So the bill about requiring ski helmets in Nova Scotia that
I mentioned yesterday has now been posted online. As you may recall, I was interested in whether or not the requirement would actually apply to all skiers, as was reported in the CBC article, or if it would specifically apply to downhill skiers.
It turns out that this very issue is dealt with in s. 2 of the bill.
The purpose of this Act is to protect the health of Nova Scotians by requiring people to wear protective helmets while downhill skiing or snowboarding at ski hills where people pay to ski or snowboard.
Of course, I guess this means that if you are just out in the woods or at an abandoned ski hill there would be no requirement to wear a helmet.
There are also sections of the act that seem to provide the potential for abuse.
7 (1) For the purpose of enforcing this Act and the regulations, an enforcement officer may, without a warrant,
(a)investigate any complaint of a contravention of this Act or the regulations and examine any person to determine if a contravention has occurred;
(b) from time to time and at all reasonable times, enter the property or premises of an owner or any other person if it is reasonably necessary to do so in order to determine whether or not this Act and the regulations are being complied with;
(c) request that a person remove the person's helmet and provide it for inspection;
(d) require a person to provide the person's name and address or proof of identity; and
(e) do any other thing necessary for the purpose of enforcing this Act and the regulations.
Is it really necessary to allow enforcement officers to be able to request ID and proof of address if there is no suspicion of wrong-doing? Or that people must submit to helmet inspections? What about s. 8 of the Charter?
8. Everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure.
Can this invasion really be "demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society"?
Yesterday, while looking for a copy of the bill, I happened to come across
the press release issued to announce the impending introduction of this bill. Something that caught my eye in the press release was the claim that "The Snowsport Helmet Act will be the first legislation of its kind in the world." Could this really be true? Had no other jurisdiction tried to implement a mandatory helmet law?
Well, after a few minutes of searching I came to the conclusion that the claim may not be entirely accurate (it likely depends on your definition of 'first of its kind'). It seems that in California legislation was introduced, and passed by both houses of the legislature, that would have required those under sixteen to wear helmets while downhill skiing. Though the bill had legislative support it was
eventually vetoed by California first post-Schwarzenegger governor.
So if you take 'first of its kind' to mean 'bill requiring some segment of the population to wear helmets while skiing' it is clear that this bill is not the first of its kind. On the other hand, if you take 'first of its kind' to mean 'bill requiring all downhill skiers to wear helmets while skiing' then the claim may hold water, though I can't claim to have done a particularly extensive search.
