STATEMENT BY THE MINISTER AND RESPONSES
CANADIANS FOR RESPONSIBLE AND SAFE HIGHWAYS
CONTENTS
Tuesday 17 June 1997
Comprehensive Road Safety Act, 1997, Bill 138, Mr Palladini /
Loi de 1997 sur un ensemble complet de mesures visant la sécurité routière, projet de loi 138, M. Palladini
Statement by the minister and responses
Hon Al Palladini, Minister of Transportation
Mr Dwight Duncan
Mr Gilles Bisson
Canadians For Responsible and Safe Highways
Mr Bob Evans
CC Canada
Mr Michael Breaugh
Mr David Horan
Mothers Against Drunk Driving
Mr John Bates
Liberty Linehaul Inc
Mr Brian Taylor
Ontario Medical Association
Dr John Gray
Dr Ted Boadway
STANDING COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT
Chair / Présidente: Ms Annamarie Castrilli (Downsview L)
Vice-Chair / Vice-Président: Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-Walkerville L)
Mrs Marion Boyd (London Centre / -Centre ND)
Mr Jack Carroll (Chatham-Kent PC)
Ms Annamarie Castrilli (Downsview L)
Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-Walkerville L)
Mr Tim Hudak (Niagara South / -Sud PC)
Mr Frank Klees (York-Mackenzie PC)
Mr Gary L. Leadston (Kitchener-Wilmot PC)
Mrs Lyn McLeod (Fort William L)
Mrs Julia Munro (Durham-York PC)
Mr Dan Newman (Scarborough Centre PC)
Mr John L. Parker (York East / -Est PC)
Mr Richard Patten (Ottawa Centre / -Centre L)
Mr Bruce Smith (Middlesex PC)
Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma ND)
Substitutions present /Membres remplaçants présents:
Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South / -Sud ND)
Mr John Hastings (Etobicoke-Rexdale PC)
Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South / -Sud PC)
Mr Jerry J. Ouellette (Oshawa PC)
Clerk / Greffière: Ms Tonia Grannum
Staff / Personnel: Mr Jerry Richmond, research officer, Legislative Research Service
The committee met at 1530 in room 151.
COMPREHENSIVE ROAD SAFETY ACT, 1997 / LOI DE 1997 SUR UN ENSEMBLE COMPLET DE MESURES VISANT LA SÉCURITÉ ROUTIÈRE
Consideration of Bill 138, An Act to promote road safety by increasing periods of suspension for Criminal Code convictions, impounding vehicles of suspended drivers, requiring treatment for impaired drivers, raising fines for driving while suspended, impounding critically defective commercial vehicles, creating an absolute liability offence for wheel separations, raising fines for passing stopped school buses, streamlining accident reporting requirements and amending other road safety programs / Projet de loi 138, Loi visant à favoriser la sécurité routière en augmentant les périodes de suspension pour les déclarations de culpabilité découlant du Code criminel, en mettant en fourrière les véhicules de conducteurs faisant l'objet d'une suspension, en exigeant le traitement des conducteurs en état d'ébriété, en augmentant les amendes pour conduite pendant que son permis est suspendu, en mettant en fourrière les véhicules utilitaires comportant des défauts critiques, en créant une infraction entraînant la responsabilité absolue en cas de détachement des roues, en augmentant les amendes pour dépassement d'un autobus scolaire arrêté, en simplifiant les exigences relatives à la déclaration des accidents et en modifiant d'autres programmes de sécurité routière.
STATEMENT BY THE MINISTER AND RESPONSES
The Chair (Ms Annamarie Castrilli): Welcome, all, to the second day of our hearings on the highway safety act. We begin this afternoon with the minister. Mr Palladini, you have 15 minutes to make your presentation.
Hon Al Palladini (Minister of Transportation): Thank you, Madam Chair. I notice you said earlier "3:33," but I'd just like to say that I was here at 3:30, I thought.
Good afternoon. I'm pleased to address the committee today on the status of road safety in Ontario. About two weeks ago I introduced a bill in the House to target some of the worst offenders on our roads: drinking drivers, suspended drivers, unsafe trucks and drivers who illegally pass school buses.
Many of these measures came from our road safety plan, which was introduced in late 1995 to target unsafe drivers. As our record shows, this government's commitment to road safety is evidenced by having introduced three bills within one year. A snapshot of our progress to date will be delivered momentarily.
Let me begin by addressing the problem of drinking drivers. The good news is that the total number of people killed in drinking and driving crashes has been declining. Back in 1988, 439 people killed on our roads were the result of drinking and driving crashes. By 1995 this had dropped to 317 people. From 1981 to 1990 there was a marked decline in the number of drinking drivers who had been killed, but since 1990 the gains made in the 1980s have levelled off. One person killed by a drinking driver is one person too many.
Drinking drivers are still responsible for one third of the fatalities on our roads. All too often they take innocent victims with them, victims that include passengers, pedestrians and other drivers. These victims can be young children, teens, grandparents, male or female. Their life ended all because they had the misfortune of sharing the road with an impaired driver. It's a shocking fact, but most of the drinking drivers killed in crashes had blood alcohol levels almost double the legal limit. These people could barely walk, let alone drive.
On one hand, researchers are finding that the number of first-time drinking and driving offenders is actually declining. That's thanks to the efforts of community groups, activists and the work of governments over the past 15 years. On the other hand, the percentage of repeat drinking and driving offences has increased to 69% in 1995 from 53% in 1988. I'm sure everyone in this room agrees drinking drivers are a problem.
Here's how we're tackling that problem:
Last December we introduced the administrative driver's licence suspension program. After almost seven months of operation, 11,000 people have lost their driver's licence for 90 days. This program is immediate and, best of all, it works. ADLS takes high-risk drivers off the road immediately, improving everyone's safety.
With this legislation, one of our goals is to get the first-time offenders in such a way that they don't make the same mistake twice. We will be doing this by introducing mandatory education programs. Repeat offenders will have to take the mandatory education or a treatment program, depending on the results of an assessment. If they don't, they won't get their driver's licence back. The programs will be paid for by the offender, not the taxpayer. If the offender can't pay for the program, they will not get their licence back until they do, period. If they can't afford the $300 to $500 charges for the program, then they won't be able to pay their insurance premiums, which typically jump to a minimum of $5,000 yearly.
Let me be clear that we are not forcing people to seek treatment. If they choose not to take the treatment, then we'll elect not to give them back their driver's licence.
Ontario would be the ninth province to introduce a remedial measures program. Other jurisdictions with similar programs have reported a 7% to 9% decrease in alcohol-related crashes and repeat offences. They tell us these programs work. This new legislation was introduced to make sure drivers get their problem under control before getting back on the road.
This brings me to the repeat offender. This bill would bring in longer suspension periods for drinking drivers. First-time offenders would still be suspended for one year, but second-time offenders would now be suspended for three years instead of two. A third-time offender would be suspended for life.
The only way to get the suspension period reduced to 10 years is if the offender meets two conditions. The first is by attending and successfully completing a treatment program. The second is by having ignition interlock installed in their vehicle. The driver has to blow into a type of breathalyser that is attached to the ignition before the vehicle can be started. If the person blows over the limit, the car won't start. Other family members can use the vehicle, but they too will have to provide a breath sample.
Drivers who choose to drive when they have had their licence suspended for a Criminal Code offence had better be prepared to pay the price. If caught, they will be faced with new fines that start at $5,000 and go to $50,000. The best that a repeat offender can hope for in the way of a fine is a $10,000 minimum.
And we're not going to stop here. People who lend or rent their vehicle will have to be more cautious and selective about who is allowed to drive their car. With this legislation, a vehicle that is being driven by a driver suspended for a Criminal Code conviction would be impounded for 45 days. If that same vehicle is driven by a suspended driver a second time, the impoundment period goes to 90 days. If it happens a third time, the vehicle will be impounded for 180 days.
Limited grounds of appeal will be available to the owners of impounded vehicles, grounds that include that the car was stolen; that the driver was not suspended; that the owner exercised due diligence when loaning the car -- and by that I mean they made the effort to ensure the driver had a valid driver's licence; and that the impoundment of the vehicle would cause exceptional hardship. This would apply to first-time offenders only. This legislation stresses that owners must be responsible for their vehicles and must lend their vehicles to licensed drivers only. It will be up to the owner to pay for all the towing and storage costs, and they can seek reimbursement for costs from the driver.
This is the toughest drinking-driving package in Canada. I am confident that with these measures there will be a decrease in all drinking-driving offences in Ontario.
Another area of concern is unsafe trucks. One life lost because a trucking company didn't take the time to maintain its vehicles is one life too many. A couple of weeks ago, our enforcement staff took part in a North America-wide road check. During this inspection blitz, enforcement officers randomly inspected trucks and buses for major safety defects such as faulty brakes or cracked wheel rims. At the end of the three-day blitz, 33% of the trucks inspected were taken off the road. This is a decrease from last year's 39%. Yes, this is an improvement, but I want you to stop and think about this: Every third truck you pass on the road is mechanically unfit. I think you will agree when I state the obvious: More work still needs to be done. I won't be satisfied until the compliance rate is 100%.
Last year we increased maximum truck fines by 10 times to $20,000, the highest in Canada. We again started enforcing axle weights on dump trucks. We introduced mandatory training and certification for wheel installers and drivers who adjust their own brakes. All that, and still about one third of the trucks inspected are unfit.
Under this new legislation, a commercial vehicle that is found operating with a major safety defect would be immediately impounded for 15 days and fined up to $20,000. Michigan, Quebec, New York, Ontario -- it doesn't matter where this truck is from. This legislation would apply equally to all, regardless of where their home base is.
This 15-day vehicle impoundment would hurt where it hurts most, and that's the pocketbook. Depending on the type of operation, the economic loss could range anywhere from 3% to 8% of the annual revenue generated by that vehicle. Think about that. Wouldn't that money be better spent on regular maintenance programs and checkups? When we implement this program, Ontario will stand alone as the only jurisdiction in North America to impound unsafe commercial vehicles.
1540
Let me give you a few examples of what I mean by "critical defect." If the air brakes have a missing or broken brake part, that's a critical defect. If four or more of the tires on a vehicle are flat or leaking, that's a critical defect. If the vehicle has two or more wheels with missing wheel fasteners, that's a critical defect. Just one of these is cause enough to impound the vehicle.
Many of you are probably wondering what happens with the load if a vehicle is impounded. One of our inspection officers will determine if in fact the vehicle has a critical defect. This will be verified by a second inspector. A towing company would be called to remove the vehicle. So would the company owner or operator of the truck. They are the ones who would be best held responsible for the safe transfer of the load.
Right now, if a truck breaks down on a highway, the owner would be called to come and get the vehicle and the load it was carrying. We already have the procedures in place to handle this. The owner of the impounded vehicle can appeal on the basis of mistaken identity, that the vehicle had been stolen or that the enforcement officer made an error, which isn't likely to happen since two officers must back up that decision. No one can appeal the defect criteria.
This legislation returns the wheel safety act and would make wheel separation an absolute liability offence that carries a fine ranging from a minimum of $2,000 to a maximum of $50,000. This means that if a wheel comes off a truck, that's all an enforcement officer needs to secure a conviction against a commercial vehicle operator, owner and/or truck or bus company.
Some critics have suggested that absolute liability is unfair. They argue that the wheels may be poorly installed or possibly came with defective parts. Well, here's my response to that: Our enforcement officers tell me that regular maintenance and pre-trip inspection would in most cases tell someone if a wheel is at risk of coming off. It's called early detection. If a wheel comes off and it's because of a manufacturer's defect, the carrier does have a recourse, and that's to take it up with the manufacturer. The public has little patience for finger-pointing among owners, operators and manufacturers. The buck has to stop somewhere. We think it has to stop at the people who have an economic interest in putting that truck on the road. If they are safe operators, they have nothing to fear in this legislation.
Many of you are aware that the number of reported wheel separations has increased dramatically in the past six months. In 1996 there were 40 wheel separations reported. Already, 152 wheel separations have been reported calendar year to date 1997, and we're not even halfway through the year. Admittedly, I agree that awareness has increased and more people are reporting wheel separation. None the less, 152 wheels have come off this year alone, and let's not forget that four people have been killed by flying truck wheels.
Last, but certainly not least, school buses carry about 800,000 children a day to and from schools. In the past five years the number of school bus collisions has remained between 1,000 and 1,400 per year. About 1% of children injured by motor vehicles are injured in school bus collisions. One child lost because a driver didn't stop for a school bus is one life too many.
In 1995, 776 drivers were convicted of failing to stop for a school bus. That's why we consider passing a stopped school bus one of the most serious offences under the Highway Traffic Act. If convicted, a driver gets six demerit points. The only offence that carries more demerit points is failing to remain at the scene of an accident. In some cases, the offender can be jailed for up to six months. With this proposed legislation, fines for a first-time offence would double, from a minimum $400 to a $2,000 maximum. Second-time offenders would also face double fines ranging from $1,000 to a maximum of $4,000.
The province stands firmly behind its current position that the driver of the vehicle, not the owner of the vehicle, must be held accountable for their actions behind the wheel. Our laws about school bus safety are very clear. When a school bus is stopped and its lights are flashing and its stop arms are out, traffic must stop. Drivers who don't obey this law face harsh penalties.
I believe one of the most effective ways to reach drivers is through public awareness programs. Ministry staff continually work with community-based programs, parents, schools, school bus operators and children to make them aware of this rule.
In closing, let me thank you for your time, for your continuing support and for your interest in road safety. Each of us has a role delivering the road safety message. With your input and support we can and will pass this much-needed legislation.
The Chair: Thank you, Minister. For the official opposition, Mr Dwight Duncan.
Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-Walkerville): Thank you, Minister, for attending today. We're glad to have you here finally. The first bill on truck safety was on February 24. We were told repeatedly that you were going to bring it in and then you withdrew the bill and brought this back. I'd like to take an opportunity to address the three components of the bill in as succinct a fashion as I can.
First of all, on the drunk driving component we fully support the measures you've taken. As a former administrator of Canada's largest alcohol and drug recovery program, I'd like to share with you that the repeat offenders are really the trouble, they're really the tough spot. You've pointed that out in your presentation. Drivers who get back behind the wheel who have suspended licences are a real problem too.
You'll find if you speak to court officers, if you speak to lawyers, if you speak to people in the drug and alcohol rehabilitation business, that they are the toughest nuts to crack, and as you pointed out correctly in your presentation, they really do pose a great problem to safe roads. In fact, I had people through our program, and one fellow was responsible for the death of a young child and did 90 days in jail as a result of it. This goes back some years. We welcome these measures but remind you, as you've pointed out, that the most difficult cases, the most troublesome ones are those licensed drivers with suspended licences.
On the truck safety legislation, we have spoken and debated at some length the question of absolute liability. You and I have talked about it in the House and I appreciate the dilemma you find yourself in with respect to it. We had asked in the House if you would show us your legal opinions in confidence. You haven't done that yet. I think we're all interested in making sure we have a law that stands up to a court challenge. We've all seen different legal opinions and ultimately it will have to be tested.
Yesterday we were shown these brake wedges which are concealed. You can't see them on a visual inspection. They are behind the wheel. A visual inspection won't work. This particular one has a very small crack in it. This one has a very large crack in it. This came off a wheel that had eight of these things and five of them were damaged in this fashion. The legal opinions I've seen call into question whether or not you could make the absolute liability provisions stick on that type of an offence. We think it's important this issue be thoroughly understood and dealt with.
In terms of Target '97, you've dealt really with one recommendation that was contained in Target '97 and we fully support that one recommendation, but we intend to continue to pursue the issue of the regulatory changes that we both know and everybody who's watched this issue knows have to happen.
I will be putting an amendment to the bill that calls upon the government to appoint a public committee that can review implementation of the Target '97 recommendations. I hope the government will support that. There's been some concern that there's not enough dialogue about the implementation, that the difficulties you as minister have in implementing these regulations are not well enough understood.
I personally believe that type of amendment to your bill will assist you and I hope the government will accept that amendment so we can review from time to time in the spirit of cooperation, the spirit we have here today -- I believe, and I may be wrong, this is the first government bill that the opposition has actually offered its support on. I would hope, in the spirit of cooperation, that you would accept that amendment as being friendly and as being something that's conducive to safer roads.
1550
The other issue in truck safety we're going to be talking about with you -- we've asked your parliamentary assistant to provide us with the correspondence that's gone on between you and the Minister of Education -- is with respect to the class A driver's licence and what someone has to do to get a driver's licence.
I frankly was surprised to find out that to get a class A driver's licence, you could show up at the testing centre with a Dodge Neon towing a trailer. My understanding is a number of organizations have brought this issue to your attention, as well as the Minister of Education's attention, and that this question hasn't been fully addressed.
We will be bringing amendments to this bill that deal with the PVSA, the Private Vocational Schools Act, which is a statute that admittedly is the purview of the Minister of Education, but we think there's a need to clarify who has carriage of this, where appropriately licensing rests and what standards should be in place for one to get a class A driver's licence.
I want to take the remainder of my time to very briefly address the school bus safety bill. We will support this particular bill, although it doesn't go as far as Pat Hoy's private member's bill. Pat's bill deals with the liability question as well. We're glad you're finally bringing this in. Mr Hoy's bill was adopted last November, as I recall, and aside from the liability question, which we intend to bring amendments forward on, we can support that aspect of the bill.
We will be bringing forward a series of amendments to address those issues, and in the spirit of cooperation that we've brought to the table on this particular issue, we look forward to the government sharing that same cooperation and perhaps accepting one or two of those amendments.
The Chair: For the third party, Mr Bisson.
Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): Thank you, Minister, for appearing before our committee and giving some details on this very important bill, Bill 138.
I want to say as an opposition member to those people who are watching, especially to some of the members on the government side, that often the opposition is accused of only opposing what government has proposed. I think Bill 138 shows that in fact members of this Legislature on all sides take legislation quite seriously, and in this particular case it's one of the rare times when we actually see all the parties, both on the opposition side of the House and the government side of the House, saying this is good legislation.
This is legislation that needs all-party support and legislation that needs to be expedited, to do what? To provide for safer highways for the people of Ontario. That's really what the bottom line is here. If we saw more days like this in our Legislature, I would probably argue that people would have more confidence in the Legislature and politicians and government generally. Unfortunately, that is not always the case because there are some very real issues that come up in the Legislature where we have very big differences of opinion; hopefully one day we'll move to a different political system that is able to address that.
I want to speak specifically to Bill 138. We in the New Democratic Party support much of what's in this bill, if not 99% of it. We think the moves on licence suspension and remedial measures when it comes to convicted drunk drivers is not only a step in the right direction, it's long overdue. It's something we had certainly talked about when we were in government. Given the number of legislative days, we didn't get a chance to move on it. You did. We congratulate you. We think that's a step in the right direction.
The roadside impoundment in so far as trucks that have defects are concerned we think is a step in the right direction. However, it's not the only thing we need to do around truck safety. It is but one component, but definitely is a step in the right direction.
The increased fine for suspended drivers who drive: We can certainly understand what that's all about. People need to take driving seriously. Driving is not a right, it's a privilege. If we don't take that type of attitude from the perspective of the Ministry of Transportation and from the public, I think we'll see further abuse. That's one message we've really got to send to people, that when it comes to the privileges of driving, they're exactly that: They're a privilege that we give and they're not a right and people need to treat them that way.
The school bus safety initiative, as was mentioned by the Liberal opposition critic, we think is a step in the right direction. It doesn't go as far as Pat Hoy's bill, but I think it's a step in the right direction and better this than nothing at all. Actually it's quite a big step, so we congratulate you for bringing that forward.
On the wheel separation offence, we generally support Bill 125. The only thing is, and I want to come back to a point that was made yesterday, there is the whole issue of those trucking operators who do operate due diligence.
For example, we heard yesterday, as was pointed out earlier, that somebody goes out to use the proper parts, they use the proper mechanical procedures to make the truck safe, but for whatever reason unknown to the owner-operator or the company, you have defective parts. That raises an interesting question.
We understand what the ministry is trying to do here. We understand you're trying to be tough when it comes to flying truck wheels, but we can't be throwing the baby out with the bathwater here. We need to try to see that we don't penalize people who are actually trying to do their jobs, doing everything in their power to make their truck safe. We need to find some way to recognize that.
I understand it's a tough call on the part of the minister, and I certainly understand the situation you're in. You want to be seen as doing something and we congratulate you for that. But I think in the amendments we need to take a look at the issue of how we take account of due diligence.
The only other thing I would say in closing is that the ministry undertook, I think without any doubt, a very useful and very productive process of consultation with the industry called Target '97. It wasn't as broad based and it didn't have the kind of public support or public participation that I would have liked. None the less it was good work and Target '97 brought forward, I think, some of the more progressive and some of the best approaches we can take when it comes to making our highways safer for the motoring public when it comes to trucks. It really looks at it from a comprehensive point of view.
The only thing I would ask the minister, and I really want to stress this, is that I see you coming forward with Bill 138. You and I have been around this Legislature long enough to know that as Minister of Transportation you're only going to get so many kicks at the can in being able to put legislation before the House. I'm afraid that once Bill 138 is passed, the House leader probably won't give you much more air time when it comes to the House for truck safety legislation unless something catastrophic were to happen on our highways. I would have much rather seen you come back with what you had asked for and told us you were going to do, which was a comprehensive truck safety package when it comes to legislation.
I understand that a lot of what happens in Target '97 can be dealt with by way of regulation. I only say to the minister this: Move on the regulation, but it has to be in a publicly accountable way. Part of the fear I have is that I understand how governments work from both sides. I've been in government and I've been out of government. When you leave it to just the hands of the cabinet, stakeholders in the industry and the public and we the legislators often don't have prior knowledge of what the cabinet's going to decide to do or not to do when it comes to the Target '97 recommendations.
I urge you to undertake some sort of process that involves the stakeholders in the transportation industry to make sure that when you move on the regulatory parts of Target '97, it's done in a way that's accountable to the industry and to the public and to this Legislature.
The other point I would make is that there's probably a third of what's within Target '97 that needs legislation. I'm a little bit disappointed that you didn't get the time and you didn't get the support from your House leader to be able to bring back a larger package dealing with some of those other issues that need to be addressed by way of legislation to make our highways safer.
I don't succumb to the school that bigger fines will fix the problem. I think bigger fines are part of it, but really what we need to do is change the attitudes in the trucking industry, get people thinking about transportation, about trucks not as big cars but as transportation vehicles, and everybody within the industry taking the responsibility. That's shippers, that's carriers, that's the government and that's everybody involved in the trucking industry.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Minister, on behalf of the committee for appearing before us, together with members of your staff. Thank you as well to the opposition critics for their intervention.
Mr Bisson: I have a question of the parliamentary assistant. Can the parliamentary assistant provide the committee, and I'd like to get it fairly quickly because I need them for the work I'm doing, with which parts of the Target '97 recommendations can be dealt with by way of regulation and which ones need legislation to move forward on? There are 79 recommendations in Target '97. I want to know specifically which of those 79 need legislation in order to move forward on it.
Mr John Hastings (Etobicoke-Rexdale): I'll be able to produce that for you by the end of the week.
Mr Bisson: The quicker, the better.
I have one other question. It is the result of a question from my constituency, actually just last night, over this issue, and that's the question of motor vehicles passing buses with flashing lights. The question I was asked was, does this apply to a snow machine? Apparently there have been some cases in northern Ontario where snow machines in some municipalities are allowed to travel on municipal roads and have gone by school buses with flashing lights. I expect that the answer is yes, that the laws of the road apply to snow machines, but can you please confirm that as well?
The Chair: The questions are noted.
Mr Hastings: Well noted. Thank you.
The Chair: Could we move to the Canadians for Responsible and Safe Highways, Bob Evans.
Hon Mr Palladini: Madam Chair, I'd just like to make some very brief closing remarks. I want to thank my colleague Mrs Marland for her dedication towards getting us to this point in regard to this bill. Her efforts have certainly helped us get this far. Again I want to thank the opposition, and rightfully so, for backing this very important bill. Thank you very much.
Mr Bisson: He didn't say that tongue in cheek.
1600
CANADIANS FOR RESPONSIBLE AND SAFE HIGHWAYS
The Chair: Bob Evans. Welcome. We're pleased to have you with us today. You have 20 minutes for your presentation. If there is any time remaining, the committee will ask you some questions.
Mr Bob Evans: On behalf of Canadians for Responsible and Safe Highways, I would like to thank you for the opportunity to appear before this committee.
My association represents the safety concerns of Canadians who share roads with large trucks. Large trucks and automobiles have very different characteristics. They do not easily co-exist in close proximity. An Angus Reid poll conducted this past September determined that 83% of Ontario residents believe that the growing number of tractor-trailers on our roads and highways are making those roads and highways more dangerous. Unfortunately, safety statistics suggest that there is reason for their concern.
Every year something like 13,000 Canadians have been killed or injured in accidents involving large trucks. Large trucks were involved in accidents resulting in almost 20% of all road fatalities. Let me repeat that statistic, because I think it's important: Almost one fatality in every five recorded on Canada's roads stems from an accident involving a large truck.
Clearly, therefore, my association welcomes the stronger trucking safety measures contained in Bill 138. We welcome the impounding of critically defective commercial vehicles. We welcome the absolute liability offence for wheel separations. We welcome the stronger actions with respect to suspended drivers, impaired drivers and those who pass school buses. Of course, the devil is in the details. We at CRASH will be particularly interested in just what is defined by regulation as a "critical defect," and I guess I should add that I appreciated the indications that were just provided by the minister.
As others have remarked, the new legislation does not respond to many of the trucking safety proposals which have been placed before the Ontario government. Therefore, CRASH eagerly awaits the further safety measures the minister has promised for the fall.
CRASH endorses the latest changes to legislation relating to trucking safety. CRASH also supports many of the recommendations of Target '97. However, CRASH does have significant reservations with certain of the Target '97 recommendations which could be acted on by the Ontario government in the fall.
Thus, while I want to express sincere appreciation for the attention Ontario is directing to trucking safety issues, the best use of the short time I have today would be to make you aware of certain actions or positions not apparently on the table that my association believes would better enhance trucking safety on Ontario's roads. There are five of those specifically. You've had the Target '97 recommendations. Here are the CRASH '97 additional recommendations, not '97 edition five.
First, we recommend that the Ontario Legislature work with the federal government to reduce the limit on consecutive driving hours to the American maximum of 10 hours while opposing any increase to the current maximum of 60 hours of driving in a seven-day period.
The Target '97 proposal for driving hours appears to us to be an effort to get more work out of the human machine, about making it legal for a person to drive for up to 80 hours per week versus the present ceiling of 60 hours. That's too much.
University of Waterloo researchers have found that the risk of a fatigue-related big truck collision almost doubles after nine and a half hours of driving. Yet in this country we allow truck drivers to drive for 13 consecutive hours versus the 10-hour limit set by the US Congress. Thirteen hours is too much. Playing with all sorts of gimmicks to get more work out of current drivers is simply playing with the lives of the rest of us. Driver fatigue is serious business.
Incidentally, in the September Angus Reid survey of trucking safety attitudes, 86% of Ontario residents favoured reducing the consecutive hours driving limit to a 10-hour ceiling the Americans impose.
Second recommendation: We suggest that the Ontario Legislature make it very clear that larger multitrailer trucks will not be welcome on Ontario roads. There is a reference in the Target '97 report to the effect that some carriers should be allowed to operate what are called LCVs; LCV stands for longer combination vehicle. These are multitrailer trucks that can be as long as a 10-storey building is tall. They can be 50% longer than anything currently allowed on Ontario's roads. These extra-long vehicles take longer to pass, they are slower in climbing grades, they are more difficult to stop and they are more prone to jackknifing or tipping over. A picture is a thousand words: This is one version of what we're talking about. That's a train without tracks.
In the September Angus Reid poll I referred to previously on trucking safety attitudes, virtually all the Ontario residents surveyed expressed opposition to facing larger multitrailer trucks; 90% opposed trucks with two 48-foot trailers, and 96% -- and we had an official from Angus Reid say, "When you get 96% you've got unanimity" -- of Ontario residents said they were opposed to sharing the roads with trucks with three trailers.
We know from experience elsewhere that the trucking industry's response to public fears over ever-larger trucks is to propose what they call "carefully controlled" introduction. We have pilot tests, we have limited trials, also carefully controlled. Ergo we have the Target '97 suggestion of allowing only "exemplary" carriers to operate them in Ontario. From the information we've seen, we don't even know what an "exemplary" carrier is. However, we also know that once you get a foot in the door, once you get these trucks operating under controlled conditions, there will be inevitable pressures to add more roads, to relax the restraints etc. You will get creep.
Just to illustrate that point, Alberta and Saskatchewan, two provinces which have allowed so-called "controlled" operations of LCVs, and these were initially put in only on their very best roads, now are allowing LCV operations on some two-lane roads.
Third recommendation: We recommend that the Ontario Legislature commission a task force to examine the safety and economic benefits of reducing the maximum weights of trucks allowed on Ontario roads. This should really be with consideration of conforming to the US interstate levels.
In Canada, we allow trucks that are 60% heavier than those permitted on the US interstate system. As I noted previously, we allow drivers to drive for 30% more consecutive hours than is legal south of the border.
In Canada, we also have a per-capita fatality rate for accidents involving large trucks which is about 10% higher than that of the United States. If our truck accident fatality rate had been at the American level over the last five years, over 250 of the reported Canadian victims would still be alive today.
1610
As just mentioned, there are two major differences between Canadian and American trucking safety regimes that are very much in the control of Canadian legislators: In this country we allow heavier trucks and in this country we let truck drivers drive more consecutive hours. Let us not get lost in the "Oh, it must be the blackflies" kind of discussion. I have to suggest that before any Legislature allows truck drivers to work more hours or endorses still bigger trucks, it should work very hard to find out whether those 250 Canadians may have perished as a result of the more lax trucking safety environment in this country compared to the United States.
Fourth, the Ontario Legislature should make a determined effort to bring all the province's trucking safety practices into harmony with the National Safety Code and national weights and dimensions. The purpose of national standards is to take away the possibility of one province accepting lower safety norms in order to gain competitive economic advantage. Ontario does not now conform totally with the national parameters. CRASH had expected that a correction of this would be a logical Target 97 recommendation; we did not find it.
Finally, the Ontario Legislature should create an environment for setting and managing trucking safety rules that enables full participation of the Ontario public, participation equivalent to that now enjoyed by the trucking industry. The trucking industry has gone to obvious lengths to establish strong relations with the Ontario government and with organizations which may be able to influence the government.
You know what? There's nothing wrong with that, absolutely nothing wrong with that. But what is wrong, I suggest, is that the rest of us who share those roads with big trucks have not had anything approaching similar access to our decision-makers. The public has not been invited in the same way to the table. Trucking safety fundamentally is not about trucks. Trucking safety is about people -- about their lives, their health and their security.
Action by this Legislature on the five suggestions I've advanced would save lives. The trucking industry today is confronted with enormous competitive pressures. We all know the buzzwords: deregulation, NAFTA, globalization, just in time. Those are modern influences that, properly channelled, can reasonably be expected to improve our standard of life. But if they get out of balance, we can arrive at a situation where the drive for competitive advantage and profit is pursued at an unacceptable cost in human lives and wellbeing.
My organization, Canadians for Responsible and Safe Highways, is not anti-truck; it is pro-safety. Canadians hold very profound and very clearly demonstrated concerns about coexisting with large trucks. CRASH is about saving lives. To that end, CRASH intends to be a channel to give Canadians that voice in trucking safety they need and want.
The public is following what is happening here on the Ontario trucking safety front with keen interest. The bill just tabled and other actions that the government has taken represent a good start. But as we all know, it is in its promised fall response to the Target '97 recommendations that the government will truly reveal where it stands on this issue.
The Chair: We have just over two minutes per caucus. We'll begin with the government side.
Mr Frank Klees (York-Mackenzie): Thank you for your presentation. By the way, I think your comment that truck safety is about people and not trucks is certainly a very important one and should be kept foremost in our mind as we deliberate on this.
Have you or your organization done any research relative to the implication of how the trucks are actually being driven? What I mean by that is that all of us share the road, as you say, with trucks. It's not their presence; it's how they're present and how they're being driven. I know that one of the most frustrating things for me is to be driving in the passing lane, trying to get by one truck and there's another truck in front of me. I've gone kilometres on end without being able to pass either of them. I just wonder if there are some things that you can recommend for us, that we should be looking at to address that whole issue of where trucks should be on a road. Should they be allowed to travel in that passing lane at all? Any comment?
Mr Evans: We had a fellow who'd driven trucks for something like 25 or 30 years at a conference we sponsored recently and he talked about truck drivers and the pressure on truck drivers. I think something we need to be very aware of is the pressure these people have. This is a terrible job. There are probably going to be something in the order of 60 or 70 truck drivers killed in this country this year, driving. A lot of them don't get paid for loading and unloading. I made a reference to just in time: They get sent out in all kinds of weather conditions. They confront all kinds of individuals at all kinds of shipping docks. They just get sent out. It's an extremely difficult environment these people are put into. My sense is they are not properly equipped for it and there's a real need to have a better understanding and look at the kinds of pressures they are put under, starting right with the shippers.
Mr Duncan: Ontario has I guess the highest length and weight configurations of most jurisdictions. Is that correct?
Mr Evans: Highest? No. There are four provinces that allow LCVs on a limited basis now. LCVs by definition are vehicles that are over about 25 metres in length.
Mr Duncan: How do Ontario's regulations compare with the state of Michigan and the state of New York?
Mr Evans: You've got to understand that in the United States you've got national, congressional regulations on the interstates and then you have state regulations. Michigan, for example, allows heavy trucks on certain roads within the state of Michigan.
Mr Duncan: The national standards that you referenced, you had made a reference to the fact that Ontario does not conform to all national parameters. Specifically which ones?
Mr Evans: Specifically you allow seven-axle semi-trailers. You allow six-axle semi-trailers at 54 metric tonnes and the federal-provincial agreement on the six-axle is 46 metric tonnes. I suspect there are others, but those are specific ones.
Mr Bisson: Thank you very much, Mr Evans, for having presented. I guess three questions come to mind. One of them is around the Target '97 stuff. I know your group has certainly talked to all members of this Legislature about how in Target '97 there are a number of good recommendations but there was really a lack of public involvement. There was a lot of industry involvement, which is right because they're the ones involved, and there was government involvement, which again is right because they're the ones regulating, but there was a lack of public involvement.
Now we're led to understand that in the coming months or years the government's going to implement recommendations in Target '97 by way of regulation; probably a little bit more than half of it will be done by regulation. Do you have confidence that can be done by the cabinet without any kind of public scrutiny?
Mr Evans: We would like to see the public involved and involved heavily.
Mr Bisson: Do you have confidence that will happen?
Mr Evans: We have some scepticism, and the scepticism is borne out by our experience with Target '97. We asked to be part of Target '97, at least the steering committee, and we were refused.
1620
Mr Bisson: One of the things I know you have raised, and I've heard it raised not only by your group but others, is the fear that LCVs, longer combination vehicles, triple-trailer trucks, be allowed in Ontario. Where do you get the indication that's going happen? Because I think a lot of people don't know where that comes from.
Mr Evans: The Ontario Trucking Association has made it very clear they want it. They have made a number of presentations arguing in favour.
Mr Bisson: Where specifically do you think the government may move on that?
Mr Evans: Under Target '97 -- and of course we have a problem with Target '97 because all our association knows about Target '97 is what we've been allowed to know. Quite frankly, there are a lot of holes. On one of the last pages of Target '97 there is a reference to I guess you could say rewards for, as I said earlier, undefined "exemplary" carriers. One of those rewards could be permits for LCVs. There it was in the Target '97 documentation.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Evans, for coming this afternoon and sharing the views of your organization.
Mrs Lyn McLeod (Fort William): I would like to ask the ministry and/or the researcher, whichever is more appropriate, to determine for us exactly in which areas Ontario does not conform with national parameters and what steps are going to be taken to ensure that in any regulations brought forward we are brought into conformity with the national parameters.
The Chair: Very well.
Mr Bisson: I have a further question of the parliamentary assistant. We know by what was presented in the previous presentation that one of the recommendations in Target '97 was that if you're a good carrier you get the possibility of getting LCVs licensed in Ontario. The question to the parliamentary assistant is, is the Ministry of Transportation considering allowing LCVs in the province?
Mr Hastings: I'll take it under advisement and we'll get back to you on that, in terms of the other questions you posed.
The Chair: Before we start, I've asked the researcher to summarize the questions we had last day so we can keep a record of the questions and you can make sure the questions you asked are actually in the form you posed them. I would ask committee members to review it and next day we will have a complete list of the questions that will be asked today.
CC CANADA
The Chair: Could I ask Mr Breaugh to come forward, CC Canada. Welcome to the Legislature again. You are certainly not a stranger to this place.
Mr Michael Breaugh: I've been in this room once or twice in my life.
The Chair: Yes, you have indeed. We're looking forward to your presentation. You have 20 minutes to use as you wish. I'm sure that if you leave any time, the committee will just jump at the chance to ask you questions.
Mr Breaugh: I'm sure they will. I'd like to start by saying that I am not here to represent any large group and I don't want to purport to represent the industry as a whole or even the family of companies I work for now. You should know that I work for a logistics company that does business in Ontario. We do some truckload business and some less-than-truckload business. I guess we would simply fit the pattern of the modern transportation group, and that is, if you aren't able to service an industry as a whole, all of the specialized needs they might have, you're probably not going to be in business very long.
What I thought might be useful for you is that I did sit in this room a long time ago on a select committee on highway safety. We went through a process which I'm sure was very similar to what you're doing on this bill and what others will do on highway safety. In that regard I can probably offer some useful advice. I want to leave most of the time for you to talk among ourselves and to ask questions.
When we went through the exercise the first time, we did successfully establish the framework that is now used in Ontario, but that was a long time ago and that now needs to be renewed. Ontario does some things that no other jurisdiction in the world even attempts to do, and that we don't do it perfectly shouldn't set aside the fact that we have made that effort.
If I could offer a couple of things as guidelines for you, it is now apparent to me, as somebody who works inside this industry, that whatever happens has to bring in a whole lot of people who at first blush might not seem to have a direct interest in this: the public at large, and there are now a number of interest groups out there that have to somehow feel part of this process. How you fit them in, how they are worked in, I really don't have the specifics of that, but we traditionally have used public hearings and forums like this to do that kind of thing.
You have to sort and separate a bit too. You will find a bewildering number of statistics and studies done all over the world. We found, for example, that many of the studies that had to do with enforcement came out of nations that had perhaps one or two major highways. In England or in Sweden, if you want to talk about putting a unit on the road that can stop virtually every truck that's out there, they can do that, and so enforcement for them has a different connotation than it does in North America with this huge road system we've got.
I guess one of the little guidelines that I would offer for you is that enforcement is part of the package but it really can't be your solution. If it is, you have to remember this: Somehow you have to get the enforcement officers out there. We have been unable to do that over the last 20 years. I suspect that in difficult economic times we're going to be unable to do that in the future. So enforcement can't be the cornerstone of it.
I see in the industry now the beginnings of an awareness among people who up until now didn't really care whether you were a good carrier or a bad carrier, had a good safety record or a bad one. Now I find clients of ours are asking to see our CVOR. They want to talk about safety records. They want to talk about units that come on to their property that they think are unsafe and they want us to respond. I think that's a good thing.
We haven't done very much, in my view, in terms of training of drivers, of all kinds of things, because the technology is evolving quickly. In the company where I work, for example, we do virtually anything a client wants. If a client comes to us and says, "We want to track by satellite your truck carrying parts into our auto plant. We want to know exactly where it is all the time and what its estimated time of arrival is. If it can't use this road, can you provide him with a map to use another road? How do you do that?" whatever the client wants, we will provide that kind of service. We don't do that for everybody because it gets kind of expensive, but more and more, that's becoming the pattern. We do have to equip almost everything that I am aware of with a cell phone because they want to have communication with the drivers. So there are lots of things that can be done.
I want to conclude what I have to say with a couple of what I guess would be considered negative points. This whole exploration of technology has just begun for the trucking industry and I think that needs to be explored much further. There is technology available in our trucks, for example, little computers that record every drop of fuel that is used, what your oil consumption is, that limits the speed of the unit so the driver can't speed with the truck, that tells us how many miles those wheels have turned. There's the beginning of the information age flowing into the trucking industry.
There are probably areas in there that can be explored and should be explored. There are certainly areas around the training of drivers and mechanics and equipment that's used to service all of this that can be done. The conclusion I come to is simply this: We're now growing into a partnership phase and part of that is the public's perception, because as an industry we share a public highway and that makes us part of that process.
I'm not making an argument here that because the public when they drive on Highway 401 are afraid of the big truck beside them -- so am I. But I am reminded that driving that big truck beside me is somebody who has probably got a family, who is trying to earn a living the same as everybody else is, who is a human being. Do we put reasonable amounts of training into their preparation? Do we give them reasonable amounts of training and equipment to repair and service the vehicles they use? Do we have a reasonable set of expectations?
I would argue that at the end of this process what I would like to see is a partnership. The public should be part of that and the industry should be part of that and those clients that we serve should be part of that and certainly you as legislators will be part of that. Then I think we will begin to push this envelope a little bit further, because I think it does need to be pushed in that direction. The caution that I would put on you today is that, as we did 20 years ago, if you think that passing a tough law ever solves a problem, remember this: Virtually no one who rides our roads will ever read that law, virtually no one.
If you want it to be strictly enforced, you had better be prepared to put the enforcement officers out there, and that costs a lot of money. Most of the people out there are trying their very best to obey the laws as they know them. A good law is one that is seen by the public at large as being a reasonable thing to do, that there is some common sense involved in that whole process, and so they will conform with that.
If you ask me for statistics you won't get them off me; I don't have them. If you ask me about the process, though, I think I can be of some assistance to you and I'd like to spend the rest of my time doing just that.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Breaugh. We have about two and a half minutes per caucus. We'll begin with the official opposition.
1630
Mrs McLeod: I'm sure my colleague will have some questions. I have just a couple that were raised as you were talking. One was that a process of public awareness is slowly building in terms of the public's and the shippers' demand for safety in their carriers. This is an issue that was raised yesterday in committee. Is there really enough information available so that people who are shipping goods have a sense of what the safety record is of the carriers? Are you able to facilitate their getting that kind of information when they are looking for it?
Mr Breaugh: I don't think it's perfected yet. I think the beginnings of it are there. I am happy, personally, that there's some awareness on their part that this is not quite as easy as it looks. If they say we want to see your CVOR, we're happy to show them that. If they want to see what we do in our safety lanes, we're happy to show them that. If they want to see the qualifications of our mechanics, we're happy to show them. I'm not really sure how far that envelope will go. Is it the responsibility of the client to investigate the service provider? Good question. But in my own life, if I call a plumber into my house I want to know, does the plumber have some kind of qualification? Is there a recommendation? Is there a reference? So I think that yes, within reason it is there.
We had, for example, some meetings with General Motors personnel about CVORs, and I was pleased that the ministry people who were there said: "This has some limits to it. Try to understand what the limits of these kinds of records are." They did seem to accept that but they also got to the bottom line in a hurry.
That's the record we got, so that's where we start.
Mr Bisson: I couldn't agree more with your comment, which is working our way through trying to make our highways safer. Enforcement is not the only option we've got. In fact, it's the last thing we do if everything else fails, and I couldn't agree with you more. I would like to see this Legislature, this committee and this minister do a lot more when it comes to dealing with all those other issues which come from licensing drivers properly, training them properly and dealing with carrier responsibility, everybody taking their part in the responsibility.
If the government was going to move on a couple of other things, because there's only so much time the government has before the Legislature -- as you know, competing for time to get bills before the House is always difficult -- what do you think are some of the key things the government should move on, not the enforcement stuff but the more progressive stuff?
Mr Breaugh: As we would normally anticipate, the training of people who work inside the industry is the critical starting point. That I think needs some work, and I'm aware that there are a lot of people in various ministries who have been trying to do that. I think that would be my first place.
The second place would be to try to heighten the awareness in the community at large, other than inside the industry, about all these factors, because really none of these laws ever work until the public really accepts them and to some degree or other understands them. If they are still frightened when they drive on the road and an 18-wheeler comes up beside them, it doesn't really matter what laws you've passed or what regulations you've put in place, they're still going to be frightened. So there is an education process that has to be done.
Mr Bisson: Just very quickly -- I've only got a couple of seconds -- you talked about the industry only scratching the surface when it comes to the utilization of technology but you didn't expand on that. What could they be doing?
Mr Breaugh: The equipment we use -- for example, the basic trucks -- has not changed substantively in some ways in quite some time. In other ways they've become quite sophisticated in terms of motors, I guess in terms of how you get mileage out of gasoline or diesel fuel. In some of those aspects they have changed, but there are a lot of monitoring devices that could be put on trucks that electronically would give you information you're now trying to visually see.
For example, when you talk to drivers and you talk to OPP officers you get a very different version of what a circle check is. An OPP officer says, "Well, you walk around the truck and you inspect this and you look at that." The driver says, "It's 5 o'clock in the morning, it's snowing and you want me to start my day by crawling underneath a truck and looking up at slush, because I can't see the parts I'm supposed to look at." So even mechanics in the drive-through lanes that we operate say: "You know, the biggest hazard we face is when the trucks come off the road and we crawl underneath them and the ice comes down. It's just gravity."
Some of the perspectives are a little bit different, and somehow you have to kind of get those things together a little bit more.
I want to take the Fifth Amendment now.
Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): I was going to say it is great to see you. I tell all the members of the committee, other than those who knew you, that you always were a very bright, articulate member working hard for Oshawa and just didn't have the vision to be in the right party at the time.
Mr Breaugh: Vision was always my problem.
Mrs Marland: I personally appreciate that you're here today and I hear you speaking very objectively. Yesterday I made an analogy between a pilot's licence and flying and the responsibility and requirements for that kind of equipment. When you're talking about a partnership here -- and I certainly agree with you that just passing laws on any subject is not necessarily the solution, because it is the enforcement that costs the money and makes a law effective, otherwise it's ineffective.
I wanted to ask you: In your experience, and I didn't realize that was the industry you're related with now, could we develop some standards in terms that are also comparable with the operation of airlines? We're still talking about risks to the public in both cases. If we had a standard for the number of miles on engines, the number of miles on tires or the number of miles on brakes, which are similar things to the airline industry, would establishing those kinds of standards that were in a log book -- I know they have log books now but I don't know what's in them and maybe that's something we should know. Is there any possibility of that kind of standard being explored and being part of a solution?
Mr Breaugh: Yes, I sometimes use that analogy myself. The airline industry is perhaps the model for the world in terms of trying to track how many hours are on an engine and who works on what for how long and perhaps has some of that world's highest standards in terms of safety, and then people were on to me, "Yes, but planes crash too." Yes, they do. Then someone else will remind me, "Well, I have a friend who works in" a process called expediting, which means that when parts don't arrive at the auto plant and you can't get them there by truck, you ship them by plane. People who work in the expediting division of our corporation kind of lick their lips, because it just quadruples the price of getting an auto part into an auto assembly plant when you ship by air. It gets there faster and that's part of the cost increase, but it's also the increase of all those regulations and the monitoring process.
Somewhere between the two, there's got to be a middle ground where you can find some commonsense applications that will make safety an integral part of everybody doing business here.
The other caution I would put on is what I see happening right before my eyes. I am saddened by it, but it's almost inevitable. This industry is going through a real lurching, gut-wrenching process. The day of the little entrepreneur with two or three trucks providing transportation to local industry is quickly going over the hill, and we're well on the road to maybe 10 or 15 or even 20 large North American conglomerates that can meet these kinds of standards and compete in a North American marketplace. That's almost inevitable, to the point where I'm not sure I accept it any more when someone says to me, "Well, I can't afford to fix my truck." Then basically I think you can't afford to be in that business any more.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Breaugh, for being here today and for putting your views forward to us.
Mr Breaugh: Thank you. It's been fun, and the best part is that I can go home tonight.
The Chair: We'll think of you at midnight.
DAVID HORAN
The Chair: Could Mr Dave Horan come forward. Welcome, Mr Horan. We're pleased to have you here with us.
Mr David Horan: I'd like to start by telling you that I'm not here to bash anyone or any company. The company I am now working for, from what I understand, is very health and safety oriented and is a very good company to work for. They have a good reputation, as well as the previous company I worked for, which I'm not trying to hurt in any way, shape or form.
I only want to voice my concerns about truck safety and Bill 138 and if there's any way I can help make improvements. I've been driving a truck for over 15 years. I've been around trucks all my life. In 15 years I've lost a set of wheels and almost lost another set. In both cases it was within 24 hours of the wheels being replaced. I was very fortunate in both cases in that no one was hurt. In the second incident, upon checking out the noise to the rear of the truck, I noticed the wheels had come loose. When checking the nuts by hand, there was no way I could turn them even in the condition they were in.
1640
My other concern has to do with truck safety and my experiences. On November 13, 1996, I was in a position to drive a truck that I felt was unsafe. When I called dispatch to let them know the condition of the truck, I was asked if I was on my way to get the rest of the run done. I replied that I'd just talked to the mechanic and that there was something wrong with the truck, a broken cab mount or something.
The operations manager replied: "Everybody else has been driving it and there's nothing wrong with the truck. Another driver drove the truck down there and dropped it off so we could pick up another truck. Now let's get the run done." My reply: "I can't drive this truck with a broken cab mount, whatever it is that's broken under there. I cannot drive the truck like that. It's not safe." Dispatch replied: "Another driver drove the truck down there like that. He said, `The truck rides rough,' but didn't seem to have any problems with it." I replied, "When I climb in and out of the truck, you can see the whole cab move." Dispatch again: "I don't care; get in the truck and get the run done. I can't see anything being unsafe. Another driver used it last week and had no problems with it." Again I told him: "There's something the matter with the truck. I went over a set of tracks and the driver's door flew open." Dispatch replied: "I don't think there's anything wrong with the truck. You've got to get the run done." This is with a two-way radio. We were talking back and forth.
A few minutes later I called in the base and told them I had to refuse to drive the truck, that it was unsafe, that there was a broken cab mount or something. I was told then to take the truck back to the yard and punch out, and dispatch again said: "I'll have it checked out at the truck dealership. If there's nothing broken on it, you and I are going to be sitting in the office for the last time." A few minutes later dispatch called me back and told me to take the truck to the truck dealership.
When I arrived at the truck dealership, a mechanic stepped up on the side of the cab and the door popped open. He almost fell to the ground. After examining the truck, it was determined that the bushing on the pin was gone and the pin was wearing. I called back to dispatch and told him that the dealership had checked it all out and I told him what the problem was. Then I was told to just drop the truck off there. I replied, "How am I going to get back to the yard?" I was told that arrangements were made for the people at the dealership to bring me back.
I went into the dealership and nobody there knew anything about it. Somebody had called and it was for me. The operations manager had called the dealership and asked me what I was doing there. I told him that dispatch had sent me there. When dispatch came into the room on the speaker phone, they denied it and then subsequently sent me back to the yard with the truck. I called back to the yard by phone to let them know what time I'd finished and again was told that I had not been sent to the dealership. One week later I was suspended for one week for insubordination and insufficient work performance -- culminating incident: November 13 and 14. I was not told what I did wrong and to this day I still don't know.
On November 29 I was assigned a truck. In the course of that day I had a problem with the steering, in which it locked and I temporarily had no control of the truck. I also injured my left shoulder while trying to gain control. By December 4 the pain was so bad I could not sleep. I went to see a doctor. He took me off work and started me on therapy and medication. On December 19 I was fired while on compensation. I received seven discharge letters, in which I was not given any reason.
On January 28, 1997, I agreed to the minutes of settlement to go back to work when I was fit to do so and when I was off compensation. On April 22, I returned to work on light duty. On May 29, I was asked to take a roll-off truck with a 40-yard bin over to the recycle station and load a Bobcat. When I asked how I was supposed to chain it, I was told I didn't need to and they do it that way all the time without chains or anything.
I said several times I would not move it unless it was chained. I was told to just bring the 40-yard bin over there for now. I went over to the recycle station and dropped the 40-yard on the ground and called back for instructions as to what to do from there. When talking to dispatch, I told them I could not move the Bobcat without chains. Dispatch replied, "What do you need chains for?" "I need them to chain it down." They told me again: "You don't need chains. You don't need to chain it down."
I replied that it was against the law to move it without doing so. Dispatch then advised me to leave the bin there and go back to the yard. When I returned to the yard, one dispatcher who is also the company health and safety rep went over to the recycle centre and brought the Bobcat back.
In closing, I would just like to say, I know there are drivers out there who have been fired, suspended or whatever and I think this is a part of the problem that needs to be addressed. I don't think that holding the driver responsible will help that situation but only make it worse for the driver.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Horan. We have just under four minutes per caucus. We begin with the NDP.
Mr Bisson: Thank you very much for having come in and given your presentation. I think far too often we forget, at least from the perspective of this place, what the drivers go through sometimes just trying to do their jobs. I know as the transportation critic for the NDP I've had the opportunity to meet with a lot of drivers, and unfortunately the story you tell is not unique to you. I've heard it from different people and that gives rise to quite a bit of concern.
One of the things I've suggested, and I've talked to the ministry about this, is in cases where you're faced as a driver with unsafe work to give you the right to refuse unsafe work under the Occupational Health and Safety Act. Do you think, first of all, that would help?
Mr Horan: I've used that on a number of occasions and it just gets me into trouble.
Mr Bisson: You can't because it doesn't apply to drivers. You see, the problem is under the Occupational Health and Safety Act the truck is not considered a workplace. If you try to refuse unsafe work, you have no legal grounds to do it. What I'm proposing is that we extend the workplace to include the truck so that the driver then, if he or she refuses unsafe work, is protected by the act.
Mr Horan: It could, I guess. You'd have to follow all the regulations of the act to help, but just in itself then you know --
Mr Bisson: I come out of the mining industry and I've seen the industry before the days of the Occupational Health and Safety Act and after. I remember prior to its introduction the argument being used at that time by the Conservatives was, if you give workers the right to refuse unsafe work, they're going to be irresponsible about refusing. In fact the opposite happened. Employees in the mining companies where it applies and other places now have taken that responsibility very seriously and the cases of actual refusal are probably lower than what most people would expect. Second, it has really forced the employers to do things safely when it comes to that.
The other thing you say, and I guess just for the record it requires a bit of an explanation, is that in your case when you've reported unsafe conditions with trucks, you've actually been disciplined.
Mr Horan: Oh, yes. I have not been disciplined for reporting it, but subsequent to reporting it I've been disciplined.
Mr Bisson: How common is it that drivers find themselves getting less lucrative runs, less hours or disciplined because of refusing unsafe work?
Mr Horan: Myself, I don't think that a lot of companies are like that. I don't think it's a bigger problem than what it is. I think it's a small majority. I couldn't give numbers or anything like that, but it happens.
1650
Mr Bisson: What do you need us to do to help that situation to protect you?
Mr Horan: I don't know. If there was a way you could report it. It's hard to really say because almost anywhere you go, somebody puts you off to somewhere else and will tell you that's not their department kind of thing. You never seem to be able to find who can help.
Mr Klees: When you drive, do you do regular walk-arounds of your rig and your safety circle check?
Mr Horan: Circle check, yes, the best I can. We're told we're only allowed 15 minutes for that.
Mr Klees: Fifteen minutes is what you're given. When you do that and you find something, do you have a prescribed form that you make your notations on?
Mr Horan: Because we don't go outside of the radius, we don't have to use a logbook. We have a vehicle inspection report and we fill that out in the morning and when we get back.
Mr Klees: What do you think happens to that?
Mr Horan: They have the different columns that the mechanic signs off and they'll either fix it through the night when you've gone home or they'll mark it as "Further work scheduled." If there are brake problems or things like that, then you can't take the truck out the next day.
Mr Klees: You told us about a couple of pretty serious situations that happened to you. Had you done your checks that particular day, and did anything show up as you did that?
Mr Horan: In the instance with the cab, it was when you were driving it that you noticed. I mean to say you couldn't tell that the door was going to pop open until you were driving it. I had brought another truck into this truck dealership to have it fixed and they had another one waiting there for me. I had kind of a time limit. I had to hurry up and get into this other truck then, so I went around it the quickest or best I could. Whatever I could see, I checked out, but when I did leave, that's when I noticed the other problems with it.
Mr Duncan: I thought the government might address this issue, but the reason that trucks aren't considered a workplace isn't because legislation doesn't contemplate a workplace. It's the Highway Traffic Act that deals with the highways. The workplace regulation of a truck and intermodal carrier is a federal jurisdiction. That, I suspect, is one of the reasons why successive governments haven't really addressed that issue. The Occupational Health and Safety Act is confined to those workplaces which the province has jurisdiction over. My understanding is that it does not have jurisdiction over the transportation industry.
None the less, it's an important point to bring forward and it's something that should be worked out. The minister has given his undertaking, and I know the opposition will keep his feet to the fire to deal with the federal government in terms of looking at issues that fall under federal jurisdiction and are certainly worth pursuing. But thank you for bringing forward your concerns. They're concerns that have been expressed by a number of truckers I've met with as well throughout the province.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Horan. We appreciate that you took the time to come here to tell us your personal story. It's very helpful.
Mrs Marland: Let us know if you're penalized for coming forward and being so straightforward with us.
Mr Horan: Okay. Thanks very much.
MOTHERS AGAINST DRUNK DRIVING
The Chair: Could I call on John Bates, Mothers Against Drunk Driving. Good afternoon, Mr Bates. We're very happy to have you here and we're looking forward to your presentation.
Mr John Bates: I will skip through the presentation because something has come up that I heard from the scrum outside that I think shows a bit of a flaw here.
Just by way of background, Mothers Against Drunk Driving was established something like 15 years ago as PRIDE, People to Reduce Impaired Driving Everywhere. We then got together with the people in MADD and were just five people around the kitchen table then. We're now a massive, if I may use the term, national organization with 83 chapters in every province in the country. It's a different thing entirely.
Our mandate has always been the same. It's two things: One is to help the victims to survive and to live again and, two, to fight for legislation with knowledgeable legislatures to try and reduce this horrible carnage that's killing so many people.
We've seen dramatic changes in legislation in 15 years. Let's not kid ourselves there, but in many ways we've been doing the wrong thing. We've been aiming at the wrong target. We've run a wonderfully successful public awareness campaign but it hasn't got through to the people who are doing the killing. Can you imagine attacking any other campaign that way?
Let's look at the facts and where we think we've come a long way. This is from MOT statistics. The proportion of fatal crashes involving drinking drivers, the drinking drivers in fatal crashes, drivers killed who have been drinking, people killed in drinking driving crashes, has not changed since 1981. We're doing something wrong, quite clearly.
What we thought was working wasn't. Take a public awareness campaign and apply it to any other serious crime -- how about "Friends don't let friends rob banks" or "You can lose a lot more than your gun if you rob banks" or "Know when to draw the line. Just rob Mac's Milk stores," or something like that -- and expect that to have any effect whatever on the incidence of bank robbing. It wouldn't. So why do we think it would work with impaired driving?
We've had great leaps forward in legislation as well. The death of Casey Frayne, which is really the genesis of this entire campaign -- that's June Callwood and Trent Frayne's son -- his killer got a 90-day licence suspension and a $500 fine. That was it, because impaired driving was considered funny in those days. You know Dean Martin's quip, "I was looking for my car in the parking lot when some fool stepped on my hand." That's the way it was then and that's why Casey's killer got a $500 fine and got off scot-free.
It's quite clear a new direction is called for, and that's why we support this new Bill 138. For the first time this legislation brings into focus the real problem, that is the understanding that the real target in this struggle is the hard-core drinking driver, the guy that does the killing.
By introducing lifetime suspensions to keep the most dangerous drivers off the road and by recognizing the fact that the interlock exists, we've taken a giant step forward. The hard-core drinking driver -- 12% of the impaired driving population is represented by the hard core. They kill 82% of the people who are killed by impaired drivers. Now you don't have to be a rocket scientist to figure where our target is; it's him.
With Bill 138 -- and I say we get calls from all over on our 800 number -- 100% of the people support the legislation. Also 100% of the people phoning in say: "Why wait? Why are we waiting to put the interlock on? We know who the hard-core drinking driver is. It's the person who blows 0.165 or double the legal limit. Why don't we put the interlock on his car? If we suspend his licence, he's going to drive anyway. Some 70% of them drive anyhow. Put the interlock on his car now, on a first offence, and he can't do it."
The way it's set up now, if a person has their first impaired driving charge now, they wait for their third 10 years from now, then another 10 years before the interlock goes on. We keep waiting for 20 years to use the interlock. That doesn't make any sense.
I'm deviating from what I came here to say. I hear people say, "Oh, we don't need it." The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety -- that and the International Highway Traffic Safety Administration are probably the two best safety organizations on the face of the earth -- and I read here: "This statistically significant difference indicated that being in an interlock program reduced their risk of alcohol traffic violations within the first year by 65%." What do we need? Alberta got a 70% reduction in recidivists. We know the recidivists are killing most of the people. What are we waiting for? Why can't we put the interlock on now? Just do the math. If we can save 70% of 1,800 people, we're looking at saving the lives of 819 people simply by putting the interlock on. The interlock is absolutely foolproof. It works like a charm. They're getting 70% reduction in recidivist rates.
1700
That's basically what I came here to say. We support the legislation because it does break new ground. We recognize the fact of the hard-core drinking driver. We can get him at the very first offence because he blew over 0.165. To get that high, you've got a real drinking problem. Maybe not all of them, but we've got to assess them. The other thing is, where's the money going to come from to assess these people? We say you put 10 cents a litre on alcohol; that's where the money comes from.
I've put more information on the back, which I believe most of you have, about the high BAC driver or the hard-core drinking driver who is a person we have to get hold of on a first offence as soon as we can find him. To treat him like we treat the low BAC, the casual 0.08 person, in the same way, is just crazy because they aren't the recidivist. The person at 0.08, "Oh my gosh, I got caught," they'll never do it again, but this guy, the 0.165 guy, he'll do it again and again. Our worse case, of course, was five girls killed by somebody in their 51st offence in Winnipeg. There should be no second offence.
I'll open it up for questions at this point, without carrying on.
Mrs Marland: John, I'm happy that you and I are here at this committee today because it gives me an opportunity to publicly thank you, personally, and Mothers Against Drunk Driving, because it's with your support and encouragement that I was able to develop my private member's bill dealing with drunk driving. A lot of the research that we took three years to do, which is now totally incorporated in this bill, is because of the work Mothers Against Drunk Driving has been able to do over the years.
What I really wanted to ask you, because you and I know some of this material very well, is, we're dealing with the driver who now has their licence suspended, and we're still hesitating to deal with that person, and yet in this province today if somebody hunts or fishes without a licence, they can have their vehicle impounded -- their boat, their motor, their snowmobile -- whatever means that they are using for transportation while they are hunting and fishing illegally. They have the impoundment. I am wondering, with your experience over 15 years that it's taken you to help us get to this point -- initially with my private bill and now this bill -- why do you think we've gone through this period where we think it's more important to protect the fish, the fowl and the wildlife in our province than people?
Mr Bates: Mrs Marland, you've been so available to us whenever we needed a window into the Legislature and we appreciate what you have done; it's a two-way thing. In the very first presentation I ever made -- I think it was to city council -- we said, why is it if you take a fish out of season, you can lose your boat and your car and your fishing equipment and you won't get them back? They're sold at auction. If you kill a child while you're drunk, nobody really cares except us. It's one of those anomalies in the law that will remain a mystery forever. I don't know why that happens to be, why we spend more time protecting fish than we do people.
Mrs Marland: What you're here suggesting today, John, is that if the repeat conviction for drunk driving is based on the higher consumption, and say it's their second conviction, the ignition interlock system should go on then and not wait until they do it the third time.
Mr Bates: Oh, sure.
Mrs Marland: You want to be more lenient to the person who blows just over the minimum, but if they blow heavily, you feel that the hammer should come down on them at that point.
Mr Bates: If our objective is to stop the killing, we have to target on a person we really know now, after all these years, is going to be the killer. We get him off the road as soon as we can and keep him off the road, and we do something. We know he's going to drive under suspension. If we put the interlock on his car as soon as we can, why wait for 20 years? That's crazy.
If he does drive under suspension -- I mean all the same penalties apply for driving under suspension -- at least he won't drive under suspension drunk and kill somebody. The number of people who are killed by people who are driving under suspension while they're drunk is just appalling.
Mrs Marland: Like the man who came out of jail after two years for killing an adult and then killed a child within two weeks of getting his licence back.
Mr Bates: Candy Lightner. We can all see so far because we're standing on the shoulders of Candy Lightner of MADD in the States.
Mr Duncan: Thank you very much for your presentation. Could you take a bit of time to tell us a little bit more about the Alberta experiment? We've heard quite a bit about it, but nobody's told us who it was applied to and how it was used.
Mr Bates: There are several ways this is done. This is done throughout the States and Alberta and there's nothing really new about the interlock, but it can be used, for example, to reduce a person's suspension. If somebody has a 10-year suspension, we say, "Okay, you can have a five-year suspension if you have the interlock on." It has other purposes as well. For example, this business of one family car and two people working. If you impound the car, then you take that away from the spouse who didn't do anything. You can harm the whole family. Put the interlock on the car. The other person can be taught to use it.
Mr Duncan: I understand that, but in the specific example of Alberta, who did they use it on? First-time offenders? Second-time offenders?
Mr Bates: On first-time offenders and all offenders.
Mr Duncan: On all first-time offenders.
Mr Bates: Yes. When their suspension period was over, they put the interlock on and that's where they got the 70% reduction.
Mr Duncan: That was a test. If they incorporated that into their --
Mr Bates: It doesn't have to be incorporated into anything. I talked to senior Ontario court judges about this. We don't need legislation. We can put it on right now.
Mr Duncan: In Alberta are they putting it on in all cases now? Do you know?
Mr Bates: Not in all cases. People have to apply for it and be assessed as being suitable candidates for the program and so forth, but it has another effect and that is that people have an alcohol problem and it's helped immensely with their alcohol problem. There's no such thing as a cure for alcoholism, but it certainly has helped their problem.
Mr Bisson: Further on the same line of questioning, in the cases in Alberta where they have put the interlock on for first offences, how long does it stay on? Forever? Is there a term?
Mr Bates: It stays on for a year. That's what the test is. That's what they're doing at the moment, a year, and they'll see what happens after that. That's where they got their 70%. It was after that year that they got their 70% reduction and we're still waiting for the first case of somebody to be killed by a drunk driver driving a car that's equipped with an interlock. It hasn't happened yet. We're still waiting to find the first case.
Mr Bisson: I understand.
Mr Bates: When the interlock is on, it's 100%.
Mr Bisson: I understand that part. So for the first-time offenders, what they've done is they've only installed it for one year. After the one year, then it comes off.
Mr Bates: That's right. It doesn't change the suspension period.
Mr Bisson: I guess the question I ask is that if that happens, we're really taking a bit of a leap of faith here that the drunk driver has cured his or her drinking problem.
Mr Bates: That's what has happened in many cases. Somebody's drinking problem has been alleviated somewhat. As we all know, alcoholism is a life-long disease. There is, and I could leave it with the committee, the study that was done in the States with the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety.
Mr Bisson: What's MADD's position? This legislation basically says on third offence we'll put the interlock on. I take it what you're asking this committee to do is to amend the legislation so that on the first offence it would be put on. For what? A year?
Mr Bates: For one year following the suspension. If the person is caught driving under suspension, everything applies, but you put the interlock on.
Mr Bisson: But after that, on the second offence, it would have to be for longer than that.
Mr Bates: It could be on their car for --
Mr Bisson: I guess where I'm struggling a little bit is I know something of alcoholism and what it means to people and how it affects people.
Mr Bates: So do I.
Mr Bisson: It's a disease that's very difficult for people to deal with, but putting the interlock on for just the one year I don't think is enough in the end to really deal with the alcoholism. If they're going to be repeat offenders --
Mr Bates: That depends entirely on the way the legislation's written. It can say: "Wait a minute. Until you can prove to a medical tribunal that you no longer have an alcohol problem, the interlock will remain on your car."
1710
Mr Bisson: I know you've had an opportunity to speak to the minister about this or at least listen to the answers in his press scrum earlier. Why do you think the government won't move?
Mr Bates: The answer I got out there was because there are no studies involving the interlock. There are dozens of them. That's where I brought out this one, from the insurance institute. It's actually a study done in Maryland, The Effects of Alcohol Ignition Interlock License Restrictions on Multiple Alcohol Offenders: a Randomized Trial in Maryland. It's all done. You can get that for the committee if you want it.
Mr Bisson: Just for people who might be watching, because it might not be clear to some, in a case where an interlock is installed on a vehicle and there are two drivers on the vehicle, one is the repeat offender, the other isn't, explain what happens and how it works.
Mr Bates: That's the mouthpiece for the interlock. The interlock goes on the car. It could take an hour to talk to you on how the interlock works, but I won't bother. It's about the size of a Walkman or something along that line. It comes out through a retractile cord. It looks much like a cellular phone. You blow into that thing in a special way, and you have to be taught to do it and it's extremely difficult. Then, if it detects alcohol, it won't start.
The spouse or other family members can also be taught to use the interlock. If somebody wants to go into a beer store and leave the car running for example and come on out and drink while the car's running, it won't let them do that either because it calls for random testing every 15 minutes or whatever you want. Then it's taken out of the car. At the end of a month, for example, it goes to the parole officer who in turn reads the chip in the memory and he can tell everything the car did. If he tried to start the car while he was drunk, the parole officer would know.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Bates. We appreciate that you came here today.
Could I call upon Liberty Linehaul, Mr Brian Taylor, if he's here, to come forward.
Mrs McLeod: I wonder, first, if it would be possible to have the study that was referred to by Mr Bates tabled for the members of the committee. Second, would it be appropriate to ask the parliamentary assistant if he would explore with the minister and report to the committee on the reasons why the interlock system is being delayed to this extent in the Ontario proposals.
The Chair: Very well. Can the researcher provide the first report? I'll leave you to do that and, Parliamentary Assistant, if you will undertake that.
Mr Klees: That was my question precisely. I would just add to it that I think Mr Bates indicated there were a number of reports, and if any additional reports could be sourced, I ask that those be tabled as well.
LIBERTY LINEHAUL INC
The Chair: Welcome, Mr Taylor. We're pleased to have you here.
Mr Brian Taylor: I wouldn't say I'm intimidated here today. I think more like scared to death would be appropriate.
The Chair: Mr Taylor, there's absolutely no reason to be afraid. Just take your time.
Mr Taylor: I didn't ever expect to come to Queen's Park, let alone speak here. I'm going to give you a little bit of background on myself. I started out in the trucking industry 20-some years ago. I started out as a motor vehicle mechanic. I acquired my licence and I drove a truck, and then I was an owner-operator for a company and worked for various companies and operations. I presently own a 50-truck fleet in Ontario.
Through a series of circumstances I ended up involved with the OTA at the Worona trial hearing for wheel-offs. They asked me as a carrier who had a good safety rating and who followed proper wheel installation for the past nine or 10 years, since we've been in operation, if I would represent them as a good carrier at that hearing. I went through that series of hearings and answered questions from the families and experts on wheels.
After that I was involved in the wheel installation program and legislation that came from that, the program we developed at the OTA, and worked in conjunction with MTO on for drivers setting up brakes and those criteria. Then I was involved in Target '97, mostly in the maintenance side of Target '97.
I was very pleased with the outcome of Target '97. We looked at, with a good cross-section of people from MTO, the OPP, the insurance industry, just about all facets of our industry -- and from different branches of government at different levels. We had people from the MTO there at the grass-roots level who were out and doing inspections every day. We had people who were writing their legislation. We looked at it very objectively. As a carrier, I didn't always get what I thought I should get, but we were able to come to conclusions and look at things very objectively and come out with some concrete ideas.
We looked at things like introducing mandatory facility audits. If we're going to license a carrier in Ontario, let's look through and do an audit on them and make sure they're complying when they start off. Let's start off that way. Let's know where we're starting from. We looked at the CVOR point system. There are things in the system that don't make sense, that a speeding violation is the same points as for a fuel sticker missing on a vehicle. Because the carrier may have high points in CVOR, it isn't really a measure of what his safety rating truly is. It may be in violation of certain laws in Ontario but it may not make that carrier unsafe.
We looked at it and said: "Let's clean some of that up. Certainly we don't want carriers to be in violation of any laws in Ontario, but let's be able to look at the rating system by points and say, `This carrier is unsafe; this one is safe,' and through that focus our inspection people to the carriers that are unsafe. Let's clean it up that way. Let's provide a mechanism to do that."
We looked at driver's licensing. We said: "We have graduated licensing in place for private motor vehicles in Ontario and yet we have a system for trucking companies that allows them to go through a three-week course and get into a vehicle and drive a truck. That's not right."
We've gone through deregulation and we've had tremendous growth in our industry in the last few years. What was the norm in practice in our industry in years gone by was that people progressed through that industry starting on a dock level position to a straight truck to a tractor-trailer. Now what we're seeing, because we're short of people in our industry, is people coming out of a training school and going directly into a tractor-trailer. Carriers aren't compelled to do any training after that. In my mind they are completely out of their mind if they don't, because that person isn't in the least prepared to drive a tractor-trailer down our highways. I think they do adequate training for them to pass the test, but to be a qualified driver or operator of that vehicle, there's certainly more work to do with those people.
Most competent carriers do that. They train them with other people and do that. It's a pretty complicated job today. I don't think you can absorb that in three weeks in a classroom. There aren't very many jobs that you can absorb that quickly.
The biggest part that I was involved in was the maintenance part of this Target '97 group. One of the things that we looked at is that we have a bunch of different legislation pertaining to trucking. One is 575; one is 611. There are some hidden in different parts of different legislation where lights are in with car stuff and then there are some truck lights tucked in there.
What we said is that, first of all, if we're going to expect people to meet certain criteria, let's get the rule book out and let's make a new one. Let's make one just for trucking. Let's put all the rules down. Let's make that available to MTO, to OPP, to the trucking industry. Let's require the OPP and the MTO to get some training so they understand the regulation completely as to the trucking companies.
It's very hard to start to change something in an industry if everybody's not playing by the same rules and the rules aren't well defined and written well so everybody understands them. That's the basis of the thing. That's where we want to start, to do that and clean it up.
I felt very confident in the people I met through Target '97 at MTO at the higher levels who actually do the writing of legislation that they could do that and make it comprehensible to people. We're not dealing with university graduates when we deal with mechanics. We're dealing with people who work well with their hands. They have to be able to understand it. They have to be able to work with it. That's the place we want to start, to first of all make the legislation, and let's pull it together into one book.
1720
Then we want to look at, if we're going to set some criteria, let's set them for who should be responsible for that. If something isn't maintained properly on a vehicle, whose ultimate responsibility is that? Does it fall on the driver or on the operator or on the carrier? Who does it fall on? Who should it fall on?
We looked at some of the criteria for driver inspections and said the driver really now, under the present legislation, is expected to crawl under the vehicle. In all reality, that's not going to happen every trip. Most people should check their oil in their car every morning and walk around it and make sure the lights work. They don't do that. It's not going to happen. It doesn't matter what the law says, you're not going to get a guy who comes into work after a mechanic's just come out of his shop and who is going to crawl under that vehicle on the gravel on his back and look, nor is he qualified to do that. He can't identify those things. It's like most of the people in the room. It's great to say that you can look at your car, but you really don't know what you're looking at unless you're qualified to do that type of work.
So we're saying let's write in this and say what a driver should do in an inspection and what we can really make him responsible for. Then let's write it so that he is responsible, that he has some responsibility there, and that he could be fined if he doesn't follow certain criteria and proper inspection.
Let's put some onus back on the mechanic. The shop can do all the training they want and they can provide all the equipment and they can provide the facility and the clean environment and safe workplace, but it comes down to attitude. You can enhance that through education in a lot of different ways, but part of it is they have to have responsibility. They have to have due diligence here to do proper work.
I think we want to have different levels where the responsibility lies here so we can get at the people that we should be getting at and make it a keen interest, that they have an interest here and they're going to buy into this program.
The other thing, and I've said it a few different times, is that one of the things people don't seem to understand in the general public is that companies that aren't maintaining vehicles properly aren't saving money. It's not cheaper to not maintain vehicles, and it's not any different no matter what size the vehicles. It's the same as your own car. If you let the little things go, they turn into big things and it costs big money.
One of the things that happen in our industry is that some people are ignorant to that. There needs to be some education. They're not aware of that, but slowly that mindset is coming around, and I think our vehicles have changed drastically, as our cars have changed. We've introduced electronics and a whole lot of different things. So there's a big need for education at our maintenance level.
The other thing we looked at is that mechanics should be licensed to do safety certificates. Outside of their licensing now, if a mechanic was found to do a faulty safety check now, to have any recourse back to that mechanic the only thing you'd be able to do is take away their mechanic's licence, and I don't think that would stand up in court. You're taking away their right to make a living and they've passed the criteria to do that.
What we could do, though, is give them, like a driver's licence, the ability to write a safety certificate on a truck and make them so that they have to stay updated every year on the changes in legislation. This legislation change is ongoing. As equipment changes and as the manufacturers change standards, those things change. So we have to be able to have them updated yearly on that and performing inspections to a certain standard. In Ontario in the last few years we've increased our legislation, we've said we have to inspect vehicles yearly, but we're not controlling the quality of people who are doing those inspections. We're saying that a guy who wrote his licence 25 years ago and got his class A licence and has only repaired cars for his whole life can now sign a safety inspection for a heavy truck, a class A truck. He may know nothing more about a class A truck than some of the people in this room that have never worked on a vehicle in their life, in all reality. He understands the basics of mechanic principles, but he doesn't know how to effectively do that inspection.
There's nothing compelling him today in the legislation to keep abreast of the changes in that legislation. So I think we need to look at that and say it's great to say we have yearly inspections, it's wonderful, but we have to have criteria here to say, "This is the level that they have to do them to, and these are the people who are qualified to do them," and limit the amount of people who can do that, whether that's inside the industry or outside the industry in the private sector, outside of the trucking companies or whatever, outside of the licensed inspection stations. But there have to be certain criteria that we're going to meet so we have some consistency.
One of the things we tried to do when we looked at all of the proposed changes to the legislation was let's try and keep it abreast of what's happening on the rest of the continent. As much as we can, let's try and make it work in the United States and all the other provinces in Canada, because you can't be an island upon yourself when you make this type of legislation, and we realize that. Yet I think what we've proposed here is leading the rest of the country, if not North America, in what we're going to do and have in legislation for truck maintenance and criteria for vehicles.
But we have present standards now, like vehicle-out-of-service standards, where they would deem to be out of service and it's not law. We need to make those law. We have inspectors who can inspect vehicles and at certain times they don't have a category to put it in. They can't fine an individual because that out-of-service criteria is not law.
One of the other things we looked at was driver inspections. I think that's an important thing because although we're expecting mechanics and trucking companies to meet a certain level of maintenance and compliance, the driver is the ultimate person controlling that vehicle, and he has to be compelled to do an inspection of that vehicle on a daily basis.
One of the things in legislation now is that if he travels under a 160-kilometre radius, he doesn't have to do that. He has to do the inspection but he doesn't have to record it. In all reality, if you're not recording it, if you're not signing that you've done it, really there's no way -- you can't take the guy to court and say, "Well, you didn't do your proper inspection or you'd have noticed this," because he didn't sign anything; he didn't acknowledge that he's even done this inspection. I don't think there's a magic number, whether it's 160 kilometres or 200 kilometres or 50 kilometres. If that vehicle is leaving on a trip for that day or that week, it should be inspected, and it should be inspected every day.
I think it's important to realize that there's a good portion of the trucking industry that has followed some of this criteria for a long, long time and has done some of the things we're proposing to make law here in an ongoing way for the last quite a few years because it only makes good economic sense to do it. We have a moral obligation to our people who work for us and the public to run safe equipment and it's an economic advantage to us to do that. Unfortunately, the whole industry isn't doing that. There's a small percentage of them that aren't, and we have to legislate some of the things that are only common sense back into our legislation.
That's about all I have to touch on, the high points. I'm sure you all have copies of it and are well aware of it, so are there any questions?
Mr Duncan: Thank you for your very thoughtful presentation. Are you satisfied with the progress of implementation of the Target `97 recommendations?
Mr Taylor: No, not really. I think there's a lot of work to it after it's accepted as legislation. There are a lot of things to right here and it's going to take a lot of time I think to put that in place. After we approve it, we're a ways from actually being able to implement it. So I think the more expedient we can be in approving this in principle, then we can actually write the legislation.
Mr Bisson: To one part of your presentation, with the time that we have, I've heard this suggested before. Presently, garages are given MVISs, motor vehicle inspection stations, the ability to give the mechanical certification for the truck. You're suggesting that it not rest with the garage but with the individual mechanics?
Mr Taylor: No. I think it can still rest with the garage or it can rest with the trucking operation that has the MVIS, but I think there should be separate criteria for truck inspections and that those mechanics should have a special accreditation that's not part of their licence. Right now, if they're a licensed class A mechanic, they can perform it. I'm saying they'll have to have another criterion besides their class A licence that will enable them to do that.
Mr Bisson: So it's not good enough just to be a mechanic. You'd have to have additional certification to be able to actually do the inspection. That's what you're suggesting?
Mr Taylor: Yes.
Mr Bisson: The other question I have, and part of it was asked by my friend in the Liberal Party, is the whole issue of Target '97. About two thirds of what's in Target '97 should be able to be done by regulation. If that happens, it means to say it's cabinet that decides; it's not the Legislature. There's no public process. Do you think there needs to be a public process to the implementation of Target '97, or is it good enough just to leave it in the hands of cabinet?
1730
Mr Taylor: I think, because of the cross-section of people who were involved, like the OPP and the MTO and the government people who were involved, that we've already involved the public process, and I think from a more knowledgeable level of what's involved in our industry. I was very pleased that we had a good cross-section of people involved in it. Where I, being in the industry, would have implemented a particular law, an officer is there saying: "That's well and good, but it's very hard to implement that and it's very hard to police that. Maybe we should be following this path. It will achieve the same thing but it'll be easier to administer from our level."
Like all legislation, you don't want there to be loopholes in it and you don't want people to be able to avoid it. You want to be able to go in a direction and set some guidelines and try to make that as firm as you can, and I think we had enough representation from different areas to be able to do that.
Mr Jerry J. Ouellette (Oshawa): Thank you for your presentation. You open a lot of doors with it, but unfortunately due to the time constraints we won't be able to go through all those doors.
You mentioned getting your mechanic's licence 20 years ago, and I would suggest there's been considerable changes to requirements for truck drivers, or for truck mechanics as well. There are a lot of jurisdictions that don't have mechanics in any way, shape or form. They don't have do be licensed. You talked about the CVOR ratings as being somewhat questionable, although I would ask, where is there a better system out there in any of the jurisdictions in North America that we're dealing with?
The walk-around aspect: You talked about the truck drivers and that, whereas when they take their test, a part of that test is the actual walk-around to make sure they are physically checking to make sure of their vehicle.
You talked about one rule book for everyone. The difficulty is that we're in North America and we have NAFTA and we have to deal with all of the jurisdictions. How do you see us as having one rule book for all of North America when trucks from every part of the country cross our borders as well?
Mr Taylor: I think we can have one book for Ontario, and like I said, when we looked at it, we looked at what rules we could change in Ontario to bring companies within compliance and still be in compliance with the other provinces and the criteria from the United States. I think from what we put together it meets that requirement. In some cases it's more stringent in Ontario, and that makes no difference to us really. All carriers will have to comply to that if they come into Ontario. We've made that very clear.
I don't think that would be a problem from what we put together. I've been involved in other jurisdictions, and when you ask what jurisdiction is better than Ontario, I think California is a very good one. They have a system that works likely better than ours. We've had trucks running in there for nine years now and I've been to California numerous times myself and gone through their inspection process and understand it very well, as did some of the people from MTO who have toured the country.
Some of the things they use there on a daily basis we've tried to include in here, like where there's a minor defect not to give the guy a fine and let him go, but to say: "Here's your fine. If you can come back in 48 hours and show that this is repaired, you can avoid that fine." Now we're ensuring that those little things are being taken care of or they're going to pay the fine, so we're encouraging that we have some monitoring system. If you have too many minor defects, it becomes a major defect and then you face the consequences of a major defect.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Taylor. You gave us valuable insight into all facets of your industry. Thanks for taking the time to be with us today.
Mrs Marland: I have a question to our researcher.
The Chair: Yes, if I could -- sorry. Did you want to add something?
Mr Taylor: The only comment I had is that I did leave my card with the secretary and I'd be more than willing to provide any information to anybody if they'd like to call at the office. I'm there every day, and by all means, if I can enlighten anybody or help them or provide them with information, I'd certainly be willing to do that.
The Chair: We appreciate that very much, Mr Taylor.
Could I call upon the Ontario Medical Association, please: Dr John Gray, Dr Ted Boadway. Mrs Marland?
Mrs Marland: Madam Chair, I just want to say before Mr Taylor leaves that I would like to obtain from our researcher some of the examples that Mr Taylor brought to the committee. When he talks about out-of-service criteria being law, I would like to know what that means and how we could incorporate something like that into this bill. Also, when we talk about what is mandatory training, he talked about the very relevant point about how drivers aren't qualified to do the same kind of inspection that mechanics are.
Frankly, I think Mr Taylor's presentation was an excellent one for all of us to hear today. If we could get this supplementary information from our researcher it would be excellent, including if there is any information out there about whether the trucking industry has something similar to a black box; I keep coming back to the aircraft analogy. I know there are governors that control the speed of trucks and some companies use them. I need to have some of that information. I am impressed that the Minister of Transportation has come back in; I've never seen a minister come back and sit in a committee room and listen. But I think we do need some more information before we get into our clause-by-clause next week.
ONTARIO MEDICAL ASSOCIATION
The Chair: Welcome. Thank you very much for coming here this evening. You have 20 minutes for your presentation and if time permits we'll ask you some questions.
Dr John Gray: Good afternoon. Thank you for allowing us to present. My name is John Gray. I am president of the Ontario Medical Association. With me is Dr Ted Boadway, the executive director of health policy at the OMA. We're speaking at the end of a long day and I appreciate you allowing us to speak.
The Chair: We've saved the best for last. We're halfway through our day. You might want to take that up with the minister since he is here.
Dr Ted Boadway: Value for money.
Dr Gray: Dr Boadway, along with his staff, has led extensive OMA policy initiatives on road safety and is very familiar with the issues of addiction and rehabilitation.
In opening, I would like to state that the Ontario Medical Association is a long-standing supporter of road safety initiatives. The OMA has often offered its support to the Ministry of Transportation to protect the public from high-risk and unfit drivers. I, along with my colleagues, witness the tragic and horrific consequences of motor vehicle collisions caused by drunk drivers. As doctors, we work to save the lives of mangled and disfigured collision victims in emergency wards across this province every day. But we also witness at first hand the irreparable damage this condition inflicts on the families involved.
To this end, the OMA would like to congratulate government for the introduction of Bill 138. This comprehensive legislation encompasses many road safety issues. We believe the bill will assist in getting high-risk drivers off the road. We are also glad to see that truck and bus safety, an issue of significant public concern, is now being addressed. But today, the OMA would like to focus on the drinking and driving countermeasures the government has introduced to deal with repeat offenders.
Drinking and driving is the leading cause of death among Ontarians under the age of 25. The OMA would like to extend its professional advice and support to the effort to eradicate this horrific public health problem.
In November 1994 the OMA released a policy report on drinking and driving, which we have circulated for your review. This report, which was widely endorsed by key organizations associated with drinking and driving countermeasures, outlines 15 recommendations for action. We are pleased that some of our recommendations have already been implemented by government. For example, administrative driver's licence suspension was introduced last fall. We have also recommended the implementation of mandatory rehabilitation programs as well as educational programs for impaired drivers who are repeat offenders.
The OMA is pleased to see that under Bill 138 the government is considering implementing mandatory educational, treatment and rehabilitation programs for impaired drivers and repeat offenders. In the legislation these programs will be instituted and administered through regulation. While we fully support these measures, we have some concerns about how the programs will be implemented. Our premise is that for such programs to work to their maximum benefit, they must be structured and administered properly to effectively combat drinking and driving.
1740
Physicians have extensive knowledge, expertise and experience in the treatment of alcohol addiction. We are in a position to advise on the appropriate methods to implement such programs. As clinicians we treat alcoholism in the patient setting and as case managers we are familiar with the necessary attributes of treatment programs to ensure their long-term success. Given this broad experience, we believe we can be of assistance to you in implementing mandatory programs in Ontario.
We know from the literature and from professional experience that mandatory programs can work. The OMA therefore recommends that the programs to be developed under Bill 138 should be based on the following six principles:
(1) There must be an evaluation of the nature and extent of the addiction problem.
(2) The treatment programs must be of such calibre that they induce confidence in the recipient driver.
(3) There must be various phases in the treatment process after the acute phase.
(4) Such programs must have long-term follow-up with effective and consistent monitoring of compliance.
(5) Repeat offenders and impaired drivers must enter into a written contract with the mandatory treatment program and agree to follow the regime in order to ensure compliance.
(6) Lastly, there must be real and serious consequences for noncompliance with the program if contract obligations are not met.
Of all of these points, I would like to stress that for any mandatory program to be successful there must be follow-up and monitoring. We know from the literature and from our experience that there is a high incidence of relapse in the first two years of follow-up. Thus, the OMA recommends that monitoring should continue for at least five years to achieve a high success rate.
The OMA also recommends that during the drafting of regulations, government establish a committee that will provide physicians with the opportunity to consult and ensure that treatment programs are effective. In this regard, the association would like to offer its support and assistance.
As with many conditions, the impact of drinking and driving transcends various boundaries: social, economic and medical. To date, our efforts as a society in battling this condition have met with limited success. We are doctors, not legislators. However, we believe that unless the laws against drinking and driving are expanded and enforced, our ability as doctors to ensure optimum health for the citizens of this province will continue to be undermined.
We believe drinking and driving is one of the most important public health issues we face today. The measures introduced in Bill 138 reflect our desire to completely eradicate drunk drivers and repeat offenders from our roads and highways.
I'd like to thank the standing committee for the opportunity to present to you the OMA views with respect to Bill 138, and both Dr Boadway and myself are prepared to answer any questions.
The Chair: Thanks very much. We have just about four minutes per caucus.
Mr Bisson: Thank you very much for having presented. You write in point 5, "Repeat offenders and impaired drivers must enter into a written contract with the mandatory treatment programs and agree to follow the regime in order to ensure compliance." Then you talk about, "Lastly, there must be real and serious consequences for noncompliance...." What would those consequences be? Are you suggesting jail terms? Are you suggesting fines? What are you getting at here?
Dr Gray: These are not medical questions. I think they're societal questions and I believe the people in this room at your side of the table are best in a position to answer those. But our belief is that there should be consequences, that people understand that they have engaged in a written contract which is binding on both parties, that there will be consequences for failure. But the nature of those consequences I think is best addressed by the Legislature and by society at large.
Mr Hastings: Dr Gray, it's come to my attention from the Driving School Association of Ontario that the cost of accidents, fatalities, tragedies and injuries amounts to about $9 billion, about the equivalent of our deficit today. Can you confirm how that figure is arrived at?
In your proposals on the six principles that you are outlining here, do you see the cost or partial cost for the implementation of the contract and some of the consequences follow-up being paid by the offender? Because it seems to me there are cost implications to the health care system in your additional principles.
Dr Gray: If I could maybe try to answer a part of your question -- and I'll perhaps let Dr Boadway expand -- I haven't had an opportunity to review the figures you mentioned in terms of the costs to the province. I assume those include not only health costs but also presumably employer costs and whatever. We certainly would be happy to review those figures and try to do our own economic analysis of at least the health aspect. Certainly the health costs are significant, there's no question: hospital time, rehabilitation time afterwards and so on.
In terms of who should pay for the programs, it's a valid question. We have not addressed that in our submission. We are aware that in other jurisdictions people who enter into mandatory programs are often responsible for the costs and maintenance of the program by themselves or at least in partnership perhaps with others. It's a valid question to ask. We have not addressed it specifically because we believe that's beyond our expertise. We know mandatory programs do work. The actual funding of these I think is open to debate.
Dr Boadway: It has been recognized from time to time that part of accepting responsibility for the rehabilitation and for your own condition, part of that recovery is assuming a financial responsibility for the costs that you incur, yourself and others, while you do it. So some rehabilitation programs do charge the testing and so on that's part of a monitoring program directly to the enrollee. This can be fairly expensive. Early on the monitoring might be quite frequent. Of course, as time goes on it stretches out and out. The costs may be up to $100 a month; it's not trivial. Some can pay, and where they can it's often thought it's a beneficial thing to their treatment that they accept this responsibility, but some cannot because many people who are in depths of their addiction do not have a functional life.
Mr Hastings: I'd be very appreciative if we could get some follow-up in this area in terms of who's responsible for costs, because the public health care system argues that everybody has access and you want to make sure that everybody is brought back to as functioning a human level as possible. Where does the breakdown occur and where should the charges or costs be allocated for automobile accidents involving drunk driving?
Dr Boadway: Right now, the costs are massive and they occur directly to the health care system, just about every night, in particular, in this province. I don't think anybody really totes that up very well, quite frankly, when we've looked at it. No one has the ability at the present time to do accurate statistics, but the global statistics that have been created are actually pretty good, and although you can't dollars and cents them, they actually stack up pretty well.
Mr Duncan: If I can anecdotally address that, I can tell you that in the program I administered the vast majority of repeat offenders don't have the resources to pay. If you've been convicted of drunk driving four times, chances are you don't have a job, chances are you are driving without insurance. I think any kind of evaluation of those repeat offenders would discover that the folks you're dealing with, that client base you're dealing with, are simply not going to be in a position to pay for it.
Depending on the nature of the program, the cost of individual programs in the United States, where there's a greater history of private programs, can range from a very low amount that's subsidized through a non-profit organization up to a place that can charge out a lot of money, but it would be my observation, and anecdotally I can say, that a lot of the people you deal with who are repeat offenders would not have the resources to access a paying program.
In Ontario we've developed over the years a whole range of options. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe a doctor can in fact bill under the fee schedule for certain services provided to an alcoholic, a counselling service. Is that correct?
Dr Gray: That's correct. And there are institutions, such as Homewood and Donwood and so on, that are dedicated to these programs.
Mr Duncan: There's a whole range of options available now that have been endorsed that don't involve costs. I would suggest to the government that they heed the words of the OMA and recognize also that for those offenders who are required to take a program, while I agree with the intent of making them pay for it, the reality is that with a lot of these offenders you're going to have trouble getting money out of them. The government should be prepared for that reality. We already are through the Ontario Substance Abuse Bureau; I don't know if that's what it's called these days. There are programs and there are services that are subsidized by public health insurance as well.
The Chair: Thank you, Dr Gray and Dr Boadway. On behalf of the committee, let me express our appreciation for your presence here today and for your presentation.
Ladies and gentlemen, this concludes our hearings for today. We will reconvene on Monday, June 23, at 3:30 in this room. I know you will miss us all. We are adjourned.
The committee adjourned at 1750.