HIGHWAY TRAFFIC AMENDMENT ACT, 1991 / LOI DE 1991 MODIFIANT LE CODE DE LA ROUTE
CONTENTS
Wednesday 20 November 1991
Highway Traffic Amendment Act, 1991, Bill 124 / Loi de 1991 modifiant le Code de la route, projet de loi 124
Adjournment
STANDING COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
Chair: Kormos, Peter (Welland-Thorold NDP)
Vice-Chair: Waters, Daniel (Muskoka-Georgian Bay NDP)
Arnott, Ted (Wellington PC)
Cleary, John C. (Cornwall L)
Dadamo, George (Windsor-Sandwich NDP)
Huget, Bob (Sarnia NDP)
Jordan, Leo (Lanark-Renfrew PC)
Klopp, Paul (Huron NDP)
Murdock, Sharon (Sudbury NDP)
Offer, Steven (Mississauga North L)
Ramsay, David (Timiskaming L)
Wood, Len (Cochrane North NDP)
Substitutions:
Cunningham, Dianne E. (London North PC) for Mr Arnott
McGuinty, Dalton (Ottawa South L) for Mr Cleary
Wood, Len (Cochrane North NDP) for Mr Hansen
Clerk pro tem: Manikel, Tannis
Staff: Luski, Lorraine, Research Officer, Legislative Research Service
The committee met at 1544 in committee room 1.
HIGHWAY TRAFFIC AMENDMENT ACT, 1991 / LOI DE 1991 MODIFIANT LE CODE DE LA ROUTE
Consideration of Bill 124, An Act to amend the Highway Traffic Act / Projet de loi 124, Loi portant modification du Code de la route.
The Chair: Mrs Cunningham, whose Bill 124 is being considered, is here to make opening comments. Mrs Cunningham, please do so; thank you for being here.
Mrs Cunningham: I am not quite certain how much you want me to read into the record, since we have done a fair bit in the House and we are on record in Hansard, but I will start by saying why I introduced the bill and what persuaded me that it was timely, and I will talk about the support and some of the concerns. Perhaps we can then end up with a meeting I was at yesterday where many interested citizens were going to make their voices heard before this committee, with our urging.
I will start out by saying that I think this is a particularly non-partisan piece of legislation. Members in the Legislative Assembly from all parties have urged me to move forward with this legislation, which was first introduced over a year ago, got to second reading and ended up in committee of the whole House. Then the government changed and I had an opportunity to introduce the bill again last spring. That is where we sit right now. Those of you who have been part of this process know that it was referred to this committee and that we are now in the process of hopefully having public hearings on it.
I first introduced this bill because it is rather personal. Most of us do not have an opportunity to do this very often in a lifetime as members of the Legislative Assembly. Luckily my name came up twice and I have taken advantage of the opportunity to do something I thought was not only useful but in support of prevention when it comes to tragedy, and in support of good health care. It is as simple as that.
I was certainly urged on personally as the mother of a head-injured young man. During his time in hospital and certainly his rehabilitation, I became very aware of the statistics with regard to head injuries as they relate to all kinds of accidents and specifically to bicycles. I was very much aware of the tremendous challenge and the tremendous cost, both personally as a family and in dollars for the Ontario government, in getting rehabilitation and support services. I must add that these services are not, in my opinion, available in our province or in our country.
Given the tremendous challenge we face, I think all we can really do is whatever we can to prevent these kinds of accidents happening.
As we considered different pieces of legislation, I became overwhelmed by the statistics in Canada: that 5,000 children will be seriously injured each year. We know that bicyclists with helmets will have an 85% reduction in the risk of head injury and an 88% reduction in the risk of brain injury. Although 93% of children aged six to 16 years old ride bicycles -- that is a pretty big percentage in our country -- only 2% to 3% wear helmets.
I was particularly influenced by a study that took place in 1988 at the Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario. It found that even after an accident, even after all the public information that has been available, the hard work on behalf of school teachers and families and home and school associations, few children, who I think are exposed to more of the public information than any of us, wear helmets. Of 517 children admitted to emergency that summer at the children's hospital in Ottawa following a bicycle accident, approximately 100 had head injuries of some significance and were admitted to the hospital. They were serious enough that they were asked to stay over, and many of them -- I am not sure of the number specifically -- sustained serious head injuries. But of the 517 youngsters who were admitted to emergency, only 13% owned helmets, in spite of significant public education programs in the Ottawa region, and only 2.5% wore them.
Given the reading we have all been made aware of and are becoming increasingly more aware of with regard to statistics, I think it is agreed among the experts -- and that is not myself; you will be hearing from them -- that a bicycle helmet is the single most important piece of equipment for reducing the incidence of serious head injury.
I have told you about the second reading and the fact that we now have the bill here. I also wanted to tell you that I was particularly encouraged last spring by the work that has taken place since I introduced the bill the first time, by Dr Wesson and Laura Spence from the Hospital for Sick Children here in Toronto, who visited me at Queen's Park and urged me to continue my work, on behalf of the many individuals they know who work in trauma units, who belong to bicycle clubs, who are paediatricians, who are health care providers, who are respiratory technicians and who experience at first hand accidents that can be prevented and injuries that can be reduced.
1550
So I am very grateful for the opportunity to have this bill in this committee, not only for those of us elected people who are responsible for passing legislation that is helpful in this province -- "necessary and needed" are the two words I like to use -- but for the staff who help us in this process by advising us on the appropriate amendments, the appropriate regulations and the wording, and, I should say, probably do the research we need around the province, around our country, in North America and elsewhere that will give us some precedents and some experiences to go on.
I recognize there is not a lot but more recently my staff have been in discussions with the people in Howard county, Maryland, who advised us that in fact they had enacted legislation in October, which I found interesting. Every week you are finding out something new on this. It was a piece of legislation where there was some six months' grace given. People had time to fall into line with that legislation, and they tell us it is going beautifully.
We can get into that in a more detailed way later on, but I guess my reason for introducing it now is that something is happening always and every day to support Ontario as being a flagship in this legislation. We are hearing from Saskatchewan, which is considering it. They are phoning us for advice. Right now the letters of support have been overwhelming, and they have continued on during the last few months. We did keep in contact with everyone we heard from last spring to give them assurance that we would be proceeding, hopefully this fall, and this is a little sooner than some had perhaps expected.
I think you will not be surprised to hear that the supporters include groups such as the Ontario Head Injury Association, the Bicycle Helmet Coalition, in conjunction with the Hospital for Sick Children injury prevention program, and the Coalition for Head Injury Prevention. The Toronto City Cycling Committee, which has not always been supportive, is supportive. As it advises us, it wants the legislation and the supporting regulations to address the issues I have already shared with this committee: cost, education, enforcement and implementation lead time. I believe the more recent legislation we have had to look at in the last couple of days from Maryland in fact will help us with all four of those issues, and we will have a great opportunity to discuss this during the committee hearings.
I add the Ontario Federation of Home and School Associations; Dr Michael Schwartz, president of the Trauma Association of Canada; the Simcoe County District Health Unit; the Ontario Medical Association; the Ontario branch of the College of Family Physicians of Canada; the Association of Local Official Health Agencies (Ontario); Dr Peter Lane, the medical director of trauma services at Victoria Hospital in London; the Canadian Paediatric Society; the Ontario Nurses' Association; the Ontario Public Health Association; a number of citizens who have been involved in bicycle accidents themselves; parents of children who have been involved in accidents and who have suffered head injuries, and even some parents who have lost their children due to these kinds of accidents, and many private citizens. These people see this as a cost-effective preventive measure. If we can save lives and save serious injuries, we can also save dollars when it comes to the provision of services.
Before we debated the bill at second reading, I want you to know, even the Premier called us and said that he was going to be supporting the bill and he found it most encouraging that we were presenting it. I know the Minister of Transportation, Gilles Pouliot, supports the bill in principle, and I think it is up to us now to persuade him that we have the evidence to proceed.
It is not without some opposition, however, and in our jobs I think all of us are more familiar with opposition than support. But I think we have to face it and we have to be prepared to answer those questions, because what we want here is responsible legislation. Most who are opposed do support educational programs to ensure people take the precautions and wear helmets when they ride bicycles, but they also believe it is a person's right to decide whether he or she wants to wear a helmet -- déjà vu seatbelt legislation, which has been so tremendously successful in the prevention of injury. They are concerned with the cost of helmets and the enforcement, and we feel it is our responsibility to answer those questions for these people. Those are the kinds of issues they will be raising in committee.
I should tell you from my own personal experience and from speaking, especially with young people and especially in college classes -- although not a lot on this piece of legislation -- that some people's minds will not change. They have made up their minds and I do not feel we will be able to change them. But after returning phone calls to individuals opposing this idea I do not think there have been very many people I have not been able to persuade.
The Ministry of Transportation held bicycle policy review public meetings, a kind of dropin-centre process, just a few months ago. As part of its consultation process for its bicycle policy review, it held five meetings across the province in Ottawa, London, Sudbury, Toronto and Thunder Bay. Members of the public were invited to discuss or provide comments on issues and concerns on related policy issues.
I have not heard the results of those hearings -- that is probably my problem more than theirs -- but I am sure we will be hearing from them during our briefing session. Perhaps they can offer us some help with this piece of legislation.
We are aware that many of the police inspectors across the province have phoned and there are two things I think you should know. First of all, they believe bicycle helmets will reduce serious injury and the statistics are there to prove that. They also want to make very clear to us that we will need a lot of public support for this legislation.
Given the group we talked to yesterday at a luncheon at a hotel in Toronto, people organized, I think, through the Hospital for Sick Children who are interested in safety and accident prevention -- many of the experts were at that luncheon and they have assured us in many ways that the public is quite well informed, but they know they need to be even better informed. I expect the ministry -- and I do not want to put words in its mouth -- unless there is something brand-new in this province, will be advising us that information costs money. I have taken it upon myself to work on that with the private sector and I think I have been somewhat successful. Perhaps we can help them in that regard. Insurance companies are particularly interested in helping us with public information and I think that is something we can look forward to.
I have given you as much information as I can, other than some specific questions when we get into the specific issues, and I am really looking to the public for the expertise I think all of us need to provide the kind of information to back up this bill with the appropriate and responsible regulations.
The Chair: We are blessed with a liberal dose of time this afternoon. That means there will be plenty of opportunity for questions or exchanges. The Ministry of Transportation is represented here today by the parliamentary assistant, George Dadamo, who is going to be assisted by Mike Weir, a staff person from the Ministry of Transportation's safety policy office. As well, members should note that Mr Dadamo's executive assistant, Mary Matas, is present, as is the assistant to the minister Mr Pouliot, David Edgar.
I will be calling upon Mr Dadamo shortly. However, are there any questions people would pose at this instance to Mrs Cunningham, recognizing that even after Mr Dadamo makes his comments, there will still be opportunity to ask Mrs Cunningham questions? There are no questions.
I would ask Mr Weir to step up and seat himself at a microphone. Mr Dadamo is going to talk to us. It is timely for me to make this note now. The clerk of this committee wrote to the Attorney General's deputy minister, the Solicitor General's deputy minister, the Deputy Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations, the Deputy Minister of Tourism and Recreation, the Deputy Minister of Health and the Deputy Minister of Community and Social Services. I recognize that Mr Waters, who is also the parliamentary assistant for the Ministry of Tourism and Recreation, is a member of this committee in any event.
It is of some note that, the clerk having written to all those ministries, directly to the deputy ministers indicating that we are commencing consideration of this bill shortly, on November 7, and recognizing that all those ministries should have an interest in this bill, not one of them has even bothered to reply to the clerk's letter. That is something about which people will draw their own conclusions. As Chair, I find it remarkable. Enough said, perhaps. Mr Dadamo?
1600
Mr Dadamo: Back from the commercial break, thank you, Mr Chair, and thank you to the member for London North for her comments and opening remarks on Bill 124.
The Ministry of Transportation is in full agreement with the intent of this bill, which is aimed at reducing the suffering of bicycle crash victims. I would like to stress that in 1989 more than 4,000 bicyclists of all ages were reported injured in Ontario, and 33 were killed.
Nearly 14% of paediatric injury deaths in our province from the years 1985 to 1987 were the result of bicycle crashes. Virtually all were the result of head injuries. I know all members of this committee want to see a reduction in fatalities and injuries resulting from bicycle crashes. There is no doubt in anyone's mind that bicycle helmets save lives and reduce injuries. The issue we must face together is not whether bicycle helmets are good, but whether we should legislate their mandatory use, and if so, when.
Again, I commend the member for London North on her effort, dedication and commitment to this issue and I look forward to hearing the discussion that will be generated by this committee process. I am confident we will hear many constructive suggestions from the people of Ontario who are closest to this important issue, including the families that have been personally affected, the doctors and nurses who treat the victims, the Canadian Head Injuries Coalition, the cycling community and of course many others.
Safety is the number one priority of the Ministry of Transportation, safety for everyone using Ontario's roads and highways and all other transportation systems, and of course we will continue to do everything within our means to achieve this goal. Our government recognizes that cycling constitutes a legitimate mode of transportation, not simply a recreational pursuit. Working people are increasingly relying on bicycles to get to and from work. Our challenge is to respond to this reality by listening to the experts who will come before the committee, and to move ahead after fully considering their views.
As most members of this committee are aware, the Ministry of Transportation is currently reviewing its bicycle policy and the ministry's role in supporting and facilitating the bicycle as a legitimate transportation vehicle. The work of this committee will assist the ministry in putting the final touches on this document. Bicycle safety is a primary consideration within the mandate of this particular review.
Five public meetings were held throughout the summer to elicit public opinion as part of this review and the majority of those taking part in these meetings supported the use of helmets. Some suggested a cautious approach in development of mandatory helmet use. Quite compelling arguments were advanced by those recommending that work be done to create a better environment that would allow mandatory bicycle helmet legislation to be most effective.
This ministry has worked to create a safer cycling environment with the assistance of many dedicated individuals and organizations whom I expect to see as witnesses before this committee. Our safety efforts range from ensuring that our roadways are designed to be as safe as possible to education and advertising efforts aimed at making the people of Ontario more aware of the need to be safety conscious.
The ministry actively promotes the use of helmets by cyclists. Over the past few years we have been involved in several educational and awareness campaigns to promote helmet use. Since the late 1970s, the ministry's Go Safely cycling course has been delivered to primary schools by police right across Ontario. This course promotes the use of helmets as part of its cycling message.
The ministry produces and distributes a multitude of posters and materials, including the Bicyclists Handbook and Cycling Skills. All these posters, booklets and pamphlets have been updated to depict cyclists wearing helmets, thus promoting their use.
Over the past couple of years, the Ministry of Transportation has stepped up its efforts. For example, in 1989, in partnership with the Toronto city cycling committee, the ministry produced a pamphlet entitled Road Warrior, Road Hog, to make both motorists and cyclists aware of the need to share the road safely. An award-winning television commercial based on Road Warrior gave the message even more exposure.
We also work with the Ontario Medical Association and the private sector, including a bicycle helmet manufacturer, Helmtech, on an awareness campaign that offered helmet rebate coupons from Canadian Tire. We continue to work with the private sector by providing bicycle retailers with tags to attach to new bicycles reminding purchasers that wearing a helmet is essential for proper head protection.
In the fall of 1989 several changes were made to the Highway Traffic Act to enhance cycling safety. These changes included the addition of bicycles to the definition of vehicles and clarification of the legal rights and responsibilities of cyclists, along with other safety provisions.
Having said all this, we recognize there is much work to be done to improve cycling safety. Far too few cyclists are wearing protective headgear and our collective challenge is to correct this troubling reality. The bicycle policy review process may be an appropriate forum to assist us in setting a bicycle safety agenda in which helmets would be an integral component.
Head injuries are the leading cause of bicycle fatalities. The Bicycle Helmet Safety Institute in the United States attributes 75% of all bicycle deaths to head injury. Information from the Insurance Bureau of Canada and our medical community supports that conclusion. The medical community estimates that 85% of these deaths could be prevented if helmets were worn.
As I indicated earlier, more than 4,000 Ontario cyclists were reported injured and 33 killed. On a more positive note, although bicycling is increasing, the number of fatalities has been gradually declining since 1983 and we hope this trend continues.
We fully recognize the long-term effects of head injuries resulting from bicycle crashes in this province and we will continue our efforts to increase helmet use. We estimate that about 5% of Ontario cyclists wear helmets, and this number is rising. In fact, a recent study commissioned by the Ministry of Transportation shows that in the avid cycling community of Ottawa this number is now much higher.
Recent research by the Hospital for Sick Children for the Ministry of Tourism and Recreation found that in the Borough of East York and the city of Barrie, the average helmet-use rate for children, ranging in age from 5 to 15, is approximately 3.5%. The study also found that the cost, lack of knowledge and negative pressure from peer groups were the main reasons given by many young people for refusing to bear bicycle helmets.
We believe that with continued education and awareness, the number of cyclists voluntarily wearing helmets will rise significantly. This is a view shared by many who have shared their expertise with the Ministry of Transportation. The ministry has been studying this issue for some time now and has expressed concern with the position that bicycle helmet usage should be made mandatory by legislation.
It is my expectation that these concerns and other issues will be discussed by members of the committee and by those who come before us during the next few weeks.
I would like to take a few minutes to highlight some of the matters of concern we need to address. First of all, for legislation to be effective it must be enforceable. It must also be fair and realistic, and it must be generally supported by the people of Ontario, from Port Severn in the north to Port Robinson in the south. We are not confident at this time that voluntary compliance is at a level high enough to allow us to proceed with immediate, enforceable, mandatory bicycle helmet legislation. We hope our discussions here will provide some ideas on how we can encourage greater voluntary use of helmets.
Enforcement would pose some logistical problems. The Provincial Offences Act says children under the age of 12 cannot be convicted of a provincial offence, yet this is the very age group that has a high percentage of bicycle riders. There is no mandatory manufacturing standard in place for bicycle helmets in Canada. There are standards established by the Canadian Standards Association and other organizations, but they are not mandatory. We could require that helmets meet certain standards but in the process we would have to provide time for substandard helmet manufacturers to get up to speed.
1610
The federal government has chosen not to make helmet standards mandatory at this time because usage rates are so low. Hopefully we can come up with some ideas that will help encourage federal action in this regard. The CSA is in the process of developing standards for helmets for children under the age of five but in the meantime, substandard or poorly fitted helmets can actually cause more harm than good.
Another factor is cost. Helmets can range in price from $20 to $200. Some people, especially children, or parents with more than one child, may not be able to afford a helmet, yet their bicycles provide a freedom of mobility that we would be taking away. The study conducted by the Hospital for Sick Children, which I mentioned earlier found that price is already a factor in determining whether helmets are used. This clearly illustrates the need to educate cyclists that they cannot afford to be without a helmet.
In saying some work needs to be done to ensure prerequisites to legislation are fulfilled, we are not ruling out the possibility of legislative action some time in the future. There is considerable support for the idea of waiting until the public is more aware of the value of bicycle helmets and usage rates increase. That support comes from the Ministry of Transportation, the Ministry of the Solicitor General, the police, the Ontario Cycling Association and the Canadian Cycling Association, just to name a few.
Some cycling organizations feel that the emphasis should be placed on education, awareness and enforcement of existing safety laws to prevent collisions from occurring in the first place. We have been told that addressing the helmet issue without addressing other measures to prevent collisions may not be appropriate.
The experience of other jurisdictions that have gone the legislative route suggests that we should work to achieve a rate of 25% voluntary usage before we enact legislation. We must work to change social attitudes. Helmet use must be seen as commonplace.
The ministry intends to continue its efforts to promote voluntary use of bicycle helmets. We would be most pleased to work with the member sponsoring this bill and other advocates of mandatory bicycle helmet use to create a better environment for effective legislation. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Dadamo. Are there any specific responses to that comment, or are there any other persons who want to make introductory comments? Nobody else wants to make introductory comments, and that is fine and good. We will now entertain questions. Basically, you can ask anybody anything. Mrs Cunningham wanted to pose some questions.
Mrs Cunningham: I will just say a couple of things off the top. First of all, I appreciate your remarks. They are very thorough and I think they are all worthy of serious consideration. There is just one thing I would like to say. These remarks will be distributed, so people coming before the committee, on whom we most rely for a response to those remarks, will have them in advance. That is great, because that is what we are looking for. We will make sure we get them out, as far as possible, through the clerk to the individuals who have already said they want to come and so on.
There were two comments you made that I would like to respond to, unfortunately, with some degree of expertise. When you mentioned that the fatalities are declining, I am aware of that. I am also aware that modern medicine saves a lot of lives and those are the people we are concerned about with regard to tremendous cost. I am just adding it to your remarks. I am not arguing; I am saying I agree with it.
We obviously have a little bit of work to do when it comes to some of the statistics you have offered; for instance, 25% of voluntary usage. I would be interested to know, in places where there is legislation, if in fact that was a guideline that was followed. If you have that it would be helpful for us.
I also heard you talk about the federal government with regard to the lack of mandatory standards. I am aware of that. It is something we should be working on. The bottom line for all of us here, after we hear from the experts, is to take some time to think about whether we are convinced the timing is right. What is the timing? I mean, we could all be sitting here and saying, "Two years from now, this is going to happen," and we could warn the public and give them lots of lead time. I hope those kinds of ideas and suggestions from this committee are something the ministry is serious about looking at, because certainly in my lifetime, every once in a while everybody has to have the political will to do something. I do not have it today, with regard to a time frame, but I may have it two weeks from now after the hearings. I hope it is with that spirit that the ministry has provided the comments today.
I say that seriously, because I think at some time during your comments you said during the early 1970s the minister promoted helmet use. I do not really want to date myself, but I was certainly party, through the home and school associations of Ontario, to that being initiated. I think you can understand why somebody like myself, who has watched a very slow growth in awareness and even slower growth in children and adults wearing helmets, felt it necessary to bring forth the legislation.
Some of us some days feel like we are just running out of time. It is in that spirit that I deliver my comments.
The Chair: Do you want to respond, Mr Dadamo, or have your staff respond?
Mr Dadamo: I would like to respond to a couple of things. You made mention of the federal government and the standards. The discussions we have had in the last couple of weeks or so indicate doubts to us. Whether the helmets cost $20 or $200, are they strong enough and are they really going to do the work they are manufactured to do? That is what worries me. I have heard some stories that question whether, if you are going to settle for the cheaper helmet because that is all you can afford, it is really going to help the children.
Mrs Cunningham: A good question for the experts.
Mr Dadamo: Yes, it is for the experts. You are right.
Mrs Cunningham: Certainly we have tried to get information there. We have had different answers. Where there is legislation already, it has been a question itself. Some jurisdictions have legislated around where they feel confident with regard to the response to that question, but I am as anxious as you are to hear them speak to us about that.
Mr Dadamo: If we were to legislate this tomorrow and say that kids must wear helmets or anybody who rides a bike must wear a helmet, I am very fearful as to how many people are going to rush out and buy helmets. This is what I am concerned about, whether they can afford it or not.
Mrs Cunningham: Of course the greatest scare tactic of all is that the people who do not want this bill to pass are the ones who are walking around and saying, "They're going to legislate that tomorrow." That is farthest from my intent. But some days people manufacture things if they know that you and I need them; that is why I talked about lead time. Other days, parents or school boards plan budgets. We all have to plan, and I can assure you that $50 to prevent serious head injury is a very small cost compared to what we have been through and what this government goes through in providing rehabilitation. I just cannot describe it.
A long time ago when I went through the seatbelt hearings -- by the way, I was then a member of a home and school association which had taken a stand -- I thought it was interesting that cars did not have seatbelts at that time. Over a period of time they did have seatbelts. Somebody had to make it happen, and if you can make General Motors work for something you believe in, maybe we can make this work.
1620
One of my colleagues, actually it was Leo Jordan, said to me the other day, just out of the blue, something I had never heard before: "You know, Dianne, if you are going to make a bicycle and sell a bicycle, maybe you should sell a helmet with it." I mean, it is common sense, is it not?
These are the kinds of things we want to talk about. Anybody who says, "Let's make this happen tomorrow" is the greatest proponent of defeating this legislation, because that would be totally irresponsible. It is so refreshing to hear that all of us know this will happen, because you at least believe in the statistics. You said that off the top. I think the three things you are concerned about are exactly what I am concerned about, and we are looking to these experts. We can have a good, sensible discussion afterwards, so I thank you very much for that.
Mr Weir: Mrs Cunningham, in response to your question regarding other jurisdictions that have helmet laws in place, I am aware of one that you mentioned, Howard county in the state of Maryland. There are two states in Australia that have had quite extensive experience with this issue, New South Wales and Victoria. They first conceived the idea of introducing mandatory legislation in 1983 and implemented legislation in 1990, and they have had tremendous results. They spent seven years doing extremely comprehensive education and awareness programs building up to that point. Before the legislation went into place, they had a minimum of 25%. In fact, with school-age children they had upwards of 75% of voluntary usage rates.
To achieve those usage rates, they implemented some pretty interesting initiatives. One of the initiatives they implemented was, if you are going to ride your bike to school, a helmet comes with you. That may certainly be one of the things we hear as part of this process as well.
Mr Hansen: I have to tell the member for London North that I did support her bill in the House and I usually listen to my constituents. I have quite a few constituents who have come to me on this particular issue, especially the Lincoln County Board of Education, and it supports the wearing of helmets to and from school but it has a problem of how to enforce it off the school grounds.
I do not have a problem in my home, because I make the rules and the rules are, with my two children, if they are going to take the bike, they wear the helmet. I did catch them once one block away with their helmets under their arms because they did not want to be geeks when they got to school. But they found out, by my taking their bikes away, that it was a lot better to wear the helmet.
Over the summer, the member for London North received articles from me, from the Fonthill, Welland, St Catharines area, about the pizza companies in that area having an education program. I know my kids were out riding more than they normally do; and they would see how many miles they could put on in a night so that the pizza man would catch them with their helmets on to get a free pizza. There has been a lot of promotion in our particular area, as Peter will know, where Port Robinson is also. I was amused at the minister's statement on that.
The other thing that concerns me, living in Fonthill just west of Niagara Falls, is that some of the subdivisions do not have sidewalks, so what happens is that a lot of children wind up riding their bikes on the road and they use the road like a sidewalk, but a lot of them are dead-end. So now we have this five- or six-year-old on his tricycle -- it is a bicycle, it is a tricycle, you know, it is hard to define exactly where we draw the line. I have some concern in that area, whether it is a three-year-old on a tricycle or a 10-year-old on a tricycle. I have seen my boys on their younger brother's bicycle out on the road, so those are some of the concerns also.
The other thing is that I attended a bicycle rodeo in Grimsby which went on inside the Grimsby arena. The police were there directing it, and it was put on by the Optimists. They had taken the ice out, and this was early in the spring. There was water on the surface of the cement, and there were lines laid out where they had to go through this bicycle rodeo. I said to the officer, "Where are the helmets?" He said, "It's not mandatory, so they don't have to wear them." I donated two helmets, but it still was not mandatory to wear those helmets in there.
I think a little bit more can be done in this particular area. The Optimists Club could have made rules on the point to say, "If you participate in this rodeo, you have to wear a helmet." I think it is going to need parents and cycling clubs to become members also, because this is part of the safe practice of bicycling.
The other concern I have, and you addressed it a little in your comments, is that the helmet should be CSA-approved. It is pretty hard. It needs to be introduced with a lead time in order to get the proper helmet manufactured. Some of the helmets in the marketplace right now are just sponge, the $25 or $30 one; one fall and the parents will be replacing it. So it could be a $60, $90 or $120 bill a year for bicycle helmets, depending on how many times the child falls off. But the $120 is a very cheap pricetag if the child wound up getting injured just one time.
Those are my main comments and I will wait for your response.
Mrs Cunningham: I would like to thank you immediately because you have given me a lot of materials in the last few months that I have used when I have been asked to speak on this issue, so I thank you very much. I think it is a good example of how we try to help each other in this process with things we believe in. I know I have often been interested in some of the private members' bills, have believed in them myself and have tried to be helpful, but it really feels good when you are on the other end of it. You do not appreciate it until you know you are in the middle of it yourself, so I thank you for that.
I have given a couple of examples. When I have travelled across this country, but specifically in Victoria, British Columbia, the police officers told me that in some school districts in British Columbia, you would be the odd person out if you did not have a helmet on; the pressure was on the children who did not have helmets, and they had various ways of making those helmets available. They do not have mandatory legislation yet, but they are in the process of looking at that seriously. They started out with their own police forces.
From the examples you gave with regard to Australia, and I have also read a lot of that material, I think they work hard at the public information process to begin with. I have not heard from the public yet, so I do not want to draw any conclusions, but if we looked at that as part of a three- or four-year process, or a two- or three-year process, we would certainly have to put the resources there to make certain the public is well informed.
1630
I was talking to one of the members of the Toronto cycling club yesterday, who told me that he had some difficulties getting even a good poster for a speech he was making. He mentioned, and I asked him to bring it to us so we could see it, that one of our own ministry posters he was able to get for a group of students at Jarvis Collegiate, had children in the poster wearing the helmets incorrectly. I said, "We all want to know about those things."
Again, not to be critical, we all have something to learn, and if we are going to educate people, we had better do it right. I know the government is going to say this might have to be a massive campaign if we really believe in this, and if we have to get some private funding for it then maybe we will have to do that too. I think all of us are prepared to do what we can to make this happen.
I guess I am just glad that we now have the opportunity to talk openly, because once the public starts coming in you want to interject this stuff, but at least if you have an opportunity to talk to each other, you are not sitting on the edge of your chair the whole time people are talking to us; instead, you are asking the questions. So I am glad of this opportunity today.
Mr Hansen: I would like to make just one more comment. Something I do not think I brought up is that in the Niagara area they sold 200 helmets a year ago. This past year they sold over 3,000. I do not have the percentages, but it is quite an increase in sales.
The Chair: Mr Waters.
Mr Waters: Yes. Thank you, Mr Chair.
Mrs Cunningham: It is too bad we cannot get the fluctuations of voice in the Hansard, is it not?
Mr Waters: I do not know. Today it would not be so bad.
I would like to throw out for discussion this age of 12. I think Dianne and I have talked before off the record about what we do with the young people should this pass into law. I think maybe we as a group should have a discussion on that. First, I am concerned about charging children under the age of 12 -- and now I recognize that you cannot anyway -- and how you would approach that limit. I would like some discussion on that.
Mrs Cunningham: I am just wondering if you could be more specific about why we cannot.
Mr Waters: I believe, as Mr Dadamo said in his briefing, there is a problem under the Young Offenders Act if children under 12 cannot be charged.
Mrs Cunningham: Whose act is the Young Offenders Act?
Mr Weir: Excuse me, it is under the Provincial Offences Act.
Mrs Cunningham: I guess we are in charge of that act too, are we not? That is my point. Who said this was going to be simple? If we take a look at legislation that is standing in our way, if it is our legislation we can do something about it. The YOA is not. It would have taken a longer period of time, but I am not afraid of going that route either. We have had to do it before. It takes longer, but it can be part of a plan. I am interested in a plan that will be fair.
My point is that I think the 12-year-old is a bit of a red flag for us, because it is our legislation and we can change it if we think it is appropriate. We need to know more about it, but it is something that we can be educated on.
Mr Waters: That was the only question I wanted to delve into.
Mr McGuinty: I really admire Mrs Cunningham's attitude. Mark Twain said that everyone with a new idea is a nut until the idea succeeds. I am not implying that you are a nut in any way, but there are going to be all kinds of obstacles, hurdles and impediments before you, and you are going to have to stare them in the face one by one and deal with them individually.
Just to give you my perspective, in my home town, Ottawa, I spend more time on my bicycle than I do in a car, and I always wear a helmet. I have four children between the ages of five and 10 and they all wear helmets. We live on a very quiet street, so they ride their bicycles frequently. Of course, my wife also bikes and wears a helmet. Notwithstanding that, there are some difficulties here. There is an ideal you have and I think that is great. We should aspire to that. I will tell you about some of my concerns.
I believe in the idea of bicycling as a viable means of transportation so strongly and I am so interested in the safety aspects of it that I held a bicycle rally in my riding to publicize it. Unfortunately it was rained out, but I had a chance to meet with the local bicycling groups, and they are concerned about this. I think you have something in here from the Ottawa-Carleton Cyclist. There is an article here by the person who appears to be in charge, Christine Jenkins. I met with her, and she said to me, "Listen, we're not so much concerned about ensuring that a person is protected after they've been in an accident or as a result of being in an accident as we are with the preventive aspect."
Maybe Mr Dadamo or the gentleman from the ministry might have an answer to this. I am not sure if a study has been done on this. How many of those bicycling accidents could have been prevented through accident prevention education? I am not sure if you can even take a stab at that, but that is something I would be interested in knowing.
On this business of the 25% voluntary usage, I am wondering where that figure came from. Did we use the same figure when we were dealing with seatbelt legislation at that time? Did we wait until it got to 25%? How is that measured? Again, where did that figure come from? Is it purely arbitrary, or is it deemed to be the point at which, psychologically, people are going to accept legislation that will make mandatory something a quarter of us have been doing?
Mr Hansen brought up a good point about the standards, in particular this business of the helmets. My kids, for instance, wear helmets that are foam with a nylon mesh cover, to give them some colour, essentially. Although they have not had any difficulties with them -- they have been using them for a few years -- I do not think they would withstand anything more than one fall. We paid I think $50 or $60 for each of them. I think prices have dropped since that time, and price of course is a major concern.
There are some parents who have stretched their financial resources to the limit to acquire a bicycle, and here we are saying, "Listen, folks, in addition to that, if you want to indulge yourself in that luxury or that pleasure, we're going to hit you with an additional cost." I would be concerned about ensuring that somehow we can make these affordable and accessible. In smaller towns it just may be that you cannot walk into a store and pick up a bicycle helmet because the demand is not there.
I was interested in learning from Mrs Cunningham what her time frame is until she can envision this being mandatory right across the province, as well as to what age groups she was thinking of having this apply. I think in terms of age groups, one that is right across the sector, across all ages, is relatively rare in terms of precedents. I do not think there are too many jurisdictions where it is right across the population. In particular, what about infants? I do not think we can put helmets on infants. Is this bill going to provide for that?
I have some difficulty too with the enforcement provisions. If we are going to penalize anyone whom I am just going to label a "child" -- we may arbitrarily deem that to be 12 and under -- in law, for instance, there is an age at which children are deemed to have come to an age where they can be held criminally responsible for their actions. I would not like to see us ticketing kids. I think there is something in here, perhaps it was New Zealand legislation, where they do not ticket the children. It says here, "Under-14s would be issued with police cautions." Maybe that is the better way to go about it.
I have not had an opportunity to speak with our local police, but it would seem to me, given the demand on their resources at the best of times, that if we add this to the slate of items whereby they are going to be called upon to enforce laws, how much time do they have and do police want to be stopping eight-year-olds and nine-year-olds on the street or escorting them to their homes and all those kinds of things?
Those are some of the concerns I had. I would be pleased to hear from Mr Dadamo, Mrs Cunningham and the gentleman from the ministry as to how they might respond to those.
1640
Mr Dadamo: I do not seem to see on the list that there will be people from police enforcement here to make some sort of presentation.
Mrs Cunningham: We have not had a response from the ads yet. They just went into the paper. I expect they will be here.
Clerk of the Committee: What I have handed out to you is a list of the people who responded. We had actually booked until approximately 3 o'clock today. I am sure there are other people who will be responding to the ads and also to the letters that have gone out from Mrs Cunningham's office.
Mr Dadamo: From a legal point of view -- I am not a lawyer, but you are, Mr McGuinty.
Mr McGuinty: I decline to make that admission.
Mr Dadamo: I guess we all speak about what is happening in our ridings as the best way to relate life and how things are really going. Our police force has been squeezed, if you will, for moneys coming from city hall to its budget this year, and probably again next year. I am wondering how much they are going to want to enforce this.
Mrs Cunningham: The police?
Mr Dadamo: Yes. Are they really seriously going to want to --
Mrs Cunningham: Can I give you some ideas from a piece of legislation that exists? I think it will be enlightening. It will probably take me five minutes. It was really enlightening for me to see it. It would be better really if I had this copied and gave it to you, but I will just read a little bit into the record.
It is from the Howard County, Maryland, police department, with regard to legislation. There is section on policy, there is a section on purpose and then there is a section on county law, a section on definitions, a section on enforcement policy, then two sections that I think are interesting -- on records section responsibilities and youth services section responsibilities -- and then an effective date. They separate this stuff out, and I will just go over it briefly. I am not going to read it all; that would be silly.
They have decided, as we have to decide -- though I do not think you can ask me what I should do until I hear from the people -- but they have decided: "Any person less than 16 years of age operating or riding on a bicycle on a public roadway shall wear a protective helmet." So under 16 is where they have decided to start. We may decide to start there.
Then they say, "Such helmets shall meet or exceed the standards set by the American National Standards Institute or the Snell Foundation." They have decided on those two. By the way, most cyclists in Canada think those are the two we ought to be looking at, and our own as well. If we decided to go ahead with this, obviously in fairness I think we are going to have some lead time because we want Canadian manufacturers manufacturing these things. So some of us will have to go to the feds and say: "Tough. We're going to do this within two years, so you better smarten up or you are going to cause our manufacturers some difficulties, because they won't be able to compete." I think that is a great stick that we can wield.
Do not write this down because I am going to have it copied for everybody. This is interesting: "The parent, guardian or legal custodian of a minor shall not authorize nor knowingly permit the minor to violate this subtitle." So parents are responsible.
Then they go on to offences. The first offence is called a Class E offence and the second offence is called a Class D offence. The Class E offence is a $25 to $50 fine. Do not panic, because later on it tells you what you are going to do with kids. For Class D the penalties range from $50 to $100.
It says, "The court may waive any fine" -- and it goes on -- "if between the date of violation and the court appearance date for such a violation, the person purchased a helmet which meets the requirements." Obviously most people are going to get a warning and they get a long period of time to buy this helmet. You have to remember that it is easier to see somebody without a helmet than it is to see someone without a seatbelt.
Just last week as I was coming to what I call work I saw one of the cyclist police persons stopping at each car looking in. I actually heard him say: "Sir, would you please put your seatbelt on. It's for your safety that it's there." He did not fine anybody. I bet that guy was really embarrassed. He did not take the time to get off his bike and fine somebody but he could have, so one has to use his or her common sense.
It gets into definitions, which I will not talk about. It talks about the bicycle. It talks about the guardian or the legal custodian. It talks about the right of way. It talks about the enforcement policy, which we are interested in. I thought this was great.
"A. Basic Policy:
"1. Members will maintain an educational posture towards the enforcement of this law in order to provide citizens with bicycle safety helmet information." That is what that guy, 10 years after we have a law, was doing last week on University Avenue. He was using his educational posture. He did not fine anybody. We do not fine people now all the time. Most of us still get a warning and we have had a law for a long time.
"2. Violators will be identified by members and such violations will be documented on a bicycle safety helmet violation form." So when they do decide they are going to write your name down they have a little form.
They talk about an incident report and "when a violation is observed involving a juvenile under the age of seven." They even have a different form for a little kid. That child has to take it to his parent or guardian, if somebody bothers to give him one.
"3. Members will present each violator and any other interested citizen with an educational flyer produced by the youth services section." They are using the opportunity even though they have legislation to educate people. You can imagine all these people scurrying around over the six months I think they had to get into this law. Even with their law they are using this opportunity to educate people. After chatting with them today my assistant, Andrea Strathdee, tells me they think it is great. People are basically trying to comply.
"5. Warnings will be given to the parents of first and second violators."
"6. There will be a grace period...."
They talk about flagrant violators. That might be you, Mr Chairman, from time to time.
The Chair: I have violated many things flagrantly but not a bicycle helmet law yet.
Mrs Cunningham: "1. Even though the youth services section will be responsible for monitoring the number of violations, members may issue civil citations in appropriate situations for significant violations or extenuating circumstances." It seems to me they are really pushing, in spite of having a law, an educational route for the first two, three or four years of this legislation. People are not coming down heavy even though the fines have been set.
They talk about adult violators and they go on about what they do to the parent, guardian or legal custodian because they have decided on kids under the age of 16. We may decide something different.
"2. Where information suggests that an adult is in violation of this provision of the law, the bicycle safety helmet violation form will be completed and forwarded to the records section for documentation purposes."
They talk about aggravated circumstances and the serious stuff which you lawyers will understand, civil citations with "juvenile violators." They have to go to court. I am telling you we do not have to get heavy-handed with this. We may choose to have a piece of legislation like this where the educational component is the most important part. Common sense does work. I told you my experience with the seatbelt thing just last week. I thought it was kind of neat myself. Nobody is wasting time giving out fines. Most people are trying to wear their seatbelts. This is an example I will give to all of you. We just got this today, by the way.
Mr Hansen: I have another question. This particular bill does not mention anything about passengers, and we see a lot of young families with their children in baskets at the back.
Mrs Cunningham: I will tell you why I did not put that in the bill. I had that in my first bill. The people who opposed that first bill were not smart enough to realize that is what they should have been complaining about, not the bicycle helmet. There are no standards for these baskets. The worst thing you see is these people pulling their kids in little wagons and things behind their bikes along the side of highways. You can imagine how dangerous it is. We wanted to present the government with something that it could support. That would have been something that could not have been supported, because I am not aware of legislation anywhere for these carriers, but I am for helmets.
1650
Mr Hansen: I just wanted to make sure you crossed all the t's and dotted the i's on this particular bill. It would be unfortunate if it came back and we had a problem right at the very beginning. My wife would not agree with you on that, because she came from Germany. They never owned a car. There was a little wagon that was put on the back of the bicycle and that was their transportation in the 1940s. That is just a comment. I do not see too much of it here.
Mrs Cunningham: My guess is that in the 1940s there were not a lot of cars.
Mr Hansen: That is correct, too.
Mrs Cunningham: Now that we see so many cars on roads and highways, they are the greatest cause of serious damage.
Mr Hansen: The biggest thing with this helmet law is a fall from a bicycle, not so much a collision with a car. It is the sewer grates in some of these older towns. A bicyclist goes across and he winds up taking a flip and there is some protection there. I do not think it is so much a collision with a car. You are correct on that. There were all bikes there pretty well, with hardly any other vehicles.
Mrs Cunningham: I still agree with the comment you just made.
Mr Hansen: In the sporting end of cycling, are helmets mandatory in order to be in a race or to belong to a club? Would you know that offhand?
Mrs Cunningham: I cannot answer that question. I just know that in competition people have helmets on.
Mr Hansen: But we do not know whether it is mandatory.
Mrs Cunningham: I really cannot answer the question.
Mr Hansen: When some of these groups come forward I think it would be very interesting to find out what types of rules they have set up already. It is great to talk about what we should do, but what are we not doing right now?
Mrs Cunningham: That is right.
Mr McGuinty: On that last point, I can indicate that there is a large cycling club in Ottawa. Although it is not a rule, a kind of prerequisite to membership is that you have a bicycle helmet. I think about 95% of the members do wear bicycle helmets.
I want to come back to a question I raised earlier to take advantage of Mr Dadamo's presence here. This business of the 25% voluntary usage, where does that come from and why is it not 30% or 15%?
Mr Weir: Mr McGuinty, the 25%, as you mentioned, is not entirely arbitrary. In the latter part of your comment regarding the 25% you hit the nail on the head. It is psychological. It is a level at which we believe there would be a psychological acceptance of the law. If helmet usage were to become commonplace, so to speak, and at a minimum level of 25%, people would see other people wearing helmets and they might psychologically accept that it is probably a pretty good idea and would be more willing to accept legislation.
Mr McGuinty: That 25%, I gather, is what the ministry believes to be the threshold response.
Mr Weir: That number is not carved in stone.
Mr McGuinty: I was going to ask how that compares with the thresholds used in other jurisdictions. Do you know?
Mr Weir: In Australia, for example, among the hardest-to-reach group, the teens, they had about 25%. With the younger school-aged children it was much higher before they actually implemented legislation. In Howard county, however, I do not believe that was the case.
Mr McGuinty: This 25% that the ministry accepts, is that the average use right across all age groups?
Mr Weir: It would depend on what kind of legislation was being proposed.
Mr McGuinty: I think you indicated, or Mr Dadamo did, that right now there is approximately 5% usage. Is that correct?
Mr Weir: Approximately.
Mr McGuinty: When was that assessment made? How long ago?
Mr Weir: That was about a year and a half to a couple of years ago. I know that one of the recent studies we have commissioned in Ottawa has resulted in much higher statistics, as I am sure you are aware.
Mr McGuinty: I figured they would be much higher than that.
Mr Weir: They are higher. There are peaks and valleys. In communities where there is avid cycling it is a lot higher. I had a fax on my desk this morning; it was the first time I had seen these results. I believe in Ottawa they were in the 20% range.
Mr McGuinty: Right. We may be getting there. I am not sure you can answer this: Is the ministry completing a formal assessment of the rate of usage throughout the province now?
Mr Weir: There is no formal evaluation province-wide, so to speak. I mentioned one of the studies we have commissioned, and we have commissioned others in the past, but I believe as part of this process of determining what the usage levels are, it is a necessary task.
Mrs Cunningham: Did you say it is a necessary task?
Mr Weir: Yes.
Mrs Cunningham: I wonder, if the dollars are limited, if indeed it matters that much or if the money would be better spent on supporting the use of helmets. I am throwing this out as something to be considered. When we hear about studies and what not I guess I am in the position right now where I tell all levels of government that some of us have been elected for our common sense. We know that if we put that kind of money for a year into posters, home and school associations, paediatricians' offices and good advertising we would get that usage up faster than what by paying for studies, consultants and what not.
Not to do people out of business, but right now my impatience is such that I do not think we have been trying to do it in a well-articulated way since the 1970s, but at least we have been doing it. I give the government credit for that and all the support groups, too, which have raised money. The Kiwanis, for instance, supported the conference yesterday. They have always been there with their interest in bicycle safety.
I think it is something this committee could have a good debate about. Are we going to look at 25% or are we going to say the heck with it, like Howard county did, and let's spend another year, advertise and really put our money into that and revisit this thing -- something like that. I do not know. I hate to say it because I think most of the witnesses have worked very hard to give us some good reasons for proceeding, otherwise I would not be doing this, because two years ago I would not have introduced it. I just want us to hear from them. I have not taken the time to hear from them in the last year because I wanted all of us to hear from them. It is just a thought.
Mr Hansen: I have one question for the ministry. I believe we spent $200,000 last year on researching bicycle paths in Ontario municipalities. There would not be any requirement for one of these bicyclists to wind up wearing a helmet on a bicycle path. If he walked across the road and if the path started on the other side he would be all right, but many of these paths would not be covered.
Mr Weir: The way the legislation is proposed, that is correct. It would apply to people riding a bicycle on the highway and that area of land included as part of the highway. Any riding that took place off the highway, on a bicycle path, through the park or on the school ground, the way the legislation is proposed it would not apply.
Mr Hansen: Let's take a look at some of the minor sports such as minor hockey. If you play minor hockey, you know when you walk into that arena the equipment you have to have on. But if you see some kids at the end of the street playing hockey on a frozen pond, nothing happens to them, but they are not wearing all that safety equipment. If the parents have enforced what children have to wear to play hockey, they should enforce it on the pond at the end of the street. I just wanted to make those comments.
I have only had one day to sit on this committee, and I know I have done most of the talking on this side, but these are some points I think should be looked at.
Mrs Cunningham: On the helmet stuff I was one of those moms whose first child did not have to wear a hockey helmet because it was not legislated then, but as the others came along they did. We had no warning. I do not remember there being a lead time and certainly no compliance. I do not know how they ever got those hockey helmets out, because I was on the school board at the time and all of a sudden hockey teams needed them and somehow they appeared.
1700
Mr Hansen: A minor hockey rule.
Mrs Cunningham: Yes. Parents, by the way, decided that. But I feel, too, that the specific places where those kids have to wear them are in hockey arenas, by a very small proportion of our students or our children, which is sad. It means that it is an expensive thing to play hockey and kids have to be provided with that opportunity. They play all over Ontario and certainly in our rural communities as much as anywhere else.
When they are on the pond down the way nobody is running that league, and therefore they do not have to wear their helmets. But I know many of them do because I see them in my neighbourhood with their hockey stick, net, goalie pads and helmets. It is an in thing to wear a hockey helmet.
Mr Hansen: Could a hockey helmet be worn as a bicycle helmet?
Mrs Cunningham: I cannot answer that, except to say I would not guess that would be so.
Mr Hansen: I do not know if they are CSA-approved.
Mr Jordan: Yes.
Mr Hansen: Are they?
Mrs Cunningham: The hockey helmets? Oh yes, there are great standards in hockey helmets, but I can see --
Mr Hansen: But those are for falls also.
Mr McGuinty: Too heavy, too hot.
Mrs Cunningham: I can see Mike Weir smiling so I know he has something to say about it.
Mr Hansen: I was a motorcyclist at one time before the helmet law came in. When the helmet law did come in we saw all types of helmets at the very beginning. We saw the old army helmets and motorcyclists said, "That is my helmet." I am just bringing all these things out so when the bill comes forward --
Mrs Cunningham: I think that is great. Maybe Mike should talk to us on that point, though.
Mr Weir: I would not recommend other types of helmets being worn in place of a bicycle helmet. Bicycle helmets are designed to provide the type of protection cyclists need; hockey helmets are designed to provide the type of protection hockey players need, according to the types of injuries they get. Mr McGuinty mentioned a couple of reasons. Hockey helmets, although they may appear light when you lift them, are heavy and hot in the summertime. You know, that is a consideration.
Also, the way they are designed, during a fall they might create some friction on the highway while the person is sliding along the road. The way the hockey helmet is designed might actually be a detriment to the cyclist, but the bicycle helmets are designed to take those types of things into consideration.
Mr Hansen: I realize that, but I am thinking about the family we talked about earlier being able to afford it. He already plays hockey and has his hockey helmet. He might be using it for that purpose, and it should be very clear in the bill that it be a CSA-approved bike helmet, not CSA-approved helmet.
Mr Waters: I think it has been a fairly good discussion. Dianne and I had a couple of discussions outside. One of the things was the reuse of some of these helmets that initially will be a cost but as time goes on -- it is like a child car seat. I wonder whether that could be developed if this bill does pass, like the organizations in my community that give out child car seats and then they are returned as the child gets older. Could we not look at doing that type of thing and encouraging it in communities to keep the price down? The difference would be to have them given out, sanitized and reissued by the local police department, so there would be an immediate bond with the local police rather than having them slap them on the wrist. There are ways of doing that type of thing to try and cut down the cost. I know the cost is going to be one of the main concerns for a lot of poor families.
Another aspect I was going to look at with my ministry was tourists. Somebody comes into the province with two young children for a week's vacation. Are you going to demand a helmet for each of those children?
Mrs Cunningham: If you were in Germany or France, you would. If you rent a bicycle, you get a helmet.
Mr Waters: Yes, if you rent a bicycle, but we have a lot of vacationers who come in from out of province. They bring their own bicycles from the US, Manitoba or Quebec or wherever, and in those particular jurisdictions they do not necessarily have this law.
Mrs Cunningham: True.
Mr Waters: So are we going to require $100 worth of helmet?
Mrs Cunningham: If we were Maryland, we would give them a warning, would we not? They would certainly be warned about the rules of our province as tourists. Perhaps Mike can enlighten us on how he would answer that question.
Mr Weir: I think that is an excellent question. The reuse of a helmet, according to the literature I have read, is also not recommended. I think that would be an excellent question to pose. Is the Canadian Standards Association going to be appearing before this committee? I am sure they could very adequately speak to that issue of reuse. The problem I would have with reusing a helmet is that I do not know what damage has been done to it by the previous wearer. Sometimes some damage can be done to the helmet that cannot be seen, and again, in a collision, it might not stand up to the same type of impact a new, undamaged helmet would. But I think the CSA will be able to elaborate on that. I am not an expert in helmet manufacture or design.
Mrs Cunningham: Mr McGuinty, you might tell us about your experience. I have no idea. We have never had to change a helmet once we have bought one. The same kid has worn the helmet.
Mr McGuinty: I have had the same helmets all along. They are getting rather tight around their heads, but no, there has been no need. The kind I have been using have come with inserts, and you can adjust those from time to time and remove them.
Mrs Cunningham: They do not have Ninja Turtles on them, I take it.
Mr McGuinty: No, they do not.
Mr Waters: Let's say you bought a helmet for a seven-year-old child. That child would be able to wear that helmet right through and into adulthood?
Mr McGuinty: No. She is only 10 now. That is a good point. We got it when my oldest was 7 and she is now 10.
Mr Waters: And is wearing the same helmet?
Mr McGuinty: Still wearing the same helmet.
Mrs Cunningham: It is a good question, though, as you suggested. I do not like to throw out any red flags that would cause us to have reasons not to support this bill, but I did want to ask Mr Weir to check into something for me. When we talked, someone asked a question about where we ride these bicycles and where the enforcement should take place with regard to roads. In the Highway Traffic Act now, the way it is written, a highway does in fact include "a common and public highway, street, avenue, parkway, driveway, square, place, bridge, viaduct or trestle, any part of which is intended for or used by the general public for the passage of vehicles," and a bicycle is considered a vehicle under the act. So it looks like it is pretty extensive. I just thought you might want to look at that.
Mr Weir: I will look into that.
Mrs Cunningham: I do not have a problem with that, because after taking a look at the legislation, if you really want to pick at it, you can say, "You should only ride your bicycle on a road." We could amend it and say, "A public highway, a street, an avenue, a parkway," those kinds of things. I do not want to get into that. If education is the intent, then you use your head about it, but in fact that means you have to have a bicycle helmet on if you are riding in the schoolyard. But most schools do not allow kids to ride in the schoolyard. You walk your bicycle out of the schoolyard and ride it where you are supposed to ride it.
If you want to get into that kind of stuff, you can find all kinds of reasons for objecting. I guess what I like about the conversation today, and certainly the presentation by the ministry, is that they are not looking for that kind of stuff, which is great. You know how all of us as politicians have had to sit back and watch an administration give you 47 reasons why it cannot do what you think is right. We obviously have not heard that today. In fact, I am giving you some evidence to look at that you did not have, but I do not think we should make this complicated.
Mr Hansen: It was friendly criticism so that when it is going through, when other presenters come, you are prepared for all these particular areas.
Mrs Cunningham: I am enjoying it. The other part I am enjoying is all of us talking about what is of interest, because I could not answer the question Mr McGuinty asked about the 25% and I think Mike was quite reasonable in his response. When they start coming in and throwing all this stuff we have never heard, we are all going to have to struggle for the appropriate questions and let them know we are very serious about hearing from them, because they have done a lot of work.
Mr Hansen: I just know my kids, and they pick on all these little things, "But, dad, you didn't tell us we had to wear it down the bicycle path, only on the road."
Mrs Cunningham: Yes.
Mr Hansen: I was sort of getting at the public lands; in other words, the bike paths were public lands or highways.
Mrs Cunningham: I am telling you I am stuck with the act the way it is and I did not try to amend it, and all of those are parts of the definition of "highway." I was reading it in so you can get the Hansard and take a look at it after.
The Chair: All of that having been said, I think we have had a thorough and fair and reasonably intelligent discussion of these issues this afternoon. I want to thank everybody. We will be meeting next on Monday, November 25 at 3:30 pm, at which time the Ontario Head Injury Association will be the first participant, followed by others. Subject to any other business being raised right now, we will adjourn. There will be a brief subcommittee meeting immediately upon adjourning.
The committee adjourned at 1712.