Motorized Snow Vehicles
Amendment Act, 2000, Bill 101, Mr
Jackson,
Loi de 2000 modifiant la Loi sur les motoneiges, projet
de loi 101, M. Jackson
Port Perry Snowmobile
Club
Mr Charlie Harper
Mr Bill Harper
Mr Larry Davidson
Kemptville Snowmobile
Klub
Ms Elizabeth Robinson
Ontario Federation of
Snowmobile Clubs, district 1
Mr Bruce Robinson
Bait Association of
Ontario
Mr Guy Winterton
Mr Craig
Nicholson
Mr Lorne
Burden
Ontario Federation of
Snowmobile Clubs, districts 2 and 3
Mr Tom Sheppard
Mr Jerry Rintoul
Loforna Rod and Gun
Club
Mr Ralph DeGroot
Haliburton County
Snowmobile Association
Mr Peter Overington
Old Hastings Snow
Riders Snowmobile Club
Mr Ron Hadley
Ontario Fur Managers
Federation
Mr Laurie Whyte
Mr Howard Noseworthy
Mr Mark
Commodore
Ontario Federation of
Anglers And Hunters
Mr Gord Gallant
Ontario Federation of
Snowmobile Clubs
Mr Dennis Burns
Mr Ron Purchase
STANDING COMMITTEE ON GENERAL GOVERNMENT
Chair /
Président
Mr Steve Gilchrist (Scarborough East / -Est PC)
Vice-Chair / Vice-Présidente
Mrs Julia Munro (York North / -Nord PC)
Mr Toby Barrett (Norfolk PC)
Mrs Marie Bountrogianni (Hamilton Mountain L)
Mr Ted Chudleigh (Halton PC)
Mr Garfield Dunlop (Simcoe North / -Nord PC)
Mr Steve Gilchrist (Scarborough East / -Est PC)
Mr Dave Levac (Brant L)
Mr Rosario Marchese (Trinity-Spadina ND)
Mrs Julia Munro (York North / -Nord PC)
Substitutions / Membres remplaçants
Mr Gilles Bisson (Timmins-James Bay ND)
Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and the Islands / Kingston et les
îles L)
Mr John O'Toole (Durham PC)
Mr Joseph Spina (Brampton Centre / -Centre PC)
Clerk / Greffier
Mr Viktor Kaczkowski
Staff /Personnel
Ms Lorraine Luski, research officer, Research and Information
Services
The committee met at
1300 in the Holiday Inn, Peterborough.
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 Acting Chair (Mr
R. Gary Stewart): Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.
I think we'll commence; it's now 1 o'clock. My name is Gary
Stewart and I have been seconded into being Chair of this hearing
today. To my colleagues, welcome to the great riding of
Peterborough.
We've got a number of groups,
needless to say, that are going to make presentations. The
individual presenters will have 10 minutes and the groups will
have 20. When you come forward and sit in front of us, if you
would mention who you represent and the names of those who are
with you, we would appreciate it. As mentioned, you have 20
minutes, and that can be done either by presentation or answering
questions. It is your 20 minutes, or 10, whatever the case may
be, and you can do it the way you want to. If it be questions and
if there is time at the end of your presentations for questions,
it would rotate, starting with the official opposition.
PORT PERRY SNOWMOBILE CLUB
The Acting
Chair: It being 1 o'clock, we ask that the Port Perry
Snowmobile Club come forth for their presentation. Could you
please identify yourself and your members as well, Mr Harper.
Mr Charlie
Harper: Good afternoon. I want to introduce Bill Harper
and Larry Davidson, who are accompanying me today.
My name is Charlie Harper.
I'm president of the Port Perry Snowmobile Club. I've snowmobiled
for over 30 years and been a member of our club since the first
day it was formed, and that was 30 years ago. I'm here to
represent our club, our area, and snowmobiling in general. I'd
like to thank the committee for giving me the time to state my
views.
Over the years I've worked at
all aspects of the club, from cutting brush to putting up signs,
building bridges, signing landowners, operating groomers, various
jobs of the executive. I've been the president for the last 10
years. I'm also a driver trainer and a warden. All this, of
course, is volunteer. This is not an exception, by any stretch of
the imagination; this is sort of normal for snowmobiling. My
brother, Bill, has been with the club for 30 years; 29 of those
30 years he's held an executive position. Larry is our
vice-president. He's been with the club for 30 years and has held
various positions within our club.
When we started snowmobiling
back in the late 1960s and early 1970s, we realized immediately
the need for organization, so we formed a club. Then we started
to build some trails. Our goal was then much the same as it is
today: to build safe recreational trails for our members. We did
this with a user-pay concept. In those days, we sold club
memberships. Those funds were used to pay the expenses of
building the trails etc.
Then we saw other clubs
forming around us, and we knew that we had to link these clubs
together to provide greater snowmobiling trails. So in 1974 we
formed a snowmobile association. We called it the Central Ontario
Regional Snowmobile Association, or CORSA for short. We joined
our clubs together to give riders a better riding experience. We
have five clubs in our association now. We look after just about
2,500 kilometres of trail, and we have about 6,500 members.
In 1974, along with forming
our association, we joined the OFSC. We could see the OFSC as a
necessary part of the link. They're a not-for-profit
organization, and they were there to support clubs and to help
form a province-wide network of trails. The OFSC works very well
because it's governed by the members, the clubs, through our
district governors, who feed information from us to them. They
can set policies and directions province-wide.
We've always had a user-pay
system. When the OFSC introduced the trail permit, we gladly
accepted that. We saw that if we were going to require and ask
the snowmobiling population to buy permits, we should make them
easily obtainable. We set up outlets wherever we thought
snowmobilers would attend. That process has worked very well in
selling the permits.
The clubs' jobs have basically remained the same
over the years. It's our responsibility to obtain the landowner
permissions, keep the trails brushed and clean, put up the signs,
do the grooming, sell the permits and that sort of thing.
But now we have a little
different situation. Where the trails are now advertised as a
winter tourism vehicle, we find that our usage has increased
dramatically. I guess that says it's working, but that brings
about a financial problem. The permits cover about 50% of our
cost; the remaining 50% is made up through volunteers like
ourselves. The Sno-TRAC money put a lot of new
equipment-much-needed equipment, I might add-on the trails, but
it didn't provide any operational capital to offset the increased
traffic. In fact, it took operational money away from some clubs
because they had to meet the grants on a 50-50 basis.
1310
The tourism has generated a
lot of traffic. But we always have felt that everybody should pay
their fair share. If you use the system, then you pay; if you
don't use it, you don't pay. We also think that everybody must
pay to use the system, including the government, which spends
millions advertising the trail system. Technically, that makes
you a trail user.
The OFSC mandatory permit: we
realize right upfront that there have to be exceptions. There are
users out there-hunters, fishermen, people getting to their
cottage, trappers, etc-who must be exceptions, but they are minor
details that can be worked out quite easily.
The one thing the mandatory
permit would do is ensure that all recreational snowmobilers pay
their fair share. It would also show government support and
recognition.
I have a little article here
that was in our local paper written by an outdoors writer, Steve
Bond. He was concerned, and rightly so, about the mandatory
permits. In his article he says, "Already, I'm required by law to
license and insure my Elan and if I'm forced to buy a trail
permit to ride on half a mile of OFSC trails, the yearly
bureaucratic expenses will easily exceed the value of the sled."
The interesting part I took from that is that he's questioning
his cost, but he's not questioning the licence fee and he's not
questioning the insurance. Why? Because, he says, "I'm required
by law," and that's the key. If the mandatory permit is required
by law, then it means a lot more, in my opinion.
We have to make sure that
this mandatory permit would be easily enforceable. This job can
be handled by the OFSC's 2,500 wardens who are already trained
and in place now and the many STOP officers who are already
trained to handle the job. What is unique about this situation is
that each club has its wardens and they know the area, they know
the people, they know who the trappers are, they know who the
exceptions should be. It wouldn't be a big deal at all. This
could be handled quite easily.
We speak of the mandatory
permit. This must be an OFSC mandatory permit, not an MTO
mandatory permit. The OFSC must retain all aspects of the trail
permit, including the design, production, issuance, sales
outlets, pricing, and use of the permit revenues. They've done an
excellent job in the past and they'll continue to do an excellent
job. Every dollar that is taken in is well accounted for. They
have the expertise to do this.
The OFSC needs to be part of
any meetings on Bill 101 to help set regulations or any
amendments that may come forth. They need to be a part of that as
well.
The problem with losing this
control from the OFSC, as I see it, if they were to become sort
of government trails, is that that would be the start of the end.
The volunteer base will drop off. Things will not be done because
you wouldn't have that club dedication, and also that dealing
with landowners and getting these permissions.
Various parts of the province
have different situations. In our particular area-and I can only
speak for our area because that's what I'm familiar with-about
70% of our trails are on private land. That means the club
members have to go to the landowner and obtain permission from
the landowner to put a trail across his property. We have to sign
it and mark it, and in a lot of cases there are only maybe two or
three people in a particular club that could get that particular
landowner agreement.
In one instance we ran into
last year, my brother and I went to a landowner who we know quite
well, and he knows us. He owns a large tract of land. To get
around him would mean many miles of road-running. But we went to
him about putting the trail through, and he wasn't happy. He
said: "I gave you a 30-foot corridor last year and the
snowmobiles ran out 50 feet. You ran over my fall wheat. You've
been coming through here for 20 years. What the hell do I get out
of this?"
He said: "You started out
with your trails and I'd get some traffic on a Saturday and
Sunday. Now it's seven days a week that snowmobiles are going
through here, sometimes at 3 o'clock in the morning."
Well, that's a situation
where we talked to him. He said: "Come back next week. I'll talk
to my son." We went back the next week and they agreed to allow
us through their property.
"Now," he said, "you've got
to go here instead of here," because some of these trails do move
from year to year, depending on crops. He said, "I have a wheat
field over there and you're going to get nowhere near that." So
he gave us a corridor across his property, which we staked
heavily. We used two-by-four stakes, sharpened. We painted them
red, put a reflective strip on the top and we put them across his
property like a picket fence. We had to guarantee the man that
people would stay on the trails. This is the sort of situation
with landowners, and we have a lot of them to deal with.
Like I say, the OFSC and the
clubs must retain control or these jobs just can't be done. In
summary, I'd just like to say that the mandatory permits are
necessary, with the exceptions that have to be worked out to
accommodate people like the writer of this article. They should
be enforced by the trail wardens and STOP officers, and they
should be easily
enforceable. The OFSC must retain all control of all aspects of
snowmobiling, including the permits. Government will show support
of snowmobiling by legislating the mandatory permit.
I guess our bottom line as a
club is, if this is impossible to do, then I would say our club
would back away from the request of mandatory permits.
That's all I have to present
today. If there are any questions, I'll attempt to answer
them.
The Acting
Chair: Thank you, Mr Harper. We will, as I said, start a
rotation of questions. Either Mr Levac or Mr Gerretsen.
Mr Dave Levac
(Brant): Mr Harper, the way the legislation is written,
you've implied that it does not give the authority to the OFSC,
that it's government. Is that what you're suggesting by the
bill?
Mr Charlie
Harper: Yes, and that's what I took from the bill,
whether I'm right or wrong.
Mr Levac:
Right. Are you aware that the legislation cannot-I'm assuming
this and I'm going to make this assumption-cannot just simply say
you have to have mandatory permits and OFSC just takes over the
whole game; that there's accountability in the legislation that
has to account for the permits collected? My understanding is
that's why the legislation is written the way it is. If I'm
hearing you correctly, if that can't be modified, then your club
would probably not be in favour of mandatory permits. Is that
correct?
Mr Charlie
Harper: That's right.
1320
Mr Levac:
Then my final question is, do you believe that the clubs will
fold because of the predicament that's been described throughout
the hearings, "We need to have mandatory permits in order to
raise the funds to do the things we're doing for the trails today
because of the increased use, because of the growth industry
that's taking place as a result of snowmobiling"?
Mr Charlie
Harper: I don't know whether all the clubs across
Ontario are going to fold; I can just speak for our own area. I
can see, looking over my shoulder, the volunteers coming behind
me. The only problem is, I don't see anybody.
Mr Levac: I
would concur with that. Maybe a supplementary to that, then. So
if it's possible, the legislation should be amended or modified
before the final reading and passage to allow for the OFSC to
have control over the permit money to do what it's been doing for
30 years?
Mr Charlie
Harper: That's right.
Mr Levac:
That's what I'm hearing. We have a dilemma, that I understand,
that legislatively that can't be done because of regulations that
exist within the Legislature that there has to be accountability,
that if you collect a permit, that's the public's money. Even
though it's a permit for you using the snowmobile, once the
government collects that, it's the public's money and there has
to be accounting on the government's side for that expenditure.
Therefore, releasing complete control of that releases the
accountability of the government.
Mr Charlie
Harper: I guess what-
Mr Levac:
I'm not defending the government and I'm not defending the
legislation; I just think that's my understanding. I'll defer to
Joe or to the legislative people if that's improper, but I want
you to continue having that comment in mind.
Mr Charlie
Harper: I guess the way I look at it is that for a
number of years the OFSC has controlled and designed through the
input from the clubs. We've had a permit and we've sold a permit.
We've turned that money back into the trails, and that has
worked.
Mr Levac:
Yes.
Mr Charlie
Harper: That's what we want-
Mr Levac:
That's what you're looking for.
Mr Charlie
Harper: That's what we're looking for.
Mr Levac:
OK.
Mr Bill
Harper: Can I just ask a question?
The Acting
Chair: Yes, if you want to make a comment, sir.
Mr Bill
Harper: Can you just clarify? When you said it can't be
done, are you talking about government controlling the whole
thing, or an overseer-
Mr Levac:
No, no, no.
The Acting
Chair: Sir, would you tell us who you are first?
Mr Bill
Harper: Bill Harper.
The Acting
Chair: Thanks, Bill. Go ahead.
Mr Levac: I
guess to explain, my understanding is that because you're
collecting a fee on behalf of the government when you create a
permit, it becomes public money. When it does that, government
has to be accountable for it. Therefore the government would have
a hard time explaining how they've taken the public purse and
given it all to that group, without having some kind of
accountability on this end. Does that help clarify what I'm
trying to say?
Mr Larry
Davidson: Larry Davidson. It's the snowmobiler that's
originating the money by buying the permit, and the way it works
now, that goes back into trails.
Mr Levac:
Yes.
Mr Davidson:
I can give you an example. The gas tax was originally designed
for roads; now only 5% goes back into roads. If the government
takes over the permit money, eventually we'll see 5% going back
into the trails. It's the demise of the snowmobile trails in
Ontario. If it stays with the federation, and all funds
collected, even though it's part of the MTO law, it'll go back to
into the trail system where it belongs. I'd like 100% of the gas
tax to go into roads too. I don't want to see that happen-and
that's the fear. We want all the money back into trails.
Mr Levac:
This isn't debate, so I don't want to get into that.
Mr Davidson:
You know what I'm saying.
The Acting
Chair: We have got to the 20-minute time limit. We
appreciate your coming forward and making a presentation. It's
been all duly noted, and we thank you very much.
Mr Charlie Harper: Thank you very
much.
KEMPTVILLE SNOWMOBILE KLUB
The Acting
Chair: We would now call on the Kemptville Snowmobile
Klub. Again, you have 20 minutes, whether it's presentation or
questions. The questions would then start with the NDP
caucus.
Mr Gilles Bisson
(Timmins-James Bay): Just on a point of order before we
get started: if in the next rotation, as Chair, you can make
sure, if there's only four minutes left, you divide between the
caucuses, because there was something I wanted to ask them
but-too late.
The Acting
Chair: If you wish to do that, then we will do that.
Mr Bisson:
Yes. Thank you.
Ms Elizabeth
Robinson: I'm Liz Robinson and I'm the president of the
Kemptville Snowmobile Klub. Looking at me, you wouldn't know that
I suffer from a very acute disorder. For over 30 years I've had
an addiction to snowmobiles and snowmobile trail riding. It
affects me in every aspect of my life and all seasons of the
year.
This sport has caused me to
become a snowmobile volunteer. I have been the club social
director for eight years and I was the vice-president for four
years. I am presently the president. I have received the
volunteer of the year award from the Ontario Federation of
Snowmobile Clubs and I've also received an Easter Seals Snowarama
volunteer award.
My husband and I have
snowmobiled since our teens and our two daughters have travelled
many kilometres of trails with us. We have owned 13 snowmobiles,
sometimes as many as four at one time. This addiction has
affected my whole family and has cost us a lot of money over the
years. I did some estimates before coming here today on how much
we have spent in the past during our snowmobile lifetime:
snowmobiles, approximately $50,000; fuel for 75,000 kilometres of
trail, $5,000; oil and repairs, $3,000; trailers, $2,500; suits,
boots, helmets, $3,000; provincial licenses, $500; OFSC permits,
$4,000; insurance, $4,500; hotels and meals, $7,500.
We are looking at a total
expenditure on snowmobiling for our family of $80,000. If you do
the math, the provincial tax paid on this amount would be over
$6,000 and the federal tax would be roughly the same, for $12,000
total in taxes. I feel that we, as well as all of the other
snowmobiling families in Ontario, have made a major contribution
to the economy of Ontario through snowmobiling. Besides the
economic impact, we have made a large contribution to the social
fabric of our community. All four of us in our family have
contributed hundreds of hours of volunteer time to our local
snowmobile club.
Kemptville is a small
community located just south of Ottawa. The club sells about 245
snowmobile trail permits annually and maintains approximately 225
kilometres of trail.
We're a very active
snowmobile club. We've participated in the Easter Seals Snowarama
every year since it first began, raising from $8,000 to as high
as $15,000. As well, we support local community organizations
such as the fire department, the hospital, the Girl Guides, the
adopt-a-child program, and the list goes on. We promote family
snowmobiling where we have held safety rallies for children and
family rallies followed by cookouts. We offer a snowmobile driver
training course for children 12 and over.
Our club volunteers range
from 10 years of age to 80. This club is strictly a volunteer-run
club and it takes many dedicated people to keep it going.
We have about 75 landowners
to keep happy because, without these landowners, there would be
no trail system for us to enjoy our sport, and certainly without
these volunteers there would be no organized snowmobiling in
Ontario.
I have brought with me today
our photo album from the last couple of years. You can see for
yourselves some of the work that we've done on the trails, club
events, family fun, and many other activities.
We sell 245 trail permits,
which comes out to about $25,000 which remains in the club after
taxes and the OFSC charges. Most years we are able to match this
with our own fundraising. We estimate about 2,500 volunteer
hours-that equals one and a quarter person years-which are
contributed annually to the Kemptville Snowmobile Klub. Although
our family may be more active than the average snowmobilers, we
are by no means the exception. Every snowmobile club has its core
of very active people like ourselves who run the day-to-day
activities of the club.
So why am I here telling
you all this today? First, let me explain my view of the
situation: snowmobile clubs do not have enough money to maintain
the quality of trail that is expected at this time.
Years ago, we didn't worry
about connected, groomed, well-signed, brushed-out trails. Most
of our riders were local people, and visitors either had a local
guide to show them around or were very adventuresome and found
their way around by using a compass or even asking lots of
questions. There was no concern about liability insurance or
environmental issues. It was every man and machine for himself,
at the expense of the landowners and at the expense of the safety
of the snowmobile population.
If our sport was to
survive, we had to organize and develop trails which would be
safer and more compatible with the landowners in our communities.
We developed the user-pay system, which was adequate at the time
it was put in place. Then the popularity of snowmobiling
exploded. For example, in our club we went from 99 permits sold
in 1986 to 245 today. With higher traffic caused by touring
riders from out of the area, we needed better groomed trails, and
in order to do this, we needed bigger equipment. It was a real
snowball effect, with user fees not keeping up to demand and no
financial help from tourism.
1330
With our early-bird
discount permit costing $120 today and our regular permit price
at $150, the price seems to have peaked for what the market will
bear. We have had a couple of bad winters, and club members are
grumbling about the prices now. If we raise the permit prices, we
are going to have a lot of snowmobilers on our trails with no
permits. So how do we increase our revenue?
The OFSC has researched
this problem and has come back to the clubs with the suggestion
that if every snowmobiler who used our trails bought a permit, it
would go some of the way toward relieving our cash shortage. Our
wardens patrol the trails, but it is very difficult for us to
enforce the OFSC permits using the Trespass to Property Act.
I think we have done an
excellent job of getting most of the riders to get a permit
through education and friendly persuasion, so now it is time to
get tough with the freeloaders. In order for us to address the
problem of people who drive our trails with no permits, we need
to have mandatory OFSC permits that must be easily enforced. We
recognize the need to make exceptions for traditional users. Our
OFSC wardens need to have the authority to enforce the permit.
Each club across the province has trained wardens who are ready
and willing to patrol the trails to make sure the mandatory
permits are respected. Finally, we need the control of the
permits and revenue to stay in the hands of the OFSC. The member
clubs have built this great trail system to the point we are at,
and it is the snowmobilers who have the expertise, dedication and
willingness to take it to the next level.
In closing, I want to tell
you that the Kemptville Snowmobile Klub is a well respected and
vital organization in the community and has enjoyed almost 30
years of providing recreational trails. We look forward to many
more years of continued success.
At this time, I would like
to thank the hearing committee for allowing me this opportunity
to speak on behalf of the Kemptville Snowmobile Klub. Are there
any questions?
The Acting
Chair: We have about three minutes per caucus, starting
with Mr Bisson.
Mr Bisson:
Thank you for your presentation. You were saying something that
we're hearing fairly loud and clear from most people, which is
that we've gone from what used to be a local activity, utilized
and enjoyed by local people, to where now our local clubs are
really supporting a provincial sport and the burden is falling on
clubs. If you're a smaller club it's really more difficult. So I
hear your call. What you're basically saying is that it's not
just a question of what you term the "freeloader," the person who
doesn't buy the trail permit, but also of the provincial
government playing a more important role than we have in the
past. This is not meant to be critical. We need to find a way to
get dollars to the clubs. If we really have a policy of trying to
promote a provincial system, then we need to figure out what
mechanism the province has to be involved.
That brings me to the
question I have to ask you. I'm not convinced, even after looking
at the OFSC document we've got, that just by moving to mandatory
permits we're going to raise the money necessary to support the
sport and to support the clubs. If you look at the numbers here,
they're saying that there are roughly 150,000 machines insured in
the province of Ontario-if those are provincial numbers-with
roughly 115,000 or 120,000 people who bought permits last year.
I'm one of those people who have two machines insured but only
use one. I'm not so sure we're going to pick up a whole bunch
more permits. So my question to you is, if this committee were to
figure that maybe this is not the way to do it and we came back
with some other mechanism that says that rather than having
mandatory permits we're going to some funding model, as long as
the clubs get the money, is that a problem? Or in your view do
you still have to have a mandatory permit even if you don't raise
the amount of money you need?
Ms Elizabeth
Robinson: First off, I don't think I'm in a position to
answer that.
Mr Bisson:
Probably more than you realize, because you're the ones who in
the end are going to run the clubs. Maybe as politicians we say
long things and we don't get to the point. My point is simply
this: if this doesn't get you bucks in your pocket in the club,
if that's what we figure out by way of these hearings and the
work that we do, then are you opposed to the idea of our
recommending that we actually create a funding program-because
the province gets revenue out of this-rather than having a
permitting system, where the clubs are properly funded, on a
volunteer basis? In other words, it's not the province that runs
it; we give you the money and you guys do what you've got to
do.
Ms Elizabeth
Robinson: I guess you could say we get our marching
orders from OFSC, and that's what it's all about for us.
Mr Bisson:
Just one thing: we heard from the previous clubs that whatever we
do, we have to make it enforceable and it's got to be simple.
Wardens are not going to be able to enforce this reality; it's
going to have to be the police. I'm not sure if we're making it
simple-do you follow what I'm getting at?-in trying to enforce
who has a sticker on their machine. In the end it won't be the
wardens who will ticket or charge or do whatever; it's going to
be the provincial police or the city police. Is that a
problem?
Ms Elizabeth
Robinson: It could be, yes. I think so.
Mr John O'Toole
(Durham): Thank you very much for your presentation. I
think you make a couple of very good points. The way you
described it, you said it's a snowball effect with users not
keeping up with the demand of the financial burden. It really
becomes a case, as in all publicly funded or administered things,
of demand exceeding revenue. The only way you get revenue is to
raise taxes. That's the whole dilemma. There's always excessive demand. It
wouldn't matter what ministry you looked at-transportation, you
name it.
I think you raised a very
good point, and I think Mr Bisson was trying to make the point:
if the mandatory permit came in and the exemptions which were in
regulation were allowed to be administered by the federation, do
you feel there would be sufficient revenue, while at the same
time maintaining the very important volunteer base? I believe the
volunteer base is why it has remained the success it has, so less
government is better government.
What is most important? I
believe Mr Harper said it is very important that it has the
weight of law. So, in a general sense, if you have a law that
says "enforcement" and you have some stability of revenue-and
you'll have arguments about why it's $120 in Timmins and
whatever. However, I also take some exception to the enforcement
provision. Realistically, it is impossible, without a new
helicopter, for the police to enforce what they already have.
Mr Bisson:
I thought my question was convoluted.
Mr
O'Toole: I'm only making a summary kind of judgment,
just to get to your point.
The Acting
Chair: Will you get to the question, Mr O'Toole?
Mr
O'Toole: It's not really a question, more of a
comment.
The Acting
Chair: You've got about a minute and a half.
Mr
O'Toole: Do you feel that the revenue-volunteerism
balance and some strengthening of the enforcement would allow you
to continue pretty much ungoverned?
Ms Elizabeth
Robinson: The volunteers are definitely burned out.
That's very evident. As somebody said earlier, look at the number
of volunteers who are sitting in the room. If we even got a few
dollars, it would definitely help us keep things going and help
us in a lot of ways.
Mr Levac:
You mentioned something in your presentation that I wanted to get
specific about, the permissions that were obtained from private
property owners. The question I have is-and this is not meant to
slight the OFSC or the other snowmobilers who don't get the
permits; it's basically inquisitive-can an agreement between the
farmer or the private property owner and OFSC and the clubs be
exclusive? Do you get written agreements that say only OFSC
members or only club members use the trails, therefore excluding
the non-permit-obtainer from using the trail?
Ms Elizabeth
Robinson: In our particular area we have a lot of
horseback riders and different organizations as well. In
Kemptville we have to get written permission from each and every
landowner. As was said earlier in the presentation, it's very
important that only one or two people know the landowners, and
they want to deal with those one or two people only, because with
new people coming in there's that reaction. I'm a landowner
myself, actually. If the horse riders, as an example, want to use
my property, our permission slip from the OFSC does not allow
them to travel on my property. If the horse association comes to
me directly and wants me to sign a piece of paper, then I would
have to consider that, of course, and that would be through their
organization.
1340
Mr Levac:
So by agreement it is exclusive.
Ms Elizabeth
Robinson: Yes.
Mr Levac:
That means that the strength of the law that Mr O'Toole is
referring to lies within the agreement between the private
property owner, the club, the STOP program and the wardens.
You mentioned the volunteer
base. Do you have fears that the volunteer base would dwindle
even more if you start to obtain more money from the permits,
reflecting on how, now that you've got the money, you can start
buying and paying for all of these things? I know it's already
happening.
Ms Elizabeth
Robinson: It is definitely happening right now.
Mr Levac:
Do you have a fear that the volunteer base will start to diminish
even more?
Ms Elizabeth
Robinson: I think so, yes. I really believe that. You
have to hire your groomer operators, the people who go out now to
brush the trails, because everybody has the attitude, "I've paid
my dollar for or my permit. Why should I take my time and go out
and brush trails?" So I think that's very important.
The Acting
Chair: We've come to the end of the time, Mr Levac.
Thank you, Ms Robinson, for your presentation.
Ms Elizabeth
Robinson: Thank you. If anybody cares to look at the
photo album, I'll be in the back.
ONTARIO FEDERATION OF SNOWMOBILE CLUBS, DISTRICT
1
The Acting
Chair: We'll call on the Ontario Federation of
Snowmobile Clubs, district 1, please.
Mr Bruce
Robinson: Good afternoon. I'm Bruce Robinson, governor
for district 1. You've probably made an observation on a lot of
us 30-year-tenure snowmobilers. We all kind of get the same
physique. Basically, it's a ballast to give us good traction on
our snowmobiles, and we have handles here for the passengers
behind. So it's quite evident-
Mr Joseph Spina
(Brampton Centre): Now you know why I look like
this.
Mr Bruce
Robinson: I'm a long-time snowmobiler, as you can
see.
I'm here today representing
district 1 of the OFSC. I'm elected to represent 32 clubs in
eastern Ontario. If you draw a line from Renfrew, north of
Ottawa, down to Napanee, everything east of that line is district
1. We are a long-established snowmobiling area, and most of the
clubs have existed since the early 1970s. We are about 10% of the
permits sold in the province and about 15% of the trail system.
Snowmobiling is a very important component of winter recreation and a vital part
of the social fabric of our rural communities.
As I prepared for today, a
question came to mind: what has brought us to this point that
we're here today? After 30 years of volunteers providing our
snowmobile trails with a very successful user-pay system, what
has transpired that forces us to turn to the government of
Ontario for help? I want to tell you something right up front
about the people you are talking with here today and who are
running the snowmobile clubs across the province: they are
hard-working, they are dedicated, they are stubborn and they are
fiercely independent. So I can assure you that if we are coming
here today to ask for help, we really need it.
The issue we are dealing
with is lack of funds to sustain our trail system into the
future. We could look at various methods to raise money. We could
put the permit fee up to $200. Selling 115,000 permits at $200
would probably take care of our shortfall, but the market won't
handle a price increase like that, and then we'd be faced with a
bunch of non-permit sleds running all over our trails. Again, the
Trespass to Property Act is difficult for us to enforce because
we have to drag the landowner into court; there is a lot of
baggage with the Trespass to Property Act.
Our trail wardens have done
a wonderful job of making sure the snowmobilers buy a permit in
our area. I want to stress that in eastern Ontario, I estimate
that we have 95% compliance with the trail permit. I have reason
to believe, though, that there are other parts of the province
that are not nearly as fortunate as we are. So we are supporting
the mandatory permit in eastern Ontario not so much for our own
benefit, but as a benefit to the whole province.
We stress, however, that we
would like the OFSC to retain control of the permits. We would
like to see the printing, distribution, pricing and allocation of
funds fall under OFSC jurisdiction. Basically, for the reasons
you've heard previously here, we'd like to control our own
destiny, control the funds and make sure every dollar goes back
into the trail. If we don't control our own organization, I'm
afraid we will see volunteers quitting and landowners revoking
their permission. There exists a real pioneer kind of community
spirit among snowmobile volunteers and landowners. It's a real
hard thing to describe, but it is a very delicate
partnership.
I'm from a fifth-generation
farm from eastern Ontario and I know how farmers operate. Any
change to our agreement usually causes suspicion and concern
among landowners and they'll cut you off like that. With
government intervention, I think we'd be running a hard sell to
have them give us free access to their land. We're going to have
a big job selling them mandatory permits. With the landowners
being one of our main partners, we need to pay special attention
and assure them that we recognize traditional users. Farmers
aren't only in partnership with us; they like hunters too. The
hunters keep the varmints off their property and stuff. So we've
got to recognize that traditional users would be exempt. The
point of the mandatory permit is to get the freeloaders to pay
their fair share. The volunteers who put so much time and effort
into the building and maintenance of the trail system are tired
of those who refuse to pay. The mandatory permit would go some of
the way to helping meet the cost-not all of the way but some of
the way.
We don't expect mandatory
permits to suddenly cure all of our problems. We recognize other
challenges that we'll need to struggle with. Volunteer burnout
has been mentioned today. New people are not stepping up to
replace older volunteers. Like other volunteer organizations
across Ontario, we are experiencing a shortage of manpower to run
our clubs. We are in competition with so many other organizations
for volunteers, and families today spend their a lot of their
spare time on home-based entertainment, such as satellite TVs and
the Internet, and it's hard to budge them out of the house.
That snowmobiling has been
a rural sport is another thing I want to bring to mind. People
from farms and villages formed the first clubs, and it was
co-operation with the landowners that helped us to develop the
trails. But as the sport got popular, the problems increased. Our
urban neighbours began to catch on that we were having a lot of
fun out there and they've decided to join in. They've swollen our
ranks of snowmobilers, but the work still falls onto those few
dedicated locals who live in the area where the trails are. The
work grew and the numbers of volunteers didn't, so the snowmobile
clubs are forced to hire out more of their work, which used to be
done for free.
Another problem we have is
rerouting trails on private land each year. That was mentioned.
As the older farmers sell off, new landowners are often not
familiar with the snowmobiling scene and they have a lot of
concerns about liability and damage to their property. Although
we have insurance and a good reputation as responsible tenants,
we're often unable to convince new landowners to allow us to
cross their property. Many of these people have never seen the
benefits of a snowmobile club in their community and are
reluctant to allow us to continue using the trail. We have no way
of giving these people an incentive to allow us to use the land
because we don't have the funding available, and we understand
that once you pay one landowner, you have to pay them all.
The last problem I'd like
to touch on is our involvement at the club level to do with
tourism. Our clubs are often confused about marketing our
permits. Generally, we do a very good job of selling permits to
the local population, but many of our clubs are not prepared to
market for tourism or don't have the funds to do that. Some clubs
which are situated in very popular tourist areas have business
people in their area who benefit from snowmobiling and they go
and do the marketing for them. They go to the large shows around
the country and do promotions. Many other clubs totally ignore
tourism because they can't handle any more increase in traffic
anyway and they don't believe it's their job to promote tourism.
They see their mandate as providing good trails for their local
permit holders. As a result, we have a mixed bag of promotion, with some areas very
well marketed and others with none.
Enough of the problems.
What can we do?
1350
(1) As I mentioned, we are
in favour of mandatory permits administered by the OFSC. The
expected revenue increase will help with operational costs and
make snowmobiling more sustainable.
(2) There are some other
ideas that I'd like you to entertain. Maybe a portion of the
provincial registration fee, which is now set at $15, could be
kicked back to the OFSC to be put on trails. Northern Ontario
doesn't pay a fee at all at this time, and maybe they could
contribute and we could stand to gain for the whole province.
They stand to gain as much as the rest of us. If we got $10 back
on that registration fee times 150,000 permits, if we were able
to sell that many, that's a big chunk of money.
(3) A landowner incentive
program would be especially welcomed in southern and eastern
Ontario, where the majority of the trail is on private land. A
plan could be explored where a landowner could get some sort of
tax break for letting a recreational trail be established on his
land.
(4) What about a provincial
sales tax rebate on grooming equipment and trail signs? We have
new groomers that cost $150,000. Every time we purchase one of
those, it's $12,000 PST. We get the GST back, so what about a
kickback on PST also?
(5) Possibly the office of
Tourism Ontario could help us out with marketing, especially if
we got our funding down so that we were able to a provide a
consistent and sustainable product.
(6) Finally, I think the
province should continue to provide grants for infrastructure,
and we should find a way to make all clubs in the province
eligible. We're very thankful for the funding that came through
in SST1 and SST2 and previously in the Sno-TRAC program. I
especially want to say thanks from eastern Ontario for the COBRA
program, which helped us restore our trails to pre-ice-storm
condition. Some kind of ongoing program that supplies 50% funding
on infrastructure and capital purchases would be most
welcome.
Just like when my wife
hands me a list, I've got to say that's quite a shopping list,
but don't forget about the economic and recreational benefits
that this sport contributes: $1 billion of economic impact in
Ontario per year; millions of hours of recreational enjoyment in
winter for all age groups. Snowmobiling can be as relaxing or as
invigorating as you want to make it. It is truly a family sport
enjoyed by young and old.
We are proud of what we
have accomplished in 30 years. We have taken this sport to where
it is today through volunteers and a user-pay system. The future
will also be based on volunteers and a user-pay system, but now
we want all the users to pay and we want the province to reinvest
some of those economic gains back into the sport to keep us on
track for the future.
Thank you very much, Mr
Chair and committee, for listening to me today.
The Acting
Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Robinson. We have about
two and a half minutes per caucus, starting with the
government.
Mr Spina:
Thanks, Bruce. I have two questions. The first one is, do you
concur with your wife's comment that your whole family is nuts
about snowmobiling?
Mr Bruce
Robinson: Absolutely.
Mr Spina:
I just wanted to make sure we got a communication that was the
same from both husband and wife here.
Mr Bisson:
I think she just said he's nuts. That's what my wife says.
Mr Spina:
We won't go there, Gilles.
Bruce, you talked about
tourism, and I was very interested in that for obvious reasons.
Do you have any idea how many visitors from out of province use
your district trails? I know you'll have visitors from other
clubs outside of your district, but any guesstimate as to how
many would come from the Quebec area or maybe even south?
Mr Bruce
Robinson: We have not too many from the Quebec area
except along the borders. They have their own product over there
and it's as good as our own.
What we do find is that
we're increasing every year in riders especially from New York
and Pennsylvania. We are not getting them as much as we would
like from along the border. We live fairly close to the St
Lawrence River. There are two bridges that come across from New
York state into our area, and we're not picking them up. What we
are finding, as I was saying, is that the areas that were
promoting there, going to the Syracuse show, going to
out-of-province shows, are the ones that are picking up the
out-of-province riders.
Mr Spina:
Who is going to these shows?
Mr Bruce
Robinson: We have areas like Calabogie. They're heavily
into promotion. West Carleton has done some; that's west of
Ottawa. It's places that have a lot of tourism in the summer that
are able to reach these tourists because they're there fishing in
the summer, they may come back for hunting in the fall, and then
you get them to return for snowmobiling in the wintertime.
Our numbers are increasing.
We're not as good as some of the more popular areas in Ontario,
but I would say a Calabogie club, which is in a prime tourist
area, is getting about 10% of their ridership, right now, out of
province.
Mr John Gerretsen
(Kingston and the Islands): Thank you and
congratulations on an excellent presentation. What happens, then,
to these out-of-town snowmobilers who use the trails? What
percentage of them are you actually able to sell permits to?
Mr Bruce
Robinson: These guys are just hearing about snowmobiling
in Ontario. It's just starting. I'll give you an example. Two
guys from Pennsylvania got in their truck last winter and decided
to drive north till they found trails. They came across the
bridge at Johnstown, which is near Prescott. They came up Highway
16 towards Ottawa. The first sign they saw was a tunnel that went
under Highway 16 with signs on it. They pulled off at the local store, were able to
pick up permits, which happened to be from our club, they asked
who to phone, they phoned me and I went over. They were totally
astounded when I laid out the provincial trail map and showed
them where they could go. They're used to snowmobiling in
Pennsylvania, where they're getting very unconnected, localized
trails. They were just blown away with the fact.
Mr
Gerretsen: OK, but the question I have is, what
percentage of these people would actually stop in to get a
permit? What are we talking about? Are we talking about most of
them, some of them?
Mr Bruce
Robinson: Who purposely go to get their permit first? I
would say about 50% of them go to get their permit. The others
wait until they're found on the trail by a warden to buy their
permit.
Mr
Gerretsen: Do you get any information from the
snowmobile dealers and salespeople as to who's buying
snowmobiles, so you can contact these people for permits? Does
any of that happen?
Mr Bruce
Robinson: Not at the club level and not at the district
level. We don't have that avenue. The only way we're able to
track out-of-province snowmobilers is through our visitor permit.
We have a seven-day and a one-day permit. We're able to track the
address and know where those people are from through that
permit.
Mr
Gerretsen: One question I have in my mind is that you
could have some very active clubs that have relatively few trails
and they would in effect be getting an awful lot of money. I
noted up in northern Ontario they've got a huge number of trails,
but obviously not as large a locally based population. The
concern I have is the unequal distribution of the permit money.
Any ideas as to how that can be handled?
Mr Bruce
Robinson: We're handling it now. Through the OFSC we
have a formula on a points system. Depending on the number of
trails and the number of permits per kilometre of trail that you
sell, there's a formula where the funding is divvied up and
equalized throughout the province. Now, it doesn't work 100% and
we actually have something coming up at our convention this year
that's going to make it even more fair. We're trying to work that
way. But we have addressed that at the OFSC level and that's
something we can control internally. But you're absolutely right,
there have been discrepancies in the funding depending on where
your club is situated.
The Acting
Chair: Thank you, Mr Gerretsen. We're going to now defer
to Mr Bisson.
Mr Bisson:
Thank you for coming to my rescue, Chair.
Bruce, I want to thank you
for your presentation because you've actually brought together
what I think are some reasonable proposals about what we can take
a look at that would supplement a mandatory trail permit
system.
Just a point for the
record: we do pay the registration fee on vehicles now in
northern Ontario, and have since 1996. I thought I'd put that on
the record.
Listen, an interesting
point you made, if I understood you correctly, is you're saying
50% of those who come in from outside to utilize the trail system
end up only buying the permit once they're caught. I'm wondering,
is that because they don't know, or is there just-
Mr Bruce
Robinson: That's in our area, in eastern Ontario,
because we are not set up to handle tourists the way other areas
such as, say, the Muskoka area handles it.
Mr Bisson:
As far as local residents go, I heard you say about 95%.
Mr Bruce
Robinson: We're running at about 95% compliance.
Mr Bisson:
Of those who are pulled over by the wardens, saying "By the way,
you need a trail permit," are they normally saying, "Oh, OK, no
problem, let me pay," or is it-
Mr Bruce
Robinson: Usually. We get the, "Well, I only use it
twice a year," thing, and we try to say, "Well, if you use your
car twice a year you still have to buy a licence."
Mr Bisson:
But they end up buying?
Mr Bruce
Robinson: Usually. What we normally do in our club, in
the area I'm involved with, is we don't go to the trouble of
trying to get the landowner in to press a charge of trespass; we
give them an option: turn around and get off the trails or pay
the money. If they don't want to pay, they leave.
Mr Bisson:
And normally you don't have a conflict?
Mr Bruce
Robinson: We've never had a situation.
Mr Bisson:
It's just one of the worries I have around the mandatory: if you
have an overzealous warden who decides to force the issue with
the individual, we wouldn't want a confrontation and the person
not be properly trained in how to deal with that. I'm just
wondering what kind of a problem we would have. Most guys are
good, but I just-
Mr Bruce
Robinson: Our training for our wardens does handle the
confrontational situation and what to do. The thing to do is to
turn them away, just turn them back.
Mr Bisson:
OK, thank you very much. It was a very good presentation.
The Acting
Chair: Thank you, Mr Robinson, for your
presentation.
1400
BAIT ASSOCIATION OF ONTARIO
The Acting
Chair: We'll call now on the Bait Association of
Ontario, please.
Mr Guy
Winterton: I thank the committee for having us here this
afternoon.
I had an overhead
presentation but, given the awkwardness of the set-up-and I know
you've all got a copy-I'll just use it from here, if you don't
mind.
Usually the first thing
that happens when we talk about the bait association is everybody
goes, "What? What's that?" So I want to just take a minute or two
and explain who we are.
It's a very new association in Ontario; it's a
non-profit corporation in the last year or so. It really was
formed mostly at the request and with the help of the Ministry of
Natural Resources so that they have a one-window focus to deal
with the resource users in this particular industry, and, of
course, also to do what has been going on in government for quite
some time, that is, try to involve users more in management of
the resource and as partners in resource management.
The industry actually is
not a huge industry. It has about 1,500 licensees. About half of
those folks are harvesters out on the land and about half of
those would be dealers. Harvesters may also own a retail store
and deal as well.
It is a $40-million to
$60-million industry in Ontario. To give you a bit of a
comparison, it's about equivalent to or perhaps a little larger
than the commercial food fishery in Ontario, on the Great Lakes,
mostly, and on a few inland lakes. That will give you some sense
of scale. Of course, as you know, these folks tend to depend more
on the small stream, pond and lake environment, so they tend to
be, if you will, all over the land out there.
I mentioned they have a new
business relationship with the Ministry of Natural Resources.
Traditionally, MNR has not put a lot of time or effort into bait
knowledge or bait management. I worked for them for many years,
so I know it was a low priority in the organization.
On the other hand, the
industry, for the most part, holds most of the knowledge in
Ontario with regard to bait. They know about the fish, they do
all the inventory, they do all the monitoring, they know all the
management strategies and they manage the resources on the
ground. With the new business relationship, we're gradually
taking over more administration from MNR and we have significant
input into policy development and legislation, of course, because
good legislation and policy is dependent on the knowledge of the
first three or four. MNR is still involved as our partner. They
do policy, licensing, regulations and, of course,
enforcement.
I guess one of the key
issues for our folks is that with the new business relationship
came a significant increase in fees. The harvester's fee went
from $17.50 to $300 last year and it choked a few people. I think
it's fair to say that. At the same time, though, as an industry
we recognize that resource management costs money. As we've said
to the Fish and Wildlife Advisory Board, and we'll say it here,
we're an industry that's never going to complain about paying our
fair share for doing a good job of management.
In addition to that $300,
for every bait harvesting area a person has, he pays another
$32.50. So some of these folks are paying upwards of $1,500,
$1,800 in licence fees, which is reasonably substantial in their
minds, certainly. They feel, of course, that they are paying for
access to the resource and access to the crown land already,
which is where most of the resource is. As I mentioned, in terms
of winter trails, the bait industry probably uses these trails to
some extent in their local communities as they carry out their
business. In fact, they're long-time traditional users. For
decades they've been involved in the bait industry and they may
actually have built and maintained some of these trails that have
gradually become part of the broader network.
Our position is pretty
clear and pretty simple. I've listened to some of the
presentations here and we had one of our folks in Timmins whom
you listened to. Basically, we're supportive of Bill 101 in
general terms for recreational snowmobilers. Obviously, there are
lots of components of that issue for the snowmobilers that they
have concerns about. We don't have issue with that at all. Our
biggest concern and our position is that we request an exemption
from mandatory trail permits to conduct the business of bait
harvesting and to fulfill the resource management
responsibilities under the new business relationship with MNR. We
feel that we're paying quite a bit more money and we're also
doing a lot of what at one time perhaps was considered to be
government work and we see it now as the resource user's
responsibility.
That's basically where
we're at, and we're certainly prepared to work with the
government or anybody on appropriate identification of legitimate
harvesters. We're certainly not suggesting, either, that a
harvester who has a licence in Kenora and who wants to go
snowmobiling in Timmins get a free ride. We're talking about
using trails occasionally to do the business at hand on the
licensed area and perhaps getting access to that licensed
area.
That's really all I have to
say. That's our position and I think it's fairly clear and
simple.
The Acting
Chair: Thank you, Mr Winterton. That gives about four
and a half minutes per caucus, starting with the Liberals.
Mr Levac:
Thank you, Mr Chair. We won't be using five minutes. It's pretty
straightforward.
Are you aware that most of
the presentations we've been hearing to this point have been
supportive of exemption for traditional users?
Mr
Winterton: Yes, we are, and we're very pleased with
that. We've have a letter back from the Minister of Tourism in a
very positive vein in that regard. We just wanted to make sure
that our position was put forth clearly to the committee.
Mr Levac:
I will steal Mr Bisson's joke. He indicated that's a heck of a
long way to take a minnow if you go from one part of the province
to the other.
Mr Spina:
You got it in Hansard.
Mr Levac:
The closest comment was "within reason," and you've covered that
off, obviously. If they come prepared with a snowmobile that
doesn't quite indicate that it's for business use, that would be
evident to the warden of the day.
Mr
Winterton: Right.
Mr Levac:
The Ministry of Natural Resources has a different way of dealing
with hunters and anglers. Do you support Bill 101 because of its
use of the legislation to get the money in and then transfer it
back to the OFSC?
Mr Winterton: First let me say we
support it because we see snowmobiling as another one of those
outdoor activities that gets people outside. If they're outside,
they're going fishing, and if they're going fishing, they're
buying minnows. At the same time, I lived in the north; I lived
in Kenora for 20 years. There are some real pluses for the
province of Ontario to have a well-organized trail network. I was
also retired as a chief of law enforcement for the Ministry of
Natural Resources, so I appreciate the difficulties of enforcing
and the importance of making a decision and following it up with
appropriate enforcement to make it happen. I guess in that regard
we're all pretty supportive of that. I think from our focus we're
talking about recreational snowmobilers.
The anglers and hunters
clearly have some concerns about their traditional use of some of
those trails. I guess they've put forth their position fairly
clearly too. I think we see ourselves as a commercial user, if
you will, probably more similar to the fur harvesters who are
going to speak later.
Did that answer your
question? I'm not sure it did directly.
Mr Levac:
Yes. It gave me the general gist of where you're going. Thank
you.
The Acting
Chair: Mr Gerretsen, you've got about a minute and a
half.
Mr
Gerretsen: Just a very quick follow-up question: do you
draw a distinction at all between the trails which the snowmobile
clubs have gotten permission for from private property owners and
other trails? If traditional users start using the trails that
snowmobile clubs in effect have negotiated for on private
properties, is there a difference there?
Mr
Winterton: Oh boy, that's a tough one. For the most
part, our use of these trails would probably be crown land
trails. No doubt there would be some use, and everybody's human.
If there is a good trail somewhere and they have an exemption,
obviously they probably would prefer to take that. I would think
the use would be relatively minimal.
I know that some of our
regional associations have had discussions with local snowmobile
groups, and generally the snowmobilers' position is, "For
legitimate business, use our trails." I assume that takes into
account the authorities that they have acquired from private
landowners to travel on them. I think it would be difficult to
try and separate out the two in any kind of a sensible,
enforceable manner.
1410
Mr Bisson:
Thank you very much for your presentation. I don't think there is
any argument from us New Democrats or the other two parties with
regard to finding an exemption. In fact, we've already asked our
legislative staff to take a look at that to see how we worked
that out. But you're right, it's important to hear.
I am curious, though: are
you finding in your business of selling bait an increase or a
decrease in the demand for bait?
Mr
Winterton: Demand is generally increasing as people get
out and about more. Fishing in Ontario has been reasonably static
over the last number of years, although certainly the advisory
board has concerns about some decline in participation-that's
particularly relevant to hunting, I think. But winter recreation,
people have better clothes, and they have perhaps more interest
in being out there. The products, the snowmobiles-there's good
equipment out there. So it's increasing slightly.
Mr Bisson:
I was just wondering because you look at who is out on the lakes,
and certainly in the summer there's the regular population of
outdoorsmen out there fishing. But in the winter, I haven't seen
that much of an increase, and I'm wondering if you guys are
seeing it.
Mr
Winterton: I think it's dependent a bit on where you
are. Of course, in southern Ontario, the winter conditions over
the last two or three years haven't been great for ice formation,
and that has slowed things down.
Mr Bisson:
It allows them to do it by boat.
Mr
Winterton: Actually, you're right. It's been going on
quite a bit. I don't like fishing in that cold weather
myself.
Mr Bisson:
I'll tell you something: those snow machines go over open water
real good. You know what I mean.
Mr
Winterton: That sounds like the voice of experience.
Mr Bisson:
These guys know what I'm talking about.
Just a very simple
question: what the hell are you guys putting in the bait? They
don't bite as well as they used to.
Mr
Winterton: Trade secrets.
Mr Spina:
Thank you, Mr Winterton, for your presentation. As you are aware,
you've heard it, there's a section in the bill that amends the
act that permits classes of motorized snow vehicles and classes
of individuals, in fact, to be exempted under the act or its
regulations. I wanted to put that on the record for you
directly.
Mr
Winterton: We just didn't want you to think that we
didn't care.
Mr Spina:
I have a question and it really has to do more with my personal
lack of knowledge. How do you harvest bait in the wintertime? I'm
trying to understand where a bait harvester would use a
snowmobile trail.
Mr
Winterton: They wouldn't use a trail a great deal, but
somebody who may be running from his house, if he has an area
that's fairly close to where he lives, it may very well be that
he would be on a trail for a half a mile or a mile until he
branched off into wherever his harvesting area was.
Winter harvesting is
difficult. It's a lot of hard work. It's a lot of sawing and a
lot of chiselling and a lot of cold hands and a lot of working
pretty fast.
Mr Spina:
So basically you harvest beneath the ice, that sort of thing?
Mr
Winterton: Yes.
Mr Spina:
I didn't think anybody would be nuts enough to do that, but I
guess if there's enough money in it, of course.
Mr Winterton: Interestingly
enough, we just had a training session over the summer and we
trained about 200 MNR folks, helping them understand the industry
a bit more. This is an industry that has generally taken the
position that the less you tell anybody, especially government,
the better off you are. But they've come to recognize that in
today's world, that's not very appropriate. You can't live that
way. You have to stand up and be counted or you're liable to get
trampled in the rush that's going on. So they've come out quite a
bit more about talking about those kinds of things.
Mr Spina:
I would draw one analogy. I thought it was quite interesting that
when you got government involved to the tune of MNR-and this is
with all due respect to MNR-your fees went from $17.50 to $300.
That's perhaps a concern that a lot of people in the snowmobile
industry have. Is that a fair analogy?
Mr
Winterton: I think what it came down to is that it was
costing MNR more to administer the program than they were
receiving in licence fees. On top of that, there was no money for
any kind of research or enforcement or any other components. As I
said, this has been a relatively secret industry, but we can't be
that way any more. Actually, initially our folks put more money
than that on the table right up front. They basically sat down
and said, "What is it going to cost to do this job and do it
well?" and put that money up. Not to say that there weren't some
folks that weren't real happy about that, particularly some of
the smaller dealers. Dealers' fees went from $17.50 to $150. If
they were selling bait on the side, as a service in a small area,
in a mom-and-pop store, they weren't really happy about it. But
in terms of the long-term survival of the industry, to be a
credible, professional industry and to do the job managing the
resource, you just have to pay.
Mr Toby Barrett
(Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant): You mention managing the
resource. Again, this doesn't relate to snowmobile trails. Is
there any evidence now or is there concern of the resource being
depleted in any areas? Secondly, are you now under a quota system
as far as the catch?
Mr
Winterton: We've talked about two things that haven't
come to pass: one is quotas and one is royalties. As you know,
the commercial fishery pays a royalty; the fur industry pays a
royalty. Commercial fisheries are under quotas. The bait industry
and the bait resource is a bit different. It tends to roll over
really quickly. You've got a relatively short-lived species that
has a huge potential for increased recruitment in one year, and
then it could be affected by environmental situations that would
cause a significant decline the next year. So it really requires
very close local management.
For the most part, with the
bait harvesters-while, as a biologist, I would maybe have gone
about learning how to manage bait a little differently than them
in terms of the more structured assessment of how to manage-it
has still been an iterative process for them. They've made
decisions. They might decide to take 10 gallons of minnows out of
one spot: "Gee, that didn't work. It'll only handle five." Over
the years, they've learned how to do that. They use a whole bunch
of management techniques, such as grading out small ones or
grading out the large breeders, the time of year they harvest,
the quantities they harvest. So they basically set their own
quotas.
With the level of knowledge
that's out there right now, to try and sit down in an office and
pick out a formula and start putting quotas on licences would be
really difficult, because a man might have a fairly large area-30
or 40 Mercator blocks, which are eight by 10 square miles-and he
might be harvesting 200 or 300 water bodies. For the government
to get involved in trying to regulate the quotas on each of
those, and then of course measuring it and enforcing it, would be
virtually an impossible job, in my view.
Mr
Barrett: I just wondered, where are the resources going
from this $300 licensing fee? Is it not into further
research?
Mr
Winterton: Yes, it is. Actually, all of the fee goes
back into the bait industry. Some of it comes back to our
association to be a professional association. I'm their only
employee and I only work part-time for them. The ministry has
money going into increased enforcement and increased research as
well. We're very comfortable with the partnership and the
relationship with the government.
The Acting
Chair: Thank you, Mr Winterton, for your
presentation.
CRAIG NICHOLSON
The Acting
Chair: We will call on Mr Nicholson, please.
Mr Craig
Nicholson: I noticed the guys on the sound board back
there dozing off, so I'm going to take a different seat.
The Acting
Chair: As suggested, because it's an individual
presentation, it is 10 minutes.
Mr
Nicholson: How come I'm the only one who got told
that?
The Acting
Chair: Because I've been watching the other ones very
closely.
Mr
Nicholson: Is that 10 minutes from the time I start
speaking?
The Acting
Chair: Right.
Mr
Nicholson: Good day and thank you for your time. My name
is Craig Nicholson. I'm here today both as an avid snowmobiler
and an individual who earns his livelihood from snowmobiling as a
freelance journalist, broadcaster and communications consultant.
As the Intrepid Snowmobiler, I have a syndicated newspaper
column, appear on radio and television and write for several
national magazines. I am also an active cottager and a director
of the Federation of Ontario Cottagers' Association.
However, I want to state
very clearly at the outset that I am here today to speak for
myself and that the opinions I will express are mine alone, not
those of any of my media outlets or clients.
I'm certain by now you are very familiar with the
OFSC position regarding mandatory permits. I agree with that
position and with mandatory permits too. As a snowmobiler who
buys as many as five permits in different provinces in one
season, I firmly believe that anyone who rides a groomed
snowmobile trail should pay for that privilege. I don't want to
ride snowmobile trails with freeloaders. I buy my permit. Why
should I have to subsidize someone else's snowmobiling too?
1420
With all the fuss over the
way mandatory permits are being proposed under Bill 101, I ask
myself, "Why are we here today to talk about snowmobiling?" It's
not because the world needs snowmobiling. It's not because all of
you or your counterparts at Queen's Park or the folks at MTour or
the MTO or any other ministry are in love with snowmobiling, and
it's not just because the OFSC wants mandatory permits.
We're here today to talk
about snowmobiling because it has a proven track record for
creating jobs, new opportunities and more economic activity.
Snowmobiling is the topic today because it has ushered in a new
winter tourism season. This winter season has delivered
prosperity to rural Ontario, and especially to northern Ontario,
where winter has been a traditionally stagnate time for business
and employment. Snowmobiling has helped break the cycle of
seasonal unemployment for many people who would otherwise have
been collecting UI or even welfare throughout the winter.
You've heard the impact: $1
billion in economic activity and $356 million in provincial tax
revenues. These numbers are generated each and every year for
only a 10-week to 12-week season. It's also noteworthy that this
annual economic impact is concentrated in areas of the province
that don't have any other substantial revenue-generating
alternatives. I would suggest that its real value to rural and
northern Ontario is magnified many times over, whereas if it
occurred in the GTA it would an insignificant drop in a very
large economic bucket.
Why do you think the
northern Ontario heritage fund invested almost $24 million in
grooming equipment and trail infrastructure during the 1990s?
Because snowmobiling was the best available vehicle to boost
winter employment and business in the tourism sector. Let's not
forget that this $24 million invested by the northern Ontario
heritage fund levered almost $17 million in additional money,
matching investment from OFSC clubs. That's a total of almost $41
million that has been invested in the tourism product since
1993.
Over the past five years,
the tourism sector has invested at least $10 million to promote
Ontario snowmobiling; again, not because of snowmobiling per se
but because snowmobiling provides the ideal vehicle to anchor a
new winter tourism season. So by my rough calculation, at least
$50 million has been invested in the combined product development
and marketing of snowmobiling in Ontario in recent years-$50
million. But during all this period of investment and growth,
there has never been any new source of funding for trail
operations. Isn't that kind of like manufacturing and promoting a
new car but not buying enough gas to run it?
Why are we talking about
snowmobiling today? Because it creates new jobs, opportunity and
prosperity, because all this progress is in jeopardy if there
isn't new funding to operate snowmobile trails and because the
people of Ontario have a $50-million investment to protect and
cultivate, not to squander and waste.
Mandatory permits are one
very important item on a menu of new funding alternatives. Other
options include snowmobile registration dollars like they have in
Quebec, a snowmobile gasoline tax rebate like they have in many
states, access to lottery licences and lottery revenues or maybe
even an annual operations payment from the northern Ontario
heritage fund that would ensure the survival and growth of their
existing investment.
I want to highlight three
key factors that I believe are pivotal to the discussion today.
The first can be summed up as user-play, user-pay. Throughout our
society, the user-pay principle has increasingly gained
acceptance, from ice time in hockey rinks to municipal recreation
programs. What else is the green fee for a game of golf but a
user fee? The same goes for everything from theatre tickets to
the price of a Blue Jays game. It's all user-pay. Those who want
to participate in the activity, pay to do so. Those who do not
choose to participate don't pay anything. Mandatory permits do
not reinvent any wheels, and there is no need to reinvent the
user-pay system either.
The OFSC has a
sophisticated permit system in place that only requires the
legitimacy of legislation, not the interference of bureaucracy.
I, and many snowmobilers like me, will be very disappointed if
this process does not give the OFSC the ability to ensure that
there are no freeloaders on the snowmobile trails we ride. That
means either mandatory permits or unequivocal land use permission
where OFSC wardens are authorized to lay trespass charges on all
OFSC trails on crown land. Reaching this objective should be a
simple, straightforward process. Why is it being made so
complicated under Bill 101?
The second key factor I
want to highlight is snowmobile trails being taken for granted.
Many people seem to think that groomed trails appear magically
each winter, always have been there and always will be there.
That's why some argue that OFSC trails on crown land should be
free, while ignoring the millions of dollars in improvements and
maintenance without which those snow highways would be as
impassable as the rest of the wilderness. Taking trails for
granted explains why some tourism operators expect free trails to
their door so they can make more money from snowmobilers, but
ignore where trails come from and how to pay for them.
It speaks to why
traditional users overlook the comfort, convenience and safety of
OFSC trails to complain that they shouldn't be charged for their
passage, even though grooming is the only reason those trails are
easily accessible and navigable in the first place. Taking trails
for granted allows
tourism representatives to market the product while ignoring any
responsibility for increasing the burden of trail operations.
The plain and undeniable
fact is that all the tourism, all the economic impact, all the
jobs and all the opportunity flow from groomed trails. It's time
to officially acknowledge their importance and ensure their
operational sustainability. Bill 101 is a big step in the right
direction, and legislating mandatory permits will legitimize
snowmobile trails. But this only works if it does not undermine
the OFSC at the same time.
The third and last key
point I want to make is that this province should be celebrating
and showcasing the success of OFSC volunteers and clubs. It
should be doing everything reasonable to ensure their continued
progress, because of what snowmobiling delivers to countless
families, rural communities and the economy of snowbelt Ontario.
Can anyone think of any other non-profit, volunteer organization
that achieves anywhere near the same level of tourism or
recreational success? Does anyone honestly think that any
government agency, ministry or private sector company could
operate as cost-effectively and deliver groomed trails as
reliably? Shouldn't what the OFSC has achieved for 30 years be
what the province holds up as a model, encourages others to
emulate and sustains in every way possible?
The whole point of the
mandatory permit exercise is to create a new source of
sustainable funding for trail operations so that snowmobile
trails can continue to generate benefits for the entire community
and so that winter tourism can continue to flourish. Let's not
lose sight of this very necessary and important goal. There is no
other viable alternative to snowmobiling as an anchor vehicle for
winter tourism.
Chair Joe Spina and the
interministerial task force have given us an excellent
opportunity to secure all the economic gains that have been made
through snowmobiling and to seize the promise of an even brighter
future. If mandatory permits and/or some other form of
sustainable funding are not forthcoming, I will always be able to
find someplace else in Canada to go snowmobiling on world-class
trails. But if Bill 101 is allowed to achieve its sustainable
funding intent, while leaving OFSC authority over the user-pay
system intact, then all of Canada will be joining me to
snowmobile on the very best world-class trails in this country
right here in Ontario.
The Acting
Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Nicholson. We have about
a minute and a half left. Rather than going to the three
caucuses, do you want to use up that minute and a half with any
additional comments?
Mr
Nicholson: This was so well-rehearsed.
Mr Spina:
Off the script.
Mr
Nicholson: Yes, right. The bottom line on this is we've
got a bunch of willing partners, who I think are all trying to
accomplish the same thing. I don't think there's a whole lot of
disagreement on what the issue is.
What we seem to be getting
hung up on is the process. On one hand we've got the OFSC, as
Bruce Robinson has said, with a bunch of independent pioneer
types, the kind of spirit that has brought this province to where
it is, and we don't want to quash that spirit. On the other hand
we have the government of the people, which has a way of doing
things that's been established over years of rules and
regulations. Those rules and regulations are supposed to be there
to facilitate what the people are doing, not to squash what the
people are doing.
The way I read what's going
on with Bill 101 right now is that the MTO is trying to take over
the permit system from the OFSC. Why, by any imagination, would
you even consider turning something over to a ministry that has
no experience whatsoever in trails, in permits, in volunteers or
in snowmobiling? It doesn't make any sense by any stretch of the
imagination. I don't know if that's a minute and a half.
The Acting
Chair: You're pretty close, sir, and I thank you very
much for your presentation.
Mr
Nicholson: Thank you very much for having me.
Mr Levac:
On a point of order, Mr Chairman: Is there a possibility we can
get a copy of the presentation?
Mr
Nicholson: Yes, I gave it to the clerk. I just didn't
want to give it to you beforehand because I didn't want you
reading what I was going to say before I blew it.
The Acting
Chair: Thanks, Mr Nicholson.
1430
LORNE BURDEN
The Acting
Chair: We'll call on the next presenter, Lorne Burden,
please. Mr Burden, you've got 10 minutes, by presentation and/or
questions.
Mr Lorne
Burden: Good afternoon, and thank you for allowing me
the opportunity to speak before you here today. I was always off
working in the bush during the Lands for Life/Living Legacy
consultations; hence I couldn't present directly to a committee
who were involved in a process which would impact the mineral
explorationists of this province. But my schedule permits me to
do so today.
My name is Lorne Burden.
I'm a professional geoscientist and an independent prospector. I
suspect that many of the concerns I will express on my behalf
will parrot those of other traditional crown land users like
hunters, trappers and fishermen, and probably as well private
cottage owners, hunters, camp owners and just general landowners.
All of these snowmobile users have been accessing much of
northern Ontario for many more years than any snowmobile club has
been in existence. However, since the inception of the groomed
trail program, there has been a lack of harmony and understanding
between traditional snowmobile users in the pursuit of a living
or other recreations with those who ride trail for pleasure.
It is probably clear to you
by now from the proceedings to date that there are three very
different snowmobile user groups within this province: a group
that uses them as a tool
for accessing job sites, a group that uses them as a means to
access recreational sites, and a group that uses them solely for
pleasure purposes.
The first two groups have
been accessing crown lands in the winter by snowshoe, ski,
dogsled, and now by snow machine much longer than this country
has been in existence. These are traditional year-round users of
the trails and roads which access crown lands as well as private
lands throughout the province. To these people the snow machine
is used as an ATV or a truck or a boat would be used in the
summer. It's simply a tool used to simplify access to traditional
areas. To these users, the snowmobile is a means to an end.
For the last group, the
pleasure rider, the pursuit of their enjoyment starts and stops
on a groomed trail on the back of a monster snow machine. To
these pleasure riders, the snow machine is the end.
It is clear that these are
indeed very different user groups.
When the groomed trail
network was initiated, many of the routes chosen for improvement
were existing trails, forest access or logging roads that have
been available to traditional users for many years. In fact, many
of the traditional users regularly maintained and still do
maintain sections of roads and trails over which they regularly
travel. There were no formal consultations with traditional users
when these existing trails were taken over to become parts of
routes currently managed and groomed by snowmobile clubs. Now
many traditional users will be asked to pay for a program for
which they have no need.
It is important that this
committee find a way to recognize within this act that
prospectors and explorationists are traditional crown land users
so that we may continue to be exempt from any system of permitted
trail use.
I have long recognized that
there are many people who use crown lands in both the summer and
winter. I, and most geoscientists like myself, have as a common
courtesy always worked with local user groups so as to least
impact crown lands for the enjoyment of all, and this includes
local snowmobile clubs. However, I would like to point out that
the provincial Mining Act has a great deal of bearing on what we
mineral explorationists must do and when we must do it. This same
act tells us to carry out our exploration programs in ways that
are efficient. As many of you should know, in the business world
efficiency is equivalent to cost-effectiveness.
I do not own, nor do I
desire to own, a snow machine. However, as needs arise I do rent
machines, sometimes as many as four at a single time for a job.
Should I be running more than one job at a time, trail permits
could become quite expensive. In this case, it would be more
cost-effective and, I might add, more comfortable for me to take
a D6 bulldozer and reopen that section of trail or forest access
road that I need for truck use. If I am forced into this action,
I am sure that local snowmobile clubs as well as the OFSC would
not be happy.
In this particular example,
you can clearly see that the expense of a trail permit to
traverse areas that have always been open to mineral
explorationists is as unwarranted as the need for a groomed
trail. However, by my using snow machines on a portion of these
groomed trails, I would be minimizing the impact on the enjoyment
and experience of the pleasure riders.
Now, as a traditional crown
land user dependent on continued access to crown land to make my
living, I am also concerned about how this act and supporting
regulations could be manipulated or used as a precedent when
other special interest groups proceed to declare or obtain
ownership of trails through the land-use permit process.
Exclusivity to the access of the remaining non-alienated crown
lands within the province goes against the principles and spirit
of the Lands for Life/Living Legacy documents. If this land
alienation continues, it will lead to a further reduction in
mineral exploration expenditures and the number of prospectors
working in this province, and ultimately the loss of a $5-billion
industry.
Furthermore, I would like
to know what considerations are being given to areas of high
mineral potential or, as they say in the Lands for Life
documents, "provincially significant mineral potential," prior to
granting of any land-use permits. What are the guarantees that
special interest groups will not attempt to restrict access or
assess further fees on traditional crown land users who use the
trails and old roads during the summer months? With respect to
prospectors and mineral explorationists, we have never asked the
snowmobile clubs to help us financially with building our roads
and trails for exploration ventures. I ask you, why should we pay
them to use trails and roads already paid for by our own sweat,
money or tax dollars to access lands we have every right to
access under the current laws of Ontario?
As I indicated before, we
have three entirely different groups who make use of the vast
network of trails and roads that cross crown land. Two of these
groups use these trails year-round. I believe all of these groups
should be treated differently within this act.
In closing, I have no beef
about assessing a user fee or permit to any who choose to ride
OFSC groomed trails for pleasure. However, prospectors, mineral
explorationists or any others traveling in pursuit of their
occupation or profession must remain exempt from purchasing or
having to apply for any kind of permit or paying any kind of fee
to cross or use OFSC trails located on crown lands. This
exemption should be stated boldly within the text of the act. In
the case of those in my profession, proof of our eligibility can
be provided by showing a current prospector's licence issued by
the province of Ontario.
The Acting
Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Burden. There is about a
minute for each caucus, starting with the NDP, which is not here.
I'll move to the government.
Mr
O'Toole: Thank you very much, Mr Burden, for your
presentation, bringing the perspective of the prospector. We have
heard from that before and recognize that under section 9 of the
bill there is the exemption provision, under "Classes," in regulation. I
just want that on the record. You should be aware of that. It
came to our attention when we were in I believe Timmins and
Dryden that there would be requests for exemption. Just dealing
with the prospectors-and for the record, our researchers provided
us with this; I have no brilliance on my own without them.
Prospecting licences today:
for you to prospect, perhaps you could educate me and the people
here listening today about what is your fee and other kinds of
costs. We've heard from the bait fisher people today that it went
from $17 to maintain a resource. The Ministry of Natural
Resources does recognize the importance of our natural resources,
including the minerals that you spoke to. What is your fee and
what are other costs for you to conduct your business on publicly
owned crown land?
Mr Burden:
The actual fee for a licence, I believe, is $5 per year, which is
peanuts compared to the $300 they are asking for the trail
permits. However, when we do stake claims, we're required to
expend a minimum of $400 per year on each claim, so we do have to
work on our claims.
To step back a moment, you
were mentioning that this exemption is going to be in the
regulations. Regulations change at the whim of the current
government. If it's stated within the act, it takes a lot more to
get exemptions and changes done to things. I prefer to see it in
the text of the act that prospectors-
Mr
O'Toole: If I may, Mr Chair, that has been brought up
before, that if we state it within the act itself for the
traditional users, work-related users, you're right; it would
sort of enshrine it. It doesn't preclude the possibility of any
government amending the legislation, but certainly, as you've
pointed out, the regulations are more easily amended after
they've been gazetted.
1440
Mr Burden:
Then they could get amended without consultation, and that's a
fear I have. I've seen it happen before in parks.
Mr Levac:
Are you aware that the official position of some of the
presenters of local clubs-and I believe that means they're
speaking on behalf of OFSC because they're elected-that they have
indicated a willingness to understand that there will be
exemptions and that they are not speaking about everyone buying
the permit?
Mr Burden:
I understand there's the exemption for traditional users. I just
want to be recognized as a traditional user.
Mr Levac:
Right. That's why you're here today.
Mr Burden:
Yes.
Mr Levac:
I just wanted to know that you're not on a different
wavelength.
Mr Burden:
No, I understand. As far as pleasure riders, people who go on the
trails to use the trails, I have no beef about anybody paying for
that. I think they should be paying for it. They're getting a
service provided to them, those trails groomed. However, I don't
need it.
Mr Levac:
Right. To do your job.
Mr Burden:
To do my job. I would like to work around it.
Mr Levac:
One of the presenters had indicated "within reason." When I
pressed him, "What do you mean by `within reason'?"-it came out
again today. We're talking about somebody who does a job, goes
in, goes out, a certain length of time. But if they end up with a
different type of snowmobile that's not necessarily needed for
the job to get from point A to point B and they're going across
the province and they're not doing geographical studies of the
entire province and they ended up saying they've got to do both,
that means they're combining the traditional work and they're
doing some pleasure riding at the same time.
Mr Burden:
I would think that person's a pleasure rider. He's not
working.
Mr Levac:
So the "within reason" comment would be acceptable to you. You're
saying you want to make a distinction and show that there's a
reason for being a traditional user, some kind of sticker process
or identification.
Mr Burden:
No. I don't want to have to go through that. We go through enough
red tape as it is to work in the bush. It's difficult. If I have
to go to every snowmobile club in the province to get a sticker,
it's a pain in the butt.
Mr Levac:
I didn't imply that it would be place to place. You would receive
some type of thing or use your licence of some sort after you've
been recognized in the legislation as a traditional user, which
is what you're seeking. If you're on the trail and a warden says,
"Can I see your permit?" and you say, "Here's my traditional
licence," or whatever it is, that's what I'm saying is the thing,
some kind of identification.
Mr Burden:
That would be a very simple way of doing it. I have a
prospector's licence here.
The Acting
Chair: Thank you, Mr Burden, for your presentation.
ONTARIO FEDERATION OF SNOWMOBILE CLUBS,
DISTRICTS 2 AND 3
The Acting
Chair: We will call on the Ontario Federation of
Snowmobile Clubs, districts 2 and 3. Please identify yourself.
You have 20 minutes on presentation and/or questions.
Mr Tom
Sheppard: Thank you very much. I'm Tom Sheppard, the
governor of district 2, which starts just north of town here. I'm
also here on behalf of my counterpart, Dave Phasey, who's the
governor of district 3, where we are today. I have with me Jerry
Rintoul, the operations director from district 2. He has a
presentation to make on our behalf.
Mr Jerry
Rintoul: My name is Jerry Rintoul. Who I am, where I
come from and where I've been is on the paper that you have. One
point is that I grew up on a farm where hunting and trapping and
fishing put food on the table when I was less than 15 years
old.
When I first found a groomed trail, I happened
on to it because I was out going somewhere, and I rode the whole
thing within two days. I would have ridden it all the first day
but I had to be home for some reason. Once I found that, I
thought: "Gee, this is it. Who's done this? Who's gone out
there?" Within a week I had paid a membership and I've been
involved ever since.
I'm involved with the
Somerville and District Snowmobile Association, which is one of
the clubs in district 2. They started developing trails in our
area about the same time as municipal councils and groups started
going to politicians and so on to get snowmobiles banned from the
whole countryside-"Noisy, stinky, they think they can go out at
night and drive by my house on the road," or something like that.
That sort of thing had just started, and at the same time, some
people who were on snowmobiles didn't want to be painted as that
type of person and started working on clubs.
In our county there was a
large tract of county forest that a group traditionally rode in
on the weekend. There was someone else who didn't want them to
ride there because they wanted to ski or snowmobile there and not
see anyone else. Eventually we developed trails. Then we
eventually joined those trails with our clubs' trails.
In Victoria county there
are no trails on crown land. There's a very small amount of crown
land, and any there is, it's a 100-acre lump. Some of them have
mining on; some have-and you can't get to them anyway. They're
landlocked. So we deal with private property owners. We also
deal, for almost half of our trails in Somerville, with the
county itself because they own a county forest and they also own
a rail bed. We have a legal agreement drawn up with them to
maintain trails on this thing.
The rail bed has been there
since 1991, and the club has put $200,000 worth of improvements
into that rail bed-one snowmobile club.
Last year, within the
county forest we developed 4.2 kilometres of new trails to
eliminate about 1 kilometre of running snowmobiles down in the
ditch or down the shoulder of a highway. It was a 500-series
highway, but it has always been an unsafe situation. The cost of
that trail was $13,000, within $500, which is $3,000 per
kilometre.
On top of that, we spent
another $30,000 last year on trail improvements within our area,
mainly on heavy-duty brushing equipment to keep this railroad bed
from totally growing in.
I remember a few years ago
in my classroom, because I taught school for 32 years, I taught
in an auto shop with a different class of people than some people
meet every day. Some of these fellows were around 14. They were
having tremendous physical changes and getting drivers' licences
while I was trying to deal with them. They were arguing about
riding trails, "We'll ride here; we'll ride there; we won't buy
permits." One of the gentlemen, who was more rustic than some,
said, "I don't care what you say, but once you don't buy the
permit and ride the trail, that is where you will want to ride."
He was a member of our club for quite a few years, through his
teenage and into his early twenties. That was his point. He's the
kind of guy you might not be able to catch if you had a police
cruiser and were trying to catch him, but that was his view about
trails.
We have mostly private
properties and trails that are on municipal properties and signed
up, and a bunch of trails on road allowances which are not signed
up, and you're not allowed to ask them when they buy a permit on
that particular thing, and they know it. They say, "This is a
road allowance; you can't do anything to me." We used to have a
number of those people. We even got to know who they were. We
could see them coming down the trail and we didn't even stop
them. They've all disappeared. They're just not around any more.
They've either gotten rid of the thing or they have joined up. We
have very few people on our trails who are freeloading any more
at the times that we are out there. Since a lot of the volunteers
work, they're not out through the week, and we're not out there
at 2 o'clock on Friday night and Saturday night, until we get a
STOP officer program.
Within district 2 we have
eight other snowmobile clubs besides ours, and some of those
clubs do have a lot more crown land. We get into the area of
Bancroft, we get north of Buckhorn and all the way over to
Kaladar, and there's quite a bit of crown land in that area, and
some of those trails are on forest access roads and in various
places like that, so their situation is somewhat different. This
mandatory permit would affect them perhaps more than my own
club.
One club in particular has
a lot of crown land. Where you have forest access roads and
things like that, especially if other groups want to use them,
they develop their own trail away from the road-often within
sight of it, but away from it. So the groomed trail does not very
often follow some path that was there before they started, and
they did that intentionally. They solved the conflict problems
for safety and also say, "We developed this trail; this trail
wasn't there." In fact, if you travel around the country within
our area and you knew exactly where the trail went 20 years ago,
anyplace there's some kind of obstacle, like hills or drainage
and that kind of stuff, many of the clubs have moved those trails
and improved the point.
My point in saying that is
that if Uncle George went through there 45 years ago on his
snowshoes, he did go through to such-and-such a lake or over to
Joe's house. He didn't necessarily follow the path that's been
improved and is maintained now.
District 3-we're speaking
on behalf of them-is south of Highway 7. They have a lot of crown
land. In fact, the first two speakers would have been from
district 3. They deal with a couple of large county forests or
municipally owned forests, road allowances, a railroad bed and
private property owners.
1450
I think it's fair to say
that in district 2, and to a certain extent in district 3, we're
somewhat like the people from Kemptville. We have a very high
compliance rate with trail permits. One of the clubs in our
district, when this first started, would not confront anyone. They
would stop them and say, "Wouldn't you like to contribute?" Other
clubs would stop you and say, "You will buy a permit or you will
turn around and leave," what I call more in your face.
We do not sell very many
permits out on the trail any more in district 2; in my own club,
probably less that 20 out of 800. We also sell a lot of permits
for the amount of kilometres of trail we have, and we've come
close to being able to pay for things. So when you talk about
Kemptville with 200 or 300 permits, most of our clubs are talking
800 to 1,000 permits, some in excess of that. We can pretty well
fund ourselves that way, but I know a lot of other places that
can't. The amount of kilometres, the number of people, a big
Toronto influence-they buy permits.
Moving on to opposition to
Bill 101. We questioned whether we would speak against what other
people presented, but because I'm a member of the Ontario
Federation of Anglers and Hunters, I've put it in.
I've read four different
articles in the magazine that I receive from the Ontario
Federation of Anglers and Hunters. They were opposed to mandatory
permits for various reasons, so I phoned them up. One of the
articles says, "OFAH needs your input." This is August 2000. I
tried to find out what law they were speaking of, because I
presume we're talking about somewhere in the snowmobile act or
the Trespass to Property Act, because it says the law says this.
They couldn't tell me what law they were talking about. I believe
that some of the land use permits have restrictions on them but
it's not written in law that I could find. They couldn't tell
me.
I asked if the OFAH knew
about land use permits for snowmobile clubs and the gentleman who
spoke to me didn't seem to understand. I said, "Do you understand
it with logging and mining?" "Well, yes." I said, "It's the same
thing."
I asked if they'd like my
input and he was quite put out that I called him, because several
snowmobile groups or people or whatever had called him. I'm a
member of the OFAH and I wanted to give my input. They asked for
it, but they didn't want to hear it. I asked why they were doing
this and they said, "Our members asked us to." So I said: "How
did you find out from your members that they wanted you to do
this? Did you survey them?" He said, "Well, yes." I said, "Well,
how did you miss me?" "Well, we didn't exactly survey them," and
so on. He said, "This came from up north," and I said, "Did you
do a northern survey?" "Well, no, not exactly. There's a lot of
crown land up there, though."
As an OFAH member I was
very disappointed in how much research they had done into how the
OFSC would operate and how this would work. I was disappointed
that he wasn't interested in having a little bit of input from
the other side and I was very disappointed when I said, "I've
worked in district 2," which is a large area right on
Peterborough, "and any time you want some information on
snowmobiling and you have to work with somebody, I will assist to
help." The gentleman did not even ask me for my phone number.
There's an article in the
federation magazine of July 2000, and a person named Bob Allen
writes: "Traditional access has been to follow the logging
companies. As new roads are created, there are others that become
impassable due to washouts and beaver dams or they just get
overgrown by trees."
This article is looking for
the logging companies to be forced to leave bridges in place. I
guess logging companies have looked at economies and are taking
the bridge with them when they leave an area. It's portable; they
pick it up, put it on a truck and put it somewhere else. I view
that as, the OFSC is not the only group the OFAH wishes to
benefit from.
In September 2000, it says,
the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters opposes the snow
job. In this article they start saying that persons who use
trails for work or to get to residences should not have to buy a
permit.
First of all, I do not know
of any person in our area who has been denied access to their
residence for the want of a trail permit. I suggest that if you
buy a cottage and, when you buy it, it is not winter accessible
because no one plows the road there, the township hasn't assumed
the road, or whatever the reason is-when you bought it, it wasn't
winter accessible. Because somebody in the area somewhere put a
snowmobile trail in, your cottage is still not winter accessible,
and if you want to access it, we should not do the work for you
to get there. I do not believe that we have very many trails in
district 2 that run on cottage roads. Riding them, I don't see
that happening. More and more, we remove them from even water or
portages.
My friend Ernie Jordan goes
to Smooth Rock Falls. That's a fair distance from here. When they
get on Highway 11 somewhere near their moose hunting camp they
could drive another 80 miles or they could unload the snowmobiles
and take a short ride to their moose hunting camp. So they tried
the trail. It was in March last year, the middle of March when
all the snow in Ontario had melted, but the trail had maintained
its base and the trail to the hunt camp was in excellent
condition. So they rode snowmobiles to the camp. They fished the
next day. Nobody else was fishing. The next night they go down to
visit one of their friends who lives up there and say, "Why
aren't you guys out fishing?" They said, "The trails are no
good." They said, "The trails are excellent." Within two days 30
local people are out fishing.
Ernie Jordan lives in
Lindsay; he runs a business. He would have had trail permits on
his snowmobiles; I'm not sure about the 30 local people. But my
point is that they were really interested in fishing as long as
the trail was there for them.
A few questions: what are
all the hunters legally hunting from December 15 to April 15? As
far as I know, maybe rabbits and maybe wolves. Most of the wolf
hunters in our area drive around in their half-tons with radio
tracks on their dogs and they go to the next road and the next road for a while
until a wolf is-the work is done by the dogs.
What is a traditional
angler and hunter, and am I one? I believe I probably ate muskrat
before I was five years old. I don't view that I am one and I
don't know how many are. Does a 30-foot strip out of the vast
wilderness of northern Ontario for a snowmobile trail stop other
people from doing their thing? I can't see how, when I ride up
there, that it should make that much difference to anyone.
When you talk about
exemptions, I look back on some TV programs I've watched lately
on the effectiveness of handicapped parking stickers. They don't
seem to cost very much, compared to paying $130 for a permit. It
seems that if I try to chase down some of the people who have
them, I'm just getting too old to be able to catch them.
My contention is that the
OFAH did not ask their members on what they're presenting here. I
also suspect that a lot of OFAH members are like myself. I can
pick about four out of the OFSC executive material. We've done a
survey that shows that people who snowmobile and buy trail
permits do a lot of other outdoor things. They're the type of
people who will join the Ontario Federation of Anglers and
Hunters to have them do the job that needs to be done on various
things.
Trails without maintenance
disappear very soon and are not around forever. If we go out
there and we try to do four miles of trail and we think we're
just going to take our snowmobile and ride through the first
time, we sometimes are there for a day because you just don't go
through. That trail doesn't exist. There are trees across it and
lots of things that happen.
Haliburton county has
apparently been trying to find a trail that goes from Minden west
to Gravenhurst, which was a road. They can't even find where it
is in the bush.
Number 3: some very
important trails in northern Ontario I think would cease to exist
unless the clubs there can find a way to support them. You've got
300 kilometres of trail and 30 members at $120 a member. You
don't have a hope of making it.
If you take your snowmobile
off the trail in Timmins and Cochrane-and I've been there-you get
maybe 100 yards, maybe 200 yards, maybe 50 feet till the thing is
stuck and you just about need help to get it back to the trail to
go. So I don't understand how people were going around if nobody
made a trail. I can understand if the gentleman went every
snowfall and packed it down, but we don't get very far when we
decide to explore.
It costs about $400 to
maintain a trail. It's a user-pay system, and if you're riding a
snowmobile on the trail, you are a user. A lot of bridges and
infrastructure have been put in place by snowmobile organizations
because we've made it safe to get through these places. There's
always a hazard. We had one on our trail called the hellhole.
Everybody who made it through the mud hit the tree at the other
end. The hellhole doesn't exist any more. The trail is still
called the hellhole trail, but the bulldozer went up the side of
the hill away from the drainage problem and built a decent
trail.
When I said to the OFAH,
"What about a bridge that costs $200,000 that you want to use
free?" they said, "Nobody asked you to put in there." I contend
that we have been asked to put all these bridges there. We paid
$50,000 to put one bridge that was a 100 feet long on Victoria
county property. It was actually $54,500. We were asked by the
warden of the county to improve that situation. They found some
federal government money and we paid half. The county didn't put
a cent in it. We paid half and federal government infrastructure
funds did the rest.
1500
Every time there is a
death, there is a lot of noise. Eventually that situation, if it
was caused by something that can be improved, gets improved, and
indirectly we're being asked to improve that situation. They nail
us on TV every time there is a death.
Anglers, hunters and hikers
and many other people benefit from the trail all year long
without contribution. The sad part about our 4.2 kilometres of
new trail is that it isn't on our map yet, but it is on the
Ganaraska hiking association map already. They couldn't have
walked through there last year. It took us four days to walk
through there hacking out brush to even find it.
A licensed trapper is
easily identifiable and may deserve consideration. But in our
area, he seems to put his machine on his truck and go to where
he's doing the trapping, and if he needs a mile of snowmobile
trail to get to the trap site, he does that. He comes back, loads
it up, puts his catch in the truck, turns the heater on and
drives home. I'm not sure how much you can do that.
A trail permit is the
cheapest part of snowmobiling. Anglers and hunters are more
interested in angling and hunting when there's a good trail to
the angling and hunting. I've spilled a lot of minnows out of
trailers behind snowmobiles trying to go fishing somewhere,
because it used to be rough.
I wrote one note here: In
district 2, some 300 visitor permits were purchased two years
ago.
Any questions?
The Acting
Chair: Unfortunately, Mr Rintoul and Mr Sheppard, you
have used up your 20 minutes. I thank you for your presentation,
and certainly we appreciated it very much.
Mr
Rintoul: I hope we presented a different slant from a
snowmobile club.
Mr Spina:
On a point of order, Mr Chair: For the record, I hope the OFAH
representative sitting in the audience heard this
presentation.
The Acting
Chair: That's not a point of order, Mr Spina.
LOFORNA ROD AND GUN CLUB
The Acting
Chair: I'll now call on the Loforna Rod and Gun Club-I
may have pronounced this wrong. Mr DeGroot, you have 20 minutes
for either your presentation and/or questions. Would you identify
yourself and carry on, sir.
Mr Ralph
DeGroot: Thank you, Mr Chairman and members of the
committee. My name is Ralph DeGroot. I'm a resident of
Peterborough. I also happen to be the secretary and trustee of
the Loforna Rod and Gun Club. Loforna is an acronym, two letters
of three words, "love for nature," and with your permission, in a
minute I'll explain what that implies.
I understand that you've
had an opportunity to read the letter we wrote on August 2, 2000,
addressed to a whole bunch of people, including Mr Gilchrist, as
well as the committee clerk and our local member of the
Legislature. Otherwise I'll have to go over all that again.
I have five brief points to
make to you in the time allocated to me. A few brief comments
about the letter, and secondly, who we are-we'd like to explain
that even more particularly now after listening to the last
speaker, who has it all wrong, and I'll get to that. We also want
to illustrate to you that we support the bill, strangely enough,
but we want to give you one example, in our case about our people
and the real world impact of the legislation as it stands at this
minute. The fifth point is a question to the committee, perhaps
rhetorical: How can we be accommodated in the legislation?
The letter on August 2,
2000: We were motivated as a club and held a meeting as a result
of publications by the OFAH, of which our club has been a member
ever since I can remember. They alluded to some of the risk
factors inherent in the bill. We took very kindly to that,
discussed it at our club and I, as secretary and trustee, was
asked to write the letter. We're also a dues-paying member of the
Ontario Woodlot Association, based in Kemptville, and that will
become clear in a minute.
The second point: Who are
we? If you permit me briefly to illustrate to you that a name can
be misleading, we are the Loforna Rod and Gun Club, and I don't
need to explain what picture emerges in your mind. But is that
all we are? I think it would be helpful if you allow me a few
minutes, seeing that it's my time anyway, to tell you who we are.
We are the largest single-block private woodlands owner in the
area in question. Since 1964, we have owned 1,100 acres or, if
you wish the metric system, 455 hectares of land in the former
Anstruther township, which is now, as you may know, part of North
Kawartha township. We have a demonstrated record and reputation
of over 35 years of goodwill, harmony and care for the
environment, as well as co-operative relations with almost
everyone we have reason to be in touch with or they with us.
We have completed two
multi-year-and by "multi-year" I mean 20 years and 15 years,
respectively-woodlands management contracts with the province.
And as we speak, we are still following the province's wildlife
services plan that was created for our holdings, under which we
manage and take care of the wildlife present on our property.
We maintain, voluntarily,
12 one-acre patches, each ranging from one half acre to an acre
of seeded special clover as a source of supplementary feeding for
deer in the early spring. We have agreed with MNR to maintain
with our own labour and at our own cost an one-acre patch of
experimental clover that they are experimenting with in terms of
what effect or non-effect it has.
We have created brush piles
on the shores of our 22-acre pond-we call it a pond because we
don't want to overstate it; some people might call it a lake-to
promote nesting. We can't count them any more but I suggest to
you we have placed hundreds of wood duck nesting boxes throughout
our property. We have drained an entire swamp, which is now a
meadow that people from one of our local colleges take their
students to, to see what can be done with a swamp area in
transforming it into a meadow, and we have an agreement with a
trapper to responsibly manage the beaver population on our
holdings and in our land.
All of this used to be done
strictly with assistance advice of departmental resources. But as
you know, and I won't go into that, certain laws or policies
changed and they are no longer available to us. So at our own
cost we have our own professional forester and we continue to
follow the original woodland management plans.
We are an extremely
co-operative bunch, I would like to think. We fully participate
in the ongoing bear population survey which is conducted on our
lands and our holdings, and we are assisting the University of
Guelph with respect to a number of environmental studies that
they do.
That is what we do as the
Loforna Rod and Gun Club. I hope that at least I have created for
the committee a picture that we are, in the common vernacular,
not just a bunch of guys running around with guns on our
shoulders, although we love hunting. But we are much more than
that, and it's in the context of being much more that we appear
before this committee.
At our club, all 16 charter
members support the notion or the principle that recreational use
of groomed trails should be contributed to by the user. We have
no problem with that, and I know that's the intention of the
bill. We support that. We think that's a wise thing to do.
1510
But what is the impact? We
have experience with the groomed trail. What is that experience?
When we purchased these lands in 1964, to the best of my
knowledge-I stand to be corrected if someone knows more-the
advent of snowmobile clubs and groomed trails, if it was there,
was on a very limited basis, but certainly not where we are.
There was really no access to our lands, which contains a hunt
camp that we have, over the years, developed into a wonderful
facility for year-round use. Access in 1964 was on foot. There
was no roadway, no nothing. There was the lowest of denominations
of identifiable access, which was an old horse trail that was
used in the old days for some limited logging that took place.
The reason is that we are completely surrounded by 30,000 acres
of crown land. One lake is completely owned by us and another
lake on which our
property borders is known under the name of Round Lake.
However, shortly after our
ownership commenced, certain events took place. I don't think
they are important to the committee, but I will just state them
briefly. The lands and forest department, as it was then known,
decided to expropriate a 60-foot road allowance straight through
the middle of our property. The excuse given to us was that it
was a fire access route. I don't know how important it is to you,
but otherwise things may not be as clear.
That was done by lands and
forests, as it was, but the action required the actual
expropriation to be undertaken-or they caused it to be
undertaken-by the township, at that time the township of
Anstruther. The deal was that the township would expropriate the
land, that lands and forests would build the so-called fire
access road, and after 20 years, that road would revert to the
township.
There are other laws. I am
not a lawyer, so I'm not experienced or sufficiently clear on it,
but just because somebody says that's your road, a township
doesn't have to accept responsibility unless they spend money on
it. The township never did, so it's called an unassumed road.
That's the road in question, because that's the only way we can
get to our camp.
Years passed by. We welcome
snowmobiling. We think that's a great sport activity, the
outdoors. We see nothing wrong with it. But our problem is that
the current groomed trail lies over the access road that we need
to get to our camp. It is nothing but one hassle. It is such a
hassle that with the advent of trail wardens, they set up a
roadblock. We have to argue our way through to demonstrate that
we have the need for access because of the programs that I've
outlined to you. We use our club facilities in that area all year
round-for hunting but not necessarily for hunting-for all the
other activities, tree marking for the limited harvesting of
trees that we do. We do that in the winter on snowshoes.
How do our people get in
there? They get in over what is now the unassumed road. I do it
with my four-wheel drive. I don't even own a snowmobile; some of
our members do. But we all have to go through the same checkpoint
or-whatever word you wish to call it-roadblock in order to get
there.
It got so bad. Let me
quickly, before I go any further, assure the committee that
nothing has ever happened. It's a verbal confrontation. We went
over, because we wanted to avoid this, to issue each of our
members an ID card stating that these are the lands we own.
Besides that, the road runs over our land, if you will. It's
expropriated now. We'll get the excuse that the road in winter is
ours, and how you get to your camp is your business. This is
literally what they say. It depends on the personality on duty at
the time.
In the final analysis, we
have never been stopped from getting to our camp, but when you
take the legislation that you have placed before us, we see
nothing but a problem if you're going to add to it without an
exemption being provided in our case. However Legislative
drafters can do that-it's not my job. I think my job is to draw
to your attention a real-life or a real-world problem that says
we believe that we have a justified position to say we were there
long before any organized snowmobile effort was in the area. We
used the access to our camp, and there is no other access to our
camp. We should not be in any way even challenged on being on
what is an access road, assumed or unassumed, even though we
acknowledge there is a trail on it, and even though we have other
means, meaning four-wheel drives, and some of our fellows use
ATVs. It depends on what point in the season we're talking about.
The snow is not always two feet deep.
We keep running into that,
and we believe that the illustration of this real-life problem is
enough to ask this committee, and hence our appearance before it,
how you see that we can be accommodated in this legislation,
because we strongly believe that for what we do, we should not
have to pay $150. We are paying enough as it is for all the
various other things that we do.
That's the point of our
presentation, Mr Chairman. I'm open to any questions. Don't be
afraid of the file. I just brought that to look important and in
case there were any difficult questions.
The Acting
Chair: Thank you, Mr DeGroot. There is about a minute
and a half each for each caucus starting with the NDP.
Mr Bisson:
I want to understand what you are getting at here. You have land
on which there's a road allowance that was expropriated. We don't
want to go through that story again. But the point is, you're
saying the snowmobile clubs don't allow you to use your own
road?
Mr
DeGroot: Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. Their
trail runs over that road.
Mr Bisson:
So what would happen now if I was a member of your club and I got
on the trail with a snow machine and I went to my club and I
didn't have a trail permit?
Mr
DeGroot: I thought I had illustrated that by telling you
that they have roadblocks, not necessarily right at our camp but
on that road, and they challenge the living daylights out of us
and tell us that we have no right to be on that road because it's
their road in the wintertime. That's not true, under the Road
Access Act and any other act.
Mr Bisson:
We'll take the point under advisement and we'll look at that when
we draw up the legislation.
Mr Spina:
Thank you, Mr DeGroot, because I think it was an excellent,
invigorating and passionate presentation, and I appreciate that.
We learned something.
Let me assure you that the
informal discussion paper that preceded the creation of this bill
and also preceded the creation of the interministerial committee
received input from rod and gun clubs, anglers and hunters. In
fact, the Peel Rod and Gun Club is three blocks from my house and
it's 700 members strong. I know a lot of people in the
organization, they are good friends and have made no bones about
giving me their input. In fact, if I had any criticism, it would be of the
central organization itself.
But I wanted to assure you
and your members that, as a result of the response that we did
get, there is a section that was put into the bill that amends
section 26 of the Motorized Snow Vehicles Act and the Highway
Traffic Act and it 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.
Further, regulations may also be made general or particular, and
different classes of persons may be identified for exemptions
from the act or regulations. I just wanted to assure you that has
currently been put into the bill itself.
Lastly, with regard to
perhaps the zealousness of the snowmobile club on that particular
issue of unassumed road, in Bala we had an excellent
presentation-Dave, if you recall-from an individual that was very
involved in unassumed municipal roads and rights of way. It's an
issue that we have to try to address in the bill to determine the
legality and the enforcement elements around those kinds of
roads. But there are people from the federation here today, and
perhaps they might talk to their local club wardens to maybe not
be so confrontational with your members on your land.
1520
Mr
DeGroot: Through you, Mr Chairman. I hear the existence
of the wording of this amendment and it speaks of regulations.
That gives me some comfort that at least it's being looked at. I
guess the next step is-and maybe that question is premature and
doesn't belong at this committee-how would that work out? How
would that affect us? That's why I'm here. What would that look
like to us? Would we get to carry around another type of
identifying card or something like that?
Mr Spina:
This is what we're working on, to try to figure out a methodology
by which exempted riders would be able to easily be identified
for enforcement purposes.
Mr
DeGroot: All right.
Mr
Gerretsen: An excellent presentation, Mr DeGroot. I
think your situation has pointed out that it's nice to talk in
generalities-and let it be said that the snowmobile clubs need
the money. No question about it.
Mr
DeGroot: No question.
Mr
Gerretsen: The warden system has worked well over the
years. Snowmobiling itself is a great boost for tourism in
Ontario. The billion dollars it produces is just fabulous, and
it's something we need more of. However, I get very worried when
I hear, "Well, we'll work out all the problems by regulation."
The problem with regulations is that they are not subject to
public debate. They're basically just signed in a minister's
office and then approved by cabinet. Quite often, nobody outside
of the government ministry itself knows what the regulations are
going to be until they get published, and I'm very leery of
that.
The other thing it has
pointed out is that there has to be almost like a final arbiter
where there is going to be a dispute locally about who are the
traditional users in that area. So far we've heard some general
wording about, yes, they could be people who use it for angling,
hunters, other traditional users etc. I'm sure in individual
cases like what happened to you there's going to be a dispute at
the local level as to who is a traditional user and who isn't and
how that's going to be sorted out. I would think that at that
point in time there needs to be some mechanism in the bill about
who is going to be the final arbiter. It can't be the ministry
that in effect sets up this act. It can't be the wardens either,
and it can't be the traditional users. There has to be some sort
of mechanism. That's why I appreciated your presentation,
because, if nothing else, it shows there's a need for a mechanism
whereby disputes of the nature that you're talking about can be
worked out successfully and without confrontation.
The Acting
Chair: I think we've used up the time. Mr DeGroot, I
appreciate your presentation.
HALIBURTON COUNTY SNOWMOBILE ASSOCIATION
The Acting
Chair: We will call now on the Haliburton snowmobile
club. Again, you have 20 minutes, and would you please identify
yourselves.
Mr Peter
Overington: Thank you, Mr Chairman. My name is Peter
Overington. I represent the 3,300 members of the Haliburton
County Snowmobile Association. We support the concept of a
mandatory OFSC permit. We thank you for the opportunity to appear
before you, and we truly appreciate the interest and support
shown by you. Our club has been in operation for over 30 years. I
am a past president and retired from business about eight years
ago, mainly so that I could devote more volunteer time to
snowmobiling at the international, national, provincial, regional
and club levels.
I'd like to give you a
little background. Involved volunteers direct the sport. We are
not armchair administrators, but are avid participants who ride
many thousands of kilometres every season. We know how to build a
trail. We know how to maintain expensive and complicated grooming
equipment. We understand what the average member wants and
expects, and that is good trails. The volume of legal
requirements and administrative complexity of operating a club of
our size, along with complicated and difficult-to-repair grooming
equipment, have all combined to force us to make limited use of
paid staff. However, it remains our basic operating policy that
volunteers direct the club. We make the decisions. We do the
planning. We do the organizing. We lead our staff and fellow
volunteers.
We are an important part of
the community, paying our business taxes, serving on our local
tours and trails committee, as well as other community
committees. Snowmobiling raises millions of dollars for charities
such as the Easter Seal Society and the Juvenile Diabetes
Foundation. Our local trail systems provide an opportunity for
shoulder-season businesses to enhance their operations. Our portion of the
trans-provincial trail system provides a safe, reliable route for
those who enjoy long-distance touring.
We are proud members of the
Ontario Federation of Snowmobile Clubs, which is the supportive
and coordinating body for our sport. Our 281 provincial
snowmobile clubs direct the federation and, while a paid
professional staff operates it, we, the volunteers, make policy
and develop strategy for future development. We, the club
volunteers, are solely responsible for securing, preparing,
opening and maintaining these snow highways for the use of OFSC
permit holders.
All trails today are under
close scrutiny by other potential trail users. We are working
with other groups, such as the Haliburton County Tours and Trails
Network, to enable them to share in the work we have done.
However, the common problem remains that they do not have any
form of user-pay system or enforcement system. We, the local
clubs, take great pride in our ability to provide good, smooth
and safe trails. One of the fundamental vehicles for this
self-determination is the OFSC trail permit and the allocation of
permit revenues.
So what's the problem?
While improved conditions have resulted in increased traffic,
which has in turn demanded increased care and attention to the
trails, user-pay revenue only covers about 50% of actual costs.
The rest is made up of donations of time, money, labour,
expertise, resources and fundraising. The volunteer time
commitment has become so large that most people who have jobs
cannot commit enough time. Thus, a large part of the volunteer
core is made up of retirees. Our volunteer burnout time is high,
but we have proven over the years that, given the resources, we
can manage our operations economically, effectively and
efficiently.
Governments, tourism
organizations and tour operators have been quick to identify
opportunity. Snow trails are not like paved roads with an ability
to carry hundreds of vehicles an hour, hour after hour. They are
delicate surfaces which need renewing almost daily, but certainly
after approximately 100 vehicles.
The OFSC has attempted to
equalize funding, but Sno-TRAC and SST1 and SST2 caused
snowmobiling to use matching operational dollars. In the past
three years, we, the Haliburton County Snowmobile Association,
have spent $350,000 on capital investment in order to maintain
current our fleet of seven groomers. We have spent over $40,000
in three years bridging, both on crown and private land, for the
benefit of all-season trail users. This year alone we have
ordered three new steel bridges, and in three years we have spent
over $100,000 on bulldozing trails which 10 years ago were OK,
but by today's requirements are substandard. Even as a large
club-in fact, the largest in the world-we have had to use
operational dollars for capital expenditures.
In addition, the tourism
sector has done an excellent job of attracting an influx of
riders who have demanded nothing but the best. We have been hard
pressed to meet their demands. We need a system which will
require trail users to pay their fair share of operating costs.
It must be universal and easily enforced. We must be part of that
enforcement presence, because we know our own trails better than
anyone else. We ask you to recognize our accomplishments and the
local autonomy which has made snowmobiling possible by adding the
weight of law to our mandatory permit.
1530
It is of great concern to
us that the proposed legislation may not give us the degree of
control over our own destiny which we as volunteers have worked
so hard to achieve. Our federation, which is a reflection of the
wishes of its member clubs, must retain control over mandatory
permits. We have proven that we can deliver the goods, given
adequate funding and legislative support.
Ten years ago we persuaded
the county of Haliburton to purchase the abandoned
Kinmount-Haliburton railway line. I attended public hearings at
that time, and concern was expressed over abutting landowners and
traditional users. We have gone out of our way to accommodate
them. At the same time, we have attempted to discourage
freeloaders. But we need a mandatory system which we control. We
must recognize our trappers, fishers, hunters and workers
operating sleds, but casual users should pay their way. I
personally am a trained club trail warden and have stopped people
who tell me they are on their way to such and such a camp, only
to meet them an hour later on a different trail. We need to be
able to enforce OFSC mandatory permits.
The Haliburton County
Snowmobile Association greatly appreciates your attention to this
presentation, and we urge you to consider the points we have
presented to you. Snowmobiling is my vocation. As a volunteer, I
do administrative work for my chosen sport 12 months of the year.
I cannot begin to calculate my worth and that of my 32 fellow
directors to tourism in Ontario. I have groomed trails, organized
events, cut brush, erected signs, written policies and
procedures, staked lakes, attended hundreds of meetings and
carried out trail patrol. But I am not that much different from
hundreds of volunteers on whom our sport is built. However, it is
extremely unlikely that I will continue this involvement if
government control invades our sport.
We need a new source of
sustainable funding, and we the users are prepared to pay for it.
But we must retain control. We must be the final authority on all
aspects of the mandatory permit. The OFSC mandatory permit must
be absolute, or almost, and be enforceable and enforced.
Traditional users on crown
land must be recognized. We support the concept of an act to
support trail sustainability and enhanced safety and enforcement,
but we urge you not to kill the golden goose by making its
offspring a ward of government.
The Acting
Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Overington. We have about
two minutes per caucus, starting with the government.
Mr
O'Toole: Thank you very much, Mr Overington-a very
impassioned plea for the autonomy of the federation. I've heard
that repeatedly and I totally agree with your sentiment that volunteers will
disappear if the government takes over, the golden goose
thing.
I think you may want to
comment on the volunteer component and permit fees. There's a
balance there. If I pay $100, maybe I still volunteer. If I pay
$150, maybe I'm liable to say, "I'm paying my share."
The other part is the
enforcement provisions. Do you think there's strong enough
language in the proposed legislation to allow you to enforce the
job? If the government does make it a law, what does it mean to
you as a warden?
Mr
Overington: Basically, we need the power to enforce the
legislation. We have STOP officers now, as opposed to wardens. If
this becomes legislation, I see the power possibly being given to
STOP officers, with certain powers to the wardens. I realize
there is a problem as far as enforcement is concerned, in that it
traditionally has belonged to law-enforcement people, and STOP
officers, as sworn law-enforcement people, are entitled to ask
for documentation etc, which we do not. We have only been able to
ask for our own permit. So I do see a problem there. But we do
need a vehicle, whatever that is, to ensure-and I don't believe
the OPP is in a position in Ontario to provide the sort of
monitoring over trails that we provide. Really, that's the only
thing I can say. Whatever that vehicle is, we do need something
to make sure the permit is purchased.
I see one answer to this
whole problem being the provision of land use permits on crown
land. That's one of our problems right now. We can only enforce
our own permit on the private lands over which we have
jurisdiction. If we had land use permits on crown land, that
would open up a whole new situation, but unfortunately we can't
get those. I still think there is a way of working with the
traditional users. We have done it in Haliburton county, we have
done it with fishers, we have done it with hunters, we've done it
with other people, and I believe it can be worked out. Maybe we
need to formalize that approach, but it can be done.
Mr Levac:
Thank you very much for your presentation, Mr Overington, and
obviously the passion and enjoyment you bring to us from your
sport.
Your reference to the
permit situation is basically saying that Bill 101 is headed in
the right direction with mandatory permits. Is that fair to
say?
Mr
Overington: Yes, sir, that is fair to say.
Mr Levac:
The second part to that, though, is also an implication that if
anything short of simply putting the permit into law and then
giving the rest of the responsibility to the OFSC is not done,
you would be hesitant to support 101?
Mr
Overington: Yes, that is correct. I would, because I
believe the OFSC must retain control. We are the clubs; we
control the OFSC. The OFSC must have the right to decide on the
disposition of the funding from the permits and the design and
all the other things the OFSC has traditionally done.
Mr Levac:
Finally, with that said, it sounds to me like, ballpark, 50% of
the money that's necessary comes from the fees, the other 50% to
be raised in secondary funding. Do you believe the government
should play a role in that area as well?
Mr
Overington: I do, sir. I believe the government should.
As was said before, I've dealt with groups from the United
States, and funding has been made available through some of the
taxes that other people have pointed out here, which have been
paid by snowmobiling, been returned to snowmobiling and have
enabled snowmobiling to be sort of self-sufficient.
The problem we're running
into, particularly in a large club like my own, as I said, is
that we're having to use paid staff. That's one of my other
concerns in the bill. There is some consideration that maybe the
money would not be available to use in wages. As we get bigger,
as things get more complicated, we cannot operate clubs with
3,300 members with volunteers. It has become just too much of a
problem. We need professional people to look after our equipment
and we need professional people to do our administration. Those
are the two points I would make there.
The Acting
Chair: Thank you for your presentation, Mr
Overington.
1540
OLD HASTINGS SNOW RIDERS SNOWMOBILE CLUB
The Acting
Chair: We will call on the Old Hastings Snow Riders, Mr
Hadley.
Mr Ron
Hadley: Mr Chairman, members, I'm Ron Hadley, from
Bancroft, presently trail chairman of the Old Hastings Snow
Riders Snowmobile Club. This club has approximately 1,200 members
and I am here to represent them today.
Just a short history of our
club: it was formed in 1982-83 and has operated in the area from
Bancroft in the north to Millbridge in the south. We cover the
complete width of Hastings county in that area.
For the 18 years the club
has been in operation, it has done this with volunteers. These
volunteers carry out the majority of work on the trails, such as
brushing, grooming, bridging and signing. In addition, a network
of people and businesses sell the 1,200 permits to our members on
our behalf. I would like to emphasize that these people sell the
permits for us without any payment or fee. I must also emphasize
the club executive is not in favour of paying any person,
business or organization a fee for selling permits on our behalf
or allowing anyone to retain a portion of the permit fee for the
sale of the permit. Our feelings are that if one person gets a
fee for providing a service, then everyone who at present
provides volunteer labour and services free would also expect a
fee for their time and efforts. We all know that if everyone
providing volunteer services were to receive payment, then permit
prices would have to be raised to a much higher level than at
present in order to build, groom and maintain our trails to
today's high standards.
Permit sales locations: if permits are not sold
by the Ontario Federation of Snowmobile Clubs to member clubs,
who in turn sell direct to our members, the purchasers would not
have proper access to permits. For example, the Ministry of
Transportation licence bureau hours of operation-this is in
Bancroft-are Monday to Friday, 9 am to 5 pm, but closed from 1:45
pm to 3 pm each day. You can see that a snowmobiler from New York
state arriving here on Friday evening would not be happy waiting
until Monday morning to purchase a permit. In fact, he is very
liable to either ride without a permit or return home and be
unlikely to return in the future. At present, permits are
available on a 24-hour, seven-day-a-week basis if necessary. No
one would go without.
Also, I read in there about
driver training. At present I am also a driver trainer and feel
that the OFSC is far better set up to teach children on the
subject of proper and safe snowmobiling than some person the
ministry may give this authority to. At present, people are
experiencing long waits in obtaining driver's licences, so I feel
the present system should be left as it is.
Thoughts on Bill 101: I
have read this bill many times and the part that scares me is the
words "minister or any person authorized by the minister." This
bill gives the minister the power to charge fees and authorizes
people to make changes.
I have been a member of the
Old Hastings Snowmobile Club for the past 18 years and worked
with all the other volunteers who have worked hard as well to
make snowmobiling what it is today. This has been done through
making changes that were well-thought-out and then, with the
consent of the majority of the club membership, making the
changes. The same holds true for the OFSC, which is made up of
dedicated snowmobilers who make the necessary adjustments with
the approval of the member clubs. I personally do not like to see
a system come into being that allows one person to make changes
at the drop of a hat that could affect the future of organized
snowmobiling.
I feel that to have good
trails in Ontario we must make permits mandatory for-and I'll
emphasize-recreational snowmobiling, thereby providing a larger
income to assist in the maintenance of trails and keeping the
cost of individual permits lower to help promote the
activity.
A word on enforcement: if
we are to have a mandatory permit system, then we must also have
enforcement by police and STOP officers, not only to see that
trail users have necessary permits, but other aspects of the
provincial statutes and federal laws also. Leniency in
enforcement in not always the best policy. The appropriate laying
of charges assists in a much safer trail system.
Although this thought is
not pertaining to Bill 101, I feel that the present registration
of snowmobiles we have in Ontario divides the province. The fee
should be the same regardless of where you live.
In summation, Bill 101, An
Act to promote snowmobile trail sustainability and enhance safety
and enforcement, is basically a good bill. All that is needed are
a few word changes. However, I feel that the selling of permits
and the conducting of driver training courses are best left with
the Ontario Federation of Snowmobile Clubs.
I would like to thank the
standing committee for allowing me time to express my views and
the views of the Old Hastings Snow Riders on Bill 101.
Also, there was an
endorsement handed out by the Eastern Ontario Trails Alliance.
They are tied up with this water deal, going to Ottawa, and are
there, but I was asked to present this page regarding the Eastern
Ontario Trails Alliance.
My thought, basically, is
that when I read Bill 101, I see the word "fee." There's no
mention of the fee.
Those are my concerns.
The Acting
Chair: Thank you, Mr Hadley. We have about three and a
half minutes per caucus. I believe this time we start with the
Liberal caucus.
Mr
Gerretsen: Thank you very much, Mr Hadley, for an
excellent presentation. We share some of your concerns as well,
particularly with the regulatory power that the minister has
here, because we believe that, unfortunately, the regulations
that may be passed under the bill will not be subject to the kind
of public scrutiny that we currently have.
We've heard from earlier
presenters here today that they have about 95% compliance within
their own areas of recreational snowmobilers. Do you have the
same kind of experience in Hastings as well?
Mr Hadley:
With trail permits?
Mr
Gerretsen: Yes.
Mr Hadley:
Yes. We have very few people snowmobiling.
Mr
Gerretsen: You have very few people snowmobiling who
don't have permits?
Mr Hadley:
Yes, the reason being in our area we have 60 kilometres on the
Hastings Heritage Trail which is owned by the province and the
county. That was taken over about eight years ago and one of the
mandates was that the province and the county, at that time, had
put up signs that say that you must have an OFSC trail permit. So
the police have always regulated that being a recreational
trail.
Mr
Gerretsen: How many wardens would you have within your
system who may be on duty on any given day?
Mr Hadley:
We have a total of 16 in our 1,200 members, and we have four to
five pretty well all the time. Pretty well all of our trail
wardens are groomer operators as well.
Mr
Gerretsen: Could you tell me something about these
grooming machines? What's the cost of these machines?
Mr Hadley:
The one we purchased last years is a New Holland with an AMFI
drag, and it was $122,000 plus taxes. We have four large groomers
and we have four snowmobiles that we maintain, to put up signs
and stuff like that.
Mr Gerretsen: How many
kilometres of trail do you have?
Mr Hadley:
We have over 400 kilometres of trail. Two years ago we had just
about 1,350 members. This past year, with the winter, we were
down about 100 members.
Mr Bisson:
You are basically echoing what I think we've heard from a lot of
people, specifically in regard to the section that gives the
minister the power to set the fees or establish the permitting
process. But as I understand it, that's only because of the way
the legislation was drafted. You have to do it by way of the
minister, but I'm sure we're going to take a look, as a
committee, at finding someway of writing it up so that this
government or future governments for whatever reason don't
decide, "We want to take 5% off the top," or, "We want to have
our say in it." I don't think that's the intention of it right
now, but we need to figure out some way to safeguard it.
Also, on your issue of MTO
licence bureaus, I couldn't agree with you more. If you live in
Hearst you'd have to wait for once every three weeks for half a
day on Wednesday, so I don't think that works very well. I want
to say I agree with your frustration and I think the clubs have
done a good job. What we have to do is try to figure out ways to
support the club.
My question is not so much
for you but to the parliamentary assistant: are we going to have
clause-by-clause after this particular committee? Have you or the
House leader given any thought to allowing an opportunity for the
committee to sit down to carry on the business of how we want to
deal with this bill and whatever recommendations by way of
amendments we want to bring?
1550
Mr Spina:
It was our intention, because this is really kind of
groundbreaking where we're having public hearings after first
reading without debate in the Legislature, as usually takes place
after second reading, that we would have clause-by-clause with
amendments-
Mr Bisson:
Before we go to second reading.
Mr Spina:
Before we go to second reading, yes.
Mr Bisson:
So that's the intent.
Mr Spina:
That's why these hearings are far more open than they usually
are.
Mr Bisson:
Just so that you understand what we're talking about in real
English, it's an opportunity for us on the opposition side, along
with government members, to actually make some of the amendments
you suggest. We need to have that clause-by-clause, and I hear
the parliamentary assistant say yes.
Mr Hadley:
I did take a picture at the Bancroft office, if anybody doubts my
timing that I've mentioned.
Mr
Gerretsen: Have they got late lunch hours in Bancroft or
something?
Mr Hadley:
I can pass that around.
Mr Bisson:
You couldn't even take a picture of the one in Hearst.
The Acting
Chair: You'll go by snowmobile to get it.
Mr Bisson:
They take the fine with them.
Mr Spina:
Thank you, Mr Hadley, for your presentation. I had a question and
it ties in a bit with the previous presentation. I think
Haliburton has around 3,300 members. I think that's what Mr
Overington said. You have about 1,200?
Mr Hadley:
Yes, we do.
Mr Spina:
Are you the recipient of any funding from the federation under
the matrix, the redistribution of funds program?
Mr Hadley:
Yes, and we have applied, with the OFSC, for grants on our
equipment. We received money last year on the new unit that we
purchased. We received money this year for a new bridge in
Bancroft. I'm not sure how long the bridge is; it's in excess of
100 feet, I believe. I don't know how much it is in total cost. I
know it's between $150,000 and $200,000. We applied in the spring
and we did get $15,000 in order to help put that bridge across.
In Bancroft, this heritage trail runs from Glen Ross to Lake St
Peter, and that is owned by the province and the county, as I've
said. That runs right through Bancroft, but it runs on the west
side of the town and all of the town functions are east of that.
Of course, the York River runs through, so there was no access
over there. This has been a project that's been going on for
several years and this year, between the millennium fund and
different organizations, we hope it's a reality. We are right now
just waiting for permits. The bridge is all there and we're just
waiting for fisheries and oceans to start the work. We've waited
for a year.
Mr Spina:
Those fed guys, you mean?
Mr Hadley:
Yes. We have waited as long-
Mr Bisson:
They have worse hours than MTO.
Mr Hadley:
Putting a bridge across, we have waited two and a half years for
permits.
Mr Spina:
Just to clarify what I was getting at, where does your club sit
in terms of size compared to other clubs? Would it be one of the
smaller ones, one of the bigger ones or somewhere in the
middle?
Mr Hadley:
I would think we're one of the larger ones. We aren't anywhere
near Haliburton county's. That's a whole set-up. But Paudash is
to the west of us and they have 2,200 members. Where we sit,
there are five clubs using our trails, joining on to our trails.
Like I say, the club to the west is 2,200; the one to the east is
600; the one to the north, which is Maple Leaf, is 600.
Mr Spina:
I'm sorry, if I may interrupt. There's this matrix that the
federation has and they take from their share of the permit fees
and in turn apply a point rating system per club or by
district?
Mr Hadley:
That's correct, by club, depending on the number of kilometres of
trail, the number of members and the pressure of the snowmobiling
from outside our own area.
Mr Spina:
Does this money come for only capital projects or does it help
operations as well?
Mr Hadley:
The matrix money?
Mr Spina:
Yes.
Mr Hadley:
We have to use it-
Mr Spina: You can apply for
both?
Mr Hadley:
No. When we have a major investment, we apply through another
fund. But our matrix money we use to maintain the trails, to
build trails and one thing and another.
Mr Spina:
So that's operations.
Mr Hadley:
Yes.
Mr Spina:
The other fund is a capital fund, is what you're saying.
Mr Hadley:
Yes, that's right.
The Acting
Chair: Thank you, Mr Hadley. We appreciate your
presentation.
ONTARIO FUR MANAGERS FEDERATION
The Acting
Chair: We call on the Ontario Fur Managers Federation.
Again, you have 20 minutes. Would you identify yourselves,
gentlemen, please.
Mr Laurie
Whyte: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. I'm Laurie
Whyte, president of the Ontario Fur Managers Federation. We hope
to leave a little time to answer any questions you may have. I'll
turn the presentation over to our general manager, Mr Howard
Noseworthy.
Mr Howard
Noseworthy: My name is Howard Noseworthy, general
manager of the Ontario Fur Managers Federation, headquartered in
Sault Ste Marie.
The Ontario Fur Managers
Federation represents all non-native trappers in Ontario and
those native trappers who choose to be federation members.
Current membership in the federation is 5,000. The federation has
been in a new business relationship agreement with the province
since June 1997. Under this formal agreement, the federation
licenses non-native trappers and those native trappers who choose
to obtain their licenses through the federation. We also input
all mandatory harvest data from the trappers we license and have
been charged by the province with responsibility for the
mandatory trapper education program. We print and distribute the
summary of fur management regulations to all trappers and MNR
offices via our magazine, which goes to all Ontario trappers,
whether they are members or not, and to all MNR district offices.
In short, under agreement with the province, the federation
conducts and is responsible for most of the services to Ontario's
trappers.
Obviously, all of this has
to be funded, and given the way the government of the day
operates, it is no surprise that in putting the NBR for fur
management together, federation and MNR negotiators were advised
by government that the fur management program was expected to pay
its own way, which I might say it did in its first year of
operation.
In 1997, the trapping
license fee increased by 400%, from $7.49 to $37.45. Trappers who
harvest more than one area pay additional license fees. At the
same time, the royalty paid to government by trappers on the
gross value of all wild fur harvested also increased by 10%, from
5% to 5.5% of gross, or $55 per $1,000 worth of fur harvested.
All new trappers must successfully complete, and pay for, a
mandatory fur harvest, fur management and conservation course
prior to licensing. Trappers also pay increased fees for hunting
licenses and have recently been saddled by the federal government
with fees for licensing and registration of all firearms,
increased fees for handgun permits and course costs related to
new boating regulations. In addition, they pay taxes on the
equipment they use on their traplines, including snowmobiles and
ATVs, and on the fuel that they use. Trappers also pay membership
fees to their local trappers' councils and to the Ontario Fur
Managers Federation. Incidentally, all OFMF members carry $2
million in third party liability insurance covering their
trapping activities.
Trappers already pay their
fair share for access to the resource they harvest. Some pay
hundreds of dollars. The issue of access to the resource is at
the heart of our federation's concern with Bill 101. The wild
furbearer resource is one which occurs across Ontario's land
mass, and despite trapping licenses which grant the privilege to
harvest this resource, without access to the land, a license is
just a piece of paper.
Trappers have always
constructed trails in the bush to access their traplines. The
routes of many current snowmobile trails follow original and
current trapper trails. Some of these trails have been in
existence for decades. The routes of many other snowmobile trails
follow what have been traditional public access routes. Again,
some of these trails have been in existence for decades, and the
public, trappers included, have used these trails to access a
land-based resource-in our case, wild fur-bearers. Snowmobile
clubs may have commandeered some trappers' trails and public
access routes as the most convenient and logical routes for their
recreational trails, but for trappers it's hard to consider these
improvements as an improvement.
1600
In fact, generally,
trappers do not derive a benefit from groomed snowmobile trails
through their traplines. The increase in snowmobile traffic due
to groomed trails often, perhaps usually, acts to the detriment
of trappers; for example, increased noise and disturbance of
fur-bearers and game, occasional increased vandalism and theft
and sometimes increased conflict.
Because access to traplines
is critical to trappers and because the snowmobile trail system
often encompasses, in whole or in part, the trails that trappers
have originally created or traditionally used, trappers have
traditionally maintained these trails in any case, including such
things as removal of fallen trees and removal of problem beaver
that may be causing flooding of trails. They continue to do so
for their own needs, with the net effect that all users are
beneficiaries.
The normal day-to-day
harvesting activities of trappers automatically benefit all trail
users, especially where removal of beaver that are causing
flooding or erosion of trails is concerned. Trappers can also be
called upon during the off-season to remove problem beaver.
Without access to crown land trappers do not have access to the
resource they harvest,
even though they have paid for access to this resource via their
licence fees and royalties.
Public land is a finite
resource. As such, there are a variety of users of the land and a
variety of demands on the land. Trappers, via their federation,
have consistently supported co-operative and shared use of crown
land. They do not expect recreational snowmobilers to pay for
their fur harvesting activities, nor do they expect to pay for
the activities of recreational snowmobilers.
Our federation has offered
to work co-operatively with the Ontario Federation of Snowmobile
Clubs on a means to identify trappers who are accessing their
traplines. We wrote to Mr Bert Grant on October 7, 1999, and to
Mr Tim West on July 6 of this year. Copies of these letters are
attached to the material you have. To date, OFSC has not taken
our federation up on this offer.
Our federation has offered
to work co-operatively with OFSC to develop a framework in which
trappers can assist in alleviating problem animal situations on
snowmobile trails, which in effect would be an ancillary benefit
to all trail users. Again, OFSC to this point in time has not
taken our federation up on this offer.
Trappers operating on
private land already have the permission of the landowner to do
so. Landowners are unlikely to look favourably on anyone impeding
the privilege of passage on their land that they have granted,
especially interfering with a trapper who is dealing with a
problem animal complaint at the landowner's request. In some
cases, trappers and/or local trappers' councils have formal
agreements with municipalities to handle problem fur-bearer
complaints within municipal boundaries. As an example, the city
of Sudbury and the Sudbury Trappers Council are in just such an
arrangement. Under contract, the trappers of Sudbury handle
problem animal complaints in Sudbury on municipal land with
municipal permission. Municipalities also are unlikely to look
favourably on any attempt to interfere with these operations.
Trappers operate small
businesses with marginal bottom lines. Additional fees,
especially those that do not in any way improve their operations
or augment their bottom lines, can only act as a deterrent to
continued operation of their small businesses.
To summarize, Ontario's
trappers, through the Ontario Fur Managers Federation, are in a
formal business relationship with the government of Ontario, the
new business relationship for fur management in Ontario. Trappers
have absorbed increased licence fees and increased royalties for
access to the wild fur resource. They have maintained trails on
their traplines, many of which routes have recently been
commandeered by snowmobile clubs as recreational trails. Trappers
do not derive a benefit from these recreational trails. Trappers
already pay their fair share for access to the wild fur-bearer
resource. Crown land is a public resource shared by many users.
Trappers should not be expected to subsidize the recreational
activities of snowmobilers. Trappers should be exempted from fees
to travel snowmobile trails when accessing or harvesting their
traplines. Bill 101 should specifically exempt trappers from
snowmobile trail fees.
While Ontario has thousands
of trappers, they are each restricted to specific areas in which
they can operate. They are also spread across this great
landscape, the net result being that an exemption will not amount
to a great loss of revenue to the trail system in any one area of
the province. Additionally, you should consider that not all
trappers own or use snowmobiles, nor do all of them live in areas
where they can or need to access OFSC trails.
The Ontario Fur Managers
Federation is willing to assist in developing a process to devise
a mechanism to identify trappers who can legitimately travel
snowmobile trails without the imposition of fees. This need not
be a cumbersome process. As I said, trappers are restricted to
specific areas. Trapping licences already have printed on them
the areas that trappers are restricted to while conducting their
trapping activities. For registered traplines, the trapper is
restricted to the trapline and immediately adjacent private land.
For resident trapping areas, trappers are normally restricted to
a single MNR district, or perhaps just a portion thereof, and
only on lands for which they have written permission. If the
committee believes it advisable, in addition to trapping
licences, the federation is willing to produce and distribute to
licensed trappers a readily identifiable sticker that can be
prominently affixed to the trapper's snowmobile.
To conclude, Ontario's
trappers require an exemption from snowmobile trail fees while
travelling to, from or on their traplines, including private land
on which they have the landowner's written authorization to trap.
We believe Bill 101 should be amended to include this exemption.
The Ontario Fur Managers Federation is willing to work
co-operatively with the committee or relevant government
ministries in developing an appropriate mechanism for exemption
and identification. With this done, Ontario's trappers can
support recreational user fees for those who use snowmobile
trails for purely recreational purposes.
We wish to thank the
committee on behalf of our federation for the opportunity to
appear before you today. Mr Whyte and I would be willing to
attempt to answer any questions you may have.
The Acting
Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Noseworthy. We have about
three and a half minutes per caucus, starting with Mr Bisson.
Mr Bisson:
Thank you. I wasn't expecting to be first this time. When you're
the third party it doesn't happen very often.
Mr Spina:
Every third time.
Mr Bisson:
Je me souviens, as they say.
I want to say first of all,
I hear what you're saying. It has come loud and clear in these
hearings from a number of people who have presented on behalf of
trappers. I'm a little bit dismayed that you weren't responded to
by the snowmobile federation, but I'm sure something could be
worked out that way.
I think there is already
agreement here to try to find a solution to this. You've given a
good suggestion with regard to the licence that you have to trap
which specifically spells out where you can do so. I'm sure we
can put something together that makes some sense and makes it
work.
The only question I have
for you is this: in light of not getting the response from the
snowmobile federation, I take it you are saying it's not good
enough to write the legislation to give the federation the
ability to do so. What you're basically telling us here is you
want to see it in the legislation?
Mr Whyte:
That would be correct. We want to see it in legislation, that
trappers are exempt.
Mr Bisson:
I have no other questions. I have to be back in my riding for 8
o'clock, which is going to be kind of pushing it, so I can't stay
for the end of the hearings. I want the presenters to know I will
be going through the rest of the presentations, and I'm sure Joe
will do some good work in trying to put something together.
The Acting
Chair: Thank you, Mr Bisson. Now to the government
caucus.
Mr
Barrett: It's a very interesting presentation. You make
mention of noise and disturbance of fur-bearers and other game. I
think of the phenomenal growth over the years of recreational
snowmobiling in the bush across the province. What kind of
evidence would you have from your members, or what kind of impact
is this having on not only what you're trapping but other game as
well? I would think it would be significant. Have you had to move
from the areas where you've traditionally trapped?
Mr
Noseworthy: I don't want to overplay the importance of
that. However, I would say that many of our members at this point
in time would shy away from setting their traps immediately next
to groomed snowmobile trails. That's for a variety of reasons,
one of which is, they might normally expect to find less game of
certain types there. There would be some animals, we believe,
that would not be very disturbed by snowmobiles, any more than
they would be by road traffic. However, when you take animals
such as lynx, which are normally very shy of human beings in any
case, then perhaps those animals would more readily shy away from
the trail system.
1610
Mr
Barrett: Have there been any studies on this, any
impact?
Mr
Noseworthy: There have been no studies that I am aware
of. These are general observations from trappers.
Mr
Barrett: And you're out there; you know what's going
on.
Mr
Noseworthy: Our people are across the landscape,
yes.
Mr Spina:
Thanks, gentlemen. I appreciate your making the trek down here
from my home town, Sault Ste Marie. Good to see you again,
actually.
I want to compliment your
organization for the way you have gotten your district people and
your local people to come to each of the various hearing venues
we had. I personally commend you for making a presentation
directly here on the last day, on behalf of the entire
council.
We appreciate your words. I
guess the best message that we got from you-and tell me if I'm
off base here-is that you would like to see the exemptive
structure in the bill, as opposed to in regulations.
Mr
Noseworthy: That is correct. The way I read the
legislation, at least currently-it simply says, "A regulation
made under any provision of this act may create different classes
of persons and motorized snow vehicles and may apply differently
to each class created." There's certainly no guarantee in that
wording that it will be so. It simply seems to point out the
possibility and permissibility of this happening.
Mr Spina:
I will say that, even though you may not have had a response from
the federation, we have had some preliminary discussions among
the various ministries as to how a permit would be implemented
and how the exemptions would be easily identified and certainly
enforceable. The idea of a different permit sticker was actively
discussed. I'm extremely pleased that you made a suggestion that
perhaps your organization be the conduit for the distribution of
your exempted permits if we get to that stage. So we'd be very
interested in talking to you at some point, sir.
Mr Levac:
Mr Noseworthy, thank you very much for your presentation. I
appreciate it, and thanks for bringing the educational part to
it, because that's important as well.
You indicated that you have
discussions, and trappers, for their part, went to private
property owners and made their own personal arrangements to
possibly and most likely get rid of some trouble fur-bearers, and
other reasons, I assume-that they just make them. Earlier, I
asked a question of another member regarding signing some kind of
agreement with the trail users, and that it was usually done
exclusively, meaning that only the people with permits and only
the people who are using those trails would have permission to go
on those private properties. Do the trappers perform the same
type of thing, where they get a personal exclusivity thing, so
that only the trapper can only go on his or her property?
Mr Whyte:
Yes. Under current regulations, all licensed trappers who are
harvesting fur on private land must have the written permission
of the landowner for trespass access rights. So they're already
granted permission to be there, whether they may cross in part or
in whole the snowmobile trail, should there be one through that
property, but they do have the right to access and trap.
Mr Levac:
Again, that would point to the discussion you want to have with
all the groups to ensure that when those discussions take place
between the property owner, the snowmobile club and the trappers,
all three come to an agreement, because then you'd have to know
who has access to the land on private property, and that's not to
speak of the crown lands. I hope I'm clarifying that. It sounds a
little convoluted, but it's OK up here.
Mr Whyte: Even the crown lands
are assigned to individual trappers via registered traplines or
crown land blocks. Only one trapper would be harvesting-
Mr Levac:
But it doesn't necessarily mean it's mutually exclusive between
the snowmobilers and the trappers.
Mr Whyte:
No.
Mr Levac:
The last quick one, if it's OK, Chair-I know Mr Gerretsen happens
to have a quick one-and that is regarding the use of snowmobiles
for trapping. Am I to assume that in the vast majority of cases
the trappers are using snowmobiles? I got a sense that the
snowmobilers are concerned with any non-snowmobile use on their
trails because of the destruction it causes to the trails.
Mr Whyte:
In early fall the trappers are probably using ATVs or quads, but
traditionally, once the snow comes and you have enough snow and
ice conditions to travel your trapline, the snowmobile is
probably the number one machine. We've been using them since they
first came on the market. Trappers were quick to take advantage
of them and built trails for their use. They're not using big
machines; they're using small machines.
Mr Levac:
Thanks for the clarification.
Mr
Gerretsen: I have one question: The licensing fee and
the royalties you pay are to the provincial government, are they
not, or are they to the federal government? Who are they to?
Mr
Noseworthy: The licensing fees and the royalties are to
the provincial government. But I want to make it clear that a
portion of the licensing fee is what helps to support this new
business relationship for fur management in Ontario. So a portion
of that fee does find its way back to the federation.
Mr
Gerretsen: I'm very pleased to hear that, because we
always hear from the government that they don't believe in
increased taxation. We always look at a licensing fee or a
royalty fee increase as taxation. There have been some increases
in them, and we just wanted to get the record straight.
The Acting
Chair: Thank you, gentlemen, for your presentation. We
appreciate it very much.
Mr
O'Toole: Mr Chair, a point of order: I didn't get to ask
a question, but in our briefing notes that were supplied by
staff, it says that between 1993 and 2000, the number of licensed
trappers has gone from 11,000 to 8,000. Their fee, as we've
heard, is about $37. I just wondered if there's a requirement for
them to show some revenue or pay some royalty. I guess that's the
question I'd ask research. I could pay $37.50, become a licensed
trapper, be exempted in the act and theoretically not have to
produce one pelt and not have to pay any fees for
snowmobiling.
Mr Levac:
Mr Chair, I believe Mr Noseworthy did have a comment to clarify,
if we can get that immediately. I think it's important. I agree
with Mr O'Toole saying there could be some games that get
played.
The Acting
Chair: Mr Noseworthy, you can answer that.
Mr
Noseworthy: At this point in time, prior to obtaining
the ability to get a trapping licence, a person must first
complete a fur harvest, fur management and conservation course.
That's a minimum 40-hour course, the average price of which in
the province is probably running right around $150 and can be as
much as $250. Once the person has completed that course, they are
not guaranteed a licence. In order to get a licence on a
registered trapline, they must first have a vacancy available on
a registered trapline or a registered trapper who is willing to
take them on as a helper. In that case, most registered traplines
have fur-bearer quotas assigned to them. Under legislation,
trappers must harvest 75% of their beaver quota or stand to lose
that trapline.
Even on private land with
resident trapping licences, successfully completing the course
does not guarantee a licence. The prospective trapper then has to
obtain landowner permission to trap on his land. While some
landowners very freely grant that, most of them perhaps expect to
derive a benefit from that, as well, in terms of control of
beaver in particular on their private property.
So, number one, trappers
have to jump through several hoops before they get a licence and,
number two, there are some requirements on them, under the
registered or resident trapping areas, to perform afterwards. I
don't think you should have an expectation of large numbers of
people trying to use a trapping licence as a means to circumvent
a snowmobile trail fee.
The Acting
Chair: Thank you for the clarification.
1620
MARK COMMODORE
The Acting
Chair: We'll call on Mark Commodore, please. Mr
Commodore, you have 10 minutes, by presentation and/or
questions.
Mr Mark
Commodore: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. I want
to thank Viktor for allowing me to get in. I didn't know anything
about it. I was up on holidays when I found out about it.
Allow me to introduce
myself. My name is Mark Commodore, owner-operator of Northern
Invasion Ride Snowmobile Tours. I've been in business for five
years and have 30 years of sledding experience, tracking an
average of 4,500 miles per year.
My concerns with the new
act are as follows:
(1) Leave the OFSC to
collect and set fees, as they have in the past with 30 years'
experience. There's too much to factor in. For example, northern
Ontario people think they don't have to buy a permit because
before Sno-TRAC they ran that forest access trail for free.
Southern Ontario sledders say, "There were only about three
weekends-lack of snow. It's too expensive." It is an
organization, which its members vote on, with 30 years'
experience. The government has none, as I have stated.
There are two ways to make
money: raise the price of something or lower your costs. We know
the government doesn't do the latter.
(2) Bring back the seven-day pass. Whoever
decided to drop it was not a business person and doesn't live in
northern Ontario. Americans will continue to spend their money in
Quebec and ride Quebec trails. The permit was an easy $75 for the
clubs.
(3) Sled renters have a
tough enough time with insurance rates. Don't hurt them any more
by charging them with trespassing when the driver of the sled is
the one who should be charged. This is a market that introduces a
person to sledding with a snowball effect of tax dollars, an
avenue Ontario has not yet ventured to go down to its
fullest.
(4) Tell me what the
advantage will be by turning this over to the government. What
improvement is this going to make? How can we be assured that all
the monies will end up on the trails and not in another
government pocket?
Remember, this organization
is made up of mostly volunteers and generous landowners. How many
people are going to volunteer for the government and how many
landowners are going to donate to the government?
In closing, I hope the
government stays a silent partner and allows the fulcrum to work.
OFSC and the sledding industry continue to strive while the
government keeps counting their large tax dollars, as they have
in the past.
The Acting
Chair: Thank you, sir. That leaves about three and a
half minutes per caucus, and we will start with the government
caucus.
Mr
O'Toole: Thank you very much, Mark, for some very short
but direct and compact observations. I'm going to just pick up on
one of the comments you made, since I don't have a written
presentation, which is that most often governments don't reduce
when their operating costs reduce; they just put the money
somewhere else. I would say certainly, without being political,
that's been our whole thing, to reduce taxes to give you more
money so that you can spend it to create whatever economy you can
create. That's just for the record.
Mr
Gerretsen: You're not being political, are you?
Mr
O'Toole: It's not political. The whole "less government"
theory really gives people the right, but we have to regulate
behaviour to some extent for the safety and common good.
I like the idea that the
federation-and I can say for the record that I do support some of
the recommendations you made. It's not just a sense that less
government is better government. It's a case that volunteers and
people themselves, if they have the right framework and policies
and guidelines, are able to modify and adjust what the needs are
for the community they're trying to serve. Is that generally the
thrust of what you've said? Have I summarized that-
Mr
Commodore: The way I'm reading the act, the minister can
come in and say, "Your trail permit is now going to be $250." As
a matter of fact, three weeks ago I sat and watched some MTO guys
and it took them four hours to change a sign. If you've got a
bunch of volunteers, it would be done in half an hour and on to
the next job.
Mr
O'Toole: That's good to have on the record too.
Mr
Commodore: You know what I'm saying. It's that kind of
thing where they-
Interjections.
Mr Spina:
It would take six hours under a Liberal government.
Mr
O'Toole: Oh, come on. Leave it alone, Joe.
Mr
Commodore: You know where I'm going. It's the kind of
thing where when the volunteers do it, it's in and out. They do
it as cheaply as they can because the monies aren't there. As I
said before, you get the people up north where, before Sno-TRAC,
that forest access trail was their trail. Now that Sno-TRAC is
there and they've put a real nice highway down it, they're up
there-I know them. I talk to them. I'm up there all winter, and
it's like, "I got to go down that free less than 10 years ago,
and I'm not paying now." Let's face it. Northern Ontario, and
some of you gentlemen are from there, the money's not real flush
and they'll ride it anyway, where down south here, I'm guessing
maybe 90% of our people user-pay. They peel it off and they go
because that's what they want to do, ride the snowmobile trails.
But when it's a three-weekend deal because of weather, a lot of
which is not factored in-you listen to all these conversations
and these talks; nobody factors in weather. In southern Ontario,
we don't get it. With the lack of snow, you have the guy saying,
"Too much money." If you've got the Minister of Finance saying,
"Hey, guys, the snowmobile trail next year is going to be 250
bucks," let the voting caucus do all that voting. They've got the
30 years' experience and know what the members want.
Mr Levac:
Thank you, Mark. If your concerns are not addressed, as we've
heard in many of the presentations with regard to Bill 101 and to
OFSC's ruling body taking care of the permit, could you support
the bill after that?
Mr
Commodore: Support in what way?
Mr Levac:
In terms of saying that it's still acceptable if we aren't able
to give OFSC the permit-making authority you are seeking.
Mr
Commodore: It's gone through first reading. It goes
through a bunch more readings, but when it's done, it's like God
speaking. It's like my guns. I've got to turn them in eventually.
You've got to register them. You've got to go where you're
pushed. You're like an arrow. What I'm saying in my number (4)
is, tell me the advantages of turning this over to the
government. What improvement is going to be made? The big one is,
how do I know those monies are going to end up on the trail and
not in some other government pocket? As it is now, if I buy my
permit, I know it's fed right back into the trails. I can see the
trails. I know they're being looked after. I know the signing's
out there.
We've got the seven-day
pass. Hey, if this is the way it goes, bring back that seven-day
pass. You're shooting yourselves in the foot by not having that
seven-day pass. I'm going down to the States for two snowmobile
shows in October, and I know the gist is the Americans head to
Quebec, lower Quebec. It's close to them. You want to make it
look good. You guys have been advertising, "Come to northern Ontario." You do away with
the seven-day permit and zing him real good for a full year's
pass when he's only here on a week's holidays.
The other thing is, it was
good coin for the club. The club sold that permit and they got
most of that money because, in theory, the guy's riding in your
district, your trail, your area, so it was good for them.
And locally here I can
probably think of two or three places that might rent you a sled.
But the way I interpret that is, if somebody's out renting the
sled and they can be charged with trespassing, it's not them who
gets charged. It's the poor guy who's trying to make a buck
renting the sleds. Let's face it, insurance rates are high enough
now for the poor guy. He's sticking his neck out now even renting
you a sled. You guys are missing out on tax money.
Mr Levac:
Thanks, Mark. Just so that you know, though, through all of the
three parties, the intervention of having these hearings after
first reading is to address exactly what you're talking about in
order for us to hear you. So please be assured that you are being
heard and that those possible changes have more likelihood of
happening now with this new innovation than ever before because
those changes are listened to. Be assured that we can put those
points forward. That's why I asked that question.
Mr
Commodore: No, no, I understand.
The Acting
Chair: Thank you, Mark, for your presentation.
We have had a request from
the OFAH to make a presentation today. Unfortunately, they are
not on the list, but if there is mutual agreement, I'm suggesting
they could make a 10-minute presentation.
Mr
Gerretsen: What about the last presentation?
The Chair:
If the agreement of the committee is to allow them to make a
10-minute presentation, then we will ask the Ontario Federation
of Snowmobile Clubs, who I understand want to go last and are
going last, to come after them.
So number one, do we have a
mutual agreement from everybody? Unanimous consent? OK. They are
on now. Mr Purchase or Mr Burns, do you still wish to go
last?
Mr Dennis
Burns: Yes, please.
1630
ONTARIO FEDERATION OF ANGLERS AND HUNTERS
The Acting
Chair: All right, Gord Gallant for 10 minutes.
Mr Gord
Gallant: Good afternoon and welcome to Peterborough,
members from out of town. I appreciate the indulgence of the
committee in allowing me to offer some brief comments. We had
attempted to follow procedure and reserve a spot to speak;
however, there was a lapse of communication between our office
and the clerk's office. In any event, we are appreciative of the
opportunity.
I do have a written brief,
and I will be happy to provide copies to the clerk following the
presentation. I would encourage the members to-
Clerk of the
Committee (Mr Viktor Kaczkowski): Do you have something
to hand out?
Mr
Gallant: When I am finished.
I will touch briefly on a
few points, and hopefully we can get into some questions and
discussion.
The OFAH's constituency: We
have 650 member clubs across the province and 83,000 members. As
anglers and hunters, we generally spend a large proportion of our
angling and hunting time on crown land and, accordingly, are
nearly as concerned with reasonable access to crown lands as we
are with healthy fish and wildlife populations.
The issue before the
committee today is not something that's new to the federation of
anglers and hunters. Partly in response to comments made earlier
today about the OFAH position, our position was adopted
democratically in 1986 by the board of directors. The formal
policy is appended to the presentation that I will provide
later.
Briefly, the OFAH is
opposed to exclusive possession being granted by the Ministry of
Natural Resources for leased trails to any group. The OFAH has
made recommendations and continues to work with the Ministry of
Natural Resources regarding reasonable exemptions to traditional
users, utility workers and so on, on trails that are permitted on
crown lands through the land use permit process.
The OFAH has also made it a
policy that we are opposed to a government or Ministry of
Transportation trail sticker permit system. When that policy was
developed in 1986, the policy was not developed in response to
any particular initiative but part of the OFAH's long-term view
to ensuring reasonable access to crown lands for our members.
I'd like to speak briefly
about the snowmobile task force. It was formed sometime prior to
January of this year. I see Mr Spina shaking his head. It wasn't;
I don't know. The Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters was
not specifically contacted by the snowmobile task force to take
part. We received, second- or third-hand, the covering note that
was attached to the task force discussion paper and immediately
contacted the ministry with a request to take part formally and
substantively in the process. It was not until the OFAH filed a
freedom of information request that we even got the discussion
paper, and that was in August of this year.
Through discussions with
other organizations representing the traditional, historical
users of snowmobile trails-the fur managers, who you've heard
from today, representatives of the Prospectors and Developers
Association, the forest industry, the Federation of Ontario
Cottagers-we've been advised that they as well were not invited
to take part in a substantive way in the work of the task
force.
Going directly to the bill,
though our mandate doesn't directly relate to a large part of the
bill, the OFAH is generally supportive of those amendments that
address public safety.
One issue I would like to address, though, is the imposition of
mandatory trail permits and government policy. Appended to the
OFAH presentation is the actual policy that the Ministry of
Natural Resources uses to administer trails on crown land. There
is a specific and detailed exemption for traditional users, of
which anglers and hunters believe we are a part.
The question is that the
imposition of mandatory permits could be considered, and is
considered by the OFAH, contrary to that existing government
policy. In that regard, we believe there is a duty and a
requirement under the Environmental Bill of Rights to go through
a public consultation process with such a significant change to
policy. We do not believe the work of the snowmobile task force
meets that requirement.
Recommendations for
solutions: The OFAH is fully in support of mandatory permits for
the touring, recreational rider, but we believe there should be
legislative exemptions allowed for the traditional user. Some of
the user groups that we would consider traditional have been
heard from today. In most cases, these traditional users are
readily apparent. Ice fishermen have lines, an auger, bait and so
on; they are readily apparent. Trappers will have traps, spare
parts for their traps, bait, scent, wire, axe, hammer, and so on,
and possibly even some harvested fur if they're lucky. A
prospector will have the normal equipment and so on.
The number of touring
riders who would go to the extreme to equip themselves with this
additional equipment, which would hamper their recreational ride,
is surely to be few. In that regard, we feel that amendments
should be made to the bill to allow for specific and detailed
exemptions for the traditional user in the legislation rather
than the regulations.
We also request that the
committee closely review the rationale for the bill, if the bill
is supposed to promote the sustainability of the trail system.
We've heard from members of the OFSC today that compliance is
already high. If you make a mandatory permit applicable across
the province, how many more permits are you going to sell: 5%,
10%? That's certainly not going to be enough to address the
shortfalls.
Thank you, and I'll
entertain questions.
The Acting
Chair: I think you did take your 10 minutes, Mr Gallant.
Thank you very much for your presentation.
Mr
Gallant: I will deliver copies of the full written brief
to the clerk before he leaves today.
Mr
Gerretsen: Is there no time for questions?
The Acting
Chair: No, we agreed on 10 minutes and it has been 10
minutes. We will leave it at that.
Mr
Gerretsen: I hope the ministry will meet with these
people.
The Acting
Chair: Thank you very much. We will-
Interjections.
The Acting
Chair: Gentlemen, that's not a point of order or
anything else. Thank you very much for your presentation. Would
you give the presentation to the clerk afterwards?
Mr
Gallant: I would make an offer to meet further with the
committee or provide any further background if the committee
wishes to hear it.
The Acting
Chair: Thank you very much.
1640
ONTARIO FEDERATION OF SNOWMOBILE CLUBS
The Acting
Chair: We will now call on the Ontario Federation of
Snowmobile Clubs. Again, 20 minutes. Would you identify
yourselves to the clerk, please?
Mr Burns:
Good afternoon. My name is Dennis Burns and this is Ron Purchase.
I am the president of the Ontario Federation of Snowmobile Clubs.
With me today is OFSC's general manager, Ron Purchase. Ron and I
appreciate the opportunity to address the committee on a matter
of vital interest to both our organization and the province of
Ontario.
For your reference, I am a
volunteer and, as I found out earlier today, I'm addicted. Just
for the record, I witnessed last weekend a sign installed by one
of our volunteers in under 10 minutes.
As the elected president, I
chair the OFSC board of governors. As senior staff person, Ron
reports to the board of governors and is responsible for the
operation of our corporate office in Barrie.
I am here today to speak on
behalf of the OFSC's 281 community-based snowmobile clubs, their
225,000 individual family snowmobilers and thousands of business
partners across Ontario.
I am here to protect and
enhance the 49,000 kilometres of snowmobile trails OFSC clubs
have built, which generate annual economic winter activity worth
$1 billion and add more than $356 million in provincial tax
revenue each season.
I come before you to
present an urgent request from the OFSC to amend the mandatory
permit provisions of Bill 101 so that organized snowmobiling and
winter tourism in Ontario will be strengthened, not undermined.
The OFSC is extremely concerned that a bill intended to improve
snowmobile trails for tourism may end up doing considerably more
harm than good. If Bill 101 is left unchanged, it is very likely
that its legislated permit provisions will not be accepted or
supported by our clubs and volunteers. Where will that leave all
of us who want the partnership between the province of Ontario
and the OFSC to be productive, constructive and ongoing?
In requesting mandatory
permit legislation, the OFSC has asked the government to support
us as a self-regulating, professional body by making it easier
for our volunteers and clubs to pay the cost of operating
tourism-based snowmobile trails for the betterment of all
Ontarians. What we got through Bill 101 was a transfer of our
basic operating authority to the Minister of Transportation. This
won't work. None of us wants to see a good idea, honourable
intentions, or considerable effort wasted because the proposed
model for legislated permits does not recognize the realities of what makes
organized snowmobiling function so successfully.
What we do want to see are
changes to Bill 101 that will allow the OFSC to continue to do
what it does best. After all, isn't it our track record as
Canada's foremost trail managers that brought us to this
partnership in the first place?
It is the sincere belief of
the OFSC that a legislated mandatory permit will only accomplish
what it is intended to do if it's based on four critical
cornerstones. I believe you've heard that from a number of our
members, because I sure have.
(1) The final authority on
all matters and processes related to administering a legislated
permit must remain with the OFSC, especially use of our permit
revenues.
(2) An OFSC-legislated
permit must be an absolute and easily enforceable requirement on
all designated OFSC trails.
(3) Reasonable
accommodation must be made for traditional and commercial access
on crown land. And, most of all, (4) trained OFSC wardens must
have the authority to enforce legislated OFSC permits.
Each of these four
cornerstones is a crucial component in the ultimate success of
any legislated permit requiring OFSC endorsement and
co-operation.
For over 30 years,
organized snowmobiling has progressed in the province of Ontario
because snowmobile clubs became organized locally, regionally and
provincially. Organized snowmobiling starts at the grassroots
with friends and neighbours who form local snowmobile clubs and
develop trails for their own recreational enjoyment. These club
volunteers bear the grassroots responsibility for obtaining the
necessary land use permissions from local landowners and ensuring
that their own groomed trails are ready for snowmobiling
throughout the season.
Club volunteers are the
pillars of organized snowmobiling and providers of groomed
trails. They volunteer at the club level for a variety of reasons
including local pride, camaraderie, sense of accomplishment, fun,
the enjoyment of working outdoors and the satisfaction of being
part of something really important. We know the committee has had
the opportunity to meet with a number of these incredible
individuals as part of the hearing process.
Snowmobile trails are the
product club volunteers produce. On a provincial level, these
trails motivate and unify organized snowmobiling. All of the
economic, social and recreational benefits associated with
snowmobiling flow from the snowmobile trails that club volunteers
have built. What could be more appropriate than snowmobilers
providing snowmobiling for snowmobilers?
Thus, the sustainability of
snowmobile trails is of great interest to the province of
Ontario. To continue this success, and to keep trails open and
operating, it is imperative that the OFSC clubs and volunteers
continue to play the lead role in controlling their own destiny.
One of the fundamental vehicles for this self-determination is
control of the OFSC trail permit. This principle is captured in
the first of our four cornerstones: the final authority on all
matters and processes relating to administering a legislated
permit must remain with the OFSC.
Bill 101, as currently
written, is at odds with this basic principle. It transfers the
authority for virtually every aspect of the OFSC trail permit to
the Minister of Transportation while leaving all of the
responsibility, but not the authority, with the club volunteers.
We don't think that's fair or necessary.
Both the OFSC and its
member clubs are not-for-profit organizations legally mandated to
invest all of their revenues in trail operations and
trail-related programs. On average, clubs already put more back
into trail operations than they collect in permit revenues.
Both the clubs and the OFSC
are very satisfied with the reporting and accountability
mechanisms already in place that respond responsibly to the
financial needs of organized snowmobiling, so what advantage
would there be for any MTO involvement? If further proof of OFSC
fiscal responsibility and track record is required, we suggest
that you consult the northern Ontario heritage fund, the Human
Resources Development Canada or Fednor to get a firsthand measure
of the professionalism, timeliness and accuracy of OFSC financial
management and reporting.
Volunteers must feel in
control of the trails they've built. There is every reason to
believe that unless this cornerstone is recognized and
implemented, organized snowmobiling as we know it in Ontario
could fall like a set of dominoes.
We believe there are a
number of amendments to Bill 101 that could address this
fundamental problem. One way of recognizing this cornerstone is
to name the Ontario Federation of Snowmobile Clubs in Bill 101 as
the exclusive service provider. In fact, Minister Jackson
specifically identified the OFSC when the legislation was
introduced, as did his ministry press releases and printed
backgrounders. From that benchmark, wording could flow that would
assure the OFSC of the authority it needs to ensure the future
progress we are all anticipating.
Alternatively, or perhaps
even complementary, would be to recognize the OFSC as a
self-regulating body, much as we understand has been done for
other not-for-profit industry associations such as RECO, the Real
Estate Council of Ontario, the tourism industry council of
Ontario, and the Ontario Motor Vehicle Industry Council. Our
information is that all of these bodies have been empowered to
administer provincial licensing programs once handled exclusively
by the province.
We sincerely appreciate the
province's efforts to provide mandatory permits. However, we are
not prepared to surrender control of the trail permit system our
volunteers have worked so hard to develop. They deserve better
than that. Having said that, we are confident that the amendments
to Bill 101 can be made prior to second reading which will
address the needs of the province and organized snowmobiling, and look forward to
open and fruitful discussions on that.
One of the primary reasons
for legislated permits is to provide a new and sustainable source
of operational funding for OFSC clubs by ensuring that all
snowmobilers using OFSC trails pay their own way. This user play,
user pay principle is captured in the second cornerstone
advocated by the OFSC: An OFSC-legislated permit must be an
absolute and easily enforceable requirement on any snowmobile
trails operated and maintained by an OFSC club.
Bill 101 allows the
Ministry of Transportation to exempt classes of trails from the
mandatory permit requirement. Our belief is all OFSC trails must
be included, without exception. Unlike most other trail users
groups, OFSC clubs embraced the concept of user pay almost from
the outset, recognizing that self-funding was crucial to
self-determination. The revenues raised from the sale of trail
permits to those who ride OFSC trails has helped defray the cost
of operations for recreational snowmobile trails.
This is a huge issue for
the OFSC clubs. Since OFSC permits are presently unenforceable on
OFSC trails running across much of our crown land, so many riders
use OFSC trails without buying a permit. Yet clubs with trails on
crown land incur at least the same level of expense to operate
and groom their trails as do those with trails on private land
where the permit is enforceable.
1650
Crown land trails would not
exist at all or would be, for the most part, impassable in winter
if they were not groomed regularly. Snowmobilers who choose to
ride on OFSC trails do so because they offer a better, safer and
more enjoyable experience that significantly reduces wear and
tear on their machines and the risk of injury to others and
themselves.
The user is paying for the
trail improvements, not the use of the crown land. Those who do
not want to ride OFSC trails do not have to pay a user fee. There
are lots of other places to ride, although they may not be as
safe and comfortable, or provide convenient access to hospitality
services and amenities. But by legislating mandatory permits on
all OFSC trails, the government would confirm that all
recreational snowmobilers should have access to, and help pay
for, the smoother, safer, marked, and integrated thoroughfares
operated by the OFSC, regardless of where these routes are
located.
At the same time, the OFSC
understands and accepts that exceptions for some individual users
must be made. This principle is captured in the third
cornerstone: reasonable accommodation must be made for
traditional and commercial access on crown land.
Certainly the OFSC
recognizes that the work sleds of provincial organizations such
as the OPP, Hydro Two, the MNR and Northern Development and Mines
would be exempt from mandatory permit requirements. We also agree
that those individuals who use snowmobiles for their livelihood
should be exempt from mandatory permits on specific trails for
designated work-related travel.
We also accept that certain
traditional users such as landowners, cottagers, anglers, hunters
and others may qualify for local exemptions to ride specific
trails to carry out their primary recreational activity. But the
OFSC maintains that none of the aforementioned should be able to
use OFSC trails solely for the purpose of recreational
snowmobiling or beyond their primary local area of activity
without first purchasing a permit.
What comes to mind is the
story that was given in both Kenora and Thunder Bay, where one of
the local residents runs a resort. What he does, to all his
American travellers who come, is give them a three-foot plastic
rod. "If you get stopped by one of the trail wardens, just tell
them that you're out ice fishing." Nice little catch.
Exempt users could easily
be identified with a special limited-use permit issued locally by
OFSC clubs. Our concern is that such exemptions be fair and
reasonable.
Legislation without proper
enforcement is meaningless. Generally, there has to be enough
enforcement presence to give the impression that it is likely
offenders will be caught and penalized. There are 49,000
kilometres of OFSC trails in Ontario, a total length greater than
that of our provicial highways. The OPP have about 150
snowmobiles to cover the entire province. There are about 124
OFSC volunteers trained as STOP officers. Even accounting for
personnel from other police agencies that may patrol snowmobile
trails from time to time, no one could argue that there is enough
enforcement presence to make much of an impression.
That's why we capture this
final principle in our fourth cornerstone: trained OFSC wardens
must have the authority enforce legislated OFSC permits.
Presently, there are about
2,500 club volunteers in Ontario who are trained as OFSC wardens.
For OFSC wardens not to have the authority to enforce OFSC
permits would take the teeth out of the new legislation by
reducing its enforceability by 2,500 active patrollers dedicated
to that purpose. This is especially critical in the first season
or two, when many riders will be testing the legislation to see
if it must be obeyed. Including wardens in the enforcement of
mandatory permits simply makes sense.
The introduction of
mandatory permits is an important step in the continuing
development of Ontario as the premier snowmobiling destination in
the world. We believe that modifications can be made to Bill 101
which will make it entirely effective, and we pledge to continue
our active support and provide assistance in any way we can.
I'm sure the committee has
come to appreciate mandatory permits are only a part of the
larger puzzle of sustainability. I'd like to ask OFSC general
manager Ron Purchase to close out our presentation and these
hearings with an overview of the bigger picture.
Mr Ron
Purchase: Good afternoon. With the committee's
indulgence, I'm not going to go through page 6 that you have in
front of you. I believe all that information has been well
covered in your five days. It doesn't add much to the picture, and I'm afraid
we'll have run out of time for questions.
If we could skip over to
page 7, I'm going to talk mostly about the table that you see
there in front of you. I want to preface that by saying that
through the 1990s it was becoming increasingly obvious to us that
the amount of dollars we could raise through our recreational
base user-pay permit was falling behind the cost of delivering
the tourism trails that we were being asked to deliver. We knew
that somebody eventually was going to say, "How much do you
need?" We were pleased when we got some support from the northern
Ontario heritage fund to do a major study, our Winter Gold study.
You have a copy of it in the package that we've distributed. Of
the number of good things that Winter Gold looked at, it looked
at how much it really takes to deliver those trails properly; not
how much we had available but how much it really takes.
One of the first things
they did was go out and ask the other jurisdictions across the
North American snowbelt, "How much do you think it takes to
deliver tourism snowmobile trails?" The answer they got uniformly
was, "We don't know, but as soon as you find out, tell us,
because that's an awfully good question."
So the study team set about
putting in motion some groundbreaking work on studying just what
it takes to deliver those trails, not to some incredible standard
but just to do it right. The number they came up with was around
$20 million. That rang true to us. Our gut feeling on it said
that's probably about right. It also explained why the $14
million we could raise through our recreational user-pay permit
was falling behind what it takes.
The table that you see
there on page 7 at the bottom right corner you can see it's about
$21 million. The $20-million that it takes to deliver trails did
exclude a few of the costs that it takes and we think there's a
bit more that needs to be added, but a number something like $20
million is what a funding mechanism needs to get to.
We also found out that the
states and provinces that did well on this had a number of
revenue streams. It often included, and almost always included,
participation from the state or province.
If you look down the table,
there are five revenue streams showing there. Number one is our
existing user-pay fee, and you can see that it is raising about
$14.4 million.
Revenue stream 2 is really
best considered as what happens if we're able to get permits on
all the machines that fairly should have permits. We've called it
the increase from mandatory permits. We think there are about
15,000 out there. They're 15,000 in very particular areas, and
that's crown land. That's where our problem is. So this one
really deals with crown land. Those dollars could as easily be
generated if we had a blanket land use permit for crown land as
opposed to mandatory permits. Number 2 really answers the
question, where can we get some additional revenue for our
tourism-based snowmobile work, and especially on crown land?
Number 3 is the
registration surcharge. That's the model that Quebec and New
Brunswick and some other provinces have used to find new dollars
to support tourism snowmobiling. It could be the gas tax, but
it's some form of public contribution to the revenue streams. We
see it as needing to be about $3.6 million.
Clubs are still going to
have to do fundraising. We've said our 280 clubs fairly could be
asked to raise $2,500 each in their communities to support that
work. That contributes about $700,000.
Partners and stakeholders:
You've heard through this process that there are businesses doing
well by snowmobiling, and we think that they need to contribute.
We don't know what the right numbers are, but we're saying there
have to be 500 businesses out there doing well, and we think a
number like $1,000, just for argument's sake, gets us to about
half a million.
Those together add to $21
million. My point here was just to help place mandatory permits
within the broader sustainability picture, that it's one
important element. It answers the question, primarily, what do we
do about crown land? It also helps on areas that have 95%
participation already in permits. It shows a solid appreciation
for the volunteers who have put that in place.
That's what the overall
system does. In closing, we'd like to thank the committee for
this opportunity to speak today and hope that our remarks will
contribute to an acceptable revision of the mandatory permit
provisions of Bill 101. At this time, we'd be pleased to accept
any questions.
The Acting
Chair: Unfortunately, gentlemen, you have taken up your
20 minutes.
Mr Levac:
On a point of order, Mr Chairman: May I request unanimous consent
to allot five minutes per party?
The Acting
Chair: Do we have unanimous consent? We do. The
rotation-I guess it is your caucus, Mr Levac.
1700
Mr Levac:
I won't be taking all the time but I just wanted to ensure that
we had enough time to cover off some concerns. I do have a couple
of quick questions. You kept referring to authority to enforce.
Can you define that for me as to what it is the wardens do now
that they need to have extra added to them to make a move from
where they are now to where you want them to be, so that I can
get a handle on what kind of authority you want to grant?
Mr Burns:
When we talk about our wardens, to make sure they've got the
authority to stop and charge, Bill 101 shows there's a $200 fine
that could be applied. So we need some kind of process in place
that we can actually stop and go through the process through a
citizen's arrest or through a photograph of the machine. I don't
have the easy answer to get us there, but you have to be able to
enforce the permit by our volunteers. We can complement the OPP
force and the STOP program with 2,500 people. We know it'll be
challenged in northern Ontario. I'm in from Terrace Bay and I'm
telling you, our poor one guy in town with one 377 Safari is not
going to cut it on our trails.
Mr Levac:
I appreciate that, but I wanted to get a sense that you're
looking for almost a step beyond what is presently taking place,
so we need some more authority provided to them.
Mr Burns:
The current regs say that if I've got an LUP, the first thing I
have to do is ask them to leave. The second thing I can do, if I
can actually get it to stick in court, is to go after a trespass
to property. It's very difficult to hold up in court. We're
trying to get something in place so that we can actually enforce
it.
Mr Levac:
Commenting on the four pillars that everybody's been commenting
on, I get a sense that Bill 101, unamended, will not be
acceptable to most groups.
Mr Burns:
From the feedback I'm getting from all the volunteers-my phone
has been ringing steadily since the open houses started, the
sessions with the standing committee-that is their feeling.
Mr Levac:
If it can be shown to you that the legislation in its present
form, or slightly modified, needs to take place in order to
fulfil legislative responsibilities, could that satisfy your
concerns?
Mr Burns:
We're very open to negotiations and discussions at this point but
we still need a lot of things put in place. We've offered a
couple of examples where other ministries-not ministries, I stand
corrected, but other groups-
Mr Levac:
I have one of another ministry.
Mr Burns:
OK, thank you, but from RECO, the real estate group, the Ontario
motor vehicle. There are other processes in place I'm sure we can
get to.
Mr Levac:
Thank you. One quick question from my colleague.
Mr
Gerretsen: First of all, an excellent presentation.
We've heard from other groups today as to what the problems are
for their particular situation, but you've actually tried to
address as to how we get to deal with some of those issues. I
think that's always the important part in legislation. Everybody
can agree as to the concept and principles or where we want to
get to, but how do we get there and what kind of changes do you
have to make? I think you've made some excellent suggestions in
here.
The one question that I
have deals with your organization as a whole. What I've heard
from groups, not only in the hearings but elsewhere as well, is
that in southern Ontario we have a tendency to have a number of
large clubs with a relatively small number of trails or small
mileage in trails. In northern Ontario we've got lots of mileage
but few members. The redistribution of funding that you get
within your organization, is that system working and how can that
be improved upon?
Mr
Purchase: I've been working for the last 10 years on
those numbers. I know the kind of dollars that every club
generates and how they spend it. What I can tell you is that of
our 280 clubs, there aren't five clubs that we would agree have
too many dollars. There are quite a number of clubs that are
doing just well enough to do the job that's being asked. There
are also quite a number of clubs that are just in very bad shape.
They have a great amount of trail to groom and not enough dollars
to do it with. What our clubs have said to us is, "We understand
that there are funding inequities but you can't solve one club's
problems by taking dollars away from clubs that are just making a
go of it."
What I'm saying to you is
the problem is the pie isn't big enough. We're doing the best we
can to carve it up fairly, but the only way that we can get a
bigger piece to one club is to take some from another that has
just barely enough now. If the perception is that there are clubs
that have great surpluses of dollars, they are very few and we're
working hard to redistribute it. It's not hard to see where this
comes from. If you're in northern Ontario or anywhere else in the
province, if you're a volunteer and you're stressed to deliver a
product without the resources, you're convinced somebody else
must have them, but that's not the reality of the dollars.
Mr Spina:
Thank you, gentlemen, and your organization for its continued
comprehensive supply of information as we went through this
process, not just to all of the MPPs but certainly to the clerk's
staff and the research people.
I want to refer back to
your chart in a minute, but my first question has to do with
multiple access. We have a crown land policy, as you know, that
says that you cannot give exclusive use of crown land to any one
body. How do we get around that? Right now you have permits
within your own environment, but if we go one step further to put
it into legislation, that could jeopardize that particular crown
land policy. How do you see us maybe getting around that, or do
you see us getting around that?
Mr Burns:
We've actually got exclusive use on some of the property now,
Joe, with our LUPs. If you look at what we've got, we've got a
deal with the local trapper, so we give him access in and out of
the property where he justifies it. But anyplace that we've got
an LUP right now, it's for the winter use of the trails. It's in
place. I've got control points set up all around town. When we
originally started doing the trails in 1988 and moved into other
areas, as we cut new trails, they gave us LUPs. That means I have
the right to stop the snowmobiler from going through and he's got
to have a permit.
Mr Spina:
But does that mean that you have exclusive use of that trail?
Mr Burns:
I work with the trappers and the local committees. We talk about
the traditional users. We know who the people are. We give them
free access on the trails now.
Mr Spina:
So all you're saying is that you're enforcing the regulation or,
in some cases, if we get to the legislation, for your users
only.
Mr Burns:
Yes.
Mr Spina:
The other side is the distinction between the trail warden and
the STOP officer. If the trail warden was given the authority to
lay a charge under the act for being on the trail without a
permit, insurance and other elements, does that essentially put
the trail warden on the same basis as a STOP officer, who is a sworn
special constable of the OPP?
Mr Burns:
I need some kind of power put in place for the warden so that all
he needs to do is take the registration number with a picture.
I'll give him a camera. If he can take a picture of the machine,
he's got the registration on the machine and he's got all the
information, he's in place to actually place the charge.
Mr
Purchase: Specific to permits, as opposed to
registration, insurance and all of the other legal requirements
that we'd love for the STOP program and OPP to continue to
enforce. Because we need to focus clearly on the mandatory permit
itself.
Mr Spina:
OK. The last question I have, and I'll try and leave time for my
colleague, is on the registration surcharge. Ron, when you refer
to it in line 3 of your draft, you've got $10 and 360,000 units.
Where is the 360,000 coming from? Where is that $10?
Mr
Purchase: The $10 we would see as an additional charge
on top of the current provincial registration fee of $25 the
first year and $15 the second, and somewhat different in northern
Ontario.
We would see an additional
surcharge on the current registration of the vehicle. MTO has
published around 360,000 as the number of snowmobiles they have
in their system. I think there's some good argument that the OFSC
is called upon to represent and be an advocate on behalf of all
snowmobiling. We do enormous amounts of safety promotion and
safety work. We believe there's a fair amount of logic to say
that every snowmobile vehicle owner needs to contribute to
that.
Mr Spina:
So if that $10 came out of the $15 or the $25, as opposed to
being a surcharge, would that make any difference to you?
Mr
Purchase: That sounds wonderful, Joe.
Mr Spina:
I'm just asking, does it make any difference to you?
Mr
Purchase: We like that idea.
Mr Spina:
OK. Thank you very much.
The Acting
Chair: There's just about a minute left, Mr O'Toole.
Mr
O'Toole: Thank you very for your very comprehensive
presentation. I'll sort of follow up. I don't want this to sound
in any way negative. I'm very supportive of the concept of
self-regulation; I'm very supportive of the idea of legitimizing
something that exists. It exists and you're just trying to
formalize it.
That being said, I've heard
twice today, and other days at the hearings I've heard it too,
that the risk of volunteers-I'll be quick to make my point, Mr
Chair-is where the demand exceeds the revenue. I've said this
today as well: that's the case in every single ministry. The
moment it's legitimized and we say, "The standard will be here,"
health, education, MTO, every ministry wants more money. So we'll
now assume responsibility. If you want responsibility for setting
the rate of tax-that's the fee-good luck, because you'll become
more unpopular with your members. The pie is never big enough,
and the more you legitimize something, it just becomes, "I've
paid my fee; have a nice day," and you'll be back at the
government, Bill 101 is law. You're asking for $3.6 million here.
I put to you that if it's $21 million, it will be $40 million,
because the ministry will have to put the stamp on everything,
the bridges and all the stuff.
You've got to be careful
what you're asking for. You may be wise to look at the other
route, without scuttling this whole thing of a self-regulatory
regime, like you've mentioned with the automobile dealers'
association. It's user pay; you get what you want. You license
them, you deal with the discipline and all the other things. It's
a tough regime, and I see it more clearly today when I see that
your shortfall is almost 50%. I've heard that repeatedly. That's
what I hear all the time: it's 50% short. So you're probably
overstated in your revenue and understated in your
expenditures.
Mr
Purchase: I think the quickest way to discourage anybody
from a job is to not give them the resources it takes to do the
job that's being asked of them. Our volunteers have been here for
25 years. I think they'll be here for another 25, but it's up to
all of us to find the tools, the dollars it takes to allow them
to do their job. Line number one is our contribution: it's $14
million. We know through Winter Gold that if we want tourism
trails, we're going to need to find some additional revenue
streams. Our volunteers are really looking forward to the
additional dollars to do the work we're asking of them.
Mr Burns:
Could I just make one comment, Mr Chair? In reference to the
volunteers, we need to make sure that they feel good about how
they're doing their job. Currently we do a major fight with
everybody on crown land when we stop them and say, "You don't
have a permit." "I don't need a permit, I've got a fishing rod."
It's very discouraging for the gentleman who has put in the
trails, worked so hard and done so much, to get so easily
discouraged by some guy with a three-foot fishing rod and you
know he's not fishing; he's just out riding your trail and
there's nothing you can do about it. It's truly a crown land
issue and that's for the mandatory permit. For private land you
don't need it.
The Acting
Chair: Thank you, gentlemen, for your presentation. To
the committee, thank you for your co-operation. This committee is
adjourned for today.
