HIGHWAY TRAFFIC AMENDMENT ACT, 1992 / LOI DE 1992 MODIFIANT LE CODE DE LA ROUTE
CONTENTS
Monday 4 May 1992
Highway Traffic Amendment Act, 1992, Bill 124 / Loi de 1992 modifiant le Code de la Route, projet de loi 124
Ministry of Transportation
George Dadamo, parliamentary assistant
Mike Weir, safety policy officer, road user safety office
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)
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 Jordan
MacKinnon, Ellen (Lambton ND) for Mr Klopp
Owens, Stephen (Scarborough Centre ND)* for Mr Wood
Ward, Brad (Brantford ND) for Ms Murdock
* in attendance / présents
Clerk / Greffier: Brown, Harold
Staff / Personnel: Anderson, Anne, research officer, Legislative
Research Service
The committee met at 1540 in committee room 1.
HIGHWAY TRAFFIC AMENDMENT ACT, 1992 / LOI DE 1992 MODIFIANT LE CODE DE LA ROUTE
Resuming 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 (Mr Peter Kormos): We're a few moments late starting, but as I noted earlier, it was undoubtedly because of the compelling impact of the probing questions and revealing responses during what was a less than invigorating question period today.
MINISTRY OF TRANSPORTATION
The Chair: We have with us Mike Weir, road user safety office, Ministry of Transportation. Mr Weir is here at the invitation of the committee to, first, make any opening statement if he wishes to make one and, second, respond to queries put to him by the people present. Of course Ms Cunningham is with us as the sponsor of this private member's bill. The clerk, Mr Brown, is distributing the Windsor Star article to which reference was made in one of our previous meetings, Windsor Star article dated April 20, 1992, which refers to Ms Cunningham in almost the lead paragraph, the second paragraph, which is reasonably close, and that's simply for your information.
Mr Weir, did you plan on making an opening statement? Mr Dadamo, you wanted to say something?
Mr George Dadamo (Windsor-Sandwich): Yes, first please, and then Mr Weir will take it after I'm through.
The Chair: Sure.
Mr Dadamo: There are a few words that I'd like to put on record this afternoon regarding mandatory bicycle helmets, if I may.
The Chair: You're speaking on behalf of?
Mr Dadamo: As parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Transportation.
The Chair: So you're speaking for the government, for the Ministry of Transportation. This is like having Bob Rae right here.
Mr Dadamo: Yes, just about. Thank you very much. What an afternoon you've had obviously.
I'm addressing the committee today in my capacity as parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Transportation, the Honourable Gilles Pouliot. I am in quite a unique position respecting the consideration of this bill, being both a member of this committee and affiliated with the ministry that would have responsibility to administer the proposed legislation.
I last addressed the committee on behalf of the ministry last November. At that time I stated that there was no doubt in anyone's mind that bicycle helmets saved lives and reduced head injuries. After having had the benefit of hearing from the many extremely knowledgeable people who appeared before the committee, I can confirm that presumption absolutely. We have heard overwhelming evidence respecting helmet effectiveness and have seen the tragic results of bicycle crashes on those who do not wear those helmets. I'd like to commend the member for London North for bringing this issue to the Legislature.
I feel that referral of this bill to the committee to hear from the public is the responsible course of legislative process. We have learned a lot both in terms of how this proposal may be viewed by different interest groups and how such a law may be handled so as to make it responsible and publicly supported. Action on this issue has not ceased since the committee and the Legislature adjourned at Christmas. I've heard from several groups; the ministry has heard from several groups. I'm sure Mrs Cunningham has heard the term "bicycle helmet" a few times over the last couple of months. With the nice weather here now, folks on bikes are becoming more and more apparent on our streets, and you know that many of them are wearing helmets. I know the Minister of Transportation has been following the committee's deliberations with interest and looks forward to our recommendations.
The Ministry of Transportation has also been following the committee's deliberations and supports the premise of reducing deaths of and injuries to cyclists. They recognize, however, that it is not enough to pass a law and hope that people will comply. Several witnesses appearing before this committee went to great lengths to describe the type of support that will be necessary to make such a law a successful one. This is a private member's bill. However, if this proposal becomes law, it will be the Ministry of Transportation that will be ultimately accountable to ensure that it works.
Mike Weir from the ministry's safety planning and policy branch is with us today and will give us the ministry perspective on this issue. Mike attended every one of our sessions last year and has followed helmet-use trends and issues closely over the past year. Thank you, Mr Chair.
The Chair: Thank you, sir. Thank you to the Minister of Transportation.
Mrs Dianne Cunningham (London North): Well said.
The Chair: Ms Cunningham notes that it was well said and I think everybody on this committee agrees entirely. Mr Weir, please.
Mr Mike Weir: Thank you very much, Mr Chairman. I too have a prepared text that I will read for the purpose of Hansard. When I am through I would be pleased to answer any questions. Hopefully my text will answer a lot of the questions people may have.
I want to begin by stating that yes, I was in attendance of all the meetings last session. I have heard from all the folks who appeared before the committee and what they've had to say and I've found the experience to be both interesting and enlightening.
The Ministry of Transportation has been a long-time promoter of bicycle helmets. We've undertaken several initiatives to enhance bicycle safety and increase helmet use. The ministry supports the intent of this bill and believes that future legislation can be successful. The ministry also believes there are a number of tasks that must be done before a bicycle helmet law will be truly effective.
The ministry has a mandate to provide for the safety of all road users in Ontario. We take this commitment very seriously. In fact I'm sure you're all aware of the minister's announcement in the House last session regarding the establishment of an arm's-length corporation that will have a sole highway safety mandate. The structure will provide better opportunities for broad consultation with private sector traffic safety experts in the development of future safety policy and public education initiatives, a concept not unlike the purpose of this committee. We believe the establishment of the corporation will facilitate the introduction of several new initiatives to enhance road safety for all road users, including cyclists.
I mentioned that the ministry strongly promotes bicycle helmet use. Last November Mr Dadamo described in some detail our historical efforts. The ministry's new bicycle policy, which is currently in its final approval stages, will articulate several initiatives that will enhance both the safety of cyclists and opportunities for cycling.
While bicycle safety is a very important issue to the ministry, there are many other important traffic safety issues which must be addressed. The ministry must perform a balancing act, both in terms of human resources and dollars, to ensure that all the issues for which we have the ability to influence receive an appropriate level of attention.
A current traffic safety priority for the ministry is that of seatbelt use. The analogy between seatbelt use and helmet use has been raised by several witnesses appearing before this committee. Ontario was the first jurisdiction in North America to introduce a seatbelt law in 1976, despite the fact that belts had been around in vehicles for several years already.
When the law was first introduced, compliance rates rose dramatically from about 17% just prior to implementation to about 75% almost overnight. However, due to the lack of enforcement and lack of public acceptance of the law, compliance dropped over the first year to about 41%. It's taken us the last 16 years to bring that level up to the present 83%. We estimate that if everyone who died in a motor vehicle collision in 1990 had been wearing a seatbelt and wearing it correctly, about 200 lives could have been saved.
It's worth noting that some other Canadian jurisdictions spent years conducting public education and awareness prior to the introduction of legislation and as a result have had extremely successful laws with very high compliance rates.
Now let's look at where bicycle helmets fit in. In 1990, 29 cyclists died in collisions with motor vehicles and over 3,700 were injured. When unreported collisions are added, these numbers are even higher. We know that approximately 75% of these deaths were a result of head injuries and that about 85% of those deaths could have been prevented had the riders been wearing a helmet.
The Ministry of Transportation is interested in supporting legislation which actually accomplishes the objective for which it is developed. There are many operational issues associated with this bill that have been articulated by people appearing before this committee time and time again. These issues are important and must be addressed in order that the law be successful. For the record, I will reiterate the major ones.
1550
1. The present voluntary usage rate is appropriately 5% to 8%, although we are seeing more and more people wearing helmets every day. That means that about 90% of cyclists out there or better do not currently wear helmets. We must convince them that helmet use is necessary. This will take time and considerable resources.
2. There are three main helmet manufacturing standards for helmets that are sold in Canada and the United States: The Canadian Standards Association or CSA, the American National Standards Institute or ANSI and the Snell Memorial Foundation. These standards are currently not mandatory. In other words, a helmet can now be sold that does not meet one of these standards. We will need to plug this hole.
3. The CSA has not developed a helmet standard for children under five years of age. Both the US standards approve children's helmets. Why doesn't the CSA? Could it be because they are still concerned that helmet design needs further refinement before they are as safe as possible for the special needs of little children? If this is the case, the ministry feels that we need to be sure that what we are putting on our kids' heads is safe.
4. At the present time there's no Ontario-based manufacturing sector for helmets. I am sure that any announcement regarding a mandatory helmet law will bring an influx of US-manufactured helmets into Ontario. Perhaps we should attempt to encourage the establishment of an Ontario-based manufacturing sector and thus promote Ontario jobs.
5. Enforcement will be a problem, but not an insurmountable one. While it's true that persons under the age of 12 can't be convicted of a provincial offence, there may other ways to deal with non-compliance by minors. There are other jurisdictions with helmet laws that have had to deal with the enforcement problem. We want to learn from their experience.
A couple of US jurisdictions with helmet laws have devised some unique enforcement strategies. New Jersey has just recently introduced a helmet law that applies to persons under the age of 14. Violators are given warnings by police, and their parents or legal guardians can be liable for fines if it can be shown that they failed to exercise reasonable supervision or control over the child's conduct. Both New Jersey and Howard county, Maryland, have provisions where fines can be waived where violators can provide proof that they own a helmet or have since purchased one.
6. Helmets can be purchased today at prices that may seem very reasonable to some people, but there will be others to whom a $35 pricetag will cause some legitimate hardship. Therefore, we can expect that there may be some people who may not be able to legally cycle because of this law.
7. In order to ensure that this law has a fair chance of success, it will have to be supported by comprehensive public education and awareness programs. Virtually all witnesses who appeared before this committee, whether they supported the bill or not, agreed that education and awareness programs are essential to increasing helmet use. We know it works. In the avid cycling community of Ottawa public awareness programs have resulted in an average usage rate of about 28%, and an incredible 45% for commuter cyclists.
To do a proper job, complimentary campaigns must be run, at the very least, through one full cycling season and must be designed to reach every type of cyclist in every corner of the province. This is a major change for people who ride bikes, even for those who ride only once a year. They deserve the benefit of public awareness programs.
The message must be consistent and repeated often in order to be effective. Many cycling groups that appeared before the committee were concerned that helmets were being dealt with exclusive of other bicycle safety issues. They recommended a broader safety package that addresses collision prevention measures as well as helmet use. Perhaps such a campaign should be considered with helmet use as an integral component.
There are five communication devices that would create public awareness and would assist in bringing about compliance with a helmet law:
(a) Videos have to be produced in many languages aimed at both primary and high school students, with at least one video available and used in every school in the province.
(b) Multilingual brochures and posters: Over a two-year period we estimate we would need about two million brochures and 10,000 posters to cover it.
(c) Public information displays that could be used at bicycle rodeos, in malls and at other recreational functions.
(d) Transit advertising: Display cards on the sides or backs of business, in transit shelters, subway stations etc.
(e) Finally, paid radio and television advertising. The reason I said "paid" is because public service announcements often don't get the air time, or at least the desirable air time, to reach the majority of the people. This is the most successful form of advertising to reach specific target groups and the majority of people -- and yes, it's the most expensive.
The approximate cost to deliver the items I've mentioned is about $3.5 million for the first year, not including developmental costs. A helmet subsidy program could add considerably to this cost. If the full cycling season of advertising was next year, you would have to start planning now.
It should be noted that the Ministry of Transportation is having some difficulty maintaining our current levels of funding for public education and communications. Clearly we have some work to do to secure implementation partners and develop strategies to ensure a successful law. We believe, however, that if we take the time we'll have a unique opportunity here both to introduce a mandatory helmet law that will be supported by the public and to pursue an implementation process that will be seen to be responsible.
The ministry is aware that there are several bicycle helmet coalitions and working groups out there that stand ready to assist. We know the cycling community will also help in whatever way it can. A couple of other ministries have recently voiced their interest in bike helmets and may be in a position to help, and we understand the bill's sponsor may have a few ideas of her own.
In summation, the Ministry of Transportation supports the principle of Bill 124: that of reducing deaths and injuries to cyclists. However, we also believe that the issues of enforcement, cost, helmet standards, the establishment of an Ontario market base and the need to gain public acceptance through public education and awareness programs should be addressed before bicycle helmets are mandated through legislation. We feel that a period of two to three years to lay the necessary groundwork for a mandatory helmet law is necessary.
If the committee sees fit to recommend the bill be passed in the House, we would urge that the bill contain a clause that will bring the legislation into effect on proclamation. This will give us the flexibility to ensure that these important issues can be dealt with rationally and effectively.
The tasks to be done are many and the resources are slim. The ministry does, however, have some expertise in terms of both policy development and public education. We will be pleased to work cooperatively with the bill's sponsor to plan and prepare for bicycle helmet legislation.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Weir. I'm going to propose first that Ms Cunningham respond to that, either with comments or with questions, and then take questions from the balance of committee members. We've got lots of time; we're prepared to be pretty flexible. Mr Weir, of course, has all the time in the world to spend with us, at least until 6 o'clock.
Mrs Cunningham: First of all, I want to say I was encouraged by both Mr Dadamo's remarks and certainly by Mr Weir's, and I think he's right on. He has covered almost all the issues that have been certainly before the committee. As we go along I think others will have some questions, and I'll maybe start with what I've got and people can add to it. Some of the members have changed and others have been here for a while.
To start with, I'll relate an experience we had just before lunch today. There's always another group that comes to see us and there's always another phone call every day, and there are always more people who want to make a presentation before the committee. The good news is that most of them are in favour, but every once in a while somebody isn't, and he normally has some pretty good reasons for being concerned.
Today we had an interesting question that I've never asked before, and that was with regard to the ability of the police to enforce this law. You mentioned, Mike, with regard to the concern of the 12-year-old, so I'd like you to elaborate on that.
The other one is, and I want this one for the record, why would we be amending this particular piece of legislation under your ministry and not coming out with something under the Ministry of the Attorney General? That was the question: that in fact we wouldn't then be concerned about the age of the child. I don't know whether that's a legitimate question, but perhaps you could expand upon that one for starters.
1600
Mr Weir: Sure. First, the enforcement issue: The way the Provincial Offences Act is currently written, a person under the age of 12, to not be convicted of a provincial offence -- that is not to say they can't be charged, but there's not a lot of utility in charging them if they can't be committed. I'm sure the writers of that legislation probably have some good reasons why the age of 12 is stipulated. I think that question should be pursued with the AG.
As I mentioned in my text, however, there are some other jurisdictions that have helmet laws currently in place, and they've had to cope with the enforcement hurdle. In a couple of the jurisdictions I mention -- New Jersey and Maryland, just to reiterate -- their law applies precisely to the people who under this proposal couldn't be convicted, and they seem to be having some success.
The police give violators warnings, and they can hold the parents liable if they can show that the parents were in a position where they should have had more control or some supervision. They have some unique strategies for fines as well. If the child violators or the parents can show they have purchased a helmet since the violation, they can waive the fine. So there are some other places we can look to to try and deal with the enforcement issue.
I guess I answered the second question in part of my rambling on the first. I think your second question was, "Why wouldn't we amend the Provincial Offences Act to lower the age?" What would we lower it to? Ten? five? I don't know. What is the appropriate age at which we should be holding children responsible -- legally, criminally responsible? I'm sure the AG can elaborate on that issue.
Mrs Cunningham: This is a technical question. The legislation itself is rather simple. It's one word; it's an amendment.
Mr Weir: Right.
Mrs Cunningham: On this one issue, and there are many others, how would this be written so that people would understand what fines or what deterrents we would be considering? I know normally you wouldn't bring it before a committee.
Mr Weir: Right.
Mrs Cunningham: But with regard to all of us who are probably going to be the public spokespersons for helping to educate the public in some way, is that something you would bring to us for us to consider, or would you deal with that in your own department? How does it work?
Mr Weir: I believe it can work in two different ways. The bill could go forward as it's proposed and then we would have to address all the issues that pop up subsequently, or else we can do it more cleanly and recommend that changes be made now, which I believe is the better way to go.
I think the committee and the ministry would need to identify exactly what that piece of legislation should look like and whom it should apply to. If, for example, parents were going to be held partially responsible, that would need to be written into the legislation.
I assume there will be an opportunity for a clause-by-clause review of this bill, and I believe that would be the appropriate time to recommend those changes.
Mrs Cunningham: Would they come in the form of an amendment to the bill itself or, for example, in the legislation for motorcycle helmets, would the issue around the helmet and the standards be in the regulations?
Mr Weir: The regulations are a different issue. They can be written and effected much more easily than legislation. So when we're talking about standards, the Ministry of Transportation would have to either write a new regulation or amend the current regulation that deals with motorcycle helmets to include provisions for bicycle helmets. We wouldn't need to address the regulation at this point. We would need to address things like whom it applies to. If we wanted to have a specific penalty for this infraction, we would need to address that. We would need to, in the legislation, address any potential exemptions. Those are the types of things the legislation should apply to.
The Chair: Sorry to interrupt, but I did want to bring to everybody's attention the paper that's just been distributed, written by Anne Anderson, who's our research officer, who I think we'll all agree has very quickly brought herself up to speed on this issue notwithstanding that she wasn't with us during the earlier stage of the considerations. It addresses some of these issues -- that is to say, the capacity of the committee to draft regulations or recommend regulations. It's a valuable bit of research that's relevant not only to this particular issue but I'm sure all of us will store it away in our mental filing cabinets so that we're more informed about this than we were before. Thank you for that, Ms Anderson.
Mrs Cunningham: Just looking at page 2, it says in this report, "the section relating to helmets specifies that the Lieutenant Governor in Council may make the regulations concerning the standards, specifications, identification and marking of helmets.
"It appears that the committee cannot be directly involved in the making of regulations." But it does say, "Incorporating its proposals in a report." That might be a good idea.
Mr Weir: So if, for example, the committee felt that helmets should meet certain standards, I feel it would be appropriate that that recommendation be included in the report and then we could include that in the regulation. We're talking about three standards for helmets in Ontario, and I think what we would probably be doing is writing a new regulation or amending the current one to identify those standards as being the standards which bicycle helmets should meet.
Mrs Cunningham: Would it be appropriate, then, Mike, for you, or you and Anne, to advise us? For instance, you've just said that the legislation itself should address who and the penalty and the exemptions, and we may or may not have figured out what should go in the regulations. So if somebody would thoroughly take a look at even what you've put together -- some of this would be legislation, the other would be regulations. I don't know how to do this, Mr Chairman, but you know what I'm getting at. We want to be helpful and most of us have some pretty good ideas about what we're concerned about.
Mr Weir: Yes. We would want to make sure that whatever we included in the regulation was comprehensive and included all the things that it should include. That's one of the reasons why we suggested that we need some time.
Mrs Cunningham: I wanted to get that question up front because it was one that was asked this morning and it was one I couldn't answer in any way. It might be useful to go through the presentation that Mr Weir gave, because I think there are about 10 issues in here and we could address them one by one and then others could jump in as well. Would you like me to start?
The Chair: Yes.
Mrs Cunningham: On page 2, "the establishment of an arm's-length corporation that will have a sole highway safety mandate," could you fill us in on how that's working or what the status of it is now?
Mr Weir: I understand that there is a group of folks who are working on what a new organization would look like. I have not been personally involved in that project and am not familiar with the latest status.
Mrs Cunningham: Because I'm expecting that the development of future safety policy, then, and public education initiatives -- we would hope that they would be considering this piece of legislation as part of their work if that's the way --
Mr Weir: This would be the type of issue that the road safety corporation would address, yes.
Mrs Cunningham: Okay. The reason I asked is that if we do come up with ideas around public education -- and you've given us certainly a list of them; we may have others and some of us may privately be trying to get some resources to be helpful -- does it mean that because of this arm's-length corporation we have to go through it first of all for what we want to do and second for funding?
Mr Weir: I'm not really sure. I think that will be the corporation that will in essence take that portion out of the Ministry of Transportation, which currently deals with safety and regulation. So when the corporation does become effective or is in place and is working, and I'm not exactly sure of when that operational date will be, then that would be the organization that would deal with this type of issue, yes. It would in essence move that portion of the ministry's current responsibility over to the road safety corporation, from what I understand.
1610
Mrs Cunningham: I just saw another hand there.
Mr Stephen Owens (Scarborough Centre): The road safety agency was announced in the House. This may make Mr Chairperson blush --
The Chair: With shame.
Mr Owens: -- but in terms of our new auto insurance package, the legislative framework is still in process and will be announced in the fairly near future, but I'm not sure what role that agency will have in terms of bicycle safety. The initial mandate at this point is to deal with automobiles. There may be a role -- I'm making a great assumption now -- for bicycles as well, but at this point it's my understanding that the bill is dealing essentially with automobiles, with due respect to the Chair.
The Chair: That was most helpful, Mr Owens, but I remember the ghost car program in the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations. Mr Offer remembers that, too, because that was part of the announcement the quintet made -- the Ministry of Transportation -- which bore a remarkable similarity to some more recent announcements about road safety corporations. That ghost car certainly was Casper-like. It never saw the light of day; it never existed.
Mr Steven Offer (Mississauga North): At that point it was the opposition party of the day. They were adamantly opposed to these things, weren't they?
The Chair: The opposition party still is.
Mr Offer: Of the day, yes. But when they became the government, they -- but you could speak much more clearly on that.
The Chair: The party hasn't changed its position, Mr Offer.
Mr Offer: You'd be a lot clearer on change of positions than I could ever be.
Mrs Cunningham: Shall I get back to the issue?
Mr Daniel Waters (Muskoka-Georgian Bay): I was going to suggest that.
Mrs Cunningham: That was interesting dialogue. I'm already at page 6. I'm looking at the operational issues here, the voluntary usage rate. Then, on to page 7, I'd be interested in asking about the helmet manufacturing with regard to the standards. Does the ministry feel comfortable with the three standards presented to the committee, even though the CSA has not developed a helmet standard?
Mr Weir: For children under five?
Mrs Cunningham: Yes. What would we do there?
Mr Weir: I think the ministry would like more time to compare those standards. We would certainly want to know those standards inside out before we were to include them in any regulation.
Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): Would it not be appropriate, given the kind of lead time you're suggesting in this paper, to temporarily accept the standards of perhaps one of the US institutions pending development of any further rules, but with a clear statement to people that anybody who bought it in the meantime that that would be satisfactory, using the ministry's best judgement as to what the best standard would be?
Mr Weir: Absolutely. The ministry would be recommending that people wear approved helmets, regardless of what our current level is. We know that an approved helmet is better than a helmet that is not approved.
Mr Turnbull: Exactly.
Mr Weir: You're absolutely right. Were this law to become effective, say in two or three years, the regulations would accompany the legislation. We would want to make sure that whatever we articulated in the regulations at that point were the best possible standards. I believe the three that have been proposed are good standards.
Mr Turnbull: I suppose what I'm really saying is that given the kind of lead time you're talking about and with the knowledge that a law might come in -- children are better protected with a helmet today than without. Would it not be better for us to say we would at least grandfather those helmets, to encourage people to buy helmets in the meantime, rather than almost discouraging parents from buying them?
Mr Weir: Oh, yes. We wouldn't want to discourage people from putting helmets on their children's heads. Yes, I think that is a reasonable suggestion.
Mr Dalton McGuinty (Ottawa South): I'm going back to page 4, Michael. You made reference to compliance rates with respect to the seatbelt law. I'm just wondering if you feel that in light of the fact that the bicycle helmet is so much more visible -- in other words, so much easier to detect whether you have compliance -- that might be a significant factor in terms of the compliance rate.
Mr Weir: Quite possibly, but I guess I would again draw an analogy that a cyclist going through a stop sign is also very visible, a cyclist not having a light on the front of his bike at night is very visible, and there's not a high enough level of enforcement for those types of things. I can only speculate on that question. I think you're right that from an enforcement perspective, if you don't see that a person is not wearing his seatbelt, then you might decide, "I don't really need to stop that vehicle," whereas if a cyclist rides by with no helmet -- very visible, a blatant violation -- perhaps we may expect a higher level of enforcement. I'm speculating.
Mr McGuinty: Dianne, you were up to what page?
Mrs Cunningham: I was moving towards the helmets, but I appreciate that question. I was on page 7.
Mr McGuinty: I have another one arising out of page 5.
Mrs Cunningham: Go ahead.
Mr McGuinty: You've given recent statistics dealing with deaths and injuries for 1990, cyclists being involved in accidents. Michael, you probably have not done this, and maybe it's kind of a moot question, but we're talking about the cost here of implementing a program: A thorough and effective program, as you've described it, is $3.5 million. I'm wondering what it would have cost us to treat those injuries through health care facilities this year.
Mr Weir: I'm not sure what the number would be. I suspect it would be higher than that. There were folks who appeared before this committee who provided information on the type of resources required for long-term health care, and the numbers were high -- very high.
Mr McGuinty: Thank you.
Mrs Cunningham: I'm going to get into this thing about the helmets again. I thought Mr Turnbull raised an important question. I think all of us as we listened certainly were convinced that the three standards were the standards we would want for Ontario. What's shocking to me is that when I go into the stores I see these rows and rows of these helmets that have no standards at all, and they're way more expensive than the ones we can buy.
I don't know how many of you were in London for the ladies' ride for cancer a couple of weeks ago on the Sunday. The Kiwanis Club gave out -- what was it? -- 1,000 approved helmets, for nothing. That's where they put their money to get more compliance, set an example -- we don't have the great compliance you have in Ottawa -- and I thought it was remarkable.
At the same time, others came to me during that ride and said: "Look, I just bought this helmet. I want to follow whatever the potential legislation might be. I spent $45." You could buy these approved helmets -- all three standards, I think, Andrea; I'm not sure -- for $25. They were selling them for $25, and these people were paying $45, $50 and $60 at bike shops and Canadian Tire. These were adult helmets; they were basically for children over 12. I was thinking, Mike, in the meantime we should be doing something about that. We should be discouraging the salespeople from purchasing from people who -- we don't want to set this example and have people having to go out a year or two years later.
I'm going to jump right to the end and then back up again. You advise us on page 15, at the very end: "If the committee sees fit to recommend the bill be passed in the House, we would urge that the bill contain a clause that will bring the legislation into effect on proclamation. This will give us the flexibility to ensure these important issues can be dealt with rationally and effectively." Do you mean in the meantime?
For instance, if we were to introduce the bill this spring or next fall and say, "This is what we want," and even if we don't have the regulations drafted, because that would or would not be appropriate -- because I don't know that -- and you also said that you're not quite certain if the standards may be different two years from now, but certainly we could introduce the bill with an intent. That would solve the problem of getting the right helmets into the province and manufactured here. Maybe bicycle manufacturers could even put helmets with bicycles as they sell them, which was a suggestion from one of the committee members; I can't remember who. It would certainly save parents the kinds of dollars they're spending now because they want to be responsible, and they're buying helmets that aren't approved. What's your suggestion? How could this work for us?
Mr Weir: Again, I think that's where public education and awareness would come in. We would want to articulate in public education devices the helmet standards which we felt were appropriate. The brochures, the videos, that type of thing, would give information on helmets and identify which standards organizations approve helmets, and we would recommend that the approved helmets be the ones that are purchased.
1620
The Chair: Mr Owens, you wanted to join this, and then Mr Dadamo.
Mr Owens: I think Dianne raises a good point in terms of the stuff that's in the stores now. I understand your answer to be a public education portion between the time the bill is passed and the time it's proclaimed, rather than a coercive move to have the stuff taken off the shelves; urging consumers to move in one particular direction.
Mr Weir: And urging the helmet manufacturers to start making approved helmets available.
Mr Owens: In terms of enforcement post-proclamation, if a person is wearing a helmet, would the police just ignore that person?
Mr Weir: There would be no enforcement in the interim period until the bill has been proclaimed in force. So if we have a two-year pre-proclamation period, let's say, during that time you would be advising the public on the need to wear a helmet, what types of helmets are good helmets to wear and advising them that they should be looking for the manufacturing standards sticker inside the helmet. Then when the law were to become effective, it would stipulate that the helmet you wear must meet one of the standards identified in the regulations.
Mr Owens: And that goes to my question that if a person is found with a helmet not meeting the grade, would that person be fined?
Mr Weir: They're theoretically in violation of the law, yes, if they are wearing, let's say, a hockey helmet or a substandard helmet on their bike. That is currently the case for motorcycle helmets as well. There are certain standards that motorcycle helmets must meet, and if a person is found wearing a helmet that does not meet one of those standards they are in violation.
Mr Owens: Would there be a section or regulation with a sunset clause that, after such and such a date, stores or manufacturers would no longer be able to sell ersatz helmets?
Mr Weir: Yes, there would need to be a provision like that as well.
Mr Dadamo: I wanted to mention a couple of things earlier. Notes were given to me regarding the road safety agency. As it relates to bikes, that has not been stipulated yet by MTO. We don't know exactly what their role will be. I wanted to mention earlier that MTO is also in the final stages of completing the bike review, and that will be coming out soon.
There was one other quick item Mrs Cunningham was talking about that made me think. I know a lot of our colleagues are going out to high schools and elementary schools in their ridings. Sometimes, as I do, you want to find something different to talk to the students about. If a short, very concise video could be put together and distributed to the 130 members, we could incorporate it into whatever dialogue we choose to speak with the students about and go into the high schools with it.
Mr Weir: If you can find the time on your agendas to do that, that's great.
Mr Dadamo: That's our target audience anyway, and we talked long ago last year about going after especially the elementary students. We have to start somewhere, and that wouldn't be such a bad idea -- just a thought.
Mrs Cunningham: I think that's an important point. We have speaking notes we give to our caucus colleagues, but things are changing with regard to this issue almost daily. I was quite surprised on the Sunday of that women's ride for cancer to speak to the distributor, Carlyn Safety, and if Andrea can get all of us one of these, there's a lot of good information in it. But what I liked was that here we had a Canadian company distributing Canadian helmets describing sport bicycle use and an infant helmet, and noting that CSA is not yet equipped to approve infant helmets: totally honest and upfront in advising parents. The costs were from $23.95; the highest one was $24.95 and the parents could just pick this up and order it. I'm sure there would be other companies that would want to do the same thing in different areas of the province.
Interjection.
Mrs Cunningham: Yes, they're just great. This is the one I have now, but the good news, I think, on behalf of our committee is that people are feeling confident enough that they can do this and that they can encourage somebody to come into the province, which is what this group is doing, to manufacture these in Ontario. Now, whether it will happen in the next few months, I don't know. These are purchased from Quebec. I think it's exactly what this province is all about.
I guess my question is this, and anybody who would be appropriate should be answering this question. If we were to introduce the bill into the Legislative Assembly, would the government then be looking at it, at that time, with the intent of proclaiming this bill on the first of May, let's say, 1994, that kind of thing? Somebody has to have a time frame if they are going to put this kind of money into something. It wouldn't be hard to figure out how many young people in the province are going to ride bicycles now and how many helmets somebody is going to need to manufacture in the next two years. So my question is, how do we give people the confidence to get in there and do this? I think we all have a lot at stake if we're going around talking about this.
Mr Weir: Regardless of whether the legislation actually identifies an implementation date, I think that if the bill were to be successful, that would encourage people coming into Ontario to manufacture helmets. I also believe that perhaps we should be proactively trying to encourage that.
Mrs Cunningham: I don't have a problem with it, but I get the question, "What if this thing is dropped a year from now?"
Mr Weir: I think that informally we would certainly have a target date or a date we would want to work towards should this bill be successful in the Legislature. The nice thing about not setting a date in the legislation is if you reach that date and your level of public acceptance is not appropriate, if we haven't been successful in saturating the province with public education and the public is not ready for it, your hands aren't tied and you don't need to put the law in place until such time as those things are addressed.
Mr Owens: In terms of the companies involved in the manufacture of the helmets, I think for the last couple of years either CCM or Cooper has worked in conjunction with the Ontario Medical Association, and they have offered discount coupons for approved helmets. Maybe this is something that we can urge private sector involvement in to encourage the moms and the dads and all the other folks out there who are bike riders to get the approved helmets even before the legislation is effected.
Mr Weir: They're extremely successful programs. The Ontario Medical Association and Sandoz Triaminic offer a rebate program for helmets and have exceeded their target by about 300% in terms of helmet sales.
1630
Mrs Cunningham: I thought everybody might like to know, from one of the medical journals, the new Ontario Medical Review, April 1992:
"Bicycle-Safety Helmet Campaign Launched.
"The Ontario Medical Association is participating with the Canadian Medical Association (CMA) and other provincial medical associations in a nationwide bicycle-safety helmet campaign to begin April 30, 1992, and continue throughout the spring, summer and fall."
We really have to be grateful for this.
Mr Owens: My comments were prophetic, then.
Mrs Cunningham: Yes. This was brought to our attention just a couple of days ago, but you're quite right.
"The CMA will be sending bicycle-safety tabletop displays to all family physicians" -- which there are now, but this is yet another major campaign -- "paediatricians, and emergency physicians in Canada. The displays will include coupons offering bicycle-safety helmets at discounted prices of $19.95 for child helmets, $21.95 for youth helmets, and $23.95 for adult helmets. The coupon provides detailed information on how to choose a bicycle helmet along with general riding safety tips."
Then it goes on to talk about the 85%, numbers we all know about.
I think it would be important for this committee, if we are going to put a report together, to recommend that we have kits for ourselves, because we have to say the right things and be able to answer the questions. There are some loopholes here. My great fear is that I don't want to end up in the same position we found ourselves in five years ago after some fairly major campaigns, although I think that with the drug companies, the CMA and the government being involved, we ought to be looking at pretty good compliance. We should be asking Ottawa what it is doing differently.
What's your suggestion around this loophole on page 7, "We will need to plug this hole"? It says: "These standards are not mandatory. In other words a helmet can now be sold that does not meet one of these standards."
Mr Weir: Mr Owens alluded to it. We would need to create a provision -- I believe it can be done through regulation -- so that substandard helmets couldn't be sold in Ontario.
Mrs Cunningham: That kind of thing would be after the two-year trial period?
Mr Weir: I think we would want to have that provision advertised during that two-year period so that substandard helmet manufacturers can get up to speed and have it become effective at the same time as the legislation.
Mr Waters: Can I jump in? I have a real concern about two of the standards.
Mrs Cunningham: All right.
Mr Waters: The only one that I find acceptable is CSA, because CSA is the only one that periodically goes out and does a physical inspection of helmets. Working in a controlled industry before, the wire and cable industry, they just walk in randomly. I understand the other two American ones do not; once you get your approval, that's it. I would like clarification on that. I would also like to know if the ministry has talked to CSA the about the helmet situation. Are they coming up with something that's approved?
Mr Weir: Yes, I talk to them periodically. The CSA is working on a helmet standard for children under five. I have heard the same rumours about the American standards, the fear being that maybe five years ago a helmet met one of the American standards, the standard has since been updated and the helmet still bears the approval sticker of that manufacturing standard despite the fact it no longer really meets the new current standard. That is a concern. I can't confirm one way or another here today whether that is the case, but that is an issue we would certainly want to have clarified.
Mr Waters: The other part is indeed the actual inspection. Even if the helmet design is an approved design, the CSA -- it is my understanding from some other remarks -- is the only one of all those agencies that goes out on a continual basis, walks into the manufacturer's shop and says, "I want that, that and that helmet," and then runs a check on what's being run that day on the line. The Americans don't.
Mr Weir: I can't say with any certainty whether the American standards organizations do that.
Mrs Cunningham: On page 8 -- this might be following along with your concerns, Dan -- I thought that was an interesting paragraph and I commend you for putting it in. Perhaps in our report we could make specific recommendations as to how we can do that. It's on the same subject of, "Perhaps we should attempt to encourage the establishment of an Ontario-based manufacturing sector, and thus promote Ontario jobs." I am referencing it because it's something we could put in our report. We could have a report with 10 parts to it and say, "This is what we are going to expect to see two years from now."
Mr Waters: We have products made in the US that are CSA approved. From what I understand, working in the past, they just randomly check shipments. The key is that the CSA seems to have a better compliance with its standard than the American ones and I am concerned. If we are going ahead with a law to protect people from head injury, I want to make sure the helmet is indeed a good helmet.
Mrs Cunningham: Absolutely. I think there will be even more research and gains made in the right direction within the next two years. We may even have an infant helmet.
Number 5 on page 8, the enforcement: I suppose what we want here would be some ideas on what we would be looking at again.
Mr Weir: I understand the Solicitor General has been asked to appear before the committee.
Mrs Cunningham: Is that correct? I think so too.
The Chair: He's been asked.
Mr Turnbull: On this particular point of enforcement, I think it has to be taken in conjunction with the question of funds for those people who would find it difficult to afford a helmet, because we can't start enforcing something unless we know it's not going to cause hardship. If you don't mind, I'll just back into the question. Perhaps funds could be made available from the Ministry of Health that would otherwise have been used for head injuries to help subsidize helmets. Then, if we know that is in place, that nobody's going to be under any hardship buying a helmet, perhaps we could apply the same sort of rules that are applied with respect to hunting: confiscation of bicycles if the people are not wearing the helmets.
Obviously we have to talk about wearing the helmet on the head, not, as I believe in some administrations in the US, where people have got away with wearing a helmet over their elbows. Perhaps you could just comment on those two suggestions.
Mr Weir: If the Ministry of Health has some funds available that it could commit to this public education, that would be fantastic. However, I won't answer on behalf of the Ministry of Health.
The second part of your question was compliance. Yes, I think the intent is to have helmets on people's heads, and merely carrying a helmet along the handlebars or on your arm should be a violation.
Mr Turnbull: I was concerned about your comment on page 9, sub 5, talking about Maryland and New Jersey, where provisions have been made that fines can be waived where the violator can provide proof that he or she owns a helmet or has purchased one. The fact that you own a helmet does nothing for compliance.
Mr Weir: Yes, you are absolutely right. I think their strategy there is -- initially, anyway, their laws are fairly new -- that they want to get people out there buying helmets and at least to make sure they're available. It wouldn't surprise me at all if we were to see them amend their legislation eventually to do away with that provision, because the intent is to have the helmet on your head, not merely to own one.
Mr Turnbull: Otherwise each family has a helmet at home and they show it when they say they own one.
Mr Weir: Yes. I merely raised that as an example of one of the things that might be considered, initially anyway, to try to encourage people to purchase helmets. Hopefully, if they own them, they'll wear them.
1640
The Chair: I want to clarify the reference to the office of the Solicitor General. The clerk has spoken with staff from the Ministry of the Solicitor General and has been advised that he will be advised in the early part of this week as to whether they might attend during the second week. The clerk has made frequent telephone calls to the Ministry of the Solicitor General and on four occasions has spoken either with the machine or with a real person. It is still uncertain whether or not they're really interested in being here, but they're going to let the clerk know during the course of this week.
I want to welcome Dave Edgar, who is from the office of the Minister of Transportation and who has maintained a strong interest in these proceedings throughout the course of them, in the past and currently. Of course the whip's office is represented here today. The whip's office undoubtedly has a strong interest in what's happening here and that's appreciated.
Mrs Cunningham: I have a question with regard to the message we're going to try to put forward on page 11. I think the groups we really did promise to ask for further input from, or at least address their concerns, were the cycling groups themselves, especially the one here in Toronto that has been so helpful. I ask this question in the context you stated at the beginning, Mike, that the ministry would be coming out with a bicycle policy on safety.
Mr Weir: Well, that the ministry's bicycle policy will address in part safety considerations.
Mrs Cunningham: Is this something that is happening now?
Mr Weir: It's in the final approval stages. From what I understand, we can expect an announcement some time shortly.
Mrs Cunningham: Does this mean that whoever is in charge of this policy is aware of what we have been talking about in the committee?
Mr Weir: Yes, they are fully aware.
Mrs Cunningham: Good. They've been looking at the Hansards or at the presentations or whatever.
Mr Weir: Yes, and I have been in contact with the folks who are working on it.
Mrs Cunningham: I have to tell you that having been in politics for 18 years, that's a refreshing response.
Mr Weir: In fact, I was in the working group.
Mrs Cunningham: It's very nice to know that every once in a while we come down here and something we do is meaningful, to the extent that we might be affecting at least the policy of any government. I say that based on a number of years. All governments recommended a broader bicycle safety package that addresses collision prevention measures as well as helmet use and all kinds of other issues they were concerned about.
It really goes back to our concern just before the break that if you don't know how to ride a bicycle and you've never had anybody tell you the rules and you just go buy one and get on the road and do it, and you don't have any parental supervision or the schools don't really care if you have crash-up races in the school yard, what's the point of wearing a helmet? If that's the kind of thing they are looking at, that's fine by this committee, because that was definitely the concern of the bicycle committees as well as the enforcement you've suggested: stop signs, lights and the whole bit.
This leads me to the next question. Would this be an appropriate time to have the ministry look at two or three of the complaints about the existing regulations? Are we going to hear from the ministry with regard to appropriate fines or have enforcement around people who don't have reflector lights, which was a specific that came before the committee?
Mr Weir: There is a fine in place for people who don't have a light on their bikes right now. From what I understand, the enforcement of that provision is somewhat limited, but the provisions do exist.
Mrs Cunningham: I can't remember in context, but maybe somebody else on the committee can -- perhaps yourself, George. When we were discussing this before, I think one of the witnesses suggested that the fine wasn't appropriate and somebody from the government said -- and I don't think it was yourself, Mike -- "Oh, we're looking at that and we're going to increase the fine." Does anybody else remember that?
Mr Weir: Oh, I see. Yes, I can comment on that. Let me start by saying that I think the fine level for violating almost every other rule of the road is currently around $78. The fine level for not having a light on your bicycle is currently $20, and there was a proposal or recommendation from the cycling community to increase that to make it consistent with all the other violations of rules of the road. Again, I can't comment on what the status of that is right now.
Mrs Cunningham: Maybe that's something the committee would like to respond to. It was raised certainly more than once. The point was that if you're looking at the regulations in this act with regard to cycling safety, is that something you should be looking at now? I certainly don't want to take the rap for that. I don't want to lose this bill on that issue, of course.
Mr Weir: There are tons of things we could do in terms of legislative amendments to enhance bicycling safety, but those things take time. I think the committee may want to consider including in its recommendations that other bicycle safety issues are a concern and need to be addressed.
Mrs Cunningham: It's certainly been noted that the funding for the public education program is a challenge, and maybe we can discuss that in more detail at another meeting. I don't have any other questions with regard to the presentation by Mr Weir, Mr Chairman, but other committee members would, I'm sure.
The Vice-Chair (Mr Daniel Waters): I believe Mr Owens has a question.
Mr Owens: Mr Turnbull alluded to this question. In terms of the person who for whatever reason can't afford to purchase a helmet, what are you going to do for that person or do to that person? Are they simply going to be precluded from riding their bikes? One could extrapolate that to if they can't afford a helmet, they perhaps cannot afford to ride public transit either, which is the reason they want to take their bikes.
Mr Weir: Yes, and that's why I think it's important to find whatever means is available, whether it be through public funds or private sector partnerships and sponsorships, to try and make helmets available to people at as reasonable a price as possible. As I raised in my presentation, there will be folks who may find the price of a helmet to be a legitimate hardship, and that's a reality, and yes, there may be some folks who actually can't cycle, or legally cycle, because of this law. What we'll do for those folks is something I don't feel comfortable answering now, but certainly I think that's an issue that needs to be discussed by the committee.
Mr Turnbull: Right on what Stephen has just asked, because I wasn't here during the committee hearings into this, there must be a cost which is associated with the annual health cost -- that was what I was referring to -- of accidents. If they can be alleviated, based upon your statistics -- I think you said 75% of those could be alleviated -- surely there's a net saving involved to the Ministry of Health which it would seem to me outweighs the cost of even the first year of implementing some sort of subsidy program for people in need.
Mr Weir: It sounds quite logical and I would be interested in the Ministry of Health's response.
Mr Turnbull: Clearly we should not have any legislation that in any way precludes people from being able to ride their bikes because of financial hardship. You don't have a number?
Mr Weir: I'm sorry, I don't have a number, but I'm sure there are some other folks who do.
Mr Offer: I'm one of the new members on this committee. I've been off and on. I have a couple of questions. On page 5 you go through the amount of individuals who have either died or were injured. Is there any breakdown of that as to age where this has happened? Is there a tendency that most of these injuries take place with the young kids, or what?
Mr Weir: Yes, collectively the majority -- and again I don't have the precise breakdown -- of collisions are by those 15 and older. That's because there are more folks 15 and older riding now. But as a group, if you were to pick an age group, the younger group is being affected the most. These statistics, by the way, only reflect the reportable collisions where a bicyclist has been in a collision with a motor vehicle.
1650
Mr Offer: Thank you. The other question deals with exemptions, but I know you've alluded to other jurisdictions that have legislation of this nature. Is there an example of there being exemptions by virtue of religion?
Mr Weir: Yes, two Australian jurisdictions have full helmet laws. Victoria, Australia, provides an exemption for Sikhs, based on religious freedom. I believe they also provide an exemption for people who can provide some other medical reason why wearing a helmet might be detrimental to their health. Curiously, they also provide an exemption for cyclists participating in sanctioned events, cyclists from other countries or other places in Australia to participate in an event.
Mr Offer: Circuses, things of that nature?
Mr Weir: Possibly, yes.
Mr Offer: Thank you. Are you aware of any jurisdiction which forbids or prohibits the sale of a bicycle without approved headgear?
Mr Weir: No.
Mr Offer: Last -- I don't know if it's to you or to everybody -- how has the question of cost been resolved? For instance, what about the person who can buy the bike but can't afford the helmet? Has the committee discussed what one does in that case?
Mr Dadamo: Yes and no.
Mr Offer: As an addendum to that question, my guess is that there is probably a growing market in the sale of used bikes, second-hand bicycles. Has it been addressed as to whether the sale of the headgear, the helmet, would apply to a second-hand bike, a used bike?
Mr Weir: I believe the issue was alluded to during some of the deliberations last session. The problem with second-hand helmets -- is that what you are getting at, Mr Offer, the second-hand helmet market?
Mr Offer: Yes.
Mr Weir: It's very difficult to tell sometimes whether a helmet has been damaged. If a helmet has been damaged it shouldn't be used again, so unless you can confirm absolutely that the helmet is unscathed and undamaged, it shouldn't be passed on.
Mr Offer: That would, of course, apply to siblings?
Mr Weir: Yes.
The Vice-Chair: I'm going to take a bit of licence in the chair and comment. We talked about helmets and bikes. Regardless of whether you bought the bike or the bike was given from another jurisdiction, all of that is secondary. The key is that you must wear a helmet. That is what we are talking about.
Mr Offer: The essential issue is, what if you can't afford the helmet? I don't believe there's anyone who would speak against the need to attempt to mitigate these incredible statistics of death and injury, to do whatever one can do, and if helmets are a way to minimize that, that's terrific. I am sure there are also public education programs which would also do some good in this area, but I am speaking for those people who would share in the principle of the bill but who might not have the dollars to put up for their children.
The Vice-Chair: I think I'll direct that to Ms Cunningham.
Mrs Cunningham: You know how I'll answer it, Steve. I always say you can't afford not to buy a helmet. With the statistics the way they are, I don't understand people not having helmets on their children now. People who are fortunate enough to be educated should have helmets on their kids now.
I guess the experience that certainly brought it to light was one of the students in a grade 8 class that I was talking to last fall said, "Well, Mrs Cunningham, I couldn't play hockey without a helmet any more, so when I got my skates, I had to get my helmet." Kids are pretty well conditioned to this now. In T-ball in London now they wear helmets because we had a terrible accident a couple of years ago with a bat. That's just the sports groups themselves. It's not mandatory, but if you don't have a helmet within sports groups now you can't play.
When it comes to the secondhand stuff, a lot of kids are buying secondhand equipment. I think there is always a risk with skates and hockey helmets that don't have the right strap or a piece at the back is broken off. Those are the risks you take. But as parents, I think most of us, and certainly the coaches themselves, are checking equipment all the time; it is just that nothing is going to be perfect. But either the committee and the government decide that after two years of a lot of hard work, where they've given people the opportunity -- and there's been enough lead time to do it -- it becomes then the political courage to do what's right. That's what it's going to come down to. I think in fairness, what we are saying is that people have to plan ahead.
The question is quite worthy. I wouldn't have introduced this bill if I didn't think that $25 is a very small price to pay to prevent the kind of accidents that have been brought before this particular committee. That's what I say when I'm asked. I think the video that certainly will eventually be made -- but the one that we use from the Ontario Head Injury Association, you show that once and it's pretty convincing.
Mr Offer: The only reason I ask is because I'm a newer member of the committee and I don't know if the issue of cost had been addressed. I am well aware of the arguments dealing with hockey and things of this nature. Again, I know that all of us will want to do what we can to mitigate the death and injury and the real suffering that occurs, but there are families that have four and five kids and I just don't know if that particular aspect has been addressed in terms of eventually there being subsidies and things of this nature. I understand the argument with hockey. I think if anyone goes to a rink on any Sunday afternoon where there isn't organized hockey or where there are pickup games sometimes there aren't helmets worn.
Mrs Cunningham: I know.
Mr Offer: If people take their kids figure skating or just family skating, helmets aren't worn there either and maybe they should be.
I would just like to get a little bit more information on what we do with those individuals who want to get helmets -- because we all want to get helmets -- but can't get helmets. It's not a matter of they don't want, they do want, but they have to go to a store and it's $25 and you've got three kids, so it's $75. What's going to be done? I used three because that's how many kids I have.
1700
Mrs Cunningham: I think, Steve, the very good news, for those of us who have been talking about this for over a year now, is that we used to use the number $50. People talked about $50, $60, $70 regularly a year ago. Now people are talking about $25 and $30. So we've come a long way in a year because we know we can at least get them for that price. But I think the concern that you've expressed even for one child is extremely legitimate and I don't think we've got a solution to it, but I think we have to think about it.
Mr Offer: Maybe the people who sell the bikes, instead of selling them with a kickstand, should take off the kickstand and attach a helmet.
Mrs Cunningham: There you go.
Mr Offer: Or instead of 18 gears take it down to three.
Mrs Cunningham: Which would be safer too for young children.
Mr Offer: It is evident that I'm in the market for a bike.
Mrs Cunningham: Are you? Yes.
It's a very legitimate question, Mr Chairman, and we just don't have an answer to it, but in my view, the last two examples you used are the very things that parents are trying to cope with right now. As we watched the children buy bicycles two weeks ago on that particular day where the used bikes came out and they had to meet certain standards by the Kiwanis Club, we also watched very young children getting on bicycles with five and 10 gears when we knew, just by looking at them, that they weren't going to be able to ride those bicycles safely. So we have other problems in society today.
The Vice-Chair: Are there any other questions of Mr Weir? I think we've sort of got away from him, as we do quite frequently as we go through this bill. That's fine, but we had asked him to be here for an hour and we are well beyond that. I was just wondering, are there any other questions of Mr Weir?
Mr Weir: It's just my backyard that's waiting for me. It needs to be raked.
The Vice-Chair: We're saving you from that. No other questions?
Mr McGuinty: Mr Chair, I'm not sure how to properly put this together or formulate this question, but with your experience, Mike, maybe you can tell us something. We are discussing this, of course, in the abstract and we think that generally this is a good idea. I gather you have some experience in these matters. How saleable is this to the public? How difficult is it going to be to convince the public that it is a good thing to wear helmets and it's a good thing to put helmets on their children?
Mr Weir: Some 5% to 8% are wearing them right now. Those numbers speak for themselves. I think with the type of communications and public education programs I talked about -- and those were just very quick down and dirty brainstorming suggestions -- we will certainly see those numbers increase. We're seeing the numbers increase more and more now. As other people see people riding with helmets on they get curious and they start to think, "Hey, gee, maybe it's a good idea." As helmets become commonplace, something happens in their minds psychologically and they start to believe in the merits of that piece of equipment.
I think if the communications and public education were done properly and correctly and reached the right people and reached enough people, that over time -- and I'm not sure if two years is the point or not, we'll see when we reach that point. There are ways to determine. We can do observational surveys and evaluations at that point to determine what the level of public acceptance is. If this law were to become effective tomorrow, I feel that its chance for success would be slim.
Mr McGuinty: Even if we were to provide everyone with a free helmet? I'm just --
Mr Weir: Speculating?
Mr McGuinty: Yes, speculating.
Mr Weir: That's never been done before in my experience, so I couldn't comment on that.
Mr McGuinty: I gather there's some thinking that's gone on in these areas in terms of -- you may even have led evidence to this effect earlier on -- what kind of acceptance rate you have to have before you can make something law.
Mr Weir: Yes, and they're not carved in stone. I believe we discussed this last November and I think I used a 25% limit. Again, the 25% was merely a number that indicated a certain amount of public support for a concept, a level at which we would feel more confident in putting a law in place.
Mr McGuinty: That 25% means 25% of cyclists would be wearing helmets?
Mr Weir: Yes. I think I said it last November and I'll say it again: I don't believe the number's carved in stone, but I think there has to be some way to determine what the level of public acceptance is, and counting the number of people with helmets on their heads is one way to do it.
Mr McGuinty: When we brought the seatbelt law into effect, how many people were wearing seatbelts?
Mr Weir: We estimated about 17%.
Mr McGuinty: This 17% versus 25%: does the ministry have any kind of a policy with respect to this?
Mr Weir: No, we don't have any kind of a policy. The purpose of my analogy there was to show that perhaps we might have been more successful with seatbelts if we had waited. Other jurisdictions -- Australia, for example -- had voluntary usage rates well in excess of 50% before they put their law in place, and they had spent some seven years preparing for a law. They implemented programs through the school systems where kids had to wear their helmets if they were going to ride their bikes to school and all kinds of other strategies to increase voluntary usage rates. So when they did finally implement the law, they already had an extremely high level of public support, thus making their law extremely successful. It got over a 90% compliance rate.
Mr McGuinty: If I might pursue that for a minute, does that jurisdiction have more people using bicycles than we do, on a per capita basis?
Mr Weir: I'm not sure what the comparative numbers are.
Mr McGuinty: I just wonder why they were ahead of us in terms of promoting bicycle safety.
Mr Weir: Yes, that's a good question. I can't answer that; I'm sorry.
The Vice-Chair: Mr Offer, you have a supplementary to that?
Mr Offer: I have a supplementary to that. With the seatbelt law, the seatbelts were already in the cars; they were already installed. It was just a matter of clicking them up. That would be something different than what we're talking about here, because we're talking about --
Mr Weir: The access and availability-
Mr Offer: Prior to the installation of seatbelts; that's what we're talking about. So I just wanted to be clear on that.
The second thing is the low incidence of usage of helmets. Is it your opinion that it is in the 5% to 8% range because people don't want to use helmets, or because of it being a balance of cost against safety type of issue? For instance, if the helmets were $5, is it your opinion that right away that 5% to 8% would probably be 40% to 50% almost overnight?
Mr Weir: I think cost is a factor, but I think there are several factors that contribute to usage rates, such as peer pressure and knowledge of the benefits of helmets. If the cost were $100 and people were fully aware of the benefits of helmets, you would see the 5% to 8% increase again all by itself. If you were to lower the price of the helmet to $5, yes, I think the usage rates would increase. But to get an overall broad acceptance of a law and to get a whole cross-section of Ontarians believing in helmets, it takes more than cost and more than merely knowledge on its own. It's a combination of things.
Mrs Cunningham: I think Mr Offer might be interested to know that the most poignant argument on behalf of the parents who came before the committee who were pleading for legislation was that no matter what, they couldn't get their children to wear helmets. Those were the ones who really made us sit up and listen. That's part of the problem we're facing right now. In spite of the education programs, many of the people who came before this committee said that no matter what they say or do or the example they set, even within home and school associations and communities, there is a lot of peer pressure involved in this issue. That's one of the challenges we have.
Having said that, most of us agree that we ought to give it a chance for a year or two and see what we can do, but at the end of that time, given that home and school associations and Kiwanis groups are telling us they've had 10 years of public information, some of us are going to have to make a different decision.
Mr Turnbull: Michael, I haven't had the benefit of sitting on this committee through the hearings, so this is probably a very naïve question. I suspect I already know the answer, but I'm going to ask it anyway. Given the number of helmets parents are now asked to buy -- hockey helmets and bicycle helmets and, if the children ski, ski helmets -- would it not be possible to design a helmet which would be an all-purpose helmet?
Mr Weir: Quite possibly. I don't have technical expertise in terms of helmet manufacturing or design, but I think the manufacturers would certainly want to be thinking about innovative approaches like that, yes. I'm sorry, I can't answer your question directly. I can only speculate.
Mr Owens: In terms of the peer pressure issue, I guess the question is, how do you make helmets trendy? How do you turn them into the equivalent of a $125 pair of running shoes that kids will go out and buy, to make that product not only socially acceptable but also sought-after as well?
Mr Weir: I think just the fact that more people are wearing them will help to achieve that in itself, but surely there are some communication strategies to help them be perceived to be more trendy.
Mr Owens: Bo Jackson doing helmets.
Mr Weir: Yes, sure.
The Vice-Chair: I'm going to jump in on that statement. I think that probably in the open market system out there, as the helmets become more popular you're going to see each manufacturer start to try to get a bigger share of the market.
Mr Owens: You're starting to sound like a member of the third party.
The Vice-Chair: I know. It's scary, isn't it? I look at this brochure that we had sent around. They have stickers and so on where they can personalize them. I think that's the way it's going to happen.
Mrs Cunningham: As was pointed out in the budget speech, we're working for a balance. This is a good example.
I would like to say thanks to Michael for being here all along. I hope he'll stay with us until we get this through. This is a most uplifting report. I appreciate it very much and I'm sure the other members of the committee do as well. It's very encouraging.
The Vice-Chair: Are there any other questions? Hearing none, the committee stands adjourned until Wednesday, at which time we will resume, tentatively at 3:30, but we do have a definite commitment for 5:00.
The committee adjourned at 1714.