GRADUATED
LICENSING
MINISTRY OF TRANSPORTATION
TRAFFIC INJURY RESEARCH FOUNDATION OF CANADA
COALITION OF MOTORCYCLE ORGANIZATIONS
CONTENTS
Wednesday 8 September 1993
Subcommittee report
Graduated licensing
Ministry of Transportation
George Dadamo, parliamentary assistant to the minister
John Hughes, director, safety policy branch
Bob Domoney, manager, graduated licensing
Paul Levine, manager, safety policy office
Insurance Bureau of Canada
Stan Griffin, vice-president, Ontario region
Peter McDougall, government relations officer and coordinator, graduated licensing campaign
Traffic Industry Research Foundation of Canada
Dr H.M. Simpson, executive director
Addiction Research Foundation
Bob Mann, representative
Labatt Road Scholarship
Gary Magwood, chief instructor
Coalition of Motorcycle Organizations
Robert Ramsay, executive director, Motorcycle and Moped Industry Council
Royal Insurance Co of Canada
Judy Maddocks, vice-president, personal lines division
Linda Matthews, vice-president, personal lines, Ontario region
Jewel Kelly, rehabilitation claims specialist
STANDING COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
*Chair / Président: Huget, Bob (Sarnia ND)
*Vice-Chair / Vice-Président: Cooper, Mike (Kitchener-Wilmot ND)
*Conway, Sean G. (Renfrew North/-Nord L)
Fawcett, Joan M. (Northumberland L)
Jordan, Leo (Lanark-Renfrew PC)
*Klopp, Paul (Huron ND)
*Murdock, Sharon (Sudbury ND)
*Offer, Steven (Mississauga North/-Nord L)
*Turnbull, David (York Mills PC)
Waters, Daniel (Muskoka-Georgian Bay/Muskoka-Baie-Georgienne ND)
*Wilson, Gary (Kingston and The Islands/Kingston et Les Îles ND)
Wood, Len (Cochrane North/-Nord ND)
*In attendance / présents
Substitutions present / Membres remplaçants présents:
Dadamo, George (Windsor-Sandwich ND) for Mr Waters
Daigeler, Hans (Nepean L) for Mrs Fawcett
Hansen, Ron (Lincoln ND) for Mr Wood
Murdoch, Bill (Grey-Owen Sound PC) for Mr Jordan
Clerk / Greffière: Manikel, Tannis
Staff / Personnel: McNaught, Andrew, research officer, Legislative Research Service
The committee met at 1010 in the St Clair Room, Macdonald Block, Toronto.
SUBCOMMITTEE REPORT
The Chair (Mr Bob Huget): Good morning. I'd like to give a report of the subcommittee as the first order of business.
"The subcommittee met on Thursday 26 August 1993 and Thursday 2 September 1993 to discuss the committee's agenda on graduated licensing system.
"Originally, the subcommittee had agreed that the committee would not meet on Tuesday 7 September 1993, but after reviewing the response to the advertising, the subcommittee decided that witnesses would be scheduled for that day. The ministry briefing for the morning of 8 September remained unchanged.
"The subcommittee agreed that the committee will only travel to Ottawa and St Catharines because the response to the advertisement did not warrant other travel.
"The subcommittee agreed that the Insurance Bureau of Canada would be asked to appear as the first witness after the ministry briefing."
Could I have a motion to adopt the subcommittee's report?
Ms Sharon Murdock (Sudbury): So moved.
The Chair: All those in favour? Carried.
GRADUATED LICENSING
MINISTRY OF TRANSPORTATION
The Chair: The first order of business this morning is the Ministry of Transportation. Before we get into that, I thought what we would do, if it's agreeable to you, Mr Turnbull, is have an opening statement from the parliamentary assistant and then opening statements from the opposition party and the third party critics and then move to questions and answers. Agreed?
Mr George Dadamo (Windsor-Sandwich): I'd like to think that we have a pretty good working relationship with Mr Turnbull, who is the critic for the Conservatives in Transportation, and also Hans Daigeler, who's the Liberal Transportation critic. I'd say at the outset that I'm sure that following these public hearings, we'll have many a meeting where we'll get a chance to further discuss graduated licensing so we keep the doors open for you.
Members of the committee and ladies and gentlemen, we are meeting this morning for a truly worthwhile purpose: to reach a consensus on the details of the government's proposed graduated licensing system for new drivers.
Graduated licensing has the support of most members of the Legislature as well as the overwhelming support of a vast majority of Ontario residents. Support has grown significantly during the past few years.
We are not here to debate the merits of graduated licensing or to discuss whether or not such a system is needed. The collision statistics on our roads and highways serve as a grim reminder of the pressing need for strong and effective action. I would like to quickly review some of the reasons for introducing the new licensing system.
In 1991, the Ministry of Transportation issued more than 350,000 licences to new Ontario drivers. Some 45% of those new drivers, more than 150,000 people, were between the ages of 16 and 19.
As members know, traffic collisions are the leading killer of Ontario residents between the ages of 16 and 24. Indeed, crashes take the lives of twice as many young people as suicide and five times as many as cancer. Drivers between 16 and 24 represent about 16% of the province's six million licensed drivers, yet they account for 25% of all drivers killed.
At the same time, statistics show that all new drivers, regardless of their age, are far more likely to be involved in serious or fatal collisions than drivers with more experience. Studies have concluded that it takes between two and five years of driving experience to develop all the skills and the judgement needed to avoid collisions. The government's graduated licensing model responds directly to these problems and concerns. As you know, the proposed new system is designed to grant driving privileges gradually during a new driver's first two years on the road.
But rest assured that we do not propose these restrictions lightly. In 1991, more than 1,000 people were killed in car crashes and more than 90,000 people were injured. In the past 10 years, automobile collisions have resulted in more than 13,000 fatalities in Ontario. The government believes that graduated licensing will help save many of these lives. In New Zealand, fatalities among drivers under 25 were reduced by some 13% when a graduated licensing system for that age group was introduced in 1987.
We are convinced that the system will save millions of dollars in insurance costs, health care expenditures and costs related to lost time at work and school, not to mention the costs associated with the human tragedy of motor vehicle crashes. Indeed, the total cost of road collisions in Ontario has been estimated at some $9 billion a year. This, then, is the situation that we are here to address: We have overwhelming statistical evidence that new drivers pose a serious safety threat to themselves and to others. We have further evidence that new drivers' lack of experience involves a heavy cost in lives and money, and we have proposed a new licensing system designed to address these problems.
Let me briefly review the main elements of the proposed new system. Under our graduated licensing model, all new drivers will enter a two-level process that lasts a minimum of 20 months. In level 1, new drivers will have to earn driving privileges as they gain experience. New drivers will only be allowed to drive cars, vans and small trucks and will only be allowed to carry as many passengers as there are seatbelts in the vehicle. New drivers will only be allowed to drive when accompanied by a fully licensed driver with at least four years of experience who has a blood alcohol level of less than 0.05%. New drivers will be required to maintain a zero blood alcohol level. New drivers will be restricted from driving between midnight and 5 am, will not be allowed to drive on 400-series highways and some multi-lane urban expressways and new drivers will be required to display a vehicle sign that identifies the operator as a new driver.
Level 1 will last for 12 months, but new drivers will be able to reduce this time by four months if they successfully complete an approved driver education course.
These restrictions during the first year on the road are designed to provide new drivers with a safer learning environment. At the same time, the restrictions will help reduce the increased risk new drivers represent for all others on the road.
To enter the second level of the graduated licensing system, all new drivers will be required to pass a basic driving test with a government examiner. This test will ensure that all drivers who move on to level 2 have achieved basic competence on the road and that they can operate a vehicle safely in normal driving conditions.
During level 2, new drivers will have more privileges. However, both the blood alcohol restriction and the limit on passengers remain in effect. The level 2 period will last a minimum of 12 months. At the end of level 2, drivers will have to pass a second, more advanced driving test to demonstrate their ability to recognize more dangerous driving conditions and of course to take appropriate action.
As you know, the government has proposed a graduated licensing system with similar restrictions, conditions and time limits for all new motorcycle drivers in the province.
We plan to introduce graduated licensing legislation in the fall session of the Legislature and to implement the new system by spring of 1994. As I said earlier, graduated licensing has overwhelming public support and the support of all parties in the House. This committee work will provide input to refine the proposed model. The hearings will give interested groups and individuals an opportunity to comment on and participate in the final design of this important new program. A tremendous amount of work by the Ministry of Transportation has resulted in a model that is balanced, fair and thoughtful and which I know will improve highway safety.
During these hearings, our challenge is to listen carefully to expert witnesses who will come before us, to reflect on the public's comments and the concerns about our graduated licensing model. Our task is to improve upon this model if and when it warrants.
In my view, we also face a second major challenge. That is to demonstrate to the public that their elected representatives have the collective vision, the leadership and the wisdom to act cooperatively and effectively in the public interest, to balance the need for enhanced safety of our residents without unduly restricting public mobility.
1020
Next week we travel to Ottawa and St Catharines. There we'll have the opportunity to demonstrate our shared vision and our commitment to increasing public safety.
As a committee we have the opportunity, indeed a responsibility, to take action together in the larger public interest and to make recommendations that will help the government to write legislation enabling graduated licensing to become law in Ontario next year.
The government is sincere in its desire to protect the lives of the people of Ontario and to make the province's roads the safest in North America. Graduated licensing is an important step along the road to achieving that vision.
We have John Hughes from MTO here this morning, who is the director of the safety policy branch; as well, Paul Levine, manager for the road user safety policy office, and Bob Domoney, manager of new business development office, who will take care of the driver examiners' training portion, any systems changes, operational and some of the final details. After the critics have their say this morning we will be able to go to the three and you'll be able to direct questions to either the three or to myself.
Mr Hans Daigeler (Nepean): As I indicated yesterday, since we had a few hearings already, it's somewhat unusual, but be that as it may, I welcome, first of all, the initiative itself of introducing graduated licences. Secondly, I welcome the public hearings, that we have an opportunity over the summer to go out somewhat across the province, not as much as I would have hoped for, but nevertheless we provided an opportunity to the public to be heard. So I welcome that and I look forward to some exciting ideas. In fact, yesterday, I think already we've had some very excellent submissions, and I'm sure it will lead to further improvements of the project that's under way.
I must say I'm a little bit taken aback by the rhetoric of the parliamentary assistant. I understand -- I was parliamentary assistant myself at one point -- that one has to put the best light on the government's projects one can, but if the government was so committed and so keen to do all of this, there's still the question out there -- and the key question out there -- as to why it has taken three years to come in, finally, with this project.
I'm sure the parliamentary assistant is well aware that when we were in government, this matter was very, very close to being brought forward to the Legislature. I'm on record myself at the time of having asked our own minister about such an initiative and he indicated in the House that the matter was very close to being submitted to the Legislature. Of course, we had an election then and obviously that changed things. We've been waiting now for three years to, as it were, revitalize that whole approach, so I would say, "Better late than never," but nevertheless I wouldn't mind some comment from the parliamentary assistant as to why it has taken three years, what the delay has been to bring that forward.
I do have a number of questions and perhaps I'll just sort of put them on the record and we'll see how they can be answered either later on by the parliamentary assistant or by the staff. Some of these questions were raised yesterday already, and I look forward to some sort of a response. For example, what is the reasoning that there should not be any highway use? We had several people mentioning yesterday that highways seem to be almost the safest roads that we have, so why are we prohibiting these novice drivers from learning on the highways?
Exemptions: There doesn't seem to be any room for some exemptions. Perhaps we'll hear more from rural people who may have a requirement for some exemptions. I noted that in some of the examples from other countries, there were some exemptions provided. I'm just wondering why none of those was considered by the government.
There is that question of the mature immigrant. There was an article in the Toronto Star. I think the assistant deputy minister wrote back to the Star and gave an explanation, but nevertheless I think it would be good for the record to state again how this graduated licensing program will affect the mature immigrant.
Yesterday, in my own questioning of the witnesses, I already pushed quite a bit on this second test, on the advanced test and what it actually is going to entail. I would like to hear how far the ministry has gone in the development of this and who's been involved in it. Again, yesterday we had some presentations with some people being involved and others not. I'd like some explanation of that.
Also, I would like to know -- perhaps the parliamentary assistant might be able to answer that -- how this document was distributed by the government, and secondly, whether the questionnaires that are part of this document have been returned already. I don't know whether this is still under way. If there is already a report on what has come back, I would like to hear what it is that people are saying as part of the questionnaire that is included in this document.
One item, frankly, that in reading all this material I was glad to come across and I think ought to be highlighted much more, because it's a very serious matter, is the fact that if young drivers or new drivers violate the provisions of these regulations, they are not covered by insurance. That obviously is a very significant matter. I don't know exactly what the conditions are under which one is not presently covered by insurance, but frankly, first of all, I'm wondering whether that has to be, and secondly, if that has to be, how we can make people more aware of this. That's most significant if all of a sudden there's no insurance coverage for anybody who may drive after midnight, in violation, mind you, of the regulation. But to go to the very serious step of all of a sudden not being covered by insurance, I would like some clarification on this and obviously I'd like to have that discussed at length.
Again, we'll get an opportunity, I'm sure, to hear from the ministry officials on this idea that was put forward yesterday of the novice peers, and also this idea that somebody ought to be free of felony charges for 18 months before they can apply for a licence. I'd like some reaction from the ministry or the parliamentary assistant on how they view these proposals, which really struck me as very interesting, the reason for the L sign in the car, and is there something that will incite the regular drivers to drive more aggressively or will it lead us, as we obviously hope, to respect the new drivers more?
These are some of the questions that came to me when I read the material. They were brought up yesterday, and I look forward to hearing some answers either from the parliamentary assistant or the ministry officials. But again I'd like to say I do think this initiative is worthwhile. I've had calls, both before the government in fact announced this initiative and after, in my constituency office from people in my area who have been asking for this. There have been unfortunate, serious accidents in my area in eastern Ontario where young people have been involved in some very tragic accidents. If this is one way to cut down on the serious problems that arise through these accidents, I would certainly be supportive of it.
Nevertheless, this doesn't mean that we should just stampede into the initiative. We want to take a careful look at it, and I'm glad that this committee is doing this.
1030
Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): This is rather a delightful occasion for me to be sitting on a committee that I don't think will be controversial in terms of one party set against another. Most of you know that I have probably been the leading proponent of graduated licences in the Legislature.
I want to cast my mind back to the time that I became very focused on this issue, and sitting in the audience is Sue MacNeil, who certainly brought this issue very forcefully to my attention. She has been a great proponent of the system, and the Insurance Bureau of Canada, which is represented here today too, has done excellent work in terms of proposing this as a way of saving lives.
We particularly tend to speak about saving young lives because it is the leading killer of young people between the ages of 16 and 24. There will be some concern expressed as we go around the province. I pushed that we have as broad a consultation as possible, and in fact we're only going to two locations simply because there weren't sufficient people from those other locations who expressed a desire to be heard. The few who have will typically be brought into Toronto, so it isn't that they will be ignored; they will have their opportunity to be heard, but at not so much cost as moving the committee.
The experience in New Zealand has absolutely proven the worthwhile effects of implementing a graduated licence system. My own suspicion is that probably we're being a little bit too, dare I say, conservative in our approach to this graduated licensing system and that perhaps there could be some more teeth in it.
However, we will hear, as we go around the province, the concern of rural residents, that it will restrict the ability of children who live on farms to be able to get to work or to education, and perhaps we might consider some amendments to allow for them to be able to move around. However, we must be very aware that some of the worst crashes occur in rural areas because of the lack of organized transportation, and we all have heard stories of field parties, where there's terrible carnage after these parties. We will have to look very seriously at the question of whether zero per cent blood alcohol is not required with the accompanying driver, and I suspect that we will probably get into very rigorous debates. My colleague Bill Murdoch will be very much present in terms of representing the rural aspect of getting people to and from work and to their education spots.
I do have the concern that perhaps allowing the number of people in the car that there are seatbelts for allows for three people to be sitting in the front of a car. This, I suspect, is not a good idea in the learning experience, and perhaps we can have a discussion about that.
There will be the question that I will be asking the insurance bureau, the police and the ministry as to enforcement of this law. It's not much use our enacting the law if it's just going to be something which sits on the shelves and is there as window dressing. We must make sure that we are protecting the people whom we're saying we're protecting; otherwise we're wasting our time.
Will the insurance companies, for example, withdraw insurance from those people who are found in violation of the graduated licensing system? We have to ask that question, and we must have probing discussion of what exactly will be the advanced driving test. Will it ensure that our drivers, our new drivers, are ready to meet the challenges of the very difficult Canadian driving conditions, which vary from time to time in the year so completely.
I encourage the committee to look very favourably on the question of having a learner sign on the back of a car so that, first of all, for police enforcement it is easy, and those people who are found to be driving without a learner sign, I would suggest that we should pull their licences from them.
The objective is to protect lives, not just the lives of the young people we talk about so much but any new drivers, and in fact any driver who may be involved in an accident as a result of new drivers being on the road.
Very often we take for granted the fact that everybody's experience when they get behind the wheel for the first time is the same. It isn't. Many people who come from other countries, particularly Asian countries, are not used to being in a car with parents, because in many of these countries they are so densely packed that it isn't worthwhile to have a car. So, consequently, we must reflect on the fact that since childhood we have been learning to drive beside our parents, even though we didn't realize it. If somebody has not been in that circumstance, he hasn't had the same driver's experience and we must make sure that we put him on the road in a more safe manner.
I'm delighted that the government is moving forward on it. I will say I'm sorry that it didn't move more quickly, but here we are today. Let's move ahead and let's make sure that we make our roads safer.
The Chair: It's interesting to note that all committee members have expressed that indeed this is something that is in the public interest and a public safety issue and have expressed the desire to work cooperatively, and I hope that's the case. That's all very much in each of your hands.
Mr Dadamo, do you have ministry people you wish to bring forward?
Mr Dadamo: I do. I'd like to introduce to you John Hughes, director of safety policy branch; Paul Levine, manager of road user policy office; and Bob Domoney, manager of new business development office. They will answer questions, should you have any, regarding the driver examiner's training, any of the system changes, operation etc.
If I'm permitted to, I'd like to answer a couple of the questions from Mr Daigeler.
The Chair: Before we get started on that, if the committee agrees to 20-minute blocks of questioning and the normal rotation, we'll proceed that way. Agreed?
Mr Daigeler: I was just wondering, are the ministry officials giving us some sort of a presentation as well?
The Chair: Did you want to make a presentation?
Mr John Hughes: I had planned to, yes.
The Chair: Then we'll proceed with whatever the ministry has in terms of a presentation and then move into the questioning as I outlined.
Mr Hughes: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. As was mentioned, I'm the director of the safety policy branch for the Ministry of Transportation. We've been involved for about four years now in the policy development aspect of graduated licensing. I'm very pleased to be here this morning to share with you some of our thought process that has gone into the development of this proposal.
I'd just like to emphasize from the outset that over the four years, we've looked at many variations and combinations of restrictions that could possibly make up a graduated licensing proposal. There's been a lot of consultation. It's taken a while. I think it's compounded by the fact that there are six million driving "experts" in Ontario and everyone has his own ideas and suggestions when it comes to dealing with the sacredness of the driver's licence.
As I say, it's been a fairly lengthy process and fairly laborious. But I think at this point the policy staff of the ministry are convinced of three things for sure: (1) that this is a good proposal from a road safety point of view; (2) that it meets Ontario's needs, as expressed to date, in balancing the safety considerations of the proposal with the mobility needs of the province; (3) that it has broad public support as a concept. Although there will be concerns over some of the pieces of the proposal, there is broad public support for the proposal itself.
1040
Have the copies of my presentation been handed out? Okay. I'm going to try to move fairly quickly through most of this presentation, and I'd like to try to focus on and emphasize a couple of things as I go through it.
First, the integration that's involved in the graduated licensing proposal: It's an integration of a lot of different potential solutions. We've tried to take the best of a number of possible solutions to the new-driver problem and put them into an integrated package.
Secondly, rather than just run through the details of the proposal, as has been done already today, I would like to try to rationalize for you some of the key elements of the proposal, why it looks the way it does and why we've arrived at where we're at with this proposal, so that at the end of the morning the committee members will, hopefully at least, understand why, from the ministry's point of view, the proposal contains what it does in the shape that it has. Even if you don't necessarily agree with every piece of the proposal, you will at least understand the thought process behind it.
The problem, and why there is a problem: You've heard, I guess, a lot of statistics, and there are some fairly startling statistics on this page of my presentation. I won't emphasize those again. In terms of why there is a problem, we feel that first and foremost we've got a driver inexperience problem with new drivers in Ontario, and this is the biggest contributing factor to the problem. New drivers of all ages show up in the statistics at an alarming rate, so that we think driver inexperience is the main culprit here and the main problem that we're trying to solve.
A secondary factor, we think, among younger new drivers is the additional factor of the propensity to exhibit risk-taking behaviour. That compounds the new-driver problem when the new drivers are younger.
The challenge we faced in doing the policy work was to find an appropriate solution which balanced safety and mobility for the needs of the province. We looked at a number of solutions, more than are shown on this page, but I thought I would just deal with these since these are some of the more popular solutions that are put forward.
Raising the driving age is often suggested. As I said, inexperience is the problem, and raising the driving age really just postpones the problem of gaining driving experience. This is the main argument against just simply raising the driving age.
Mandatory driver education is often suggested. Cost considerations and availability considerations over the whole province are a bit of a problem with mandatory driver education. Research shows that driver education works best when it is more or less voluntary. It may be of interest to the committee to note that in the province of Quebec a short time ago they did introduce mandatory driver education and, after some experience with it, decided to withdraw the requirement for mandatory driver education because of the inability to show that mandatory driver education had a perceivable effect.
Earlier interventions and different treatments under the demerit point system basically are suggested as a reflection that the probationary system we currently have is not working and that doing this would actually treat the learning problem. We have incorporated some of this idea into the proposal that we put forward.
Tougher driver licence testing is a common suggestion as well, and of course we do have as part of the proposal a tougher driver test at the end of the second level.
Of course, graduated licensing, which is generally understood to be minimum time periods and restrictions on the type of driving that can be done during learner periods, is another popular solution.
We feel we've taken an integrated approach here, mainly focusing on graduated licensing but working in, where reasonable and practical, some of the elements of the other alternative solutions that were considered.
What is graduated licensing? I guess in the simplest terms it's a walk-before-you-run approach and, we feel, an approach which is compatible with the idea of learning to drive as being a learning experience like any other thing that we learn to do in life. We feel that there is a learning curve and that the walk-before-you-run approach makes sense from a commonsense point of view.
Some of the basic philosophy behind graduated licensing: You've heard already that it is a two- to five-year learning curve to become a fully accomplished driver. You've heard that we want to encourage a lot of practice and experience under conditions of low risk.
Our proposal also recognizes that novice drivers will make honest mistakes of learning, and we wanted our proposal to treat those mistakes of learning in an educative way rather than to punish.
I think one thing that isn't said often enough, and it's hard to prove, but we feel that a learner-driver who goes through a proposal something like this will, at the end of it, have had to earn the privilege of driving. We feel that will, long-term, produce a more responsible outlook and sense of responsibility towards the driving task. Again, very difficult to measure and prove over the long term, but we feel that we'll produce a better set of drivers for the province.
The basic pieces of the graduated licensing proposal: Minimum time periods are there, as I say, to encourage practice. Again, these major elements of the proposal are a balance of safety and mobility. We know that the learning curve is two to five years. The proposal is structured to the low end of that two to five years in terms of the minimum time periods required. But as I say, there is no minimum time period under the current system, and we feel that we want to encourage practice and experience under those controlled risk conditions.
More than one level: We have two levels in our proposal, and the whole proposal is based on the gradual removal of restrictions as performance criteria are met. This is in some ways the same number of levels we have now, although the levels are quite different in their structure. We have now a 365-day learning licence, followed by a probationary period. But of course the two systems are completely different, other than the fact that we have two levels.
We could have gone higher in terms of the number of levels. The Australian one I think had at least three levels initially, but again, we're trying to balance safety and mobility and we felt that two levels administratively and practically were the right balance.
I'll get to the restrictions in a little more detail in a moment.
The link to driver education and the incentive: As I say, we feel very strongly that driver education is important and that if it's undertaken on a more or less voluntary basis and a willing basis, it tends to be more effective.
We do have penalties for violations of the restrictions. As I say, I'll get back to this educative-versus-punitive philosophy. We feel that violations of restrictions are not mistakes of learning. They are perhaps a symptom of errors of attitude, and we feel that it's warranted to penalize violations of the restrictions through suspensions and/or extensions of the minimum time periods.
1050
Just flip through level 1 and level 2 and sort of focus on the restrictions that we've put in the proposal and some of the rationale behind them.
Accompaniment: The accompanying driver, under the proposal, must have four years' driving experience and drive with a BAC, or blood alcohol concentration, of less than 0.05. This is a fairly tough restriction, but we feel it's a crucial one. Under the current Ontario licensing system, there are really no conditions or requirements in legislation or regulation of the accompanying driver. We feel that the accompanying driver is there to be a combination coach-trainer and another driver who can be there if a situation arises that can't be handled by the learner-driver and those requirements of experience plus sobriety are very important.
The next four restrictions -- the passenger limitation, the zero alcohol, the expressway restriction and the curfew -- all have a fairly solid statistical basis in terms of our analysis of the collision data and the fact that these things show up as being fairly chronic problems or indicators when new driver collisions, injuries and fatalities are analysed. New drivers are overrepresented in multipassenger collisions. Alcohol shows up as being a contributing factor in much more than the normal rate among new drivers. The midnight to 5 am hours are, again, overrepresented when we analyse new driver collisions.
The passenger limitation really is a compromise. The limitation to the number of seatbelts has been criticized as we've gone forward with this proposal, but again, it's seen as sort of a balance. What we really wanted to do was not discourage a person from driving when, say, the family is on a get-together, on an outing for the day. It's a good opportunity for the learner-driver to be accompanied by mom or dad and to get valuable experience and practice under those conditions where there may be a number of passengers in the vehicle.
The zero blood alcohol really is just a recognition that learning to drive and the consequences of learning to drive should be done under completely sober conditions. I guess when we look at the fact that 60% of new drivers in Ontario are in the 16- to 24-year-old range, those folks are beginning to come to grips with learning to consume alcohol at the same time, and learning the consequences of consuming alcohol. We feel that learning to drink at the same time you're learning to drive is a bad, deadly combination; thus the zero BAC. I might add that in all the four years of consultation that we've had, I think this is the one thing that really has gone unquestioned as a possible restriction and also is probably in all of the other graduated licensing proposals and models around the world.
The restriction from the 400-series highways: Again, we've had a lot of discussion on this. I understand it came up in discussion yesterday and I've heard the comments today so far. Basically in terms of collision rates, freeways, 400-series highways are fairly safe from a collisions per kilometre driven point of view, but this restriction really recognizes a couple of things.
First of all, these are the highest-speed facilities in the province, and it's very clear statistically that the greater the speed, the greater the severity of the consequences of a collision. So what we're really doing here is recognizing that among new drivers on expressways, we know that they have a greater probability of collision even though the probability of a collision on a freeway is less than somewhere else for a new driver. But we do know that the consequences of those collisions will be severe, and thus the restriction.
We have looked at a number of other ways of dealing with this speed angle, but what it really came down to is, if you put a posted speed limit restriction, say 80 kilometres or 90 kilometres, we're dealing in those situations with lack of available alternatives for getting experience and practice. A lot of people live on facilities that have 80-kilometre or 90-kilometre speed limits. So there would be really no alternative available. With the 400 series of highways, there is always an alternative way of getting from A to B, rather than taking Highway 401 or Highway 400 or whatever.
The curfew, midnight to 5: Other proposals have had after-dark curfews. We felt for Ontario midnight to 5 was a reasonable compromise and statistically sound in terms of the safety needs.
The special marker or the special sign for the learner-driver: The main advantage here is to alert other drivers to the fact that a learner-driver is at the wheel. A lot has been said about the ability to enforce and all the rest of it. We think the main value here is to alert other drivers.
I can just share a personal experience. I have a 20-year-old and a 16-year-old right now who are in their learning driver period this summer, and having taken them out a few times to get practice and experience, especially in the initial stages of learning, I was not that keen on this particular restriction, to be quite honest, but I found there would be a lot more comfort level if there was some way of the driver behind especially knowing that there was a learner-driver at the wheel, because you encounter situations where the driver behind gets very impatient, starts honking the horn or doing something and it makes both the learner-driver and the accompanying driver very edgy and it's a very difficult situation, particularly, I would say, in the first few months of experience. So I think it has value from that point of view.
Level 2: Once the learner-driver has spent 8 or 12 months, depending on whether they have driver education at level 1, and once they can pass a basic road test, identical to the one we have now, they will graduate into level 2, where for the first time they can now drive unaccompanied and the restrictions are far fewer in number. Basically the zero BAC and the passenger limitation and the vehicle restriction remain.
If I can just refer to a couple of things that I gather came up yesterday, I forgot to mention in level 1 the freeway restriction, the 400-series restriction. I gather there was a suggestion that this restriction should be waived if there is a trained driving instructor as the accompanying driver, and indeed our regulations as we've drafted them do allow for that. I just point that out to the committee.
In level 2, the vehicle restriction, the regulations have been drafted, again in response to something I gather came up yesterday, to allow the class D farm vehicles to be driven in level 2.
At the end of level 2, and another minimum one-year time period, the learner-driver will be asked to pass an advanced road test, which is being developed currently, it's in the process of being developed, where the emphasis will be on a higher level of driving skill as well as risk and hazard perception. I know that's going to come up in the question period and perhaps I can deal with some of the questions you might have on that then.
1100
Just to share with you some of the consultation we've had to date, there is some criticism that level 2 is not tough enough. There is perhaps lack of sufficient incentive to try to get out of level 2. I think there are several answers for that, not the least of which is the possibility of an insurance incentive to get out of level 2. It seems quite reasonable to me that at the beginning of level 2, when learner-drivers are starting to drive unaccompanied for the first time, there would be an insurance premium adjustment to reflect that. But it also seems reasonable to me that at the end of level 2, when the advanced road test has been passed and the learner-driver has satisfied very positive performance criteria, there should also be an insurance adjustment downwards at that point. It seems that's a reasonable hook and incentive to require the learner-driver to want to get out of level 2.
I won't deal with the motorcycle model because I think I'm probably running on a little too long here, but it's a parallel system for the insurance model. If you have some specific questions on that, we can answer those.
The question of the mature immigrant driver came up. I just wanted to point out here that our model does allow for experience from other jurisdictions and for an immigrant driver to fast-track through the system. It's a fairly detailed proposal, but what it boils down to is, if an immigrant driver has two years' experience from another jurisdiction, there will be a mechanism for them to try the advanced test immediately and proceed into full licensure if they pass it. If they don't pass it, they will be allowed to retest it at will until they do pass it. If they don't have two years' experience, they will be slotted accordingly into the graduated licensing system.
A couple of other features of the proposal: I've identified already that problem driving, ie, learning mistakes, will be identified and treated with an educative approach, that violations of the conditions of the graduated licensing will result in a suspension and that we've got the two levels of tests to ensure a higher calibre of driving skill coming out of the system.
There are graduated licensing systems in Australia and New Zealand and very modified ones in a couple of states in the US. Nova Scotia is currently conducting consultation as well on a proposed graduated licensing model. There are variations on the theme in all of these jurisdictions, but they all have at least two levels. They all have minimum time periods and they all have a number of restrictions. There are differences, but I think, in summary, our proposal is tougher at level 1 and probably less tough in level 2 than those other jurisdictional models. I can get into more detail if you wish during questions.
I guess I'd just like to summarize by saying we do think we have a good balance of the safety needs and mobility needs of the province in this proposal. We recognize that there can be a lot of tinkering and a lot of fine-tuning of the proposal and we look forward to any recommendations the committee may make.
Just one last thought, though, is that what we go forward with does not need to be etched in stone. We recognize that we need to keep a close eye on what we put in place, see how it's working and adjust and fine-tune it over time as necessary to meet any problems or weaknesses that may become apparent in our evaluation of the system on an ongoing basis.
Mr Steven Offer (Mississauga North): I'd like to just start with a few questions. Thank you for the presentation. To begin, the regulations that we have before us, and I've just taken a quick look through them, appear to be a tad broader than just dealing with graduated licensing. It deals with existing licensed drivers and changes in those rules. Is that correct?
Mr Hughes: Mr Domoney is our expert on the drafting of the legs and regs, but I believe anything that's in there is basically to undo the current system as well as put the new system in place, so there has to be a lot of reference back and forth. That may be why you perceive what you have.
Mr Offer: So basically the changes that we have before us are all as a result of the graduated licensing system and not standalone changes for licensed drivers.
Mr Bob Domoney: That's mostly correct. There are some cases where we've done some housekeeping items. Whenever you go through a regulation, you always note that something might not be quite right. So just as with Highway Traffic Act amendments, there are sometimes housekeeping amendments. We've incorporated a couple of minor housekeeping items in the regulations. Also, the reason why it looks like it's much broader than it is is that in two of the regulations we've opted to revoke the entire regulation and replace it rather than go through a series of "amend section such and such" because it's just easier to read and you get a better understanding of the total regulation.
Mr Offer: Okay, thank you. Another question I have deals with the identification of the novice driver.
Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): Just before we move off that, we should not be concerned that there's anything but cleaning up minor little dustballs.
Mr Offer: Could we then maybe get some information? Could you just provide us, maybe in some written form in the next few days -- we're going to be here for a couple of weeks -- what those changes might be?
Mr Domoney: Of the housekeeping items? Yes. I think probably the most dramatic one relates to reciprocal licence exchange of driver -- I think it's called driver examinations. That regulation was out of date, and when we looked at it to make changes for graduated licensing, we noted that licence exchange only deals with the class G vehicle. In fact, in Canada we exchange licences across the provinces for all classes on an equivalent basis, but the regulation doesn't recognize that, it's done through policy.
Mr Hughes: We will undertake to give you a list of the housekeeping items.
Mr Offer: Thank you. I know that my other colleagues have some questions on this, but I'd like to ask one question, and that deals with the identification of the novice driver. I speak as a parent of three girls, 14, 10 and 7, and of course you might imagine that with the 14-year-old, I'm under some intense personal lobbying on this matter.
Mr Hughes: I can relate to that.
Mr Offer: In the realities of the 1990s, one thing you don't want to do is identify. As a parent, through streetproofing, we don't put labels with our kids' names on them any more. We don't have them wear shirts with their names on them. In the state of Florida they took away the identification as to rental cars.
I understand the purpose of graduated licensing. I would think the last thing anyone would want to do is to identify for others that there is a new driver in a car. I have a feeling that the potential problems far outweigh any benefit and I'm wondering, how can we identify to others that there is a new person, a young person, in a car when everything we are hearing today from police departments and what not is: "Don't publicize. Don't let your kid wear a name tag." You tell your kid not to talk to strangers, and then you plaster a name tag on them and then they call them by their first name. I have, I will tell you, some real concerns with this one area. I have some questions on others, but on this one area, how is it that we can justify this identification?
1110
Mr Hughes: I think I mentioned when I was going through this that I share some of those concerns in terms of the L sign, if you want to call it that. My experience, doing a little coaching with my own children, especially in the early stages, was that this was a good thing.
Perhaps just to clarify, the learner-driver sign will only be in the vehicle in level 1 when the learner-driver has to be accompanied. It will never be in the vehicle when the learner-driver is alone. At level 2 there is no requirement. There's always going to be at least one other person in the vehicle, an older person with four years' experience, so that may mollify the concerns a little bit.
Mr Offer: I can tell you it doesn't.
Mr Conway: I was going to ask a couple of questions. Again, I think the general thrust here is good and ought to be supported. I try to think of the world in which I grew up and in which I still live, which is rural eastern Ontario.
Mr Daigeler: Does it still exist?
Mr Conway: It does, surprisingly. It's hard to explain to people who live in urban environments, even in urban communities within that, just how important -- people make this speech to me that driving is a privilege. I just want to scream. It's a bunch of crap if you live out in the bush. It has nothing to do with privilege; it's a necessity.
I had a constituent on the phone this morning and he had his licence taken away for all the right reasons, but he's got a 69-year-old mother who is blind and a 74-year-old father who is sick. We're trying to figure out a way now to deal with it, and it's a real problem. If that person lived in Owen Sound or Pembroke, I would have a whole series of solutions, but because he's in the bush up in the far corner of Renfrew, we've got a real problem.
I look at this and I say to myself, on the level 1, you're going to have to drive with zero tolerance of alcohol. I understand that. I think that's a highly virtuous thing to which to aspire, particularly in light of the data you've provided us with. But as I look at that, I think, has anybody at the Ministry of Transportation looked at Dr Schabas's recent data on the attitudes and behaviour of Ontario teenagers? Have you looked at that stuff? Everybody should, because it looks at a whole range of attitudes and behaviour for Ontarians between the ages of 12 and 19. I'll tell you, it's pretty interesting.
I'll cite the one I remember, which has to do with the sexual behaviour of young people in 1993, in the day and age of AIDS. I just look at that data and I say, holy smoke, talk about risk. I think of all the good things that governments have done through public education and all the rest of it, and this is the behaviour of a surprising number of people.
I look at this and I say that I don't want anybody driving under the influence of alcohol, but I just hope we all understand that there seems to be something in young people that really does encourage a level of risk-taking that is troubling. I just hope that as we legislate in this area, we understand that legislation may not be the total solution.
Mr Hughes: Could I respond to that one?
Mr Conway: Yes.
Mr Hughes: I certainly recognize what you're saying. I think the thing to remember with something like this graduated licensing proposal is that it's been tried, and worked, elsewhere, with basically the same enforcement umbrella scenario as in Ontario: secondary enforcement where the police are not really looking for young driver or new driver violations; they're simply noticing some driver behaviour, pulling someone over and discovering they're a learner-driver.
I think what you were getting at there was, would young people, would new drivers, obey the restrictions and conditions or would they tend to work on the edges? I think you have to recognize that a high proportion of people, if it's a law, obey it. With this proposal, recognize that a lot of the people who will have to abide by the conditions are young new drivers and don't necessarily control the keys to the vehicle themselves. There's another level of enforcement and that is the people who own the car, the parents or whoever who pay the insurance premiums who will have to pay the piper if these people don't obey the conditions of the licence.
I think there's that extra level of enforcement with new drivers. There's also the fact that people obey the law. There's also the fact that similar systems have not been an enforcement problem elsewhere.
Mr Conway: I guess the second part of that question, then, has to do with the class G, where you've got to be accompanied by somebody with a minimum of four years. In many cases, I understand what you're getting at there and I support the rationale, although I can just imagine a whole series of situations where it's going to be impossible and where I think I would bootleg. I'd just say: "It's crazy. I'm a single parent. I've got two kids. They're on the high school basketball team. The school is three miles away, and there's a car here and these are good kids." What do I do? Where do I go to get this person?
Mr Hughes: There isn't a real satisfactory answer to that. I think the reasoning is, first of all, it's short-term pain for long-term gain. I'd just like to point out to you that now the current system requires an accompanying driver and we know two thirds of the people take driver education voluntarily. Anyone who takes driver education generally is at the having to have an accompanying driver stage for three or four months, so under this proposal we're talking about an extra four months.
Mr Conway: The problem with this, though, is that it's got a very real bias against my constituents living out in the country. I just have no answers for them. I can just see it. I've already got some mail and I don't know what I'm going to say to these people, these parents with these kids. There is broad support for what you want to do here, but you're just sitting there and you can just think about it. If you live in town or if you're -- boy, if you're one of these kids out away from it, I think I know what you're going to do and I think I know what I'd do, acting responsibly but just not prepared to live with the unintended discriminatory impact of this provision.
Mr Hughes: You're emphasizing the rural and I understand where you're coming from. We've heard those arguments a lot. I live in Toronto and it's going to be difficult for me as a parent. I've heard the arguments from my two teenagers about the restrictions and how tough they are, but I'll just go back to the fact that it is eight months, or 12 months, minimum. Basically, you do the same thing, from a mobility point of view, the need to get around, when your kid is 15 years and 11 months old; you basically do whatever you do for another nine months.
As I say, I tried to emphasize, going through this, that we're making that tradeoff about the need to get around and the reflection that there are 350 16- to 24-year-olds killed on our highways every year. As to where the balance point is, obviously there's a line that goes like this, and we've chosen here, and whether you choose here or here, it's a difficult call to say exactly what is the right balance. Having gone through four years of discussion on this and having dealt with lobby groups and the general public informally along the way, we feel we've struck that balance.
1120
Mr Daigeler: You referred to some figures on accident rates in relationship to the conditions that you've established. Could you provide us with those, a breakdown for the committee?
Mr Hughes: Yes, absolutely. We've provided the committee with the technical background paper. There's a chapter on statistics we'll pull together.
Mr Daigeler: I'd appreciate that, because you related them directly to the categories you have actually established.
Since we have limited time, I'd like you to address one issue that I really feel strongly about, and that's the insurance coverage. I was surprised when I went through your question and answer document. There was just this one half-sentence in there that said, "If you're in violation of any of these conditions, you are no longer covered by insurance." I'd like you to comment on that. That, I think, could cause some very severe problems.
Mr Hughes: It may be more appropriate to bring that up with the insurance folks who are on the agenda for this afternoon. I'm not aware of what you just referred to in terms of --
Mr Daigeler: Well, I presume the --
Mr Paul Levine: There is the reference, and I think it's just a gentle reminder that insurance coverage --
Mr Daigeler: Well, that should be more than simple.
Mr Levine: This doesn't relate necessarily to new drivers or graduated licensing, but all drivers are covered by their insurance policies only if they are working within the limits and the boundaries set. Those boundaries are that you are operating within the system, whether that system be that you're not driving when your licence has been suspended for demerit points or suspended for any other reason.
In the same way, whatever the conditions are that are imposed for holding your licence and driving a vehicle on the roads of Ontario, the only time your insurance policy covers you is when you are working within that system. Any time you are working outside of the system, the insurance company has protected itself by saying, "We won't cover you if you're not playing by the rules of the game." I think that's a fair way to do business, and I think it was included in our package just as a reminder that whatever the conditions are that are set, you have to play within the system or you're in bigger trouble than just having a little collision or a little violation.
Mr Daigeler: Yes, and I understood that that was simply following through what exists for other occasions, and I look forward to asking the insurance industry about this.
Frankly, I just visualize some kid who is on the road at a quarter past midnight, is in violation of these conditions, has an accident and then the insurance doesn't cover it any more. What happens then? I'm not sure if you are the one to answer on this, but somebody will have to answer this because I think that is an exceedingly severe penalty for what may appear to be, offhand, a relatively minor infraction of regulations. I think that really is something we have to discuss further.
Mr Hughes: Anybody want to answer that?
Mr Domoney: Mr Daigeler, I think you should remember that in the case of the curfew, as we've proposed it, it covers level 1 only. One of the requirements in level 1 is that you must have an accompanying driver. If it's after midnight, you should switch drivers, so the dilemma shouldn't really occur.
Mr Offer: I'd like to get back during our hearings to this accompaniment and the impact. In the legislation, it says that there's a due diligence defence for the novice driver. What does that mean?
Mr Hughes: Basically, I think that's primarily to address the fact that we want to make the learner-driver responsible for obeying the conditions of the licence. For such things as making sure that you've got a sober, accompanying driver or a fully licensed accompanying driver, the due diligence defence is there simply so that the learner-driver, if they are charged with violating one of those conditions, can defend themselves on the basis that they did everything possible to assure themselves that indeed the accompanying driver was sober and had been licensed for four years and had a fully valid licence.
Mr Turnbull: First of all, I would ask you, what is the ability at the moment technically to calibrate breathalysers to be able to measure both 0.5% and also 0% alcohol?
Mr Hughes: We're getting into a fairly technical area here. First of all, the machines the police use now -- I think they're back on the road now, aren't they?
Mr Levine: They are new devices for the most part that are being used that can be calibrated to a very low level. Absolute zero may in fact be a level that would not be achievable for acceptance by the courts, but a nominal zero would mean that we would be trying to detect the lowest possible calibration that would be supportable as evidence in court which I understand at this point can be down to something in the order of 0.002.
Mr Turnbull: Let me understand, at the moment you have a machine which is calibrated to one blood alcohol level, and you're either above that or below that, no?
Mr Levine: The device that's currently in use roadside is calibrated at two levels, and neither one provides a digital readout, it merely provides a pass, warn or fail signal. The warn calibration is at 0.05; the fail is at 0.10. It's based on the evidence gathered roadside that an officer would make the decision whether to have the individual taken in to the police station to actually undergo a breathalyser test, which provides a digital readout on a totally different device that requires quite high technical skill to utilize.
Mr Turnbull: Have we considered what is involved in terms of equipping the police for roadside testing for these now three discrete levels of alcohol testing?
Mr Levine: Yes, we have, and at the time that we conducted our initial analysis of the situation, it was before the difficulties that were encountered in the courts and we were proposing to introduce an additional device calibrated at the lowest possible levels that would still support the situation if we had to take it to court. Since that time, some of the devices have been questioned and we are now working with the Ministry of the solicitor General to determine precisely how we should go about it. The indication at this point is that some of the new devices can have sufficient multiple calibrations that we may be able to use one device with an additional calibration to measure.
Mr Turnbull: Moving on to this question I mentioned in my opening comments about limiting to one person beside the driver in the front seat, can you just give me some of the thinking that went into that, and what the police view is of allowing up to three people in the front seat, depending on the number of seatbelts?
Mr Hughes: I can't say that I can talk to the police view, but personally I think the one-passenger restriction in the front seat is a reasonable one. It's something that could be considered.
Mr Turnbull: It could be one passenger. We're talking about the accompanying driver when you're talking about the one passenger.
Mr Hughes: Yes. I don't think that's unreasonable. As I say, with the passenger limitation, we looked at all kinds of possible arrangements and ways of going at it, but for reasons of mobility, we settled on the seatbelt limitation.
One thing the seatbelt limitation does -- in a normal car, you've probably got six seatbelts and you can have six passengers, including three in the front seat -- is that it prevents people from sitting in the back of a station wagon or the back of a pickup truck while a learner driver is at the wheel. Neither of those things is illegal, as long as the seatbelt positions are occupied. The one-passenger limitation on the front seat certainly has merit from a safety point of view. Again, it gets back to how tough or generous do you want that particular restriction to be.
1130
Mr Turnbull: I'm just hopping from one issue to another because these are some questions that have cropped up. Have you given consideration to the legislation requiring an accompanying driver in level 2 in those situations which are new, ie, 400-series highways and night driving?
Mr Hughes: I can't remember if we addressed or considered that exact suggestion, but we certainly have addressed and considered the question of having in level 2 a series of conditions under which accompaniment would be required and not required. We're back to where would we want to be on the spectrum, as well as it being fairly difficult to understand and administer. It's complicated enough the way it is, but then you get into a question of two sets of rules for level 2, and it becomes more difficult for the learner driver to understand, it becomes more difficult for the enforcement community to understand and enforce. So we arrived at where we arrived.
Mr Turnbull: Okay. The question of exchange licences: I see in your presentation that currently you've got the US, Japan, along with Canada. I'm rather surprised that you don't have, for example, New Zealand.
Mr Hughes: This is a recognition that we have entered into reciprocal licence agreements with those jurisdictions that you mentioned, the other provinces, the States and Japan. This is only after we have approached, we've had a mutual desire to do it, they have looked at our standards, we have looked at their standards, and we agree that our standards are compatible and fairly consistent. There's no reason that we can't extend that further; it's just that this has not happened on the broader licensing picture.
Mr Turnbull: Have there ever been any efforts by the Ontario government to explore that with other jurisdictions?
Mr Hughes: I'm not aware, but Bob Domoney may be.
Mr Domoney: Yes, there is a committee of all the Canadian provinces and territories called the Canadian Council of Motor Transport Administrators, and they recently made a decision, I believe it was last year, to approach the G-7 countries for reciprocal licence exchange. The first entry into that was Japan. The others will be proceeding at some unknown rate of time, but we will be doing it as a country, jointly with the other provinces, not unilaterally as Ontario.
Mr Turnbull: On the question of enforcement for violation, what measures would you contemplate taking for somebody driving in violation of their graduated licence?
Mr Hughes: Currently, the proposal calls for a 30-day licence suspension if a learner driver is found contravening one of the conditions of level 1 or level 2. It has a dual effect: It suspends them from driving for 30 days as well as adding 30 days to the minimum time period.
Mr Turnbull: On the question I raised earlier of exemption for educational and employment purposes for rural residents -- and I perhaps would add as a result of the suggestion made by my colleague Mr Conway -- perhaps for certain health reasons exemptions could be made. Have you given some consideration of that?
Mr Hughes: Health reasons? Could you just explain that?
Mr Turnbull: When somebody has to get to a hospital or has to transport a relative to a hospital.
Mr Hughes: The police have the discretion now if it's an emergency situation to deal with the situation as it is. On the general question of exemptions, yes, of course, we've looked at exemptions. Generally, where exemptions have been used it's been with restrictions in a level where no accompaniment is required. In other words, if there was a curfew in level 2 and a person had a job that required them to drive during the hours of the curfew, some jurisdictions have considered exemptions and have exemption processes.
In general, when you're dealing with legislation, exemptions are seen as a last resort in dealing with a problem because of the potential for abuse and cheating. I guess, if there was some move to make level 2 tougher with some sort of additional restrictions, there could be some consideration given to some sort of exemption process.
The problem with the exemptions is they require an administrative process, they require staff support. For example, I guess I can just share with you that with New York state they have some age-based curfew requirements. It's not really a graduated licensing system, it's simply a ban on late-night driving for certain age groups. They do have an exemption procedure, but their exemption procedure is very administratively simple. The onus is on the driver to be carrying a document which is current and signed by an employer, an educational institution or something like that, which they can show to the police officer. At least that way it wouldn't be administratively complex and the onus would be on the driver to produce the documentation. With level 1 in our system, I guess we just basically shied away from exemptions simply because of our concern over the initial period of learning driving and we want that period of accompaniment to be done under fairly low-risk conditions.
Mr Turnbull: Okay. You mentioned in your presentation the question of incentives to get out of level 2 and you suggested that ideally an insurance-based incentive would be best.
Mr Hughes: It's a possibility.
Mr Turnbull: Have you explored that with the Insurance Bureau of Canada?
Mr Hughes: We've broached the subject but we haven't come to any determination or final proposal.
The Chair: Mr Domoney, do you have something to add to Mr Hughes's response?
Mr Domoney: Yes, just a point. With regard to incentives for level 2, it's quite possible some people may choose to stay in level 2, because if they're nondrinkers and they don't overcrowd a vehicle, then there's no real inconvenience other than the possibility of the insurance difference. One of the additional incentives we've put in place is that after five years, if you're a novice driver for five years, your licence is up for renewal. If you are still in a novice status at that time, one of the conditions of renewal is a retest. So if you have taken the level 2 exit test to become a fully status driver prior to that five-year period, then you could renew as a normal driver without a road retest. There's a built-in incentive of an additional test, the thought being that if someone's a novice driver for five years or more, they probably haven't been doing much driving and we'd like to look at them again. They will be encouraged to get out of the system or be retested.
Mr Conway: Are any changes contemplated for the over-80 crowd? But that's another issue.
Mr Bill Murdoch (Grey-Owen Sound): I want to go back to the same problem Mr Conway brought up. I know David touched a bit on it, and this is rural Ontario and northern Ontario -- as you said, northern Renfrew -- but we've all northern Ontario up there. I agree with the graduated licensing concept. I think it's a good idea and I think you've done a very good job so far. I just wonder whether we're going to have to look to some exceptions, because definitely it's different in rural Ontario than it is in urban Ontario.
That's a problem I see with what happens here at Queen's Park with a lot of laws and a lot of bills that we put through. It's sort of geared for the urban area and we don't realize that there are differences out in -- well, we realize, but sometimes I think the lawmakers don't realize there are differences in rural Ontario and northern Ontario.
You said exceptions could be made and maybe that's going to happen, because I have a daughter at 16 who has her licence. I'm glad she does and I think she does a very good job of driving. I have one who's 14, who's lobbying me also, who's going to get into this licensing system.
1140
But if you take on the farm, a lot of the times in the summer, the son may work with his father on the farm and if a part breaks down, he can keep on working or something else and the son can go to town to get the part. They won't be able to do that if they're under this, if you have to have somebody with them.
I know it's not that long, and I agree that if we can save lives, we should do that. But I think that you've got to look somewhere in there to find an exception, to get it more accepted. I think the broad public does accept it now, but just to make it a little easier, because those are the only complaints I hear, that, "Hey, it's a little different out here in rural Ontario," and if you get away up north too. Sometimes people have to drive.
Mr Hughes: Just a couple of points: Several of the restrictions in level 1 have been modified considerably through this process to reflect the concerns of rural residents. It may seem tough, level 1, but the passenger and the highway restrictions that we originally considered have been modified considerably to being less onerous, particularly for rural areas.
I guess the second point is, I would assume that the big problem in the rural areas is the curfew. I have two teenage daughters and I live in the city, and I just want to get away from this idea that the curfew is just a rural problem. I think I'd rather have my child driving home after midnight than taking Toronto public transit. So it's a problem for me too, living in the city as a parent of a teenager. Basically, my decision on that is, I will go and pick them up wherever they are if they haven't got a licence and a car. I realize that distances are a lot further in rural areas, but I just want to get away from this idea that it's just a rural problem.
Mr Conway: I don't know about others but the curfew would not be, I don't think, nearly the biggest issue in rural Ontario by a long shot. Curfew you can live with.
Mr Murdoch: Yes. I say again, I know it's a tough one and I know you're working on it. I just would appreciate it if you'd look at that, though, that there may be some exceptions. When you said the employer -- maybe if a son's working on the farm and he needs it, maybe there's a letter of some sort that we can have, that he can carry if he has to go to town to pick up parts and things like that. But there are those problems. That's my concern, but that's all.
Mr Levine: Just to address the issue of the farmer and perhaps son or daughter helping out on the farm: If we compare it to today's system, what it does is it probably prolongs the ability of the child to take up that role by one summer.
Mr Murdoch: Yes, that's fine, but in farming sometimes one summer is where you make your money. But I hear you.
Mr Levine: I think we have to recognize that there is a date at which the child becomes the adult, and in this case, yes, we recognize that the impact is probably adding one summer's worth of need for someone else to be able to go pick up the part.
Mr Domoney: I think one thing we should really keep in mind here, with the conditions in level 1, the main condition in level 1, aside from the zero BAC, is that you must have an accompanying driver at all times. The reason for that is that the person in level 1 has never taken a road test. They've only taken a written and a vision test. Today, that's equivalent to what we call the 365 or the learner's permit. A rural person and a person in an urban community may not drive unaccompanied today until they've taken that road test.
So the real issue, in my mind, isn't whether they have a curfew in level 1 or whether they have passengers or not; the real inconvenience is the fact that you must have an accompanying driver. You cannot drive the vehicle on your own until you've taken the road test. The effect of graduated licensing then primarily is to say that you may not pass over into level 2 at least until you're 16 years and 8 months old, provided you've taken a driver ed course, or 17 without.
Mr Offer: On a point of clarification: Do you mean to say for a person to enter level 1, they do not have to have, under this system, a road test?
Mr Domoney: Today, anyone who gets a learner's permit, which requires an accompanying driver --
Mr Offer: Is level 1 just another 365?
Mr Domoney: Yes. But it's a 365 with some conditions applied to it and a minimum time before you can take the road test. So this is why we're saying that the real issue here is how long it takes you to get to the point of going into level 2 and when you're permitted to take the road test. So in today's system, as John mentioned earlier, it's likely that this would be three to four to five months in any case. So we're talking about an additional three or four months whereby you must be under those accompanying conditions before you can take the road test, before you can get on to level 2, which reduces conditions and allows you to drive unaccompanied.
Ms Murdock: I just have three comments and then a couple of questions. The first comment is, when you were talking about tougher licence testing, I was thinking that it isn't so much tougher as it would be, in my view, more comprehensive. I know it was many moons ago when I did my licence --
Mr Gary Wilson (Kingston and The Islands): Not that many.
Ms Murdock: Many moons, in the days of the 90 days, rather than the 365. I remember practising and practising and practising parallel parking because I couldn't do it and I never got checked out on it on my test anyway. So I was really quite disappointed.
In terms of agreeing to no more than two in the front seat, I initially agreed with that and I still think that the concept of not having more than one other person in the front seat is a good idea, except that it was pointed out to me that pickup trucks would be a problem in that area, especially in rural areas. I'm wondering whether or not any thought has been given in putting that restriction, say, at the level 1 level only, so that at least at that level they wouldn't be having more than one in the front seat.
The other comment I have is that I agree that there's no difficulty with the zero BAC and that persons 16 to 19 are prohibited by law already from drinking, supposedly. As some comment was made this morning, laws obviously don't create a Utopia and not everyone follows them. So I think this restriction reaffirms the Criminal Code restriction.
The questions I have are whether or not you looked at, in terms of mandatory driver education and that being the incentive, a restriction of, say, level 1 of two years rather than if you take the course you get it in eight months, but if you don't take the course you've got a two-year restriction; whether or not that had been looked at.
The marker, in terms of identification of a learner, are you speaking of a sign such as my dad, who is handicapped, has, the blue sign that you put on the dash and so therefore when I'm driving him around, I just throw it in my car? Is it that kind of identification or is it a more obvious one?
What do class D level 1 drivers do in the rural areas? Yesterday, one of the presenters made a comment about how their farm is quite large and that they would have to use roads to get from the land to the barn kind of thing and what does a level 1 driver do in that instance.
In your presentation you talked about insurance hook. Is that the reason why the end was chosen for the level 2 test, the concept of an insurance drop in premium? I'm wondering if that was the rationale. I'm wondering how you arrived at the 30-day suspension for violation of a condition and whether or not other time frames had been looked at or severity of the contravention and whether a lengthier time frame should be looked at, and lastly, other jurisdictions in terms of the learning age levels, in Canada, specifically.
1150
The Chair: Mr Hughes, Mr Levine, Mr Domoney: I think it'll require a team effort.
Mr Hughes: Would you like to go back to your first question? I was trying to write them down here but there were a lot of questions.
Ms Murdock: Okay. Mandatory driver education: Had there been any consideration for a longer period of time in the level 1, with an incentive to take your driver ed; say, if you took the course, you'd still get your licence in eight months as a premium, but if you don't take the course, you wait 24 months instead of 12?
Mr Hughes: Yes, we looked at different ways of accomplishing this. We arrived at where we arrived at based on a reflection that driver education costs money and would be a hardship for some people in the province to attain through professional driving instruction. Two, there are pockets of the province where it's difficult to get driver education in some isolated areas.
So those two things made us go to an incentive rather than mandatory driver education. The fact that the incentive is what it is, is really just a question of balance again. We could make the incentive bigger or smaller, but it's a question of being fair to those folks who either can't afford it or would have difficulty obtaining driver education based on where they live.
Ms Murdock: It would still not be mandatory under my scenario, would it?
Mr Hughes: It's not mandatory under our scenario, either.
Ms Murdock: No.
Mr Hughes: It's just a question of how much incentive or credit you give.
Mr Levine: If you're asking about the other end of the spectrum in increasing from one year to two years if you don't take it, I think the establishment of that time frame was made independent of the decision to offer the incentive for driver education. The one-year period for level 1 is really based on the whole concept of an overall two-year learning curve and a two-year graduated system and where's the appropriate time to make the cut and when might a person have sufficient experience to make that move from the very restrictive level 1 to the less restrictive level 2.
So in actually applying the incentive, we looked at it mostly from the point of view of what's an appropriate time frame to offer the incentive. We didn't look at expanding the one year.
Ms Murdock: The second one was the marker. What kind of marker are you thinking of?
Mr Hughes: I'm not sure that we've established 100% what it's going to be. The requirements are that it needs to be very visible, and secondly, that it needs to be portable, because we want the learner-driver to be able to take it from one vehicle to another.
Ms Murdock: I agree with the portability.
Mr Hughes: Bob?
Mr Domoney: We have a gentleman from our Kingston office who's looking into some of the design aspects of it, and there are some problems. We would like to have it as an interior sign as opposed to an exterior one for a couple of reasons. It's less likely to get stolen, it's more noticeable for drivers, and it's cheaper to construct. Some of the problems that we've encountered are darker windows, frost, how do you make sure it's on the vehicle without obstructing vision etc. So we're looking into those design aspects and we will be tendering to the private industry for a sign once we've designed it.
Ms Murdock: If the point of it is for police identification and so on, I happen to think, based on watching people, looking at cars in the city of Sudbury, for instance, when they're learners, that traffic does change around those vehicles. So I happen to agree with both presentations yesterday where that comment was made.
Mr Conway: In what way, Sharon? I missed it.
Ms Murdock: I wasn't listening to what you were saying, Mr Conway.
Mr Conway: How did it change? I was interested in you observation on Sudbury, about how people react to the signs.
Ms Murdock: Actually the one presentation yesterday, where traffic slowed down or got more irritable and so on, is a definite observation.
Mr Domoney: The people who offer comments for the sign and the people who offer comments against it often use the same argument. So you can say that the fact that you provide a little bubble around the driver is a safety factor. It also creates an unrealistic driving environment. So it's six of one, half a dozen of the other whether that's a good or bad thing.
Ms Murdock: But if he's going to learn how to drive within the driving environment, then he shouldn't be buffered.
Mr Domoney: Yes.
Ms Murdock: Otherwise it's not a true learning experience. If the point of it is to learn and gain the experience in the first year, level 1, then -- however.
What do class D level 1 drivers do in the rural areas?
Mr Domoney: They don't. There's a bit of a misunderstanding, I think, about class D. Maybe I can clarify that.
The current regulations require that you must have a class G licence, which is a regular licence after having taken a road test, in order to be able to drive a class D farm vehicle. Now, it's not just any class D vehicle, it must be a farm vehicle, it must be owned and operated by a farmer and operated by an employee or the farmer for farm purposes. If it is that kind of a vehicle, it's a class D. It's deemed to be a G for the licensing purposes, which means that the class G driver may drive it without a D licence.
The comparable situation is a class L licence, which is the 365. Class L in today's system is equivalent to G-1 in the new system. So a class L driver cannot drive a farm vehicle if it's a D vehicle today and in the future they won't be able to either.
The question that Sue MacNeil put forward yesterday was, what about a class D deemed to be a G if the driver is level 2, which is after the road test, which is equivalent to today's scenario. The answer is that we contemplated that concern and the draft regulations do permit a level 2 driver to operate a farm vehicle if it's class D deemed to be G under the conditions that currently exist in the regulations.
Ms Murdock: I understood from his comments that that was the case.
Mr Domoney: So the answer is that you can't drive on a level 1, and you currently can't drive it with a learner's permit. The rationale is that you've never taken a road test, in any vehicle.
Ms Murdock: Is there a particular reason why the testing for level 2 is done at the end rather than the beginning of level 2, or is that because you've done the level 1 test and then go into level 2?
Mr Hughes: There is a basic road test at the end of level 1 or the beginning of level 2, whichever way you want to look at it. Between level 1 and level 2, you must pass the basic road test. At the end of level 2, you then must pass the advanced test in order to gain full driving privilege.
Ms Murdock: And the 30 days, 90 days or --
Mr Hughes: There's no magic to the 30 days; it just seems to be a reasonable suspension period. It's equivalent to what we do now under the probationary system where if you're on probation, which you are for the first two years of your licence period after you pass the basic road test, and you get six demerit points, then you're suspended for 30 days.
Ms Murdock: So severity isn't considered either? In terms of point accumulation, it's --
Mr Hughes: Under this system there's no suspension other than the normal demerit point suspensions for pointable offences. The suspension is strictly for violations of the restrictions on the licence.
Ms Murdock: In other jurisdictions, do you know offhand the learning age levels, or can you get it to us?
Mr Hughes: The predominant age is 16 in most.
Ms Murdock: But it is different in others?
Mr Hughes: Certainly in North America 16 is the norm. There are exceptions, but 16 is the norm.
Mr Domoney: I think there are two exceptions in North America, to my knowledge. I'm not absolutely certain of this, but I believe in Alberta you can get a learner's permit at 15, and I believe there's one Midwest state -- it might be Wisconsin; somewhere down there -- where it's also 15. But predominantly across North America 16 is the minimum age for driving.
1200
Mr Hughes: Perhaps one point of interest as well: The New Zealand and Australian graduated licensing systems are age-based. They only apply to new drivers at young ages. Ours is different. Ours applies to all new drivers. You've got to understand that they have a different legal and constitutional system than we do, but theirs is very discriminatory based on age.
Ms Murdock: It wouldn't get past our charter unless we invoked section 1.
Mr Paul Klopp (Huron): Thank you very much. It's been enlightening today. I think the argument of right versus privilege is something we've had at our caucus. A few of us have argued on all sides, and I won't get into that, other than I agree that the premise of what we're doing here is important.
On the zero blood alcohol content, and we're talking about human nature, I think it's important to bring out another side of human nature. When you have an accident in your area and it hits home, a young person getting killed, I've had a lot of different phone calls in my office, unfortunately, because of the human nature issue. All of a sudden it's Tom and it's Mary who went to Goderich High. We've talked about this out in our area as members of Parliament for a while and I've had quite different phone calls on the necessity to, yes, make it now that you're not 16 and get a licence automatically. You're extending the process. I found it interesting. We just noticed it now. It's going to be like 17 to get your licence. Of course it is. You're stretching it out.
However, I get back to an issue we talked about, and it's not just rural and not just farmers; it's the whole issue of the necessity, I guess, and the argument of right versus privilege comes down for me on that side of the argument. Right now under the system, the way I understand it, I can apply for my beginner's -- maybe I'm using an old term -- I get my beginner's and, in theory, the very next day I can go in and get my full licence to drive. In practice, where I come from -- I'm not just talking of farmers but the Zurichs and the Goderichs and the Hills Greens and you can name them all -- everybody who has gone in very quickly to get their full licence is because they have a job, and they've been probably driven to that job. Yes, they've been driven the day before. Their dad or their mom or their aunt or their grandmother or their best friend's old neighbour drove them. But now they can get a licence, and they go as fast as they can to get that permit.
Under the system we're now asking us to do, we aren't allowing that flexibility. We're saying a minimum of eight months, and it isn't very long, I agree, but it's eternity if you're hanging on the side of a barn; eight months is a long time. Bad example.
The idea is that now we're taking away that right, and I go back to what Mr Murdoch said. I think what all of us have talked about is that there is no doubt we want people to buy into this system, because with all the rules you can make, if people aren't buying into it, you haven't gained anything. All you've got is a problem, and probably some group will run in the next election and say, "We'll get rid of it, vote for us," and if it's bad enough, they probably will.
I think, to try to come up with some answer here -- and I'd like to see some statistics if we can -- how many people are getting involved in accidents who are truly going back and forth to work? I can think of thousands of examples and everybody else in this room can.
So if there's some option, I guess, that if someone can show need for work, they can somehow get sped up to get a permit to drive by themselves, because right now theoretically they can, but that they're given, I don't know, a new designation or something, that allows them to fast-track to the point that they could get a licence to drive themselves, but it would only be -- I agree with the intent that it's got to be the 16 to 19, and I grew up in that age group so I know exactly what I'm talking about, and I'm lucky enough to be here, I suppose, but that they can get their jobs --
Mr Conway: It would be remarkable to think you grew up and avoided that age.
Mr Klopp: I'm afraid I didn't.
Mr Murdoch: The question is, did he grow up?
Mr Klopp: They could get a work permit but they still have to follow all the other rules. They've still got to go through that study period, because I also can understand somebody taking advantage and all that nightmare. But truly for a person who does have a job, say, who lives in Zurich and works in Bayfield and is 17 and 16, I really think that person should have all the other rules, that there's an option there, because it isn't Toronto, it isn't a lot of other places. So that's what I bring up and I'll leave it at that for now.
Mr Hughes: I don't think there was a question, but certainly I've talked about the idea of exemptions. I guess the question I would have in terms of what you've suggested is, where does the driver's test fit into that? Would you give someone an exemption before they've tried the driver's test?
Mr Klopp: No, no.
Mr Hughes: So you'd have to front-end the driver's test for those exceptions, then.
Mr Klopp: If they can show need and it's for work only, and they can go and get their regular licence or a new form of licence.
Mr Hughes: Again, I don't know that we would be able to provide any statistics on accidents where people were driving for work purposes. That kind of stuff doesn't exist. We don't capture that kind of information at the accident scene. So in terms of the safety aspect, I can't comment on that.
I've already commented on sort of the reluctance to allow exemptions and why, but certainly, if the suggestion was there, we'd want to make it manageable and practical.
Mr Klopp: Maybe one small comment to just close on, I really think the marker issue is something that I'm not crazy about -- 50-50.
Mr Conway: I think it might be a useful thing, in light of some of the questions that have been raised, to take a moment just to remind all of us what the current system is and what the new system will be.
It's been a long time since, like Ms Murdock, I wrote my test. Will somebody just explain to me, just so I'm clear, the way it is now generally and the way it will be, but let's just review what we've got now for the typical 16-year-old who is thinking about getting a driver's licence. How does it work now?
Mr Hughes: I'll take a try at that, if you like. Currently, a person who wants to get his or her driver's licence goes in and tries the vision and knowledge tests at a ministry licensing centre. If they pass the vision and knowledge tests --
Mr Conway: You have to be 16.
Mr Hughes: -- at a minimum age 16, they are then granted a learner's permit, which is what we call a 365-day permit.
Up until that point, that's exactly the same as the graduated licensing system where they'll come in, try the vision and knowledge tests, must be 16 years of age and they're granted a level 1 graduated licence.
Mr Conway: So with the old 365, you couldn't drive on the roads unless you had a licensed driver with you, right?
Mr Hughes: That's correct.
Mr Conway: The change there is a licensed driver now with four years' experience.
Mr Hughes: So whether you've got the current 365 or the new graduated level 1, you must do the same things to get that piece of paper. Once you've got the piece of paper, the only things that are identical are the accompanying driver -- there is an accompanying driver requirement with the current system, but there are no criteria attached to the accompanying driver other than that he or she must be licensed, and we are more onerous with the graduated system. They must drive a class G vehicle; that's the same. All the other restrictions I think are new with the graduated licensing.
Mr Conway: Now, that's helpful. The one problem that I continue to see here, and I'm trying to imagine, and you think about problems because -- I'm so fossilized, I remember when we did the seatbelt thing around here. Boy, was that a lot. We have come a long way, and by the way, I want to look at that legislation because I remember the debate about exemptions and there is an exemption. I think it's either written into the bill or in the regs. I can't remember.
Mr Levine: A medical exemption.
Mr Conway: Exactly. It's like the old prohibition. You could get a lot with that script. You could do a lot with that. That was a very useful, flexible instrument in public policy.
You see, the thing that I see as the problem is that I think of my old high school, where kids come in from a radius of 50 to 60 kilometres, and with cutbacks that are understandable in terms of busing -- I'm thinking of these good kids who are going to be 17 and 18, and I've got some mail and lots of the questions I think I can answer. I'm not worried about them. Curfew is the least of my worries. I totally agree with you on the one person in the front of the car too. I really think that's a very sensible restriction.
I'm thinking about these kids who are going to be 17 and 18 who are going to be, say, at the high school and they're going to be playing basketball or something. The only way they can participate is to get in some kind of a car pool. The way it works now, you see, is that you can entice your older brother or your older sister to hang around to drive you home. The minute you impose that rule of the four-year, you've got to get an adult who's going to be willing to do that, and that's going to be a real problem.
I know the way around it. I know what I would do, and I think the local police would probably understand and let it pass as long as the exemption was sensible. That's what will happen, I'll tell you, in my area, and it'll be a perfectly understandable behaviour because there will be no alternative.
Mr Hughes: The four-year requirement, again, isn't etched in stone. Remember, if graduated licensing goes through and we look down the road a little bit, any driver who is fully licensed, who has gone through the graduated licensing system, will have been licensed for two years during the graduated licensing period. I'd say you've kind of got a minimum two-year requirement right there, built into the system. If the requirement was just a fully licensed driver to be the accompanying driver, down the road, we're comfortable that this person will have at least two years' driving experience, having gone through graduated licensing. So two years, three years, four years, there's some flexibility there.
Mr Conway: I think that might be the solution.
Mr Hughes: I'm not saying that it has to be four years. I think what we're saying is that we want to have more assurance than we do now that the person who's sitting in the passenger front seat is able to do some coaching and to take over in an emergency. Whether that's four years or three years or five years I think is debatable, but right now they can be licensed for one day and be the accompanying driver.
Mr Conway: I agree. I appreciate that.
The Chair: I'd like to thank Mr Dadamo, Mr Hughes, Mr Levine and Mr Domoney for their participation here this morning. I trust that ministry personnel will be available throughout the committee process, and we look forward very much to involving you in the process. We are in recess until 2 pm.
The committee recessed from 1212 to 1407.
INSURANCE BUREAU OF CANADA
The Chair: The first witness this afternoon is the Insurance Bureau of Canada. Please identify yourselves and then proceed with your presentation. You have been allocated one half-hour for your presentation, and I know the committee would like at least half of that, if possible, for questions and answers.
Mr Stan Griffin: Certainly. Thank you, Mr Chairman. My name is Stan Griffin, vice-president of the Ontario region of the Insurance Bureau of Canada, and with me is Peter McDougall, who coordinated our summer 1992 graduated licensing campaign.
I have tabled with you a formal submission. I'm not going to read it. As the Chairman has reminded me, we have a precious one half-hour, and if I did, I think we'd fill the whole time reading the submission. So I encourage you to read the submission at your leisure. It is filled with all kinds of statistical support for graduated licensing. For the next few minutes, Peter and I would really just like to talk to you about IBC's involvement in promoting graduated licensing, some of our comments and recommendations on the government's proposal, and Peter will share with you and discuss with you his experiences with the public during his campaign last summer.
For those of you who are not familiar with the Insurance Bureau of Canada, we are the major property and casualty insurance trade association in Canada. We have 180 member companies that offer most of the home car insurance in Canada and insure the over six million vehicles in the province of Ontario. We have 47,000 people working in our industry in Ontario and these are the people who deal day-to-day with the kinds of accidents and the kinds of injuries and the results of the current licensing system that we see today.
IBC and the industry have a long history of road safety initiatives. We were in the forefront in the 1960s and 1970s in promoting seatbelt legislation, drinking and driving campaigns. We've contributed most recently to the Ministry of Transportation's efforts to reduce aggressive driving through, you may recall, the Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde campaign of the last summer. Graduated licensing, to us, is a logical extension of that leadership in public service in providing for and promoting safety initiatives.
IBC has supported graduated licensing since as early as 1983. In 1988, we commissioned the Traffic Injury Research Foundation to study the problem of the young driver and young driver road crashes, and I'm glad to see that the committee is going to have the opportunity to hear Dr Herb Simpson immediately after our presentation, who authored much of that report and is in my opinion one of Canada's leading experts in this whole issue of graduated licensing.
The results of that study were released in 1990 in a publication called New To The Road: Young Drivers and Novice Drivers -- Similar Problems and Solutions? There were two findings of that 10-year research that I would like to highlight for you: first of all, that even though the number of car accidents has declined among young drivers, the death and injury rate for young drivers, those drivers under 20, is still two and a half to three times greater than for all other groups on the road, and secondly, that other new drivers are also high at risk and their numbers are increasing. This is the first time that we had verification of that phenomenon, that there are more and more new drivers on the road who are not 16, who are older in age, and they too are at high risk of being involved in car accidents.
Following that, we commissioned TIRF once again to organize an international symposium in Halifax in 1991 to again look at an international perspective on this problem of new drivers on the road. The findings of that report have been broadly distributed in a report called New To The Road that I'm sure Dr Simpson will refer to during his presentation. There were two major findings that came out of that study, and this was an international symposium. The two major findings were that graduated licensing can protect all new drivers, and secondly, that it should be implemented across Canada.
Following that symposium in Halifax, IBC decided that we should champion the cause of graduated licensing, and we started in Ontario with a press conference in March 1992. The campaign was really to raise public awareness of graduated licensing and to encourage the government to develop and introduce appropriate legislation for the province of Ontario.
We prepared a very extensive campaign. It included a position paper on graduated licensing. It included pamphlets, which I'm sure you've seen; we've distributed some two million of these throughout the province over the last couple of years. We've used radio commercials and advertisements to really raise the awareness of the issue.
We carried that campaign over into the summer of 1992, and that's where Peter McDougall, my colleague, comes in. He coordinated that campaign to bring the message of graduated licensing down to the community level throughout Ontario. Peter's going to tell you in a few minutes about the response that he had.
I would just say that there is, in our opinion, very broad public support for graduated licensing. There are various groups that are listed in our paper that support the concept of graduated licensing. Public opinion polling conducted for us shows that as of March 1993, which is the latest public opinion we've conducted, 88% of the people of Ontario support graduated licensing. The only significant opposition to the concept comes from, as you might guess, 18- to 24-year-olds, and particularly 18- to 24-year old males. Even there it was only 14% who were opposed to the concept, so it's not an overwhelming opposition even among young people.
I had the opportunity to sit through the technical briefing this morning and I know there's some concern from some of the rural areas. The research also shows that there's no difference between urban and rural Ontario in support of the concept of graduated licensing. The reasons, I think, are apparent to anyone who has experienced the tragedy of losing someone in a car accident, and I think we have to not lose sight of the fact that the current system does not work.
The current system that results in a situation where car accidents are the leading cause of death for people under the age of 20 in this province is a system that does not work. As you heard this morning from the parliamentary assistant, it is by far the leading cause of death. It far outstrips suicide; it far outstrips cancer and all of the other leading causes of death of our young people. So it's not a question of slapping a patch on the current system. It's really calling for a major overhaul of the system that is killing 350, 400 of our young people in this province every year.
I'd like to just play you a short segment. Maybe the clerk could turn the video on. We've provided you all with a full 10-1/2 minute video as part of our campaign. I'd just like to play you about a two-minute clip to give you a flavour of some of the personal experience that comes from the kinds of accidents that we're talking about.
Video presentation.
1416
Mr Griffin: I encourage every member of the committee to watch the full 10 1/2 minutes if you have not seen any of this before. It is a very powerful 10 minutes of the impact of the current system on parents.
I would like to just make two major comments about the government's proposal. We do fully support, obviously, the concept of graduated licensing. There are a couple of areas where we have some concerns. I would ask you, in a couple of minutes, to refer to the last page of our brief where we've tried to summarize the government's proposal and our recommendations.
Our two major concerns are in two areas. First of all, the parliamentary assistant, in your own technical briefing this morning, constantly referred to the fact that you need, on average, two to five years to develop true driving skills. Our concern is that the government's proposal falls on the short side of that. As Mr Offer pointed out this morning, phase 1 is really an extended 365. It is not much different than the current system, other than it does have some conditions built in. But our fear is that under the government's proposal, in as short a period as eight months, the new driver is suddenly exposed to the full range of high-risk driving in phase 2. So we have some concern that the research shows that you need a longer period of time, and the government's proposal falls a bit short of that. We'd like to see the protective period for driving experience extended a bit, and that will show up in our recommendations.
Secondly, the whole concept of graduated licensing is that restrictions should be removed on a gradual, step-by-step basis. Again, we think there is a shortfall in the government's proposal there, that the restrictions and the conditions around the new driver come off too quickly. They virtually all come off in level 2.
If you would turn to the final page of our brief, there is a chart that describes, on the one side, the Ministry of Transportation's proposal and IBC's recommendations.
At level 2, we support all of the proposals and all of the conditions that are in level 1, with a couple of minor modifications. First off, we would recommend that the accompanying driver have at least two years' fully licensed experience. It's not clear from the government's proposal. They say that it should be a licensed driver with at least four years' experience. The way that's worded, in our opinion, you could have somebody sitting next to a new driver who's also a new driver. He could be in his third year of the second phase. So you could have one driver who's in the graduated phase trying to teach another. We don't think that's appropriate. We think that they should be fully licensed; they should have passed through the graduated licensing and have been licensed for a full two years so they themselves have experience.
Secondly, the passenger restraint, we think, is inadequate. We don't think there should be any other passengers unless, as was pointed out this morning, the accompanying driver is a qualified and accredited driving instructor, so you can obviously have other students in the car or, if you have an accompanying driver who's been licensed for at least five years, then you could have the number of passengers restricted to the number of seatbelts.
The third modification we'd like to see at level 1 is that during that period the new driver maintain a conviction-free driving record for that entire period to ensure that they have gained some proficiency; they simply haven't gone through the period but they've also racked up all kinds of convictions. So we'd like to see that in.
If you turn over, the second is level 2, and here our concern is that most of the restrictions have come off very, very quickly. We would like to certainly recognize that the new driver has gained some experience in level 1, but we don't want to suddenly expose him to conditions he hasn't seen before. What we would like to see come forward in level 2 is that you don't need an accompanying driver. You can drive on our own, unless you're driving from midnight to 5 am or on high-speed expressways, those two areas where you had no experience in level 1 because you were barred from doing that. In level 2, you should get experience obviously driving at night and you should get experience driving on high-speed expressways, but you should have somebody there to give you guidance, as you had in level 1. So we'd like to see that brought forward.
We also think in both level 1 and level 2 that the accompanying driver should have a zero blood alcohol level. The learning driver should be sober; so should the accompanying driver. He or she, the accompanying driver, is there to provide experience, to take over in the event of an emergency and to countervail any kind of risk-taking, and we think that he or she should also be sober.
Again, we'd like to see the limit to the number of seatbelts in the vehicle strengthened. There is research most recently conducted in the United States by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety which shows a dramatic statistic, which I'm sure if we had it from the Ministry of Transportation would be the case in Ontario as well. But their current report states that teenagers driving other teenagers represents the worst combination; 63% of all teenage passengers who die in crashes do so when a peer is behind the wheel. That's the worst combination you can have. We would like to see that strengthened in the second level as well, that there would be no other passengers in the second level, again unless you had an accredited driving instructor or you had another accompanying driver who's been five years licensed. Then you could have passengers limited to the number of seatbelts.
Finally, again, to exit out of the system, we would like to see a conviction-free record maintained during this level 2 as well.
Those are our major recommendations. We think the model could be improved upon by making those changes that reflect the true principles, as we understand them, of graduated licensing. We are extremely encouraged by the Ontario government's movement on bringing forward graduated licensing.
I'd now like to turn to Peter McDougall to spend a few minutes sharing with you his personal experiences travelling around the province last summer.
Mr Peter McDougall: As mentioned by Stan, I was the coordinator for IBC's graduated licensing summer campaign over the course of 1992. IBC hired eight university and high school students to carry the message of graduated licensing across the province of Ontario. We operated two information booths which travelled around to approximately 24 different fairs and festivals. These ranged from things like the Leamington tomato festival and the Alliston potato festival to the Molson Indy and the Canadian National Exhibition. We estimate that we educated nearly two million people on the concept.
Throughout the summer we had the opportunity to discuss the issue with the people and hear what they had to say about it. The majority of the people whom my group spoke with were overwhelmingly in favour of this concept. In fact, we collected approximately 4,000 signatures on a petition, which was then submitted to the Ontario government.
The people of Ontario were aware of the tragedies that occur far too often with driving. There was recognition of the need for something to be done to reduce the carnage on Ontario's roadways. Many people felt that a graduated licensing system was the solution and that Ontario should implement such a system.
Over the course of the campaign, we occasionally came into contact with people who had had the misfortune of having a friend or relative killed in a car crash. Although an unpleasant experience, it clearly demonstrated to me in a hard-hitting way the dire need for something to be done to address the problem of novice drivers' overrepresentation in car crashes, deaths and injuries.
I applaud the government's decision to go forward with this system. It's an excellent component of an overall road safety effort and an idea whose time I think has come.
Some people are concerned that such a system would be too restrictive and cause undue inconvenience. I have to disagree, and so did those people I had talked to who had a friend or relative killed in a car crash. They would gladly have put up with some minor temporary inconveniences if it meant keeping those they cared for alive.
I think this is the most important feature of a graduated licensing system: saving lives. Car crashes continue to be the leading cause of death for young Canadians, and this system has the potential to do something about that. Perhaps it should not be viewed in terms of being restrictive, but rather as being protective.
I found it interesting to hear comments from younger people about the system. Admittedly, not all were ardent supporters of it, but you'd be surprised to know that many were in favour of it as a way of reducing the number of their peers killed in senseless tragedies. I can still recall speaking to a group last summer at the CNE. They had had a number of their friends killed the previous summer. They expressed to me that they felt the main reason for the accident was due to inexperience on the part of the new driver, a fact that has been well documented throughout the research. They believe that this system might have kept their friends alive.
A recurring concern that we heard was whether this system would function as intended and actually reduce the number of people killed and injured. We pointed out the evidence from other jurisdictions, such as New Zealand, where it reduced the death rate in the first year by about 25%. Longer-term results have indicated a reduction of around 10% to 15%. These to me are not insignificant numbers when you look at the human face behind them.
The people of Ontario want lives to be saved and have expressed the need for a system that would equal or better those numbers. This will require more than just superficial change to the current system, but something meaningful which can best guarantee effectiveness. IBC is very encouraged by the government's initiative to go forward with this, but we feel that level 2 is an area that can be strengthened to make this system more effective. We appreciate the opportunity to come before you and appreciate your consideration of this matter. We're prepared to answer any questions that you may have.
Mr Daigeler: Thank you, first of all, for promoting this concept over a considerable length of time. I think you must have been involved in this for at least a decade, I would say, so it's certainly not something new for you, and you must be rather pleased to finally see this coming to fruition.
Nevertheless, I have two questions that are specifically related to your industry. You were here this morning and I asked in particular about the coverage. In the question and answer document that was provided to us by the ministry, it says, "Under the graduated licensing system, new drivers who operate a vehicle in violation of any of their licence conditions will not be legally authorized to drive and would thus not be covered by insurance." I got some answer this morning, I'm not sure whether I'm satisfied with it, but I'd like to ask you again, if somebody forgets or doesn't put the "L" sign in their car, they're in violation of the conditions. Therefore, will they not be covered by insurance?
Mr Griffin: Let me answer that by first starting by explaining the current situation, which is spelled out by statute. Basically, it says that if a car is driven without legal authorization, it says if you're not authorized to drive by law, then there is no coverage for the collision portion of the policy. Obviously the accident benefits and the liability coverage apply. It puts the onus on the owner of the vehicle. You have to remember that the insurance is on the vehicle. It puts the onus on the owner of the vehicle to make sure that the people he or she is allowing to drive their vehicle have the proper licence.
You can think of the example of someone who has a class G-1 licence who steps into a transport truck equipped with power air brakes, for which you have to have a special licence. That person would be driving it without the right licence. If he ended up in a collision and destroying the transport truck, the owner of the transport truck would be out of luck for the value of the transport truck, but if the driver was injured, he would be covered for his injuries. I assume that under the new provisions, the government is thinking of the same kind of system, and that is, if you're not authorized to drive, there's no coverage.
Mr Daigeler: Fortunately, I haven't had too many occasions where I've had to use these provisions. Could you spell out for me again what they would be covered for? Because you said they're covered for some things.
Mr Griffin: Yes. The statutory exclusion in the current policies -- you cannot exclude anyone from their coverage for their accident benefits, which covers their injury, their medical costs. If you personally are injured, there would be coverage. If, however, you are in a vehicle for which you're not licensed or you're not authorized, you don't have a licence or your licence has lapsed or been suspended and you do damage to the vehicle, there is no coverage for damage to the vehicle.
Mr Daigeler: But there is coverage, let's say, if you injure someone else. That is covered.
Mr Griffin: Yes.
1430
Mr Turnbull: In your level 2 proposed changes -- obviously, the two that I spoke about this morning are that you would advocate supervision for the 400-series highways and the midnight curfew -- you have not spelled out any requirement for blood alcohol restrictions on the accompanying driver in level 2. Do I take that just as an oversight?
Mr Griffin: No, it says zero blood alcohol content, if you look at the second block in the table.
Mr Turnbull: Okay, yes. Sorry. The first one didn't have it.
Mr Griffin: We also recommend a zero blood alcohol content level at the second level.
Mr Turnbull: Do you feel very strongly about this 0% blood alcohol for the accompanying driver? I think there's a lot of validity in your looking for an accompanying driver as they step to that extra level of experience, the 400-series highways and the midnight curfew, but obviously it might become more difficult to get somebody who is absolutely 0% blood alcohol in level 2. In level 1 we're talking about a much more limited period of time. If you had your druthers, if you had to trade off one with the other, would you accept the 0.05% level that the government is proposing for level 1 for the accompanying driver in acceptance of them being limited to having an accompanying driver in level 2 for the 400 series and the midnight?
Mr Griffin: I guess I'd start by saying you must move in the same circles I do if you have a hard time finding somebody else who hasn't had a drink. I don't think that should be a terrible problem. We think that the learning driver should be sober; so should the accompanying driver. They're there to take over in the event that there is a problem with the new driver. The other thing is to countervail any risk-taking that may be encouraged by others in the car if there are other passengers allowed. We would prefer to see zero blood alcohol. Obviously we support the government's proposal as a first step, and it's a good first step, but we would like to see it strengthened. There was a discussion this morning about whether you can detect 0.05%, 0.08% and 0%. It's easier if you just keep it at 0%.
Mr Turnbull: Yes. You understand, Stan, obviously I've been the principal proponent in the Legislature for this legislation. I'm just trying to get an indication as to where your priorities lie, because obviously we're going to have more resistance from people from rural areas in terms of getting accompanying drivers. You're asking for a further restriction. I'm asking what the priority would be between getting somebody at level 2 to accompany and it being 0%.
Mr Griffin: I think the priority would be to have somebody there accompanying in those new conditions. If the best that can be done in public policy is to allow the accompanying driver to have had a drink, then I suppose that's the compromise you have to make.
Mr Ron Hansen (Lincoln): The one that's on the back page here is "Maintain conviction-free driving period for entire duration of level 1 and pass basic road test." You have that also on level 2. What is your explanation on where you go from if you wind up with a conviction? Do you go back to day one or do you start from that point back on again? What is it on the two levels?
Mr Griffin: I think what we'd probably like to see is the same kind of treatment that the government is proposing, that if you have a 30-day suspension as a result of a conviction, you have 30 days added on to the period.
Mr Hansen: Okay. Also, on the first page there, level 1, it doesn't say where the driving instructor or the person with five years fully licensed sits; it says "accompanying driver." Accompanying driver, is that sitting next to the driver or could that accompanying driver be in the back seat? Because if the person is sitting in the back seat, he's not paying attention to what's actually going on in the road; just to get clarification.
Mr Griffin: What we've done in level 1 is actually introduce two situations for accompanying drivers. You'll see that at a minimum you must have an accompanying driver who has been two years fully licensed. However, if you want to have passengers in the car limited to the number of seatbelts then you'd have to have an accompanying driver who has been at least five years fully licensed, and it's to get at an older, more mature accompanying driver to countervail, again, the distraction of having passengers in the car.
Mr Hansen: Is that accompanying driver sitting next the driver?
Mr Griffin: Yes.
Mr Hansen: With two in the front seat possibly.
Mr Griffin: Yes.
Mr Hansen: There's one final question I have: What about new Canadians coming in? It could be from the United States, it could be from England, it could be from anywhere. They have different driving requirements. What's your feeling on that, someone coming in with 15 years' experience?
Mr Griffin: I think we support the government's proposal, which basically says that you come in and if you can prove that you have experience from another jurisdiction and you pass the advanced test, then fine, you enter into the system. You attempt to prove the experience that you bring with you from whatever jurisdiction you come from.
Mr Hansen: I just wanted a different opinion. Okay.
The Chair: We'd like to thank Mr McDougall and Mr Griffin and the Insurance Bureau of Canada for bringing forward some very important information and views on graduated licensing. I for one will take the opportunity to review the video and look into your presentation in some detail, and I think all the other committee members will do the same. On behalf of the committee, we'd like to thank you for taking the time to be here this afternoon.
Mr Conway: We never got a chance to ask about favourable impact on premium rates if we all sup at this virtuous table.
Mr Mike Cooper (Kitchener-Wilmot): I think I heard that on the commercials.
Mr Conway: I'm, for one, deadly serious. I'm just assuming that if we're all this virtuous, these insurance rates are coming down. That, for me, is a very serious question.
Mr Griffin: I will attempt to answer that if --
The Chair: You can, very briefly. Unfortunately, we have people waiting to appear and it puts them at some inconvenience as well, but if you wish to very quickly address Mr Conway's concern, then that will be fine.
Mr Griffin: I will just say very briefly that if the experience of graduated licensing does reduce the amount of payouts that are made by insurance companies, ultimately it would be reflected in the premiums. That's how insurance works. It's experience-rated. It says, this was the experience of the group; this is how we charge the rate.
Ms Murdock: How long is "ultimately"?
The Chair: Thank you very much.
Ms Murdock: I need to know how long "ultimately" is.
Mr Conway: Mackenzie King did have children.
TRAFFIC INJURY RESEARCH FOUNDATION OF CANADA
The Chair: The next scheduled witness is Dr Herb Simpson, the executive director of the Traffic Injury Research Foundation of Canada.
Dr H.M. Simpson: You have had circulated to you a not-so-brief brief, and what I will not do, in the interest of time, is go through that in its entirety. I will refer to a segment of that brief when I reach that in my presentation. I will read my presentation, which is a substantially reduced version of what you have in front of you. I'll do that in the interest of time in order not to be too extemporaneous and have you shut me down.
First, a little background about the organization that I represent, the Traffic Injury Research Foundation, which is better known by its acronym, TIRF. It's a charitable, independent road safety institute whose mission is to reduce the health and social consequences of traffic collisions through the design and promotion of prevention programs and policies that are based on sound research.
It was founded in 1962 by a group of concerned doctors at the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons. Its initial focus on medical factors has broadened significantly over the past 30 years and now encompasses a diversity of areas including alcohol, drugs and driving; young and novice drivers; driver licensing and improvement programs; motorcycle and moped safety; elderly road users; bicycle safety and so on.
In the past decade alone, TIRF staff have conducted some 125 different projects valued at about $4 million.
The organization has distinguished itself as a leading scientific authority in the traffic safety field and is recognized internationally for its accomplishments. Pre-eminent among these is work in the area of graduated licensing. TIRF staff are internationally acclaimed for their expertise in this area.
1440
In the brief that you have, we chronicle some of our achievements in the area of graduated licensing, which I won't review. Suffice it to say that we first introduced the concept of graduated licensing to Canada in 1976, and we have researched and documented the need for and benefits of this system and actively promoted it since then. This work led most recently to our being contracted by the motor vehicle branch of the British Columbia Ministry of the Attorney General to assist in the development and implementation of a graduated licensing program for that province. As well, TIRF staff have visited New Zealand and Victoria, Australia, to assess graduated licensing programs in action there.
The continuity and scope of our work on graduated licensing, and no modesty is intended at all, is really quite unparalleled. Our research and that of others around the world has consistently concluded that prevention measures that provide an opportunity for new drivers to gain experience have to be considered a priority. The dilemma is that in order to gain the needed driving experience, the novice must put himself at risk.
The solution to this dilemma is simply to provide a means for gaining experience under conditions that minimize exposure to risk. This is the fundamental purpose of graduated licensing. It's a method by which the novice can gain experience and proficiency under less demanding or less risky conditions so that errors and their consequences are reduced. As experience and competence are gained, exposure to more demanding driving conditions is gradually phased in. Somewhat like an apprenticeship program, it's intended to ease the novice into the full range of traffic conditions.
To date, only two jurisdictions, New Zealand and, more recently, the state of Victoria, Australia, have adopted a true graduated licensing approach. Although graduated licensing has been in operation for only a few years in New Zealand, the benefits are already evident. An assessment of their graduated driver licensing system shows, as you heard a few moments ago, that casualties among the targeted group initially dropped by about 25% and that a long-term impact of about 10% to 15% has been sustained. The safety benefits of this program have been impressive indeed. Moreover, since the New Zealand program has had some operational difficulties, most notably very weak penalties for non-compliance with the restrictions, it's likely that an even greater impact can be achieved and sustained with a well-designed program.
The decision by the government of Ontario to introduce a graduated licensing system has our complete support. It will save lives and reduce injuries among newly licensed drivers in the province. The personal, social and economic benefits that will accrue from this protective measure will be substantial. Indeed, it's fair to say that some of the new drivers who protest the limitations imposed on them will still be driving years from now because of the very system they criticized.
As well, some of the parents who are concerned about the personal inconvenience that may be caused by the system will not have to face the tragedy that others have confronted in the past with the loss of a son or daughter. Personally, I have attended far too many inquests over the past decade and a half which may never have had to have been held if graduated licensing were in place at the time.
While legitimate concerns have been and will be raised about some of the operational features of the system being proposed, we would like to stress that in the 17 years we have pursued this concept, we have yet to hear one compelling reason why graduated licensing should not be introduced. Accordingly, the myriad of suggestions that are offered to this committee over the course of its hearings as to how the proposed system can be modified and improved should not detract from the one pivotal objective: the implementation of graduated licensing. We believe consensus on the need for graduated licensing will be reached even if total harmony on all of its operational features is not.
The acid test of this conclusion can be performed by posing one simple question to those, including myself, who make suggestions for improvement. You might ask them, "If your suggestions were ignored and the final choice was between the proposed graduated licensing system and the status quo, what would you choose?" To avoid the necessity of the committee asking me that very question, I will offer a pre-emptive reply: I would choose the proposed system.
The graduated licensing system being proposed by the government is basically sound and has much to commend it. It is our opinion that it will be effective in reducing deaths and injuries among newly licensed drivers even if introduced in its proposed form. We also believe that the effectiveness of the system can be enhanced with some relatively minor changes and that the opportunity to amend the model should now not be missed.
For ease of presentation, in my comments I will restrict my remarks to the G-class licence.
As you know, the gradations or the levels in the proposed system differ only in terms of the number of restrictions they contain; that is, the graded or tiered feature of the proposed system is achieved by altering the number of restrictions, so a restriction is either in effect or it is not. To illustrate, the proposed system will have about five major -- I emphasize major, because there are other bits and pieces associated with it -- imposed on the novice during the first level. That includes a zero BAC, a late-night driving restriction, limits on passengers, supervision -- that is, accompanied by a licensed driver -- and road limits. This is reduced to two major restrictions during level 2 which include the zero BAC and passenger limits.
In our opinion, this diminishes the potential benefits of a phased-in or gradual entry to full driving privileges, because the transition from level 1 to level 2 is too abrupt and that from level 2 to full licensing is not very distinct. A more gradual entry can be achieved by retaining the proposed restrictions but modifying their form. Our suggestions address how to achieve this and address some other related issues.
We propose modifications to three of the restrictions: the night-time driving restriction, the passenger restrictions and the characteristics of the accompanying driver.
First, with respect to night-time driving: This is truly one of the most important features of the system. This restriction recognizes that night-time driving is more difficult and more dangerous than driving during daylight hours for a variety of reasons, including: lower visibility, problems associated with glare and glare recovery and the higher incidence of unpredictable -- usually impaired -- drivers on the road at that time. Not surprisingly then, night-time driving restrictions have been shown to have a significant impact on the collision involvement of new drivers, and it is not surprising that many states in the US have this as the backbone of their new driver programs.
As you know, in the proposed system, during level 1 the novice is permitted to drive at night but only accompanied by a licensed driver -- basically, "under supervision" is the term we use -- but he is not allowed to drive during the very risky time period of midnight to 5 am. In level 2, there are no restrictions whatsoever on when the novice can drive.
We would prefer a system that provides a more gradual entry into this risky driving condition and at the same time addresses the various reasons why night driving is hazardous. Accordingly, we recommend a more stepwise introduction to night driving. To accomplish this, the nature of the driving restrictions would change during both level 1 and level 2.
Our recommendation works like this. Bear with me and try to follow. For the first four months in level 1, we're recommending a dusk-to-dawn restriction similar to that imposed on motorcyclists. This permits driving during the daytime but not at night. For the remaining eight months in level 1, or four months if the novice passes an approved driver instruction course, just the midnight to 5 am restriction would be in effect. This now permits supervised driving at night except during the very risky late-night hours.
This late-night driving curfew, the midnight to 5 am, would be extended into level 2. Solo or unsupervised driving during these curfew hours would be prohibited, but driving experience during these hours can still be obtained by the new driver if accompanied by a licensed supervisor.
This proposal can perhaps be better appreciated, I hope, by reference to the diagram at the end of our brief. If you would look at the diagram that's there, in this representation we illustrate when driving experience can be gained and under what conditions. In the initial segment of level 1, the new driver can gain experience during daylight hours under supervision. No night driving would be permitted, but in the next stage of level 1, some night driving experience can now be gained but under supervision and not during the very high-risk period of midnight to 5 am.
Then in level 2, unsupervised or solo driving during the daylight hours as well as during the less risky night-time hours would be permitted. In addition, driving experience during the more risky late-night hours can now be gained for the first time but only under supervision. When full licensing is achieved, even these times will be available without supervision.
This is, in our estimation, a more systematic and gradual introduction to the heavy demands of night-time driving.
1450
Our second set of comments relates to passenger restrictions and the accompanying driver. Ideally, in all of the work we have written, we have urged more stringent limits both on the number and the ages of passengers to address more completely the dual problems of distraction and peer pressure. Our work in British Columbia has certainly led us to believe, and we acknowledge here, that this ideal is exceedingly difficult to achieve.
We would recommend simply one amendment to the proposed restriction. During the first level, the accompanying driver must occupy the outboard front passenger seating position and no other passengers can be carried in the front seat, a point that was made during the previous questioning. In this way, the total number of passengers may be reduced, depending on the seating capacity of the vehicle, and only the new driver and the designated supervisor will be in the front seat. Otherwise, the accompanying driver could be in the back seat or, if they're in the front seat, separated from the driver by an additional passenger, which could be distracting and hazardous.
Finally, some comments on the characteristics of the accompanying driver. We share the concerns expressed by the previous presentation about the accompanying driver. In terms of years of experience, there is some confusion over what is meant by four years driving experience. I think that does need to be clarified, because we're concerned as well that if by four years driving experience it simply means any amount of driving experience, then that could have been obtained during the graduated licensing phase and this person has just become fully licensed. I don't believe that's the intention, but if it is, I would have concerns about it. So in the absence of having further clarification, all I can say is that we would hope the accompanying driver would have been fully licensed for several years.
In terms of a driving record, we also support the concerns that were mentioned by the previous presenters, the Insurance Bureau of Canada, with respect to ensuring that the accompanying driver is someone who does not have a significantly bad driving record. We're also concerned about the BAC limit, in that if the new driver is subject to a zero BAC requirement, it isn't clear why the accompanying adult, who's presumably operating in the capacity of a supervisor, should be subject to a less-stringent requirement.
While our concerns are similar to those expressed, we have an additional concern, which is that if the new driver is in fact liable for the actions, the characteristics, of the accompanying driver, it is far easier for them to comply with a no-drinking requirement than to be expected to judge whether or not the accompanying driver has a BAC that is less than 50 milligrams per cent. The reason for that is that even trained police officers cannot tell whether people have a BAC of less than 50 milligrams per cent. The only way they can determine that is in the presence of technological support, such as breathalyser equipment. So I think it's putting a fairly heavy load on the new driver.
In summary, as indicated, the number of amendments that could be recommended or suggested for the proposed system are extensive and I'm certain you will have heard just about all of them by the time your hearings are finished. We have limited our comments to those we believe are practical, effective and can be incorporated rather easily. At the same time, we believe firmly that the primary objective should be to implement a graduated licensing system. Thus, a balance must be struck between the need to revise the proposed system to accommodate the more important concerns and the need to move forward. While it is important to do it right the first time, it's perhaps as important to do it, particularly given that the proposed system already has so very much to commend it. Thank you very much. I'd be pleased to answer any questions.
Mr Turnbull: In your submission you don't mention anything about accompaniment when the driver is released to drive on the 400-series highways. When the driver is allowed to drive on the 400-series highways in level 2, do you feel it's necessary to have an accompanying driver?
Dr Simpson: I'm not really strongly in favour or concerned about the road restrictions. I know there's a lot of personal support for road limits and road restrictions because it makes good sense about people not being on those highways, but the evidence about the impact of driving on those highways is less clear.
In the work we did in British Columbia, we were unable to find any strong evidence of a greater risk for these particular groups under those conditions. I don't know what the evidence is in Ontario, but it's for those reasons that I haven't addressed that particular limit. I don't have strong feelings about it one way or the other.
Mr Turnbull: Dr Simpson, you will perhaps have gathered from my comments earlier today that I'm very much in favour of the recommendations that you're proposing. I think it would make for better legislation, but as you say, something is better than nothing, because we've just got to stop the carnage on the roads. I thank you for all of the excellent technical information you have provided to us over a long period of time. I know you are one of the prime movers in Canada for graduated licences.
Dr Simpson: Thank you. There's been a big change. When I first brought this out in 1976, there were many people who wanted to lock me away. There are still people who want to lock me away, but for different reasons.
Ms Murdock: I'm going to call upon your expertise in terms of Australia-New Zealand. I know -- I was told -- that it took them nine years to work out their legislation before they implemented it. Given that we're benefiting from their experience in doing it in four, I would sort of like to know the similarities and differences in relation to what we're offering, particularly in the areas that you have specifically mentioned. I would like to say, at the outset, I like the idea of the night-time phased entry that you've suggested and I would like you to comment on the fact that, under your method with the four months, eight months in the level 1, there's been no mention of the recommendation that we're making in terms of the driver education and being able to get your level 1 in eight months instead of 12 months. So if you could comment on that too, I would appreciate it.
Dr Simpson: The systems that are in place in Victoria and in New Zealand have similarities to the system being proposed here. I think that's understandable, because we all know what the risky factors are, and so those risky factors are going to be built into just about every system. What will differentiate the systems across various jurisdictions will not be what really are the pre-eminent risk factors, but inevitably what is a compromise between the demands for safety and the demands for mobility and accessibility.
The New Zealand system that is in place is a compromise from what was originally proposed in the sense that it was the best deal they could work. The Victoria, Australia, system is a classic case in point. One of their prime recommendations was for a night curfew but it would not be accepted. Politically it was unacceptable at the time. They are striving to move forward with it.
It's very difficult to compare the system, except in New Zealand, you have a BAC limit, although it's a 30 milligram per cent limit, but that has to do with the accuracy of the breath-testing instrumentation they have available. They do have a passenger restriction. It has very many of the characteristics of this one. They also have a night curfew in New Zealand. But their system addresses only young drivers, so it's drivers under the age of 25 who are covered by the system, but not new drivers older than that.
The reason for it is they do not have many older new drivers in New Zealand. The demographics of the country are very different than they are here as a result of changing immigration and changing general birth rate patterns in the country. A lot of the nuances and differences that you see are a function of local conditions and are a function of political, social and economic factors.
But I think the basic components are very similar. You see concerns for low BACs among the drivers, concerns for limits on the number of passengers, concerns for night-time driving restrictions. From there on in, there's a diversity of other features that get built in. Ontario's system, as proposed in the first level, is more stringent than those currently in place in New Zealand and in Victoria, Australia. So it has a lot to speak for it. I'm sorry, you had another question that I lost track of in my ramblings.
Ms Murdock: The four months, eight months in the level 1 and how that relates to driver education training.
Dr Simpson: That system is in place in New Zealand as well. There is basically a credit, a reduction in the length of time you have to stay in a level if you pass an approved driver education course. That's being recommended here. I didn't comment on it because it's part of the proposed system that I tend to support. I don't have any strong, strong feelings about it. I believe it's important to build in now because I see some dramatic changes occurring in the area of driver education and training which I think are going to be beneficial, and I believe we have an opportunity here to harmonize driver education and training with the licensing system, which is very critical. As you know, the licensing system has a tendency to drive the standards for training and education. That is, if the licensing standards go up, the quality of training and education goes up as well, because the primary intent of taking driver education and training for most people is to pass the test. There are some people who are motivated by safety concerns, but a lot are motivated by passing the test.
1500
What we have here is a symbiotic relationship which can only be beneficial and I think to exclude that opportunity from the program now would be an unfortunate one. I like the inclusion in the current program and what I've done is, I've used the four-month provision in the night-time driving in recognition of that, because it would split the eight months if an individual were to get out of level 1 in that period of time, having been given credit.
Ms Murdock: Okay.
Mr Offer: Thank you very much for your presentation. I'd like to ask your thoughts on one of the proposals by the government that deals with the display in the car, the driver display. This morning I indicated to the committee that my eldest daughter is 14 years of age and I can tell you I have some concerns about a general display to the world at large that this is a new learning driver. I think it sends out a whole bunch of messages that I'm not particularly pleased to have displayed. I would like to get, from your perspective, your thoughts as to the proposal made by the government that there be a display in each vehicle that there is a new driver.
Dr Simpson: I've done an about-face on that one. Originally, I was on record as saying that I had misgivings about the display system, particularly as a result of two things. New Zealand chose not to introduce such a display, whereas Victoria, Australia, did. New Zealand holds the Victoria system in some disdain. They argue that people who are going to choose to violate the restrictions -- for example, drive at night when they're not supposed to -- will simply not display the plate. If they do, they deserve to be caught. In other words, what it does is, the opportunity to remove that in fact defeats the purpose of the system, which is presumably to try to enhance the efficiency and efficacy of enforcement. Given that, I was initially quite suspicious about the value of it.
My early discussions in the work we did in British Columbia led to similar conclusions. There were concerns among the enforcement community and there were concerns among some of the new drivers about the potential for discrimination, all right? You're identified, you're targeted, and things could happen.
Subsequent discussions have led me to qualify my position somewhat. More and more of the new drivers I speak to, not the young but the older new drivers, actually favour the system of having some kind of demarcation, because what they believe it does is provide an appropriate signal to other drivers in the environment that here is a new driver, and maybe what they'll do is regard this person a bit more courteously and conscientiously. It's like seeing a driver instructor tag displayed on a vehicle. People tend to react a little differently in that environment.
So, first off, it communicates information to other motorists that may alter their behaviour in a positive way. Secondly, it can provide to the motorist a sense of security, because they feel that others know I'm a new driver and they'll be more patient. I'm not strongly advocating it, but I would say that my position with respect to the use of that distinctive sticker has changed dramatically. Where previously I really didn't have much use for it, now I'm beginning to see some potential benefits.
Mr Conway: One of my concerns with this policy which, in principle, I support for all the reasons that have been advanced -- the longer I hear the testimony, the more I feel that one would have to be of another world not to endorse this transparent virtue -- is the differential impact in rural Ontario as compared to urban Ontario. Forgetting for a moment the issue of graduated licences, my view is that in rural Ontario where there is no public transport of any kind, the issues are very different.
I live in Metropolitan Toronto four or five days of the week. I don't need and I don't want a car, quite frankly, because while I may not like some of the choices the public transport offers, it's there and I can use it and I can get around. That is not a choice, that's not available to me when I'm out in rural Parry Sound or north Hastings or where have you.
So I look at this proposal -- and, as I say, I accept what we're trying to do here, but I'm trying to imagine the following situation: One is at a rural high school on a Monday afternoon in December where it gets dark at about, what, 5 o'clock. These kids are bused 50, 60 kilometres. There's a basketball practice. I'm looking at the accompanying driver provision, and what we have now is the situation where we might once have had after-school busing but that's probably been lost because of budget cuts. Now we have a situation where the older students probably provide some of the transport, just to get Bill Murdoch back home --
Laughter.
Mr Conway: Well, this is reality. This is a day-to-day reality. So we've got these kids and it's 5 o'clock and they've got a basketball practice and there's no busing. If we accept your rule around the accompanying driver, we've got to find an adult, effectively somebody with four years' post-probationary period, so you're almost certainly looking there for an adult.
I'm trying to think of those high school environments that I have. That's not going to be easy. That is going to have an effect, an effect either way. It can simply put a prohibition so those kids simply aren't going to be able to do what they have done; or it may encourage people to say, "Well, the cops will understand and so will everybody else. This is the way it is in Parry Sound," or, "This is the way it is in Bancroft or Barry's Bay, where you live a long way away from school, so let's do what is reasonable and break the law." What do we do in a case like that? We're not talking about kids going out to party on a Friday night. We're talking about a Monday night in December for a one-hour basketball practice that starts at 4:30 and ends at 5:30. What do we do in a case like that?
Dr Simpson: I think that particular scenario is one of only probably hundreds of different scenarios that can be and will be raised, which will show where there are going to be not just inconveniences but some very tough choices having to be made. I don't pretend for a moment to be able to speak to all of the practical difficulties that will be encountered in the implementation of the system, and I frankly don't see that as my job.
Mr Conway: No, but it's my job, and I want to accept your advice. I'm going to go to this meeting along with Murdoch, that is, Bill Murdoch. You see, it's not an issue in the urban parts of my riding at all, but boy, it's a big issue in the rural parts. I'm going to the meeting and I agree with you in principle and with the IBC, because I think essentially you're right, but the devil is in the details. Now I've got to go to the meeting and face these kids and I'm going to have to have some answers. So agreeing with you in principle, I'm trying to search for the answer to this very real problem.
Dr Simpson: That's why virtually every system that's been introduced inevitably results in a compromise; namely, here's what we think would be an ideal system because we know that those restrictions imposed in that way will provide safety benefits, but then there are concerns about accessibility and mobility, which begin to temper the characteristics of the system.
I don't know that I can answer that particular and specific scenario and I don't know that one can answer all of the specific scenarios that can be raised which will show that it won't work and that there will be conditions that arise in which people will be forced into making a tough choice, and the bad choice which will be made will be to violate the restrictions.
What we have to do is try and ensure that we minimize those cases. In fact we know if the restrictions are too severe and too many, that's exactly what will happen. Moreover, if the conditions are too severe and too many, what will happen is people will wait out the graduated licensing phase; they'll sit around and let time pass, hope they can pass the test, and they may do so, and they will have defeated graduated licensing as well because they're not getting experience.
The system is designed to get people to drive, not to encourage them to avoid driving. So I sympathize. I don't have a simple answer for that practical problem, but it's one of many that I think will have to be addressed.
The Vice-Chair (Mr Mike Cooper): Dr Simpson, thank you for taking the time out this afternoon and bringing us your presentation, and trust that you will follow through as we bring this to legislation.
Mr Daigeler: Mr Chairman, while the witnesses are taking their seat, could the parliamentary assistant clarify for us, because the question has been raised several times, how the ministry interprets a four-years' experience requirement for the accompanying driver. What is meant by it?
1510
The Vice-Chair: Just let me call forward the next presenters and then we'll let the parliamentary assistant respond. I call the Addiction Research Foundation.
Mr Conway: While the parliamentary assistant is thinking about that, can I also make just a recommendation to staff or to somebody? I'm looking at this list and this is a very impressive list of witnesses, but do you know who's not on this list? Some high school students. I'd like, before we're finished, and I don't care who gets them, about six or eight 16-, 17-, 18-year-old kids brought in here. We're talking a lot about their world. I'd like to hear from some of those kids what they think and how we might --
Mr Cooper: With or without licences?
Mr Conway: I don't really care. We've got a lot of interesting advice, but it's their world. It would be kind of nice just before this is all over to spend an hour or two with a bunch of these teenagers and say: "What do you think? How would you behave in light of some of these circumstances?" Maybe some of us are guessing wrongly. It's something to think about, but before I'm finished, I'd sure like to spend an hour or two with --
Mr Klopp: Or did the MTO or whatever already schedule --
Mr Conway: I'd like to hear, if I can --
Interjections.
The Chair: Order, please. Mr Levine, do you wish to respond to Mr Daigeler's request? I recognize that you have a desire to give him the information and he has a desire to get it. We are getting farther and farther behind schedule as the afternoon goes on. Could you briefly address his concerns and then perhaps speak to him after the routine order of business for the day.
Mr Daigeler: It's a matter that really has been raised by several presenters and I think it should be on the record for all of us.
Mr Levine: As it has been included in the proposal, the four years' experience for the accompanying driver relates to four years' experience which would or could be started on day one of holding a G-1 licence within the graduated system. But we have also included reference to a fully licensed accompanying driver, which means that the individual would have had to have passed through the graduated system and become fully licensed. So it's not that the individual must have held that full licence for four years, but rather four years of driving experience and ultimately becoming fully licensed beyond the graduated system or beyond the current probationary system, if one were still to be looking at that.
ADDICTION RESEARCH FOUNDATION
The Chair: Welcome, Mr Mann. We're pleased that you could make it this afternoon and present your views on behalf of the Addiction Research Foundation.
Mr Bob Mann: Let me just say I'm delighted to be here to speak to you today about this important issue on behalf of the Addiction Research Foundation.
The Ministry of Transportation hopes to introduce a graduated licensing system for Ontario. The major goal of this system is to reduce fatalities and injuries among novice drivers. The plans include eliminating the major causes of accidents for new drivers. Alcohol is the leading contributor to highway casualties.
That is why the Addiction Research Foundation is here today. As an agency of the province of Ontario, our mandate includes reducing the social burdens caused from the use of alcohol and other drugs. The foundation is the largest centre for research into alcohol and other drug problems in North America, but our work extends far beyond the laboratory. We put that research to work in the community by providing treatment and prevention programs. Also, our broad range of expertise has been used to support the development of public policies that can help reduce the harm caused by alcohol and drug abuse.
At this time, we are pleased to have the opportunity to speak on a measure which is designed to reduce a major alcohol-related problem.
Accidental and violent deaths are among the leading causes of death in Ontario with motor vehicle accidents being the largest single contributor to such fatalities. In terms of potential years of life lost, accidental and violent deaths are the third largest cause after heart disease and cancer.
The problem is particularly great among the young. For example, in 1989 motor vehicle accidents accounted for 44% of all deaths in the 15- to 19-year-old age group in Ontario. Alcohol is the leading contributor to death on our highways. In recent years, alcohol has been detected in about 40 of drivers killed in motor vehicle accidents. Again, in young people the problem seems to be amplified.
For all age groups, the likelihood of being involved in an accident is substantially increased after drinking, but in young people this increase is much larger. The societal impact of injuries is much larger than of deaths. The number of people seriously disfigured or disabled as a result of motor vehicle accidents is conservatively estimated to be at least 10 times the number of people killed. Research has consistently demonstrated that the more serious the accident, the more likely that alcohol was involved.
The Addiction Research Foundation applauds the Ministry of Transportation for introducing a major initiative to reduce this problem. This initiative is consistent with progressive measures in other parts of the world. It is based on the best available research and will likely result in the prevention of many needless deaths and injuries every year.
The foundation has a particular interest in the components of the system dealing with alcohol. The proposed system requires that for a period of two years after licensing, drivers must have a zero blood alcohol content, or BAC. Currently, it is an offence under the Criminal Code of Canada to drive with a BAC exceeding 0.08. Under the Highway Traffic Act of Ontario, police may temporarily suspend a driver's licence if the individual's BAC is greater than 0.05.
However, these legal BAC limits do not mean that people with lower BACs are not impaired. Current research indicates that impairment of driving skills can begin with the first drink. Statistics show that the combination of a new driver and even small amounts of alcohol can be deadly. Among fatally injured drivers with a positive BAC, young drivers between the ages of 16 and 19 are disproportionately represented at BAC levels that fall below 0.05%. Research in other jurisdictions which have introduced similar measures suggest that it can reduce the number of accidents and injuries. For example, when New Zealand introduced a graduated licensing system, injury-related accidents among all drivers dropped by 12%. The percentage involving 15- to 17-year-olds, those most affected by the system, dropped by 40%. In three Australian states -- Tasmania, South Australia and Western Australia -- introduction of zero or reduced BAC limits for novice drivers resulted in significant reductions in casualty accidents. While some may feel inconvenienced by the proposed system, it is clear that saving lives and avoiding injuries must be the priority.
In conclusion, the Addiction Research Foundation commends the Ministry of Transportation for proposing a well-designed graduated licensing system. It should reduce the number of accidents among novice drivers of all ages and specifically should reduce alcohol-related fatalities and injuries.
The progressive thinking behind graduated licensing not only makes sense in terms of social costs to the public but it may mean fewer tragedies for Ontario families. Thank you very much.
1520
Mr Cooper: Several presenters have come forward and they were discussing the thing about the accompanying driver having zero blood alcohol. That's not what's proposed right now. What's your recommendation on that?
Mr Mann: I'm not in a position to make a recommendation. I think it's a very sensible suggestion. At present, I'm not aware of any research which bears upon that issue, and that's really the perspective that our presentation is from. It's a solidly research-based presentation. I think it's a sensible presentation that ought to be given very serious consideration, and if it is, should be evaluated to see what the impact is.
Mr Cooper: One of the things that was also mentioned earlier, I think yesterday, was the fact that the RIDE program has scared people, so that's really the public information, which has reduced the number of people who are drinking and driving right now. Basically, right now, under graduated licensing, we're talking 16- and 17-year-olds and we're talking zero blood alcohol. They aren't supposed to be drinking legally anyway. How come we're talking about this, first off, and what could be done or what type of solution?
Mr Mann: Why are we dealing with the issue of young drinking drivers? Well --
Mr Cooper: Or young people drinking, even.
Mr Mann: What we have seen over the past few years are some very important changes that have occurred in drinking behaviour and in alcohol-related problems. For example, I believe in 1981 the proportion of drivers killed who had a positive BAC was about 60%, so six drivers out of 10 who were killed on our roads had a positive blood alcohol level.
In more recent years, it's down to about 40%, so that's roughly a 30% reduction, say, in the incidence of alcohol and dead drivers. We see similar trends, for example, in death rates from cirrhosis of the liver; we see similar trends when we do surveys of high school students. We see that the rate of drinking, say, in our student surveys, among people from 12 to 17 or 12 to 19 is down by, again, 20% or 30%. The rate of drinking and driving is down also very substantially over the past few years.
But because a problem is reduced doesn't mean it's gone away, so over the years we have introduced effective measures to deal with parts or portions of the problems. But again, while we should congratulate ourselves on the successes that we've had, we should not get complacent to the problems that still exist, because that figure of 40% is still, I think, unacceptably high and it's still a figure that we can reduce through such measures as are being proposed here.
Mr Cooper: So your suggestion is that zero blood alcohol for novice drivers is a great educational tool, and if the government went far enough and said the accompanying driver's to have zero blood alcohol content that would be even a better educational tool?
Mr Mann: I'm not necessarily suggesting it's better, because I don't have a basis, speaking from the perspective of the Addiction Research Foundation, on which to say that I guess it would have an impact or not, the suggestion regarding the accompanying driver. Certainly we have a basis for saying that with the zero blood alcohol level for novice drivers. For the accompanying driver, it's a very sensible suggestion. We don't have a basis for saying we know it would have an impact or not. That's what I mean. I'm trying to draw the distinction between what we know from research and what would seem like a good idea.
Mr Hansen: Talking about the driver who's licensed sitting beside the learner, of not having any alcohol at all, I'm just sort of going to come that later on we'll have to take a look at this legislation when it's put in place -- like, in Sweden there's a designated driver and that designated driver cannot drink at all.
If you take a look at statistics here in Ontario, if we wound up changing, coming to a law that the driver of any vehicle who was licensed could not drink, then there could be an impact under graduated licensing that someone who has been drinking, say, 0.05, there wouldn't be a designated driver any longer. What's your opinion on countries like Sweden that have a zero alcohol content, to take a look down the road that possibly we could change here in the province?
Mr Mann: There are countries that are introducing or have introduced lower BAC limits, including effectively zero BACs. Those limits are being evaluated right now. It's my understanding that when BAC limits, per se, laws were introduced, at the time, the best available information suggested that's when you saw, say, the limits that were introduced at 0.08 in Canada, 0.10, 0.15, for example, in many parts of the US, 0.08 in the UK and in other countries, that's when they felt, based on research, that they could detect impairment, statistically significant. I hate to use that term. That's when the impairment appeared. That's when the risks started to rise, at that level. Now we know that's not the case, that risks can rise below those levels. These are issues that we may want to consider.
I think we want to look very carefully, if graduated licensing is introduced, and see what the impact is on those drivers of this zero BAC limit, and look very specifically at the number of deaths and injuries and consider what that tells us perhaps about what we might want to do in other areas.
Mr Conway: Mr Mann, as always, the ARF is stimulating. I find some of your data almost incredible, but I hope you're right.
Mr Mann: Me too.
Mr Conway: My friend Offer and I were just chatting about that, and I sincerely hope you're right that the incidence of teenage drinking is down by the amount that you indicated. My anecdotal evidence, and of course it's just anecdotal, would not seem to suggest that, but boy I hope you're right.
I guess that's my one question, and I was the one who raised the point yesterday -- I forget who it was; somebody in the public sector -- I thought it made the point with me a few years ago around what was it that made the RIDE program work? Apparently the behaviour modification came when all of us as motorists began to think, really think and believe that we might get caught, but it was only when we thought we were going to get caught that we changed our behaviour. I thought that really made sense. I guess it's kind of like your income tax. If you think your chance of getting caught is substantially high, you'll probably be good. If you think there's a fairly low chance, you'll take the risk.
So when I look at this I say to myself, drinking and driving, we know it's really terrible. You shouldn't do it or you shouldn't do it at all. Yet I continue to be amazed. We had a terrible case in one of my communities in Renfrew county a few years ago, a bunch of young kids in a multiple fatality. It was in Renfrew and they had the inquest in the high school to make the point. I've often thought it would be an interesting thing to go back to that school now, two years later, and take a look at attitudes.
I would hope and pray that they are substantially improved, that those young people remember that horrible situation where a number of their peers were killed in a terrible car accident. My question then is, what do we do with these people who clearly -- they don't have to be just young people either, although as your presentation makes plain, there is a higher incidence of drinking and driving, I gather, among younger people than older people.
Mr Mann: Not necessarily.
Mr Conway: Not necessarily?
Mr Mann: No, but when they do drink and drive, their risk is higher.
Mr Conway: It's a more dangerous chemistry.
Mr Mann: Yes.
1530
Mr Conway: What do we do? I cited yesterday some data from the chief medical officer of health for the province. He has just produced a report about attitudes of teenagers. Boy, despite a lot of good public education from the ARF and a lot of other people, they are still behaving in ways that are fatal, really fatal. You think, should we pull the money we spend on advertising? Should we just really crank it up to an almost grotesque level to maybe make the point? What do we need to do to get through to some of these people?
That's one of the reasons I want some kids in here. I want some teenagers before we're finished, because we are sitting here in the high chair of judgement, doling out virtue as fast as you can shovel it. It would be just kind of interesting to get some of these kids in here and say: "So what do you think? What's it going to take for you to change your behaviour, particularly around drinking and driving?"
People say, "Well, legislate zero tolerance." I could go into high schools too and say unprotected sex kills; the answer: abstinence. I suspect I'd be laughed right out of the room. I'm sitting here and I'm thinking, let's legislate like the Swedes: no drinking, "Thou shalt not touch the demon rum." But I have a feeling that 16- and 17- and 18-year-old kids are going to look at me and say, "Which planet did you fall off?" So what do we do, as a practical matter, without making ourselves look ridiculous, to change the behaviour that's causing this problem?
Mr Mann: To change the behaviour? I think if I could talk to something you raised, we need to take a realistic look at what's happening and we need to take a look at the trends to understand that. The best evidence we have is that the incidence of drinking, the prevalence of drinking among young people in Ontario is down over the past 10 years. The prevalence of drinking and driving is down over the past 10 years as well. Now, I certainly would not say that it's not still a problem. The inquest that you mentioned, I believe I was a witness at that and it really was terrible. But I do believe that would have had a major impact on the young people.
We do some work with community centres in areas of this city that have a fairly high use of drugs, anti-drug kinds of things. We had a fairly informal questionnaire where we were asking young people: "What is the acceptability of certain practices? What is the acceptability of using cannabis? What is the acceptability of using crack cocaine? What is the acceptability of drinking and driving?" The young people told us that drinking and driving was very unacceptable, whereas the acceptability of using other kinds of substances was not so unacceptable. So something about what's happened in the drinking and driving area in the past 10 years has hit those young people.
We see in the high school surveys that the number of young people who report drinking and driving is down quite substantially. Now, it's not gone away; I agree with you perfectly. There are other things, other issues that have been raised that we also need to pay attention to. But we can't say that nothing has worked, because something has. We need to take a good look at what we've been doing. We need to take a good look at public education, at enforcement, at everything that's gone on and try to understand how that's contributed to what's happened.
Now, we're able to say that measures such as graduated licensing are likely to be effective based on what we've seen in other jurisdictions. If we were to predict overall trends, if graduated licensing is introduced, we would expect that to contribute to further declines in fatalities among young people.
We can't expect a bolt of lightning to come. Our experience is that we can't expect a bolt of lightning to come and solve the problem overnight. But what we can expect is something like erosion. If we keep at it, then we're going to make significant inroads. In terms of this kind of measure, to paraphrase Herb Simpson, who spoke to you before, if this measure's introduced, there are going to be people alive a few years from now who otherwise wouldn't be.
Mr Conway: I guess the only point I'd make is that it would be really interesting and important for me to know what are the various instruments that work best. I've been here for 18 years and I'm going to tell you that I have heard proponents of a variety of virtuous enterprises oversell the potential benefits of what they're about. We all do it, I suppose, and I guess I just look at some of these issues and think, what is it that does what needs to be done? What are the specific instruments that modify and change behaviours? I sometimes think we spend a lot of time and a lot of money on policies that don't do what we set out to do.
I'll leave it at that for the moment. I've certainly listened to the ARF and I appreciate the good work you've done. I am really, really troubled, for example, by some of the data that are in that Ministry of Health survey. I just find it absolutely and truly astonishing that people, young people particularly, in 1993 are prepared to take those kinds of risks. I think, what in hell are we doing wrong here? What kind of world have we got?
I look at this and this is one of the older vices that we've had: drinking and driving. It was once the fashion. Everybody did it when I grew up, and it's changed. There have been tremendous changes, I would think because of enforcement. There's a sense now that the stigma, the penalties, are much greater and the enforcement is much more serious.
Mr Mann: Just briefly, I think enforcement is a necessary component, but we have to consider that we need a lot of things. Our experience generally has suggested that you need the full picture, a number of components working synergistically for these things to work. You need enforcement certainly, but you also need public awareness. In this case, young people need to be aware of the law. They need to be aware that enforcement is going to take place for it to have its maximal impact. So yes, I would agree with you that enforcement has had a major effect, but we can't overlook the other factors as well.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Mann. Your views are valuable and the data you presented to the committee are interesting and valuable as well.
LABATT ROAD SCHOLARSHIP
Mr Gary Magwood: My name's Gary Magwood. I work with a program called the Labatt Road Scholarship and had the marvellous experience of travelling across Canada for the past five years, working with young people on university and community college campuses. I'm going to talk a little bit about some of the mindsets that prevail among the new and young drivers.
I want to look at this whole task, this whole graduated licences issue, and not look at it statistically, not look at it through a tremendous amount of research, but from personal experience and from working very closely with a tremendous number of young drivers.
The thing I have discovered from this five-year trek across Canada has been that by and large we perceive the entire process of driving a car to be relatively simple. I say to the students all the time, "Heck, it can't be that difficult. Your parents can do it." It's very true, because the perception is that all you have to do is climb in the car. If you really want to go back and look at it, an 8- or 10-year-old could climb in a car, steer, shift gears and work the brakes and clutch, because they've been sitting there since they were this high watching the process.
That's where the whole new driver thing unravels, because you're talking about first-generation drivers. That's where the difficulty lies. As far as young drivers go, they have a very good sense of what the process and procedure is, and by the way, if you don't like their driving habits, have a look at your own, because they've mimicked those as they have mimicked the majority of other things you teach them.
1540
One thing that has to be pointed out is that it is a complex and difficult task. Driving a car requires a tremendous -- the inputs. Think of yourself going down Bay Street in rush-hour; doing Highway 401, 12 lanes of insanity. Going across the top of the city is a difficult task. That's a perception that needs to be changed. It's one of those perceptions. With the drinking and driving issue, we've changed the public's perception. It's no longer socially acceptable. I think we have to change the public's perception of the driving task.
Now one of the things we've done over the last short while, and I know you've been bombarded by statistics, is that we have made it a habit throughout the research to track fatalities and to use those as a gauge of how we're doing in terms of success and failure with programs, but we have to be really careful with them. In the next short while, and now, there is the fact that because of the technology of modern motorcars and air bags and deformable structures and the marvellous highways that we have, we're surviving far more serious crashes now. The fatality rate is dropping but the injury rate, the number of seriously injured people who wind up in the trauma units rights across this country, is staggering, and what we have is a cost factor there.
One stat that I want to put to you -- it was in the Toronto Star the other day -- is that in the last 10 years in this country we've injured more than the entire population of Metropolitan Toronto; we've injured 2.6 million in cars. That is a staggering cost. If you really look at what it costs to crash cars in this country, and without measuring the trauma to the parents and to the relatives and friends of the folks who are killed and/or seriously injured, the real cost of crashing cars statistically is about $30 billion to $35 billion a year in this country, nationally; I don't have an Ontario figure. That's a lot of money. As a matter of fact, I think that was the national debt the last time I looked in the paper.
There are a few things I would like to address. One is to stop calling these things accidents -- these are car crashes and collisions -- and to accept the fact that they are predictable and preventable events.
We look at airplane crashes. We don't call them airplane accidents; we call them airplane crashes. One particular crash comes to mind and is an illustration of how we perceive the driving task: Dryden. How many years ago? Three or four years ago did we not lose an aircraft in Dryden and we lost 28 people and a pilot? Two years was the time, I think, for the inquest into that. I've forgotten how many millions of dollars were spent, but we were discussing 28 lives and we spent -- I know it was at least two years. As I say, I don't recall the money.
The reason we did that is that as a public and as legislators, we perceived the fact that we could do something about preventing that airplane crash. In the two years it took for that entire hearing to take place, we found out that the pilot screwed up. He took off because there was ice on the wings; pilot error. In the time it took to look at those 28 deaths, over 3,000 people died on the roads in Ontario, and we go like this: "They're accidents. There's nothing we can do."
I would like to say that there is, that they are predictable and preventable, and the majority of those crashes, regardless of any other circumstance, is you and I making mistakes behind the wheel of a car. Cars do not leave the road at high speed and roll over. Pick-up trucks do not spin out of control and crash into hydro poles. We drive them off the highway. We roll them over. We drive them into hydro poles.
Despite the technology of the cars, we still get hurt in those cars. When you look at the air bag situation now and you think of all this lovely technology in the cars, keep in mind that if you don't wear your seatbelt shoulder harness with an air bag, it's not going to do you any good. What's happening is people are seeing these as passive restraint systems and not doing up their seatbelts and shoulder harnesses, and an air bag only works on almost a dead head-on collision. It doesn't work on a side impact, rollover, rear impact, all those places.
Counting on technology to resolve the problems that we have with driving, we can improve the technology of the cars and the highways. We've got marvellous barriers on the roads now, and the solution to the 401, the tremendous number of crashes on the 401 was to put a barrier down the median. We stopped the cars crossing the median; we haven't stopped them striking the barrier. So we haven't reduced the crashes with the technology, and one of the primary reasons is the fact that our education, training and testing processes, the procedures that we use to evaluate how you and I drive, go back to the 1930s, 1940s and 1950s. We have made quantum leaps in how we live, and we have literally got a horse-and-cart technology teaching people how to drive. It's staggering.
Along comes graduated licensing, and I look at it and I listen very carefully. I talk to the students and I talk to the young people I've been working with over the years. There are a lot of good components. There are some that are very constructive, and some of them, I tell you, are going to be big problems. As legislators, as law enforcement officers, there are quite a few of them that are going to be difficult.
I have no problem at all with the constructive components, the zero BAC, no problem at all. The attitude towards drinking and driving that has been discussed in this room today has changed among the young people. It is no longer cool to drink and drive. That's not to say they don't still drink. I can tell you that first-year students drink, but the drinking and driving issue is changing and it's changing dramatically.
The accompanied driving: There are some components of that I agree with. The French have a marvellous system, by the way. They require the parents or the guardians to be the accompanying driver, and the parents and/or guardian have to go through the training and testing process along with the kids. Not a bad idea when you think about it because if there's one area in our lives between adults -- and you've got somebody coming up to 14 years old now to learn how to drive -- between parents and their kids is this whole issue of driving a car. This is the one area where you could have the best relationship on the face of the earth with your son or daughter, and you climb in that passenger seat as the instructor -- I can see the smiles -- it unravels pretty quick, doesn't it?
The potential for conflict between parents and their kids at this particular time is very high. But there's also a potential for maybe bridging the gap, maybe bridging the lack of communication that's been taking place and asking parents and guardians to be participants in the whole process. The implication there is that mom and dad kind of could do with some help in the driving process, not just the kids, and I think that's very true.
Limiting passengers to the number of seatbelts and things like that, really, really good. But there's little or no education and training component. It's a very minor part of this whole concept.
Over 6,000 mostly new and young drivers have been in the cars that we've taken across Canada over this past five years, and in this past year, we've put a tremendous number of experienced drivers behind the wheel. We've actually taken the program and put it into the communities, as opposed to university and community colleges. We've had drivers everywhere from 18 to 80. We had a chap 82 years old in Victoria, as a matter of fact. We've had police officers in the cars. We've taught people who work with safety councils. We've had driving instructors in the cars. We've had firefighters. We've had legislators in the cars; quite a few members of this Ontario Legislature came down to -- you were there -- Ontario Place.
It doesn't matter how many years of experience you've had. This whole experience issue is a bit of a red herring because experience without training is not very valid at all. It's like you can't go out and acquire experience without the education and training component. One of the main cornerstones of our society is education and training: "Go back to school. Stay in school."
Are we not telling the kids that? We turn around and say, "If you're unemployed because technology's put you out of a job, retraining." Yet for the whole driving thing, one of the most complex and hazardous tasks that we have in our lives, we receive very little education and training. Experience is not going to do it. It's a help, it's in addition to, but the education and training part of it has to be a primary component, and it's very, very effective.
If you want to look at modifying attitudes and behaviours behind the wheel of a car, there's nothing better, I can assure you, than finding yourself in a very awkward, very uncomfortable situation with a car and a bit of a spin or a slide because you have not gone through a procedure to prevent that from happening. None of us likes to be in those circumstances. I don't care if you're 16 or 66; it's very uncomfortable. But if you can learn a technique and process it, if you can learn -- and you can, guaranteed -- to handle a crisis behind the wheel of a car, it makes a difference as to how you approach circumstances in traffic.
It makes you think a little more about the drinking and driving issue. It's very simple to say, "If you had this much trouble, completely sober, handling the complexities of this task that we set you today, when we go through the skid training and the emergency braking and the collision avoidance, think about this: What would happen if you were in that situation and you were impaired?" You can just see the looks on the kids' faces. They know they would be in big trouble.
The frustrating part is that nobody's ever taught us, first of all, how not to get into the crisis, but nobody's taught us how to deal with a crisis once we're there. I don't care how safe a driver you are, I don't care how many years you've driven; I can look around this room and know everybody sitting in front of me and behind has had several moments behind the wheel of a car -- haven't we? -- where we have gone, "Oh, that was close. That almost happened. Wow, that was close," and you've related it to friends and family, no question at all. So they happen regardless of the circumstances as to your experience in things.
1550
In four hours on a parking lot, we can do a tremendous amount to look at and teach young new drivers and everybody how to handle a crisis. And you know the best part? It's fun; the kids love it. This acquisition of a driver's licence today is the main transition into adulthood, all right? Forget losing your virginity or taking your first drink; the acquisition of a driver's licence, that's the signal to society today that you're big enough to go out into the woods, as we used to do, and build tepees or whatever. We're not taking advantage of that component. The kids would work twice as hard, as would new drivers, to acquire the licences if that's what was requested of them.
As a matter of fact, our own survey -- we did about 3,000 students over a period of four years, 98% of them thought more and better training with periodic retesting was quite acceptable, very surprising to us; 77% of them had no problem with user-pay, in other words paying for the process of acquiring a driver's licence; and 99%, almost unanimous, claimed that training would improve their future driving habits.
It's not the be-all and end-all but it has to be a vital part of this whole process of acquiring a licence, and we've got community colleges right across this province with classrooms, with parking lots, and I believe the figure is about 90% of the population has access to a community college, if not more, and they're sitting there crying for other projects. We already do a motorcycle training program at community colleges. It's a licensing program. You go there, spend two days, $200, you start from zero and you get a motorcycle licence. It's a great program. You do all kinds of neat manoeuvres and things and it's very effective and again I go back to the element that it's education and it's good fun.
So this whole business of learning not to crash is a learned process; it's not just through experience. It's learned by education and training.
One quote that I came across some time ago, a chap called Edward De Bono wrote a book called Six Thinking Hats. He said:
"In times of panic or anger, people tend to behave in a primitive manner" -- well, panic or anger and fright, whatever -- "This may be because the brain is so rarely under these special chemical conditions that there has been no chance to acquire complex reaction patterns." In other words, if you're not a regular skier or in any sport that has a little element of danger to it at all, if you're not a regular in practice, the first time you're out on the old ski slopes, the old heart goes tickety-boo, doesn't it? Same thing with the driving process, so what he is saying is, "This would mean that there is a very good reason for training people under such emotional conditions" -- in other words, under stress conditions. In brackets he puts "as the military have always done."
If funding is going to be thrown up as a reason why not to pursue a much more significant education and training component, I say to you, it's a red herring, because I saw how quickly this province was motivated not too long ago when the meningitis scare came along. We found money all over the place to inoculate every high school kid in the country, because we perceived again that it was a preventable situation. We still have not perceived the fact that we can predict and prevent these crashes.
Education must start in kindergarten. Why not integrate math, science, physics, social skills, visual skills, language, alcohol awareness and all the things to do with driving? Start in kindergarten, start talking to the kids the moment they get on a tricycle.
So I say that I definitely support the graduated licence initiative but only as a starting point, I would say, to revolutionize -- I think we have a potential here in Ontario to really turn the whole process around and to -- the guy who typed this up for me -- "Ontario could win the world" -- I love it.
We have an option here in Ontario to set a standard in the world -- never mind what they've done in New Zealand and Victoria -- right here in Ontario. Thank you very much for your time.
Mr Daigeler: I was trying to ask this question to some of the other presenters; you may be able to give me a bit of an answer: What is happening in the States? We've mentioned all kinds of other countries and, to my surprise, our closest neighbour and the biggest there, we haven't really mentioned it at all.
Mr Magwood: You're right.
Mr Daigeler: What are they doing in this whole field? I'm sure with the experience that you have -- and, by the way, if you could tell me a little bit more what this actually is here --
Mr Magwood: Okay.
Mr Daigeler: Perhaps you can answer those two questions.
Mr Magwood: I have to speak only as someone who, as a result of my interest in the whole process, has spent some time with American trainers and teachers at conferences. The Americans are very fragmented because the states are a whole lot smaller in actual size and of course each state looks after, as we do here, the driving issue. There are attempts. Maryland has a program. There are two or three states that are nibbling away at it.
The American mindset that I've discovered is the whole business of anything that impinges on your freedoms, and there's this element of, "If I want to drive my half-ton with the rifle rack in the back I'm going to do it and nobody's going to tell me." I'm being a little facetious but there's an element of that: "There's an impingement on my rights."
By and large -- I'll go back to something I said a minute ago -- we really, in this country, in Canada, are light years ahead of the rest of the world in terms of what we're thinking about doing and some of the --
Mr Daigeler: You said "ahead"?
Mr Magwood: Ahead, definitely. I've been very lucky over the past couple of years of going to training programs in Europe, training programs in other parts of the world. I've had visitors come over here and participate in our Labatt program and other similar programs. This is only one of a variety. The comments have been, "Jeepers, we thought we were doing some neat and interesting stuff." We've started working with vision trainers; we're working with sport vision people. There's all sorts of neat stuff that could be done.
Mr Offer: I have a question. Firstly, I very much appreciated your presentation and especially the book. We've been finding ourselves in this book.
Mr Conway: Speak for yourself.
Mr Offer: I've just been overhearing other conversations.
I want to be very brief because I think Mr Conway has a question. Under the graduated licensing system, there's a provision where you get your visual test and then you're in this level 1 for potentially a year, minimum eight months, that you have to go out only with somebody probably 21, 22, 23. Let's get your thoughts. What are the young kids going to do? Where are they going to get, in reality, the experience that everyone is saying is needed, and saying, "Well, you'll get it if you get out there with somebody who's 22 or 23"? What happens in real life?
Mr Magwood: What happens in real life, I would suggest to you, is -- and I'll use the term in quotation marks -- "kids" are going to just get on with the job regardless. Many of the restrictions on the graduated licence -- the night-time driving, the multilane highway -- you're really going to be hard pressed to find enough law enforcement officers to go out and enforce an awful lot of those restrictions. You're also creating a potential environment for more conflict between the police and the young people because, whether we like to believe it or not, there is an element of -- you know, if you see a bunch of young kids in the car, the police kind of have a tendency to want to go over and check them out. They have more reason to do that.
I'm not offering up scare tactics here. I'm looking at taking the education and training process and revolutionizing how we teach it and how we look at the process rather than looking at all the restrictive components. I am not a big believer in restrictions. I would much rather see incentives. I would much rather see the task recognized for what it is and how it relates to young people's lives particularly, and new drivers' lives, and base our decisions and choices on that as opposed to all these restrictions. I think these restrictions are counterproductive.
Mr Turnbull: Gary, thank you very much. I recall two years or so ago when you gave me privately a presentation of what you've just given publicly now. I was impressed by your clarity of thinking then.
I get from what you're saying that really the key issue is to encourage people to take further driving skills courses. Would you basically find some way within level 2 to encourage them to take these and have some sort of bonus in terms of getting through the system for doing this?
Mr Magwood: I hear what you're saying. In response to what is the incentive and what's the initiative to take more training or to go to a program that provides you with some crisis management, the testing and evaluation process is what really has to change. The way we test and evaluate right now -- I mean, if you can walk through that doorframe, by and large you've passed your eye test. It's pretty minimal. You peer into a little container and literally somebody with no technical expertise just takes a quick look and really, if you can count your fingers you've got a driver's licence.
1600
If you could amp up the whole process of how you evaluate and how you test -- in other words, you set a test that had some significance to it -- then you're going to have to participate in the education and training in order to acquire it. It's no different than if you want to be a whatever it happens to be; there's a process whereby you qualify to be that doctor, lawyer or Indian chief. You don't just suddenly become a technician; you don't just suddenly become a mechanic. I mean, you've got a five-year apprenticeship to be a mechanic to work on a car. You haven't even got a five-year apprenticeship to drive the darned thing. It's the testing.
Mr Turnbull: Would you foresee that we toughen up the testing of level 1 or the exit for level 2?
Mr Magwood: I would like to see both. It's not a case that you're going to run into a situation where people can't perform the task. Everybody can do this task. We're amazingly adept. I don't know how much experience all of you have with computers, but I've just been recently introduced to them. I still write letters by longhand. However, when I look at 14- and 15-year-olds, and 12 and 13, working computers, where did that come from? The incentive was there to, first of all, learn about it. Secondly, there's a fun element to it and it demonstrates to me that regardless of how complex a task is, if you create the environment for it, you're going to learn; you're going to achieve that level of performance.
Mr Turnbull: And in terms of inducing people to do it -- because you were saying that you're greatly in favour of encouraging people rather than legislating people to do it.
Mr Magwood: Move them through the system more quickly. In other words, the incentive -- if you take more than what is just basically required to achieve these things, move them through the system more quickly. The incentive is, you get your licence. The more you learn, the more you study.
Mr Turnbull: What sort of additional cost over current driver training would that incur, let's say, if we were to do skid training?
Mr Magwood: If you were to put programs together -- and already Georgian College up in Barrie and we've been looking at a program in Centennial here in Toronto -- we're quite sure that we can -- I won't use the word "process" -- move students through a program for about $100 to $150 per person, doing about three and a half to four hours in a car on a parking lot. That is enough not only to pay for it but to make sure the folks who are doing it get paid and the facility's looked after and paid for. That's not a huge cost. Goodness gracious, it's not a lot of money.
Mr Turnbull: Your indications are from your surveys that the students would be prepared to pay this?
Mr Magwood: The students have indicated to us they'd be quite prepared to pay. Just one thing is, the students have told us that after having gone through the process.
Mr Gary Wilson: I want to say how much I enjoyed your presentation and I'd like to say again how much I regret -- again, I've carried this regret around for quite a number of months -- missing you in Kingston. I want to commend your assistance.
Mr Magwood: We're coming back.
Mr Gary Wilson: When I saw that you were on here, I wanted to say, just where do you see this graduated licence in the order of things we could do to make driving a safer experience? I have some idea. Because I want to get on to one other thing. You mentioned the pilot in Dryden, which of course is a major tragedy. I don't remember all the details, but I do remember he was flying to a schedule. That so often happens. You're in a context and that includes driving. You can think about it all you want in the classroom and other places, but until you get behind the wheel -- that's when it really matters. You're rushing here and there.
Mr Magwood: That's right.
Mr Gary Wilson: So I'm just wondering then whether we've done enough to make driving the kind of experience -- I just notice the car that's advertised here is a Probe, but I know there are cars called Charger and you go through all the other names that don't really fit in with the kind of experience driving is. I'm just wondering what you think about some of the things that -- is there a hope in this way, that we can move driving to an experience that's --
Mr Magwood: It's really complex, because the whole driving issue, what is so fascinating about driving to me is the fact that I look at it as a metaphor for how we live. All our attitudes and how we relate to one another is reflected by the driving. You can have cars called Probes and Chargers and all these exotic names. I mean, look at the lifestyle commercials on television. All that is out there.
What I can tell you from experience is the fact that obviously, when we go on to university campuses particularly and also the community colleges, we get the young guys out there who have got the Probes and the Chargers and the Mustangs and cars like that. I mean, they have literally shown up with their driving gloves and they are ready to come out and show us all they know. Invariably, they have a pretty hard time, because what they've done is they've perceived the fact that, "Hey, this can't be too complicated," and what happens to them is they step back a tiny bit, because the next thing they see -- I'll just tell you very quickly. We actually set up quite a dramatic collision-avoidance exercise where you actually have to come on to a skid path, quite a slippery surface, and you've got to get on the brakes and take corrective steering action. You have to actually avoid what we call five kids walking across the road -- they're cones about this high. We do it by the incentive that we give them to make this choice and decision, because the instructors literally step in front of them on the skid pad and they have to hit on the brakes and steer. That catches their attention.
Mr Gary Wilson: Yours too.
Mr Magwood: Fortunately, they haven't done us too much damage so far. What happens is, particularly these young guys, they trash all these cones. They've got three buddies in the car, so now we've got an interesting peer pressure thing going here, and the result is that they're chagrined because they have suddenly realized that, hey, they can't maybe make this thing happen. They'll come back up and you can see them: They're getting a little more angry, they're a little more frustrated. Their buddies are giving them a hard time, which is what happens in a car on the highway. But what happens here is the incentive now becomes, "I'm going to do this thing," and I just simply say: "Listen, it's not complicated. All you've done is locked your eyes in on the cones, and where you looked is where you steered," etc. "I want you to do it this way the next time." Bingo.
The satisfaction -- I'm going to really dial in on the guys because it is them. The satisfaction, the look on their faces of having accomplished this -- and I know, when they go out of there at the end of the day, that their attitude has changed, not quantum leaps, but there's an attitude change that is going to have some bearing on how they deal with a future crisis and maybe the fact that they're not going to get themselves into quite so many situations where they're going to have to deal with the crisis. But I can only give you that as observation of personal experience.
Ms Murdock: I'm going to forego my question because I know the time is limited, except to ask you when you're coming to Sudbury.
Mr Magwood: I'm not doing Sudbury, but we'll be back in Toronto soon.
Ms Murdock: I knew it. No, but Toronto is Toronto; Sudbury is northern Ontario. Driving in snow in northern Ontario is different than driving in snow in Toronto.
Mr Magwood: We'll come up and visit you.
Mr Dadamo: Mr Magwood, thank you very much. I just wanted to say you've taken sort of a rigid issue, a very serious issue, and I know that you motivate people -- you'd be a great motivational speaker -- and made some fun with it, and I appreciate that.
I took the course at St Clair College in Windsor on a Saturday morning, and I was saying to my colleagues that I've never gotten into a car -- or I've handled it differently any more since taking the course, because I look ahead and I think ahead and I know how I would react if I were sitting on the shoulder of the road or something like that.
The book is fantastic, by the way. I think it's very, very good. You were mentioning on page 3 how people drive, the crotch grip and the praying mantis. I wanted to say that I had a brother-in-law at one time who drove with his left leg up on the dashboard. I remember my brother driving with his knee in high school. So there are some really weird ways of doing it.
I just simply wanted to say that I think everybody should take the course because, all kidding aside, it's very, very serious, and that you'll never drive the same as you were, after you take the course.
Mr Magwood: And keep in mind, I'm not here advocating just the Labatt Road Scholarship. It is only one initiative. There are all kinds, and there's no shortage of people to teach this, I can assure you, no shortage.
Mr Dadamo: And it's worth the three or four hours that it takes.
Mr Conway: On the parliamentary secretary's last point, I'd like this question: What is your honest assessment of the quality of driver education as you see it across the province and country? And I want an honest, truthful assessment because the practical effect of this policy is to put a lot more emphasis on people's participating in that education and training. So what is your sense on this?
Mr Magwood: Let me just say very carefully that the driving educator, the driving instructor, has been the butt of a tremendous amount of humour over the years. The result is that, by and large, they're underpaid, undertrained and not respected for what they do.
There's a tremendous number of dedicated instructors out there, but there are also a tremendous number who are ill-qualified, and again it's not because of their inability to perform this task; it's because of the whole education and training process. I would say to you, looking at the number of folks we have actually trained in the cars who have been driving instructors, that the training and education is sorely, sorely lacking and the quality is not what it could be.
The Chair: Thank you. The committee sincerely appreciates your appearance here this afternoon. I think it's fair to say you've caught everyone's attention in the room. I myself will no doubt find myself in this book somewhere. I intend to study it very closely.
We hope that you stay in touch with the committee as we continue through the process on graduated licensing, and we thank you again for coming.
1610
COALITION OF MOTORCYCLE ORGANIZATIONS
The Chair: The next scheduled witnesses are the Motorcycle and Moped Industry Council. Welcome.
Mr Robert Ramsay: Thank you, Mr Chairman. It's a pleasure to be here today and to have this opportunity, actually, to speak on behalf of the Ontario Coalition of Motorcycle Organizations. With me today is Mr Rick Bradshaw. He is with the Canadian Motorcycle Association. My name is Bob Ramsay. I'm the executive director of the Motorcycle and Moped Industry Council.
The coalition makes up a whole bunch of different groups. In the submissions that were handed out, you will see all the different groups that participate in the coalition. Together we are here on behalf of the Ontario Coalition of Motorcycle Organizations, which is an umbrella group that represents over 6,000 licensed motorcyclists.
At the present time, there are over 485,000 people in Ontario who are licensed to drive a motorcycle. Each year, approximately 10,000 to 12,000 more people obtain their class M licence.
The coalition supports the concept of an effective graduated licensing system for all new drivers. Motorcyclists are often the victims of poor driving habits of other road users. Studies by the Traffic Injury Research Foundation and other reputable organizations have found that two thirds to three quarters of all multivehicle accidents involving motorcyclists are the fault of the other driver.
In recent years, progress has been made in improving the safe driving habits of motorcycle riders. Since 1982, the number of fatalities involving motorcyclists in Ontario has decreased 49.2%. The coalition believes that motorcycle rider training has been a very important factor in reducing accidents and improving rider safety. As currently structured, following completion of the course curriculum, participants are able to take the required ministry examination to obtain a class M licence without the inconvenience of having to schedule an appointment at a Ministry of Transportation test centre. This arrangement between the Ontario Safety League and the Ministry of Transportation has been in effect since 1982 and provides an excellent incentive for taking rider training. It also helps relieve the burden of testing motorcycle riders at examination centres across the province and provides a superior level of skills evaluation.
The coalition has studied the proposed graduated licensing system in detail. We support its general direction and the safety factors on which the graduated licensing system is being based. However, the Coalition of Motorcycle Organizations would like to offer the following recommendations to improve, in our opinion at least, the proposed graduated licensing system.
First, we propose that a motorcycle advisory committee be established to discuss ongoing safety initiatives as well as possible amendments and/or refinements to the proposed graduated licensing system as it is implemented. The benefits of this would be to improve two-way communication and understanding, communication between the ministry and motorcyclists. It would also help develop a high level of support for the graduated licensing system among motorcyclists, and developing public support is a key ingredient of why and how effective a licensing system is.
Second, we recommend that the duration of the level 1 (M-1) licence be extended to a minimum of six months but that the minimum time frame be reduced to 60 days if the applicant successfully completes a ministry-approved motorcycle training course. Again, the benefit to this is that it provides a greater incentive to take rider training, and to take rider training earlier rather than later.
Our third recommendation is that the level 2 (M-2) period for motorcyclists be reduced to 18 months from the 22 months proposed. This would ensure a consistent total length of time to obtain an M licence and a G licence. Again, the benefit is that it would be more fair and equitable and would cause less dislocation from one class of licence to another class of licence. If you start having different total time frames, then people will want to move one way or the other.
The fourth recommendation is that where facilities exist, the level 1 (M-1) exit test be the well-proven and widely accepted motorcycle operator skills test. This is the test that is currently used at most colleges across Ontario, and as you have heard from the previous speaker, many people who obtain their motorcycle licence already take motorcycle rider training. Unfortunately, that doesn't happen with nearly as high a percentage with car drivers. But this has been a very effective test, it's a very good test, and we believe it's one of the reasons, among many others, that the rate of fatalities among motorcyclists has decreased significantly.
Our fifth recommendation is that the level 1 exit test be permitted to be taken by applicants at the ministry-approved motorcycle training course sites. That is currently the case; we're hoping that will be extended.
The sixth recommendation is that instructors at ministry-approved motorcycle training courses be authorized to administer the level 2 exit test onsite for applicants who qualify and wish to obtain a fully privileged class M driver's licence. Again, this ensures a high level of skills evaluation. It also helps to reduce the burden at ministry offices. Most ministry offices do motorcycles as a sideline; their primary function is to examine car drivers. We think that by allowing the level 2 exit test to be done at community colleges or other ministry-approved sites, it would greatly reduce the burden on the ministry.
Our seventh recommendation is that level 1 motorcyclists who accumulate six or more demerit points be restricted from progressing to level 2 for a minimum of an additional 12 months and be required to complete a ministry-approved rider rehabilitation program. A rehabilitation program is not mandatory training. There are rehabilitation programs in several states in the US. There are rehabilitation programs that are being developed by the Canada Safety Council. These programs focus specifically on the problem that the driver is facing, or in this case, the motorcycle rider is facing.
Some people have problems with substance abuse. Some people have problems with a lack of skills. Other people have problems with not knowing enough about the laws that are in force. Still other people have a bad attitude: know all the laws, have all the best skills, but choose to obey none of them. So we suggest that there be rider rehabilitation programs not only for motorcyclists but also, obviously, for car drivers.
1620
Our eighth recommendation is that the level 2 or fully privileged class M licence-holders who accumulate 12 or more demerit points be required to complete an approved rider rehabilitation program and be required to revert to level 1 to earn full licensing privileges again.
From what we understand, currently, if you reach 15 your licence is suspended. Many people ride or drive with suspended licences at the present time. It's equally if not more important to ensure that we target those people with proper and appropriate rehabilitation programs to ensure that they don't just go out and break another law, and that is, driving without a licence.
The primary objectives of the coalition's recommendations are to improve traffic safety in general and motorcycle rider safety in particular. The advantages of the recommendations offered by the coalition are more positive incentives to take rider training, incentives to take rider training earlier in the process, early intervention to address problem drivers and riders and lower costs to the government.
Thank you for this opportunity to address the committee and to present our recommendations.
Mr Turnbull: I think I should leave my time to the Chair because he's so interested in motorbikes.
Mr Conway: We've got some motorcyclists here. I think we should defer to them.
Mr Hansen: One of the earlier reports was -- I'm going to ask this question again -- that 2% of registered motor vehicles in Ontario are motorcycles.
Mr Robert Ramsay: That's correct.
Mr Hansen: But yet the fatalities on the road are 6%.
Mr Robert Ramsay: That's correct.
Mr Hansen: Just to get a second opinion, and from motorcyclists -- I made the point that I got injured in a motorcycle accident which wasn't my fault, my neighbour just about lost his foot which wasn't his fault and another one of my friends got killed by an impaired driver, so I can pick three out who have had accidents where it was actually the driver of the car. Could you comment? I noticed you commented a little bit at the beginning of your --
Mr Robert Ramsay: Yes. There have been many studies done in this area and you're absolutely right. One of our real concerns among motorcyclists and the motorcycle industry is that many motorcyclists are injured in accidents and yet the studies that have been done, two such studies, one done by an organization that appeared here earlier, the Traffic Injury Research Foundation of Canada, showed overwhelmingly that two thirds to three quarters of all motorcycle accidents involving another vehicle were the fault of the other vehicle.
As a consequence, it's imperative from our standpoint that graduated licensing apply equally as strongly to automobile drivers as it does to motorcyclists because a lot of the people who use motorcycles are being injured by car drivers or other vehicle users. These are studies done by independent groups. The Traffic Injury Research Foundation, Dr Herb Simpson, who appeared here earlier did the major study in Canada on this. By implementing graduated licensing, we're quite confident that would help make people more aware of their responsibilities on the road, and therefore make sure that they hit motorcyclists less often, because a motorcyclist doesn't have much protection. He's got his helmet and that's about it, and if a car hits you, you can get hurt quite seriously.
Mr Hansen: I realize that you were here on Bill 164 and made a presentation to the government, which wasn't too long ago, and it came up to the same point, that you really haven't been rated properly as motorcyclists because of the fatalities involved with motorcycles compared to cars, but the damage is less. You've brought some of those points forward. Anybody who wants to look at a little bit of research, I think could look back at some of the reports you handed in.
One thing that I find very unusual, and I have a class A licence also with the motorcycle, is that for any test I go in for -- I go in every year and write the test to renew my class A licence, but for any G driver -- there wasn't any question on there on how to deal with a motorcycle on the road. Even with the testing that goes on, if there doesn't happen to be a motorcycle in the path of the car being tested or the driver being tested, there is no information on how you deal with a motorcycle on the road. Would you like to deal with the education or testing part?
Mr Robert Ramsay: You make a very good point, and that's one of the things we brought to the Ministry of Transportation last year when we were meeting with officials. They have been good enough to make some amendments, but we'd like to see them go further.
In their booklet for motorcycle operators that they hand out when you're first getting your licence, there's been more information put in there, but there's literally no information or very little information for car drivers on this same aspect. Therefore, a car driver doesn't appreciate the obstacles or the presence necessarily of motorcyclists. Some car drivers wonder why a motorcycle moves around in its lane. I've often talked to people who are non-motorcyclists and they wonder: "Well, how come he moves from here to there or there to there? He's just acting up or showing off or something like that." There are very strategic reasons when you're driving.
In one of our groups that make up this coalition, Motorcycle Training Program, Chief Instructors and Instructors, you learn that when you're riding a motorcycle, if you drive in a certain location all the time, you'll tend to be missed. You have to make yourself visible to the people around you. As well, there are things on the road that don't affect a car but can be very serious for a motorcyclist. A pothole doesn't seem like much to a car. You can drive right over it. If you hit a big pothole on a motorcycle, you're in big trouble. So you have to know, you have to be aware.
In fact, when I got my motorcycle licence, it made me a much better car driver because one thing they teach you is to always shoulder-check. If you're on a motorcycle and you don't shoulder-check, you'll be history very quickly, so you always shoulder-check.
Mr Conway: What does that mean?
Mr Robert Ramsay: Shoulder-check is when you look over your shoulder before you turn; sorry. You've got to check over your shoulder before you move. In a car, I've seen hundreds of car drivers just move over. They didn't know I was there, but fortunately I knew they were coming and so I was able to get out of the way, because the other benefit of a motorcycle is you're a lot more manoeuvrable. You can stop quicker. You can start faster. You can manoeuvre much more quickly.
I've been in two accidents in my life, both in a car, which I could have avoided if I was on a motorcycle. I got rear-ended both times. I could have avoided that, because I can pull up on a motorcycle and around and off to the side much more quickly than in a car.
In fact, if you look at accident involvement rates, motorcycle accident involvement rates are much less than car accident rates. It's about one tenth the car accident rate, because motorcycles are much more manoeuvrable and motorcyclists by and large are much more scared of getting slammed by a car. We drive very defensively, the vast majority of us. Admittedly, there are some who just don't learn, but the vast majority of motorcyclists are very responsible riders.
Mr Cooper: Just to let you know, I am a graduate of the motorcycle training course at Conestoga College, and I am also a member of ABATE of Ontario and Bikers' Rights Organization. Mr Hansen and myself have been working hard trying to get the May Proclamation that BRO is advocating, and we're having great difficulty with that for various reasons.
Mr Conway: The what?
Mr Cooper: The May Proclamation. It's a motorcycle safety awareness program during the month of May to let people know that motorcycles are back on the highway, because, as was stated, most of the accidents that you're involved in on a motorcycle are the fault of a car driver.
One of the questions I have: You were saying after 15 demerit points dropping it back down to a G-1 or M-1?
Mr Robert Ramsay: Yes.
Mr Cooper: Is that viable?
Mr Robert Ramsay: I believe it's not only viable, it's very worthwhile, the reason being that if you accumulate 15 demerit points at the present time, and under the proposed legislation as I understand it, you would have your licence suspended. There are some drivers and some motorcyclists who, when their licence is suspended, continue to drive, continue to operate a motorcycle. It doesn't make any sense. If you're going to accumulate that number of points, you're obviously either not respectful of the law or have no idea what the laws are, and therefore many people continue to drive.
It makes much more sense to try to rehabilitate these people, to try to educate them, to try to ensure that they do abide by the law than to just take their driver's licence away and then on a Saturday night they'll go out and drive anyway. Many people who get into fatal accidents are people who have already had their licence suspended.
1630
Mr Cooper: I know one of the things people talk about is that people should go for retesting every five years or 10 years. I think this might be a viable alternative. If you find that somebody has difficulty with driving, obviously because they're losing the demerit points, this might be the way to go. I could advocate for something like that. I honestly advocate for everything you have proposed, because I understand how dangerous it is riding a motorcycle in the springtime. Usually that's when you come out, and usually there's still sand on the roads. There's where a lot of the things, where inexperienced riding will take over and that's where you see your fatalities, usually with the younger kids: first thing in the spring because of the inexperience. I would even support the mandatory courses for all motorcycle riders, before they can get their licence.
Mr Robert Ramsay: I wouldn't want to support mandatory training, mainly because we look at the system here in Ontario versus the system in Quebec. The system here in Ontario has been much superior than where there is mandatory training, in Quebec. We actually train more people in Ontario than they train in Quebec.
I think you'll hear presentations later on, if you haven't heard already, that the training program in Ontario is probably, among motorcyclists, the best in the world. As a percentage of the number of drivers or motorcyclists who get their licence, about 50% to two thirds of everyone who gets their licence in Ontario is going through a motorcycle training course right now.
The beauty of that is it is a user-pay system. It doesn't cost the government anything. In fact, we're saving the government thousands of dollars by reducing the fatalities and injuries. By the way, the injury rate has decreased over 58% in the last 10 years. Humber College, Centennial College, Conestoga College, the colleges across Ontario, are excellent at providing rider training.
We'd like to see that for cars. To be very frank, we'd like to see a level of professionalism among car schools and driver training that there is among motorcycle schools. Each of these people is certified each year. They have to meet very high curriculum standards that are regulated by the Ontario Safety League, as well as the Canada Safety Council. The industry itself provides something like $1.6 million worth of motorcycles for the rider training and they're all specifically sized bikes for rider training.
We think it's an excellent program. We think the incentives should be there for continued rider training. By moving it into level 1, there is more incentive to take rider training that in level 2, as it's being currently proposed.
Mr Cooper: The first thing I rode legally was a moped. I'll say legally because all you needed was a G licence for that. Why the difference?
Mr Robert Ramsay: Why the difference?
Mr Cooper: Why not a motorcycle licence for a moped?
Mr Robert Ramsay: I'm trying to remember now. There is a second class of unit. It's called a scooter or moped or motor-assisted bicycle. It has a separate definition of what it is. It has to be less than 50 ccs. It has to have pedals on it, things of that nature. So it's quite a different bike. It cannot be operated on highways. It cannot be operated in most traffic circumstances.
Actually, one of the things that we would like to see is for those small motor vehicles -- the scooters, the mopeds -- to continue to be under a G licence, because those are the vehicles that people could use to get around town. If we want to ever reduce emissions from cars, if we want to reduce parking problems, if we want to reduce the wear and tear on highways and that, these little vehicles, which get 100 gillion miles to the litre, would be excellent. They use them in Europe. They use them all over the place. They would be ideal for Toronto or any major cities. It's a much more economical, much more environmentally friendly means of transportation than driving your car to the variety store to pick up some milk.
Mr Klopp: Maybe I misinterpreted. I don't drive a motorcycle and I try not to run over them, either.
Mr Robert Ramsay: Thank you. I appreciate it.
Mr Klopp: Anyway, your colleague was bringing up that if you get a lot of demerit points, you don't pull their licence, you actually put them back to another level, the theory being that they may drive without a licence, breaking the law, really. But what about a vehicle permit, someone driving without that licence? How do you say to one, "Your motorcycle, we're not going to pull your licence because you might break the law"? What about --
Mr Robert Ramsay: I would suggest the same thing for an automobile. I attended a meeting of the CCMTA, which is the Canadian Council of Motor Transport Administrators, and there were presentations done by the Canada Safety Council, which is currently developing driver rehabilitation programs for use in other provinces. We think it has much applicability here in Ontario as well. It should apply, because education is the cornerstone of our whole society.
If we're going to improve our society and address specific questions -- because there are many different questions to be addressed here, as I mentioned earlier. Some people have substance abuse. Drinking drivers have a substance abuse problem. That's very different from the person who doesn't have a drinking problem but who goes out and breaks all the laws anyway. You have two different problems you're addressing there, which is different again from a person who doesn't have the skills or the knowledge of the laws, who just needs to be updated on the skills and the knowledge. So you have to focus your rehabilitation program on what the problem of that particular person is or what area needs to be addressed by that particular person. So I think it has as much applicability to automobiles, if not more, than to motorcycles.
Mr Klopp: On that point, I would agree with you. Your argument is consistent then.
Mr Daigeler: My question actually, following your presentation and the presentation we had yesterday, is to the parliamentary assistant. I'd like to know from him or his officials what the view is of the ministry regarding the first two proposals in terms of the duration of level 1 and the duration of level 2. I'd like to hear from you on these suggestions, which strike me as very reasonable and making a good case. I want to hear whether that was considered and whether the ministry is inclined to follow that advice or not.
Mr Dadamo: Would you mind if one of our real experts answered the question?
Mr Daigeler: I didn't want you to be that honest.
The Chair: There's a real expert making his way to the microphone.
Mr Dadamo: These are the people who put the program together.
Mr Daigeler: But the decision still rests with the government.
Mr Levine: The decision to have level 1 for the motorcycle considerably shorter was based on the practical aspect that with the motorcycle, we don't have an accompanying driver. We grant the level 1 licence on the basis of a vision and knowledge test but absolutely no practical demonstration of skills. So we are in that way concerned and would like to keep that period as short as possible and still make it somewhat practical; keep it to the two-month period so that we don't have an extended time during which a person is licensed but hasn't shown a capability with skills. We think there is sufficient difference between operating an automobile and operating a motorcycle: the automobile with an accompanying driver to give some assistance, and the motorcycle on which you're virtually going solo all the time.
1640
Mr Daigeler: If I understand you right then, you're saying for the motorcycle, because there is no accompanying driver, you'd rather catch those more quickly who after two months are not able to move on to the next test level. Is that what you're saying? You wouldn't want them on the road for six months, as these people are recommending, because you are afraid that if they can't pass the test, then they would be on the road for another four months.
Mr Levine: No. I think the essence of it we both understand. We would like to have those people come in and demonstrate their skill on a motorcycle as a means of giving everyone some assurance that they possess the skills to be out there as early as possible. On the other hand, if we were to extend the period to six months or longer, we feel this may be an opportunity for some who would like to ride a motorcycle to use the level 1 licence as a seasonal licence. Rather than ever becoming licensed, you just come in every spring, do your vision and knowledge test, get your licence for that summer and you don't bother to progress. You can come back next year and do the same thing again. There's never any demonstration of skill in that case.
Mr Daigeler: I understand the reasoning of the ministry, but I'm wondering why the presenters -- including the gentleman who I think is still here -- who were here yesterday, I guess, were not convinced of this reasoning, so I'd like to revert back to the presenters, if I can, and ask you for your comments on this.
Mr Robert Ramsay: I'd be very pleased to give comments. First of all, the comment about renewing it annually or using it as just an initial step to get it originally: According to the regulations that we have seen, there is a renewal exclusion of five years, so you can't renew it annually. The fact that somebody was going to come in annually and use this as a six-month period is excluded by regulation; they have a five-year non-renewal provision after the first year. But that just deals with that particular point.
Our major concern, of course, is twofold. You're putting automobile drivers out there and motorcyclists out there who have only gone through a written test and an eye examination. In the case of the automobile users, they can go for 365 days and maybe have no accidents, no involvement whatsoever. In the case of motorcyclists, they can go 60 days and then they have to either take their test, or by the end of 90 days they're done.
Our concern is that if you go in on a Tuesday and get an R licence for a motorcycle, by the time you can schedule your test at a driver's examination centre sometimes the wait is a lot longer than 90 days. Other times, it makes more sense to direct these people into rider training right up front. The way the system is proposed now is there's no benefit to taking rider training until you've already exited out of M-1 and into M-2, because there's nothing to shorten.
By putting there the minimum time frame of 60 days, as has been proposed, and a maximum of six months, it allows the people time to learn the skills -- after all, that's what graduated licensing is all about; it's developing skills and less risky situations, and these people are kept off of the 400 highways, they can't have any alcohol, they can't have passengers, they can only ride during the time that the sun is up.
By doing that we're encouraging them, through our program, our proposals, to take rider training earlier rather than waiting, because we think it's better that they take rider training earlier; and secondly, to set a maximum time frame so that they can't renew it annually but they can do it within the time frame that they have their R licence, because 90 days in some cases -- I'm from a small town called Wyoming, Ontario. I have to go to Petrolia to get my licence. If I book in Petrolia today to get my R licence, I might have to wait 120 days before I can get a driver's test for my motorcycle. There's a humongous length of time in rural areas to get drivers because the people are only there maybe once a week or twice a week. So our point is that under the current regulations I could drive for 90 days but then I'd be prohibited from riding my motorcycle for 30 days, and then I could go in on this particular date, take my test and if I pass I pass, and if I fail I can't try again for five years. That just doesn't make sense.
Mr Daigeler: It would seem to me something that the ministry should take a look at again. I guess it's one of the things that, as part of the hearings, hopefully will lead to some revisions.
Mr Levine: I don't agree with your assessment that if you pass you're okay and if you fail you can't come back for five years. That's not built into the system in any way, or if it is it's certainly not intended to be built that way.
Mr Robert Ramsay: It's right here.
Mr Levine: Maybe after we can sit aside and discuss it and review it.
The Chair: I'd like to thank the Motorcycle and Moped Industry Council, and both of you gentlemen for taking the time to be here this afternoon and present your views. We trust that you'll stay in touch with the committee as we go through the process on graduated licensing. Feel free to contact the clerk of the committee, any sitting member of the committee or indeed your own local MPP as we proceed through the process.
ROYAL INSURANCE CO OF CANADA
The Chair: Next is Royal Insurance. Good afternoon and welcome. I apologize for being somewhat behind schedule. We're trying valiantly to stay on schedule, but this is a very important issue and we wander a touch from time to time. We appreciate your coming here this afternoon. You've been allocated a half-hour and the committee would appreciate at least half of that, if possible, for dialogue and questions and answers.
Ms Judy Maddocks: And requests for reduced insurance rates.
The Chair: Or other related issues.
Ms Maddocks: Or other related issues, okay.
Thank you for the opportunity to appear today and express Royal Insurance's views. I'm joined by my colleagues Linda Matthews, vice-president of our Ontario Personal Lines regional office, and Jewel Kelly, head office claims specialist, rehabilitation. Linda and Jewel will answer any questions you may have at the conclusion of this submission.
Royal Insurance is one of the largest insurers in Ontario, with automobile premium writings in excess of $220 million, excluding commercial risks. We have approximately 184,000 Ontario automobile policies in force. We service another 28,000 policies on behalf of the rest of the industry in our capacity as Ontario's largest Facility Association processing carrier. Royal handled more than 100,000 Ontario automobile claims in 1992.
We believe strongly that our obligations to our policyholders extend beyond simply paying claims. We subscribe to the view that we have a moral and ethical responsibility in the area of loss and injury prevention.
We are proud, therefore, to be the founding corporate sponsor of Heroes, North America's largest travelling multimedia presentation, which targets teenagers and promotes injury prevention. Since April 1992, Heroes has been seen by over 104,000 viewers, mostly teens, has been staged 238 times, has been featured in 51 locations across Canada and has travelled over 64,600 kilometres. Royal funds this program at the rate of $250,000 per year. We are pleased to leave each of you with a video which provides a powerful overview of the Heroes program.
For several years, Royal has also been the sole corporate sponsor of a seniors' driving program at Yorkdale Secondary School here in Toronto. This program provides a combination of hands-on skills development and rules-of-the-road training free of charge to senior citizens. The emphasis is on safety and injury prevention.
It will come as no surprise, therefore, that Royal Insurance is a strong supporter of the concept of graduated licensing, and we applaud the Ontario government for its initiative in this area.
Before we table our specific comments and recommendations relative to the graduated licensing proposal, we will spend a few minutes discussing the current claims environment. It is not our intention to focus heavily on statistics. I'm sure that the Insurance Bureau of Canada and others have provided you with compelling statistical evidence that links the alarming relationship between driver inexperience and death and injury rates.
When injuries and deaths are discussed in the context of numbers, percentages and trends, it is somewhat easier to maintain an emotional distance from individual tragedy. Today, we will remove that cushion of comfort. I'm going to describe 10 actual Royal Insurance Ontario automobile claims involving young and/or inexperienced drivers. Each of these cases contemplates a payout in excess of $250,000 and each is either currently open or recently settled. To ensure the privacy of the parties, we have deliberately omitted names, date of loss and any other identifying factors.
1650
As I read these cases, I ask that you consider the following:
(1) Would the proposed graduated licensing program have prevented this particular incident?
(2) Should graduated licensing prevent this kind of incident? If yes, where would the current proposal need strengthening?
(3) In which cases is the driver the only or most seriously injured party? In which cases are passengers or third parties?
(4) In which cases are children the victims?
(5) In which cases are there several passengers in the vehicle?
Case number one: A 19-year-old recently licensed driver lost control of his vehicle. It left the pavement and struck a hydro pole. He sustained catastrophic brain injuries and remained semicomatose some six months post-accident.
Case number two: I refer you to the back of our submission; you'll see photographs and they relate to case number two. A 17-year-old lost control of his vehicle and struck two vehicles in the oncoming lane. While the driver virtually walked away from the accident, his 18-year-old passenger was fatally injured and his 20-year-old brother, a passenger, sustained serious brain injuries.
Case number three: A 16-year-old driver lost control, crossed the centre line and struck an oncoming vehicle. The 16-year-old ultimately succumbed to her injuries. Five passengers in the approaching vehicle sustained serious fractures as well as internal injuries, all of which will require a lengthy recovery and rehabilitation.
Case number four: A 16-year-old with a temporary driver's licence lost control and hit a rock. Two passengers sustained only a bruising and lacerations, while a third was ejected and sustained two fractured vertebrae, leading to lengthy disability and rehabilitation.
Case number five: A 19-year-old driver in northern Ontario lost control and crossed the centre line, striking an oncoming vehicle. Two youngsters under 12 years of age in the approaching vehicle were fatally injured; a 13-year-old sustained severe fractures and lacerations as well as psychological trauma. Her 10-year-old sister sustained a fractured skull and multiple other fractures. The parents also sustained various injuries.
Case number six: A group of youngsters aged 15 to 17 were celebrating the end of school in a small Ontario city. The driver lost control of the vehicle. One youngster was fatally injured, one sustained serious closed head injuries with permanent brain damage and the others escaped with relatively minor injuries.
Case number seven: Four 17-year-olds in a vehicle struck a parked car. All four youngsters in the vehicle sustained multiple fractures, lacerations etc. All eventually recovered, but as sometimes seems to be the case, they did not all learn lessons from their experience. One was fatally injured in a subsequent motor vehicle accident.
Case number eight: A 19-year-old Carleton University student, licensed only six months, left the university athletic centre one evening with a 19-year-old visitor from Queen's University as his passenger. He lost control of the vehicle on a federal parkway in Ottawa, left the roadway and smashed into a large tree. The driver walked away physically unscathed while his passenger sustained catastrophic brain damage.
Case number nine: A 28-year-old newly licensed driver was travelling with his wife, two children, another couple and their one child in the vehicle. The two men occupied the front seats and were belted. The two women, the insured's six-month-old infant and four-year-old child as well as their friend's two-year-old were all in the back seat and unbelted. The four-year-old announced the need to make a rest stop just as the vehicle approached an exit from the 401. The father attempted to slow the vehicle sufficiently to exit from the highway. He lost control and the vehicle rolled three or four times. His baby was ejected from the vehicle and crushed when it rolled on top of her. His four-year-old sustained minor injuries and his wife sustained a 12th thoracic vertebra fracture. His friend's two-year-old child sustained catastrophic brain injuries and the child's mother sustained a lumbar fracture which disabled her for some time.
Case number 10: A 26-year-old inexperienced driver was travelling from Ottawa to the Yukon with her husband and two children, aged seven months and two and a half years. Following a pit stop, the young woman took over as relief driver, with her two-and-a-half-year-old in the front passenger seat and her infant and her husband in the back seat. As they drove west along the Trans-Canada Highway in northern Ontario, the husband asked for a wipe to clean the baby's face. The driver reached down between the bucket seats with her right hand to retrieve the package of wipes. As she did this, her left hand followed the inclination of her body towards the right and the right wheels of the vehicle left the pavement. Due to her inexperience, she panicked and overcorrected, thereby entering the oncoming lane of traffic, where the vehicle was struck heavily on the right side by an oncoming pickup truck.
Her infant was ejected and fatally injured immediately. Her husband sustained serious fractures which kept him in casts and traction in hospital for a number of weeks. The two-and-a-half-year-old sustained a fractured second cervical vertebra. Medical professionals indicated that these injuries in an older child would have resulted in immediate permanent and total paralysis. The driver sustained virtually no physical injury but the emotional trauma will undoubtedly be with her for ever.
Royal currently has 102 Ontario automobile claims with estimates of a quarter of a million dollars or more; 20 of these claims, or 19.6%, involved young and/or inexperienced drivers. Approximately 30% to 35% of the accidents involving young and/or inexperienced drivers were single-vehicle accidents, loss of control, rolling, striking trees, rocks etc. Roughly 30% more resulted from loss of control and crossing a centre line into oncoming traffic.
The implications of the types of accidents that I've just discussed strongly indicate that most, if not all, were preventable. Graduated licensing will certainly go a long way towards reducing these unnecessary tragedies. I'm going to spend a couple of minutes now providing Royal's recommendations relative to the suggested model.
Level 1:
-- We would like to see some skills testing done to attain the entry level licence. A vision test and knowledge test of rules of the road do not sufficiently measure a person's ability to drive.
-- No passengers other than the accompanying driver should be in the vehicle. The reason for this is twofold: First, passengers may create distractions which can impede both the driver's and accompanying driver's response time and concentration; and second, since the novice driver is at greater risk of an accident than a skilled driver, the risk to passengers is likewise more significant.
-- Zero blood alcohol content in the accompanying driver.
-- Minimum age of 21 for the accompanying driver.
-- The accompanying driver should have no more than two moving violation convictions and should be accident-free for three years. It makes no sense to have a novice driver taking instruction from a poor or careless driver.
-- We'd like to see stricter penalties for noncompliance with graduated licensing requirements. Driver training should be mandatory after two moving violations or one at-fault accident.
Level 2:
The current requirements for this level are far too weak. All meaningful restrictions are eliminated, and we would like to see the following additions:
-- No children under the age of 16 in vehicles driven by level 2 licensees. Children are often uniquely exposed to injury due to their size, lack of proper child restraints and active nature. The exposure increases when they are in a vehicle with an inexperienced driver. Children can also cause dangerous driving distractions.
-- No more than two people in the front seat of the vehicle, regardless of the number of seatbelts. Some vehicles with bench seats have a centre lap belt.
-- We would like to see a sign identifying the driver as a level 2 driver.
Other: We do not support any exemptions from restrictions in level 1 or 2. If, however, the committee elects to recommend exemptions, we suggest the following approach:
-- Exemptions should be granted by certificate issued by motor vehicles branches. Exemptions would be narrowly defined and specific.
-- Exemptions would be subject to 90-day review and renewal to ensure that conditions requiring exemption still exist.
-- No renewal if a conviction, accident or noncompliance with other graduated licensing restrictions occurs within the last exemption period.
We have all heard many of the arguments against graduated licensing. Most can be broadly grouped into one or two categories: inconvenience or inequity. Our response is quite simple: You can outgrow the inconvenience of graduated licensing; you can outgrow the inequity of graduated licensing; you cannot outgrow death; you cannot outgrow catastrophic brain injuries; you cannot outgrow paraplegia or quadriplegia.
To you, the members of this committee, I will say this. The extent to which you strengthen or weaken the current graduated licensing proposal will translate directly into lives saved or lost, injuries sustained or prevented. There are people in Ontario right now who will either live or die as a direct result of the decisions that you make on graduated licensing. There are people in Ontario today who will either escape or suffer catastrophic injuries as a direct result of the decisions that you make on graduated licensing.
We urge you to put aside politics. We urge you to resist the temptation to water down this proposal to appease critics. This is one of these rare issues where there is only one right answer. Thank you for your attention.
1700
Ms Murdock: Thank you for making the presentation and taking the time to do it. Just on page 6, quickly -- and the previous presenter also made the point in terms of motorcycles -- but the concept of moving violations that would be point accumulation: I was thinking while he was speaking that maybe if you accumulated six points, say, you would then be required to take driver training. I personally am of the view that you should have driver training before you're on the road but that's --
Ms Maddocks: I'm with you on that.
Ms Murdock: -- I know, an extremely costly venture, even though it has been pointed out by some that we can pay for it.
It seems to me that in your questions that you asked us to consider before we looked at the case scenario, though, you should have a sixth one, because in most of the ten, almost without exclusion, it's that if they had driver education, they wouldn't have crossed the centre line or they would have been able to correct hitting the shoulder and so on. I'm surprised that one of your recommendations isn't that it would have been a requirement.
My second question is in relation to the New Zealand experience where, once they implemented the program of their graduated licensing system -- slightly different but nevertheless 25% reduction in accidents and injuries in the first years. If the same were to hold true in Ontario, presuming that it would, how would that translate into a premium reduction?
Ms Maddocks: I think a couple of things. It's a good question. If you just look at the figures that we're dealing with here, we have 20 cases of young people who are inexperienced --
Ms Murdock: And the health care costs are phenomenal.
Ms Maddocks: -- at a quarter of a million dollars each, that's a tremendous impact. Sorry?
Ms Jewel Kelly: Some of them are considerably higher than that.
Ms Maddocks: Well, yes, exactly. That's a minimum.
Ms Murdock: Yes, and that doesn't take into account any of those, either, the insurance costs you've stated, but then there are the health care costs that are paid through OHIP, so it's even well beyond that.
Ms Maddocks: I think what you would find is that there would naturally be a flow-through effect of -- I mean, any time the claims severity drops, you see a corresponding drop in premiums.
Ms Murdock: The Insurance Bureau of Canada, this afternoon the gentleman stated that ultimately there would be a reduction. My question would be, how long is ultimately?
Ms Maddocks: Of course, you don't credit ahead of time. It's just like in the current system of driving record 1 through 6: You gain that as you gain experience. I would suggest to you, though, if Royal's experience showed after the first year of implementation, then you would see an immediate flow-through impact on our pricing structure. We are assuming, of course, that we're able to achieve rate adequacy, which is a whole other issue.
Ms Murdock: Right, okay. Thank you. I haven't got any other questions. I think it's excellent.
Mr Conway: Ms Murdock has anticipated one of my questions, which was on the favourable rate adjustments in the light of improved behaviour. You paint a vivid and horrifying story of cases that we can all imagine, although it's been very helpful to put them in such a stark fashion to the committee. I appreciate that. I am like a broken record on a couple of things here. One of them has to do with the restrictions. Boy, you really do pull at a few of my strings. I could get pretty excited here, but I won't, over the subject of, we have a duty to perform and we should just do it.
The only problem is that there is a real discrimination in this policy and I keep coming back to the discriminatory impact that this is going to have in rural Ontario, and it is manifestly clear to me that it's going to have a discriminatory impact. I asked one of the previous witnesses, and he was very candid in his response. He didn't have very good answers and he admitted that. The only problem is, I'll have to have them when I go to these meetings and I meet parents just like you who are going to want to know how it is these restrictions so unevenly impact upon young people in the rural area, as compared to people in town. I just simply look at the recommendation you've made here about the accompanying driver. You've take a pretty tough line. I just think the restrictions are uneven, unfair and impractical, because you're so tough that you're going to make even your kids, if they live out in north Hastings or south Renfrew, do some things outside these restrictions because they're just unreasonable.
Ms Maddocks: I would say a couple of things and that's why we made the point we made, that if you feel compelled to offer exemptions, I would be very, very tight on the exemptions. If, for example, a young person has a job at the local restaurant and he needs to work shift work or whatever and needs to take his car, I think it should be spelled out where he's going, at what hours he's permitted to be. If he's pulled over and he's at a different point in time and he's on a main freeway, then I don't think there should be a major exemption. I think it should be nailed down.
The other point I would make is that we're assuming that the hardship -- and I've debated with teenagers on this subject and I know, "I don't want to drag my parents out." I understand all of the arguments. I guess the balance is that there also are your kids or my kids out there who could be killed by these kids.
I think somehow we get back to the premium issue. The premium is going to be saved only in relation to the amount of accidents, and the extent to which this has no teeth is the extent to which it's ineffective.
Mr Conway: But it is a balance question. It seems to me we've got to make it sufficiently tough to be real but sufficiently flexible to be sensible. Right now, in my part of the province, despite all that we've done about tobacco, you can buy it anywhere. All kinds of smart people are sucking in these carcinogens at $3 a pack.
Interjection: How much?
Ms Murdock: For $3? You mean the smuggled ones.
Mr Conway: Of course. That's the only kind you buy. But I've got to tell you, we've got ostensibly tough enforcement. We've got high taxes and a lot of good church-going people who are just giving the old middle-finger salute and saying, "To hell with you." I'm just terrified that if we get into restrictions that are completely irrelevant to the reality of rural Ontario -- and the example I was using here earlier I'll use very quickly with you again. You can see these kids on December afternoons at 4:30, basketball practice after school. There's no longer any busing because that's been cut out for a variety of reasons and Murdock's got to go 48 kilometres to get home. I'm just talking to school principals and, I'm telling you, they are very worried that we're creating inadvertently some conditions that are going to just --
Ms Linda Matthews: Mr Conway, you say "inadvertently," but I can tell you about a phone conversation I've had in the last couple of weeks from a mother of two teenaged daughters. They live in the country and her concern was that the insurance was being renewed. The first daughter, within six months of getting her licence and driving out in the country on a gravel road, had lost control, totalled the car; wasn't injured in that case. Her younger sister came along, got her licence and within six months hit a piece of black ice, totalled the car; wasn't injured. These are country kids. They have accidents too.
Mr Conway: I know.
Ms Matthews: What we're trying to do is prevent them.
Mr Conway: But I guess my point is that we have to be careful that the restrictions don't impact so unevenly as to discriminate against a class of individuals.
Ms Maddocks: But you know, 10 years ago, if we'd sat in this room and talked about the position we were taking on drinking and driving, I suspect some of the same arguments would have been made like: "You can't go to a party with five of your friends and expect one of them to stay sober. Come on." We all used to do that and now it's socially unacceptable. We have to change.
I can just tell you one thing: I've been on the receiving end of a fatality in the family. If I had to go back and relive that with inconvenience or angry principals to have that person in my life, it would make a big difference and I suspect most parents, if you put those cases to them, would agree.
Mr Conway: I've had it too. I've had it more than once. I understand the anguish, but I guess I just want to make sure we legislate in a way that is going to achieve the result we all want. I think there are some problems around certain of these restrictions.
Ms Kelly: I was just going to say that I think we all see driving a car as a right and I think we have to take another look at it and say it's not just a right, it's a responsibility. A lot of the cases I've dealt with have been country kids and I have sympathy for the fact that they live some distance from where a lot of the activity in their lives is. But better that they live and that they be able to involve themselves in those activities.
Some of the most horrendous injuries we've had have been on back country roads and a lot of them, of course, on two-lane highways. So even the restrictions against the 400 series and the Don Valley Parkway don't answer the whole question. We've got to find a way to teach people how to drive on two-lane highways before we turn them loose on two-lane highways, and that's where a lot of the rural driving is done.
1710
Mr Daigeler: I'm not sure whether there's time, but frankly, in light of what you're saying and, of course, what many others have said, and in light, really, of what I guess has always been the reasonable position, I'm just wondering why it has taken us so long to come this far and why even in Ontario we seem to be the only jurisdiction which is seriously considering this in a North American context.
Ms Maddocks: I think Nova Scotia's looking at it.
Mr Daigeler: Even this government has taken four years almost now to move again on this. I'm pleased that they are now finally there, but even here it has taken three years to --
Ms Matthews: It certainly does take a degree of willpower to bring forth this kind of change, but fortunately, other jurisdictions are seeing the same light. In fact, on the east coast, in Nova Scotia, they are very close to making decisions about graduated licensing. Also, Alberta is now looking at it. You're right, it's pure common sense and why it has taken so long to get this far is a very good question.
Mr Murdoch: I want to thank you for your presentation. I want to go back to Sean's problem, and northern Ontario too; it's rural Ontario and then there's northern Ontario in which there's even more distance that people have to travel. I don't think either one of us is against what's happening here. We think it's a great idea, it's just that how do we sell it without everyone being angry? I heard what you said about 10 years ago, where everybody wanted to go to the party and drink and there wasn't a designated driver.
I don't think you can compare this because I'm saying in rural Ontario and northern Ontario we don't have the transportation system like you have in the large urban centres. We don't want this to become a battle between rural and northern Ontario and large urban centres, which can happen. Here in Toronto, if a kid of 16 wants to go to work, he's got the transportation system. We don't have that. My daughter's 16 and she's driving back and forth to work now because she has her licence. If she was in the graduated system she wouldn't have been able to do that for a while. When we go to our high schools, which we'll be going to, they're going to come up with those questions: "Why are we being picked on? I can't go down the road 10 miles to work."
Ms Matthews: Show them heroes, Mr Murdoch; then they'll understand.
Mr Murdoch: I can't comment. Maybe I will, maybe I'll do a TV show on it or something like that.
Ms Matthews: Those kids are then willing to take responsibility for the training and the --
Mr Murdoch: But there are those accidents happening. They can happen anyway, though. This isn't going to stop all the accidents.
Ms Maddocks: There's no question that it's a trade-off. There is some inconvenience. I guess what will happen is that parents -- you're going to have to build in perhaps some exceptions, but they've got to be tight exceptions.
Mr Murdoch: Okay, I agree.
Ms Maddocks: Not just, "We want to go to a basketball game after and we have to get somebody home 48 miles." That's a possibility. But failing that, there is no way you can put in a system that's going to be effective and accommodate all of the concerns. It can't be done. So it's going to require some decision-making. There's isn't an answer that's going to solve everybody's problem on this one.
Mr Murdoch: I guess as politicians we're just sort of asking for that help.
Ms Maddocks: Yes.
Ms Matthews: Look at heroes and you'll see some help, where the kids can really buy in to what is important in taking responsibility.
Mr Turnbull: If you've been following this debate for some length of time, you will probably know that I've been the standard-bearer of getting graduated licences and I'm almost like a broken record in the Legislature, so I'm pleased that we've got to this stage.
If I had my druthers -- and I have to say after very extensive debate with my children, we don't necessarily see eye to eye on it -- I would adopt all of your recommendations, but realistically, I have to say, from being around this place for three years now, I know you have to arrive at compromises.
When you spoke of if we had to accept exemptions -- and certainly you don't recommend it -- but if we have to have exemptions you said be very specific and have it well documented. Here we get to a problem. An earlier presenter suggested that the US model for certain exemptions is that there's simply a letter people have with them that they are going to an education establishment or to work, and they present that to the police. I get the impression that would not be sufficient for you.
That being the case, and when we consider the fact that you've been asked, "Will you give rate reductions?" and your answer, as we anticipated, was, "Let's see what the experience is first and then we'll factor that into rates," would you be prepared, because we can't charge just those people who live in rural areas, to administer it? Quite frankly, the government -- I don't care what political party's in power -- can't afford to throw a whole lot of money at it. Would you be prepared to in some way administer the exemption process as sort of a precursor to any reduction in rates; that you would, through the insurance vehicle, issue the exemptions, which would be sort of one step from the US one but it would not involve governments having to get involved in it?
Ms Maddocks: I wouldn't see that as a reasonable alternative and I'll tell you why. This is connected with the whole issue of licensing and licensing restrictions, not insurance and insurance restrictions. What I would see in the area of exemptions -- and as you have been involved in this debate for some time I'm sure all of you, as all of us, get phone calls from friends who say, "If my son gets his licence now can he get in before this thing is law?" I get those phone calls all the time. So there's some sympathy.
I think when you get through it all you'll find that the exemptions that are required are fairly standard: son or daughter has a part-time job that requires some driving after the curfew. Maybe some hardship exemptions: You have a young person who has to drive a sick relative to and from chemotherapy treatments, or whatever. Anyhow, you could probably come up with a fairly short list and beyond that, maybe other humanitarian grounds.
We have 150 companies in Ontario. Unless we were involved in the licensing side of things, it just doesn't make sense to link that to the insurance side and not the licensing side, since this is a licensing issue.
Mr Turnbull: Who would then pay for the exemptions?
Ms Maddocks: Would it be that costly?
Mr Turnbull: I suspect yes. Anything government does turns out to be costly.
Ms Matthews: Maybe bring in a user fee aspect --
Mr Turnbull: If you bring in a user fee then you're once again discriminating against people who live in rural areas -- the fact that they do generally earn less than people in urban centres. I suspect it would be very difficult to sell direct user fees for these exemptions.
Ms Maddocks: Maybe licence fees have to go up and everybody has to bear the cost of that. I think if there's a cost attached, I agree with you, it has to be spread evenly among all licensed parties. I don't see a problem with that.
Mr Turnbull: If there were a reduction after first year's experience, would it be reasonable to turn to the insurance companies, say, as the first line, to pay for that and then after that any further reductions would be passed on to the people we're insuring?
Ms Maddocks: Of course, if we're paying for it it's getting passed back to the insureds. It's one thing to talk about us paying; we're still dealing with people getting mad at us over sales tax. If we start throwing other fees we're going to be back in the --
Mr Turnbull: You said let's not be political about it, but I agree with you. I agree with you completely.
The Chair: I'd like to thank the Royal Insurance Co and each of you for spending the time to bring forward, I think, a very comprehensive presentation. There are indeed some interesting recommendations. I, for one, will take the opportunity to view the video and I trust other committee members will as well. Again, we thank you for taking the time to be with us today.
The committee adjourned at 1720.