HIGHWAY TRAFFIC AMENDMENT ACT, 1992 / LOI DE 1992 MODIFIANT LE CODE DE LA ROUTE
CONTENTS
Monday 1 June 1992
Highway Traffic Amendment Act, 1992, Bill 124
STANDING COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
*Chair / Président: Kormos, Peter (Welland-Thorold ND)
*Vice-Chair / Vice-Président: Waters, Daniel (Muskoka-Georgian Bay/Muskoka-Baie-Georgianne ND)
Conway, Sean G. (Renfrew North/-Nord L)
*Dadamo, George (Windsor-Sandwich ND)
*Huget, Bob (Sarnia ND)Klopp, Paul (Huron ND)
*Jordan, Leo (Lanark-Renfrew PC)
Klopp, Paul (Huron ND)
McGuinty, Dalton (Ottawa South/-Sud L)
*Murdock, Sharon (Sudbury ND)
Offer, Steven (Mississauga North/-Nord L)
Turnbull, David (York Mills PC)
*Wood, Len (Cochrane North/-Nord ND)
Substitutions / Membres remplaçants:
*Cunningham, Dianne (London North/-Nord PC) for Mr Turnbull
*In attendance / présents
Clerk / Greffier: Brown, Harold
Staff / Personnel: Anderson, Anne, research officer, Legislative Research Service
The committee met at 1600 in committee room 1.
HIGHWAY TRAFFIC AMENDMENT ACT, 1992 / LOI DE 1992 MODIFIANT LE CODE DE LA ROUTE
Consideration of Bill 124, An Act to amend the Highway Traffic Act / Loi portant modification du Code de la route.
The Chair (Mr Peter Kormos): At 4 pm the whip's office is represented here by one of her functionaries and the Chair is here, but the rest of the committee is not here. The whip's office's functionary is now leaving at 4:01 pm. We'll wait, of course, until the committee members arrive. Sorry for the inconvenience to anybody present.
The committee recessed at 1601.
1645
The Chair: It's 4:45 pm. Mr Waters, the Vice-Chair, is here, Mr Dadamo a committee member is here, but in view of the fact that nobody else is yet here, we'll recess until people appear. My apologies to the people who have been waiting.
The committee recessed at 1646.
1703
The Chair: There is a quorum notwithstanding that all three caucuses are not represented, so we will proceed. There is the draft of the committee report based on the committee's discussions of Wednesday, May 27, chaired by the Vice-Chair, Mr Waters, and I appreciate his acting as Chair for that date.
Ms Cunningham, did you have anything to say about this matter? You should also note that there is staff here from the Ministry of Transportation who may want to address the issue of response to the numerous issues put to that ministry. We'll start out with any comments you might have on the draft report
Mrs Dianne Cunningham (London North): Mr Chairman, I would like to thank Ms Anderson for this, because she did work from our last meeting on Wednesday. We had it very quickly, and I think it's extremely inclusive.
What I would like to do now is go through it, and perhaps we could take it one step at a time under the major titles: "Introduction," "Coverage," "Enforcement" etc. I do have some recommendations for change.
The Chair: Okay, let's start with page 1, "Introduction." Any comments on the introduction? No? Page 2, "Coverage." No comments? Page 3, balance of "Coverage," on into "Enforcement." Any comments in that regard?
Mrs Cunningham: I do, on enforcement. I would ask Ms Anderson if she would consider putting some examples in there. Under "penalty," it says, "the current penalty for offences is $78.75," and maybe in one of the appendices we could add that pamphlet put together by the city of Toronto cycling club. It gave an example of what they are, so that would be my only change there.
Ms Sharon Murdock (Sudbury): Sounds good.
The Chair: To assist research, the committee doesn't want to include in there any recommendation for dealing with what are de facto young offenders but not persons covered by the Young Offenders Act, because this is provincial legislation?
Mrs Cunningham: We did ask a question on age. Back a page? Here it is. Under "Who should be covered?" we did ask the joint committee to look at the clause in the bill, but we asked whether the appropriate age should be 12 or 16, so we'll take their opinion on that. That was part of the concern.
The Chair: Going on now to page 5, "Helmets." Okay, page 6.
Mrs Cunningham: I have changes, Mr Chairman, on pages 6 and 7; perhaps you could help me with this. We have to go back to page 5 where we're talking about manufacturing: "The manufacturers contacted suggested they needed at least two years to build up a large enough supply." Remember, the committee we're sending it to are the representatives of the different ministries, and in my view many of them won't have the same information we have and many of them will not come to the same conclusions that we have, so I think it's our responsibility to educate them.
But when we've already made up our mind, I'm not sure we need to ask them: "What lead time would manufacturers require in order to develop sufficient manufacturing capability?" and "Are there opportunities to expand Ontario's manufacturing base?" I think we've answered those questions in the section. I think we ourselves struggled with the issue around that lead time of two years and I don't want them to come back and say, "It's going to take five years to get these things manufactured," so I would suggest we take those questions out because I think we've already decided the answers to both of them.
The Chair: Comments in that regard?
Ms Murdock: In terms of lead time, I agree. In terms of opportunities to expand Ontario's manufacturing base, we looked at one or two areas -- every time I speak the bells ring.
Mrs Cunningham: That's right; we noticed.
Ms Murdock: But I do think there are probably other opportunities we haven't even looked at, that people in MITT, for instance, may have more and different ideas, and therefore I think that question should stay.
Mr Daniel Waters (Muskoka-Georgian Bay): I have a similar comment. I agree with Ms Cunningham on the lead time, but I would hope we could interest someone in Ontario to manufacture the helmet, so maybe there should be a query as to MITT. I don't know how they go about these things, but getting someone interested in and indeed --
The Chair: Do you want to modify your position at all to accommodate those people?
Mrs Cunningham: Yes, I think we've been really good on that in this committee. It's been a great committee in that regard.
The last sentence on page 5, if you could look at it: "The government could actively promote the establishment of local manufacturers." I think in dark print there we could say, "The committee would appreciate any suggestions you might have in this regard," something like that, instead of asking them a question and giving them ideas towards answers we don't want.
The Chair: So you are suggesting that the first sentence, "What lead time would manufacturers require in order to develop sufficient manufacturing capability?" be deleted, but that the second question, "Are there opportunities to expand Ontario's manufacturing base?" be included.
Mrs Cunningham: That would be a good one. Yes, they may have some good information for us there.
1710
Ms Murdock: It doesn't have to be limited to helmets. It could be bicycles or there could be other manufacturing areas that would be related to the helmets. That's all I'm saying.
The Chair: So is there consensus that the first question be deleted but that the second question remain?
Ms Murdock: Yes.
The Chair: Thank you.
Mrs Cunningham: On page 6 under "Affordability," second paragraph: "The committee heard that price of helmets has been decreasing and that some models...." I would like that word changed to "`many' models can be purchased." I think we leave the readers with the impression that there are just a few at $25 to $35, and I've just been explaining my experience at Christmas. The reason I got stuck with a $45 helmet is that I was in a hurry and I didn't bother filling out the forms or speaking to a distributor. I went right into a store, where it was more money than what it is here. So I'd like it changed to "many." I was going to put "most," but "many" I think is a good compromise there.
The Chair: Is there a consensus in that regard?
Mrs Cunningham: Is there a consensus in that regard, for Hansard?
Yes, there is, Mr Chairman.
I may be being picky, but I think we've put a lot of work into it; we're supposed to be steering this, and we're looking for good advice. I've got a question as to why we ask the question. The question is this: "What can the government do to ensure that the price of buying a bicycle helmet to comply with the law is not an additional burden on those who can least afford it? What can it do to ensure that bicycle use is not reduced?" I agree that those were two concerns, but I don't want to give people the idea that we're overly concerned about these two issues, and I'm wondering if it's their job to advise us in this regard or whether we should be advising them. It's a moot point, but I would appreciate any comment on it.
The Chair: You don't want to overemphasize the negative.
Mrs Cunningham: That's right.
The Chair: Any comments in that regard? Do you have suggestions as to how that might be dealt with, to either delete that or change the wording?
Mrs Cunningham: I would like a positive response to them, that is, that as part of the public relations campaign around the wearing of bicycle helmets we should be underlining the fact, which we've already done in a sense, that certain organizations put out these pamphlets and that pamphlets that are already produced and paid for by other organizations should be part, as far as possible, of the government's or school board's or any public body's public relations campaign. I think we miss out on so many opportunities to use what other people put together.
I'll mention a couple of things that happened in the last week at my house. Flyers go out from different stores. I won't mention any, but I was really impressed with two or three of the major department stores using the back page of their flyers with little comics, the whole page on bicycle safety and the importance of doing certain things to your bicycle and wearing a bicycle helmet. There's a lot being done by parties in the private sector now that we should pick up on and perhaps go to them when we see something like that and say, "Would you allow us to use that and distribute it in our schools?" for instance.
Mr Waters: On the affordability part, I was wondering if indeed we wanted to make a comment about affordability when it came to those less fortunate, that we try to get people like the OMA, which assists folks to buy bicycle helmets, to direct their efforts to those who can at least afford it, rather than to make the comment or to ask another question. I don't know exactly how we would word that.
Mrs Cunningham: There's another good suggestion, Mr Chairman. The pamphlets right now are in doctors' offices, so it really implies that you have to have a reason to see a doctor before you get it. These are the kinds of suggestions that could come back from the group, but perhaps some of us could be making a list too and saying these are opportunities to get information out to families who will have a challenge in purchasing these helmets. It's our responsibility, I think, as a government and a committee to deal with Triaminic, for instance, and ask, "Would you put your pamphlets in schools?"
I'm certainly prepared to do that from my experience and I'm certain some of you have opportunities. I know Andrea could put a list together, if that's something the committee would want, and send it along with the report to the joint committee, showing that we know pamphlets are put together and we can be taking advantage of this information for affordability, and also support through the back door, I guess, the fact that people are not going to be discouraged from riding bicycles, because there are reasonably priced helmets.
The Chair: Quite right. Is there agreement in that regard?
Ms Murdock: Yes.
The Chair: Fine. "Implementation," on to page 7. Ms Cunningham.
Mrs Cunningham: Here we go again. This one I really find difficult. I'm probably biased, but I certainly appreciate my colleague's suggestion on this: "How long will it take to achieve the appropriate level of voluntary compliance?" I feel that was a route we went with seatbelts, and I just feel so strongly that it will take for ever; that's the answer we're going to get, that it will take for ever.
The Chair: What are you suggesting in this regard?
Mrs Cunningham: I'm suggesting we don't ask the question but that we talk about the fact that the reason we're doing this is that we haven't had the voluntary compliance after as long as 10 years of public education on behalf of some school boards. Where there has been a serious effort made in the city of Ottawa, for example, by the municipality because of tourism and what not, and in the city of Barrie because of one physician who, along with the Kiwanis Club and the school boards, led a tremendous campaign and therefore they have the compliance. I haven't got his name.
Ms Murdock: Dr Brian Morris.
Mrs Cunningham: Would Hansard please put in the name of Dr Brian Morris, because he did do a wonderful job.
The Chair: Quite right. There's a whole lot of legislation that, had it waited for 25% voluntary compliance, never would have been implemented. Mr Waters, you're going to respond to that?
Mr Waters: I'd just say take the compliance level and strike it out.
The Chair: You're talking about the first sentence.
Mr Waters: We intend to pass a law that indeed is going to make bicycle helmets mandatory. By having that in my concern is, how long do we wait if we start looking at that? So why don't we just strike that section?
The Chair: That the whole paragraph beginning at the end of page 6 and ending at the top of page 7, sub- titled "Compliance levels," be deleted; that's what you're suggesting?
Mr Waters: Yes.
Mrs Cunningham: I don't mind the compliance. I don't mind putting it in here, because it was stated that Transportation has indicated this, but I think we should make another sentence something like this: "In spite of these numbers, this committee has seriously considered the date of implementation and has decided to recommend the date as follows," which is --
The Chair: Might I suggest this?
Mrs Cunningham: Yes.
The Chair: If you want to retain compliance levels -- just for the assistance of research -- that at the bottom of page 6 it read: "The committee has heard that for the law to be successfully implemented, it is advisable to achieve some level of voluntary compliance prior to the legislation taking effect. The level is currently estimated at 5% to 8% across the province, though certain regions such as Ottawa have a higher compliance level," then delete the next sentence.
Mrs Cunningham: I agree with that.
The Chair: Is that agreeable? Is there any need, then, for the question? Is that similarly deleted?
Mrs Cunningham: Great. We sure think alike, don't we?
The Chair: "Education and awareness": You have some comments, Ms Cunningham, and then Ms Murdock.
Mrs Cunningham: I think I'll ask Ms Anderson to raise an issue here with regard to funding and education first, and then we'll deal with the second part.
Ms Anne Anderson: There was the one question about the funding for the PR campaign, whether the committee feels the funds should come from existing budgets within the ministries or whether there should be some request for additional funding on that; whether the committee has any thoughts on that.
1720
Ms Murdock: I don't know whether we can actually do that. I think it depends on the second part of this, which is what I wanted to speak to anyway: which ministries would be involved in the campaign itself and in its funding. I've said before on the record that I do not believe for one minute that this should be the complete and sole responsibility of the Ministry of Transportation, that all of the ministries should be involved and that part of the question we should be asking the interministerial committee is to what degree percentagewise each of the ministries should be involved.
For instance, we are going to be asking the Ministry of Education to do a hefty job of educating in the two years or however much time it's going to be in the compliance section, and therefore it is probably going to have the most onerous task of sending that out. Tourism and Rec is going to be sending out pamphlets and brochures to all the tourism operations in the United States and Canada, so they will have an additional cost, which probably only they and their bureaucrats can figure out how much it would be.
Maybe part of our recommendation could be -- I haven't given this any thought -- that all of the ministries put money into a pool. My own view is that each of the ministries should designate in its own budget a certain amount of money which the interministerial committee has determined will be the percentage of the total that it will contribute.
The Chair: Other comments? Ms Cunningham, did you want to respond to that?
Mrs Cunningham: I agree with Ms Murdock. I would only add that within the Ministry of Education, and certainly the enforcement officers and Tourism, there are many levels where they're already on the curriculum: bicycle safety, education, and one would add the helmet to it now, and the fact that this will be law by a certain date. My expectation is that this interministerial group will probably come back and say to us, "Yes, but as we really want this to be implemented appropriately two years from now, it's going to take more money to do it and there will be new money required." That's what I think they're going to tell us, and we should ask the question.
It says, "How would a public education awareness campaign be conducted, and for how long? What are the estimated costs? Which ministries would be involved in the campaign itself and in its funding?" I don't mind the questions as long as we talk about the many campaigns that are there now, as you've suggested, and the ministries that already spend money, so they're not going to come back at us and make us all feel guilty and think this is a brand new deal, because in my view it isn't a brand new deal. I think we should add to it, that's my point.
The Chair: What are you suggesting be added to it?
Mrs Cunningham: "Talk about the many campaigns we have now" is what I've got written in my notes, and then say at the end, "In spite of these efforts" -- say it again -- "in spite of all the money that's gone into public education around bicycle helmets which has been done in the schools, home and school associations and what not have advised us, there's no compliance and we need the law." But I still don't mind having the questions.
The Chair: Ms Murdock?
Ms Murdock: I'll defer to my colleague, because we both raised our hands at the same time.
The Chair: Yes, but I recognized you first.
Ms Murdock: Okay. I have no objection at all to what you just said, but there are some ministries that have not been spending money on bicycle safety, and therefore for those ministries it would have to be a new budget item for them. I'll refer again to the Ministry of Tourism and Rec. I can't imagine that at the present time they're sending out the bicycle laws for Ontario to the different tourist bureaus to hand out, because it isn't mandatory, so it would be a new and added expense, although maybe MOT would provide the pamphlets for MTR to forward. I don't known how they'll work that, and I think those kinds of things would have to be worked out among themselves.
In terms of the existing programs, if they do what we're suggesting, which is to contact those manufacturers that already have programs under way and so on and implement their information packages as well as the ministries', then I think it will probably work out.
In this last sentence, "Which ministries would be involved in the campaign itself and in its funding?" albeit I like the fact that it is separated, I want it clearly understood that it is separated; it's two different kinds of things. "Which ministries will be involved in the campaign itself? Which ministries will be involved in its funding?"
The Chair: Okay, Mr Waters?
Mr Waters: We've talked about a couple of the ministries. I think the ministry that should have more dollars than any other for an education campaign is indeed the Ministry of Health, because the entire campaign will cost them less than one head-injured child.
Mrs Cunningham: Less than one, you're absolutely right.
Mr Waters: If you save two head injuries, indeed you've more than paid for the campaign.
The Chair: So you're suggesting that the statement here should be to the effect that the Ministry of Health be the lead ministry in terms of helmet-use campaigns?
Mr Waters: Not that they should be the lead ministry, but that they should have the dollars available due to the massive savings they could receive from the fact that the children are wearing helmets.
The Chair: So you are suggesting that in view of the considerable savings the protection would create for the Ministry of Health, it be the primary funder of educational programs?
Mrs Cunningham: Or a major, because we wouldn't have any idea about calling them primary.
The Chair: Ms Murdock?
Ms Murdock: I was going to suggest initially that we designate some ministries by priority, and then I thought: "No, that wouldn't be fair. They should probably work that out among themselves and let their deputies fight it out." But if we're going to go the route of suggesting ministries, I think Transportation, Solicitor General, Health, Education and Tourism and Recreation should be the five designated as prime movers and shakers.
The Chair: What's your response to that?
Mrs Cunningham: I think Ms Murdock has in fact identified the five that any one of us would identify, and that comes from what we've heard before the committee. Those are the ministries that seem to have been referred to more than any other, and I think at this point we should be thanking Health for the encouragement they've given us, because in fact they have stated on a couple of occasions that they are very interested in prevention and that they're in support of this legislation, as has the Ministry of Transportation, for which we are grateful.
Ms Murdock: On that point, though, I also agree with Mr Waters on the idea that it should be stated very clearly that the cost to Health of one head injury would provide all the moneys necessary for a massive education and PR campaign.
The Chair: Is there consensus that it ought to be inserted as part of the main body of the paragraph?
Mrs Cunningham: Yes.
The Chair: Okay, there's consensus in that regard. We're down now to the queries being put to this interministerial group. What's being proposed?
Mrs Cunningham: Many groups felt very strongly about this legislation, Mr Chairman, and they stated they would support us if the public education campaign went along with it. That's why I feel we should have the answers to these questions.
Mr Waters: We could list the ones we know, if that's what we wish to do, and ask if there are other ministries.
Mrs Cunningham: We did. Which ministries would be involved in the campaign itself and in its funding is the second part, even though we've told them which ones we think should be.
The Chair: What are people suggesting? Make a proposal as to what ought to be added, if anything.
Ms Murdock: I think the funding aspect should be separated so it has a focus all its own, rather than included in that sentence.
Ms Anderson: Just put it in two sentences?
Ms Murdock: Yes.
The Chair: Agreement? Fine, we're down to date of implementation, date of coming into force. Any comments on that?
Mrs Cunningham: The only thing is that instead of "suggests" I would put "recommends unanimously that the bill should come into force," because we did. We struggled enough; we did more than suggest. Other than that, I think it's a great report.
1730
The Chair: Okay. We've still got to deal that. "Recommends" as compared to "suggests"; are there any other comments, first of all, on an implementation process and the suggested, at this point, implementation date?
Ms Murdock: Just to refer back to last Wednesday when we discussed this, for those of us who were here, we were all agreed on October 1, 1994, subject to when it appeared before committee etc. The legislative process has to be taken into consideration.
Mrs Cunningham: "Subject to advice on the lead time required."
Ms Murdock: It is stated in the middle.
The Chair: Obviously, this proposition can't be taken in isolation from the other parts of the recommendation. So are you agreeing with it or disagreeing with it?
Mr Waters: I think Ms Murdock's concern is if it should get held up in the House or something for an unrealistically long period of time. We can't predict that, so we're saying we've set that date.
The Chair: Quite right. It's only a recommendation.
Mrs Cunningham: So instead of saying "suggests" put the word "recommends," and if you want to and we all agree, we could even say "unanimously," which I think says something for the committee, because all three parties did agree. So why not for once say it? It doesn't make it look like just the government, it makes it look like all three parties. I've been on the other side a long time.
The Chair: What do you say to that, Mr Waters?
Mr Waters: Do you mean it would be twice in one day?
Mrs Cunningham: Yes, right. Touché.
The Chair: There are two propositions here, one that --
Ms Murdock: The Liberals aren't here. We can't unanimously recommend something without them.
The Chair: Wait. One is that "suggests" be changed to "recommends." Is there a consensus in that regard?
Mr Waters: Yes.
The Chair: The second recommendation by Ms Cunningham is that it be further amended by saying "unanimously recommends."
Ms Murdock: Yes.
Mr Waters: Very good. That would be fine.
Mr George Dadamo (Windsor-Sandwich): But they're not here.
Mr Waters: But they all agreed last Wednesday.
The Chair: We have a quorum.
Ms Murdock: Sure. We're in favour with Mrs Cunningham.
The Chair: Is there consensus then that it ought to read "unanimously recommends?"
Ms Murdock: Agreed.
The Chair: Fine. That completes the consideration of the report as presented. Is there anything else?
Mrs Cunningham: Just to say thank you, certainly to the staff and especially Ms Anderson and the representation from the Ministry of Transportation and my office, and certainly to my colleagues on the committee. It's been an interesting process. I think all of us will watch carefully to see what happens. I just hope this comes into effect while this government is still in office, and I have every hope it will.
The Chair: It all depends upon what your view is as to how long this government's going to be in office.
Mrs Cunningham: You said it, Mr Chairman.
Ms Murdock: I have no doubts.
The Chair: This draft report has been the subject matter of further recommendations. One, is it the committee's pleasure that the report prepared in response to today's comments be presented to this committee for ratification, or to the subcommittee?
Ms Murdock: I'd like the subcommittee to look at it.
The Chair: Is there any comment in that regard?
Mr Waters: No problem.
The Chair: So are you moving that the subcommittee have authority to ratify the report as prepared by Ms Anderson?
Ms Murdock: I so move.
The Chair: She has so moved. Is there discussion?
Mr Waters: I don't believe Ms Cunningham is part of the subcommittee.
The Chair: Ms Cunningham will be there.
Mr Waters: Okay, I just wanted an assurance of that.
Mrs Cunningham: I'll certainly be reading it.
The Chair: Any other discussion? All in favour? Those opposed? That's carried, unanimously.
The Chair: We'll meet as soon as Ms Anderson lets us know this is prepared. Just so everybody's on the same -- what do they call it, Ms Cunningham? -- a level playing field?
Mrs Cunningham: It used to be "a rock and a hard place," remember? Every year it changes.
The Chair: Once this report is ratified by the subcommittee, of course it will be distributed to committee members then, but they will not have any entitlement to raise issues beyond that point. This can't go on indefinitely. Is that everybody's understanding?
Ms Murdock: That's my understanding.
The Chair: Okay, there's consensus in that regard. Then it will be sent to the Ministry of Transportation to be responded to on behalf of the interministerial group. We are urging them, as I understand it, to respond before we begin our summer break. There are only four weeks left.
Mr Waters: Depending.
The Chair: Well, depending upon what I read in the Toronto Star tomorrow. There are only four weeks left, give or take.
Mrs Cunningham: As far as I'm concerned, I get a vote in there, one vote.
The Chair: What we will do, then, is convene a meeting of the committee once Ministry of Transportation indicates its preparedness in terms of responding on behalf of the interministerial committee. Is there consensus in that regard? Unanimous consensus? Everybody agrees?
Ms Murdock: We agree.
The Chair: Fine. The meeting is then adjourned, subject to any other matters that have to be raised.
Ms Murdock: Will we be sitting on Wednesday of this week, Mr Chair?
The Chair: No.
Mrs Cunningham: Not unless the interministerial committee has their meeting on Tuesday.
The Chair: There will be notice in the usual manner of the next meeting of the whole committee.
The committee adjourned at 1737.