VICE-CHAIRPERSON – Ms. Linda Asper (Riel)

Mr. Larry Maguire, MLA for Arthur-Virden

Mr. Chairperson: Good evening. Will the Standing Committee on Law Amendments please come to order.

This evening, the committee will be considering the following bills: Bill 11, The Highway Traffic Amendment and Consequential Amendments Act; Bill 23, The Highway Traffic Amendment Act; Bill 33, The Highway Traffic Amendment and Consequential Amendments Act (2); Bill 35, The Improved Enforcement of Support Payments (Various Acts Amended) Act; Bill 36, The Enhanced Debt Collection (Various Acts Amended) Act; Bill 37, The Inter-jurisdictional Support Orders Act; Bill 46, The Provincial Court Amendment and Court of Queen's Bench Amendment Act; Bill 49, The Statutes Correction and Minor Amendments Act, 2001.

We have presenters who have registered to make public presentations on Bill 11, The Highway Traffic Amendment and Consequential Amendments Act; and Bill 23, The Highway Traffic Amendment Act.

It is the custom to hear public presentations before consideration of bills. Is it the will of the committee to hear public presentations on the bills, and if yes, in what order do you wish to hear the presenters?

Ms. Nancy Allan (St. Vital): I would like to suggest that we hear from the out-of-town presenters first, please.

Mr. Chairperson: Is that agreed? [Agreed] I will then read the names of the persons who have registered to make presentations this evening: Sharon Stewart, Shawn Feely, Don Dewar, Doug Houghton or Terry Johns, Greg Riou, Dale Wilson. Those are the persons and organizations that have registered so far. If there is anyone else in the audience who would like to register or has not yet registered and would like to make a presentation, would you please register at the back of the room.

Just a reminder that 20 copies of your presentation are required. If you require assistance with photocopying, please see the Clerk of this committee. Before we proceed with the presentations, is it the will of the committee to set time limits on presentations?

Ms. Allan: I would like to suggest 15 minutes for presentation and five minutes for question and answer.

Mr. Chairperson: It has been suggested that presentations be limited to 15 minutes and questions and answers to 5 minutes. Is that agreed? [Agreed]

How does the committee propose to deal with presenters who are not in attendance today but have their names called? Shall these names be dropped to the bottom of the list? [Agreed] Shall the names be dropped from the list after being called twice? [Agreed]

As a courtesy to persons waiting to give a presentation, does the committee wish to indicate how late it is willing to sit this evening?

Ms. Allan: I would like to suggest that we hear all of the presentations, and if we have time, I would like to suggest that we do all of the bills line by line.

Mr. Chairperson: All of the bills clause by clause? Agreed? [Agreed]

I would also like to inform the committee that written submissions have been received from Chris Lorenc, Manitoba Heavy Construction Association, regarding Bill 23, and Tristan Goertzen, private citizen, regarding Bill 11. Copies of these briefs have been made for committee members and were distributed at the start of the meeting. Does the committee grant its consent to have these written submissions appear in the committee transcript for this meeting? [Agreed]

We will now proceed to public presenters. We are going to do two out-of-town presenters first, beginning with Sharon Stewart, private citizen, and then followed by Don Dewar, on two different bills.

Mr. Chairperson: Is Sharon Stewart here? Please come forward.

Ms. Sharon Stewart (Private Citizen): Thank you. Good evening honourable members of the Legislature and ladies and gentlemen. I appreciate the opportunity to speak to Manitoba's long-awaited graduated licensing bill, Bill 11. Since our own crash four years ago, I have spent many hours studying this licensing concept. I do not speak today as an expert but merely as a mother and as a parent, with a passion born of grief and loss.

I chose to take the road less travelled, and it has not been without risk. The road has taken many twists and turns, and indeed for a while it seemed like a very lonely journey, not unlike the journey through grief. A graduated licensing program would never work in Manitoba, I was told. We do not have the 401. It would penalize rural people unduly. Such a program would be discriminatory, and besides Manitoba's crash statistics did not warrant a graduated licensing system.

For all the honourable members of the Manitoba Legislature who represent rural ridings, refer to the Manitoba Transportation and Government Services Traffic Collision Report for 1999. Fatal collisions occurred two and a half times as often on rural roadways than in urban. A representative of The Insurance Bureau of Canada, in a letter to me dated May 26, 1999, was more convincing, and I quote: I must admit, however, to surprise at the negative comments attributed to the former government, suggesting that Manitoba does not need a graduated licensing system. There is absolutely no reason to expect that crash statistics involving new drivers in Manitoba would be any different than they are anywhere else in North America. New drivers are overrepresented in crash statistics, and graduating licensing can bring those numbers down.

In a recent RoadWise article entitled "Safety dilemma of wide-open spaces: too much room to take risks," Paul Allen, the road safety manager for MPI, said this: Manitoba is first in Canada for injuries per 10 000 vehicles and in third place for fatalities per 10 000 vehicles.

Mr. Allen attributes these 1997-98 stats in part to a high relative risk on Manitoba's roadways and what he calls the safety dilemma of wide-open spaces. The wide-open spaces of Manitoba allow plenty of room for errors and those big mistakes are on the rise. The statistics in Manitoba do warrant a comprehensive graduated licensing program. The implementation of a comprehensive driver licence program will go a long way in improving safety on Manitoba's roads. Even if the new rules save one life, it will be warranted. Costs of implementation will be covered through savings in health care costs, if the program saves even one Manitoban from a serious brain or spinal cord injury. Even if one parent were spared the agony of losing a child on the road, it would be worth it.

There were others who shared my vision. There were many in our province who recognized GDL is a life-saving program. IMPACT and the staff that comprise the Injury Prevention Centre of Children's Hospital have been instrumental in bringing about these changes. MLA David Faurschou has been a strong advocate of road safety. He felt he needed to do what was right and not what was politically popular. The NDP task force realized the far-reaching ramifications such a program could have on our province, and not just for new drivers but for all people who share the road. The task force recognized the future in licensing and brought the concept to the people through a successful public consultation process, which I was grateful to have had the opportunity to participate in.

In retrospect, there were aspects of the process which could have been done differently. An all-party initiative would have included members from both sides of the House in the consultation process. In an ideal parliament, each and every member of the Legislative Assembly should have seen a task force presentation and had an opportunity to study the proposals prior to debate. That, as one honourable member of the House suggested, would have given members an opportunity to debate this piece of legislation in an informed manner.

The public could have been given more information. The process did open the door though for a meaningful dialogue across the province. The accomplishments of the task force should not be underscored. The NDP task force recommendations brought forth following the public consultations signified a thorough knowledge based on research for many jurisdictions. The special needs of new drivers were taken into consideration, especially the need for a longer learner's period.

The program that was announced in April fell somewhat short of the initial recommendations. In particular, there were three areas which contribute to the overall effectiveness of a GDL program which need to be mentioned here. First, any time you make compromises–example, a shorter learner stage–safety will be compromised. The supervised learner stage is recognized as a relatively safe period where crash rates are low. Once drivers move into the second stage of licensing where many of the restrictions are lifted and they can drive unsupervised, the crash risk goes up significantly.

There is compelling evidence for the starting age to be 16 or to hold the beginning driver in the learner stage until they are at least 16 and a half years of age. This was just one recommendation that was reported in the graduated licensing blueprint for North America which was released in December. Further, the Graduated Licensing Evaluation: Interim Report 1998 for Ontario stated: Since the implementation of GLS in 1994, the fatal collision rate for 16-year-old drivers is comparable to that of the general driving population. Since 1995, the overall collision rate for 16-year-old drivers is lower than that of the general driving population. How many 16-year-old drivers does that equate to? How many serious injuries were prevented? How many fewer hospital visits, emergency and medical services were required? Continue with the well-established starting age of 15 1/2 with the stipulation that drivers ed be taken but hold them in the learner's stage for the full year, 15 1/2 to 16 1/2 years of age. This would also allow for all-season driving.

* (18:40)

Secondly, the presence of vehicle sign plates indicating a new or novice driver is on the road is an important safety feature and was not included in the announcements. Sign plates are mandatory in B.C. and optional in Ontario. The safety component is built into the sign, as in the case in B.C., and have been used in parts of Europe extensively. I hope that the use of sign plates will be considered.

An advanced-level road test at the end of the second stage of licensing and prior to full licensing is important in determining the effectiveness of the program and gives the driver incentive to continue to improve their skills. In Ontario, the costs of the second test are born by the driver.

I quote here from Alan Wood, Vice-President, Prairies and Northwest Territories of the Insurance Bureau of Canada, on the subject of the second road test. The concept is that the second test would involve some more complicated situations than the first. They take you into an industrial area to see how you handle lots of big trucks. They take you out in those high-speed roadways so your merging, passing, high-speed manoeuvring skills can be evaluated.

In Ontario, they take you onto a major freeway to see how you handle a six- or eight-lane highway. They expect you to evaluate potential hazards a block or more ahead of you. In short, now that you have been driving a couple of years, you had better be more competent than when you first got your licence. Again, the concept is that because you know you have that second road test to look forward to, your first couple of years of driving are psychologically still recognized by you as a learning phase. Once a driver completes the second stage of licensing or the newly licensed driver phase in Nova Scotia, the novice must complete a six-hour defensive driving course or a recognized driver education course. The only requirement of Manitoba's proposed intermediate stage is the passage of time and a clean driving record.

Most jurisdictions delay graduation to the next stage by a minimum time required for the stage for any licence suspension during either the learner's or the intermediate stage. Presumably, having to start a stage all over would reduce risk taking. The addition of a second road test or opportunity for driver education would further ensure competency on the road.

Research undertaken by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety suggests that the presence of teenage passengers increases crash risk. According to one study, even the presence of one passenger doubled the fatal crash risk as compared to driving alone. With two or more passengers, the fatal crash risk was five times as high as driving alone. Manitoba's intermediate stage calls for a passenger restriction from midnight to five if not accompanied by a supervising driver. It will remain to be seen whether this provision will be effective, as opposed to a more defined nighttime driving curfew. Surveys conducted in Ontario and in Nova Scotia suggest that parents strongly support night curfews.

As I have said in the past, no licensing program should ever be written in stone. Other jurisdictions which have only recently implemented forms of graduated licensing are making changes and strengthening their programs. I am encouraged by the Government's willingness to make changes as the need arises. Whether it would be more beneficial to have fewer regulations and more legislative clauses, I do not know. I do know that it took 30 years to make legislative changes to The Highway Traffic Act and that is too long.

Some of the discussion that was held regarding Bill 11 in the Legislature recently indicated that not all the information on the program is understood, and I take this opportunity to comment. The issue of driver education seems to be a prevailing area of concern amongst members. It is also a subject of intense scrutiny in other jurisdictions, particularly in light of the finding in Ontario showing that G2 novices aged 16 to 19 with driver education had a collision rate 45 percent higher than G2 novices without driver education. That finding is contrary to the public's perception of driver education. Where studies show that traditional driver education programs do not reduce crash risk for novice drivers, formal instruction is still desirable.

Many jurisdictions have recommended that no time discounts or time buy-downs be given for driver ed especially in the crucial supervised learner stage. An interesting finding came out of the Graduated Licensing in Ontario: A Survey of Parents. According to the survey, parents stated their teenagers took or intended to take driver education, not to reduce time in Level 1 but to reduce insurance costs. In Ontario, monetary incentives seem to have more of an impact than time discounts.

Broadening the scope and range of driver education and beginning safety lessons in nursery school may well bring about desired societal changes. I believe that process has already begun with the incorporation of the Manitoba Public Insurance corporation Children's Traffic Club into daycare and nursery schools last year. The program is to be incorporated into the school curriculum from kindergarten to Grade 9 in 2002.

The task force is also recommending that driver-training standards be established, including instructor training, curriculum inspection of programs and statistical feedback. The Province can continue to build on the programs that are already in place. Ongoing research in Manitoba and other jurisdictions will provide innovative ways of delivering these programs and ensuring their effectiveness.

Another interesting point was raised in the Legislature. Will the restrictions limit the new driver from driving and gaining the necessary experience during the learner's period, or will the problem merely be bumped into the next age group or postponed to a later date? This issue was studied in Ontario's interim report for graduated licensing. It states: Under GLS, advancement to the second level or G2 means that novice drivers for the first time do not require an accompanying driver, and many of the restrictions imposed in the first level are removed. A separate collision analysis was done on the second stage drivers, and significant reductions in collision rates were still observed. This indicates that substantial improvements due to GLS are not solely due to the restrictiveness of Level 1. In other words, Level 1 is not merely postponing the problem but appears to be instilling safer driver habits amongst novice drivers.

The impact of graduated driver licensing in Nova Scotia also took into consideration the crash rates of young novice drivers but also of older novices and found improvements for all novices. It has been reported in the last few years that there is a growing population of novice drivers who are not young.

Graduated Licensing in Ontario: A Survey of Parents also studied the impact of the program on driving and mobility. Concerns that new drivers may limit their driving under the new system were unfounded. As the parent of a beginning driver, I take my responsibilities as a co-pilot very seriously. We have an abundance of gravel roads around MacGregor so I have logged some miles on these surfaces. We have also allocated some of our practice time to night driving.

Some jurisdictions have required that parents keep a log and that they certified a certain number of hours. A recommendation in the blueprint for graduated licensing was 30 to 50 hours of certified driving including nighttime driving.

Parental involvement and the attitudes that parents bring to the task of driving are paramount. I gained much of my own driving experience on rural roadways, and we practised parallel parking in the pasture. I do have an appreciation for some of the issues facing the farming community, having lived most of my life in a rural area.

Graduated licensing was not put into place to curtail anyone's farm operation nor is it going to change the fact that rural children have exposure to farm equipment and vehicles at an early age. We are well aware that members of the farm community may not pay a lot of attention to the need for a driver's licence during harvest and seeding times. Certainly that is not one of the reasons that Alberta has allowed a learner's permit to be obtained at the age of 14. It remains to be seen what impact Bill 11 will have on crash rates for new drivers in Manitoba. As it becomes apparent over time which conditions will work and which ones will not, changes can be made.

Graduated licensing legislation is not an end but a bold new beginning for our province. An integrated approach to road safety would include increased traffic law enforcement, public education about the safety benefits of graduated licensing, drinking and driving road-watch programs and an expanded role for the Manitoba Public Insurance corporation. Other initiatives such as the implementation of photo radar and red light cameras have been shown to reduce traffic fatalities at intersections and speed related crashes.

* (18:50)

An evaluation of the GDL program will need to be undertaken similar to the studies conducted in Ontario and in Nova Scotia. The Insurance Bureau of Canada was actively involved in Nova Scotia with a public briefing document promoting graduated licensing in 1998. A similar program was undertaken in Alberta in 1999. The research into the impact of the GDL program in Nova Scotia was also supported by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety and the Traffic Injury Research Foundation.

I hope that our Province will have the resources to undertake a thorough evaluation of Manitoba's program when it begins next April. I am confident that our Government will take the highroad on this legislation and will continue to work with stakeholders in road safety. If this is the last leg of this journey, I am glad that it is now over. I thank you once again for the opportunity to speak with you tonight about an issue that is dear to my heart and also to have had the opportunity and the privilege of associating with many dedicated individuals over the last four years.

Mr. Chairperson: There are members who have questions for you if you would like to stay at the podium. Are you willing to answer questions? Before you answer I need to acknowledge you by name each time. First we have the Minister of Transportation and Government Services.

Hon. Steve Ashton (Minister of Transportation and Government Services): I really want to thank you for your presentation. I can tell you the first meeting I had when I was minister of then-Highways, I asked the question why Manitoba did not have graduated drivers' licensing. I know prior to coming into government, coming into this portfolio, I know a lot of the work that you and others have done to raise public awareness to the fact that it has proven to save lives, up to 37% accident reductions.

I know very early on, and you mentioned the work of the task force, we were able to elicit feedback from the province, and I know many members of the Legislature, including the Member for Portage la Prairie (Mr. Faurschou), have raised it. But what really struck me, by the way, is what you said about rural Manitoba because I come from a community rural, northern, from Thompson, outside of the city of Winnipeg. When you said that graduated drivers' licensing is not an attack on rural Manitoba, you hit the nail on the head because it is rural and northern kids and novice drivers of all ages that are dying disproportionately. We have a much higher accident rate.

I appreciate, by the way, some of the feedback we have had from rural areas. I think some of the amendments that you may be aware of I think address some of the legitimate concerns. KAP in particular raised some very legitimate concerns. But what is your message to people in rural areas who think that perhaps this is somehow targeted against them?

Mr. Chairperson: Ms. Stewart. [interjection] That was a question. If you would like to reply, this is your chance. Do you want to repeat, Mr. Minister?

Mr. Ashton: I was asking what you would say, because I have had discussions with people all across the province, and made it clear that this is not targeted against anyone. This is targeted for safety. I am wondering what your message would be. I realize it is very difficult for you, too, given what you have been through as a family.

You know, one of the things I have said to people–because I know a family in my own community, they were actually at the announcement. I do not think people realize that, with graduated drivers' licensing, you will never know whose life is saved in the future. Statistics do not tell you who is going to be sitting at a dinner table, and I am wondering what your message would be to people, throughout the province, about why this should be proceeded with.

Ms. Stewart: Certainly, from the research that I have done–it certainly makes sense. I do not think I know of any parent that would disagree that they want to keep their children safe. Certainly, as a parent, it will be a bit of an inconvenience. There is no doubt it will be an inconvenience for the rural people, as well. But I am willing to accept that inconvenience, and go the extra mile. We can car pool.

We have done everything for our children from birth to 16. Why all of a sudden would we then, all of a sudden, just throw them out on the road and say go to it? I would question anybody who is worried about the inconvenience of it, really. I know that we do not have buses and taxicabs in the rural areas, but we have always got along before and will continue to do so.

I do not think that the learner's stage as it is right now, 16 years and 3 months, especially with the drivers ed, is going to be such a hardship, really. I would have liked to have seen it longer. I know I have been accused of being somewhat harsh, especially with the 15-year-olds around our area. But I would have seen it longer than 16 years and 3 months, simply because I feel that the 17-year-old drivers have more maturity. It is experience, as well as maturity. The whole idea behind the graduated licensing is gaining the maturity and the experience necessary. So 16 years and 3 months–I mean, they are still pretty young. You know, 9 months, I think, will be a pretty good learner's period, but I think it could have been longer.

Mr. Ashton: Certainly significantly better than the two weeks we have currently.

I can tell you one of the first things that just floored me, you know, you think you know the system, is when I found out that it was still only two weeks, in Manitoba, to go from a learner to a full licence. I could ask many more questions, but all I want to do is, because I know there are other members who have questions, indicate, too, that some of your comments on graduated drivers' licensing, perhaps some changes that might be made–this is very much a bill that allows us to start the process.

As you have put on the record with the committee, there are a lot of other jurisdictions that have brought in differing types of graduated drivers' licensing, so we will certainly take the concerns into consideration. I am just glad that, within a couple of days, we will have the legislation in place starting actually really for part of October this year for the zero blood alcohol to deal with it. So whenever this passes through the Legislature, we are going to be, really, I think, responding to the concerns of citizens like you. So thanks again.

Ms. Stewart: I believe the zero blood alcohol is certainly the crux of the whole program, certainly one of the cruxes.

Mr. David Faurschou (Portage la Prairie): Ms. Stewart, Sharon, I want to take this opportunity to express on behalf of not only myself, but I believe I speak for all members here to thank you for your tireless efforts in this regard. I know that you have spent hours and days, weeks and months in your research, as obviously displayed in the presentation you had this evening. I believe that all members of this committee, and most certainly, the minister, appreciate those efforts. They are not falling on deaf ears. I also want to recognize the horrific accident that started all of this, and our hearts and minds are with you always in this regard. I want to thank you, once again, for all of your participation.

Ms. Stewart: Thank you.

Mr. Daryl Reid (Transcona): Thank you very much, Sharon, for coming here this evening and for sharing your thoughts and your advice with members of the committee.

I know that this is obviously very difficult for you, considering the circumstances under which this process started for you and your family, but I would like to commend you for your spirit and determination in forcing us or causing this Legislature to move forward. I guess in many ways we could consider you to be the mother of graduated licensing in this province.

So we would like to thank you on behalf of the Government for your efforts in this regard, and, yes, we will continue to watch very closely how this process unfolds and whether or not we can make improvements along the way.

We have taken your advice to us to heart, and we will continue to work towards those ends. Thank you for your work to this point.

* (19:00)

Ms. Stewart: Thank you, Daryl. Really, I cannot say that I have had a lot to do with this. I think there have been a number of people across the province who have been instrumental over the years. Certainly IMPACT has done a lot of work in this regard, and they have been extremely supportive of me.

Let us just say I was an opportunist. I saw an opportunity and I took it, and I believe that it has paid off.

Mr. Chairperson: Thank you for your presentation.

Ms. Stewart: Thank you.

Mr. Chairperson: The next out-of-town presenter is Don Dewar, representing Keystone Agricultural Producers on Bill 11 and also on Bill 23.

Mr. Don Dewar (Keystone Agricultural Producers): Mr. Chairman, we came prepared, if you would rather, to present on the one bill now and then the other bill when you are hearing it. We would be prepared to stay, or do you want the full load in one shot? That means I get half an hour.

Mr. Ashton: I am open to the will of the committee.

Mr. Chairperson: What is the will of the committee, both or separate? We offered him this time as an out-of-town presenter.

Mr. Ashton: If the presenter would prefer to do the two simultaneously, I do not think the committee would have any objection.

Mr. Dewar: Okay, well, they are two entirely different presentations.

Mr. Faurschou: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, the presenter has the option to present on both bills as they are listed in our schedule this evening separately. So it is the presenter's option.

Mr. Chairperson: It is not a point of order, but you have up to 15 minutes for two separate presentations, each.

* * *

Mr. Dewar: Okay, thank you very much.

Mr. Chairman, members of the committee. On behalf of Keystone Agricultural Producers, I am pleased to present our organization's position with respect to Bill 11, The Highway Traffic Amendment and Consequential Amendments Act.

KAP is a democratically controlled general farm policy organization which represents and promotes the interests of agricultural producers in Manitoba, including the social, economic, physical and cultural well-being. The organization is run and funded by its members which are farm units throughout Manitoba.

When the task force report on graduated drivers' licences was released late last summer, it caused a lot of concern among our members residing in rural Manitoba, and I think the questions of the Minister of Agriculture (Ms. Wowchuk) when she attended our annual meeting in January, the most important issue and virtually all of the questions were around the graduated drivers' licence program that was coming forward and what was going to be done at that time, and we thank you. We had been involved with consultations.

But the potential impact of those recommendations would have, we believe, caused a hardship for the producers, and as a result of the publicized contents of the report, we were very active in promoting and creating an awareness about our concerns with our membership, as well as with the Government. We are very pleased that the bill has been put forward with a lot of those recommendations and with the interests of rural Manitoba in mind. Minister Ashton has stated the opportunities available for a youth to obtain a learners' permit at 15 1/2.

I have to reiterate that is only if they can have access to a drivers' education program. The youth can then move to the intermediate stage at 16 years and 3 months, still involving nine months of a learning program. We will be closely watching that these programs are available in the rural areas of Manitoba so that our younger drivers firstly have the access to the programs for the educational side of it and the other side is so that they could perhaps move up to the next stage prior to being 17 years old. We really stress that it has to be, and we believe that the Government needs to be more proactive in promoting the drivers' education program. The training at the rural centres and the urban centres as well should include a percentage of skills development that is pertinent particularly to rural areas as well as the urban situations.

We are happy that the Government recognized that the restriction of one passenger as a supervising driver is not necessary, and particularly in rural Manitoba it could serve to limit the training time and the exposure to varying weather and road conditions because so far we are talking days, weeks and months rather than actually hours behind the wheel. So we need to have the opportunity to use the time to gain the experience. The restriction in the first year would have placed unnecessary limitation on the driving time. For example, a family going to church on Sunday, the beginning driver would not have had the opportunity, and again we thank you.

During the consultations, concerns were raised regarding rules enforced by vehicle suppliers that training cars could only be used on paved roads. Driver training courses should be practised on gravel roads as well, and for them to be really effective they must expose the students to the many situations that they face driving in rural areas, including the gravel and the dirt road conditions, unsupervised intersections, farm equipment on the roads, et cetera. We do not always have the luxury of paved road conditions, and we all know that the gravel and dirt roads do hold different hazards. The face of agriculture is changing in Manitoba in an effort to maintain the viability of our rural communities. Many issues that the Government can have an impact on positively and respecting the concerns of agriculture when considering the graduated drivers' licensing program has been one area in which we are pleased with the outcome thus far.

We are pleased that our recommendations were included which will ultimately reduce the cost and time for rural families and still achieve that goal of having safer new drivers on our roads. Again, thank you for the opportunity to present, and I hope that any upcoming regulations relating to the bill do not hamper but help sustain our industry.

Mr. Ashton: I would like to thank the presenter. Essentially what we have attempted to do throughout the process here is maintain a strong principle of graduated drivers' licensing. We will still have some of the longest periods of time in which novice drivers are in control situations, particularly with zero blood alcohol. We have certainly increased the learner's period. But I do want to acknowledge that the feedback from KAP was very useful and to particularly acknowledge the work of the task force because what the task force did was take, not just the issue in a general sense, but some very specific sub-issues and look for a made-in-Manitoba solution. What we have before us is very much in that category. It tries to reflect the basic principle of graduated drivers' licensing but be aware of Manitoba circumstances.

I just wanted to indicate as well, and I certainly cannot speak for the Minister responsible for MPI (Mr. Mackintosh) or for the board, but I understand that MPI advise that they have included gravel road training in their training program, and I think that is a very good recommendation. I know the previous presenter referenced some of the unique circumstances out there on the learning side, but I know this has been something that has been raised in my own community. We have no shortage of gravel roads, but when it has come to driver training in the past there has been a complete lack of it, partly to do with vehicle availability. I can indicate to you that one of the reasons we do have a longer learner period in place is to ensure people have also all season, something that was raised by the previous presenter which is very important as well. Particularly in rural and northern Manitoba but also in the city as well, it is quite a different thing to be driving at minus 30 with glare ice on the road than it is during the summer, so I thank you for that.

I can certainly indicate that we will, as we develop this program, be looking very much at the concerns that have been put in place in terms of driver education. I do want to stress that, as the previous presenter pointed out, that driver education in and of itself is only a component of learning to drive, but the point is well taken that we need to make sure we can make it available throughout the province. I can just finish by saying that I understand MPI is already in the process of doing that and this will be very much a commitment of our Government to make sure that we can enhance driver education.

Thanks again for the feedback.

Mr. Faurschou: Thank you very much, Mr. Dewar, Don. I appreciate your diligence in this regard. I know that you have examined the legislation from front to back, word for word, and have a lot of input. I also would like to recognize Chris Hamblin and her input over the course of time on this particular legislation.

I do want to ask you, though, Don: Have you had dialogue with the Government in regard to the training program being available across this province? Currently you are probably aware that more than 17 000 drivers each and every year become eligible by age for obtaining a driver's licence and yet only about 12 000 are taking, at this point in time, the high school driver ed program. There are a number of reasons but having that program available is a concern. Have you had opportunity to express to the Government that particular point?

* (19:10)

Mr. Dewar: Yes, as a matter of fact, part of our submission was that there be credit given time-wise to taking the drivers education course allowing, as now, to start at 15 1/2 and the beginning period to start with that, as long as the drivers ed course was part of it. This was, I guess, in part to answer some of the concerns that the membership had with the task force report that it last a full year, from 16 to 17. So we were very pleased at the inclusion of drivers ed and the nine month beginning period would work very well, but we did remind the minister and others at that time that we will continue to press for drivers ed to be available in all parts of rural Manitoba.

Mr. Faurschou: This is a follow-up, Mr. Chairman. Did you discuss as to whether the level of support offered by Manitoba Public Insurance corporation be transferable or available to those persons who are seeking out instruction outside of the in-school instruction, perhaps because of unavailable programming at a particular area in the province?

Mr. Dewar: We had not talked about that at that particular point. We talked about the importance of having it available in a broader area, in all areas, and referring as well to, I know in our town, you have two opportunities in a year to start it. If you are not 15 ½ prior to the first one, you have to wait until the second one which you could well be 15 years, 364 days. We need to have more opportunity to work the youth into it so that the concern that our membership has that people can become intermediate drivers at a closer age to 16 to have the learner's behind them and some of the experience gained.

Mr. Chairperson: Is there leave for Mr. Gilleshammer and Mr. Reid to ask questions? [Agreed]

Mr. Harold Gilleshammer (Minnedosa): Thank you, Don, for your presentation. I guess one of the challenges we have had with this legislation is that it has sort of been a moving target. We had the original presentation made by the task force. We had the first statement made by the minister and then a second statement. The problem we are having is that the meat of this initiative is in regulation and which can be made at the Cabinet table as opposed to putting it in legislation, so we have been struggling with this and I think you referenced it as well, that the fact that it is in regulation has not given us a clearer picture of how this legislation is going to unfold. I am sure, as we have, you have also encouraged the Government to put it into legislation so that Manitobans know what it is we are getting with this particular piece of legislation.

But I would just like to thank you then for the input that your organization has had. I think you have made a big difference in helping to shape this legislation the way it is coming out now.

Mr. Reid: Thank you, Mr. Dewar, Don, for your presentation here today. You played a very valuable role in advising us all, and I speak for, well, I guess both the Opposition and the Government, as well, on the GDL process. We welcome your input over many, many months.

Just so that we do not let this part go with respect to the High School Driver Education Training Program, I want to make you aware that under MPI we first reduced the fee for students from $100 down to $50, so that it would be affordable for more students in the province. I guess to ask you a question by way of information or providing you with some information, to see whether or not you are aware that the High School Driver Education Program is now being offered during the summer months in the communities of Swan River, Niverville, Winkler, Lorette, Carberry, Landmark, Powerview and Carman and any other community that has a sufficient number of interested students and instructors in the province during this summer. Are you aware that that program is available?

Mr. Dewar: No, I was not aware that it had happened this quickly.

Mr. Reid: I just wanted to make sure, Mr. Dewar, that members of the public are aware. We did take the opportunity several months ago to advise members of the Opposition, to make sure that they were aware of it, too, so that they could notify their communities and find out where there were sufficient numbers of students interested in the program, and instructors, to make sure that those programs were made available to them during the summer months, as well, and not just have to wait for the spring and fall sessions. So I just share that with you as information.

Mr. Dewar: Thank you. The one concern that was raised, and I did not have it in my presentation with the school program, is that when we are bussing some of our kids 40 and 50 miles to the school from very, very small communities, perhaps some consideration should be given to incorporating part of it during the school day, so that they can attend as part of the curriculum or as an addendum to it, so that they can still catch the bus home after it is done.

Mr. Chairperson: Thank you for your presentation.

Mr. Chairperson: Do you wish to make a presentation now on Bill 23?

Mr. Don Dewar (Keystone Agricultural Producers): Okay, I will do it now.

Mr. Chairperson: Please proceed.

Mr. Dewar: Do you have copies of that one as well?

Mr. Chairperson: Copies have been distributed. Please proceed.

Mr. Dewar: Thank you. Well, KAP has many concerns with the introduction of this legislation since there are some sectors in our industry that do rely at certain times on what could be non-licensed employees. Due to a decrease in available labour everywhere but particularly farm labour, it is crucial that we be given the leverage to have employees moving equipment from one field to another without the requirement of a class 5 licence.

We believe that this bill will do very little to promote the safe movement of farm machinery on the roads of Manitoba but could add considerably to agriculture's cost. A farmer would be forced to take a licensed driver from other duties to move equipment on a road. That person may or may not be nearly as qualified as the unlicensed employee who regularly operates that equipment. In fact, it would require three people to be involved in moving one piece of machinery what could be half a mile or a mile down the road. Two operators have to be taken from their duties, stopping their machines, travelling to pick up the unlicensed operator's machine, move him and the machine down the road and then put him back to work. Sometimes that could be, as our farms are starting to spread out, 10 to 20 miles, involve a round trip of that or more.

The most safe mover of that equipment is the employee who is experienced, trained and competent with the aspects of handling and moving equipment. A class 5 licence does not ensure that the holder is capable of moving farm machinery safely on roadways. We also believe that it could leave MPIC, or MPI, with increased costs due to inexperienced operators moving machinery on roadways. It may also cost the farmer in two ways: Repairing the equipment that may get damaged in transport and the rescue job to eliminate the problems that were developed by the inexperienced driver.

As farmers, we are very aware of the short time frame to get the work done: seeding, spraying, harvest. Especially this spring, we see the amount of moisture we have had in the seeding and spraying, and go to great lengths to promote the safety so that we do not have down time. An accident or damage can result in significant down time, and through that, economic hurt. Now we would like nothing better to have all employees with a class 5 licence or better, but, in the real world, that is not always there. As we grow, there is a ever-increasing need for casual labour. We carry liability insurance that covers our machinery both on and off the farm.

If this bill is passed, if the mover of farm machinery did not hold a class 5 licence, our farmer's insurance, owner's insurance, would be null and void, and could risk losing a lifetime of work and the family farm, in the case of an accident. It would be difficult for the farmer to know, after hiring an employee, whether or not he has maintained his licence in good standing.

Some people who may be employed as casual labourers possess the skills necessary to operate machinery, but may not have a high level of education. These people have been operating and moving machinery since they were introduced to the workforce. They possess great experience, and have a good track record moving and handling farm equipment. The farmer, by way of offering that person employment and a good working atmosphere where guidance and encouragement are present, is providing these employees with the incentive to perhaps seek full-time employment and acquire a valid driver's licence.

Farm equipment moving from one field to another travels reasonably short distances. It travels at slow speed, and, therefore, with experienced, competent operators, the potential for an accident is very low. In fact, the accident track record of farmers moving machines is excellent. Most of the time, the equipment moves on rural roads and highways. Farmers try to avoid travelling through any communities, towns and busy highways, if at all possible. Young, experienced drivers from the farm will be unable to move equipment on highways until they are at least the 16 and a quarter that we talked about, or, in some cases, there will be that lag through closer to the 16 ¾ years of age, the intermediate driving stage. This will impede their ability to gain experience being left out of the movement of any farm machinery, and they will not be even be able to pick up the operator that is wanting to leave the field.

* (19:20)

We want our most experienced, competent trained people moving equipment on the roads at all times. There is a strong feeling that the proposed regulations do not lead to this goal. With the new lighting regulations of 1977 and the slow speed that farm equipment travels, we believe anybody with training and knowledge of the basic rules of the road should be able to operate implements of husbandry on roads and highways, and would do so in the safest possible manner for the farm community and the general public. The conditions under which we presently operate will provide the greatest safety and flexibility needed for agriculture in Manitoba.

Again, we would like to thank you for the opportunity to present, and we hope that you will give the utmost consideration to the concerns that we have raised. I should add that, as we are members of the Infrastructure Council of Manitoba, Chris Lorenc enclosed a letter, or asked us to add it to our presentation, to make sure that you saw their concerns as they relate to the operation of equipment on working on highways and travelling on highways, as they are very supportive of our position.

Hon. Steve Ashton (Minister of Transportation and Government Services): Thank you for your presentation. I guess the dilemma for us is dealing with the situation of the fact that, currently, some people on our highways are required to have a licence if you drive a truck, for example, or a car or a farm truck, you do, and these items of equipment are, in fact, in many cases significantly larger, involve some other factors as well.

But I guess the dilemma for us as a government in looking at this is the fact that if someone does not have a licence, I made a list of about four reasons why. One is because they are a drunk driver. Second is because of medical reasons, why they cannot drive a car. Third is they have a poor driving record. When I say poor driving, it takes a pretty severe run of incidents to have your licence taken away in Manitoba. The fourth is they never had a licence. Looking at the four, I am just wondering whether KAP has any comments on that.

I will give you an example. With drunk drivers, for example, currently all of our administrative provisions do not apply, essentially. The only road restriction is if someone has a Criminal Code conviction. They cannot operate this type of equipment on the highway. But, for example, if you have been drinking, you will not be impacted by the 0.05 to 0.08, and, in fact, if you have higher than 0.08 blood alcohol, you will also not be subject to any of the administrative sanctions in the operation of this type of equipment until there is actually a conviction.

So I am wondering if KAP does see a distinction between that, recognizing that apart from those who do not have a licence, drunk drivers, depending on the circumstance, people with medical situations and poor driving records can go to the Licence Suspension Appeal Board. For example, if a trucker loses their licence, they have that ability as well.

So I appreciate that like most things on the safety side, there is going to be some inconvenience for some, but I am just curious as to whether KAP does see any difference between those categories of people who would not have a licence.

Mr. Dewar: Well, I think the first point, for example, a professional trucker is travelling at much higher speeds. He is operating on the roadways 100 percent of the time and should make sure that he keeps his licence, and I think we are looking at maybe someone in a different social status in our society who is able to maintain it.

The comment that the farm machinery is significantly larger, I think it is an argument on the side of safety to make sure that you have somebody qualified to handle it. For example, my wife holds a class 5 driver's licence, but I would not want her to move my tractor and air seeder down the road, and you would be telling me that she can do that. My insurance would be in force and everything would be effective, but that operator who normally drives that piece of machinery does not have a valid driver's licence, he would be my choice, but he would be the one who would not be allowed.

I think we have to look at the safety and the practicality of it, if there are problems with medical suspensions, and we would wholly support a zero blood alcohol level for anyone operating any of this equipment on or off the road. I mean, I do not want them on my farm either. So I think there has to be found a way to deal with the problem that you have raised and also allowing people in the workforce to do their jobs that they are trained and able to do.

Mr. Ashton: It is not something that we pursued lightly. I know we have had this discussion before, but there have been six fatalities and accidents involving farm equipment between 1995 and 1999; 45 involving injury, 93 involving property damage.

So there is a concern. I just ask again, and I do not mean to belabour the point here, but if someone is irresponsible enough to become a drunk driver, if someone is irresponsible enough to lose their licence because they have a poor driving record or if somebody has a medical situation which means that they cannot drive a car, and I have had a report specifically of someone who was legally blind driving one of these types of equipment, do you not think that, in itself, should raise questions about the safety of those individuals?

I realize they may be skilled, but, you know, a lot of skilled drivers do things of that nature and they lose their driver's licence. I am wondering if you have any comments on that. I recognize again that there may be some inconvenience from this, but we are trying to ensure that people who are on our road system have a certain basic degree of qualifications, not just a skill level but a certain level of responsibility as well.

Mr. Chairperson: Before I acknowledge you, is there leave of the committee to have Mr. Dewar respond and have two more MLAs ask questions? [Agreed]

Mr. Dewar: Well, you have answered one of the questions that I had which is there have been six accidents in the last five years. At least one year is included prior to the new lighting regulations that came into effect in 1997, which I know should have had some impact.

But could you answer the question: How many of those accidents were caused by the fault of the operator of the machinery, and how many were caused by people trying to pass a piece of machinery, or otherwise drivers not paying attention? I think that is the issue that we are trying to raise here, that the accidents are not caused, I do not think, by the operators of the machinery.

Mr. Harold Gilleshammer (Minnedosa): Mr. Dewar, I gather there was no consultation with KAP prior to this legislation coming forward.

Mr. Dewar: There was not as much consultation as we have had previously, although we had spoken with the department at one time.

* (19:30)

Mr. Gilleshammer: Often we start by saying what is the problem you are trying to fix. Do you see a problem with drunkenness amongst farm operators on the highway or in the fields? Is there within KAP statistics that show that there has been a problem that we are going to fix with this legislation?

Mr. Dewar: We have been told there are two problems: one that was raised tonight with medical reasons, and the other is a farmer using his tractor to go to the bar. In that instance, none of our membership has been able to even recall seeing anything like that.

I think those issues can be dealt with without using such a big hammer, if that is what we are trying to fix.

Mr. Gilleshammer: The other thing I would like to ask is the profile of this unlicensed driver who works either in construction or on the farm. I am given to understand this is somebody who goes through long periods of unemployment, and possibly the only work they do is driving for a farmer or for a construction company, and, in fact, this legislation would cut off that source of employment for this person.

Is this the type of person we are talking about, who works on the farm, who is employed part of the year and is on perhaps unemployment insurance or social assistance the other part of the year, and, in fact, this is going to make them a full-time client of those aforementioned programs.

Mr. Dewar: Well, from the experience of one of our members who hires several employees on a casual basis, sometimes he is not sure which ones are coming to work the next day. So he has eight on the payroll and he needs five, for example. That is the kind of people we are talking about, just what you said, when they do come, and they are the best operators in the world when they are there because you train them that way.

Mr. Gilleshammer: So it would be fair to say that this could have some unintended collateral damage to those people who will no longer have a source of employment.

Mr. Dewar: Definitely, if the farmers are prepared to get them to work, but also the instance as I outlined here, requiring two other licensed drivers to help move the equipment what could be just to cross a highway actually or move it a hundred yards down the road.

Mr. David Faurschou (Portage la Prairie): Just, first off, I would like to acknowledge that the honourable Member for Transcona (Mr. Reid) would not want to be misquoted, assuming that everyone understood that it was he who reduced from $100 to $50 with MPIC. It was the previous administration working in co-operation with the Manitoba Public Insurance corporation. So I just clarify that.

I will also want to acknowledge that there is a letter attached to your presentation from the Manitoba Heavy Construction Industry that does recognize a similar concern which you have elaborated in your presentation. Would you care to comment on that letter?

Mr. Dewar: In a casual discussion at an altogether different meeting this came up, and they expressed their concerns. I, in fact, spoke with a contractor on the weekend who was visiting us, and I asked him what it would do on his job. Well, the licensed drivers, he says, we had a class 1 fellow put a trailer over it when he backed in, just because of inexperience. The licence does not mean anything. You need to give them time. He says we do have operators who do not have licences, but they are good operators.

Mr. Chairperson: Mr. Faurschou, we are five minutes overtime, so one more question.

Mr. Faurschou: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate all members in this regard.

I do appreciate all of your commentary here. Have you had opportunity to ask the minister: In relationship to ongoing farming, on either side of the roadway of a provincial nature as far as construction is concerned, when you are moving from one side of the road to the other side of the road which happens on a lot of occasions in construction, whether this has been elaborated with the minister?

Mr. Dewar: No, we have not talked about some of the specific instances that could arise. We would very much rather deal with the larger issue. What are we trying to fix, and how can we fix it, and still get the job done without costing our membership a lot of money.

Mr. Chairperson: Thank you for your presentation.

Mr. Chairperson: The next presenter on Bill 11 is Shawn Feely representing IMPACT, The Injury Prevention Centre of Children's Hospital. Please proceed.

Mr. Shawn Feely (IMPACT, The Injury Prevention Centre of Children's Hospital): Thank you very much. Could have used a shorter podium, though?

Again, my name is Shawn Feely. I am the program director for IMPACT, The Injury Prevention Centre of Children's Hospital. What we do is research on who is getting hurt and why they are getting hurt and then work with interested parties, governments, organizations, to address those issues. As IMPACT, we would like to commend the Government on the process they used with the task force in gathering the information on graduated licensing. We understand the realities of the political process.

There are a couple of things we would like to make mention that would make ourselves true to ourselves in that there are three or four areas we would like to see enhanced, I am not sure if you are going to be having in regulations or legislation. I am not sure which way you are going, but be that as it may.

First of all, we would like to see an extension of the learner stage. The whole fundamental reasoning behind graduated licensing is to place a novice driver, not just a young driver but a novice driver in an area of low risk so they can gain the experience in a longer period of time, and so it will be, again, a low-risk area. With shortening that process it takes away from the learning and the experience that the person does not have the time to gain.

We know through evaluations of other graduated licensing systems that the highest rate of crashes happen right after the person is able to drive by themselves. So if you do not give a person the chance to gain as much experience as possible and shorten that period, the likelihood of the reduction that other jurisdictions have seen in crashes are going to be less.

We also take issue with the passenger restriction in that it is restricted. My understanding, based on what I have read from what was on the Web site, is that there is really no restrictions except for the number of seat belts. Last week on Highways 1 and 12, four teenagers were driving down the highway. They went off the road, and the 15-year-old died. Four teenagers, early hours in the morning. Could graduated licensing system in place already have saved that person's life? That is a question that we will be asking for a long time. We know that if there are passenger restrictions, anywhere from five to almost eight times greater the chance, if there are more than two passengers. So, if there are more than two passengers, there is a five to eight times higher chance that the person is going to be involved with a crash.

Well, let us move on to the night drivers' restrictions. Night driving restriction, again, there is four times the likelihood of someone being killed at night, and there is no restriction with the system being proposed right now. Ontario saw a 62% decrease in the amount of crashes because they have a night restriction, so night restriction is a very important and fundamental part of a graduated licensing system. So these are just the three areas that we would like to see enhanced. One of the questions I have for this committee or for the Government is: Is there a plan for the evaluation, a plan in place or a plan being developed to evaluate this program? In a year from now or two years from now, if we do not see–and I would predict now we are not going to see the same amount of reduction in crashes that we have seen in other jurisdictions. But, if we are not, is there a process in place or will there be a process in place to make the necessary changes at that time?

There have been a lot of comments about drivers education. Drivers education is a good thing in that it reduces the amount of traffic highway infractions. It actually increases the likelihood of someone being involved in a crash. Because you take drivers education does not mean they are going to be better drivers. All it means is they know the rules of the road. They do have some experience, but the most important part of a GDL system is the length of time it takes for a person to move from a learner's stage to the next stage. A year is usually a good point. Nine months is not too bad. Some jurisdictions only have six months, but we would prefer to see one year and not credit given to the education component. Thank you.

* (19:40)

Hon. Steve Ashton (Minister of Transportation and Government Services): I thank you for your presentation. In fact, one of the elements that is part of the Manitoba graduated drivers' licensing does involve restrictions in terms of night-time driving. This recommendation came from the task force which found that most other jurisdictions that have a curfew, most do not, there are exemptions put in place, and this does limit the number of passengers. For example, the scenario you were talking about, assuming they were novice drivers, if there were four people in the vehicle and they were in the intermediate stage, there would be that restriction in place, so that would be prevented.

I am also wondering too if you were aware that the net effect of the fact that we are not having a credit for drivers ed based on some of the analysis you put in place other than the fact that we are allowing the time, you know, at 15 ½, if people are in a drivers ed program, to be counted towards the nine months. The net impact of that will be perhaps not the one year I know that you referenced, but we will actually have the longest learners period in Canada in comparison to every other jurisdiction with graduated drivers' licensing. I think the emphasis has often been on the age at which people can start, but we will actually have, not accounting for the drivers ed discounts, the longest driver's period. I wonder if you are aware of that.

Mr. Feely: Yes, I am aware of that, and that is good. However, we would like to see better.

Mr. Ashton: I appreciate that, and it is always a tough call. I appreciate the feedback. Just if I could, our intention is to follow the same process that other jurisdictions have, which is certainly to review the application of graduated drivers' licensing in Manitoba. I look to the Nova Scotia, the Ontario study which has been referenced today. We do know it will save lives, but we will also be looking at the impact of specific provisions, including a number of the issues that have been raised tonight, so I appreciate that. That is a very important part of this and one of the reasons, by the way, why we will have some element of ability to make changes by regulation. It is not to hide anything from the process but to be able to adapt our graduated drivers' licensing program to developments both here in this province and in the many other jurisdictions that are bringing it in, so thanks for that recommendation. I think that is something you will see us follow through on.

Mr. Harold Gilleshammer (Minnedosa): Just for clarification. I was not sure what you meant by driver education. I think you said increases the number of accidents that happen.

Mr. Feely: It increases the likelihood or the chance of someone to be involved in a car crash with drivers education. It reduces the amount of infractions a driver has. For example, not stopping at a stop sign, that sort of thing. It reduces those infractions, but it actually increases the likelihood of being involved in the crash. There have been at least eight or nine studies to say that.

Mr. Gilleshammer: Thank you.

Mr. David Faurschou (Portage la Prairie): I would like to ask, you were very adamant in your point that education does not have any positive spin. You said: It has a false sense of security that emanates from those that have taken the course. I am concerned with that particular statement on the basis that does not the actual road experience make drivers more familiar with driving? Is that not a positive experience?

Mr. Feely: I am sorry for giving the impression that we are saying education is not important. Education is very important, but we want to make sure that we are not resting everything and placing education as the be-all, end-all. It is education plus the time behind the wheel under many driving conditions, be it night, be it the gravel roads, be it winter conditions, that is the key. So putting those together, but education in itself, as it currently stands, with MPI in other jurisdictions, they have similar programs, is not the only answer. We are all for putting it in high schools, someone said, or making more opportunities for people to have, but the other very important side of that is the length of time someone is behind the wheel under many different driving conditions.

Mr. Chairperson: We have reached our time limit. Is there leave for Mr. Maguire to ask a question? [Agreed]

Mr. Larry Maguire (Arthur-Virden): Mr. Feely, thank you for your presentation. I just have a quick question. You referenced other provinces in regard to how they have provided education and how driver training is done and accident numbers and that sort of thing from other provinces because it is one of the larger ones: Can you give me some indication of what kind of drivers education, whether it is mandatory or voluntary and how broad it is offered in the province of Ontario?

Mr. Feely: I am sorry, I do not have that here. I can probably get it, but I do not have it here. I do not know. I could probably get it within a few days.

Mr. Chairperson: Thank you for your presentation. The next presenter on Bill 11 is Terry Johns representing the Coalition of Manitoba Motorcycle Groups.

Mr. Faurschou: Mr. Chairperson, I would like the committee's consideration that, in light of the presenters, it is vital that we explore all of our questions in regard to legislation and to be unable to do that because of time restrictions and having to ask leave, not to condemn the minister for, obviously, his interest in all of this, but it does curtail and tie the hands of committee members to ask those very vital questions. I would like to see the committee consider that the time allocated to the minister's response to presenters, which is valuable, not be considered as time allocated to the presenters.

Ms. Nancy Allan (St. Vital): I think we established the rules at the beginning of the hearing, and I think that we have allowed leave so that everyone can have their questions answered. I think we should proceed.

Mr. Chairperson: It is not a point of order. It is a dispute over the facts, but your comments may have been noted in certain quarters.

Mr. Chairperson: Will the presenter please proceed.

Mr. Terry Johns (President, Coalition of Manitoba Motorcycle Groups): My name is Terry Johns, and I am president of the Coalition of Manitoba Motorcycle Groups. I would like to thank you, Mr. Chairperson, and the committee members for allowing me to speak on Bill 11.

The Coalition of Manitoba Motorcycle Groups is an organization whose mission is to promote motorcycle safety and protect the rights of Manitoba motorcyclists by encouraging education, promoting legislative reform and disseminating information to aid in the continued safe enjoyment of motorcycling. The CMMG also acts as a lobbyist on behalf of motorcyclists and appears at Public Utilities Board hearings where it has obtained official intervener status.

The CMMG, in its previous presentation to the Graduated Driver Licence Task Force, has generally supported a graduated licensing program. Our executive has reviewed the June 28 news release entitled "Graduated Driver Licensing To Be Extended to Motorcycles" and wishes to ensure that motorcyclists' concerns with respect to graduated licences have been adequately and fairly addressed.

The CMMG has only reviewed a copy of the draft bill, which is basically enabling legislation, and the recent news release which did not indicate whether proposed changes will be in the form of amendments to Bill 11 or in the form of regulations. Without a copy of an amended bill or proposed regulations, tonight's presentation to the standing committee is based on information contained in the news release, as well as some speculation as to what the proposed regulations may contain. The CMMG is in the position of having to make some assumptions and apologizes if the concerns have already been addressed.

The goal of the CMMG is to make motorcycling safer through better training, skill development and public awareness. We must ensure that motorcyclists have appropriate skills but, at the same time, not make it unreasonably difficult in terms of time, money and restrictions to obtain full licensing.

The proposed graduated licensing provisions outlined in the news release reflect many of the coalition's previous recommendations. However, the proposed time periods and associated restrictions for learner and intermediate stages are longer than recommended. The following comments are based on the assumption that graduated licensing will apply to all new motorcyclists, regardless of previous automotive driving experience.

Practical motorcycle training course. The CMMG supports training prior to issuance of a learner's permit. However, there are concerns as to its implementation and availability. According to the news release, one of the requirements for obtaining a learner motorcycle licence is that the person complete a practical motorcycle training course. Will this be a classroom type of training course with videos, lectures and so on, or will it be a Manitoba Safety Council motorcycle training course taught on a motorcycle? If the latter, how can a person operate a motorcycle if they do not yet have a learner's licence? Also, will these training courses be universally available during the riding season, particularly in rural and remote areas?

Supervising driver: Although not in the news release, it is rumoured that proposed regulations will require that a learner motorcyclist be accompanied by a supervising driver. The CMMG is vigorously opposed to any such provisions and is of the opinion that such restrictions would be both impractical and unsafe, and you will notice the points.

* (19:50)

It makes no more sense to have a supervising driver on another motorcycle than having a supervising driver follow or driving beside the motorcyclist in another automobile. This may only increase the chance of an accident as both the supervising driver and the learner motorcyclist may be cross-communicating rather than devoting full attention to their own riding.

Having a supervising driver does not have any merit unless the other person is a trained motorcycle instructor or a good experienced rider. If the other supervising driver motorcyclist is a buddy or a group of buddies, the learner may only be encouraged to keep up with riders having greater skill levels and in more complex traffic conditions than the learner could otherwise be involved. Rather than riding alone within their own skill levels, learner motorcyclists would have to wait until it is convenient for another fully licensed motorcyclist to accompany them.

Now, the motorcycle learner is less likely than the automobile learner to find a family member to qualify as a supervising driver and must rely on friends or acquaintances. In a rural farm or in remote areas, there may not be a fully licensed motorcyclist living near enough to serve this purpose.

Time restrictions for learner and novice stages: The CMMG would have preferred to see a situation where the completion of a motorcycle training course was used as an incentive to reduce the compulsory time periods of the learner and intermediate stages. It appears that the intent of the legislation or regulations is to have the learner stage extend over all of one riding season or at least part of two seasons.

In reality, given the seasonal nature of motorcycling, the nine-month learner stage will become twelve or thirteen months, and the fifteen-month intermediate stage will become two years. Assuming one obtains a learner permit in May of year one, one would be eligible to take the road test in January of year two but, more realistically, the following May. Similarly, one could not practically complete the intermediate stage until July of the third summer. With the additional year of zero-alcohol at the full-licence stage, the motorcyclist would be subject to a minimum of four seasons of driving restrictions.

The CMMG recommends that this requirement be amended so that the learner be given the option of nine months as proposed, or a minimum of five of the six months from April to September. The latter will provide for more experience during the riding season than a September to May nine-month period. It will enable the motorcyclist to obtain a learner's licence early in the riding season and advance to the intermediate stage before the season ends. Similarly, the fifteen-month intermediate stage should be reduced to twelve months, so that the full licence could be achieved before the end of the second riding season. The news released does not indicate if there are any tests or steps to pass from the intermediate to the full-licence stage. Also, there appears to be no difference in restrictions between the intermediate stage and the first year of the full-licence stage.

Once the intermediate stage has been completed, the CMMG recommends that there be no further restrictions on fully licensed motorcyclists, experienced drivers, unless they are still subject to graduated licensing restrictions for their automobile, as well. It is unfair to further restrict the mature person, with many years of automobile driving experience, once the intermediate stage has been completed. The coalition wishes to thank the standing committee for the opportunity to speak to Bill 11 and pending regulations. The CMMG supports the overall initiative, in principle, but wishes to ensure that training and licensing is an expedient process, and that appropriate incentives are in place to reduce the time period that a motorcyclist is subject to restricted licensing. The details of implementing and administering a new program are very critical, and therefore, I would like to conclude by requesting that the CMMG and instructors of the motorcycle training course be involved and/or consulted during the actual drafting of the regulations respecting graduated licensing. A copy of the coalition's original policy statement with respect to graduated licences is attached for the committee's information. Thank you.

Mr. Ashton: I thank you for the presentation. I can certainly indicate our desire to work with your organization in terms of the development of the training course and acknowledge the importance of the input, both through the task force and in all the deliberations. I think there have been some very useful suggestions. I can indicate that one of the reasons we made the announcement prior to this discussion of the bill today was to make sure that there was some information out about the basic framework which will parallel the graduated drivers' licensing for other drivers in class 5. I can indicate we are not proposing that we have one of those supervisory drivers, but that we are basing what we are doing on the report from the task force. I certainly appreciate some of the other feedback in here. Rather than risk the wrath of my colleagues on the committee, I can commit to discussing some of the specifics with you further. But, just to indicate, I certainly appreciate the feedback. Thank you.

Mr. Johns: Thank you.

Mr. Faurschou: I appreciate the minister's brevity. Terry, I do want to say thank you very much for your continued efforts to promote safety as it involves operation of motorcycles here in the province. Your efforts are really commendable, and I want thank you for that and also take this opportunity to say that I appreciate the organization that goes into the annual ride, in co-operation with Manitoba Public Insurance corporation, that comes each year in May. I am not putting the leathers on, but certainly I am enjoying the wind in the remains of my hair. Thank you very much, sir.

Mr. Johns: Thank you.

Mr. Chairperson: Thank you for your presentation.

Mr. Johns: Okay.

Mr. Chairperson: The next presenter is on Bill 23, Mr. Greg Riou, representing the Heavy Equipment Rental Association of Manitoba. Please proceed.

Mr. Greg Riou (Vice-President, HERAM, Heavy Equipment Rental Association of Manitoba): Good evening, honourable members, ladies and gentlemen. My name is Greg Riou, I am the first vice-president of an association called HERAM, Heavy Equipment Rental Association of Manitoba. We are responding to recommendations for changes to The Highway Traffic Amendment Act, Bill 23.

HERAM firmly believes that all reasonable measures to ensure the safe operation of construction and other machinery on roads and highways should be taken. With this in mind, numerous proposed changes warrant the attention of our industry.

The bill proposes that all machinery operators have a valid class 5 licence. Currently, our industry has a limited base on which to draw equipment operators. This is primarily a result of the seasonal nature of our industry. Estimates of those currently operating equipment without a class 5 range as high as 20 percent to 30 percent.

Any action that results in a further reduction in the available workforce, or the quality of the workforce, will result in an increased risk to the public. This will occur as a result of many persons experienced in the operation of heavy equipment being forced from the industry only to be replaced by untrained, inexperienced operators.

We have specific proposals: Perhaps, an operator's permit to be issued for the completion of a one-day safe operation on roadways course, to be made mandatory for all new operators as of 2003. That all persons currently operating equipment without a valid class 5 be required to also complete this training in order to be allowed to continue operating without the valid class 5 licence. Persons prohibited from driving would not be eligible to operate any special mobile machines. Operators with more than one year of experience, validated by their employer, to be exempt from training requirements to receive an operator's permit. The permit would still be required through application.

HERAM is prepared to take an active role in the development and implementation of the proposed system. Our experience in providing training for equipment operators makes us well suited for providing the required training and validation. Program financing would be based on permitting the training fees charged to the applying operator, or his or her employer sponsor.

In closing, I would like to thank you for listening to our concerns.

Hon. Steve Ashton (Minister of Transportation and Government Services): I would like to thank you for the presentation. You indicated the people without a class 5 licence who are operating heavy equipment ranges from 20 percent to 30 percent. I was wondering if you could give me some indication if you know the degree to which they are either people who have been convicted on drunk driving, or have medical reasons where they cannot obtain a class 5, or have a poor driving record, as opposed to perhaps those that have never had a licence at all and are prohibited in any way? I am trying to get some idea of the breakdown between those two categories.

* (20:00)

Mr. Riou: I do not really have any major statistics on that, but I can say in that behalf, as an employer, if they have medical reasons why they cannot be on that piece of equipment, more than likely we will not hire them.

As far as drunk driving, yes, we will. We would make sure, though, that their period is up, their probation is gone. We would monitor them. We do not allow any alcohol at all present. We would send them home, or fire them, but we are not going to hold that against them. Everybody makes mistakes in this lifetime.

Mr. Ashton: I appreciate that, but my question was more against those who are prohibited from driving a car, or commercial vehicle, because they have been either convicted of drunk driving, convicted of various offences that would lead them to lose their licence, or medical, as opposed to those that have not had a licence in the past.

The reason I was asking that is because one of the reasons we are bringing in the legislation is to give plenty of advance notice, in companion with our graduated drivers' licensing system, to allow people who, perhaps, never had the opportunity to get a licence in the past to do so. So I am just trying to get some idea of, because the brief does say that you have no problem with not having people who have prohibitions from driving operating equipment, I was trying to get some sort of breakdown between the two categories, because I think it is fairly critical for us.

Mr. Riou: As far as people that have no licence because of drunk driving, you are probably looking at around 10 percent of that figure.

Mr. Ashton: I appreciate that there may be some difficulties, but I am wondering if you do not feel that, if someone loses their licence because of drunk driving, you know, if you are a commercial truck driver and you lose your licence, you have to go through the Licence Suspension Appeal Board to have it back for work purposes. Do you not see the same parallel that, if you lose your licence through irresponsible, in this case, dangerous behaviour, you should also have some restrictions put on your ability to operate heavy equipment on our roadways that would require that you go through the same process as a truck driver? Do you not see some consistency between the two?

Mr. Riou: I do, sir. I agree with you in that respect. We do not want to have anybody that is going to be a hazard on the road. On the same token, though, they have had a couple of extra drinks. They have lost their licence. They have done their mandatory six months where they cannot drive anything not even a wheelbarrow so it seems. I see no reason why I will not put them on one of my pieces of equipment if they take a safety course and they are showing me that they are willing to stick by the rules of the law.

Mr. Ashton: In the interest of time, I just will indicate that the same provisions will apply under this legislation, if it is passed, that do apply generally, which is, once the suspension is up, people can, if they can drive a motor vehicle, they will be able to drive a truck or to drive these type of vehicles. So I just want to assure you that parallel will apply. The only new requirement is that you have a class 5 licence which currently in the province of Manitoba requires a two-week period.

Mr. Harold Gilleshammer (Minnedosa): I thank you for your presentation. As I said earlier, we often ask: Is there a problem that needs to be fixed when you bring forth legislation? In your mind, in the Heavy Equipment Rental Association or with the heavy construction industry, does there currently exist a problem with operators that are hired because they have not got a licence? Are we fixing a problem that is a risk to the public out there?

Mr. Riou: Yes, we sure are trying to fix that problem. All employers, as myself, we have certain guidelines that we follow in hiring that operator. If that operator has no licence, we want to know why, how long ago they lost it, and then we make our deductions on that. It is a problem with transportation as well. They have to get to and from the job site.

Mr. Gilleshammer: So what I hear you saying is that the industry is policing itself and that this legislation is a little bit heavy-handed and unnecessary.

Mr. Riou: I will not put words in my mouth like that, but I will say that we try to police ourselves as much as we possibly can. We are here this evening to possibly make some recommendations on making it a little bit better for our industry.

Madam Vice-Chairperson: Is there leave from the committee to allow Mr. Gilleshammer to wrap this up? [Agreed]

Mr. Gilleshammer: The solution that you offer is an operator's permit. In your mind, this would give sufficient training to somebody without a licence to enable him to operate the equipment.

Mr. Riou: Not only somebody without a licence, anybody out there who is going to run equipment on the road.

Mr. Gilleshammer: The individuals that come to work for your organization or for the construction companies that do not have a licence, presumably the image I have of these people is it is possibly the only job they have during the year, that they are brought to work by somebody with a licence and they do in fact do important work for the various companies, and this legislation may make it so that their circumstances are that they have no job at all and that they will have to rely on the state for their income.

Mr. Riou: That is true. It directly affects our businesses.

Mr. Larry Maguire (Arthur-Virden): Just quickly, Madam Chairman and committee. Mr. Riou, it is my understanding that this legislation also includes backhoe operators.

Mr. Riou: Yes, it does.

Mr. Maguire: If it is going to be the will of the Government to put this bill forward with that in it, I think another suggestion might be that backhoe operators in my experience practically move 10 feet at a time, or 30 feet at a time and can sometimes sit still in one place for many, many hours, working on a particular project. Do you believe that there could be an exemption for backhoe operators in this particular kind of legislation as well?

Mr. Riou: Can you restate that question, please?

Mr. Maguire: Yes, I was just wondering if you could express an opinion as to whether backhoe operators who do not move, they are basically stationary facilities, I know that they do end up moving 10 feet or 30 feet or loading the backhoe onto a flatbed to go somewhere else and they are not allowed to run the flatbed or the trailer. But, while they are operating the backhoe, do you feel that they should be falling under the same bill in this kind of legislation?

Mr. Riou: They still have to get from point A to point B. That is our concern. We are worried about the safety issue. If they are going to be sitting situated in one place for most of the day, we have signage up for that to ensure that the public is well aware that, okay, here is a machine, and we flag them in if we have to.

Madam Vice-Chairperson: Thank you, sir, for your presentation. I would like to call on Dale Wilson, Mothers Against Drunk Driving, Winnipeg Chapter. Dale Wilson.

Okay, it would appear that the person is not here. The name being dropped to the bottom of the list, calling it one more time. Dale Wilson. So the name is dropped from the list.

That concludes the list of presenters that I have before me this evening. Are there any other persons in attendance who wish to make a presentation? Seeing none, is it the will of the committee to proceed with detailed clause-by-clause consideration of bills 11, 23, 33, 35, 36, 37, 46, and 49? If yes, in what order do you wish to consider these bills?

Mr. Ashton: I recommend that we do it in order.

* (20:10)

Madam Vice-Chairperson: It has been suggested that we do it in order. Is that agreed? [Agreed]

If there is agreement then from the committee, the Chair will call clauses in blocks that conform to pages for all bills before the committee this evening, that is, bills 11, 23, 33, 35, 36, 37, 46, 49, with the understanding that we will stop at any particular clause or clauses where members may have comments, questions or amendments to propose. Is that agreed? [Agreed]

Mr. Chairperson: Does the minister responsible for Bill 11 have an opening statement?

Hon. Steve Ashton (Minister of Transportation and Government Services): I just have a brief opening statement and that is that it is with great pride that I bring this legislation forward. It is the result of a lot of work, a lot of effort. I really want to credit everyone that has been involved with this. We will have further opportunity as this proceeds through the House to elaborate on that, but I do want to remind people that this will save lives. It is long overdue.

Just on a technical point, we have listened, in terms of the concerns expressed that the bill not strictly be implemented through regulation. In fact, we will be moving some amendments that will put in place in the legislation some of the significant elements of the graduated licence system in Manitoba.

The experience in other jurisdictions has been you have to allow for some ability to develop a program in response to circumstances that perhaps are unforeseen at the time, future developments both in the same province or other provinces, so that is why there will be a combination of the two factors involved. But I cannot say enough how much I appreciate the effort of people like Sharon Stewart, the Malleys from Thompson, my own community and others, who have been strong voices for this. I only wish it could have happened a long time ago in this province, and we are now going to be the eighth province. Soon we will be one of the ten out of ten provinces. It is a long time to getting to this point. As I said earlier, we will not know whose life will be saved from this, but it will save lives in Manitoba.

Mr. Chairperson: Does the critic from the Official Opposition have an opening statement?

Mr. Harold Gilleshammer (Minnedosa): This has been, in some ways, a frustrating experience in that, as I had indicated in an earlier comment, it has sort of been a moving target about where we are going with this legislation. I was critical of the fact that this was being done largely through regulation and not through legislation.

Now we find out that there are going to be amendments brought forward by the minister, amendments that we have not seen before. I think this is sort of a difficult way to make law, that at the eleventh hour the minister is going to change the track here. Instead of doing it through regulation, he is going to put the regulations or the intent of this Government into the bill. It gives us very little opportunity to take a look at these changes and to be able to digest them and give fair comment to them.

So, on the one hand, I commend him for moving in this direction because I think it is something that should have happened in the beginning so that Manitobans would understand exactly what it is they are going to get with this legislation. As a result of the fact that the minister has wavered back and forth from the initial report to his first press conference to his second press conference and then to a third announcement on motorcycles, Manitobans are basically confused, I think, in where he is going.

Some are criticizing him for being too tough with this legislation and it not meeting the needs of Manitobans. Others are criticizing him because he has watered it down. I think that the process could have been better for all concerned if the basic tenets of this bill would have included the structure of the legislation and not have it put over to regulation. So, on the one hand, I commend him for putting more of it into the bill. It does not allow presenters to make comment on the final version of the bill, and it leaves us, as Opposition, sort of getting this at the last minute and having to digest it and understand it. So perhaps, in the long run, in the creation of legislation, for another time we will have learned something and perhaps try and do it right the first time.

Mr. Chairperson: We thank the minister and the critic. During the consideration of a bill, the enacting clause and the title are postponed until all other clauses have been considered in their proper order.

Clauses 1 and 2–pass. Shall clauses 3 to 5 pass?

Mr. Ashton: I have an amendment after clause 4, between clauses 4 and 5.

Mr. Chairperson: Excuse me, I have been informed that Mr. Gilleshammer has an amendment that comes before the minister's amendment, so we will consider Mr. Gilleshammer first. We will also pass whatever clauses come before the amendment before dealing with the amendment. So before I recognize Mr. Gilleshammer, we are going to pass the clauses before your amendment.

Clause 3–pass; clause 4(1)–pass; clause 4(2)–pass; clause 4(3)–pass. Shall clause 4(4) pass?

Mr. Gilleshammer: Mr. Chair, this amendment makes a slight change in the bill.

Mr. Chairperson: Mr. Gilleshammer, could you move your amendment. We will read it into the record and then you can speak to it.

Mr. Gilleshammer: I move

Mr. Chairperson: The amendment is in order.

It has been moved by Mr. Gilleshammer

An Honourable Member: Dispense.

Mr. Chairperson: Dispense.

Mr. Gilleshammer: The minister had made some changes to the legislation which allowed the young person to complete the first phase of the driver training at age 16 years, three months. This would simply push that back, or push it forward another three months and be consistent with what young people have been accustomed to in many parts of the province, achieving the licence at 16 years of age. We would ask the minister and the committee to accept this amendment.

Mr. Ashton: Mr. Chairperson, I point out that the minimum age in which people can enter the learner's stage in other provinces, with the exception of Alberta which is 14, which, I would suggest, is far too young, the minimum age is 16 in every other province except Prince Edward Island and Manitoba. What we propose to do is maintain the 15-year, six-month entry point, but rather than reduce that once again, recognizing there are certain issues related to both physical development and maturity, I would suggest to the member that the appropriate thing to do would be to maintain the 15 years and six months entry point.

I also point out I appreciate his point about people getting their licence at 16, but I think the presentations earlier today pointed to the fact that the longer someone is in a learner's position and the more opportunity they have to develop the maturity and the skills required to become a proper driver on our streets, I think given the feedback I would suggest that we defeat the amendment and maintain the 15 years and six months, which still is at a younger age than every jurisdiction except Alberta. I do not believe there is any empirical information that would support reducing it beyond that, but we are certainly not proposing to raise it.

An Honourable Member: Question.

Mr. Chairperson: The question has been called. Shall the amendment pass?

Some Honourable Members: No.

Some Honourable Members: Yes.

* (20:20)

Mr. Chairperson: All those in favour, please say yea.

Some Honourable Members: Yea.

Mr. Chairperson: All those opposed, please say nay.

Some Honourable Members: Nay.

Mr. Chairperson: In my opinion, the Nays have it.

The amendment is defeated.

Clause 4(4)–pass; clause 4(5)–pass. Shall clause 5 pass?

Mr. Ashton: We have an amendment.

I move

Mr. Chairperson: The amendment is in order.

It has been moved by Mr. Ashton

An Honourable Member: Dispense.

Mr. Chairperson: Dispense.

Mr. Ashton: This is a fairly technical amendment. It is necessary to separate the repeal of the existing section 26 from the proposed section 26, which is renumbered section 26(1) in Bill 11. The existing section 26 will remain in effect until the full implementation of graduated drivers' licensing occurs in 2003. At the same time, the regulation-making powers in the renumbered 26(1) must be brought into force this fall to allow for the creation of regulations to support the early implementation of two elements of GDL, the zero blood alcohol restriction, which we would propose to bring in this fall, and then the nine-month wait period between the written test and the road test, which we have targeted to bring in next year.

Mr. Chairperson: Are we ready for the question?

Amendment–pass. Shall clause 5 pass?

Mr. Ashton: I have a further amendment to clause 5 and an amendment after clause 5. I move,

Mr. Chairperson: The amendment is in order.

It has been moved by Mr. Ashton

(a) by striking out–

An Honourable Member: Dispense.

Mr. Chairperson: Dispense.

Mr. Ashton: These amendments to (a) and (b) are required to renumber the proposed sections 26 and 26.1, as referenced earlier. Renumbering is necessary as the regulation-making powers in this section would be brought into force this fall to allow for creation of regulations to support the earlier implementation of GDL, the zero blood alcohol requirement and the nine-month wait period. At the same time, the existing section 26 must remain in force until full implementation of GDL in 2003. In other words, this is part of the transition to graduated drivers' licensing.

Mr. Gilleshammer: Just a bit of a dilemma. I have an amendment as well. The renumbering, I think, has created a bit of a problem, and I just want some guidance about whether to move this now or a little later. I will ask the Clerk for advice.

Mr. Chairperson: In the meantime, we will hear from the minister.

Mr. Ashton: Mr. Chairperson, I could explain, there are also a couple of other sections as well, which I would like to indicate. The regulation-making authority in clause 26(1) will be changed to allow the zero blood alcohol restrictions to be addressed in statute.

* (20:30)

Mr. Chairperson: We are getting advice. In the meantime, we are going to deal with the amendment. The amendment from the minister is in order.

Amendment–pass.

Mr. Gilleshammer: My understanding is they are doing some renumbering so that my amendment can be accommodated.

Steve, do you have any more amendments?

Mr. Ashton: I was just commenting that this is the part which best reflects the comments, I believe, of Bismarck, that making legislation is like making sausages here. So I hope members of the committee and members of the public will bear with us. We are getting to the meat next.

Mr. Gilleshammer: My amendment, moved by myself,

THAT section 5 of the bill be amended by adding the following after the proposed subsection 26.1(5) Driver Education Available at all High Schools 21.6(6): The department shall ensure that driver education or training courses shall be made available to students at all high schools in the province.

I think, with the minister and the Government's commitment–

Mr. Chairperson: Mr. Gilleshammer, I regret to say that I need to rule that your amendment is out of order, because it would require the expenditure of public funds.

Mr. Gilleshammer: Well, I accept that, but, given that the intent is such a noble one, I would implore the minister to bring the amendment in himself.

Mr. Ashton: Well, whether it is noble or not, not only can I not agree to make this amendment order, but it actually requires an expenditure, in this case, not by the department, but by Manitoba Public Insurance corporation, which has the mandate and the responsibility for driver education.

Therefore, and I can guarantee, and I would have the Minister responsible for MPI and a board member here as well, that there is a commitment to expanded availability. I will predict there will be significantly increased demand as a result. So I appreciate that the member's attempting makes a point, but I do believe the Chair's ruling is correct, and I would suggest that we deal with the procedural matter, Mr. Chairperson.

Mr. Gilleshammer: Well, given that upwards of 40 percent of young people are not able to take a driver education program in their school, I think it would be incumbent on all of us to try and see that driver training is universally available to students across this province. There are a variety of impediments to that, and the minister can talk with this colleagues to try and remedy that.

Mr. Chairperson: Clause 5, as amended–pass.

Mr. Ashton: I have a further amendment. If I could read it into the record. This is the meat of this process. I move

26.2(1) A novice driver must hold a class or subclass of licence prescribed for novice drivers

26.2(2) Subsection (1) does not apply to a licence that is issued before the day on which this section comes in to force.

3. No novice driver shall, while he or she has any alcohol in his or her blood, operate or have care or control of

1. a motor vehicle or off-road vehicle; or

26.4(1) A novice driver who holds a class or subclass of licence prescribed for novice drivers in the learner stage entitling him or her to operate a class 5 vehicle shall not

26.4(2) A novice driver who holds a class or subclass of licence prescribed for novice drivers in the intermediate stage entitling him or her to operate a class 5 vehicle shall not,

Mr. Chairperson: The amendment is in order.

It is moved by Mr. Ashton

An Honourable Member: Dispense.

Mr. Chairperson: Dispense.

Mr. Ashton: Mr. Chairperson, this specific amendment puts into the legislation the specific framework. These are the main components of the graduated drivers' licensing system. As we progress from deliberations with the task force through to discussions and consultations through to the release of our proposed graduated drivers' licensing system for Manitoba, it was felt it was reasonable to put in place the basic parameters.

I note that opposition members, certainly in their conversations and I believe the critic in his comments, did identify this as being a concern. None of the items that are being brought in this amendment are new. These are essentially what we have announced already. This does not take away our ability to make regulations related to other matters, but we felt it was a reasonable suggestion that we put the basic parameters of the system in place, and that is what this does.

Just to run through it for members of the committee: The nine-month learners stage, that is up from two weeks currently. The 15-month intermediate stage, the 12-month full stage are in place. We put in provisions related to phasing in the zero blood alcohol content which would come into place this fall if the legislation is passed this session. It does deal with some of the restrictions, both at the learner stage and at the intermediate stage. These are based on the task force report and subsequent feedback from Manitobans. The intent of this, again, is to put the basic framework of GDL in the legislation, which I believe was a reasonable suggestion on the Opposition's part. I would certainly urge support of this particular amendment.

Mr. David Faurschou (Portage la Prairie): I would like to query the minister in regard to the restrictions when operating a vehicle by a learner. The way it describes here, if I can think of a configuration of a pickup truck, you are saying there is only one person in the pickup truck other than the learner, so there could not be a passenger, in other words, three persons on the bench seat in the pickup truck by this definition.

Mr. Ashton: We are recognizing that there are many pickup trucks now that have more than a standard front bench seat, increasingly so. This keeps the same basic principle for pickup trucks or other vehicles and recognizes that, in this learning stage, it is important to reduce the distractions to the driver, and that has been fairly standard in a lot of other graduated drivers' licensing regimes throughout the country. Essentially it is the same principle, whether it is a pickup truck or a car. It ensures that there is a minimum degree of distraction, recognizing again that there is an ability, both in the learner stage and the intermediate stage and, of course, in full stage to carry passengers. The main restrictions are in regard to the front seat, the number of seatbelts and also a varied restriction which is outlined in the legislation between midnight and five o'clock.

Mr. Chairperson: Amendment–pass. Clauses 6 to 8(1)–pass; clauses 8(2) to 8(5)–pass; clauses 9 to 12–pass; clauses 13 to 15–pass. Clauses 16 to 23(1).

Mr. Ashton: Mr. Chairperson, I have an amendment which would come in after clause 22, between clauses 22 and 23.

Mr. Chairperson: Clause 16–pass; clause 17–pass; clause 18–pass; clause 19–pass; clause 20–pass; clause 21–pass; clause 22–pass.

* (20:40)

Mr. Ashton: I move

(vv) prescribing classes and subclasses of licence required to operate or learn to operate a specified class or type of vehicle or more than one class or type of vehicle, prescribing fees for examinations for various classes and subclasses of licences, governing drivers who hold particular classes or subclasses of licences, and prescribing conditions and restrictions that shall apply to any class or subclass of licence;

Mr. Chairperson: The amendment is in order.

It has been moved by Mr. Ashton

An Honourable Member: Dispense.

Mr. Chairperson: Dispense.

Mr. Ashton: The proposed amendment, the regulation-making power in Clause 319(l)(vv), is required to provide adequate authority to address learner and supervising driver requirements for those drivers who fall outside the GDL Program. For example, experienced drivers who are upgrading to a higher licence class, in this case one to four, or who have been ordered to retake drivers' examinations.

Mr. Gilleshammer: Are you saying that exempts them from this process?

Mr. Ashton: Perhaps, the member can clarify that. I am not quite sure I understand the question.

Mr. Gilleshammer: Well, I am just trying to understand what it is you just said. You listed a group of people that the graduated drivers' licence will not apply to. So I am asking: Does that mean they are exempt from going through this procedure?

Mr. Ashton: What that does is ensure that the current requirement in those classes of licences remains in place, and that has not changed. Yes, so it is essentially to leave the situation neutral in terms of the current situation.

Mr. Faurschou: So, if I am understanding that you are trying to recognize other classes of licence, are you then suggesting that, for those individuals that hold driving privileges in other countries or other provinces, that this is addressing that situation so that individuals can then take their upgrading?

Mr. Ashton: The issue of reciprocity will depend very much on what the specific circumstances are. It is hard to give a blanket example, but we will assess where they would fall, relatively speaking, relative to our program. In some cases, people obviously will come with a licence that is fully recognizable. I should indicate to the member we currently are involved with a number of negotiations with other jurisdictions involving reciprocity of licences, most recently Korea, and it is our intent certainly to continue to pursue that, as well.

With issues in terms of reciprocity it is hard to give a general answer, but generally we will recognize equivalent driving qualifications for the graduated drivers' licensing system.

Mr. Faurschou: I am just trying to get a full understanding of what is proposed here. You say prescribed fees for examination of various classes, subclasses of licences. Are you suggesting that re-examination of driving abilities of previously licensed drivers in other jurisdictions will be determined by the minister, and there is flexibility there to recognize the extent of the examination such as an added language consideration such as he suggested from Korea to Canada where French and English are the languages of instruction and examination?

Mr. Ashton: Well, the member is quite correct in terms of regulation-making power. Just to reiterate what I said when I introduced the amendment: The proposed amendment is required to give adequate authority to address learner supervising driver requirements for those who fall outside of the GDL program. So this is, again, clarifying the ability to make regulations to apply in that case.

I think the member's question on reciprocity goes somewhat beyond the specifics of the amendment. I certainly accept that this is an area that we will be placing a fair degree of attention on, and I want to stress again that we are involved with negotiating reciprocal licence agreements. Quite frankly, one of the advantages of bringing the GDL system is I think there could be some real questions raised about whether our drivers would be able to receive reciprocal recognition of their driving qualification in other jurisdictions. As it appears, we are going to probably be the eighth jurisdiction. I am confident within the next number of months there will be all 10 Canadian provinces having this.

So there are sort of two sides to reciprocity, one of which the general bill deals with, but there are issues related to reciprocity that we will be working on. We will continue to negotiate agreements, both with foreign governments and also review the equivalent qualifications of most other jurisdictions.

By the way, I mentioned the Canadian example, but the vast majority of U.S. states currently have graduated drivers' licensing, as well. So this is important, maintaining the portability of our qualifications, and I think by extension, allowing for an equivalent recognition of similar qualifications from other jurisdictions.

Mr. Chairperson: Amendment–pass; clause 23(1)–pass; clauses 23(2) to 24(2)–pass; clauses 25(1) to 26(4)–pass; clauses 26(5) and 27–pass; enacting clause–pass; title–pass. Bill as amended be reported.

Mr. Chairperson: The next bill is Bill 23. Does the minister responsible for Bill 23 have an opening statement?