HIGHWAY TRAFFIC AMENDMENT ACT, 1992 / LOI DE 1992 MODIFIANT LE CODE DE LA ROUTE
Monday 30 November 1992
Highway Traffic Amendment Act, 1992, Bill 124
Heather Clarke, safety policy officer, road user safety office, Ministry of Transportation
STANDING COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
*Chair / Président: Kormos, Peter (Welland-Thorold ND)
*Vice-Chair / Vice-Président: Huget, Bob (Sarnia ND)
Conway, Sean G. (Renfrew North/-Nord L)
*Dadamo, George (Windsor-Sandwich 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)
Waters, Daniel (Muskoka-Georgian Bay ND)
*Wood, Len (Cochrane North/-Nord ND)
*In attendance / présents:
Substitutions present / Membres remplaçants présents:
Cunningham, Dianne (London North/-Nord PC) for Mr Turnbull
Hope, Randy R. (Chatham-Kent ND) for Mr Waters
Ward, Brad (Brantford ND) for Ms Murdock
Clerk / Greffiére: Manikel, Tannis
Staff / Personnel:
Anderson, Anne, research officer, Legislative Research Service
Filion, Sibylle, legislative counsel
The committee met at 1539 in committee room 1.
HIGHWAY TRAFFIC AMENDMENT ACT, 1992 / LOI DE 1992 MODIFIANT LE CODE DE LA ROUTE
Consideration of Bill 124, An Act to amend the Highway Traffic Act / Loi portant modification du Code de la route.
The Chair (Mr Peter Kormos): It's 3:39 and we're going to start. The first matter of course is the standing order 125 designation of the Conservative caucus. The clerk, of course, has been instructed to invite and invite and invite witnesses to come. Once again, they've declined the invitations and are not here again today. I would ask the clerk to continue to invite them and we'll return to that matter come Wednesday afternoon.
We are now addressing Ms Cunningham's Bill 124.
Mrs Dianne Cunningham (London North): I'm assuming that everyone has had an opportunity to look at the interministerial response to our standing committee report with regard to Bill 124.
I'd just like to say that from my point of view I think it's been extremely thorough. They have attempted to answer questions from the committee with regard to coverage, the enforcement, helmets and implementation. We did ask them to do this with regard to further research that we weren't able to carry out ourselves.
I'd just like to thank everyone involved. I think it's very thorough, complete and extremely well written. I think, appropriately, we should probably walk through this and see what parts, if any, will affect the bill in the form of amendments or direction with regard to regulations. I'll certainly take direction from you on that, Mr Chairman.
The Chair: You go right ahead. Deal with the material before us in any way that you want to.
Mrs Cunningham: Okay. Perhaps legislative research could help us out just a little bit here. Have you had an opportunity to take a look at this, Anne?
Ms Anne Anderson: I've looked at it, yes.
Mrs Cunningham: Okay. Maybe some people haven't read it, Mr Chairman, and in that regard it's going to be difficult--you'll just have to listen to me. It's awful.
The Chair: People can participate or not participate, as they wish. We've got a quorum. Let's go ahead.
Mrs Cunningham: All right. I think the first issue with regard to who should be covered--we should have a little discussion around the response.
I'm quoting from the document here on page 5:
"The consensus of the ministries is that the age of 16 is the most appropriate age for use in this clause. The following wording would suffice."
My understanding is that this should then be an amendment, which should read as follows:
"No parent, guardian or legal custodian of a person under sixteen years of age shall authorize or knowingly permit that person to ride on or operate a bicycle without wearing a helmet as required by subsection 104(1) of the Highway Traffic Act," known as HTA.
Then I think in looking at that, "The age of 16 is the most appropriate for the following reasons," we were all very concerned about this. It's consistent with other provisions of the Highway Traffic Act, and it gives an example that "drivers are responsible to ensure that all passengers in a motor vehicle under the age of 16 are wearing their seatbelts."
The second point is that "16 is the age at which individuals may make many legal decisions such as leaving school, marriage and driving a motor vehicle, to name a few." It goes on to say that--
The Chair: But not necessarily purchasing lottery tickets.
Mrs Cunningham: No, not lottery tickets; a few other things too that we could list.
Then it says:
"Finally, the police must undergo special administrative procedures when charging a person between 12 and 16 years of age, and consequently prosecuting children in this age category is limited."
We were concerned about the enforcement, so I would agree with that response and I would agree that the following wording--I don't know where to put that, whether that's in the act itself as an amendment, or does it go in the regs? I'll ask that question. Should we just deal with that one now?
The Chair: Certainly.
Mrs Cunningham: Is there any comment about that?
The Chair: People? Does anybody want to participate in this discussion? Do the representatives from the Ministry of Transportation want to comment on this? Do they care?
Mr Dalton McGuinty (Ottawa South): I don't think they heard you.
Mrs Cunningham: Just to add, I think we were all looking for this. I didn't know what to do in this regard and I think it meets all of our concerns. It's great.
Mr McGuinty: Why don't I say something? Dead air is just something you can't market on the radio.
Mrs Cunningham: It usually means consensus.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr McGuinty.
Mr McGuinty: You're very welcome. The only concern that I have is what we're saying here implicitly is that somebody who's 15, for instance, will not have to assume responsibility directly, for himself, for wearing a helmet. I gather there's no sanction that's going to be provided under the legislation. So if I'm 15 and my parents have told me to wear the darn thing, but listen, it's going to ruin my hairdo or something--I'm talking from the perspective of a male here--and I decide that I don't want to wear it, where am I?
Mrs Cunningham: It's exactly the same as if you were not wearing a seatbelt. The driver of the car who is 16 years of age or older is responsible. You're charged.
Mr McGuinty: Yes, but that's different, Dianne. I have an adult right next to me, but when I'm on a bicycle I'm out and about on my own.
Mr Paul Klopp (Huron): They're going to go back to the parent, right, and if push comes to shove, the parent will have to pay the fine. Right? That's the way I understand it.
Mr McGuinty: No, the parent wouldn't be fined--I hope not--if the parent had directed the child to wear the helmet and the child subsequently said, "I'm not wearing it."
The Chair: Ms Clarke, did you want to perhaps flesh out the position that the ministry advanced? If you would, come forward and seat yourself at a mike. Not to diminish the importance of you, Mr Edgar, but--
Ms Heather Clarke: Unfortunately, we don't have our legal counsel here at the meeting today. I would prefer to consult with them before directing this committee on whether it should be through legislation or regulation. Can it be taken up on Wednesday?
The Chair: Sure.
Mrs Cunningham: On that specific question, my understanding is that they can be charged. If you take a look at "Enforcement" on page 8 and "Enforcement Practices" on page 9, they don't specifically answer Mr McGuinty's question.
Ms Clarke: I'm sorry; I was responding to your original question of whether it should be legislation or regulation. I don't feel comfortable talking to that point without our lawyers being consulted on that. Was there another question?
Mrs Cunningham: Oh, okay. All right. Perhaps you could ask yours, so we can get it on record as well.
Mr McGuinty: Sure. The concern that I have is, would it be possible for a 15-year-old to escape penalty by not wearing the helmet, notwithstanding that he or she had been instructed by his or her guardian to wear the helmet? The parent's off the hook and the child's off the hook.
Ms Clarke: I think the way it was recommended was that the parent--I'm not sure how the parent knowingly allowing the children would be interpreted by the courts. That's how it's recommended, that no parent should knowingly allow a child under 16 to go without a helmet. I'm not sure how that would be interpreted by the courts. We could look into that further and get back to you on Wednesday.
Mrs Cunningham: We've got two questions still. We're going through this rather quickly.
The Chair: Mr Hope.
Mrs Cunningham: All right--
The Chair: Just a moment, please. Mr Hope.
Mr Randy R. Hope (Chatham-Kent): Are you letting me go?
The Chair: You wanted to speak?
Mr Hope: Well, just on the question of the enforcement, the age. As I was reading it, I was trying to find out if that just pertains to roads, municipal or provincial roads, or does it also entail bicycle paths? As the emphasis was being put on bicycle paths, I'm wondering if this act is also going to apply to bicycle paths. I don't see it written in here.
Mrs Cunningham: It's down the road.
The Chair: I know you've read the material, Mr Hope.
Mr Hope: I haven't read it all.
The Chair: You must have overlooked that it's on pages 6 and 7.
Mr Hope: I'll be honest with you. I haven't read it all and I am trying to scan through it quickly so I can participate in an intelligent conversation. We heard about dead air. I'm just trying to participate.
The Chair: If you scan up to pages 6 and 7, you'll see that the issue is addressed. Perhaps we can deal with that when everybody else has scanned as far as you have.
Mr Bob Huget (Sarnia): The wording you've got here is under the Highway Traffic Act. If I read the explanation underneath that, it means everything else in the Highway Traffic Act refers to a provision of 16 years of age. Is that correct?
Mrs Cunningham: That's right.
Mr Huget: Or pretty well everything else?
Ms Clarke: No, someone can be charged under the Highway Traffic Act if he's over 12.
1550
Mr Huget: If they're over 12?
Ms Clarke: Yes, because the Provincial Offences Act says that no one under 12 may be charged with a provincial offence, but you may be charged with an infraction on a bicycle if you're 14 or 13 or 15. You may be charged under the Highway Traffic Act for not stopping at a stop sign if you're on a bicycle.
The Chair: Mr Hope.
Mr Hope: I'll just wait a second.
Mrs Cunningham: We're right back where we started now.
Mr Hope: I was listening to that and I lost the thought.
Mr Huget: Sixteen is good with me.
Mrs Cunningham: Me too.
Mr Hope: Can I ask a question?
The Chair: Sure you can, Mr Hope.
Mr Hope: Why wouldn't the legislation apply to off the roads, in the school yards and parks? I guess that's where you would probably say it was mostly needed, especially with some of these motocross bicycles. You would think that's where it'd be required. You could come from a school yard, go in the street and you're on the sidewalk, or wherever, and then find out you had police officers coming there to charge you. I think what you're doing is entrapping individuals when you start double-standarding that aspect. You've got to wear a motorcycle helmet when you're driving a motorcycle on a road, and when you go cross-country, or when you're doing motocross, you still have to wear a helmet while operating the motorcycle. I'm just wondering why the double aspects of it. Are we not trying to intimidate individuals into actually breaking a law?
Mr Klopp: I think, in all fairness to Mr Hope, he wasn't in the committee for the full hearings when we were discussing this. Correct me, anybody else who's been on the committee for a while, but paraphrasing it the way I remember it, this question was brought up and it came down to police officers can't go on to private property to charge someone.
We thought the intent of this bill was really to get people to wear it all the time. As you pointed out, if you're going down the street to the school yard, chances are you're going to get in the habit of wearing the helmet. You realize how safe it is and you won't be that flippant to say, "Well, I'm taking it off now I'm in the school yard," and then as soon as they get on the road they'll throw it on. It really came back to the fact of how we answer this about police and municipal police enforcing it, so we thought we would go with this for now as the best opportunity to get people to wear helmets.
Mr Hope: I would buy your argument but school yards are public property, not private property, and parks are usually public property, not private property. I'd have a hard time buying that argument.
Mr Klopp: Well, police cars have a hard time tearing around school yards and also going down walkways, but it can be done. I've seen it on movies.
Mr Huget: Could I make a suggestion that we go through this document the way it's laid out, so we can deal with the specific concerns as they appear in the document? We'll get to the other parts of it that are related to each other, I suppose, at some point in time. But if we can start through it now, I think we'll get somewhere. If we don't, we're not going to get anywhere.
The Chair: The committee can do whatever it wishes and that's a fine suggestion.
Mrs Cunningham: Well, we've got two questions already, I think, up to page 5, with regard to the coverage and the age.
On page 6 we're looking at the next issue, which was exemptions. The recommendation from the interministerial committee here is that we add the following clause to the bill, because we thought there should be no exemptions, and I think we've got agreement here. But we did feel the committee should be able to have--that no exemptions are included in the bill, but that exemptions ought to take place, especially for people with medical conditions.
There are other reasons on the top of page 6, so not to get into the detail, the ministry is saying we should add after, "The Lieutenant Governor in Council may make regulations," the following, which will be part (c) under "Lieutenant Governor," clause 2, "classifying persons, and exempting any person or class of persons from the requirements under subsection 2 and prescribing any conditions for any such exemption."
There will be exemptions in the regulations is the point. There are medical reasons and religious reasons why people can't wear helmets, so we're saying under the regs that can happen. I think we would all agree that's fair. Now on to your issue, Mr Hope.
Mr Hope: I'd like to ask a question around exemptions. Again, I wasn't in the committee to hear the hearings and I wanted to ask the question, are we considering a bicycle two wheels or are we considering bicycles three wheels? A lot of our older adults drive the three-wheelers and I have to ask that question. What's considered to be a bicycle, two wheels, three wheels, four wheels, anything that's pedal or motor operated? I have to ask that question when you are talking about exemptions, because I haven't had the in-depth conversation you've had, Dianne, around this issue.
Mrs Cunningham: All I can do is refer us to chapter 8, the Highway Traffic Act. Bicycle comes under the definition of "vehicle." It "includes a motor vehicle, trailer, traction engine, farm tractor, road-building machine, bicycle and any vehicle drawn, propelled or driven by any kind of power, including muscular power." I suppose if someone's using his muscles with a tricycle or something with four wheels, it involves this act. That's interesting, isn't it, anything that's being driven by muscular power.
Mr McGuinty: Do you understand, Dianne, then that would mean a toddler on a tricycle would have to wear a helmet under this legislation?
Mrs Cunningham: Yes.
Mr Klopp: If they're going on the road. If they're travelling up the road, they have to wear it.
Mrs Cunningham: The unfortunate part about that is, remember, we're going to allow some lead time, and we've been told there aren't helmets approved for children under the age of five but our expectation is that in the next year that will happen and we're giving enough lead time in this bill as well. That would take care of it. If there's no approved helmet according to the standards we want, then you can't ask people to wear them.
Mr Klopp: Also, I think it should be pointed out, before we get going too far, that it's on the road we're talking about. If a child is in his or her yard, the police aren't going to come up on to the roadway, although, just for information, my three-year-old has a helmet--I guess she was two--in our yard. I never had a helmet. Maybe that says something, I don't know, but Heather made her wear a helmet on a three-wheeler. I kind of laughed, but I forgot that we do fall from time to time and I was glad she did have it on, just to show that, really, they should learn from a very young age.
Mrs Cunningham: I think we can get into that part now if everybody's ready. It's the one Mr Hope is wondering about, where should coverage apply?
Of course we did have a chance to look at the definition of "highway" under the Highway Traffic Act, and it says that it "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." I think that's the key, "intended for or used by the general public for the passage of vehicles."
On page 7, I think there's been a lot of effort by the Ministry of Transportation to explain to us that on-highway helmet use requirement. That's what we're talking about here, but we also want off-highway use of the helmet as well. They're saying that there ought to be a lot of public education about wearing your helmet at all times and that we should be monitoring that, the effects of Bill 124.
I think that's extremely important, because we want to see increased compliance, I would think. From the minute we say this bill will come into effect, it would be very nice to be able to monitor and say even before the bill is passed that we've got 50% compliance. As a matter of fact, if we got 90%, some of us may come back and say, "Why do we need the legislation?" There is an opportunity for the people who don't want legislation to wear their helmets and prove to us that they don't need it anyway, given flexibility.
But where should coverage apply? We're saying exactly as it does now, with the present definition of "highway." I think that's what we expected, isn't it?
Mr Klopp: Yes.
Mr Huget: Yes.
Mr Hope: Just to make a comment on the process of public education, I know we focused the energy on--and the way I read this we focused the specific energy only on--the wearing of helmets and the promotion of helmets. As a person who's driven a motorcycle before, it's not necessarily the individual riding the bike who is the one who's causing the accidents; it's usually the car driver who doesn't see the cyclist. I'm wondering, as you're talking about public awareness, if you couldn't encompass both the awareness of bikers and the awareness of helmets. I'm wondering if it couldn't be a joint effort on MTO's part, because we have to educate those who are driving cars, motorcycles or whatever to pay attention to cyclists. If you're focusing your energy, you should focus on both ends of the stick.
1600
Ms Clarke: Actually, for years, each spring the ministry has had a public awareness campaign. We've targeted adult cyclists, we've targeted child cyclists and we've targeted motorists, stressing that motorists and cyclists need to share the road and obey all traffic laws. This year staff are planning a spring campaign on bicycle safety in general, with a focus on helmets.
Mrs Cunningham: I think it's stressed on page 15, where we talk about implementation. Perhaps we could look at enforcement now. The committee--that was us--recommended that the general penalty read as follows: "Every person who contravenes any of the provisions of this act or any regulation is guilty of an offence and on conviction, where a penalty for the contravention is not otherwise provided for herein, is liable to a fine of not less than $60 and not more than $500." But we also know that the out-of-court settlement fines for all offences for which the general penalty applies is $75, plus $3.75, for a total of $78.75.
We were talking about the $78.75 in our committee. Do you remember the long list of fines? They were all consistent at $78.75. So the response from the interministerial committee says, "No ministry specifically opposes a fine being set at this level; however, some concerns were expressed, which are noted as follows." The Solicitor General recommended a minimal fine "because the greatest compliance will be achieved through innovative enforcement practices, including education."
Most of us had an opportunity during the deliberations to take a look at other jurisdictions, and many, of course, didn't fine. They warned and gave people opportunities to go home and get their helmet. What we really want to do with this bill is to make certain that people wear their helmets, as opposed to being noted for our ability to levy fines.
I thought the Ministry of Citizenship was interesting and recommended "the government do whatever possible to ensure that helmets are affordable for lower income families," and, "If access to helmets is limited because of costs, then the fine level for noncompliance is obviously also prohibitive." I think the ministries are telling us that if we don't have to fine and we can give warnings, that ought to be the direction we should move. But in spite of all the concerns, it was also concluded that the out-of-court fine be $78.75.
If I can continue on with the enforcement practices, because I think it goes together here, they talk about common practices of police to give drivers found to be not carrying their licence 24 hours to produce it later at a police station. This is simply a common practice and I think the response to whether or not that would be appropriate for us was that there was consensus among the responding ministries that more research is required in this area. I don't really know what that means, except that education is the key and that the Toronto City Cycling Committee supported an educational enforcement philosophy--educating. Then the Ministry of Transportation suggested that the Solicitor General be requested to provide further information in this regard.
I think this is an ongoing application of the law rather than holding us up. I think they're just giving us advice for down the road. I don't know if anyone has any comments on that, but I'm not surprised with the information we got back.
The Chair: Ms Clarke, you wanted to comment.
Ms Clarke: I just wanted to get on the record that the out-of-court settlement, the fine, is now $90. I thought it should be reflected that it's steeper than before.
Mrs Cunningham: As of December 1, was it?
Ms Clarke: November 16, I understand.
The Chair: Research has asked me to clarify that. Is that the increase in fines that a bureaucrat from the Ministry of the Attorney General attributed to the province's need for more revenues?
Ms Clarke: Yes.
The Chair: Research has asked me again to further clarify that, because there would then seem to be little distinction between raising revenues and assessing fines for the purpose of deterrents, and one wonders which is which.
Mr McGuinty: I don't recall having an opportunity to debate that. Did we address that in the House, Mr Chair?
The Chair: You should have been around here with the last government.
Mr Huget: I don't know how research can ask all those questions without moving her lips.
The Chair: It's incredible, Mr Huget. Research and I think the same way about so many things. It's almost as if one could read minds.
Mr Huget: Are we back to business? First of all, because of that $90 stipulation, I have some real concerns about that level of fine. That's a serious level of fine for a lot of people; 90 bucks is 90 bucks. If you're looking at a family that may be cycling down the road, none of them wearing a helmet, five of them, it doesn't take very long to add up to a big chunk of money. That's why the second part of the enforcement thing becomes very important for me.
If someone is given the opportunity to produce a helmet, for example, within 24 hours, rather than a fine, I think that's a much more fair-handed approach. I wouldn't like to see somebody fined $90 on the spot because he doesn't have a helmet. I am concerned about that. I couldn't support a $90 fine without some kind of mechanism to allow somebody an opportunity to appear with a helmet, which may cost less than the $90.
Mrs Cunningham: At the top of page 9, with regard to enforcement practices, the common practice of the police with the 24 hours--that's all we have now, common practice--do you think we should go a step further and put it not in the act but in the regulations?
Mr Klopp: Whatever, as long as it's there.
Mrs Cunningham: Should we ask about that? We've already asked two questions. Why don't we ask?
Mr Huget: I think we should. As I understand common practice, it's also discretion. That doesn't need to happen. The police department could, as I understand it--I think we need some clarification around that--immediately fine someone. They don't have to give you 24 hours to do anything. I think that's a discretionary thing.
Mr Klopp: We want this to be right in the regs.
Ms Clarke: I should point out that if you don't have a horn on your bicycle, you would also be subject to a fine of $90, as the act stands today.
Mrs Cunningham: Or a light. There's a whole list of offences. I probably have them here.
Mr Huget: It would be interesting to get the statistics on how many people in Ontario were fined $90 for not having a horn on their bike. I bet you can go quite a few days before you'll find a charge and a conviction on that. What we're trying to do is get people to use a helmet, and if nobody has a light and nobody has a horn, those are equally as important bicycle safety issues. Perhaps the 24-hour compliance with bicycle lights and horns would do the same thing: It would make people buy a light and a horn.
Mrs Cunningham: I'm going to tell you what these are. Right now the improper bicycle lighting is $13.75; that's the exception. The others are $78.75, which would now be $90?
Mr Huget: Yes, $90.
Mrs Cunningham: Listen to the list: improper brakes on bicycle, no horn on bicycle, disobey officer directing traffic--
Mr Hope: Holy cow, they should go to jail.
The Chair: I think the record should show that Mr Hope was only joking.
Mrs Cunningham: It's very important to say that too, isn't it?
--drive on closed road, disobey stop sign, fail to stop, fail to yield to traffic on through highway, fail to yield at yield sign, fail to yield from driveway, fail to yield to pedestrian, fail to yield to pedestrian approaching, pass stopped vehicle at crossover--and there are 14 others. So we're adding the helmet to a list of, I don't know, 25. People should know that we may be asking for something that's extremely important here, but there are 25 other items that are just as important in riding a safe bicycle.
1610
Mr Huget: Absolutely. I agree with that, except that I bet there aren't many prosecutions for not having a horn on your bike, for example, or for not having a light or for not yielding to pedestrians.
My informal study that I've conducted since we started discussion on this bill, getting run down almost on a daily basis in a crosswalk by a bicycle without a light or anything else--I guess my problem with this bill really is that the helmets and the horns and the lights are all fine and dandy, but if nobody uses them and we can't get this issue of safety higher on the priority list of the general public--that's why I refer to having 24 hours to produce a helmet; maybe we should have 24 hours to produce a light and a horn as well under those types of prosecutions, because they're just as important.
If you're going to fine somebody $90, you could say, "You did not obey the law and we fine you $90," but what's really important here? The fine is not important. What is important is the helmet. If we can give somebody 24 hours to produce a helmet or they'll be fined the $90, then I think you might be doing something constructive.
Mrs Cunningham: I think it's important that when they talk about the responsibilities of the police in any of these things, passing a streetcar improperly, riding two on a bicycle etc, if the the police officer finds any person contravening any provision under this act or any municipal bylaw--which may be the one about your own sidewalks or driveways if a municipality chooses to do so, or a bike path through the woods--the police person requires the person to stop and identify himself or herself. They have to give their correct name and address. They may arrest without warrant any person who does not comply with their orders to stop, but they don't automatically fine them. They'd have to charge them; somebody else would fine them. It says common practice--that was what we got back--has been to send a driver of a car home. Surely they'd send someone riding a bicycle home, give them some time.
Mr Huget: It's a discretionary thing, and that's my problem: The police are not forced to do that. In the implementation stages of this bill, which would be over X number of years, in order to accomplish the use of helmets we might be better off if there were something that gave someone 24 hours to show up back at the police station with a bike helmet. I think that's positive.
Mrs Cunningham: I do too. Let's ask the question. Certainly in many of the American states, it was in what we would call the regulations, so let's ask. We would like to be able to do that. Who would we be offending? Is somebody going to get very excited about this?
Mr Huget: It's a major change in terms of the province's policy. Over a certain period of time, it will become accepted, I would imagine, and people would automatically buy a helmet. That's what we hope. But during the implementation stages, it might be a little bit more humane if we give somebody the option of getting a helmet; if they don't, they're going to pay a $90 fine. This is new policy in this province.
Mrs Cunningham: That's a question, Mr Chairman.
Mr Huget: If I could have an additional question? I know it's not with your Bill 124, but I would like to know what the situation is with horns and lights as well.
Ms Clarke: Do you want me to answer? Right now the act is specific. Actually, the act says you have to have a bell, gong or horn on your bicycle.
Mr Huget: Could you easily access the number of people who have been charged in the province of Ontario over the last five years for not having a horn and a light?
Ms Clarke: I believe I can. I'll get back to you Wednesday.
Mr Hope: I was amazed to listen to what Mrs Cunningham put forward about horns and brakes and all that issue, because it all boils down to public relations. I remember driving down the street and watching the kids playing in my neighbourhood, and I'm sitting there wondering how many of them actually have horns and lights on their bikes. And we're listening about charges and everything else.
We're talking about partnership. Under this, I'm wondering if there wouldn't be a promotional aspect for those who manufacture bicycles to jump on the bandwagon. If we're to make this publicly acceptable, I think what we'll have to look at is a venture process with those manufacturers that produce the bikes to start informing the general public, especially in the province of Ontario, about what is required for safety.
I'm sure no parents would like to see their child driving an unsafe bike or potentially being fined. It all boils down to communication. If you start hitting people with $90 fines, as Mr Huget says, I'm sure there's going to be a reaction. If we can get the public participating in this in a friendly--what's the old saying? You can get more out of honey than you can out of vinegar, however the saying goes.
If we're talking about a transition time, I believe there has to be a more effective transition process, and the transition process would be around those issues you've just raised today plus the issues of the helmets. Then in conjunction with the manufacturers, I think those people who produce and sell the product have a responsibility to make sure that the public--and if this isn't under consumer protection it should be--is well informed on the whole issue of safety. If we're notarizing this issue, we should be saying there is a partner out there we're forgetting about. We're talking about educating the public, but I think the ones we have to educate are the manufacturers that produce this product.
Mr Huget: Following in that vein, when I look at bicycle lights and bicycle horns, I wonder if it isn't time in this province that manufacturers of bicycles are forced to include a light and a working horn when they sell a bicycle. Can't that be manufactured in? We put so much emphasis on safety. We require that automobiles have seatbelts, and now there's a move to air bags and other protective devices and emergency brakes and all the rest of it. In terms of bicycles, which are now a major form of transportation both for work and for recreation, suddenly this an option; you can always go out and buy a light or something else after.
Is that the way it really should be? Are we at a stage where those manufacturers should manufacture a safe product? A safe product includes a headlight and a working horn and whatever in terms of bicycles in this province.
The Chair: Of course, part of your inquiry is, how many bicycle manufacturers are there left in the province?
Mr Huget: True.
Mr Hope: Well, in order to sell your product here, shouldn't you have consumer protection in mind, protection of those individuals who buy it? So if they don't want to produce the product here in the province of Ontario--they have restrictions they have to live with. They can always move the factory here and start producing it and understanding better what the people in Ontario want. I don't buy that excuse, just because they don't build it here.
The Chair: Perhaps with the accompanying query as to the constitutional power of the province as compared to the power of the federal government and whether that federal jurisdiction applies solely to motor vehicles and not to bicycles, and perhaps the province acquires status vis-à-vis bicycles that it wouldn't have with respect to motor vehicles.
Mr McGuinty: I thought we had raised the question originally--maybe I'm mistaken--as one of the questions we submitted to this interministerial committee of whether the police felt they had time to enforce this kind of law. It's very clear that right now they're not enforcing other laws regarding bicycles, reflectors and lights. Are we going through the motions here in order to put a law in the books which will not be enforced simply because the manpower isn't available, the funding isn't there?
Mrs Cunningham: My view of the argument would be the same as for seatbelts. What are we saying? To me it's that simple. We're told that legislation isn't enforced now, but the Toronto City Cycling Committee is saying that legislation in this case should be a deterrent. We want more people riding bicycles, and we want everybody who rides bicycles to wear helmets.
We really are in a catch-22, but the responsibility of this committee was to decide whether the helmet legislation was timely and responsible. I think we all voted unanimously in favour of that. Now we're trying to see how it can best be implemented. I think that at the same time we really do have to underline the need for public education and the need for lead time for the manufacturing of the helmets. We'll get on to that part soon.
I think the issue of enforcement has always been a problem for the committee, but we were told it is equally a problem and a matter of priorities for our police officers. In any community, at any time, it could be different.
1620
Mr McGuinty: On another matter, what about providing that the penalty provisions wouldn't kick in for a fixed period of time, six months, 90 days, whatever? It becomes law, is on the books, but enforcement doesn't begin for a fixed period of time.
Mrs Cunningham: I think that's a good idea and I think we should ask that as part of the last question. Perhaps this would be a good alternative for us. This is exactly what we're looking for, these kinds of specific ideas. One is, can we put it in the regs or are people going to get really upset like they do about writing reports? The second is that if we can't put it in the regs, can we say that this part is effective two years from now and that then we review the incidences, but that the fine not be established until six months later or something? Is that what you're saying?
Mr McGuinty: Yes.
Mrs Cunningham: I think that's a good idea, a good question.
The Chair: Except that the committee might want to note that there is precedent now for bills having full force and effect, but the police being called upon not to enforce them; to wit, the Retail Business Holidays Act.
Mrs Cunningham: Something like that. Can we move on to the issue of helmets, which is the next one? We had two good questions, I think, from that section.
On page 10, where we're talking about standards, we were pretty unanimous in talking about the CSA because we had some pretty good presentations before the committee that said the Canadian Standards Association standard in fact was the most rigid. However, it is interesting to note the response from all the ministries commenting on this issue. They felt that the three identified standards should be acceptable.
The ministry of Industry, Trade and Technology answered a further question with regard to stipulating that if we do say that the CSA would be the only standard, this "would not constitute a trade barrier provided the standard is based on sound scientific principles, and that the requirement is applied nationally." I don't know what jurisdiction we've got there. "This means that regardless of where a helmet originates, it must meet the same standard." That means that if it originates out of the province of Ontario, or out of our country, it must meet the same standard. "There could be no exemption from the CSA standard requirement for out-of-province tourists, for example." But we weren't thinking of this, were we? We pretty well said we wanted the best standard. This would be something we'd have to reconsider, given the report.
Mr Hope: When I read about the CSA-approved bicycle helmet, I have to ask a question. Again, I wasn't at the committee hearings. For instance, and I use the example myself, I have a younger child who plays hockey. He uses a CSA-approved hockey helmet which is proven for shock and everything else. Would that helmet then be appropriate enough to use on a bicycle because it meets CSA-approved standards? I'm looking at the family income level. We're trying to promote helmets and safety and I'm looking at a way of making sure the utilization of a family income can be distributed over more than one--
Mrs Cunningham: Actually, the response to that is definitely no. The physicians and the manufacturers who came before the committee actually said it could be dangerous to wear helmets for certain sports where you're not practising that sport, whether it be football, whether it be hockey. It was quite an interesting day when the experts came before the committee in that regard. The good news was that when they came before the committee, when we first started our deliberations over a year ago, the helmets were at $70 average and now we know that we can get these CSA helmets for $25, which is really great.
Mr Hope: Still, $25 is a fair amount to a family--
Mrs Cunningham: Yes, but it's a lot more expensive if somebody has a serious accident.
Mr Hope: --and clearly understanding that, but I'm just looking at the needs of children. I know from experience, because at seven and nine years old I know how much they always want. They think the bank account is unending. In order for us to meet rules and regulations of the government, I have to ask the question: Is there a way that these individuals making helmets make them more universal, to meet more than one need which is helping the families out, I guess, and providing the safety?
Mrs Cunningham: We didn't ask the question, but knowing the way secondary school hockey teams and football teams would like to have had that approach, I can remember some 15 years ago when we did ask that question, they said, "No, totally different accidents; You fall in a different way."
We actually had the question asked with regard to riding skateboards too, and we couldn't answer it. I think the committee has to take a look at this because this is different than what we expected.
Mr Brad Ward (Brantford): I think, on the issue of standards, it's appropriate that we have representatives from the Brantford and District Head Injury Association here, who just happen to be meeting with me today.
Mrs Cunningham: That's good.
Mr Ward: We found out the committee was holding the meeting on this issue. I'm sure they're finding the discussion of interest.
When you look at standards, if we address all our concerns and the questions that have been asked in this report, I think this committee should recommend the Canadian Standards Association because its standards, on reading the background, are more rigorous and I believe its auditing system would ensure that any helmets with this CSA sticker would in fact meet the requirements of its testing procedures, whereas I wouldn't have as much faith--it's just my opinion--in the American standards and how they apply those standards.
What I think is important is that we inquire with the Ministry of Industry, Trade and Technology to clarify what it means by the fact that the requirement is applied nationally. It won't infringe on any trade agreement. Does that mean the CSA has a national standard and that if we restrict the others, then perhaps Ontario is infringing on the free trade agreement or any other trade agreements in operation at the federal level? I think we can get some clarification there from the Ministry of Industry, Trade and Technology on the wording of exactly what it means when it says the requirement is applied nationally. I think the preference of this committee would be to suggest the CSA be the only organization that can recommend which helmets are safe and which ones should be used in the province of Ontario.
Mrs Cunningham: In response to that, that was certainly the evidence we heard. There wasn't, I don't think, anybody who said we should have all three.
I thought it was also interesting that manufacturers of the ANSI, and the Snell Memorial Foundation, with the testing that goes on--I've been told by salespersons in the stores that really, some of them will just need to send them for approval--they would meet the requirements if they just took the time to get them approved. They would meet the requirements of the CSA with regard to testing and manufacturing now. They realize that is a direction they should be moving in. Perhaps, if we're given two years' lead time, they're going to know what we want.
The other thing is that we really are encouraging Ontario to produce its own if it can. We have had a little bit of interest, my staff tell me, in manufacturers, certainly designers in our community colleges, so perhaps that's even more of an incentive for them to get busy, if they know that's our requirement. I think it's exciting.
Mr Ward: I have one question I hope can be looked at at future meetings. In my discussion with Sandra Webber and Lawrence Palk of the Brantford head injury association, it was brought up that there's two different types of helmets: one, the shiny type; the other, clothlike material. In the event that an accident occurs, the shiny helmet allows greater slidability, I guess, in an accident, whereas the cloth would have a tendency to grab the pavement and possibly risk greater injury. The question I would have--perhaps we could find out--is, does the CSA, when it examines helmets, differentiate between these two types of helmets? I think that would be an important fact for this committee to have.
1630
Mrs Cunningham: Okay? On page 12 we get into the issue of affordability and the response on that one, and this was with regard to Mr Hope when he talked about posing hardships:
"Ministries provided input on initiatives to make helmets affordable suggesting varying forms of rebate programs. With the exception of the Toronto City Cycling Committee it was not felt that affordability of helmets would deter cycling. However, as was stated earlier, formal evaluation post-implementation could confirm or refute this assumption."
Otherwise, if we find that we are in very big difficulties with regard to affordability, we may have to take some action.
I thought this section was thoroughly done, by the way. I think the ministerial committee did reach out to get some input and some ideas into this report for us. The Ministry of Health, working with the Ontario Public Health Association and the Toronto City Cycling Committee, has been very helpful throughout the whole thing, the Ontario Medical Association and the Canadian Tire Corp with its rebate programs, and I think the list goes on and on.
There are some examples the Ministry of Treasury and Economics provided as an example of programs that are going on right now with regard to--I guess this is energy when they talk--$5 on fluorescent light bulbs, I guess you can get; every household in Ontario recently received two energy-efficient light bulbs; a $100 rebate on the purchase of fuel-efficient automobiles; child care seats are tax-exempt. Maybe there is some kind of incentive we can think of here with regard to purchasing your helmet, the biggest one of course being that you're safe.
I'm not sure there's anything to add on that section. I think it's a tremendous concern for us, but there's no way around it, according to this report.
On page 15, where they talked about implementation, number one, education and awareness, there was absolutely no doubt in any of our minds that this had to be a priority and I think this report, through the Ministry of Education and the Solicitor General and Tourism and Recreation and Health and Transportation, responded in a very conclusive manner. Appendix 3, I think, goes into great detail in that regard.
To go further, where there could not be consensus among all the ministries--oh, I'm sorry. I must have missed something on the time frame. I must have jumped something here, the date Bill 124 should come into force. It's my understanding that just the Ministry of Health had some difficulties with that. Yes, here we go, on page 18. They wanted it to become effective October 1, 1993, which would be less than a year from now. As you remember, we were talking of October 1, 1994, but all the other ministries agreed with us that it should be 1994.
Then in the conclusion it says, "With the exception of the date the bill should be implemented, there are no issues where the ministries are strongly opposed to the direction of the standing committee," which I think is a credit to our hard work, Mr Chairman, where we took the time, I think, to list for the ministries some specifics about what we wanted, which wasn't always easy, because to tell you the truth, when we first started to study this legislation, we weren't sure.
Then I think the key page is appendix 2, where there are the recommended revisions as a result of this report.
The new sections are (3) and (4), and we have a choice on (6), and (5)(c), in the darker print. I think we should seriously consider making these amendments and then coming back for the responses to the three questions that we asked and completing this. Maybe it would be fairer to do the clause-by-clause, but perhaps we could move them now. How would it work appropriately, Mr Chairman?
The Chair: You propose, I trust, to adopt the suggestions in this report and to then move those amendments. That would eliminate the need for written amendments, even though written amendments aren't, of course, necessary. Somebody else wanted to comment on the procedural matter.
Mr Huget: As I understand it, appendix 2 is all the amendments and revisions. Is that right?
Mrs Cunningham: They're the recommended ones, unless something comes out of our questions.
Mr Huget: So if we move those, recognizing that there is a choice in (6) that we may not be able to resolve today, I don't know, if those are the amendments, then will we just move that appendix 2?
Mrs Cunningham: Could I ask a question? Perhaps somebody from the Ministry of Transportation could help us. Have these been vetted through legal? They haven't. So perhaps if we show intent today, they can be vetted and ready for Wednesday. So that is an appropriate recommendation, Mr Chairman.
Mr Huget: Yes, I would support that. We let them know that we're planning on submitting appendix 2 and that they should be checked for legality, recognizing that we still have a question in (6), whether it should be two years after or October 1994. But I think that's minor. We can deal with that problem at some point.
Mrs Cunningham: The choice would be probably October or December, because this is going to happen in December, right?
Mr Huget: Yes, I suppose. But that's not an issue that's going to derail the whole process.
Mrs Cunningham: We would just all know that it would be the first day of October, if we were specific there, that's all, as opposed to the 17th. We're thinking now this is going to happen before December 10.
Mr Huget: Either way, there's only a few months' difference.
Mrs Cunningham: That's right.
Mr Huget: So as long as they know that, I think that solves their problem, and we can deal with that on Wednesday.
The Chair: Are you suggesting that we defer clause-by-clause consideration of the bill, or that we proceed with that now?
Mrs Cunningham: It's just that we were told that legal hadn't done the work they needed to do with regard to appropriate language. So I think what we could do, as was suggested, is that I would make a motion, actually, to accept the report, with thanks to the ministries for the hard work that went into it.
The Chair: Mrs Cunningham's motion to accept the report with thanks to its authors: Any discussion? All in favour, please indicate. Motion carried.
Mrs Cunningham: I would move, subject to the appropriate language, that in appendix 2, with reference to Bill 124 revisions, we add to section 104 subsections (3) and (4), which would read:
"(3) No person shall ride on or operate a bicycle on a highway unless he is wearing a bicycle helmet that complies with the regulations and the chin strap of the helmet is securely fastened under the chin";
"(4) No parent, guardian or legal custodian of a person under sixteen years of age shall authorize or knowingly permit that person to ride on or operate a bicycle without wearing a bicycle helmet as required by subsection (3)."
Under subsection (5), we would add:
"(c) classifying persons, and exempting any person or class of persons from the requirements of this section, and prescribing any conditions for any such exemption."
1640
Then under subsection (6), I would say this one, because I think it would be a compromise with the ministries and the Ministry of Health, which wanted it a year earlier. So I think what we should do is not make it any later than what we suggested. I would say that this act comes into force on the first day of October 1994, just taking into concern the Ministry of Health, which wanted it actually on the first of October 1993. I'd offer that, Mr Chairman, with those comments.
This, of course, is not to be passed but to be referred to the legal counsel for verification of the appropriate language.
Mr Hope: It's around the whole issue of bicycle safety where the emphasis has to be. We're finally bringing to light an issue about bicycles and, as I've just been in this committee for the day, I've learned a lot.
What I am looking at is a product that is being sold unsafe in Ontario to the consumers of this province. I'm looking at this legislation and saying I don't see anything that addresses that, which really puzzles me. The key to success is communication, and if we don't have proper communication, we fail, and when I look at this legislation I don't see anything that's addressing the manufacturer's responsibility of selling a product that is safe.
The Chair: That's quite right, because, I'm advised, it's an amendment to the Highway Traffic Act.
Mr Hope: As it's amended to the Highway Traffic Act. Then why is it not in this legislation saying it's the responsibility of the manufacturers?
The Chair: Others may want to respond, but I am advised it's because the Highway Traffic Act regulates conduct on highways. Go ahead, Mr Huget.
Mr Huget: That's my understanding, that we were not mandated to do that. We were mandated to deal with helmets and the Highway Traffic Act. It does govern conduct on the highways.
I guess the point Mr Hope is trying to make, and I'm going to attempt to make the same point, is that perhaps this committee, at some point before it's finished with this bill, can make a unanimous recommendation to somebody, whether it's the provincial government, the federal government or whatever, to look at the whole issue of safety standards in bicycles and whether or not they should be sold safe.
If we demand that as a society for almost any other consumer product--and more and more all the time those that weren't covered now are--I think the least we can do is put some onus on the manufacturer to respond to a situation. I think it's the same right across the country. I know it to be the situation here in Ontario. We may be in a position, and I hope we are at some point, to make a very strong recommendation that the issue of standards of safe equipment be included in the manufacture and sale of bicycles in this province.
The Chair: I am grateful, however, to Mr Hope and to you, Mr Huget, for addressing this particular issue, because this committee can return to the Legislature with the bill only--that is Bill 124--or it can return to the Legislature with the bill and a report as a result of all of its inquiries. The impression I'm getting is that committee members may be interested in seeing not just the bill returned to the Legislature but also a report and some of these concerns being addressed in the report. If I'm correct in that interpretation, say so, so that Ms Anderson can address her mind to it and assist us in preparing that report.
Mr Huget: That's my point of view in terms of the equipment safety issue, and I think there are other outstanding issues that should be dealt with in a report back to the Legislature, such as the whole question in terms of municipal planning around bicycle use, bicycle pathways and all those types of things. I think we can make some report back to the Legislature about the significance of those issues as well, because they are important; not included in the bill, but simply some kind of report.
Mr Hope: Why I bring this issue up is because we are looking at a date that this will be coming into effect. The people out there who may not follow procedures of government become victims because maybe communication has not worked and it has not reached into the homes. I'm looking at safety of individuals.
We're talking about an enforcement date and I'm sitting here saying there are some other responsibilities on manufacturers and us, as legislators, to make sure that we do our best to protect the citizens.
If I'm looking at implementation dates, which are in the bill, I've got to ask, where are the manufacturers' positions and where are they going to contribute in making--we may be able to make a reality of October 1993 if the manufacturers come on stream in providing this service right away. That's why I'm bringing these questions up, because if we can make it better than it is in the enforcement aspect and in the safety of individuals, then why not? I think we have to explore those avenues. That's why I bring the question up, because we're talking about a date in the bill too for enforcement.
The Chair: I want to make sure we all understand you. Are you, among other things, suggesting some dismay at the fact that people who would manufacture these helmets haven't been more active in offering their services in the education campaign in view of the fact that they're the ones who stand to make a great deal of money out of it and the silence is particularly deafening?
Mr Hope: To be more exact, yes, there is a profit to be made on this issue and we're going to be putting a law in place that helps the profit margin increase. I think there's a total responsibility of those individuals to come forward to make this initiative that we're looking after--the safety, the health costs and every other thing that's possible--they should be in the forefront of this motivator. If they are in the forefront of it, that means we won't have to worry about, as Mr McGuinty put forward, the police officers having the time actually to do the charging. We eliminate all those major concerns by getting them committed and in the forefront on this issue.
The Chair: Point well made.
Mr Len Wood (Cochrane North): Just on the issue Mr Hope raised concerning the manufacturers of the bicycles and the helmets, this legislation was brought forward--and I congratulate Dianne on bringing it forward--for the safety of the children, to prevent the pain and suffering and death that are the results of bicycle accidents where they don't have protective equipment. Anything we as a committee can do, hopefully unanimously, to put out a recommendation that the manufacturers of bicycles should make sure that all the equipment is on there to make it safer for not only children but teenagers and adults and anybody involved--the goal is that whether it be bicycles, four-wheelers, skidoos, cars, trucks, whatever, if you can prevent some of the slaughter on the highways by bringing in a recommendation here, I think we should be all for it.
Mr Klopp: I'll get back to the recommendation that the act comes into force on October 1 rather than royal assent. I'm assuming that those questions we did have today will get answered next week and we'll get on with it.
Remember that during our committee hearings there were other groups that had great concerns. We were concerned about families that could have financial troubles, or even about myself, trying to get all this done. No one is saying in the act with the Education portfolio, which many groups said they would do, that we're holding people up from getting to 100 per cent. It's just that we did want to take some of the stress out of some people who would chew on the bark that we're ramming it down their throat rather than getting on with the safety of even themselves.
So I'm comfortable leaving it as October 1994, because it by no means states that we're holding up--the nurses' association, the school groups and even the helmet companies, once they see that this is down, October 1994 will come quickly enough, and I'm sure that in the good entrepreneurial spirit, these groups will just go crazy. Let's just leave it as October 1994.
The Chair: I thought you were going to suggest perhaps October 1995, but that might have seemed a little opportunistic.
Ms Clarke: I just wanted to make a couple of comments. The Vice-Chair talked about going back to the Legislature regarding recommendations on cycling facilities and paths etc. In July, the minister announced a revised bicycle policy in the Legislature, and I could provide a copy of those reports to the committee if you'd like.
Mr Huget: We may still want to make a recommendation that somebody implement it.
Ms Clarke: Regarding Mr Hope's comment about the manufacturers' involvement, manufacturers have taken quite a role in terms of helmet rebate programs in the past. We have targeted them before and they have been responsive.
1650
Mr Hope: You know, it's nice that they're taking a promotional aspect, but this is a requirement that should be on the bicycle as of it becoming law. It's a consumer protection issue.
A car manufacturer cannot sell a car in the province of Ontario without having seatbelts in it. Seatbelts have to be in the car, and we use the arguments about seatbelts. I believe that lights on a bike, brakes and helmets and all that issue should be part of the standard equipment of a bike. I think there's where they have to play the role.
Yes, they can do rebate programs, but it should be a package part of a bike, so when you buy a bike there's no excuse not to have the helmet on because when you purchase the bike everything is there; it's a package deal.
I think the rebates are nice but the working family that may be making $8 an hour might be able to buy a bike, but to buy a helmet that's probably worth more than the bike is worth represents some hardship to those families. I've got to respect those individuals with lower income and the working poor. They don't have the luxuries of nice cars or nice new bikes; they use other bikes. I just want to push that issue out. I think there is a total responsibility on their behalf.
Mr Huget: Would we be in order, being that the bicycle policy thing was introduced in July, in making some kind of statement emphasizing the importance of that strategy and putting it as a priority in terms of safety in conjunction with this bill? Really, I think there's a tendency here to deal with this bill as only a helmet bill. It's a people bill and it's a safety bill.
I wonder if we would be in order to--seeing that it was introduced in the Legislature--bring to the Legislature's attention the importance of that policy and the raising of a priority, if it's required, to implement some of the parts of that policy.
Ms Clarke: I think you could best answer whether it would be in order.
Mr Huget: I guess my point is, would it be worthwhile doing? I know that there are policies, and there are policies probably sitting in dust somewhere since 1965.
The point I am trying to make is that I think this committee should make a couple of recommendations when it reports back. One of them is around the manufacture of bicycles and standards around that for safety features like horns and lights, and the other is whether someone's gone to a lot of time and effort and trouble to develop a policy which I would assume would have something to do with cycling safety.
Ms Clarke: Part of it's around cycling and other parts of it are around facilitating cycling through promoting cycling and encouraging cycling and providing support to municipalities to develop cycling facilities in their jurisdictions.
Mr Huget: I guess that sort of gets into my question. If we're encouraging the use of cycles and we don't emphasize the safety aspect in terms of bicycle paths, for example, or cycle lanes--I wouldn't want to do one without the other. I think what this committee has dealt with is the safety issue. It is personified in a helmet but it's really a safety issue, and there are other concerns that should be brought to the attention of the government in terms of implementing those policies, as they apply to safety, that I think would be well served if we made that recommendation to the House as well.
The Chair: Your thoroughness in addressing that, Mr Huget, is commendable. In view of the fact that cyclists are oftentimes victims in that Bill 164 takes away their right to be compensated for economic loss, I trust you would want to throw in a resounding condemnation of the government's no-fault insurance policy?
Mr Klopp: No.
Mr Huget: No comment, but I haven't heard from Dianne. I'd like to hear from Dianne, first of all, on the issue of whether we should be making a recommendation that some government body somewhere deal with the manufacturing issue--for example, that a bike sold in the province should have a light and a horn on it as a standard.
The other issue is about the cycling policy, whether we should make a statement from this committee on the safety aspects of that policy, make a strong statement and a strong recommendation that the safety aspect of the cycling policy be given some priority and some emphasis.
Mrs Cunningham: First of all--Mr Hope has left--I want the committee to remember that we did discuss the issue of selling the bicycle at the same time as the helmet. Remember when we had the manufacturers respond to that? They said that was something they would not recommend because it takes a long time to assemble safely a bicycle by the people who are selling. What do you call the people in the stores? Salespersons.
Mr Huget: Retailers.
Mrs Cunningham: Retailers, that's right. And maybe they won't have the helmet there; they may have to wait or go to a different store, and what we wanted to do was give people choice. So on that issue I think we all agreed to drop that idea, but I still think, as part of not only supporting what Mr Huget said with regard to the Ministry of Transportation's report on safe cycling--I have to say I was thrilled at the timing of it, because no way are we pretending that we're going to be as helpful as we could be without supporting that. I mean, the roads and the pathways and the incentives to municipalities to move into safe cycling lanes are extremely important, just as important as this piece of legislation, and the fact that the minister made that statement at the same time we were looking at this I think showed a sense of cooperation and responsibility. This is part of an overall package. This bill, I feel, is part of an overall package. This is legislation. The other is direction.
I think we should put in our report that we support it, and if there are ways we can be asked to encourage it along, I know some of us have been talking to the private sector around resources to help us in our public education.
At this time I think it's timely to note that there were even further recommendations in this report, because Mr Hughes, the acting director of safety planning in the policy branch of the Ministry of Transportation, wrote many letters to, for instance, the police, to Mr Hutton, the superintendent and director of the traffic and marine branch. Then we had somebody else responding again. I think it was to Mr Hughes from the manager of public education. This is all in the Ministry of Transportation again. Then we had a Superintendent Hutton--I guess that's the other one--with regard to the Ontario Provincial Police. There was a lot of work that went into this.
I was interested to know Superintendent Hutton said, "No real objection to October 1, 1994, but why not September 1, 1994, to comply with the start of the school year." We had thought about that and we thought, well, the school doesn't always start on the first, and maybe it would be important as part of a public education to give them those few extra weeks to say, "This is the year," and that's why we did pick October 1, because we thought that would be a very important part of our public education program.
I'm just saying that I certainly agree and we should as part of our report give the members of the Legislative Assembly as much information as we can, give the ministry encouragement and, I would even say, add to the appendix the pamphlet called You and Your Bicycle from the Metropolitan Toronto Police Force, which signifies all the different fines. That's non-partisan. I don't mean non-partisan, but it's without any conflict, because that's from the police force. But I think it would be more difficult to put maybe some of the helmet stuff in.
So yes, I'm in support, and I just appreciate the thoroughness with which my colleagues on this committee have dealt with this report and all of the hearings to this date.
The Chair: Thank you. My impression is that that resolves these matters, at least so far as we can deal with them today.
Mrs Cunningham: Perhaps we should call a vote on the amendments, subject to, or shall we leave it?
Mr Huget: Wednesday.
Mrs Cunningham: That's fine by me.
The Chair: The consensus in the committee is that the anticipated amendments, as articulated by Ms Cunningham and others, be referred to counsel to be drafted such that they can be moved and specifically debated, if necessary, on Wednesday. Is that my understanding? Thank you.
We then are adjourned, subject to any other matters that have to be raised, to Wednesday at 3:30 or after routine proceedings to deal firstly with the 125 designation of Mr Jordan. When those witnesses have been dealt with, we'll move on, if there's time, to Ms Cunningham's matter. Thank you, people.
The committee adjourned at 1700.