Addiction Research Foundation

Canadian Automobile Association Ontario

COMPREHENSIVE ROAD SAFETY ACT, 1997 / LOI DE 1997 SUR UN ENSEMBLE COMPLET DE MESURES VISANT LA SÉCURITÉ ROUTIÈRE

MARGUERITE DUGGAN
SUZANNE SABOURIN

GUARDIAN INTERLOCK SYSTEMS

TIMMINS TRAILERS

ADDICTION RESEARCH FOUNDATION

CANADIAN AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION ONTARIO

TRAFFIC INJURY RESEARCH FOUNDATION OF CANADA

SUSAN SMITH

CONTENTS

Monday 23 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

Mrs Marguerite Duggan; Ms Suzanne Sabourin

Guardian Interlock Systems

Mr Ian Marples

Timmins Trailers

Mr Jackie Larochelle

Addiction Research Foundation

Dr Robin Room

Dr Robert Mann

Canadian Automobile Association Ontario

Miss Pauline Mitchell

Traffic Injury Research Foundation of Canada

Dr Douglas Beirness

Ms Susan Smith

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 / -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 Helen Johns (Huron PC)

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South / -Sud PC)

Clerk / Greffière: Ms Tonia Grannum

Staff / Personnel: Mr Ted Glenn, research officer, Legislative Research Service

The committee met at 1536 in committee room 1.

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.

MARGUERITE DUGGAN
SUZANNE SABOURIN

The Acting Chair (Mrs Lyn McLeod): We will begin now. I am going to ask the first presenters, Suzanne Sabourin and Marguerite Duggan, if they would come forward, please.

While they're taking their seats, I just draw to the attention of members of the committee that you've had some information that was requested tabled for you. You first of all have responses, some answers from the ministry on questions that were raised at committee. You also have received the report on the interlocking device that we had requested. Mothers Against Drunk Driving have provided us with that report, made it available to us. I've already tabled the lane restrictions for commercial vehicles on 400-series highways. As well, there is a video that has been made available to every member of the committee on the interlocking device. Thanks to staff of the committee for obtaining materials so quickly, so we could deal with them before we get into clause-by-clause.

Ms Sabourin, Ms Duggan, thank you very much for being here to make your presentation to the committee. You have 20 minutes to make your presentation.

Ms Suzanne Sabourin: I'm Suzanne Sabourin.

Mrs Marguerite Duggan: I'm Marguerite Duggan. First of all, I'd like to thank the committee for giving us an opportunity to speak. I hope you don't mind that I'm going to read most of this from my notes. I didn't want to forget anything, so I typed it out.

As you know, we're here to speak on truck safety. We were asked to write down our own thoughts as to what the family is going through and some of the issues that concern us on truck safety.

Six months ago, our family was happily celebrating the Christmas holidays. We're a large family and we always looked forward to those times when we could all be together. Our mother, Robina, and our sister, Mary, were always at the centre of these occasions. They were the core and heart of us all.

On December 28, while they were travelling to Montreal to spend New Year's with our two sisters living in Montreal, tragedy struck and our lives were forever and irrevocable shattered. The phone calls came to tell each of us how a dual set of truck tires had crushed their car and killed them instantly. Our mother and sister were dead. It was a call that will forever haunt each of us.

Before that day, in our safe little world, we were blissfully unaware of the problems which exist with unsafe trucks on our highways. The tragedy seemed incredible, a freak occurrence, but then we learned the facts. We have been learning, to our horror, of the greater scope of the problem since then. This accident was unnecessary and completely preventable, and knowing this makes the pain and the loss cut that much deeper.

Why did they have to die? The truth is, they died because the government and the trucking industry had not deemed it important enough to ensure that every truck that goes on our highways is completely safe. The truth is, it is expensive and time-consuming to implement all the safety measures and inspections which must be done to be sure. The truth is, it was the cost of doing business. We are here today to tell you that the cost is much too high.

The Ontario government has recently introduced new legislation dealing with impounding trucks with critical defects for 15 days and making flying truck tires an absolute liability offence, facing fines of up to $50,000 if a wheel comes off. It should be mentioned that the operative words here are "up to," and we cannot be guaranteed that the maximum fines would ever in fact be imposed. However, this is certainly an initial step in having this issue looked at, brought about, we feel, by intense media pressure, but we cannot allow it to stop there. This is only the beginning, and we are here to express just a few of the changes we would like to see.

The concept of impounding unsafe trucks is a good one. However, it does not go far enough. For third offences, the vehicle would be impounded for 60 days. We are now back to the cost of doing business. If a truck or trucking company has been found unsafe once, that is fearful in itself, but after three separate occasions within two years obviously the message is not being sent clearly enough. How many strikes do these trucks get before they are out?

The operators of these unsafe trucks should have their licences suspended or revoked, and these rigs should be taken off the road permanently. They are as dangerous, if not more so, and certainly as irresponsible, as someone getting behind the wheel after having too much to drink. If a driver or operator is simply made to pay fines, they are much more likely to take the risk. A fine is paid, the government is a little richer and it is back to business. However, if their livelihood itself was threatened, maybe better care would be taken.

We also believe that throughout the hearings and appeals which would certainly take place after such a penalty was imposed, these unsafe rigs should be removed from service until the matter has been settled. As you know, these cases can sometimes take years, and many lives would be at risk during that time.

The legislation must also include, aside from the penalty for flying truck tires, stipulations with respect to other flying trucks parts and other safety violations. Two years prior to Angela Worona's death, 25-year-old Ray Chambers was killed when part of a truck's braking system came loose and smashed into his car. This last February, incredibly enough, my sister Suzanne was involved in an accident where the drive shaft of a truck broke loose and struck six vehicles. Thankfully, no one was hurt, but this is a game of odds, and the odds are against us.

As a side commentary, it might be interesting to look into the concept of having at least a portion of the fines collected through these infractions put back into a truck safety and maintenance program, including proper training and education of all drivers driving the rigs and the mechanics who service and certify them.

This brings me to the important issue of driver training and the circle checks required to be performed on the vehicles they are driving. This is an issue which must be dealt with. It is imperative that every driver is properly educated and trained, not only in driving his truck, but in ascertaining potential problems with it. We do not expect the drivers to become mechanics; however, they should be trained enough, at the very least, to be aware that a problem exists with the truck so that they can immediately have it serviced. Would you not be able to tell if there was a problem with your car? You couldn't fix it perhaps, but you would certainly have it checked.

From my experience attending various truck blitzes, it is obvious to me that many drivers are unable to perform adequate circle checks. In fact, the circle checks required do not encompass enough items. This must be rectified. Every truck driver should be required to follow the proper training and obtain certification as to his ability to perform his circle checks. As a matter of fact, as a sidebar of being at the truck blitzes, many drivers did not know what a circle check was.

Detailed logs of each circle check should be kept. Also, the circle checks should be more encompassing, to include verification of tires, oil leakages and other obvious potential hazards. These qualifications should not be optional but a requirement under the law, and the necessary resources to ensure the proper training is given must be available.

We have been inundated with commentaries from truckers, trucking companies and trucking associations telling us that the majority of trucks are safe, and that the good drivers and safe companies want the bad rigs off the road as badly as we do. It is time for all of them to take a stand with us, rather than against us, in proving their words. Even after all the legislation possible is put into place, the burden of responsibility still remains on the companies and the drivers to ensure they follow the requirements. Let their conscience be their guide, rather than their profit margin.

Sadly, on June 13 an 18-year-old boy in Illinois was also killed by a flying truck tire. Where will it end? We are talking about people and lives here, and what could be more important? The buck must stop here.

We cannot possibly describe what the devastation of losing our mother and sister has done to us. It is something that cannot be explained or felt until you have been there. We will never be the same again. There's a gaping hole in our hearts and in our souls. We cry at the injustice and we ache with the realization that we will never see them again.

Next week is Mary's birthday. She would have been 41 years old. But she will not celebrate this year. Her three teenage children will never share another birthday with her and we will never hear her laugh or smile again. Our mother will never be there for counsel or for comfort. The holidays will never be joyful again. Our mother and sister are dead. We beg of you not to let another family experience this heartache before something concrete is done.

I spoke with Dwight in the hallway, and I did want to mention to you that, much to the family's dismay, we recently attended the adjournment of Mr Lauzon, who is a truck driver. After three adjournments, they finally set a pre-trial date. At this time we found out from the crown prosecutor that they couldn't do anything related to revoking this gentleman's licence or anything to do with that; that is strictly the jurisdiction of the MTO.

One of the absolutely most important things to the family at this point in time, aside from the issue of truck safety in general, is that this gentleman have his licence revoked. Not only did he have this accident, his licence was already under suspension. He owns his own truck and trailer. He actually had the audacity at this last hearing to bring his truck along, almost as if to say, "I am driving again." We were unsure of this fact until that point.

All the fines in the world would not make me feel better. There are lots of ways -- his insurance and so on and so forth -- that are going to hurt him financially. If we had told him he couldn't drive again, particularly this gentleman, because of his past history, I think it probably would have hurt him more than anything. More than anything, it's not the family's intention to hurt him, but to ensure that he cannot operate a commercial vehicle again on our roads. In my eyes, so long as he does, he will always be a danger in one way or another to the community at large, whether it be his tires or his brakes or anything else on his rig. To our frustration, we have no power to do anything about that, none whatsoever.

The Acting Chair: Thank you very much. It's important for our committee to hear from you, although we can appreciate how painful it is for you to relive the experience.

We have some 10 minutes left for questioning, so we have a little better than three minutes per caucus. I don't have the Chair's list of where we ended at the last day, so unless somebody remembers who begins, I'll begin with the government caucus. Was it Gilles? Were you next up, Gilles, in the rotation?

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): Do you want me to start?

As said by the Chair, thank you very much for coming. It's never easy to come out and speak about these things in public the way you do. It takes a lot of courage to do that and it takes a lot of will as well.

I want to go back to two things you said in your presentation. The first one is that -- I'm not going to paraphrase, because I'm probably not going to get it right -- you were talking about how you've gone to the blitzes and you've noticed in a lot of cases that a driver didn't even know what a circle check was. How often have you seen this?

Mrs Duggan: I can tell you on one particular occasion, which was probably the most disheartening, a gentleman pulled up in a truck that they actually had to tow from the QEW in Burlington. It was one of the last trucks in that day. I walked around the truck. I'm not a mechanic. I barely know enough about my car, except if it's making a noise I have to take it in. I walked around the truck with the MTO gentleman and noticed right away that something was hanging from the bottom of the truck that shouldn't have been there. It was obvious.

Mr Bisson: Is it the norm in your experience, when you've gone to the blitzes, that a lot of the drivers don't even know how to do a circle check?

1550

Mrs Duggan: The gentlemen from the MTO and the OPP who are there are very helpful and more than happy to help and instruct. He asked me if I wanted to talk to the driver. When the driver came out, I said to him: "Did you not see this? Did you not do your circle check?" He said, "What's a circle check?" I said, "Do you not go around your truck and check to see if you have oil in the tires, if the level's right? Do you not check your air brakes? Do you not check and make sure that there are not obstructions? Do you not at least do a primary check?" He said: "I get in the yard, they load my truck up. I get in, I drive. I'm a driver."

Mr Bisson: It goes back to the need to have good training and also to mandate it.

I don't have a lot of time but I have to ask you this question. There was a lot of fanfare by the minister bringing forward what was supposed to be comprehensive truck safety legislation that deals with some of the issues that you raised in your presentation -- the issue of training drivers, the whole issue of everybody taking the responsibility in regard to truck safety. Do you think this bill goes far enough?

Mrs Duggan: No, absolutely not. In my mind, I feel that the bill itself is grandstanding on Mr Palladini's part. I think throwing out a figure of $50,000 to try and put a Band-Aid on it is exactly what it's doing -- putting a Band-Aid on it. Nobody's going to get a $50,000 fine in reality. You can go through all the truck safety violations; nobody gets the maximum fine. Tires are not the only issue regarding truck safety.

The fact is, we have vehicles that are 10 times the weight, the force, the size that a car is travelling with us down the road. People are afraid to drive on the road. It amazes me that people are afraid to drive by trucks. Every truck accident that has happened, certainly with tires, has been on the opposite side of the highway, so you can't see that coming. Wouldn't you like to know that a guy driving down the highway on the other side had to stop before he started his route and make sure that his tires were correctly operating?

Mr John Hastings (Etobicoke-Rexdale): If up to $50,000 is not a severe penalty for this kind of violation, what would you recommend then as to what the wording ought to be and how much it ought to be? Given that when this bill passes, which we hope will get through clause-by-clause by the end of tomorrow, it will be the highest amount that any judge in the Divisional Court of Ontario, upon evidence that would show for conviction -- it would be highest in North America.

Mrs Duggan: The monetary amount is irrelevant really. I would like to see zero tolerance and have it not be a monetary issue. If you're driving for a big transport company, $50,000 isn't anything -- $500,000 isn't anything. If you're running a fleet of truck, the monetary issue is irrelevant. If they take your company out of service for a month, that's relevant. Not only is it costing you your money, it's costing you your reputation, it's costing you your livelihood if you're a truck driver.

Mr Hastings: Would you advocate that such a measure be undertaken without a due process hearing?

Mrs Duggan: No, absolutely not. I firmly believe they have a right to defend themselves. This bill is probably never going to pass. If I was head of the Ontario Trucking Association, I would not let it pass. They can't possibly enforce. It's like having roadside sheriffs. Nobody in this country is guilty on the spot. You are innocent until proven guilty, and I'll grant them that. But in the meantime I don't think they should be allowed to drive.

Mr Hastings: How do you implement that? If you're going to have a due process hearing and yet remove their licence and their capacity to operate immediately, how do you balance the two off? Would it be similar to the 90-day administrative automatic suspension we have under other driving?

Mrs Duggan: Correct. If you're up on a drunk driving charge, you still can't drive for a period of time until you at least come to trial. It certainly would stop the big transport companies from waylaying things for an indefinite period of time.

Mr Hastings: Thank you for your comments under such stressful conditions.

Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-Walkerville): I just wanted to thank you for coming forward today. We have no questions other than to comment that this bill would not be here today had it not been for the courage of the families in stepping forward. We recognize that it falls short of what many people would like to see in terms of truck safety, and we will be bringing forward a number of amendments to the bill tomorrow which hopefully the government will give due consideration to.

We'll be bringing forward amendments also around -- because I know this is one of the big issues for family members -- regulations and ensuring that the regulatory changes that are contemplated in Target '97 do get implemented, that they don't get pushed back. We'll be bringing forward an amendment asking for a public committee to oversee the implementation of those regulatory changes so that there's more accountability than is there in the normal regulation process.

Again, understanding your tragedy and the work you've done, thank you for coming out. We'll try to keep vigilant in ensuring that not only the legislative but the regulatory changes happen.

The Acting Chair: Ms Sabourin, did you want to add something?

Ms Sabourin: I would just like to make a comment on Mr Bisson's question about Bill 138 being sufficient. As far as I'm concerned, it's the very tip of the iceberg. It's something, but it's far from being enough. There are so many questions that this doesn't cover. There's driver fatigue, braking systems, drive shafts, numerous other things. If it doesn't specify it in the law, you can pass by it. It wasn't specified under law that the gentleman whose tires flew off and killed my mother and sister had to, by law, check the oil in his tires, check for oil level. It's not under the law, it's not there. Because it's not there, he can't be prosecuted because he didn't do it.

Saying that, yes, absolute liability, as far as I'm concerned -- this is my opinion -- will never stand up in court. You can never say somebody is guilty without giving them a chance. It will never stand up in court, as far as I'm concerned. It doesn't matter how many appeals you do, it will not stand up.

But there's so much more. I really believed that for Bill 138 there was going to be a whole lot more of Target '97 in it. When Mr Palladini told me that this was going to be a more comprehensive law, I truly believed that he was going to put a lot more into it, not just a couple of things here and there and then merging. Believe me, I'm all for the bus safety and I'm all for the drunk driving thing, but to put it all together just to make it look big --

The Acting Chair: Thank you very much. As a number of people have indicated, this is the beginning. I trust that you'll continue to make your concerns known. Thank you for being with us today.

A question from Mr Bisson.

Mr Bisson: Just for the committee, I have an amendment that I want to put forward around that whole question of process, of ensuring that the minister does follow through on the recommendations of Target '97, where we do end up, his comprehensive truck policy legislation. I'll be moving that amendment either today or tomorrow.

The Acting Chair: I'm sorry, Mr Bisson, you're moving the amendment now?

Mr Bisson: I can move it now if you want it now.

The Acting Chair: I just didn't quite catch the last part of your statement. We will be doing clause-by-clause tomorrow. Amendments will be tabled and then considered in clause-by-clause in committee tomorrow.

Mr Bisson: I'll pull it out of my folder and I'll get it to you in a bit.

The Acting Chair: You wish to table your amendment now on this subject?

Mr Bisson: Do the next presenter and I'll table the amendment.

The Acting Chair: All right. Thank you very much.

1600

GUARDIAN INTERLOCK SYSTEMS

The Acting Chair: Mr Marples, thank you for joining our committee. You will have 20 minutes for the presentation and if there is time there will be questions from members of the committee.

Mr Ian Marples: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to make this presentation. Please forgive me if I read most of it, but I was advised of this opportunity on rather short notice. I've thrown it together in rather a hurry and I want to make sure I touch on all the points.

My name is Ian Marples. I'm president of Guardian Interlock Systems Corp. Guardian Interlock Systems is an Ontario company based in the Toronto area which is recognized as a world leader in ignition interlock technology and program services. Guardian is the only company in this field with a track record in Canada. Our experience in Alberta dates back to the inception of that province's ignition interlock program in 1990. Guardian is currently also under consideration to act as exclusive interlock service provider under the Quebec program which is scheduled to commence on December 1 of this year.

I'll be speaking to the provisions of Bill 138 that relate to drinking and driving offences, with particular reference to those dealing with licence suspensions and vehicle impoundment. In doing so, it's my intention to touch on some basic realities and perhaps in the process dispel some myths.

One reality it's important to get a grasp of at the outset is that virtually everyone caught drinking and driving these days is a repeat offender. If there's any doubt about this, I'd ask you to consider that it is generally accepted that a person can drive in an alcohol-impaired condition somewhere between 200 and 2,000 times before they're going to be caught. On this basis, drawing a distinction between so-called first offenders and repeat offenders is really just perpetuating a myth.

In fact, the distinction between these groups is, at best, a blurred one. Today's impaired driving offenders are not just casual social drinkers who inadvertently made an error in judgment. This may have been true to some extent in the past. But a succession of public education and awareness campaigns over the last decade means this is no longer true today. People have got the message and responsible people have listened.

In the face of widespread awareness about the dangers of drinking and driving, impaired driving offenders today are, by definition, people who have demonstrated by their conduct that they are unwilling or unable to make responsible decisions about driving after drinking. By and large, they are problem drinkers, people who either can't control their consumption or are alcohol-dependent. These same people have also demonstrated by their conduct that they are not deterred by traditional legal sanctions: fines, licence suspension, incarceration, that sort of thing. Because of their alcohol problems and the integral part driving plays in the lives of most adults today, the great majority of impaired driving offenders are likely to continue driving after drinking.

If licence suspensions are unlikely to prevent convicted impaired drivers from offending again, does this mean that by increasing the length of the licence suspension periods we can at least keep them off the roads longer? Unfortunately, the answer is no. Although there is evidence of high compliance with short suspension periods, this is not the case with longer suspensions. In fact, there are indications that at some point licence suspensions tend to become counterproductive as more and more people not only drive under suspension, but fail to apply for reinstatement at the end of the suspension period and are thus permanently lost from the system of legal licensing and regulation. In short, it is unrealistic to expect that people who have proven themselves to be irresponsible about driving after drinking and undeterred by the threat of a lengthy licence suspension will be any more responsible about complying with a suspension once it's imposed or deterred by a longer suspension if caught again.

In support of increased licence suspensions, it has been argued that greater effectiveness and higher compliance can be achieved by impounding the vehicles of persons caught driving under suspension. However, the same reasons that help explain why the type of person caught drinking and driving these days is unlikely to be deterred by traditional legal sanctions from either repeating the offence or driving under suspension also suggest that vehicle impoundment will not produce the desired effect. Experience in other jurisdictions indicates that many suspended impaired drivers drive what are called "junkers," which can be easily replaced for a few hundred dollars.

At the root of the problem here are assumptions that place a fundamental reliance on the exercise of self-control by persons who could be characterized as lacking self-control in several essential respects. Reality here is that unless we are prepared to commit vast resources to enforcement, the proverbial police officer on every street corner, we cannot expect measures such as increased licence suspension periods and vehicle impoundment to do anything more than steer greater numbers of drinking drivers away from governmental regulation altogether.

Against this backdrop, ignition interlocks represent a promising new initiative in the struggle against impaired driving. An ignition interlock is basically a sophisticated breath alcohol testing instrument which is installed in a vehicle in a way that links its operation to the functioning of the ignition, electrical and other vehicle systems. The interlock device includes electronic components that are designed to monitor and record data on critical functions and events, also to guard against tampering or circumvention attempts, and to ensure that users comply with supervision and reporting requirements imposed by administering authorities.

With ignition interlocks, the focus is on controlling behaviour in the interests of public safety. On the assumption that the type of offender we have been referring to will probably continue to try and drive after drinking in spite of the risks or, apparently, the consequences, interlocks are unlike licence suspensions in that they do not rely on self-control or responsible decision-making. Instead, interlocks represent a form of incapacitation which effectively prevents impaired driving by physically preventing the vehicle from being operated if the intended driver has had too much to drink.

From a traffic safety perspective, it makes sense to get impaired driving offenders on an interlock program at the earliest opportunity. This is not to suggest that interlocks should replace licence suspensions, or even that licence suspension periods should necessarily be reduced. As a sanction, licence suspensions serve to underline society's determination not to tolerate, and to protect itself from, people whose behaviour represents an unacceptable level of risk and all too often results in tragedy.

On the other hand, I would invite members of the committee to consider a staged approach to suspension and reinstatement much in the same way as legislators have in Alberta and a number of US states in relation to interlock use. Following a period of what's termed "hard suspension," no driving whatsoever, impaired driving offenders in these jurisdictions may become eligible for limited driving privileges under an interlock-restricted permit.

In many cases this allows the offender to get or keep a job, particularly in areas that aren't well served by public transit, and this in turn can have positive spillover effects in terms of family life, reduced welfare costs and what not, to mention a few examples. At the same time, because the interlock is a highly effective means of control -- in other words, people can drink and they can drive, but they cannot combine the two -- the public is protected from further incidents of impaired driving.

Under this scenario, the offender is kept on an interlock program for at least the remainder of the original suspension period, but possibly longer, depending on performance and compliance with program conditions. In fact, it appears that jurisdictions such as Alberta are moving in the direction of open-ended interlock programs, with an indefinite term under which offenders are required to keep the interlock in their vehicle until they can demonstrate to the satisfaction of administering authorities that the device is no longer required in the interests of public safety.

Apart from control, two other potential benefits also point in the direction of early interlock use. The first is that interlocks are an effective screening tool. As an adjunct to assessment, reports of events that are monitored and recorded by the interlock device can be of great assistance in evaluating the subject's drinking problem and in determining what type of therapeutic intervention might be most appropriate.

1610

Secondly, interlock use over time, and particularly when combined with treatment, is showing promising results in terms of long-term behavioral change, helping impaired driving offenders to develop new, more responsible patterns of behaviour in relation to drinking and driving. This of course means a reduction in recidivism rates.

Considering that so-called first-time offenders these days are likely to be problem drinkers who have already driven in an alcohol-impaired condition hundreds of times, it is recommended that, at the very least, interlock use be made a condition of licence reinstatement for this group. Forget about the third-time offenders or even so-called second-time offenders. By and large, they're lost to the system; the length of licence suspension beforehand is far too long. But if you can catch them at an early stage, get them on an interlock program, put them in control, then hopefully, through early intervention, sufficient numbers will be retained within the system to allow the beneficial effects of interlock use to take hold and help make Ontario's roads the safest in the world.

The Acting Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Marples. We have about three minutes per caucus for questioning.

Mr Hastings: Mr Marples, could you elucidate for this committee what specific studies you have looked at that ascertain and back up your statement on page 4, that the interlock systems have a particularly long-term beneficial impact when a lot of the studies don't show that?

Mr Marples: Yes. The evidence is starting to mount. I think you have to bear in mind that if you strip away all the frills from an interlock, it's just a piece of hardware. It very much depends on how it's used. What it is is not quite as important.

There are over 30 states in the US that have interlock programs of one sort or another and there are about 20,000-odd devices in use throughout North America. Most of the US programs, unfortunately, are judicially based. In those programs the focus tends to be on the offender and the crime they've committed rather than on the problem they have. So you find that interlock use is subject to judicial discretion. The term of use tends to be fixed as a term of probation and basically it results in programs that aren't as effective as the ones that are coming along these days.

Alberta's program since 1990 has been administrative in nature, and since 1995 we've been conducting a study there in conjunction with the Traffic Injury Research Foundation of Canada and the Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation in the States that actually involves introducing a therapeutic treatment component into the program, and this is starting to produce some very interesting and promising results. Yes, I can point to studies that are beginning to show the kinds of long-term results I'm talking about. That's not to say that interlocks haven't been effective in the past, but the way in which they've been used hasn't really optimized the potential benefits.

One of the reports you do have is a preliminary draft report that has been produced by the Traffic Injury Research Foundation relating to an evaluation of the Alberta program. I think the short answer to your question is that's the one you can point to. That's starting to show some long-term benefits.

Mr Hastings: Are you aware of the Alberta study by Weinrath which indicates that in 10% of ignition interlock cases recorded, new impaired driving charges, compared to 25% of other high-risk drivers?

Mr Marples: Yes. That's quite a significant difference.

Mr Hastings: What's the problem with that study or with the statistics?

Mr Marples: Michael Weinrath was retained by the federal Department of Justice, the Alberta Driver Control Board, the Alberta Solicitor General's department and a few other agencies to do an independent study of the pilot program phase in Alberta, which ran from 1990 to late 1993. That phase was limited to repeat offenders, the very worst-case repeat offenders, and it used an inferior device. So you're really not getting the best results from it. Even so, the difference between 10% and 25% is very significant.

I might mention, incidentally, when it comes to statistics, Dr Douglas Beirness of the Traffic Injury Research Foundation is here today and he'll be addressing you this afternoon. He is one of the foremost experts in this field and I think he can probably better answer those questions than I can.

Mr Duncan: Thank you for your presentation. I asked some questions last week of another delegation about research on various studies, about the evaluation of the Alberta program. They all conclude fairly strongly that the program has worked and merits expansion. I think the three cases -- we just received these literally a few minutes ago, so I haven't read them thoroughly, but looking at the conclusions, they conclude without doubt that these types of programs are good programs and aid in reducing recidivism.

Mr Marples: I think it's fair to say that the evidence is starting to mount. By the same token, ignition interlocks are not a panacea, but I truly believe they are an important piece of the puzzle that can help make a difference.

Mr Duncan: As someone who worked in the business of alcohol and drug recovery prior to being elected, one of the things people in that particular field will tell you is that among chronic alcoholics there is a tendency to be a little less accepting of authority and responsibility. Notionally, you can combine this type of program with some kind of therapeutic approach, and there is a range of therapeutic options. It would make sense that this would help with recidivism among those particularly chronic abusers.

Mr Marples: I think another thing to keep in mind is that interlock programs are always delivered by a private service provider who is not an authority figure, because they're not a representative of government. They're always done on a user-pay basis; the person who has committed the crime, who represents a threat, pays 100% of the costs associated with it. Speaking from experience -- we operate not only in Alberta but in a number of states in the US -- the vast majority of our clients come to us in a state of denial. The interlock does its job of controlling, but over time they come to change their behaviour patterns.

Mr Bisson: By its very nature, that's unfortunately part of the reality of the disease we call alcoholism. It is a question of denial.

Mr Marples: Exactly.

Mr Bisson: I have to ask you this question because I am not as current on the issue of how interlocks work as I should be. The person -- either he or she -- has been charged, an interlock has been installed, but it's the only vehicle in the family. The other person who hasn't been charged has to blow into the unit as well, has to be trained?

Mr Marples: Yes, absolutely.

Mr Bisson: There's no way around that?

Mr Marples: No, there is no way around it. It's made clear to the person who is required to have the interlock device in their vehicle, who is on the interlock-restricted permit, that he or she is responsible for all the results that are collected on what we call the data logger.

But in terms of its difficulty, I can attest from personal experience -- I have one in my vehicle parked outside. I have it for demonstration purposes, I'm happy to say, not because I need it. But it really is a no-brainer. Once you are trained to use it, it tells you when it wants a test. You take the test and, as long as you haven't been drinking, use it and forget it. If you have been drinking, it becomes your worst nightmare.

Mr Bisson: I just wondered though from the perspective of the person, the family member, who is the second or the third driver on the vehicle, what kind of response there's been from them in the Alberta experience.

Mr Marples: In almost 100% of the cases, it's very, very supportive.

Mr Bisson: Because they knew it was a problem?

Mr Marples: Yes. We hear about victims of impaired drivers all the time. Typically, it's someone who's been injured or killed by an impaired driver, and their families. But the families of alcoholics and people who are alcohol-dependent are victims as well. When they are given a ray of hope, they get behind it 100% in almost every case.

The Acting Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Marples, for making not only a presentation, but a written presentation on short notice. We were very interested in the interlock system, so we value your being here.

1620

TIMMINS TRAILERS

The Acting Chair: Is Mr Larochelle from Timmins Trailers here? Welcome.

Mr Jackie Larochelle: Thank you very much. This is my first time doing something like this, so I might be a little bit nervous. I was invited here by Mr Bisson, I guess because I have some ideas or whatever. My experience is 25 years in the truck and trailer building and repair business. Altogether, we have 518 years of experience between our employees and the management and everything in that field.

Naturally, we're seeing a whole bunch of changes going on, accidents happening, and what we notice at our end is that it is going from one end to the other without looking in the middle whatsoever. Government or whatever is blaming the truckers; truckers are blaming the government; nothing is being done in between. We're stuck in between, where we have rules and laws coming down for us to follow to fabricate, to repair and stuff like that, some rules that are not clear, some rules that are not well known by the ministry themselves, some rules that are announced years in advance but not put into effect for a long, long time, confusing a whole bunch of people.

Naturally, we praise the fact the things are happening. We accept the fact that some of the truckers are negligent, but with the experience that I have working with truckers -- and I call them truckers, I call them professionals; I've had the chance to work with them now for 25 years -- they are probably among the most honest and hardworking people there are, but they have absolutely no power over what's happening right now.

The $50,000 fine, the $100,000 fine, that's fine; it will not solve the problem. Naturally, we say a guy should do a circle check, walk around his trailer or his truck. That may be fine and dandy, but most of the problems occur in a split second. Ten years ago we used to fabricate a 100% Canadian content trailer. Now it's down to maybe 20% to 30%, with most of the components coming from Mexico, Brazil, the States. As we all know, the country, the mountains, the roads are not the same. The quality has gone down tremendously. We are stuck in between again; 98.7% of our warranty is based on exported components. That is a major problem.

You have a defective bearing. They claim: "We have no problems. You may have one. Send us back the bearing at your cost, 10,000 miles away. We'll let you know in six months what went wrong." Then you get a letter that you've received many times before, with the date being changed but all the comments being the same -- "water contamination, overloading" -- always the same answers. Nothing is ever getting done.

Mr Bisson: Sounds like Bre-X.

Mr Larochelle: Yes. What we're seeing also, being stuck in between, is naturally there is a law that says you have to have your truck in for a safety once a year. Once a year, in my opinion, is not enough. What's happening also is there are too many self-safeties where companies that own their own trucks and trailers and have their own mechanics are doing their own safeties. Between you and me, we know what's happening with that.

Too many shops claim to be qualified in doing safeties. Ourselves, we repair trucks and trailers. We are specialists in trailers. We do safeties on trailers. We are so-so in trucks. We can do safeties on trucks. We decline to do it for one reason: We don't know enough. But on the other side we have lots of competitors that are expert in trucks but are doing safeties on trailers, with no knowledge. I can bring you here 10 class-A mechanics with papers to certify trailers and not one of them will know what to do with the trailer. So the law is little bit iffy-iffy on that side, if you know what I mean.

One of the biggest problems that we're having, that we're seeing also with changes that are going on, is that the product that is built in Canada right now is probably the best it has ever been, but we are being swamped with product coming up from other countries with the cheapest possible quality of material to compete in prices. A trucker who earns his living making money, naturally, sees a product that is $5,000 or $6,000 cheaper and he goes for it. Two years down the line that piece of equipment is finished, but he's stuck with it because he has five-year payments, let's say. It is definitely a big problem. The quality of product coming in here is less than adequate.

You've seen our roads, you've travelled the northern roads, you come from Thunder Bay. It's not getting any better. That equipment is carrying 40 tonnes and 50 tonnes down the road at excessive speeds. So naturally things are not getting any better at all.

If you noticed, 10 years ago truckers were making money. The accidents weren't as often. The problem wasn't as big. Today they're making no money whatsoever. We're stuck in between because the good truckers that used to pay their bills in 30 days, no problem, are down to 60 days. The guys paying in 60 days are down to 120 days. There is no money left at the end user, which is the trucker.

We see a whole bunch of stuff going on where the guys are being robbed of tonnage or whatever. Let me give you a few comments that I've heard from presidents of major, major corporations. One especially -- they must have about 1,000 brokers, and I don't like the word "broker," because it kind of means everything. The broker, you know, he's broke, he's having a hard time. The president of a major company told me, "If 15% of our brokers don't go bankrupt every year, we're paying them too much money." With that attitude, how do you expect a trucker to pay for all damages and everything if he's not making any money whatsoever? All he's asking for is a decent wage.

If I've got some friends who have invested $50,000 in a corner store or $150,000 in a Tim Horton's, they're called respectable businessmen. If a trucker has got $200,000, a quarter of a million dollars, a half-million dollars invested in a truck, he's a trucker, and these days branded a criminal. It's not quite right.

Nobody gets in his truck in the morning and says, "I'm going to go out there and have an accident." Unfortunately it happens. I don't think it's the fines that will stop it whatsoever, but what is being done before that. We need a lot more training, as half of those truckers haven't got a clue what's going on. The laws are changing, but it's taking way too long. Then everybody hears about it, everybody has a different opinion. Is it on? Is it off? Is it on? Is it off? Nothing ever happens. By the time the law is passed, they've gotten so used to the idea of not listening to it, nothing gets done again. It drags on and on.

We're having the same problem because we're fabricating trailers. Do we put them on right away? Do we wait for the law to be passed? It takes forever. Then you fabricate a trailer and the law passes. It's not what the guy needed. It's kind of a dark cloud in between.

One thing that I noticed too: Back in the old days the guys, to make more money, were told to put more load on their trailers. The guys were hauling overloaded. The government stepped in, started putting fines, stopped the overloading. Now the truckers, to make money, have to drive fast, and we're noticing the damages on trailers and trucks. They're based on speed. That's a big no-no, naturally, because it does cause accidents. The bearings are having more failures. Tires are having more failures. The structure itself is having more failures.

The guys are told: "This takes six hours. We will base your rate on six hours." In a speeding pickup truck, it'll take you six hours. In a truck, it'll take you eight to eight and a half. So naturally there's no money left again, and what the guy has to do is go for time and speed and create accidents; no time for circle check, no time for this, no time for that. He's pressured all the time, with comments again being said: "You're not happy? Go haul elsewhere. You don't want to do this? No problem. There are 150 guys from another province that'll come and work in this district at any kind of money whatsoever." So the guys are, I say again, pressured for time, pressured for money. If you have a choice of feeding your family or changing the bearings in your wheels which may be iffy-iffy, which is your choice? I think we would all probably do the same thing.

What we're having a hard time with too, being a repair shop, is that the guy will come in, he knows he's got no money and he wants us to cut back or be careful, or whatever. We simply cannot do that. The guys know that, so they go home and they fix it themselves. One out of every 10 truckers has got the knowledge or the ability to really fix himself properly.

Back in the old days, there wasn't a problem. There was the money. The guy would come in and we'd fix him up. He'd pay his bill and he was gone back to work. Today, to tell you the truth, we hardly see them any more. They come in when they're stuck, when it's a major break or whatever, but all the little stuff -- brakes, bearings, seals -- which is what the major part of our problem is, is being done by themselves.

What's happening also is that too many shops are making safeties that are favours. We've refused some truckers for a safety because the trailer was simply finished, but two hours down the road he's on the road with a safety. He's now legal for a year and nothing has been done to the unit whatsoever. That's where I think it's nice to say we'll give a trucker a $50,000 fine but we should have fines also for people doing bad safeties.

Some of the ministry employees, as we all know, are closing their eyes to some situations; they should be fined also. I've seen some scales where the guys were paid. I will not mention any name right now but there's one in particular where, if you have $100 in your truck, your truck is safe. You just go look at the house this guy has got and the truck this guy has got. There's no way he can pay for it out of his ministry salary. But it's happening all over the place. Those guys should be fined more than the trucker that was neglecting. It's a whole bunch of a combination.

I see the poor truckers being stuck with no power whatsoever. I watch them and I listen to them talk in truck stops and at the shop. They've got one thing in mind right now: a major strike, blockades. "Let's form unions." What's happening right now? It's going to be one against the other, with nothing getting done in between. As far as I'm concerned, we should all work together and start from the beginning and make everybody to blame and responsible for what's going down the line from one end to the other.

1630

I'm a fabricator. I want to be responsible for what I build. When I see my name going down the road on those trailers, I've got to be proud. As of yet, nothing has really happened with our product at all. We've had nobody killed and no major accidents or whatever, but it's going to happen some day. It may not be our fault; it most likely will not be the trucker's fault. Like I say, some of the material that's put in those trailers or trucks now comes from abroad. The quality is simply not there any more, but this is all we have left to offer. Back in the old days, before free trade, we bought everything from Canada, and I mean 100% product from Canada. There weren't too many problems. Today, it's a big problem.

That's just a few of my ideas. I'll just look through here, if I can see a few more things. I stumbled from one place to the other, the lack of experience of a public speaker.

We're also seeing another trend happening which scares me to death. The big companies, the big trucking firms, they were making money, they existed, they were there, they got bigger and bigger. Major fines are coming out, major problems are coming out. What's their answer? It's not to fix their trucks or to fix their trailers, it's to sell them out to the drivers. "If you want a job tomorrow morning, you have to buy your truck and trailer. We'll pay you so much and you'll be responsible for your rig from now on."

The biggest companies that we see going through our repair shop -- the single broker, whatever, is mostly in good shape. The big companies are being neglectful, they're very neglectful. Their answer to solve their problem is to sell out to the broker. It's going be even more of a major problem because now you cannot go back to somebody who can afford to pay; you're going back to an end user who has no money. How can you draw blood from a rock? The guys are broke, let's put it this way. I've been dealing with them for years and years and the guys are broke. There's not too much more they can do now besides get upset and strike and get mad and fight back, that type of thing.

Naturally, we are putting a lot of emphasis on punishment. Why not put more money into some training, more into education and understanding? Take someone, train him properly, make him understand what the situation is. He'll be on your side. Give him a few details at a time. The media are terrible, naturally, right now. The guy hears a little bit here, a little bit there. The only thing he has to fight back is to get upset, because he has no power whatsoever and all he can do is fight the system. "Why should I do this? Why should I be forced? Why am I being penalized once again?"

The trucking industry is probably the major industry there is, when you think of it. The guys are talking of a major strike that they're trying to organize right now with the trucking industry. Their first object is to stop all the fuel trucks. Within three days you can't drive your car because you've got no more gas. Within five days you can't get groceries; there's no more food in the stores. Don't look for your morning paper; it's not there any more. People don't realize how important the trucking business is.

I saw one guy the other day -- major storm in Timmins, which we do get -- was so upset because his morning paper was not there at 7 o'clock in the morning. I was there and I told him: "Hey, there's a storm out there. That truck can't drive from Toronto to Timmins with that big storm." "The God-damned truckers." Sorry for the expression, but the trucker is to blame once again. It's not his fault there's a big snowstorm out there, but he's pressured for time.

You have to be there at such-and-such a time. "If you have to, speed; if you have to, overload." The orders come from on top, not from the trucker. The trucker does not go into the bush and say, "Overload me to the max." The mill has control. The mill sees the wood coming in, the store sees the product coming in. The big guys can control what's happening right now, but who is being blamed? It's the young guy, the little guy.

That's basically it, I guess. I've seen lots of headaches, lots of nightmares. You guys have heard and seen some of the wheels fly off; I've seen a lot more than that. Unfortunately, some people are getting hurt and getting killed. That's a drastic thing. But you guys have only seen the edge of the iceberg, of the danger and the awful things that you see there. Remember, if the guys would be making money -- we all have cars. Do we keep our cars 20 years? No. Because we can afford to buy a new one. After five, six years they're defective and we throw them out. You see trailers and trucks on the road that are 10, 12, 15, 20, 25 years old. When you've hauled 40 tonnes all your life, 25 years down the road let me describe what the trailer is: It's nothing but junk. But the guy does not have the money to buy.

Back in the old days, in two years, two and a half years, you'd have your truck paid for, your trailer paid for, you'd be trained, you'd create the economy, you'd keep on going. Today, five years is not enough to pay for a rig. After five years the guy still owes more than half of his rig. He cannot afford to buy a new one. He cannot afford to buy a better one. Hopefully he can afford to fix it, but trust me, after five, six, seven, eight years on the road, the product we have now is not enough.

If you want to have a perfect situation, a guy would need a safety every week. I've seen us make a safety on a trailer; half an hour down the road there's a broken spring. The guy hit a major pothole. That spring is now dangerous. The guy who did a circle check before he left does not know that. If you go down the road, one little rock will break your windshield, will break an oil cap. The oil drains; in 15 minutes the wheel is off. When the guy left just half an hour before, everything was okay.

Are we going too far in blaming and charging and everything and not looking at all the possible avenues? Myself, I blame it on the media's failure. Right now, when people want answers, let's give them a definite fast answer. Boom, boom, people are happy. These guys are getting charged and getting fined. Trust me, the guy who's getting charged can't afford to pay the fine and he won't.

What we're trying to do here is have a war on our hands type of thing. We're kind of stuck in between and we see both things happening. All we want to do is have perfect product on the road and all a trucker wants to do is have a good day's wage and go back home to his family. That's the main thing of everything.

I can tell you right now that some truckers are coming home after working 15, 16 hours a day, and have to fix their truck and trailer to make sure everything is back in order. Sometimes 16- and 17-hour days and he walks in the house with less than $40 in his pocket. Driving a cab, you can make more than that in next to no time at all. He has an investment of a quarter of a million dollars on his hands. He's paying major insurance, major liabilities and he's putting his life in danger every day also because he's driving a big rig with 40 tonnes behind his back. If he gets into an accident, he can get crushed, he can get killed also. Big responsibilities, pressure. His bosses are not saying, "You're doing a good job"; his bosses are saying, "Give us more, give us more, give us more for less."

That's my opinion of what's happening right now with the situation of all the accidents and bad safeties and all that. Any questions?

The Chair (Ms Annamarie Castrilli): Thank you very much, Mr Larochelle. We have 30 seconds per caucus.

Mr Duncan: Thank you for your presentation. Do you support the bill?

Mr Larochelle: I support some of it, yes. I don't support the big $50,000 fines because that will not solve the problem.

Mr Duncan: Do you think the bill should be passed in its present form?

Mr Larochelle: No, it's not complete.

Mr Duncan: It shouldn't be passed because it's not complete?

Mr Larochelle: That's right. If you pass it and it's not totally finished or totally cooked, or whatever, it doesn't perform well. It's only a little bit here and little bit there. Look at your laws for one, to start off with. We're Ontario. Ontario has safety and highway regulations, but yet if you go to Thunder Bay, for one example, they have their own little personal rules. If you come to Timmins, the ministry formed their own little rules. If you go to Chapleau, they formed their own little rules. Who knows the rules? A guy in Timmins will haul with seven winches, they'll let him go by. He gets to Chapleau, he gets a fine. Same province, same truck, same ministry. I think we should clear up our act before we start making all kinds of bills. Then again, I'm not the answer to everything.

Mr Bisson: You've covered a lot of ground here and I just want to thank you for coming. It's not easy for people to come from Timmins down to Toronto to present to a standing committee. On behalf of the Legislature and the members here, thank you for coming down and presenting quite a bit of information and some insights into the problems in the industry.

Mrs Helen Johns (Huron): Thank you very much for coming today. I can only imagine how difficult it is to present the first time.

I just had a question. I have an auto parts manufacturer in my riding. They tell me that each year they have increased the safety or increased the product level and decreased the price. They're selling to GM and Ford for cars; they're selling manifolds, I believe. Is it not the same in the industry you represent, the trailer industry? Is there no standardization on the auto parts or is there no way you can ensure that the parts are safer or better each year? How come they're decreasing in their safety value or their life?

1640

Mr Larochelle: First of all, the trailer and the trucking industry in Canada has been going down for the last 10 years or so. We have lost a lot of manufacturers, we have lost a lot of what we could say on it. If you call major companies down south and you mention that you come from Canada, their answer is, "There is no trucking industry in Canada." One guy gave me the comment: "We sell more trucks in one city in the States than we do in all Canada. If you have a problem, call your mother." With answers like that, it's kind of tough to perform.

The companies that supply us with parts claim they have all the high standards, and I believe they think what they say is right. The guys come down to me and say, "This has been heavily tested in South Carolina." South Carolina is not Canada. I keep telling the guys: "If you want to test something really well, come to Canada and go to Longlac. Go to places like Chicoutimi, Quebec, where everything is being destroyed like there's no time at all, and then go back and say this has been heavily tested."

They come to Canada and say, "We've tested this with a 20-ton payload. In the States, 20 tons is legal; in Canada, it's 40 tons, 45 tons, 35 tons. The product that's on the market is a good product. Maybe our answer here is that we're carrying too much payload. Maybe the trucks are excessively fast here in Canada. If you go to the States, you'll notice that the trucks are 10 miles an hour slower than the cars. The answer to everything is hard to find.

They have changes of product. One supplier, for example, to save 0.3 of a penny on a part -- I guess after a million parts it shows -- changed screws on one part. There's no way in the world you can see the difference. It cost me $100,000, it cost them millions, because three weeks or a month down the road, those little screws would fall apart -- they were made somewhere in Peru or something like that -- all the brakes on trailers would jam tight. If the guy was lucky, he wouldn't lose control and hit the ditch. Wheels would come off. All kinds of problems occurred because they saved 0.3 cents.

The Chair: Monsieur Larochelle, on behalf of the committee, let me thank you for coming such a long way to present your views. We truly appreciate it.

Mr Larochelle: Thanks for inviting me.

ADDICTION RESEARCH FOUNDATION

The Chair: I call upon the Addiction Research Foundation, Mr Robin Room, Dr Robert Mann and Dr Anja Koski-Jännes. Welcome and thank you very much for being with us this afternoon.

Dr Robin Room: Thank you very much. As you've just said, my name is Robin Room. I am chief scientist at the Addiction Research Foundation, which is a schedule 3 agency of the province of Ontario. With me today are Dr Robert Mann, a scientist with special expertise in the evaluation of drinking and driving countermeasures, and Dr Anja Koski-Jännes, who is a clinical scientist who, along with expertise in studying treatment in general, has looked at treatment in criminal justice environments.

The ARF's mission is to create and apply knowledge to prevent and reduce the harm associated with alcohol, tobacco and other drugs in Ontario communities. Traffic crashes and casualties are among the harms related to drug and, particularly, alcohol use. We are pleased that the problem of impaired driving is addressed in the Comprehensive Road Safety Act. This testimony concerns the part of that act that is relevant to our mission; that is, the provisions regarding licence suspension and assessment and remedial programs for drinking drivers testing at more than 0.08% blood alcohol level.

Drinking and driving remains an important source of death, injury and disability in our province, despite the progress that has been made through increased public awareness and previous legislative initiatives. In 1995, 316 of the fatalities on Ontario roads, that is, almost one third, involved drinking drivers. There are as many as 10 times as many serious injuries attributable to drinking and driving.

Besides the heartache which is involved, these deaths and injuries impose large costs on the Ontario health system. Drinking and driving also carries other substantial costs. An ARF study recently estimated that for 1992 the law enforcement costs in Ontario of impaired driving were $119 million and the property losses from drinking and driving crashes were $189 million.

The act strengthens the provisions for administrative licence suspension already in effect for drinking drivers testing over the legal limit. The effectiveness of such licence suspensions in reducing drinking and driving has been well established in the research literature. Licence suspension is a strategy well designed to deter people from drinking and driving, in accordance with general criminological principles: It is applied quickly and certainly, and to many drivers it will appear quite a severe threat in terms of disruption of daily life. It is also relatively effective in changing the behaviour of those who do nevertheless drink and drive and are caught. A majority of those suspended do not drive during the suspension period, and thus during that time cannot repeat their offence. A portion do drive, nevertheless, but they drive much less and much more carefully than before.

The act provides for an extension of the length of suspensions, including provision for lifetime suspension. As already noted, the effectiveness of licence suspensions for periods of months or a few years has been well established, with a reduction of 30% to 50% in violations and collisions while the suspension is in place. However, there is little research on the relative effectiveness of different lengths of suspension, so that decisions on lengthy or lifetime suspension periods cannot be made at this time on the basis of proven effectiveness.

On the one hand, a lengthy or lifetime suspension removes at least some problematic drivers from the road for that much longer; on the other hand, it is possible that lengthier suspensions will result in more of those with suspended licences driving, although the act's impoundment provisions increase the deterrence against this. A lengthy or lifetime suspension may also reduce the incentive to go to treatment or remediation in a timely fashion. Presently, we are in the realm of speculation about the likely net effects of this feature of the act.

A major provision of the act from the point of view of drinking and driving countermeasures is the requirement of remedial programs prior to reinstatement of a suspended licence. In this area, Ontario has lagged behind a majority of the other provinces. Meanwhile, the proportion of those caught drinking and driving in Ontario who are repeat offenders has risen from 54% in 1988 to 69% in 1995. While this rise may be influenced by a number of factors, it certainly suggests that the current drinking and driving countermeasures are not fully deterring recidivism.

Until fairly recently, the lack of any general remediation program in Ontario could have been justified by the confusion in the research literature about the effectiveness of remedial programs. However, it is now clear that remedial programs do have a significant beneficial effect. A recent meta-analysis, drawing on over 200 evaluation studies, found reductions overall of drinking and driving recidivism and alcohol-related collisions of between 7% and 9%. There is reason to believe that carefully designed and implemented programs can improve on this overall baseline.

One study by ARF researchers -- actually Bob Mann and colleagues -- of an Ontario rehabilitation program for drinking and driving second offenders found a 30% reduction in mortality in a long-term follow-up. Most of this reduction was attributable to fewer casualty deaths, including traffic deaths.

At this point, the literature on drinking and driving remediation, as well as the broader literature on drinking problems interventions, supports an approach which from the start combines educational and therapeutic elements. A strictly didactic approach is less likely to be effective, as is an approach which relies entirely on eliciting shame.

The act provides for regulations to govern the remediation programs, and this provision will need to be used actively and wisely. The regulations will need to specify such matters as the minimum content of the programs, the maximum size of program groups and the competence of trainers and therapists. On the other hand, knowledge about which specific approaches and content work best for different classes of offenders is still relatively undeveloped, and there should be provision to encourage experimentation in conjunction with well-designed evaluations.

In the present state of knowledge, ARF would support an approach for all first offenders in terms of a series of group sessions combining alcohol and traffic safety education and basic therapeutic approaches. The latter might include sessions on enhancing motivation to cut down excessive drinking, teaching self-monitoring of drinking behaviour, and identifying high-risk situations and how to avoid or handle them. Referral information should be offered for those desiring further help with their drinking. For second offenders, we would favour an approach parallel to this but with greater emphasis on and depth in the therapeutic approaches, and smaller numbers in the program group.

The evaluation literature provides less guidance on how to proceed with respect to a required assessment and, if indicated, treatment prior to licence renewal. In different jurisdictions, a number of approaches have been used to distinguish who needs treatment and who does not. The level of blood alcohol involved in the offence has been used for this purpose, but it does not in fact effectively distinguish those with major drinking problems from those with minor. Disguised assessment instruments have also proved to be not very sensitive or specific in identifying need for treatment.

There are assessment instruments asking directly about drinking behaviour and problems which are effective in distinguishing fairly quickly and efficiently between those with substantial drinking problems and those with minimal problems. These instruments, however, work best when the person being assessed does not have obvious incentives to answer one way or another. If an assessment that treatment is needed will result in a substantial added burden before regaining a driver's licence, those assessed may attempt to answer so as to avoid that burden.

1650

In this aspect of the initiative in particular, there is a need for an experimental approach which compares different arrangements. In this regard, we particularly welcome section 41.1(11), which appears to provide specifically for such experimentation in the regulations, by allowing for differential provisions in different parts of the province. Of course, the payoff from such an approach comes only when the programs and arrangements are progressively improved through regulatory changes based on the results of the experimentation.

We recommend that this spirit of practical experimentation be applied more generally in the implementation of the act's drinking and driving provisions. Evaluations and ongoing monitoring of the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of each element of the provisions should be built into the implementation. Contracts and subcontracts to provide educational, assessment or treatment services under the act should include requirements for regular reviews of performance, with provisions for changes in program as evaluation results point to approaches with greater effectiveness or cost-effectiveness.

As a provincial agency with a mandate to develop and apply knowledge in the field, the Addiction Research Foundation stands ready to assist the ministries involved with evaluation studies, in establishing monitoring systems, in setting standards and in providing training in connection with this initiative. From the perspective of the research literature, the act is well conceived and timely. We look forward to assisting as appropriate in its implementation.

The Chair: Thank you, Dr Room. We have just about three minutes per caucus.

Mr Bisson: In your brief and in what you've just surmised you were talking about the need to put in place remedial programs across the province. You didn't speak to it in the report, but the one question that flows out of all of this is, are you suggesting that the province cough up the money for this?

Dr Room: No. The general provision in most jurisdictions is that the drinking drivers themselves pay for this.

Mr Bisson: Is it sufficient to cover the entire cost? I thought it wasn't. That was my impression.

Dr Room: Bob, do you want to answer?

Mr Bisson: Let me preface it, because not in all places across the province do we have sufficient infrastructure in communities to support such programs. That's why I'm asking the question.

Dr Robert Mann: We describe it further in a background document. My understanding is that the addictions treatment system across the province has upwards of 120 to 125 or more assessment and referral centres across the province and a similar number of outpatient centres, which presumably could be involved in such a program. There aren't at this point drinking and driving programs widely situated across the province, but I think if this bill is passed there will be sufficient need that these programs can be developed. I've seen some figures, some estimates, that a reasonable fee can be run in most areas of the province.

Mr Bisson: You're saying the money could come strictly from the person charged and it would be enough to run individual programs and expand into communities that don't have sufficient infrastructure in place now?

Dr Room: I think what is being contemplated with respect to first and second offenders' programs would be that the intervention would be in groups, not individual. If people took up the offer, as we would suggest it, to seek further treatment, that might be something that will lie outside their obligations in terms of their drinking and driving offence and that I think would be appropriately covered by the province under its current alcohol and drug treatment system.

Mrs Julia Munro (Durham-York): Thank you very much for making a presentation here today. I just wanted to ask you a question based on some ideas that were suggested by an earlier deputant, talking about the whole issue of the fact that those who are found to be driving-impaired are frequently people who have probably driven in that condition anywhere from 200 to 2,000 times before being arrested, and the argument that perhaps the use of a mechanical device such as the interlock would be beneficial. I'm just wondering what your position is in regard to that kind of use of interlock.

Dr Room: We would support provisions on an experimental basis, where you actually evaluate it as it goes along. An interlock might very well be an appropriate part of the regulations that would be provided under this act. We would support it as something that did not replace the other provisions that are contemplated under the act but as something that would be supplementary to them. But we would want to view it experimentally, to actually evaluate and have a continuous monitoring of how well it was working.

Mr Duncan: The preponderance of different approaches to the problem of alcohol and drug abuse treatment: As I understood your presentation, you're saying we've got to be flexible to address them. What has the experience in Ontario been in the last couple of years in terms of the funding for these types of services and programs?

Dr Room: The general experience in Ontario has been of resources being reduced rather than increased. There is a rationalization project currently proceeding under the Ministry of Health in the alcohol and drug treatment system. It's certainly clear that one could not load a new load of drinking drivers on to that system without some source of extra funds.

Mr Duncan: With the funds that could potentially come from, say, someone who is convicted on a second or third offence, is it your experience or is it the experience in other jurisdictions that these programs can be self-funding over time?

Dr Room: It is the experience in other jurisdictions that they're self-funding over time. In some jurisdictions south of the border, that means quite a substantial fee.

Mr Duncan: Is it your experience, does the research show that there is any kind of correlation between income levels and repeat offenders? It would seem to me that somebody who is on their third or fourth conviction probably doesn't have a job, probably doesn't have the resources to access or pay for one of these programs. That's just my own anecdotal experience.

Dr Mann: Just to comment, there probably is evidence that multiple offenders might have an average income that's, say, less than a random sample of people. But keep in mind that if they want to get relicensed, there are relicensing fees, there are quite substantial insurance bills they have to face and so on. There's a larger financial picture that's not just what the person might have to pay as a fee for a remedial program.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Dr Room, to you and your colleagues for being here today and presenting the views of the Addiction Research Foundation. We truly appreciate it.

CANADIAN AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION ONTARIO

The Chair: We move now to the Canadian Automobile Association, Pauline Mitchell. Good afternoon. We're happy to have you with us.

Miss Pauline Mitchell: CAA Ontario is the federation of autonomous, not-for-profit automobile clubs in the province representing the motoring and travelling interests of nearly 1.7 million Ontario motorists and their families. We appreciate this opportunity to comment on Bill 138 on behalf of our members.

In February 1996 we participated in the pre-budget consultations, and at that time, on behalf of motorists, we asked that resources be available for sober driving programs and to deal with unsafe trucks. We are therefore very pleased at the progress that has been made on both issues in the past 17 months, including the introduction of this legislation.

As proposed, Bill 138 addresses many of the issues CAA members have identified to us as areas of concern. The fact that all parties are eager to move the legislation forward quickly is a measure of the public mood that essentially has no tolerance left for either unsafe trucks or impaired drivers.

1700

The Comprehensive Road Safety Act, 1997, introduces a number of measures aimed at drinking drivers, especially repeat offenders. CAA members have identified impaired driving as one of their greatest road safety concerns. In a recent CAA public policy survey, when asked to name the two issues most important for CAA from among a list, 30% of members selected drunk driving as the most important issue and another 20% selected it as the second most important issue.

CAA fully supported the introduction of administrative driver's license suspensions in Ontario and expected that harsher measures would follow once the dimensions of the impaired driving problem in Ontario were better known. For many years there was a decline in the number of impaired driving episodes but more recent statistics showed that impaired driving trips were again increasing. The fact that 10,000 drivers lost their licenses for 90 days in the first six months of ADLS in Ontario clearly demonstrates that impaired driving remains a serious threat to road safety and more aggressive measures to deal with this issue are appropriate.

Before commenting specifically on this legislation, it should be acknowledged that the problem of impaired drivers will not be solved simply by legislation. Sober driving programs like RIDE are an essential element in the effort to remove impaired drivers from our roads. Cuts in transfer payments to municipalities have increased the possibility that RIDE programs will be scaled back or eliminated. CAA Ontario recommends that sufficient provincial funds be allocated to police services throughout the province specifically for the continuation of RIDE programs.

CAA's position on impaired driving is formalized in the 1996-97 statement of policy. CAA policy 6.3 states:

"The operation of a motor vehicle while the driver is impaired by the use of alcohol or a drug is condemned. Strong measures should be taken to protect the public against an impaired driver."

In general terms, CAA members have told us they expect different treatment for repeat offenders than for first-time offenders. In a 1993 CAA public policy survey only 1% indicated repeat offenders should be treated the same way as first-time offenders for driving while impaired. When asked, "Which of the following statements best represents how you feel about drivers who have been convicted more than once while impaired by alcohol?" 17% indicated repeat offenders should be required to attend an alcohol rehabilitation program, 24% indicated licenses should be permanently revoked from repeat offenders, but only after several convictions, and 58% indicated license suspensions should become longer and fines higher with each subsequent conviction.

The legislation before us encompasses all of the elements the public favours. The progressively harsher penalties for impaired driving should provide ample incentive for impaired drivers to change their behaviour after, if not before, a first offence. It is critical, however, that the public be made aware of the legislative changes through an ongoing public education program.

The suspension periods outlined in the legislation satisfy CAA's concerns that the penalties take into account the seriousness of the offence, with fines becoming progressively higher and license suspensions becoming progressively longer with each subsequent conviction.

While there is no sympathy at all for impaired drivers, given the consequences of conviction it is essential that the court process not be subject to undue delay. For the protection of the innocent as well as the punishment of the guilty, it is essential that the courts are able to move cases along in a timely fashion.

Under this legislation Ontario would become the ninth province to introduce a remedial measures program. In principle, CAA Ontario supports remedial measures programs. In the CAA statement of policy, 1996-97, recommendation 6.3.5 states:

"Provincial governments and agencies involved in impaired driver programs should establish a system whereby all persons convicted of alcohol-impaired driving receive a psychological interview to determine if they have an alcohol dependency. Those persons who are found to have a dependency should receive alcohol rehabilitation in addition to their criminal sentence, and those persons found not to have an alcohol dependency should attend an alcohol awareness class in addition to their criminal sentence."

At this point, remedial programs and service providers need to be developed, and we hope there will be public consultation before regulations are introduced. We would also be very happy to participate in those discussions.

As a preface to our comments concerning impounding vehicles driven by people caught driving under suspension for criminal convictions, CAA believes strongly that mobility is the cornerstone of modern society and that the private automobile is the principal means of mobility for most Canadians. A Transport Canada study showed that many people would find it hard to earn a living with no automobile. Some 75% of commuters rely on their automobiles to get to work and 57% have no other option.

Having said that, we accept the spirit of the legislation, which is to discourage people who are suspended from driving after Criminal Code convictions from getting behind the wheel. People who drive while under suspension for Criminal Code convictions are a public menace and should be dealt with harshly. In CAA's 1995 public policy survey, in response to a question about which penalties were appropriate for someone driving under suspension, 68.6% felt impounding a vehicle belonging to the individual was appropriate. It should be noted, however, that acceptance drops to 30.4% for those who felt it was appropriate to impound the vehicle if it belonged to someone else.

We recognize that impounding vehicles can and will pose serious hardship for some families. We believe there should be a legislated guarantee that the appeals process will occur swiftly and that there will be a fair determination of what constitutes "exceptional hardship." When the criteria are established to define "exceptional hardship," we hope they will be flexible enough to consider both individual and family circumstances. To cite a few scenarios, in our view it would be an exceptional hardship, for example, if the impounded vehicle is required by the sole breadwinner for earning a living or if the vehicle is required to transport someone to and from medical treatment programs.

We also hope that the exception for stolen vehicles will extend to vehicles taken without consent in those cases where the owner notifies police that a suspended driver is driving. While we agree that vehicle owners have a responsibility not to loan or rent a vehicle to a suspended driver, the penalty for the vehicle owner, if other than the suspended driver, should not be greater than the penalty imposed on the suspended driver.

On the trucking issue: We are very pleased that under this legislation Ontario would be the first jurisdiction to introduce truck impoundment for critical safety defects. It is a significant step. Let's not forget that Ontario highways carry 40% of the truck travel in Canada and that critical safety defects are found by inspectors on a regular basis. The number of out-of-service vehicles has shown a recent improvement but we still have far too many unsafe trucks on the road.

During the annual 72-hour, highly publicized random inspections conducted as part of Roadcheck '95, 42% of trucks inspected in Ontario were taken out of service for safety defects. The picture was even worse during unpublicized targeted safety blitzes, when the out-of-service rates soared past 50% and often showed that as many as three out of four trucks inspected in those targeted blitzes were unsafe.

Unfortunately, too many trucking firms see fines as the cost of doing business. CAA has urged not just Ontario but all Canadian jurisdictions to raise penalties high enough to make regular maintenance the only way of doing business. Ontario has shown leadership in this regard and there have been several changes in the last two years: Inspections have increased and so have fines. Still, a significant minority within the trucking industry has failed to understand that there is no public tolerance for unsafe trucks. During Roadcheck '96, there was an out-of-service rate of 39%.

At the very time this legislation was introduced, Roadcheck '97 was under way and, despite every effort made to date to reduce the number of unsafe trucks on the road, a third of the more than 3,000 trucks inspected were taken out of service for safety defects. Not all were critical safety defects, but the fact is that the plates were removed from 124 trucks or trailers during this three-day period for severe safety defects. That's 124 trucks that moments before had been travelling some of Canada's busiest highways.

1710

CAA staff were present as observers at the Oakville inspection station, where we saw a trailer with absolutely no functioning brakes. Fortunately for all of us, it was pulled in for an inspection and the defects were found.

Considering the high volume of truck traffic on Ontario roads and the persistently high number of unsafe trucks and trailers identified in both random and targeted inspections, roadside impoundment was the logical next step to combat the problem. Trucks with critical safety defects should not be on the road regardless of where they are from. If it takes impoundment to get them off the road, that is the price that will have to be paid. Hopefully, the prospect of impoundment and the costs associated with impoundment will be enough to convince even the most reluctant to commit to regular maintenance programs.

Mechanical fitness of trucks is not the only issue concerning safer trucking but it is a major issue. We respect the effort that was put into the Target '97 recommendations and look forward to the early implementation of many of those recommendations aimed at achieving safer roads for all road users. In other words, impounding trucks with critical safety defects is not the only strategy needed to improve road safety but it is certainly an important development.

The introduction of absolute liability legislation for wheel separations in our view is overdue. Ontario has already seen four deaths which resulted from wheel separations. Other incidents could have had the same tragic outcome. By the time the minister talked of introducing this legislation, wheel separations were no longer a rare event in this province and it was clear that additional measures were needed to reverse the trend.

Perhaps it is coincidence, but reports of wheel separations did diminish once the absolute liability legislation was announced last winter. More likely, greater attention has been paid to wheel maintenance once it was clear that if a wheel detaches from a truck, that's all an enforcement officer needs to secure a conviction. The fact that the courts will determine the amount of the fine to be levied and will consider all factors surrounding the offence as part of sentencing guarantees that there is still an opportunity to explain the circumstances of the wheel separation, including the severity and cause of the incident, which will affect the fine the court may impose.

CAA is pleased that the legislation affects all commercial vehicles that weigh more than 4,500 kilograms, including buses designed to carry more than 10 passengers.

As a final comment on this legislation, the doubling of fines for passing a stopped school bus with signals flashing reflects the seriousness of that offence. CAA has a very long association with the school safety patrol program and a dedication to the safety of children. The legislation itself will be made far more effective if accompanied by a comprehensive public education and awareness campaign, and we would be pleased to participate in that process.

The Chair: We have just under two minutes per caucus.

Mr Hastings: Miss Mitchell, last Thursday in private members' hour, Mr Froese from St Catharines-Brock introduced a private member's bill which would require all school buses in the province to stop at barred or unbarred railway crossings. Do you favour that proposition? We're probably going to make it an amendment.

Miss Mitchell: I wasn't aware of that, sir.

Mr Hastings: It passed in the House.

Miss Mitchell: It sounds like a darn good idea.

Mr Hastings: My second question relates to the Liberal critic's proposition that while the government has indicated that it will implement nearly 72 of the 79 Target '97 recommendations, they are proposing an additional oversight committee of some sort for implementation to ensure that this government is accountable on this whole facet of road safety. Do you believe such a proposition is essential or necessary at all?

Miss Mitchell: I think it's a very appropriate way to proceed, just for the public confidence that things are progressing as they should be in that regard. CAA has looked at all of the Target '97 recommendations, many of which we feel are very good recommendations and some of which we have very serious concerns about. I think it's too soon to implement a lot of them. There's a lot of work and a lot of development still to be done, but I think the idea of an overseeing group is probably a very fine idea.

Mr Hastings: Did the CAA previously support such a strategy for implementation with other governments on road bills and safety concerns?

Miss Mitchell: I'm sorry?

Mr Hastings: In the past, when governments introduced road safety bills or whatever they were called, amendments to the Highway Traffic Act, did the CAA itself have on record this specific type of strategy we have now alluded to?

Miss Mitchell: I think a lot of the stuff we have referred to here today has been mentioned by CAA at several public hearings on a number of different issues.

Mr Hastings: Including a specific oversight group?

Miss Mitchell: Not a specific oversight group.

Mr Duncan: Thank you for your presentation. I'm pleased to note your support for our amendment.

The only thing I wanted to ask you about -- because your presentation is very clear and very supportive of the bill and the thrust of the legislation -- is the notion of adequacy of funding for police services and RIDE programs. Has the CAA documented evidence that there have been cutbacks that affect the adequacy of these programs, or cutbacks that are planned that could affect the adequacy of these programs?

Miss Mitchell: CAA has been a prominent supporter of RIDE programs in many jurisdictions. Very recently CAA donated the use of a van to be used in RIDE programs in one jurisdiction that just didn't have a RIDE van. I would take it that's an indication there was no money available in that jurisdiction for a RIDE van unless a sponsor was found. While we agree it's a nice idea to have public-private partnerships, I think there must be a commitment made that enforcement is very visible and ongoing.

Mr Bisson: You've already answered the first part of my question. Part of the problem we have here is that there has been some very good work done on the part of a number of people in regard to Target '97. I don't think it encompasses everything, but certainly a lot of the major issues around trying to make our highways safer by increasing truck safety were addressed in Target '97.

Part of what I as the NDP critic feel is that the government only has a certain amount of time to pass legislation. This minister has a window, and his window at this point seems to be this spring. Whatever he's going to do when it comes to truck safety has got to be done now, because my guess is, knowing how government House leaders operate, he ain't going to get another window. This government has other bills to pass and in the greater scheme of things truck safety is not going to be on top of the pile.

That's why, as the NDP critic, I've been asking for a process which keeps the government accountable and keeps the feet of the minister to the fire, making sure that we move on Target '97 and it doesn't become yet another document high up on a shelf in some government ministry office somewhere just collecting dust. That's why we're asking for the oversight process.

You were part of the Target '97 task force. Were you on the policy or the subcommittees?

1720

Miss Mitchell: No, we were not part of the original Target '97 task force. However, we have been asked to participate in any further --

Mr Bisson: I thought you were one of the groups that were originally contacted.

Miss Mitchell: No, we were not. We have been asked since that time to participate in some of the further developments.

Mr Bisson: Part of the feeling in this process is on the whole question of accountability. It seems to me if we're going to move on truck safety, there need to be more people at the table than just the OTA or just truckers. Although they are a very important part of the problem, they are not the only people who need to be at the table. We need to have the public. The question I ask is, do you think there need to be more people at the table representing the public other than just the CAA? Are there others out there who need to be at the table? You speak to one group of the public. It seems to me there are others out there who need a voice.

Miss Mitchell: I'm trying to give some quick thought as to who else would be appropriate. I think the group could benefit maybe from some professional educators, since there's a very strong emphasis on developing training programs and things of that nature. It might be appropriate to seek some guidance in that regard.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Miss Mitchell, for appearing before us today and sharing the views of your organization.

Mr Bisson: Chair, just before the next presenter starts, I asked a question, I think it was last Tuesday, that the parliamentary assistant provide me with a list of which parts of Target '97 need to be addressed by way of regulation and which ones need to go in legislation. I don't think we received anything. I'm wondering if the parliamentary assistant can tell me when I'm going to get that.

Mr Hastings: We're still dealing with it. We should have it for you by noon tomorrow, Mr Bisson.

Mr Bisson: It makes it difficult to deal with our amendments. I was hoping we were going to get that by Friday.

Mr Hastings: Noon will be our absolute last time. I'll see if we can get it to you earlier.

Mr Bisson: Anything at all, because it's pretty difficult to deal with amendments without that.

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): Madam Chair, I'm wondering if the clerk could dim these lights just a little bit, because I think it's the ceiling lights that make this room so hot.

The Chair: I hadn't appreciated the room was hot, but if that's the will of the committee, by all means.

Mr Bisson: Trying to do things in the dark again, eh, Margaret?

The Chair: The Chair cannot comment.

TRAFFIC INJURY RESEARCH FOUNDATION OF CANADA

The Chair: Dr Douglas J. Beirness, the Traffic Injury Research Foundation of Canada. Welcome to our committee. We're looking forward to your presentation.

Dr Douglas Beirness: It's indeed a pleasure to be here this afternoon. For those of you who don't know anything about the Traffic Injury Research Foundation, let me just briefly tell you that we're an independent road safety organization which was originally established by the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons way back in 1962. We obtained our charter in 1963 and have been a registered charity ever since.

What I'd like to do today is restrict my comments to the impaired driving initiatives in the proposed legislation. As most of you can appreciate, over the past 15 years or so we've witnessed some unprecedented reductions in the magnitude of the alcohol crash problem, not only here in Ontario, but across Canada, in the United States and in every western industrialized nation throughout the world.

While these reductions are significant and noteworthy, what we have left is a problem of substantial magnitude. In a series of reports by my colleagues and myself at the Traffic Injury Research Foundation, we have identified and determined that to a great extent this problem is the result of a small but highly deviant and high-risk subgroup of drinking and driving offenders who are largely responsible for the problems we see on the roads today. You'll hear them referred to by a variety of labels: "repeat offenders," "persistent drinking drivers," "high BAC drivers." The term we have preferred over the years has been "hard core offenders."

This group we define as those who drive repeatedly after drinking, often with high blood alcohol levels; I mean in excess of 150 milligrams. Their drinking and driving behaviour is persistent and chronic. They appear to be resistant to many of the persuasive appeals that have been the hallmark of drinking and driving countermeasures over the past several years. They are not deterred by criminal sanctions. They drink frequently and often to excess. Many of them also have previous DWI convictions.

I'm sure that over the last few days you've heard lots of statistics thrown about. I also can't make a presentation without adding a few statistics of my own. What I want to show by these statistics is that this is a very small but deviant and high-risk subset of all drinking drivers on the road who are responsible for a substantial proportion of the drinking and driving problems that remain.

For example, roadside surveys have determined that less than 1% of the drivers on the road on weekend nights have a blood alcohol level in excess of 150 milligrams. Drivers with blood alcohol levels of this magnitude account for 65% of all drinking and driving fatalities in this country. Among drinking drivers responsible for alcohol-related fatal crashes, one third have a previous conviction for an impaired driving offence. A number that has been heard here this afternoon: 69% of drivers suspended for a drinking and driving offence in Ontario have a previous impaired driving conviction on the record.

The question we're faced with now is, what can we do about this high-risk group of offenders? The first thing I want to talk about is licence suspension. There have been several studies over the years in the drinking and driving field that show this is the one measure that has an impact on drinking drivers. It's appropriate and it's effective. As Dr Room alluded to earlier, however, the studies don't tell us what length of suspension is most appropriate. We know short-term suspensions work. We do not know if longer suspensions are more effective.

My concern is not with suspensions per se; it's with reinstatement. I think the bill we have before us here today addresses reinstatement. It may not be a popular thing to say, but we want drinking drivers to become relicensed. When they're licensed we have some control over them. The last thing we want, which is a problem throughout this country, is for drinking drivers to give up on the licensing system. If they're out there driving without a licence, we have absolutely no control over them, we know nothing about their behaviour. We want them within the system where we can exercise some controls over them.

We know driving is important to the people of Ontario. It's also important that we only allow those people who meet certain standards to have the privilege of driving. Under our current system, when we take the licence away from a bad driver, we wait a period of time and give that licence back to the very same bad driver. We do nothing in between to help that person become a better driver or to cure the problems that are creating that bad driving in the first place.

The provisions in the bill for mandatory assessment and rehabilitation I applaud, and I urge you to follow the advice of the experts in the area -- they presented here earlier today -- Dr Room and his colleagues at the Addiction Research Foundation, in terms of setting up those programs and ensuring they're effective. Studies around the world have shown that rehabilitation for drinking drivers does indeed have positive effects.

Where I want to address most of my comments this afternoon is on the issue of alcohol ignition interlocks. I know you've heard about alcohol ignition interlocks in this committee before, but what I want to do is restrict my comments to essentially two issues: (1) their effectiveness and (2) their benefits.

Our organization has been involved with the alcohol ignition interlock program in Alberta for about three years now. We've worked closely with the government and with the interlock installer in Alberta, doing a study that involves the evaluation of that program as well as an evaluation of implementing a treatment component within the ignition interlock program.

Let's look at the impact of the effectiveness of alcohol ignition interlocks. The bottom line is that they work. Studies in California, North Carolina, Ohio, Oregon, recently Maryland and now Alberta show that alcohol ignition interlocks reduce recidivism by between 28% and 65% among persons who have had the interlock installed. The recent work we've done in Alberta shows some preliminary results that are indeed most encouraging. The results of this study show that interlocks reduced repeat offences among DWI offenders who had the interlock installed by 72%.

There are a couple of studies you may have heard about that show that the recidivism rate increases after the interlock is indeed taken out of the vehicle. There are only two of those studies; there is no other study that shows that. The work we're doing in Alberta does not show that effect so far. There is no evidence from the Maryland study that this is in fact the case. However, they have only a one-year follow-up period. A longer follow-up period is necessary to determine the validity of that finding.

The fact that the recidivism rate actually increases after the interlock is taken out of the vehicle should not be surprising, but it should not detract from the importance of having the interlock put in in the first place. The results certainly show that offenders who have had an interlock put in their vehicle do not reoffend as often as people who have not gone through the program.

1730

Many of the studies that have evaluated the effects of ignition interlocks have been criticized for their design flaws. These evaluation studies, however, are done under real-world conditions with real ignition interlock programs. It is in many cases not possible to conduct a fully controlled experimental program that will get at the true effect of an interlock. What these studies do show is that under real-world conditions, under the constraints of the judicial and the licensing systems, interlocks do have a beneficial effect.

The other aspect of the evaluation of interlock programs concerns the process involved; that is, do they do what they're supposed to do? Do they prevent impaired individuals from driving and allow driving when the person is not impaired? Yes, they do. Studies that have looked at that aspect of it and the studies we're doing in Alberta certainly show that is the case. The device that's being used in Alberta is highly specific. It's a very sophisticated device. It prevents people from driving who blow over 0.04. The vehicle simply will not start. It is difficult to circumvent; that is, you can't go around the device in any way. It does what it's supposed to do. It also allows people to drive if they have not been drinking. The false positive rate is very, very low, especially with the new device. The devices are reliable, they're accurate and, as I mentioned, they're exceptionally difficult to circumvent.

Let me tell you about a couple of the key features of interlocks that we found to be particularly important. These are built-in systems that go with the interlock device that ensure its reliability, that ensure it can't be circumvented. The first is a data logger. The data logger records every event that occurs with the ignition of that vehicle. It records the blood alcohol level, the time, the date, all kinds of information that's important for monitoring that offender and determining what he or she has done with that vehicle over a period of time.

It also includes a rolling retest. This is a system whereby the person must continually, on a random interval, blow into the device to make sure that their blood alcohol level does not rise while they're driving. This ensures that they're not sitting there with a bottle in the front seat of the car drinking as they're going down the road. It also ensures that they can't leave the car idling in front of a bar, go in and have a few and get back in. These two systems I believe are critical to the success of any interlock program.

The benefits of the interlock system? The bottom line is that they provide the general public, you and me and other road users, with some assurance that a DWI offender, when he is relicensed, will drive legally, with proper insurance and only when sober. An interlock can provide a transition between that full licence suspension and full licence reinstatement. It allows a period of time over which we can monitor the offender to see what's going on, to determine whether or not he or she is ready for a real licence again, a full, unrestricted licence.

The interlock program that is set up in Alberta and is similar in other jurisdictions that have interlock programs is that the offender must bring the vehicle in on a routine, regular basis for monitoring. This allows us to have a chat with the individual to determine what they're doing. It allows us to determine what they're doing with the vehicle, to see if they are indeed complying with the program. In the Alberta program, if you're not complying with the program and it shows on your record, you can be extended or revoked from the program.

Another advantage of the alcohol ignition interlock system is that it can serve as an adjunct to rehabilitation or treatment. One of the things that people in the alcohol field know about people who are undergoing treatment for alcohol dependence is that relapses are very common. The last thing in the world we want is for a relapse to result in a tragedy on the highway. The interlock can help to prevent such things.

Are there concerns about interlocks? Sure there are. There's no guarantee or assurance that the offender will not drive another vehicle that does not have an interlock in it, but neither does licence suspension. There's very little we can do about that, other than chain the person to the bars in a jail cell. We have no assurance of that.

Another concern is that it costs money. Yes, indeed, it does. The offender pays for it. It costs approximately $100 a month to have this thing in your car. It sounds like a lot of money, about one drink a day. We're talking about people who would normally consume a whole lot more alcohol than that. One drink a day they can afford.

If there's one thing that I would like to recommend to this committee, it is that the regulations regarding the conditions under which a driver's licence can be reinstated be written to specifically allow the installation of an alcohol ignition interlock device as a condition of reinstatement not only for third-time offenders but for first and second offenders as well. At the very least, such devices should be ordered for all third-time offenders, all second-time offenders where there is evidence from the assessment of an alcohol problem and all first-time offenders where there's evidence of an alcohol problem and/or a blood alcohol level at the time of arrest over 150.

We've learned a great deal about drinking drivers over the last several years. They're not all the same. No one thing is going to work for everyone. They're a very diverse group. There are very few blanket statements we can make about this group of offenders. They're not all alcoholics. They don't all need treatment. They're not all young. They're not all male. There are a lot of things that they're all not. The one thing I can say, though, is that every repeat offender has one thing in common: They've all been there before.

We had a chance to deal with them the first time we saw them in the criminal justice system, and quite frankly we blew it. We didn't do the things to that person that we should have done to ensure they did not commit the offence again. Some of the provisions in this bill, particularly things like assessment, rehabilitation and the addition of alcohol ignition interlocks, I think will go a long way to reducing the chances that such people will come back into the system over and over again. Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you, Dr Beirness. We have just about a minute per caucus. The official opposition.

Mr Duncan: No questions. Thank you very much.

Mr Bisson: Jeez, I have two questions. I've got to pick one. Not enough time to go through it; that's part of the problem here. What have we learned in Alberta in regard to those people who have been with the interlock system? How many of them actually go back and drink and drive?

Dr Beirness: The recidivism rate in Alberta over a three-year period following the removal of the interlock is 9.3%. That compares with 34% of other comparable offenders over the same period of time.

Mr Bisson: You've got to wonder what's in somebody's mind to get behind the wheel when you know you're going to be registered in the interlock system as being drinking and driving, why a person would even do that.

Dr Beirness: A couple of things here: First of all, these results are primarily after the interlock is removed from the vehicle, so they don't have that system in there any more.

Mr Bisson: I'm talking while on the interlock. What have they learned through the monitoring?

Dr Beirness: We've learned a lot of things. The most common thing we find is that people come in and say: "This thing doesn't work. I got up Saturday morning and I blew an 88 or 120. It can't be working properly." They don't understand that they drank so much the night before the alcohol's still in their system. That's why it won't allow them to drive. That piece of information alone tells us a great deal about the drinking habits of that individual and it's very useful in the treatment context we have in the program in Alberta.

Mrs Marland: Dr Beirness, as the person who brought in the private member's bill three years ago, obviously I'm very happy to hear your comments today, because I wanted people to lose their licence on the first conviction. We're down to the third time and you're out now, but you're out with this ignition interlock system.

I've had that demonstrated to me in my office, and I have two questions. One is, how long has your Traffic Injury Research Foundation been established? Second, have you had any discussion with the automotive industry as to whether they are even considering this kind of a device as part of the design in new cars? Would it be inexpensive to have it there if it was needed by adult drivers?

Dr Beirness: Your first question: Traffic Injury Research Foundation has been around for over 30 years.

Mrs Marland: I didn't hear from anybody in the last three years.

Dr Beirness: Oh, we're there.

Your second question: Yes, we have talked to the automotive industry. In that context, my most recent contact is with a fellow with Renault in France. They're planning on offering an interlock as an option on their vehicles in the 1999 model year, I believe.

Mrs Marland: They are? Great.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Dr Beirness, for being here and for putting your case to the committee. We appreciate it very much.

1740

SUSAN SMITH

The Chair: Susan Smith. Welcome. You are the last of our presenters, but I assure you the committee is waiting with bated breath to hear what you have to tell us. We very much appreciate your being here.

Ms Susan Smith: Thank you very much. I appreciate you've had quite a long day.

I'm here presenting as an individual. I've had my driver's licence for a long time and I consider this piece of legislation in many ways long overdue, as contracted as it is. I've looked at the bill and the legislation and appreciated the genesis of how it came about, with some public input as well as the private members' legislation.

The analogy that I would bring to this is an industrial safety analogy. My parents made me take an auto mechanic's course in high school. I also had to take the public education system's driving training program to be the third driver on the family car. I consider that it worked out to be really good training, having packed wheel bearings and had grease guns backfire on me and all kinds of things. It gave me an appreciation. If I thought I ever wanted to own a car for personal convenience, and it is a personal convenience, I certainly wanted to know things about it and understand how it operated, because it's 2,000 pounds of motive power. Having had some experience in an industrial workplace, I think that's an appropriate analogy to bring to the issue of permits. In French, it's by permit, to drive; it's a permission, it's not a right.

I've checked carefully -- I'm not a constitutional expert; that's not my bailiwick -- but there are some considerations under constitutional law. When you are deliberating on and constructing and passing legislation here, you want to keep in mind a number of things in constitutional law that should be supporting and maintaining and building up the validity of this legislation, because it's an important issue to address.

The last time I renewed my driver's licence -- I have an X restriction because I'm required to wear my corrective lenses -- in very fine print it indicates that the maximum penalty for making a false statement and putting my signature to it is $500. One of the things that I ask you to consider under whatever appropriate piece of legislation is increasing that sanction in terms of dollar figure. It should be well worth more than $500 for somebody to be placing her Susan Smith or John Henry on a licence renewal where the first question one has to answer is: Is your licence under suspension? I don't believe the $500 is strong enough. It's not enough money, it's not enough of a financial sanction against the seriousness that is committed when someone puts their signature to that kind of document.

Like many other people who have been here, I certainly appreciate the absolute liability that you propose to incur on wheel separation. I think that's really important, because a circle check is important. As a matter of fact, it wouldn't be something that I would make a presentation about to complain if you made it apply to vehicles other than commercial vehicles. So I'm expressing that vehicles that people use for their individual use -- that would not be appropriate. I think it belongs as a sanction that wheel separation incurs the absolute liability.

I would have liked to have seen it applied as well for school buses. There are aspects of vehicle liability, and not only fines, that I believe are very important with the issue of what this bill proposes to deal with for people who are imperiling safety on the public throughways by passing school buses.

In one section of the bill there's a reference to the impounding of vehicles. It seems to me that in the context of this bill it's a fairly narrow area that application is being made in. It's now in the new section 50.2 of the act. I actually would suggest that the "exceptional hardship" provision be removed. I don't believe that there is an exceptional hardship argument to make. It's quite an elective thing to consume alcohol. It's required to be at the age of 19, so it's certainly an informed choice that is made. To me, it's a disclaimer in there that doesn't belong. Whether people can read a newspaper or not, whether the Toronto Sun's willing to put a particular term of a new piece of legislation on the front page or not, and inform people, I don't see any rationale for exceptional hardship.

In the same area, when the vehicle used for the commission of the impaired driving doesn't belong to the person driving the vehicle, I feel that you should further elaborate and enumerate in the bill, not just by regulation, what due diligence you require. If I have an automobile and I'm going to be willing to lend it to somebody, for instance, the cost of a photocopy to photocopy their driver's licence -- that's not onerous due diligence. The effort can certainly be made to ascertain that someone has a legal permit to drive an automobile or to operate a vehicle and that their licence is not under suspension.

Under your new section 55.1 of the act, with respect to the vehicle being impounded, I appreciate what's in the legislation. I don't know if there's an overarching legal reason why you have to refer to a "prescribed period." It would seem to me that there shouldn't be a sunset of a prescribed period. If at any time a motor vehicle has previously been impounded because the driver has been impaired or suspended, it doesn't seem to me that there's a good reason to have a sunset of time for that. For the second time in a prescribed period, if you have to use that, under the same section, I would not move from 45 days to 90 days, I would move to 180 days.

There's a part of this legislation, and it was in the minister's comments when he introduced the bill, that I think, with respect to the majority of the membership of the committee -- it's the play, the sport, the baseball analogy of three strikes and you're out. It's a male construct. We all appreciate baseball, but to go back to the industrial safety analogy of operating 2,000 pounds of motive power, in a workplace, a worker, whether it's a collectively organized, a unionized workplace or not, would not be permitted that total lack of due diligence on the part of every other system operative in the workplace, in the location, to not intervene. The three strikes and you're out analogy to me is something I feel deeply critical of because it doesn't acknowledge the importance of intervention to solve a problem.

Finland has zero tolerance. If you're a breastfeeding mother and you have your child appropriately strapped in a little car seat in the back, if you are apprehended for impaired driving, you do not pass go, you go directly to jail. That's the intervention in that society. I don't know if we're that much more wealthy a society that we can afford to be spending a lot more of public wealth on monitoring the roadways, but to me that's an indication of an issue of the combination of the importance of operating motive power -- that it is machinery, it's equipment, one is in the public domain operating a vehicle, and that there is a real impediment to total safety and total quality management, if you will, by virtue of someone adding alcohol into that equation.

1750

I used public transit to get here today from London, Ontario. The first thing I did leaving my home was get on the public bus system. At 11:30 this morning, at a major intersection with four-lane traffic on all four corners, the bus driver missed the advance green because he was sitting nodding and his eyes closed. I was sitting close enough to actually say, "Excuse me"; not to startle him, but he was actually nodding off.

There are all kinds of rationales why that happens. Anybody can have low blood sugar at any point in the day. They'd forgotten to eat, didn't have enough sleep the night before, whatever. The point being that human error can be a cause of accidents while operating heavy equipment, with absolutely no other mitigating factor whatsoever.

To me, the sanctions required in a piece of legislation like this are very important to modify behaviour at whatever level the intervention takes place, at whatever point in the individual's life this is taking place. To me it begs sanity to suggest, after a first conviction, that we're not intervening as a society with everything we can use to prevent this kind of thing. This is completely preventable.

Keep the tax break; spend the money how it needs to be spent. If this develops a very complex system, a complicated system, the world we live is that Labatt and Molson can't hit each other over the head hard enough to sell beer at a cheaper price. Where's the sense? People moan about a sanitary sewer charge and don't understand about the availability of potable water. Yet this seems to be something that we haven't been prepared to sanction in our society.

This bill begins to scratch the surface. The only issue you've used out of Target '97 it seems to me, in addition to the wheel separation, is the impounding of a critically flawed vehicle with critical maintenance errors on it with, obviously, impending accident potential. There are a lot of issues around graduated licensing. We've been going in the right direction. I appreciate the ministry has been bringing this along over a number of years. It's time to get to it. It is unfortunate that what appears to be missing with respect to the -- and I'm sorry Mr Hoy isn't here today -- school bus safety is really important.

From my personal experience living in an urban area, I would say we probably see more lack of observance of what's required to honour the fact that school buses are carrying -- that's what kids do. Their job is to go to school. In the movie Ferris Bueller's Day Off, one child says to the principal, "You've never smelled the school bus before, have you?" It's a great line. The kids are entitled to total safety protection while they're on a school bus. Increasing the fine doesn't seem to me to be enough of a sanction.

I think that same intervention of loss of points, a charge -- to me it is criminal negligence to be in a vehicle and think that it's somehow personal space that isn't sharing the same road as other necessary vehicles, which by definition is a pubic transit vehicle, a school bus. When I'm driving a car, that's not public transit. It's a privilege to be on the road, having the enjoyment of private space in the public domain. At all times it should be acknowledged as a privilege.

I would also like to see the Worona inquest recommendations used to improve the legislation, or a piece of legislation, if you can. I would hate to be cynical enough to feel that the implementation of regulations at the cabinet level would simply be accommodating the ever-present, ubiquitous interest of the Ontario Trucking Association to curry favour and have influence and, of course, make their appropriate donations to political coffers at the appropriate time. I think this job you have ahead of you is a lot more important than that.

I don't know if the Mid-Ontario Equipment Ltd's wheel separation was part of what moved this along quickly. WMX Technologies, which now owns that firm, is the largest rolling stock transnational on the planet and has an interest in being able to protect its profit margin. There's a big challenge ahead of you to regulate that, to begin to improve the inspection and to improve the standards. I'm just a regular Ontario voter who looks to you to do that soon.

The Chair: Thanks very much, Ms Smith. We have one minute per caucus. Mr Bisson for the third party.

Mr Bisson: One of the things that you're talking about is that when it comes to truck safety, when it comes to highway safety, a big part of it is attitude. We heard in earlier presentations, in the case of Mr Larochelle and others, talk about how we are always trying to, by way of legislation, pin the fault on one individual within the whole realm of those responsible for trucking. What I hear you saying, and I support, is that we need to look at this from a broader perspective than just saying an increased fine or this or that or the other thing will fix the problem. Rather, what we need is a comprehensive approach and also a changing of attitudes to a big extent, which can be done through public education. I want to thank you for presenting and bringing forward those views.

The Chair: For the government, Mrs Marland. Mr Hastings would like 10 seconds of that time.

Mrs Marland: Go first.

Mr Hastings: No, ladies first.

Mrs Marland: Okay. Ms Smith, thank you very much. I thought you made some excellent suggestions. I hope we can follow up on some of them. I agree with you the bill begins to scratch the surface, but as somebody who's been fighting for three years to get some changes from where we are today, I'm grateful for the bill. But I agree with you that once we get this implemented, then we're in a position to start cutting back to where it should be at. I agree especially with you about the exceptional hardship. My interpretation of "exceptional hardship" is the person the drunk driver kills who may be the breadwinner who's lost their life.

Ms Smith: I think there's a perspective to put exceptional hardship in. Ontario hasn't become a right-to-work province, but a frozen minimum wage at $6.85 an hour -- I mean, exceptional hardship is certainly relative. With respect to the three years, I've seen this develop. To be quite honest, I don't think there's really been public consultation. I certainly made my phone calls to get here and begged the clerk for an opportunity to make a presentation, however limited it is, because I don't think there's been public input.

There has been an industry and there is a stakeholder group giving input. But frankly, my concern was an opportunistic election call within less than a year by the government, meaning this would be on the shelf and not done. I was really, really concerned that not have an opportunity to take place. This is only scratching the surface. It needs to be done right away. You really have to get to the rest of the job quickly.

Mr Hastings: Thank you for coming today. Are you aware that signing a false statement about renewing your driver's licence -- you said there was only a $1 to $500 fine?

Ms Smith: "Maximum $500 fine" is what's printed on the bottom.

Mr Hastings: But in actual fact, making such a false statement, if convicted, you can end up in jail for 30 days and you can have a six-month suspension in addition to what you've noted. What would you recommend it be in terms of the pricing?

Ms Smith: In the first instance, I'd recommend that the additional information you've just given me also be printed on the actual form that gets sent to people three months before our birthday to renew the licence. Perhaps at one time it did; I don't know why it would be missing now. Now that you say it, it makes sense that writing a false statement would incur the potential for a jail term. That currently does not appear on the 1997 notice I received to renew my licence this year.

Mr Duncan: Just two brief comments: First of all, you had made a recommendation that the Worona inquest recommendations be dealt with. The government has said on a number of occasions in the House that they're acting on those. We put in an order paper question, which is a tool we have to use in the Legislature that the government has to respond to. Despite what they've said in the House, they've refused to provide us, written, which ones of the recommendations they have proceeded on and which ones they haven't. The last response that was published said they didn't have time to get it prepared. In spite of what the minister has said publicly, I believe they haven't acted on them. I believe the point you raised is extremely valid.

The other point I wanted to make note of very briefly to you is that in the private member's bill I introduced, I proposed a format by which the regulatory initiatives contained in Target '97 could be dealt with in a more public fashion. The official opposition will be putting an amendment to that effect tomorrow.

The Chair: Thank you very much for taking the time to come here this afternoon and to give us the benefit of your views and your experience.

Ladies and gentlemen, I would remind you that amendments must be filed by 1 pm tomorrow. We have assurances that all outstanding questions will be answered by 12 tomorrow at the latest. It's a tight time line, but we'll try and work within it. Perhaps we could ask the government to speed up the process as much as possible. We will have a list of all outstanding questions tomorrow and how they've been answered.

I would also tell you we'll be meeting in room 151 tomorrow for clause-by-clause at 3:30. We are adjourned.

The committee adjourned at 1802.