Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

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

CONTENTS

Wednesday 27 May 1992

Highway Traffic Amendment Act, 1992, Bill 124

STANDING COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT

Chair / Président: Kormos, Peter (Welland-Thorold ND)

*Vice-Chair / Vice-Président: Waters, Daniel (Muskoka-Georgian Bay/Muskoka-Baie-Georgianne ND)

Conway, Sean G. (Renfrew North/-Nord L)

*Dadamo, George (Windsor-Sandwich ND)

*Jordan, Leo (Lanark-Renfrew PC)

*Klopp, Paul (Huron ND)

*McGuinty, Dalton (Ottawa South/-Sud L)

*Murdock, Sharon (Sudbury ND)

*Offer, Steven (Mississauga North/-Nord L)

*Turnbull, David (York Mills PC)

*Wood, Len (Cochrane North/-Nord ND)

*In attendance / présents

Also taking part / Autres participants et participantes:

Cunningham, Dianne (London North/-Nord PC)

Edgar, David, special assistant, legislative, minister's office, Ministry of Transportation

Strathdee, Andrea, executive assistant to Mrs Cunningham

Clerk / Greffier: Brown, Harold

Staff / Personnel: Anderson, Anne, research officer, Legislative Research Service

The committee met at 1602 in committee room 1.

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

Resuming consideration of Bill 124, An Act to amend the Highway Traffic Act / Loi portant modification du Code de la route.

The Vice-Chair (Mr Daniel Waters): I call the meeting to order. Today, we're to deal with further consideration of Bill 124. I believe Ms Cunningham wanted to go through and we were going to work on some proposals to put forward.

Mrs Dianne Cunningham (London North): The document we're going to be working from is dated May 11, 1992. It's a memorandum to our committee from Anne Anderson with regard to the process and the issues. Although we've made some efforts here, I think we should probably be reminded about the process, Mr Chairman. I'm not sure whether you want to do it or whether we want Ms Anderson to do that, but I think we should be reminded about where we're at and what we want to accomplish today. I feel we can do it, given the information we've been given.

The Vice-Chair: Maybe we should get Ms Anderson to do it.

Ms Anne Anderson: The process we were recommending to the committee was that the committee go through the list of issues and make some decisions on the things it feels are important, including not only the policy decisions, but also whether it feels it should be in the legislation or a recommendation for the regulations or in a report.

These thoughts then would go forward to an interministerial committee which the Ministry of Transportation is putting together as the lead ministry, of a variety of ministries that would be affected by the bill. That committee would respond to this committee's recommendations and decisions, it would come back to the committee here, and at that point the committee would look at those suggestions and decide how to proceed from there, whether to incorporate them in the bill, to incorporate suggestions into recommended regulations, and proceed from that point. I think the point today would be for this committee to resolve some of the questions it's had concerning the issues.

The Vice-Chair: Thank you for that. Maybe then what we should do is go through the document starting with the issues on the top of page 3, open discussion starting with the first issue, go through it and see where we have concerns and where we all have agreement. We would start with the number one issue of who will be covered by the legislation. Is there any discussion on that? Everyone is happy with that?

Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): I certainly hope it is the intent to include children under 12; just a question whether children under 12 years are to be included. I rather suggest there's some question about that.

The Vice-Chair: Indeed, there has been some discussion about whether to include children under 12, so Mr Turnbull has opened up the discussion. Is there any other discussion on this?

Mrs Cunningham: In the act right now, at the very beginning -- and I'm going to read the clause for everybody -- "No person shall ride on or operate a motorcycle, motor assisted bicycle or bicycle on a highway unless he or she is wearing a helmet that complies with the regulations and the chin strap of the helmet is securely fastened under the chin."

So what we have now is all ages. We were told that in fact there is no no legislative change required for children under 12 because they're already covered under the Provincial Offences Act. Monday we were told by Miss Chyz that under the Provincial Offences Act you can charge persons under 12; you can do that. You may not get convictions against them, but charges may still be laid.

I suppose the other thing is to look at who really has control of the children and whether they should be responsible in any way for their conduct. Later on, in the response, I think we'll have the opportunity to talk about what the penalty ought to be if in fact we were getting at the responsibility of the parent.

With regard to who should be covered, right now everyone's covered. I think it was the intent of this committee that -- well, why should I say that? So far, I think most of us haven't thought about excluding anybody, so I think we have to say in this "who," if children under 12 years of age are to be included, we should take out "some legislative changes are required," because we don't have to do that, but I think we could say the legislation could include a clause that holds the parents legally responsible.

I have before me a letter dated May 20, 1992, to the clerk from the policy adviser in the Ministry of the Solicitor General, Irene Fantopolous, who you remember was here. We asked her to look at this issue and she has given us a clause. The question was, "Can parents be made vicariously liable for their child's failure to wear a helmet while riding a bicycle?" That was our question to her.

This is her response. "In discussions with the Ministry of Transportation, it is agreed that any attempt to make parents vicariously liable would impose extreme hardship on them. The clause suggested by MTO and set out below may be a viable alternative." Perhaps we should refer this to that committee, and I'll read it. "`No parent, guardian or legal custodian of a person under 16 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.'"

She goes on to say that, "This clause thrusts the responsibility upon a parent or other specified individuals to ensure the safety of a child without imposing an absolute liability on such individuals."

1610

The Vice-Chair: Do you want to put that forward as an exhibit?

Mrs Cunningham: Yes. I'm advised I should be putting this forward as an exhibit. We probably should have this copied, because there are two other issues covered. Does everybody have this?

Ms Anderson: Would you want me to include that suggested amendment in here?

Mrs Cunningham: Yes, under the "suggested action" part, because I think we've already started on our report, Mr Chairman. If we could consider this --

The Vice-Chair: What is it you're doing?

Mrs Cunningham: The report. Under the "suggested action" part, the report would identify amending the legislation as the way to implement the recommended coverage. "Please see attached response number 1 in the letter of May 20 from the Ministry of the Solicitor General in this regard." We could put it right in there.

Ms Anderson: I can just add it in.

Mrs Cunningham: Sure. Just add it in.

The Vice-Chair: Thank you, Mrs Cunningham. Any other discussion on who would be covered? If not, I guess we can move on to exemptions.

Mrs Cunningham: The question here is, should there be any exemptions? We've never had a discussion about this. We've had two examples. One is the example as printed here with regard to the religious exemption. I guess there are three: for medical reasons, out-of-province tourists, or costs. I'm not aware of legislation where there are any of these exemptions, or do we even want to flag them? There are persons with more experience here today than me. I'm wondering if we should start with no exemptions and see what happens. We're trying to make this as broad-based as possible. The general policy on exemptions, as printed in this report, is to start with none and then evaluate each request for exemption as it arises. I guess we could have some discussion on that, Mr Chairman.

The Vice-Chair: Is there any further discussion on the exemption issue?

Mr Turnbull: I'm looking for guidance, and this may be as a result of the fact that I haven't been sitting on these hearings. Do Sikhs currently have to wear motor bike helmets?

The Vice-Chair: Maybe we should look to -- and please, if you're going to speak, could you come to the mike?

Mr George Dadamo (Windsor-Sandwich): That's David Edgar, by the way.

Mrs Cunningham: I would suggest that you both come up to the mikes, because maybe you can help us with this as you were a part of the authorship. My understanding is that there is no exemption now under the present legislation.

Miss Andrea Strathdee: No, but when you introduce it the first time -- we had a few phone calls from Sikhs. We had two who were upset, and I think they made reference to England. I'm not sure, and maybe you know a bit more, but I thought they said that in England they were exempted from wearing helmets. I might be wrong. We haven't had anybody call us this time around, but the first time we had two phone calls from Sikhs who were upset.

Mr Paul Klopp (Huron): I think it was brought up too at the hearings. Somebody made a comment about this: What about these situations? What I'd like to know is, should there be a a general policy of no exemptions and then go from there, what is that process? Is that something where we don't need to have a committee and have legislation, that it goes just by regulation or something? I'd like to know that process.

Mr Turnbull: Perhaps I can help. If we knew whether the Highway Traffic Act currently required motor bike helmets with no exemptions, it would guide us in this legislation, and then there would be some consistency in what we're doing here.

Mr Klopp: I still would like to know the procedure we would follow with this and how it would work. Next month do we have this in place and then all of a sudden groups come forward? Does the Ministry of Transportation arbitrarily listen to the lobby and then change it, or does it have to go to a committee? What is that process?

The Vice-Chair: I believe what we are doing here is indeed making recommendations to the various ministries. If we flag something and we don't have the answer, I believe we can put the query to them so that they can get the answer for us.

Mr Turnbull: It would be my recommendation then that however the bill should be drafted, it should be consistent with the wearing of motorbike helmets. Then you don't have any conflict from one law to another.

Mr Dadamo: In an area such as exemptions, an area such as penalty enforcement, should we not have some legal advice?

Mrs Cunningham: We'll say that when we pass it on.

Mr Dadamo: And at some point we will flag and we'll send these areas off to the legal --

Mrs Cunningham: We're going to do that now.

Mr Dadamo: Okay.

Mrs Cunningham: Throughout this report, I think we should raise some issues that we have not been concerned about. The first one that has been raised is the issue of the exemption for religious reasons. Mr Turnbull has said, "Let's ask if in fact we're being consistent by a general policy on exemptions with the present legislation for motorbike helmets." My view there is, since we haven't had any challenges with that as far as I'm concerned or to the best of my knowledge, that's up to the administration within this multiministerial committee to advise us.

What we're expecting now is that when we send our report to them for their best advice, they will answer these kinds of questions. The first question is, what should we do to be consistent, I suppose, or are they aware of exemptions in the Highway Traffic Act that we ought to know about? I'm not aware of any, having read it in preparation for this bill, but they're the experts who should be advising us.

So the suggested action here on exemptions would be then the report could identify that regulation-making authority for exemptions be specified in the bill. That in fact is what we're doing, if in fact we have an exemption policy for the motorbike helmets.

The Vice-Chair: Mr Edgar, I believe you have a comment.

Mr David Edgar: Currently there is no exemption provided for Sikhs under the Highway Traffic Act not to wear helmets. If you make a recommendation that gives flexibility to the minister to review those who come forward asking for exemptions, that would probably be a prudent decision. The Sikhs have done that and the Ministry of Transportation currently is looking at that review for the exemption for Sikhs.

Mrs Cunningham: Okay.

Ms Sharon Murdock (Sudbury): There is an exemption under the health and safety regulations of the Ministry of Labour on religious grounds not to wear safety hats on work sites.

The Vice-Chair: Hansard can't hear you. Okay, he says he can record it. Carry on.

Ms Murdock: Did you hear what I said?

The Vice-Chair: No, we couldn't hear, but he could.

Ms Murdock: Under the health and safety regulations of the Ministry of Labour, there is an exemption for the wearing of safety helmets on work sites. I don't know whether or not that would carry over into the HTA or not, but there are already precedents set.

Mr Turnbull: What happens when somebody does not wear his safety helmet, say for religious reasons, and he's injured on the job? I would hope there wouldn't be any extra liability implied to the employer because, of his own volition, the person has not worn his helmet.

1620

The Vice-Chair: I would ask Mr Turnbull and Ms Murdock, I know we're trying to relate one to the other, but I really don't want to discuss compensation and whether you're eligible or not today. But I think it is something we should have an opinion come back to us on. Here I am taking licence with the Chair, but --

Ms Murdock: If I may, it makes sense that the recommendation made to have something -- and we can have legal counsel advise us on whether or not direction could be given to the minister -- you know, something could be stated in the law we end up with, the actual bill, that says the discretion lies with the minister or something like that. I think that makes inordinate good sense.

Mrs Cunningham: Ms Anderson has advised me that she's going to put these issues as part of the report for consideration by the different ministries, but in that regard we don't have a precedent with the Ministry of Transportation but we do with the Ministry of Labour and we can point that out.

Ms Anderson: I just want to make sure the committee feels that in general there should be no exemptions but that any there are should come forward to the minister for his review. That's the decision the committee would like to put forward to this interministerial committee.

Mrs Cunningham: Could we have a short discussion, because we never had the opportunity really, on the out-of-province tourists as exemptions? We've never really discussed it, have we?

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Ottawa South): I'll react to that just off the cuff. I guess the immediate problem I perceive is, how are the police going to distinguish between tourists on bicycles and residents of Ontario?

Also I think just as a kind of a policy thing, if we're going to go ahead with this, the underlying reasoning is that we'll try to protect people against injuries. What we're going to do is we'll discriminate between those who live here and those who visit us. If you're coming to visit us, then we don't mind if you injure yourself, and if you live here, then we're very concerned about that kind of thing.

Even if you look at the economic impacts of this too, if someone is visiting here and injures himself, I'm not sure how it works under OHIP. Do we end up paying for that? That certainly adds an implication as well.

Mr Klopp: I think I agree with Dalton here. Let's go with no exemptions and see what they come back with, because out-of-province -- I believe if we're consistent with the Highway Traffic Act with regard to motor vehicles, I don't recall that you can be from Manitoba or from heaven knows where and get on a bike and: "Oh, didn't have my helmet. Excuse me. I didn't know." It's not a big issue with me anyway.

Ms Murdock: I agree that there shouldn't be any exemptions, for two reasons. One, we are intending to have an education program, and there can be signs such as we stated a couple of days ago, as they have for seatbelts, coming in from the border areas stating that a bicycle helmet is a law in the province of Ontario and therefore if you're riding a bicycle you must be wearing one.

Second, I think when you're visiting anywhere you are bound by the law of the area in which you're in. I used the example, when we spoke of this before, of cars going to the state of Florida right now. You are not allowed under Florida state law to have tinted windows. So if you are driving your car here that has tinted windows, you will get ticketed in Florida, and they don't care if you're an Ontario tourist or not. I think the same should apply here.

Mr Len Wood (Cochrane North): I take a little bit different approach towards that. I think if you have a half a million tourists coming into Ontario, you're going to have an advertising campaign or publicity over a period of three, four or five years, because I know when I was camping I had a car and a truck and a 17-foot trailer and you put the bikes in or you strap them on the back and you're gone for a month and you're going through a lot of different areas. I know when the children were small, I wouldn't have wanted to end up paying four fines of $78 each, because I'm only going to be in the province for one day and the government is making money off me. That's going to be a concern.

Ms Murdock: It'll be an increase for our economy, because they'll have to go out and buy four helmets.

The Vice-Chair: Indeed. I continually take licence with the position of the Chair on this topic, because we're all friendly, but I would hope the constable that was there would at least give the tourist a warning.

Mr Wood: You would hope.

The Vice-Chair: I would hope.

Mr McGuinty: Just to approach it from the other angle too, I think we've got to look at the impact it would have on tourism. It would be interesting if there'd be some way we could find out how much of a factor that is to someone. If I'm living in New York state and I hear they've got mandatory helmet legislation in effect in Ontario, does that really make any difference to me? I don't know the answer. I think that's a question we should --

Mr Klopp: Come on. I doubt it.

Ms Murdock: But the other thing too is that part of the education process is going to be providing information to tourist bureaus, to travel agencies. All the money that is spent by this province in all the states trying to attract tourist dollars and tourists, period, into this province, part of that is to make sure the dissemination of the information includes that if you're riding a bicycle in Ontario, you're required to wear a helmet.

The Vice-Chair: Could we say, in order to move along on the issues, that while we're flagging the possibility of a problem with an ethnic community, we believe there shouldn't be exemptions but that we would like them to look at tourism. I believe there's the experience of Maryland, which already has the law. So is there a negative effect on tourism? We could ask that question of them or just go ahead.

Mr Klopp: The way I understand how this process will be is that we're kind of saying, what do you want them to discuss, and they will come back. If we say, "We've got no problems with it if it's out of province or not out of province," and if Tourism and Recreation comes back and bloody well tells us, "You know, really you don't do that," we'll have that discussion then. But right now none of us are against the idea of them looking at it. That's the way I'm taking this meeting today.

Mrs Cunningham: I agree we have to have a position here, and the position is obviously that we don't want tourists to be exempted. I think everybody said that and I think the Chairman is advising us that if somebody within a ministry has a real problem, like the Minister of Tourism and Recreation, who says, "You're going to turn away 500 tourists," or something, then we want to hear about it. But we have to have a position and our position would be that there be no exemptions right now, I think, having heard from everybody on that one.

Ms Murdock: I think that we state in our report that we have considered tourists or out-of-province visitors and that part of our consideration is the education program and the delivering of information to the tourist bureaus.

The Vice-Chair: Any further discussion on number two, "Exemptions"?

Mr Klopp: I apologize. I haven't been at every meeting lately, but am I referring back to some ideas we were having about costs?

The Vice-Chair: Affordability.

Mr Klopp: Affordability. We're going to do that later. Thank you.

Mrs Cunningham: Does everybody have this document? Because it's so easy to follow.

The Vice-Chair: Yes. Any further discussion now on "Exemptions"? We're all in agreement? Okay. Where is the next one? "The current legislation is quite comprehensive but does not include areas such as school yards and parks."

Mrs Cunningham: On that point, we had a lengthy discussion here on this on Monday, and although many of us came in with the idea that we could add the park or whatever, I think the suggested action pretty well tells us what the bottom line for it was at the end of probably over an hour of discussion when we had the privilege of having the Minister of Transportation's representation here and the suggested action that no change be identified in the report.

I think the bottom line really was that the issue here is to encourage people to comply with the wearing of helmets to protect their heads, and that we had hoped that although we don't say "bicycle path," we understand that to get to the bicycle path the individual will put the helmet on. We hope they won't take it off on the bicycle path and then come out at the other end and put it on again, and that we ought to just leave it the way it is, and if there are problems that they will be brought to our attention as the legislation is reviewed or as part of the public education program before it's implemented.

The Vice-Chair: Any other discussion?

1630

Mr Dadamo: I would hope that we're not advertising that school yards and parks are exempt and would be safe places to go to ride without a helmet, because accidents can occur there too. Are we going to advertise that those are the places you couldn't do it?

Mrs Cunningham: I think the understanding we had there was that although the school yard won't be specified, school boards, we hope, will be making policies, or the students themselves will have their own little rules. One of the rules I would expect they would talk about these days is to keep within the confines of the law, so when the public education program is out there, we're really going to count on the education system to carry a major part of it for us.

My view would be that schools will probably say, "If you don't have a helmet, and it's the law that you have a helmet, we don't want you to bring your bike to school," just like they used to say, in fact and without its being law: "We're spending far too much time with the enforcement agencies right now and your parents are far too annoyed with us because bicycles are stolen from the stands. If you can't lock your bike, we don't want it on the school grounds." Custodians and staff members patrol on a daily basis to say, "Take your bike home," because nobody wants the responsibility and the time involved to deal with it.

The Vice-Chair: Any other comments? Hearing none, we will accept it that no change is identified in the report. "Penalty" is the next topic. Discussion? Mr Klopp.

Mr Klopp: I find that somewhat high, but I'm open to hear discussion.

Ms Murdock: We discussed this on Monday as well and I think the point that was made -- that is, $75 plus the court costs is what a vehicle, a car is charged for failing to stop at a red light or whatever --

Mrs Cunningham: Or yield.

Ms Murdock: No seatbelt.

Interjection: No, it's higher.

Ms Murdock: In any case, those are the prices for those vehicles. A bicycle is considered a vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act and we want to ensure that people understand that we think this is as important as it is in driving a car. That point was made very clearly on Monday, and therefore my own personal view is that it should be the same as it is for any vehicular traffic.

Mr Klopp: Is this for people over 16? That was my only other question.

Ms Murdock: Under.

The Vice-Chair: It's my understanding that it includes everyone. In other words, if you have a six-year-old out on the street, the fine that child would receive would be $75 plus court costs.

Mrs Cunningham: Paul, I thought you'd be interested in that.

The Vice-Chair: Any other discussion?

Mr Klopp: I'm not totally opposed to it. I just wanted to hear for myself.

The Vice-Chair: Okay. So everybody's happy with that?

Mr McGuinty: I'm not 100% happy. I guess I have mixed feelings about it. I understand the point; that's a good point. The penalty, I think, should bear some relationship to what it is you're driving: $75 versus the cost of the car, and $75, which is the cost of, I suppose, a helmet. I'm just thinking it may be a little on the high side, that's all -- I'm not feeling overly strong about that -- especially when a child may be involved in committing the offence. These are primarily directed at adults.

Mr Wood: What's it cost you for a five-year-old kid in the back seat of the car with no seatbelt on?

The Vice-Chair: Just one at a time, please.

Mr McGuinty: Just to get it on the record, Len asked, what does it cost for a five-year-old kid in the back seat of a car? That's a good point, except when children are on bikes, they often are on their own and not within the supervision of adults. If I have a child who as soon as she goes around the corner removes a helmet from her head, then there may be a couple of warnings, but after that the police are going to say: "Listen, we picked him or her up three times. Now we're going to bill you for it." I don't know whether it's maybe too high.

Mr Turnbull: Surely the thrust of this legislation is twofold: one, most importantly, to protect the children -- in fact, not just children but anybody who rides a bicycle -- from head injuries, and second, an offshoot of that, to protect society from the associated health costs which can be quite as high as for somebody involved in an auto accident. We must make sure this is taken seriously enough so that parents are going to have a great deal of pressure on the kids to keep it on. If we make it just a piddling fine it's not going to have the same validity.

Mrs Cunningham: Can I give the committee some information? Do you recall we talked about having some guidelines for the enforcement agents? I thought you might be interested in a couple. One is the state law of New Jersey that came into effect on January 18, 1992, and we could refer either one of these two -- I'm raising these two examples because I think they're the ones we talked about most.

I will just read this one. It is for children because I think adults should just be charged, but for a person under 14 years of age, this would apply to the person under 14:

"A person who violates a requirement of this act shall be warned of the violation by the enforcing official. The parent or legal guardian of that person also may be fined a maximum of $25 for the person's first offence and a maximum of $100 for a subsequent offence if it can be shown that the parent or guardian failed to exercise reasonable supervision or control over the person's conduct."

I am suggesting this as a guideline. I've never heard of this before. "Penalties provided in this section for a failure to wear a helmet may be waived if an offender or his parent or legal guardian presents suitable proof that an approved helmet was owned at the time of the violation or has been purchased since the violation occurred."

That's something we should at least ask the committee we're referring this to to look at, but that would be part of -- now, I have to keep in mind that we're not taking the advice of the solicitor who appeared before our committee if we do that because right now we're recommending -- will you go back to page 1 of that letter? We're saying it is illegal to authorize a person under 16 to ride this bicycle without wearing a helmet. I think that might mean -- and this could be a question -- that the parents pay if the child is fined. We know the child would be over 12, isn't it? I don't know why they put under 16 here because that's in conflict with the Provincial Offences Act, isn't it?

Mr Chairman, I think we should point out that we have a problem with the age 16 there. We'll be referring it but with that question because the --

The Vice-Chair: Because it doesn't fall --

Mrs Cunningham: No, it doesn't fall within what we were told the other day. We would only need that for children under age 12 and they've raised it to 16.

That was the state of New Jersey. The other one I thought you might want to talk about, which is now "less than 16 years of age," is Howard county in the state of Maryland. "Any person less than 16 years of age" -- in our case I guess we'd be saying 12 or, I don't know, 16, depending on what we get back -- "operating or riding on a bicycle on a public roadway" -- and they decide this whole thing -- "under the jurisdiction and control of the county shall wear a protective helmet designed for bicycle safety," and it mentions the standards there.

It says: "A first offence violation of any of the provisions of this subtitle shall constitute a class E offence" -- and we have the class offences -- "and upon a second offence violation of this subtitle within 12 months, shall constitute a class D offence. (a) Class E offence: Penalties range from $25 to $50. (b) Class D offence: Penalties range from $50 to $100.

"The court may waive any fine for which a person found guilty of violating the provisions of section" -- it goes on -- "with proof that between the date of violation and the court appearance date for such violation, the person purchased a helmet which meets the requirements...."

So there you go. These are suggestions, but I don't know how you do that without writing it into law. Could we have maybe some advice from one of the members who may know something about that?

1640

The Vice-Chair: Mr Wood, do you have a comment?

Mr Wood: Yes, just a comment: Without changing the amount or spelling out any specific amount other than what is in there, $75 or $78.50, you could put a sentence in there saying that the judge or the justice of the peace or whatever would have the right to waive the fine. That would be the maximum penality he could set. You could put something in there. Without spelling out $25 for the first offence, $50 and up to $100, you could just say that the judge, after meeting with the parents and the person involved, would have the right to waive the fine; something to that effect.

Mrs Cunningham: In my view we want the police officer to have some latitude in the enforcement, and we would hope the police officer isn't going to give a child a ticket for $78.75. If they do enough of that, we will be challenged as legislators for making a law that isn't fair, and that's my problem.

Mr McGuinty: I'm not sure whether it's more than a practice and it's actually written into law, but at the present time, if you're driving along without your licence, ownership and insurance, many police will just say, "Listen, you've got 24 hours to show up at the station and provide us with evidence you in fact have it." Why could they not say, "You've got 24 hours to show up at the station with a helmet," just as a practice?

Mrs Cunningham: Could we suggest that? Now, that isn't the law, is it? That's the practice. Well, we'll ask. Is this example of showing up at the station with your driver's licence a law or a practice? My view is that it's probably a practice.

Ms Murdock: It is a practice.

Mrs Cunningham: In fact could we, when we pass this law, extend this suggestion to the enforcement agencies? Surely there's nothing in writing that says you should do that from the provincial legislation, but obviously the enforcement agencies have taken it upon themselves to show some common sense.

Mr Klopp: But why can't we put that, under 16 or 12 or something, that is the rule? We're not talking about -- you know, a driver's licence is a driver's licence, and you probably won't get any police officer to ever say, "No, we allow that," I bet. Because it's common sense -- we don't push certain things -- but why couldn't we, say, allow that under 14 or something, they can come and show up with a helmet the first time or something?

Ms Murdock: The thing is that our intent, from all the discussions we've had, is that it's not going to be proclaimed pending the period of time we decide is going to be an education process and an introductory period in which people get used to the idea. Until it's proclaimed, you're not going to be charged anyway, because it does not become law until it's signed by the Lieutenant Governor. Therefore, say we pick 18 months, hypothetically here, as the education lead-in. You're going to have 18 months of warnings before the law hits. Then once that law hits, I think it's discretionary, as it is for having your driver's licence with you. The officer is going to make that determination.

Unfortunately what Len is suggesting couldn't be done, I don't think, in terms of the court system and the provincial offences court particularly. I used to prosecute in there and I know it's extremely busy. You would never be able to have the time for the judge to sit down with the parents and the child and explain all of this, as much as we would like that to happen.

The other thing is that I don't know how you would be able to do it once it becomes law; an officer stopping a child and knowing somehow or other, by genie, that it is your first or second or third offence. There's no record-keeping. How are you going to know? Depending on the child, he or she is going to tell you it's his first time or he's never been stopped before.

I think too, if you're going to require that you give him a chance to show up from the date of the ticket, if he shows up at the court he has to show up with a bill of sale, not just a "borrowed" helmet. I use the word "borrowed" in quotation marks.

Mrs Cunningham: This is a lady of experience here.

Ms Murdock: Yes. Therefore, I would say that has to be stated.

The Vice-Chair: Any other discussion on this?

Mr Leo Jordan (Lanark-Renfrew): I was just thinking that we seem to be dwelling on methods of enforcement.

Mrs Cunningham: Yes, that's the part we're at now.

Mr Jordan: Really, if we make it a requirement in law that a helmet be worn, the method of enforcement will surely come from the people who have that responsibility. Do you see it as this committee's responsibility to lay out how the law would be enforced?

Mrs Cunningham: In response to Mr Jordan, I think we should take a look at the issues, both penalty and enforcement, as they read right now, because I think he's just said it; I think he summed up without knowing it. "The current penalty for all offences is $75 plus court costs, or $78.75. Is this appropriate in this case?" My view is that we've all said yes. "Suggested action: The report should identify that any changes be specified in the legislation." We're not recommending any.

If we go on to the enforcement part, I think it will sum up. "How will the legislation be enforced? The police are required to enforce all provincial law and would have to enforce this bill if it became law. However, the policy to waive a first offence or to phase in enforcement is at the discretion of the police. The committee could comment on bicycle helmet enforcement methods used by other police forces," which we have done, the two I've just read into the record. The suggested action, that the enforcement and our concerns be part of a discussion in the report, is probably the best we're going to do. I think you're quite right: Is it the responsibility of this committee?

Mr Jordan: I don't think so.

Mrs Cunningham: Would somebody laugh at us if we suggested guidelines? Probably.

Ms Murdock: I just have one other addition, based on the letter from the Ministry of the Solicitor General on the second page, "Can provincial offences officers be authorized under the HTA to enforce the legislation?" I'm wondering whether we should also consider the possibility of bylaw officers in the municipality having the power to enforce bicycle legislation. It's just a thought. I know we haven't discussed this, at least when I've been in the committee, but it is another concern because under this, according to number 3 on page 2 of the letter from the Solicitor General, only police officers have the right to ticket.

The Vice-Chair: That was going to be my question of Mr Edgar. At this point, all bylaw officers can do is parking tickets, right?

Mr Edgar: I wouldn't hazard a guess on the practices of municipal enforcement officers. I'm sorry; I'm not an expert on that.

Mr Jordan: I believe the municipality can apply to the Attorney General's office for the right to have the bylaw enforcement officers issue certain summonses for certain happenings relative to the municipality that are normally done by the OPP but do not necessarily have to be done by them. There's some broad brush there for some areas. I'm not sure what they are, but I know in my municipality we did apply for the parking tickets for winter parking. The bylaw enforcement officer does that. He does it for speeding over 30 miles in built-up areas. He does it for three or four different things that used to be completely under the Police Act or under the Ministry of Transportation or whatever. They have delegated some authority, if the municipal council makes application to the Attorney General's office. That's my understanding.

I was thinking of some of the paths for bikes in our municipality where the OPP will never see the offence of not having a helmet. I think there has to be cooperation on this thing. The National Capital Commission in Ottawa -- a lot of biking there.

1650

Mr McGuinty: I'd be concerned, Leo, about what a municipality would say if we said we were going to charge them with the responsibility and costs for enforcing another law we've dreamt up down here at Queen's Park. That's my concern, is the financial aspect of it. There's something developing in Ottawa, which is in larger urban centres now: police bike patrols.

Ms Murdock: Sudbury too.

Mr McGuinty: Sudbury as well, yes. That's a large urban area. They are serving a great purpose: get off a beaten track, go down the bike pass from time to time as well. So it's not completely out of the question that we can look to reasonable enforcement by municipal police forces or the OPP.

Mr Jordan: As to cost, I'm thinking of a bylaw enforcement officer in our municipality who gets $27,000 a year as compared to an OPP officer on his bicycle at double the rate. We're going to have to look at the economics of this. The Ontario Building Code is still delegated to the chief building official in the municipality to enforce, even though it's an Ontario law. It's acceptable to the municipality, but I know what you're saying, that we make the law and then make the municipality pay the cost and staff.

Mr Klopp: I'm getting a little confused. We asked where. The current legislation doesn't include school yards or parks, so we thought we would just leave the present legislation: roads. But the town of Exeter, for example, has its own police force. The OPP is outside of town and the Exeter police department is in town, but don't they have to follow the same Highway Traffic Act rules, like 30 miles an hour or seatbelts? So they're going to follow the rule for this helmet law, and the same for a small municipality that doesn't have a police force. If the OPP drives through and they see somebody biking without a helmet, they're going to enforce it. If it happens to be in a park, the cop I guess will decide, "Do I wait until they get out on the road and then charge them, or will I drive through town and get them next time?"

Mr Jordan: I don't think we can afford that.

Mr Klopp: I don't think the cops will either. Like we say, we're going to do this for maybe two years or something and advertise the heck out of it, so I guess we have to keep that in mind too.

The Vice-Chair: Any further discussion?

Mr Klopp: Getting back to enforcement, I had two things. On page 2, they ask the question, can the police take the bikes away? I don't see anywhere in here where we mention seizing bikes. I just wondered about that. We did ask the Solicitor General about the seizure of bikes. I'm not really that crazy about 2 and 3, about them taking bikes. Personally, I think it's highly unnecessary.

The Vice-Chair: I'm concerned that we're getting all bound up trying to get very technical. If we have a recommendation on enforcement, that we want them to be lax with the first offence of a child or whatever, then we can make that recommendation, but to try to get into all the legalities -- I think we should leave that up to the lawyers. I would make that suggestion. If you wish that we should have some leniency on first offenders, especially the juveniles, then I suggest you bring that forward and that we leave the rest to the people who do the legal part for a living.

Ms Murdock: I have one point, though. I know I asked the question about who enforces. I have another issue that I think goes to enforcement, but I'm not sure. It's based on Mr McGuinty's statement that there is no requirement, in order for you to ride a bicycle, to have a licence. I think you should have. If it's considered a vehicle under the act, I think it should be totally considered a vehicle under the act. Therefore, if you want to ride a bicycle on the roadways of Ontario you should be required to be licensed. We do not address this anywhere in this.

Mr Klopp: You're the lawyer.

Ms Murdock: But we don't address this anywhere seriously. We have discussed this in this committee at length. It's not mentioned in any of these pages either.

Mr Klopp: We're talking about helmets.

Ms Murdock: We are.

Mrs Cunningham: I would just respond in that regard that it is not part of this act to amend the Highway Traffic Act; it would be another piece of legislation. We could put it in the report as a concern, to get a response back. We can ask Ms Anderson to do that. I think that would be appropriate at this time.

If I could sum up on enforcement: that the police are required to enforce all provincial laws, which means the $78.75 fine; that the committee has commented on bicycle helmet enforcement methods used by other police forces and those two examples can be attached to our report, that is, Howard county in the state of Maryland and the state of New Jersey; and that we would expect a reply from the joint committee with regard to guidelines to be sent along with this legislation to the enforcement officers.

That's my conclusion from what we've talked about, so we will get a response on whose responsibility it would be to make certain that people are licensed. It's my view that it has been the municipalities' response in the past. They have licensed bicycles -- not bicycle drivers but bicycles -- in the past. They themselves have decided to throw it out as part of their bylaws over the years because it's become expensive and their police forces have complained about the time it takes; that's probably what they're going to come back and say to us. But we can have another kick at that can; we are going to meet on this.

Ms Anderson: Can I just get some clarification quickly on what, if anything, you want to put in about the bylaw officers helping to enforce the act? There was a certain amount of discussion about that, and I didn't hear a conclusion. Do you want to not put any --

Ms Murdock: That was just me. I don't know if anybody agrees with me.

Ms Anderson: Do you want to just leave it the way it is, without any discussion of that?

Mr Jordan: I realize that has come up at the meetings, but either certain areas are going to have to be brought under the Highway Traffic Act or they're going to have to be enforced by the municipality.

Mr Klopp: Didn't we clarify that under "Where," that we're just going to leave it on roads? Then we don't need to get into the school yards and into the parks. If we go into the parks, you're right, we have to do something.

The Vice-Chair: For your information, Mr Jordan, while you were out, they indeed agreed that under the title "Where" we would deal strictly with roads. Then coming out of Monday's meeting there was much discussion, and they assumed that people, once they got used to riding with helmets on the roads, when they hit the park or whatever wouldn't take their helmets off for a five-minute trip through a park. Any further discussion?

Okay, how be we move on to the date on which to come into force? We're on dates.

1700

Mrs Cunningham: The date this should come into force -- I have been thinking a lot about this. As the bill reads right now, you'll see that it says, "This act shall come into force on the day it receives royal assent." That would be the day it gets third reading. I don't think we can live with that -- because it could be even before the House rises -- if we want to make a statement. Maybe it will be just before the House rises next Christmas, but it's going to be one or the other, in my view, after all the hard work we've done, and I think that would be too soon for it to come into effect.

If we say "on proclamation," that would mean it would get royal assent and that it would be left on the minister's desk to bring it forward when we ask the minister to bring it forward. Depending on what's happening at that point in time, depending on how many people get to the minister or whatever after all our hard work, he may choose not to bring it forward when we want it -- meaning this committee -- or for any reason. It could just die because somebody forgot about it. My view is to put in a specific date and live with it, which means each of us would have to live with the date we choose. I feel this is going to be a very important decision for us.

My understanding is that there are certain ministries that want this to happen very quickly. They don't want to sit back. To be blunt about it, the Minister of Health apparently has said that this would be an important thing to accomplish. I'm not quoting anybody; I'm just talking about what has been brought to my attention. Two years would be too long.

When the Ministry of Transportation has been before the committee, I think it said three years; some days it says two years.

Ms Murdock: Two years.

Mrs Cunningham: By "they" I'm not pinpointing anybody. I just think it probably makes good sense to get some money behind the public education thing, which I think we're tremendously committed to. I think some of us will be at a personal level, meaning we will ask our Kiwanis clubs and we will ask our school boards to put forth what they can, and some of us will try to raise independent dollars to help with the public education. I've certainly committed myself to that, but we're talking about a lot of money here. We're talking about as much as $500,000, maybe more, depending on how long we're talking about.

I've been thinking about it. My first thought was that a year this spring would be the ideal time. I thought of spring because that's the time when everybody brings out the new bikes and when you start talking about bicycle safety; then I thought that two years this spring is too long. We're into the fourth year of this government's tenure, and we're also into probably the beginning -- let's hope there's been lots of public education -- but we're into probably some disagreements with individuals around having to buy a helmet. This is for real and all of a sudden they have to buy a helmet.

I thought the sawoff would be a good one and I think there are reasons why Howard county chose October 1. This is my thinking, and I would say October 1, 1993. That would give parents and school systems and young people a couple of summers to live with the reality that they're going to have to have bicycle helmets, not this coming school year but the following school year.

When school resumes in September 1993 there will be time for the teachers to say: "Look, on October 1 this will be law, so if you're buying hockey skates or you're buying soccer balls or if you need a new swimsuit, you also need a bicycle helmet. Our home and school association has made these available for 20 bucks or something." That's my hope at that point in time.

That has been my thinking: that throughout the summer people will be reminded, "Haven't you got your helmet yet?" and then we can count on the schools to help us on October 1. I'm certainly very open as to any concern on this date, but with an election coming up, I think we have to think about the political ramifications too for anybody, even the year after that. The law will have been in effect for a whole year, and some of you will not be accused -- I think things will be in place by then. That's my point.

The Vice-Chair: We'll just blame you.

Mrs Cunningham: You can blame me, but the fact of the matter is that it's an all-party committee, it's a very different way of doing things and all I can do is lose in my own riding. I've beaten the odds twice; this may be the big one. My point is that I think there are perhaps others who have more to lose with this than myself. I just raise it because people have brought it to my attention.

The Vice-Chair: It's open for discussion. Mr Klopp, Mr Wood, Mr Dadamo. It seems like everybody --

Mrs Cunningham: I think everybody should talk to this.

The Vice-Chair: Why don't we start with Mr Wood and go around the room.

Mrs Cunningham: Yes, and I want you to know I'm flexible.

Mr Wood: I have no problem with the suggestion Dianne has brought forward, because you're talking about 18 months, plus you're talking about a winter campaign of six months. Even though people would probably be buying their helmets right at the time that our provincial campaign is going on, I think I could live with that, because it's actually 24 months that you're talking about from now to then.

Mrs Cunningham: Yes, 24 from now.

Mr Wood: Yes. I have no problem with that.

Mr Dadamo: If we in fact set this 18 months, hypothetically, can we give manufacturers some sort of direction? Will they be ready to manufacture helmets in time for this deadline? We're imposing a deadline on the manufacturers, for one. Are people realistically going to be in a mindset 18 months from now? Is that sufficient lead time? Have we talked about who will come to us with some sort of aspect of how much money we're going to have to put aside to run a campaign like this? How much money is it going to take to educate, to run through the schools, to go to the Rotary clubs, the Kinsmen clubs and whatever have you to tell people that this is coming in 18 months? Someone has to come back to us with money, a campaign, a time frame. I don't know. To me, it seems 18 months isn't long enough unless somebody can prove otherwise.

Interjection: Can you give us a date?

Mr Dadamo: I don't know whether it would be a September 1, an October 1 or a spring day. I don't know. We live with numbers constantly. We're living with demographics constantly. Somebody has to prove numbers or come to us with some sort of study to show us that the province will be ready in that 18 months. I don't think realistically we can meet that.

Mr Klopp: I guess I'd like to see -- page 4 -- what we are looking at for helmet standards, all that stuff. Then, even when the committee comes back with the report, if we get everything else done, I think as a committee, the way we've been working, we can come up with a number and live with it, but right now, to say 18 months is just too hard for me. For one, I'm not worried about an election year if I get all the other stuff and it just happens it ties in with the coming election year, albeit it's easy for me to say that now. I think we should leave that date in limbo now. Let's get all the other ducks lined up. Let's see how this report comes back, because what if they don't show up to us till the end of August or some silly thing like that because things just weren't working out? Then we're looking at that date and going, "Oh, now we've all got to lose face and say we've made the wrong date on ourselves." That might be more pressure on us.

1710

Ms Murdock: I'm somewhat in the same boat. We could sit and pick a date today, but the reality of this, based on how committees work, is that I think it's probably more realistic to go 18 months from the date of clause-by-clause, because the education program can't even be set up unless it's based on the information within the clauses of the legislation, if you know what I mean.

The Vice-Chair: Every time you go to speak, the bell rings.

Ms Murdock: I know. It has something against me.

Mrs Cunningham: It's calling you, Sharon.

Ms Murdock: It's calling me.

Anyway, you can't devise an education program and the pamphlets and literature that are going to be required based on something we have been talking about but we haven't passed in clause-by-clause, so I think a date's going to have to be set from then. We can set a date now, but the reality is, it's not going to be that date. We know that based on our experience and this entire system that is set up in the Legislative Assembly. From the front page of what you prepared for us, it says in number 2, "The committee should recommend that an interministerial committee develop a single response, to be returned to the committee by a specified time, such as the fall," so we're not even going to get some of our answers back until the fall.

I'm not even looking at whether it's an election year or not. I'm just trying to look at this and be as realistic as possible, and I don't think we can, in truth, put a date down today without knowing what each of the clauses is going to say in the legislation that comes before us.

The Vice-Chair: I know Mrs Cunningham is chomping at the bit here, but I think we'll ask Mr McGuinty if he has any comments.

Mr McGuinty: I agree substantially with what Sharon has said. I think the only realistic thing to do is to get input as to how long it's going to take to implement these education programs and to dedicate the necessary funding and all those kinds of things that have to be done in order to implement legislation.

The only way to realistically do that is to say, "Listen, it's going to come into effect X months or X years after final passage," rather than trying from this vantage point to specify a certain date. Who knows what can happen to this thing between now and third reading? We don't know when the interministerial committee will report back to us. If, at the time, we are considering another bill -- we're not sure when we're going to get to this thing on this committee. There are all kinds of possible roadblocks.

Mrs Cunningham: I've certainly thought about everything the rest of you have said, but this is my view. After the work we've done and the report we're going to send the interministerial committee, if we have gone through this thing line by line and issue by issue, the way we have, based on the information basically that they've given us already -- right? If you take a look at this act, we really haven't changed anything. To be very specific, we haven't done anything.

We've thought a lot and we've certainly got the best information. The first part, "bicycle," we all agree with. We're going to go along with what they recommend on "who." My view is that they are going to say everybody, perhaps with the guardians being responsible for children under the age of either 16 or 12 in the one clause. That's the only issue there.

"Exemptions": I really can't imagine them coming back and telling us, after what we've told them, that we should make exemptions, but they might. If they do, we probably will.

"Where": They're the ones who told us not to change the legislation, so I can't imagine that being changed.

"Penalty": They're the ones who told us $78.75, so I can't imagine them telling us to change that. I'm just being practical here.

"Enforcement": How will it be enforced? We have no choice on that except to try and get that guideline out to the enforcement officers.

Have I said anything that has surprised anybody? The only thing left is the date.

Ms Murdock: I wish it was that easy, Dianne.

Mrs Cunningham: But it's up to us to set the tone. That's my view. I feel we have to have the political courage to set a date, period, and I think it's got to be within the term of office of this government. Right? If we send them the date and they then say, "But it's going to take us two years to get these education policies out," or, for whatever reason, they think it's too soon, I think it's up to them to tell us that. I certainly think, if we've been specific in every other regard, we should be specific in the date.

What I do buy into right now, before we set the date, is that we do go through the last page, page 4, that Paul suggested, because this may in fact affect the date we set. I do think that's fair, because I thought his point was, "Will that give the manufacturers enough time, will that give the education enough time?" So if we go through this right now, maybe we'll be even better qualified to come to some agreement around some date, even if it's three years from now. That's my view anyway.

The Vice-Chair: Ms Murdock, do you have a comment?

Ms Murdock: Yes, I do. When I came down here and was stationed over at the Ministry of Labour, one of the things I was just flabbergasted by was the length of time it took to get a regulation through, and I sit on the cabinet committees on legislation and regulations. I was astounded because I would have thought that a simple change of a licensing fee -- you're changing something from $10 to $15 -- would have been pretty easy to do. It would have just involved the minister saying, "I think we should change the fee," and it goes through a committee and it passes it and it goes to cabinet and, zap, it's done. Wrong; that's not the way it's done in government. It took four months from the date to get a licensing fee change to the time it came before our committee for a minor regulatory change. The realities of this life, as I've discovered in the last 19 months, are that nothing gets done quickly here. Nothing. I can't emphasize that enough.

The other reality is, as I said, regardless of how simple we think this is, if we were doing this with one ministry -- I'm becoming a cynic in my middle age -- I think it would still take a long time, even though we think this is quite simple. By sending it off to Transportation, Solicitor General, Health, Community and Social Services, Industry, Trade and Technology, Tourism and Recreation, Education, Consumer and Commercial Relations, Citizenship, Treasury and Management Board we are definitely going to have to impose a date by which they're going to have to come back and give us the answers to our report. Then we still have to get them to get clause-by-clause written up, even if it's only three or four. If we're asking all of those ministries to do that, I can't even imagine the length of time it's going to take them to do that. Then we do clause-by-clause and then it's still going to have to go -- Dianne, you know how committed I am to this.

Mrs Cunningham: I know.

Ms Murdock: So I'm just saying that we can sit here and make a date, but the reality of it is that it's not going to happen.

Mrs Cunningham: Could I reflect on that for a moment? Ms Murdock has just given us the realities of being in government. We're not sending it to separate ministries; there is already a committee together. They have travelled the province and so they do know, and many of them have followed the Hansards. We have already asked them at the end of today to report back to us in time for us to have a committee meeting in June. That's been our direction already. Again, I'm going to push the committee a little bit here and say, put a date in it and see what they think of it. We've asked them to come back in June and they may recommend a different date.

My view is, if we put in an early date, they'll recommend a later date. My second view is, if we put in a later date, they will recommend a later, later date. So I think we should bite the bullet around our ideal time and let them tell us what they think about it. They're the ones who have to tell us and come up with some creative way. The downside for me is simply -- the public is not simple -- a real challenge and that's them finding the money. That's all they've ever said to me -- and you have to understand that I've spoken to most of these ministers -- finding the money for the public education programs. In reality, we're not changing a regulation here. It is in our court how fast this moves. I do represent our party at House leaders. It's not that it has to go through the bureaucracy; it's with us.

1720

Ms Murdock: I'm sorry, but I --

Mrs Cunningham: Let's see what they say.

Ms Murdock: Okay. It will have to go through the bureaucracy, and legislative counsel can quickly tell you that it will have to go back. Even after it's all written up, it still has to go back over to the AG's office for approval of the language that's used in the province of Ontario's legislation. Then it has to come back to the lead ministry to determine whether or not it still says what you want it to say, and then it still has to be checked again by legislative counsel. Trust me on this.

Mrs Cunningham: I can only conclude from Sharon's experience that I have more luck in opposition than she does in government by going over every day.

Ms Murdock: It's amazing how long it takes to get something done.

Mrs Cunningham: I know. We should go through the other part now, because we don't have a lot of time, but I'd like to finish this today. I thought Paul made a very good point, and that was, how can we put in a date if it's going to be impacted upon by some discussion with regard to helmet standards?

The Vice-Chair: Hearing no disagreement, I will take it that we have agreement to move on and we will come back to the date at the end. The next is "Helmets Standards."

Mrs Cunningham: At the minute it's up to the Lieutenant Governor to establish the standards. In fact, to read it, "The Lieutenant Governor in Council may make regulations prescribing the standards and specifications of helmets referred to in subsection (1)." All we can do is advise this committee as to what we want in the regulations, and I feel very strongly that we should get into the regulations.

By the way, there was a reason for that, and that was that there wasn't any consensus at the time of that act around the standards. I feel there is now, but again we may have to send this in the form of, as it says here, suggested action, put it in the regulations, and what do we want, "ANSI, Snell, and/or CSA"? The recommendation we had from experts was the CSA, I felt. Does this constitute a trade barrier? Well, isn't our hope that it would? Strike that from the record, please. Should they be mandatory? Yes. And with regard to helmets for five-year-olds, if there isn't a CSA helmet for five-year-olds, we can't ask them to wear them.

Ms Murdock: We have to get MITT to have some manufacturers start making them.

Mrs Cunningham: Oh, we've had lots of response to this.

Ms Murdock: Yes.

Mrs Cunningham: I think "Suggested action: regulations" would be appropriate, and I think that committee is the one that tells us whether we should stay with the Lieutenant Governor, which leaves some flexibility, or really that our intent is that we write in "CSA-approved helmets."

Mr Dadamo: Are there companies within Ontario or Canada that already manufacture these types of helmets?

Mrs Cunningham: Yes.

Mr Dadamo: There are, right?

Mrs Cunningham: And there will be more, if there's some lead time; there's no doubt in my mind.

Mr Dadamo: So it would give us some options and some types and that sort of stuff.

Mrs Cunningham: Yes.

Mr Dadamo: Okay, that's good.

The Vice-Chair: I know it's taking licence, but I am probably one of the people who have actually worked with CSA closely because I worked in my past life under licensing, where if you lost a CSA licence, you lost the right to produce. I much prefer CSA for that particular reason. They inspect on a regular basis, and indeed, once you attain their licence, that isn't the end of CSA coming in. They do come in on a regular basis, and indeed all of the wire and the various other products that are made in this country that are CSA-approved are not considered a trade barrier, so I don't see that as a concern.

Ms Murdock: I could see it possibly being argued as a trade barrier if our tourists or our out-of-province people, say from the United States, ended up wearing an ANSI or a Snell and came into the province. I think there would have to be some consideration that if they're wearing a helmet from their own --

Mrs Cunningham: That's approved.

Ms Murdock: -- that's approved in their own state, it would be acceptable here. I don't know how you'd get around that, but obviously they're abiding by our law of wearing a helmet, and then we say, "Oh, but you can't wear a Snell, you've got to wear a CSA." I think we would have an argument on the trade barrier.

The Vice-Chair: Taking a little bit of licence with it, could we maybe indeed say that only CSA helmets will be approved for sale within the province?

Mrs Cunningham: I don't think we can do that.

Ms Murdock: We can't do that either.

The Vice-Chair: That's doing the same thing.

Mrs Cunningham: I know, but it's --

Mr Klopp: Let's not split hairs. Is a police officer going to go up to a guy or a woman or a child and check inside? Let's just leave it the way it is.

Ms Murdock: It becomes a liability issue actually should an accident occur. A lawyer would argue it would become a liability issue at that time. I doubt very much whether an officer would check to see whether you are wearing Snell or CSA or whatever, in truth. But the reality and the law would be that if it were in the books and if it were part of the regulations, it would be a requirement by law. It's just a thought. I don't know how you want to deal with that.

Mr Klopp: Would that be the recommendation then of the different ministries on that issue too, on all four?

Mrs Cunningham: They'll certainly let us know. I bet they'll come back and say, "You have to do this now," or their recommendation will be that.

Can I read some information into the record that I think you ought to know about, since Andrea does all this work and I get to read it. This is on standards. This is from Woolco. You know, you have to pick up the phone to get your information some days, and I am indebted to my staff for what they do.

A person at Woolco supports the legislation with a two- to five-year phase-in period. I'm being up front with everything we get here. They sell Bell helmets which are CSA-approved and Bauer which are ANSI-approved. They do not have posters in their stores, although they have a video which they use when promoting safety, which I think it great. It doesn't really have anything else, I don't think, on this topic, except to say that the education must start with children in the schools. There's somebody who is telling us they sell the ANSI, which is Bauer. I thought Bauer was a Canadian company.

The Vice-Chair: I stand to be corrected, but I think it's part of the CCM empire.

Mrs Cunningham: Yes, you're probably right.

Standards -- Bill Coffman: "There's been concern in the United States with motorcycle helmets that some weren't meeting the US standards even though they had the stickers on them. CSA helmets are tested from production line -- samples go to the labs for testing. American standards are currently being changed." I thought you'd like to hear that.

Ms Murdock: Was that not discussed by one of our presenters?

Mrs Cunningham: Yes.

The Vice-Chair: And that's indeed why the presenter and myself prefer CSA, because it's an ongoing test.

Ms Murdock: I'm not disputing it. I prefer CSA. I'm just saying that it is a possibility in terms of --

Mrs Cunningham: Canstar: "In 1991 they elected to back off in their bike helmet category to concentrate on other items. However, Mr Collins believes that if the law was passed they would re-examine their position and could easily meet the required demand, providing there is a phase-in period." He also believes helmet prices will come down as the demand increases. He was the Canstar person who suggested we contact people at Canadian Tire, Woolco and K mart. They must be big distributors.

Denrich: "Will need a two-year phase-in period. Their next few months are already booked with orders." This person doesn't believe the helmet cost will decrease.

Ms Murdock: What's the date of that letter?

Mrs Cunningham: All this is within the last month. We're just trying to get as much good information as we can to share with you.

My view is that they're saying in Ontario they do need two years to manufacture the helmets, which Mr Dadamo was saying, and I have every sympathy for that. That was one of our intents, wasn't it? If it were two years, my view is it would be two years this September. We might want to do that, which pushes it up even another year.

Getting back to the agenda --

The Vice-Chair: Yes. Looking at the helmet standards, they have basically give us four choices. There are four different ways of looking at it on that and I would like a consensus of the committee as to which one indeed we put forward in our recommendations.

1730

Mrs Cunningham: If we're going to have a longer phase-in period time than, say, two years -- put the date at two years from this June or two years from October 1, which would be a year longer than I really want -- then I think one of the reasons is because we want -- we may be totally idealistic on this, but it certainly would give them time and they'd have no excuse. I think then we should be saying CSA. The longer the date, CSA. Again, the ministries may come back and say that wouldn't be their recommendation.

Mr Klopp: They're still going to have recommendations for safety standards, and I'm not going to argue; at least I won't.

Mrs Cunningham: No, but don't you think that's one of the reasons we were looking at it now? Because if we are going to go with CSA, we will obviously have to go a little bit longer on the implementation date. That's my view. What do you think, Dalton?

Mr McGuinty: I think it's important to remember that what we're talking about here is legislation that is fairly intrusive. We're talking about people enjoying a recreational activity that's becoming more popular and we're now saying: "Listen, we're going to regulate this. Your kids cannot get on their bikes unless they have helmets on." I think we should recognize that. I don't know if you've raised this. I've raised it in a number of groups I've met, just to get some reaction and feedback on this kind of thing. In my next householder I'm going to have a little cutout section to get some more response on this. I think on the whole it's fairly intrusive.

Consider what we're saying now. We're also saying, "In addition to having to wear bicycle helmets, we're going to restrict your choice." We're taking it a step further. We're saying, "You can only buy this kind." Recognizing what this legislation is, I'm not sure we should go so far as to say, "We only want you to buy CSA." There's an impact on tourism. I think if we're going to have a law on the books, it's got to be something we're prepared to enforce.

Mrs Cunningham: I think the point the Chairman has just made is a very important one, something I learned about when we went to buy this helmet. I purchased some helmets a couple of years ago. These helmets subsequently have been CSA-approved because the manufacturer -- it happened to be Snell -- applied for CSA approval. If that's the case, I think Mr McGuinty has made a very important point. Maybe if the Snell could also be CSA-approved, that would open the door for us not having this discrimination around this trade barrier. You can't tell people, I think your point is, that they can't buy a helmet that is made in the United States unless it has --

The Vice-Chair: Indeed, Mr McGuinty, I was actually in the wire industry. Some of our wire was made in the United States and passed its approval stage, which was Underwriters, but they also had to have the CSA approval to be sold in this country.

So with helmets you can actually have Snell and CSA approval. The only difference between them in approvals is that CSA is the only one that does random line testing to make sure the product is of the same quality as the original helmet tested. In other words, their testing is ongoing. The other ones test once and that's it, or they might have an annual test, but virtually they test one group of helmets at the beginning and then never have to test them again. That's why I personally have a preference.

Mrs Cunningham: The two-year phase-in gives ANSI and Snell time to apply for CSA, doesn't it? So is the consensus CSA? What do you think, Dalton?

Mr McGuinty: I would just like some more information. Practically speaking, if it's not a great difficulty for a company to apply and obtain CSA approval, then I guess we're not overly concerned about making it CSA. But if we are going to discriminate against manufacturers, then we've got to be careful.

Mrs Cunningham: How do we handle this, then, for the purpose of the report? We want to give direction to the committee, which is CSA. We also want to ask: Would you advise us as to the difficulties if we stay with just one approval for the availability of helmets, and the cost perhaps of helmets?

Mr Klopp: That's fine.

Mrs Cunningham: Is that good? All right.

Ms Anderson: Could I just make a suggestion to maybe say "CSA or equivalent"? It might allow some of the other manufacturers who have the same sorts of standards -- it would sort of open the door a bit more to something other than CSA.

Mrs Cunningham: And make a point? That might be good, "CSA or equivalent." I see a couple of frowns. Well, if the committee wants to advise us as to that being the solution to our dilemma, then let them do it.

I suggest, Mr Chairman, that we've discussed the manufacturing capability ad nauseam, and only they can do it, and that we've discussed the affordability. Remember, the action for Ms Anderson now in sending our report to the committee is discussion in the report. We've had ample discussion on manufacturing, we've had ample discussion on affordability, we've had ample discussion on education awareness and we've had ample discussion on funding. We haven't had much discussion on rentals; I think we should discuss that now. But my view is that we've got enough information so far to put all of that into a report and that we should just maybe have a short discussion on rentals. Is that fair?

Mr Dadamo: That's fair.

Mrs Cunningham: And "Other Issues," on the back. All right, let me take that one on too. Individual rights versus society rights: we've had ample discussion on that. Environmental concerns are well documented in our report by witnesses who came before the committee. Liability and insurance has been discussed, but I haven't heard your views on skateboards, rollerskates and rollerblades. I've given my own, and that was that we're having enough trouble with what we've got.

Ms Murdock: They aren't vehicles under the Highway Traffic Act, either.

Mrs Cunningham: No. It would mean another amendment. So perhaps anyone who wants to could give their view on rental companies and on skateboards, rollerskates and rollerblades being included in the report.

Mr McGuinty: I'm not sure we have to do anything with respect to rentals. I just think that if I'm in the bicycle rental business and the law requires that my customers wear a helmet, I'm going to have to supply them.

Ms Murdock: It's like a bowling alley with bowling shoes.

Mr McGuinty: Sure.

Ms Murdock: If you want to be in business, you provide bowling shoes if you run a bowling alley, right?

Mrs Cunningham: They sure do.

Ms Murdock: If you want to be in business to rent bikes, you're going to have to provide bicycle helmets to abide by the law.

Mr McGuinty: Just to conclude, with respect to skateboards, rollerskates and rollerblades, I think you've got the right approach there, Dianne, but you've got to develop a strategy here in terms of doing this thing. If we want to broaden it some time in the future, that's another matter, but I think this will be a significant inroad in and of itself without having to try to stretch it. I think that will be a difficult one. It's much more difficult to market the other one, and that is saying, "Listen, your kids can't go out and skateboard or rollerskate or rollerblade unless they've got a helmet on."

Mr Klopp: Basically it's the same as the member across. Skateboards, rollerskates -- ironically, when I see those kids they're all wearing their hockey helmets, because they're playing. It's so bizarre. But to get into that mess, no. If we do this right --

Mrs Cunningham: Yes, you're right. They've got these things from their soccer and hockey.

Mr Dadamo: Elbow-pads and shin-pads.

Mr Klopp: The time someone made that comment for those against this -- they said, "Well, why don't you do skateboards?" -- I almost blurted out: "For heaven's sakes, those people are smart enough. They're doing it on their own already." But I just bit my tongue.

Mrs Cunningham: You're right. You were in control.

Would I be presumptuous if I threw out another date?

Mr Klopp: Do you want to go back to that again?

Mrs Cunningham: I don't think it's up to this committee to tell us; I think we're the ones who have to decide. I certainly think, given this discussion and the two-year thing, that if we get this report in June, if we get it early -- what are we now, the middle of May?

The Vice-Chair: The end of May.

1740

Mrs Cunningham: The end of May. If we get this back early enough, we may have hopes that the bill will actually be as is. If it is as is, I think the sooner we get it passed with a date, the better. If we got it passed this May or June -- or July, God help us --

Ms Murdock: The House may not be sitting.

Mrs Cunningham: I'm in there for those discussions, Sharon. That's why I said July.

Mr Klopp: If they've heard the rumours in opposition, then you can't go back.

Mrs Cunningham: That's right. In opposition you hear these things.

I think October 1994 would give more than two years, if we could get it through this spring. If we don't get it through until the fall, which is after October -- remember, the House doesn't come back until after October -- it still gives them two years.

Ms Murdock: Third week of September.

Mrs Cunningham: After Thanksgiving, usually. No?

The Vice-Chair: Third week of September.

Mrs Cunningham: It just happened that way this year.

Ms Murdock: September 23.

Mrs Cunningham: Was it? Did we come back on the 23rd?

Ms Murdock: We came back on September 23.

Mrs Cunningham: I was here.

Ms Murdock: The rules now say the third week of September.

Mrs Cunningham: All right. If we're fortunate and push a little, we could get it in -- we're looking for direction from Mr Dadamo on this. Then we could have it done in the spring. He's it. We're going to blame George.

Mr Dadamo: I think we obviously have to confer within the ministry.

Mrs Cunningham: That's right.

Mr Dadamo: I'm not against the deadline, sitting here and setting up a date, because I think it would be nice, but realistically, does it make any sense at this point? I think we'll have to talk within MTO and come back to you on it.

Mrs Cunningham: But you know that we have to give them a date, because the ministers have a difference of opinion on this. They're going to be influenced by what we want. I was trying to be a good listener today.

Mr Dadamo: You were a good speaker too, by the way.

Mrs Cunningham: I was also a good speaker.

Mr Dadamo: Excellent.

The Vice-Chair: I believe the concern about the date, if I'm not incorrect, is that if we don't give a specific date it will indeed get lost somewhere in a big dark hole in some ministry and will never see the light of day again. I think everyone in this room has indicated that they support the bill, maybe not each and every thing -- there's still the odd question -- but they support the basis of the bill. That's where the concern rises and that's why Ms Cunningham is pushing for a date. If we could be assured that indeed it would not drop into a big dark hole in a ministry, I don't think Ms Cunningham would have the concern over the date to the extent she has.

Mrs Cunningham: I would just put it down to one word, "responsibility." The toughest part now, after all this work, is deciding on a date. Since we've made all the other tough decisions -- and by the way, I think you've been wonderful. We have made some tough decisions. They may be changed when we get the report back.

But I think we should put in a date. I think it would give the ministers some direction, which is what they're looking for. If they don't like it, their people will say so in the committee and tell us. I can't believe that we wouldn't set a date, because that's the tough part and that's what we're elected to do.

Interjection.

Mrs Cunningham: Nothing.

Ms Murdock: Yes, because we can always change it.

The Vice-Chair: I believe Mr Edgar has a point that he wishes to make.

Mrs Cunningham: No, we'll change it here because the committee report comes back here.

Ms Murdock: Clause-by-clause.

Mrs Cunningham: Oh, I see, yes.

Ms Murdock: Clause-by-clause is done in here.

The Vice-Chair: Ms Murdock, just a second. Mr Edgar.

Mr Edgar: I didn't mean to interject or interrupt, but I think the minister has confidence in the committee to make an appropriate recommendation. You're all pretty well briefed on all the issues to make a recommendation. You've heard all kinds of witnesses. Setting a date would be one. If the people in the affected bureaucracies think that's impractical, then they'll tell you in the report that comes back.

Mr Klopp: I just, maybe for the record -- or maybe I don't want to be on the report, I don't know.

The Vice-Chair: You can't have it both ways.

Mr Klopp: To me, the report said on the first page that they were going to come back by fall. Now we've heard June. Is this an old report here, that we've asked the committee to come forward?

Mrs Cunningham: Yes, we've changed that.

Mr Klopp: Okay, now I've got that clear in my mind. For me, having trouble picking the date is because I heard time and again from those who want the bill. I really truly want something. It doesn't matter to me what election day it is. I mean that.

Mrs Cunningham: That's good.

Mr Klopp: But the people who unfortunately will be the ones who throw roadblocks for a while, those who came and talked against it, are those who say, "You've got to have a long time in your education program and awareness." For me today to say two years, and we can say two, but recognize that come June when I get this report back -- that's the most important thing, to get these committees off their duffs and get back here to show us what the nuts and bolts are of education and awareness. To me that's the key to this whole thing working or not working.

So let's make sure they get back here. If they're not here on June 27, I know I will be sending a nasty letter to my favourite Gilles Pouliot and asking: "Where's the report? You'd better have a darn good reason because you're embarrassing a lot of people, who are all legislative workers here." Then if they come back and say it's going to be after two years -- we can say today, "Lets put two," but I just want to make it very clear from my perspective that the report we see at the end of June will be the time I'll then be able to clear my conscience on what is this date here. I just want that on the record.

Mr McGuinty: Have you suggested a specific date?

Mrs Cunningham: I've suggested October 1, 1994.

Mr McGuinty: I think the discussion is largely academic, because we're going to need some key information that's to be provided. But based on that assumption and subject to our reviewing, and obviously that's something we're going to have to do, I don't have any difficulty going with that date.

Ms Murdock: Likewise, the same as Dalton, I don't have any difficulty with setting the two-year date. We're working on the presumption that we will have the report of the interministerial committee before the end of June, before the House rises. We will have gone through that, and then we're also working on the presumption that it will get third reading at least by September or October, which is a fair presumption, depending on what the legislative agenda is, and then that two-year date, correct? So it is subject to change; I mean, it could be subject to change in the clause-by-clause analysis.

Mrs Cunningham: That's right.

Ms Murdock: Yes. Fine. Two years.

Mr Dadamo: That's fine.

The Vice-Chair: I believe we have consensus on the last issue, which is that the date of two years is to be set, October 1, 1994, subject to those issues stated by Mr McGuinty and Ms Murdock, correct? Okay. Hearing that, is there anything else?

Ms Anderson: I'd just like to ask how you'd like to proceed from here; if I just take what you've said about pages 3, 4 and 5 and bring it back on Monday for you to look at?

Ms Murdock: Maybe the clerk can help us, Mr Chair. Do we have anything else except the Workers' Compensation Board report, that is due at some point, right?

The Vice-Chair: Except for that report.

Ms Murdock: I'll doublecheck on that. This committee, again in terms of the clause-by-clause on this, because I don't imagine it's going to take a tremendously long time, given the number of clauses there might be -- my understanding, and correct me if I'm wrong, assuming that the labour relations gets first and second reading in the House, is that it comes in here. I also understand pay equity may be coming in here following OLRA, is that correct?

The Vice-Chair: It is part of our responsibility as a committee.

Ms Murdock: So the reality is when are we going to do this?

Mrs Cunningham: The reality, in my view, is that this will take a day to do. You have to find the time.

The Vice-Chair: Ms Murdock, should the other two bills you talked about be discussed and indeed be passed at first and second step, we're not going to see those till the summer break. This is in essence all we have before us, so hopefully we can resolve this and have this bill out of here by the break.

Mr McGuinty: We still haven't answered Anne's question, which was will we be able to come back on Monday?

The Vice-Chair: Monday it is? Okay.

Is there anything else to come before the committee? Hearing nothing --

Ms Murdock: Just a minute. Would it give you more time, Anne, to do it Wednesday instead of Monday, or does it make a difference?

Ms Anderson: Yes, but the interministerial committee --

Ms Murdock: Oh, the sooner they get it.

Ms Anderson: If there are any changes you want to the draft on Monday, then it's not going to go through till later.

Ms Murdock: Good point.

Ms Anderson: So they're not going to get it. The earliest would be the end of next week and if not, the week after.

The Vice-Chair: The committee stands adjourned.

The committee adjourned at 1750.