Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

HIGHWAY TRAFFIC AMENDMENT ACT, 1992 / LOI DE 1992 MODIFIANT LE CODE DE LA ROUTE

MINISTRY OF TOURISM AND RECREATION

CONTENTS

Wednesday 13 May 1992

Highway Traffic Amendment Act, 1992, Bill 124

Ministry of Tourism and Recreation

Uwe Sehmrau, policy analyst

Michael Weir, policy officer, road safety user office, Ministry of Transportation

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 Turnbull

*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 / Loi portant modification du Code de la route.

MINISTRY OF TOURISM AND RECREATION

The Chair (Mr Peter Kormos): Good afternoon. We have with us this afternoon from the Ministry of Tourism and Recreation, Mr Uwe Sehmrau joining us once again, and we appreciate his taking the time. We also have Superintendent Hutton from the Ontario Provincial Police, on behalf of the Ministry of the Solicitor General, and Michael Weir, policy adviser to the Ministry of Transportation.

Mr Sehmrau, if there is something you want to open with, please go ahead. Then we will move to Mrs Cunningham -- she's the author of the bill -- and other members of the committee for questions, dialogue, what have you.

Mr Uwe Sehmrau: Open with respect to making my remarks?

The Chair: Yes.

Mr Sehmrau: I have made copies for everyone here, and perhaps you could follow my remarks. It might make it somewhat easier.

I'm pleased to have the opportunity to address this committee on the important issue of bicycle safety. The Ministry of Tourism and Recreation has an extensive record of promoting and supporting safety in all sports and fitness and recreational activities, including cycling.

As the prevention of head and spinal injuries is a top priority for all of its safety initiatives, the ministry supports the intent of Bill 124. The appropriate legislation, in combination with effective educational programs, is undoubtedly the best way to achieve the goal of significantly reducing deaths and injuries resulting from bicycle collisions. It is, however, the opinion that the legislation must be appropriate to all aspects of safety in cycling, not merely compulsory use of helmets, in order to have the desired impact.

I'm sure that others have appeared before the committee to adequately address the aspects of traffic safety and law enforcement on the public roadways. Although we are equally concerned with all aspects of cycling on roadways and trails, I will limit my remarks to issues of this bill as they affect tourism and recreation interests. For the Ministry of Tourism and Recreation, the issues related to this bill do not pertain to the intent but rather to its limitations.

First, the bill has as its prime focus the minimizing of injury as a result of collisions. This approach would indicate that the concern is to make accidents more sustainable as opposed to reducing or preventing mishaps. There is currently no provincial legislation which requires either riders to have training or the province or municipalities to meet certain standards to provide for a safe bicycle infrastructure for this activity. To introduce legislation which deals only with the aspect of safety in collisions and does not deal with accident prevention or safe cycling opportunities is at best incomplete.

Second, using the amendment of the Highway Traffic Act creates considerable shortcomings for recreational cycling which does not take place on public roadways. Using the existing legislation would not make it compulsory to wear a helmet on bicycle trails or off trails while using the very popular all-terrain mountain bikes. This exclusion presents a variety of problems.

This loophole may shift riders from roads to recreational trails, creating demand for recreational trails and increasing the risk of injury on trails since the rules of the road could not apply there.

It creates confusion for riders who use both roads and trail systems. In many instances, trail systems use short portions of roadways to link their routes. Two almost opposite standards would apply to riding bicycles.

Recreational cycling can be a very effective educational process to achieve compliance to requirements for wearing helmets. The proposed legislation has the appearance that cycling off the public roadway is sufficiently safe without wearing a helmet, denying us the opportunity to instil safe riding practices at the entry level for the activity.

More and more cycling facilities are being developed which are not part of the roadway. The development of urban linear parks, river valley systems and lakeshore trails and the conversion of abandoned railway corridors to recreational trails all contribute to more opportunities to cycle off the public roadway. Bill 124 will not be effective in ensuring protection for riders on recreational trails or other off-road areas.

As human-powered forms of transportation become more popular in our attempts to be more environmentally conscious, other modes of moving about which require rules for safe conduct are surfacing. Rollerblading and skateboarding, according to some, have the potential for being as popular as cycling. People on rollerblades and skateboards are exposed to the same risks, or potentially even greater risks, as are cyclists, yet the proposed legislation would not apply to them.

Third, the legislation also raises some concerns about potential negative effects on tourism and recreational activities.

Many travelling vacationers from out of the province bring an array of equipment, such as boats and bicycles, with them to use locally. It could serve as a deterrent for people to come to Ontario if the bicycle helmet law is rigorously enforced immediately.

Recreational cycling is seen as a very accessible form of low-cost physical activity for the whole family. In some cases it is not only an affordable recreational activity but also the only mode of transportation. The additional cost burden to outfit a family on welfare with bicycle helmets could easily influence such a family to give up cycling. This would definitely not serve the social equity goals of this ministry and the government.

In summary, the Ministry of Tourism and Recreation supports the intent of the bill. However, we believe that more appropriate legislation should be developed to serve this intent. Provincial legislation should encompass accident prevention as well as user protection, apply to safety concerns in all forms of venues of human-powered activities, include plans for major education campaigns and be sensitive to the socioeconomic conditions of certain populations. I am certain this ministry would be pleased to participate in the development of effective legislation for this province to serve this intent.

Mrs Dianne Cunningham (London North): Thank you very much for coming before the committee to help us out with this. I'm not surprised that some of the issues you've raised for our consideration have come from your ministry, and that's a good thing, because we just haven't had a great deal of debate on them. We know that on a number of occasions the Chairman has asked that different ministries come forth. It's called prevention. If you want to deal with it, this is the best place to deal with it, because it appears that this is the way this bill is being developed by the members of this committee. So thank you.

Could I just ask if it would be appropriate for me to go through with my obvious questions, and if anybody wants to jump in, jump in. I'm going to start on page 2, and if I don't cover it, will you just jump in? All of us are part of this.

With regard to your very first paragraph after your introduction, "the opinion that the legislation must be appropriate to all aspects of safety in cycling, not merely compulsory use of helmets, in order to have the desired impact," we have addressed that. It is the unanimous consent of the committee that we are looking at an implementation time frame of perhaps a year or two. We haven't decided, but we will be talking about that later on today. We're going to have to come to some conclusions, we think, today. But you're absolutely right. We think public education is extremely important. It will be a very important part of the implementation of the legislation.

We heard yesterday the same kinds of good advice from Superintendent Hutton, who is here today, and we've heard it from many people who have come before the committee. It would probably be the most important information we've had and in fact it has had significant effect on myself, because I've just decided, along with my colleagues, that we have to slow this thing down a little bit. So I wanted to reassure you on that point.

1550

On page 3 of your brief, you say, "This loophole may shift riders from roads to recreational trails." That's an interesting point. Just before coming here today I had a little visit with two of the pages who are leaving. One of them was very concerned about this legislation. We're not surprised to hear this, because in Ontario helmets aren't cool yet, so we're not surprised that a 13-year-old should tell us he doesn't want to put a helmet on. But he said, "Even if I get a helmet, can I ride on my own country road and my own private property without a helmet?" Does this bring back your concerns yesterday? I am looking at Superintendent Hutton.

I'm wondering if you have some good advice for us in this regard, and if anybody else perhaps from the Ministry of Transportation would like to join us at the mikes. We have not had serious discussion on whether or not we change the definition of "highway" under the act for the purpose of bicycles, and that's what we would have to do. Since we're the politicians and you people are the high-priced advisers, why don't you tell us what you'd do if you were in our shoes. Anybody.

Mr Sehmrau: I think that's the essence of our concern. Our ministry has always been interested in making all recreational activities safe. We would be concerned that, particularly mountain biking, which would be taking place anywhere -- it doesn't even require trails in some cases -- would be seen as something that wouldn't require helmets and that activity in fact probably requires it more than on some of the paved recreational trails.

I'm not too familiar with what it would take to redefine a "highway." I think that's a fairly complicated process, particularly as it pertains to enforcement of rules once you've redefined it. I'm not quite sure whether the police would be interested in supervising all the trails and river valleys of Ontario. I think that's the source of our concern, that we want to make sure everybody wears them, and confining it to the Highway Traffic Act may not be the right way to do it.

The Vice-Chair (Mr Daniel Waters): Can I take a bit of licence here, if I talk to Mr Sehmrau on it, because we both work on another project, which is snowmobiling safety. Would there be a way of dealing with this as we do, because you're not allowed to drive a snowmobile, whether you're on your property or on the road or on crown land, you must wear a helmet, you must follow certain rules. Is there any way of doing that with bicycles?

Mr Sehmrau: I believe that's covered under a separate act. It's not under the Motorized Snow Vehicles Act.

The Vice-Chair: Yes, there's a separate act.

Mr Sehmrau: I think that's probably what would be required to incorporate recreational cycling on trails and off trails. We've had very good success in using all kinds of approaches to make people wear protective equipment. You might remember -- some of you may not -- 10, 15, 20 years ago nobody was wearing helmets when they played hockey. I think first of all you don't see anybody in amateur hockey not wearing them any more. There are just a couple, two or three, in professional hockey who don't wear them. There was no legislation or threat of committing an offence used to make that happen.

Ms Sharon Murdock (Sudbury): The amateur hockey association has designated that if you want to play in its organization, you must wear a helmet.

Mr Sehmrau: Yes, but it's not an offence not to wear one.

Ms Murdock: No, not legally speaking; that's true.

Mr Sehmrau: It was used through educational and other incentive approaches. I think there is evidence of success of doing it that way.

The Vice-Chair: Ms Murdock, did you have a question besides?

Ms Murdock: I have a comment. I know it's all well and good, it's sort of like affirmative action and seatbelts. No one does it voluntarily until legislation is put in place. It's the same with motorcycle helmets; until it was legislated it didn't happen.

In truth, the sanction for amateur sports in terms of the hockey helmet is the fact that you can't play if you don't wear one. Albeit there was no legal sanction, there certainly was the sanction of your not being able to participate.

My view -- rather than a question, and maybe you can comment on my comment -- is that, first, it is going to have to be legislated to get kids to wear them and, second, with a fairly lengthy educational intro to the whole matter, we could get people to find it exciting and "cool" to wear them at these ages. Once you get into the habit of doing that, you're not about to be driving on a public road or highway under the act and then take it off when you hit the bicycle trail in the park. Human nature being what it is, I don't believe you would do that, but it's interesting. We have discussed among ourselves the whole aspect of what you do for the definition of parkways and recreational roadways and whether that could even be done under the Highway Traffic Act. I don't know whether it could or whether it would require a separate piece of legislation or an amendment to an existing one in another ministry. I don't really know what exists in regard to that. Is there any legislation in your ministry regarding recreational roadways?

Mr Sehmrau: No, because trails are under a variety of different jurisdictions. Some of them are provincially owned and managed, some of them are provincially owned and locally managed, some of them are locally owned and some of them are private property with easements. If you look at the Bruce Trail, it has 450 user agreements to make that trail happen and there really isn't a piece of legislation.

Ms Murdock: So it would have to done provincially under an existing act, such as the Highway Traffic Act.

Mr Sehmrau: Or a separate piece of legislation.

Mrs Cunningham: I don't get paid to do this, but I'm going to do it anyway. Is everybody ready? You have to put your thinking hats on. The definition of a highway under the Highway Traffic Act: You're going to be so pleased with this. Everybody relax.

"`Highway' includes a common and public highway, street, avenue, parkway, driveway, square, place, bridge, viaduct or trestle, any part of which is intended for or used by the general public for the passage of vehicles and includes the area between the lateral property lines thereof."

The key there I think is "vehicle." What are vehicles? Is everybody ready?

"`Vehicle' includes a motor vehicle, trailer, traction engine, farm tractor, road-building machine, bicycle..." What do you think?

Mr Sehmrau: I think the other operative words there are "property lines."

Mrs Cunningham: Yes, which doesn't cover private property.

Mr Sehmrau: It might not cover certain properties that are not of a certain standard. I'm not sure whether a highway needs to be a chain at least. I don't know whether the province or a municipality would assume something is a public highway if it's not meeting certain standards.

Mrs Cunningham: On this issue then, you've provided us with an option. We're going to need some advice. So we can refer this to the Ministry of Transportation legislative counsel, unless Mike would like to come up and give us the answer now.

1600

Mr Michael Weir: I think this particular issue was addressed last session, but the committee would be best served by obtaining a legal opinion on exactly what constitutes a highway so that this issue can be resolved. As Uwe suggests, although the definition as it reads certainly does sound quite comprehensive, there may be areas the Ministry of Transportation does not intend to extend its jurisdiction on. It's my belief, from experience dealing with the Highway Traffic Act, that those are areas like parks, school grounds and places where mountain bikes might go. But again, I would recommend that we seek a legal opinion on this.

Mrs Cunningham: Thank you. Will you make that motion, please, Sharon?

Ms Murdock: I would definitely like to make the motion.

The Vice-Chair (Mr Daniel Waters): Ms Murdock moves that legal advice be sought in relation to the definition as it is defined in the Highway Traffic Act in regard to highways.

Discussion on the motion, please. No further discussion? All those in favour of Ms Murdock's motion? Opposed, if any? It's carried unanimously.

Motion agreed to.

Ms Murdock: Just on that point, not on the discussion but on the motion: When I prosecuted the HTA in provincial offences court, accidents could occur in parking lots of malls, and there was no jurisdiction, depending on where in the parking lot it occurred. You see kids riding bicycles in mall parking lots. That would not be covered under this. As I hear the definition as you read it, that definitely is private property.

The Vice-Chair: As a quick interjection from the Chair again -- one of these days I'll find a way of doing this legally -- my concern is that in my area we have a number of fire access roads that belong to the Ministry of Natural Resources or the crown. They're not intended as a thoroughfare, but they're well travelled by mountain bikes, as they are in winter by recreation vehicles. I don't know whether even the definition in the book would cover that, so we should find out.

Ms Murdock: It says "roadway or passageway for vehicles." A bicycle is a vehicle, albeit not motorized -- or some of them are not motorized.

Mrs Cunningham: We'll wait. The point of the motion, I think, is to get a legal opinion. Sooner or later somebody has to sit down and tell us the best way to go. What I've learned from the presentation today is that we either stay with the amendment to the Highway Traffic Act or we move into -- which I had never considered before -- a separate piece of legislation. We can accomplish it in one way or the other. I think the Ministry of Transportation will probably advise us in that regard. I would hope they would. I don't want them to sit on the fence on that. Our preference is to keep it simple.

Mr Len Wood (Cochrane North): I think what we've heard today, Dianne, is that your intention is to protect everybody on bicycles, whether they are small or adults, not only on the highway but on every property, private property or parks or whatever. I go for a legal opinion on that to see what the advice is. It's probably going to cover most of the population of Ontario.

Ms Murdock: This is just sort of in-house conversation; I apologize. If we start looking at the whole thing of an individual piece of legislation, first of all, this must follow the rules of the road as stated under the Highway Traffic Act. That's one of the reasons bicycles are under the HTA in the first place. But when we started this, I don't think any of us had any idea of it being far-reaching into skateboards, rollerblades and God knows what else our kids will come up with over the next few years.

Maybe MOT could look at that in terms of whether those areas could be done on an individual basis -- combined under an individual piece of legislation -- although I'll have to think about how I feel about doing this in an individual piece of legislation.

Mrs Cunningham: To my way of thinking, in order to address the issue we should do it in whichever way is appropriate. My hope is that we can stay with what we've got here.

Would you include in your motion that this referral also be to the Solicitor General? It appears to me that we can only go so far as legislators, and although it's the intent to cover people riding bicycles, the other part of our responsibility is what we do with people who break the law. Perhaps in this regard the Solicitor General should also be giving us an opinion on this with regard to the implementation of any penalties. So would you include the Solicitor General as part of your motion? I would be interested to see what they had to say about people who are riding in school yards and what not. As far as I'm concerned, they're simply not subject to any fines.

The Vice-Chair: Before we go through all the rigmarole of making an amendment, can we just have a friendly inclusion, with unanimous consent?

Ms Murdock: Okay.

The Vice-Chair: Okay. Thank you.

Mrs Cunningham: It was just something that was brought to my attention by the researcher. I think it's a very big issue, Mr Chairman, and it's one that we thank the Ministry of Tourism and Recreation for, because after all, that's probably a tremendous concern for it.

The Vice-Chair: Maybe what we should do is indeed ask if he feels there is a form of legislation that is more appropriate.

Mr Sehmrau: I'm not sure whether it can be done under the current proposal, but when I read through the proposed bill, certainly its only real merit to me was that it was potentially enforceable right away in that it would be done through an offence, and you could require people to wear them on the highway. That in itself is kind of a drawback because it wouldn't include the recreational component.

So for us it would make more sense if either in the revision of this proposed bill or in the new legislation it included disincentives other than just being an offence, that it actually included voluntary incentives, and that it would be more comprehensive to include other things like rollerblading and off-road use, and definitely included a heavy educational component.

I guess the legislation we would like to see, whether through amendment of this proposed bill or a newly introduced one, is a very heavy component of educational incentives. But I believe, now that I've heard you mention that, you've already addressed that.

Mrs Cunningham: It is the intent of the committee that that be a significant priority. That is one of the reasons we're considering proclamation more than a year from now.

I would like to talk a little about the enforcement. On page 5 of your presentation, point (a) with regard to vacationers, certainly there are American states we travel into where we'd have to obey their laws, but I still think this is an important concern you've brought to our attention. It has been raised before.

I was interested to note that when you read it you said "is rigorously enforced immediately." You added the word "immediately," and it's not our intent to do this immediately. I think there'll be lots of time both for education and for the Ministry of Tourism and Recreation to have time to advertise this law as well as other laws that may affect potential tourists.

1610

It's not our intent to deter people. It would be our intent to deter people from ending up in our hospitals with serious head injuries that we may have to pay for. Certainly we don't want people to leave Ontario in any other way than that in which they arrived, and we are interested in our safe roads and what not. That would certainly be one of the good things we think we offer in Ontario, that we do have laws that are intended to help people protect themselves.

But I think the road safety aspect we were encouraged yesterday to talk about with Superintendent Hutton, who really underlined it times 10, is something we'd like to put our emphasis into. Obviously we need a lot of resources and money to advertise road safety and bicycle safety, and maybe we could do Ontario at the same time.

Mr Sehmrau: Yes. I think our concern was primarily around the immediate enforcement of it. There would be certain confusion created: You can ride your bike in Arrowhead Provincial Park, but as soon as you go out down the street to get a bottle of pop, you're going to get fined. So when do you have to wear it and when don't you? I think it requires some awareness before it's enforced. It's a little different from flotation safety devices, because most bordering states require them as well. There aren't any bordering states right now that require bicycle helmets, so people wouldn't be prepared unless they were told about it in advance.

Ms Murdock: Boy, I'm not nearly as friendly; I realize Tourism and Recreation has a different perspective. I have brothers living in Windsor, and when you drive across the border or when you're coming back, or as you're driving off the bridge area to come back to the inner part of Ontario, there are big signs there that very clearly state that while in Ontario you must use seatbelts. When you're driving your car down to Florida, you're not allowed under its law to have coloured windows, and they don't think twice about sticking you with a ticket when you happen to be driving down there and get caught with that.

I think part of the tourism responsibility would be to have that information available in all our ministry outlets or whatever -- again in the lead-in time we would allow for education -- and providing that information to the people who come to Ontario to join us. If you use your boat here, you're required to follow the rules we have devised even if they're different from where you're from. I'm not being nearly as understanding, obviously; they need to be aware of the laws that exist for bicycles or anything else. That's just an observation I wanted to make.

As Dianne has stated already, there would be a period of time before proclamation, so it wouldn't become enforceable until that time and it would give us a lot of lead-in time for schools and public awareness programs.

The other thing I think is important that we've talked about at great length here is the fact that so many ministries are involved in this that the funding -- because that's a major problem, as we all know only too well -- would come from several ministries rather than always coming from one, because there are so many that have vested interests in this, Health in particular.

Mrs Cunningham: Two issues on page 5 under that same paragraph with regard to the enforcement: I know your concern was basically "immediately," and I hope we've made you feel more comfortable with regard to that. The other two are responsible, sensible ways of enforcing this. We will, later on in the committee, be looking at that under the issues and what kind of direction we'd like to give the ministry in that regard. We've had all kinds of good suggestions. In some states they say you can't ride your bike until you get a helmet. In other states they say, "Your parents are going to have a fine of $25, but come down to the police station within 48 hours with your helmet and the fine will be dropped." We're looking at something that's realistic and practical, and we really don't want this to be anything but a responsible piece of legislation. We're not looking for anything draconian in any way.

Mr Sehmrau: We would like to make sure that people have time to learn about it and, second, when they do come to Ontario, they know where they have to -- so they aren't faced with: "I can ride it on this trail, but I'm going to have to buy a helmet to wear when I go from Magnetawan to this little historic site." It needs to be very clear and some advance time given to people to understand.

Mrs Cunningham: It's an excellent point.

Mr Sehmrau: In this economy, we don't want to turn tourists away or give them a bad experience.

Mrs Cunningham: That's right.

With regard to your point (b), where we're talking about accessibility and cost and families, we're looking at that as well; it's a point that has been raised. I guess what most of us object to now is people who are still saying it costs $100 to buy a bicycle helmet, when we know that helmets are now between $25 and $30. We've got one pamphlet here you might want to take with you. From the medical profession, the Kiwanis clubs, home and school associations, an individual distributor of Quebec-made helmets -- we'd like to see Ontario-made helmets -- and in physicians' offices almost anywhere you can pick up a pamphlet and get a very good helmet for $25 or $30 with all three levels of approval. The CSA is our main one, but we'd like to see them all. If you go into a store, we know that's not true, and we're worried about that, we're concerned about it.

Mr Sehmrau: The concern also was that it might be $120 to get a cheap bicycle and another $30 to get a helmet, when it only costs $70 to get rollerblades. So people are going to get rollerblades instead of bicycles and helmets, and we're going to get people riding rollerblades and not being required to wear helmets. That's why we'd like to make it more comprehensive.

Mrs Cunningham: With regard to rollerblades and skateboards, I might add, our office has had a number of calls and we have been made aware of major accidents. Just last evening, while walking back from an engagement here in Toronto, we noticed a number of young adults out on these boards. We stopped and said, "Where's your helmet?" One of the fellows said, "It's on my back." You get to be disliked when you're associated with asking people to do things they don't want to do, I'm finding out. So far, so good.

Thank you for point 5. We do have to deal with the issue of people who can't afford them. We know that and we intend to do that.

Ms Murdock: Just on that point, one of the suggestions that has been made is that helmets be part of the bicycle when it's sold, at the point of sale. I personally think it's not a bad idea that it becomes part of the equipment associated with a bicycle. That doesn't cover your aspect of rollerblades and skateboards, although I guess it could on the skateboards. Most skateboarders, if you're doing it in any area other than on the streets of the city, usually have elbow guards and knee guards and headgear anyway. I think it's probably a good idea that it become part and parcel of the sale of the bicycle. People's attitudes would change.

Mr Sehmrau: It's interesting that if you go to buy rollerblades, the retailer will not hesitate to try to sell you protective equipment, but if you buy a bicycle, you don't get the same spiel.

Ms Murdock: That's a good point.

Mr Sehmrau: I think there's a great deal of voluntary compliance with the new modes of moving about, but the bicycle has been around for over 100 years without using helmets and I think part of that history has to be washed out of the system. I think we'll probably have fewer problems with rollerblades, but people can switch from bicycles to rollerblades if they don't want to wear helmets, and we don't like to see that.

1620

Mrs Cunningham: You should know, Mr Sehmrau, that one of my staff persons, Andrea Strathdee, has been involved for a long time in this. One of the things we did want to be able to present to the committee as the issues arise is some good information. With regard to the issue of selling a helmet with a bike, we haven't completed all of our research, but I thought you might be interested in what a representative from Canadian Tire said, because that's a great distributor of both bicycles and helmets.

We were told that most bicycles are made in the United States or outside Canada, in Europe. The representative thinks that selling helmets with bicycles will be logistically impossible. We've got two other people to talk to, but I think this is interesting. Coordinating the package will be very difficult. Helmets would come from one manufacturer while bikes would be coming from a different area. They don't get shipments on time. Does it mean they can't sell the bikes till the helmets come in? These are the logistics of doing business in Ontario that we have to think about. Now, the next two people might tell us that's not a problem, but I just thought you'd be interested.

They're extremely supportive of the bill. They recommend that posters indicating that it's a law that helmets must be worn be visible in all stores that sell bicycles. Currently -- this is interesting; I didn't know this -- bikes have a red tag that says, "It is dangerous to ride a bicycle without a helmet." For those of us who haven't had reason to buy a bicycle -- thank God, because I've bought so many in my lifetime and I don't want to buy any more. I didn't know that was the case, but it's interesting. Certainly we checked this out with a couple of parents, and they said that's so.

Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): Interesting point: The matter of the sticker affixed obviously is a matter of liability for injuries and the nature of the tort system as it is alive and well in American jurisdictions. I appreciate that this isn't specifically within the realm of Tourism and Recreation, but it brings to mind again one of the many obvious and significant criticisms of no-fault insurance. We're talking about a regime where the guilty and the negligent are rewarded. It's sad, but a no-fault regime would in itself encourage people not to use safety devices, because of course it's no-fault and people are paid out of a meat chart system and it would be insignificant whether you wore a helmet or didn't wear a helmet or whether you wore a seatbelt or didn't wear a seatbelt when it came to assessing damages.

Let's understand this very clearly: The bicyclist, who may not even be a licensed driver and could well be under driving age, who doesn't even undertake the risky exercise of operating a motor vehicle, submits himself or herself to one of the most regressive and cruel insurance regimes in the world when they take on the roadway. If they become victims of, let's say, a drunk motor vehicle driver, they, notwithstanding that they are bicyclists, are forced to accept what the no-fault meat chart would serve them and are disentitled to look to the negligent, drunk or careless driver.

With regard to the consideration, as you have, of preventive measures and education, I tell you, I think an important part of that is making sure that we restore innocent accident victims' rights so that liability becomes a factor in assessing damages. I think you would agree with that.

Mr Sehmrau: I think it's very interesting that you mention it. I'm not sure whose policy I'm going to be supporting here.

Ms Murdock: Peter Kormos's.

Mr Kormos: And the New Democratic Party's since Tommy Douglas in 1946.

Mr Sehmrau: Insurance disincentives are being used right now to actually meet compliance in the recreation and competitive sport areas. The insurance companies that insure the sports governing bodies will not cover people who don't wear helmets in cycling. That's why cycling can make the requirement. In the courier trade the couriers are all wearing helmets. They would not be allowed to use a bicycle because they wouldn't be covered under workers' compensation. So insurance disincentive has been an effective way to actually create compliance, almost voluntarily, because you lose a privilege to participate or a privilege to earn a living. I think it's something that should not be dismissed. I'm not sure who I'm supporting here, but it's a good way.

The Chair: I should thank Mr Waters for having taken the chair and fulfilled that responsibility. Now of course I'm back in the chair. Go ahead, Mr Waters.

Mr Daniel Waters (Muskoka-Georgian Bay): Mr Sehmrau, I'd like to know in some general ways what you think we could do at the present time, in the next year or two while we're waiting for the law, to increase the use of helmets. Do you think there's anything proactive? Do you have any ideas?

Mr Sehmrau: We definitely feel educational programs can be launched very quickly. I recently received a Hydro bill with an insert about bicycle helmets and safety and accidents. Those kinds of things can happen very quickly. I think you'll find a lot of people would participate in launching educational campaigns with respect to bicycle helmets.

I believe some of the areas of insurance disincentives could be looked at as well. I don't know how that works, but you might want to discuss this with somebody from the Ministry of Health in terms of whether people would be covered under OHIP if they didn't wear a helmet, or whether there was some kind of penalty. I'm not sure whether those things exist.

Mr Waters: As we've gone through this, I've thought about how we deal with younger children. It's a problem, because under the law they cannot be fined. What would happen if, instead of fining them, we rewarded them? Every week, let's say, we rewarded some kids in each community for wearing their helmets. They were found wearing their helmets and you had the kid of the week or the helmeted cycler of the week award. Would that be of any --

Mr Sehmrau: Positive reinforcement is always better than negative reinforcement. It is actually becoming quite fashionable to wear the protective equipment of the day. I think that's why the rollerbladers are quite successful at this. It looks attractive to wear this stuff. You look a little bit like Darth Vader blazing down the street. We have some excellent heroes in cycling who wear helmets -- Steve Bauer and his success. There could be a Steve Bauer award for somebody who deserved to get that award. I think there are ways to do that.

Mrs Cunningham: When we get into some of the issues these are the points we can direct to the ministry to see what may or may not be included in the regulations. I remember, when I first introduced the bill, one of the first pieces of advice on that issue I gave to the committee was an experience I had in Victoria, British Columbia, last summer where I said in jest -- but it has proven to be even more correct this spring because I checked last week -- that those young people who wore bicycle helmets and braces on their teeth were in vogue.

This spring the school board in Victoria, British Columbia, decided that students who do not have bicycle helmets will not bring their bikes on school property because they don't want head injuries on their property. They're not going to accept the liability for them and that's that. So it happens to be another insurance incentive.

Taking myself back, and dating myself, you could not take your bicycle to school in Toronto in the 1950s and 1960s unless you had a sticker on the back of your bicycle that proved your bicycle was safe. That was a lot of work. You had to take it down to your local police station. They came out and checked it over. If they didn't like it you went home till you got your sticker. Boy, you sure weren't in, in grade 8, if you didn't have a sticker on your bike, because everybody rode bikes.

After the presentation yesterday I think we have to seriously -- I'm not sure we can move in that direction, given the work we're asking our police forces to do. Superintendent Hutton would probably have something to say about that. Feel free to come to the mike. It hasn't been a suggestion by any of us so far, but it may come up during the discussions. I guess we'll deal with that later on today, too.

Mr Chairman, I think we've gone through this brief and it has been excellent. I'm not sure if any of my colleagues have further questions, but I certainly don't have any more.

1630

Mr Bob Huget (Sarnia): Thank you for your presentation. In point 1 on page 3 you state:

"There is currently no provincial legislation which either requires riders to have training or for the province and municipalities to meet certain standards to provide for a safe bicycle infrastructure. To introduce legislation which only deals with the aspect of safety in collisions and does not deal with accident prevention or safe cycling opportunities is, at best, incomplete."

I want to tell you that I wholeheartedly support that statement and I believe it to be true. I guess my question to you is, would you be supportive of mandatory safety training for riders?

Mr Sehmrau: Right now anybody who uses the roadway in or on any other vehicle has to have some kind of training, but you can take a bicycle on a roadway without training. So to introduce legislation that wouldn't require that seems to me to be incomplete. Currently municipalities don't have to provide bicycle lanes. So we're basically saying, "Put on your helmets and go out there and fight with the cars." I think municipalities who are attempting to contribute to a better environment by asking people to ride bicycles should take some care in providing the safe infrastructure for it -- maybe not only municipalities. I think it's a public responsibility, so I think the legislation should perhaps enable some of that kind of thing to happen.

Mr Huget: You've answered the second part of my question, around the municipalities. I do think they have a responsibility as well. Clearly bicycles more and more are going to be a factor to deal with on the roads, and bicycles and cars don't mix, especially if nobody follows the safety rules. So the municipal question is an important one. I think we have to move in that direction too, to encourage some kind of safe environment for bicycle use. I think there's a responsibility to do that.

Mr Sehmrau: I'd like to add a comment to Dan Waters's suggestion of incentives. One of the things we find very workable is working with the private sector. We see all kinds of incentives for people to open up bank accounts and get a free toaster, so I don't know why kids can't open the bank account and get a free bicycle helmet. I think there's a way to do all kinds of things without necessarily incurring public expenditure either. But it would require some work, and I think the efforts are worthwhile.

Ms Murdock: Well, okay. Thanks. Sorry, I thought I'd be recognized by the Chair by name, but that's all right, Mr Chair.

The Chair: I'll recognize you by name anyplace, any time.

Ms Murdock: I agree with Mr Huget and I agree with you in terms of the infrastructure being a necessity for the protection of those who are using it.

I don't know how old you are and I'm not asking, but when I was growing up in Sudbury -- actually, the Deputy Minister of the Solicitor General's office is from Sudbury as well and he remembers this guy -- we had a sergeant named Archie Stewart who was assigned to all the elementary level schools in the city of Sudbury. He was an older police officer, I guess, who was basically in charge of all the elementary school kids in the entire city of Sudbury. He was also in charge of all the safety patrols. I can remember growing up with him, because I was a safety patrol and we had to go through bicycle safety courses. If Archie Stewart and his minions didn't pass you, you were not allowed to ride your bike; you got demerit points for being safety patrols.

I don't know whether the kids nowadays are so sophisticated that they've gotten past that -- I don't believe that's the case at all; I think we can start them younger if necessary -- but I know it's looked at as a cost rather than as cost-effective. That's a shame, because I think that within the regional and local police forces it should be more emphasized. In the end it saves money.

The second point on the infrastructure is that it's sort of ironic that one of the cases we raised a hue and cry about on the insurance issue, as Mr Kormos stated, was -- I think it was in Hamilton -- the trail bikes, dirt bikes on municipal property with signs posted that said "No trespassing, municipal property." They had a fence up; dirt bikes got in anyway. They ended up with a crash, multimillion dollars in liabilities. Then all the insurance companies of course hiked everybody's fees up. Municipalities freaked in terms of how much they were paying. Then a few years later the Ontario Court of Appeal overturned the decision and reduced the fees significantly.

Mr Sehmrau: That was the Brampton case.

Ms Murdock: That was on posted property and it still occurred. I know municipalities are going to give this long, hard thought as to where they're going to go with it. We'll have to do a great sales job with them, but it's a very valid point.

Mr Sehmrau: It's interesting on that point. The town of Caledon has just acquired the abandoned railway right of way that runs right through the town of Caledon and it has declared it as a park and designated certain uses, including cycling. They discussed it with their insurance company and it was just added as another park, without an increase in insurance fees. So the insurance companies see the permitted uses of cycling as being a very safe one, provided the facility is safe.

The Chair: Thank you, sir. Just so you have perhaps a little better feel of what the committee has been doing for some significant time now with this legislation, the committee has been very concerned with accident prevention, safe cycling, and has addressed that in a number of ways, recognizing that this bill is designed to do but one thing and it is simply, at its best, eventually a part of a much bigger set of standards and processes.

Of course, we're well aware of the bicycling committee of the Ministry of Transportation, that oh-so-elusive bicycling committee that we're going to get more concrete information on, as well as the Ministry of Transportation's driver safety accident prevention program. I suspect that their interest in this legislation is a part of that whole process which is not going to be a short one, which is going to be a lengthy one. So we did want you to know that.

On behalf of the committee I want to thank you very much for what is a very in-depth report and a very helpful participation in the dialogue. We thank you and we appreciate it. We trust you'll be available to us should we need your expertise down the road, sir.

Mr Sehmrau: Thank you. We appreciate the opportunity to provide the input and certainly would like to contribute to the safety of cycling in Ontario.

The Chair: We're going to have a three-minute adjournment before we resume to discuss the matter of issues.

The committee recessed at 1637.

1641

The Chair: Thank you. We've resumed and we will be adjourning. However, prior to adjourning, I want to advise people that the matters to be dealt with will be a consideration of issues as described in the process issues papers, which were adopted as a formula or a guideline.

We are asking that the Ministry of Transportation give us a lawyer to be with us during the course of that consideration to guide us through some of the legal complexities, and reminding caucuses that this has the capacity to be somewhat contentious at points. If people aren't here representing their caucuses, God bless, but it would be awful difficult for them to suggest a day or months or at any time down the road that somehow the decision-making that took place was out of tune or in discord, out of sync with what they would do, so urging caucuses to be represented.

I want to thank once again from the Ministry of Tourism and Recreation, Uwe Sehmrau; Mike Weir, who is here; Dave Edgar, right-hand person to the minister himself, who is here once again, and of course Superintendent Hutton and Ms Fantopolous for coming today on behalf of the Solicitor General and assisting us.

We are adjourned till Monday, May 25, at 3:30 pm. Thank you, people.

The committee adjourned at 1644.