HIGHWAY TRAFFIC AMENDMENT ACT, 1992 / LOI DE 1992 MODIFIANT LE CODE DE LA ROUTE
CONTENTS
Wednesday 2 December 1992
Highway Traffic Amendment Act, 1992, Bill 124
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
Sutherland, Kimble (Oxford ND) for Ms Murdock
Ward, Brad (Brantford ND) for Mr Dadamo
Also taking part / Autres participants et participantes:
Nina Chyz, legislation counsel, Ministry of Transportation
Heather Clarke, safety policy officer, road user safety office, Ministry of Transportation
Celine Dias, legal counsel, Ministry of the Solicitor General
David Edgar, special assistant, legislative, minister's office, Ministry
of Transportation
Clerk / Greffière: Manikel, Tannis
Staff / Personnel:
Anderson, Anne, research officer, Legislative Research Service
Spakowski, Mark, legislative counsel
Wernham, Chris, legislative counsel
The committee met at 1554 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 3:54 pm and we're ready to proceed. People from the Ministry of Transportation are here with responses to the questions put to them when we met on Monday. Would you please come forward, have a seat, tell us your names and answer the questions. Please tell us who you are.
Ms Heather Clarke: I'm Heather Clarke. I'm a safety policy officer at the Ministry of Transportation.
Ms Nina Chyz: I'm Nina Chyz. I'm legislative counsel with the Ministry of Transportation.
The Chair: Thanks for coming today.
Ms Clarke: Do you want us to start going through the questions that were raised last time?
The Chair: Please.
Ms Clarke: I think the first one that was raised on Monday was regarding who should be covered, and someone raised the issue of what does "knowingly" mean, regarding the responsibility of the parent, guardian or custodian in ensuring a child under 16 wears a helmet.
Ms Chyz: If I may answer that question, the word "knowingly" has been inserted because it was felt to be unreasonable to create an absolute liability on the parents. There should be a defence if they've taken all precautions: If they have bought helmets and they have instructed the children to wear the helmets, they should not be held responsible in those circumstances.
I think in cases where, for instance, an incident occurs and there is an investigation by the police and it's discovered that no helmet was provided, the parents were really careless or negligent in that respect, that's where the charges would likely lie and there wouldn't be a defence.
The Chair: Thank you. Is there any comment or further inquiry from any members of the committee on that very specific issue? Yes, sir.
Mr Bob Huget (Sarnia): Just very briefly, if I understand you then correctly, in other words, what you're saying in laymen's terms is if a parent purchases a helmet for a child and a child heads out the door and down the sidewalk with the helmet on, the parent's responsibility kind of ends there? I mean, the parent can't be held accountable for what the child may do out of the parent's sight or supervision?
Ms Chyz: Because, you know, it may be without their reach and not possible for the parents to do anything. They've done everything that they could within their means.
Mr Huget: Thank you, Mr Chairman.
The Chair: Thank you kindly. Go ahead.
Ms Clarke: I think it was also raised, on the same issue, whether that section should be done by legislation or regulation, and I said I would let our legal people respond to that.
Ms Chyz: Again, if I may answer that question, it seems to me that most offence sections should properly be in the legislation. The public more readily has access to the statutes than the regulation. It's something that's hidden, difficult to find. So the recommendation I would make is that it be in the legislation.
The Chair: Thank you. Any comment on that? Thank you kindly. Go ahead, please.
Ms Clarke: The next question was, I think Mr Hope raised it, regarding the sliding differential and what is the difference between the soft-shell helmet and the hard-shell helmet. Apparently, there has been some controversy that the soft-shell helmet grabs the road surface on impact and creates a twisting motion which can contribute to neck injury or further trauma.
There have been tests done in Washington by the bicycle helmet institute and those revealed no appreciable difference between the soft-shell and the hard-shell. Other research found in consumer reports in the US showed that the thicker-foam 1989 soft-shells tested gave better impact protection than the hard-shells. Research published in 1991 on the thin-shell helmets shows that they seem to combine the best of both the hard- and soft-shells and are probably the best helmets on the market today. I think probably most of those issues were addressed when the technical people came in previously.
The Chair: Thank you. Comments or further inquiries? Thank you, people. Please, the next one.
Ms Clarke: There were a few questions around the issue of enforcement strategies and, being with the Ministry of Transportation, we felt it would be more appropriately addressed by the Ministry of the Solicitor General. So we asked Mrs Dias, legal counsel with the Solicitor General, down to respond to that issue.
The Chair: Please come forward. Have a seat. Tell us your whole name, please.
Mrs Celine Dias: My name is Celine Dias. I am with the legal branch of the Ministry of the Solicitor General.
Ms Clarke: I think one of the questions was whether the $90 fine was too much and whether another fine could be incorporated in the legislation.
Mrs Dias: I am not in a position to comment on the quantum of the fine, but I think the issue was more whether the discretion of the police should be embodied in the legislation. Traditionally, police officers have enjoyed discretionary powers in the laying of charges and this discretion finds its roots in the common law.
While they are required to engage in an honest and bona fide manner in the exercise of such discretion, we are not aware of any Ontario statutes that particularly and explicitly provide for such discretion or recognize it. To that extent, we would think it is best left to the common law.
The Chair: You are aware of the letter from the Ontario Provincial Police, Ministry of the Solicitor General, dated June 19, from J.W. Hutton, director and superintendent, traffic and marine branch. Under the heading of enforcement--this is a letter to John C. Hughes, acting director, safety planning and policy branch, from the Ministry of Transportation--Superintendent Hutton writes among other things: "Agree the fine should be $78.75 but don't look for police officers to be charging very many bicyclists with the penalty being so high."
1600
Mrs Dias: Unfortunately, I'm not in a position to comment because I'm not here as a ministry representative.
The Chair: Of course not, but I wanted you to be aware that we had that information from Superintendent Hutton. We do appreciate what you said and why you said it.
Ms Clarke: I think those latter comments were on the issue that came up on Monday about the discretion of enforcement officers.
The Chair: Quite right. Mr McGuinty.
Mr Dalton McGuinty (Ottawa South): I just wanted to confirm with legislative counsel what in fact has happened here is that no one who is about to be charged, who has been apprehended and is about to be charged could insist that a police officer exercise discretion. Is that correct?
Mrs Dias: That is correct.
Mr McGuinty: So if the officer chose to do so, for whatever reason, and laid a charge and decided not to go to court but rather make payment out of court, it's $90?
Mrs Dias: It would be if the general penalty under the Highway Traffic Act applied, and it does apply in the proposal.
Mr McGuinty: All right. Is it possible to provide legislatively for another penalty to apply?
Mrs Dias: The possibility is there. The only thing is for perception again, we're trying to convey that this is a serious matter not to wear a helmet. If you reduce it below the general penalty, the message that goes out to the public, I think, defeats the original purpose. Because you have, for instance, with not having a bell or the lighting provisions and others--if they're all at that level, how can one justify this, which is a serious matter and has societal costs involved with it, and everything else seems like it's secondary?
Mr McGuinty: On the other hand, these bicycle laws, the ones when we're talking about you have to have a bell, you have to have certain reflectors I gather, and lights riding at night--
Mrs Dias: Equipment.
Mr McGuinty: --yes, and now the helmet, they're not being enforced, and I think that the helmet one will not be enforced because officers are concerned about the size of the fine.
Mrs Dias: I can only assume that in more serious infractions there will be enforcement.
Mr McGuinty: Okay.
The Chair: Yes, ma'am?
Mrs Dianne Cunningham (London North): I guess I want to state what I've said over and over again, and that is that there is a two-year lead time in the implementation of this legislation.
As I said to one of my constituents on Friday, for these people that think we shouldn't be charging people, which is a law and I know that is the end result, the real intention of this legislation is to have a lot of public education around the importance of wearing a bicycle helmet.
I said to him that if he really doesn't think we need legislation to get people wearing helmets and if he doesn't think we need legislation because people will be fine, he's got two years to prove that we've got a great compliance level in the province of Ontario. That's why we're waiting two years. That's going to be my defence of the way that we've moved in this committee, which I think has been particularly responsible.
It will be interesting to note, for all these people who think that they shouldn't wear bicycle helmets, just what the compliance level will be with the law before we even have any authority to fine anybody. I hope that the Ministry of Transportation, as part of the public education, will keep the kinds of facts in cooperation with community groups that do that already, cycling groups like in Ottawa, and we'll just find out how many people perhaps should have been charged. These are the kinds of statistics we're hoping will be kept.
I'm not talking about a major bureaucratic research study. I'm talking about a sensible compilation of facts, and we were told that these are kept now.
The Chair: Yes, sir.
Mr Kimble Sutherland (Oxford): I think too it's important to note that already people are beginning to comply since the announcement in June. I certainly noticed over the summer that far more bicycle helmets are out there. So you're already having the educational impact of the fact that you're going to introduce it.
The Chair: Thank you. Ms Clarke, lead us into the next area, please.
Ms Clarke: Okay, Mr Huget asked me to look into the number of charges for the offence of not having a bell, gong or horn. Actually, when I took a further look at the Highway Traffic Act, I then realized that the bell, gong or horn section applies to motor vehicles, motor-assisted bicycles and tricycles, but the total--bicycles and tricycles--the total number of convictions is 248 convictions. That was for 1991 and there were 1.2 million total convictions under the Highway Traffic Act, so we may conclude that it's not widely enforced. For improper lights on bicycle or tricycle there were 396 convictions.
Mr Huget: Could I get you to run that by me again: 248 charges under--how many total--
Ms Clarke: Actually they were convictions.
Mr Huget: --convictions out of how many total under the Highway Traffic Act?
Ms Clarke: It's 1.2 million.
Mr Huget: Charges?
Ms Clarke: Convictions.
The Chair: For no bell or gong?
Ms Clarke: Or horn.
Mr Huget: So 248 people in Ontario in 1991 were convicted of not having the proper horn, gong or bell. Is that right? And 396 in the province were convicted of having improper lights or no lights.
Ms Clarke: On their bicycle or tricycle.
Mr Huget: On bicycle or tricycle.
The Chair: That applies to the horn, bell, gong as well--bicycle, tricycle.
Ms Clarke: The horn, bell or gong applies to motor vehicle, motor-assisted bicycle and tricycle, and bicycle. Sorry.
The Chair: There's no way of determining how many of those are non-motor-assisted bicycles?
Ms Clarke: No, unfortunately, when I took a further look at the act, I realized that the bell, gong or horn offence applies to several.
The Chair: But you don't have to be a pollster to figure out that there are ain't very many charges laid against bicyclists for not having a bell or a gong or a horn. Do you?
Ms Clarke: I wouldn't think so.
The Chair: Okay, because I had no trouble, I wouldn't think you would have had to be very smart.
Mr McGuinty: I address this question to all three of you. Do you have any reason to believe that the rate of enforcement for helmets will be greater than that for which it has been relating to bells and the like?
Ms Clarke: It depends, I guess, on how much priority was placed on that safety issue. I don't know if you've been following, but in the last few years the ministry has placed a high priority on seatbelts and we've raised the seatbelt usage rate by yearly campaigns which combine education and enforcement. Education combined with enforcement seem to be the key in really getting your usage rate up.
Mr McGuinty: Mrs Dias, do you know if the police, practically speaking, will have the time to enforce this new law?
Mrs Dias: It is anticipated that initially in the initial phases of the legislation the police will, as they do with all new legislation, issue warnings before they go out and lay charges, but once public awareness and education are in place, I believe the act will be enforced.
Mr McGuinty: Something that I raised the other day, Ms Clarke, and I don't think you made a note of it, unless you have yet to come to it, dealt with--I raised the example of a 15-year-old who had removed his or her helmet once out of sight of his or her parents. Is the child subject to penalty?
Ms Clarke: I think that fits into the question "unknowingly."
Ms Chyz: It is "knowingly" where the parent or guardian is liable.
Mr McGuinty: I'm not talking about the parent now. I'm talking about the child.
Ms Chyz: The child, no. The offence would be on the parent in those circumstances.
Mr McGuinty: So we can never levy a penalty against someone under 16. Is that correct?
Ms Chyz: Right, because they're minors, they're still under supervision and it also, I think, probably alleviates the problem for the police in dealing with minors. I think it's a better idea for them to deal with adults in those circumstances where you have a minor involved.
Ms Clarke: But it's my understanding that someone could be charged with an offence, for example, the lighting, if they were 15 on a bicycle.
Ms Chyz: Yes.
Ms Clarke: So what you're saying is that the helmet law would be different from, say, the bell, gong or horn or lighting.
Ms Chyz: Right. We haven't provided anything similar in the other areas.
Mr McGuinty: Why not? Is that just an oversight? I mean, if I'm 15 and I want to kick up my heels, I can say: "Look, this is great. There's a law in place. They can't enforce it against me. I'll just take the helmet off as soon as I'm around the corner."
Ms Chyz: Right, but I think within the ambits of the bill that Mrs Cunningham has introduced, the other areas were not considered. It's something for future review.
1610
Mrs Dias: I think also enforcement of all acts is mandatory. It's the discretion in the laying of a charge. There have to be reasonable grounds, but enforcement basically is mandatory for all pieces of legislation.
Mrs Cunningham: So the kid will have to get a paper route. If the parent has to pay, he's got to pay it back.
Mr McGuinty: The parent won't have to pay if the child doesn't deliberately--
Mrs Cunningham: Yes, if the "knowingly" doesn't occur.
Mr Sutherland: Can I just ask, what happens now with other offences outside of this--oh, sorry.
The Chair: No, you can.
Mr Sutherland: I just want to know what happens with other offences outside of this. Presumably there are children under 16 who commit acts of vandalism, there are damages, the courts sometimes award--
The Chair: Vandalism, shootings, break and enters.
Mr Sutherland: --but they sometimes issue repayment of the damage.
Mrs Cunningham: It's all different now.
Mr Sutherland: It's all different?
Ms Chyz: Excuse me, I'd like to correct myself. The question was can we ever go after the 14- and 15-year-old. I look at the legislation being proposed and what is being proposed is that you could lay charges against the 14- or 15-year-old, but you could also, in circumstances where he says, "I wasn't given money. My parents haven't provided me," you also have the option to charge the parent.
The Chair: Mr Sutherland asks about, just in general, people under 16, be it for criminal offences or for other federal offences or for provincial offences. Can you tell us what the status of people under 16 is with respect to other provincial or federal offences?
Mr Sutherland: If someone commits an act of vandalism and there are damages, the court says you must repay those damages. Who's liable in that case? Is it the 14-year-old or is it the parents of the 14-year-old who pay for those damages?
Ms Chyz: This is between 12 and 16 you're asking? Under 12, I think the parents are responsible. Between 12 and 16, again I think it depends on the facts, whether you know the parents somehow have complied with it or not or the teenager could bear the consequence.
Mr Sutherland: Thank you.
The Chair: Yes, sir.
Mr Huget: The numbers that you provided on the--for example, the no-proper-light convictions of 396. I think that very clearly points to the fact that enforcement is a problem in terms of trying to deal with this issue. I would suspect that there were more than 396 people in the province of Ontario that didn't have a light on their bike or rode their bike in conditions and didn't have a proper horn or light.
My problem is that I don't think the helmet legislation will be enforced any differently than this legislation. I think it's partly because the police departments in this province have other things to do that they may view as more important in trying to deal with what they have to deal with on a day-to-day basis.
I think you're going to see the same kind of thing with the helmet issue, that it's not going to be enforced. It's going to be very difficult to enforce, which puts more emphasis, to me, on all the other things that go along with this helmet issue. That has in part been my trouble with this bill from the beginning. It just deals with a certain aspect of cycling, but I don't believe it can be enforced. I think those numbers reinforce to me that the other issues on cycling safety and other actions and other initiatives become more and more and more important, because I don't think you can achieve anything, given those numbers.
Ms Chyz: Even if the enforcement isn't at the rate that you would like it to be, I think that the message that goes to the public is that there is a legal requirement. Most responsible people will comply and they are already complying. As you see people now on the roads, they are wearing bicycle helmets. There is a small group that are difficult, and I presume the police may be able to deal with them.
Mr Huget: There needs to be, as far as I'm concerned, a heck of a lot more done in terms of public education and awareness, because you're right, there are people on the road today wearing helmets. They go by me at night with their helmets on and no light. There's a problem here.
To think that people are just going to automatically comply, I think, is a giant leap of faith, to tell you the truth. There is a lot more that needs to be done in terms of the public awareness issue. It's not happening. If you think it's happening, it's not. I would find very little consequence in having somebody go by at night on a bicycle with a helmet on and say: "Isn't that great. They're wearing their bicycle helmet with no light."
Or, if we continue to put bicycles in heavily travelled traffic patterns in the city, where they compete with trucks and buses and cars, I don't know how successful any of this is going to be. I understand that the bike helmet is going to help prevent head injury, but I'm interested in helping to prevent accidents.
Ms Chyz: Again, perhaps by example, we take the seatbelt assemblies. I think there was a lot of opposition in the beginning, but most people wear them now. I think it's just a very small group that are still defying the law. With a bicycle helmet, it's something visible that you can't hide, whereas some other equipment that you're required to have, you can camouflage.
Mr Huget: I don't see how easy it would be to camouflage a light, but I guess I'll let it go.
Mrs Cunningham: I just think that Mr Huget has an important point and we did say that we wanted to do a report, along with the legislation, to the members of the assembly. I think that's extremely important that we do that.
As for the point that he has raised with regard to public education, I can just say a couple of things that I've always said. First of all, I was absolutely commendable towards the minister when he introduced his road safety policy in the spring, because this is part of an overall safety policy on behalf of the government.
I was pleased to see that because, of course, we all know that the most important part of this legislation--not this legislation, but of this policy, this safe road policy for cyclists--is that we have safe roads, that we have bicycle lanes, that we have bicycle paths. That just has to be the most important thing, and that we educate people around the usage.
I should tell you, as I've travelled a little bit about the province, I'm absolutely thrilled at the way the individual municipalities have taken it upon themselves to put out maps of their municipalities showing safe bike lanes and bike paths and the rules of the road and they've included the importance of wearing a helmet.
We're seeing a lot of response to this, but I do think we should put that kind of report together, even if it is a matter of doing the one that we have in front of us in another way, because I think it's important, both to our colleagues and to the public of Ontario, to let them know that this has not been done lightly. It's not proposed in any way that this is going to be the solution to the problem of accident prevention or head injuries, that it can't be dealt with alone.
I certainly want to get those remarks on the record, Mr Chairman, and I would hope that what we've heard today from the staff can only go to support what we're trying to do here. I think it's extremely refreshing, because when we first started to talk about this a couple of years ago, I can tell you, the response in the room wasn't the same as what we're getting now. I think we've all been educated in the process. We've spent a lot of time at it and it's now our responsibility to educate the people that we represent.
Ms Clarke: I just want to reiterate that there are some issues in the report that the ministry coordinated that haven't yet been resolved. I think two of the most important issues are the issue of the public education. No one has come forth with the funding yet and the ministry has said that it doesn't have funding to go forward.
Another issue is the CSA standard for children under age 5. I was in touch with the chairman of the technical committee at CSA today and he was saying that he thinks it would cost between $25,000 and $30,000, but the pins are in place to begin developing this standard. If the legislation were to go forward with a set date and these two issues weren't resolved, I think there could be problems.
Mr McGuinty: Ms Clarke, are you telling us then that there exists the very real possibility that this bill could become law, a date could be set by which the enforcement would commence, yet a thorough education program could not have been funded and put in place?
Ms Clarke: I guess there's always the possibility of that because so far, based on the report provided from the ministries, there wasn't clear direction on who would take the lead and where the funding would come from. In meetings of this committee before, I think it was raised that it wouldn't take small amounts of money. To really educate every corner of the province would take a significant amount of funds. So I think that definitely should be very clearly stated in the report back to the Legislature.
1620
The Chair: Mr Edgar.
Mr David Edgar: My name's David Edgar and I'm assistant to the minister in the minister's office.
The Chair: Of Transportation.
Mr Edgar: Yes. When the minister made his announcement that the government supported this project in principle, along with that he indicated that a considerable educational campaign is needed to bring up public awareness, and I think that statement indicates that there will be some funding available for educational initiatives. There wasn't a pricetag contained in the report, but I think the clear indication is that the government's supporting this policy and funding will be forthcoming for the initiative, but I'm not sure exactly how much or who the partners will be. That's to be looked into in the near future.
The Chair: You will note, and my thanks to Ms Anderson for pointing this out, that the Interministerial Response to the Report of the Standing Committee on Resources Development coordinated by the safety planning and policy branch of the Ministry of Transportation, dated October 14, 1992, at page 17, speaking to the need for an education campaign, states that:
"A campaign of this nature would require $1.5 million in startup costs and approximately $.5 million for each subsequent year. The ministries of Transportation, Health, Education, Solicitor General and Tourism and Recreation should be responsible for the campaigns on an ongoing basis."
I just mention that to try to be of assistance. Mr McGuinty.
Mr McGuinty: I have a real concern and I'm sure we're all realists here. These are difficult economic times and God knows how long they're going to last, but we've had to put something in motion here which, to be truly effective, is dependent upon a good, properly funded educational program, and there's no assurance that we're going to have that.
Mrs Cunningham: Could I just speak to this, Mr Chairman? This is something that we knew from the very beginning and, actually, the number is lower than what I thought it might be. When we first began our work here, we had numbers of private sector people who had already done a lot of work. All you have to do is take a look at some of the retail brochures that are sent out and the flyers on the weekends for some of the stores where bicycle helmets are sold. They've done things without us ever asking them, and certainly before I ever got involved.
We've had numbers of letters saying that they would be prepared to focus on this legislation because they think it is important. So many people, more than ever before I think, are making their community involvement part of their responsibilities as people who are involved in the retail sector in society.
You should also know that drug companies have already put a lot of money into prevention programs around injury, and we can thank Sandoz for numbers of pamphlets that were certainly out and about in the millions across this country before we ever got involved in this.
You should also know that some of the medical associations--right from the paediatricians to the neurologists and neurosurgeons and the Ontario Medical Association, and now the Canadian Medical Association--can and should be approached with regard to their ongoing involvement and their increased involvement.
There are so many opportunities for all of us to work together in this regard, and I've certainly had this discussion with the minister. The Minister of Health is extremely interested in this legislation. If you remember, that ministry advises that we implement this bill within the year.
We've come so far. I think that the last thing I'd like to say is, and it's certainly on my mind, if we're looking at the 1st of October, 1994, there is time to take a look at how this is moving along. That's one of the reasons that we delayed the implementation date and I hope it's with some sense of responsibility.
The two things that I am going to be looking for, quite frankly, maybe at some risk, is how well the public education programs are going. Everybody knows that the Ministry of Education is going to be very responsible for that because that's where these things are taught, and it all starts in the early years with the support of home and school associations that are already on board. They've written to us. I don't know what more we can do to reassure everybody.
But the other one I think is certainly at risk, on all of our parts, because I think we really want this to happen, is to take a look at the compliance. My view is that there will be some improvement. My other view is that it won't be good enough. But for those people who don't like legislation, here's a real challenge for them.
That to you, Mr McGuinty, is a true challenge, because there are a couple of communities that have certainly gone on record as not being in support of the legislation and yours is one of them. Yet it has one of the highest compliances, if not the highest in the province of Ontario. But 33% isn't good enough. Let's see if they can come up with 90% and maybe we'll come back with the legislation and make an exception for the city of Ottawa or something.
But whatever you want, I can only say that we've come so far and the intent of the minister--I mean the assistant came up to tell you--both ministers, in fact all three ministers, Education, Health and Transportation, have spoken to me with regard to their responsibilities for public education. What more can I say?
The Chair: Ms Clarke.
Ms Clarke: I've finished.
The Chair: What about the issue of where is it that one would have to be riding this bicycle to be subject to the law?
Ms Chyz: It's tied in with the definition of highway within the Highway Traffic Act, which is the fence-to-fence distance.
The Chair: Okay, but I think the committee people need, let's say, some examples to understand that fully.
Ms Chyz: Examples would be the municipal roads that you may be riding, Queen Street in Toronto, King Street, provincial highways like the 401 series. Well, you're not supposed to be on a bicycle there. That was a bad example, but any of the Queen's highways.
Mr Len Wood (Cochrane North): County roads.
Ms Chyz: Right.
The Chair: You're saying no private property.
Ms Chyz: We're not regulating off-highway riding. It's on-highway as defined within the Highway Traffic Act.
The Chair: And you're saying no public property as long as it isn't a highway either.
Ms Chyz: Right.
The Chair: So you're saying that if somebody were in a park on a bicycle path, that wouldn't fit into the current definition of a Highway Traffic Act highway. Is that what you're saying?
Ms Chyz: No, that doesn't fit into the definition.
The Chair: Similarly, bicyclists who are engaged in sporting events again wouldn't be covered by this legislation, short of on-road bicycle racing, but these BMX events and that sort of thing wouldn't be subject to this legislation in view of the fact that they're almost inevitably on private or public property, neither of which are highways pursuant to the Highway Traffic Act.
Ms Chyz: Right, if it's off-highway or if the highway is closed, then they would not be bound by this.
The Chair: Thank you. Mr Ward.
Mr Brad Ward (Brantford): But if the race occurred on a portion of the highway they would have to, theoretically, wear their helmets.
Ms Chyz: Again, if the highway was closed off to other users, then there is case law saying it's no longer a highway. It's just excluded.
Mr Ward: If it's a special event and the municipality or whatever agrees to close the road for that event.
Ms Chyz: Right, it's no longer a highway.
Mr Ward: They'd be nuts not to wear a helmet anyway.
Mr Sutherland: Most of them require them. You can't enter without it.
Mr McGuinty: Sidewalks?
Ms Chyz: In municipalities, I believe that the bylaws can either prohibit or, under the Municipal Act, they can regulate whether the bicycle can be on or not.
Mr McGuinty: Okay, I'm not asking whether it can be on, though. Sidewalk doesn't come within the definition of a highway.
Ms Chyz: On provincial highways there are no sidewalks so it doesn't impact those. Again it would depend on the designation of the road or highway.
The Chair: What Mr McGuinty is asking is that if people have their young child out on a bicycle and they're holding on to the back seat teaching that child how to ride the bike, inevitably on the sidewalk, whether or not that child and/or the parental liability that might flow from an amendment incorporating liability for a parent with this quasi-criminal, whether that would apply to that child being on a sidewalk.
Ms Chyz: If it's within the highway designation, then yes.
The Chair: But Mr McGuinty is asking whether a sidewalk would be within a highway designation in most circumstances.
Ms Chyz: I think in most situations it might be but there may be situations that the designation doesn't include.
Mrs Cunningham: Municipal politicians can respond to this. They know.
The Chair: Any other comments or questions to put to these people?
1630
Mr McGuinty: Bicycle paths, I assume then, wouldn't fall within the definition of highway?
Mrs Cunningham: No, but there's a perfect example where municipalities can or may come forward and say, "You'll wear a bicycle helmet." Right now you don't have to make a signal, you don't have to have a light, you don't have to do any of those things unless the municipality says that the Highway Traffic Act will apply. I know in the city of London it does, so helmets will be necessary, just like everything else.
The Chair: Thank you. I want to thank you, Ms Clarke, Ms Chyz and Mrs Dias, for helping us with the questions put to you. You've been gracious and charitable with your time. I'm hoping that you might be able to stay as a number of amendments are going to be put, and there may well be discussion and questions that you can respond to about those amendments. We thank you very much. We appreciate your being there, as well as Mr Edgar who's displayed an incredible and undying interest in this legislation.
Mr Huget has a motion. He moves that section 1 of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:
"1. Subsection 104(3) of the Act is repealed and the following substituted:
"Bicyclists to wear helmet
"(2.1) No person shall ride on or operate a bicycle on a highway unless the person is wearing a bicycle helmet that complies with the regulations and the chin strap of the helmet is securely fastened under the chin.
"Duty of parent or guardian
"(2.2) No parent or guardian of a person under sixteen years of age shall authorize or knowingly permit that person to ride on or operate a bicycle on a highway unless the person is wearing a bicycle helmet as required by subsection (2.1).
"Regulations
"(3) The Lieutenant Governor in Council may make regulations,
"(a) prescribing standards and specifications for helmets referred to in subsections (1), (2) and (2.1);
"(b) providing for and requiring the identification and marking of the helmets;
"(c) exempting any person or class of persons from the requirements of this section and prescribing conditions for exemptions."
Do you want to speak to that amendment? First, I should indicate that it requires unanimous consent, so unanimous consent? Thank you. Mr Huget, do you want to speak to that?
Mr Huget: No, I think it pretty well speaks for itself. We discussed it in detail on Monday. I have no further comment so if you want to--
The Chair: Do you have the French version?
Mr Huget: If someone else wants to comment, they can.
The Chair: Ms Cunningham.
Mrs Cunningham: I want to comment on the Chairman's ability to read fast.
The Chair: I know it's surprising to people.
Mrs Cunningham: It's shocking. At any rate, no, I don't have anything to say.
The Chair: Thank you, Ms Cunningham.
Mr Sutherland: Nothing about the Chair should shock you.
The Chair: And I try so hard. Mr McGuinty.
Mr McGuinty: I just wanted to confirm the, you know, during the summer months the Minister of Transportation announced that he was going to make bicycle helmets mandatory. I just wanted to confirm that this is the legislation. There is no other legislation intended and this is supported by the government. Is that correct?
Ms Chyz: To my knowledge, I'm not aware of any other legislation that is being done on this matter. This is the legislation that is being supported.
Mr McGuinty: Maybe Mr Edgar can add something to that.
Mr Edgar: The minister clearly indicated his support for the bill and the government's support for the bill. It has to be called for third reading and passed and that's at the discretion of the House leaders.
Mr McGuinty: I might ask this as well at this time. Is there any time frame for passing this third reading?
Ms Chyz: There is a motion, I believe, for commencement. Oh, I'm sorry, I'm off.
Mr Edgar: My understanding is that after it's through this committee it's sent back to the Legislature, the bill with the report, and it's at the discretion of the House leaders to call the bill for third reading as any other piece of legislation would be at this stage.
The Chair: I don't think Mr Edgar can--I mean, he can do his best to answer that and he's obviously being candid, but really that's not something he has control over.
Any further discussion regarding Mr Huget's amendment? All those in favour of the motion amending the bill as indicated, please indicate. Opposed? Motion carries amending the bill.
Now I'll put to you section 1 of the bill, as amended. All those in favour of section 1 of the bill as amended, please indicate. Opposed? Section 1 of the bill passes.
We now have an amendment to section 2. Mr Huget moves that section 2 of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:
"2. This act comes into force on the 1st day of October, 1994."
Any discussion?
Mr Huget: No, Mr Chairman.
The Chair: Ms Cunningham?
Mrs Cunningham: No, Mr Chairman.
Mr McGuinty: I think the comments I made earlier with respect to the lack of assurance funding and that a proper program would be implemented are not there and cannot reasonably include it.
The Chair: All those in favour of Mr Huget's motion amending section 2 of the bill, please indicate. Opposed? Mr Huget's motion amending section 2 of the bill carries.
Does section 2 of the bill, as amended, carry? All in favour indicate, please. Opposed? Section 2 of the bill, as amended, carries.
Section 3 of the bill. Any discussion? All those in favour of section 3 of the bill, please indicate. That is to say, does it carry? All those opposed? Section 3 of the bill carries.
Title of the bill. Shall the title of the bill carry? All those in favour, please indicate. Opposed? Shall the bill carry, as amended. All those in favour--I'm sorry?
Mr Ward: Can we have a recorded vote?
The Chair: Of course you can. It's your right. Who would want to discourage people exercising their rights here at Queen's Park?
Mr Ward: Exactly, Mr Chairman.
Mr Huget: Mr Chairman, these late-night sittings, I don't know what they do to people.
The Chair: All those in favour of Bill 124, as amended, carrying, please indicate. Keep your hand raised until your name is called.
Ayes
Cunningham, Huget, Klopp, Sutherland, Ward (Brantford), Wood.
The Chair: All those opposed?
Nays
McGuinty.
The Chair: The bill carries. Shall I report the bill to the Legislature? All in favour, please indicate. Opposed? Thank you. I understand that the clerk will make arrangements for the bill to be reported to the Legislature at the earliest opportunity. Yes, sir?
Mr Huget: On a point?
The Chair: Sure.
Mr Huget: I believe in our discussion on Monday there was some agreement by members on the committee that we should not only report the bill, but also perhaps make a recommendation or two from this committee around the whole cycle safety study and a number of other issues. Could I get clarification of the process to do that?
The Chair: The capacity of the committee to do that conjointly with the presentation of the bill could be argued. It remains, however, that the committee can do anything it wants certainly by unanimous consent and in most instances by majority vote. The committee heard an incredible amount of input over the course of many days of inquiry as a result of Bill 124 being referred to the committee. You're indicating that a whole lot of that input reflects not only the content of Bill 124, but also would be valuable content matter of a report.
I'm indicating to you that, pursuant to standing order 108, the committee is "authorized to study and report on all matters relating to the mandate, management, organization or operation of the ministries and offices which are assigned to them from time to time, as well as the agencies, boards or commissions reporting to such ministries and offices." Obviously the Ministry of Transportation and the relevance of this matter to the ministry is obvious.
Is it the pleasure of the committee that the committee prepare a report to be reported to the House as a result of its lengthy and substantial hearings into this matter? Do you want to speak to that?
1640
Mr Huget: Yes, I would. I think a lot of the input we got on this bill was extremely important and it shouldn't be disposed of and it should be brought to the attention of the full House. The second point is this interministerial response. Could that form part of that report as well?
The Chair: Sure, anything you want can be a part of that report.
Mr Huget: Third, the safe cycling document, could that be incorporated into the report?
The Chair: Yes, sir. You can do anything you want.
Mr Huget: My reason for asking that is that I think there are a whole bunch of issues here that are unresolved with the passage of Bill 124, in the event that it does pass, and that is, the whole safe cycling policies and programs that will have to developed in this province.
If we're encouraging the use of bicycles, then we've got to address the other issues and the other issues, I think, are much broader than helmets, lights and horns. I mean there is a whole safety education and awareness issue, there is a whole municipal infrastructure issue that has to be dealt with, and these are very serious issues to me. I think there is no point us trying to reinvent the wheel here, as it were, because a lot of what came out during the course of this bill, if it's compiled into a report and combined with the interministerial response and the safe cycling report, will deal with all the issues. But I think it's just extremely important that we raise the awareness of the House to all those other issues that extend far beyond the use of a helmet.
Mrs Cunningham: I think that's extremely important. I wouldn't mind having a paragraph in there with regard to the number of times that we did meet and over what period of time, number of witnesses, because we did put a lot of time in over a period of time. There were many opportunities for the public to appear and many of us--you'll never be able to document the numbers of letters we've all individually received or the numbers of meetings that we've attended to clarify or get good advice. I'm not talking about myself. I'm talking about many members of the Legislative Assembly.
I think that if we can talk about the work this committee did over a period of time, it would be extremely important for the public to know that this wasn't dealt with lightly. Also, I think the committee should formally be thanking certainly the representatives from the ministries of Transportation, Solicitor General, Tourism and Recreation, Citizenship, Industry, Trade and Technology, Education, Community and Social Services and Health, because it hasn't been the work of just the one ministry, although they've taken the lead and they've done it extremely well. We should be thanking not only the citizens who have appeared, but the ministry staff who helped us so much in our deliberations in some way. I think it's important that we start doing that.
The Chair: Is there unanimous agreement that this committee--
Mr Huget: On a point?
The Chair: Of course.
Mr Huget: I would include the valuable input of the Toronto City Cycling Committee, which I believe was involved as well.
The Chair: Is there unanimous agreement that the committee prepare and present a report? It's unanimous agreement.
Ms Anderson has prepared a draft outline. One of the problems we've got is that we're here until the end of next week. I'm confident we'll have a little bit of time. Notwithstanding Mr Jordan's 125 designation, I am confident we'll have a little bit of time in the committee to deal with the matter of the report. The committee is committed for some 38 minutes on our next meeting date, a week today, only to deal with an outstanding matter of an earlier 125 designation.
Ms Anderson proposes that a draft outline might be as follows: that there be an introduction indicating the purpose of the report; that there be some discussion of Bill 124, its purpose, date of introduction, background; that there be some description of the process, length of hearings, witnesses; addressing the matter of the interministerial report; legislated amendments in Bill 124; other issues: overall approach; where coverage should apply; enforcement; helmets; affordability; education and awareness.
Is that a suitable outline for the committee to consider if it calls upon the legislative research to flesh that out?
Mr Huget: Yes, basically I'm fine with that.
The Chair: Again there's unanimous consent in that regard. Ms Cunningham?
Mrs Cunningham: Does that then mean that we can meet next Monday on this and receive the report? Because most of the information that will have to be inserted is already in this report. It's a matter of making it succinct.
The Chair: Ms Anderson has got a whole lot of material that she's got to go through. That's not giving her much notice but then again, if we have to defer to the 125 designation on Ontario Hydro, that will take priority. You're suggesting then that, at the point at which we adjourn, we adjourn until Monday, asking Ms Anderson to at least try to provide the skeleton of a report for Monday, so that it might then be discussed and put back to her for some further refinement come Wednesday.
Mrs Cunningham: That would be wonderful. Can I just tell you what I'm thinking with regard to a time frame here? The committee can now--Mr Chairman, you can report the bill to the House. That's my understanding. You could do that at any time. Is that correct?
The Chair: Yes, ma'am.
Mrs Cunningham: You could do it tomorrow if you wanted to. Just stand up during reports of committees and do it.
The Chair: Yes, ma'am.
Mrs Cunningham: Okay. So if in fact the House Leaders decided that they wanted to call this bill some time next week, if that's the wish of the government, and it may be, who knows, this report won't hold us up in that regard. The bill can then be reported, but the purpose of the report is to accompany the bill as far as possible. Is that right? Would that be fair?
The Chair: The report is being done under standing order 108 and that's why we chose that course. It's not dependent upon the bill whatsoever, but it clearly accompanies the bill in terms of reflecting what took place in this committee.
Mrs Cunningham: Okay. I forgot about the separation. Thank you.
Mr Huget: Would it be more helpful if indeed we had the report, even though it was done under a 108 at about the same time the bill was back into the House? I don't want this report to lose its emphasis, because they're very clearly connected.
The Chair: It's anticipated that the bill will be reported far earlier than a report could be simply because of the time necessary to prepare a report. It's entirely possible that Ms Anderson can't complete the report for the committee's approval until we return in March.
Mrs Cunningham: But that's not going to hold up the government if it wants to proceed.
The Chair: Quite right.
Mr Huget: It's not a question of the bill. I want to make it very clear that I do not want this report lost in the shuffle, because it's extremely important with this bill.
The Chair: Thank you, Mrs Cunningham and Mr Huget. Any other matters?
Mrs Cunningham: Only to say, Mr Chairman, that we certainly appreciated your leadership throughout our deliberations.
The Chair: You're welcome, Ms Cunningham. Any time.
Mrs Cunningham: I think you've made people feel very comfortable, although you've set very firm guidelines around the running of meetings.
I would also like to thank my colleagues, some of whom have changed over this long period of time, because I think we have been in this for about a couple of years. Just to say that I've appreciated the interest they've taken and the fact that all of us have learned together. I think it has been a very non-partisan approach to something that's important for the citizens of Ontario. I wish it could happen more often. I really am very appreciative of the way this committee has operated and of the people who have given so graciously and with interest of their time.
The Chair: Everybody thanks you for your kind words, and obviously this committee and all those people who at various times have sat on it are well aware of you being the driving force behind this legislation and undoubtedly providing a lot of the enthusiasm that the committee has acquired over the course of its consideration of the bill. You are to be congratulated on so successfully moving a private member's bill so far along the process. That is a rare phenomenon.
Mrs Cunningham: Can I say one more thing?
The Chair: Sure.
Mrs Cunningham: I never do this. I never do anything well alone and many of you probably know that we've had a couple of people in the audience from time to time who have guided us. David is one and Andrea Strathdee is another, but we've also had Anne Anderson from the beginning and we've had Tannis and others.
I think all of us forget from time to time to say how appreciative we are, so I wanted to put that on the record because no individual member in this Legislative Assembly could ever get this far without the help of so many people. They really have done so much of the work, much more than myself.
The Chair: Thank you, ma'am.
Mr Huget: Much briefer, and I'd like to thank all the other committee members as well for their participation and the Chair for his usual excellent leadership, if not somewhat unique style, and of course the staff. The staff that is associated with this committee always does one heck of a job.
I'll just say, as we move out of this stage, that we were pleased to participate in Bill 124, but I think from my own part I'll be much happier when we address all the other issues that are associated with safe cycling in spite of the initiatives that will be in place after Bill 124.
The Chair: Thank you, sir. Mr McGuinty.
Mr McGuinty: Well, I thought I'd never have the opportunity. I want to congratulate Dianne, in particular, for the bulldoggedness with which she has pursued this initiative. She has been a fine example of what can happen, I guess, if you really put your mind to something and don't give up. I'm not sure where our caucus is going to stand ultimately on this, Dianne, but notwithstanding the position that we ultimately take, you are to be congratulated for a job well done.
The Chair: The committee has to move on to its next matter of business which is, of course, Mr Jordan's 125 designation. I'm advised by Ms Manikel, the clerk, that there are no witnesses present today. In view of that I will ask her to invite those witnesses in writing to appear before the committee. There being no further business, the committee is adjourned until 3:30 pm or soon thereafter. Thank you, people.
The committee adjourned at 1651.