ASHTON AND TILFORD INSURANCE BROKERS LTD
ONTARIO ASSOCIATION OF CHIEFS OF POLICE
VICTIMS OF NO. 1 SIDE ROAD, BURLINGTON
CONTENTS
Wednesday 15 September 1993
Graduated licensing
Ashton and Tilford Insurance Brokers Ltd
Craig Tilford, insurance broker
Ontario Association of Chiefs of Police
Henry Harley, chair, traffic committee
Victims of No. 1 Side Road, Burlington
Kim Duncan, investigator, fatal motor vehicle accidents, Halton Regional Police Service
Sue MacNeil
Michael Sullivan
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
Haeck, Christel (St Catharines-Brock ND) for Ms Murdock
Jackson, Cameron (Burlington South/-Sud PC) for Mr Jordan
Lessard, Wayne (Windsor-Walkerville ND) for Mr Cooper
Also taking part / Autres participants et participantes:
Ministry of Transportation:
Dadamo, George, parliamentary assistant to the minister
Levine, Paul, head, policy and program development, road user safety office
Clerk / Greffière: Manikel, Tannis
Staff / Personnel: McNaught, Andrew, research officer, Legislative Research Service
The committee met at 1007 in the Holiday Inn, St Catharines.
GRADUATED LICENSING
The Chair (Mr Bob Huget): I call the committee to order, please. First of all, on behalf of the entire committee, we are very pleased to be here in St Catharines this morning as we continue the process of receiving public input on graduated licences in the province of Ontario.
I would like to take the opportunity to introduce the committee staff whom you will see at the front of the table. Normally seated to my immediate right, and now up speaking to that gentleman, is the clerk of the committee, Tannis Manikel. To my right is Andrew McNaught, who is the research officer assigned to the committee, and to Andrew's right is Beth Grahame from Hansard. We have as well broadcast and recording services, whose function it is to record the proceedings, and that is staffed by Mr Clayton Hatfield and Mr Petselis, who sit over in the back corner.
On my left is Mr Hans Daigeler, who is the Transportation critic for the official opposition and also the member for Nepean. He is joined this morning by Mr Steven Offer, who is the member for Mississauga North, and they will be joined by Mr Sean Conway, who is the member for Renfrew North.
Immediately in front of me is Mr Cam Jackson, the member for Burlington South, from the third party, and he will be joined by Mr David Turnbull, the member for York Mills, who is the third party's Transportation critic.
Seated to my left is George Dadamo, the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Transportation, and he is joined by government members of the committee: Mr Len Wood on the far right, the member for Cochrane North; Mr Gary Wilson, the member for Kingston and The Islands; Ms Christel Haeck, the member for St Catharines-Brock; and Mr Wayne Lessard, seated to my right, the member for Windsor-Walkerville. I should mention Mr Dadamo is also the member for Windsor-Sandwich.
As the first order of business this morning, perhaps I could call Mr Levine from the Ministry of Transportation to take a place at the table. There are some outstanding questions from yesterday that require some clarification from the ministry, and I'll just let you go ahead and do that.
Mr Paul Levine: As I understand it, the first question is related to near-beer and the volumes that might be required to bring blood alcohol levels in a fashion similar to regular beer. As I understand it, near-beer has an alcohol volume of 0.5%, which is one tenth the volume of alcohol in regular beer in Ontario. Light beer, I believe, is 4%. So the volumes, if we're comparing it to light beer or regular beer, would be 8 to 10 times the amount that would be required of having light or regular beer.
We don't have a specific analysis to offer yet to indicate how much of the near-beer would have to be consumed to register just the presence of alcohol. We are hopeful that we will be able to obtain that information and present it before the committee's work is completed.
There was also a question relating to the identification of licence class and how we would indicate that a driver was a novice driver. The document itself that is issued will indicate on it in the class box that it is a G-1 or G-2, where today it would just indicate class G, for example, on a regular full licence. Novice drivers will have it indicated as G-1 or G-2 and it will be on the actual document.
With respect to the determination of years of experience for accompanying drivers, that will not necessarily show specifically on a driver's licence, but there are several methods by which a police officer could make that determination. Of course, if the birthdate of the accompanying driver indicates that he or she is less than 20 years of age, in Ontario there's no way they could have the four years of experience.
The computer system that is being created will show the years of experience based on the date of first licensing, and that information will be available on CPIC, Canadian Police Information Centre, for police during an inquiry, on that system. They also will have the opportunity, if they so desire, to check the record of that individual and make the determination if in fact there are actually four years of time available for experience, given that there may be suspensions registered on the record, which do not count as actual experience.
As to the document itself, there's some question as to whether or not there will be included on it the date of first licensing. If it does show the date of first licensing, that is still no guarantee that there has been that period of experience, as I mentioned, because of the potential for suspensions or cancellations. So that may be somewhat misleading to go by, but as I mentioned, any police officer will have the opportunity to make an inquiry on the system and get enough information to make that determination.
Of course, I guess it really comes down to trying to establish what the four years really mean in terms of experience. We would like to think that what we're after here is some indication of the maturity levels without making it totally age-related, which we couldn't put into the legislation. There will still be discretion required on the part of police officers when they try to make this determination of the accompanying driver and the four years of experience, especially in the case of older accompanying drivers.
Just to address the question of how we count the four years of experience, we'll try this one more time. There are basically two separate criteria. One is that the accompanying driver must be fully licensed, meaning that we will not accept anyone who is still within the graduated licensing system, or for the next few years during the transition period, anyone who is still on the probationary driver system. It's fully licensed, meaning a full class G or higher class of licence.
The four years' driving experience will start with the first day of driving experience. Under the graduated system, it would be upon entry to the level 1 system. Until the graduated licensing system reaches a mature state of existence, we would be dependent on the date that the first class G licence is obtained, because we don't recognize right now the learner's permit and we don't record the learner's permit as being a licence.
On the question of novice drivers under the age of 19 having blood alcohol levels above zero, again, we believe that underage drivers who exhibit blood alcohol content should be charged, but not necessarily under the Highway Traffic Act. We think that there are underage drinking laws that exist that can be pursued in this matter. The idea of the zero BAC for all novice drivers is an indication that we won't accept it in the older novice drivers as well, and as the committee has heard, almost half of the new drivers who are licensed in Ontario each year are over the age of 20.
The last question that I was made aware of relates to the seatbelt laws in the province, the way in which we have worded the model to say that the number of passengers is limited to the number of seatbelts, and the reaction that, "Isn't that the law in any case?" The law, as written today, says that if a seatbelt is available in a vehicle, it must be worn. Older vehicles -- there now are very few of these around, I would think -- are not required to be retrofitted if they didn't have seatbelts when they were first manufactured and put on the market. In those vehicles, there is no requirement for any passenger to be belted if there isn't a belt available. What we are saying is that if there isn't a belt available, the novice driver can't carry passengers. As I say, we suspect that the number of those vehicles is relatively few at this point. I think there have been front-seat occupant restraints since about 1967, if I'm not mistaken.
I think the perception among the public is that there is a limit on the number of passengers today to the number of seatbelts that exist in a vehicle, and that is not the case. Today, the law states that as long as all the seatbelts that are available are used, additional passengers can be carried without a seatbelt. There is some priority given to child restraints being used by the seatbelts, or children occupying available seatbelts before adults occupy those seating positions.
One of the things we hope to achieve with the wording of the model that is proposed is that novice drivers will not be able to carry passengers either in the back of vans, where there are no seatbelts provided, or in the boxes of pickup trucks, where again there are no seatbelts provided. These are two of the potential areas where we think there could be a current problem. There has been consideration over the years to revising the seatbelt legislation. It hasn't yet advanced to the stage where we feel comfortable making the proposal to limit the number of passengers in all motor vehicles to the number of seatbelts provided.
1020
Mr Steven Offer (Mississauga North): We'll have to be discussing some of this information that you've provided, but it's clear that unless the licence of the drivers is amended to indicate not only the class they're in but the date upon which they entered the class, it will be very difficult for any police officer to enforce this particular rule when he can't see how long the accompanying driver has been eligible for the road. It seems that something more is going to be required on the licence to indicate to anyone who stops a driver how long the accompanying driver has been licensed, or else it will just be an impossibility for the police office to make that determination.
Mr Levine: Police officers have access to an information system that will provide them with that information. They can make an inquiry from their vehicles and obtain that information through CPIC, which is basically the same system they would use to determine that an individual's licence is under suspension, for example. If they were to make an inquiry about suspension, they could also get the information related to the number of years of experience based on the date of licensing.
Mr Offer: So you're going to make the officer use the CPIC for all the stops instead of just taking a look at the licence.
Mr Levine: Again, as I mentioned, I think we will require some discretion to be used. The officer will have to decide if he or she wants to run that check.
The Chair: A very quick supplementary. We have witnesses waiting.
Mr Cameron Jackson (Burlington South): Just on that point, since the chiefs of police and a police officer are before the committee this morning, perhaps we can ask them in a bit of detail how the CPIC system works, because generally they're pulling over a car and they check the licence first. That's where they get that detail, if there's anything suspicious, for their own protection, before they leave their vehicle and approach the vehicle. This involves returning to the vehicle with two sets of licences and it may be cumbersome. I'd like to know how much information comes up on the screen and how much has to be searched. Those are details that are perhaps best left for the experts in the field. I appreciate the information you've presented to us.
ASHTON AND TILFORD INSURANCE BROKERS LTD
The Chair: The first scheduled witness this morning is Ashton and Tilford Insurance, if they could come forward.
Good morning, sir, and welcome. I apologize for the delay. We were clearing up some technical points that needed to be cleared up.
Mr Craig Tilford: I found it interesting.
The Chair: We're now ready to proceed. You've been allocated one half-hour for your presentation. The committee would appreciate about 15 minutes of that, if possible, for questions and answers and dialogue, if you could introduce yourself for the purposes of Hansard and then proceed with your presentation.
Mr Tilford: I'm sorry, introduce myself for --
The Chair: The purposes of Hansard. It's a recording service.
Mr Tilford: My name is Craig Tilford. I'm an insurance broker with Ashton and Tilford Insurance Brokers in St Thomas, Ontario. Actually, I'll get into my introduction in my speech.
I'd just like to start by introducing myself a little more formally in terms of my background and my interests. I've said already that I am an insurance broker. I'm a member of the Insurance Brokers Association of Ontario and I'm actually an affiliate president of one of our territories.
But more important to me today is my background in terms of driver improvement, driver safety. I've been involved with this for over 15 years. Each year I attend, teach or organize many advanced schools myself.
I also sit on the Ministry of Transportation's seatbelt education and enforcement committee, which meets every other month or every month at Metro police headquarters in downtown Toronto. This particular committee, as I said, is involved in seatbelt enforcement and the education of the public. On that committee there are many other interested parties, like the Ministry of Health, the Ministry of the Solicitor General, the Insurance Bureau of Canada, the OPP and various other police forces from across Ontario. I represent the Insurance Brokers Association of Ontario.
Finally, as part of my introduction, I'm the author and the organizer of a program we call the driving tune-up seminar. This seminar is a program designed to assist participants in updating their skills relating to safe driving and vehicle operation.
The reason I'm here today is that I take driver improvement very seriously. I take it very seriously because I'm tired of seeing stupid mistakes on the road today. Some of the things that you may or may not be aware of and that I think you should be aware of are that an average driver makes 200 observations per mile, he makes 20 decisions every mile and he make one error every two miles. All these statistics translate into results like a near crash every 500 miles, a crash every 61,000 miles, an injury every 430,000 miles and, finally, a fatal crash every 16 million miles. It sounds like a lot miles, but I wouldn't want to be one of those statistics.
I take driver improvement seriously because I don't like seeing my clients' losses. I don't like seeing the injuries and casualties, because I have to deal with them. I applaud our government's initiative to implement graduated licensing for the new drivers and I look forward to less carnage on the roads. I eventually look forward to better drivers who will come out of this system.
The graduated licensing system must be effective to save lives and reduce these crashes. It must be strong and it must be comprehensive enough to gradually teach each of these new drivers how to survive out there.
In its present state, I believe it will reduce casualties and crashes, but I think there still are some areas that need to be strengthened. First, I'd like to talk about blood alcohol concentrations, or as you refer to it, BAC.
The current MTO paper says the accompanying driver, "accompanying" meaning the advising driver, can have up to 0.05% blood alcohol concentration. I'm sorry, but this is two thirds of what it takes for you to blow over and lose your licence for a year. Besides that, what exactly is 0.05? Is 0.05 one drink for my body weight and the number of hours I slept last night and what I had for breakfast or how much food or whether I'm taking antihistamines for something or other? I don't know what 0.05 is, nor do I know what 0.08 is. I do know what zero is. That's pretty clear to me.
The Insurance Bureau of Canada recommends zero for both the learner and the accompanying driver. I agree with them. I feel that drinking and driving do not mix. If this accompanying driver is there to assist the learning driver on how to drive and all that, I believe that he should have his wits about him. They should be 100%, and to me that means zero alcohol: absolutely none. I think zero alcohol to a learning driver and the accompanying driver sends out a message loud and clear: Drinking and driving do not mix. I doubt I'd get any arguments from anybody in this room.
Next, I think the graduated licensing, to be effective, should be stricter with regard to the passengers. The MTO says the number of passengers should be limited to the number of seatbelts. Mr Levine addressed some of that again this morning. I don't have a problem with the number of passengers matching the number of seatbelts. What I have some concerns about is peer pressure. I'm concerned about who those passengers will be. What if all those passengers are young drivers out having some fun, like those kids in Milton who died this spring?
On the way this morning, I found out about six more kids who were involved this past weekend in an accident in the Leamington-Chatham area in which another kid was killed.
1030
My suggestion is, why don't you restrict that supervising driver to be a fully licensed driver for at least five years -- four or five, I'm not going to split hairs with Mr Levine. This would help to eliminate the peer pressure so that the learning driver doesn't do silly things out on that road and we won't have more tragedies like Milton and Chatham and Leamington and Burlington, as we'll hear from later today.
Next let me move on to the hours of supervision. I have concerns about letting a new driver drive without supervision at night. I don't understand why the MTO picked just midnight to 5 am, but I think driving after dark is tough, especially if you're a new driver.
I ask you to think about driving at night and seeing those oncoming vehicles that are making stars on your windshield. I've heard from many experienced drivers, not new drivers -- and I remind you that I'm involved in driver training -- that they avoid driving at night because of the oncoming traffic, because their contact lenses or their glasses blur their vision. I ask you, if that's an experienced driver, how do you think a new driver deals with this?
Now let's take this night driving and add a little rain, like this morning when I came from London. It wasn't night, but the visibility was pretty poor. Think about a blurry windshield with headlights becoming stars and the road covered in rain. Think about those lines. How many times have you driven in the rain and you couldn't see the lines on the road because of the rain that's being thrown up by the trucks? With nobody out in front of you when it's dark, those lines, even with the reflectiveness, are difficult. Even with those cat's eyes which we're seeing from time to time, those little reflectors on the lines -- they're great; I wish we had more. If you find driving under these conditions as difficult as I do as an advanced driving instructor, I ask you to imagine what it's like for a new driver.
The MTO's plan is no curfew for the level 2 drivers. I believe there should be curfews. I believe there should be supervision. The supervising driver can act as a second set of eyes to help locate streets, signs and, probably most importantly, pedestrians and cyclists. Think about how difficult it is to see them at night, let alone in the rain. The supervising driver can also help explain the different skills that are particular to driving at night that are different during the day.
Next I'd like to discuss restricted highways, what are generally referred to as the 400 highways or the multilane highways. My point on this is the same as on the curfew supervision. MTO level 2 says "no restriction for any highways." Therefore we have a level 2 driver who can drive anywhere at any time with as many passengers as there are belts.
Imagine, if you will, a mother of two children who are distracting her as she drives across the 401 to the Don Valley, down the Don Valley to downtown Toronto. Think of the number of decisions she has to make: which lane, which exit, when to get over, possibly done during rush hour, bumper-to-bumper traffic, and of course watching out for that guy who has to make his next sale who could possibly cut her off. Of course, while she is doing all this, poor Johnny in the back is hungry or he has to go to the washroom. I think that we should have supervision of these level 2 people, especially on these highways.
What about supervision for the young driver out on these multilane highways? They're out on Saturday night having a good time with all their friends, and no supervising driver. What if they decide to go out and try the 401's multilane speedway and see what that car will do? Maybe I should change this to "see what the driver will do," not "what the car will do."
We've seen these chases end in tragedy before, so why don't we prevent them now through stronger, more effective, comprehensive graduated licensing? Why not put a supervising driver with a minimum of four or five years with the distracted mother of two? Why not restrict those young kids from the 400 highways unless they have a supervising driver who has four or five years' experience?
With the extra supervision, the learner can ask questions and receive guidance on which lane to be in, which exit they want, when it's coming up, whether the express lanes are better than feeder lanes, and maybe when they figure out which is better between express and feeder, they can let me know. I always pick the wrong lane.
Think about the last time you were driving an unfamiliar stretch of a multilane highway, be it around Toronto or perhaps when you're driving through the United States or another Canadian city. Wouldn't you appreciate an extra set of eyes as well? I know there are times I would.
Next I'd like to discuss convictions. I don't think that a driver should be able to progress from one level to the other with a conviction. I feel a new driver should be conviction-free to move to level 2 and conviction-free to go to full licence status. "Conviction-free" sends another message, just like blood alcohol content. "Conviction-free" sends a message that one must abide by the laws of the road or one will not be allowed the privilege to drive. Sometimes people forget. I'd like to remind the people in this room, and I try and tell everybody else, driving is a privilege. It's not a right in Ontario; it's a privilege.
I'm going to jump out of my prepared speech for a moment here to make you aware of some statistics I hope you know already, but just to jog your memory. There are six million drivers in Ontario, 30% higher than 10 years ago. In the past 10 years, crashes have increased by 13%, bearing in mind all the cars we drive today are much safer than they were 10 years ago, but crashes still have increased. Injuries have increased not by 13% but almost double that: 24%. This is my favourite statistic: 85% of all crashes are caused by human error, not the car, not the tires, you and I, the people behind the wheel.
Traffic crashes are the second-largest cause of people under the age of 45; not just the kids but under the age of 45; $4 billion a year is lost to health costs and loss of income and insurance because of these crashes.
One of my favourite subjects is seatbelts. Statistically, we found that Ontarians comply to 80%. One of the objectives of the committee I sit on is to get Ontario up to 95% compliance. You may have heard the term 95% and '95: 95% compliance in the year 1995. If we reach that, statistics show that 99 lives would be saved per year.
By the way, one of the three key groups that my seatbelt committee is zeroing in on is drivers under the age of 25. The graduated licensing system will probably be 80% people under the age of 25. Unfortunately, for some reason, they think it's not too cool to wear them. So I go back to the point, implementation of zero conviction. Maybe zero conviction will help them wear the seatbelt. Zero conviction will not allow them the privilege to drive.
Let me get back to text. Some people will feel this current graduated licensing proposal that the MTO has come up with is severe. A lot of the kids are scrambling now to get their licences before. If you ask the MTO how busy they are and the next time you could take your licence, you're probably booked into April of next year, depending where you are. Some of my recommendations may make it even more unpopular for the public, but I remind you, your job is not to make it popular. Your job is to make safe new drivers, so I hope you will strengthen the MTO's graduated licensing module: by zero blood alcohol content, by stricter curfews, by zero convictions and restricting people on the multilane highways without supervision.
As a driver and a driving instructor, I see unnecessary mistakes that cause trauma, that cause crashes on the roads. We saw an accident, of course, this morning. You can't go anywhere without seeing one.
As an insurance broker, I deal with this as soon as I get back to my office -- not a lot of fun. Please do not water down the concept of graduated licensing. Graduated licensing is giving you and me the opportunity to prevent these tragedies that we saw in Milton in the spring and in Chatham this past weekend. Please, please take this opportunity to make our roads safer by making our new drivers safer. Graduated licensing must be strong to work. It must be strong.
1040
Mr Hans Daigeler (Nepean): Thank you for coming from St Thomas to appear before the committee. It's my sense that you don't have to be too worried that the proposal will be watered down. I think there's solid support from all three parties for the initiative. In fact, we've heard, so far, most interventions saying that we ought to strengthen the proposal even further, and you are of course arguing that as well.
I think we will have to give serious consideration to some of these proposals. However, do it in a way that is workable and that doesn't lead to the total disregard of the laws that are on the books. Certainly, I think that we will be taking what you and many others like you have been saying very seriously.
One thing really interested me, and you didn't really speak about this in your presentation: You said you were also an advanced driving instructor. Could you tell me a little bit about what that entails, and secondly, who the people are who take this course and why are they coming, what's their background? I'm asking this because many of the presenters said the big problem is the attitude of people. If we could change only attitudes, they would concentrate more on the traffic, be more responsible, and we'd be a lot further ahead. Of course, many have also asked for tougher driving instruction and better driving instruction. Perhaps you could tell me a little bit about what that advanced training entails and who the people are who come to these courses.
Mr Tilford: The advanced training is out there. There are many multiple levels of training, from a refresher on what you should know already to emergency avoidance to something that has caused a great deal of tragedy between Belleville and Kingston and London and Woodstock, people dropping wheels on the road, overcompensating, spinning and crossing the median.
I'm not really sure who's responsible, if it's the Ministry of Transportation, but we're going to spend billions of dollars putting a concrete median all the way from London to Kingston. My argument is, why don't we just spend $300 or $400 per person and show them we don't need that median if they know how to drive?
The question about advanced driving: There are programs out there from basic bare bones, four hours in a classroom, you review and discuss, not necessarily pound it into people. There's a great program out there called 55 Alive. Unfortunately, it's aimed at the people who are 55 years of age and older. I took the course. I'm not quite 55 yet. It's great.
I've talked about the bare bones. Levels that I get involved in are the bare bones, and that's basically my program that I started, the driving tune-up. The objective of that is to get at that attitude. It's a one-day course and my objective is to get people to realize there's a little more to driving than just point and shoot.
Mr Daigeler: Who are the people who go to that?
Mr Tilford: Unfortunately, it's the converted. At my own expense and a lot of time, bearing in mind that I run my own business, I sent out literally hundreds of invitations to the government, to the insurance industry, to other driving schools and to other people who are already converted, people I run into who are involved in driver education. I'm sorry to say that not one government person has come to the school, not one government agency has done anything except a few of them. Mr Turnbull, I see, was supposed to be here.
Mr Daigeler: He is here. He just came in.
Mr Tilford: Good morning, Mr Turnbull.
Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): I'm afraid I was in very heavy traffic; very unusual.
Mr Tilford: You made it here safely. Mr Turnbull and a couple of other political parties have sent letters and said: "Rah, rah, that's great what you're doing. Unfortunately, my schedule doesn't allow me to come." I say to Mr Turnbull and the other people involved, send somebody else. It only costs $95 -- $98; I increased it to cover costs. My objective is to get at people, get at their attitude to get them thinking.
I've learned, and other educators, and there are professional educators in the room, that you can't shove it down an adult's throat. You have to make that adult come to the conclusion himself.
Just to finish off quickly the advanced driving thing, this weekend I'm going to spend two days at Mosport, just east of Toronto. I've been working up to that track for two years and I'm looking forward to going on it at high speeds, but in a controlled environment.
Mr Jackson: Craig, you've given us five recommendations, and they're not unlike recommendations we've seen in the first week of this committee's deliberations. We're seeing the themes repeated. The one I want to zero in on, because of the time limitations we have with you this morning, is the loading factors. At about 11 or 11:15 this morning we're going to hear about the case in Burlington in 1991. I knew one of the victims of that crash, Jodi Robbins.
I and my community very much support your recommendation that we re-examine allowing as many passengers as there are seatbelts in a vehicle. We've had no suggestions other than simply the number of seatbelts or no one at all. That's really what we've had.
I want to ask you if you would support some notion of extending the number of passengers, or passengers by seatbelt, but must be family members. I want you to think about that for a moment because I consider it, with the number of family breakdowns, single-parent, mother-led families, a vehicle, other younger children to drive, the process of teaching that individual to drive -- I foresee a situation where you can be driving a younger son or a younger daughter to work while you're supervising your learning son or driver, as a supervisor, in the vehicle. I personally support the notion of the fewer passengers in the vehicle the better. Again, I'm guided by this horrendous accident we're going to hear about later. How do you feel about that?
Certainly, the concept of family members and family insurance rates and so on is not a foreign concept to insurance brokers. How do you feel about that as some sort of compromise? I don't want to use the word "compromise." I think it's a better recommendation than the legislation as it currently sits, because I think it has the potential to discriminate, if we say no other passengers other than the supervising person. But by the same token, we don't want four or five young people in the back seat of the car with a 20- or 21-year-old who's repeating grade 13 for the fourth time and just happens to have had his licence for five years.
Mr Tilford: I am glad you put in that last comment about the grade 13, because I wasn't really sure what you were getting at. Statistically, most of these horrendous things are on the way to a party or on a Friday night. I don't think I'd really want to go to a party with my mom sitting beside me. Not to be sarcastic, but I'm not really sure how a family member would impact on those incidents. I think those incidents, Chatham, Leamington, Milton, Burlington, are party time; it's Friday night and Saturday night. Maybe you could clarify that for me. I'm not really sure how the family could impact on that.
Mr Jackson: I'm saying that if we follow your recommendation, which is no passengers --
Mr Tilford: No, that's not my recommendation.
Mr Jackson: Okay. Perhaps you should clarify. I took from your presentation that you would somehow want to designate by age or gender or by some --
Mr Tilford: No, I would like to designate by driving experience.
Mr Jackson: All the passengers in the vehicle?
Mr Tilford: No, the accompanying driver, the driver that's there to supervisor the learning driver. That accompanying driver, I believe, should have at least five years' experience.
Mr Jackson: Okay, I understand that. I'm talking about the loading factors.
Mr Tilford: To do with the seatbelts.
Mr Jackson: Yes.
Mr Tilford: If there's a learning driver and an accompanying driver with five years' experience and there are three seatbelts in the back, three passengers.
Mr Jackson: You have no difficulty with that?
Mr Tilford: No.
1050
Mr George Dadamo (Windsor-Sandwich): Mr Tilford, thanks for making the drive this morning from London. We appreciate the driving conditions this morning, with the rain.
Mr Tilford: It was a good test.
Mr Dadamo: Yes. My Windsor colleague, Mr Lessard, and I drove in from Toronto, so we shared that with you.
I truly believe that we are of one mindset here this morning, that it really doesn't matter what political party or stripes you carry: We are of the understanding that the aim is to dwell on safety and saving lives.
There's a question I wanted to ask you. When we started the proceedings, there was an issue that has escalated a little so we find ourselves thinking about it more and more, which I take seriously; that is, the displaying of a vehicle sign, putting something on the vehicle to let others know that there's a beginner driver driving. I need to ask you, as I've asked others, how would you see that in the scheme of things? How would you display it? What would it look like?
Mr Tilford: You're asking me about the actual logistics of the sign? We can get these magnetic signs that you put on. Do you want me to design a sign for you? I'm not really sure what you're getting at. If you have, for example, not the slow-moving vehicle but a yield sign, some designation you can put on your bumper -- I'm not sure just the rear bumper is enough.
Mr Dadamo: Permit me. I want to ask you what you feel the importance of the sign would be and how you think people following this vehicle should react.
Mr Tilford: You have to forgive me. I'm of the opinion that most drivers out there don't really pay attention to their driving. If that sign's there, I'm hoping it would be just that little more of an edge, that somebody would stand up, take notice and say: "Oh, that's one of them. I've got to watch out for them." Anything we can do to make John Doe stand up and take notice of exactly what he's doing would be an advantage, so I endorse the sign.
The Chair: Mr Tilford, on behalf of the entire committee, we'd like to thank you for taking the opportunity to come and be with us this morning to share your views. Your brief contains recommendations, and I'm sure all members of the committee have noted those recommendations. We appreciate your taking the time to put together a comprehensive brief. Your views and the brief will play an important role in the process. Again, on behalf of the committee, we'd like to thank you for appearing this morning.
ONTARIO ASSOCIATION OF CHIEFS OF POLICE
The Chair: The next scheduled witness is the Ontario Association of Chiefs of Police. Good morning, sir, and welcome. You've been allocated one half-hour for your presentation, and I know the committee would appreciate a portion of that, perhaps 15 minutes or so, for questions and answers and dialogue. Could you identify yourself for the purposes of Hansard and then proceed with your presentation.
Mr Henry Harley: Thank you, Mr Huget. My presentation will include an identity, and I am grateful for the opportunity to be here.
My name is Henry Harley. I am the chief of police for the Tillsonburg Police Service. Today, I represent the Ontario Association of Chiefs of Police. I'm the chairman of the traffic committee for that organization.
I'd also like to point out at this time that this is the only part of policing in the province of Ontario that's responsible to the Minister of Transportation. The majority of policing is responsible to the Solicitor General. As Mr Offer knows, in the past we've had confusion in that area, and we still do.
All Highway Traffic Act enforcement in the province of Ontario is done under the command of a chief of police in the many municipalities in this province or under the commissioner of the Ontario Provincial Police, with the exception of those parts of that act which are enforced by the enforcement officers of the Ministry of Transportation.
Most of the public education in reference to the Highway Traffic Act which is done on a personal basis is done by a police officer, usually in the classrooms of the schools across this province. Consequently, the province of Ontario is almost totally dependent on the police forces of Ontario to both educate about and enforce the legislation passed by our government, intended to regulate and govern the use of the highways and city streets in Ontario in the interests of safety and the elimination of congestion.
On May 6 of this year, I joined the Minister of Transportation, Mr Gilles Pouliot, and Dr McLelland of the Sunnybrook Hospital trauma unit to announce the graduated licence program proposed by the Ministry of Transportation.
My being here today is to remind the government of that day in May when the Ontario Association of Chiefs of Police committed to enforcing the graduated licensing system when it was enacted. It was based on a proposal that the Insurance Bureau of Canada had drafted in concert with the Ontario Association of Chiefs of Police traffic committee, based on programs which have been proven in other jurisdictions around the world. We have, to date, no reason to believe that those proposals should be changed, if indeed the government proposes changes. However, for the record, let me list those criteria.
Listening to the earlier speaker, my notes of the proposals of the Insurance Bureau of Canada and his recollections change in one area, which we'll get to, when it comes to the accompanying driver with zero alcohol. I thought the IBC, in its discussions with us, had also recommended the 0.05%.
Those recommendations, as I had seen them in the early stages, for a level 1 learner, were:
-- Entry: to come in at age 16, and pass a vision and knowledge test.
-- Period: for a period of 12 months minimum, five years maximum, reduced by four months with an approved driver education training certificate.
-- Conditions: must be accompanied by a driver with at least two years' fully licensed experience, with an age minimum of 21 and a BAC of less than 0.05%
A question was asked which I want to speak to at this time, the fact that I think the driver's licence should have indicated on it the date on which a full licence was issued to every driver in this province. I hear the MTO representative saying we have that ability in the Canadian Police Information Centre. The people at CPIC are saying: "Just how big do you think this machine is? We are just overloading it for the sake of a little area that says, `Full-time licence was issued on January 1, 1947,' and that makes it easy at the side of the road."
To continue with conditions:
-- No other passengers, unless the accompanying driver is an accredited driving instructor. If learner is accompanied by a driver with five years' fully licensed experience, passengers limited to the number of seatbelts.
-- Zero BAC: Another point was made this morning was that there could be other laws that govern the BAC situation. There are no other laws right now that govern zero. Why do we want to confuse different acts? If we're talking about the Highway Traffic Act, if you're in violation of a graduated driver's licence under the Highway Traffic Act, then include it. We complicate things all too often in this province.
-- Curfew, midnight to 0500 hours; prohibited from driving on all limited-access highways; "New Driver" identification displayed.
-- Exit: To exit the system, pass the basic road test.
For a level 2 learner:
-- Entry: completion of a level 1 learner.
-- Period: 12 months minimum or five years maximum.
-- Conditions: must be accompanied by a driver with at least two years' fully licensed experience, minimum age 21; a BAC of less than 0.05%.
-- No other passengers unless the accompanying driver is an accredited driving instructor. If the learner is accompanied by a driver with five years' fully licensed experience, passengers limited to the number of seatbelts.
-- Zero BAC for the driver; no highway restrictions; no curfew restrictions; "New Driver" ID displayed.
-- Exit: pass the advanced exit test.
For the third level of licence: Pending the pass of the advanced test, the regular or G licence would be issued. That date would be the one that was indicated on the licence for ever more.
Where does all this lead? One of the things I have yet to hear this government say out loud so that all can hear is, and may I quote, "Ontario considers drivers' licences to be a privilege and not a right." We need to hear that. So many people today are claiming that it's their right to be on the highway. For years we have considered a driver's licence a privilege, and I believe it still must be.
I hear many suggestions that this system is too tough. I do not believe it is. I do, however, believe that today's licensing system is inadequate. I do believe that the graduated licensing system will reduce the unnecessary deaths and injuries on our highways attributed to inexperienced and alcohol-using new drivers.
1100
What are the concerns of the police? The most important point, I believe, is that the police have no intention of making graduated licence enforcement a priority enforcement issue. We see this as a section of the Highway Traffic Act that would normally be enforced when discovered while investigating some other Highway Traffic Act offence.
One of the problems presently facing police officers in their role of law enforcement is that the crown attorneys, provincial prosecutors, justices of the peace and provincial judges are hesitant to prosecute two or more charges against an individual arising from the same incident. Consequently, plea bargaining and dismissals take the teeth out of the law as it stands today. Penalties for violation of the graduated licensing legislation should be automatic if the government is serious about highway safety.
Another concern I have is the apparent loss of interest in the announced road safety organization. Mr Pouliot again announced on May 6 that he was putting in place the Ontario Road Safety Corp, with the proposed advisory council groups being police, road safety, commercial interests, interministerial, research and driver education.
Bill 39 was first read on June 3, 1992, and reads that this crown agency will subsume administrative duties formerly under the Highway Traffic Act, the Motorized Snow Vehicles Act, the Off-Road Vehicles Act, the Public Vehicles Act and the Truck Transportation Act for the purpose of promoting and improving road safety and developing and marketing road safety products and services.
The last concern I wish to bring to the attention of this committee is, where do police services obtain the funding to perform the functions being asked by this government? It's obvious that this government does not consider traffic safety and/or traffic law enforcement to be a priority, which is obvious from the continuing disappearance of funds from policing. Traffic law enforcement in Ontario has been reduced to the level that we are only putting out fires, so to speak. There is little money for policing, and that translates to no money for traffic enforcement. Police officers in the province of Ontario mainly do traffic if they have nothing else to do.
Ladies and gentlemen, we are fortunate to live in a country where the mere fact that there is a law on the books means that the majority will obey the law, because Canadians are law-abiding people. As in other fields, however, if there is no punishment for sin or little chance that your sins will find you out, sin increases. Have you driven 100 kilometres on the 401 lately?
Mr Jackson: Thank you, chief. I appreciate your presentation, the first one from the chiefs of police association, so it's perhaps very timely today.
You've raised a lot of issues. I want to move in on the plea bargaining and then I want to yield to my colleague.
Multiple offenses: It never had occurred to me, but I'm aware of what you're describing here when I now think through all the conditions where there could be separate violations, whether it's passengers to seatbelts, blood alcohol level, the supervising driver. I guess you've raised a very legitimate fear in that we have examples, whether it's pornography or other areas, of where there's a breakdown between the laws on the book and the direction from the Attorney General's office with respect to prosecutions.
How do we deal with that as a committee, as we're dealing with an act which is limited to the Transportation ministry, but as you've very clearly indicated, implicates two other ministries for sure?
Mr Harley: Thank you, sir; the opportunity to answer that is great. It's about time, I believe, that the Solicitor General, the Attorney General and the Minister of Transportation sat down and compared notes. In policing we have to deal with all three. There seems to be, through the Ontario Traffic Conference and the Ontario Association of Chiefs of Police, a great rapport individually, especially with the Solicitor General's office and the Ministry of Transportation. However, we never seem to see them comparing notes with each other. There have to be instructions that come down from a government to which all these people belong that say, "Our government wants this to happen in this province and we want you as a member and a minister of the government to instruct the people in your ministry that this is what we expect."
I believe that we have, for the convenience of the courts and for the convenience of the time that's spent in courts, a lot of things being thrown out of court, which have made a mockery of our law. We have all kinds of people -- and age is not what governs it -- who believe the chances of getting off are a lot greater than they are of being convicted. As I said about the 401, if you can find a policeman there, then you get the $60,000 prize, because my friends in the OPP are just astonished; they do not have the ability to do the job. They only go there when they're called, because there's nobody left. The public of Ontario are calling the police for other things, taking them away from the highway.
Mr Turnbull: Chief Harley, it's good to see you here today. As you probably know, since I became the PC Transportation critic some two years ago, I've been pushing very hard for the introduction of graduated licences. While I'm delighted with this move, I do have some concerns that this is not strong enough legislation. My question to you is, you mentioned first of all automatic penalties. What would you see as being the appropriate penalties that you'd build in?
Mr Harley: Actually, anticipating that kind of question, we really decided as a chiefs of police organization not to even get into that part of it. We feel that's the role of government, to decide the penalties. But what we think is the proper thing is that there is a penalty that is seen to be given.
Mr Jackson: It fits the crime.
Mr Harley: It fits the crime and it happens. What's happening now is the penalties are not happening. I relate it quickly to other law than the highway traffic law. It's really not a crime to possess marijuana in Canada any more, because no court wants to take the time to say, "We're going to convict you of having it." Unless you've got a whole bunch of it, you haven't broken the law. But the law still says it's unlawful.
Mr Turnbull: Would you foresee a useful action would be to bump people down from level 2 to level 1 if there was some serious violation of the graduated licensing?
Mr Harley: I would see no problem with that whatsoever.
Mr Turnbull: One of the arguments that is made against that is that people during level 2 can apply for and go into getting truck licences. That might be their method of employment, and if they lost their level 2 licence, then as a result of that they wouldn't be able to be employed. How would you respond to that argument?
Mr Harley: I believe a doctor has to follow certain rules if he wants to remain being employed as a doctor and if he violates those rules, he no longer can operate as a doctor. What difference is there between that and a truck driver?
Mr Turnbull: Yes. I think that's perfectly reasonable.
Did I understand you correctly to say that in level 2 you would like to see an accompanying driver?
Mr Harley: That's correct.
Mr Turnbull: In all circumstances of level 2, or just those new experiences that they haven't been allowed during level 1, that being night driving and 400 series roads?
Mr Harley: We hadn't discussed the difference. The discussion that we had on this was in the preliminary stages with the Insurance Bureau of Canada people, and my recollections of the discussion at that time was that during that entire period of time, it's a learning experience, and as all of us know who have driven for any period of time, there's always that time, even though sometimes we wished our wife wasn't talking to us when we were driving, that we really appreciate the fact that she said, "Watch it."
Mr Turnbull: In my discussions with the Insurance Bureau of Canada, they've indicated to me that they would like to see an accompanying driver in those new experiences which you haven't had in level 1, that being the night driving and the 400 series highways. Is that something you could probably live with?
Mr Harley: We'd have no trouble living with that at all, sir.
Mr Turnbull: You mentioned, if I understood that correctly, that in level 2 you wanted a driver with two years' experience.
Mr Harley: I don't think we had any difference with the insurance bureau at that time on how much experience they had, and I think it was two years for both.
Mr Turnbull: The draft legislation calls for four years' experience.
Mr Harley: I don't even refer to the draft legislation. I go back exactly in my submission today that what was wrong with the way -- it looked to be acceptable in the beginning.
Mr Turnbull: When you talk about two years' experience, assuming that this went through, would you have in mind your definition of two years of experience, that being two years after exiting level 2?
Mr Harley: That's correct.
Mr Turnbull: Thinking a little way down the road.
1110
Mr Harley: The experience that we count is that you're a learner until you've become qualified, and once you're qualified as a journeyman, so to speak, it starts on the date that was placed on your licence as the first time you became a fully licensed driver.
Mr Turnbull: During the transition period, how would you foresee that? Would you see any grandfathering, inasmuch as you could have somebody who's just got their licence with a few weeks of driving experience?
Mr Harley: I would think that would be a very difficult thing and I don't know how that would be handled, but I guess it's the same in a lot of things that we do. Somewhere along the line we have to bite a bullet. If it means that somebody got in under the wire, so be it.
Ms Christel Haeck (St Catharines-Brock): First of all, I'd not only like to thank you, Chief Harley, but I'd like to at least mention that we have Sergeant Harry Artinian -- he's now retired from the Niagara Regional Police Force -- here in the audience, but Harry for years did a lot of the safety work here with the school boards and makes me aware of the kind of safety that we really should be seeing on the roads. One of the concerns he's mentioned is signage, as well as definitely the current situation on the Queen E with the wooden posts there as opposed to some proper barricades.
The previous presenter also made some comments about seeing some changes -- maybe not agreeing with them -- in some of the road construction. Would you see the road safety agency working with the police and really looking at some of the designs that really should be incorporated into our highways?
Mr Harley: Actually, what I saw in that agency is the ability for people from different expertises to come together whose main objective was the saving of lives and the reducing of injuries on the road. I have no idea how to design a highway and policing; I sure know how to give out tickets. But if we could set and bring the public -- that was what I liked about it. I saw the government say, "We want the public to have a say so we're going to bring them in."
I don't know if it's procrastination or not, but it's not happening yet and we've been meeting and meeting and meeting. I'd like to see that go along, because Harry's a dear friend of mine and has been instrumental in this area with teaching children safety for so many years and he understands fully the fact that we all need to have a part of it. We can't stand alone in any given area in this province. We need everybody to be part of it and we have to have the attitude of the citizens of Ontario that we want safer highways and that we're going to do our individual parts to make that happen.
Ms Haeck: Just quickly -- Mr Dadamo is the parliamentary assistant -- have you got any comments with regard to where the road safety agency -- how that's moving along, along with the graduated licences, to answer some of the concerns the chief has mentioned?
Mr Dadamo: Yes, thank you for bringing that up. I think it came up yesterday as well in Ottawa. I can't at this time tell you what mode they're in and where they are, but certainly we can get you an answer to that.
Ms Haeck: Do I have a little more time?
The Chair: Yes.
Ms Haeck: One of the concerns that as a rural member -- St Catharines is obviously very much an urban setting. I also represent the part of the riding that includes Niagara-on-the-Lake. I'm thinking of some of the residents there whose children may be driving a range of farm vehicles that don't really require a licensure but they're getting on these different motorized tractors as well as jitneys to do their work on the farm and they may be required to help the family as they get to the point of actually driving the car. Tillsonburg obviously is in that farm country as well. The kind of recommendation you're making for the level 2 might be seen by some in the rural areas particularly as being somewhat onerous. How would you respond to that?
Mr Harley: I think we're in the situation -- although onerous, there are many things in life that are onerous simply for the fact that everybody has to have a rule. I think that too often we have the exceptions to the rule, and every circumstance that I've seen in a rural area that has come along to make things more difficult has been overcome somehow, and I think of busing of kids to school. When the bus quit picking them up, they still got to school, because the individuals had to change their mind, "We can't afford buses any more, so we're going to have to make sure they get there some other way." I deal daily with the people in a rural farm area and they really have the same idea, "If we can do it, we will; if we can't, we won't."
Mr Offer: Thank you for your presentation, chief. I think it's very important. I think you spoke about some of the real issues around graduated licensing. You'll be aware that the presentations that we have heard have been, I think, almost unanimously in support of the principle of graduated licensing, as I think that everyone here is in support of the principle of graduated licensing. I have a couple of questions and I'm wondering if you might be able to help me out on this.
It seems to me that in order to effectively enforce some of the aspects of the proposal, the licence permits are going to have to be changed, There's going to have to be a little bit more information on your licence as to when you entered the level 1, when, in terms of dates, you were generally licensed, in order to better allow for the enforcement of the licence. We just can't use the CPIC system all the time. Officers are just too busy. Is that the position of the OACP?
Mr Harley: Actually, it is, and we saw the licence changing slightly to include that date -- it was something that we saw necessary. For level 1 and level 2 identification, we thought it would be really easy, because each one of those could have a different colour, whether it be that the paper it was written on was a different colour or that it was laminated in a different-coloured plastic, that automatically, when it's pulled from a wallet, you don't have to be a Rhodes Scholar to see that it's pink and that's level 1, that type of thing. I think it's necessary that this happen and I don't think it's a problem.
Mr Offer: That's a great suggestion, actually.
There are two other matters just before we go over to my colleague that I want to talk about.
It's clear now that obviously, someone under the age of 19 cannot drink in this province. They will be able to have some form of licensing privilege, but they can't drink. Yet if someone is driving under that age in possession of alcohol but not over the legal limit, there is no penalty to that person. They do not suffer any licence suspension. Does the OACP have a position as to whether there should be a suspension of a licence to a young person who is in possession of alcohol in contravention of the legal age?
Mr Harley: I think we believe that nobody, no matter what age, sex, colour or creed they are, can drive a car as well after imbibing as they can when they have not been. The issue is, is it lawful for you to be imbibing or not? We have no way at the present time to screen those things. There are devices now that are being put on the market that will measure zero, which we haven't had in the past. However, we need some legislation that allows us to also do that testing without any other grounds other than the fact that you're in one of those positions, that you are a learner licence or you are the driver in charge and, for that reason alone, must submit to a test.
1120
Mr Offer: I thank you for that, because we were given some very, very alarming statistics by the chief coroner, Dr Young. It just clearly shows that there has to be a greater penalty to a young person, in the care and control of a vehicle, having alcohol and under the legal limit in terms of age.
My last question deals with the driver display. I will be frank: Though I am in support of graduated licensing in principle and I think there are areas in which we can actually strengthen it, I have had some concerns with the driver display. My concerns stem from the fact that you are putting this sign on a car at a time when a lot of signs are being taken off.
I know there are jurisdictions where they are taking signs off cars that designate the car as a rental car. There are insignias that are being taken off. We have heard that when there is that sign, there is the possibility of not only detracting, but attracting difficulties, that sometimes people are trying to be overly cautious, which might cause some concerns.
There's also possibly the cause of concern that there are individuals who will know then that it's a young person, a new person, an inexperienced person, even though they have an accompanying driver. I have some concerns about sending out a message or a signal that that's who's in the car at this time. I am wondering if you can help me with those concerns. My concerns really stem from young people who don't have that experience, obviously.
Mr Harley: Mr Offer, I think the removal of signs from vehicles has tended to be a sign that could render that person a victim. I think of the handicapped licence plates. But I know that as a young person in Europe in the 1950s -- that's where I started to drive because my father was in the armed forces there -- you had a sign. That sign still, I believe, in all of Europe, is present today.
I understand what you're saying, but I look also on the fact that you and I have the ability to be a defensive driver in our car when we know that the person in front is learning. As you've seen people learn, they brake quicker, perhaps, than they would had they had experience, and then you go right into the back of them. If you know this is someone who's learning, you could be prepared to know that he may do that or the signal might not come on when the turn is being made and all those things. I think it's good to know that we can help that new driver by having a little more understanding and being expectant that they may do something that we wouldn't do.
The Chair: I'd like to thank the Ontario Association of Chiefs of Police and you, sir, for appearing here this morning. You've obviously initiated some very interesting discussion and made some interesting recommendations and suggestions.
VICTIMS OF NO. 1 SIDE ROAD, BURLINGTON
The Chair: The next scheduled witnesses are from Victims of No. 1 Side Road, Burlington. Good morning and welcome. If you could identify yourself for the purposes of Hansard and then proceed with your presentation, you've been allocated one half-hour. The committee would like a portion of that, approximately 15 minutes, if it's possible, for questions and answers and dialogue. Proceed at your leisure.
Ms Kim Duncan: My name is Kim Duncan. I'm a constable for Halton regional police. I'm one of four constables responsible for investigating fatal motor vehicle accidents in the Halton region.
This morning I'm here on behalf of the families from the 1 Side Road fatality in Burlington. This accident happened on June 11, 1991. It was a result of the actions of an irresponsible young person who ended up in a motor vehicle collision which led to the fiery deaths of four other young persons. These other young persons were trapped in the vehicle.
This tragedy starts with the young person failing his driver's licence on February 23, 1991. Shortly after failing his driver's licence, this young person was sent, in accordance with the Young Offenders Act, to a correctional facility, during which time in this correctional facility he received drivers' education, a course that was taught in this facility.
On the date of this collision, this young person received early release from the correctional facility. He did not serve the full time. If he had been in the correctional facility at this time, at the time of this accident, the accident would never have taken place.
On June 11, he took and passed the test to obtain his driver's licence. He met a group of his friends at a local high school. Later in the evening, this young person drove five other young persons to the area of 1 Side Road, a rural area in north Burlington. This is a roller-coaster road, approximately three kilometres long. On this road, should a high enough speed be reached, the vehicle will catch air. This young person did so, lost control of the vehicle at a speed of 130 kilometres. The vehicle left the roadway, rolled and burned.
During the investigation, we went back and tried to re-enact what had happened in this accident. We had a professional driver drive the road. We did that on video. That was during the day. I, myself, drove the road in a fully marked police cruiser at night. I would not go over the speed of 80 kilometres -- that's how dangerous this road was -- and it's an event that kids take part in, in the rural areas, frequently.
The repercussions of this accident had a detrimental effect on the entire community. On behalf of the families of the 1 Side Road, I would like to say that this proposed legislation, the legislated amendments to the Highway Traffic Act, are both timely and fortuitous. The families welcome this.
We will always ask the question: Had this legislation been enacted in 1991 would we have lost Chris Evans, age 15; Jodi Robins, age 15; Scott Grenier, age 17 and John Newby, age 16? Other senseless deaths must be prevented.
The areas I will be focusing on are the regulations and amendments and, in addition to this, there are other recommendations that I would like to speak about.
In regard to the regulations, in the section under definitions, it states: "`Valid driver's licence' means a driver's licence that is not expired, cancelled or under suspension."
The request is that this section include graduated licences.
In section 4, with a class R licence, you may drive a motor vehicle on a highway subject to the following conditions.
It is a request that an additional condition be added, that there be a graduated licence pertaining to motorcycles; that is, cc's in relation to a driver's experience, much like they have in Europe. You are now allowed to go through your R licence at the age of 17 and get on a supercycle. It's just a rocket.
Under section 5, novice licence conditions: Once again, which has been talked about this morning, accompanying drivers' blood alcohol concentration must not exceed 0.05 milligrams. The request is that this be zero. We want to lead by example.
Concerning subsection (3), in regard to the number of passengers, it states that number of passengers must not exceed seatbelts. We must eliminate distractions, eliminate passengers. This is also required for the G-1 and G-2 classifications. I think the only exception to the rules would be families.
1130
In subsection 5(5), "Vehicles may not be driven by novice drivers between midnight and 5 am," the families requested that this be moved to 11 pm for the purposes of accident prevention.
Concern in section 4: A Licensed driver instructor is qualified to act as an accompanying driver although as the instructor he has not held a driver's licence for at least four years. This, in my opinion, contradicts section 2. We would like to see the driver instructor have four years' experience. In addition to this, we would like to see that a regulation be established for driver instructors to be properly educated in the education of teaching young people as well, instructional techniques.
In relation to this accident on 1 Side Road, we found that the driver instructor was not fully qualified to teach all phases of the driver education program, and it is well known that even in the high school level of driver's education, some teachers have no driver's education courses.
With regard to the licensing in general, subsection 12(a) and (b), "Qualifications require that every applicant or holder of a driver's licence does not have a mental, emotional disability or addiction that will interfere with his or her ability to drive a motor vehicle." The concern there is, how would you know that? Through a questionnaire? We know how people falsify documents in order to obtain their licences.
Subsection 13(1)(a), examination of a person's knowledge: We request that the test be redesigned and expanded to include the areas such as knowledge of night time limitations, visibility when approaching intersections and the effects of drugs and alcohol.
Subsection 13(1)(b) is demonstrate the person's ability to drive: The request is that the test be redesigned to encompass the true ability of a driver. For example, we have skid schools. We have a lot of resources that we can look at. The test right now does not reflect the driver's ability, and even to take one step further, this is also seen when you're relating to senior citizens. They have what they call retesting, but it's the old boys' club: "Oh, Mr Brown, I see that you're 75 years old and we're going to retest you. How are you feeling today?" "I don't feel that good." "Well, come back tomorrow." He comes back tomorrow. "How are you feeling today?" "Great." "Okay, let's do your test." That's the way it is. There must be a testing system that will reflect people's ability to drive.
Concerns in regard to subsection 13(2), the exiting test: Request that driver's records search be conducted. If there are any violations, the penalty phase is implemented. Take them right back to the start.
With regard to novice licences again, concerns; subsection 27(13), driver's education credit. Education does not replace experience. This must be emphasized. Education credit format will hopefully identify the offenders before a tragedy, but to give credit is a concern.
In regard to the amendments to the Highway Traffic Act, respecting novice drivers, in section 4, it authorizes a police officer to test novice drivers and the novice driver's accompanying driver for blood alcohol.
Request: Make people accountable; suspension plus a fine for novice drivers who consume any amount of alcohol. In addition to this, make them start from the beginning as a result of the penalty phase. There should be a heavy fine and points levied against the accompanying driver. Again, the accompanying driver must have zero BAC. Once again, this is learn from example.
In regard to the other recommendations, the entire drivers' educational system must be revamped to reflect a consistency throughout the province. In addition to what is presently taught, there must be a new emphasis on safety.
I've also included a statistical chart that we just happened to do in preparation for an inquest meeting with the coroners. At first, I felt that maybe most of the accidents involving 16- and 17-year-old drivers in the region of Halton would be a result of young drivers not taking the educational courses. This was completely opposite.
We found that in 1991, of all young drivers between the ages of 16 and 17 who were involved in an accident, 70% had professional driving lessons. That's not the school or the family, but a professional agency. In 1992, it was 77%.
We looked at this to the point of saying okay, maybe we have a high majority of people taking driver's education through a professional agency, and therefore you're going to expect more accidents. That's true, but what this tells me is that there must be a different emphasis on what we're teaching in regard to drivers ed. There must be a new phase called "safety." Maybe we're looking at the wrong thing. Maybe we've got to identify another phase that we must concentrate on in order to make these people responsible drivers.
In regard to drivers and passengers and seatbelts, I think we've had enough talk, enough publicity about wearing a seatbelt. It's time that points be assigned to seatbelt violators, enough points to make a difference, because it is what saves lives.
Another concern is that drivers' education must be for those who consider driving and learning to drive a privilege. Persons who show a disregard for the rules of society should be prohibited from courses in drivers' education while under the auspices of a reform or correctional facility.
The next point is that the judicial system must take notice and the legislators must assign the fine/prohibition to fit the offence, especially for the novice driver who is a repeat offender.
My final point is to eliminate the use of Walkmans, radios that have microphones or any type of earphones with which you're listening to music. Walkmans must be eliminated for drivers in all vehicles.
In conclusion, the graduated licence system is imperative. It will save us money in terms of increasing insurance costs, medical treatment, rehabilitation and it will save our greatest natural resource, our young people.
Ms Haeck: Thank you very much, officer, for coming before us. I'd like to refer to page 9 of your presentation. There was a section there which I didn't hear, I'm sorry, but you made a comment about people over the ages of 70 and 80 as far as retesting is concerned. Is that a point you would like to have on the record, or did I sort of overhear the fact that you mentioned it?
Ms Duncan: I spoke briefly about it. Right now we're seeing an increase in accidents involving senior citizens and, as I said, the retesting of senior citizens in certain facilities is a laugh; it's a lark. I think there has to be some type of examination. For instance, I've included in here a doctor's letter stating that this senior citizen is capable of operating a vehicle, and if he thinks that the hours of operation or the distance this person can drive must be restricted, then it must be so stated. That condition can be easily listed on the computer system for us to know.
1140
Ms Haeck: Okay. We've heard other suggestions before this committee that there should be regular retesting of all drivers. Any comment about that?
Ms Duncan: Of course there's going to be retesting when you reach a certain age. That retesting has to have a number of identified areas in it, such as, as I've already stated, a doctor's note. In regard to drivers who are repeat offenders, I think retesting will not be sufficient. There must be some kind of educational program to go with it. In regard to people, for instance, who have lost their licence due to drinking and driving, there must be an educational phase. Penalties do not work for the repeat offender. There has to be some kind of educational phase put in.
Ms Haeck: I'm not sure if there are any other members who want to ask some questions from our side.
The Chair: Mr Wilson, very briefly.
Mr Gary Wilson (Kingston and The Islands): I'd like to follow up on the education issue. Were you surprised by the statistics you found, which you list on the last page in the pie graph, about what appears to be a surprising number of drivers who have gone through professional driving instruction?
Ms Duncan: That was extremely surprising to me. What it tells me also, with the young people, is that they're receiving this professional education in driving and it might be that they're overconfident now. "Yes, I've seen a movie on how to get out of the situation," but when you actually put that in real experience it doesn't always work that way.
Mr Gary Wilson: I see. So attitude is a big component of that then.
Ms Duncan: Yes.
Mr Gary Wilson: Are you very familiar with the professional driving instruction courses?
Ms Duncan: I did research it during this 1 Side Road --
Mr Gary Wilson: I mean, to see what is involved in the educational aspect, the training that goes on in them.
Ms Duncan: I've had the material. What surprises me is that it's up to the instructor on how to present this material, and that's the problem. There is no set agenda for every instructor to follow that. He has the material and he says, "This is what we're going to do today." If he wants to skip a phase or just briefly talk about a phase, he will do that. There is no consistency.
Mr Gary Wilson: How many hours of instruction do police officers get as far as driving goes?
Ms Duncan: Right now, every police force, and it has just started at the Ontario Police College, will receive -- recruit training includes driver instruction. That is throughout the first phase of their recruit.
Mr Daigeler: Thank you for appearing before the committee. With regard to the accident statistics in relationship to the driving schools, I think probably, and I think you recognize it yourself, a more meaningful comparison would be the accident statistics in relationship to each category; in other words, how many people took driving training through the family, how many through the school and how many through the provisional driving schools, and how many of those got involved in accidents in relationship to the total number for each category. I guess you don't have those figures, because I presume it would be extremely difficult to gather those.
I think the way you have it is probably a little bit unfair towards the driving schools because I would expect, as you said yourself, that because most people -- or two thirds basically -- are taking driving schools, obviously you'd expect a much higher number of accidents in that category. You'd hope not, but I think that stands to reason. I don't know whether anybody else has done that kind of comparison. I think it would be interesting -- perhaps the ministry -- if they have that. It would be useful for us to have these figures.
My question, though, relates a little bit to the accident you described, which was of course very tragic, but again we're coming back to the attitudes. As you said yourself, even penalties sometimes don't work and therefore we have to educate people. One has to ask oneself, what is it that made these four young people go into the car with this young driver, who was apparently just released that day, had just got his licence that day? Why were there four other children who didn't have enough sort of sense, as it were, not to put a young person to the test? I'm just wondering whether you might want to comment on that.
I don't want to blame these young people, but again I think it points out the real problem we're dealing with. Other presenters have described this as an attitude problem. Young people are just simply, for lack of experience or whatever -- they like to take risks and sometimes they just do stupid things. We adults do them too, but perhaps a little bit less frequently. I don't know whether I'm speaking for myself. I hope I do it less frequently than when I was younger, but who knows. I just wonder whether you might want to comment on that. I think all of us have a responsibility to try and avoid situations that could develop into a problem, and this was obviously one of them.
Ms Duncan: I think I can answer that in two ways. First of all, for those other kids in the car, you'd be saying, "Who would ever think something like this would happen?" It's peer pressure as well, "Let's go do this," and everybody agrees. There's probably going to be one person thinking, "Maybe we shouldn't be going this fast," but you're not going to say anything. This is where the graduated licences have to take that decision away from these young people.
The second note I'm just thinking about is that we have many situations in which young people get tickets, multiple tickets, and there have been comments made to me by a parent, "Well, I guess I'm going to have to pay for this." So then again you've got an attitude thing, "If Dad's going to pay for this, Mom's going to pay for this, no big deal." The risk-taking is still there. The graduated licences will take that risk-taking attitude away because they're going to be penalized. The parents aren't going to be penalized financially. It's important that this legislation identify the driver and take away the responsibility of decision-making and other people in the vehicle.
Mr Daigeler: We're certainly all supportive of the graduated licensing proposal. If anything, we want to strengthen it further.
My point is simply that we can't just put everything on the government and on the laws, and I'm sure you agree with that. There comes a point when all of us, and you said the parent as well, will have to keep hammering this home, "Don't put yourself and don't put others into dangerous situations." Frankly, that one was obviously one. I would not encourage in any way, shape or form my kids to ride with somebody who has just that day passed a driver's test.
One other point, and that's frankly something that has come out in the hearings and it surprises me, is that there seems to be a fairly high representation of people who have been in the correctional system who are involved in accidents. Is that your experience as well? Several people have mentioned this, that there seem to be quite a few people who, either because of driving offences or other offences, are in the correctional system and who then after they're released are causing accidents. Is that something that you are familiar with?
Ms Duncan: I've got no knowledge of that. All I could say is that people who do have multiple accidents or multiple violations of the acts do frequently end up in trouble.
1150
Mr Jackson: Thank you, Constable Duncan, for your very clear and cogent presentation, and also that which you make on behalf of the families who have lost their young children.
If I can build on the question in Mr Daigeler's mind, I guess your brief speaks to two issues, one overtly, which is that you wish to ensure that the public changes its attitudes, and our legislators can do that by reinstating the notion that driving is a privilege, not a right.
Ms Duncan: That's right.
Mr Jackson: Secondly, the sort of covert message is that you can't legislate common sense, and therein lies the difficulty. For families that have had to bury a loved one or for you who have had to arrive at a scene, and the scene in this instance was rather horrific, you're very much motivated to ensure that we get the attitudinal change and that the rules for society are adjusted substantively in order to reduce that amount of carnage.
Ms Duncan: That's right.
Mr Jackson: In that context, then, I want to focus in on one of your recommendations which is of concern to me. We have heard from students across Ontario, some of whom feel threatened by these recommendations, and we've heard from students who have legitimately and honestly come forward with the notion that peer pressure does change driving habits.
If we were to poll the students at M.M. Robinson high school who witnessed the death of four of their students, there would be about 80%, 90% even, support for the notion that there be no passengers in that vehicle except for immediate family members, and yet this legislation doesn't address that. Could we go into that in a little more detail? Because I think this is an area of reform to this bill. It's a good bill but it can be better.
In phase 1, could it not clearly be a restriction that it only be family members, and that in phase 2 there is some flexibility? There has got to be some degree -- and I hate using the word "compromise," but if that's what gets the notion across, again, as I say, that a 20-year-old who has been in the young offenders' facility but with a licence or who has repeated grade 13 for the third time, which was an analogy I used, is not the supervising driver, again, with a bunch of 17-, 16- and 15-year-olds in the vehicle.
Can you comment more clearly on behalf of the families that have expressed this concern? I do note for the record that you indicate the exemption to the rule on page 5 would be for family members, but your presentation suggests we eliminate the distractions, eliminate passengers, and require the same for subsection 6(1).
Ms Duncan: I guess there are two ways you can look at this. You can have family members in the vehicle; no problem there. But if these family members end up being a distraction or everybody is giving you instruction on how to drive, that could be a problem. I think the only solution there, if you have a number of people in your car who are your family, is to let a licensed driver drive until that person gets more experience.
Mr Jackson: I know my colleague wishes to ask a question, but just briefly I want to underscore, as the Community and Social Services critic for our party, that I'm not unaccustomed to working with young offender issues and I certainly underscore your recommendation, the first of its type in this area, where you've recommended that if driving is a right and not a privilege, it seems a cruel irony that young people of limited means in this province have to pay for driving instruction, but if you've broken the law and are deemed to be a threat to society, you're given your driver's instruction free at taxpayers' expense. This is a terrible, cruel twist of where our priorities are. In my view, it refers back to your presentation and the chief's who preceded you with respect to this being a privilege and not a right.
I know my colleague wishes to ask you a brief question, but thank you very much, Kim, for your presentation on behalf of the families.
Mr Turnbull: Constable Duncan, thank you very much for a very comprehensive set of recommendations. I assure you, I will push forward a lot of these.
I suppose I was struck by your charts, the degree of driver education that people had had. That frankly shocked me. Is it your impression that driver education on the whole is not up to snuff in this province?
Ms Duncan: I believe it's up to snuff, but the problem is that it's not being taught consistently. There must be changes in it to emphasize a different area, which I call safety.
Mr Turnbull: Things like skid testing and such?
Ms Duncan: That's right. Maybe we should emphasize the attitude of safety rather than, "If you do this, you're going to end up losing your licence because you've accumulated too many points."
Mr Turnbull: Do you feel that mandatory driver education should be a component of graduated licensing?
Ms Duncan: I would like to see everybody receive driver education, but I guess we're looking at a number of different scenarios. But I would most certainly welcome that.
Mr Turnbull: Do you think the police should have more of a hand in sort of supervising this in some way? I'm not suggesting that they become the instructors, but just to have some say in what is taught?
Ms Duncan: Actually, in our region, we do get asked by the driver education teachers to come to the school, and we do presentations on it. In addition to that, our crown attorneys come in and talk to the young people as well and tell them what they can expect. Our crown attorneys, of course, are all trained because they take the time to come out with us and see what actually happens on the road. We're probably one of the few regions where everybody works together.
Mr Turnbull: Because you mentioned testing of those people over the age of 70, for your information, there has been some discussion on this committee about the fact that there is at least an investigation going on in the ministry at the moment for potential gradual delicensing so that there would be a stepped process by which people who maybe have poor vision at night as they grew older would lose that privilege. So that is being considered. Why did you choose 70?
Ms Duncan: Most of the fatal accidents that we've had in our region have been in fact between 70 and 80. We find, even with the minor accidents, that this age seems to be the start point of the problems. We've identified that.
Mr Turnbull: Turning to your questionnaire on page 7 and your concern that seniors filling it in -- or anybody, in fact, with some impairment -- may cheat on that, what would your suggestion be?
Ms Duncan: That's what we didn't know. Maybe a driver's history search would identify a problem, or maybe a doctor's letter for people who could possibly fit into that category.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Constable Duncan. I'd like, on behalf of the entire committee, to thank you for appearing here this morning. You have a very comprehensive brief with an excellent set of recommendations. It has certainly, I think, motivated a lot of interesting questions and answers and discussion among the committee members.
The committee is in recess until 2 pm.
The committee recessed from 1158 to 1401.
SUE MACNEIL
The Chair: Could we call the committee to order, please. The first order of business and the first scheduled witness this afternoon is Sue MacNeil, if she could come forward.
Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): Round two.
The Chair: Round two, yes. It's nice to see you again. I have to admit that I think you were there every day in Toronto, listening to the hearings, and we appreciate seeing you here now, presenting in St Catharines. As you probably know, you've been allocated one half-hour for your presentation and the committee would like about half of that, if possible, for questions and answers and dialogue.
Mrs Sue MacNeil: No problem. First of all, I want to apologize to the ministry for the error in the first presentation, where I brought up D vehicles because I had not seen the actual legislation, and as it was cleared up the next day, that has been included, which makes me, as a rural person, very pleased.
Secondly, I want to apologize for my voice. I'm sorry. I hope you can all hear me and I hope it will stay with me for the rest of the presentation.
Today I come before you not as a president of any association but as a parent and a member of this province, but most importantly as a voter.
This is in response to the Ontario government's proposal for graduated licensing. The areas that I'm going to be discussing are the 400 series, the Quebec-Ontario border and education.
I would like to take this opportunity to back the position presented to the committee on behalf of the Road Safety Educators' Association last week. Today will be an extension of that position and will revisit some of the issues that were raised at that time. At this juncture, let it be clearly understood that we need graduated licensing and we need it now.
The Quebec-Ontario border question: I'm going to have to ask if there's a ministry person who can answer this because I'm going to make sure I ask the question before I make a comment.
The Chair: Mr Levine, the resident expert, as always, is close by a microphone.
Mrs MacNeil: Okay. The question is this: Coming from a Quebec-Ontario border community, as some of the members of this committee are from Renfrew, brings me to my first question. How will individuals that have a full licence from another jurisdiction be treated in Ontario? I'll qualify that. I do not mean, how will they be treated if they move to Ontario; I mean, how will they be treated in Ontario as licensed from another province?
Mr Levine: I take it the question relates to a Quebec driver, for example, residing in Quebec, operating under a Quebec-issued licence.
Mrs MacNeil: Yes.
Mr Levine: If offences occur in Ontario, convictions may be registered in Ontario. I believe we have reciprocity with Quebec --
Mr Dadamo: There is reciprocity with Quebec and New York state.
Mr Levine: -- to record any violations on each other's systems.
Mrs MacNeil: Now I can say what I think I'm okay in saying, then.
If a full licence is to be accepted as a full licence in Ontario -- ie, if we have reciprocity -- what is to stop individuals from using an aunt's or friend's address in Quebec and simply getting a Quebec driver's licence, using that until the time period expires and then changing to an Ontario licence?
If you think this is not going to happen, I would just like to ask anyone who has anything to do with the Ministry of Education or the Ministry of Health whether or not fraud does exist in that issue. I just thought I'd bring that to your attention.
The Chair: The Ministry of Revenue.
Mrs MacNeil: Yes, that ministry as well.
That's one of the problems I foresee in my own part of the province as being a real problem. I think if you live in Renfrew, it's not very far to hop, skip and jump over to Fort Coulonge and get a Quebec licence, do your two years and there you go. Why would you put yourself in a position to go through graduated licensing if you feel this is a problem when you could get around it now?
You're going to say, "Well, what's the solution, Sue?" It would be advantageous to have a data bank that includes casewise cross-referenced entries for issues involving provincial residence requirements, as we have in those ministries I mentioned, to decrease the incidence and magnitude of fraud without having to do a manual search when the incident has occurred, which is exactly what Mr Levine pointed out. These would include such databases as health, education, social services and transportation, because currently there is no such data bank I am aware of; I'm not aware of any.
The 400 series: Again, I want to address the issue of the 400 series. If there is no evidence to suggest that the 400 series itself represents a distinct risk for new drivers, this begs the question: Why are you considering restricting the use of the 400 series at all? If you are concerned that speed is indeed an identified problem, then you must ask yourself, "Where have these incidents of high-speed crashes involving new drivers occurred?" If the answer is on secondary or King's highway roads, then it is imperative that you not restrict the very roads that have been seen to reduce the incidence of high-speed crashes, ie, limited access multilane thoroughfares.
In the eastern and northern part of the province we have few 400 series, and those we have, we treasure. The safest part of the northern route of the Trans-Canada Highway is Highway 417. When you go from the 417 to just plain old Highway 17, you increase your risk factor by many times. Due to the fact that this is also a transportation route, there are many different types of road users, from large tractor-trailers to commuters, to cyclists, to tourists to school buses. This sets up situations for increased speed differentials which are causally linked to head-on crashes, for which this highway is notorious.
We in the upper Ottawa Valley have been diligently fighting for a limited-access multilane highway, an extension to 417, specifically to reduce the death and injury that the people in our part of the province have been subjected to over the past decades. Now we hear that you would entertain the notion that even if we get such a safe road, you may consider asking our most vulnerable group of drivers, those without the experience to deal with less-than-optimum situations, to find alternative routes, routes that have statistically been the sites of more carnage than the 400 series. I think this would be very difficult for anyone living in Renfrew, Pembroke or Arnprior to accept as being in their best interests or the best interests of the new driving population.
Now I'm going to go on to the area of education. Let me start off by saying that I believe that the key to both having people buy into the concept of graduated licensing and actually reducing crash rates is contingent upon education in conjunction with effective, reasonable and supportive legislation.
1410
After reading and hearing a number of submissions to this committee calling for more driver training, let me caution you that the issue of education is a complex one and one that bears a little closer scrutiny.
There are significant differences between training and education. Training relates much more closely to the performance of skills, the physical manoeuvring of the vehicle; it's usually thought with a stimulus response and has a lower level of understanding, and it's really considered to be procedural knowledge, whereas education gets into the higher cognitive things such as problem-solving, choice decisions and life choices and gets into the underlying principles and concepts, a higher order of cognitive skills, and that's where we start dealing with risk management. So I really caution everyone to be careful in the vocabulary you choose when you're talking about education and training.
If we want to effect change through education, we must first identify what the problem or need is and address the specific concern at hand, whether it pertains to an individual, a community or the public at large. Education to facilitate social change should more appropriately be considered a process, not a product, at whatever level it is undertaken. So to facilitate change, education must centre upon the learner. Education is a process, not a product, particularly if we're looking at social change.
For the graduated licensing system to be embraced by Ontario residents, three levels of education must be undertaken: education of individuals, education of communities and education of the public at large.
Education of individuals would focus on, first, how the changing system addresses their needs and what effects these changes will have on them. Education to lower crash rates should emphasize rules of the road using a systems approach so new drivers clearly understand how they fit into the overall picture of being a responsible road user.
In-car training should teach sound vehicle handling skills and we must educate new drivers to recognize hazards, make appropriate decisions that take both their own limitations as well as their vehicle's limitations into account under varying road and weather conditions. It is at this level of education where we may be able to make explicit new drivers' social responsibility concerning road use. Above all, this education must take into account individual differences in a way that allows new drivers the opportunity to develop and optimize their risk management skills.
It is essential that province-wide community education programs be instituted, since in many instances the rural community has been sadly neglected with regard to these types of programs. High schools and other places where groups of youth congregate should be targeted for education concerning how they, as a group, will devise innovative methods to deal with the new system and its restrictions if the government sees fit to place more of the restrictions in phase 2, which seems to be what a lot of people are asking you to do. As well, the public should be made aware of the rationale for this legislative move so that they understand it is not to restrict them but to protect them.
Finally, different types of communities that we have to concern ourselves with are geographic communities. Server intervention programs, the RIDE programs, selective traffic enforcement programs, particularly in the rural communities, are sadly, sadly lacking, and just to put a piece of legislation in place without the backbone of these programs in rural Ontario would really not serve the benefit of the people.
The psychographic communities, the high school sporting groups -- for instance, if in December you were on a basketball team in Renfrew and you wanted to get home, you have to consider that these people are going to have to devise methods and work with those groups rather than dictating to them. Young people are extremely innovative and they will come up with ways of being able to manoeuvre these if we help them and allow them at least some latitude, which is what we've been trying to suggest with our novice peer, youth groups and particularly new Canadians.
The other communities that we need education with specifically in Ontario are the demographic communities, the teens -- and I think Ontario Students Against Impaired Driving is doing a wonderful job and we could take some lessons from the work that they've been doing and maybe enlist them in some of the work we'd like to see done with graduated licensing -- single parents and seniors.
Finally, educational or any other type of incentives should be so designed that they do not disadvantage parts of the province and that they have a high probability of meeting the stated objective. It appears that driver training and education is of major concern to many of the presenters at these hearings. With regard to educating the public, we have to let them understand clearly the merits of graduated licensing, the lives it will save, the injuries it will reduce or prevent and how that, in conjunction with other programs, will increase responsible road use.
I sincerely hope that the issue of education is given a high-profile position in the final report of the committee. However, please bear in mind the complexity of the educational issues involved. Whenever we're using an educational incentive -- people asked me the last time I presented why I chose the time lines I had chosen. I'd like to bring your attention to these two points. This is where I believe driver education gives the biggest bang for the buck:
At the first stage of phase 1 is number 1. If you remember, what we're looking for is to get experience, so we want education to come at the first part of phase 1. This starts the student off on the right foot and parents or copilots are less hesitant to spend time in the car, thus enhancing the opportunity for experience. It is most typical when we have new students that the parents want them to wait until they've had some experience with us before they get in the car with them. We don't want them waiting out these periods. The big thing we're trying to get with graduated licensing is to increase experience, but increase it under conditions of lower risk. Really, it's dramatically important to have the education come at the first part of phase 1.
Given that fact, number 2 is at the last part of phase 2. This encourages practice so they can pass the exit test to move on to full licensure, and instructors can facilitate more advanced learning when they are building on experience. Having been one of the leaders in the field in doing follow-up training a year, or six months and a year or two years after initial training, I can only explain how important it is that this level of experience be gained, because it is only after they've had time to make the basic driving skills rather automatic that they have time to understand the complexities and the more complex issues of driving and getting away from strictly braking, steering and the other functioning skills.
In closing, I want to thank all the members of the committee for not only listening to my perspective but the concerns brought forward by the different groups and individuals. At this time, I would like to personally thank David Turnbull for his untiring support and understanding and his diligence in moving this issue forward.
Mr Daigeler: Thank you very much for appearing again in a little bit different surroundings and much farther south. I presume you had some other business to do in the Toronto area on behalf of road safety, but I appreciate you coming again, because I think your analysis is very good, particularly your analysis of the difference between education and training and how much more difficult education is.
Because it is so difficult, I think we also must realize and accept certain limits to what we can do with regard to education. I'm always a little bit supportive, frankly, of the teachers who say -- I mean the school system now -- "We are putting more and more responsibility on the educational system and we are expecting them to do what previously parents did," or the church, neighbourhoods, communities. Frankly, I think we have to probably get back to that a little bit, and it's in that context that I, first of all, appreciate yourself and the organization that you represent, because I think that is a community response and you are not just relying on the school system.
1420
But there's one other system that I was frankly pleased to hear is now taking an interest in promoting safe driving habits, and that's the public health department. We had in Toronto one public health nurse who said that, yes, they're beginning to see that as part of their responsibility. In Ottawa we had the Ottawa-Carleton public health department. Up to now they had not seen that as their -- even though they came and saw it at that point as a public health issue, in their teaching in the schools that was not part of their curriculum as yet.
To your knowledge, is this seen anywhere else as a public health issue, that the nurses and whoever else is involved in this teaching could become involved and do some of that education you are aiming for?
Mrs MacNeil: Oh, yes. I'm going to go back a couple of points. In 1985, I can remember addressing a group in Toronto and basically explaining that road safety was a health issue, and I literally got booed. "What do you mean it's a health issue; it's a transportation issue," and I said: "But it's a health issue. Every time you save a crash and someone going into the hospital system, you're saving health dollars." I'm not the only one that was saying it at that time. I'm not suggesting for a second that I came up with that idea.
I think Alberta is probably much further ahead than Ontario in that vein, although Al Erlenbusch and his group in the emergency services, which consist of all of two people in the province right now rather than probably many hundreds that they should be, are working diligently and they are funding educational programs like the PARTY program. Those are the kinds of community programs, and that particular one would be clearly classified as a psychographic community program. That's funded directly through the Ministry of Health, and I do see that as a move.
The problem is to try to slot all these things in with the different ministries within this province. I tried very hard in 1991 to bring a promotional campaign that had been developed at the federal level down, and it was specifically dealing with the same issues we're dealing with here, mainly with young people and mainly with multiple tragedy. I had a meeting with seven ministries and about seven different organizations. To have that many ministries in one room I thought was really quite a fait accompli, but unfortunately there was no funding and no one felt it was under their jurisdiction to bring it in.
But there is a move afoot, I would say, generally, overall, given the fact that the most expensive thing that can happen right now in this province is having a two-year-old that's not belted in and someone hit the brake hard. You don't even have to have a crash and you're looking at $2 million in a closed-head injury. Those are the kinds of issues that I think the health field is becoming more aware of.
Mr Daigeler: Just a very quick question, because I know Mr Conway has a question too: You identified single parents in the groups of communities to be taught special driving skills, and I was just wondering why you were including them.
Mrs MacNeil: No, not to be taught driving skills, but we leave groups out. If we look at driver education as high school driver education, we leave out a whole area of people that need education. It's the same issue with seniors. And it's not just for their driving; it's the road use and that becomes an important issue.
Let me give you an example. In the area of Norm Sterling's riding, northern Kemptville, there is a group of seniors who decided that they're --
Mr Daigeler: Kemptville is no longer Norm Sterling, but that's fine.
Mrs MacNeil: Is it not? Oh, my good heavens.
Mr Daigeler: Kemptville is Noble Villeneuve, I think.
Mrs MacNeil: Okay. I'm sorry. But in the Kemptville area there is a group of seniors who decided that there is something that should be done, because a lot of their people were either having to move into Ottawa because they were no longer able to drive at night or they had different transportation requirements. So they got together, banded together, and this is what specifically would be a demographic group that got together and educated themselves. That whole concept is spreading province-wide, that you have people who are at home, moms or dads or whatever, who have the ability to drive someone, who will make themselves available. So there's this kind of networking for transportation issues.
I think once we try and move away from this entire one person, one car, one driver and if you don't have your own car and you don't have a licence, you are limited to where you can go -- that's really the stumbling block in North America. We think we have to have those conditions to be able to get around, and that's not true. I think some of these innovative ways people are dealing with it are very important, and that's what I meant by educating those groups.
Mr Conway: I take it, Ms MacNeil, that you would want no restrictions on the 400 series for the beginner driver so long as they were accompanied by an appropriate senior driver. That's the way I read your brief.
Mrs MacNeil: Certainly, from being in eastern Ontario, I most definitely feel that way. If you drive down from Renfrew, when do you start to feel safe when you're getting to Ottawa? When you hit Connelly Road and you hit where there's four lanes, or before that, when you can go along and literally every kilometre, "Oh, three people died here three months ago," and a little bit further on, "So-and-so was killed here"? That road is just terrible. There are many reasons why two-lane roads that are not limited access are extremely dangerous and most particulary dangerous for the new-driver group.
To answer your question, do I believe that in the Toronto area? I have not got the statistics to support it, but in talking with other driving instructors, we can teach people and we can deal with the 400 series because you've got someplace safe to tell people to go, whether they're seniors or whether they're new drivers in whatever format. But when you restrict that and you put them on a two-lane road, it's not that easy to find a solution for them.
Mr Conway: One final question: Like my colleagues, I certainly appreciate the brief and the nuance that you've added to it in terms of education and training. We had a young student yesterday from Stittsville in Ottawa who I thought and I think the committee felt was very helpful, particularly in giving us a sense about attitudes of young people.
The ministry is always very helpful, but in giving me an idea -- and it was a higher percentage of failure than I thought it was. I don't know who was here, but I think it's a 35% failure rate now for those seeking to pass what we will now call the level 2 test.
Mr Levine: The basic test.
Mr Conway: The basic test. But my impression, remembering when I was a student, in any course, if you really wanted to modify behaviour, you'd do two things: You'd make certain courses mandatory and, boy, you would make it tough. You would make it real tough. If you were a jerk like me, you'd probably want to make sure that on the first round the failure rate was 65%. So everybody knew that Conway's course is -- and you've got to take it. It's not an elective.
You know, when I took this course, I think I failed this course the first time. I've been in for subsequent visits, I might add, over a very sort of ill-starred adult driving career. But I don't ever remember that any of us viewed it as a particularly tough test.
Mrs MacNeil: No, it's not. But it's not comprehensive either. Just be really careful with putting "tough" in there instead of "comprehensive."
Mr Conway: I guess my point is that thinking about what the student said yesterday -- and one of the things I'm interested to do when we conclude these hearings is to go and talk to some of these kids now on the basis of these proposals to find out just what their attitudes are going to be. I was astonished yesterday when the young fellow said that a lot of his colleagues -- the Chairman can correct me, but I think he said that a lot of people still thought that this wasn't going to happen.
The Chair: That's the way I understood it.
Mr Conway: But I do think it is behaviour modification that we're looking at here. It may be a crazy idea, but the thought has crossed my mind that the test has to become more comprehensive, and the sense that it is important and significant and tough in the sense that you're not just going to breeze in there and pass this thing. Do you have any views on that?
Mrs MacNeil: Do you want me to comment? Yes, as long as the test relates -- I mean, you have to decide -- I'm not sure particularly whether or not even the exit test committee has made -- I've seen pretty well most of what they've done and I've had the same question and comment from day one, "What are they trying to measure?" It's not that difficult to design a tough test. If you wanted all of a sudden to fail 80% of the people who took the test, that's not that difficult. Whether you fail 30% or 80%, it's not the percentage that you fail; it's that you fail those people who are at higher risk of a crash. That's where you get into something that becomes a little more meaningful.
1430
I'm just going to go on about this test. Is there a test that can look at that? Worldwide, there is a move afoot in the scientific community to develop a measure that looks at safety, nothing else, just safety, incidences of crash, and I'm very proud and pleased to be on that committee.
I'm a little frustrated that Ontario is not moving in that direction, that it is still looking at performance skills. I don't care how tough you make that. You're going to take out those people who can't perform something to a high level. People are not crashing because they can't perform something. You listened to Kim Duncan this morning with the Burlington crash. That young man did not have a crash because he didn't know how to drive the road at 80 kilometres an hour; he chose to drive it at 130. Four people died in that crash, not only one, because six people made a decision to get into that car. Those are life choices.
So it's not important only to talk about driver education, but road safety education. Those young people did not have the skills or the understanding or the wherewithal to be able to say, "No, I'm not getting in that car. That's a death-trap." That's where we're missing it, when we keep focusing on just the driver.
Mr Turnbull: I want to, first of all, thank you. You're the one who brought this issue to me two weeks after I became PC Transportation critic. Had it not been for you, I wouldn't have been aware of it as quickly. There's nobody in Ontario who has done more than Sue MacNeil in pushing this issue forward into the public eye, and she deserves definitely a great round of applause from us all.
Sue, turning to driver education, do you believe we should mandate it for level 1?
Mrs MacNeil: No.
Mr Turnbull: Why do you say that?
Mrs MacNeil: Because I think there are much better ways to have people choose. We're talking about motivation and choice. When people make that choice -- do you think that if we mandated university education, we would end up with well-educated -- I don't think we would. I think there is a philosophical thing about choosing to be educated.
If you want to hear a twist that may make it more effective, how many of you have more than two children or at least two children? Okay. Many parents will not get driver education for the second or third child because there is no financial benefit. It pays for itself to get driver education for the first one, if he or she's an occasional driver, because you get a reduction in your insurance. This is not news to anyone, right? If the first one's a female and the second child comes along, "Male; okay, it's worthwhile."
Well, I know we're scrapping the gender issue. The third one comes along: "No, education's not worth anything. You can't get any money back for it." Pardon me, but does that mean that the third child in a family, or any child born after the second child, is going to be a better driver? I just find that ludicrous.
I know Stan Griffin is going to pull his hair out when he reads this, but when you figure what the subsidy for driver education in this province is right now, it's close to $100 million. At times it's been over $100 million. We could afford to educate every single person who wants to become a driver, plus all the rehab for those drivers for the first period, if we use the funding for that. I know it's off the wall, but we just don't use the resources well, in my mind, when we look at mandating things.
Mr Turnbull: Sue, when you talk about efforts to arrive at a worldwide standard where you would assess the risk factor rather than just the education factor, could you expand on that? I would then like to ask the ministry official what we have done in the MTO in this connection.
Mrs MacNeil: There are a number of areas where we're looking at -- I got involved in a conference in San Diego, California, that looked at driver competency, and before that time we were clearly looking at such things as right turns, left turns, parallel parks -- I haven't heard too many people dying in parallel parks of late, and yes, it still is a major component both of driver education and of testing.
Mr Conway: It fails a lot of us.
Mrs MacNeil: Yes. I don't know why, though. It certainly doesn't indicate that those people are going to be disproportionately represented in crashes.
One of the things they started looking at were specific populations because, as you're well aware, with the greying population and the aging population there is a problem in deciding -- I mean, do you pick a magic age? "Okay, when everyone is 60, we take their licence away; 80."
Then the issue is that if it's not chronological age, what is it? When is it that those persons should start to have their driving privileges either restricted -- but of course with seniors it's really not a restriction issue, because most seniors who have got to be 80 have pretty good risk management skills, and if they know they're going to be at higher risk, you just have to let them know and they'll start to not drive at night or not drive on freeways. They do that in a natural way to begin with, and if they're told about it -- so that was where this whole driver competency came from, that whole field. It rests within the medical field more so than transportation, although the research board in the United States is certainly diligently looking at safety as a measurable commodity.
I'm working with a professor from Israel for Transport Canada and it's very exciting. There are a number of people -- we're not the only ones worldwide who are doing it -- coming up with measures that look specifically at probability of crash. I think that is the best I could do to answer the question. It's fairly new and it's innovative, but it's very, very exciting.
Mr Len Wood (Cochrane North): Thank you very much, Sue, for coming forward. I had a chance to ask a few questions the last time you were here and made a presentation. I think I'm safe in saying that the goal of the government is to make sure that somewhere along the line, from the time that children are 16 years old, over the next 30 or 40 years it will be able to achieve the target of zero fatalities and zero serious injuries on the highways. The starting point is with an education system and a training system.
We have all kinds of different ideas and suggestions on how it should be, how it's going to be effective. While I think it's a step in the right direction, I know that since I was 16 or 17 years old, we've heard talk that they're going to raise the driving age to 18 or to 19 to try to avoid some of the slaughter on the highways that has been happening back since 1958, 1959, 1960, since I can remember hearing them talk about it. Nothing was ever done as far as coming in with legislation of this type to educate and train the people was concerned.
I think, and maybe you can comment on it, that speed in a lot of cases -- we heard a presentation this morning saying that the police don't go near the multilane highways unless they're called for an accident. I guess there's going to have to be something done on that, either a photo radar system or something to slow down the amount of speed, that they are on that.
I don't really have a specific question. I just wanted to comment that I agree wholeheartedly with what is happening, to get the ideas and suggestions from people like yourself and from the other presenters, to be able to draft legislation that is going to achieve the target of having the surgeons and doctors in this province treat illnesses rather than having to treat victims from highway accidents. Thank you very much for coming forward again.
The Chair: Sue, we'd like to thank you for an excellent presentation. On behalf of the entire committee, I want to take the opportunity to thank you for taking the time to come down here as well and appear today. As you know, your input to this committee is an important part of the process and it'll play a valuable role in the outcome of the committee's deliberations.
1440
MICHAEL SULLIVAN
The Chair: The next scheduled witness is Michael Sullivan. Good afternoon, Mr Sullivan, and welcome. You've been allocated one half-hour for your presentation. The committee would appreciate about half of that, 15 minutes or so if possible, for questions and answers. Proceed at your leisure.
Mr Michael Sullivan: Ladies and gentlemen of the standing committee on resources development, I want to thank you for appearing in St Catharines. We don't get to see too many committees down this way, but I'm really glad to see you here.
My name is Mike Sullivan. I'm a resident of St Catharines and I'm married with two children. I presently have three drivers in my family. There's myself; I'm 48 years old, been a licensed car driver for 30-plus years and I've been a motorcycle rider for 27 years. My wife, Linda, is 47 years old and she's been a licensed car driver for 25 years. My son, Tim, has a G licence. He's almost 19 years old now and he's been a licensed car driver for two-and-a-half years. My daughter, Donna, is going to be 16 in November. One of the reasons I'm here is because of the questions my daughter asked me when she heard about the graduated licensing coming up.
I'm here as just a regular citizen. I don't represent any particular group. What I have presented here is a very simple presentation just to reflect my opinion and my family's opinion.
First of all, I'll give you some of the comments my daughter made to me when I asked her to write down some of her thoughts. Her first comment was, "All my friends are hurrying up and getting their licences now, before the graduated licensing comes in." She's 15, going to be 16 in November. In fact, the local MTO is booked up to February 1994 right now in St Catharines.
Her other comment was that the first phase is too long.
She feels, maybe not knowing the whole fact of the first and second phases, that the alcohol restriction is unfair because of the designated driver, this meaning the alcohol restriction on the accompanying person, not the driver themselves. She thought that we're trying to encourage designated drivers, and to put a restriction on the passenger would unfairly limit the driver being able to take people home from a party or whatever. This is reality with teenagers today. You have to face reality here.
She thought the second phase had too many restrictions for the length of time that you'd already been driving. Also, being that there are so many restrictions, if you're driving along the highway and a policeman is going to pull you over because you happen to be on a 400 highway and you have an L plate, just put yourself in the mind of that teenager. What are you likely to do? Are you going to pull over or are you going to try to outrun the policeman and keep your licence? The more restrictions you put on, the more pressure you're putting on the driver also.
Also, the requirement to have people with you, especially in the first phase, who have significant driving experience is really unfair for somebody who doesn't know anybody, or recent immigrants to this country who are not going to have somebody who has four years' driving experience. I don't know how they're going to be able to accomplish that first phase. They can when they're taking driving instruction, but when the time comes to practise after your initial instruction, they're just not going to be able to cut it legally. So again you're putting undue pressure on them and their families.
Also, my daughter thought that teens who have jobs won't be able to drive themselves to work. She's got here that they won't be able to have someone with four years' experience with them. Again, some of these comments may not seem logical to you if you know all the rules of the graduated licensing, but this is just coming from a teenager's mouth who's only read what she's read in the paper. Basically, it's just a lot of word of mouth. But this is what's going through the teens' minds today, especially the comment about everybody rushing in to get their licence now, and they're waiting till February for their test right now.
My comments are, after reading some of the information sent to me by MTO -- I'll just read through my comments. I've summarized the comments at the end and I've given them to the committee.
I think the first phase is too long, especially having to have a driver accompany you. It's going to be pretty hard to keep that up for a year. I know when my own son was learning to drive, we got time to go out with him sometimes, but not all the time. For a year, that's pushing it pretty long.
I think the alcohol restriction for the accompanying driver in the first phase should be the same as for a fully licensed driver. In other words, a deemed safe level is a deemed safe level, whether it's a driver or an accompanying driver. I can't see how you can monitor two different levels. I understand the proposal was for 0.05 for the accompanying driver.
Also, staying off the 400 series highways makes sense for the first phase, but after that they probably should be phased in. But in the St Catharines area here, I don't know how you're going to stay off the QEW and the 406 and get anywhere. These are the safest links in most cases. If I want to go from here to Fort Erie, the safest way is to get on the QEW and go there. I think statistics will prove that for the miles driven, freeways are the best way to go. It's hard to say, "Stay off it at 5 o'clock at night," or if you've driven here in the morning, you know what it's like between here and Toronto. I don't know how you can do that. But just to say a blanket exemption for 400 highways, they're supposed to be the safest highways we've got going, so especially in the local area of QEW, 406, we have a little bit of 405, I can't see how you're going to stay off them.
Also, my daughter informs me -- and it's sad but true; so she says -- her driver's ed classes have been cancelled at her high school. It doesn't make sense to me. I know my son learned very well through being exposed to drivers' ed through his high school, and I did too, way back in history when I was in high school. Back in the 1960s, I took drivers' ed through high school and, again, my daughter would have taken it if it was available. This doesn't make sense. It seems to be a step backward. It may be a local funding problem; I don't know. But this is a bit of a blow as far as I'm concerned.
Also, I've just got the renewal of my insurance from Co-operators. In fact, I got it yesterday. They made the same reference that the minister -- I believe he made a speech to Parliament and mentioned New Zealand in the matter of graduated licensing. Unfortunately, the government didn't take the same tack when it wants to talk about insurance. They also have government-run insurance, so it seems that they don't mind following another country's example in some aspects, but maybe not in others. In other words, maybe there's a whole system here, not just one part of a system, okay? It's funny to hear Co-operators put that thing right in its newsletter.
Also, another observation, if you've driven between here and Toronto or Toronto to Huntsville, is that traffic enforcement has become very lax. I don't mean the set-up radar traps to catch speeders, because they're around. I mean in town, catching the red light runners and ignorant drivers who tailgate and cut off other vehicles. The lack of traffic policing is very noticeable on our major highways. On several weekends this summer, I have driven to Huntsville and back on the QEW and the 401-411 corridor -- you know what kind of drive that is -- and there is very little police presence out there, yet I constantly had to cope with erratic driving, getting cut off, whatever. Compare this to the presence on the US highways. You won't drive too far before you see a trooper on the highway, and it just keeps a lid on it.
It used to be that the American drivers were the crazy drivers. Now the Canadians are. There are just not enough police in traffic. This photo radar is one aspect but it does not catch the erratic drivers, especially in southern Ontario, and if you look at the graduated licensing, it seems a lot of people from Toronto wrote up some of the recommendations. We just don't have enough police out on the road.
You can drive through St Catharines on the way in in the morning, which I do every day, and see motorists run red lights. They just keep driving with not a care in the world, because your chances of getting caught are pretty slim. This just fosters an attitude. It's fine to say you've got all the education in the world, but when you're sitting at a red light and Joe Blow drives through and doesn't get stopped, all in all, I just think there's not enough traffic enforcement.
Basically, in summary, I agree that a two-phase approach is reasonable. I like that approach, although I do have some problems with the phases.
I think the first phase is too long. I suggest a six-month period, which I call a beginner's phase, with a proper completion of an approved drivers' ed course, and a longer period required for the self-taught.
The requirement for a four-year licensed driver to accompany a learning driver is not realistic or possible. Any properly, fully licensed driver should be able to accompany them. In other words, if we've got this phased-in licensing, when you are at the end you should be competent enough to accompany somebody likewise.
Recent arrivals to our city will find it impossible to learn to drive, as they won't know anyone, and a driving licence is a necessity these days to be able to get and hold a job. We don't have the public transportation they have in Toronto, unfortunately. You just can't get there on the bus.
This proposal really puts our recent immigrants at a disadvantage. It's tough enough now to join society, without having another stumbling-block put in your place. In fact, as I mentioned before, with graduated licensing in, all fully qualified drivers should be able to accompany that person. In other words, it will be self-fulfilling as time goes on. Right now, you won't have people who have had the graduated licensing, but as time goes on, they will all have graduated licensing.
1450
Also, the night-time restriction, to me, doesn't make a lot of sense. I don't have the actual information here that the MTO sent me, but I know in towns such as ours, the streets at night are practically deserted. In fact, in the past it's been a good time to take my son out driving. In the winter, when do you have? You have the weekend and you have at night. That's when the kids are going to be out practising.
I think limiting access to the 400 series highways is too restrictive. I think you have to put Highway 401 near Toronto in a different class than our local 405 and 406 highways.
I believe that zero tolerance on alcohol for the driver in the first phase is reasonable. However, the accompanying driver should be governed by the same regulations as a fully licensed driver. In other words, there can't be two levels for alcohol tolerance. It should be one or the other.
I suggest that if we're going to have an L plate for the car, it be supplied by the ministry, and possibly a magnetic stick-on sign to be affixed to the back of the vehicle above the number plate so that the person can take it from vehicle to vehicle.
In the second phase, I believe a one-year period is reasonable if full driving privileges are phased in as the year progresses. In other words, if highway access is limited, I think the limit should be eased as the person goes through the year such that access to all highways should be attained in the last two months and that driver has access to all areas open to fully licensed drivers.
I also believe that alcohol restrictions should be the same as for fully licensed drivers and there shouldn't be a requirement for the passengers or accompaniers to adhere to a low alcohol limit. Designated drivers should be encouraged.
This is one of the things my daughter -- maybe it's misinformation on what the alcohol limit has to be of the people who are with you, but a lot of the teens seem to be of the opinion that they can't be a designated driver for two years.
Also, I believe the driver should be able to start learning at this stage for his D licence, which is required for a lot of jobs these days. Maybe he should be accompanied for the first six months by a qualified driver and should be alone for the balance, with the final testing to take place at the end of the year.
My final comments, because there have been other things come down the pipe -- there were the seatbelts, there were all kinds of other things, and they are all meant to be panaceas for the problem. I don't think there's any panacea to safe driving.
Funding of traffic enforcement to take the erratic drivers off our major highways should be encouraged. Funding of the local MTO testing centres will have to be increased to take care of the increased testing needed. There's an extremely long wait in St Catharines at present, let alone in the future. I say that from knowing other people who learned how to drive; they just have to wait too long to get their test. It may not be like that in Toronto, but it's like that here in St Catharines.
All testing, including motorcycle testing, should be available on a year-round basis. You may laugh at that motorcycle testing, but being a motorcycle driver, we do pay insurance and we do pay a licence fee for a whole year, but you can only get tested certain months of the year.
Also, I believe high school drivers' education classes should be funded and should continue.
That's it in a nutshell. As I said, I just wanted to bring forth some comments. I think graduated licensing is a good idea, but the main thing is I think the first phase is too long and I think some of these restrictions have to be rethought, especially outside the main urban areas. That's it.
Mr Turnbull: I'm rather curious about the second phase. You're saying that alcohol restrictions should be the same as for a fully licensed driver. Have you seen any of the statistics which indicate, first of all, the increased incidence of fatalities and serious accidents among the 16- to 24-year-old group?
Mr Michael Sullivan: I don't know of any difference between 0.05 and 0.08, no.
Mr Turnbull: I'm not talking about that. I'm just talking about the --
Mr Michael Sullivan: That's what I'm talking about. The only reason I mentioned that is it's fine to say you can have 0.05 now and in two years you can have another beer. You should have the same level.
Mr Turnbull: For the driver in phase 1 or phase 2, the tolerance will be zero.
Mr Michael Sullivan: I believe it should not be zero in the second phase. I think it should be the same as whatever a licensed driver is. This is my own opinion. If it's deemed safe to have a regular driver with 0.08, then I can't see the difference.
Mr Turnbull: The problem is, and the statistics are overwhelming, that the new experience of driving is in itself a rather dangerous phase that we go through until we have the acquired skills. When you mix that with alcohol, that's a very, very dangerous mixture. I just wondered if you'd seen those statistics at all.
Mr Michael Sullivan: Do you really think that if the kid has one beer, he's not going to drive?
Mr Turnbull: Well, I --
Mr Michael Sullivan: This is reality. This is what this law should be.
Mr Turnbull: Quite frankly, if we are exposing not just that kid but other kids, and in fact other road users, to increased danger -- and the statistics are overwhelming that we are -- we should take every measure we can to ensure that we protect those people. The statistics are overwhelming. That's why I was drawn to your comment.
The whole idea is not to be a punishment to the children. What we want to do is ease them into this situation. We're not saying you can't drink and we're not saying you can't drive, but you can't mix the two together during that two-year phase.
All of the people who have lost children because of alcohol-related driving accidents, I can tell you, agree with that position and have been pushing for that position. I'm just surprised. Look, I have to tell you, I've had an awful lot of debates with my own daughter, who just got licensed. I haven't just heard these arguments at this committee. I've had them for the last two years at home over the dinner table and I'm really surprised at your suggestion to allow children to drink as much -- not children, but new drivers to drink as much.
Mr Michael Sullivan: They're not children, they're adults. At 18 years old, you could be over in Africa defending a country right now. Let's get serious.
Mr Turnbull: But that has got nothing to do with your ability to handle new situations. It isn't just children, in fact, it's new drivers, and when you mix alcohol with it, you just don't have the skills. I'm not trying to get in an argument with you. I'm just wanting to stimulate some conversation about this.
Mr Michael Sullivan: I think an alcohol tolerance level for a driver is an alcohol tolerance level for a driver. I can't see having two or three different levels for other people to try to monitor. That's the point of it. I didn't say I agreed or disagreed with drinking and driving, because I don't do it myself, but you can't have two or three different levels for different types of drivers. How are you going to monitor that?
Mr Turnbull: If they're pulled over, they will blow and they will --
Mr Michael Sullivan: What's he going to do? He's not going to get pulled over. That's what's going to happen. He's going to be gone.
Mr Turnbull: That's what we're trying to say, and there's a deterrent factor. We've got to build in deterrents. Let the kids know -- and I'm saying kids, but let new drivers know -- that there will be no tolerance for this.
The objective is to make your children and my children and everybody else's and all drivers safer on the road. If we have to clip their wings a little bit, I think that's one of the -- it's a hard thing because I know any time that you start speaking about limiting somebody's perceived freedoms, there's always an argument that this is not fair. I'm only trying to draw out of you whether you've looked at the other side of the picture.
Mr Michael Sullivan: If it should be a lower level, it should be a lower level for all drivers. You've got to learn how to drive with what's available. That's the point, not whether it's right or wrong. I just can't see having two or three levels for drivers. A level is a level.
Mr Turnbull: The chief coroner of Ontario would not agree with you, based upon the presentation he made the other day.
Mr Michael Sullivan: Maybe.
Mr Turnbull: Thank you very much.
Ms Haeck: Thanks, Mike, for coming before us. It's nice to see a St Catharines resident presenting.
A couple of points courtesy of the ministry: I got a letter here from one of the staff that indicates, maybe in an answer to your question about new immigrants -- basically, it says that in cases where a licensed driver moves to Ontario from a jurisdiction where there is no licence exchange agreement in place, a driver with proof of at least two years' driving experience will be allowed to immediately take the advanced driving skills test of the graduated licensing system. If the candidate successfully passes this test, he or she will not have to go through the two levels of the graduated licensing system and will therefore not be subject to any of the conditions. So there are ways of expediting it for them.
I know your point about the 400 series here locally, and we've obviously heard, over the last few days that I've been with this committee, a range of concerns about restricting access to the 400 series. Basically, the ministry's point is that some of the speeds and the type of accidents that do happen, which tend more frequently to be fatal accidents, is the reason that suggestion is put forward. But I do agree that locally it's hard to get around without making better use of some of the other routes available.
1500
On your first point with regard to the first phase being too long, I'm going to ask you a question I asked another presenter. If you have a six-month period for that beginning phase, you could successfully get beyond it and move into your proposed second phase without really having encountered any winter driving, which with the slush and the changeable weather we tend to encounter down here, can lead to some pretty nasty skids. How would you respond to the weather condition question?
Mr Michael Sullivan: I would respond that just because you've got your beginner's licence or first phase for a year doesn't mean you're driving. You prepare for when you're going to take your test. If your test was in February, obviously you'd practise driving.
Ms Haeck: Would you think that really the issue would be much more not just the period of time you have that beginner's permit but, say, the number of hours you've actually acquired?
Mr Michael Sullivan: No, I think it's more that you should try to get the number of hours behind the wheel, and there's no way to regulate that at all. It's just that being a parent, it's awful hard to get the time to, "Okay, let's go for a drive," if there are restrictions on night-time, whatever, that you can't go on the 400, can't go on the QEW, can't go on the 406.
Ms Haeck: Another point I'd like to raise with you is the issue of the time restriction. I don't think it's necessarily just the fact that there may be more or less activity late at night, but particularly on weekends the hours between 12 am and 5 am are really very busy, especially with those people leaving a bar; also, you're talking about those people who are legitimately able to drink, between 19 and 25, which is one of those areas Mr Turnbull mentioned, where you have a new drinking population as well as a new driving population, and that's not always a safe situation. To my mind, that's really what the night restriction is trying to catch. Any comments about that?
Mr Michael Sullivan: Again, maybe it's misinformation. My daughter feels it's driving at night, period. Maybe it's the information that's out there. I realize we did have the one speech and it was between 12 and 5. If it's to keep the kids off the street after the bars are closed, that would do it.
Ms Haeck: That's basically it. It's 12 at night to 5 in the morning.
Mr Michael Sullivan: You can shoot a cannon off down St Paul Street, most of our streets.
Ms Haeck: No kidding; 6 o'clock actually works well sometimes.
Mr Michael Sullivan: I guess I can't relate, living in St Catharines. It's not Yonge Street downtown.
Ms Haeck: The other question you raised in my mind in your phase 2 is the blood alcohol level. I believe what is trying to be addressed here is that if in fact the accompanying driver is not in a position to adequately take over from the novice, then you run into the problem. You're in that situation that the person who is there as the accompanying driver should be in good enough shape to take over from the novice in a difficult situation. Any comments?
Mr Michael Sullivan: As I said, whichever level is safer driving, that would suffice. That person could be driving with a blood alcohol level of something, as the law stands right now. Notwithstanding anybody's feeling, there is a judged level.
Ms Haeck: Would you agree that you want to make sure you set out conditions so that everybody realizes that's not acceptable; that you want to make sure people realize they have the responsibility of being the designated driver if they accompany; that it's not just that they're there to shoot the breeze with whomever they're driving with but are responsible for that novice as well as making sure that everybody gets home safely; that they basically become the designated driver and that they have that obligation?
Mr Michael Sullivan: If it was a group of teenagers out, I would say that maybe the accompanying driver may not be aware of that. If it was myself out with my daughter or son, I would be aware of it because I'd be with them. Somebody just hopping behind the wheel of a car may not know whether the person next to them has had any alcohol, number one; also, the person who's accompanying may not have made it aware to the driver that they are their accompanier. I don't know how I can say that any clearer.
If you get six kids out and one's not drinking and he's got the beginner's licence for the first phase, and he hops behind the wheel and there's another licensed driver beside him, I don't know who's responsible, whether it's that one or the other four. Right now it's the one beside you in the front seat of the car. That's the one designated right now.
Mr Daigeler: Thank you for bringing the St Catharines perspective to the committee. I should say, though, that the way I understand the rationale from the ministry, and I find it quite convincing, is that the restriction for the curfew and even for the 400 series is not so much related to the safety of the roads -- obviously, there's no argument that there are fewer cars on the road between midnight and the morning -- but to the proven behaviour of novice drivers and in particular the younger people.
There seems to be something after midnight where kids in particular are prepared to take more risks. In fact, this morning we had the police officer here who was referring to a terrible accident in Burlington, where the accident happened way away from traffic and it was strictly related to unacceptable risk-taking by the individual.
Really, I think that's why they want to put in the curfew, because kids are seemingly willing to take more risks between 12 and 5; and also on the 400, because with any risk you take there, where the speed is much higher, the margin of error is so much reduced. That's their reasoning, why they're saying we have to reduce it on the 401 even though it's recognized that there are fewer accidents. Their argument is that if there are accidents, usually they're very serious accidents. I was just wondering whether you'd want to comment on that.
Mr Michael Sullivan: I'm not up on statistics, but what are the statistics of how many accidents young people have on the major highways? I'm not talking about the side roads, the kids who drive into a tree or whatever.
Mr Daigeler: Apparently there too the younger drivers are involved. There are fewer accidents, but there too the younger drivers are overrepresented, especially -- and this is the biggest problem -- in severe accidents with fatalities and serious injuries.
There's another point I was going to ask you. You mentioned your daughter who is going on 16, and the fact there won't be any driver training through the schools, that you regretted that. In fact, you are right. This is because of funding cuts by the ministry, so this isn't just in this area but in the whole province. My question is, would your daughter nevertheless take driving school?
Mr Michael Sullivan: Oh, yes.
Mr Daigeler: She will. You seemed to indicate that perhaps she wouldn't now because it's not available through the schools.
Mr Michael Sullivan: I would get her to take drivers' ed. I took drivers' ed myself. I wouldn't attempt it and give somebody my bad habits.
Mr Daigeler: I'm glad to hear that, because this was a major point that was made by many presenters.
Mr Michael Sullivan: It's still 500 bucks on top of everything else, though; it adds up. I think it's about $500 to $600 for the Young Drivers course.
Mr Conway: Mr Sullivan, a 48-year-old male from St Catharines; I only know one other in that category. His name is Bradley, and you're a lot more sensible than he is.
Mr Daigeler: That's a partisan shot.
Ms Haeck: No comment.
Mr Conway: We should have Bradley here talking about driving, too, shouldn't we?
1510
I want to argue with you. I think you make a lot of very good points here from a parental and a practical point of view. I think your caution to the committee is extremely timely on those accounts. I'm glad Christel clarified that point about the night curfew, because that curfew is only from midnight till 5 and that certainly, to me, does not seem unreasonable.
I want to fight you a little bit, though, on this differential argument about 0.05 and 0.08. Surely everyone who's looked at this will tell you that there is an incredibly dangerous chemistry when you get young people and alcohol and cars and that it has been that way since the internal combustion engine was developed, however many years ago. That is a very real problem. The coroner and everybody else who's come to this committee have given us chapter and verse of that problem and I think it is accepted by everyone.
The argument that the government is trying to advance, and I think reasonably -- in fact, I would probably want to be tougher -- about the accompanying driver having a blood alcohol level of 0.05 is not so much that there be a differential on health grounds and whatever, but surely that the parent, the older person, has an obligation by example to show these kids that when you drive, you shouldn't drink, that it's that mentoring and that example we really want to reinforce. Don't you think that's a reasonably good argument?
Mr Michael Sullivan: I don't know how old you are, but for our generation alcohol was a release, but today it's not; drugs are the release. There's no pressure on my kids to drink at high school; the pressure is to do drugs. I think that is unsaid in a lot of legislation. I don't see me having to talk to my kids about not drinking, but you see me talking to them about drugs. The realistic pressure on my kids is not at all to have a beer or two beers and drive; it's the reverse.
Mr Conway: I accept that, but when I look at the coroner's data and the doctor from the institute, Dr Herbert Simpson, one of these path-finding researchers in this area, both of those distinguished researchers and medical practitioners have come to us and said, "Listen, when we look at the serious injury and fatalities situation, it's not drugs that are showing up as the principal villain; it's booze." That's certainly true in my part of the world, which is rural eastern Ontario.
When I look at some of those data, I would be prepared to consider something like this: to say that the blood alcohol level should be like 0.01 for anybody between the ages of 16 and 23, in light of the fact that there seems to be incontrovertible evidence that young people, cars and booze are an incredibly dangerous mix.
Mike Sullivan at 48? No. Something happens along the way. You get married, you have kids, you get a job and you just become more careful, more conscious of risk management, as the previous witness was saying. But when you look at the data about young people between the ages of 16 and 25, boy, not forgetting your own anecdotal experience, you just say booze is a problem, night driving is also a problem and the combination is particularly deadly.
I guess I simply come back to the original point that I can't challenge your argument on medical grounds, although maybe I could, but it's the mentoring, it's the example. We're trying to tell young people that you shouldn't drink and drive. A lot of people have come to the committee and said, "Why would you not try, then, to have a blood alcohol standard at 0.05?" Some people have said 0.000, which I think is probably unachievable.
Mr Michael Sullivan: As I said, I think a perceived tolerable limit which is legislated should be the same. I can't see having different levels. If it should be lower, it should be lower for everybody. It's up to the powers that be to legislate that. But to have two or three different levels I think is sending wrong signals.
The Chair: Mr Sullivan, on behalf of the entire committee, we'd like to thank you for taking the time to be here this afternoon. We trust that you'll stay in touch with the committee as we go through the process of graduated licensing in the province of Ontario. Your input has been valuable and is important to the committee. We thank you for coming today and sharing it with us.
Ms Haeck: Just quickly, in just a quick coffee conversation at the back, one of the ministry staff was indicating that maybe there's a point of clarification that he can give Mr Sullivan with regard to at least the blood alcohol level.
The Chair: We are in the process of going to do that.
Ms Haeck: Oh, okay, just jumping right in there.
The Chair: We fell behind another 10 seconds.
Mr Levine, on a point of clarification for Mr Turnbull and perhaps another one for Mr Sullivan and Ms Haeck.
Mr Levine: With respect to the differential in the levels, the level that we have proposed for the accompanying driver is in fact the level that is in legislation today in the province of Ontario for fully licensed drivers: 0.08 is the federal limitation for a drinking-driving conviction. In Ontario, we also have a limit of 0.05, which is the point at which a police officer can suspend a driver's licence at the roadside for 12 hours.
That is why we could have chosen either of those. But given the fact that we were trying to impose a condition that would allow the accompanying driver to take over care and control of the vehicle, we came to the conclusion that we couldn't put it any higher than 0.05 because that's the level at which a police officer could remove that person from the road. So in fact we have attempted to maintain the level there but still wanted to introduce the zero tolerance for the novice driver and perhaps start that as the thin edge of the wedge to get a full zero tolerance for drinking and driving.
Hopefully, it will infiltrate the entire system and in the future perhaps we can impose a zero tolerance for all drivers.
Mr Conway: Let's just forget everything about the new proposal. Just take the proposal off the table entirely and just look at the current situation. I'm out with young Hans Daigeler and he's learning how to drive and I'm the accompanying driver under the existing arrangement --
Mr Daigeler: Wish I were.
Mr Conway: -- because you've got that period of your 365 or whatever. If I am at 0.06, you can then --
Mr Levine: You are now the accompanying --
Mr Conway: That's right; I'm the accompanying driver.
Mr Levine: Okay, the police -- there is no recourse against you.
Mr Conway: Right. So in this new model, we are imposing a new sanction on the accompanying driver.
Mr Levine: We are imposing -- the condition is actually being imposed on the novice driver to ensure that he or she is accompanied by someone who has a limit of no more than 0.05.
Mr Daigeler: I have to pay for him again.
Mr Conway: No, but it's --
Mr Turnbull: Is there any penalty on the accompanying driver if he or she is over?
Mr Levine: We have not introduced any penalty for the accompanying driver, and there is a due diligence defence in place for the novice driver.
Mr Conway: I just want to be clear then. In the existing arrangement, where you have to have an accompanying driver, and you do while you've got that 365, as long as that accompanying driver has a valid driver's licence and isn't going to blow 0.08, there's no problem, right?
Mr Levine: There's nothing to say that he has to blow --
Mr Conway: No, no, he doesn't have to; he's the accompanying -- right.
Mr Levine: You may recall the testing device for an accompanying driver today is a mirror.
Mr Conway: Yes, that's right, sorry. I'm forgetting that you're not driving; you're the accompanying driver. Good.
Mr Turnbull: There's no penalty for the accompanying driver so long as he or she is below 0.08.
Mr Levine: There is no penalty for the accompanying driver.
Mr Turnbull: There's no penalty, in actual fact, as the legislation is written, for the driver if he or she has somebody who blows over 0.05.
Mr Levine: Yes. That would be a violation of the condition of holding the licence for the novice driver.
Mr Turnbull: What is the penalty?
Mr Levine: A 30-day suspension. As I mentioned, there is a due diligence defence and that is to encourage the novice driver to take whatever measures are necessary to ascertain that the accompanying driver is in fact qualified. Ask the questions: "Have you been licensed for four years? Do you have the four years of experience that I require of an accompanying driver? Have you been drinking? I need you to be sober if you're going to be an accompanying driver."
Ms Haeck: So it's not an issue of getting in a car with a stranger as accompanying driver. You have to go through a lot of --
Mr Levine: You have to ask the questions and hope that the person comes up with the right answers. As I said, the due diligence defence allows the driver in court to say, "Well, I asked him and he told me, and if he lied to me -- I took whatever measures I possibly could."
Mr Conway: Under that new system, that is under the new level 1 that's proposed in the government submission, if I'm the novice driver and I have an accompanying driver who is in violation of some of the conditions, then the sanctions presumably will attach to the novice driver.
Mr Levine: That's correct, because we have not tried to build the system to the accompaniment, which isn't really a driving function.
Mr Conway: So if I take out somebody who's just completely hammered as my accompanying driver, then I'm going to --
The Chair: Bingo.
Mr Paul Klopp (Huron): I think I've got it straight. I guess the myths out there in Huron county -- I almost hate to go back to my colleagues; I might win some bets. We were always under the assumption, us characters, that the driver beside you had to be reasonably sober, but that's not the case under the law. A police officer could pull me over and I can't even walk, but that's okay.
Mr Levine: As I say, as long as he can fog up a mirror.
Mr Klopp: You don't know some of my friends. I don't know if they could do that sometimes. We never did that because we were always under the assumption that was the --
Mr Daigeler: That's why you shouldn't go to these meetings.
The Chair: Mr Levine, there was an earlier point of clarification that Mr Turnbull had raised as well.
Mr Turnbull: It was raised by Sue MacNeil, the fact that she was involved in looking at a set of tests for crash susceptibility or dangerous driving susceptibility. She said nobody from the Ontario government was involved in that. Are you aware of this issue?
Mr Levine: I'm hopeful there will be someone present to address the committee tomorrow to advance the criteria they have established on the advanced level test that's being developed now as the exit test from level 2. I believe it was Mr Sharpe from the Ontario Safety League who gave some indication of what was happening with the development of that test and the search virtually throughout the world for the levels of tests that do now exist, and what we could adapt to the Ontario situation based on what's out there today.
Mr Turnbull: But did I understand correctly that there was no contribution being made by the Ontario government towards this worldwide study for this test?
Mr Levine: I am not aware of --
Mr Turnbull: An assessment. When I use the word "test," I'm talking about an assessment of crash susceptibility and dangerous driving susceptibility.
Mr Levine: I'm not aware of that study at all myself, but I'm not the expert in that area either.
Mr Turnbull: Perhaps we could just maybe ask the parliamentary assistant to see if we could possibly get some dialogue going between your ministry and Sue MacNeil to investigate whether the government should have some participation in that.
The Chair: I think you just did.
Mr Dadamo: Noted.
Mr Conway: If you need a good go-between, I think Mr Turnbull will volunteer.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Levine. I'd like to thank the community of St Catharines for its hospitality while we've been here today. I'd also like to take the opportunity to thank all the witnesses who've appeared before the committee from St Catharines and surrounding area.
The committee will now stand adjourned until 10 tomorrow morning in Toronto.
The committee adjourned at 1525.