: -- and we went to Sudbury where our meeting was well advertised. We hired a beautiful room in the Holiday Inn and we had the coffee set out and the chairman was at the head of the table and our research staff were there with pencils poised and -- nobody came.

That was the only time we broke into print. The Globe and Mail had a front page story about it. So at least perhaps in some kind of a reverse way we --

Mr. Germa: The Holiday Inn is under boycott, I haven’t been in it for five years myself; they are not unionized.

Mr. Wildman: They are not unionized.

Mr. Nixon: I don’t know what building other than the Steelworkers you can go into without a picket line in front of it up there; you can’t even go into the mine workers’ place without offending somebody.

Mr. Germa: It’s fame of a sort.

[9:15]

Mr. Nixon: In almost every one of these areas where we had hearings, I was very much impressed by the representatives of the provincial police, and municipal police forces as well. It may be that their bosses had said: “Okay, these guys are coming to town and you better go down there and tell them what you think.” While we would certainly pay great attention to their formal presentation, which had been prepared in conjunction with lots of people back in headquarters, it was often just as useful, once we got that out of the way, when the questioning actually elicited some personal responses and experiences from the policemen concerned. They’re out on the roads patrolling and no doubt have experienced almost anything that might occur.

This brings me to one of my pet peeves; and that has to do with the speed limit which the representative of the minister said “is satisfactory as far as the ministry is concerned and will not be changed.” I’m sure that he speaks for a great majority of the people of the province of Ontario; everybody thinks it’s great, but nobody obeys it.

Ms. Gigantes: I do.

Mr. Conway: The member for Carleton East says she does.

Mr. Nixon: Evelyn, I’ve often wanted to pop you one.

Mr. Warner: She doesn’t drive.

Mr. Nixon: All right, the member for Carleton East obeys the speed limit, and I think that is great.

Mr. Warner: She doesn’t drive.

Mr. Foulds: My mother does.

Mr. Nixon: I was going to talk about little old ladies in tennis shoes, but I thought I might arouse her.

Mr. Foulds: It’s not tennis shoes, it’s mukluks.

Mr. Nixon: I have been very concerned that in a tremendous sort of orgy of self-righteousness we have reduced the speed limit. We expect everybody to say: My, aren’t they great, because this is going to be so important to save energy and stop the carnage on the roads and so on. I just believe it is the biggest piece of hypocrisy that’s come into this House for a long time, because our roads are excellent and they’re built for a standard 70 miles an hour, 100 kilometres per hour. As a matter of fact, they tell me that you could go probably 130 kilometres an hour without putting too much sideways strain on your new radials.

Mr. Germa: Change it.

Mr. Nixon: I would just say this, Mr. Speaker, the roads are excellent. I’ve been waiting for the Treasurer (Mr. McKeough) to take the sales tax off cars, the way he did before the election of 1915; that was the last time I bought a car. I finally decided that I couldn’t wait any longer and I bought a nice Chev just a few days ago; a nice piece of standard, efficient transportation. I’m telling you, it is a marvelous car, Mr. Speaker. I know you can’t drive those smaller cars, but for those of us who drive standard transportation, it is a marvelous car. It’s responsive, it’s comfortable, it’s quiet --

Mr. Warner: What make?

Mr. Nixon: Chev, I told you. I defy anybody to drive at 80-kilometres per hour on these good roads. I don’t believe anybody but Evelyn does, and Evelyn has got a lot of strange propensities.

Mr. Warner: She doesn’t have a licence.

Mr. Nixon: It probably is a bit of a joke, everybody can cite their own experience, one way or the other, but in my opinion there aren’t one per cent of the drivers on the road who obey the speed limit. This is a serious matter for us, because the argument that, well at least they drive a little slower than they would if the speed limit were put back up to 70 miles per hour, which I guess would be about 115 kilometres or something; I just do not buy the argument. The police have said to us: “Yes, we like the lower speed limit”; but they also say: “If we’re going to enforce it we need a lot more black and white cars; a lot more radar; and we need more eyes in the sky”; that sort of thing.

If we’re prepared to have these speed limits and expect them to be obeyed, then we are going to have to shovel out the money for enforcement or else accept the point that everybody in the province is ignoring the speed limit. I don’t believe we can afford to enforce it the way it is, and I believe it brings our legal procedures into great disrespect.

I have stated that view frequently, but I’ve not been able to convert anybody on the committee particularly; and I always get bad letters if anybody reads my views, because they think it is such a good thing to have low speed limits -- as long as they can drive any speed they want.

Hon. Mr. Norton: Is that how you got the name “Fast Bob?

Mr. Nixon: No.

Mr. Bradley: It’s “Fast Alan”, not Fast Bob.

Mr. Conway: What about the member for Cochrane South (Mr. Pope)? He’s got a story to tell on this one.

Mr. Nixon: The Solicitor General (Mr. MacBeth) admitted in the House here that he’s been known to go at least two-miles-per-hour over the speed limit. I don’t know whether this was with his government driver in his government limousine or not.

Mr. Breithaupt: Or on government business,

Mr. Nixon: Anyway, I have made the point as strongly as I can. I’d simply like to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that other jurisdictions had reduced the speed limit at the time of the energy crisis when they couldn’t get the fuel to maintain their national needs -- I’m thinking particularly of the United Kingdom -- Then when the fuel supply increased again, at least they had the good sense to put the speed limit back to where it was a practicable one and one which people could obey, or at least realize that enforcement was practical and significant, an enforcement level that could be supported by everyone. Right now I believe that is just a shambles and a farce in this province.

The last point I want to refer to is the seatbelt situation. I have now trained myself that I feel uncomfortable driving unless I have the seatbelt fastened. I’ve never been stopped by a policeman and I have never been fined. I do believe it is a good law and that the statistics associated with it must surely counteract any criticism that we still get.

Mr. Conway: Yet another honest Grit.

Mr. Wildman: What about Bob Johnston?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: What about that day you happened to be sitting on the QEW in that car? What the devil were you doing out there anyway in a red Camaro?

Mr. Nixon: Anyway, I know you want to get on with this without too much more delay, Mr. Speaker, since there are many other members who want to take part.

One interesting aspect with respect to this part on protection, which I think is the best way to save lives and really the only significant way to save lives, has been our review of the air bag situation. The chairman of the committee, who spoke a few moments ago, dealt with that point effectively. I expect the car I buy after this one -- I like to keep them a long time and take all the depreciation I can before I trade them in -- will have an air bag in it, whether or not I want one.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: The question is whether it will have to fit or be installed.

Mr. Foulds: Will the Minister of Health fit in the front or the back?

Mr. Nixon: I was present at probably the only demonstration of air bags that’s taken place in Canada.

Mr. Warner: We are watching one now.

Mr. Breithaupt: Since the last election.

Mr. Conway: And what did the Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Henderson) say?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Nixon: I understand there was a demonstration of the air bag system in Toronto recently, but it was low pressure and was not the demonstration we had at GM headquarters. I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, I never had so much respect for our chairman as I did when they said, “Okay, who’s going to sit in front?” We all hemmed and hawed, and the member for Yorkview came forward and said, “I’ll sit in front.”

Mr. Breithaupt: That’s what $10 a day will do.

Mr. Nixon: The six of us got in this nice little car, a small Buick. Nobody down there at GM had ever seen this blooming thing work before. They were hanging out the windows to see this. All the engineers and the big brass had come over in the company plane from Detroit. They were all standing around and here were these six -- shall I say innocent members of the Legislature -- packed in this junior-sized Buick.

The engineer was out there with a big red button. We all had to put on safety glasses. We should have twigged at that point. The engineer said, “Are you ready?” He pushed the button; and boy, does that thing work. It was like a shotgun going off in a telephone booth. That was the way it was officially described.

I will tell you, it was a bit scary; particularly when blood started running down the chairman’s cheek. The air bag pushed his safety glasses up against his cheek. I don’t think he had to have stitches, but he was certainly injured in the course of his duty and his responsibility.

However, if the GM people hadn’t been so careful with their safety glasses and so on, the only injuries would have been a couple of skinned shins from -- who was it? Was it you?

Mr. Bounsall: The vice-chairman.

Mr. Nixon: Oh yes, the member for Mississauga South (Mr. Kennedy). He had the skin shucked off his shins because of some malfunction or other. But none of us were injured by the impact of the accident, mostly because the car was not moving.

However, we were very impressed with the mechanics of the air bag. We had gone to the research centre at Detroit. We had seen it working. We had been subjected to the arguments from the administration of the big three motor companies about how terrible the air bag system was, but we had also been subjected to the contagious enthusiasm of the scientists who developed it and who were not prepared to sit around and listen to anybody, even their bosses, say the air bag was unreliable and ineffective.

Frankly, I was convinced of its reliability and effectiveness. I suppose since it’s going to be mandated in the United States, it also will be mandated here. We will probably be driving with that kind of protection, and I believe it will give as large a reduction in highway deaths and injuries as our seatbelt law has up until now.

In this review I want to say that although a couple of times I was on the verge of thinking the review was not entirely worthwhile, I now believe it was. We are in a position to take some steps and make some changes in the province which will continue this jurisdiction in its position of leadership.

The point the chairman made as far as the numbers of deaths and injuries means this is still an appalling source of injury and death in this province. We in this House have a tremendous responsibility to do everything within our power to see this death and injury rate is reduced.

Mr. Mackenzie: I will make my comments fairly short tonight, but there are a few points I want to make. I want to join with the others in offering my congratulations to the chairman of the committee, I think the accolades are well deserved. The member for Yorkview has been raising the issue of automobile safety in this House for a long time and I suppose in his own way -- he probably wouldn’t like the comparison -- he has been our Ralph Nader of the automobile safety field and really was at it long before we heard of Ralph Nader down in the United States.

We have had a couple of people who pioneered in this area. I can’t help but think of the fight on hazardous substances in environmental matters we saw undertaken by Fred Burr, who has now left us in this House. They have both been a little bit ahead of their time and willing to break some new ground in these particular areas.

I found the committee informative and rewarding. I have to tell you, Mr. Speaker, I have more reservations now. I may feel a little more negative now, and some of it has to do with the preliminary report of the minister I listened to tonight. My position probably is the reverse of the member for Brant-Oxford Norfolk (Mr. Nixon). I went into it feeling we had the opportunity to do some really important things, and one or two of the reasons I felt this way was that early in the game we knew what it was costing us in the province of Ontario. We knew we were dealing with half a billion dollars in direct losses to this province; we knew we were dealing with 1,800 or 1,500 deaths; and tens of thousands of injuries. Actually it was very difficult; you could put a pretty good price tag on it in terms of the actual costs, but you were never sure of how high it might go in terms of all the social costs as well.

[9:30]

When we took a look at the problem we faced, and the necessity of reducing the accidents and injuries on the highways of this province, I was impressed. Maybe I was a little naive, but I was impressed with the idea that if we could only get some of the recommendations through, and if we are only dealing in five, 10 or 15 per cent reduction in the problems in the province of Ontario, a 10 per cent reduction is $50 million.

Surely if we can come up with a decent report and some positive recommendations, and recommendations that are not likely to be too costly -- the suggestion of cost seems to scare governments today -- we have a chance of making some meaningful impact on the problems on our highways.

I thought it was worth the efforts for these reasons.

Two or three individual points in the report should be dealt with. I don’t think the inspections of the vehicles are necessarily one of the key points. I think the automobile manufacturers, while I may have other differences with them, do know how to make a pretty good car in North America. I think there have been improvements in the standards and in the safety of the automobiles in our province and in our country today.

I was impressed with one of the things that came out very clearly in Sweden. I am wondering if we sometimes forget some of the spinoff costs. They have an annual inspection in Sweden, and while costs seem to be one of the arguments given for not getting into it in this country, it is really not a major cost. It is being covered and it is not a drain on the taxpayers in that particular country.

One of the things I found interesting, apart from keeping the cars up to standard, was that since they had instituted the annual inspection of automobiles in Sweden the average life of the cars on the road in Sweden had increased from 10 to 14 years. We are still at about nine and a half years in this particular province. It might be worth taking a look at the cost savings if the people were able to keep their automobiles running that much longer.

Mr. Nixon: I think if we all drove Volvos we probably would have the same results.

Mr. Mackenzie: It seemed to be one of the things that maybe we could learn a little bit about. Maybe there are savings over and above what you could see immediately, but I think the five years are a step in the right direction, and I am hoping that it is reduced progressively from that point.

Mr. Wildman: You are becoming progressively more conservative.

Mr. Mackenzie: One of the things that became very obvious -- and the chairman of the committee dealt with it at some length, and so did the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk -- was the fact that there are some problems with the training we have, the standards I guess and whether or not the training programs for young drivers or new drivers are achieving any results. If there was one common thread through all of the recommendations made to us, even where they had made these massive studies referred to, it was that a short-coming in most of the driver training schemes is the emphasis on safe driving, defensive driving. Certainly I think we can set some standards and work at a much greater awareness of just what may be involved.

Another thing that I found interesting -- and I think this is one of the important recommendations -- is effect of the probationary licence period over two years. We found that the high accident rates weren’t entirely with the young drivers -- although there is a bad rate there, and when you combine it with alcohol there is no question we have a problem -- but we found the graph showed that there was about a three-year period before you get down to the average in terms of your safety record in driving.

We found that that unsafe period applied to new drivers at any age, as well as to younger drivers. It may have been a little more pronounced in younger drivers, but first-time drivers had a period of time in which they had a higher accident rate across the board.

It seems to me that ties in with the kind of habits we develop, the kind of training that we may give people and the perception of responsibility. I think social responsibility is a word that is valid in terms of what we do on our highways, because social costs certainly are a major problem.

If we make new drivers, either young drivers or the older drivers but first-time drivers, earn that licence -- and that’s the intent, it’s not really a very major recommendation -- but if we can make them earn that licence through a longer probationary period, we may start to develop an understanding that they have a responsibility to the community; they have a responsibility to develop more cautious and safer driving habits.

It is also important that driver instructors, as part of this package, have to receive the training and have to be recognized not as anybody who can pay a small fee, hang up a shingle and become a driving instructor, but as an important and legitimate trade in our province. The training should be to that end. The position of a driving instructor should carry some prestige with it and should be a recognized occupation.

Regarding enforcement and penalties, I have some agreement with the previous speaker that tough laws and tough enforcement are not necessarily the answer, but I would have a little more respect for his presentation if he had recognized, rather than riding his one hobby-horse -- the speed limit -- one of the things that was said to work by every jurisdiction we visited; seatbelts, yes, but also the lower speed limits. It does have an effect.

Sure, our highways may be built to allow high-speed travel, but I suggest that may have been before we had some of the congestion we’ve got on our highways today. I really can’t see the validity, even on the stretch from here to Hamilton or here to Brantford, of the speeds we had previously when you take a look even late at night at the kind of traffic on that particular road.

If you’re going to have accidents at a 70- or 80-mile-an-hour rate, there’s a heck of a lot we can do to prevent injuries and deaths. I think the lower speed limits are legitimate. The information, the figures and the background material are there to indicate clearly it is a saving factor. I might buy the previous speaker’s argument that tougher laws or tougher enforcement are not the answer if he had also at least taken a look at that issue. If he can buy seatbelts, I can’t understand why he is in such a hurry. I didn’t know he admired “Flying Phil” Gaglardi in BC so much.

Mr. Nixon: I don’t speed.

Mr. Conway: I’m sure the member for Hamilton East drives back to the cottage at 50 miles an hour.

Mr. Mackenzie: No, I have to be very honest, I don’t. But, let me tell the members what I do. Maybe it’s a weak argument, but I think it’s a valid point. I think what has happened with the speed limit is exactly what the police told us would happen -- while people aren’t obeying it to the mile that they’re supposed to, it has generally meant a reduction.

One of the problems is that they don’t have enough people to do the necessary enforcing. We probably don’t want to spend that kind of money in that particular area in any event. But when the speed limit was 70, people were not usually charged until they got up to about 80. There seems to be an eight- or nine-mile override that’s allowed. When they reduced it to 60, then drivers went 69. Sure, they may not have been obeying the law, but there was a lowering generally of the speed limits across the province, and I think that’s had some real effect. It has certainly shown in the jurisdictions in Europe, as well as here, where we questioned them about it.

Mr. Laughren: Unless you are on the federal RCMP list.

Mr. Mackenzie: I don’t know how we do this particularly, but in terms of the suggestions for tougher enforcement or tougher laws, it’s the perception of being caught.

One of the things I found fascinating on the committee -- and in the first stages it seemed to shock most of the committee members -- was the number of unlicensed drivers. What do you do with somebody when he has broken the law, when he’s been caught once or twice, when he has finally had his licence taken away from him, and he continues driving? I was shocked to hear from the ministry people that there are as many as 50,000 or 60,000 people driving in this province without a licence in any given year.

I’m not sure that that’s accurate. One of the things that seemed to come through in that area was that nobody could prove there was a higher accident rate. In fact, there was probably a lower accident rate among those people driving without a licence. I can only project my own feeling and that’s, once again, having broken the law to that extent, I understand the perception of possibly being caught, thus the extra-cautious driving that went on with these people may have been one of the reasons why we couldn’t prove there was a tremendous number of accidents in this group of people.

The perception of being caught is a problem, and I think there are some valuable tools and valuable recommendations in the committee report. We asked for things such as some of the cameras that are being tried in some of the European jurisdictions. We’re not trying to do this on every highway or even in a small percentage of them across the province, but if you have high-speed, high-accident highways the idea of a camera that is triggered by the speed of the car and takes a picture of the licence plate of the car, plus recording the time and the actual speed, is something that would probably have the same effects in this province that it seems to be having in Germany and Switzerland -- that is a substantial reduction, as much as 60 or 70 per cent, in the problems occurring where they are using this particular gimmick.

I don’t know what one does with the police complaint that to carry out the enforcement we would need more black and white units or more of the various tools. We may or may not have been wrong in attempting to toughen up the penalties a little bit, but it is a problem that I could not come to grips with, and I don’t really think the committee came to grips with it. How do you relate or compare the costs?

While I think these points are important, the point I want to end with is that when I started out on this committee I had the feeling we might really be able to do something. We might save some money, save lives and have some effect on the social costs in our province. I was of the feeling -- maybe, as a new member, a bit naively -- that because we were able to come up with recommendations that we could all agree with and support, these recommendations would be accepted and passed by the House -- at least a good chunk of them. Maybe then we could realistically look at the five or 10 or 15 per cent reduction in the cost of accidents across the province.

I have to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that it may be just my initial reaction or a growing, disturbing gut reaction I am having, but I listened very carefully to the preliminary response from the minister, as delivered by his parliamentary assistant and I get the feeling that again we are going to study to death all the things that we covered in the committee, and that very few of the recommendations are going to see the light of day in the immediate future.

Mr. Foulds: Postponed, postponed.

Mr. Mackenzie: I don’t think the committee was an expensive one, I think that what we did --

Mr. Laughren: Look at the Tories over there. John Rhodes is sleeping.

Mr. Mackenzie: -- and learned was valuable. I think the recommendations are good and the possibility is there of some substantial savings. But I get the distinct feeling that the $300,000 or whatever the committee cost this Legislature will be wasted. Looking at the potential savings -- even if it is only one or two per cent against that $500 million a year cost -- those recommendations are not going to see the light of day. Then we really will have wasted that money and that would be a tragedy.

I hope I am wrong; I sincerely hope I am wrong. But I don’t have a good feeling right now about how much of this report is going to be enacted into legislation. If that should be the case, then I say the government of this province is going to have to do a little bit of answering, in my opinion, for its lack of action. I hope I am wrong.

An hon. member: John Rhodes is asleep.

Mr. Mackenzie: The recommendations in this report were largely unanimous. I hope this government will move on these recommendations, and that we see some of the savings that we understand can be made.

Mr. Laughren: May I take John Rhodes’ pulse?

Mr. Johnson: Mr. Speaker, it is with some sense of personal satisfaction that I join this debate on the report of the select committee on highway safety. I was privileged to serve on this committee and, therefore, shared in the shaping of the recommendations to the government and to the Ministry of Transportation and Communications.

Some hon. members: I hope so.

Mr. Johnson: I truly hope the member for Hamilton East is not correct in his gut feeling, and that this report does see the light of day.

Interjections.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. Johnson: I might just add as a comment that I think possibly we should mail a copy of Hansard to the OPP detachment in the Brant-Oxford-Norfolk area.

It is not my intention to go into the recommendations in detail. I realize other members will have discussed some of the recommendations that I am going to talk to them about, but I would like to elaborate on a few. I urge all the members of this House to give serious consideration to all of the recommendations.

I would be remiss if I did not pay tribute to our chairman, the member for Yorkview (Mr. Young) and the committee staff for their interest in this excellent report. Also, I would like to compliment the Ministry of Transportation and Communications for its total co-operation and support.

Mr. Foulds: How about the minister? He has to implement it.

Mr. Laughren: Don’t forget the member for Fort William (Mr. Hennessy).

[9:45]

Mr. Johnson: I realize there may be some opposition to a few of these recommendations such as the one requiring licensee’s photographs to be imprinted on the licence. Some may feel this is one more example of a necessary government intervention in the lives of private citizens. I agree with those who believe government should keep out of that area as much as possible. But, in looking at this particular recommendation, I think it is necessary to balance the public good against what I believe is, in this case, a meaningless interpretation of freedom. Such a step might cause some inconvenience but inconvenience is a far cry from infringing on individual freedom.

Our courts and our police forces are all too aware of the number of drivers who continue driving after their license has been suspended, simply by using someone else’s licence. Such a situation is intolerable and could be averted if this recommendation is implemented. By the way, I feel this photograph should be coloured.

For the same reason, I supported the committee’s recommendation that drivers be required to have a physician’s statement certifying they are physically fit to drive and that such a certificate be required every three years after a person reaches 50. Sorry, but the member for Algoma-Manitoulin will have to take his physical.

Mr. Lane: Who are you kidding?

Mr. Johnson: It is a well-documented fact that our physical capabilities are affected adversely as we grow older. The process varies considerably from individual to individual. What this recommendation does is recognize that fact and provide protection for both the driver and all others who use the highway.

The requirement that eyesight be tested yearly after the age of 70 is based on the same premise. Surely no intelligent person would advocate licensing people who are physically unfit to drive. The only criterion for receiving the certificate is a doctor’s opinion that the individual is not a potential menace on the highway. I would submit that such a requirement is both reasonable and responsible.

I would like to deal with the matter of impaired drivers. I would suggest the record speaks for itself. In Ontario in 1975, alcohol was a major factor in 12 per cent of property damage, 19 per cent of all non-fatal injuries, 26.5 per cent of all fatal accidents and over 50 per cent of all drivers’ deaths.

This is a very serious problem and the committee has made several recommendations dealing with it. I would like to focus on one in particular and that is the one asking the government to raise the legal drinking age to 19. This tends to be an emotional issue for many people, most of whom wave the dual arguments that if a young person can go to war, or if he or she can vote, they should therefore also be allowed to drink. I would suggest that those who advance such a case reveal both a shallowness of thought and a lack of reasoning ability.

I would agree that a young person serving in the armed forces is exposed to responsibilities and discipline that should be recognized by having increased privileges open to him. I would also agree that those who serve in battle are similarly entitled to all the privileges open to adults. However, we do not have compulsory military service in Canada, and this nation has not taken part in war in 32 years. So I would suggest that using those examples to justify allowing 18-year-olds the right to drink is a staggering example of faulty logic.

Mr. Conway: Yours is the double standard.

Mr. Johnson: There is also a substantial difference between having the right to vote and the right to drink. Through advertising, motion pictures and television, our society has created a glamorous lifestyle image around the use of alcohol. To many people it is synonymous with good times and becoming an adult. Those are goals for which most young people are striving. The teenage years are not easy years and perhaps at no other time are we so susceptible to peer pressure to conform, to go along with the rest of the group. We can do no harm by having these young people wait one more year before they begin dealing with alcohol and there’s every chance we might do some good.

I would suggest there is no similarity between this situation and the process of voting. Casting a vote in an election represents a responsibility, an opportunity which will hopefully develop an interest in politics and eventually lead to youth participation in government.

Mr. Conway: Let’s raise the drinking age to 77.

Mr. Johnson: It does not involve peer pressure and it does not occur every weekend. One cannot equate the two. It should also be noted many teenagers themselves want to see a change in this law and that should surely indicate such a step has merit.

Our highways are well constructed, our police forces on all levels including the ROMP are efficient, but neither factor will do much good if we fail to provide adequate laws to ensure highway safety. If a madman kills a dozen people and remains at large, citizens are terrified and demand action. A typical example would be the Son of Sam in New York city this past summer. If we have an outbreak of a contagious disease and a hundred people die, society panics and again demands action. But here we have a killer that in 1976 wiped out over 1,500 people, injuring another 83,000, and many of us treat it with apathy, indeed accept it as inevitable. How, in the name of reason, can we accept anything so destructive? Accidents on the roads are the leading cause of deaths of our young people. More than 700 of last year’s victims were under 25. One week ago tonight, in my riding in the town of Bolton, six young people were involved in a car accident -- three died and three others were seriously injured. The same night, near London, two cars collided -- four people died and one was seriously injured. Seven fatalities in one night. How many will die this weekend?

Accidents on the roads are the fourth leading killer in the province. I submit to the hon. members of this House this committee has presented them with a good report. Accept it or amend it, but for heaven’s sake take action now.

Mr. Conway: Bounsall for leader.

Mr. Bounsall: As a member of this highway safety committee, I must admit how much I enjoyed the work and the pleasure I felt in listening to and talking with the expert witnesses who came before us so often here in Toronto and whom we travelled to see -- all persons very dedicated to reducing highway injuries and highway fatalities, each in their separate way. It was also a great pleasure to serve on a committee chaired by the member for Yorkview who, for all his legislative life in this Legislature, has worked so hard in this area to ensure there be stiffer regulations with respect to automobiles and vehicles on our highways. He is a fine person to work with, because of his dedication and interest in the preparation of this report.

In looking over the work of the committee in our report, three of the four items which we recommended in our interim report of November, 1976 are already in place. For example, the moped helmet requirement. We experimented with handing out a publication at the time of the 1977 licence renewal, indicating just how tough our drinking-driving laws were in Ontario. An information card was given to all those renewing their licences, because we found most people didn’t realize, and certainly most members of the committee didn’t realize when we first got on the committee, just how tough our laws were as the result of some recent changes in 1976.

Unfortunately, that experiment didn’t work too well. It was a very good, informative card. Unfortunately, they weren’t handed out with a great degree of enthusiasm by the persons within our licence branch out there across Ontario. They were there on the counter in most instances and most people didn’t read them. I still think it was a good attempt to educate the people of Ontario and that we should try to continue in some form to so do.

Also, we implemented the system of classified drivers’ licences tied to the weight, size of vehicle and so forth. That’s been implemented and we had recommended that. There is one left, however, and I can’t quite see why we’re taking so long to implement it.

In order to reduce car theft and often joyriding by juveniles, we’ve recommended that the government bring in legislation imposing a stiff penalty for leaving keys in the ignitions of our cars or vehicles when unattended. I realize this isn’t the sole prerogative of the Ministry of Transportation and Communications. This is probably legislation in another ministry. Perhaps that is the reason we haven’t had it before us for debate yet. I would certainly urge the ministry not to drag their feet any further in seeing that that comes forward.

I regret that there were a couple of areas that the committee did not have time to investigate in our terms of reference. Equipment standards for tow trucks was one. We never even had time to make a start at the investigation in this area. The other was the operation of multiple vehicle combinations. The problem there was we could never come up with a final recommendation because of conflicting evidence which we were receiving. The evidence we were getting from Alberta, from California, from the Netherlands and to a certain extent from England was not in complete agreement. I regret that we couldn’t come to any conclusions.

Since we had that information presented to us a year ago now and during the winter, further studies have taken place. There have been further tests in Alberta and California which may well have resolved some of the unanswered questions in our minds at that time. I regret that after having gone this far in investigating vehicle combinations that the committee cannot meet again this January or February, review the results of those experiments and come to some more definitive conclusions which, I believe, are soon going to be there for the making.

Also, there were other areas which we would have liked to investigate but simply did not have time for. There were various presentations at public meetings relating to the effectiveness of bikeways as a replacement for some of our vehicle traffic upon our roads and how that tied in with the excellent system of bikeways for mopeds and motorcycles in Holland. I would have liked to have investigated that whole area more and to have been able to make some recommendations. It was an area which we really couldn’t get into.

One thing which our committee found, right from the very start, when we got talking to people from other jurisdictions, was that we’ve already done in Ontario the two main things which would most help to reduce accidents and fatalities. Those were the lowering of the speed limits and the compulsory wearing of seatbelts. Various people who came before us said, “You’ve already done it. These are two major steps.” These were primarily people from the States. They said, “We wish we were able to achieve in our state what you have done already.”

[10:00]

This, of course, left one of the main areas of great concern still wide open to us; that is the drinking and driving which occurs in the province of Ontario. The more we delved into that, the more we found there was no easy answer to that problem either.

One other thing I might mention at this time. When we talked to experts from other jurisdictions it became clear that this was the area which they were proposing we had to work in.

They then said another thing to us: “You, in Ontario, have the Addiction Research Foundation which does excellent work and does excellent studies.” And some of them said to us, “We wish we had an equivalent body in our jurisdiction that could give advice and provide research data on the whole drinking problem. Of course, any drinking problem relates to the drinking-driving problem.” So we found out that in Ontario we do have some major advantages over other areas.

Certainly, what became clear to us all right at the start was the excellent job which the Ministry of Transportation and Communications has done over the years on the engineering side in Ontario -- the actual highway design, the actual engineering innovations in our highways. The highways themselves are safe in Ontario. It’s the other areas that we have to look at.

In the area of driver education, it was quite clear that we really have no evidence that it does any good at all, and our focus in our report was on the training of the instructors in driver education -- so they could put a greater emphasis on safety in their programs, in their instruction, and that courses be offered in our community college to train those instructors.

We had a lot of dissatisfaction from private driving schools around the country about having to come down and take a two-week course in Toronto from the Ontario Safety League -- only to find that the Ontario Safety League said: “Look, we do this. We know it is inadequate. Come and give us a hand in doing it. Take it over. Let’s give some real non- Mickey Mouse training to our driving instructors in Ontario.

“We are certainly not fighting any recommendation that those courses should be centred in our community colleges, and made more readily available to the people in Ontario who wish to take courses to allow them to become much better instructors.”

If you look at the whole report, there are areas which stand out and interest each member more than other areas. I feel that one of the major recommendations is in the testing and licensing area. The one that stands out is the probationary licence -- this two-year probationary licence for all beginner drivers irrespective of age.

It’s really an early intervention system. From, I believe, the state of North Carolina, came very conclusive evidence that if one could intervene early on in someone’s driving behaviour one stood a fair chance of being able to adjust that behaviour. And this is a recommendation which follows from that psychological study, the behavioural study which indicated that behaviour could be changed.

How do you do it? You must try and do it early. The warning letter system, where the warning letter comes at three points rather than six; the personal interview at six points rather than nine. And at nine points a new concept comes in for the probationer -- he takes a driver-improvement course, one which is not there in the regular demerit point system for other drivers. His three-month suspension would begin at 12 points rather than 15 with possible extension of that probationary system.

I think that’s a very attractive system. If the psychological and behavioural studies are correct, this early-intervention system stands some fair chance of having some effect upon the driving behaviour of our young drivers, if we intervene and try and change their driving behaviour quite early on after they are allowed behind the wheel. My only problem with that whole probationary licence system is that it is only a two-year probationary licence. I would have preferred to see it a three-year probationary licence, since it is only an early intervention concept anyway.

From that same section, a point which caused a lot of discussion in our committee from time to time, was that for all drivers when found guilty of an offence, demerit points would accumulate from the date of the offence rather than the date of the conviction. We were told at various times that what happens is that someone gets 12 or 13 points under our current system, the point where another offence would put them over the 15 points. At this point they will delay their court proceedings until further points have dropped off at the other end in the two-year period. So they can then go ahead and be convicted and get points dating from conviction at the moment and still be under the 15. I think this will certainly relieve the courts of delays for charges which would involve demerit points, as a result of backdating it, whenever it is heard, to the time of the offence itself. If that results in suspension, even if that suspension takes place sometime later, it is a very good step forward.

In the alcohol and drinking-driving section, I am very certain that the banning of lifestyle advertising is a significant recommendation of the committee. Also, the one there that is of very great interest to me -- a very early intervention, an on the spot penalty, which has been proved from behaviour studies in North Carolina and Oregon, I believe. That is the 24-hour suspension, if the blood alcohol level is between 50 and 100 milligrams per 100 millilitre. It stands to be effective because it is immediate, it is on the spot -- it gets the driver off the road immediately when he is found with that level of alcohol in his bloodstream. It is much more effective psychologically as a tool for achieving our end, of causing people to not drive if they have been drinking, by the immediacy of the penalty. And it is a penalty which would not appear on their driving record. It is one which I would highly recommend to the ministry to see that this is carried out, using the new ALERT devices which have been developed for this purpose.

It is quite interesting to see that in the report from the parliamentary assistant indicating the ministry’s response to our final report of the committee, the sort of conditions-ahead warning systems Fred Burr suggested has met with some favour and the ministry will be continuing to work on this system. I remember when the former member for Windsor-Riverside first proposed it way back in the fall of 1971. Our committee considered it, we recommended it, and I am glad to see that the ministry is considering it.

There are also various areas of the committee’s work which appeal more than others and in which we have our pet peeves. I almost wrote a dissent to one recommendation in the area of vehicles, in what is in our purview to recommend in the vehicle area. I’m speaking of where we recommend that the Ontario government support the introduction of amber turn signals on all cars sold in Canada, and of course in Ontario. I support that recommendation, but as members of the committee know, one of my pet irritations as a driver on the road is the amount of signalling which is not done. Nothing frustrates me more or gets me angrier or makes me a less cool driver than to be piled up, waiting at a stoplight and then to have the car ahead of you signal after the light changes. I would like to have seen a recommendation in the report that there would be some penalties imposed and enforced on those people who create needless backups behind them by not signalling their intentions well in advance, as they are required to do in the state of California, penalties being imposed if they don’t.

Having felt rather strongly that that should occur and since it is not in our report, I therefore can’t get all that excited if we’re going to make our turn signals amber when so many people in the province of Ontario don’t pay much attention to the proper use of their turn signals. When they do, the amber light is certainly a step forward in contrast to the red.

Throughout the whole report I was interested in the arguments about seatbelts versus passive restraint systems. I was quite interested in the way in which the United States is going, where they’re tending to recommend, in the very near future, that either the air bag or the wrap-around seatbelt, which wraps around you when you get in the car so you just have to buckle it up, should be mandated.

I was certainly interested in being in the back seat as one of the six members in the car in which the air bag was tested at the GM location in Oshawa. Most of the members at that time were tending to support strongly the recommendation about passive restraints in combination with seatbelts. When the bag went off and our chairman suffered a cut on his chin, I believe it was, when his safety glasses were knocked down to that location, and the vice-chairman suffered two bruised shins as a result of the panelling containing the air bag on the passenger side coming down rather sharply upon his shins, I could envisage any possibility of a positive recommendation in this area being wiped out. It’s a credit to both our chairman and our vice-chairman that, in spite of that experience, we have the recommendation in our report.

I want to say again that it was a great pleasure for me to serve on a committee that had a chairman so dedicated to his job as the member for Yorkview. I must admit as well that the other staff on the committee all worked very enthusiastically and very hard -- Allan Schwartz, our counsel; his consultant, James Fisher; the research co-ordinator, Arna Crocker; and the representative of the Ministry of Transportation and Communications, Harvey Mosher. All the members of the committee enjoyed Mr. Mosher’s input from time to time in the committee and his great willingness to check back very quickly with any of the small points we asked him to check with in the ministry.

Of course, the clerk of the committee, Andrew Richardson, did a very capable job, as always, of seeing that we were in the right places at the right times and properly set up.

Mr. Warner: Poor choice of words.

Mr. Nixon: Do you want to run through that one more time?

Mr. Bounsall: No, that’s fine right there. I’m not going to revise that at all.

Mr. Warner: How were you set up?

Mr. Bounsall: I just would say to the ministry, I was a little bit concerned, as was the member for Hamilton East (Mr. Mackenzie), with the slight negativeness in the initial reply by the ministry. We don’t expect him to believe in all of the report, let’s say, but he appeared to be not all that interested in it as much as we on the committee would have thought the ministry would be. We hope this is simply an impression, that this is not really the truth of the matter and that most of these recommendations will find their way into legislation.

[10:15]

On the committee we all felt that no one, or two, or three, or four or a dozen of these recommendations taken and implemented would be, by themselves, all that useful. We have here a package of 52 recommendations. Not one of them was the answer, not even six or seven taken in concert, were the answer. But if all were put together and implemented it would result in a package that would result in attitude changes in Ontario which could materially increase highway safety and reduce the accidents and the fatalities. So to pick and choose a few and not really seriously attempt to implement most of them, we on the committee feel would be a serious mistake. It would reduce the effectiveness of the steps which are taken.

I urge the ministry to do its best to implement each and every one of these recommendations.

Mr. Jones: I am happy to have the opportunity this evening to join in the debate on the recommendations of the highway safety select committee. I would like to add my appreciation to the member for Yorkview for the excellent job that he did as our chairman, and I say that most sincerely. I also thank the vice-chairman, the member for Mississauga South and the very excellent staff that served all of the members.

It has been said before, but what has been discussed tonight are the most serious deliberations over the past few months on this subject. I would be remiss if I did not touch on one of the sections of the report considered by the members of the committee to be probably the most serious factor: namely alcohol.

It has been touched on by earlier speakers this evening that it is the largest single killer of our young people in this province. That, indeed, has to be startling to all members of this House and requires some very sober reflection.

I have had an opportunity in the past to deal with this particular aspect of the report. I consider it to be one of the most serious facing our young people, as I have the opportunity to deal with many of their concerns.

This issue of alcohol and the fact that it is so deeply implanted in our society is, I suppose, something that was underscored to us as never before in our recent deliberations in the compiling of this report. We see it in terms of social consequence. We saw it in terms of dollars and cents as we looked at the tremendous cost in hospital occupancy, and all the other effects of it.

The previous speaker mentioned how we were considered by a lot of other jurisdictions to be fortunate to have an agency such as the Addiction Research Foundation to supply us with a constant monitoring of drugs and alcohol and the consequences thereof. I know it has been popular with certain members of the press to somehow attempt to discredit this particular agency. It was of comfort for us in Ontario to hear these people from different jurisdictions, with equal expertise, say that ARF was looked upon as one of the best-recognized internationally.

The ARF report is contained in our report. ARF estimated that no less than 16 per cent of all the suicides in this province and something like 10.6 per cent of all the homicides are directly attributable to alcoholism. We also saw that alcohol was involved in 50 per cent of manslaughter cases, 30 per cent of rape cases and 61 per cent of all assault cases. I mention this as I speak to the select committee on highway safety because the committee members found that it was impossible to divorce these other social problems of our times and all their consequences from the overall alcohol as we looked at it in the context of driving and drinking and the abuse thereof.

We looked at these estimates and we saw how the problems had doubled in the past 10 years. This is the big contributor to collisions on our highways -- the statistics are rather obvious to us all -- 12 per cent of all the property damage accidents, 19 per cent of all the non-fatal injury accidents, 26.5 per cent of all the fatal accidents and 51.8 per cent of all the driver deaths in the accidents had that alcohol component. I think it particularly behooves us to recognize that our young people were disproportionately swelling the numbers of impaired driving convictions, as well as the number of alcohol-related collisions. We just touched on the very sobering thought that this was the biggest single killer of our young people in this province.

As the chairman in his opening comments touched upon, and others have referred to, back in 1967 we saw 5.5 per cent of young people’s accidents being alcohol-related collisions. Then, after the very contentious issue of the day in which the legal drinking age was lowered from 21 in 1971. the number of alcohol-related collisions involving young people literally skyrocketed. By 1975, the percentage had reached the 37.2 per cent that the chairman mentioned and it is still rising.

We saw in the final report of the select committee that the Traffic Injury Research Foundation had studied the effects of age and drinking. It showed that 18- to 19-year-oids are 70 times more likely to die in motor vehicle collisions than the average non-impaired Ontario driver, twice the rate of impaired persons in older categories.

We touched on and saw the statistics from the study in London with the 18- to 21-year-olds increasing 174 per cent. Among that, the 24-year-old group, as a comparison, were something in the order of 33 per cent, a totally disproportionate number of increased alcohol-related collisions.

The sad thing of it all, statistics aside, is that they are bright young people with futures to be lived in this province, with experiences to have and contributions to make, which are so often snuffed out by the mixture of alcohol and the automobile that is so much a way of life with them as it is with the other age groups in our society.

When the Addiction Research Foundation said to us, and it is contained in this report, that they judged that 28 persons would not have died in automobile crashes between August, 1971, and July, 1972, and that some 4,450 collisions would not have taken place in that period, we cannot help but have been sobered by that reflection. As legislators, we have to consider most sincerely a debate that is about to take place in this Legislature.

So, in looking at that problem of the young drinking driver, I know it was probably the most sober of all the many reflections that we had in approaching a root cause. Looking at the root causes, we discovered early that young people were but a part of the overall increased consumption and frequency of alcohol in our society. I think the recommendations clearly point out, as another report submitted not terribly long ago also did, that a package of various recommendations is needed. Central to this debate swirls this contentious issue of the age and what effect it might have in contributing towards the reduction of this horrendous cost and waste of our most precious natural resource, the young people of this province.

In this past decade -- it was touched on by other speakers and I would like to underscore it -- that the powerful advertising of alcohol has conveyed very clearly a message to young people that virtually all recreational activities require the consumption of alcoholic beverages. Young people, in trying to emulate the attractive lifestyle they see on television, have created for themselves in many cases serious alcoholic problems.

Mr. Warner: Stop them from doing it. You’ve been asked to for a whole year.

Mr. Jones: The member for Scarborough-Ellesmere is raising a question about the report, about the recommendation on lifestyle advertisement. Similarly, with the contentious issue of age, it was recognized that these were issues of such magnitude as not to be played political football with --

Mr. Warner: That’s what you have been doing.

Mr. Jones: -- but rather to be examined by all members of this house and, as they were in the select committee in a non-partisan way, to be seriously reflected upon and weighed. Thus came the recommendation that we see in this particular report which has just recently been tabled, is now being debated and being taken in hand by the government for its consideration.

On the issue of having lowered the age to 18 and the subsequent debate now for consideration as per this recommendation and a bill about to be debated in this House, we see a lot of people scurrying into the sidelines of the debate. I was happy to see that the members of the committee, led by the chairman, showed the courage to meet the issue and the debate foursquare and to examine in depth the issue and the side issues of the subject.

The fact is that alcohol has pervaded our high schools. All the investigation and all the evidence that are contained in this report and the other studies that are being done and have been done point clearly to the fact that the social functions of our high schools are increasingly being affected by alcohol. With increased consumption rates affecting our young people, the saddest of all are probably the younger ages. There is the so-called ripple effect whereby grade 9 students and even younger groups than that in elementary schools are now being affected.

There is this great debate about the age 18 limit and whether one year would effectively help to remove the peer pressure we know exists so clearly in the high school age groups. As we look to the statistics and see in the report that 97 per cent of the students are in the under-19 class, there is a very big bridge separating those who have left the high school system for post-secondary or the world of work. It’s a very real cut-off point, of course. We see something in the order of 1.6 in the early part of the school year and then it increases so as to give an average of some 97 per cent existence in the schools. It would be a very real factor in helping reduce the availability to young people and the pressure on those at 18 who legally can acquire drink and are part of our peer pressure group of the younger and younger ages that the rippling effect has involved.

We all know that young people are gregarious, do travel together and have all that extra opportunity for tragedy that all too often has been the case. One of the earlier speakers, the member for Wellington-Dufferin-Peel, recited a real experience and tragic accident resulting in death in his riding. I think every member here can recite some incident similar to that. We would be less than responsible, I suggest, if we weren’t to take this particular recommendation and all the various soberly thought-out and reflected-upon recommendations to heart for serious consideration.

I’d like in closing simply to express to the chairman and the members of the select committee in which it was my privilege to participate as they brought forward this report, my gratitude for the honesty and, yes indeed, in some subjects the courage, they showed in bringing forward these recommendation as they have in this report. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Acting Speaker: This item is discharged from the order paper.

On motion by Hon. F. S. Miller, the House adjourned at 10:30 p.m.