You there! HANDS OFF!! Cellphone driving ban approved

Ontario motorists will likely have until fall before it becomes illegal to use hand-held cellphones and other electronic devices like BlackBerrys and global positioning systems while at the wheel.

The Legislature unanimously passed the government's law against "distracted driving" yesterday but it will take several months before associated regulations are drawn up and a public education campaign launched, said Transportation Minister Jim Bradley.

Fines will be up to $500, which drivers can avoid by using a cellphone headset and voice dialing.

While some cab companies, courier and trucking firms want exemptions from the law as regulations are being written, Bradley said they won't be granted easily. "We would be extremely reluctant as a government to grant any exemptions unless a very compelling case could be made. Safety for the driving public ... will be paramount."

The government is looking at exemptions for communications devices for dispatching, tracking and monitoring commercial drivers.

Emergency services vehicles are also exempt from the prohibition on talking, texting and emailing using hand-held devices. As well, calls by motorists to 911 are exempt.

Progressive Conservative leadership candidate Christine Elliott said businesses will have to change their equipment so drivers can be hands-free of electronic devices.

"Anything that can reduce accidents on our roadways is going to be good," she said.

Bradley said the new law will help police crack down on unsafe practices like texting while at the wheel because officers are now reluctant to use careless driving laws, which carry more "significant" penalties of $1,000 fines and six demerit points, or dangerous driving laws, with a maximum $2,000 fine and up to five years in jail.

It will also be illegal for drivers to use hand-held entertainment devices but using an MP3 player plugged into a vehicle's sound system is okay. GPS units are acceptable if mounted on the dashboard.

New laws would let police eavesdrop on Internet users

Under the proposed bill, police would first have to get court approval before they could listen in.

Public Safety Minister Peter Van Loan told the House of Commons Public Safety and National Security Committee Wednesday that the legislation is needed because current laws are out-of-date.

"We have legislation covering wiretap and surveillance that was designed for the era of the rotary phone," Van Loan said.

The current legislation was written in a time before text messages, Facebook and voice-over-Internet phone lines. Van Loan says there have been recent situations in which police wanted to act quickly to stop a crime, but couldn't because they were constrained by current laws.

"In some of these cases, time is of the essence," he said.

"If you find a situation where a child is being exploited live online at that time - and that situation has arisen before - police services have had good co-operation with a lot of Internet service providers, but there are some that aren't so co-operative."

Police agencies have been calling for new laws since at least the mid-1990s. They say the situation at present provides a digital "safe haven" for criminals, pedophiles and terrorists.

But some privacy advocates are worried about what the proposed bill would allow. In some countries, lawful-access legislation has forced Internet providers to routinely gather and store all electronic traffic of their clients. The stored data can then be obtained by police via search warrant, and effectively places users under constant police surveillance.

But RCMP Commissioner William Elliott said with recent Internet technology developments, it's often difficult or impossible for police to wiretap communication between suspected criminals.

He said the RCMP is supportive of any changes of legislation that would allow them to better intercept criminal communications.

Buses wired for surveillance worry experts

Surveillance cameras are gradually making their way onto school buses with education and transport officials defending the equipment as a good deterrent to rowdy behaviour and bullying.

But some privacy experts say the cameras don't always discourage misbehaving and represent a possible invasion of student privacy.

Earlier this month, Pembina Trails School Division in Winnipeg became one of the latest school districts to put surveillance cameras on all of its buses after a 65-year-old driver was charged with sexually assaulting a female student.

Across the country, some school divisions in Canada have already been using such technology for up to 15 years.

Dave Carroll, a safety and legislation consultant for the Ontario School Bus Association, says there are 18,000 school buses in Ontario and the practice of using cameras is not widespread.

But there are boards which use them to discourage rowdy behavior by students.

"To my knowledge, the board would decide to install cameras not so much to monitor drivers, but to monitor student behavior so that the kids would be more inclined to act responsibly," Carroll said from his office in Etobicoke, Ont.

Some school districts place phony cameras with a glowing red light on buses to fool students, he said.

"It's a less expensive way to equip the fleet, and then they move the real cameras from bus-to-bus so the kids never know if they've got an active camera or not."

Joel Sloggett, chief administrative officer for Student Transportation Services of Central Ontario, which provides service for several school boards in the region, said the company rotates about 25 cameras on its 650 school buses.

Sloggett said the principal of a particular school decides whether there's a need for video cameras on a particular bus due to allegations of bullying or physical altercations between students.

"Nine times out of 10, when you put a video camera on, things settle right down because students now realize that the camera is on."

Cameras are also being used on public transit.

The Toronto Transit Commission is putting cameras on its buses after attacks on drivers, Carroll noted.

About 535 transit buses in Winnipeg will also be equipped with digital cameras by the end of 2009 in an attempt to make buses safer from vandals and violent passengers.

But Brian Edy, a Calgary lawyer and former president of the Alberta Civil Liberties Association, said there are always privacy concerns when people are being filmed without their consent.

Edy said parents may be concerned about how widely the tape could be viewed, and who could look at it.

"People will always suggest that cameras will assist us. It doesn't always increase security and that is the unfortunate part of it. It doesn't always prevent a problem," Edy said.

"We have to be careful about getting on that slippery slope of trading away all our privacy, everywhere, in favor of a camera that may or may not be a deterrent."

School bus drivers may end up benefiting from the cameras, Carroll said.

"Some of them may feel that it's a good way to protect the driver against any kind of false accusations. So the drivers might benefit from that as well."

But Carroll said it's rare to hear complaints against bus drivers, especially complaints of a criminal nature.

"We just don't hear very often of any kind of driver conduct that would warrant putting them in tens of thousands of school buses across Canada. It would be a very expensive proposition."