Motorized Snow Vehicles
Amendment Act, 2000, Bill 101, Mr JacksonLoi de 2000 modifiant la Loi sur les motoneiges,
projet de loi 101, M. Jackson
Muskoka
Sno-Bombers
Mr Jeff Durant
Muskoka Snowmobile
Region
Mr Paul Shaughnessy
Northern Ontario
Tourist Outfitters Association
Mr Jim Antler
Ontario Federation of
Snowmobile Clubs, southwestern region, district 9
Ms Pat Morrison, Mr John Berlett
Town of
Huntsville
Mr William MacDonald
Snowmobile Club Trail
Wardens
Mr Vic Trahan
Canadian Council of
Snowmobile Organizations
Mr Michel Garneau
Iron Bridge Night
Hawks
Mr Greg Brown
Dwight-Dorset
Trappers Council
Mr Frank LeFeuvre
Near North Trail
Association
Mr Graham Whitwell
Mr Robert
List
STANDING COMMITTEE ON
GENERAL GOVERNMENT
Chair /
Président
Mr Steve Gilchrist (Scarborough East / -Est PC)
Vice-Chair / Vice-Présidente
Mrs Julia Munro (York North / -Nord PC)
Mr Toby Barrett (Norfolk PC)
Mrs Marie Bountrogianni (Hamilton Mountain L)
Mr Ted Chudleigh (Halton PC)
Mr Garfield Dunlop (Simcoe North / -Nord PC)
Mr Steve Gilchrist (Scarborough East / -Est PC)
Mr Dave Levac (Brant L)
Mr Rosario Marchese (Trinity-Spadina ND)
Mrs Julia Munro (York North / -Nord PC)
Substitutions / Membres remplaçants
Mr Gilles Bisson (Timmins-James Bay ND)
Mr Brian Coburn (Ottawa-Orléans PC)
Mr John Hastings (Etobicoke North / -Nord PC)
Mr Joseph Spina (Brampton Centre / -Centre PC)
Clerk / Greffier
Mr Viktor Kaczkowski
Staff /Personnel
Ms Lorraine Luski, research officer, Research and Information
Services
The committee met at 1033 in the Cranberry Marsh
Cove Resort, Bala.
MOTORIZED SNOW VEHICLES AMENDMENT ACT, 2000 / LOI DE
2000 MODIFIANT LA LOI SUR LES MOTONEIGES
Consideration of Bill 101, An
Act to promote snowmobile trail sustainability and enhance safety
and enforcement / Projet de loi 101, Loi visant à
favoriser la durabilité des pistes de motoneige et à
accroître la sécurité et les mesures
d'exécution.
The Chair (Mr Steve
Gilchrist): I'd like to call the committee hearings to
order. It is our fourth day of hearings on Bill 101, the
Motorized Snow Vehicles Amendment Act, 2000. Greetings to members
joining the committee for the first time here today.
MUSKOKA SNO-BOMBERS
The Chair: I
am told that our first presenters, the Muskoka Sno-Bombers, are
here. I ask a representative to come forward to the witness
table, please. Good morning and welcome to the committee. We have
20 minutes for your presentation.
Mr Jeff
Durant: Good morning. My name is Jeff Durant. I am the
current president of the Muskoka Sno-Bombers, the local club out
of Bracebridge, Ontario, which is approximately 20 minutes east
of where we sit.
I'd like to thank the
committee for this opportunity to speak on behalf of Bill 101.
The Sno-Bombers' general feeling is that we support it. We have a
couple of issues we'd like to put forth, but mandatory permits
are something we feel are required in this volunteer organization
called snowmobiling.
I moved to Bracebridge about
11 years ago, and at that point in time snowmobiling in
Bracebridge and Muskoka was well underway. There was a spaghetti
network of trails. It existed well and existed solely on the
backs of volunteers.
Over the last decade in
particular, the sport of snowmobiling has evolved at a tremendous
rate. Years ago, the thought of individual clubs across the
province joining their trails was not something that was an
issue. If one club's trails happened to come close to another and
they connected, great. But at that stage of the game the
snowmobile trails were created by volunteers for that club, for
those club members to use-small group, small organization, easy
to handle.
Today, on the other hand, the
world of snowmobiling has changed dramatically. The sport has
huge economic impacts on local communities and businesses,
specifically those communities which are snowbound. In Muskoka we
are within a relatively short drive of the GTA. In your travels
getting here, I would suspect you've been able to see the huge
number of cottages around the lakes. Crown land is something we
don't have much of, good or bad. We've also had a significant
increase in the number of resorts, and the number of resorts
which are now open year-round or certainly seasonally, winter and
summer.
Having said all this, what's
my point with respect to Bill 101? The Muskoka Sno-Bombers exist
solely because of volunteers. The board of directors is all
volunteer; most of the labour on the trails is volunteer. We've
progressed to the state that, due to the large influx of traffic
and snowmobilers, we now have to have paid groomer operators.
What that does for the club is that we can dictate when these
operators go out, that specifically being in the evening, at
night. When the daytime traffic is busy, night-time people are at
home sleeping.
The Muskoka snowmobile club
is able to pay groomer operators as a result of a budgeting
process that has developed over the years. As a result, the
revenue is directly from permit sales. The Muskoka Sno-Bombers
club sends representatives every year to the Ontario Federation
of Snowmobile Clubs' annual general meeting. At this meeting
several things occur within the sport of snowmobiling. First of
all, we recognize funding shortfalls that exist throughout the
province. We, being the snowmobile club, and specifically the
Sno-Bombers, have an opportunity to vote on trail permit
price-setting. This ability allows us to set the permit price
accordingly, because the permit price is being set by people who
know what the sport is about, by people who know what the funding
requirements are. There is no profit consideration taken into
account anywhere.
I mentioned a couple of
sentences ago that one of the greatest obstacles we face as a
snowmobile club is underfunding. All the projects that should be,
that need to be or that we wish to have done in order to improve
the snowmobile trails throughout the region and throughout our
club network require large dollars as far as capital-things like
blasting rock: there's a bit of rock around Muskoka and it's tough to climb over; poses
groomer problems; can't get groomers over it. At the end of the
day, with all of this capital funding required, the net result is
an improved snowmobile trail providing safer riding
conditions.
1040
The Muskoka Sno-Bombers, on
the other hand, are able through budgeting to cover operation
expenses: fuel, oil and groomer wages, as we talked about. What I
haven't mentioned is all of the volunteer hours that are included
in this sport and that the Muskoka Sno-Bombers put out. We pay
groomer operators, but on Saturdays and Sundays and whenever
possible there are people who go out for the good of the sport,
because they recognize that it's a volunteer-driven organization
with no other outside influence, who are willing to spend hours
brushing trees and on general trail work. When we send a
volunteer out on the trail today, they recognize that what they
are doing is no longer just solely for the purpose of the club;
they are doing it for the good of the local club, they are doing
it for the good of the region, and in whole they are doing it for
the good of the whole sport of snowmobiling, specifically in the
province of Ontario.
The Sno-Bombers have a fair
number of private landowners who graciously provide permission to
use their property. They understand that within the sport we are
out doing our own thing, volunteering, and they essentially agree
to volunteer the use of their land. Having said this, the
sno-bombers strongly feel that the Ontario Federation of
Snowmobile Clubs must have final say in such things as permit
fee, permit distribution and budgeting. The Muskoka Sno-Bombers
support the OFSC and their request to the government for support
in the form of mandatory permits. This OFSC autonomy must
remain.
A fear that exists is that
government intervention setting trail permit fees or creating new
regulations on how revenue derived from the sale of permits can
be spent would have a negative impact on volunteers. The question
would be, why is a volunteer working for a government
organization? The other issue we fear would be a private
landowner saying, "Why am I allowing the government to pass
across my land for free?" The potential there would be that if
the permission is denied, the trail network, as we know, could
drastically change.
Mandatory permit legislation
for snowmobiles on OFSC trails provides the necessary teeth
enforcement agencies need, and we wholeheartedly support
that.
It is not the place of the
Muskoka Sno-Bombers to discuss traditional trail users, but we
recognize the fact that there are and that the OFSC will address
that in our best interests.
In Bracebridge we don't have
a heck of a lot of crown land. We really have nothing to say with
respect to the crown land issue, other than that once again we
support the OFSC and their initiatives in that access must be
addressed.
The Sno-Bombers ask that the
committee allow for the OFSC to have final authority on all
matters regarding OFSC trail permits, distribution and pricing.
Thank you.
The Chair:
Thank you very much, Mr Durant. That leaves us time for
questioning. We've got only two parties present so we'll split
the time between the Liberals and the government. We'll start
with Mr Levac.
Mr Dave Levac
(Brant): Mr Durant, just a simple question in terms of
the permit fee: is there any rate that the OFSC has come up with?
The amount of money is basically what I'm talking about.
Mr Durant:
Yes. This year the permit fee is $120. That was derived at based
on a budgeting process. When I say the OFSC, it's all 281 clubs
at the general meeting saying, "Yes, we need this, we need this."
Capital project requests are submitted by clubs to various
committees, and all of this gets laid out and we say, "Jeez, we
need $42 million and if we sell 110,000 permits at $120 we only
have this much."
Mr Levac:
So, in essence, from the grassroots they give that information
that's necessary to set the fee.
Mr Durant:
That's correct.
Mr Levac:
What you're requesting is that that continue.
Mr Durant:
Yes.
Mr Levac:
That brings me to the next question about policing. With
mandatory permits, you'd have to have some type of policing to
ensure that everyone on the trails is permitted?
Mr Durant:
Yes. That exists now. I don't wish to speak to it at any great
length. The OFSC has trained trail wardens, and that is the
policing end of the permit in that the wardens can enforce the
Trespass to Property Act, as well as the OPP. This just allows
the OPP on the trail to issue a violation, a ticket, at that
point in time rather than ending up in judicial court for the
trespass act.
Mr Levac:
What I'm hearing is that you've created kind of your own
dedicated tax, if that's a fair term to use. If you're going to
pay for your permits, that money goes directly back into the
trail.
Mr Durant:
That's correct; it's user pay.
Mr Levac:
Would you see any value in assisting in bringing that down by
maybe applying a gas tax? Not introducing a gas tax, but having
some of the money that's coming from the gas tax presently
dedicated to the trails. You're filling your snowmobiles up with
gas, I presume.
Mr Durant:
My own personal thought would be yes, but not knowing exactly how
the processes work.
Mr Toby Barrett
(Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant): Thank you, Mr Durant. I
recognize the importance of the volunteer effort through your
organization. I know in years gone by there always was a problem
with drinking and snowmobiling and there's evidence of a number
of fatalities that can be attributed to driving under the
influence or at night. I'm in the south, and down my way
oftentimes people don't realize there's an old fence coming out
of a snowdrift, and there have been cases of decapitation and
things like that. Through the volunteer effort, how successful
have we been in trying to deal with some of those problems, the
reckless snowmobiling and the drinking? There have been a number of
information programs.
Mr Durant:
I'm not terribly comfortable in responding to it in that my
response might be taken in the wrong context. I would simply say
that we come from a volunteer standpoint. There is the Snowmobile
Trail Officer Patrol program, which is a volunteer program in
partnership with the OPP. Again, they're enforcing the Motorized
Snow Vehicles Act typically on OFSC trails. As far as running
through a farm which is not a designated OFSC trail, hitting
fences as you allude to-
Mr Barrett:
I was just using that as an example of some of the problems.
Through your organization, do you have literature or pamphlets
available to try and convince people it's not a good idea, in
those cases where they might take a bottle with them-
Mr Durant:
The head office of the Ontario Federation of Snowmobile Clubs
does, and they're made available to the clubs.
1050
Mr John Hastings
(Etobicoke North): Thank you, Mr Durant, for coming
today. I'll get right to the heart of the matter regarding your
submission, which I find most intriguing. On the one hand you
support the federation with respect to requiring that this
authority and the permitting and the fees be mandatory, but on
the other hand, in the middle of page 2, mid-paragraph roughly,
you also ascribe your fears to direct governmental intervention
in terms of MTO or whatever ministry would end up having the
responsibility or authority for issuing the permits and setting
sundry regulations.
Do you see the direct
contradiction in your own position? On the one hand you're
arguing for the necessity of mandatory fees, which I can see,
because of all the good work that's done by many of the players
in this particular recreational industry, and yet you don't want
any more governmental regulation with the setting of the fees or
whatever ministry would have some kind of specific assertive
influence in this area. How do you square them?
Mr Durant: I
would put that down to my inability to explain myself perhaps as
clearly as I should. My fear is the mandatory permit-the
legislation part, there's no fear with that.
Mr Hastings:
Why not?
Mr Durant: I
have no problem with-
Mr Hastings:
That's intervention.
Mr Durant:
It's intervention from an enforcement standpoint. The
intervention I have a fear with is it now says "province of
Ontario" on the permit, or might it say "Ministry of
Transportation" or whatever the case may be, and the OFSC is
pushed out of the way.
Mr Hastings:
OK. Given that inclination that you have, then, if you got most
of what you wanted in your brief in the broad thrust of this
bill, in your estimation, how would there be accountability to
the taxpayer supposedly in terms of the federation having pretty
well a self-managed operation for price setting, fee setting,
issuance of those permits etc?
Mr Durant:
When you say "taxpayer"-
Mr Hastings:
Everybody is a taxpayer.
Mr Durant:
Everybody is a taxpayer, and in this case it's a user-pay sport,
so if my neighbour chooses not to, there's no cost associated to
him from the standpoint that the snowmobile club, Muskoka
Sno-Bombers, still is taking care of permit distribution; the
various outlets within Bracebridge would still sell a permit as
opposed to a driver's vehicle office having to do that, so they
could basically alleviate any taxpayer fears in that there would
be no government requirement.
Mr Hastings:
I won't go down that road any further, but I'll go back to
another-
The Chair:
Sorry, Mr Hastings, we're over time.
Thank you very much, Mr
Durant. We appreciate your taking the time to come before us here
today.
MUSKOKA SNOWMOBILE REGION
The Chair:
Our next presentation is Muskoka Snowmobile Region. Mr
Shaughnessy, I take it? Good morning and welcome to the
committee.
Mr Paul
Shaughnessy: Good morning. Welcome to Muskoka. My name
is Paul Shaughnessy. I'm the general manager of the Muskoka
Snowmobile Region.
First, a few words about
myself. I've been a snowmobiler since I was a child; in fact,
probably at an age that today would be considered illegal. I've
been involved in organized snowmobiling since the late 1980s as a
volunteer with a club, as a volunteer trail warden for the past
12 years, and for the past four seasons I've been a volunteer
special constable with the STOP program. I'm also employed,
through organized snowmobiling, as I said, as the general manager
of the MSR.
Perhaps a little explanation
as to why we are here today. We, the MSR, support Bill 101 and
certainly the actions to enhance safety, enforcement and the
sustainability of snowmobiling. However, whereas sustainability
will be achieved through mandatory trail permits, we are
concerned with the implementation and management of this program.
To be specific, our concern is with the role, or lack of, that
snowmobile clubs and the OFSC have in the sustainability portion
of this act.
A little bit of information
on the MSR, the Muskoka Snowmobile Region: we're an association
of nine member snowmobile clubs located primarily across the
district of Muskoka, some portions of Parry Sound district and
portions of Haliburton and Simcoe counties. Many of our member
clubs are among the oldest clubs in the province of Ontario, with
some tracing their origins back to the early 1960s. In our early
years, snowmobiling amounted to nothing more than a group of
local enthusiasts heading out for the enjoyment of their family
members. This was an era where Muskoka literally closed down
after Labour Day-we'd be shut today-as employees were laid off
and businesses either shut down or operated with a skeleton staff
through the winter months, and I can attest to that fact
personally. Today, snowmobiling is an essential component of
Muskoka's winter economy, bringing to the region the benefits of
12-month employment. Just under 10,000 snowmobilers purchase trail permits
from our member clubs, our association, and thousands more come
to experience our 1,300 kilometres of scenic trails.
Snowmobiling in Ontario is
primarily funded through a user-pay system and mandatory trail
permits will surely provide us with much-needed funding
assistance. We must however recognize that our past and future
success is dependent on a number of factors, not just the revenue
from trail permits. No amount of permit revenue could replace the
support from our volunteers, our area businesses, the private
landowners, and our community leaders. These community-spirited
individuals are, and must continue to be, the foundation of
organized snowmobiling. For Muskoka and other communities
throughout Ontario, winter tourism is dependent on the generosity
and support of these individuals.
The combination of volunteer
and community support, together with the user-pay system, has
been the backbone of organized snowmobiling in Ontario for over
three decades. We must take this point into consideration when
making any changes to our funding structure.
The demands on our clubs and
our fragile volunteer base are ever increasing. The 1990s brought
with it the era of the touring snowmobiler: tourists with their
wallets and saddlebags travelling from one destination to
another. With touring snowmobiling came traffic volume never
before witnessed in many parts of Ontario. Snowmobiling has never
been more popular. Yet, despite the increased popularity, our
volunteers are managing trail networks with limited resources.
While mandatory trail permits should help alleviate part of this
funding shortfall, as previously noted, snowmobiling will still
be dependent on volunteers and the local community.
With respect to enforcement
of mandatory trail permits, our economic survival must include
all recreational snowmobilers paying their fair share. We stress
"recreational snowmobilers," not legitimate hunters, anglers or
those earning their livelihood.
The snowmobile community is
very well connected, thus information travels quickly. As a
volunteer special constable working for the provincial STOP
program, I can attest to this fact. In areas with a visible
police presence, word gets out quickly and snowmobilers tend to
be more compliant with the law as they realize that if they're
not operating legally, chances are very good that they will get
caught.
If enforcement of a mandatory
trail permit is lacking, this information will also spread
quickly throughout the snowmobile community and many snowmobilers
will avoid purchasing a trail permit. This is why the enforcement
of mandatory trail permits must include the support of OFSC
volunteers. Ontario is a very large province, and with just under
50,000 kilometres of snowmobile trails, it would be impossible
for traditional law enforcement agencies to patrol these trails
without some form of assistance. The industry's economic survival
is dependent on the user-pay system, and full enforcement must be
an integral component of this program.
Bill 101 has the makings of a
true partnership, a partnership between the provincial government
and the volunteers of organized snowmobiling. As with any
partnership, all parties must feel that they are being treated
fairly.
While the OFSC must respect
that there are certain areas of Bill 101 that require government
control or involvement, the provincial government must respect
the OFSC's experience and success at developing a vibrant winter
recreational activity for the past three decades. Should the
clubs and their volunteers feel or fear that they have lost or
are about to lose their autonomy or financial security, this will
be the beginning of our demise. Should the volunteers feel that
the OFSC is nothing more than an arm or extension of the
government, volunteer and community support will gradually
diminish.
1100
In conclusion, we recognize
that Bill 101 contains a number of actions designed to enhance
safety and enforcement. We recognize that mandatory trail permits
will help sustain organized snowmobiling in Ontario. However, the
bill as presented does not spell out the OFSC's role in
protecting our sustainability. We ask that Bill 101 and any
corresponding regulations must respect the Ontario Federation of
Snowmobile Clubs' autonomy, our financial security and our role
in building and maintaining organized snowmobiling in
Ontario.
The Chair:
We have time for some questions. We'll start with Mr Spina.
Mr Joseph Spina
(Brampton Centre): Thanks, Paul, for coming this
morning. I apologize to everybody; I didn't plan for construction
on Highway 9 when I left home. In any case, a good
presentation.
I have a couple of questions.
The institution or implementation of a mandatory trail permit you
indicate has perhaps some concerns from your perspective, one
being the loss of autonomy of the OFSC and its current role in
organized snowmobiling. The other is the difficulty in enforcing
these permits; you make a comment here, "without some form of
assistance." I'm asking if you could explain that a little bit
and then I want to go back to the first part of my question.
Mr
Shaughnessy: With respect to the second part of the
question, enforcement, we have proven-and when I say "we," I mean
all the OFSC member clubs-that we have been able to deal with
enforcement of an OFSC trail permit. There is expertise out
there. Perhaps it might need some modification or some
improvement or enhancement, but we have over the last three
decades been able to enforce a user-pay trail permit system. If
we go to a mandatory trail permit in Ontario, if we're going to
take that action and purely put it into the hands of the
traditional law enforcement agencies, we really question the
ability of those organizations to enforce mandatory trail permits
without some form of assistance. I think you will find that if
there's OFSC involvement in the trail permit, you will also find
corresponding volunteer support from the OFSC with respect to
enforcement.
Mr Spina:
Good. On the early part of the question that I had talked about:
you mentioned that the revenue from mandatory trail permits would help or give
some assistance to the sustainability of the system. There were
some recommendations made over the consultation period, in the
early discussion papers, that were to gain some general feedback
from the public leading up to a more formal public hearing like
this. Are there alternatives that you think might be better or as
good as or that maybe would even add additional assistance to the
sustainability of the system?
Mr
Shaughnessy: There are other alternatives. Perhaps the
gas tax or a rebate from that was mentioned with the previous
speaker, but first and foremost we must ensure that all
recreational users of that trail network are paying their fair
share. That's the basis of any user-pay system. We recognize that
today there are true recreational snowmobilers who are abusing
the system. If we get past the first hurdle with mandatory trail
permits, then we can look at other alternatives in the
future.
Mr Spina: A
quick one: the matrix, which is an internal description, is
basically the equalization formula of redistribution of some of
the funds from the federation to some of the lesser-funded or
poorer clubs, for lack of a better way to describe it, from some
of the wealthier clubs. How do you feel about that?
Mr
Shaughnessy: The OFSC has years of experience with
respect to club expenses. There are data every year; clubs have
an annual financial report that they turn in to the OFSC. Those
data are there. The OFSC has the ability of assessing clubs'
needs. That's why we say it's so important that the OFSC be
involved in this revenue, both raising the funds and distributing
the funds. It's so important that they be involved because they
have that expertise. They know which portions of the province
have different weather trends or have different traffic volumes
and so on and so forth. They are able to make that assessment
based on the experience they have. We're fearful that if that's
removed from the equation, we may find that we're going to have
areas that are going to have even more significant shortfalls
than we already have. So we're very cautious with respect to that
issue.
Mr Spina:
Thanks, Paul. I appreciate it.
Mr Levac: Mr
Shaughnessy, just a clarification for my own use. I'm not a
snowmobiler and I don't know these things very much, but I've
been trying to do some reading on it. Are trail wardens sworn
officers?
Mr
Shaughnessy: No. Trail wardens are trained volunteers.
It's an internal program of the OFSC, as opposed to a STOP
officer, who is an actual special constable, a sworn officer.
Mr Levac:
That answers my next question about STOP. Generally speaking, who
presently gets the revenue from the permits? Is it the club
itself or is it the OFSC that distributes it?
Mr
Shaughnessy: We have a tiered system whereby a
percentage goes back to the OFSC to cover fixed costs that they
have to deal with and then the majority of the permit revenue
stays with the selling club.
Mr Levac:
Have you found a problem with-I'll give you a scenario: club A in
southern Ontario sells volumes of permits and clubs B and C,
which happen to be up north, maybe do not sell as many permits. I
think Mr Spina was making reference to the distribution. Would
this mandatory permit cause an imbalance between north, south,
east and west or rich and poor clubs?
Mr
Shaughnessy: As I stated to Mr Spina, the OFSC has years
of experience with respect to that. Certainly as the sport has
evolved, so have the requirements in various parts of the
province. They recognize that organized snowmobiling is changing,
that trends are changing, that where people travel has changed.
They work with what Mr Spina referred to as a matrix. It's a
formula that determines how much a particular club in an area
would receive. That matrix will determine if a club is perhaps
suffering from a funding shortfall, and then changes will be
made. They will adjust the revenue in that area accordingly.
Mr Levac:
A final question: from what I've heard around the table
completely, there would be some advice provided to the government
regarding the bill, making sure the expertise that is out there
in terms of volunteers and even paid staff from the snowmobiling
community would be invited to be a participant, and if not a
participant, a leader, in how the distribution of the monies
takes place.
Mr
Shaughnessy: Yes. We certainly would like to see the
OFSC in a leadership role.
The Chair:
Thank you very much, Mr Shaughnessy. We certainly appreciate your
coming here today.
NORTHERN ONTARIO TOURIST OUTFITTERS ASSOCIATION
The Chair:
Our next presentation will be from the Northern Ontario Tourist
Outfitters Association. Good morning and welcome to the
committee.
Mr Jim
Antler: My name is Jim Antler. I'm the research analyst
for the Northern Ontario Tourist Outfitters Association, NOTOA
for short. We're a non-profit organization that directly
represents the interests of over 500 resource-based tourism
businesses that are located primarily in northern Ontario. For
your information, our membership is predominately made up of
fishing and hunting camps and lodges, housekeeping cottage
resorts, flying outpost businesses, air services, canoe and
adventure travel outfitters, campgrounds, trailer parks and
houseboat rental operations, so we have quite a wide swath.
Within our membership, and
I'm sure the broader industry outside our membership,
snowmobiling is becoming an increasingly popular tourism
activity. Most of our members tend to be seasonal in nature, open
May to October, although many have converted some or all of their
business to handle snowmobiling clients in the winter, and many
others are considering such a conversion, not only to expand
their operating season but also to try and diversify the tourism
products they offer.
From what I can understand,
that expansion isn't equal throughout the north. I've heard
comments that it seems to be more developed in northeastern Ontario
than perhaps in many areas of northwestern Ontario. I think this
is important to highlight at least from the tourism perspective
because Bill 101, and how it may ultimately come out at the end
of the day, may encourage or potentially discourage efforts by
operators to expand into the snowmobiling sector.
1110
When the Ontario Federation
of Snowmobile Clubs passed a resolution last year to increase
non-resident trail permit fees to $300 per year, there was
tremendous opposition from our membership. They were concerned,
and knew, that such a fee would price Ontario out of the
snowmobile market for most travelers. They were also aware that
the OFSC was hoping to implement a mandatory trail permit system
for its networks. While the reaction we got to the fee increase
was universal in its opposition, there seemed to be a more mixed
reaction to the concept of mandatory permits, but for those who
were giving it some consideration, it appeared they had a concern
that it would only be acceptable if there was a variety of
permits available in terms of duration of time, that they were
valid and at a reasonable cost. That's really where I want to
focus my remarks today.
Subsection 2.1(1) of the
bill adds a section which basically gives it power to introduce a
mandatory trail permit. As I said above, there was mixed reaction
to that within our membership when the discussion of this began
last year. Our folks were very concerned that if that were to
occur, we would need to have a variety of permit options and at a
reasonable cost, especially for non-residents who, for many of
our folks, are an important part of their snowmobiling business
and the rest of their business in our industry. For example, once
you get west of Thunder Bay, our lodges are almost 100% US
clientele. Their marketplace for snowmobiling, should they choose
to expand it, will predominantly come out of the United
States.
While the bill doesn't
address the specific types of permits or fees to be made
available to the consumer-and we know that's usually done through
regulation-we would like the committee to be aware of the
importance of these factors to the overall impact of any
legislation that may impose a mandatory trail permit system.
It's our understanding
there are currently three types of OFSC trail permits available:
you have a seasonal permit that costs either $120 or $150,
depending on whether it's purchased before or after December 1;
there's a seven-day permit, which I understand costs $75; and a
one-day permit which costs $30. A concern is that the one-day
permit seems to be priced out of line to the other two-and that
has relevance to the rest of the presentation-because it seems
like it's set at such a level that it would drive people to
purchase a seven-day or a seasonal permit, depending upon the
amount of time they want to travel. For example, the cost of
three one-day permits would be more than a seven-day permit. We
also understand, at least I've been told, that the OFSC has had
some discussions about getting rid of the seven-day permit or
proposing that as an option. I don't think we would support
that.
The bill gives the Minister
of Transportation the power to set permit fees and conditions,
and we recommend that strong consideration be given to
maintaining two shorter-duration type permits and fees.
With specific regard to
non-residents, they generally take a short-duration trip in
Ontario, probably one to seven days. We want to have some options
available for them to meet the needs of the travel they want to
do in Ontario. Potentially having them need to buy a seasonal
permit certainly won't, I don't think, be an encouragement to
them to come into Ontario and may cause difficulty and perhaps
serve as a discouragement for those folks. We must compete with
other provinces and states for the snowmobiling dollar,
especially from out of country.
In speaking with some of
the staff, who I think have been involved in this legislation, in
some ways they seemed a little unclear of even what happens in
some of the other provinces. I understand there may be some
things going on between different provinces and states in terms
of reciprocal agreements, those kinds of things, and I was unsure
whether or not there was a clear understanding of what those
other competing jurisdictions have in place in their systems. We
would want to make sure that before any system gets implemented,
there would be a good study done of that, of the permit fees and
the types in other provinces and jurisdictions so that Ontario,
in dealing with the issue, can remain competitive.
Without knowing all the
details of the trail permit cost to maintain, it is difficult for
us to make recommendations of what those fees should be. I know
that's not part of the bill, but I would like to make some
suggestions and give you some things to chew on.
As I understand it, the
seven-day permit fee has been set in the past to be one half the
cost of the seasonal permit fee at the $150 level, meaning a
seven-day permit will cost $75. We would suggest that fee be no
more than half of that seasonal permit fee; in fact, we would
want some consideration given to making it one half of the cost
of what I would consider the early bird fee. The reason for that
is that most non-residents who'd be coming into Ontario-and I'm
going to speak a lot about non-residents because of the nature of
the clientele, and there is a variety of other groups here who'll
speak more on the resident side-are likely not going to travel in
Ontario before December 1 anyway. To make their fee half of the
latter cost, to me, for lack of a better word, may be a bit of a
penalty to them. We would encourage that if there's a seven-day
permit, and we would suggest there would be, it should be one
half of the $120 fee.
We also recommend that
either the one-day permit, which exists, or potentially a
three-day permit be implemented. We've given some suggestions to
a cost factor of $10 per day, as I say, without knowing the cost.
People may want to make issue with that in terms of recouping the
dollars that are needed to run the system. Clearly, something
less than seven days would be important because, as I say, you have many folks who may
travel that one-to-three-day period and, regardless of which
option they may want to look at-and we'd be happy to discuss that
at a later point, maybe in the regulatory process-I think that
$10 a day would be a factor that could be applied there.
One advantage we can see to
having a three-day permit certainly is that it means less
paperwork, both to the issuer and to the permit purchaser, if
they're going to travel more than one day.
We also recommend a
continuation of resident and non-resident fees being the same. We
acknowledge that the government at times will have differential
fees for residents and non-residents, especially if you look at
fishing and hunting in our industry, but we look at this one a
little differently. In the fishing and hunting side of things,
non-residents have the opportunity to consume and/or export a
crown resource, and the crown has determined that they should pay
a premium for that privilege, and we think that's fair. But a
snowmobile permit simply allows for legal passage across a trail.
It doesn't result in the consumption of a resource. It doesn't
result in the export of a resource. That's why we suggest the
system be maintained where resident and non-resident fees remain
the same.
We also have to consider
that people who snowmobile in Ontario for longer than a day at a
time spend more money than just on permit fees. They spend it on
accommodation certainly if they're staying more than a day, as
well as gas, meals and so on, and permit fees are only a small
portion of that overall economic impact of snowmobiling. Whatever
we do, we need to make sure that we're going to encourage that
type of other ancillary spending for the other businesses out
there and generate new resident, and especially non-resident,
dollars in our local economies through a reasonable and
competitive permit system.
I've spent the bulk of my
time on that because I think it's important for the committee to
understand where our concern is, even though some of those things
are more part of the regulatory process.
In terms of the sections
that are recommended in the bill with respect to enhancing public
safety, certainly we support the government's efforts in that
regard. Public safety is an important component of this bill and
the existing bill and the steps we see in here certainly don't
cause us any difficulty in terms of trying to enhance that public
safety.
Just to close, I want to
thank the committee for giving us a chance to appear before you
today. I'd like to suggest that our support for the bill is
conditional in nature at this time, because we don't yet know
what the permit and fee system is going to be. As I said before,
I think there's a recognition in our industry that people could
be willing to accept that type of mandatory system as long as the
permits and the fees are reasonable for the industry. We hope
you'll reflect upon that not only as you consider the bill, but
in the subsequent regulatory process that will come out, should
the bill ultimately be proclaimed. If it does in the end get
proclaimed with a mandatory trail permit system, we'd certainly
welcome the opportunity to work with the government to create a
permit system and a fee structure that would encourage growth and
expansion in the sector and continue to grow this industry. So
thank you.
1120
The Chair:
Thank you very much, Mr Antler. That leaves us about eight
minutes for questioning. We'll start with Mr Levac.
Mr Levac:
Mr Antler, just a question regarding whom you represent and how
that applies to this particular bill. You had indicated earlier
that your organization represents the places where the tourists
come to spend their time and effort and their money: campers,
anglers, hunting camps. Did I hear you correctly?
Mr Antler:
Yes, I was trying to give you an overall description of what our
existing membership is, but primarily they are
roofed-accommodation providers.
Mr Levac:
And a lot of them are looking towards growing their industry with
the understanding that they are getting more American tourists
and more non-resident tourists coming in?
Mr Antler:
Yes. As I said before, with the geography of northern Ontario
being as broad as it is, certain parts of the province-the
existing clientele that they have can really vary in terms of the
percentage of non-resident guests. As I said, once you get west
of Thunder Bay it can be almost 100%, whereas if you were on Lake
Nipissing, near North Bay, where I'm from, some of those camps
may be over 50% US, some may be less, and southern Ontario
becomes a big market.
Mr Levac:
Do you have any idea what per cent are recreational
snowmobilers?
Mr Antler:
For our industry, I would suggest that most of them would be.
Those who have moved into the snowmobiling trade are probably
catering to the touring kind of snowmobiler as opposed to the, I
guess I've heard the term "angler" or "hunter" used, someone
who's using a trail to get to point X to go fishing. That may
occur in some cases, but I think it would be predominantly the
touring side.
Mr Levac:
So the fees for the permits seem to be the real stumbling block
for your organization, because of what you've described as kind
of discouraging use from outside, non-residential.
Mr Antler:
Yes, the competitive factor that Ontario gets into because it'll
compete with Quebec, it'll compete with Manitoba for a good chunk
of that US market. When folks are trying to sell their products,
they want to make sure-I believe, anyway-that a fee system,
whether it's for this, whether it's for hunting and fishing
licences, whatever, is competitive with what's out there in that
marketplace, so in Ontario there's not something right off the
bat that may serve to discourage folks.
Mr Levac:
Have you co-operated with the OFSC in terms of expressing your
concerns here, or are you doing that through this committee?
Mr Antler: We've had some
relationship with them in the past. Last year, as I mentioned,
was the issue of the non-resident fee, when they passed a
resolution to effectively double that fee. Our organization had
passed a resolution against that and we made that fairly clearly
known to the OFSC, and in hindsight I believe they've pulled that
resolution back off the table, in waiting to get through this
issue of the mandatory permits.
So certainly they're aware
of the concerns that we would have in terms of what that permit
system or that fee system would look like.
Mr
Hastings: Mr Antler, thank you for coming today. Would
you describe how much your proposed fee would be, on a three-day
proposed pass? I think you said it would be something like $10
per permit, per user?
Mr Antler:
Per day.
Mr
Hastings: Per day.
Before you answer, $10-if I
recall, between our Canadian and the US dollar there's about a
30% discount. So if we had C$10, you're really charging the
American user from Minnesota or Wisconsin, or any of the Dakotas,
if they come that far, about US$6.50.
Mr Antler:
Give or take, I guess.
Mr
Hastings: Do you think you're a little low? I don't
want, on the other hand, to end up seeing that you're gouging
your potential customers. Isn't $10 a little low, though, when
you look at it from the American dollar viewpoint?
Mr Antler:
As I said in prefacing that, certainly without knowing all the
details of what it costs to run the system, we'd have to look at
those kinds of things. But I think the point in using a number
like $10 a day seemed to me-I'll give you part of the rationale
in terms of thinking about it: if you had a seven-day permit at
$60, which is another suggestions that I had thrown out,
effectively if you worked it back to $10 a day as a factor, what
you would say is effectively somebody who took a seven-day permit
would be able to travel seven days for the price of six. So to
try and keep it somewhat in line with that-now, certainly there's
room for discussion of those kinds of things. I wouldn't want to
say it's hard and fast without knowing the system. But the
concern would be that the current $30 rate-I think that's too
high and I've had the sense, and people have suggested to me,
that it was set that way to try and drive people to buy other
permits. Because if you're only going to be three days in the
country, you might as well buy the seven-day permit because it's
going to cost you less money.
Mr
Hastings: Is your proposal for a three-day permit based
on users coming into northwestern Ontario? That's what your
member outfitters have asked in formal surveys, I suspect. Is
that a large part of the business, the three-day, instead of
longer?
Mr Antler:
From what I can understand, and this is more anecdotal than hard
and fast through surveys, certainly there are a lot of folks who
seem to travel around that one- to three-day period. So as I
suggested-I looked at either way on that. When the regulatory
process comes down, you decide what you want to set for a permit
system. I think there would be room for some good discussion and
debate as to what that period should be.
Mr
Hastings: Thank you very much.
Mr Spina:
Hi, Jim. Thanks for coming. We appreciate it. I gather that NOTOA
is going through a talent search these days for an executive
director.
Jim, one of the reasons
that I think you're looking at a lower non-resident fee is a
number of your members and outfitters in general include the
permit fee as part of a package deal that they often offer for
non-residents. Is that correct?
Mr Antler:
I know that some people certainly would like to do that and have
talked to me about the concept of-and I didn't bring it up,
because it hasn't had a lot of discussion, from the comments I've
seen in the industry-some way for an operator to be able to have
a permit that they could include in a package, because it's part
of where the industry is telling people to go in terms of
packaging products. They'd like to be able to have that permit
included in that. The logistics of whether they pre-buy it or
whatever-I'm not sure how you'd work that out. But certainly,
there has been some discussion about including it in the
packages.
Mr Spina:
I know in conversation with some of the outfitters, for example,
along the north shore of Manitoulin, that when they offer a
weekend package for winter ice fishing, or even a one-week
package, when they included the rental of the machines, they
often included the price of the permit for those sleds or,
conversely, if the guests brought their own sleds, they would
include the cost of the permits along with that package deal.
Their concern was if it went too high-in particular, the
originally proposed $300 non-resident fee that was mentioned by
you earlier, which was a good criticism-that certainly made it
onerous and it was a disincentive to come here.
But in looking at other
jurisdictions that you mentioned, I gather you haven't really
done any research in that area as yet. Is that correct?
Mr Antler:
I actually had a conversation with the fellow who runs the
Manitoba Lodges and Outfitters Association to find out where
their system works. He didn't indicate to me that they have a
short-term permit, just a seasonal permit, but he believed that
was in the neighbourhood of $50 to $55.
Mr Spina:
But the fundamental difference is this: first of all, there are
no two jurisdictions in North America that fund their snowmobile
trail systems in the same way. In fact, if you look at
jurisdictions where there is a very low user permit fee, ie, the
state of Michigan, you find that about 95% of the trail system is
owned, operated and run by the state, so the fee is basically a
token fee that makes a small contribution towards the support of
the trail system. In other words, it's a state-run system, as
opposed to our system, which is probably at the other end of the
scale, virtually 100% user-pay. Other jurisdictions are kind of
in-between. I guess the Quebec system and perhaps the Vermont
system are a combination of state-funded or provincially funded portions together
with user-pay.
I guess what I'm really
trying to get at is, would you support a totally independent
user-pay system, would you want a blend or would you prefer a
totally state-run system?
1130
Mr Antler:
Before I could give a clear answer on that, I'd want to see all
the costs involved in the system and I'd want to know at the end
of the day what that permit is going to be, in order to recoup
whatever costs are going to be involved in the system.
As I said earlier, the
ideas I've thrown out here are certainly open to discussion,
maybe more to make a point about how we want to make sure that
whatever comes out of the system is going to act as something
that certainly won't dissuade people from travelling in Ontario
or coming to Ontario from another state.
Hopefully it will encourage
that, so the operators, in whatever way, can package it in the
right kind of way that access to the permits and all those things
is there. But I know that's a regulatory matter, as opposed to
what we've got constructed in the bill in terms of how that's
going to be laid out.
The Chair:
Thank you, Mr Antler. We appreciate your coming forward and
adding another element to the discussions we've had to date.
ONTARIO FEDERATION OF SNOWMOBILE CLUBS,
SOUTHWESTERN REGION, DISTRICT 9
The Chair:
We have had a cancellation in the 11:30 slot. Our next
presentation will be the Ontario Federation of Snowmobile Clubs,
southwestern region, district 9. Good morning, and welcome to the
committee.
Ms Pat
Morrison: Good morning. My name is Pat Morrison. I'm
administrator for the South Grey Regional Snowmobile Association,
which is located in Mount Forest, Ontario. I am here to represent
all the clubs and associations within southwestern Ontario, which
encompasses an area from Tobermory east to Meaford, south to
Guelph, west to London and Lake Huron, all of which are members
of the Ontario Federation of Snowmobile Clubs.
Beside me is John Berlett
of Listowel, Ontario, who is the operations director for the
clubs within this area. Both of us are avid snowmobilers, with
extensive years of experience, both at a local club level and at
a provincial level. In addition, both of us are private
landowners who have snowmobile trails crossing our
properties.
We are in agreement with a
mandatory permit, as long as it is an OFSC mandatory permit, and
that it be designated as an OFSC mandatory permit in the
Motorized Snow Vehicles Act.
Our conception of an OFSC
mandatory permit is:
1. That the administration,
control and permit revenues relating to a mandatory permit remain
with the OFSC. The reason for this is that the brushing, the
bridge-building and the regulated staking and signing that are
needed to create the trails are all paid for by the OFSC member
clubs. The cost of the expensive industrial grooming equipment
and the maintenance and operation of this industrial grooming
equipment is also totally paid for by the OFSC clubs. All of this
is paid for with OFSC permit revenue, fundraising and volunteer
donated time.
2. Such OFSC mandatory
permit must be enforceable by police forces the same as the
present yearly MTO validation sticker.
3. OFSC STOP officers and
wardens must also have the authority to enforce an OFSC mandatory
permit under the MSVA.
4. We fully understand the
need for traditional users, as we have done in our area for a
number of years in respect of our private landowners. We have
designated a free, separate permit for our landowners,
identifying them when they need to have access to our trails to
travel to their other farms. The same could be done for trappers
etc.
5. Such an OFSC mandatory
permit would be required to ride OFSC designated trails.
I'll give you a bit of
history on our district. Nine of the 10 clubs which formed the
OFSC in 1967 originated from southern Ontario, and four of these
were from our area. In 1967, when the OFSC was formed, there were
already many individual clubs in existence in our area. Within
three years many of these clubs had joined the OFSC and created
the user-pay system, putting into place the foundation of our
present-day OFSC trail system.
Presently, within district
9, we represent 32 clubs and associations which maintain
approximately 4,000 kilometres of trail. They are all
incorporated entities which sell close to 10,000 OFSC trail
permits, which amounts to about 10% of the total provincial
permit sales. From that permit revenue, we maintain the 4,000
kilometres of trail and we purchase, operate and maintain a fleet
of 32 large industrial groomers. These large industrial groomers
are needed to keep up with the ever-increasing amount of daily
traffic on our trails. Many of our 32 clubs and associations have
gone into debt by way of bank financing to purchase these large,
industrial groomers, which cost in the range of $100,000 to
$150,000 each. Many of these bank loans have been co-signed by
volunteer individuals within the 32 clubs and associations.
We are quite proud of the
fact that we have been able to manage our own financial needs
with only our OFSC permit revenues up to this point in time. But
with volunteer burnout this is becoming more and more difficult,
and so an additional source of revenue is needed, such as an OFSC
mandatory permit or perhaps revenue from the MTO validation
sticker.
Due to our area's strategic
location, our trail system receives a tremendous amount of daily
snowmobile traffic. Our area is within close proximity to five
major urban centres, one of which is the greater Toronto area.
Many of these day trip snowmobilers like the fact that our trail system is so easily
accessible to them. Due to this recent rapid growth in the sport
by this type of snowmobiler, local businesses are now doing a
booming business during the winter, when otherwise they would lay
off workers or just close down the business and go to Florida for
the winter.
The clubs generate very
little revenue from this type of snowmobiler. The day trip
snowmobiler volunteers very little time, if any, to the
development and maintenance of the trails in our district. They
do, however, create a heavier burden upon our volunteers. Due to
the increased workload and volunteer burnout, many of our 32
clubs and associations now have paid groomer operators in order
to keep up with the ever-increasing demands of a world-class
trail system. The rapid growth of this sport has also required
that some of the clubs amalgamate in order to hire a paid
administrator to look after the financial and year-round
operation of the clubs' business.
The clubs depend upon their
OFSC permit sale revenue and local fundraising, which involves
volunteer-donated time, in order to maintain organized
snowmobiling in our district. We have no outside funding from
other sources, local or provincial. We agree that a mandatory
permit would be an asset, but such a permit must be an OFSC
mandatory permit, and under the sole administration and
jurisdiction of the OFSC.
The security of the OFSC
mandatory permit is needed to ensure that all aspects of the
operation and maintenance of the present OFSC trail system are
maintained. This will ensure that everyone who is riding the OFSC
trail system will be paying their fair share.
I would now like to turn
this presentation over to John Berlett to speak on behalf of
landowners.
Mr John
Berlett: Thanks very much, and thanks for allowing me to
come today. I'd just like to give a little background. I'm sorry
if I seem a little nervous. I'm more used to dealing with farmers
with peaked hats and workboots and coveralls than I am with a
bunch of guys with suits, but I'm sure we'll get through
this.
Mr Spina:
OK, John.
The Chair:
There are at least two farmers here in suits.
Mr
Berlett: OK, I'll just picture you with your hats
on.
I'd just like to comment a
little bit. I'm here today to speak on behalf of the landowner,
mostly as a farmer, and I'd just like to make a comment on the
previous speaker, Pat, if I'm allowed to.
A couple of years ago I was
asked by the OFSC to represent the province of Ontario on
Rendezvous Ride, that went across Canada; I managed to take two
months out of my busy farm schedule. The price of permits across
the 10 provinces varies very much on the trail quality. The
higher the permit, the better the quality. I'd like you to keep
that in mind. You can't have a $10 trail permit and have a
world-class system. You have to generate some revenue there.
That's another issue, and I'm sure you will get through that.
1140
I currently farm about
2,000 acres of land in southwestern Ontario. My local club sets
trails over many acres of this property. I am only one of many
farmers in southwestern Ontario who allow snowmobile trails to
cross their property.
As Pat said, our district
maintains about 4,000 kilometres of snowmobile trails. You could
say we maintain about 10% of the kilometres of trails in Ontario.
One interesting thing is that the ratio of private landowners per
kilometre of trail in southwestern Ontario runs at 1:1. So under
our current system we have to go out as volunteer snowmobilers
and deal with 4,000 private landowners.
The land use agreements
with these 4000 landowners must be reviewed every year with the
landowner to find out where they wish the snowmobile trail to be
placed on their property. The current system that is in place
works very well. What I mean by that is, in northern and central
Ontario, a lot of it is bush trails and that type of thing, but
there is an access trail. We have to go out and negotiate with
the farmers every year to see where they want to put the trail,
whether it's on this side of the property or that side of the
property, or if there's a field we have to go around. As a
volunteer from the club, there's constant contact with the
landowners.
As a landowner, one of my
concerns is that if the present system changes and the
administration and control of the present OFSC trail permit is
removed from the OFSC and its member clubs, what would happen
under the present easement laws of Ontario? I have a fear that
private landowners will lose control of their property. We've
witnessed that in southern Ontario with the hydro corridors that
have gone through in our area, and just recently the abandoned
railway line issue. It's a real threat for a farmer when all of a
sudden the railway is gone, there is access into my property,
into some of my fields, and there's damage being done because of
access by snowmobiles, ATVs, horseback and other groups of
people.
Due to this fear of loss of
control of our private property, many landowners may cease to
grant permission for snowmobile trail access. In the past, we
have given permission freely to local OFSC snowmobile clubs for
their recreational use. We know the local people involved in
these clubs and, in the rural way, we trust these people and
their word is worth its weight in gold. At the present time, the
landowners know that the OFSC and its member clubs provide
protection to us through their policies and insurance coverage.
Landowners place their complete trust in their local snowmobile
club volunteers to protect their interests and look after the
land that has been entrusted to them.
Southwestern Ontario is
prime agricultural land. These snowmobile trails are only in
existence in the winter. Permission is granted for these
snowmobile trails only from December 1 to April 1 of each year,
after which they revert to their original agricultural
purpose.
Another fear I have as a
landowner is that with government involvement with these trails,
they could become
multi-use, year-round trails. This is not feasible in our area,
due to large-cropping practices and livestock operations. Should
multi-use, year-round trails become a reality, I can see the
withdrawal of land use permission from private landowners.
In conclusion, as an avid
snowmobiler I have the knowledge that approximately 80% of the
permit buyers from our area do not snowmobile out of this area.
It should also be noted that provincially, the majority of permit
sales come from southern Ontario. If these permit buyers cannot
ride trails close to home in the majority of the winter, chances
are they will get out of the sport completely. Southern Ontario
snowmobilers have stated that should it reach the point where the
only snowmobile trails to ride are located in northern Ontario,
many would quit the sport completely. It is just not feasible for
them to travel a great distance all the time in order to enjoy
their sport, both because of their work schedules and the lack of
funds to do so.
As a local club volunteer,
I know that should the OFSC and its member clubs lose control of
the present user-pay system, in all aspects the reality is that
we could lose control of our many dedicated volunteers who do
everything from acquiring land use permissions to the actual
brushing, signing and staking of the trails. I am finding that it
is harder and harder to find local club volunteers, and that the
present ones are reaching burnout, as some have been doing this
for more than 30 years. I can definitely see many club volunteers
stepping down, should they lose control of the destiny of the
trail system they have worked so hard to build over the last 33
years. Quoting an old saying, "If it isn't broke, don't fix
it."
In conclusion, I feel that
the OFSC mandatory permit would be an asset, but such a permit
should be in the sole responsibility and administration of the
OFSC to ensure that organized snowmobiling continues in the
province.
On behalf of the district 9
clubs and associations, Pat Morrison and myself, I thank you very
much for giving us this time to address the issues surrounding
Bill 101.
Are there any
questions?
The Chair:
Thank you very much. We've got about seven minutes. This time
we'll start with the government benches. Mr Spina, you indicated
you had a question.
Mr Spina:
My colleagues also have questions. I just have a quick one, John.
"If the system ain't broke, don't fix it." Tell me why I'm
here.
Mr
Berlett: We need more money. We'd like everyone to
participate. If they're going to snowmobile, buy the permit and
help us out that way. Southern Ontario-and I don't want to get
into the politics of it-has not received any government funding
from SST or Sno-TRAC or any of those things. We've always managed
to do it on our own. This could be a helping hand, under the
mandatory permit, as a long as it stays within the OFSC.
Mr Spina:
Pat, you added something here about the MTO validation sticker.
Can you expound on that?
Ms
Morrison: You have to have a validation sticker on your
snowmobile every year. It's $15 per year that's paid to the
MTO.
Mr Spina:
Does any of that money come back to the system?
Ms
Morrison: Absolutely none, no. That was an alternative
that we threw in, other than the mandatory sticker. We're just
trying to get everyone to pay their fair share. We warden as best
we can. There is the odd one out there that slips through the
system, but rather than mandatory permits maybe something else
you could be looking at is some of the funds generated from
that.
Mr
Hastings: Thank you for coming, people. There's a
certain irony in what I'm hearing. On the one hand you would
certainly appreciate getting a mandatory system, which would give
you greater revenue, yet on the other hand a concern I have is
how do we ensure specific benchmarks of accountability if you
ended up with that kind of a system? I'd like to hear from you as
to if you've got some of this, especially the mandatory approach
price-setting, how does that arrest, if it does at all, the
volunteer burnout? Do you see an inevitable trend towards sort of
a professional grouping or more specialization, more professional
stuff in this area and the lessening of the volunteer component
over time because of the pace of change in our society? Lack of
volunteerism doesn't just affect your organizations.
Ms
Morrison: No.
Mr
Hastings: It affects about everybody today. I'd like to
hear from you in terms of those considerations.
Mr
Berlett: Do you want me to speak on that?
Ms
Morrison: I have some thoughts on it too, John.
Mr
Hastings: So both of you, maybe.
Ms
Morrison: One of my thoughts is that this
ever-increasing push toward tourism is what's causing the problem
of our volunteer burnout and requiring more professionalism. If
we have the added revenue, we know we can produce that quality of
world-class trails which is being broadcast worldwide with
respect to Ontario. Now we've sat down with most of our clubs at
the provincial level, and we've actually had to teach them how to
fill out all their corporate papers and corporate tax returns and
stuff like that so that things are being done the proper way and
being filed so that there is some sort of a database there that
can be followed.
Mr
Berlett: Just speaking on that, it goes back to the
revenue. As a volunteer, we've always asked them to go out, and
their time is one thing, but the equipment is the other thing,
because of the work involved in southern Ontario to set up the
trails. It's completely gone come April 1, there are no visible
signs of it, and all of a sudden, come December 1, it's
there.
It's a tremendous amount of
work for our volunteers to go out and put up all the stakes, all
the signs. We grade all the ground, plow the ground. We were
talking on the way up in the truck here; it costs me personally
about $1,000 a year to snowmobile. With more revenue, I'm sure we
could pay some of those volunteers who are getting tired of doing
it all for nothing-I hope.
Mr Levac: Mr Chairman, we could
always legislate volunteerism. I couldn't resist, I'm sorry.
The Chair:
You have us confused with the previous government.
Mr Levac:
Oh, I see. I couldn't resist, John; sorry.
Thank you very much for
your presentation. What I'm basically hearing is what we've heard
from everybody presenting: there's a concern you're raising that
the OFSC should maintain control of the finances that are there.
The purpose of the permits is to continue to give you the funds
that are necessary to make this industry grow.
Will the funds also
address-and John was alluding to it-the option that you may wish
to enter into, and that is going into hiring professional people
to do some of that at your discretion?
Ms
Morrison: We already partially do that in respect of our
paid operators.
Mr Levac:
Right, and you buy machines.
Ms
Morrison: We buy the machines and have paid groomer
operators. Now, because the paperwork is just so intense, we have
to have paid administrators in some areas. I think now it's
almost starting to go down to the next level, and we're hoping
that, whether it be additional funds from that MTO validation
sticker or just having everyone pay their fair share as a
recreational user, this will allow us those few extra funds just
to do it. A lot of these volunteers would be quite happy with
$100 just to do it. They're not looking for big bucks, because
their hearts are still in snowmobiling.
1150
Mr Levac:
Do you get a sense that we're on that slippery slope, that if you
go to that next level, what happens is that those who are
part-time volunteers become zero-time volunteers, and those who
are part-time will be looking for that remuneration?
Ms
Morrison: It's a funny way to deal with people. For the
younger ones I would say yes, they would probably be looking to
that, but a lot of them, as I said, still have their heart in it
and it wouldn't be much. A lot of them cover the gas in the
four-wheelers to lay the trail out and cover the gas in the
chainsaws.
Mr Levac:
The second part to that would be a natural question I've been
begging to ask. What I'm hearing is that, because they've picked
up such a great interest in the sport, it's almost destroying
itself from within, so you've got to take these steps in order to
prevent that from happening, and you don't want that to stop but
you want to be able to control it. You simply want everybody to
pay their fair share-no freebies.
Ms
Morrison: Exactly.
Mr
Berlett: One of the troubles I have with the volunteer
is that he can volunteer to help do something, and on a Monday
morning we've got to go out and run the groomer for the weekend
traffic, and I call him up as a volunteer and he says, "Oh I
could maybe do it Tuesday at 3 o'clock." That's not good enough
in the system we have. Whereas, if we can pay operators, I can
just call the guy and say, "Seven o'clock Monday morning you're
there or somebody else will be there; I'll hire somebody else,"
and it does work. With a volunteer you can't ask them to set
hours.
The Chair:
Thank you both for coming before us. You've come a long way.
TOWN OF HUNTSVILLE
The Chair:
Our next presentation will be from the town of Huntsville. Good
morning and welcome to the committee.
Mr William
MacDonald: Good morning. My name is Bill MacDonald. I'm
representing the town of Huntsville. Thank you for the
opportunity to speak to you.
In this Bill 101 it refers
a lot to crown land. The town of Huntsville's concern is public
road allowances. Within the corporation of the town of
Huntsville, as an organization, we have a lot of road allowances,
some with roads on them, some with colonization roads on them, a
lot of them possibly not in a maintained situation in the winter
months. There are a lot of people who have to gain access to
their summer cottages or hunting camps etc via these public road
allowances. We have a concern that if these people, who freely
have use of those road allowances now, are going to be forced
into a mandatory permit, it's going to place a hardship on
them.
The municipality has a
second concern. We've been involved in two or three litigation
cases where, because of the cutting of trails on road allowances
for a portion of them to get to private land or whatever, we've
had liability problems because in the summertime they're using
them for four-wheelers and off-road vehicles. People who have
four-wheel-drive trucks love to get off the road and see what
they'll do. It forces the municipality into protecting itself
legally, and at a great expense. In a couple of cases we've had
to appear in court in regard to this. They go on these trails in
the summertime and build bonfires and have parties. It then
presents a problem to the private property landowner adjacent to
it. My question, if you can give me an answer to it, is, when it
states in here "all," does it refer to an organized municipality
with public road allowances? If it does, I think we have an
objection to it.
The Chair:
Mr Spina, would you care to respond to that?
Mr Spina:
I'll answer the question. The mandatory trail permit proposal in
the introduced bill is really for the OFSC-sanctioned trail
system. If there is permission for that trail system to have the
public road allowance access, then theoretically, as the bill is
currently written, the mandatory trail permit would be in effect
on that public road allowance.
Mr
MacDonald: In many cases the trails have been created
over a number of years, and a lot of them do not have permission
but they are using municipal road allowances. In two or three
cases in the last four to five years that I can recall there may
have been permission, and I think the resolution stated "without
exclusive rights." What it really does do then in the winter
months is give them an
exclusive right to a public road allowance. Would that be
something, then, that the municipality would have to deal with?
If so, that they're going to have to deal with? If so, they're
going to have to deal with trails that already exist.
Mr Spina:
It's a good question and I appreciate you bringing it forward, Mr
MacDonald, because this is one of the reasons we are having the
public committee hearings right after the first reading of the
bill. It tends to be a far more open process for us to be able to
modify the bill in order to ensure that we maximize its effect,
if at all. So, we appreciate your comment on that.
Mr
MacDonald: Would this committee then make a
recommendation to municipalities, if this bill goes through, with
regard to what they should or shouldn't do in this case? A lot of
trails exist without permission, and it wasn't thought of a great
deal before, but there have been lawsuits because of people
getting hurt on them etc, whether it be summer or winter. If the
municipality is made aware prior to the bill passing whatever of
what they should do, it may make a big difference to the clubs
where their trails are located, or they may have to relocate
trails. It's something on which I know our municipality would
really appreciate having some directions, some guidelines, prior
to its passing.
Mr Spina:
I would defer to the Chair.
The Chair:
Perhaps, Mr MacDonald, in the interest of the committee I guess
moving forward on your concern, I'm a little curious about
something. It seems to me it wouldn't matter how many
snowmobilers or how many snowmobile clubs or if the entire
federation wanted to use the main street of Huntsville, they
couldn't do it, obviously, unless the municipality passed a bylaw
approving that. How is that different on a municipally controlled
road allowance, whether or not it has been opened? Do you not
have the final say?
Mr
MacDonald: If you were approached, you would likely have
the say. The trouble is that there are a lot of trails that exist
and have existed for a number of years on road allowances,
whether they access them from a maintained road or access them
from private property, then get off them again from private
property. But if you're on that trail, on a road allowance that
happens to lead to your summer cottage or hunting camp, then with
regard to this you're going to have to have a permit or be kicked
off it.
The Chair:
That takes me to the root of I think the conundrum here. The OFSC
then cannot deem that to be part of their approved trail system
without the approval of your municipality. So I think we have a
protection there-but correct me if I'm wrong in that
assumption-that they have to get your permission before it would
be a trail that is deemed to require a mandatory permit.
Mr
MacDonald: As long as that comes with this bill, so that
for the existing trails they have to reapproach the
municipalities where there are trails without explicit permission
by resolution, so to speak, to gain that permission because the
municipality may very well have a concern with a lot of people
who access their cottage area for whatever reason-to shovel the
roof; I don't care what it is-to enjoy their recreational
property. As long as they have to reapproach them for the ones
they don't have resolutions for, for argument's sake, I think
then the municipality would be protected, and so would the
recreational property owner.
Mr Levac:
Just a question of clarification: in two presentations I heard
earlier, I thought it was mentioned that they seek permission on
an annual basis.
Mr
MacDonald: They don't seek it for all of them. There are
some out there that are specific by resolution.
Mr Levac:
There's an anticipation that that resolution is permanent?
Mr
MacDonald: Yes.
Mr Levac:
If that's the case, Mr Chairman, then it would just be our
committee's responsibility, and I think Mr Spina made reference
to that, to ensure that after first reading that gets clarified,
before second reading.
The Chair:
I want to assure everyone in the room-a couple have been
travelling with us throughout these hearings, but for those just
joining us today-the government changed the standing orders
earlier this year and we've had I guess about four bills go
through after first reading. Traditionally bills have gone
through after second reading but, quite frankly, by that point
each party has hardened their position, you've already gone on
the record in the Legislature, it's tough to take your words back
and you find a bit more of a combative tone in public
hearings.
We've had great success by
starting immediately after first reading, where literally all you
do is read the title of the bill into the record. I think Mr
Levac will attest that we've seen tremendous support from all
three parties to initiatives such as the bill before us here
today. I want to assure everyone that we have a far greater
opportunity to reflect on what we hear and make sure the bill,
when it finally comes back for second and third reading, is
consistent with what is in the best interests of the majority of
people out there.
Mr Dunlop, I think you had
a question as well.
Mr Garfield Dunlop
(Simcoe North): Yes, if I may, Mr Chair. Thank you very
much, Mr MacDonald, for your presentation.
I was curious if you had a
rough idea of the number of kilometres of unopened road allowance
that may be used by some type of trail system. Also, as a second
part to that question, how many kilometres, if any, do you have
of abandoned railway lines that the municipality may have
assumed? The snowmobile clubs would use those lines as well.
Mr
MacDonald: To answer your second question, I don't
believe the municipality has assumed any abandoned rail lines in
their area.
As to your first question,
there are-I'd only be guessing at it-50 to 100 kilometres of
unopened road allowances. When I say unopened, some of them have
colonization roads on them that existed prior to the organization
of the municipality, possibly. They are not maintained
whatsoever. Some of them have seasonal roads that are maintained in the summertime to
get to cottage areas. There are snowmobile trails there. It's
hard, I really don't know off the top of my head, but I'm going
to guess there are 50 to 100 kilometres at least just within our
municipality.
Mr Dunlop:
A quick supplementary: in all cases, though, the municipality
does have liability insurance on all municipally owned property,
including the unopened road allowances, right? Am I correct on
that?
Mr
MacDonald: They have liability insurance. This places a
greater liability on them. Further to one of your comments on
getting annual permission, I don't believe that the clubs wish to
have something where there is annual permission, because of the
time and money involved in building trails and opening them up.
They have to cut trees etc to create a trail. They don't want to
have annual permission because, if you say no to it and it cuts
off 50 or 100 kilometres, you've cut off their trail system. They
put them there in some cases with permission and in a lot of
cases they've been there without it. I'd just like to see the
municipalities at least know how to protect themselves before
this bill becomes final.
The Chair:
We appreciate that. Does anyone have any further questions?
Mr
Hastings: Have we got any time?
The Chair:
Yes. We have a couple of minutes.
Mr
Hastings: Mr MacDonald, you mentioned existing lawsuits.
Without going into detail, has the town of Huntsville been
directly sued over this situation or have adjacent
municipalities?
Mr
MacDonald: Yes. We have been directly sued over the
situation where snowmobile trails were put on road allowances. We
have been successful. One was from a private property landowner
who didn't wish to have it there and one was with regard to an
accident. Whether you're successful or not, there's a great deal
of expense in protecting yourself.
Mr
Hastings: What is the town's recommendation on how this
ought to be handled so that we have a smooth system and yet the
municipality doesn't end up-
Mr
MacDonald: If I may, I think in all cases the
municipality-and they do certainly enjoy the benefits of
snowmobiling, because there's a big benefit to it-would like to
be able to have the control of what they do on their public road
allowances. If it means allowing them to have a trail on there
and having exclusive rights during the winter so they can charge
the fee, then they certainly want to be named in their insurance
policy for protection on that particular piece of land. If there
is a trail on a particular described piece of land, then it can
be insured for the municipality by the club, if that's the case.
They may very well want to look at them one by one, so if there
are road allowances that don't serve cottage owners or
recreational owners that they're aware of, because they can have
meetings as well to deal with this, there may not be a concern
other than the liability that's created during the winter season,
but in the summer season as well because the trail exists and
people use it and it is public land that's open. I think it's
quite a big issue to address, but the municipality has to be
protected or at least be given the opportunity to protect itself
with regard to this.
The Chair:
Thank you, Mr MacDonald. We certainly appreciate your bringing
another new perspective to the hearings.
With that, the committee
will stand recessed. Because we had one cancellation this
morning, unless anyone around the table disagrees, we'll start
the afternoon hearings 20 minutes earlier. We've had an
indication from one of the presenters that they would be prepared
to start at 1:40. If that meets with everyone's approval, the
committee stands recessed until 1:40.
The committee recessed
from 1205 to 1345.
The Chair:
I call the committee back to order and welcome anyone who is just
joining us as we consider Bill 101, the Motorized Snow Vehicles
Amendment Act, 2000.
SNOWMOBILE CLUB TRAIL WARDENS
The Chair:
We have a few minutes to play with here and we asked the
representatives from the warden program at the OFSC to move
themselves up to 1:40.
Good afternoon and welcome
to the committee.
Mr Vic
Trahan: Good afternoon. Members of the panel, my name is
Vic Trahan. I wish to speak on behalf of Snowmobile Club Trail
Wardens. I speak in favour of the mandatory OFSC trail
permit.
I would like to commend the
Ontario government for recognizing the need for stability and
safety on OFSC trails by putting forth Bill 101. I wish to thank
the committee for allowing me the time to put forward my views
and suggestions.
I agree with the OFSC's
position and recognize that there are four cornerstones essential
to making a mandatory OFSC trail permit successful.
(1) The final authority and
decisions relating to mandatory OFSC Trail permits, especially
use of permit revenues, must remain with the OFSC.
(2) Trained OFSC wardens
must have the authority under the MSVA to enforce mandatory OFSC
trail permits on all OFSC-maintained and -groomed trails during
the snowmobile season.
(3) Mandatory OFSC trail
permits must be an absolute and easily enforceable requirement on
all OFSC trails.
(4) The OFSC trail wardens
recognize and understand that reasonable accommodation must be
made for traditional users to have access on crown land.
Just a bit of history of
where I've been and where I got into snowmobiling: over the last
30 years, snowmobile trails have been built and maintained by
clubs. The local trail systems were developed for family members
and friends. These snowmobile superhighways that exist today are
there because club volunteers built them. They searched for the
best routes, researched the properties and got permission from
landowners through land use agreements to put them through
private property. Most of these were granted through friends or
community-minded landowners. Club volunteers have had
environmental assessments done in sensitive areas, club
volunteers have submitted applications to MNR for land use on
crown property to install bridges, and in some areas paid
stumpage for trees that were cut while building new trails on
crown property.
The local trail system is a
valued community resource that provides recreational, social and
economic benefits to our area during the winter months. Not so
long ago, after the hunting season, businesses would close as
winter was a drain on the finances of the business community.
Today there are many establishments enjoying a healthy income as
well as creating year-round employment through catering to the
travelling snowmobilers.
My introduction into
snowmobiling was in the early 1960s, when my brother traded an
old Volkswagen for a Polaris Star, late 1950s vintage. This
machine was built like a tank: a solid steel front end and floor;
a 5-hp Briggs and Stratton motor was the power plant that sat
behind you with an open chain that drove the track, two strips of
belting with steel grouser bars and a wooden slider system. The
throttle was a lever attached to a covered solid steel cable that
was attached to the carburetor. Once you set it, it stayed at
that speed-no automatic return like today's sleds. I recall that
one time I got this old Polaris stuck in a snowdrift, and the
three of us, my father, my brother and myself, were waist-deep in
snow trying to get it moving again. We had the throttle set so as
to help us, when all of a sudden it took off and we were still
waist-deep in snow. We could only watch as it made its way to the
only large object in the field, a hydro pole. That stopped it.
Who knows how far we would have had to chase the thing before it
got stuck again? Those are great memories of my introduction to
this great sport and where the interest began.
In 1974 my wife and I,
along with a couple of friends, Paul Burns and Eric Loxton, often
travelled from Powassan to Corbeil, about 30 kilometres away,
using the route that we took. There were no trail systems. Most
trails in the woods were only about four feet wide. The odd time
a group of volunteers would join together to smooth out sections
of the trail, grooming: that was an old bedspring from a single
cot that someone had thrown away. What a laugh when you look at
today's trails. There were no signs and no connecting trails.
Half the time you had to ride the back roads to get any
distance-not the safest way, but the only way. Back then, that
30-kilometre ride would take us about three hours to get there,
we'd spend an hour at the Four Seasons Snowmobile Club with
friends from that area and then head home.
In 1988 I was residing in a
small community called Alban, near the French River. The
neighbour's son, Kevin Sarginson, and myself decided to create a
trail to the small community of Bigwood, eight kilometres away by
road. Most of the way was on crown land and very rough terrain
with a couple of swamps to cross. Luck was with us on the way
over and we managed to work our way through the small trees and
over a few really steep hills. Finally, after about four or five
hours we managed to reach our destination, the Champlain Hotel.
The proprietors of the hotel, Chris and Joan Cottelle, were
ecstatic: a snowmobile trail to their business-wow. As we had
lunch, the planning began. Since I had grown up in the area I
became the route master, if you will.
After lunch my friend and I
headed home. It was getting close to darkness, so we decided to
cut across a pond and avoid some very steep hills that we would
have to climb. It looked OK, so I started across and had my
friend wait till I reached the other side. About 30 feet from
shore I got this sinking feeling as the rear end of the sled
started to go down. I got to about 10 feet from shore, and by
this time I was standing on the seat and giving the machine all
the throttle I could. No use. I didn't get wet, but the rear end
of the machine was under water right to the motor. I was on the
run for shore and I made it. It was very late that night by the
time we got the sled out of the ice and running again, and a very
welcome sight was home.
That was just a small look
into snowmobiling in my early years-for me, unsafe trails and
unknown dangers. I just wonder how many volunteers in this room
could stand up and say, "Been there and done that."
Then, in 1990, a friend of
mine and a very avid snowmobiler at that time, and still today,
Bill Small, decided to pull all the snowmobilers of our community
together and form an OFSC snowmobile club with the intention of
developing a trail that would connect to the Sudbury trail
system. The original group of about 20 formed the French River
Snow Voyageurs Snowmobile Club.
With some financial help
from the Sudbury Trail Plan committee, sponsorship from the shop
of a snowmobile raffle and section 25, we managed to open a trail
to Killarney Road and the Sudbury Trail Plan trails by the winter
of 1991. We were on our way to adventures in unknown territory.
Then Sno-TRAC came along with a matching dollars program, and
this provided the funding to develop these narrow trails to a
standard TOPS trail system, complete with trail signs, lake
stakes and better grooming equipment.
In 1998 and 1999 the
Ontario government of today came through with a $10-million
injection of matching dollars of SST1 and SST2, which provided
funding for further trail development, building the much-needed
larger bridges, more grooming equipment and groomer maintenance
buildings. The interprovincial TOPS trail system is now very near
to completion, with only a few of the northern trails still
needing further development.
There are 281 OFSC member
clubs incorporated as non-profit clubs, with a mandate to invest
their revenues on snowmobile trails. Clubs formed the OFSC to act
as a supporting and coordinating body for their efforts to
establish a provincial trail network and to represent their
provincial interests, driven from the bottom up by volunteers
elected by their clubs.
The OFSC and its member
clubs have created the largest, most successful recreational
trail network in the world under the user-pay system. To continue
this success and to keep
trails open and operating, it is imperative that the OFSC and
volunteers continue to play the lead role in controlling their
own destiny. One of the fundamental vehicles for this
self-determination is the OFSC trail permit, and the allocation
of permit revenues through the OFSC trail funding agreement with
the OFSC member clubs.
OFSC trail wardens: clubs
have about 20 core members that are always there to volunteer
their time, and among these are the volunteer club trail
wardens-approximately 2,500 across the province. Their job is to
enforce the user-pay system. The only tool they currently have
today is the Trespass to Property Act. The OFSC trail wardens are
trained to be good ambassadors for snowmobiling, giving
directions to touring snowmobilers and assisting snowmobilers in
distress. The clubs often rely on trail wardens to direct traffic
during club rallies or Easter Seals Snowarama rides.
I'd like to expand on that.
Over the past years, the OFSC member clubs have contributed
pretty well consistently $500,000 per year to Snowarama, and to
date we have I believe $14.5 million that we've put into
Snowarama.
Warden instructors provide
a four-hour classroom course and a written question period before
they become club trail wardens. At the end of the course, the
wardens are provided with a warden ID number card that identifies
them as a club trail warden, along with a book of three acts: the
Motorized Snow Vehicles Act, the Occupiers' Liability Act and the
Trespass to Property Act. To maintain OFSC trail warden status,
they must take a refresher course every two years.
The OFSC warden program has
produced a video to help instructors and clubs better understand
the proper procedures of laying a trespass charge and following
the charge through court, where a person without an OFSC permit
refuses to leave the trail system. Last year, the OFSC introduced
a distinctive fluorescent red warden vest in order to make OFSC
trail wardens readily identified from other groups. I brought one
vest with me.
The club trail wardens
recognize and understand the need for traditional user groups to
have access to crown land. This has never been a problem so long
as it has been within reason. These volunteer wardens are the
club's permit enforcement group. Without these valuable
volunteers being able to enforce the OFSC trail permit on all
OFSC-maintained trails, I feel we will not succeed and this
billion-dollar-a-year industry will fail.
It has always been
mandatory to have an OFSC trail permit on OFSC trails. The
problem has been to enforce compliance on crown property. As a
warden instructor and club warden for my own club, I sincerely
hope the Ontario government of today can make an amendment to
Bill 101 to include wardens as the enforcement group for OFSC
trail permits.
The OFSC needs your
support. As in the past, sustainability should not mean, or leave
us open to, government takeover. The clubs must remain in control
of their own destiny. It must be an OFSC trail permit, enforced
by OFSC trail wardens, with trail permit revenues distributed
through the OFSC trail funding agreement.
Last year I contributed
well over 200 hours to a sport I enjoy and wish to keep control
of, for only then can we truly be a not-for-profit organization
with our best interests at heart. Without control of our destiny,
why would I and thousands like myself volunteer? We would have no
reason. Thank you.
1400
The Chair:
Thank you very much for your presentation. That leaves us time
for one quick question from each caucus. This time we're starting
with the government. Mr Spina.
Mr Spina:
Did anybody else have a question?
Vic, thank you very much
for coming forward-a very well thought out presentation. It gives
us all a better understanding of what goes into being a trail
warden, the responsibility it has and the importance of wardens
to the system.
A quick question: how do
the trail wardens interrelate with the STOP officers?
Mr Trahan:
The trail wardens are permit enforcement. They're not a law
enforcement body; they're not trained for that. The only thing we
really use in wardening is the Trespass to Property Act. That's
the only connection. We try to work with them, to have somebody
who has some authority to stop somebody.
Mr Spina:
So the STOP officer is a sworn special constable, usually of the
OPP?
Mr Trahan:
Yes, they are.
Mr Spina:
And the wardens, at this time, are not?
Mr Trahan:
No, they're not.
Mr Spina:
Thanks, Vic. I appreciate it.
Mr Levac:
Thank you, Mr Trahan. I appreciate your presentation, and most of
all I appreciate your personal touch to it, because it gives a
bit of identity to what you're talking about. So I appreciate
your history.
A quick question-I wanted
to follow Mr Spina's, but he clarified exactly what we were
talking about, and I'm glad he did, and you made reference,
between STOP and your group, and that you're permit.
"Traditional users" has
been used in about three or four other presentations to date, and
you said "within reason." Can you clarify for me, first of all,
for any of us who are not 100% familiar with traditional users,
who they are and why we would not worry about them, and can you
explain your own comment about "within reason"?
Mr Trahan:
Traditional: I know in my own area we have no problem with
trappers. They were there before we were, so we have no problem
with them using the trail system to get to their traplines;
hunters, if it's in hunting season and they're going to a hunting
camp. The exception to that would be if a person had a trapline
in Sudbury and left from North Bay to go to the trapline and was
riding a Thunder Cat. I wouldn't call him a trapper going to his
trapline. That would be a bit out of reason. That's why I say
"within reason." The person who is riding a Thunder Cat or an
MXZ-you know, a $13,000 machine-is not a fisherman. He's out there for
the sport of riding. So that's "within reason." You can usually
tell by the way they're dressed.
Mr Levac:
I appreciate that clarification. So you're not trying to say you
want to restrict traditional users; you want to interpret the
difference between a recreational user and a traditional
user.
Mr Trahan:
I don't think any club has a problem with that.
Mr Gilles Bisson
(Timmins-James Bay): I've got to ask you this question:
When you got this Polaris Star you talk about stuck in the snow,
what did you really call it?
Mr Trahan:
I really wouldn't want to comment on that.
Mr Bisson:
I didn't think so.
Just a general question:
One of the things you ask for in your second point is that you as
wardens want the ability to basically enforce the act. But also
within the act is the whole issue of, are people driving with a
driver's licence, are they basically following the rules of the
trail? Are you advocating that wardens take on what normally
would be the responsibilities of the OPP?
Mr Trahan:
Not in any way.
Mr Bisson:
Just the permit?
Mr Trahan:
Just the permit.
The Chair:
Thank you very much for bringing the perspective of the wardens
to us here today.
CANADIAN COUNCIL OF SNOWMOBILE ORGANIZATIONS
The Chair:
Our next presentation will be the Canadian Council of Snowmobile
Organizations. Good afternoon, and welcome to the committee.
Mr Michel
Garneau: Mr Chairman, honourable committee members,
ladies and gentlemen, I'd like to begin by thanking this
committee for allowing me to speak on the issue of Bill 101 and
the broader issue of sustainability as it applies to the
organized snowmobiling community in Ontario and, in more general
terms, the rest of Canada. I would also like to compliment the
initiative taken by the Ontario government and the
interministerial task force in attempting to address the serious
and legitimate concerns brought forth by the Ontario Federation
of Snowmobile Clubs. It is extremely encouraging to see the
government recognize the challenges faced by the OFSC and its
thousands of dedicated volunteers as they strive to maintain the
world's largest network of interconnected trails. Given the other
pressing needs that occupy your collective energies, thank you
for your time and will to get involved.
My name is Michel Garneau.
I am the general manager of the Canadian Council of Snowmobile
Organizations, or CCSO. The CCSO was created in 1974, with the
goal of providing leadership and support to organized
snowmobiling in Canada. Our membership includes each of the 12
provincial and territorial snowmobile federations in Canada. In
essence, we provide a medium for the sharing of information
between all our members, we interact with the federal government
on our members' behalf, we collect data related to the activity
of snowmobiling and we assist in the coordination of important
programs in such areas as safety and tourism.
I am proud to say that the
organized snowmobiling community in Canada is blessed with a team
of dedicated, passionate and visionary leaders who have allowed
this sport to develop from the humble beginnings and social
gatherings of the late 1960s to the present system that tends to
the 130,000-plus kilometres of signed, groomed and interconnected
trails that make Canada the undisputed world leader in
recreational snowmobiling.
On a personal note, I was
raised and resided in northern Ontario most of my life and am
well acquainted with the importance of this industry to the
communities of the north. As well, and perhaps more importantly,
I am a passionate snowmobiler who has witnessed first-hand the
transformation of our sport from its utilitarian roots to its
present world-class level. I invite those of you who have not
sampled modern snowmobiling on our groomed and signed trails to
try it. You may find our highways rough by comparison.
Recreational snowmobiling
has evolved into an impressive economic engine in this country.
It is currently estimated that our sport generates approximately
$3.1 billion per year in economic activity. More important than
this impressive figure, however, is the fact that most of this
money is generated in an otherwise dormant tourism season and in
often remote areas. Having seen first-hand the importance of this
sector to the very survival of many communities, I cannot stress
strongly enough the need to act quickly to ensure the
sustainability of our trail system and the dollars it
generates.
Snowmobiling is also a
generous contributor to government coffers. According to the
OFSC's own 1998 Winter Gold study, it is estimated that $63
million in tax revenue was generated in that year alone. This
represents a significant infusion of funds to the province.
Ensuring the survival of the infrastructure that allows this
level of activity is what is at stake now.
I would also like to point
out one other, and even more important, reason for acting to save
organized snowmobiling in Ontario: safety. Signed, groomed and
maintained trails have proven to be, in every jurisdiction in
Canada, an indisputable asset to the safety of snowmobilers.
Historical statistics clearly show that the overriding majority
of snowmobile-related fatalities occur off groomed trails. In
recent years, an average of 80% of all snowmobiling fatalities
have occurred off sanctioned trails.
This figure is even more
impressive when one considers that the majority of riding and
distances travelled take place on groomed trails. This reality
may fly in the face of critics who argue that these impressive
new trails are a licence to speed, but reality proves otherwise.
In fact, the fatality rate for snowmobiling in Canada has fallen
by over 43% in the last five years. By anyone's standards, this
is an outstanding success story, and a major part of this can
reasonably be attributed to the development of maintained trail systems.
Considering that many provinces, most notably the four western
provinces and Newfoundland and Labrador, have during this time
begun to actively develop interconnected trail networks, these
facts stand as a glaring endorsement of the safety benefits of
properly maintained trails.
I would like to take this
opportunity to speak in favour of the safety-related aspects of
the new act. I believe that the revised regulations listed in
this bill are a definite step in the right direction and will
help to provide enforcement officers with some of the tools
required to ensure safety for all on our trails.
1410
To return briefly to my
previous point about net economic benefits, think of the
tremendous savings realized in our health care system alone as a
result of this impressive reduction in accidents. In the
pragmatic world of accounting and finance, the provincial coffers
not having to debit for additional health care and lost
productivity is truly a credit for all Ontario citizens and
taxpayers. The monetary aspect alone fails to consider the
tremendous saving in human costs that cannot be evaluated in
economic terms. As you can see, organized snowmobile trails
benefit much more than just the snowmobiling community; it is
definitely win-win for everyone.
The case, then, is clear:
properly maintained snowmobile trails are a proven net benefit to
society. These have proven invaluable for safety reasons and have
also spurred the creation of an increasingly active and lucrative
tourism sector.
What, then, are the
problems? Well, it can be traced back to simple economics:
revenues versus expenditures. In this particular instance,
revenues have not kept pace with expenditures. I am certain that
previous guests have explained in detail the causes for this
discrepancy, so I will not reiterate what has already been
clearly stated. I can add, however, that this predicament is not
limited to Ontario. In all jurisdictions across Canada, it seems
that economic hardship is being felt in real terms.
The challenge of keeping up
with rising expenses and finding new revenue sources to make up
the shortfall has reached crisis proportions in many areas. In
New Brunswick, for example, where snowmobile tourism is the
number one winter economic generator, the New Brunswick
Federation of Snowmobile Clubs has recently taken the bold and
desperate step of announcing the closure of their trail system
unless the government can assist them to overcome the funding
crisis that is being faced. Much as here in Ontario, many clubs
are facing the threat of insolvency and volunteers are quitting
out of frustration. This desperate state of affairs threatens the
very survival of the industry. Should things continue unresolved,
all of the benefits I have discussed previously could be a thing
of the past. Negotiations are ongoing and snowmobilers across
Canada are united in their support of the NBFSC and OFSC as they
strive to find workable and equitable solutions to these
problems.
The OFSC enjoys a rather
privileged position in the Canadian organized snowmobiling
family. Not only is it among the oldest federations in Canada and
the largest Canadian organization, with over 122,000 permits sold
last season, responsible for the largest network of
interconnected trails at over 49,000 kilometres, but it is also a
leader and major contributor to the development of the sport in
other areas of the country. Much of the recent development boom
that has been experienced in the west is due to experiences
learned in Ontario, Quebec, New Brunswick and other innovative
Canadian associations.
The OFSC has, in numerous
instances, developed innovative solutions to complex problems. A
prime example of this would be the creation of the Snowmobile
Trail Officer Patrol, or STOP, program in partnership with the
Ontario Provincial Police. This enforcement tool has since been
adopted in part or in whole by numerous jurisdictions, not only
across Canada but North America. The OFSC stands as a clear and
living example of what a large group of devoted and passionate
individuals can do.
Why sell the merits and
accomplishments of the OFSC? Simple: The OFSC has, over the span
of 30 years, single-handedly created this impressive network of
trails. Considering the many things that have come and gone in
this time span, these accomplishments truly stand out, even more
so when one considers that this development was engineered and
executed by volunteers. This continuity and rich history firmly
establishes the competence and qualifications of the organization
as the builder and custodian of the trail system.
This leads the discussion
squarely into the critical issue of sustainability. The OFSC and
its member clubs have recently come under increased financial
pressures. The organized snowmobiling community, be it the OFSC,
the local clubs or the individual volunteers, have struggled to
keep pace, but despite enormous and creative efforts, have been
unable to do so. Sustainability can mean many things to many
people; however, at the end of the day, it means the ability to
continue to do something. That ability is now being jeopardized
by an overload on the system.
Across North America,
different jurisdictions have adopted various means of ensuring
the continuance and development of snowmobiling as a safe
recreational activity. In the United States, for example, many
states provide rebates on gas taxes as a means of financing the
operational demands of maintaining trail systems. This accounts
for the large discrepancy that exists between permit fees in the
northern states and those that exist in Canada. This influx of
operating capital helps to cover most of the costs, thus leaving
very little to recoup from the pockets of individual
snowmobilers.
Across North America, the
other large and successful jurisdictions depend on multiple
sources of funding to ensure that the needed operating capital is
in place. In Quebec, for example, the Fédération des
clubs de motoneigistes du Québec, or FCMQ, receives a rebate
of $25 for each snowmobile registered, whereas in New Brunswick
the federation receives $10 per registration. This represents an
injection of over $3.9 million for the FCMQ and $472,000 for the
NBFSC. Please bear in mind that these amounts are over and above the
revenues generated from permit sales. These are significant
numbers.
I would further like to
note that Ontario currently has over 363,000 registered
snowmobiles. To continue with our comparison, consider also that
Ontario and Quebec permits are virtually identically priced, but
the OFSC has almost 43% more kilometres of trails to maintain but
only 16% more paid members. It does not take an accountant to see
where the shortfall occurs. The problem is very real.
In Vermont, on the other
hand, the state has enacted mandatory permit legislation but also
provides gas tax rebates. Furthermore, the federal government
provides trail fund payments. Consider again New Brunswick, where
the NBFSC, in spite of receiving registration money, now find
themselves with their backs against the wall as they seek other
means of injecting money into their troubled system.
These are glowing examples
of the need for multi-source funding as an effective and
sustainable solution to historic financial concerns. In fact, as
things currently exist, Ontario is the only major snowmobiling
jurisdiction that does not provide operational funds for
snowmobile trails. If sustainability is to be more than a pie in
the sky, the current position will surely have to be re-examined
with an eye to increasing the revenue base. Failure to do so
could jeopardize the entire system and turn this process into an
academic exercise of "could haves" and "should haves." Surely
this cannot be allowed to happen.
Now, to address some of the
specific issues of Bill 101, I would like to tackle the issue of
mandatory permits. Mandatory permits, in and of themselves, if
properly executed, would help to address some of the concerns
expressed by the Ontario snowmobiling community. One of the major
issues faced by the OFSC and its wardens is the inability to
enforce permit compliance on crown land. This is especially
serious in light of the fact that most trails situated on crown
land are located in the north, where the population base is small
and the trail networks and riding seasons are the longest. The
financial burden on these clubs is already a challenge, without
the loss of revenues and increased costs brought on by
non-contributing users. This type of abuse is wrong in any
circumstance, but especially when the work is being carried out
by volunteers. This is tantamount to theft and would not be
tolerated in any other context. Mandatory permits, then, would
simply provide enforcement officers with tools necessary to stop
this abuse.
At this time, I would also
like to address the issue of traditional users and possible
exemptions. Many private citizens and other recreational groups
have expressed concerns on the issue of loss of rights resulting
frown such a law. As snowmobilers and responsible citizens, it is
not our goal to limit access to public land to other users nor to
create private land out of public. Rather, as I stated earlier,
we aim to stop the abuse that goes on by a select group of
irresponsible persons. Again, this problem is not specific to
Ontario, as abuses of this type occur in all Canadian
jurisdictions.
Traditional users and
others who earn their livelihood deserve, and should, by all
means, have the right to use the trails so long as they are not
engaging in recreational snowmobiling at others' expense.
Mandatory permit legislation is not a case of caving in to a
group of elitists, as some would have you believe, but rather a
workable solution to the cold and harsh reality that all who play
must be prepared to pay; pure and simple, nothing more, nothing
less. It is crucial, then, that clear and concise safeguards be
written into the act to ensure access by all but prevent abuse by
the few.
1420
I would now like to first
express concern over the concept of trail permits being issued
under the control of the MTO. With all due respect to the
individuals and collective expertise which make up this arm of
the government, I believe that proceeding with such an approach
would prove difficult at best and unworkable and destructive at
worst. While these words may seem harsh at first, it's my sincere
belief that usurping OFSC control of the permit would lead to
damaging results.
To begin
with, most volunteers and landowners donate
their time and land access under the premise that it's done as a
good deed for fellow citizens. Call it a form of civic duty, if
you will. However, the very perception that any and all efforts
are carried out for an impersonal government agency could be
catastrophic. It's quite reasonable to expect that volunteer
participation would disappear more quickly than a mirage in the
desert and that existing and long-standing landowner access
agreements would also go the way of the Edsel.
Rightfully or not, we live
in a world where people act on perceptions, and the very
insinuation that the system has been taken over by the government
could have terrible and irreversible consequences. This must not
be allowed to happen or we risk losing 30 years of dedicated,
collective effort almost overnight. The volunteers who have built
and continue to build must be allowed to maintain some sense of
ownership in the system.
As it was stated earlier,
the OFSC created and has been dealing with this very system since
its inception and is ideally positioned to react to dynamic and
grassroots concerns. In an increasingly globalized world based
largely on the principles of comparative advantage, I believe the
OFSC's track record proves beyond a doubt its comparative
advantages in this area. You do not survive 30 years as an
organization without having a well-established degree of
competence in your field.
Enforcement is another
aspect of this act that must be addressed properly if the premise
of mandatory permits is to be honored. It's quite obvious that
any law or rule is only as effective as the ability to enforce
it. To paraphrase, you are innocent until you are caught. That,
unfortunately, is the reality of the situation.
In a perfect world, all
people would act according to right and wrong, and while most do,
some can only be reached through enforcement. For this reason,
combined with the fact
that the OFSC has a trained pool of over 2,500 qualified wardens,
we feel it to be practical and effective that the wardens should
have the authority to enforce mandatory permits. Given the
strains on policing services that exist in all areas of the
province, we believe it would be an economical way of ensuring
that the letter of the law is adhered to.
As you're surely aware, the
issues governing the sustainability of snowmobiling are indeed
complex and uncertain. However, one thing is certain, that is,
the proven economic, societal and ecological benefits of safe
snowmobile trails. Snowmobilers in Ontario are proud of the trail
network that exists and most Canadians are envious of what has
been accomplished. The time has come for all affected parties to
do their part to ensure that the sport and all of its benefits
continue to grow.
Organized snowmobiling in
Ontario needs your help. The potential solutions are plentiful.
At the end of the day, however, they all revolve around the need
to bring more money into the system. For example, while many
businesses are good citizens and help to support the industry
that in many instances provides their livelihood in the winter
months, there are still those out there who are more than happy
to sit back and reap the benefits while contributing little or
nothing.
Mandatory permits are a
welcome first step, but please do not leave under the impression
that this will be the cure-all. This must be implemented in
conjunction with other means or initiatives. I have discussed
working solutions that exist in other jurisdictions, notably
registration and/or gas tax rebates. I am strongly encouraged and
optimistic that this committee will seriously consider the issues
and solutions that are being discussed here today.
Discussions such as these
are taking place across Canada, and most notably in New
Brunswick. It would be naive to believe that others are not
following this process very closely. We are presented here with
the opportunity to do it right the first time and set a positive
and constructive precedent. The problems are complex, the
solutions perhaps more so, but the capability to ensure the
sustainability of our trail system does exist. The time to act is
upon us.
Once again, thank you for
your interest in snowmobiling and for the opportunity to address
you here today on these important issues.
The Chair:
Thank you very much. That has taken us the full 20 minutes.
Mr Spina:
On a point of order, Mr Chair: In light of the fact that this is
a Canadian federation and M. Garneau has touched on points that
have been asked by various members, could I ask unanimous consent
that each party at least be allowed to ask one question?
The Chair:
In fact, the clerk informs me we have a cancellation of the 3:30
presentation, so we have almost 10 minutes to play with. I'll
certainly allow that. This time the questioning will commence
with the Liberals. Mr Levac.
Mr Levac:
Thanks for that motion, Mr Spina.
Monsieur Garneau, you asked
us maybe a rhetorical question in your presentation: are we
paying attention? I really get the impression that you're
passionate about this. You believe we are in crisis, that there's
a position we need to take in order to save 30 years' worth of
work. Do you believe that in going the route of Bill 101, without
amendment or modification, we are doomed?
Mr
Garneau: I will tell you that it's a definite positive
step, but my personal belief is that if other issues aren't
piggy-backed on to this, we'll be going through this process
again in a very short time frame.
Mr Bisson:
I guess it's a bit of a rhetorical question, but what you're
telling us through this is that it's not just the issue of making
mandatory permits, but you need to have some other mechanism of
stable funding for the clubs. That's what you're asking for.
Mr
Garneau: Yes. I'm informed from the general manager of
the OFSC that there's currently an operational deficit in the
magnitude of about $8 million. These funds have to come from
somewhere.
Mr Bisson:
Is there a follow-up or is it just one per caucus?
The Chair:
Go ahead.
Mr Bisson:
The question I asked the ministry earlier and I would ask you is,
we know there are machines out there that are not registered.
Often within our clubs we talk about the fact that there are so
many machines out there that don't have stickers. The reality is,
a lot of those machines are out of service and in some cases are
dual machines. I've got two and I only use one at a time.
If we make mandatory
permits, does it really increase the revenue for the clubs? Most
people I see on trails up in my area already have the permits on.
I'm just wondering if we're coming at this a little bit
backwards.
Mr
Garneau: No, it would definitely be an asset and would
definitely be a favourable step forward. Again, some of it has to
do with the fact that in a lot of areas in the north, where it's
densely populated and they have on the whole a greater number of
kilometres of trails to maintain, they are the clubs that are
really feeling the pinch. If you're dealing with a certain
mentality where people-I don't want to denigrate traditional
users, but there are still some people who are sort of teetering
on the edge of the traditional user. We think it's OK for them.
Maybe they are just going out twice a year, so it's OK for them
to run down 50 kilometres of groomed trails.
I'm a permit holder. I paid
for that, and so did everybody else around. These volunteers are
donating their time. They're increasingly being pushed to work at
fundraising, and it's an exercise in futility. You're seeing the
burnout in these people's eyes. They're working out of passion
and they just can't keep doing it forever. I'm not going to say
the system is going to collapse tomorrow, but it's inevitable.
Something has to be done.
The Chair:
Mr Spina?
Mr Spina:
I'm going to defer to my colleague.
Mr
Hastings: I've been to a lot of committee hearings.
Thank you very much, Michel, for probably one the most passionate approaches to this
subject matter. I can see you feel very deeply about it and have
worked in the field.
Mr
Garneau: Thank you.
Mr
Hastings: I have a couple of questions for you. One, to
what extent have you had any success, since you represent the
community and the industry nationally, in getting any kind of
dollar bills out of the federal government? They have the
Canadian Tourism Commission. They're always promoting, in an
uncoordinated way-I guess we can all fault ourselves provincially
as well on that-to attract new people to the country for this
particular industry or sport.
We've had the much-vaunted
considerations and pronouncements from Prime Minister
Chrétien regarding a new infrastructure program, more so for
roads, bridges and the usual stuff, universities and that. Have
you ever had any remote commitment or awareness from the feds
regarding-
1430
Mr Bisson:
Yes, where are the Liberals on this? I want to know.
Mr
Hastings: The former PCs too, I would think, being a
fair-minded individual.
Mr Bisson:
You are. I was wondering when you were coming out with this
question.
Mr
Garneau: I'll be honest with you. I haven't been in this
business for the last 15 years so I'm not necessarily privy to
everything that happened before me. I will tell you that there
has been some money channelled into snowmobiling infrastructure
through the various economic development agencies; for example,
ACOA and FedNor. Again, we're sort of opening a can of worms
here-I don't want to reactivate the Meech Lake debate-but
snowmobiling does fall under provincial jurisdiction. So there is
a bit of a conflict. If anybody is listening from the federal
government and you do want to issue a cheque, we'll gladly
receive it.
Mr
Hastings: They probably don't even know you exist.
Mr
Garneau: We're working on that.
Mr
Hastings: Good.
My other question relates
to enforcement and the permitting and that whole thing. Can you
cite a jurisdiction in North America or any other part of the
world where the volunteer community, in this case snowmobiling,
lost control of their enforcement function and had it taken over
by the state, ministry, what have you, and that didn't work out
very well?
Mr
Garneau: To be honest with you, no. But if any of our
learned individuals could comment on this, I would gladly listen.
I can't tell you that. I don't have any experience in the
matter.
Mr
Hastings: But you have considerable difficulty with MTO
being the continuing monitor.
Mr
Garneau: Again I want to deal with the aspect of
perception. Reality's one thing, perception is another. All I can
tell you is what I hear out in the field. The volunteers I hear
discussing the matter are extremely concerned. There's the whole
perception of it being taken over and all of the negative results
that would fall out of that.
Mr
Hastings: I get you. Thank you very much.
The Chair:
Thank you very much for your presentation. It was certainly very
detailed.
IRON BRIDGE NIGHT HAWKS
The Chair:
Our next presentation will be from the Iron Bridge Night Hawks.
Good afternoon and welcome to the committee.
Mr Greg
Brown: Good afternoon, Mr Chair and members of the
committee. My name is Greg Brown. I'm treasurer of the Iron
Bridge Night Hawks, which is a tiny snow machine club in Iron
Bridge, Ontario, a tiny town of 900 people about an hour and 15
minutes east of Sault Ste Marie, between Blind River and
Thessalon on Highway 17. In my other life, 14 months ago I
purchased a motor inn in Iron Bridge. I moved up from Toronto and
the cultural world to Iron Bridge and have learned a lot in 14
months about snow machines that I didn't know before.
I'm here is because we are
extremely concerned in Iron Bridge-and I think I can say the
whole village is concerned, and at every level, whether it's the
club or the businesses or the municipality, which is the
municipality of Huron Shores-about the disappearance of seven-day
permits this year. We're very pleased the government is getting
involved in wanting to have mandatory permits. When the
regulations come out, and however the situation plays out, who
issues them and what they are is of less of a concern to us than
the disappearance of the seven-day permits.
It's my understanding that
in Ontario last year 5,000 seven-day permits were sold, of which
about 47% were sold in Algoma, which is district 13 of the
federation. Of that 47%, which is about 2,500 permits, about 90%
were sold to tourists from out of the province, primarily people
from Michigan, Ohio, Illinois, Minnesota and Wisconsin, but
primarily Michigan and Ohio. Those people get on Interstate 75,
drive up to Algoma and spend the week. Last year they purchased a
permit for C$85 for the week. This year the reality is that this
permit doesn't exist.
When I go down with my
colleagues from Iron Bridge, Wawa and everywhere else in Algoma
to the big snow machine shows coming up in a month in Michigan,
I'm going to be talking to people about purchasing either a
$30-a-day permit to come to Ontario, or a $120 permit, if they
buy it before December 1, or a $150 permit, if they buy it after
December 1. Last year was my first time at snow machine shows in
my life. At $85 a person for a seven-day permit, it was a
difficult sell to people who had never been to Ontario, and there
are lots of them and we'd like them to come. What we could tell
them was, "We have fabulous trails. The scenery's beautiful. The
accommodation and food are pretty good. You'll have a great time,
and you'll make up for the difference in money from your $10
seasonal permit in Michigan by the exchange in the dollar and the relative
economic situation. It costs less certainly in northern
Ontario."
That trades off, and people
pay attention to that and listen to it, especially with the
dollar at 45%. When I go down there in a month and tell them they
have to buy a $120 or a $150 permit-I ask you to put yourselves
in their position-they're going to say to me, "Greg, $150? What
if there's no snow between Christmas and New Year's?" There
wasn't any snow in Algoma last year. "Is it refundable?" "No."
"What if my wife's sick and we can't go, is it refundable?" "No."
"What if my machine breaks down?" "No, it's not refundable." Then
they're going to say, "Well, it's $30 a day. If I go for five
days, that's 150 bucks." I know what I would do: I'd go to
Minnesota. I think that's what's going to happen here.
In the long term, people
who have come for the last seven, eight, 10 years to Ontario from
Michigan and pay the $120 and buy a season pass, I think they're
going to continue to come, because they know we have great
trails. It's going to be extremely difficult to attract new
tourists to northern Ontario, to an area that by all accounts is
slightly more depressed than southern Ontario. We need that
incentive in the north to have that permit. Whether it's a
seven-day permit or an out-of-province permit, we need a permit
that will allow us to attract new markets to northern Ontario.
Without it, I would look at my business and go, "Maybe I should
close for the winter," which the previous owners of my business
did for four years and went to Florida. There are businesses
along the North Shore and Lake Huron which are contemplating just
that.
That's the essence of my
presentation. We are extremely concerned about it. The Minister
of Tourism talked a lot about trying to get into new markets for
Ontario. That's what we're trying to do. Without some kind of
visitor permit it will be impossible. As I said, Michigan permits
are $10.
My predecessor here in this
chair talked about difficulties in financing the trails and all
that, and we certainly support it as volunteers. The businesses
in Iron Bridge all contribute in some way to the clubs and to the
development of activities in the area, but if there's not a
spinoff to our businesses, we won't. We'll put our donations into
something else, and our time and our energy.
I'll give you an idea in my
little tiny business of how much money it means. We opened my
business for the first time last winter. In December, when we had
no snow, we did $1,400 in motel rooms out of a 25-unit motel, of
which we kept 15 rooms open for the winter that we had winterized
over the summer. We had snow from February 1 until about February
27; it was melting by then. We did $4,300. That allowed me to
keep employees on staff, to open longer hours, to pay some of the
bills from November and December when I lost a pile of money. For
the numbers in the restaurant it was the same kind of thing. In
December we did $5,000 in sales; in February we did $10,000 in
sales. Combined, that's a huge increase in a tiny business.
That's one business, and it's the same for all the businesses.
There are businesses up there that have been developing that
market now for years and doing extremely well. We all feel that
at the club level we'll lose money, at the business level we'll
lose money, and that means the partnerships will disappear in the
long term. We think it will be disastrous.
1440
However it gets worked out
between whether MTO issues the permits or the federation issues
the permits, it needs to have a serious discussion. I think our
regional association has even talked about having Algoma visitor
permits that are only valid in Algoma. If it's MTO that's going
to sell them, we'd approach MTO with that concept; if it's the
federation, we'd approach them. The reality of tourists, I think
it's safe to say, certainly in our area, those people from
Detroit and Toledo and Columbus and Chicago, they're not going to
Muskoka. They're not coming over here. They're not going to
Barrie. Why would they come here? There are as many people on the
trails here as they face every day at home. They want to go
somewhere where there are fewer people on the trails and where
the trails are in good shape. They're willing to pay but I don't
think they're willing to pay what is currently now the rate.
That's my proposal. Thank
you for listening to me.
I have two resolutions
which I will read to you, one from our club:
"Whereas the snow machine
touring industry is vital to Algoma district, to the economic
development of the region and its snow machine clubs and trails;
and
"Whereas the government of
Ontario is endeavouring to facilitate excellent trails and trail
development for all through Bill 101;
"Therefore, be it resolved
that the Iron Bridge Night Hawks urge the government of Ontario
to create a seven-day visitor trail permit for out-of-province
tourists and regulate its sale in Algoma district."
That's from our club.
From the Corporation of the
Municipality of Huron Shores-this is a little longer:
"Whereas the council of the
Corporation of the Municipality of Huron Shores has been advised
that the seven-day permit for users of the Ontario Federation of
Snowmobile Clubs trails was terminated by a decision of the OFSC
members at the 1999 convention; and
"Whereas it has been
estimated that 48% of all seven-day permits were sold in this
snowmobile region; and
"Whereas this council feels
strongly that the termination of the seven-day permit will have a
serious negative impact on the local entrepreneurs that depend on
the winter tourist influx generated by the seven-day permit;
"Now therefore be it
resolved that the council of the Corporation of the Municipality
of Huron Shores requests that the Ontario Federation of
Snowmobile Clubs reconsider termination of the permit."
They forwarded that to the
Honourable Cam Jackson, the Minister of Tourism; the Minister of
Northern Development and Mines; the Minister of Transportation;
Mr Spina; our local MPP; and all the clubs in our area.
As you can see, I think
it's safe to say we're all concerned about it. How it gets
resolved is less important to us than that we do something that makes sure we
still have tourists in five years.
The Chair:
Thank you. That leaves us time for about two minutes per caucus.
Mr Bisson, we'll start with you this time.
Mr Bisson:
I have two different areas I want to cover. First of all, of the
snowmobile trade that you did in February just in your area, what
percentage was non-local trade?
Mr Brown:
In the motel numbers, it is almost all non-local.
Mr Bisson:
What I was getting at is that the restaurant trade-people stop to
buy fuel, food and all that.
Mr Brown:
In the restaurants, we'd have to subtract the people from out of
town, but as I said, in the motels that's almost entirely
Michigan, Ohio. That's almost entirely American. In the
restaurants, I would say you're looking at about half Ontario and
the rest being money from out of the province. Of the Ontario
money, I think it's important to realize, especially in southern
Ontario, that money is really local. That's northern Ontario
money. It's not people from Toronto. Last year I think I served
one table of snowmobilers from Toronto-six people-in the two
months we had snow.
Mr Bisson:
The people from out of province who were that part of the
business, did you hear a lot of complaints from them in regard to
the price of the permit, or did they accept it? There's the issue
of the seven-day permit and then there's the issue of cost.
Mr Brown:
The cost is there and it's definitely an issue. They had already
heard-and I'm sure you're aware-that the federation in
negotiating with the government had proposed a $300 permit for
out-of-province people. That information was already in the hands
of Michigan people last winter. Some people, when we approached
them at the two snowmobile conventions last October and November,
thought we had already moved to that.
Mr Bisson:
You're advocating, then, that the government be more involved in
setting the price and the seven days. You're completely opposite
to the clubs here.
Mr Brown:
Yes. Our club feels that there needs to be-if it has to come from
the government, we feel it's not coming from the OFSC.
Mr
Hastings: I have one question for you. Should this bill
specifically mandate a specified time frame-one day, seven days,
30 days, seasonal, that sort of arrangement-right in the
bill?
Mr Brown:
Certainly if not in the bill, in the regulations.
Mr
Hastings: OK. And when did you say you're going to this
show?
Mr Brown:
October and November.
Mr
Hastings: In Sault, Michigan, or-
Mr Brown:
In Grand Rapids, Michigan, in Detroit and in Chicago.
Mr
Hastings: So you need an answer.
Mr Spina:
Greg, thanks very much for making the trek without a snowmobile.
You did the opposite of what I did. I was born and raised in the
Soo and moved to southern Ontario but missed the north
terribly.
You brought forward a very
specific point, which is probably one of the reasons why the
Ministry of Tourism is involved in this whole exercise to begin
with. With the phenomenal impact of the industry economically, we
found it difficult to attract tourists, just as the federation
and its member clubs found it difficult to provide a system for
guests when they really weren't contributing a lot to it, other
than some of the permit fees. Do you think there might be other
alternatives besides the permit fee that would assist towards the
maintenance of the trail and towards keeping the cost of permits
low enough to be attractive to the tourists?
Mr Brown:
I think you have to look at the whole package. My little
company-we just built a huge bridge in Iron Bridge, of which I'm
sure you're aware, across the Mississagi River. We donated $500
to that this year. I think it's safe to say most of the
businesses-not all, and I think you'll never get all; that's the
reality of donations-are involved in some way. If tourism
diminishes, and I'm talking about out-of-province tourism, you're
going to see our involvement and our donations to the club
diminish, because financially it won't be as worthwhile for us to
stay open in the middle of winter.
I think you have to somehow
examine what the reality is of the donation level of businesses
to clubs, what that relationship is. There are ways of doing it.
In my little business we sold 25 permits last year, which wasn't
a lot. There are businesses that sell way more than that. Some
amount of money per permit-I know in Wawa they do something
really creative with the businesses. There is some kind of levy
or something that they do. So I think there are creative ways of
finding a solution to helping finance, and helping the businesses
who prosper from it do it, whether it's a tax break, whether it's
a donation. Donation receipts, of course, come from the federal
government, so it's a different reality. I don't think you want
to necessarily put the onus on the visitor. I think maybe the
onus needs to go on us.
Mr Levac:
Just a quick question and a clarification to the clerk: Did we
have copies of the resolution presented or should we get those
from Mr Brown?
Mr Brown:
I'll forward them to the clerk.
Mr Levac:
Thank you, Mr Brown, and I appreciate your presentation,
obviously from the perspective of small business and new to the
industry, but trying to learn as much as you can in a very short
period of time.
I guess what I heard that
permeates through the entire presentation is discussion and
dialogue regarding the seven-day permit. I've been led to believe
by some people in discussion that the seven-day permit for some
people represents 15 days. There's a concern that was raised that
some people are buying a three-day, five-day, seven-day, whatever
it is, and then they just extend that and say, "I'm here and I'm
going to use it." Would you recommend any kind of system that
would verify the use through organizations such as yourself or
inns or people who have access? These people are staying for a
week and yet they're snowmobiling for 15 days on the trail.
1450
Mr Brown:
I didn't experience that myself first-hand, but I'm sure there's
a way to come up with that in that innkeepers check the permits
when they check people in. Often the case is that people come,
and what we've found is that they buy the permit when they cross
the border. So they often buy it in the Soo when they cross the
border, and they stay in the Soo one night, and then they go out
on the trail or they trailer down to Iron Bridge or Blind River
or wherever and buy there. I'm sure there are ways of checking
it. Also, the STOP officers and the wardens hopefully are
checking that as well.
Mr Levac:
I had just been made aware of it, so I thought I'd put it out
there.
Mr Brown:
I hadn't heard of it last year at all in our area, but there are
people who do use the trails without permits.
Mr Levac:
Sure. Do I have time for quick one? I'll make it quick, Mr
Chairman, I promise.
You mentioned the $10
seasonal permit in Michigan. How can they possibly do that?
Mr Brown:
As my predecessor was saying, there are gas rebates and other
things that finance the trails. It's financed out of tax dollars
not out of permit fees, and that's the seasonal permit fee in
Michigan.
Mr Levac:
What we're hearing is that the OFSC is advocating user-pay, and
if we're going to start getting into this other process, we're
going to have to actually change that philosophy a little bit in
order to accommodate what you're talking about.
Mr Brown:
I think you have to look at user-pay in the sense that if someone
was coming for five days, are they using the trails to the same
extent as some of us who can use them for four months? Is that
user-pay? If you use the trails for five days out of a 100-day
season and I can use the trails for 100 days of that-
Mr Levac:
I really have to clarify something. You're not advocating,
though, that the out-of-province people get exempted from any
kind of fee?
Mr Brown:
No, no. I think they should pay a fee. I think it needs to be a
reasonable fee. I don't think we want to eliminate the fee, and I
don't think we want to charge them triple or double.
The Chair:
Thank you for your input, Mr Brown. We appreciate your driving
all the way down here today.
Our next presentation will
be, if they are here-I don't think the clerk has spoken to them
yet-the Near North Trail Association. Is there a representative
from them yet? How about Mr Tom Day?
DWIGHT-DORSET TRAPPERS COUNCIL
The Chair:
I am told that the Dwight-Dorset Trappers Council are here, so if
they don't mind coming forward now, we would appreciate their
filling the void. Good afternoon and welcome to the
committee.
Mr Frank
LeFeuvre: I'm not sure what the protocol is.
The Chair:
Normally you would just introduce yourself for the purpose of
Hansard. We have 20 minutes and you can divide that as you see
fit between your presentation or allowing time for questions and
answers.
Mr
LeFeuvre: Fine. My name is Frank LeFeuvre. I am
presently the president of the Dwight-Dorset Trappers Council. I
am a new resident to the Muskoka area, having lived here only
eight years, and have retired from Wawa, Ontario. I'm quite aware
of the snow conditions and the trail conditions in Wawa.
As the president of the
Dwight-Dorset Trappers Council, I have the opportunity to receive
memos from our Ontario Fur Managers Federation, two of which were
dated August 1 and August 4. They outlined to me-and this was the
first knowledge that I had and anyone on our council had-that
there were going to be hearings on snowmobile trail fees for
trappers. In phoning a number of trappers in the area, they were
shocked, and they asked me, if I had time, would I please come
and pass on our concerns.
I hope I do not become too
negative, because as I get older-I'm not sure if you agree with
me-I'm becoming more ticked off with the government than I ever
was when I was younger. I probably didn't have enough time to
think about the government and I just followed along.
The memo also stated that
there were only five hearings in all of Ontario for this very
important type of activity. This, too, was a surprise. I was
under the impression, and many of my fellow trappers were under
the impression that the new business relationship that was set in
June 1997 between the trappers of Ontario, which was labelled the
Ontario Fur Managers Federation, and the province of Ontario, was
one of co-operation and openness. The quiet process-and this is
my term-which is centred around this, Bill 101, and the quick
scheduling of hearings demonstrates to me and to many other
trappers that this is neither co-operation nor openness.
Even the hearing that was
scheduled for Gravenhurst was changed to Bala without any public
notice, to my knowledge. To people in Muskoka, there is quite a
difference between Gravenhurst and Bala. It's like saying
Huntsville and North Bay.
Mr Bisson:
Or Peawanuck and Moosonee.
Mr
LeFeuvre: That's correct. I refer to this type of
process as a smokescreen. Really and truly the government is
showing that they want input from the general public, but if they
don't publicize it too well and they keep the information to the
general public very quiet, they really demonstrate to me they're
not interested in getting information from taxpayers. They're not
inviting them to really participate, so why request their
involvement?
It has been the belief of
trappers for many years that the Ontario fur program should pay
its own way. Following the creation of the business relationship
with the government in June 1997, trappers were very accepting
when the licence fees for trapping were increased by 400% and the
royalties paid on the gross value of wild fur were increased by
10%. You may not be aware, but not all provinces in Canada collect royalties
on the sale of wild fur, but of those that do, Ontario's
royalties are the highest.
Speculation in our town and
hearsay information state that there is a decline in the purchase
of snowmobile permits and use of the OFSC trails. Is it fair to
expect trappers to pay the way for recreational snowmobilers? I
really don't think so, and these are the reasons that I would
quote.
Many of the trails were
created by trappers in the first place, loggers and ice
fishermen, and for years they were maintained by trappers,
loggers and ice fishermen, and probably in the last 20 years,
after the 1970s, the Ministry of Natural Resources became a
little bit more involved. Most, if not all, of the bush trails
before the Ontario federation of snowmobilers came to be were, as
I mentioned, maintained by the trappers, hunters and the ice
fishermen.
Most trappers reside on or
near their traplines. They made decisions, very important
decisions for their lifestyle, to select a way of life and a
permanent residence that enables them and their families-and
families are very important to trappers when it comes to their
way of life-to interact with the natural environment on a daily
basis. Most snowmobilers are visitors. Visitors are good, but
should we continue to make decisions on behalf of visitors versus
the resident population of our province?
Trapping is a family
tradition and Muskoka's heritage has been enriched by this
continuity. Even today, Muskoka can boast of three and four
active generations of trappers. How many of you can say that in
your family you have three and four generations of active
politicians-
Mr Bisson:
I hope not.
Mr
LeFeuvre: Me too.
Mr Spina:
Ted Chudleigh.
Mr
LeFeuvre: -or car dealer salesmen, or business
administrators, or truck drivers? But in Muskoka there are three
and four active generations of trappers at the present time.
There was a little
something from the National Post, if I can find it, that was
printed in a magazine that I got. It was by Donna
Laframboise:
"We teach school children
that Canada is a nation in which cultural tradition is valued and
encouraged, but rural and semi-rural residents know better.
Although they are a significant minority group in their own
right, their distinct cultural heritage is rarely considered
legitimate. Rather than being respected, their traditions are
dismissed and denigrated by city dwellers who wouldn't know a
hawthorn tree from a silver birch."
1500
I think that is very
fitting, because people who have chosen small rural community
living and do like to do things that help them get back to nature
are being controlled by 40-storey buildings. They're being
controlled by the asphalt jungle. As a person who was raised in
Toronto, at Broadview and Gerrard, I know the asphalt jungle, but
I too made conscious decisions to get out of that hellhole and go
someplace else and try to enjoy my life. I am doing that, both
for my occupational period of time and, now that I'm retired, for
this next stage of my life. Part of that, and it's very important
to me, is being a trapper.
Most of the trappers in our
province operate a marginal business, therefore additional fees
are unfair and punitive. We have increased our licenses by 400%;
the government has increased the royalties on gross fur sales by
10%. How much more can you place on the shoulders of the
trappers, truly the founding industry of our country?
The creation of the
elaborate trail system has placed additional finance hardships on
many trappers-and I never realized this until I moved to
Huntsville from Wawa-stolen traps; animals released, because it's
still legal to capture an animal live before you dispatch it or
release it; animals stolen right from traps, and when the snow is
on the ground you can certainly tell that; and damaged sets. It
takes energy on behalf of a trapper to create a set to capture a
wild animal. When you come along and you see these smashed off
the trees, or people may have jumped on them-in some cases it
almost looks like they've been run over by a vehicle, but when
they're in the bush with lots of trees around, they have to be
just smashed by people. I found this experience has been common
for me only when there is snow on the ground and after the trails
have been groomed. So this additional expense causes me to lose
more. So you are saying that trappers should pay more by paying a
snowmobile trail fee? I have 29,000 acres that I'm responsible
for on a registered line. A strip two and a quarter miles long on
that trap line is snowmobile trail. You want me to pay? There are
some trappers who don't have any federation snowmobile trails on
their traplines. You want them to pay?
Mr Spina:
No.
Mr
LeFeuvre: Good.
If the government is truly
interested in improving the sustainability and safety of Ontario
snowmobile trails, they should do what needs to be done in all
areas of government. They must be more efficient. They must
follow through with the regulations that are presently in place.
If you don't enforce them, nothing gets done. Speed on snowmobile
trails in Muskoka, from what I hear, is a real problem. You can
just count up the deaths. If a person combines his or her snow
machine with a tree, 99.99% it's just speed. How do you reduce
speed? You have the regulations. Get the enforcement going and
things will be improved, in my opinion.
I'd like to just finish off
with another statement from Donna Laframboise in reference to
life in the bush: "Where I come from, fishing, hunting and
trapping are an integral way of life that has been passed down
through the generations. The log cabins from which ducks,
partridge, moose, marten, fisher, and beaver have been hunted or
gathered for decades aren't just somewhere to unroll a sleeping
bag. They're places where rights of passage from adolescence into
adulthood occur, where people of modest means and humble dreams
commune with nature and nurture their spiritual selves."
I've had the good fortune
to have my children and grandchildren get a start in this, and I
hope that, through expense, I have the opportunity to continue.
The Dwight-Dorset trappers are very much against having to pay
another fee.
I'll give you a barbershop
scenario. Last Friday, I'm sitting in the barber chair. In the
next chair to me a gentleman's almost finished. The barbers know
that I trap and they ask me how things are going. I say, "Fine.
We have the problem now that they're wanting us to pay snowmobile
fees, and hardly any trapper that I know of uses an OFSC
snowmobile trail." The gentleman in the other chair says, "Oh,
you don't have to worry about that any more. Trappers aren't
going to have to pay that fee." Oh, the dandruff just-you talk
about increasing a person's temperature. You get trappers
concerned and the general public concerned about a thing-and this
is what I call the smokescreen method. You get us concerned. We
get late notices about it, we try to stand up for our rights and
do something, and then I'm told in a barbershop by a guy sitting
over here who's the president of the local snowmobile club that
we're not going to have to pay. Communication is still probably
the greatest problem of the human animal. Thank you.
The Chair:
Thank you, Mr LeFeuvre. I certainly wouldn't disagree with your
last comment.
Just in defence of the
clerk and the process, I want to let you know that an ad was
placed in every single daily newspaper in the province of
Ontario, as far south as London. In deference to the climate, we
excused the clerk from putting one in in St Thomas, Sarnia and
Windsor. Every other newspaper in the province of Ontario got an
ad. All the weeklies in the north got an ad. It has run
continuously every few minutes on the parliamentary channel to
every home in the province with cable TV. It is on the Internet.
Certainly all the traditional contributors to this process-the
snowmobile federations, the trappers, the fur managers'
council-have been involved from day one. It was ordered out of
the Legislature on June 25, so it's been no secret it would come
here. On your point about Gravenhurst, I can tell you there's no
conspiracy there. There was absolutely no meeting rooms available
in any of the inns closer to Gravenhurst, and the clerk was able
to locate this one. But having put out an ad saying we'd be in
Muskoka, we'd certainly endeavour to keep as close as possible. I
can assure you that it is our intention to get as many people
in.
You may not have been in
the room a little earlier when we described the difference
between first reading and second reading hearings, but at this
stage we have two kicks at the can. This is only about the fourth
bill in the history of the Legislature that's had hearings after
only the introduction of the bill. So none of the parties have
had to take hard and fast positions. The bill itself is really
almost a blank slate and we can write on it as the three parties
wish. I think Mr Spina, who will be starting off the
questioning-we have time for very quick questions from each
caucus-may wish to comment further about the rest of the process
you had some concerns about.
Mr
LeFeuvre: If I may just take 10 seconds, there wasn't
one trapper in our council who recalls seeing anything in any of
our local papers.
The Chair:
I would be more than happy to get you the date that it ran.
Mr
LeFeuvre: I'd appreciate that.
The Chair:
Which paper?
Mr
LeFeuvre: The Huntsville Forester.
The Chair:
We'll double-check. It's a media booking service that you use and
it costs about $25,000 every time we place one advertisement, so
I assure you that, on behalf of the taxpayers, we're as concerned
as you are if that's not being done. But I appreciate you doing
that. We'll get that information back to you.
Mr Spina:
Mr LeFeuvre, thank you for coming forward today, I guess in your
perception certainly on short notice, but in time to have gotten
in on the deadline. I don't have to dwell on what the Chair has
explained to you regarding the process. The trappers council of
Ontario was on our list to be notified when we were going to
public hearings. When this whole process was being set up, during
the initial consultation paper, an informal, open document was
sent around the province which people were permitted to reproduce
and share with any organization that they felt should be aware of
the discussions and the consultation process-at that time we
heard back from fur trappers and the council, we heard back from
anglers and hunters, and as a result of the input from those
organizations, section 9 of the bill amends section 26 of the
Motorized Snow Vehicles Act. It says-and please ask me to clarify
it if you wish-that regulation-making power is provided for
authority to create classes of motorized snow vehicles and to
exempt such classes from any provision of the act or its
regulations. Regulations may also be made general or particular,
and different classes of persons may be identified for exemptions
from the act or its regulations.
So what we did-and this is
existing in the bill now-was allow the opportunity in the bill to
empower and identify any individuals or classes of motorized snow
vehicles to be exempted from the process. It was never the
intention of this government in this bill to impose an additional
fee on trappers or anybody else. The only objective here was to
have the recreational users of the snowmobile trail system pay
for their fair share of the system. Trappers, for the most part,
were already exempted under the OFSC through other
agreements.
I can assure you that the
Ministry of Natural Resources is at each and every table meeting
with the government ministries to ensure that the open access to
crown land is preserved under the policies of this government and
of the Canadian government, and I can assure you, sir, that the
man from the snowmobile club in the barbershop was right.
Mr
LeFeuvre: Good. Thank you.
Mr Spina:
Thank you for your time. We appreciate it.
Mr LeFeuvre: I have some people
who, when they get the phone survey shortly, starting tonight,
will be very pleased, and we'll make sure they don't take their
chainsaws into the bush in a very active fashion unless they wish
to clear a trail.
Mr Spina:
By the way, regarding five days of committee hearings, there has
been a representative from each of your districts, in fact more
than one. So in Kenora, Thunder Bay and Timmins today and in fact
I believe also on Friday in Peterborough, at all five sites there
have been and will be presentations from fur trappers. We welcome
your input and thank you.
The Chair:
Certainly we've gone a bit over, but it's my understanding that
the next group is not here yet. Mr Levac?
Mr Levac:
Mr LeFeuvre, I appreciate the passion in your comments and I've
listened very carefully to them. So that you're aware, in
previous presentations I heard from people who support the
position you're taking for the trappers. They said that they
don't have a problem at all with traditional user groups using
the trails and they welcome that opportunity to continue the
ongoing dialogue, which I think is just as important, if not more
important than it is for the dialogue with the government,
because you guys are actually using the trails. So just a comment
from me. Thank you very much.
The Chair:
Mr Bisson.
Mr Bisson:
I'm not going to repeat everything that was said, but the
committee did hear loud and clear back at the beginning of this
process that we've instructed the legislative people to take a
look at how we can further clarify the bill so that people don't
get that impression. Hopefully, that will be done.
The Chair:
Thank you, Mr LeFeuvre. It may sound trite, but even having it
reinforced is a very valuable part of this exercise, so I do
appreciate your taking the time to come before us here today.
Mr
LeFeuvre: Thanks for your time.
The Chair:
Let's start back at the 3 o'clock group. Is there anyone yet from
the Near North Trail Association? Mr Tom Day? The Snowmobiler
Television? Mr Robert List?
Mr Bisson:
And "to be advised."
The Chair:
I can tell you Mr To-be-advised will not be with us this
afternoon. But the clerk informs me that in phoning back to the
various offices-for example, Mr Lange left Barrie at 10 to 2. So
why don't we call a 15-minute recess and hope that one or more of
the groups is in attendance by then. I ask everyone's indulgence.
Thank you.
The committee recessed
from 1514 to 1534.
NEAR NORTH TRAIL ASSOCIATION
The Chair:
I call the committee back to order. Our next presenters are from
the Near North Trail Association. I invite them to come forward
to the witness table. Good afternoon, and welcome to the
committee.
Mr Graham
Whitwell: Good afternoon. First off, let me apologize
for being a little tardy. I didn't get lost. It's just one of
those days where, as a volunteer, sometimes my real job gets in
the way of my passion, which is my volunteering.
Members of the panel, my
name is Graham Whitwell, and today I represent the Near North
Trail Association. We're an association of 12 individual
snowmobile clubs who make up district 11 of the Ontario
Federation of Snowmobile Clubs, or the OFSC. Our district
stretches from Kearney in the south to Temagami in the north,
Mattawa in the east to the French River area at Highway 69 in the
west. We represent a membership of about 8,000, and our member
clubs maintain a trail system comprising 3,745 kilometres.
Let me take this
opportunity to thank the government of Ontario for their support
and their interest in snowmobiling. I would also like to thank
this committee for allowing me an opportunity to speak. My
purpose today is to speak in favour of mandatory OFSC trail
permits. The OFSC has taken the position that there are four
cornerstones essential to making a mandatory OFSC permit
successful. I agree with these four cornerstones as follows:
(1) The final authority on
all matters and processes relating to mandatory permits must
remain with the OFSC, especially the use of permit revenues.
(2) The OFSC mandatory
permit must be an absolute and easily enforceable requirement on
designated OFSC trails.
(3) Reasonable
accommodation must be made for traditional access on crown
land.
(4) Trained OFSC wardens
must have the authority under the Motorized Snow Vehicle Act to
enforce mandatory OFSC permits.
A little background: In
1972, something happened that would eventually reshape my life
and that of my whole family. My father purchased his first
snowmobile and introduced the family to snowmobiling. He owned a
resort camp with eight cottages near Burk's Falls, but closed
down every Labour Day, not to reopen until the following May 24.
In fact, he transplanted the family to southern Ontario every
year for employment during that time period. The people who ran
other nearby camps would seek out part-time employment nearby to
see them through the winters. Periodically, we trekked up to the
camp to snowmobile on lakes and back roads, oblivious to the
dangers lurking there.
In 1974, a small local club
was formed that would later become the Almaguin District
Snowmobile Club. We joined right away for the social aspect and
the chance to expand our riding on winding bush trails. We
considered the $10 annual fee to be a bargain. We didn't use
buzzwords like "user-pay" back then, but we recognized that its
genius was in its simplicity: "If you use it, pay your share."
All across Ontario, community snowmobile clubs for the
recreational enjoyment of their family members were developing
local snowmobile trails. There would not be 49,000 kilometres of snowmobile
trails in Ontario today if volunteers had not built and linked
them.
In some cases, new trails
were literally carved out of the bush; in others, existing old
logging trails were used as a good basis, but usually required
extensive upgrading. One thing is for certain: Without local
volunteers and their personal relationships, many trails across
private lands would be inconceivable.
In 1989, an employment
transfer provided my family and me the chance to relocate to
snowmobile heaven-that's just outside Burk's Falls. It also
afforded us the opportunity, through volunteering, to donate
something tangible back to the sport we had loved at that point
for 15 years. Volunteers wear so many hats: trail building, trail
grooming, fundraising, writing newsletters, answering
correspondence and attending meeting after meeting all year long.
Volunteers invest countless hours of their personal time because
they believe snowmobile trails constitute a valuable community
resource that provides recreational, social, health and economic
benefits to their region during a traditionally dormant
season.
1540
My own teenagers were among
those who found seasonal part-time employment related directly to
the existence of volunteer-built snowmobile trails in our
community. As an instructor of the OFSC snowmobile driver
training course, I utilize a meeting room donated by the local
firefighters. We in turn donate to their pumper fund annually.
People like Easter Seals and the children's Sunshine Foundation
are recipients of charity fundraising by clubs within the Near
North Trail Association. These local partnerships are important
to a local community.
There are 281 community
snowmobile clubs in Ontario, formed as not-for-profit groups with
a mandate to invest their revenues on snowmobile trails. Their
sole existence is to provide snowmobile trails. The OFSC acts as
their supporting and co-ordinating body to establish a provincial
trail network and to represent their provincial interests.
The OFSC itself is a
non-profit organization with volunteers elected from these clubs
to drive the OFSC from the bottom up. In spite of the fact that
the OFSC is the largest and most successful recreational trail
user organization in the world, this volunteer involvement
ensures that it is in tune with the grassroots needs and issues.
To continue this success and to keep the trails open and
operating, it is imperative that OFSC clubs and volunteers
continue to play the lead role in controlling their own destiny.
One of the fundamental vehicles for this self-determination is
the OFSC trail permit and the allocation of its funds. A $10 fee
was fairly simple to allocate back in 1974 since the trail
groomer consisted of a used bed frame towed behind a volunteer's
snowmobile. But, as they say, that was then, this is now.
Snowmobile clubs throughout
the Near North trail district maintain a busy schedule of events
ranging from poker runs to pancake breakfasts to hootenannies.
Are these events necessary or are they just social perks? Out of
necessity, most clubs are operated as small businesses, with less
emphasis now on the social aspect. Every year seems to bring
increased competition for fundraising dollars. Informal
discussions with our Near North member clubs indicate that the
costs associated with putting on these events are increasing
every year while the net proceeds are decreasing. Volunteer
burnout is a reality, with fewer volunteers per club and an older
average age of those typical volunteers. In other words, we
wouldn't do it if we didn't need the money because it's getting
harder to do.
If user-pay works, why are
additional funds required? Actually, user-pay has only half
worked. User-pay revenues have only accounted on average for
about 50% of the total average annual cost of recreational trails
in Ontario, at least the operating costs of those trails. The
balance has traditionally been made up by club volunteers through
donations of time, labour and resources and through
fundraising.
The key point here, though,
is that snowmobile riding habits have changed. Very few riders
purchase an OFSC trail pass and ride solely within the confines
of the club from which it was purchased. There are several
reasons for this. Snowmobiles are more reliable. A friend of mine
jokes that the biggest difference between old sleds and new sleds
is that now when they break down you're a lot further away from
home. Snowmobile clothing and accessories are more comfortable
and have made the pastime more comfortable. Very importantly,
trail and trail linkages are vastly improved. More accommodations
are catering to snowmobilers. More of the people I was speaking
of earlier who traditionally closed are remaining open and
providing employment. Baby boomers have more time to ride than
people used to.
In addition to the average
recreational rider riding further each day, the phenomenon of the
touring snowmobiler has increased exponentially for many of these
same reasons. The touring snowmobiler is considered a prime
potential customer to tourism operators because he only has
sufficient cargo space on his snowmobile to carry his wallet. The
down side, though, is that he may ride through numerous clubs
even in a given day, causing resulting wear and tear but without
actually stopping to contribute to the local trail upkeep on his
way through.
The phenomenon of
longer-distance riders presents trail maintainers with challenges
they have worked hard to address. Near North clubs recognize the
advantage of large, new industrial grooming equipment and
improved trail bed surfaces with larger bridges etc. With this in
mind, every effort has been made by Near North clubs to maximize
the impact of the Sno-TRAC program and the Safe Smooth Trails
programs.
However, as beneficial as
these capital equipment partnerships are, the required matching
capital had to come from operation budgets in some form. Budgets?
Yes, it's not unusual for clubs to establish annual budgets and
track their actual-versus-budget performance monthly. NNTA clubs
also demonstrated fiscal responsibility by sourcing certain
services collectively through a tendering process. But the bottom line is that
in spite of all the knowledge gleaned over 30 years of
trail-building and maintenance and in spite of the
state-of-the-art grooming equipment we have in place, volunteers
are frustrated trying to maintain a world-class tourism trail
system with a local recreation trail budget.
What would make user-pay
work better? We believe the most important issue facing NNTA
member clubs with regard to long-term sustainability is ongoing
operational funding. Since OFSC permit sales constitute the bulk
of operating capital generation, it is prudent to do everything
possible to ensure that all recreational riders on OFSC trails
contribute their fair share through the purchase of an OFSC trail
permit.
Further, we believe this
must be enforceable if it is to have the desired effect and that
a sufficient number of enforcement officers be empowered to
provide adequate patrol coverage. The NNTA welcomes the
opportunity to partner with all Ontario enforcement agencies. In
fact, we were the second district in Ontario to embrace the STOP
program and we continue to provide financial support and patrol
our OFSC trail wardens with the STOP officers. However, the
effectiveness of police, STOP and conservation authority may be
limited by limited manpower and equipment. Trained OFSC wardens
can enhance this coverage with local sensitivity.
Paul Fowler, this fellow I
know, has a trapline northeast of Burks Falls. He doesn't eat
pemmican or live in a one-room log cabin. In fact, he's a
respected teacher with the Near North school board. On the street
he looks just like everyone else, but when he's criss-crossing
groomed snowmobile trails in his green duck parka and his long
track Tundra snowmobile, he could hardly be mistaken for a
recreational snowmobiler. The Almaguin District Snowmobile Club
and Paul Fowler have maintained a mutually respectful
relationship on crown land for as long as I can remember. We're
adamant in our belief that every recreational snowmobiler should
pay their fair share, but we're respectful of the rights of other
users of crown land. Perhaps a local limited-use permit could be
issued to easily recognize users such as land owners, anglers,
hunters or others who may qualify for local exemptions to ride
specific trails to their area of primary activity. Once again,
local sensitivity with respect to enforcement would be
advantageous.
1550
In conclusion, let me
emphasize that, as snowmobiling volunteers, we're fiercely proud
of our accomplishments in organized snowmobiling over a
relatively short period. We believe that our interconnected
province-wide trail system is world-class and second to none and
that we have demonstrated responsibility with respect to safety,
environmental issues and democratic self-government. Operational
shortfalls are the result of success and the popularity of
snowmobiling as a recreation and as a tourism activity in Ontario
and must be addressed immediately if the sport is to continue and
grow. The provincial government of Ontario can support this
growth by legislating mandatory OFSC trail permits which will
continue to be the sole function and responsibility of the OFSC
and enforceable on all OFSC trails by all enforcement agencies,
including the OFSC wardens.
Thank you very much for
this opportunity to address the committee. I'd be pleased to
attempt to answer any questions.
The Chair:
Given the cancellations we've had, we'll certainly allow for
questions from each caucus. This time we will be starting with Mr
Levac.
Mr Levac:
Thanks very much for your presentation; I appreciate it. I guess
a quick question from me right now is, I've heard several
presentations that say that the mandatory permits are something
that's going to help us get the funds back into the system again.
What percentage of those people do not use the permit system?
Does anyone have any idea?
Mr
Whitwell: I'm afraid I don't have that sort of
information. That would probably be better directed to a
representative of the OFSC. I'm afraid I can't answer that.
Mr Levac:
It wasn't meant to trap you or anything, it was just that
something's starting to click in my head as to, how much money
are we going to generate if we're able to get everybody to
subscribe to the permit process and will that be the kind of
saving grace that's being looked for, in terms of the amount of
money? Or are we also talking about, which has also been
mentioned with other groups, an add-on kind of supplementary
income process somewhere along the line? Would you agree that
there's probably need beyond the permit process in order to get
the industry-
Mr
Whitwell: I would be speculating, but in my opinion,
yes.
Mr Levac:
Basically, in a nutshell, the legislation is supportable as long
as the OFSC is the permit provider and enforcement and it gets
the fees.
Mr
Whitwell: We think we've done a great job. We think the
system works and it's a system that will continue to work.
Mr Levac:
So there shouldn't be anything in the legislation that removes
what you've been doing for 30 years.
Mr
Whitwell: Exactly.
Mr Bisson:
I have somewhat the same question as my colleague. I'm trying to
figure out who doesn't pay currently who is using OFSC trails. I
know I've participated as a provincial member in my riding where
they have, on particular days, the OPP out there with OFSC
officials stopping people-you know, friendly reminders, making
sure they've got trail permits. It's been my experience that the
vast majority of people who use trails have permits. On the
couple of Sundays that I've done it, I can only remember one
particular occasion where there was a youngster using an
unregistered machine; that was the only case.
I wonder, as you do, where
we are really going. The issue is, to me, that the clubs need
more money in order to keep the trails maintained and to do the
kind of expansion we need to promote the sport. I'm wondering
if this is really the
way to go about it, because nobody has quantified to me exactly
how much more money this is going to give the clubs. What I'm
hearing you say and what others say is that we need some sort of
funding mechanism. This is just a general comment.
Just so you know where some
of us are starting to come from on this thing, I don't oppose in
principle what we're trying to do here by way of legislation, but
I'm wondering if we're going to get to where we go. The other
part is, it seems to me part of the issue here is internal to the
OFSC, the federation itself, in regard to internal policies of
how we move dollars from clubs that do very well, thank you, to
clubs that don't do so well because they have smaller memberships
and, as other people and yourself have pointed out, long distance
traveller who go-for example, my club, which is a big club-into
Fauquier and other communities where there aren't a lot of
riders. Do you see the will within the various clubs and at the
federation level to try to address how we better support, by
internal policies of the federation, those clubs under 100
members? Is there the political will to do it?
Mr
Whitwell: Again, I'm not really the proper person to
respond to that, but I think a good general answer is yes. As a
matter of fact, there are items that will be discussed at the
OFSC AGM, which is in September, that will address that very
topic.
Mr Bisson:
It might be interesting to go to that, because I wonder,
sometimes, if we utilize the power of the Legislature to try to
regulate something that we can actually do by volunteerism and
that can be done by associations themselves. I think, Joe, you
know where I'm coming from. Some of this stuff is internal to the
federation.
I have a question of the
parliamentary assistant about something I don't understand that I
should have understood by now. Are we going to be giving wardens,
such as the presenter who came here before, the ability to
actually stop somebody without a permit and then charge them?
Mr Spina:
At this point, the only ones who are empowered to enforce the
act, such as it is, and introduced, are the police. A STOP
officer is considered in that category because they are sworn
special constables even though they are volunteers; but the
wardens are not. This is one of the reasons why there is
repetitive lobbying, if you will, to include wardens as part of
the enforcement process.
Mr Bisson:
I raised it because I wonder, as a legislator and also as a
taxpayer-in the end I don't think the government is going to give
the wardens the ability to actually go out and enforce, because
there's a whole bunch of issues here. What happens if the person
refuses? What's the remedy on the part of the warden? Does he
have the right to arrest? Does he have the right to seize? There
are all those issues that you get into. I'm not so sure the
government wants to go there. I'm not sure I'd want to go
there.
So the policy issue for the
government is do, we have enough police in order to do the
enforcement of what is basically a registration fee and, quite
frankly, is that what we want our police to be doing? I'd just
appreciate your comments, if you can, on that. I know it's a bit
of a loaded question, but I wonder if we're maybe coming at this
a little bit from the wrong direction. I think, to give credit to
the government, they're trying to find a response to a real
problem, and I give you full credit for that. That's what these
hearings are all about. But I'm wondering if we're actually going
in the right direction now. As I listen to more and more
presenters, more and more questions are raised in my mind. I
wonder if you can comment on that.
Mr
Whitwell: If I might just comment briefly on the issue
of non-conformance, it's been our experience in the near north
area that the transient snowmobiler or snowmobiler from southern
Ontario is most likely not the problem. It's been our experience
that the problem tends to be more local and it becomes a bit of a
game, sometimes, with some of the locals, especially the younger
people in that they'll ride around until they're caught. If I can
just go back in my presentation to where I spoke briefly about
volunteer burnout and the fact that we have fewer and fewer
volunteers, the whole idea of having to chase these kids around
is something that takes important time and effort away from
positive things that we could be doing.
Mr Spina:
Graham, thanks for coming. I think we met sometime on one of my
little trail rides in your area. I wanted to ask you, and it's
not too dissimilar from Gilles's question-I guess from the
perspective of an instructor of the driver training program there
are elements of this bill that talk about the enforcement not
just of the trail permit but also of other elements that would be
demanded, if you will, of the rider on the trail in order to be
in compliance. I don't know whether you're familiar enough with
some of those things that were outlined in the act to comment on
them.
1600
Mr
Whitwell: I'm afraid I'm not completely familiar with
the entire act.
Mr Spina:
Let me summarize it in one statement, and maybe it's too general:
elements of the enforcement tie infractions under the snowmobile
act more closely to the Highway Traffic Act, so offences that you
would be charged for as an individual under the Highway Traffic
Act for your licence would also be in effect in driving a
snowmobile if you're driving under suspension. Some of that is
still in place now, but it's not really all that enforceable
because police enforce it. If you're driving with a suspended
driver's licence, you've got to be caught by a cop; but if you
have a suspended automobile driver's licence and you're riding
around on the trail, generally speaking, even if a warden pulls
you over and asks you for a driver's licence and sees that it was
suspended, I'm not sure there's anything they can do.
Mr
Whitwell: Not a warden, no.
Mr Spina:
What about a STOP officer? Do you know whether they can?
Mr Whitwell: No. Unfortunately,
I guess I'd have to research a specific infraction in order to
really answer that.
Mr Spina:
That's OK. I didn't mean to put you on the spot.
Would you agree-are these
positive changes in that context?
Mr
Whitwell: I believe-yes. Snowmobiling for myself and my
family is exactly that: a family event. It has always been that
way. Our kids have ridden with us on snowmobiles since before
they could walk and, as soon as possible, attended the course,
received their snowmobile operators' licences and got their own
snowmobiles. That's an expensive way to live, but we thought it
was very important in terms of family values. Anything that
enhances the safety of my family operating a snowmobile I most
definitely would be in favour of.
Mr Spina:
Thank you very much, Graham. I appreciate it.
The Chair:
Thank you very much for your presentation here today. We
appreciate your taking the time to drive all that way down to
make your comments.
Mr
Whitwell: No problem at all. Again, thank you very much
for the opportunity.
The Chair:
Our pleasure.
ROBERT LIST
The Chair:
Our final presentation today, because of some cancellations, will
be Mr Robert List. Good afternoon, Mr List. Welcome to the
committee.
Mr Robert
List: Thank you very much, Mr Chairman, for the
opportunity to appear, and special thanks to the clerk for the
assistance in putting me on at the time of the day that didn't
louse up my business day entirely.
I'd like to do this fairly
informally in terms of submitting comments. I have about 25
copies of my written comments so that the specifics can be
reviewed by whoever is going to review these things at a later
date. I'd just like to-
The Chair:
If you like, the clerk can hand them out to the committee
members.
Mr List:
I'm not going to look at it, so I hope the committee members
don't and rather just listen to what I have to say. I think it
probably will have more of an impact as a verbal sense as opposed
to this wonderful writing.
I appear today as an
independent business person. I use snowmobiles, and in fact I use
the recreational trail network without snowmobiles to access
properties in my business. I'm a land use planning consultant
with a degree in environmental studies. I have been practising in
this area, both in the public sector and in the private sector,
for about 25 years, and I have seen the growth of the trail
network in this area, both for snowmobiles as well as for walking
and bicycling, in particular over the last decade.
I have been involved, as
well, not only in the development of snowmobile trails and the
planning and actual construction of them, but also of a number of
walking trails throughout Muskoka. I can see the multi-use
opportunities that are being presented to us for the years to
come-right now as well as in the future-and I would like to see
it continue.
My specific interest today
is directed toward something that isn't in the legislation. It's
what I would call an old chestnut, and some of my friends in the
room today will perhaps be surprised that I am raising it before
the committee. But I look upon this piece of legislation as a
very good piece of legislation, because it presents an
opportunity to correct some problems I have seen from a legal
perspective in Ontario dealing with snowmobile trails and
recreational trails.
What I would like to see in
this bill is that sections 12 and 13 be renumbered so that they
become the next sections after a new section 12. The section I
propose-and I've written, in my language, what I believe the
section should read-would deal with an opportunity that I believe
we have to address a problem with road allowances on municipal
property.
When I received a copy of
this bill, it was entitled An Act to promote snowmobile trail
sustainability and enhance safety and enforcement. I don't know
too much about safety and enforcement. I see that we have safety
and enforcement people here, and I'll let them speak to that. In
fact, I don't know too much about the trail permit proposal
that's being put forward, except that I note we may be issuing
trail permits on trails that aren't legally authorized to be
established in the province of Ontario. I believe that if this
bill goes forward, it should address that issue directly, so that
trail sustainability can be viewed not only from the trail permit
perspective but from a trail securement perspective as well.
What am I talking about?
Most of the trails the snowmobile people have in Ontario are
located on either private or public lands. Trails that are
located on private lands in particular are addressed through the
landowner agreements that the snowmobile federation has with
individual landowners and aren't an issue, because they have
agreements with those landowners. So if we have a trail permit
that is issued, you have a right to use that private property if
you hold a trail permit.
Public property, on the
other hand, is usually vested in either the federal or provincial
governments, or municipalities. I'm not going to speak to the
federal issue, because I don't know too much about it. Most of
the provincial property is governed by a number of statutes; the
most important one, and a prime one, would be the Public Lands
Act. Under that a trail is established by the issuance of a work
permit, usually through the Ministry of Natural Resources. There
are other approvals that that ministry also gives.
Similarly, on public
property that is owned by municipalities, where that property is
a park which is not part of a road system or where it is an open
road or various other forms of municipal property, the rights and
the authority to use that property are clearly vested, through
legislation, in the municipality to issue permits and approvals. However, when you
come to a thing called an unopen road allowance, there is a
section of the Municipal Act currently in place which acts as a
prohibition for municipalities to authorize the use of the
establishment of trails on unopen road allowances.
This issue, quite frankly,
has been discussed ad nauseam at the provincial government staff
level. There has also been agreement at the staff level that it
should be changed. But for reasons such as it's not a government
priority or things similar to that, it has never been advanced.
The most recent reason for not advancing a change in the act has
been, "We're producing a new Municipal Act, and we'll take care
of it in the development of the new Municipal Act."
I don't know if we will
ever see a new Municipal Act. There may be some people around
this table who are closer to it than I am. But since this
government has been in place-and the government prior to that
even agreed at a staff level with the change that needed to be
made. It's just that it's awfully slow in coming. So when I see
the title of this act, An Act to promote snowmobile trail
sustainability, I say there's one issue that this thing certainly
doesn't address, and I'm probably closer to it than anybody else
involved in this business, and I'd like to see it addressed by
the addition of a clause that I've outlined in this legislation.
It's section 308, paragraph 5, of the Municipal Act; it's very
explicit; and it says that councils may pass bylaws authorizing
the use of unopened road allowances for bicycle purposes and
walking purposes, and that's it. There's nothing else. If you
want to put a recreational trail in for horseback riding,
snowmobiling, ATVing, whatever you want to do, it is not
specifically authorized.
1610
Why is this a problem?
Recreational trail clubs in this particular area, and in the
Grey-Bruce area of this province, have spent tens of thousands of
dollars-probably more than that now-dealing with abutting or
adjacent property owners who don't want to see unopened road
allowances used for any kind of recreational trail purpose,
whether it's snowmobiling or something else. The case law that
exists dates back 130 years, mostly, on this, and this old case
law generally says that you can't establish a new trail unless
it's a bicycle path or a walking path.
There was an injunction
request that was brought forward by a property owner that has now
been dealt with successfully, where one judge said to the
applicant for relief and to block the establishment of a trail on
an unopened road allowance, "You don't expect me, when this
matter goes to trial, to base my decision on law that was
established 130 years ago, when nobody thought that road
allowances would ever be used for snowmobiling or recreational
trail purposes?"
So there was hope that
maybe the courts might change their position, but my point to
this committee is, why take the risk? Let's change the provision
of the Municipal Act now-it's a very, very simple thing to do-by
adding a clause to this piece of legislation that would address,
once and for all, this matter and not leave it up to the courts
to make further interpretation of it. Then, if you do decide, and
I hope that you do decide, to authorize at a provincial level the
issuance of trail permits, those trail permits would then be
available for use on properties, be they public or private, that
are properly authorized to be there in the first place, as
opposed to, "Gee, we've got a trail permit but the trail that's
there really isn't a legal thing." I think it's a cleanup issue
more than anything else, and I'd really like to see it
addressed.
That's the meat of my
submission. The only other thing I wanted to say is, because I'm
an independent business person and I do use snowmobile trails for
business, because I'm the guy who goes out to look at properties
when nobody else does-when the bugs are there or when there's
three feet of snow or, in the last couple of years, three inches
of snow-I don't have a problem buying a trail permit, to be
honest about it, because I use my machine for recreational
purposes as well. But if I was solely using it only for
business-and the last few years I've used it more for business
than for recreational use-I don't have a problem buying a trail
permit for that purpose. It's just another thing in the wonderful
world of business that you have to expend and that you do
diligently in terms of your business write-offs and so on, as a
cost of doing business. My business may not be like other
businesses, but certainly I don't take issue with that.
Mr Chairman, my submissions
are brief. There's more detail in the written submission that
I've put to you. There's also a whole variety of backup material,
if you need it, that I can assemble and forward to the clerk's
office, that deals with this issue, including the case law. I've
tried to use my own terms here today, be brief about it, but it's
a simple matter to address. The staff at other ministries of the
government know about it, including MTO and municipal affairs,
and I think it would be a simple issue to add it to this list so
that we're really dealing with another matter of snowmobile trail
sustainability.
Again, thank you very much
for the opportunity.
The Chair:
Thank you, Mr List. We have time for brief questions if anybody
is interested. Mr Bisson, we'll start with you.
Mr Bisson:
I just want to make sure I understand what you're asking for
here. When you're referring to unopened municipal road
allowances, you're not only talking about roads that were put
into the official plan and set aside and not constructed, but
you're also talking about existing roads, like the-I can't find
the word I'm looking for.
The Chair:
Right-of-way.
Mr Bisson:
The right-of-way or the easement?
Mr List:
I'm talking solely about unopened municipal road allowances. A
road allowance is opened by a municipality by virtue of there
being a road base on it. So if there's a road on a road
allowance, nine times out of 10 it's an open road allowance. I'm
saying nine times because ownership plus maintenance equals
dedication. There's a legal formula that's involved there.
What I'm talking about in
this legislation-and that's really not an issue because that's
dealt with as a public highway under the Public Highways Act, the
Municipal Act, a whole variety of statutes to deal with that.
What I'm talking about is a road allowance where there's never
been a road on it. There's tens of thousands of miles of those in
the province of Ontario. That's where a lot of the recreational
trails, be they snowmobile trails or other trails, are being
located, with the support of municipalities, with the support of
trail-building associations, notwithstanding the legal problem
that we have with it. They're saying, "Look, it's good business
to take that trail off Jack Jones's property and put it on the
road allowance because the municipality owns it, the public
sector owns it; therefore there's never going to be a
closure."
Mr Bisson:
I just want to understand. So what you're saying is that they're
doing it, but legally they can't be doing it.
Mr List:
It's not authorized.
Mr Bisson:
But they're doing it.
Mr List:
Yes.
Mr Bisson:
Gotcha. Any estimate of how big of the existing trail system or
potential system we are talking about when we talk about these
particular unopened municipal allowances?
Mr List:
In the province of Ontario as a whole, I don't know; I guess
around 25%, if not more. In the Muskoka area probably closer to
just under 50%, and in the Grey-Bruce area probably something
very similar.
Mr Bisson:
Chair, can I request if somebody at the committee level can do a
bit of research on that so that we can better understand when we
come to the clause-by-clause?
The Chair:
I think the researcher will probably have to get that information
from the OFSC themselves, but we'll certainly-
Ms Lorraine
Luski: To find out-
The Chair:
What percentage of the trail system would be found on unopened
road allowances.
Mr List:
It's a high percentage.
Mr Dunlop:
Thank you for coming, Mr List. The liability issue came up a
little bit this morning with the town of Huntsville. They were
concerned about liabilities on the unopened road allowances. I
agree with you: there are probably thousands of kilometres of
unopened road allowance through particularly this part of this
region of Ontario, at the south end of the shield.
Something that I've been
concerned about is the abandoned right-of-ways that have been
taken over by municipal governments across the province. They've
been used for recreational trails of all kinds. Do you have any
comments on abandoned railway lines as opposed to unopened road
allowances?
Mr List:
My comment isn't directed toward that. Probably in 100% of the
cases, an abandoned rail line would not be located on an unopened
municipal road allowance. That would be property that would
probably be vested, in most cases, in an agency of the federal
government. It may be private property. If it's private property,
it's not an issue; if it's federal property, I'm sure there's
some statutory authority for that. I don't know enough about it
to make a comment.
Mr Dunlop:
It's just that a lot of municipalities have actually purchased
these road allowances for the use of recreational trails across
the-
Mr List:
If the municipalities purchased them, unless they've done a
survey and unless they need it for highway purposes, it would not
be an unopened municipal road allowance. It would be just another
piece of municipal property that would be considered as a
lineal-type park. It doesn't fall into this category. This
category alludes to a legal term called an "unopened municipal
road allowance" that I'm talking about, and that's where the
problem is. I wouldn't imagine that there's a problem with a
municipality that has purchased an old rail line.
Mr Spina:
Thanks, Bob, for coming forward. I wanted to go to your
recommended phrase here. You wanted to make it simple, so I just
wondered if this would be even simpler.
It says "for setting apart
and laying out so much of any highway as the council may consider
expedient for the purposes of a bicycle path, footpath, or path
for recreational purposes including the use of"-what I was going
to suggest is dropping "motorized snow," because then it would
read, "including the use of vehicles"-in other words, in
general-"and for regulation of the use of such bicycle path,
footpath or recreational path."
If the municipality wants
to use it for a motorcycle or motocross trail, or if they want to
use it for scooters or a skateboard trail-all I'm saying is that
just broadens the scope and would allow them to use motorized
snow vehicles if they chose. Is that workable?
1620
Mr List: I
would respectfully disagree for two reasons, Mr Spina. Number one
is, this wording was developed by a lawyer after extensive
consultation with both MTO and the Ministry of Municipal Affairs
people. I think there's a specific reason in there. Maybe it
alludes to the second point, that a motorized snow vehicle,
because it's referred to under the Motorized Snow Vehicles Act,
is not necessarily the same, in certain instances, as a
motorcycle, moped, car, truck and so on, but probably for the
first reason. I'm up for reviewing it, but this wording was
developed by private sector solicitors working with provincial
solicitors and provincial staff.
Mr Levac:
Thank you, Mr List. I appreciate your presentation. I listened
very carefully. What you're looking for is an amendment that
basically includes this particular, single issue that will
influence a very large portion of the trails, if I'm hearing
correctly.
Mr List:
That's correct.
Mr Levac:
I also spoke to some ministry staff, and they basically said that
this could be just a small piece and we might have to come back
to this. Are you suggesting that this is an amendment that should
be inside the bill in
order for the trails to be proper and legal?
Mr List:
That's correct. As I mentioned in my opening comments, I look
upon this as an opportunity to properly secure a snowmobile or
recreational trail system. It's primarily directed toward
snowmobiling. But this act, "to promote snowmobile trail
sustainability," deals not only with the Motorized Snow Vehicles
Act but with a couple of other acts. It has cleanup items as
well. So when I saw it I thought, "There may be good reason that
people have drafted it this way." But quite frankly I consider it
an oversight to not deal with this issue as an opportunity,
because it is complementary legislation.
Mr Levac:
Great. Mr William MacDonald from Huntsville, as Mr Dunlop pointed
out, indicated there were some issues that needed to get
addressed, and I think the Chair has indicated that we were going
to take a look at that as well. I think this is the one we're
talking about, is it not, Mr Chair, for clarification?
The Chair:
Yes, it is.
Mr Levac:
I think you've done that, so we'll be able to tell Mr MacDonald
that you too came forward with those concerns.
You mentioned about the
permit and your employment, what you are doing in business. It
was also told to us by interpretation that there is a clause in
the bill that would allow for exemptions, it being "traditional
users." I suggest we have probably discovered another traditional
use as interpretation. We're talking about trappers and other
people who would use the trails to get from point A to point B.
Your job, if I'm not mistaken, including your business, would be
to get from point A all the way around everywhere to get to point
B, so you would be actually travelling the trails to do your job,
correct?
Mr List:
Correct.
Mr Levac:
If that's the case, I'm assuming we could put that exemption in
there, because I think the legislation's spirit is not to stop
you from doing your livelihood.
Mr List: I
hear what you're saying, but again, I'd respectfully disagree. My
comment was that-
Mr Levac:
You said it was part of business.
Mr List:
It is part of business, but beyond that I am a very strong
supporter of recreational trail development, including snowmobile
trail development.
Mr Bisson:
You'll pay your fair share.
Mr List:
I'll pay it. I don't have a problem with it. I think it's the
best deal going. I can play a game of golf at Deerhurst and it
will cost me 130 bucks, and that's what I pay for a permit to go
snowmobiling all year in Ontario. I can't understand why people
find that offensive.
Mr Levac:
OK. So what you're saying is that for the case I presented, you
would not look for an exemption.
Mr List:
Don't want an exemption.
Mr Levac:
Not on a personal level but simply describing the job.
Mr List: I
get an exemption through business for the one snowmobile I use
for business. To me, that's a cost of doing business.
Mr Levac:
That's a good clarification. Thank you for that.
The Chair:
Thank you, Mr List. I appreciate your bringing a new issue before
us.
I would just draw to your
attention that under parliamentary practice you normally cannot
amend a bill that was not originally in the statute before us.
However, anything can be done by unanimous consent of the three
parties. Obviously we'll all have to go back and reflect on this
suggestion, but it certainly does bear on the issues brought
earlier by the town of Huntsville. Thank you very much for
bringing your personal-
Mr Bisson:
We could ask for unanimous consent right now.
The Chair:
I think that, were it not for the issue of perhaps changing the
wording to make it more inclusive, I don't know whether-
Mr Bisson:
I won't go there right now.
The Chair:
No, I don't know whether Mr Spina was alluding to things like
ATVs-municipalities would use some other examples that might not.
I don't think I've heard of a linear skateboard park out in the
country, but ATVs are certainly an issue and that might be
something.
Mr List:
Mr Chairman, if I may, I don't know about the other sections of
this bill, but I do know there was discussion when the Liberal
Party was in power in this province, where the representatives in
this area, as well as in other parts of the province, agreed that
this section needed to be altered. There was agreement as well
from the NDP that this section of the Municipal Act needed to be
amended, and I believe that there is support from this
government, or at least recognition, that that section needs to
be amended. I would hope that what I just said can be documented,
and perhaps the parties, unless there's a new party-that there is
recognition about that.
The Chair:
An excellent suggestion, but that's not to suggest we shouldn't
look at incorporating it into this one. You certainly won't get
any argument from this Chair that we need a new Municipal
Act.
Thank you very much for
your comments and for taking the time to come out and make them
to us here today.
That being our last
presentation, the committee will stand recessed until 1 o'clock
in Peterborough this Friday.
