Porcupine Prospectors
and Developers Association
Mr Robert Calhoun
Sudbury Trail Plan
Association
Ms Vassie Lumley
Mr Don Lumley
Ms Janet Depatie
Lake Huron-Arctic
Region Bait Association
Mr Luc Charette
Ontario Fur Managers
Federation; Timmins Fur Council
Mr Larry Reeve
Conseil des trappeurs
de Hearst / Hearst Trappers' Council
M. Conrad Morin
Tourism
Timmins
Mr Will Saari
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 David Ramsay (Timiskaming-Cochrane L)
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 0906 in the Cedar Meadows
Resort, Timmins.
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): Once again for the record, I call the
committee to order on the third day of hearings for Bill 101, the
Motorized Snow Vehicles Amendment Act, 2000. The first order of
business-actually, it's for the second time, but just to make
sure Hansard records that I did it even once, for when Mr Bisson
gets back-is that he indicated he wished to have a letter read
into the record. I will be pleased to do that.
"To the Chair and members of
the committee conducting hearings on Bill 101,
"I am sorry I am not here to
welcome the committee to Timmins this morning. I have been
unexpectedly called away to deal with an urgent constituency
matter.
"Please convey my regrets to
the members of the committee and to all of the presenters. I
understand Timmins has the greatest number of submissions to be
heard by this committee, and I look forward to reading the
documents and the committee minutes when I return.
"Sincerely,
"Gilles Bisson, MPP
"Timmins-James Bay."
Just to expand on that, it's
my understanding Mr Bisson is travelling at the behest of
Minister Sampson out to Edmonton to look at some matters related
to prisons. I'm pleased to see the level of co-operation between
opposition members and ministers of the crown.
CHAPLEAU AND AREA TRAPPER'S COUNCIL
The Chair:
With that, we're pleased to welcome, with apologies for the
technical delay this morning, the first presenter, the Chapleau
and Area Trapper's Council.
Mr Richard St
Amand: Honourable members, ladies and gentlemen, my name
is Richard St Amand. I am the president of the Chapleau and Area
Trapper's Council. I am appearing before this committee today to
express our concern with Bill 101 and the fact that there is no
exemption from trail permits granted to trappers. We find this
totally unacceptable when you consider that trappers were not
consulted at the time these trails were developed. We have had to
endure considerable hardships as a result, such as stolen traps
and furs, vandalism and increased traffic over our lines.
In the Chapleau district
alone, we have 111 registered traplines. Approximately 20% of
these lines are directly impacted by snowmobile trails. Many of
these snowmobile trails are on old trappers' trails or on
abandoned roads that trappers have developed and used for
generations. Now we are being told we must pay yet another fee or
face a penalty of $200 to $1,000. This is unfair and unjust.
The fur harvest industry
contributes in excess of $15 million annually to the provincial
economy through fur sales and royalties. This industry played a
key role in opening this country many years ago.
The front-line trapper, as
well as the fur harvest industry, has had to adapt and adjust to
pressures from a number of different sources:
The first is the image of the
trapper-the selected and controlled harvesting of wild fur, that
trappers be seen as conservationists and also providers of
valuable information to biologists on various animal species and
habitat.
They have had to conform to
international humane trapping standards in the types of traps
that are being used now and in the future.
They must conform to new
boating regulations.
They must conform to new gun
licensing and registering regulations.
In the future, they will have
to deal with the creation of 378 new parks and protected areas,
as recently announced by the Premier, and the impact this will
have on trappers.
Trapping licences have
increased 400% since 1997.
Royalties paid to the
province have increased 10%.
Trappers must constantly deal
with the fur market uncertainty.
They must be concerned with
the timber harvesting practices in their area and the impact this
will have on their particular lines.
They must also be concerned about the animal rights
groups and the impact of their activities and views on the fur
harvesting industry.
Last but not least, the
provincial government has failed to recognize the significance
and contribution of the fur harvesting industry when considering
its new hunting and fishing heritage act.
I have actively trapped on a
registered trapline west of Chapleau for almost 30 years. To
access my line, whether by truck, ATV or snow machine, I have
traditionally used an abandoned road, as well as a road that is
maintained by a local roads board. Portions of these roads are
now groomed snowmobile trails. Trappers who use these trails are
not doing so for recreational purposes but simply to access their
lines.
In conclusion, on behalf of
the trappers whom I represent, we are strongly opposed to the
legislation in its current form and feel there must be an
exemption granted to trappers.
Thank you for the opportunity
to address you today, on behalf of the Chapleau and Area
Trapper's Council.
The Chair:
Thank you very much, Mr St Amand. That gives us lots of time for
questions.
Mr St Amand:
Attached to this, on the last page, I have included a list of the
registered traplines that are directly impacted by the snowmobile
trails that pass through the Chapleau area. I also have a map
that clearly marks out the registered traplines in the Chapleau
district and the snowmobile trails that pass through them. If
anyone would care to have a look at it, I will leave it with the
committee; I was only able to get the one map from the MNR.
The Chair:
You are the first to offer such a visual aid. We appreciate
that.
As I say, there is lots of
time for questions. Since we don't have any representative from
the NDP here today, we'll split the time between the two parties.
This time we'll start with the Liberals.
Mr David Ramsay
(Timiskaming-Cochrane): I'd like to thank you very much,
Mr St Amand, for your presentation. Your industry has made us
well aware of the concerns of trappers, and you're right: at the
moment, I think there is a deficiency in the legislation that
does not recognize the historic presence of trappers in our bush
in northern Ontario and how, as we develop the trail network,
many of the trails that trappers had made to get to their lines
became incorporated into the trail network as the simplest and
easiest way to develop a network.
I think there's certainly
room here to accommodate you, and I don't think we would really
find any resistance with the people in the snowmobile industry. I
think that has to happen. Your member, Mike Brown, happens to be
the Liberal critic for this bill and he certainly shares your
concerns. I know he'll be moving amendments to this bill that
would recognize your industry. I just wanted to assure you of
that.
I don't see this as being
unfriendly to snowmobiling or the government. These would be
helpful amendments, and that's why we're out here early, just to
find out these deficiencies. So nothing is carved in stone.
Especially now, at this stage, the legislation is very flexible
and we're really here to get input and make it better, and your
advice makes it better. Thank you.
Mr Joseph Spina
(Brampton Centre): We appreciate your coming forward
with your position, Mr St Amand. I just want to clarify section 9
of the bill. It's really as a result of the input we received
from the fur harvesters' council and from some other
organizations as part of the original discussion paper, which we
sought feedback on. As a result of that feedback, there was a
section put into the bill which amends section 26 of the
Motorized Snow Vehicles Act. It says 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 regulations, and regulations may also be made general or
particular and different classes of persons may be identified for
exemptions from the act or regulations. So while it doesn't
specifically identify trappers-or anglers and hunters, because
the same position is taken by them-this clause in the bill does
allow for exemptions to be identified for certain users of the
trail system on a limited basis. I think that's really all the
trappers are worried about, that you have the access to the
system that you have now. There was never any intention to change
that.
Mr St Amand:
Will those changes be implemented in the act or in the
regulations that are going to follow the act?
Mr Spina:
The act is amended as it has been drafted for first reading. The
bill already has this section, which I just read to you, allowing
for classes of machines and classes of individuals. To
specifically identify those classes and individuals, that usually
comes in the regulations. I just wanted to clarify it.
Thank you for your input.
Mr Garfield Dunlop
(Simcoe North): It's a pleasure to hear your comments. I
have a question-and this has nothing to do with snowmobile
trails; it's on trapping licences. I just want to make sure I'm
clear on this. Are you telling me that trapping licences have
increased 400%? Four times as many people have taken out licences
since 1997?
Mr St Amand:
No, I'm saying the licence fee itself that's paid by the
individual trapper for the privilege to trap-
Mr Dunlop:
Oh, the fee has increased. I thought the number of licences
had.
Mr St Amand:
No, it is the fee that has increased. In addition to that, there
are a number of other fees that trappers must pay to belong to
the Ontario Fur Managers Federation, to belong to the North Bay
fur harvesters and also to belong to the Chapleau and Area
Trapper's Council. All these fees have to be paid by the
trapper.
Mr Dunlop:
I'm sorry; I wasn't clear on that.
Mr St Amand:
It's not as if trappers are making bundles of money at the
industry. Most of them are doing it out of tradition. They enjoy
it, they've been doing it for years and the fur market
fluctuations haven't really impacted on whether they're going to trap or not.
They trap. They're in the bush, and I think they provide a
valuable service.
The Chair:
No other questions?
Thank you very much, Mr St
Amand. We appreciate your taking the time to come all this way to
make your presentation before us today.
MIKE FARR
The Chair:
Our next presentation will be the Timiskaming Abitibi Trail
Association. Good morning. Welcome to the committee.
Mr Mike
Farr: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen and honourable
members of Parliament. My name is Mike Farr. I am president of
the Timiskaming Abitibi Trails Association, but I'm asking to
speak today not as president of that association but as a
volunteer, on behalf of the volunteers of the 14 other snowmobile
clubs in my district, which is district 14 of the OFSC. It runs
from New Liskeard to Timmins, actually up to Iroquois Falls and
down to Chapleau. We've even got Shining Tree and some other
spots a little bit to the south of us in the association.
As you are probably aware,
the 280-odd snowmobile clubs in the province are all
volunteer-driven, non-profit organizations that operate
snowmobile trail systems on the goodwill of private landowners.
The operation of those trail systems is solely funded by the
user-pay system that we currently have. The sale of OFSC trail
permits by each of the clubs is basically the only operating
revenue that those clubs have. No government, municipal or other
funding is available for any of the club operations for grooming
or maintaining trails.
Over the past 30 years, our
clubs have evolved from small pockets of local riders who have
formed small clubs and secured permission from private landowners
to build trails for their neighbours, their friends and their
families to enjoy. Those new snowmobile clubs relied totally on
the sale of local club memberships to raise enough money to cover
the cost. Dollars raised from the sale of those permits of course
were used only for developing and maintaining trails with the
volunteer component. In the early days, nobody was paid for
anything. The development and maintenance of these trails served
as a welcome outing and a hobby for the volunteers who gave their
time and, in many cases, their own money to subsidize fuel costs,
cost of repairs and the like and of preparing trail systems.
0920
In the early 1990s, as clubs
matured, most joined the Ontario Federation of Snowmobile Clubs
to effectively extend their own riding area for their own
members, as well as open up their own trails for members of other
clubs to enjoy. It was at that time the OFSC, recognizing the
inconsistent development levels between clubs, embarked on the
innovative partnership with the provincial government known as
Sno-TRAC. Sno-TRAC, the snowmobile trail rehabilitation and
construction program, was indeed a welcome opportunity for the
clubs to construct new trail, upgrade existing trail and upgrade
expensive grooming equipment.
Sno-TRAC, as great an
opportunity as it was, was somewhat overwhelming for the
volunteers of the clubs. Many dollars had to be raised to meet
matching funding requirements of this new program. The clubs took
on the challenge and in our own district alone were able to raise
more than $1 million locally to match dollars in the Sno-TRAC
program to make the infrastructure of the trail systems work.
With dollars committed, the clubs set out to build hundreds of
kilometres of new trail and upgrade hundreds of kilometres of
existing trail. Capital improvements over the next three years
would see approximately 15 new trail-grooming tractors and drags
and approximately 20 new bridges, anywhere from 20 to 80 feet
long, completed in this district alone. The next three years put
enormous pressure on the volunteers to complete their individual
projects and, for some clubs, even more years to get ahead of the
debt loads they had accumulated.
The commitment from the
Sno-TRAC program and the fruits of the efforts of the dedicated
volunteers have been felt in local economies throughout our
entire district. Economies that were predominantly dormant during
the winter months are now booming due to the influx of snowmobile
tourism.
Although businesses and
communities see the positive impact, unfortunately the volunteers
at the local snowmobile clubs are looked on to provide a better
and better snowmobile riding experience for the visitors. The
only revenue volunteers have to meet this responsibility is the
revenue generated from the sale of trail permits. Trail permit
revenue in this district represents approximately 50% of the
revenue needed to produce, sign and maintain the trails each
season. Club volunteers, private and corporate donations and
special fundraising events are relied upon to make up the
shortfalls.
As we enter the new
millennium, I'd like to congratulate Joe Spina and his task force
in the province for the excellent paper the committee has been
able to produce. It's obvious that Mr Spina has endeavoured to
capture the true picture of snowmobiling in Ontario and
specifically its pluses and its shortfalls.
The translation of the needs
of organized snowmobiling from the task force report to what's
been presented in the first draft of Bill 101, in my opinion, is
nothing less than a travesty. The implementation of the trail
permit system as depicted in the bill, under the total control of
the Ministry of Transportation within their current policies,
will be a huge step backwards for the sport of organized
snowmobiling.
When the volunteer clubs
asked the OFSC to try to secure mandatory permit legislation,
they were simply asking that the efforts of the volunteers and
the contributors to the trail systems were acknowledged and that
the users of the maintained trails were legally bound to
contribute to trail maintenance by purchasing a trail permit.
It's never been the intention of the snowmobile
clubs to be the sole user of the great outdoors in the
wintertime. Traditional users have, in many cases, provided the
routes on which snowmobile clubs have developed and maintained
trails. All of our clubs respect the rights of those traditional
users, whether it be access to a favourite fishing hole or
trapline or access for their business.
That being said, traditional
users most often are avid club members who enjoy the ability to
use a well-maintained trail to access their particular sport, and
in many cases gladly support the maintenance by buying a trail
permit. The volunteer component, combined with the goodwill of
private landowners, is absolutely critical to the continued
success of the snowmobile trail networks in this province.
Bill 101, as it's presently
drafted, takes away the control from the volunteers who
ultimately, without the control, will lose their motivation. This
loss of volunteer motivation will be nothing less than
catastrophic. It could ultimately destroy the success of the
snowmobile tourism industry in the province of Ontario.
Bill 101 is an opportunity to
truly unite many partners from private, municipal, corporate,
government and tourism avenues. Bill 101 needs to be looked at as
groundbreaking legislation and should not be forced to fit within
existing policies of provincial agencies where it cannot fit.
In closing, as a parts
manager at a GM dealership and a snowmobiler, I beg you to see
that Bill 101 is amended to protect the volunteer component of
the snowmobile clubs and the OFSC and not be allowed to kill the
sport of snowmobiling in Ontario. Thank you.
The Chair:
Again we have lots of time for questions. This time, I'm going to
start with the government. Mr Dunlop.
Mr Dunlop:
In the Timiskaming Abitibi Trail Association you've got 14 clubs
and you look after 3,300 kilometres.
Mr Farr:
That's right.
Mr Dunlop:
Roughly speaking, how many members would be volunteers and how
many members would that actually include? We've heard a lot about
volunteers over the last two days and their contributions to this
system. I'm just curious in this particular system.
Mr Farr: All
clubs are volunteer-driven. Their executive boards range anywhere
from six to 15 people who are volunteers, who work generally
through the year organizing and preparing for the winter season.
During the winter season, there could be as many as 20 people in
each individual club who put up signs, brush the trail. In many
cases, we still have volunteers who actually drive the groomers.
Trail groomers are large pieces of equipment. I'm sure most of
you are familiar with what they are: a 10-foot-wide farm tractor
with a big drag on the back, 45 feet long. These guys get into
these things. In my own club in the Tri-Town, I think the
shortest groomer run that we have takes about eight hours; the
longest is 14. We've got some clubs in this district and
surrounding districts that have 20-hour runs, where an operator
has to get in that piece of equipment, drive it 10 hours down
range and drive it 10 hours back.
Some of those clubs still
operate as volunteers. It's an incredible amount of volunteer
effort that goes into this.
Mr Dunlop:
Roughly 20 volunteers per club in 14 clubs, so about 280 people
would be the number of volunteers?
Mr Farr:
That would be accurate. Probably through the winter there are
special events, different things that involve 50, 60 or 70
volunteers in some of the larger clubs at any one time.
Mr Spina:
Mike, thanks for your comments about the work we had done-we
appreciate it-and thanks for coming forward today. I had a couple
of questions. First, I want to go back to Sno-TRAC. I think that
was around 1992?
Mr Farr:
Yes, 1991, 1992, 1993.
Mr Spina:
OK. You commented that the next three years put pressure on
volunteers to do the job and then more years to get ahead of the
debt loads they had accumulated. What's the current status now of
the clubs in your district in terms of that debt load? Is it
pretty well done or is there still some outstanding?
Mr Farr: I
think probably the Sno-TRAC debt load should be pretty well
covered. The Safe Smooth Trails program, the things that I've
learned to love and hate, have put the pressure back onto the
clubs again. I'd have to say that the clubs in this district, as
things have evolved in the last 10 years, are pretty broke.
They're constantly looking for additional avenues to try and meet
the funding requirements, to try and get the SST funding in
place. It's constant. It's an ongoing thing. I'd have to say that
basically if they had another five million bucks, they'd be in
better shape.
0930
Mr Spina:
Essentially these have been capital costs, expanding,
maintaining, building the trails, getting the groomers equipment
and so forth, but none of this has really gone toward operations.
That's still volunteer. Is that still why a lot of the clubs are
in a shortfall, because of the money they're spending in
operations that they don't have?
Mr Farr:
Actually, that's a very good point because the money that would
be budgeted by a club for grooming operations and possibly to pay
that groomer operator to go that 20-hour run is money that they
have used to do the capital project. Bridges and trails and
groomers obviously are very important things and they have to be
done. The money has to come from someplace, and if the only money
the club has coming in is from their permit revenue, then
unfortunately the operating money gets used for that and then the
volunteer component has to make up the slack.
Mr Spina:
Last question: you talked about the mandatory trail permit and
the autonomy that the federation and its clubs would like to
have. I'm asking a question here and I'm not trying to put you on
the spot, Mike. If you're not comfortable answering it, don't
worry about it. If mandatory trail permits were not adopted, what
alternatives would you
recommend or suggest be considered toward the sustainability of
the system?
Mr Farr:
Mandatory permits I think are not going to solve all of the
snowmobile clubs' problems. Mandatory permits are going to
provide recognition that the work of the volunteers and the clubs
is recognized provincially and that if you're on a trail you need
to have a permit. Basically, that's where mandatory permits come
from.
The amount of additional
revenue in our area or in our district that I can speak about:
between our clubs we feel that between 80% and 90% of the folks
that ride the trails in this district do in fact have a permit.
So the actual issue of mandatory permits isn't going to bring a
lot more dollars in.
There are funding issues in
the province that need to balance revenue maybe a little bit
better. The OFSC is currently working on a number of things with
that in mind, so I see some improvement coming there.
Dollars in the system:
provincially and in our district, 50% is probably the number of
dollars available to do the job, 50% of what's required. There's
considerable municipal and corporate sponsorship that clubs use.
I think that as time goes on we're going to have to find more
ways to get money into the system. Mandatory permits are going to
help but they're certainly not going to fix everything.
Mrs Marie
Bountrogianni (Hamilton Mountain): Good morning. Thank
you for your presentation. What is your opinion of the actual fee
recommendation, the actual amount, $150?
Mr Farr:
The $150 trail permit price that's set right now by the member
clubs of the OFSC-it's not set by the OFSC; it's actually set by
the clubs and the OFSC ties it together and makes it happen for
us. The $150 permit fee in the province right now is probably
underfunded by about 50%. If that fee was $200, we'd probably be
closer to what it actually costs to provide the trail systems.
Unfortunately, the market that we have in the world we live in
can't bear the permit price much higher than that. When you have
families with two or three snowmobiles and the economy the way it
is, the $150 price is probably as high as we'd like to see that
right now. But to answer your question, it's too small a number
to do the job.
Mrs
Bountrogianni: So again, it's the funding that's the
issue.
Mr Farr:
Funding is the issue.
Mrs
Bountrogianni: Another quick question: you talk about
retaining control and that the task force report-and I just took
a very brief look at it-was a lot different than what the
legislation shows as far as the actual action. How would you, if
you retained control, however, ensure that the distribution of
the funds is fairly done across the province? In other words,
right now if you get a permit from one club, I understand, you
can just get the permit there but then use it in many other
clubs. Therefore, the clubs whose trails you are actually using
don't get those funds. You're probably already doing it and I
just don't know, but how do you look at that?
Mr Farr:
The current system that the OFSC uses tries to make the best
distribution of the permit dollars, and through the development
funding programs and through some of the other programs of the
OFSC there is money turned indirectly back to a lot of the clubs
that have small permit bases and really are not in a position to
fund things on their own. But the OFSC is taking that further.
They've got some things coming forward at their meeting this fall
that will actually change the whole way that permit revenue is
dealt with in the province if the clubs adopt that way of going.
If that happens, permit dollar revenue should be able to be
balanced within the province so that all the clubs will have
access to the same kind of dollars. That will be a big
improvement. It won't fix everything either, but it will be a big
improvement.
Mr Ramsay:
Thanks, Mike, for your presentation. It's nice to see you. I was
a little concerned about your comments when you talked about the
MTO control. I think it's an interesting point because it seems
in the very opposite direction that this government usually tends
to go, that in this case the government wants to take control of
this away from a volunteer, community-based group, where we've
seen basically the philosophy of this government is to download
or transfer responsibilities to users, municipalities etc. I
guess the concern might be that if the MTO took this over, down
the road this responsibility may be transferred off to some third
party, like drivers' licences and that. I would like to hear a
little more what your sense is of what MTO taking this away is
going to do to the sense of ownership by the volunteers.
Mr Farr:
I'm not as familiar with the actual discussions that have taken
place with the OFSC task force and the members of the committee
and MTO. All I really can talk on is what I've been given to
understand. If the sale of permits, control of the permit price
basically goes under Ministry of Transportation control, then
it's going to be perceived by the volunteers of the clubs that
they are in fact volunteering for the provincial government. It's
also going to be perceived by the private landowners that they're
providing trails for the provincial government.
Obviously the volunteer
burnout issues are there all the time, and they always will be,
are critical, but the landowner issues are so sensitive, with
thousands and thousands, probably tens of thousands of landowners
in this province. Private landowners, who don't receive five
cents for providing their trails or their property for the
trails, all of a sudden are going to perceive that they're doing
this for the provincial government. I think attitudes are going
to change considerably and a lot of people are going to start
saying, "I don't want anything to do with that," and walk away.
It won't take very many folks walking away and it will all be
gone.
Mr Ramsay:
So basically the trail network, by and large, when it goes
through private land, is only there because of the relationship
between the local volunteers and their neighbours who own the
land, and it's that relationship that keeps it going, so it's a
very tenuous relationship. If this was disrupted by fee
permitting going to MTO,
then there is a dislocation of that relationship. Now it's
government and people rather than people in their neighbourhoods,
in their areas, working together. I understand that. I think
that's quite valid. I think there is maybe a lack of
understanding of how this all developed, and it's really
relationships on the ground, literally.
Mr Farr:
It is, the whole thing. The OFSC, as great an organization as it
is, is only as good as the volunteers and the one landowner at
the very grassroots level, and that's what we have to protect. By
turning control of the permitting over to the Ministry of
Transportation we've essentially taken the control away from that
volunteer and that private landowner.
The Chair:
Thank you very much for taking the time to come before us here
today. We appreciate your comments.
0940
LUMLEY MARKETING AND LEISURE EVENTS
The Chair:
Our next presentation will be by Lumley Marketing and Leisure
Events Ltd. Good morning and welcome to the committee. You have
20 minutes for your presentation.
Mr Don
Lumley: Good morning. I'm sure everybody has a copy of
my presentation. I'll start off with the first sheet, which is
really a profile sheet to establish my credentials so everybody
knows where I'm coming from when I talk.
Presently I'm president of
the Canadian Snowmobile Hall of Fame and Museum, which is a
federally incorporated body. We're working on a project in the
Sudbury area to build a museum and hall of fame. I spent three
years as president of the Canadian Council of Snowmobile
Organizations, during which time I spent two years as chairman of
the International Snowmobile Council which oversees both the
Canadian council and the American council and represents 27
states and the 12 Canadian members. I'm just going to highlight a
couple of the items; I'm not going through the whole thing-three
years as president of the OFSC, and that was from 1992 to 1995,
when Sno-TRAC occurred. I was also the founding president of the
Northern Ontario Snowmobile Association, which was probably the
lead agency that got most of northern Ontario going from 1990 to
1992. Then I was also the founding president of the Sudbury Trail
Plan Association for five years. Back when Sno-TRAC was just
forming, I was a voluntary team member of the consulting firm
that developed the northern Ontario snowmobile development
strategy that led to Sno-TRAC.
I'll start with the sheet
that you wanted up front, which is a summary of conclusions and
recommendations, and then I'll do the justifications after
that.
First of all, Bill 101 is a
good bill. The enforcement changes and a mandatory trail permit
are positive enhancements to snowmobiling and are most welcome.
More dollars are needed on an ongoing basis from an operational
perspective to sustain and enhance the Ontario snowmobile trail
system. It was asked, "What else could be done?" I've mentioned
that a provincial snowmobile registration rebate should be
considered. That happens in other provinces.
Legislated mandatory OFSC
trail permits will be good for snowmobiling in Ontario, but any
legislated mandatory trail permit must be administered by the
OFSC and its member snowmobile clubs to retain its effectiveness.
Snowmobiling in Ontario must continue to be administered and
maintained by the dedicated snowmobile volunteers to sustain the
existing high standards. All revenues generated from the sale of
mandatory trail permits must remain with the not-for-profit
snowmobile organizations to be reinvested back into the product
as they see best. They are the trail experts.
Mandatory trail permits
will require more enforcement authority than at present. Police,
STOP officers and properly trained OFSC trail wardens should all
be empowered to enforce the act. When we get into questions, if
somebody wants to ask about the Quebec system, I can relate to
that.
Any transfer of authority
or responsibility for the trail permit and trail product will
adversely affect the quality of the trails and therefore would
jeopardize the relatively high level of safety that we currently
have on trails. People might question that, but it has been
proven. I guess the most classic example is the recent government
funding of SST, Safe Smooth Trails. There is a direct
relationship there. Any depreciation of trail quality will also
lead to a reduction in the total number of snowmobilers who
participate in this lucrative recreation-fewer riders, less
money.
Just very briefly on the
company that I have formed-and actually I'm talking here both as
the president of my own consulting company and probably as one of
the most active snowmobilers in the province-some of the work
projects include contracting as a snowmobile consultant. My
client base stretches from coast to coast and includes some of
the snowmobile manufacturers and some international snowmobile
after-market manufacturing companies. I've worked for some of the
other provincial snowmobile federations and clubs and also
consulted with other government agencies.
From a personal
perspective, I've snowmobiled for over 32 years, with well over
250,000 kilometres of riding experience in all forms of the
sport, mostly long-distance touring. I have done the racing scene
and do mountain riding out on the west coast. I've snowmobiled in
every province of Canada and the Yukon. There are only two
territories I've missed so far. I organized and led the first
snowmobile trek across Canada, from Newfoundland to BC in 1998,
with a group of 16 riders. I've snowmobiled in eight of the US
states, which include their largest snowmobile destination areas:
Michigan, Wisconsin and Minnesota. In any given year, I have
probably put on four to five times the provincial average of
kilometres ridden.
For a North American
snowmobile overview, snow-mobiling in North America has one of
the largest and most
dedicated group of volunteers you'll ever come across. I've
always related to the fact that what we do occurs over about a
two-to-three-month period, where in Canada alone there are over
100,000 kilometres of trails that are laid out and put away for
the summer. That's not a true reflection, because the work does
go on for 12 months of the year.
In the US there are 27
states that have organized snowmobiling, with about 2,400
snowmobile clubs. In most of these states snowmobiling is either
administered by the government or is some form of partnership
with their volunteer organization. While the total ridership of
the snowmobile states is much larger than in Canada, the total
number of federation or club memberships is significantly lower,
proportionately, than what we have here: about 70% less, which
leaves them with less volunteer assistance to draw on. The reason
is snowmobiling is looked at as a recreation owned and provided
for by their governments.
In Canada, there are about
920 snowmobile clubs, on average, every year, with about 275,000
user-pay members. In every province and territory, snowmobiling
is administered by a volunteer organizational structure, much the
same as what the OFSC has in Ontario. Only one province,
Manitoba, has a true legislated mandatory trail permit.
Manitoba's federation,
which is called SnoMan, is entering into its seventh year of
operation with a mandatory trail pass. Currently, about 90% of
the province's snowmobile trails are designated as Sno Fund
trails. The other 10% and some secondary, independent club
networks are covered under local membership fees. Retail of the
trail pass is still administered by the federation, with local
clubs turning all money back into the federation, which then
turns it in to the government for redistribution back to the
clubs, but that does not occur until the following year. This
formula redistribution caused a limited amount of hardship for
some of their clubs during the first year of implementation
because it left them with no trail pass revenue for that season.
The only reason that Manitoba was able to implement the process
was because most of the clubs were in their infancy at that time
and trail pass revenue was not a major funding source for the
clubs. There are about 18,000 registered snowmobiles in Manitoba
and SnoMan sold approximately 10,000 trail passes this past year,
of which only 4,000 became club members; 6,000, or 60%, of those
people just paid the required fee and went snowmobiling.
I've listed what I consider
the top three quality snowmobile trail systems in the world, and
many people would agree with me. Some might disagree on the order
of them, but I've listed them as Quebec, Ontario and New
Brunswick. There are no state trail systems that are in this top
three, and most of this is the perspective from either Americans
who ride in Canada or Canadians who have ridden in the States,
the reasons being: our self-administered, dedicated
volunteer-based system; our pride of ownership of our trail
product quality; our greater number of user-pay members to draw
on who become club volunteers because of the peer ownership of
the trails; all revenues generated through the user-pay funding
are returned back into the product; snowmobile volunteers
generate the extra revenues required, sometimes up to 50%, to
maintain the trail system; and government can't compete with a
non-paid, volunteer private sector.
Specific to Bill 101, it's
described as An Act to promote snowmobile trail sustainability
and enhance safety and enforcement. The latter part of it, "to
enhance safety and enforcement," it certainly does, and does it
well. The first part, "to promote trail sustainability," is a
move in the right direction but it still doesn't cover enough.
I'm more concerned with some of the things that are not in the
bill that I'm hearing about.
There's no question that a
legislated mandatory trail permit required on all OFSC trails
will assist the federation and its member clubs to generate more
base revenue. The grey areas of whether or not a trail permit is
legally required in some areas would be eliminated, leaving only
the understanding that if I'm snowmobiling on an official OFSC
trail, then I must pay for that right and have a permit. Any
recognized traditional trail user exemption is a given on this. I
think most of the speakers you'll hear from will state that as
well.
0950
But implementation must be
done right and for the betterment of snowmobiling in Ontario. We
have a golden opportunity here to offer to the whole world of
snowmobiling an example of government and volunteer partnering
that defines and addresses the needs of the sustainability of a
lucrative, economically beneficial recreation.
Ownership and
responsibility for the sport of snowmobiling must remain with the
dedicated, hard-working volunteers who have built and fine-tuned
the system over the past 40 years. You'll probably hear 30 years
from a lot of other people, 30 years being the existence of the
OFSC, but in reality, for almost 10 years prior to that there
were clubs forming snowmobile trail systems throughout
Ontario.
The control of the trails,
the trail permits and the revenue generated from the sale of the
trail permits must be retained by the OFSC and its member clubs.
To remove any of this from club control would threaten the entire
operation of snowmobiling in Ontario. A recent member research
study, conducted by an outside consultant for the OFSC, revealed
that 88% of snowmobilers are most satisfied with the ease of
purchasing trail permits that is now offered to them. This was
the highest-ranked item of satisfaction of the eight items that
were queried under this section of the study.
Currently, 100% of the
revenue generated from the sale of trail permits remains with the
selling club or the OFSC. The money goes back entirely into the
trail product in the form of trail enhancements, trail equipment
acquisition, insurance coverage etc. A very small portion is used
for administration and marketing. Unfortunately, as efficient and
effective as the volunteers are, the permit revenue source does not cover
the full cost of operation. In some cases, there's a shortfall
amounting to upwards of 50% of the cost of doing business. Where
does this shortfall get made up? Again, it is from the club
volunteers who fundraise the extra dollars and supply free labour
to build, groom and maintain the trails. The snowmobile market
could not bear the full cost of the product at this time, nor
will they be able to do so in the future. Snowmobiling will
always require a significant amount of volunteer input to remain
successful, and the government should do all in its power to
assist these goals.
The snowmobile clubs of
Ontario must also retain the right to set the price and structure
format for trail permits as it currently exists. They are the
only ones close to the retail base who can determine what the
customer will be willing to pay. This has proven successful over
the years.
Bill 101 does not spell out
that snowmobiling is dependent on organized volunteerism, nor
does it protect their right to the funding source from the sale
of trail permits. It can be said that this could be established
under a memorandum of understanding, but that in itself does not
secure those rights for the OFSC and clubs. If any other body
were to be granted the right to sell or administer the trail
permits, the following could happen: snowmobile trails would be
seen as government-run. There would be less volunteer commitment.
There would be no incentive for the clubs to generate the
required extra funding. Overall, there would be less dollars
going back into the snowmobile product, which would then create a
Catch-22 situation, resulting in less ridership, ie, permits, and
less economic generation, along with trail product
deterioration.
Bill 101, as far as
enforcement goes, as previously mentioned, does a very good job
of addressing the safety and environmental enforcement concerns
of snowmobiling. I do, however, have two issues to address along
those lines.
The first one is that
mandatory trail permit enforcement will require much more
manpower than already exists and is committed to the cause at
this time. Bill 101 should include agents of the police such as
STOP officers and properly trained OFSC trail wardens to assist
with the additional workload. This would result in a most
cost-effective use of enforcement manpower and is the only way to
achieve the success needed to ensure compliance.
The other concern relates
to complementary amendment number 11, where the owner of a
snowmobile can "be held liable to the fine provided under this
act." I realize that happens under our Highway Traffic Act, but
my concern here is how this could adversely affect the snowmobile
rental business whereby an owner would be held liable for 20 or
so snowmobiles not under his care and control. In Ontario, our
snowmobile rental business is, at best, fragile and
underdeveloped, and Bill 101 should not make any conditions which
make this worse than they already are. Just as an example, in
Quebec every year there are over 3,000 rental units that go out
and generate economic revenue. In Ontario, we have estimated
there are about 400. There is a significant difference, yet the
demographics are very similar.
In conclusion, there's
never been anything in Ontario, or anywhere else for that matter,
that can compare to the province-wide economic success of a
"business" like snowmobiling that has been developed, enhanced
and maintained for almost 40 years and that is totally run and
funded by volunteer efforts. The amount of economic wealth that
is shared over almost the whole province and by so many varied
businesses is unprecedented. These same dedicated volunteers are
the real trail-building experts and the only force capable of
continuing to deliver the world-class trail product required to
sustain this lucrative business of snowmobiling in Ontario.
The government of Ontario
has been an enviable partner of snowmobiling throughout the years
and has wisely invested in its development. The financial return
has been also been very significant in the form of government
revenues from taxes-ie, sales, gas, income, hospitality taxes-and
without much effort and manpower to date. One would have to
question the logic of the government getting more involved in the
administration of snowmobiling and committing more government
resources with no increase in profits. This would also set a very
bad precedent for other user groups of volunteers in the
province.
There's no question in my
mind that the continued success of snowmobiling in Ontario is
totally dependent on a strong partnership between the OFSC and
the Ontario government along the lines that have occurred in the
past. Thank you for your consideration and time.
The Chair:
Thank you, Mr Lumley. You timed your 20 minutes almost perfectly,
almost to the second. We do appreciate very much you taking your
time and certainly some of your experience, bringing your views
before our committee here today.
NORTHERN CORRIDOR DU NORD SNOWMOBILE ASSOCIATION,
DISTRICT 15
The Chair:
Our next presentation will be from the Northern Corridor du Nord
Snowmobile Association, district 15. Welcome to the
committee.
Mr Dominique
Perras: Good morning. I am Dominique Perras, president
of the Northern Corridor du Nord, which is an organization that
represents nine clubs in the OFSC district 15. I am also a
volunteer at the club level in my jurisdiction and, more
importantly, I am an avid snowmobiler.
Throughout the province of
Ontario, as you probably all know, our association is in favour
of mandatory permits. We have been talking about that for many
years. I would like to thank the government for their interest in
this issue. I would also like to thank the organizers of this
hearing committee for giving us the opportunity to talk in front
of you about the pros and cons our organization has on these
matters.
Most of the clubs, members of our association, have
been participating for the benefit of snowmobiling in our region.
For the past 30 years, volunteers have made the trails, organized
fundraisers to gather enough money to maintain the trails and,
more specifically, promoted snowmobiling throughout the province
of Ontario.
Let me tell you that those
volunteers are proud of what they have accomplished. There are
281 snowmobile clubs in Ontario. However, it would be very hard
to come up with the number of volunteers in Ontario who work at
keeping this system of trails in place since there are so many.
It is all these clubs that have created the OFSC, a group of
volunteers who work together toward a common objective: to
promote snowmobiling as a safe and smooth ride.
In those years,
snowmobiling was more likely a local riding experience, riding
within a 10-to-15-kilometre radius. Since the improvement of the
sleds by manufacturers and the more comfortable riding on the
trails, it has become a province-wide activity. It's not rare to
meet people on the trails in northern Ontario who come from
Ottawa, Toronto, Michigan, Minnesota and also from Quebec and
Manitoba.
1000
This is why mandatory
permits have become necessary, so that volunteers can have some
help to maintain the trails and enforce laws for a smoother and
safer ride. After all, without the considerable expense and
efforts made by the OFSC and its volunteers, snowmobiling trails
would not exist in Ontario.
All we want is fair
treatment, and we think that all snowmobilers who use the trails
should contribute to the cost of upkeep. It is definitely not our
intention to let go of our trails, to give them up so they are
administered by a different body than the OFSC. As I said a while
ago, we are proud of what we have accomplished.
It is not our intention to
walk away from our trails. What we want is a partnership with the
government to help us raise enough money to maintain and groom
the 49,000 kilometres of trail in Ontario.
The main reason for
mandatory permits is to give a chance to every snowmobiler in
this province to participate in the upkeep of those trails. Our
club association is already putting $20 million a year toward
these trails. This money is raised through the sale of OFSC trail
permits.
We certainly do not want to
put a barrier on other groups such as trappers, Hydro workers or
government employees who have to use the trails to make a living
or to upkeep facilities that are necessary for the betterment of
the population in general. However, if these people are going to
use our groomed trails, we think they should participate in the
cost of maintaining our trails. Those workers will enjoy the
privilege of using better, safer, smoother, faster trails while
performing their jobs.
In conclusion, I would like
to add that if we do not have the support from our local,
provincial and federal governments in a partnership of some kind,
it will become very hard to continue the task of maintaining the
trail system. I wish to emphasize that if permits become
mandatory under legislation, then the management of such an
endeavour should be given to our association, the OFSC. We have
already proven that we have the expertise, the experience and the
willingness to do so. I doubt that volunteers will join the
government to maintain our trail system.
As for the tourists who
ride our trails, we can only ask them to participate if we have
the support of the government. If the government enters in a
partnership with the OFSC, it will help to maintain better trails
that will be safer, smoother and enjoyed by everybody.
I would like to thank you
again for listening to my presentation, and I hope you will
consider all I have said, hoping to have favourable news
soon.
The Chair:
Thank you very much for your comments, Mr Perras. You have
certainly left us some time for questions, and this time the
questioning will commence with the Liberals.
Mr Ramsay:
Mr Perras, it's nice to see you again and thank you for your
presentation.
Your presentation reflects
a theme we're starting to develop here this morning, and that is
the sense that while we need the government to come in to ensure
we have mandatory trail permits so that we have a good income
stream generated by the users, it's important that the government
recognize that this still is a voluntary system and that they
shouldn't take this away from the volunteers.
I take it from your
presentation that this is a bit of your fear, that maybe this
legislation goes too far. Is it that the MTO would take over the
permitting, collecting the fees and issuing the permits that
concerns you, that that part of the money coming in distances
itself from the volunteer base and the perception will be that
it's just a sort of government network, like a highway system,
and why should we as volunteers be part of this? Is that the
concern?
Mr Perras:
Yes, that's really what it is. All those volunteers have been
working for many years, as I mentioned in my presentation, and
they still want to be involved. But we'd like some help from the
government, say, in the form of mandatory permits, to help us
maintain these trails and sometimes make these trails more
enjoyable for people, to make them easier to make in the fall and
all that. We need some money to do that, and we have to get that
money somewhere.
Mr Ramsay:
I was heartened by comments that Mike Farr made earlier, hinting
that basically the federation was even going to adopt a greater
sense of sharing of the permits among the clubs across the
province at their convention this fall. I know that's a real
problem, especially for areas like yours, where you have a large
trail network and a very modest number of volunteers and members.
In comparison, a club in Barrie would not have that much of a
trail network and yet a lot of members. And, of course, a lot of
those people use your trails up there.
I'm glad the federation has recognized there has to
be a greater redistribution of the money, so that where most of
the ridership takes place, which is in northern Ontario because
of climatic conditions and because of the vast geography here and
the number of kilometres of trails, we need to have more money up
here. I think the federation is really starting to recognize that
and is going to do that. But I think the theme consistently has
been that still more money is needed, and I was wondering if the
government or our research has figures on the tax revenue that
snowmobiling provides the government. As Mr Lumley stated
previously-and we did have numbers there for gas, hospitality and
sales. He also mentioned income. Maybe that would be hard to
break out, but I wonder if we have that or if research can get
that, because I think there's obviously a pot of money there that
this industry generates that really, like any other industry,
should be reinvested to ensure sustainability. I think that's
important.
Do you think there's more
money needed in the system as a whole?
Mr Perras:
Yes, there is more money needed. I didn't mention what
snowmobiling in Ontario is generating for the province. I didn't
talk about it at all, but this has been said many times, as far
as I know anyway. I think there is more money needed. I know that
the OFSC is trying to redistribute the money in better ways.
Sometimes it does take time to come up with the best formula in
the world, or in the province, to share the amount of money that
is there.
Since there are quite a lot
of snowmobilers who do ride our trails without a permit of any
kind, all these volunteers want is somebody to enforce the law,
that if it does become mandatory, well, there will be somebody to
enforce the law and all that.
The Chair:
Mr Dunlop.
Mr Dunlop:
I have a couple of quick comments. I notice on page 4 of your
presentation that you mention possible support from the federal
government. I was curious, following Mr Ramsay's comments here as
well, that there are revenues generated by the province, but
there are a lot of revenues generated that go toward the federal
government as well.
Have you got any further
comments on that? It was a question I might have liked to ask Mr
Lumley earlier. He had a lot of interest in the Canadian trail
system, and of course we do have a system that goes right across
the country. But, seeing that the federal government puts nothing
into our Trans-Canada Highway system, do you see a role in this
case for the federal government to put anything into the
snowmobile system?
Mr Perras:
Yes, I do see a role for the federal government too, and it's
already in there. We are organizing our district now with
coordinators, especially in the north, and the federal government
is helping in a way. We had some grants from the feds to do
things that needed to be done, and I think the federal government
should get involved, because they're making a lot of money out of
that too. It's generating money for the federal, the provincial
and the local governments and, I guess, for businesses. All the
businesses have been asked to contribute, but we're asking
everybody to contribute-the riders too, and the federal
government.
1010
Mr Spina :
Merci, Dominique. I'm glad you spoke English because je parle
français mal, moi.
M. Perras
: Moi, je ne parle pas beaucoup d'anglais, mais je suis
capable de me débrouiller.
Mr Spina:
That's the limit of my French.
Dominique, you mentioned
about how you endorse or would like to have the mandatory trail
permit but the concern is that if the province sets the fee, we
would alienate the volunteers. What I'd like to do right now is
clarify how the fee structure is set. Right now, within the
federation, the fee is set at the annual general meeting-tell me
if I'm wrong here. It's a proposed fee, I guess by the governors,
and then the delegates from the 280 clubs vote on whether or not
that fee is acceptable. So the fee is actually set by the
federation and its member clubs. Is that correct?
Mr Perras:
Correct. You're right.
Mr Spina:
In the bill, it states that the minister will set the trail
permit fee. Is this where the concern is, that if that wording
remains, the volunteers will feel as if the power has been
removed from the clubs to decide on the fees?
Mr Perras:
I know there are a lot of people in Ontario stating that this fee
is way too high, to ride a snowmobile for from one week to 15
weeks, maybe, in our part of the country. But because of people
saying that, if the government decides to have Bill 101 go
through and they decide that they'll charge half the price we
have now, that means we're going to have maybe three quarters
less money to maintain the trails. It is going to be impossible,
because we'll have to go through more fundraisers, and there's a
limit to fundraising. At my club level-I will call that a
parish-it's 300 to 500 persons, so it's impossible to gather
enough money to do that. We need that money. Most of those
volunteers have been following the OFSC since the start and we
have come up with that price because it was necessary, and we
wouldn't want to see it any higher, because it's quite high right
now. But I think the government, before putting a price on the
permit, should consult with the OFSC, because they have the
expertise and they've been there for quite a while and they've
been running the show. We've accomplished a lot, as I told you a
while ago.
Mr Spina:
If a structure was created where the OFSC would still use that
process to set the fee through votes of its delegate members at
its annual general meeting as it is now, but the only difference
would be that that fee would have to be approved by the minister,
would that be acceptable to the membership, do you think? In
other words, the OFSC does the same thing it does now except that
the fee has to be either accepted or rejected by the minister;
but the minister wouldn't say, "This is the dollar amount." The
minister would essentially either accept it or, if they didn't
accept it, make a recommendation that you should come up with a different
figure, and why. Would that be more acceptable to the
membership?
Mr Perras:
It's pretty hard to answer your question now, because I think
there are many clubs along the trail that need that money, and
more of that money. I know David mentioned a while ago that the
OFSC is going to redistribute that money to the best of its
ability, but the government will still have to consult the OFSC
to make sure we're going the same way, that we're attacking the
same problem.
Mr Spina:
No, I understand. Thank you.
The other element, I guess,
that has been under discussion regarding this concept is the
issue of accountability, because the Ministry of Transportation
is concerned-and it's very similar to the concern that the
federation and the district clubs have stated so far in the last
couple of days that we've been out, and this morning-that if the
ministry sets the fee, as is currently indicated in the bill,
even if it's in consultation or at the recommendation of the
OFSC, being the representative body of the sport in the province
purely because of its size, the province and the ministry would
also like to have better accountability to the province, so it
knows how the money and the revenues are being spent. Would that
be an imposition on the federation? The minister would not only
approve the fee set by the members at their AGM, but would also
expect some accountability reporting to the minister of how the
revenues are distributed to the clubs.
Mr Perras:
I guess-not I guess; I'm sure-that no club in the province of
Ontario is afraid, as far as I know, anyway, of telling the
government what they have done with the money they got from OFSC
trail permits. It has been spent on the trails and there have
been fundraisers over fundraisers to put some more on top of the
trail permit sales to maintain the trails and to make the trails
easier for years to come, to be easier next year, and working on
the trails all the time. I know the government has given $10
million twice, now, for trails. That was for infrastructure. But
if the clubs weren't accountable, they would never have put their
share in. Every club that brought a groomer in those years had to
put in 50%; they got it somewhere.
Mr Spina:
Is that our time?
The Chair:
Yes, it is.
M. Spina :
Merci, Dominique.
Mr Perras:
Thank you.
Le Président
: Merci, Monsieur Perras. Nous vous remercions pour
votre présentation.
KIRKLAND LAKE AND DISTRICT TRAPPERS COUNCIL
The Chair:
That takes us to our next presentation, the Kirkland Lake and
District Trappers Council. Good morning and welcome to the
committee.
Mr Glenn
Harman: Good morning, Chairperson and fellow committee
members. Hi. My name is Glenn Harman. I am the president of the
Kirkland Lake and District Trappers Council. I will also be
representing and speaking on behalf of the 80 or so trappers from
our district who have the same concerns that I have.
I am here today to voice my
concern over the pending legislation, Bill 101.
How can the government
legislate the use of the snowmobile trails that were
traditionally used by trappers, fishermen, hunters, the forest
industry and prospectors at no cost? Some of these trails were
used long ago by trappers, before the snowmobile was invented.
When the trappers started to use snow machines on their
traplines, they widened the trails that they used to snowshoe or
use with dog teams. Now, along comes a snow machine club. They
widen the trails the size of highways through the bush where our
trails once were, then they groom the trails with a land use
permit which they obtained from the Ministry of Natural
Resources, and say the trails now belong to them. When they
obtained the land use permit, the MNR did not consult with the
trappers to see if it was OK if the Ski-Doo clubs took over these
trails. We were told by the MNR it was a good thing that the club
would allow us to use the trails at no cost and they would even
widen and groom our trails. Now we've got hundreds and even
thousands of snow machines riding on our trails daily. It has
become very dangerous out there on our trails. The snow machines
have scared our wildlife away with their noise and excessive
speeds over 50 kilometres an hour.
1020
Why should the trapper pay
to use his original trails? We know that it is expensive to
operate and maintain the groomers, but it is not the trapper who
needs the trail grooms. The trapper is not the one who wants to
speed down the trails; it's the people who drive these very
expensive machines. Let them pay. Go after the recreational and
tourist outfitters and the Ski-Doo rentals and Ski-Doo club
members who use these trails for pleasure. Don't put the burden
on the trapper. It is hard enough now to make a living. The
trapper only uses the trails to go to his lines and to get around
on his grounds. Most times these were his traditional trails in
the first place. So why make us pay when we are only trying to
make a living and keep a healthy wildlife population?
I have a few questions: Why
should the trapper have to pay for the use of his own original
trail? Who gave the MNR the right to give up our trails as a land
use permit? Who's going to police the trails so when members
stray off the trails and use our trails, who will pay us? The
club? Why is it such a good deal for the trapper? Now we will
have to pay to use our original trails.
I have spoken to private
landowners whose private property the trails cross and they say
that if trappers have to pay, they will not allow the Ski-Doo
trails to cross their private property. Will the government
legislate private landowners to keep the trails open? This would
cause the Ski-Doo clubs to create more new trails, and it won't
be easily done the next time.
In conclusion, please take the time and answer
these questions truthfully and not politically. Remember, if Bill
101 goes through, it will cost trappers more money but it will
hurt the snowmobile clubs and northern Ontario tourist outfitters
even more. Thank you.
The Chair:
That leaves us lots of time for questions. This time it will
commence with the government.
Mr Spina:
Glenn, thank you very much for coming forward. You have a very
clear and succinct presentation in asking your questions. They're
very good questions.
I don't know if you were
here earlier when I made a comment that there was a clause in the
act as a result of the input from the trappers and also from the
anglers and hunters. We added section 9 to the bill, which amends
section 26 of the Motorized Snow Vehicles Act. It says that
regulation-making power is provided for authority to create
classes of motorized snow vehicles and 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 regulations.
In summary, almost in
answer to all six questions, it was never the intention of the
government to impose trail permit fees on current people who
don't pay the fee for traditional uses. Right now, as you know,
you have exemptions under the constitution of the OFSC, through
their member clubs. You don't pay to use their trails. It would
be our intention, if this portion of the bill goes through, that
that would remain intact. In fact, it would even protect the
trappers more because now that protection would be set in
legislation and in regulation. It would be clearly outlined
within the law. Right now, it's a nice, convenient agreement
between the trappers and the federation. But what I'm saying is
that it would now be in paper, in government law, and in my
opinion that would be even a better protection for the
trappers.
Mr Harman:
I was talking to MNR just the other day, and this bill was going
to definitely say that the trappers were going to be exempt. I
think they were looking at doing their own proposal. That's why,
if we don't voice our concerns, we'll end up paying.
Mr Spina:
That's why we appreciate your input. Thank you, Glenn.
Mr Dunlop:
I just want to make it fairly clear that the intent of the bill,
too, is to increase safety on the trails of our province. You
made one statement in your presentation that said that it has
become very dangerous out there and scared all the wildlife away.
That was the second part of my question. Do you see a loss of
wildlife because of the trails?
Mr Harman:
Definitely. Lynx do not like the high-pitched sounds of screaming
snow machines, so they've moved off the areas where the trails go
through. On one of my grounds, the trail splits my ground three
ways. For the last few years, I have seen no lynx in that area. I
firmly believe it's because of noise. Excess speeds-my machine
goes about 50 kilometres an hour. I'm being passed on curves; I'm
being passed on every straightaway. Every sharp curve you come to
on the trail, you see where snow machines have ditched because of
high speeds. I talked to the OPP, and they police the trail
Monday to Friday from 8 in the morning until 4 in the afternoon.
Well, excuse me, that's not when the traffic is. It's after
school and on the weekends. It's dangerous to be out there.
Fortunately, you guys haven't been reported as many accidents as
happened on those trails because of excess speeds. I don't know
if it's the Ski-Doo club trails or the snow machine manufacturers
that are making these 900cc machines that are only supposed to go
50 kilometres an hour on the trails. Where's the reasoning?
Mr Dunlop:
I think the snowmobile clubs and the province-everybody wants to
see them safe. I don't think there's anybody that's promoting
dangerousness in the sport whatsoever. I know that the wardens
are doing their best. I just want to make sure that the
snowmobile clubs or the OFSC realize here today that we've had
that type of comment about public safety being a problem on the
trails.
Mr Harman:
In my years of experience on the trails, I haven't seen a warden
out there yet. Mind you, I don't go out on the weekends because
it's too dangerous.
Mrs
Bountrogianni: Mr Harman, thanks for your presentation.
It was very succinct and clear. I wonder if you know what is the
percentage of your membership at the Kirkland Lake and District
Trappers Council that also holds permits with the snowmobile
club. Do you have any idea?
Mr Harman:
No, I have no idea. The point of view of most trappers is, if
they're out there for pleasure, they have a membership. If
they're using it for trapping, they figure they don't require
one. In talking to most of the members, I've never asked them
directly how many had membership, but they say, "If we are out
there for the pleasure, we expect to have a permit," and I fully
agree with that.
Mr Ramsay:
Thanks, Glenn, for your presence here, coming up from Kirkland
Lake.
When I came in I saw that
Mr Spina was giving the same answer to you as the representative
from the Chapleau trappers about your concerns of trappers being
able to use the trail system for their work and their business.
The concern I have, and as an opposition party we have, is that
his answer is, "The legislation permits a regulation that can be
put in afterwards to take care of all your concerns." The trouble
I have with that is that I have to trust the goodwill of the
government and Mr Spina that they might do that, though we have
to trust them to do that. The thing is that any time in the
future, this government or a future government could take that
away by regulation also.
We will be moving some
amendments that will protect trappers in the legislation. I want
to see that in the legislation so that we don't just have to go
on trust. I know Mr Spina has a good sense of this industry; he's
done a lot of work on it with his white paper. But somewhere down
the road people may forget why trappers had to have an exemption
from permits. With a future government-and it could be done at
the bureaucratic level-a regulation can just be taken away. So we need to make sure
that's there.
I want to let you know that
Mike Brown, the member from Algoma, who is our critic here, is
going to move some amendments that will protect the rights of
trappers. So that would be in the legislation.
1030
Mr Harman:
It's too bad we have to get legislation put into effect for
something we used to do traditionally free of charge.
Unfortunately, our government has to look at legislation to give
us a right we've had all our lives and now we have to have that
right legislated. It's pretty sad to see, from my point of
view.
Mr Ramsay:
I understand where you're coming from. I guess what's happened
is, like everything else in society but particularly here, this
industry, snowmobiling, has now moved from being a hobby
primarily pursued at a local level to a transnational industry.
It has now become a big part of our economy, and it's an industry
rather than just a hobby. Meanwhile, your traditional work has
been overtaken by all this.
We need to come to grips
with the complications of managing a secondary highway system,
which this is. This has basically become a winter highway system
in the province, rather than a series of local trails. I want to
make sure, as we try to control that and make sure we keep that
up and support our volunteers, that people in traditional
industries, such as yours, are protected.
I understand what you mean.
It's sad that we have to do that. But because of the way this has
developed, I guess if we don't get some control on this, people
like yourself are going to lose your rights. I want to make sure
your rights are in this bill so that they will be protected
forever in perpetuity. We're going to be fighting for that, and I
hope the government listens.
The Chair:
Mr Harmann, I have a quick question. We haven't heard in the
presentations from trappers to date whether they normally would
tow their rig in a trailer behind their snowmobile, or can you
carry most of your equipment right on the snowmobile itself?
Mr Harman:
That's up to the individual trapper. I don't like to have a
sleigh, because if I get on lakes with slush there is more chance
of getting bogged down. But I know other trappers who do use a
sleigh. It's the trapper's individual thing. It depends how far
he's going on his trapline, if he can carry enough just on the
Ski-Doo itself or he may require a sleigh.
The Chair:
The reason I ask is, yesterday in Thunder Bay we had a suggestion
that there would be an easy way, without a sticker, to tell an
ice fisherman or a trapper from a recreational user, because they
would always have a five-foot ice auger or some other supply of
equipment, either on their machine or behind their machine. I
wonder if you want to comment on that. Could a warden easily
distinguish you from a recreational user because of the amount of
gear you'd have on your snowmobile?
Mr Harman:
I don't think most trappers drive around with those expensive
snow machines. They're usually scratched up and banged up.
They're a working machine. They're not out there for speed. Mind
you, it would be nice to have some of those machines, but as
trappers we can't afford it. For one thing, we're usually by
ourselves. Just the gear we're wearing-we're not out with these
fancy Ski-Doo suits and stuff. We're usually in more bush-type
gear. There's no way to identify us just by looking at us. I
don't think most trappers would mind being stopped by a warden
and saying, "Yes, I'm a trapper." I don't feel they would have a
problem identifying themselves as trappers. Usually they have
some equipment on, but who knows? He may just be out checking his
land.
The Chair:
Sure. Thank you very much for taking the time to come before us
here today. We appreciate your coming all this way.
Mr Harman:
Thank you for taking the time.
The Chair:
Our pleasure.
KAP SNO-ROVERS SNOWMOBILE CLUB
The Chair:
Our next presentation is from the Kap Sno-Rovers Snowmobile Club.
Good morning, and welcome to the committee.
Mr Tony
Tremblay: Good morning. If I sound nervous, it's because
I am.
The Chair:
Oh, don't be.
Mr
Tremblay: My name is Tony Tremblay, and I'm the
president of the Kap Sno-Rovers. I am in favour of mandatory OFSC
permits. I want to thank the government for their support and
interest in snowmobiling, and to thank you, the committee, for
allowing me the opportunity to speak.
I recognize and agree with
the OFSC position that there are four cornerstones essential to
making mandatory OFSC permits successful, which are final
authority on permit issues, permit requirement, limited
exemptions and enforcement.
The Kap Sno-Rovers
Snowmobile Club and its 900 members feel that the mandatory OFSC
permit, including design, production, issuance, sales procedures,
pricing and the use of permit revenues, should stay with the
OFSC. To surrender control of trail permits would critically
undermine what club volunteers have worked 30 years to accomplish
only to end organized snowmobiling, groomed snowmobile trails and
winter tourism. We appreciate the government's effort to make the
OFSC permit enforceable by law.
Clubs and all volunteers
have proven over the past 30 years that we have the knowledge and
experience to deliver world-class snowmobile trails. The right
thing to do is for the government to recognize, reinforce and
support the clubs and volunteers and the trail system. This is
why we strongly believe the final authority regarding
permit-related matters should remain with the OSFC. In the past
30 years, the OFSC has fine-tuned a permit system, which is the
matrix system that accommodates both snowmobiling and the
snowmobiling public. To
remove this system from the clubs would threaten the entire
operation of snowmobiling in Ontario.
As a result of
snowmobiling, we have 49,000 kilometres of winter trails, which
have been built and maintained by the OFSC clubs and volunteers
for upwards of $20 million each winter, derived from the sale of
OFSC trail permits.
Snowmobilers have the
choice of riding snow highways for the simple reasons that they
are safer, more enjoyable and prevent more damage to machines.
With the amount of traffic on our OFSC trails we sustain higher
damage, which our clubs and volunteers have to restore at
considerable expense. Therefore, everyone riding the trails must
have a mandatory trail permit in all areas, whether private or
crown land.
In order to have access on
crown land, the OFSC recognizes there will be some exceptions,
such as OPP, Hydro, MNR and the Ministry of Northern Development
and Mines. Also, certain traditional users, such as landowners,
cottagers, anglers and hunters, among others, may be exempted,
but none of the above should be able to ride OFSC trails for
recreational snowmobiling without purchasing a permit. The OFSC
could issue a permit locally to identified users.
With 2,500 trained wardens
in Ontario, they must have the authority under the MSVA to
enforce mandatory OFSC permits. This number of qualified wardens
makes a greater presence on the trails than any other enforcement
because of their dedication to safety on the trails. Our goal is
to band together with government to legislate mandatory OFSC
permits by adding police agencies, conservation and STOP
officers, not to take away from the 2,500 dedicated wardens the
authority to enforce mandatory OFSC permits.
We believe a partnership
between OFSC and the Mike Harris government is important. If
government controlled mandatory permits, it is unlikely that
landowners and dedicated volunteers would continue their
involvement with their local clubs. For the growth of tourism and
organized snowmobiling, we are requesting that the provincial
government continue to support organized snowmobiling with new
legislation, with the OFSC having the sole function and
responsibility for mandatory permits enforceable by enforcement
agencies and OFSC wardens. In doing so, our trail system would be
safer and guaranteed for years to come.
I want to thank the
committee for your time, and if you have any questions I will try
to answer them.
1040
The Chair:
Thank you very much, Mr Tremblay. This time the questioning will
commence with Mr Ramsay and the Liberals.
Mr Ramsay:
Mr Tremblay, thank you very much for coming. You talk about the
limited exemptions here, which I agree with. It looks like the
volunteers and the federation really agree that for users such as
certain landowners, cottagers, anglers, hunters and trappers,
people like that, there should be some limited exemptions. I
think everybody agrees on that.
This brings up another
concern that I have. While the legislation says the government
can regulate different classes of users and try to accommodate
these exemptions, again I am concerned that we leave this up to
the government and do not come up with maybe a local solution to
deal with this. I suppose there would be different ways of
handling that and maybe it should be the federation and the local
clubs that come up with how that's done. Maybe it needs to be
done in a different way in different localities, depending on
culture and tradition.
For example, in some areas
part of the trail was originally a trappers' trail and the local
club, through agreement, has now made that the snowmobile trail
through the area. Maybe one way of exempting the trappers in that
area is to exempt, officially designate, that part of the trail
and therefore needing the permit, so that the trappers who just
use that part of the trail for trapping don't have to have a
permit. Maybe that's the way to do it there.
Maybe in some areas it's
exempting some users, possibly grandfathering the users. Maybe
it's now a new trail, but that's the easiest way for the trapper
to get to his or her traditional area, so maybe the trapper in
that case should be exempted but the trail stays designated.
I was just wondering what
you think about this because I can see us having different
reasons in different areas to exempt certain people. How do you
think we should handle that?
Mr
Tremblay: I agree with the trappers or the fishermen. If
they had a trail existing before the OFSC trail, I agree that
they should be exempt. The local clubs should be able to give
them a special pass only for that piece of trail. I agree with
you on that one, that we should exempt some special people. Like
I said in my presentation, the hunters and anglers should be
exempt on that special trail.
Mr Ramsay:
The further south you go, the more private land clubs have to
deal with. My guess is that you don't deal with that much private
land in your area. Most of it is crown, I would take it.
Mr
Tremblay: Most of it is crown. We have landowners, but
not as many as in the southern part.
Mr Ramsay:
That's another concern. A lot of the reasoning for landowners to
agree to basically dedicate some of the their land, or
traditional trails on their land, to the trail network has been
because of certain traditional users, maybe people going to their
fish camp or whatever, or the trapper. If we put this right up at
the government level, maybe there wouldn't be the rationale or
the reason for the landowner to co-operate any more because now
they're dealing with the government and not the local people; it
was done more neighbour to neighbour before.
I think it's an area we're
going to have to work on. While we need government regulation to
make sure that people buy permits and that money comes into the
clubs, at the same time we've got to keep the local neighbourly
flavour that this thing developed, the relationship between the
local club and the landowner. If we destroyed that, we would go toward
destroying the network, wouldn't we?
Mr
Tremblay: That's right.
Mr Ramsay:
It's going to be an interesting balance here because we all want
provincial permits, but on the other hand we've got to keep local
control and club control and that local relationship with
everybody that seems to have worked.
Mr
Tremblay: Let's hope it works because we need the
landowners for the network.
Mr Ramsay:
That's going to be our challenge, I guess, as lawmakers here.
Mr
Tremblay: That's right. My reason is, we should try to
keep the landowners happy to keep the trails going.
The Chair:
Thank you. Mr Spina.
Mr Spina:
Thanks, Tony, for coming forward. It's good to see you again.
On the second page of your
presentation you indicated: "In the past 30 years the OFSC have
fine-tuned a permit system which is the matrix system which
accommodates both snowmobiling and the public." That is the first
statement. And then, "To remove this system from the clubs would
threaten the entire operation of snowmobiling in Ontario." Help
me understand what you're getting at there.
Mr
Tremblay: I think now that the OFSC has the matrix
system, the money is allocated to different clubs. But if the
government or the MTO would take over, like what is in the
legislation now, who will take care of distributing the money to
different clubs? With the matrix system, now you send your money
to the OFSC and it comes back to the clubs. If you give it to the
MTO, how are you going to turn around and give it back to the
snowmobiling club?
Mr Spina:
If the system were allowed to remain in place and were even
enhanced in some way, maybe a greater equalization or a simpler
equalization formula, so that the money collected would remain
within the federation and its clubs and then would continue to be
redistributed through that formula or a modified formula, would
that be acceptable, the only difference being that the ministry
would approve it?
Mr
Tremblay: Why do you want that many people taking care
of a little bit of money we're having from the OFSC permit?
Mr Spina:
You're talking $14 million-plus here.
Mr
Tremblay: But compared to the government,
$14 million is almost peanuts.
Mr Spina:
OK. I'm just asking whether it would be acceptable if it remained
within the system itself.
Mr
Tremblay: If the OFSC has the control, if the OFSC
itself has to deal with the government, as long as the clubs
don't have to deal with different governments, if we stay with
the OFSC, I'd have to agree with that.
Mr Spina:
If the clubs continued to deal with the federation and then maybe
the federation were the only one that would have to deal with the
government, would that be a workable system?
Mr
Tremblay: It would try to work; I hope it would
work.
Mr Spina:
Thanks, Tony.
The Chair:
Thank you very much, Mr Tremblay. I appreciate your taking the
time to come before us today.
ONTARIO FEDERATION OF SNOWMOBILE CLUBS, DISTRICT
12
The Chair:
Our next presentation is from the Ontario Federation of
Snowmobile Clubs, district 12. Welcome to the committee.
Ms Janet
Depatie: Good morning. My name is Janet Depatie.
I wasn't here for the first
presentation this morning, but from listening to some of the
others, I think that mine in some aspects will be a slight bit
redundant, but I hope there is something in it that will also
give you some more information.
I'll start by giving you a
little bit of background about myself. I am a member and a
volunteer with my local snowmobile club. I am also presently
serving my fifth term as president of the Sudbury Trail Plan
Association. That's the association my home club belongs to. I am
also serving my fifth year as a governor for the Ontario
Federation of Snowmobile Clubs.
In my position as a
governor I represent 13 clubs in district 12, and today I'm here
on their behalf. The district 12 clubs build and maintain trails
in the Sudbury region, in Killarney, Espanola, Massey, Nairn
Centre and all of Manitoulin Island. The clubs sell approximately
7,000 permits annually; last season, 6,659 permits. They maintain
2,398 kilometres of trails, and they raised approximately $1.2
million in the 1997-98 season. That includes permit fees,
fundraising, grants, GST rebates etc. It does not include the
volunteer labour, the donated equipment or the donated
materials.
Each of the clubs produces
many social and economic opportunities throughout the year in
their communities. In district 12 we have clubs that have
anywhere from six to 30 core volunteers. The individual clubs
sell from 70 to 1,000 permits and their kilometres of trails vary
from 85 kilometres to 519. Their volunteers, like myself-I've
served 10 years-tend to be long-term volunteers. I know men and
women who have worked with clubs, most assuming multiple tasks,
for close to 30 years.
1050
I am here to speak in
favour of mandatory permits on designated OFSC trails. I am also
here to reiterate the OFSC's position that there are four key
elements to making the OFSC mandatory permit successful. You've
heard those elements. There are four of them. I won't repeat them
at this time. I'll save that for the end.
Volunteers have been busy
for the past 30 years building a trail system that is amazing. In
the 10 years that I have been involved with organized
snowmobiling, I have seen tremendous growth and improvement.
However, it was prior to my time that the groundwork was really begun. The pioneers of
trail building were out there cutting trails with their axes and
chainsaws, building bridges from the trees they cut down and
acquiring landowner permission to cross sections of private land.
They were doing it with very limited resources, their own tools,
their own money and whatever materials they could scrounge. They
were doing this because they had a passion for snowmobiling, and
without knowing it, they were laying the foundation for a trail
system that would develop into an industry generating close to $1
billion in economic activity for the province of Ontario in
1999-2000.
I remember trails that were
single-machine width, with brush slapping the shields of our
helmets as we travelled along. I remember the moguls that
developed on the trails after a few weeks of snowmobiling. I also
remember the guys out there pulling bedsprings behind their snow
machines to groom the trails, and trips that were day-long
excursions that are now quick afternoon jaunts. From this,
volunteers built today's successful recreational trail system,
and they are the heart and soul of the organization. They must
continue to have the lead role in controlling their destiny.
Clubs recognized early that
the user-pay system was crucial to having a network of great
trails. What they didn't envision was the growth in popularity of
snowmobiling and the demands that would be put on them by touring
snowmobilers, whether from out of province or southern Ontario or
by riders from the next city, town or municipality. Demands for
quality groomed trails no matter what the circumstances, demands
for trails to services and establishments, demands for safe,
enjoyable trails, along with expectations from local businesses
that now have winter business opportunities, are all placing
stress on the clubs. Meeting safety issues, liability needs and
environmental needs are also some of the issues that clubs are
addressing.
With all the demands and
the tremendous growth of snowmobiling came the reality that even
with the revenues raised from the sale of permits, the clubs were
short by almost half to do the job in the manner now required.
Gone were the days of cutting trails without permits, gone were
the days of building log bridges-now they have to be
engineer-designed and contracted for building and instalment-gone
were the days of homemade signage and gone were the days of no
insurance. Now we are into the days of $100,000 pieces of
grooming equipment, paid operators, paid managers, consistent
signage across the province, provincial liability insurance and
technology, to name a few.
The revenues raised from
permit sales have helped with building and operational costs, but
as stated, fall short by almost 50% annually. The volunteers have
covered this shortfall by donating their time and talents, using
their contacts and resources and by many, many fundraising
efforts.
We have met these
challenges but we are getting tired. I have one club in my
district that sells only 70 permits, has eight dedicated club
volunteers and has, for the last six years, done no less than
eight fundraisers per year. I have another club that sells 500
permits, has a club volunteer average age of 60, and they
maintain 500 kilometers of trails. The association that I'm
president of in Sudbury is finding the competition for
fundraising dollars extreme. Many of the clubs have had the same
core volunteers for the past 10 years and they are tired. Many of
them are finding the demands on their time too onerous. Each club
is unique, however each club has similar problems. They suffer
from too few dollars and volunteer burnout. Snowmobiling has
become a year-round business, not a part-time recreational
pastime. The volunteers want to build and maintain the trails;
what they don't want to do is spend so much time raising the
money to do it and the paperwork.
The clubs of district 12
are supportive of the OFSC's initiative in approaching the
government to seek legislation for mandatory permits. We are not
looking for handouts or government funding. We are looking for
those people who use the trails to support the trails. The
additional dollars raised if mandatory permits become a reality
will help in the operational aspects of the clubs and will remove
some of the burden now on the volunteers' backs.
Clubs and volunteers have
established opportunities for restaurants, resorts, dealers,
service stations and winter tourism. Both the provincial and
federal governments have recognized the value of snowmobiling as
a winter tourism attraction. They market snowmobiling in their
tourism advertising although there is no provision by either the
tourism establishment or the tourism department for the support
or the development of the product they so vigorously market.
The provincial government,
again recognizing the value of the efforts of the clubs and
volunteers, partnered with the clubs of the federation in
Sno-TRAC and SST 1 and 2 for funding capital projects. Many clubs
used operational dollars or went into debt to meet their
obligations. Again, there were no financial provisions made for
the operational costs needed to operate larger and more grooming
equipment or to groom longer, wider trails. With wider, longer,
better trails came more riders, and with more riders came more
grooming hours and more and better signage, but no financial
provisions to cover the additional costs.
We, the clubs of district
12, have felt that mandatory permits under the law of the
province of Ontario would help us meet our operational costs more
effectively and therefore enable us to continue providing a safe,
quality trail system for all riders. We would like the permit to
be enforceable by the police, by the OFSC STOP officers, OFSC
wardens and conservation officers. Presently an OFSC permit is
mandatory on all trails where we have land use permission and is
enforceable by the OFSC wardens. What we desire is that mandatory
permits be extended to cover all designated OFSC trails and to
have enforcement capabilities expanded to include police officers
and conservation officers, and to continue letting OFSC wardens
enforce the permit issue.
The user-pay system is the vehicle that enabled
us to achieve the success that we have and it will maintain our
success. What we are seeking now is that all contribute fairly.
All who use the trails for recreational snowmobiling will share
the cost of using the system. Those who do not use it won't
pay.
We recognize that there are
some traditional users and we do not want to hamper them from
doing their jobs, maintaining their livelihood or accessing those
areas that they have habitually done. We feel that exemptions can
be made, however we believe that traditional users should not
have the freedom to travel the system for recreational
snowmobiling or beyond the limits of where their jobs take
them.
On an encouraging note, I
personally know trappers and fishermen in my area who buy a
permit for their machines because they feel that having a groomed
trail for parts of their journey has enabled them to do their
activities in a quicker, safer and more efficient manner. Our
clubs appreciate their support, both monetary and moral.
We have achieved a great
deal in 30 years. We started out as small groups of people
building local trails for our own enjoyment. Our sense of
adventure and accomplishment took us to the point where we wanted
to travel to the next club or town and then on to the next and
the next until we collectively said, "Let's make it a provincial
system," and we did. We agree and we disagree, but each club has
the same ultimate goal, and that is to have the best trail system
in the world.
1100
We are not asking the
government to come on board to take over. We still want the job,
and we want to continue to be true to our own goals and not those
of another. We have proved over 30 years that we have the ability
and the expertise to meet the needs and challenges of our
organization. What we want from the government is, recognition
for the product we have built; recognition of the product that
has become a jewel for winter tourism in Ontario; and help in the
form of certain tools so that we can maintain it for all who
benefit from it, be they riders, businesses or government.
Volunteers and landowners
across the province have established a first-class snowmobile
trail system. With the government's help we can maintain it well
into the future. We can continue to see snowmobile tourism grow,
which in turn helps to create job opportunities, winter tourism
for northern Ontario and winter recreational activity for anyone
who chooses to participate.
The government has helped
us to become a premiere winter tourism attraction. We now ask
that you give us the tools to obtain sustainable operational
funding.
In conclusion, I would like
to say again that we are in favour of Bill 101 as long as the
needs of the federation can be met. As stated-I didn't state it,
but you understand it:
The clubs, through the
OFSC, must continue to be the final authority on all matters and
processes relating to mandatory permits, especially use of permit
revenue;
Mandatory permits must be
absolute on OFSC-designated trails and easy to enforce;
We recognize that
reasonable access for traditional users and certain organizations
must be met;
Trained OFSC wardens must
have the authority under the MSVA to enforce mandatory trail
permits.
I thank you for the
opportunity to address you and look forward to trying to answer
your questions.
The Chair:
That leaves us about three minutes per caucus. This time we'll
start with the government.
Mr John O'Toole
(Durham): Thank you very much, Janet. You do raise a
very complex number of concerns, in my view. I'll list them as I
see them and you can just respond.
On page 4, you outline how
it has become more sophisticated. Basically that's what you're
saying, and that there are now standards of when you should groom
and all these kinds of things. That's what happens with the
world: it get more sophisticated, specifically if you let the
government do it. It gets more expensive with that, too. Right
now you're 50% short annually. We've heard some about the fees
being inordinately high-I've heard that a number of times-and I'd
like you to comment on that. I suspect that when you're looking
at having an overarching organization and some jurisdictional
responsibility for who will be exempted for paying, whether it's
a little part of the trail or a whole district-there are a lot of
questions like that.
I'm just wondering, if you
leave it to government to set the rates, do you feel that the
government, at the end of the day, with all their glossy
brochures, should also be contributing money? Do you understand
what I'm saying? Those bridges and things, and improving the
trails, have just started, and once it becomes a complex,
sophisticated thing, you'll have engineers here designing a more
sleek way to do things and the volunteers will expect to be
paid.
Ms
Depatie: We already have the situations where the
bridges-I mean, we do need engineers and they're not simple
affairs any more. I did bring a few pictures and I really would
like you to have a look at them, because they'll explain just a
little bit about what costs can be and what volunteers do.
This bridge in particular
is over 200 feet long. It's part steel Bailey bridge and part
wood bridge. The wood bridge part had to be totally renovated;
the decking on the steel bridge had to be totally redone. We
obtained prices of $70,000 and up to do this bridge. With highly
committed volunteer efforts over a period of 13 weeks, scrounging
materials that were approved and being out there and doing the
work, we managed to do it for $17,000.
Mr
O'Toole: Excellent. If you had let the government do it,
it would have been $100,000. I'm serious. That's my feeling. They
would have two engineers and one inspector.
Ms
Depatie: I feel that way, but I'm only speaking for
myself on that point.
So we have done that.
Mr O'Toole: How do you feel
about volunteers getting paid? Won't that be the expectation? Say
my fees in 10 years were $200. I'd say, "Gee, I'm paying the
way." I remember when I was a volunteer at a ski club. Originally
it was $200 a year, then it was $400, then it was $600 and we
were expected to do trail work. Now it's $800 and I wouldn't lift
a broom. I'm paying.
Ms
Depatie: I'm the president of an association that has
eight clubs. The association has two paid people. We pay an
administrator who takes care of the office and grants and all of
the paperwork; we have a person who takes care of the operational
end. We employ 20 to 35 paid operators, depending on the season.
But in saying that, we still have an excellent core of volunteers
who love to do-there's part of it that they really love to do.
They love to be out in the woods; they love to do the trail work.
They love that part of it. Spending eight hours in your house
doing paperwork-we recognize that there's a place for paid people
and a place for volunteers.
Mr
O'Toole: Good. Thanks very much.
Mr Ramsay:
Thank you, Janet, for your presentation.
I guess in all this, it's
finding a balance. I think Mr O'Toole was getting there. You
mentioned that there's about a 50% shortfall in revenue to make
this happen, but at the moment what keeps it going are the
volunteers. It's the sweat equity and the donations of materials
and everything, as you said, that do this. So somehow we have to
keep striking a balance between the revenue coming in from
permits to keep it affordable and yet not destroy, as Mr O'Toole
alluded to, the volunteer system so that the local people still
have a stake in it and feel that it's theirs. That's the balance.
While you look to the government to regulate this a little bit,
we're going to have to be careful that we don't overdo it-
Ms
Depatie: Yes, I would agree.
Mr Ramsay:
-and in a sense take it from you, because then, as Mr O'Toole
said, it's going to be a government thing and that's it, and in a
sense people won't have respect for it any more. They'll lack the
ownership.
Ms
Depatie: And the volunteers probably wouldn't be
there.
Mr Ramsay:
Therefore, yes, they won't volunteer. That's why I think it's
important that the association keep control of the permit fee and
the collection of it, too, and not the MTO. I think it's
important to keep it in your hands, so that basically you carry
out the legislation but it remains at the grassroots level and
any changes should only happen in consultation with the
federation. The federation has consultation through all the
member clubs, so it is democratic and grassroots. I guess that's
our challenge, to find that balance, so we don't destroy
something that has bloomed over the years and has basically
created a tremendous attraction for this province, for its own
people and for tourists.
Ms
Depatie: I appreciate your comment, sir. That's how we
feel.
Mr Ramsay:
Yes, I think we have to reflect that. So I have some concerns
about this, because it's starting to look a little bureaucratic.
I'm a little concerned that the government would say in this
legislation, "We recognize some of these concerns, but we'll take
care of it through regulation," and we don't have control of
that. Once this is passed, then we've given approval for
basically the bureaucracy through cabinet just to approve any
changes without them ever having been publicly debated any
longer. I think we have to make sure we've got safeguards in
there to protect the rights of the members in the clubs.
Ms
Depatie: Yes, we're quite concerned about that.
Mr Ramsay:
So we're going to try to introduce those amendments in the next
few weeks and we'll certainly be looking to people such as
yourselves for that advice.
Mr Spina:
Mr Chair, I just wanted to, if I may, with David's consent, thank
Janet for the information she provided, because I think it's
really good. We appreciate that, Janet.
Ms
Depatie: Thank you. I would like these back, but I could
pick them up at lunchtime.
Mr Ramsay:
Can we pass them around?
Ms
Depatie: Yes. It's one folder. It has a few pictures; I
think you might enjoy them.
The Chair:
Thank you very much for your presentation. We appreciate it and
the resources you've brought for our consideration.
Our next presentation is by
the Polar Bear Riders Snowmobile Club.
Interjection: They haven't arrived
yet. I wondered if we could delay.
The Chair:
We certainly could, particularly if either of the next two
presenters is here, Mr James Gibb or Save Our North. The clerk is
just going to check. Apparently the representative of Save Our
North indicated he was on his way from Falconbridge Mines, and
that's not too far. Perhaps we'll take a five-minute recess to
pass around these photographs and wait for the arrival of the
next group.
The committee recessed
from 1110 to 1122.
POLAR BEAR RIDERS SNOWMOBILE CLUB
The Chair:
So much for my great strategy to finish on time here.
I'm told that our next
presenters are here. That is the Polar Bear Riders Snowmobile
Club. I invite them to come forward to the witness table. Good
morning and welcome to the committee.
Mr Rheal
Cousineau: Sorry we're late.
The Chair:
That's OK.
Mr Ramsay:
It's not that far.
Mr
Cousineau: No, it's my fault. I didn't get out from the
other job in time, so that's the only problem.
The Chair:
We realize you have come a very long way and appreciate your
taking the time.
Mr Jean-Pierre
Ouellette: Good morning. I would like to begin by
thanking the members of the standing committee for this
opportunity to speak to you about Bill 101 and the importance it brings to
our local circumstances. We are extremely grateful for the
consideration the province has accorded to our passion and
industry called snowmobiling. I mean this deeply, in terms of the
significance and the importance that the province has brought to
this entire process.
My name is J.P. Ouellette
and I am here to represent the Cochrane Polar Bear Riders
Snowmobile Club, home of the world's number one trails. With me
is Rheal Cousineau, deputy mayor for the town of Cochrane and
also the former reeve of the township of Glackmeyer, which
actually was the municipality responsible for starting it all in
our neck of the woods. As well, in attendance is Denis Michaud,
who is the current president for the Polar Bear Riders. Thanks,
Denis.
Today we wish to highlight
to you the concerns and opportunities this bill provides. I know,
for some of you who are snowmobilers, and the rest of you have
heard this for the past few days, that clubs have been facing
various dilemmas in the last few years. You have heard evidence
from volunteers who have become victims of their own success. You
have heard that this success did not come by accident, but from
the hard work of people who had a passion for snowmobiling and a
vision that some day we could ride to all the northern
communities and even to all the adjoining provinces. I'm happy to
say we've been there and done that.
Cochrane, having a
population of about 6,000, started only about 10 years ago with a
new snowmobile club. We've since grown to just under 900 permits,
representing about 2,000 family members, and maintain over 700
kilometres of snowmobile trails. The PBR club, as we
affectionately know it, operates a significant hub of five TOP
trails, or trans-Ontario provincial trails. One of our most
popular trails is the Quebec link, being about 170 kilometres
with only one service stop on the way. This trail alone takes a
volunteer 14 hours to groom one way, and then he must turn around
and complete his trek back home by groomer. That's dedication.
This is what we're about. We groom on average 20 weeks per year,
and an additional 12 weeks is needed for building ice bridges,
brushing and doing the work that's required to open and close
trails before and after the season.
Snowmobiling has changed
our community significantly, representing our highest growth
industry in the past decade. Motels and resorts have started or
expanded and fuel and service dealerships have redeveloped their
entire business and marketing. Cochrane has taken full advantage
of these opportunities that snowmobiling presented and has since
become a premier snowmobiling destination, hence our proud
slogan, "World's #1 Trails." We even have igloos at the North
Adventure Inn that are fully serviced rooms and that snowmobilers
have been booking a year in advance, the point being that our
entire club infrastructure and community economy has been changed
by snowmobiling and geared to meet this wonderful winter
opportunity. Bill 101 has the potential to catalyze our momentum
if implemented with the same vision, or could destroy us should
the established revenue stream be unfavourably altered.
First I need to tell you a
story, a bit of an example. Four years ago our club was provided
a grant, and we needed matching dollars to expand our trail
system. PBR had no money, and we just couldn't pass up the
opportunity. A champion surfaced and raised $25,000 within 48
hours to meet the club's funding portion. So all this money was
raised between the business community and local people with a
vested interest in the whole infrastructure. Cochrane and
business community leaders believed in our tourism product and
continue to this day to provide tremendous support through our
annual corporate funding and marketing program.
Because of our extensive
grooming season, the club could not provide 700 kilometres of
trail on its membership base alone. We're certainly overextended
in terms of what we can maintain, but over the years the OFSC has
provided our club and other northern clubs with a provincial
funding formula that funnels more permit dollars to areas where
it's needed. This complex matrix benefits our provincial trail
network greatly by being able to provide more trails in the
northern parts of the province where there is naturally, pardon
the pun, more snow.
The province needs to
realize one thing relative to its effort in assisting club
volunteers in the snowmobiling industry: helping too much is a
bad thing. While this statement is oversimplified, should the
province, under any ministry, decide for, or take responsibility
away from, snowmobilers for things like the permit price, the
revenue collection and distribution, or the management or
operation of trails, the result would be the following: the
volunteers, like myself and some of the people in this room,
would be completely happy just to ride the trails; to stay at
home and not toil over the trails and not have to worry about
them. That would be an unfortunate demise. Our corporate funding
partners as well would disappear, as they would see the
organization of snowmobiling become the mandate of government,
and why should they pay for a provincial highway? That's another
eventuality. All of this would lead to a regressive attitude
toward supporting trails and a feeling that the volunteers have
lost ownership and responsibility for the trails they constructed
and created. Finally, the result is the complete and eventual
withdrawal of support, where trails will start to fold. I don't
think the government wants to create a ministry of snowmobiling
to coordinate and staff operations for the maintenance of
trails.
1130
In order to achieve
continued success, the province must examine how and why the
system has worked so well, heed the advice of the volunteers and
the clubs and develop a program that is in the same vein and
proven effective. That is why too much help is a bad thing.
The other issue of
significant concern in northern Ontario is, who must pay for the
mandatory permit? In my experience in dealing with this
particular issue and individual snowmobilers during and after a
new trail development process, I would suggest, firstly, that
everyone who registers
a snowmobile pay for a mandatory permit.
An example I'm referring to
is mimicked under the Ontario farmers' association program for
farmers to get a business number for the rebate on provincial
taxes. They have to register. They have to become a member of the
OFA or a similar organization, I think it's Christian Farmers, a
similar type of scheme with the province, except the following,
who may apply to receive a refund based on established criteria
to be enacted under regulations:
For instance, a trapper
will be exempt, limited to the snowmobile trails which are found
within his or her legitimate trapline, but will be charged if
travelling elsewhere. We have some trappers who ride Mach 1s and
Mach Zs, the big machines, and don't necessarily just limit their
snowmobiling to their trapping experience.
A traditional user who
limits their riding to areas they have traditionally occupied,
such as a cottage or a camp, where a trail existed and was taken
over by the club but wasn't upgraded with bridges or with
brushing-we have a few cases where there is a multitude of forest
access roads, and clubs have taken them over and groomed them. In
our experience, we've provided them the oppor-tunity to continue
using that section of the trail to access their cottages. But if
we find them on a section of trail that the club has improved
with a bridge or brushing or the trail didn't exist before,
that's where we would take offence.
The other comment to this
is that, in my opinion, an occupier should not include a
fisherman who has always fished at a particular lake. So we look
at "an occupier" as a definition to limit a traditional user.
Another example for a
mandatory permit is a non-resident of Ontario having purchased
and affixed a valid temporary or tourist permit. In other words,
we'd like to see that program continued. They wouldn't be buying,
for instance, possibly, the year's pass to come and enjoy our
trails in Ontario, but would definitely have an option to take a
temporary or tourist permit.
As well, a landowner-for
instance, a farmer-limited to riding on his own property of
course would not be subject to a mandatory permit, or it could be
refunded if they purchased one through the system. This is not to
be confused with a farmer riding along a trail located on a
municipal unopened road allowance that is abutting his property.
We've seen those in instances as well. I'll refer to it later
on.
The limited information
provided in Bill 101 is a serious impediment to a complete
analysis. The regulations, which the province will have the sole
authority to pass, are the scary part. All regulations, before
their adoption, must be vetted and adopted by snowmobile clubs.
The devil in this entire exercise will be in the details. You
must devise a process which is based on the input from
snowmobilers.
An excellent example of
this process, as you are aware, Mr Gilchrist, is the legislative
committee of AMCTO, also known as the municipal clerks and
treasurers' association, where a group of municipal officials
will comment on any new draft legislation before it is presented
to the Legislature. This process provides for an effective review
by vested interests.
In addition, this committee
needs to ensure that the province enacts legislation within the
Municipal Act to ensure that municipalities have the authority to
give clubs the exclusive snowmobiling use of unopened road
allowances. It's taken up a lot of court time and a lot of
expense on behalf of clubs and individuals regarding this issue,
and we would need to have that situation addressed.
On this note, I would like
to conclude by thanking all of you for your genuine interest in
improving our product called snowmobiling. Your initiative will
have a profound effect on northern Ontario. And a very special
acknowledgment to the honourable Joe Spina, MPP, Brampton North,
for your superhuman feat of championing this needed project.
With this, I will turn the
discussion over to my boss, Rheal Cousineau, who is deputy mayor
for the town of Cochrane. He'll say a few words, and if we have
time, we'll be open to questions.
Mr
Cousineau: First of all, I'd like to refer to David
Ramsay's comment that I will only be given about half an hour to
speak. I won't take the half-hour on that one, David. Last time,
that's what happened.
I think it's pretty clear
from what Jean-Pierre has presented to this group here today that
we've come a long way as far as snowmobiling, from cutting these
little trails on a Saturday morning, half-frozen, with the dream
or the goal that at the other end of this trail would be other
trails in the coming years. Then we'd wind up with something
that's almost like a Trans-Canada Highway across this country,
where you can use snowmobiles.
Now we're looking at a
billion-dollar business and, for northern Ontario, a very
important one at that. As my role on the Cochrane and Area
Development Corp, I know that we needed snowmobiling badly to
supplement our logging operations, our declining farming
operations and, to some extent, other industries that were
leaving. So snowmobiling has become very important. Again, I
think we can't be not serious about the endeavour here. We need
to put in place some help for Ski-Doo clubs, some funding that we
can count on, but as Jean-Pierre mentioned, not so much funding
that we become more interested in our La-Z-Boy chairs than we are
in cutting trails and developing.
There was a challenge out
there for our volunteers right from the beginning: can we cut
another trail? Can we enlarge our operation? Can we provide more
for our tourists? That has got to be pursued. We can't stop where
we are right now. It's very nice, we have 700 kilometres-and
Denis will tell you that's plenty to maintain-but I guess with
proper funding, there's much more we can do. But I think we need
to be able to do it effectively and not leave any stones unturned
as we try to develop this.
There have been problems, needless to say. In
our community, when I was the reeve, we had problems with farmers
who did not accept the fact that they couldn't use the trail free
of charge because it was bordering their land or on their land. I
remember many nights when we had people showing up and wanting to
put the D-8 in the whole enterprise; not to help us, by the way,
with the D-8 but to maybe shut her down.
We've gone through all of
this. The people who were opposing this now find their sons and
daughters involved in tourism, involved in repairing these
machines, involved in gas stations as part-time jobs. It's become
a whole industry. I think we should do whatever is necessary to
keep it going, but not to the point where we think we've got
another Ministry of Transportation or MTO taking care of our
trails, or that we have another ministry that's going to do all
the work for us, because people like to get involved. People are
proud of what we have developed in all the area as far as
infrastructure.
Based on that, I think we
must strive and always tinker with the system, like we did in our
municipality when we first developed the first trail. We had
visions of a snow-rama that wasn't going through virgin bush,
destroying sleds and scratching sleds and making it pretty unsafe
for the riders. If we cut the first trail around these empty road
allowances, people would come in and do the snow-rama and
eventually say, "Gee, I'm getting tired of going around this
loop," and then we would develop some other stuff.
As a result of all this, we
see now that we've got 700 kilometres. We're going into Quebec.
It's become an interprovincial type of affair, which is good for
this country. I'm sure that in the Thunder Bay area, they're
probably going into Manitoba quite frequently. It's good for our
country to keep doing this, and it's another industry that's a
big one. That's about all I have to say at this time.
The Chair:
Thank you both. You have timed it perfectly. You've taken your 20
minutes. I want to say again, we appreciate your taking the time
to come before us today. Thank you very much for your views.
Mr Spina:
Can I say, I'm just a little guy from Sault Ste Marie, I'm not
superhuman, but thanks, Jean-Pierre.
1140
JAMES GIBB
The Chair:
Our next presenter will be Mr James Gibb. Good morning. Welcome
to the committee.
Mr James
Gibb: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen of the
committee. I welcome this opportunity to speak to you for a few
minutes. Basically, I have laid before you a map of my trapline.
The little red dots all over the map are the beaver houses I
travel to, and the green thing is the actual federation trail
that runs through the middle of my trapline.
I wish to express my
concern as a professional fur harvester in regard to the impact
of Bill 101 on trapping. The act, as I've read it, does not
exempt other resource users of crown land from paying for
recreational trail use. As a trapper with a registered trapline,
I am licensed by the province of Ontario for this activity and
pay both a licence fee and a royalty fee of 5.5% on the gross
value of all my trapping activities.
One of the responsibilities
I have as a registered trapper is harvesting my assigned beaver
quota. In Ontario, we have assigned beaver quotas and we have to
harvest 75% of them on an annual basis. For example, a 100-beaver
quota would translate into a minimum harvest of 75 beaver every
year.
This harvesting activity
has me travelling many miles via snow machine within my
registered trapline. On this trapline, CP-20, the line is split
down the middle by an Ontario Federation of Snowmobile Clubs
trail. This trail has only been in existence for a few years,
while the trapline it travels through has been in existence for
more than 50 years.
At any given time, I use
three different types of snow machine in aid of my fur harvesting
activity. I have one machine for everyday work in average
conditions, I have another machine that I use for breaking trails
in extreme conditions, such as after large snowstorms, and
finally, I have a snow machine that I use for late-season
conditions, when we have a hard crust to travel on. As Bill 101
is written, I would have to purchase three trail permits to work
my trapline. The snow machines I use are all work machines with
specific purposes. If I did not trap, I would have no reason to
own a snow machine, and as an activity recreational snowmobiling
is not an option for me.
The Ontario Federation of
Snowmobile Clubs' trail was constructed using existing access
roads and rights of way. It primarily follows the Highway 101
west corridor from Foleyet to Timmins. Most of the route has been
in existence for many years. Why should other resource users have
to pay for a recreational trail?
I would be just as happy if
the trail did not pass through my trapline. Knowing this is
public land belonging to the people of Ontario, I support
co-operative and shared use of crown land. But the recreational
snowmobiler does not pay for my fur harvesting activities while
crossing through my trapline. Consequently, I do not expect to
pay for his activity while I work my trapline just because a
federation trail now passes through.
Because this trail system
is on crown land, it will cause problems when beaver decide to
plug up a culvert or flood part of the trail system. When this
happens, and it will, the beaver will be looked at as a nuisance
and the federation will want them removed. As sure as I sit here
in front of you, I know this will happen. This will put both
groups, the recreational snowmobiler and the fur harvester, in a
conflict position. By allowing an exemption for the trapper in
Bill 101, both parties will benefit from normal harvesting
activities.
In closing, I wish to say
that I fully support Bill 101 with a clear exemption for fur
harvesters written right into the act. I believe anyone riding
the trail system for recreational activities should pay for that
privilege.
The Chair: We have a couple of
minutes for questions. This time we'll start with the
Liberals.
Mr Ramsay:
Thanks very much for your presentation, James. I agree with you
totally. While this bill has some kind of loose language near the
end of it that says exemptions and different classes of users can
be established through regulation, I think you're right. When it
comes to fur harvesters especially, we have to have it right in
the act that you are recognized as a traditional user and that
you have to have free access to traditional traplines as long as
you're a fur harvester. That has to be there.
What concerns me-and the
government will say, "We've got the flexibility in the act to
take care of your situation"-is that while I'm sure Mr Spina has
great influence with the minister and probably this time around
we might even get enough regulation that would make you happy
right now, it would be easy come, easy go, and that's the
problem. Somewhere down the road, a change of minister or a
change of government, whatever, people start complaining, and
that regulation could be taken away very quickly without any
debate like we're having here today and no debate among
legislators.
I think you're right: It
has to be in the act. We're really starting to change how we
regulate snowmobiling here, and the users have asked the
government to come into this. We have to make sure that users
such as yourself are protected. I agree with that. Our critic,
Mike Brown, will be moving such an amendment to try to get this
into act, because it has to be there. I appreciate your input,
and I hope the government members hearing harvester after
harvester will get the message too and accept those
amendments.
Mr Gibb:
You scare the hell out of me when you say "regulation." The
correlation I'll use is the spring bear hunt. That was a
regulation, which is easily changed by public influence.
Mr Ramsay:
That's exactly right. That's why we need it right in the
legislation. Yours is a traditional activity that was there long
before snowmobiling ever happened. It should be in this act and
recognized so it's basically ensconced in the legislation, it's
there and it would take an act of Parliament to remove it, rather
than just through regulation. The spring bear hunt is a very good
example.
The Chair:
Mr Spina, very quickly.
Mr Spina:
Thank you very much for a clear, concise and to-the-point
presentation. I won't go through the item I talked about earlier;
I think you heard it when I read it out earlier today. Right now,
the trappers currently enjoy an exemption in agreement with their
local snowmobile club through the federation. We have no
intention of changing that. I would personally oppose any changes
to those exemptions as they stand. That's all I can tell you
right now. I'm not sure regulations are changed that quickly,
but-
Mr Ramsay:
The spring bear hunt is a good example.
Mr Spina:
Maybe it is. I don't know that that was a regulatory issue as
much as it was a policy issue under the ministry, but I stand to
be corrected. I wasn't that close to that particular issue. To
me, if we outline in the bill that classes of persons are
identified as exempted, then in the regulation you can actually
name the class of person.
Mr Gibb: I
would definitely like to see it written right within the bill.
With a change of government and changing viewpoints in society,
it makes it difficult to chase a regulation sometimes.
Mr Spina:
OK.
Mr
O'Toole: Just a quick comment, Mr Gibb.
The Chair:
Mr O'Toole, very quickly.
Mr
O'Toole: You mentioned you had three snowmobiles. I've
heard other presentations that suggested they license the
operator or give them the permit as opposed to the machine.
What's your view on that?
Are you currently a member
of the snowmobile club?
Mr Gibb:
No, I'm not. I use my machines strictly for working. I have three
different models to do the different-if you look at the map, you
can see that I have to kind of get all over the place in there in
different conditions.
Mr
O'Toole: Sure.
Mr Gibb:
There are no roads in a lot of these areas. I have to be able to
pass pretty efficiently time-wise in order to get this
accomplished every year, so I use three different machines to do
that.
Mr
O'Toole: Very good. Thanks.
The Chair:
Thank you very much, Mr Gibb. We appreciate your bringing a copy
of your map. I think it's the first time anyone has given us an
opportunity to see the relationship between snowmobile use and
trapping use and, quite frankly, the extent of your trapline.
It's very impressive. It adds a lot to our consideration.
Mr Gibb:
Thank you very much.
SAVE OUR NORTH
The Chair:
Our next presentation will be from Save Our North. Welcome to the
committee.
Mr Scott
McLean: Good morning. Thanks to everyone for coming to
Timmins and thanks for the opportunity to meet with you and
express maybe a bit of a different perspective on Bill 101.
Just a few introductory
remarks. We all recognize-and I'm not here beating my chest-the
value of nice snowmobile trails for recreation. They add to the
lifestyle quality for local residents and also provide a means
for tourism and an injection of external funds into local
communities.
Industry has always
supported the snowmobile clubs and tried to work with them. We've
allowed them to cross industry lands, use industry-constructed
access routes in order to construct their trails. By and large,
we've tried to co-operate with them and not disturb their trails
during the time we're very active in the woods, in the
wilderness, with heavy machinery.
I've prepared a statement
for you. It gives you a little bit of an outline of what Save Our
North is and what some
of our concerns might be around Bill 101. I'm just going to go
through that with you and you can read along as you like, and
then I'll have a couple of closing remarks.
1150
Save Our North was formed
back in 1991. It's a consolidated lobby group to save
resource-based jobs in northern Ontario. It was put together at a
time when the NDP government was in power. The economy wasn't
doing so well up here and the government was trying to implement
a process of alienating lands from resource industries through
the creation of parks under a campaign called Keep it Wild.
Resource industries,
particularly the exploration sector of the mining industry, have
consistently been attacked by various government policies that
restrict, encumber and often completely alienate us from
accessing land. As explorers, we need access to a huge land base
in order to make small, significant discoveries. Good examples
include the creation of large, single-purpose provincial parks,
like Lake Superior Provincial Park over prospective geology, and
the Lands for Life and Living Legacy process.
It's important, as new
industries such as recreation and tourism continue to establish
themselves in the north, which we like to see, that we don't lose
sight of why the northern communities are here and what's going
to sustain them over the long haul. It's going to be the actual
resources that we all can benefit from up here.
The end result of
exploration is mining, and mining contributes substantially to
the social and economic welfare of communities. For example,
mining, predominantly from northern Ontario, contributes about $6
billion to the Ontario economy annually, and has contributed
about $150 billion over the last century. Mining creates about
25,000 direct mining jobs and about 84,000 spin-off jobs. The
average direct mining job has a wage of greater than $60,000 a
year. That's fairly significant in these parts.
From a community
perspective, mining has often been the backbone of the economy.
Here in Timmins, for example, in 1997 Kidd Creek injected
somewhere between $250 million and $350 million into the local
economy, which included $106 million in payroll and about $8
million in municipal taxes.
The reason I go through
this preamble is to ensure that you can see that a healthy mining
industry in northern Ontario is vital to all who live and prosper
here, and who choose to buy Ski-Doos. Unfortunately, our ore
reserves are in serious decline in Ontario. This is due mostly to
government policies like Lands for Life, Living Legacy, whatever
you want to call it, that continue to reduce the land available
for exploration, restrict access to the wilderness and establish
a general uncertainty for companies and individuals who would
otherwise invest in Ontario.
Save Our North's concern in
regard to Bill 101 is that once again restrictions are being
placed on the industry, and particularly the individual
prospectors and contractors in accessing their ground to complete
exploration. Individuals will now be forced to purchase a permit
to use existing snowmobile trails, with no guarantee that the
cost of the permit will not increase from year to year. Many of
these trails are traditional access trails that we've used for
years to access areas and often, in many cases, they provide the
only access into local areas. In effect, a prospector's licence
in Ontario will soon allow the individual the right to stake and
explore his property but not the right to access it without
creating his own redundant trail system. We don't choose to groom
the trails; the snowmobile clubs do. We don't need them groomed.
We can operate without them being groomed.
I ask the panel today to
recognize the indispensable activity of mineral exploration and
particularly the necessity of the individual prospector and his
need to access his land in order to sustain a robust economy in
northern Ontario. Don't encumber our chances of a discovery by
levying another fee and creating more uncertainty for our ability
to explore and discover. A prospector's licence must also allow
the individual to gain reasonable access to his property.
In closing, I would like to
say that I was kind of encouraged by the statements of Mr Spina
and Mr Ramsay regarding the fur trader. The fur trader has
traditionally been able to access his land. A prospector is as
nostalgic and as traditional an occupation up here, and
absolutely more than anything it requires our ability to access
our properties in order to explore. I'd like to see that there be
something in the act that addresses that, much along the same way
that we spoke about addressing that for the fur traders.
That's about all I have to
say right now. I think it is well described in the notes. I can
answer any questions, if you have any.
The Chair:
Thank you very much. We've got a few minutes for questions. We'll
start with the government.
Mr Spina:
Thanks, Scott. I appreciate your presentation. We haven't had
very many from the mining industry. As a former parliamentary
assistant to the Minister of Northern Development and Mines, I
was quite involved. We may have met somewhere along the
route.
Mr McLean:
Yes, a few times.
Mr Spina:
Anyway, I just want to assure you that we do recognize the
continued health that the mining industry must have and the
opportunity for prospectors. I can assure you that I would never
support something that would encumber the prospectors in an
additional fee, particularly with regard to the snowmobile
permitting structure, if it proceeds in the way that is proposed
at this point. There is no question that I think the prospectors
are certainly as equal in terms of their access to crown land as
the trappers are. So, thanks.
Mr McLean:
It's very encouraging to hear. We're willing to work with the
snowmobile clubs. As I said in my opening remarks, we recognize
the benefit of these trails, but not at the expense of not being
able to access our ground.
Mr
O'Toole: Just one quick question and a point. What's the
best time of year for prospecting? Do you do a lot of prospecting in the
winter? I don't know anything about it.
Mr McLean:
It depends on how you describe prospecting. Generally the mineral
exploration activity is throughout the year, and traditionally it
has been throughout the year. In the wintertime, prospectors have
often been able to access remote areas and travel across lakes in
order to stake claims and work properties. Today, the wintertime,
particularly in this swamp-ridden area, is the time when we do a
lot of diamond drilling and geophysics over wet, inaccessible
areas. Summertime has been more of a time when we do more
traditional type prospecting, hammering on rocks, mapping the
outcroppings that may occur. But certainly the winter allows us
much easier access into areas by creating trails and being able
to pull heavy equipment into the field.
Mr
O'Toole: Thank you for your presentation, and I'll tell
you why. Even in the consultations under Lands for Life for
multi-use, we're always trying to find the balance of land use
and land protection. We heard that in a couple of presentations
today. I appreciate your coming forward.
Mrs
Bountrogianni: Thank you for your presentation,
particularly for your numbers and the billions that your industry
adds to the economy of Ontario.
This is pretty well a
constant theme, that this is basically the part of the bill that
traditional users of trails are against. Is there any other part
of the bill that you have concerns over, or is it just basically
the permit?
Mr McLean:
That's the cornerstone, for sure, and I tried to express that. We
need access to as much land as possible, and the ability to get
there, in order to continue with our vital industry in
Ontario.
There didn't seem to be in
there, through my read of it, anyway, any sort of cap on what
that permitting price would be, if you did go ahead with this
bill. Right now I think it's in the area of around 150 bucks for
a year. I don't think there were any constraints on that being
pushed up as high as need be in order to maintain the trails.
That was another point of contention.
Besides that, the other
parts, as far as law enforcement and trying to get away from the
police and so on, that's all fairly logical in my mind.
Mr Ramsay:
Thank you very much for your presentation, Mr McLean. I agree
with you totally, and I want to assure you that we will move in
our amendment to include prospecting as a traditional activity
that needs to have an exemption. I think what we need to figure
out is how that will be determined as to who has the right. I
think it's probably easier with trappers, who have a traditional
history, but obviously if you have a claim, then you've got a
history. We obviously wouldn't want to preclude new prospectors
because that's, as you know, a renewable industry in the north so
we want to encourage future generations to do this also. It's the
activity we'd want to protect, not just the individual. We'll
have to come up with language that protects the activity so that
people can prospect and use the trails.
Mr McLean:
I think the local associations and the OPA are willing to work
toward that with you. It could be something as simple as holding
a prospector's licence and demonstrating your need to use the
trail provides you with a class of permit or something along that
line. There's lots of creativity that can be spawned from this in
discussions, I'm sure.
Mr Ramsay:
That's a good idea. The reason I want it there was the example
the previous presenter mentioned of the spring bear hunt. While
Mr Spina said that was a policy matter-that's correct, the
government changed its policy-for many of us it was how the
government changed the policy: without having the debate. There
was a pronouncement by the government that-
Mr McLean:
Exactly.
Mr Ramsay:
-"We have changed this regulation and this is how it is going to
be. Thou shall not shoot bear in the spring any more." That's why
you've got to have this legislation. Times change and interests
change, and if there are to be changes to this, we should at
least have the public discussion. That's what you should have in
a democracy. If we need to change this 10 years down the road, we
should do that, but not have it done behind a closed door and
then have an announcement. That's why I want it in here, because
right now, while there seems to be some goodwill expressed by Mr
Spina toward certain industries, this could all change at any
time. We've seen that with this government, so we've got to get
it in here.
Mr McLean:
Absolutely.
Mr Spina:
Will the Liberals reintroduce the spring bear hunt?
Mr Ramsay:
I support the spring bear hunt.
Mr McLean:
Are you contending that the Liberals will be in power some
day?
Mr Ramsay:
I think that's-
Mr Dunlop:
Does your party support it?
The Chair:
Now, now, folks.
Mr McLean, thank you very
much for taking the time to bring your industry's perspective to
these hearings this morning. We appreciate very much your
comments.
Mr McLean:
Thanks very much. Have a nice day and a nice weekend.
The Chair:
With that, committee will stand recessed until 1:30.
The committee recessed
from 1202 to 1331.
The Chair:
Good afternoon. I'll call the committee back to order for the
next seven deputations on Bill 101.
Mr Spina:
On a point of order, Mr Chair: I don't see any Liberal members
here. Can we proceed?
The Chair:
We certainly can. Everyone knew the starting time and I have
indulged them five full minutes. So while it is of course
preferred that we have representatives from all the parties, we
must show more respect for the people who have taken the time to
come before us here today.
PORCUPINE PROSPECTORS AND DEVELOPERS
ASSOCIATION
The Chair:
Our first presentation is the Porcupine Prospectors and
Developers Association. You're wel-come to come forward to the
witness table. Good afternoon and welcome to the committee.
Mr Robert
Calhoun: Good afternoon, Mr Chairman and members of the
committee and interested public. Probably the Liberal members
aren't here because they've heard me speak before and they say,
"Oh no, not him again."
You have in front of you a
letter that I've written to the minister, and basically what I'm
going to do this afternoon is just expand a little bit on that
letter, give you a little more detail. The membership of the
Porcupine Prospectors and Developers Association is about 136
members. We conduct exploration activities in and around the
Timmins area and beyond. The problem that we have with the OFSC
trails are that sometimes they are more of a hindrance to us than
they are a help. They will become more so with this bill.
There are many cases where
access to where we'd normally do our exploration has been taken
over, for lack of a better word, by these Ski-Doo trails along
forest access roads, winter roads that sometimes have been put in
by exploration companies. If the trail is there, it becomes a
hindrance to us and a safety issue if we are trying to cross or
go along that trail where we normally would have gone because,
number one, in a lot of cases we use heavy equipment and, as
everyone knows, the speed of snowmobiles on some of those trails
is sometimes quite fast. If they come around the corner and
there's a D-6 tractor coming at them with a 12-foot blade,
somebody's going to get hurt, and it's not going to be the
bulldozer. That means we have to have someone in front of our
machine, which requires us to have another person involved in the
operation for the safety factor.
There have been
cases-myself personally-where there were two access roads into an
area; one, the Ski-Doo trail had taken over. The second one was a
little farther for me to go, but to avoid the possibility of
having a battle getting down the trail, I took the second route,
which worked for me because it was wintertime. If it had been
summer I couldn't have done it, but the snowmobiles wouldn't have
been there anyway. There are many cases where these trails are in
our way. We have been inundated with restrictions to access the
land over the last few years with Ontario's Living Legacy.
I'm not going to get into a
numbers game. You had a presentation this morning from Save Our
North where they gave you all kinds of numbers and statistics.
You can make statistics go whichever way you want them to go:
they can work for me or they can work against me. What we would
like the snowmobile clubs to realize is that they are the new
people in the woods, as far as these trails go, and they have to
respect the fact that we have been out there doing our thing for
a number of years. The trappers have been doing theirs even
longer than we have, and we would like to see some exemptions for
traditional users, explorationists, prospectors and trappers. We
would like these people to be able to access short portions.
We're not going to be out there riding the trail from here to
Cochrane. We'll drive to Cochrane and use a short piece up there
if we have to. It would be quite obvious to anyone who rides
snowmobiles that I and my assistant, with two long-track Tundras
with a maximum speed of 35 miles an hour, are not out riding the
trails for pleasure. We're out there because we have to be.
In addition, the $150
permit for prospectors, trappers and exploration contractors, and
even for myself-I have three snow machines which I may use at one
particular time, all of them or one of them. This would require
me to have a permit for each of those snow machines, so now I'm
at $450 to ride on the trails and to use the trails. Some survey
contractors have up to six or seven snowmobiles, so now you're
getting up into $600, $900, $1,000 for them to do it. With the
state of the mineral industry right at this particular time, and
especially the exploration industry, we can't afford to have any
more pressures put on us to find different ways or better ways
into areas to increase our costs to get into an area and also to
increase our costs by requiring these permits on all of our snow
machines.
We are one of the few
groups out there that are multiple-use proponents. We would like
everyone to have the same opportunity. We all realize that using
crown land is a privilege, not a right, and we have to respect
the laws that are in place at the time. But we would also like
some consideration for the people who have been using the forests
and some of these forest access roads and other trails for more
years than the Ski-Doo trails have been there.
That basically is my
presentation. I'll answer any questions that anybody happens to
have.
The Chair:
Thank you for your presentation. The questioning this round will
start off with the Liberals.
Mr Ramsay:
Thank you very much for your presentation. I'm sorry I missed the
beginning of it. As I said previously, this morning, our party
will put in an amendment to exempt traditional users such as
prospectors and trappers from the permit fee. What sort of
criteria would be helpful identify the legitimate prospector?
Would it be holding a licence? We'll need to put something in
there so we properly identify who would be authorized so there's
no abuse to it. How would you do it?
Mr
Calhoun: Like you say, there are prospecting licences
which we have to have to conduct our business in the woods. The
individual person could go to the local club and state their
case. If the person has claims in the area and they're going to
work them in the wintertime, that's known to those people and
it's known to the government. We have to spend $400 per claim
unit per year, so the government knows when and where we have to
spend our money.
There's always going to be
someone who's trying to beat the system, I realize that, but our
organization and other organizations in the area could help the
Ski-Doo clubs identify
the people we consider to be the legitimate users and the
legitimate prospectors and so forth, from our end anyway.
Mr Ramsay:
I like your approach because that's to me, if this is to work,
the approach we have to have, to have this at the local level
rather than just have some regulation that comes after the act. I
think we need something in the act that in a sense would ensure
that local users who have a relationship now with the local clubs
get that exemption and that it's done at the local level, with
the recognition that the person has claims in the local area and
needs to use that trail. If you get it bureaucratically and
you've got to apply through Toronto or something, it's going to
get too convoluted. It has to be simple and done locally. So I'd
be looking for language in the legislation that would have it
done at the local level, because I think people so far have
worked pretty well together.
1340
Mr
Calhoun: Yes, we've been getting along for the last few
years, so we don't need something that you have to have written
into this bill.
Mr Ramsay:
Yes, I agree.
Mr Dunlop:
Thanks for your presentation today. I just wanted to read a
portion of one of the amendments and see how you feel about this
at this time.
Section 9 of the bill
amends section 28 of the act. 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 regulations.
Regulations may also be made general or particular and different
classes of persons may be identified for exemptions for the act
or regulations. That's the amendment we're prepared to make.
Mr Spina:
That's already in.
Mr Dunlop:
It's already in there.
Mr
Calhoun: Yes, that one is in there, but the problem with
the different classes of snowmobiles-I use Long Track Tundras.
Not everyone does. Some of the guys use ones that would be trail
type snow machines because they want to get there quicker than I
do. But I don't think the wording of that one is strong enough.
The actual name of the persons they wish to exempt would be a
better way to do it: prospectors, explorationists, trappers. I
don't know who else would be looking for an exemption, but I
think the actual names of the people, not just a class of person,
may be exempt.
Mr Dunlop:
Is there any time that you would use one of the trails, as a
prospector, and do damage to the trail itself?
Mr
Calhoun: There are times when, like I said in here, they
use forest access roads that are public-use roads in the
summertime. They aren't necessarily plowed unless the forestry
company is going to use them in the wintertime. So quite often we
will plow those roads to get into an area, and obviously if we
plow that road it's going to change the status of the trail.
Usually, we don't take it down to gravel because we want to use
our own machines on it, but it would be different than the trail
that the guy had just come off, where it was nicely packed and
groomed and so forth. But in most cases you are looking at three,
four, maybe five kilometres where this would happen.
One of the things we don't
want to get into is where we have to put a road beside a road,
because then we have to start dealing with the MNR and they
really don't want any more roads put into the woods than have to
be there. We don't want to have to start widening roads and
things like this, so we would change the type of trail that the
person would ride on for that five kilometres.
Mr Ramsay:
Is there any more time?
The Chair:
About a minute and a half, if you have a fairly quick
question.
Mr Ramsay:
I would just maybe ask Mr Spina, who is really on top of this
issue, is there anything wrong with recognizing in the act in a
general sense-and I know you have previously-these two
traditional users that we've identified here, trappers and
prospectors, and give these people a little more comfort?
Mr Spina:
The only concern I would have-and obviously, David, we'd have to
look at the terminology-is that if you become too specific in the
act itself, the very reason why we want it in there then also
limits the opportunity to add any others down the road. In the
regulatory environment, if you listed five or six
groups-trappers, bait fishermen, prospectors, explorationists; we
can go through the list-then if at some point we identify that
there's someone else who perhaps should be added, you don't have
to go through a legislative amendment. It's far easier to add
them to the regulatory list. That's the only concern I would
have.
Mr Ramsay:
But the main ones we have now we could recognize in the
legislation without limiting further inclusions, because I
wouldn't want to do that either, but at least we could give the
main groups that have traditionally been there some comfort now.
I don't think that precludes any sort of regulatory change down
the road to add other people.
Mr Spina:
That's if we proceed with mandatory permits in general.
Mr Ramsay:
Oh.
Mr Spina:
Well, that's the debate. That's why we're here for first reading
of the bill.
Mr Ramsay:
Whether we do this at all.
Mr Spina:
Yes. This is first reading; it's not second reading. As you know,
if we were having hearings after second reading, a lot of this
would be pretty well set in stone. We're haggling over small
points. We're doing this after first reading, which means that
it's far broader in scope and we can look at all elements of the
bill. I'm sorry, I know you weren't at the other couple of days,
but in general that's the reason why we wanted to come out to
public hearings after first reading, to allow us the opportunity
to look at the broader picture, especially to hear from people
like Mr Calhoun.
The Chair:
Thank you, Mr Calhoun. We appreciate you bringing your
perspective.
Mr
Calhoun: Thank you for the opportunity.
SUDBURY TRAIL PLAN ASSOCIATION
The Chair:
Our next presentation will be from the Sudbury Trail Plan
Association. Good afternoon and welcome to the committee.
Ms Vassie
Lumley: Good afternoon. I have assisting me today Janet
Depatie, our president at the present time, and also Don Lumley,
founding and past president of the Sudbury Trail Plan
Association.
My position with the
Sudbury Trail Plan Association is director of administration. The
association is located in Sudbury, Ontario. I am here to
represent the Sudbury Trail Plan Association and its eight member
snowmobile clubs, all of which are members of the Ontario
Federation of Snowmobile Clubs. On behalf of the group, I'd like
to thank the government for their support and interest in
snowmobiling and giving us the opportunity to speak to you.
As a member of the Ontario
Federation of Snowmobile Clubs, we agree with the OFSC position
that there are four cornerstones essential to making a mandatory
OFSC permit successful. They are that the final authority on all
matters and processes related to the mandatory trail permit must
remain with the OFSC, especially use of permit revenues; that the
OFSC mandatory permit must be an absolute and easily enforceable
requirement on designated OFSC trails; however, we recognize that
reasonable accommodation must be made for traditional access on
crown land; and that trained OFSC wardens must have the authority
under the MSVA to enforce mandatory OFSC permits.
Now I'd like to give you
some background on the Sudbury Trail Plan Association. The
Sudbury Trail Plan Association was formed in 1987. At that time
only one OFSC club existed in the Sudbury area. This club sold
125 memberships at $25 and had approximately 80 kilometres of
trails in the Sudbury region. There was another club but that
club folded due to the hardships of maintaining the trails that
they had existing at that time. Once the Sudbury Trail Plan
Association came into being and joined the OFSC, the existing
club became a member of the association and the defunct club was
rejuvenated and joined the STP Association. Within the next two
years an additional six clubs formed and joined both the OFSC and
the Sudbury Trail Plan Association.
As the clubs formed, the
membership in the trail network grew in the Sudbury area. The
association has experienced a growth from 125 permits to now
selling approximately 5,500. It maintains with its club members
1,300 kilometres of trail. Our association does a direct mail-out
to every one of our permit buyers on a yearly basis and we also
maintain 60 to 70 permit-selling outlets so that the purchaser
can acquire them in person.
The Sudbury Trail Plan
Association assists the clubs in their administration and
operational efforts. There is a great partnership among all the
clubs for the betterment of snowmobiling in our area.
The association has one
full-time administration personnel and one full-time operations
personnel. We also employ 20 to 22 groomer operators during the
winter season, which became a necessity when the demands grew on
grooming our trails more frequently for the traffic they were
receiving. Each club, through their own volunteers, is
responsible for preparation, signage and land use on private land
for their trails. The association is responsible to groom the
trails and to assist the clubs with land use with MNR, corridor
routes and municipal lands and also to purchase the items in bulk
to assist the clubs to perform their duties more efficiently.
1350
STP is also responsible for
purchasing the groomers required to groom these trails. We
presently have eight large pieces of grooming equipment. Over the
past 12 years, we have had to replace four of them. Purchasing 12
pieces of equipment that range from $90,000 to $150,000 does put
the association into requiring bank loans.
We have developed a strong
partnership with the Sudbury tourism group that supports our
snowmobile trail map and regional publications. Our association
boasts a membership of 10,000 family members, and this is very
evident when you ride our trails.
As an association, and as
individual clubs, we have participated in generating revenues for
charities for the past 12 years. The association and the clubs
combined have raised over $200,000 for charity. Twelve years ago,
there was no tourism in the Sudbury area, but today we are
pleased to say that the region benefits tremendously from our
volunteer efforts. The economic benefit to the Sudbury region
because of the snowmobile clubs and volunteers' efforts is
approximately $25 million per year.
The Sudbury Trail Plan
Association and its member clubs are members of the OFSC and each
is a not-for-profit, volunteer-driven group with a mandate to
build and maintain snowmobile trails within their community. Many
years ago, the trail system, as it was known in Ontario, was
maintained by the Ministry of Natural Resources and growth was
not possible because of lack of manpower. With the rejuvenated
interest in snowmobiling in Ontario, the OFSC assisted groups of
individuals to form clubs province-wide so that the trail network
could grow in each community.
As members of the OFSC, we
are mandated that trail permit revenues are all used towards
snowmobile trails. We have proven ourselves as leaders in
developing a world-class system because of our user-pay system
that assists the clubs with part of the revenues required to
build and maintain the system.
When the Sudbury Trail Plan
Association and its member clubs joined the OFSC, they embraced
the user-pay system because it was a must to generate the
revenues required to build and maintain the vast network of
trails in our area. In saying this, the association and the clubs
must still fundraise through events and raffles on a yearly basis
to raise the additional 50% shortfall so that they have
sufficient revenues to maintain their system.
We find that in our area,
because of the demands of tourism and local traffic, we are
required to concentrate more each and every year on fundraising to
bring up the shortfall in our organization. This has become a
problem over the past few years because of the volunteer burnout
that we are experiencing. We address this need for more dollars,
and the fact that fundraising is getting more difficult every
year, by becoming more accountable to our members on how we spend
our money and solicit donations. We have taken a great effort in
training our Sudbury trail plan wardens to patrol our trails to
ensure that each and every snowmobile using our trails has an
OFSC permit. At the present time, we have approximately 75 trail
wardens to assist the association in this task.
As for tourism trails, 12
years ago when the Sudbury Trail Plan Association was formed, as
stated, snowmobile tourism in Sudbury was non-existent. Today we
experience many riders who come to Sudbury or ride through
Sudbury due to the vast interconnected system in Ontario. We have
many businesses that open their doors to these touring
snowmobilers and market that they are open for business today,
but only a few years ago they closed their doors and went to
Florida for the winter. This tourism marketing and subsequent
increased traffic has put a real strain on our club volunteers
because businesses and snowmobilers alike demand a perfectly
groomed and signed trail system but don't wish to financially
support the system any more than they already do.
An OFSC mandatory permit is
crucial to assist our organization in ensuring that all
snowmobilers using our trails on private or crown land have a
valid OFSC trail permit to help in providing the operational
dollars required to maintain our system.
In conclusion, the Sudbury
Trail Plan Association wishes to thank the government for
assisting us during Sno-TRAC and SST for capital purchases, but
now it is time that we have some assistance for operational
dollars to ensure that we carry on with the world-class system
that club volunteers have built over the past 30 years. To do
this, we feel we require the following: that the Ontario
Federation of Snowmobile Clubs remains the final authority on all
matters related to mandatory permits, as we do now; that this
should include the design, production, sales procedures, pricing
and the use of the revenues generated from the sales; that the
OFSC mandatory permit be absolute and easily enforceable on all
OFSC-designated trails because these trails have been built and
made accessible in the winter only because of club volunteers.
These volunteers have made these trails better and safer by
spending over $20 million per year for the sole use of
snowmobilers who have an OFSC permit. If anyone wishes not to
purchase a trail permit, there are many other trails on crown
land that can be ridden.
In the past, the Sudbury
Trail Plan Association has made available, and will make
available, free trail permits to the OPP, regional police, MNR
and other corridor users to perform their jobs. We have also not
asked trappers or prospectors to purchase permits to access their
lines or sites, but most do because of the fact that the clubs
have made their access much easier because of the groomed
trails.
As stated, we have
approximately 75 wardens who patrol the trails to ensure that all
riders have a valid permit at the present time. This needs to
continue, but what we also need to add to the mix is that the
police, conservation officers and the STOP officers must have the
authority to enforce the permit. We believe that an OFSC
mandatory permit would assist our organization in acquiring the
much-needed operational dollars to assist us in providing the
product that snowmobilers have become accustomed to. If the club
volunteers lose control of their user-pay system and the
decisions on how to spend the money, it is very likely that we
would lose many dedicated volunteers who have worked tirelessly
in acquiring land permission from their local landowners.
Finally, the Sudbury Trail
Plan Association and its eight member clubs, as part of the
Ontario Federation of Snowmobile Clubs, must have the absolute
authority over mandatory permits and trails to ensure the
continuance of organized snowmobiling in our area. Thank you.
The Chair:
That leaves us time for questioning. This time, we'll start with
the government, Mr Spina.
Mr Spina:
Thanks, Vassie. The question that I wanted to present-I never had
a chance, by the way, to thank Don publicly for your presentation
because we didn't have time for questions earlier today, and also
to say thank you because I had the chance to travel with you on
the Rendezvous '98 ride run from Mattawa to North Bay. That was
great.
You talked about the
mandatory trail permit being crucial to sustainability. Also, it
should be easily enforceable on the trail system. I guess there's
a twofold question. If you have people out there who are not
riders, not members, would mandatory permits actually
cover-because we've heard that they would not-the shortfall that
you're anticipating as an organization in whole?
Ms Lumley:
As the Sudbury Trail Plan Association itself or provincially?
Mr Spina:
Provincially or even within your trail plan. Would there be
enough additional memberships sold as a result of mandatory
permits to be able to cover your shortfall?
Ms Janet
Depatie: As president of the Sudbury Trail Plan
Association, I don't think it would cover the shortfall. I think
we'd still have to fundraise and we'd certainly still have to
volunteer.
Mr Spina:
The other side of it is the easily enforceable elements of it,
because essentially we've got more snowmobile trails in this
province than we have provincial highways. Clearly, the focus of
the OPP is the highways and not the trail system. I know we don't
have enough STOP, and even if the wardens were brought in, I'm
not sure how many would be able to actually enforce a mandatory
trail system. If we take that as a given, are there alternatives
of revenue sources that could be looked at or considered instead
of just mandatory permits?
Mr Don Lumley: There are two
right now that I see would be very easy to address and implement.
The first one would be a system that is used in Quebec and is
also used in New Brunswick, where a portion of the registration
monies goes back to the federation and back through the
clubs.
Mr Spina:
Sorry, this is the registration fee paid to the Ministry of
Transportation?
Mr Lumley:
That's right. At this time, most of the people in northern
Ontario are exempt from paying that. Most of them do not have any
problem with having to pay a registration if they know the money
is going back for the betterment of the sport and back into the
product.
I took a poll back I think
in 1994 at the AGM of the OFSC. We posed that question, and about
98% said that if they knew the money was going back, they would
have no problem with it.
1400
How Quebec implemented
it-and I'm not sure of the exact numbers, but I'll use an
example-their registration was $25; the next year it was bumped
up to $35. That extra $10 that was kind of a surcharge added on
to the registration then went back to the Quebec federation. I
know right now probably $25 to $30 out of that registration goes
back to them, and they get a significant amount. I see that as a
direct help. In my mind, probably more money would be generated
back to the clubs through that than if it were just strictly a
mandatory permit and trying to catch the free riders.
The other area I think the
province could look at is-and I know it opens up a real ball of
wax-if the landowners were given a little bit of tax relief for
the use of their property on registration, that would also make
it a lot easier on the snowmobile clubs. Quite often a lot of
trails have to be re-routed every fall because the landowner
comes in and says, "No, you're not coming through my property,"
or the land has changed. If there was some incentive for the
landowner to make sure his property is being used, that in turn
would save money for the organizations as well.
Ms
Depatie: Mr Spina, you referred to "easily enforced."
That is one of the reasons that we would like to see our wardens
continue to be there, because they have the dedication to be out
there and probably have a few more resources than the OPP or
regional police have-the commitment.
Ms Lumley:
At the present time, having 75 wardens in the Sudbury area alone,
if they didn't have the power to enforce the permit, we would
have about 12 STOP officers and six police officers that do
patrol our trails. So those 75 people would be out of the
picture.
Mrs
Bountrogianni: I have a question for Mr Spina that I
wanted to ask earlier but didn't get a chance to ask, and if
there's time, I have a couple of questions for Ms Lumley. But
first I'd like to apologize for being late. I had a meeting at
Northern College and I made my colleague late, and I apologize
for that.
Mr Spina, Mr Lumley earlier
related to complementary amendment number 11, where the owner or
snowmobile can be held liable to fine provided under this act.
His concern was about the snowmobile rental business, whereby an
owner could be held liable for the 20 or so snowmobiles not under
his care and control, and that the snowmobile business was very
fragile and this would make conditions even more difficult for
them. Could you comment on that? Would this act encompass the
rental business and the owners of those?
Mr Spina:
The staff in the Ministry of Transportation are looking at the
issue of both liability and insurability on all aspects and
whether it can or cannot be tied into the mandatory permit
process, which again can make it more complex. For further
explanation on the direct impact, I think Mr Lumley would
probably be more experienced than I to address that.
Mr Lumley:
At this point in time, if a rental agency has machines going out,
it's the actual operator of the vehicle who is responsible. If
this part of the act is implemented, then that person would be
responsible for 20 or 30 or how many machines they have. As I
said, in Quebec right now they're running 3,000 rental
snowmobiles, but the onus is on that person who takes the rental
snowmobile out for the operation of it, not somebody who has no
chance of governing how that machine's going to be operated.
On a one-to-one basis it's
a little bit different. If you're lending a snowmobile to
somebody, you make sure that person is responsible. But when
you're in the business of renting it and really the dollar is the
factor as to who gets the machine-and you can sign all kinds of
waivers and areas of responsibilities and what not, but if still
the law says that the owner is the person who's renting with the
rental business, that would definitely have an impact on starting
to build the rental business in Ontario.
Mrs
Bountrogianni: Do I have time?
The Chair:
For a brief moment.
Mrs
Bountrogianni: Ms Lumley, you mentioned that your fee
was $25. Is that still what your club fee is?
Ms Lumley:
No, that was many years ago. That was the OFSC permit at that
time. Over the years it has increased.
Mrs
Bountrogianni: I was wondering how you were able to do
the miracles you were on that. I had this picture of you-
Ms Lumley:
The trail was only 80 kilometres at that time.
Mrs
Bountrogianni: You also mentioned that most trappers or
prospectors do purchase permits. Do you have any idea
percentage-wise-I know you can't have an exact number, but-
Ms Lumley:
No. It's just from hearing that they are purchasing the permits
because it is an easy access to get to their lines or to get to
their sites, but it's not something we've asked for them, because
we know they are exempt.
Mr Dunlop:
I have a really quick question I wanted to ask Mr Lumley this
morning but I didn't get the opportunity. You have a lot of
experience in snowmobile travelling and you've obviously visited
a lot of states and provinces. What jurisdiction in your opinion
has the best system in place right now?
Mr Lumley:
As far as administration and operational or as far as the trail
quality?
Mr Dunlop:
The overall system.
Mr Lumley:
For trail quality it's still Quebec. Ontario is a close second,
but only because Quebec is uniform right from province to
province. They've been at it a lot longer than we have. We've
played catch-up in the last 10 years to where they are, and they
of course have taken off from there. The two systems that operate
best as far as administration of the sport of snowmobiling and
have set the example throughout Canada are Ontario and Quebec.
There's not that much difference at this time between the two
systems. Quebec was the first; then came Ontario; then came New
Brunswick, and from there, snowmobiling built across Canada.
The Chair:
Thank you very much for taking the time to make your presentation
here today.
LAKE HURON-ARCTIC REGION BAIT ASSOCIATION
The Chair:
Our next presentation will be from the Lake Huron-Arctic Region
Bait Association. Good afternoon and welcome to the
committee.
Mr Luc
Charette: Thank you very much. I'd like to apologize
first. If I had known what type of format it was, I would have
been here this morning and I would have gotten a little bit more
feedback. This is the first time I've come to one of these, so
next time I'll come here in the morning like everybody else and
check things out.
The Chair:
This way your perspective is fresh.
Mr
Charette: I listened to two groups, and I'm going, "OK;
these are all points I would have liked to have touched on."
First I'll introduce
myself. My name is Luc Charette. I'm from Iroquois Falls and I am
a family man. I'm a father of four children, and they keep me
busy. I also work for municipal government. I work for the
recreation department, so I do have a little bit of experience
with the ins and outs of different rules and regulations and
implementing things. It gets pretty tricky, and I realize that. I
also have a business, a small bait and tackle store which started
out as a hobby and grew into something a little bit more than I
expected. One of the things I do in my shop is sell trail
permits. I don't sell anything for snowmobiles or anything like
that, but they've asked me to sell the trail permits, and I do
sell them. So I'm not against trail permits. I get a lot of
feedback. Mind you, I can tell you some good stories.
The Bait Association of
Ontario is very new on the board right now. We just started three
years ago. We've grown in leaps and bounds. Although the
association is new, the industry itself is fairly old. The BAO
was formed in partnership with the Ministry of Natural Resources
because there was a little bit of a concern about the industry. I
guess the ministry, not realizing that the industry was so
viable, started looking at the numbers and noticed that there is
quite a bit of money in the bait industry, and as opposed to
doing what some of the other provinces have done, because of
certain problems to eliminate live bait, they're trying to
regulate it. We're doing that with the ministry and having
sessions to do that. That's a brief history. That's why I joined
them and that's why I remain with them, because I like the idea
that they are looking into the industry and trying to keep it
viable. They want us to manage, they want us to monitor and they
also want us to make sure that we keep our resources intact by
different types of fishing, and pulse fishing and grading.
I'm here representing the
Lake Huron-Arctic region. Those are the same boundaries as the
MNR northeast region, which extends from Wawa to Quebec and from
the French River to Hudson Bay, so it's a pretty big area. I
didn't contact too many people. What I basically decided to do
was to come and give you my views, and a little bit of theirs
too, but mostly mine. I should touch on theirs at the same
time.
I have three key points.
It's repetitious a little bit from what I could see, but some of
us have traditionally used these trails or some of the trails for
our business, myself not as much as others, but there are times
that we do use the trails to get to a certain pond or whatever.
It could be just on a quarter-mile. Sometimes it's just coming
off a road, getting on to the trail. It's very different.
1410
One of the points that I
got from some of the guys who have been in the industry for a
little bit longer is that some of those trails were initiated and
maintained by them to a certain extent, just keeping it clean and
whatnot, so they feel like they should be using them or
whatever.
Again, I would like to also
stress the fact that we are in a partnership with the MNR and we
do work fairly closely with them as an association.
A lot of it is education.
When you're trying to implement rules, regulations, exemptions
and whatnot, if there's no education behind it, nobody is going
to know what's going on, so obviously everybody's going to be
breaking the rules or trying to get around the rules. But if you
know what your boundaries are, then you say these are the
boundaries and that's what you have to live with. Again, the
reason the ministry is working with us is, first of all, they
want good inventory monitoring in the management of the
resources.
The third point I'd like to
make is that our licence fees were increased about two years
ago-that was part and parcel of this new association and trying
to regulate and put in more rules-from $17.50, which I agree was
very low, to $300, but it's still an increase. The point I'm
trying to make with that is that we're already paying licensing
fees to access this crown land. That's the impression that I get
myself. I have to be careful sometimes. When I'm going to a
certain pond that I want to get to, it's just in the last few
years now that I'm starting to get educated, that I'm starting to
think: "Oh my God,
this might be private land. I'd better look into that." When I
look into it-although sometimes there isn't a trail going
through-you still have to get the landowner's permission to
access their land, plus get the OFAC permission to access the
trail. For private land, most of the people who trap minnows and
stuff have to go talk to the landowners anyway.
Basically I'm here because
we'd like an exemption from paying the fees to ride the trails
necessary to operate our business-nothing more than that. I know
everybody's saying we've got to keep everything simple and stuff,
but let's face it, you can't keep anything simple. You can say
it's black and it could be different shades of black. That's my
impression. I know it's difficult, but you have to look at both
sides and I guess go down the middle.
We're not opposed to Bill
101, but we need access to a small portion of the trail system to
get to our licensed area, and we all have to carry our licences
when we are trapping bait. If an MNR officer stops us and we're
trapping bait or conducting our business, if we don't have our
licence on us we get charged. We also have to keep a log book
now, something new that came in with the BAO.
Some of the trails we have
to use to get to our area; some of the trails are on our area. I
realize there is a problem with identification. Again, I'd like
to stress that some people do use machines that might be
trail-oriented. We can't use that as an identification, but if
you're going to do something to identify something it's like rule
of thumb. It's like a glassy-eyed driver. Oh-oh, you're not sure.
But if he's driving an old beat-up Bravo with a sleigh in the
back and three or four buckets of water, he ain't going to
Cochrane for a coffee, you know. It's not that simple, but with
the education, I would like to see guys in my industry say: "OK,
we got the exemption but don't start abusing it. Don't start
going to Cochrane for a coffee." That will be our part to say
that to them.
So there's the equipment,
the type of machine and the area that he's in. I'm from Iroquois
Falls. If I'm in North Bay and I get stopped and I pull out my
licence for trapping minnows and I'm riding an Indy Trail Deluxe
and I'm all in leather-nothing's simple though. People are always
going to try to get around the system and stuff; that's never
going to change.
The association also
directed me to mention that if there's something we can do to
help the identification of these BAO, like they identified me
here. Everybody thinks I work for the MNR now. This was because
we did some instructing. That's identification, and you get set
apart from the rest.
Just in closing, I would
like to say that I know no laws are simple and it's always
difficult. I heard something about the local level, and I would
really like to talk about that for just one second. I remember a
buddy of mine had a trapline. He came to me and asked, "Am I
allowed to use the trails, because I've got a trapline?" I said:
"I don't know. I think so. I think I read something. I'm just
selling the licences. I'll find out." So I spoke to the president
of the club, and he said there is nobody who is exempt from
riding the trails without a trail permit. That's the message that
I had to come across with, so local level, fine, but maybe the
education has to be there a little bit more.
I didn't type up a letter
or anything like that, which I'll do later on. When I get home
tonight, I'll type up something with my points on it, try to make
it a little bit clearer and I'll forward it to Viktor.
I know that it's a good
industry. I like the snowmobile industry, and it's brought a lot
of people to Iroquois Falls. I don't want to put any blocks to it
or anything like that, but we have to also remember it has grown.
I don't know how big it's going to get, but it's really big, and
when you hit a winter like last year, with the weather being the
way it is, that really kills it big time.
Anyway, I probably went off
topic about 10 times but that is it for me.
The Chair:
Thank you very much, and that leaves us some time for
questioning. This time we'll start with the Liberals.
Mr Ramsay:
Thank you very much, Mr Charette, for your presentation. It was
excellent, right from the heart.
I don't think this has to
be that difficult, especially in your particular avocation. As
you say, you're not running up hundreds of miles to access
baitfish. Because of your having to carry water and the equipment
you have to have, I take it you must use sleds-
Mr
Charette: Yes, definitely.
Mr Ramsay:
-all the time, because you're transporting. Because you're
licensed, again, it's easy to control, so that I think we need
provisions in the act for your industry also. Being a traditional
industry, you are licensed so it's easy to control and you're
licensed to a certain zone, as you said, a certain management
area.
You're right, you wouldn't
have the right with the exemption to be in North Bay. In your
particular case, if you want to do that you'll get the proper
permit. I think that's the control, so if you were stopped down
in North Bay, your licence would say that you're entitled to be
in the Iroquois Falls area in these zones and you'd be fined. I
think it's fairly simple with the work you do, being licensed, to
enforce that exemption. Somebody will try, I suppose, to abuse
that, but I think that person could be caught with good
enforcement. I don't think there should be a problem. That's
something we're going to move to, because I'm just concerned that
if we don't see the regulations and have to trust that these will
come out later and that we were promised that trappers and
prospectors, but maybe not the bait fishery-I think we need that
up front.
So far we've identified at
least three major traditional users that need exemptions but only
for their particular use, and in some cases like yours, it's not
great distances so it's very limited, and I think it can be
controlled. We're going to be moving amendments to that. I hope
the government hears our message.
Mr
Charette: The only thing I wanted to say is-because
you've reinforced my idea; obviously identification is a big key and I realize
that-my personal view is somebody could be identified beforehand,
even before there is a stoppage, because the guy's in a hurry,
he's got bait, and as soon as he gets stopped, he asks, "Why are
you stopping me?" You get into the little tiffs here and there.
It depends who this guy is. Maybe I played hockey against him
last night and he gave me an elbow.
You're getting into
personalities, so it's important to be exempt and to have that
identification, whether the bait association and the MNR can come
up with a sticker that we can use or whatever. Of course, there
are going to be some spot checks and, again, that should be told
to the bait dealer: "You're going to be checked if you're in
North Bay and you're trying to do this." It's not right.
1420
Mr Ramsay:
There are two things there. You're right, some sort of
identification tag would be helpful, but I also think you'll find
that it's local people, the local wardens who are doing the
enforcement. They know you and they'd see you there. You're
running to the same lakes you usually go to. I don't think that
would be a problem, because it's local enforcement.
Mrs
Bountrogianni: Very quickly, you mentioned that the club
you talked about said: "No, they have to have a permit. There are
no exemptions." I've been hearing different things in the last
three days. Would you say there is inconsistency across the clubs
on the issue of exemptions right now?
Mr
Charette: I'm not going to point them out for that,
because it's like that in every industry. I've gone through
ministry offices where I've asked three different people the same
thing and I get three different answers. It's like that all over.
I'm not just saying that club was like that. The people who run
those clubs have a hard time. They get razzed a lot and they get
a lot of people who are against them. Even their members are
always giving them a hard time: "You're not doing it right.
You're not grooming the trails." After a while they get fed up-I
don't blame them-and say: "Hey, don't bother me. Nobody's
exempt." But yes, I'd say there are some inconsistencies.
Mr Dunlop:
Thanks very much for coming. We're starting to identify more of
the traditional users. A couple of points: How many people, in
round terms, would belong to your association? Also, it came up
at one point yesterday or the day before about people using the
trails and just getting their own firewood. People would go out
and cut wood or they'd cut a bit of wood to sell. Do you know of
many cases of that type of thing happening?
Mr
Charette: In our industry?
Mr Dunlop:
No, this is just a separate question from bait. The first
question was, how many people do you represent as an association?
But do you know of anybody who actually uses the trails to go and
get firewood and that type of thing?
Mr
Charette: The first question is, what's happening with
the association is that at a certain point in time they were-it's
also inconsistent, because you have three different types of
licences. You have a harvesting licence, which includes
harvesting and selling. You have a bait dealer's licence, which
just includes selling. The harvesting licence is where you can
actually go out and trap the minnows. There are people out there
who don't have that licence. There are also people who have just
what they call-and those went up quite a bit because they kept it
fairly low.
The numbers have changed so
much over the last two years, I wouldn't be able to tell you. In
my area, Iroquois Falls-Cochrane, you're looking at maybe-if I
can count them. Let's see. In Iroquois Falls and Cochrane, let's
say there are about 10. That's pretty well as far as I can go.
But I can get you that information, if you would like, and I
could forward it to you.
Mr Dunlop:
It might be nice to have it.
Mr
Charette: OK, I'll mark it down.
Mr Dunlop:
The licensed ones. The ones who have bought their licences.
Mr
Charette: I'll get you a number for our region. All I've
got to do is call the ministry, and they'll probably make me call
somebody else. I'll end up getting it.
Mr Dunlop:
Thank you. Don't go to a lot of work on this.
Mr
Charette: No, no, it's not a problem. Do I forward it to
Viktor? The number of people who are licensed to harvest bait, no
problem.
The other one-firewood.
Mr Dunlop:
I was just curious if many people were actually doing that
here.
Mr
Charette: I haven't seen it. I'm not going to say I
have, but I've never looked for it. I myself don't use the trails
very much. We own some land in a co-ownership, and my snowmobiles
stay in there. We just kind of go around in circles more or less.
I've seen people stop their trucks on the side of the road and
get wood. I don't know whether they have a licence.
Mr Dunlop:
It came up that they were using their snowmobiles and little
trailers to go get wood. That's-
Mr
Charette: I think it would be a little more feasible to
use a truck. There's only so much wood you can get with a
snowmobile, and it takes a lot more time.
The Chair:
Thank you very much, Mr Charette. We very much appreciate your
bringing the perspective of the bait association here today and
adding to our deliberations. We appreciate your taking the
time.
ONTARIO FUR MANAGERS
FEDERATION,TIMMINS FUR COUNCIL
The Chair:
We have had a cancellation of the 2:30 group, so our next group
is the Timmins Fur Council. Good afternoon and welcome to the
committee.
Mr Larry
Reeve: Hello. My name is Larry Reeve. I'm also
representing the Ontario Fur Managers Federation, which has some
5,000 members. It's the largest voluntary organization in
Ontario.
I was here this morning,
and I heard a few of the things that were happening. I had time
to call back to our office-that's the Ontario federation office in
the Soo-and get a little bit of input from there. One thing they
feel very strongly about is that the exemption for trappers on
these trails should be in the act and not just in regulation,
because regulations can change in very short order, we have
found, and they would like that established in the act itself
when it's put forward rather than just as a side regulation.
The other thing here too: A
number of times this morning I heard different snowmobile clubs
saying that trappers would be exempt on their traplines on these
trails. This wouldn't be suitable, because a lot of trappers have
been travelling along like especially hydro lines from Timmins.
They travel hydro lines down to their traplines and then do their
business of trapping. A lot of the travelling is done off the
trapline on the snowmobiles. Clubs have taken over a lot of these
hydro lines and old roads and whatnot that the trappers
previously used, so just an exemption on the trapline itself
wouldn't be suitable for the trapping industry.
Trappers are reasonably
honest people. I heard someone stating that the majority of
trappers are members of snowmobile clubs. I think this is in the
case where they actually use these trails for recreation. I know
a lot of our fellows do. Personally, I get enough snowmobiling
just going around my trapline and I get nothing out of going on a
trail. I don't think I'd ever join one for that experience. I
don't particularly like the idea.
Another thing too: I don't
know if it can be built into this, but when these new trails are
going in, it would be advantageous to everybody to consult with
the Ontario Fur Managers Federation and the local fur councils on
where these trails are going. In a lot of cases, they're putting
them through moose yards, prime lynx habitat, over trout lakes.
There are a lot of places they've gone in the past where a little
bit of consultation with the trappers might have avoided a lot of
problems that exist today.
These plans for trails,
which I understand they're going to expand quite significantly in
the future, should also be put into a public hearing phase where
other groups can take a look at these plans, because there are a
lot of values out there that maybe these snowmobile clubs don't
recognize. There should be input from the public on any of these
trails.
Maybe some of this money
collected from the new licensing fee that's proposed should be
designated to clean up some of the problems that present trails
do have, like I say in the case of going over lakes that are
sensitive, and changing them to different areas.
One thing we experience at
the present time-we have an agreement that we are exempt on these
trails. The trail wardens should get some type of education and
training on where their bounds are and what the rules of the
trails are, because a lot of times trappers have been challenged
on the trails. We were at a federation convention this past
weekend and one gentleman brought up that he was going with a
farmer-the owner of the land and the trapper-to a spot where he
was having a problem with beavers, and he was challenged by one
of the trail wardens and more or less told to get off the trail.
With a bit of persuasion he backed off that stand, but it could
possibly have closed that trail for the entire history if he had
not. But they should be educated before they are allowed to get
this power.
I have a couple of
questions I'd like to ask you before I go on. What type of tenure
are these clubs getting? Is it a land use permit? Is it ownership
of these trails? What is it?
1430
The Chair:
Mr Spina.
Mr Reeve:
Is this our expert?
Mr Spina:
I caught most of the question. I'm sorry. What type of
tenure-
Mr Reeve:
-are they getting on this trail? Is it a land use permit? Is it
ownership of that land? What type of tenure do they have, or are
they going to have, on this trail, if they're going to be
charging people to use them?
Mr Spina:
Currently, the federation through the local clubs applies for
land use permits from MNR on crown land. At this stage that
system is already in place, and we really don't see that changing
at all. It's the same kind of system. This is the dilemma that
MNR is in the process of trying to handle. Right now, the
enforcement is under the Trespass to Property Act because
technically the federation has the right to be on the trail where
they have that LUP in place. If someone chooses not to pay the
fee, it's either, "Get off the trail," or they can lay a charge
under the trespass act. That's currently the way the structure
is.
The only difference with
this is that if a mandatory permit is implemented, then it
becomes a law as opposed to a rule and a right that has been
granted to the federation and its member clubs. If this permit
goes into place it becomes legislation. You actually have the
option, at this point, to pay the $150 plus a $30 surcharge if
you were caught on the trail; that's notwithstanding the
exemptions. But if you were caught on the trail and you don't
want to get off it, you could pay your $150 full fee plus a $30
surcharge for being caught on the trail, so it's a $180 cost.
Under the proposed
legislation what you would have is, if the person doesn't get off
the trail or doesn't choose to pay up, and we're struggling with
that, he or she is liable for a $200 to $1,000 fine for not
having the permit, plus all the other pieces of identification
that would be required: driver's licence, insurance, provincial
registration certificate etc.
Mr Reeve:
I assume all of this is in place so that the snowmobile clubs can
regain their expense of maintaining these trails; is that
correct?
Mr Spina:
You're talking about the fee?
Mr Reeve:
All of the fee and the structure they may fine and so on.
Mr Spina:
Yes. They collect it all now and they would collect it all in the
future, with the exception of the fine if there were a charge
laid under this act and the fine ends up going to the provincial
court system, in which case then the revenue for the fine portion
is divided between the
municipality and the province according to the court structure as
it is now.
Mr Reeve:
I wanted to clear that up before I went on because trappers spend
most of their time maintaining trails, not trapping. Especially
in the boreal forest that's here, I imagine I spend 10 times as
much time trying to keep my trails open as I do trapping.
Other people use them;
fishermen use them. One of the big problems with the snowmobile
trail system is that people have a habit of seeing our trapping
trails coming off the system and taking them to see where they
go. Some of them are stealing traps and some of them are stealing
fur. Many of the times people stand, look at the trap and urinate
right there, and that trap, that set, is not good for the rest of
the winter. They don't realize what they're doing to it.
They have high-powered
machines and they tear up the softer trails which we have. We use
work machines. They aren't the high-powered machines that they
use. They end up moguling them beyond use. We have to use the
same type of equipment they do to remove moguls.
We should be entitled to
the same consideration they are. We should have some type of
tenure or land use permit on our trails; if not, that they just
cannot take our trails over again, which is happening. We spend a
lot of money on them, the same as they do, and we would like this
in our rights also.
That's about all I have.
Thank you.
The Chair:
That leaves us with about two minutes, if anybody has a quick
question. Mr O'Toole.
Mr
O'Toole: We've heard a couple of presentations where
they toyed with the idea of exemptions. Of course, I don't think
that's a problem from what I've heard. There are special
traditional users. But how about the idea of the collection and
administration part of that? Would you have a problem with paying
the fee and getting it rebated to you?
Mr Reeve:
Yes, I would, very much. In most cases we are on our trails. They
should really be paying us a user fee.
Mr
O'Toole: Do you see the economic benefit, though? I
mean, you've sat here-
Mr Reeve:
Quite converse to what you're thinking, it's not an economic
benefit to us; it's an expense. These trails are wide. I don't
know if you know anything about wildlife. Marten don't like to
cross a wide expanse. They won't cross a wide road if they can
help it. They won't cross a railway track if they can help it. By
making wide trails, you're restricting the travel of marten.
You're chasing fisher, lynx, wolves and so on back into the bush,
away from these things. You're destroying habitat that they can
live in by putting trails through. It's of no benefit whatsoever
to a trapper to have a trail through his trapline.
Mr
O'Toole: I see it to the general economic condition of
the community.
Mr Reeve:
That's quite understandable, and this is why we've never really
said anything about this before, because there was an
understanding. We understand there are other user groups. There
are fishermen; there are hunters. Almost every lake a hunter or a
fisherman goes to by snowmobile is a trapping trail. We have
those trails that go in to trap beaver in those lakes. Fishermen
use them all the time; we have no problem with that. But we do
have a problem with paying to use our trails, yes.
Mr Ramsay:
I agree with you. I think we need to have some general language
in the legislation concerning, at least up until now, at least
three traditional user groups to exempt you from this fee. I
think that needs to be in the legislation. It just needs to be
very broad language, and then the rest of the detail could be in
regulation, the use of it in pursuit of the business of bait
fishing, trapping or prospecting. That means travelling to and
fro. I guess the word "authorized" would be in there, and in the
regulation we could have the details. Obviously you are licensed,
so it's all controlled, and the details can be in the regulation,
but I think the general language needs to be in the legislation
so that when we start this, if the government proceeds with this,
at least those three traditional users, who were there first, are
recognized.
Mr Reeve:
I think you should recognize mining companies also, because they
do a lot of exploration from these trails. A lot of these trails
cross patent mine claims, which will likely be closed if they are
not exempt.
The Chair:
I guess that's all the questions. Thank you very much. We
appreciate the perspective you brought to us here today.
CONSEIL DES TRAPPEURS DE HEARST / HEARST
TRAPPERS' COUNCIL
The Chair:
Our next presentation will be from le Conseil des trappeurs de
Hearst, M. Morin. Bonjour et bienvenue au comité.
M. Conrad Morin
: Je vais faire ma présentation en français et
puis, par la suite, je pourrai répondre aux questions dans
une langue ou l'autre at the end. I'll be able to answer your
questions directly without your having to translate.
Alors, merci. Bonjour. Je
crois qu'on vous a distribué un document que je vais
simplement lire un petit peu, et au fur et à mesure je vais
ajouter quelques items qu'on a peut-être oublié
d'ajouter au texte.
Monsieur le Président
et membres du comité, membres du public et des médias,
je suis ici aujourd'hui devant vous à titre de trappeur
d'abord, de président du Conseil des trappeurs de Hearst, et
finalement à titre de directeur de la zone 3A de la
Fédération des gestionnaires de fourrure de l'Ontario,
mieux connue sous le nom Ontario Fur Managers Federation. Pour
vous situer un peu, la zone 3A comprend les régions de
Hearst à Iroquois Falls le long de la route 11, y compris
Kapuskasing, Fauquier, Smooth Rock Falls et Cochrane.
Je dois vous dire en toute
honnêteté que je suis un peu inquiet au sujet du projet
de loi 101, An Act to promote snowmobile trail
sustainability and enhance safety and enforcement, tel qu'il est
écrit. En premier lieu, il n'y a aucune provision voulant exempter les trappeurs
de la province, ou les pêcheurs, prospecteurs et autres.
Deuxièmement, si je me base sur les expériences du
passé, telles que Des terres pour la vie, et le parc
Missinaibi, nous osons prédire que même s'il y a
semblance de consultation publique sur ladite Loi 101
aujourd'hui, les décisions ont déjà été
prises et que rien de ce qui est proposé au cours de ces
audiences ne changera le texte de la loi. Tout en disant cela,
nous gardons toujours espoir qu'un jour - aujourd'hui
peut-être - nous serons non seulement entendus
mais aussi écoutés, vraiment écoutés.
1440
Ici dans le nord, et
là je ne parle pas du « nord de
Toronto » mais plutôt du vrai nord,
c'est-à-dire tout le territoire situé de la ligne
est-ouest-Sudbury-Sault-Sainte-Marie-Thunder Bay en allant vers
le nord-les sentiers et les chemins donnant accès aux
terrains de la Couronne ont tous été construits par les
compagnies forestières et minières, et ça souvent
avec des argents provenant des fonds publics. Ces sentiers ont
pour la plupart été laissés à l'abandon. Les
trappeurs, au cours des années, ont continué à
maintenir un certain nombre de ces sentiers et ces chemins pour
ainsi garder accès à leurs terrains de trappe bien
avant la venue des clubs de motoneige. D'autres, tels que les
avides pêcheurs, ont fait de même.
Arrivent les clubs de
motoneige et le phénomène de la randonnée en
motoneige. Ces mêmes clubs ont suscité et obtenu la
collaboration des trappeurs et des conseils de trappeurs dans
notre région pour établir des sentiers convenables pour
que tous puissent jouir de la belle nature du nord. Les trappeurs
et leurs aides continuent de développer et de maintenir un
grand nombre de sentiers sans demander de rétribution et
sachant qu'à l'occasion ils seront probablement
utilisés par d'autres. Présentement, les trappeurs du
nord entretiennent une très bonne relation avec tous les
clubs de motoneige, et nous tenons à garder cette relation
intacte.
En acceptant de collaborer
à la mise sur pied de sentiers de motoneige passant sur les
terrains de trappe, le trappeur accepte par le fait même
qu'il y aura une augmentation considérable de circulation
sur le terrain de trappe, ce qui peut affecter dramatiquement la
capture de certaines espèces d'animaux à fourrure, tels
le lynx et la martre. C'est beaucoup plus évident lorsqu'on
se rapproche des villes où l'achalandage des sentiers est
beaucoup plus élevé, tant le jour que la nuit.
De plus, beaucoup de nos
membres possèdent plus d'une motoneige, l'une pour la trappe
et l'autre pour la randonnée. C'est-à-dire qu'ils
paient déjà pour se servir des sentiers pour la
randonnée. Certains d'entre eux doivent parcourir de bonnes
distances avant d'arriver sur leur terrain de trappe et
empruntent souvent les sentiers
« entretenus », sentiers qu'ils utilisaient
déjà depuis longtemps avant l'arrivée des clubs et
des associations de motoneige.
Nous demandons donc
simplement que la Loi 101 soit modifiée pour exempter les
trappeurs de la province de payer du surplus pour utiliser les
sentiers entretenus par les clubs, soit pour se rendre à et
revenir de leur terrain de trappe, ou de voyager sur ledit
terrain de trappe. Ceci dit, je peux vous confirmer aujourd'hui
que nous avons approché les clubs de motoneige locaux,
c'est-à-dire dans notre région, et avons reçu leur
appui et support pour notre demande.
Je vous remercie de votre
attention et je demeure confiant qu'enfin vous nous
écouterez et que vous utiliserez un bon jugement en
répondant affirmativement à notre demande.
Je vous demande, si vous me
posez des questions, de peut-être parler fort parce que je
suis un peu dur d'oreille. Merci.
The Chair:
Merci. The questioning this time will commence with the
Liberals.
Mrs
Bountrogianni: Thank you very much. I appreciate it
being in written form. I understood a little bit, but forgive me.
I am learning, though; I'm taking a course.
Mr Morin:
OK. Keep working.
Mrs
Bountrogianni: I think I understood. The equipment
wasn't working, so if I have not understood, please forgive me
and correct me.
Mr Morin:
No problem.
Mrs
Bountrogianni: I take it, then, that you are against the
fees for trappers for the very same reasons that I've been
hearing all morning and all afternoon?
Mr Morin:
Basically, yes, for the same reasons.
Mrs
Bountrogianni: Is there anything else you want to add
that perhaps I didn't understand? I just want to make sure-
Mr Morin:
The reasons behind it?
Mrs
Bountrogianni: Right.
Mr Morin:
The main reason is that most of those trails were originally
made, in our area anyway, by lumber companies, mining companies,
junior exploration companies and so on, and most of them were
abandoned with time. Our trappers have consistently maintained
those trails or roads or access trails to their traplines with no
remuneration, no monies from anybody except from our own pockets
and from the resource collecting that we are doing. Then along
comes the advent of the snowmobile, and all of a sudden we have
to, to put it bluntly, move over to let the clubs handle it, and
we're going to be charged to use trails that we have been using
for 20 or 30 years, which I feel is kind of unfair. That's the
main reason.
The other fact is that most
of the clubs in our area have approached us either as councils or
trappers' associations, mainly through the local citizens'
committees and individually, asking the trappers if it was all
right if the trail did pass on their trapline, again with no
conditions. In 99% of the cases I would say that was done very
willingly and co-operatively. We would hope that down the road
that co-operation would be maintained on the other side by
letting us use those trails at no cost, and, I would even add,
not just the trails on the actual traplines, but travelling to
and from the traplines. Some of our trappers have to travel
anywhere from 15 to 20
miles and more before even getting onto their traplines, so they
have to use some kinds of trails, and in some instances they are
groomed trails.
If I can put it this way as
well, if you look at the new machines being put out by
manufacturers now, some with the deeper tracks, they are the ones
that break up the trails. Trappers' machines don't break up
trails. They've got a nice sled dragging behind them full of
equipment. It just smoothes everything out. So that's maybe
another plus to having a trapper travel those trails.
Mrs
Bountrogianni: Thank you very much.
Mr Spina:
Merci, monsieur Morin. Je parle mal le français, moi. So
please, when you return home, give my greetings to Mayor
Jean-Marie. He's a nice man. I was cordially greeted by
Jean-Marie whenever I was in Hearst.
I want to go back to your
statement on the second page, and I certainly will not be
pronouncing it as well as you, that the trappers of the north
have a good relationship with the snowmobile clubs, and you want
to ensure that relationship remains intact. I can assure you that
was always the intention of the government and certainly of this
bill. In fact, in response to the input that was received prior
to the drafting of the bill, we instituted section 9 of the bill,
which amends section 26-I don't expect you to remember this-of
the Motorized Snow Vehicles Act and says 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 regulations. Regulations may also be made general or
particular, and different classes of persons may be identified
for exemptions from the act or regulations. So there are three
clauses in section 9 of the bill that specifically address what I
just summarized.
If mandatory permits are
going to be introduced and passed as part of this bill, I fully
support that the exempted parties will be clearly laid out either
in the bill or in the regulations. So those users would be even
better protected, because then it's not just a cordial handshake
agreement between the exempted user and the local club; it is
laid out in the regulation.
Mr Morin:
Exactly. That's what we would like to see.
Le
Président : Merci, monsieur Morin. Nous vous
remercions pour votre présentation. Au revoir.
TOURISM TIMMINS
The Chair:
Our final presentation this afternoon will be from Tourism
Timmins. I take it you are Mr Saari. Good afternoon and welcome
to the committee.
Mr Will
Saari: Good afternoon. Thank you, Mr Chair.
Mr Spina:
He followed us from Thunder Bay.
Mr Saari:
You can run but you can't hide, Joe.
I'd like to take this
opportunity to thank the committee for allowing me this
opportunity to express some of my opinions on Bill 101. To
preface that, by way of introduction, as the Chair, Mr Gilchrist,
has said, I represent Tourism Timmins. My name is Will Saari. I
have been practically a lifelong resident of northern Ontario,
here in the city of Timmins. My present occupation is as the
tourism coordinator for the city, so as such I'm responsible for
the tourism promotion and marketing of this city and of our area.
Snowmobiling certainly is one of the products that we're involved
in. In fact, as a marketer and salesperson, I wish that every
product I sold had an annual growth rate of 50% to 75% to 100%,
year after year. It's certainly been an easy sell. We certainly
do have the product.
1450
On the personal side, I
have been a snowmobiler for approximately 28 years now. No, I'm
not that old, but around here, back in those days, you started
very young. You went out on your family's farm or out to the
cottage and you rode around the fields and the lakes and that
sort of thing. The growth of the sport in this area over the
years has been a real eye-opener for many long-time residents of
the north.
I'm not going to speak
today as to the particulars from any one interest group. I
realize there are points of view from various groups, for
example, traditional users and whatnot, but I'm not going to get
into all of that. My presentation is fairly brief. I believe you
have a copy of it in front of you. The points I have here are
points that I will go over and provide, in some cases, a little
bit of additional information.
The first point, that
tourism benefits from organized snowmobiling in Ontario, is
pretty self-evident. Obviously the committee recognizes this, or
else none of this would have happened in the first place. But I
put it here by way of giving you the background as to why I make
some of the comments I make later on in the presentation.
Obviously it's a very high-grossing activity, with close to $1
billion in annual revenues, as we're all aware. Communities
throughout the snowbelt, and particularly in northern Ontario,
have had an equal opportunity to take part in this new economic
boom. In fact, let's face it: especially relative to the last
couple of years, we've had more than equal footing and have
probably benefited more, I know in our particular area, than
probably any other area in the province.
The demographics for
snowmobilers show a very high-yield market, and from a tourism
marketing point of view we find it's very interesting, from doing
surveys and whatnot, that a lot of these visitors come back at
other times of the year. So it's certainly a crossover market. So
those who happen to be touring through our area in the wintertime
often take the time to come back with their families and others
during the summer months.
It is evident, however,
that snowmobile tourism definitely places additional strain on
the resources and on the volunteers of the local snowmobile
clubs. As a tourism marketer I'm very aware, and I think,
generally, there is a new awareness among tourism marketing
professionals who are marketing snowmobiling, that it's something
that has to be taken into account.
We are selling a product that is owned by a
particular group-and when I say they own it, they own it in the
sense that developed, organized snowmobiling with the level of
grooming and signage and the safety aspects that we have today
certainly came about as a result of the OFSC and the member
snowmobile clubs. I can tell you that from an accommodations
point of view, even this particular property that you're sitting
on, which is a magnificent property that I can sell on behalf of
my community, probably wouldn't be here if it wasn't for
snowmobiling. It's certainly a big market that they're going
after here.
Why is organized
snowmobiling successful in Ontario? Again, my view is based on my
experience and also my personal experience as a snowmobiler. The
sport promotes a sense of adventure and fellowship. It's
breathtaking. If any of you have snowmobiled-I know, Joe, you
have; I don't know if any of the other committee members have,
but it's certainly an exhilarating sport. But, quite frankly,
what I enjoy even more than the actual riding, quite often, is
the little trailside stops where you can stop and talk to other
snowmobilers. There's probably not a more approachable group on
the face of the earth. You can go anywhere and walk into a room
and if there are other snowmobilers there you're going to know it
pretty soon.
Members of clubs understand
the benefits of membership. What I mean about that is that, for
example, when our local snowmobile club really began to get
organized about seven or eight years ago, I wasn't really sold on
the benefits of organized snowmobiling myself. I was one of those
who sort of felt that, you know, "I've been riding here for a
long time. Why should I have to join a club, and why should I
have to get permit, etc?" I can tell you, though, that after
having sampled the product, I was soon a very firm believer. It
certainly added a new dimension to me personally, as a
snowmobiler. No longer were there days where 70 miles was a
really big day and you got up the next morning and you felt like
you'd been beaten half to death. So there's certainly that aspect
of it. I think that generally the members who support snowmobile
clubs all have the same sort of feeling, that membership
certainly is worth the cost.
Snowmobiling is successful
because it's definitely a grassroots organization. In fact, the
snowmobile clubs themselves and the organizations involved in
snowmobiling have a really good public rapport. The general
public definitely supports our club in our own area, and I know
they do also in other areas. The sport is definitely dependent on
volunteers. This is self-evident. However, I think this is a
strength. It's the volunteers, their flexibility, their hard
work, their drive that make this such a positive aspect of
snowmobiling and what makes it so successful.
The OFSC certainly has had
33 years now of positive experience to build from, and the clubs
in the OFSC have good working relationships with a lot of the
other partners, certainly other clubs, municipal and provincial
governments and other user groups. I can give you an example. We
had a meeting in fact in this very hotel just this morning with a
group of municipal leaders, private business owners, the
snowmobile club and members of the OFSC, where we talked about
the possibility of using Timmins and the surrounding area as a
pilot project for some new safety and signage initiatives that
we're wishing to undertake. To see all those various groups come
together and working towards a common goal is something that
doesn't happen every day in today's business world.
What are the benefits of
mandatory trail permits? It would obviously create a more
equitable distribution of financial burden-no more freeloaders
out on the trails. It would provide the providers of the product,
the snowmobile clubs and the OFSC, a stable budgeting platform.
Your budget year to year wouldn't necessarily be linked to permit
sales that might very widely depending upon the whims of the
public, "Oh, Jeez, it really hasn't snowed a whole lot yet so I
think I'm going to wait." In a lot of cases people just don't end
up buying them at all.
I believe it would clear up
a number of grey areas in regard to liability and legal
responsibilities for the various partners involved in the
trails.
Time and money now spent
trying to convince non-supporters could be better spent improving
trails, signage etc. Our club volunteers spend an awful lot of
time promoting the public relations aspects of buying a permit
and the fact that it is voluntary but it's for the good of all,
and that people really have to support the voluntary user-pay
system.
The ability to enforce the
already existing premise of OFSC permits mandatory on OFSC
trails: I believe that a mandatory trail permit system could put
some more teeth into that premise. "Mandatory" is mandatory, and
the issues around whether the trail crosses public land versus
private land etc could possibly be eliminated. I know that's part
of what the bill tries to address.
What are my suggestions for
improvements to Bill 101? First and foremost, leave the permit
administration and control to the OFSC and member clubs. This is
important, I believe, for the following key reasons.
The very largest one, as
far as I'm concerned, is the perception of the volunteers.
There's no doubt that this sport and this industry was built on
the backs of the volunteers. I'm not so certain that increased
government control in this regard would necessarily be of benefit
when it comes time to getting volunteers to help in the
organization. I know for myself as a volunteer, I've been out
there with a chainsaw cutting trail and hanging signs. If I were
to think there was a ministry of snowmobiling out there I'd be a
heck of a lot less inclined to help. My attitude then would be,
"It's not my problem any more. I pay my taxes; let somebody else
look after it."
Certainly our private
landowners are much more amenable to agreements with the local
snowmobile clubs. In many cases these are their friends and
neighbours, people they've worked with for a number of years.
Again, increased
government control of that particular area would lead many
private landowners to rethink their land use agreements.
The OFSC has an excellent
track record. They've got 33 years of success to speak to.
There's generally a mood in
government today, and certainly in the public taxpayer's mind,
that we should decrease and not increase bureaucracy.
There would be no net
increase to MOT operating costs, I feel, if the administration
and control of the permits were left to the OFSC and the member
clubs. I'm not saying there wouldn't be any increase whatsoever,
but we wouldn't be talking the possible large increases we could
be talking about if MOT took that all over.
Leave it to the experts.
These people know what they're doing. They build the trails, they
sign the trails, they live this.
There are several other
privatization models or co-operative agreements that exist; for
example, the OTMP, the Ontario Tourism Marketing Partnership that
I'm familiar with, real estate boards etc.
How can the Ontario
government and Bill 101 best help organized snowmobiling? Let
snowmobilers control their own destiny. Provide the OFSC and
organized snowmobiling with the required legislation to enforce
the mandatory permit model. Let these people continue to try and
do what they've been trying to do for a number of years now, but
give them the means to do it.
1500
"Mandatory" must be
mandatory. I mentioned this a little earlier, but this must
include all trails under the control and maintenance of the OFSC
and the member clubs regardless of whether or not they cross
public, private or other land.
Aid the OFSC in recognition
and identification of traditional users. This is a big issue
that's been up for discussion and I know that the OFSC is very
open to those discussions. There is probably a role that
governent can play in bringing those two parties together.
Finally, the old adage, "If
something isn't broke, don't fix it." It must be recognized that
Bill 101 is the result of a request from the OFSC to help them
better manage a valuable resource. The hard work of the task
force led by Mr Spina, certainly a friend of snowmobiling, is
respectfully acknowledged by all in organized snowmobiling and
snowmobile tourism. There' is no doubt that the bill we're
presently debating was a result of a request from the OFSC. I'm
just not sure it's something they wholly endorse in its present
form. It must be recognized by the government that this request
for aid in further developing an already successful model cannot
come at the expense of dismantling what is already in place.
Basically, let's all take a system that is working well and make
it work better. I believe that with this government's support the
OFSC can continue to do its fine work and can continue to provide
me, as a tourism marketer, with the superior product that I need
to take out to the consumer.
I thank you, Mr Chair and
committee, and I'm willing to entertain any questions you may
have.
The Chair:
Thank you, Mr Saari. This time the quesioning will start with the
government.
Mr
O'Toole: Thank you very much, Will. I see that you're
quite familiar with the impact on tourism, of course, in your
role. As such, I'd just ask you some general governance questions
that have come up. I think it's incumbent upon the government,
the moment it says, "This is now the law," with this
legislation-those who would like to hand it off to the OFSC would
be wrong to think that there wasn't a role for government,
because eventually dispute resolutions and other kinds of
legalistic challenges would fall on the government to solve, to
try to find that balance.
I'm interested in the whole
role of the revenue. For instance, we're marketing Ontario to our
friends in the northern states. Do you think the government of
Ontario has a role in funding as a core partner in some way? As
you say, if you have a bad year, the revenue on permits would be
down. They may have already taken a loan to buy a new groomer for
the trail. The relationship part of it gets a little more
complicated. How distanced should the government be?
Mr Saari:
I certainly agree with your first point: we'd be burying our
heads in the sand. I don't speak on behalf of the OFSC, but in my
own opinion the government simply can't hand total control over.
However, there would be some type of formal mechanism, an MOU, if
you will, or some type of committee that could be struck as an
industry committee that could work through those problems, as
you've pointed out, when they do arise.
Secondly, yes; I didn't
address it because I understand that a number of various options
were looked at by Mr Spina's task force as far as the possibility
of other streams of revenue to support snowmobiling. I know there
are other jurisdictions that have been looked at-Vermont,
Minnesota, Michigan, Quebec etc-where there are other revenue
streams. Personally I find a number of them very intriguing. In
particular, there are some US states that look at the issue of
gas taxes, particularly for premium gasoline because it's very
well known that the majority of snow machines these days burn
primarily premium gas. From our own experience here in town,
we've got local gasoline retailers telling us that on any given
Saturday in the wintertime in snowmobile season they sell more
premium gas in one day than they might sell in any one month at
any other time of the year. I didn't address those because I was
under the impression that as the bill stands that wasn't part of
it, but I would like to see that explored more, yes.
Mr
O'Toole: The other part is the whole enforcement
component. As you know, grooming the trails is one part, but
enforcing the whole aspect is problematic. I think you raise a
very good point on the role of the volunteer. If this becomes
kind of, "Let the government do it," then everybody will just
sit. As someone said today, too much help is a bad thing. They'll
sit in their La-Z-Boys. Could you comment on that?
We're really trying to find
the balance. We can't, on the one hand, be putting it in the
glossy brochures and, on the other hand, be completely absolved of any
responsbility. You're trying to say, "How much autonomy of these
volunteers and adventurous types can you find?" Working in the
tourism marketing area, I'm sure you see that balance just as
clearly as you describe this hotel.
Mr Saari:
I think that from an enforcement issue, there are some things
already in place that could aid in that. Certainly, the volunteer
STOP officer program could be expanded. Not speaking on behalf of
the OFSC but on behalf of myself, I think that's already a very
good model, where provincial enforcement agencies and the
volunteers are working hand in hand, and certainly I think that
could be expanded. Again, to the volunteers as an issue, there's
no doubt that funding such as Sno-TRAC etc certainly helped, but
in many cases it also provided additional burdens. Again, it's
the large volunteer force that traditionally is inherent in a
snowmobile club that makes the trail system successful.
From a personal
perspective, I remember one weekend when six of us went out with
chainsaws and literally cut a mile and a half of trail through
the bush. We practically killed ourselves doing it, and at the
end of the day we were able to sit down, look back and say, "Wow,
what a job." Every time I ride that piece of trail I think about
that, and every time I bring through a visiting journalist or
someone from out of the territory, I have to stop and say: "Do
you know what? We did this." I'm not so certain, if I felt Big
Brother, if you will, was sort of controlling things, that I
would be amenable to putting in that type of sweat equity.
It is definitely a very
serious concern, realizing that volunteers in many clubs are
facing burnout. They do have other lives to live, besides
administering and looking after snowmobile trails. What's the
answer? I don't know. But I think the perception is definitely
that volunteerism could suffer as a result of some areas of Bill
101.
Mr Ramsay:
Thank you very much for your presentation. I think it was a very
good summary of a lot of what we've heard. You've put it all in
one place for us and it's very accessible.
I think your observation is
right. Here we have a private sector group that has actually come
to government for some help, and rightfully so. I think
government has sort of stepped up to the plate and offered not
only to help but could even take over some things. I think
they've gone a little too far in this legislation. We're only at
the first reading stage; it is very unusual to come out. This is
really like a first cut at it, to be fair to the government.
Coming around at this early stage gives us the opportunity to
really take a look at this.
You're right: I think you
need help, but we shouldn't help too much. You still need that
volunteerism there, but we've got to find the right balance so
that everybody is still pitching in but we don't burn people
out.
I have a question about the
benefits. You say one of them is to "Clear up `grey areas' in
regards to liability and legal responsibilities of partners."
What do you mean by that?
Mr Saari:
I'm certainly not a legal expert, but from a municipal
standpoint, for example, there are areas of snowmobile trails,
certainly in the city of Timmins, the largest city in area in
Canada-a little plug there-a number of the trails do cover
municipal property. I'm thinking more there of the issue of
non-permit buyers on OFSC trails that cross private property,
whether it be municipal or other, and what the issues are, should
a mishap occur or there be some type of damage.
Not being an expert, from
what I understand of it that issue has been successfully dealt
with by the OFSC in a number of other instances. But what it
basically comes down to is that if everybody on that trail had a
permit, then they'd certainly be covered under the existing
insurance policies etc that are inherent in being an OFSC club
member.
The Chair:
Thank you, Mr Saari. We appreciate your bringing the
perspectives. It is very fitting that you are our last presenter
today as we sit here in a facility barely a year old that I am
told is already contemplating a 100% expansion. I'm glad to hear
the economy is booming up here in Timmins. Thank you for the
perspective you've brought to us here today.
Mr Saari:
Thank you, Mr Chair. I hope you enjoy the rest of your visit in
Timmins.
The Chair:
Thank you.
Mr Ramsay:
Are the buffalo going to lose their habitat? I'm concerned.
The Chair:
You don't have to feel any concern, Mr Ramsay. The world is in
good hands.
Mr Ramsay:
OK. Thank you.
The Chair:
For anyone who cares to continue to make comments-Mr Ramsay
alluded to it just a few minutes ago-this is somewhat unique in
that it's only about the fourth bill we've taken on the road
after first reading. The results of those previous three or four
bills have been extraordinarily positive. There has been far
greater co-operation, not just in the legislative setting but
outside.
I want everyone to know we
are really dealing with a pretty clean slate here, so if you have
any further comments or thoughts, we would welcome them at any
time. You can send them to Mr Kaczkowski or Mr Spina.
We thank everyone who has
taken the time to make a presentation or come as a visitor here
today. This committee stands recessed until next Tuesday in
Bala.
