Ontario Federation of
Anglers and Hunters, Zone A
Mr Darrel Sidney
Ms Penny
Todd
Ontario's Sunset
Country Travel Association
Mr Gerry Cariou
Lake of the Woods
Business Incentive Corp
Mr Grant Carlson
Northwestern Ontario
Snowmobile Trails Association
Mr Brian Russell
Vermilion Bay
Sno-Drifters
Mr Jim Bethune
Kenora Trappers
Council
Mr Clarke Anderson, Mr Ken Maw
Mr Ian
Clark
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 Michael A. Brown (Algoma-Manitoulin L)
Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton West / -Ouest ND)
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 1241 in the Best Western
Lakeside Inn, Kenora.
SUBCOMMITTEE REPORT
The Chair (Mr Steve
Gilchrist): Good afternoon. I call the committee to
order. Welcome to all the committee members and all of our guests
as we start our hearing, the first of five days of hearings on
Bill 101, the Motorized Snow Vehicles Amendment Act, 2000.
Our first order of business
is the report of the subcommittee. Normally we would read that
into the record. I can ask the committee members whether you want
to dispense with that and simply have Hansard deem it to be read
in, if somebody would like to move the adoption of the
report.
Mr Joseph Spina
(Brampton Centre): So moved.
Mr Garfield Dunlop
(Simcoe North): I'll second it.
The Chair:
Any comments? Business arising from the report?
All those in favour of the
adoption of the report? It's adopted. Thank you.
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.
MINISTRY OF TOURISM
The Chair:
That takes us to our first deputation, and that would be from the
Ontario Fur Managers Federation.
Mr Spina:
Excuse me, Mr Chair. I'm sorry, I should have advised you that I
was under the understanding that I was to do a short opening
statement.
The Chair:
My apologies. I didn't see it on the agenda here, so you've taken
us both by surprise.
Mr Spina: We
should have given it to the clerk. I apologize.
Mr David
Christopherson (Hamilton West): On a point of order,
Chair: Are you going to be allowing responses?
The Chair:
I'd be happy to do that.
Mr Spina: I
am pleased today to speak on the opening of these public hearings
on Bill 101, an act to improve the sustainability and safety of
Ontario's snowmobile trails. I think we're all particularly
pleased to be here in beautiful Kenora. I always like visiting
this part of the province and I haven't been here in at least a
month and a half.
Snowmobiling is an important
winter recreational activity in Ontario for both residents and
tourists alike, and among other benefits, it creates an economic
boost to Ontario's communities during the winter snowmobile
season, a time of year when the tourism industry needs that
increased business. In fact, in some parts of this province, it
is a larger industry than it is in the summer months.
Given the extensive network
and the increased use of snowmobile trails, a mechanism needed to
be developed to ensure that people continue to have access to
this recreational activity into the future. At the same time, the
government is committed to improving the safety of snowmobiling
and reducing snow vehicle fatalities, which have averaged,
sometimes, as high as 30 in winters in Ontario.
The act proposes revisions to
the Motorized Snow Vehicles Act and the Trespass to Property Act,
and it maintains the mandatory user-pay approach through a permit
for users of the Ontario Federation of Snowmobile Clubs trails
only, significant safety enhancements and new enforcement
provisions. These measures will ensure that the people who
benefit most directly from Ontario's organized snowmobile trail
system will contribute to its upkeep, and the recommended safety
and enforcement enhancements will help reduce the number of
incidents that occur on the trails. These safety proposals were
recommended by a joint private-public sector partnership called
the Ontario Snowmobile Safety Committee.
We've also heard from many
other groups that have made suggestions of their own. For
example, traditional users of snowmobile trail systems such as
hunters, anglers and trappers currently are not required to
purchase trail permits from the OFSC. We have said all along that
we will try to accommodate these traditional users by
implementing a mechanism to exempt them from purchasing mandatory
trail permits for the trail system.
The Ministry of
Transportation will develop the fee structure in consultation
with the snowmobile industry, if the bill is passed. MTO will also be looking at
amending the bill to further clarify this issue so that
exemptions can be made via regulation.
The government, in
co-operation with the snowmobile community and other
stakeholders, needs to take action if snowmobiling is to remain a
significant winter economic activity in our province. It is now a
$980-million industry in our province in terms of its economic
impact. I urge members of the committee to keep this in mind so
that we can support the development of a safer and more
economically sustainable snowmobile trail system for this
wonderful province of Ontario.
The Chair:
Mr Brown, do you wish to make some opening comments?
Mr Michael A. Brown
(Algoma-Manitoulin): First off, I would like to
reiterate what Mr Spina said in regard to what an important and
significant economic factor snowmobiling has been and is
continuing to be-and it is growing-in the province of Ontario,
particularly in northern Ontario.
I represent
Algoma-Manitoulin, the third-largest of the northern
constituencies and probably one with as many kilometres of trail
as any other. I represent groups such as the good people in
Chapleau, who have the largest trail system maintained by a
particular club in the entire province, and constituents in Wawa
down through Elliot Lake on the North Shore and across
Manitoulin.
One of the difficulties we're
finding with the bill is the problem of traditional snowmobile
users of trails. I have constituents who have used a particular
trail for 30 years. It was not a federation of snowmobilers trail
at the time; it now is. They just want to access their own
particular lake that they've been going to for 30 years and will
not be using the federation's trails other than the mile or two
that they've maybe even cut out of the bush to begin with. We
have the trappers and the prospectors and other groups who also
use the trails, and have used them and often developed the trails
in the very beginning. So there are some difficulties with the
exemption process. I'm interested in Mr Spina's talking about an
exemption process but I'm not quite clear about how that would
work, and how it would work for those particular individuals who
don't belong to any major group who would want to do what they've
always done and really will not be using the broader trail
system.
I also have concerns with
regard to the allocation of funds from the trail permits. If I
can use the Chapleau example again, a lot of the users of their
trail system do not purchase the permit from Chapleau. They
perhaps buy it at the border in Sault Ste Marie; they may buy
their permit in Barrie. When you're trying to operate a huge
trail system, as the Chapleau club is, that becomes problematic.
I know the federation has worked over the years trying to find
appropriate sharing models to look after clubs like Chapleau, but
on the other hand I don't think we're quite there yet and I would
be interested in the government making some suggestions with
regard to how the allocation of funds might be better used.
We should consider the fact
that snowmobiles also use a great deal of fuel. Not one cent of
the fuel tax that is collected by the province of Ontario is
spent in maintaining these trails. I don't know what the exact
numbers would be, but I suspect there is a huge amount of revenue
that the province gets from snowmobilers, through either the gas
tax in particular or through sales taxes or through a number of
other places, that are not being reinvested, particularly in the
northern Ontario experience where we, as I say, have huge
kilometres-I don't know what the word is. Is it mileage? What is
it if it's kilometres of trails?
Mr Spina:
Kilometrage, I guess.
Mr Brown:
Kilometrage, I guess, to maintain. While the government, starting
back in the early 1990s, has provided some funding, particularly
for buying groomers and that sort of thing, it really doesn't
recognize the reality that volunteers are the people who are
doing all the work in maintaining these trails. I think Mr Spina
would agree, and probably Mr Christopherson, that there is some
conflict between the business interests in maintaining these
trails and the volunteers who come from the clubs that are
maintaining the trails.
1250
Through my travels, I
sometimes hear from volunteers, "Why should we be encouraging all
these people from other places to come to our area when it just
means more time and work for the groomers, for us?" I think we
have to understand that would be a normal human reaction to the
fact that they in no way benefit directly as volunteers from the
work on the trails. However, the business community, to their
credit, has been very helpful to many of the clubs in helping
sponsor them. I know that's the case in Wawa.
We still have a major
problem. If we want to build this into a major industry, we're
going to have to address some of these problems as legislators in
a more meaningful way than this. There are some major issues that
I hope we hear from during the committee hearings.
Thank you, Mr Chair.
The Chair:
Mr Christopherson?
Mr
Christopherson: Thank you very much, Mr Chair. I
appreciate the opportunity to participate.
I am sure the residents in
Kenora will know that Howard Hampton, who is the leader of our
party and was a cabinet minister in the previous government, in
the early 1990s, played a significant role in making the first
$20-million investment in the kinds of trails that we're now all
so very proud of. I can remember as a southern Ontario MPP the
number of eyebrows that were raised at the notion of $20 million
being spent on snowmobile trails. It took a real education to get
everybody up to speed on the economic benefit to not only
northern Ontario but all of Ontario by virtue of the
exponentially growing snowmobiling recreational activities.
I'm here to put on the record
concerns that my leader, Howard Hampton, who is also the local
member here, has with regard to this. He apologizes for not being
here; he's out of the country and unable to attend. But I would
like to put on the record a number of concerns.
It's already been mentioned
by Mr Spina that they're going to look at some exemption for
traditional users. But if
I heard correctly, it sounded like, again, much of this is going
to happen in the form of regulations, as well as a number of
other items that Mr Spina has said there will be amendments to,
and they're going to come in regulations.
One of the concerns we have
is that an awful lot of this bill won't really be seen until the
regulations are done, which is, of course, after the legislation
has already been passed in the Ontario Legislature, where the
public gets an opportunity to see what's going on and hear what's
being said, and is being downloaded, if you would, or deferred to
regulations, which take place in the cabinet room, which by
tradition are secret. We have real concerns that a lot of the
important aspects of this bill are going to happen behind closed
doors rather than on the floor of the Legislature where the
public will have an opportunity to see for themselves what the
law is that will affect them.
We have some concerns about
how the bill is going to be enforced. Will there be any
involvement of the OPP and, if so, do they have the staff to
enforce such bills? I would imagine there are probably some
concerns from the OPPA as enforcement grows; that would be the
Ontario Provincial Police Association, the union that represents
the OPP officers. I would think-I don't know this directly, but I
would assume-they would have some concerns about the growing area
of enforcement that traditionally is their responsibility. I
would think they would have something to say about this. Will
there be further powers necessary to the OFSC in order to have
them complete the enforcement that they are apparently going to
be doing under this bill? The whole concern is about that
enforcement mechanism and who's doing it, and are we losing
good-paying jobs once again to volunteerism and eroding the value
of police officers and, quite frankly, their rights under their
collective agreement?
We'd be interested in hearing
more discussion, and hopefully it will come out-through you,
Chair, to Mr Spina-during the course of the hearings about what
work has been done with regard to reciprocity agreements with
Manitoba, Minnesota and possibly even North Dakota. Again, their
permits, as I understand it, are very much cheaper, and we may
have people who decide they are not going to come to Ontario, and
certainly they are not going to stay here, because it's not worth
it to them when they can stay in their own jurisdiction and pay
much less. Are we looking, as a province, at having reciprocity
agreements with these other jurisdictions and, if so, is that
going to be regulation again or will we get an opportunity as
members of the Legislature to debate it on the floor of the
Legislature?
There is also the question of
whether or not people will be permitted to take out weekend
passes or day passes. Again, the $175 that's being suggested can
be pretty hefty for a lot of folks.
Mr Spina:
That's an incorrect figure.
Mr
Christopherson: So $175 is incorrect? What's the correct
one?
Mr Spina:
The annual permit is $150.
Mr
Christopherson: OK. It's still hefty, especially by
comparison to the other jurisdictions.
Mr Spina: We
won't debate it now.
Mr
Christopherson: Hopefully we will debate it, though, in
public. That's what matters.
Mr Spina:
Yes.
Mr
Christopherson: There's the whole question of the crown
lands. If you take a look at some of the people who already made
submissions to us, and certainly Howard has raised concerns about
what happens with crown lands, are they going to be included in
this in terms of the fees being affected by that? As we read it,
they probably are, and there are real concerns about that. If
not, then let's hear that.
One thing hasn't been
mentioned, and it may be somewhat controversial, but the fact is
that a lot of the businesses that Mr Brown referred to are going
to benefit from these trails. We'd be interested to know whether
the government has any intention of seeing that any of the
businesses that are benefiting will be making any kind of
contribution toward the upkeep of the trails which are benefiting
them on the business side, or is it all going to fall on the part
of the users?
That's just a short list; I
know time is short. There are other issues, and I'll raise those
as they come up. Certainly I would hope the parliamentary
assistant would take note of these particular issues and try to
address them during the course of our discussions.
The Chair:
Thank you to all three members. It wasn't expected, but it's
certainly not inappropriate or unprecedented that we'd have a
chance to put this on the record.
I want to say to the members
who might be serving on a committee for the first time where
we're dealing with a first reading hearing-I know Ms
Bountrogianni was with us in the mental health act, in Brian's
Law-that I would encourage all of you to reflect on the ability
to hear the submissions with perhaps less of a dogmatic position
taken by any of the three parties. I think we have found far more
common ground in first reading hearings than we've ever found on
second reading. I know some of the members are subbing in, and
I'm sure they will experience a similar phenomenon this time
around with that.
The Chair: I
apologize for the 10-minute delay, but perhaps we could call
forward the representatives from the Ontario Fur Managers
Federation, northwest region. Good afternoon. Welcome to the
committee.
Mr Ernie
Leschied: Good afternoon. I'm delighted and impressed to
see all these members of Parliament from southern Ontario. We'd
certainly like to welcome you to this part of the country. I'm
sure most of you in your travels are surprised how far it
actually is to come to Red Lake.
The other thing you might note is that I predate the
modern snowmobile era just a little bit. I was already an adult
when these fancy machines came into existence. I've seen the
development of the snowmobile industry from back in the days when
you had a 25-mile-an-hour unit to one that goes 100 miles an
hour. Of course, in the early days we didn't worry too much about
making trails because the only place you could really go was
someplace on a road that a logging company had developed or,
growing up on the farm, the trails were already there.
As indicated earlier on, I
represent the Ontario Fur Managers Federation. For the sake of my
presentation this afternoon, I will be referring to us as
"trappers." I'm sure you folks can appreciate that that term has
been in a lot of correspondence that has gone to various members
of the government.
1300
In the past six months we've
seen a lot of information moving back and forth and faxes coming
in regarding this Bill 101. When it first was brought forward, we
made fairly strong representation that we wanted to be involved
in some kind of personal discussion. I'm happy that even though
we missed the first reading, we can still do this today. I think
it's significant that you folks chose to come up to the far west
of the province where we certainly have considerably different
circumstances for snowmobiling. Building trails in this part of
the world is an extremely expensive venture, and once you have
the trail built, then you need a day's pay to fill up your
snowmobile before you go anywhere. Of course you all know that
snowmobiles are not the most efficient units around.
The concern that the
trappers' federation has is that many of the trails that are now
being used for the snowmobile clubs, and I can vouch for this
because I have used the provincial trails-in principle, the
Ontario trappers' federation has no problem with some sort of a
user-pay system. It had been a voluntary procedure in the past.
It probably didn't always work, but in a year when you had less
snow and good trails, people were prepared to buy permits to go
out and travel on the trails. But a number of these trails
originally were trapping trails. Many of the trails in this part
of the country are also on old logging roads. So in a sense we
northerners have already paid substantial taxes in one form or
another to get these trails up and going. Now, I realize that the
grooming equipment is expensive and trails need to be
groomed.
The position the trappers'
federation is taking is that we have already paid a trapping
licence fee. We were one of the first organizations to enter into
an agreement with natural resources, with the government, to look
after our own industry. We have just about finished the first
five-year term and are ready to renegotiate, and it has been
working very well. So when this came out regarding the mandatory
trail permits, of course, it created considerable concern for
us.
We realize that trappers by
their nature tend to be somewhat independent. We realize that
we're in an industry that is not what you'd call financially
flush, but it's dear to the hearts of many northerners. We
weren't all that excited when the snowmobile industry took off to
the extent where suddenly our trapping trails became main
thoroughfares for noisy equipment, which then disturbed the
habitat in which we were operating. I was pleased to hear in the
opening comments from some of the gentlemen that serious
consideration has already been given to some sort of exemption or
a sticker for the trappers.
In our recent deliberations
at the executive level, the feeling was that the trappers are not
necessarily looking for a blanket exemption. I trap around and
north of Red Lake. Of course roads are very limited up there and
trails are also very limited. Most of the trails out and about
have been developed by trappers and ice fishermen and so on. We
feel that if we are operating in what we would consider our
normal trapping area with some type of sticker-and I don't think
it should be a sticker that's just obtained by going in and
saying, "I'm a trapper, give me a sticker for my machine"-we
certainly would want the trapper to be a bona fide, verified
trapper, one who uses a large part of his energy and his
snowmobile activities for harvesting and managing fur.
Incidentally, you might be
interested to know that trappers are involved in larger
management for the province with some of the resources involving
winter activities. You might be interested to know that on my
particular trapline I have one of those exotic, charismatic
animals called the caribou, and we have lots of opportunity to
view them. We've had ministry people come in to our trapline.
They come over our trail-we have no problem with that-and study
them.
We certainly would be
interested to see how this further develops. I'm sure some of you
folks have some questions that perhaps I can answer for you. I
know that Mr Noseworthy and Mr Monk have sent out considerable
paperwork, and you will be meeting up with people from the
federation at each of your hearings. Again, I appreciate the fact
that you did decide to have Kenora as your first location. Also,
I appreciate the good representation from our elected officials.
With that, if there are any questions, perhaps we could have a
little discussion that way.
The Chair:
Thank you very much for your comments so far. That leaves us
about three and a half minutes per caucus. We'll start with the
Liberals.
Mrs Marie
Bountrogianni (Hamilton Mountain): Good afternoon, sir.
It's great to be in northern Ontario.
You mentioned that the
trappers aren't saying they want total exemption. Have you
discussed what would be reasonable, and how would this act in
total be or not be a deterrent in your industry unless that
partial exemption took place?
Mr Leschied:
In the past we had a voluntary system for purchasing trail
permits. A number of people do that; I have done that. I really
don't use trails that much so for me it's not a big issue, but I
do know that a number of trappers have to go on what is called
the official trail, which was their trail, and they don't feel
that any amount really
should be considered. If they're cruising on the larger trail
activity, then I think it would be up to them. A lot of trappers,
incidentally, do belong to the snowmobile clubs. Does that answer
your question?
Mrs
Bountrogianni: Yes.
Mr Brown: I
haven't been to Kenora for almost two weeks. I was up at Red Deer
Lake just a couple of weekends ago, during the bass tournament
actually.
I think Marie has asked the
right question: how would we sort this out? Certainly we believe
that trappers, as one group, should have exemption in some way,
but you make the point too that if they're out using the
federation's trails for other things all the time, they probably
should be paying for the trail. If I understand your suggestion,
you would have some special sticker that would indicate in the
area of your trapline that you have some exemption? Is that the
right take on what you're saying?
Mr Leschied:
I think we would have to take it on to a regional basis. It would
be very difficult to be trapline-specific. Let's say in my
particular case, anything north of Ear Falls would be considered
an area that could be part of my trapping activities, whether I'm
trapping on my own line or I'm assisting another trapper. I think
that's sort of what we would have to look at, breaking it down
into regions.
Mr Brown: I
take it, at least in my area and I presume here, that you would
have good relationships with the local federation. A lot of
members of your organization would also be snowmobilers and
active in the federation. Do you think you could come to some
kind of local compromises that would work this out in the local
area, if the snowmobile club and yourselves could work out what
the areas are? I'm always concerned when government decides
they're going to figure it out for you.
1310
Mr Leschied:
In the past we've had an excellent working relationship with the
snowmobile clubs in general. I would say that, from past
experience, the local clubs have not put undue pressure on the
trappers to obtain permits. They're encouraged, and as members of
a club a lot of the trappers voluntarily buy trail permits.
Mr Brown:
Thank you.
Mr
Christopherson: Thank you very much for your
presentation. Before I return to this issue, because I think it's
probably the crux of what you're raising, do I understand
correctly that the overall idea of mandatory permits is one your
association agrees with in general?
Mr
Leschied: I think the volunteer system would still be
the best, but I realize from past experience that isn't always
attainable. Certainly, living in Kenora-and any of you folks who
have read the newspapers over last winter's activity realize it's
been a very difficult situation to handle on a voluntary
basis.
Mr
Christopherson: Is it fair to say that safety on the
trails would be important for trappers who are earning their
living there? You say they're coming close to your traplines. I
would think that would be a concern, trying to bring some kind of
greater safety for individuals using the machines, but also
anyone else who may be on the trail with them.
Mr
Leschied: As far as safety is concerned, I think most
snowmobile clubs put considerable emphasis on that. However, we
know that you can be going down the trail, and if you're not on
the right side of a corner when someone else is coming from the
other direction, it becomes just as serious and critical as on
the highway because of the speeds involved.
Three years ago, when we
had the last reasonable winter for snow, after the trapping
season my wife and I took a trip from Red Lake down to Emo, which
was two days down and two days back, 1,100 kilometres. It was a
delightful trip. I bought one permit for my machine and anybody
who would have argued about my wife not having a machine would
probably have had a winter bear on their hands.
Mr
Christopherson: You raised, of course, the importance of
exemptions for trappers and other traditional users. Obviously,
you've heard the opening remarks. Howard feels very strongly
about this issue. I was curious; you mentioned that
trapline-specific may not be a way to go. The first thing would
be, how many trappers and traplines would there be within, say,
an hour's drive or two hours' drive of Kenora?
Mr
Leschied: I wouldn't have the immediate figures. I think
some of the gentlemen giving presentations later on will. But you
must understand that the entire country is divided up in
traplines, other than private lands. The First Nations people
have trapping grounds that are not accessible by snowmobile
trails at all, other than some they may have built on their own.
But any of the trapping areas on either side of Highway 17 have
commercial trails and also are being used by the local trappers
to access their traplines.
Mr
Christopherson: Is there much worry at all that if you
went by region, if you broke it down regionally, you might still
have some individual trappers who are being dealt with unfairly
because they use such a small part of the federation's trails? Or
do you think that number is so small that you're OK going with
the region?
Mr
Leschied: I tend to agree with Mr Brown that some of
that administration stuff could be handled on a local basis.
There is always communication between the resource users and the
recreational snowmobilers.
Mr Dunlop:
A quick question to you: I'm just curious on the percentage of
trappers who actually would use snowmobiles today.
Mr
Leschied: Who use commercial trails?
Mr Dunlop:
Who actually would trap using snowmobiles.
Mr
Leschied: I think that most every trapper uses a
snowmobile to trap. One of the things that does happen is that
very often it's a man-and-wife team or a man and wife with
teenagers. An active trapper could be out about five days out of
seven all winter long. Some of us put on 5,000 or more kilometres
in one winter in trapping activity.
Mr Spina:
Ernie, thanks for coming, because this is a good opportunity. You
said you appreciated the fact that we came up here. We felt as a subcommittee that
this was an important place to begin the public input on Bill
101.
As the Chair said, this is
after first reading, so there is a far broader scope for a debate
on this bill, when it gets back to the Legislature, with the
input that we receive from these hearings and from the people who
are making delegations to this public hearing process.
Ernie, you indicated about
the sticker ID and I just wanted to do a quick read. Section 9 of
the bill says that regulation-making powers provide for authority
to create classes of motorized snow vehicles and to exempt such
classes from any provision of the act or regulations. Regulations
may also be made general or particular, and different classes of
persons may be identified for exemptions from the act or
regulations.
That's part of what's in
the bill now and that's the message we wanted to drive home. The
bill empowers the process to create classes of snowmobile users
and, in addition, it authorizes that certain of those classes may
be, for whatever reason, exempt. I am suggesting to you that
maybe the words aren't exactly-and we'll look at that when we go
into clause-by-clause, but the intention is certainly there to
look at the traditional users of the system.
I was interested in your
suggestion, because this was very much around some of the
discussion that took place after getting some on the input on the
original discussion paper, and it was using a sticker that would
identify a trapper, for example, within a certain territory. I
guess I'm really capitalizing on the comments of Mr
Christopherson and the others. A trapper is licensed for a
certain area. Is that correct?
Mr
Leschied: Correct.
Mr Spina:
If an exemption sticker were issued that identified that
particular trapper's territory so that he or she would be exempt
within that territory, would that work? If they're outside that
territory, of course, then they would be having to get a full
permit. Would that work, if the trapper had an exemption sticker
within their trapping territory?
Mr
Leschied: Mr Spina, I'm afraid that would be rather
difficult, because there are people who would be getting on their
machines from the edges of any town and would have to go out,
say, 20, 30 or 40 kilometres before they get to their trapline
area. What I'm saying is, a larger radius that may include a
number of other traplines but would be basically in the area
where that trapper normally operates. When I spoke about an area
or a region, it would certainly have to be more than just the
particular trapline area.
1320
Mr Spina:
You indicated that in your case, for example-and I'm just trying
to hone in a little bit for a better understanding-you trap
pretty well north of Ear Falls and then out from the Red Lake
area, right?
Mr
Leschied: Mm-hmm.
Mr Spina:
If your exemption was somehow described as Ear Falls north, would
that be sufficient for the trapper?
Mr
Leschied: I believe that an area that large certainly
would meet a lot of the requirements of the trapper.
Mr Spina:
So if that snowmobiler is found somewhere down around Dryden and
Kenora or Ignace, they should have a full permit. Is that the
understanding?
Mr
Leschied: I think encouragement to have a voluntary
permit would be in place.
Mr Spina:
What do you mean by a voluntary permit?
Mr
Leschied: I guess I'm still wrestling with the fact that
when it becomes law, somehow it becomes a blanket thing and there
aren't any individual choices left any more. As far as that
particular year, the winter was almost over when we decided to
make this long journey. We knew what the rumblings had been out
on the trail so we bought a permit for the one machine on a
voluntary basis. Had we been forced to buy some trail permits, I
doubt whether we would have made that trip.
The Chair:
Thank you, Mr Spina. We've gone over our time.
Thank you very much for
starting off our hearings. We appreciate your taking the time to
appear before us here today.
ONTARIO FEDERATION OF ANGLERS AND HUNTERS, ZONE
A
The Chair:
Our next group is the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters,
Zone A. Mr Sidney, good afternoon and welcome to the
committee.
Mr Darrel
Sidney: Good afternoon, committee members, ladies and
gentlemen. My name is Darrel Sidney. I was born and raised in
Dryden. I've been involved in tourism and natural resource use
and management all my life. I'm currently a commercial bait fish
dealer, a trapper, an outfitter. I'm a member of the Dryden
Conservation Club executive and the OFAH Zone A executive. I'm
also a member of the Dryden Recreation Commission for the town of
Dryden.
I'm here today on behalf of
Zone A, Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters. Zone A is an
area that stretches from between English River and Upsala, west
to the Manitoba border. It starts at the US border in the south
and goes up to James and Hudson Bay in the north. So we represent
a big area in actual size, in land mass.
Right now Zone A has over
2,600 members, some from almost every community in the northwest,
representing a broad spectrum of citizens from trappers,
commercial fishermen, outfitters, tourist operators, loggers and
forestry workers, miners, cottage owners, naturalists,
recreationalists, hunters, fishermen and snow machine riders.
First, I'd like to say that
our organization is extremely disappointed and very concerned
with the very limited number of public forums concerning this
issue. Almost all the members feel that there should have been
several more forums, especially in the north where current
meetings are so far apart, thus making it impossible for many
citizens to attend, to take part and to voice their opinions. We feel that's a basic
premise of procedure in the democratic society that we have.
We're also concerned over
the lack of response to the numerous letters sent by OFAH head
office, our Zone A secretary and several of our supporting clubs
and affiliates to the minister and his assistants regarding this
proposal.
We're also very concerned
that an exorbitant fee structure such as the current $150 per
machine per year is nothing more than a tax grab, one that will
put a financial burden on many lower-income snowmobilers. Many
will find that the cost of the trail permit will exceed the value
of their sled. It's not so much down in the south, but I can say
that up here an old snow machine in somebody's yard always
invariably gets fixed up and is used to run the next winter. You
can travel through Dryden, Kenora, Red Lake, Sioux Lookout-I do
regularly-and it's not uncommon to see a really nice sled and
right beside it a clunker that came right out of the 1950s. In
fact, that's what I'm currently driving, one of the first
machines ever made, a Snow Bug. One of the other machines I have
is a Husky. These are old clunkers. They run. They are not worth
anything financially, probably, but they get me around my
trapline, they get me around my bait fish block. That's what I
use them for.
We're worried that some of
the people who can least afford to pay the trail permits will
take the money for the trail permit from their food and clothing
budgets for their kids, just to make sure that father or mother
can go on the trail. That is a concern, and with some of the
lower-income families up in this area, that is a big
concerns.
That leads to, where will
the money generated from the permits go? We would like to find
out exactly where this is designated or earmarked for before it
comes into law.
Another question we have
is, what happens to the people who get charged for not having a
permit while on a designated trail? Will they further backlog our
court system? Will repeat offenders be placed in our already
overcrowded and underfunded penal system?
Of course, these questions
lead to, who will pay for this aspect of the proposal? Who will
pay for the monitoring of the trail wardens? Who will pay for
their training and the equipment required to carry out this
mandate? Right now I understand it's done by volunteers, but once
a few of the snow machines get damaged or something, or you get
some idiot who gets picked up, gets mad and comes back and
vandalizes a snow machine, eventually insurance companies are
going to come back on the individual and say, "Hey, no more trail
warden stuff, because these guys are going to come back on you.
We're not going to insure you." Now we're going to end up having
to buy equipment for these trail wardens. Are we going to use the
OPP? Are we going to use MNR staff? Who are these people? Where
are they being trained? Who is training them? That's a big,
important question.
We're concerned that the
snowmobile trail permit fee is only the first step in a long list
of fees that will be forthcoming: one to use ATV trails, one to
use canoe routes, one to use the abandoned logging and mining
trails and roads, one to use cross-country ski trails. The list
could go on and on.
Considering the MNR's
current position of multi-use of as much of our crown lands and
natural resources as possible, could this proposed legislation
lead to a change in policy direction, one that could see crown
lands divided up into areas for exclusive use by special-interest
segments of Ontario society? Our organization will continue to
vigorously oppose any further exclusive use or privatization
policies of our crown lands. Very few of these trails up in the
northwest are on private land and we feel crown land should be
multi-use availability.
Most tourist operators feel
that the current $150 to $180 trail fee is a huge detriment to
tourism in our area. I must caution you here, folks-and I'm not
being smart-that southern Ontario tourism and northwestern
Ontario tourism are two completely different stories. I was quite
involved with the spring bear hunt cancellation. When you go down
there and talk to the outfitters, there is such a difference in
their tourism base compared to our tourism base. We're not in the
same park at all. They're playing football and we're playing
handball. There is just no comparison at all. Tourism in
south-central Ontario comes from southern Ontario primarily,
whereas 99% of the tourism up here comes from the US. Very little
comes from southern Ontario. So it's a completely different
story.
Most winter tourists in
this area come to northwestern Ontario to fish, not to ride the
limited trail system. When they find they have to pay to use the
trail to access their favourite remote fishing lake, they go back
into Manitoba or the States. All the resort operators I have
talked to feel that this move will reduce the number of winter
tourists coming into northwestern Ontario.
I have been told by current
and past members of the Dryden Snowmobile Club that the $150
trail permit fee has hurt the club. Many to most of the club
members feel that it's too high and that the general sledding
public is blaming individual clubs and their members for the fee.
So these people have tended to leave the club and they're trying
to avoid riding on the trails. They feel they have been made
scapegoats in this whole scenario, this process of getting the
$150 trail permit in place etc.
1330
Zone A members have talked
to many area residents, and 99% of the area residents say no to
the current trail fees. They do not want them. At our Zone A
meeting in Fort Frances only a few days ago, it was unanimous
that we oppose Bill 101 and the current trail fee structure and
rationale pushing it, as we feel it is seriously flawed and
unworkable as it currently stands.
Current groomed trails
often follow abandoned logging and mining roads, sometimes trails
cut and maintained by trappers and fishermen. Is it fair to now
exclude the people who originally made these trails from
continuing to use them unless they pay a fee? I must say here
that I wasn't aware of the complete bill. I have not had time to read it because I'm
extremely active in summer with my business, so I haven't had
time to read everything. I was happy to hear that there might be
potential, and I emphasize the word "potential," for some
exclusions or exemptions to the trail fee permit, but I will have
questions about that to find out what they are.
Another concern we have is,
will the trail permit system create dangerous situations on our
secondary roads and highways? How many people will start to drive
their sleds on the travelled portions of roadways to get to their
destination rather than pay the $150 trail permit fee, thus
making it more hazardous for the automobile motoring public?
We've had people who have said that if they're forced to pay a
permit fee to ride on the trails, to heck with it; they'll ride
on the roadsides. Then invariably what happens is that the
roadsides get pretty rough and pretty soon they're sneaking up
right on the shoulders, and pretty soon they're on the travelled
portion. We do see them up here quite a bit more regularly, I
would expect, than anywhere in southern or even central northern
Ontario.
We feel that socially, Bill
101 and the current trail fee structure is a disaster. It has
increased the financial burden on lower-income families, it has
reduced tourism in northwestern Ontario and has a potential to
further negatively impact tourism. It has created hard feelings
toward many diehard snowmobile enthusiasts.
Economically, it has the
potential to cost people in the north through reduced tourism
income, which could lead to job loss, through higher costs to
participate in outdoor winter recreational activities and through
the higher costs for resource extraction. I'm talking about costs
for a trapper to run his trapline, a bait fisherman to obtain his
minerals etc.
Environmentally, it has the
potential to increase the impact on wildlife and the natural
environment. Trappers, miners and fishermen who are excluded from
using these regulated trails, people who do not want to pay the
fee, may start to construct other trails, and that should be a
valid concern. Also, heavier usage of specific trails might have
a detrimental impact on the wildlife near the trails. I think
that has been found to be true in Yellowstone park just in the
last two winters, when they've done extensive studies on it and
found that they're really seriously harming the wildlife that
normally would be along the areas where their main snow machine
trails are.
You mentioned significant
safety and enforcement enhancements. We would like to find out
what they would be. I think it is in everybody's interests to
make that more public.
Exempting hunters or
trappers or certain classes of people who may be exempted: I'm
not sure; I would like to find out who, how, why they would be
exempt, what the conditions are for their exemptions. I'd like to
go back to when you were talking to Mr Leschied. I know a trapper
who has a trapline in my bait fish block northeast of Kenora
here. He travels 150 to 180 kilometres each way to get to the far
reaches of his trapline. You could say, "Well, we'll give you a
radius of 50 or 80 kilometres." Is that enough for everybody?
Will that mean we all have to be given special exemption permits,
or how are they going to do this? Do we use it as blanket
coverage? How will this work?
Up here, safety is not yet
the factor and the concern that you have in the south. Obviously,
we have many fewer riders. I can see that's a valid concern, and
I do agree with it. I think everybody is in agreement with
anything that will enhance safety.
In conclusion, the members
of Zone A of the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters would
like to have more consultation and involvement in the process and
more public awareness forums so the majority of the public's
opinion can be heard. We would like to see traditional trail user
relief from permit fees that may be charged to the recreational
trail rider. What we're saying here is that we have nothing
against having a fee for somebody who is going to ride the
trails. I agree with that. If I was going to take a trip from
Dryden to Fort Frances or Dryden to Kenora-make the loop around
northwestern Ontario-I agree. I'm on a groomed trail; it's a lot
nicer for me. I should be paying a fee to go on them, the same as
any other user. Everybody at our meeting agreed with that.
We would like the
government to show us where the money generated from any trail
user fees is going, before inception of the program and as long
as monies are being generated from the trail permits, if this is
instituted. We would also like to see the multitude of questions
regarding this proposal answered before the proposal is rammed
through the government and made into law.
Thank you for your time.
Any questions? I don't know if I can answer them, but I'll try my
best.
The Chair:
Thank you very much for your presentation. We've got about four
and a half minutes, so about a minute and a half per caucus. This
time we'll start with Mr Christopherson.
Mr
Christopherson: Thank you for your presentation, Mr
Sidney. As I think you heard in the opening remarks, Howard
Hampton and I have some real concerns about the amount of changes
and details that will find their way into regulations. I know the
parliamentary assistant read out section 9 and the subsections,
including (2.2), that talk about how regulations can be made that
would deal with exemptions etc, but your last comment was about
wanting to see everything before it's rammed through. The way
it's being framed now, it will be rammed through and then all
these details will show up in the regulations, where you won't
partake in or even be able to watch or listen to the
discussion.
I think this is probably
the beginning of a number of presenters who are going to raise
concerns that need to be addressed, and so far-this may change as
it goes on-a lot of the answer is going to be, "Don't worry.
We've provided for regulations that can allow us to address
that." That's really not sufficient, certainly based on what you
are suggesting and, I think, what others, and certainly Howard,
are concerned about.
So I would emphasize again
to the government that if you want this process to work whereby
we go after first reading and everybody sort of works together and
there is less partisanship, then right at the outset, from the
opening comments from the member for this area, Howard Hampton,
to the presenters we are hearing, exemptions are a huge issue,
and to just say, "Don't worry about it. Trust us. We're the
government; we'll do it in cabinet," is not going to be
sufficient. I think there needs to be a shifting of the minds on
the part of the government to recognize they are going to have to
bring these details to the committee and incorporate them into
the bill. If there need to be subsequent changes, perhaps you can
look at a regulatory framework then, but I think you are going to
find that to say that all the details will come out after the
bill has been passed is not going to meet the needs of the
presenters.
The Chair:
Thank you, Mr Christopherson.
Not to intrude and lose my
neutrality here, but I want to bring to your attention, Mr
Sidney's and others' that in fact when we did the franchise act
after first reading, we made a commitment to include your
colleague, Tony Martin, in the actual preparation of the
regulations. So in addition to holding precedence just in the
very fact that these hearings take place after first reading
instead of second reading, we have as part of that allowed the
opposition parties a far greater role in a number of these bills.
Perhaps this would be another appropriate opportunity to
guarantee that the positions taken in committee make their way
through in all aspects. I just wanted you to know, because you
weren't on the committee for that bill.
Mr
Christopherson: I appreciate that, Chair, and I would
just comment that that would probably go a long way to satisfying
the opposition parties. I doubt in this case, because exemptions
and other matters are so crucial to the presentations, that
saying, "You really don't have to worry about it, because more
politicians will be a part of this," is going to satisfy the
presenters. But I appreciate your clarification.
The Chair:
At least we have it on the record that you don't consider
yourself more trustworthy.
Mr O'Toole.
Mr John O'Toole
(Durham): Mr Sidney, I think you've brought to light
some very technical concerns, and I appreciate that. I think the
issues of age of machine and trapping and other functional
working relationships are duly noted and will be noted in some of
the correspondence. I would say I have seen the correspondence;
most members of the committee have seen the correspondence. I
don't think there is a position, from where I stand-perhaps Mr
Spina will respond-to say definitively, "The answers to your
questions are these." We're here to listen.
Are you a member of the
federation today?
Mr Sidney:
Yes, I am.
1340
Mr
O'Toole: Members like yourself who are leaders, not just
in the OFAH but in other senses, I think will do the right thing.
Because you've admitted that the trail system itself-I'm not
trying to corner you or anything; I'm just saying these are
certainly an upgrade from driving around in the forest or on the
lake. To have a groomed trail at your disposal is to get the
right people to do the right thing. Do you think it would be a
good move to allow the clubs to sort of arbitrarily-there is that
empowerment in this section to authorize the clubs to administer
some of the regulatory and enforcement issues, meaning who the
exemptions-
Mr Sidney:
We've got a good strong club base, many clubs where there are
active members, where the club members participate in various
other functions throughout the area; eg, you've got some club
members who are trappers and some who are bay fishermen, some who
are outfitters, whatever. Perhaps that would work. But when
you've got a small club base-let's say we have a club that maybe
has 15 to 20 members only-what are we going to do? Are those 15
to 20 members-let's say the trappers' association that might
have-in Kenora I'm sure there's 80, maybe 90 trappers; in Dryden
I think it's over 65, around 65-are those 20 members going to be
able to tell 5,000 people who can and who can't be exempted? That
becomes a problem there when you go on a club basis, we feel.
Mr
O'Toole: Mr Spina may have a couple of points.
The Chair:
I'm afraid we don't have time. We'll just go around.
Mr Brown:
Thank you for your presentation. Could I just get some quick
clarification? Obviously, Zone A is opposed to this.
Mr Sidney:
As it stands, we are not opposed to a fee in general for
recreational trail riders. Please make sure that you note that
wording, "recreational trail riders." People who use the trails
for their traditional means to access Oak Lake, north of Kenora,
or Wabigoon Lake, south of Dryden, if they're going to fish, then
they shouldn't, we feel, be paying a trail fee permit of
$150.
Mr Brown:
Could you tell me, is this the position of the OFAH in the
province?
Mr Sidney:
I would believe that is the position of the OFAH in the province
but I am not here on their behalf, please understand that.
Mr Brown:
No, I understand that. I just-
Mr Sidney:
I'm not speaking for them but I believe that is their position as
well. But definitely our position is that we do agree with the
trail permit fee for recreational trail users.
Mr Brown:
So the problem is defining recreational trail users, I
suspect.
Mr Sidney:
In most cases, the trappers go on the trail to access their
trapline or a trapline they're assisting on. We're not going to
drive from Red Lake down to Emo and say we should be free. And he
didn't; he paid for it. He said he paid for the one, at least. So
he understands that. Hey, he's using it as a recreational
activity so he should pay for it. We agree with that.
But for me to go to my
trapline-let's say I lived in Kenora and accessed my trapline at
Oak Lake and I used 25 to 50 miles of current trail that I've
used for 35 or 40 years. Why should I be paying a fee? I possibly
made that trail. And
there are trails in the Dryden area that I did personally
make.
Mr Brown:
My constituency's the same way. I'm hearing the same things.
The Chair:
Thank you very much, Mr Sidney. We appreciate coming and making
your presentation here.
Mr Sidney:
Thank you for allowing us to have our voice.
The Chair:
Any time.
PENNY TODD
The Chair (Mr Steve
Gilchrist): Our next presentation is from Ms Penny Todd
and organized snowmobilers. Good afternoon and welcome to the
committee. We have 20 minutes for your presentation.
Ms Penny
Todd: I'm sorry I missed the opening remarks; I'm sure
they were very interesting.
Mr Chairman, honourable
committee members, the article in the local Kenora Enterprise
newspaper mentioned that only the Ontario Federation of
Snowmobile Clubs was formally consulted in the process of
drafting up the snowmobile legislation. And it further mentions
that other players in the equation were feeling slighted, hence
these hearings.
My name is Penny Todd and I
am here today to represent avid recreational snowmobilers who may
or may not have trail permits purchased from the local snowmobile
club and who are, for one reason or another, at odds with the
Ontario Federation of Snowmobile Clubs in particular and
organized snowmobiling in general.
Snowmobiling, particularly
in this part of the country, has been going on for some time. My
husband has been an avid snowmobiler for 30 years and can
remember the time of the first snowmobiles in this area, even
some homebuilt ones.
In the explanatory notes on
the amendments to Bill 101, the first point says that the
amendments "provide that a motorized snow vehicle cannot be
driven on a class of trail that is designated by regulation
except under the authority of a trail permit." I guess this then
means that if I'm riding my snowmobile on a trail that is not
designated, I do not have to have a trail permit. Does
"designated" mean owned and/or maintained and/or regulated by the
Ontario Federation of Snowmobile Clubs or any one of its members
or representatives? Can a trail be designated to someone
else?
The second sentence in
point 1 of your explanatory notes states that the amendment
"allows the Minister of Transportation to authorize any person to
issue trail permits and to retain the required fee." This would
be something tourist operators might want to take a close look
at.
Point 6 of the explanatory
notes says, "The current act allows the minister to delegate to
any person the issue of permits and motorized snow vehicle
operator's licences." Is the second sentence, "The bill also
allows the minister to delegate to any person the issue of trail
permits," currently in the act or is it an amendment? If I form a
club not associated with the Ontario Federation of Snowmobile
Clubs and I set up a network of trails and I agree to maintain
them, can I apply to the government to collect a permit fee for
their usage and can I keep the fees collected for my own use?
The Honourable Cameron
Jackson, Minister of Tourism, in his address to the House on June
20, 2000, stated that he was introducing an act to improve the
sustainability and safety of Ontario's snowmobile trails.
Further, he stated that "a mechanism needs to be developed to
ensure that people continue to have access to this recreational
activity" now and well "into the future." Ladies and gentlemen, I
ask you, how is putting up a barrier that requires users to buy a
permit a mechanism to ensure access?
Then he goes on, "...the
government is committed to improving the safety of snowmobiling
and reducing the snow vehicle fatalities." How is this consistent
with the practice of the Ontario Federation of Snowmobile Clubs
turning our original three-foot-wide trails that twist and
meander through the forests into snowmobile superhighways, 16
feet wide and as straight and flat as possible? I never heard of
a fatal collision on one of our small local trails. Recreational
snowmobiling is about spending time in the wilderness in the
winter with your family and friends. It's about good times and
good company. It's not about going as fast as you can to the next
stop, usually a restaurant or a motel/hotel with a liquor
licence.
The honourable minister
uses the word "safety" five-that's five-times in his address to
the House. Of course, I kept looking throughout the document for
the safety measures. Where are the speed limit restrictions?
Where are the signage requirements? Where are the instructions to
OFSC or whoever is going to maintain these trails as to the
safety standards required in order for a trail to become
designated? Where is the mention of increased personnel required
for enforcement of these regulations?
The honourable minister
further states that the act includes "a mandatory user-pay
approach through a permit for users of Ontario Federation of
Snowmobile Clubs trails." This may be a good approach for
southern Ontario, where I'm sure most of the trails cross private
property and/or travel through populated areas, but the approach
here in northwestern Ontario-that's everything north and west of
Lake Nipissing-needs to be different. Here in northwestern
Ontario, the OFSC trail is mainly a thoroughfare connecting the
southeast end of the province to the Manitoba border. Here most
of the trails are wilderness trails, which may at times intersect
with the OFSC trails but mostly try to avoid it.
Tourist outfitters have put
a lot of their own trail systems in to get people to their winter
destinations, and a lot of the travelling, if not across crown
land, is across water. The distances here are mind-boggling. I
can travel for a whole day, put over 100 miles on my snowmobile
and never cross an OFSC trail. On the other hand, I could go out
my back door about three miles as the crow flies and be right at
the OFSC trail. Personally, you won't find me on the OFSC trail if I can help it. I
won't risk my life nor my property. But sometimes it's difficult
to avoid them when OFSC comes along and takes over existing
trails, original trails that my family, friends and neighbours
helped to build, develop and maintain, and then they have the
gall to charge us to travel on them. OFSC came along and took
over part of the trail that I used to use to get to Manitoba and
now call it their own and want to charge me to travel on it.
1350
OFSC came along and took
over the crosstown corridor, the only route you could use to get
from one side of town to the other, and then called it their own
and want to charge everyone to use it, and the local municipality
lets them get away with it. If OFSC wants to come along and build
trails, let them, but don't take over our existing trails and
call them their own. I say let OFSC charge anyone they want to
use the trail system that they develop, they build and they
maintain, but leave existing trails alone.
Some people say that's
progress. Well, progress isn't always a good thing. Some of these
trails have been in existence for over 30 years, and for the 13
that I have been riding, they have served me well. I say, if it
ain't broke, don't fix it. If OFSC wants to contribute to the
maintenance of existing trails for free, just like I've been
doing for the last 13 years, I won't stop them. I won't even
charge them for being on my trails.
As to the minister's
statement that "the people who benefit most directly from
Ontario's organized snowmobile trails system would contribute to
its upkeep," who benefits? Maybe snowmobilers in southeastern
Ontario who have no other place to go, but not snowmobilers up
here. Up here, locals were travelling across the country for many
years before OFSC came into the picture. If we didn't have a
trail, we made one, and then the next year we went back and
opened it up again.
We don't need OFSC to get
tourists here. Manitobans have been coming down here with and on
their snowmobiles for many years, long before OFSC existed. In
fact, many Manitobans are very angry at their treatment by OFSC
officials who were demanding that they pay to travel on a portion
of the trail that they had been using for years. We don't need
OFSC to get people from the northern states to come up here. My
brother-in-law has been guiding American friends up the lake for
years, long before OFSC was in existence. Most Americans truck
and trailer it up here anyway. Only the most adventurous want to
travel so far by snowmobile.
So who benefits? Local
motels and hotels, tourist operators, restaurants, gas stations
and bars. Maybe the government should be looking at the extra
taxes these people are paying due to their increased revenues.
Maybe the government should be saying, "Let's make our trails
free so that more people will come and we will get more
revenues."
The OFSC trail system was
originally paid for with tax dollars. Didn't the former NDP
government give OFSC some $14 million in tax dollars to develop
the original trails? The OFSC equipment used to maintain the
trails is purchased half and half with tax dollars. Why should
the taxpayers of Ontario pay twice for the same thing? Aren't we
paying enough? Where is the tax revenue from the additional
gasoline sales? Why isn't some of that money being used to
maintain the trails? The gas tax is supposed to be used to
maintain the highways, isn't it? Aren't snowmobile trails
highways for snow vehicles?
What about maintenance? Ask
the local OFSC officials how many times they groomed the OFSC
trail last year and the year before and the year before that. Was
it once, twice, maybe three times? Am I to pay $180 for three
groomings-and that's only me-times how many members? There are
800 locally, they claim. Even if all of them bought memberships
before the December deadline and only paid $150, that's $120,000;
and even if they've exaggerated the numbers and they really only
have 400 memberships, that's still $60,000-$60,000 to groom the
trail three times. That's $20,000 per time. I thought the trails
up to this point were being maintained by volunteers. So what's
this money for? Surely it doesn't cost $20,000 for fuel and oil
to groom the trail for a day? Well, we're talking Kenora here,
where the gasoline prices are the highest in Canada, higher even
than in Newfoundland. Some distinction, eh?
How about the permit? Why
is it an automatic membership in OFSC? Is it a permit or a
membership? They should be two entirely different things. Why
can't you permit the person rather than the snowmobile? That way,
if my machine breaks down, I would still be legal with a loaner,
as long as I was registered, insured and licensed, or I would be
able to take one of my antiques out for a cruise once in a while
and still be legal. Why would I buy a permit for a machine that
I'll only use once or twice a year?
What about the fee? Surely
it could be more reasonable. Don't you think $150 or $180 is
unreasonable?
I'm not a rich person just
because I own a snowmobile. Snowmobiling is what I do. I don't
have a boat, I don't take winter vacations to exotic places, I
don't own a mansion or drive an expensive car; I snowmobile. How
about $35 or $50, like our neighbouring communities, Manitoba and
the northern States? What about reduced fees for visitors, weekly
passes or weekend passes? They do that for us. Why wouldn't we
reciprocate? Better yet, if someone comes here from Manitoba, and
they already have a Manitoba trail permit, they should be able to
ride our trails for free and vice versa.
I would like to make the
following recommendations to the committee:
(1) I recommend that the
government of Ontario allow OFSC to collect permit fees for
snowmobile trails they develop, build and maintain; further, that
they be cautioned to leave existing trails alone.
(2) I recommend that the
government of Ontario investigate as to what portions of the now
designated OFSC trails are considered pre-existing and negate the
requirement of a trail permit on those portions of the trails so identified,
particularly those portions which cross crown lands and
lakes.
(3) I recommend that the
government of Ontario set the permit fees at a reasonable and
affordable rate, somewhere between $35 and $50; and further, that
the fee be assigned the snowmobiler rather than the
snowmobile.
(4) I recommend that the
government of Ontario make the permit just that, a permit, and
that a membership in the OFSC be a separate purchase.
(5) I recommend that the
government of Ontario permit snowmobilers who want to maintain
their own trails on crown land to do so without liability to the
government and without the requirement of collecting a permit fee
for trail usage.
(6) I recommend that the
government of Ontario find ways to encourage tourists to come to
Ontario by allowing such measures as a reduction in the permit
fee for weekend or short-term visitors and, further, that the fee
be collected and retained by the seller.
(7) While recognizing the
enhanced enforcement benefits of mandatory trail permits on
OFSC-designated trails, I recommend that the government remove
any reference to "enhanced safety measures," because there are
none contained in the proposed amendments.
I told people that I was
coming here to speak to you today. Some of them said, "Why
bother? They won't listen to you anyway, and even if they listen,
they won't do anything about what you tell them." Are they
pessimists or realists? Am I an idealist? I hope not. Just so you
know that I'm not speaking just for myself, I bring you the
signatures of the people who have asked me to speak on their
behalf. This isn't an official petition, but I just wanted you to
know that I'm not speaking for myself. I have 192 signatures here
and I'd like to present them to you.
I come to you today in good
faith: faith that you will take my words into serious
consideration; faith that you will take my recommendations
forward; faith that you will do what is in the best interests of
all of the citizens of Ontario, including this small voice from
northwestern Ontario. Thank you.
The Chair:
Thank you very much for your presentation and for your specific
recommendations. That leaves us about four minutes. Dare I
presume to think we can each squeeze a quick question in? This
time we start with the government ranks, Mr O'Toole.
Mr
O'Toole: The parliamentary assistant wants to speak. Mr
Spina wants to speak.
Mr Spina:
I'm going to thank you, Penny, because I can tell you that your
recommendations, all seven of them, are not far off base with
regard to any of the discussions that have gone on; in fact,
they're pretty close.
I can appreciate your
position being at odds with the OFSC, but as it stands-and I'm
not saying it's right or wrong-the federation is the largest
single body representing the industry in the province at this
point. I don't say that to defend them. When the government's
dealing with organizations, you want to try to find a body that's
most representative of that industry, but that doesn't means you
exclude the other people.
The question you brought
forward, and a question brought forward also by Darrel earlier,
was about where the fees go, where the dollars will go. They
would go back into the maintenance of the trail system. That's
really where it's always intended. There's not an intention for
the government to take any portion of that money.
1400
With regard to the
recommendation that they collect permit fees for the trails they
develop, they build, they maintain, that's fundamentally what the
reason is for this process, that monies that would be collected
by the federation and its member clubs would be spent on their
trails.
Under the legitimacy of the
government operations, the OFSC would not be included
specifically in the act as a designated agent, which means that
under circumstances which at this point we're still trying to
define, there could be other agents who might be permitted.
Theoretically, if you presented the case, as you suggested, where
you have a large organization with your own trail system and you
wanted to collect a fee, at this point I can't say no, and it
still might be within the parameters of the whole structure, but
realizing that the OFSC is the dominant federation that works
within the snowmobile industry.
Ms Todd:
Could I just make a comment on that?
Mr Spina:
Yes.
Ms Todd: I
realize the OFSC is a large body of people and they say they
speak for a lot of people, but the reason they have such a large
membership is because the permit includes the membership in OFSC.
If the permit was $50 and the membership was $50, how many
members would OFSC actually speak for?
Mr Spina:
See, the fee-
The Chair:
Mr Spina, we'll have to make that a rhetorical question.
Mr Spina:
Thank you, Penny.
The Chair:
Over to Ms Bountrogianni.
Mrs
Bountrogianni: That was an excellent presentation. Thank
you very much. I'm getting educated by the moment about this
issue, even more so than the official documents.
I'm going to take this
opportunity very quickly, and in the interests of time, to
reiterate some of your excellent questions and to perhaps ask the
government side by the end of the hearings, if not today, to have
some of these answers. For example, where are you in the process
as far as how you are going to address safety? Quite rightly so
because I do have the note from June 20, the honourable minister
mentioned safety five times. If this money is going back to
keeping the trails decent and rideable, how is the safety issue
going to be addressed, independent of course of the trails being
safer physically? Are there going to be more OPP officers? Right
now, things that are done by the volunteers are going to be done
by someone else. In other words, do you have any details other
than basic rhetoric that it's going to be safer?
I think that was a very important question. It was
one of the questions I had earlier which I didn't have an
opportunity to ask. I don't know, Mr Chair, if I can have a
formal answer by the end of the hearings. Is that possible?
The Chair:
Normally what would take place, particularly after a first
reading, whether it's the deputant or the members proposing those
questions, I think in fairness to the parliamentary assistant he
would want to get feedback from the ministry on some of the more
complex questions. I don't think it's an unreasonable expectation
on your part, perhaps not the same day but certainly before the
end of the hearings, that we would have the answers to the
questions Ms Todd and you are posing.
Mrs
Bountrogianni: Thank you very much.
Mr
Christopherson: Thank you very much, Ms Todd. I think
the reaction of the citizens who are here is an indication of how
well received your presentation was, very thorough, very
concise.
Ms Todd:
Thank you.
Mr
Christopherson: I want to push it just a little because
I was on the same vein as my colleague from Hamilton
Mountain-where did he go? Where are you going? Hey, Joe, where
are you going?
Interjection.
Mr
Christopherson: That's not going to work.
This is twice now, I think,
two presenters have raised it, and I touched on the issue of the
safety. Can you point to something in the bill right now that
deals with the issue of safety, given that there seems to be so
much emphasis on it? Is there something we're all missing? I've
gone through it too and I don't see where there's anything that
tightens safety regulations.
Mr Spina:
The elements of safety have to do with the enforcement side of it
to make the system safer. That's really what it's mostly
about.
By the way, with regard to
the regulations, rather than waiting until the bill is passed and
then have that process begin, we have begun that process now and
we are hoping to have a draft by the time we get to
clause-by-clause, so that we can have the opportunity,
collectively, to look at the regs.
The other side of it is
that there are elements that have never existed in the Motorized
Snow Vehicles Act that define things like headlight positioning,
reflective materials etc, that are currently not in the Motorized
Snow Vehicles Act that will now be updated, because that act has
not been changed since 1972 and machines have certainly changed
over time.
Those are the elements of
safety that they're looking at, as well as the enforcement side,
which makes it safer for users on the trail.
Mr
Christopherson: That, again, speaks to regulations,
though. Correct?
Mr Spina:
Yes.
Mr
Christopherson: So again I'll put the emphasis-we know
we're getting this slowly but surely; I think it's
imperative-it's a shame that the regulations aren't here, so the
public can comment on the regulations. That really seems to be
where the meat of this thing is. To say, "We'll try to have some
regulations before the committee has an opportunity to review
it," is still less than what the public is demanding here.
Mr Spina:
But before we shape it, and that's why we're asking for these
people to give their input.
Mr
Christopherson: Are you planning another opportunity for
people to give feedback on those regulations, given that's where
the real legislation seems to be?
Mr Spina:
I'm not planning the legislative process at this point; I'm
managing what I can. As you know, we are getting input at these
hearings, and it will go back to clause-by-clause for amendments.
We are hoping to be able to have some draft regulations to table
for all three parties to look at at that point, and then there
will be plenty of opportunity for second reading debate, third
reading debate if we get that far, and the committee can be
recalled for any further amendments, or it could be done in the
House.
Mr
Christopherson: I realize that, but the reason we have
this public consultation after first reading is because once we
get to second and third readings, positions have pretty much
hardened up, particularly government positions, as you well know.
I say that about any government, not just yours.
I would emphasize the
importance of considering a review, of letting the public comment
on those regulations when they come down. Don't just keep it to
the politicians only-some mechanism of feedback. There's no
massive panic here. If we did reach agreement on what the bill
should look like, it's not unusual that we could get
agreement-and I say that as one of the House leaders-to
fast-track it, if indeed we've given the public an opportunity to
comment on those regs. So much of this is going to come down to
those regs, and to just put it off to the end and say that
politicians will get a crack at it, I think, is going to miss the
point of why the committee is out here in the public in the first
place. I'll leave that with you.
Thank you again for your
presentation. It was very well done.
The Chair:
Thank you again, Ms Todd, and the 192 people who took the time to
sign your petition.
Ms Todd:
Thank you.
ONTARIO'S SUNSET COUNTRY TRAVEL ASSOCIATION
The Chair:
Our next presentation will be from Ontario's Sunset Country
Travel Association. I take it you are Mr Cariou. Good afternoon.
Welcome to the committee.
Mr Gerry
Cariou: Thank you for allowing the opportunity for our
association to present to this committee on this important
bill.
Given that we are a tourism
marketing organization promoting the northwestern region of
Ontario called Sunset Country, our brief really concentrates on
the tourist aspect of this bill and the elements relating to
increasing tourism and
some of the problems we've encountered with current regulations
in the system-how it is working now.
Although I do agree with
many of the points raised by people who have other interests, be
it traditional users or non-organized snowmobilers, I'm not going
to comment on that in my brief to you.
1410
To give you an idea,
Ontario Sunset Country is one of the former NOTAPs once supported
by the province of Ontario. As of March 31, we did not receive
any more funding from the government. We have been around since
1974. We have approximately 450 members, which includes retail
service businesses, municipalities, chambers, economic
development organizations, roofed accommodation operators-which
would include lodges, resorts, hotels, people like that-who are
actively involved in trying to develop a winter tourism industry
in northwestern Ontario.
I'm going to read from my
brief to allow you to consider these comments. We do support the
general intent of the bill and agree that legislation is required
to promote snowmobile sustainability and to enhance safety and
enforcement of recreational snowmobiling in Ontario. We are
looking at snowmobile trails that are currently part of the OFSC
system. That's the bulk of what tourists use in our area, so my
comments would be in regard to those, as opposed to the smaller
winding private trails that may be out there.
The association supports
the requirement for mandatory permits for motorized snow vehicles
on trails maintained and developed by affiliated clubs of the
OFSC. We support the enforcement of the new permit system, if it
does become mandatory, by duly authorized police officers or
conservation officers.
The association strongly
believes that affordable, short-term daily, weekend and weekly
permits must be made available to tourists visiting Ontario for
the purpose of snowmobiling, so as to ensure that permit fees are
not a barrier to our efforts to increase snowmobile-related
tourism activity and its associated positive economic impacts,
which I think this committee is well aware of.
Ideally, reciprocity with
other jurisdictions, be it Manitoba or the northern border states
in our area, is an ideal, but is it practical or realistic to
expect it to happen? We are suggesting to this committee that if
reciprocity is not an option, the following permit fees for
short-term visitor fees-these are not seasonal fees-come into
these general ranges. This is based on discussions we have with
our marketing efforts folks, when we talk to the actual tourists
who are interested in coming to northwestern Ontario. This would
be at snow shows, over the phone-the inquiries we receive-over
the Internet, e-mails and things like that. Single-day permits,
$5 to $10; three-day weekend permits, $15 to $25; seven-day
weekly permits, $35 to $45.
The association supports
the creation of a visitor family permit for the three time
periods previously identified. Such a pass would recognize the
family-oriented nature of snowmobiling, and allow for lower fees
than the regular visitor passes identified above. The amount of
the family permit fee, as well as the maximum number of motorized
snow vehicles that could be included in such a permit, should be
determined by the Minister of Tourism.
The association recommends
that the setting of fees for visitors' trail permits-that is, for
non-residents of Ontario-be done by the Minister of Tourism, not
by the OFSC. The association supports the retention of both
resident and non-resident seasonal and visitor permit revenues by
the OFSC and their affiliated clubs to assist them and cover the
costs of maintaining trails across the province.
Should it be determined by
the OFSC, in conjunction with the Ministry of Tourism, that the
recommended visitor permit fees are insufficient to cover costs
of maintaining OFSC trails that experience wear and tear as a
result of visitor use, then the province of Ontario should
seriously consider a direct allocation of funds to the OFSC and
their affiliated clubs to offset trail maintenance costs. We
believe that snowmobile clubs which are volunteer-based should
not be expected to bear the increased financial burden of trail
maintenance costs related to an increase in tourism-related
activity.
Tax revenues accrued by the
province as a result of snowmobile-related tourism expenditures
could be used as a source of this funding allocation. Many
studies have shown that significant tax revenues to the province
have been identified, both provincial studies as well as
independent studies by organizations such as the OFSC, I
believe.
The province should assist
the OFSC and their affiliated clubs to communicate the rationale
of why mandatory trail permits are necessary on OFSC trails and
to sustain recreational snowmobiling in this province. This
assistance should include allocation of funds by the province to
the OFSC and their affiliated clubs to offset costs of related
marketing and communications activities necessary to inform the
public.
Organizations such as
Ontario's Sunset Country Travel Association should ensure that
in-kind assistance-for example, free advertising space in our
tourist publications-is made available to the OFSC and their
affiliated clubs in our operating areas to assist them in these
communication needs to our member tourism operators and visiting
tourists. This could also include acting as authorized permit
sales agents for the clubs in our district.
Those benefiting from
tourism-related activity-ie private sector businesses such as
lodges and resorts-should also consider forms of assistance to
affiliated clubs in the area. At a minimum, this should include
acting as authorized permit sales agents, and possibly financial
contributions to clubs.
It's important for this
committee to realize there are regional differences in snowmobile
tourism markets across Ontario. These must be recognized in
drafting this bill. While northeastern Ontario draws a large part
of its visitor traffic
from within the province, primarily southern Ontario, this is not
the case in the northwest. The majority of our tourist traffic
comes from the provinces of Manitoba and Saskatchewan and the
near border states of Minnesota and Wisconsin. These regions have
permit prices considerably lower than Ontario's; for example,
seasonal visitor passes in Minnesota cost US$16, and a four-day
visitor pass to the province of Manitoba is C$20.
As an organization which
heavily markets tourism to the four areas I mentioned, Sunset
Country knows first-hand the major barriers which the current
permit prices create in drawing snowmobile tourists to our area.
From comments we receive at snow shows to conversations we have
with tourists over the phone and on the Internet, visitor permit
prices are frequently and most often mentioned as the main
roadblock to more people coming to the northwest. Unless visitor
permit fees are significantly reduced, the return on investment
from our marketing efforts will continue to deteriorate and
eventually will make the effort a losing proposition. Permit
prices as they stand now have resulted in some of our roofed
accommodation members deciding to close their operations for the
winter due to the fact they could not sustain enough business to
make operations viable. In conversations with these operators,
they generally tell us that permit fees are the main reason they
are not getting enough people to their facilities.
The association believes
the current permit system in Ontario is not working, either for
the snowmobile clubs, which need the permit revenues to properly
maintain the trails, or for the visiting tourists who feel these
permits are too high.
On behalf of our
association and our 400-plus members, I want to thank the
standing committee on general government for allowing us to make
our views on Bill 101 known.
The Chair:
Thank you very much. That leaves us with about three minutes per
caucus for questioning. This time we'll start with the
Liberals.
Mr Brown:
I always appreciate presentations that are clear and concise and
put forward very concrete suggestions for us. I come from what
you would consider to be down east-that's from Manitouwadge to
Nairn Centre-and I've found as a northerner that it just depends
where you are who else is defined as being in the north. For
example, Sudbury is certainly almost in southern Ontario if
you're in Kenora.
I'm interested particularly
in the tourism aspect, which you are here to talk about, and your
belief that the permits are deterring people from coming to
Ontario, particularly this part of Ontario, to partake of our
experience. Americans and Manitobans are finding Ontario to be
overpriced, I guess, for this experience. Is that what you're
telling us?
Mr Cariou:
In general, the product, given the conditions, is felt to be very
good in Ontario, and that is due to the OFSC. Certainly I not
only believe but I know, from talking to people in places such as
the large market west of us in Manitoba, being Winnipeg, and
Minneapolis in Minnesota and areas in Wisconsin, that the permit
fees are seen as the major problem, especially for people who
want to take their families. It is a per-sled fee, and $25 a day
I think was the daily permit fee. I think it was $75 or $80 per
week. That becomes a $200-a-week or $250-a-week proposition for
someone trying to get into our area to do winter tourism. So,
yes, it is the main barrier that people in tourism marketing
hear, sometimes much more vociferously than others. We are the
target of some abuse by people for these permit fees.
We do realize, saying that,
that it costs money to maintain trails, so there has to be some
funding mechanism. The product has to be there to increase
tourism, so the OFSC does a good job in maintaining trails. The
product is a very important part of that, but the price that
people have to pay is a definite barrier. It's a price objection
and results in people going to other jurisdictions, certainly in
northwestern Ontario, which I can speak for.
Mr Brown:
In your experience, is the product as good in the northern states
and in Manitoba as it is here, or are we offering a superior
product?
Mr Cariou:
I'm not an avid snowmobiler myself. I can't tell you. Generally
people I talk to who are avid snowmobilers and who have been to
those jurisdictions say the product in Ontario is better, largely
because there is less congestion and there are more funds
available to date because of permit trails to do it. So it is a
bit of a Catch-22 situation. I think there is, through the
economic impact and the revenues connected from taxes paid
through by snowmobile tourists, an opportunity to lower permit
fees and perhaps look at other ways or other revenue streams that
can be making their way to the clubs so they can pay for
grooming.
1420
I've never gone on a
snowmobile trail in Minnesota. I understand congestion is an
issue down there. The conditions are generally not bad, but with
more people, the trails generally are in rougher shape than they
would be up here. We are known for good trails and that's what we
market. That's one of the main features we use in our
marketing.
Mr Brown:
So the price point is-
Mr Cariou:
It's a price-point barrier.
Mr Brown:
We've gone beyond, in your view-
Mr Cariou:
I can tell you, sir, people told me last year that groups of 20
or 30 from areas in eastern Manitoba were cancelling their trips
when they found out reciprocity was cancelled as being due to the
fees. It was going to cost over $1,000 just for permits for a
three-day stint in northwestern Ontario, so they cancelled those,
and the associated economic impacts are lost as a result as
well.
Mr Brown:
That would mean the clubs are losing money because something is
better than nothing in terms of price point, and obviously the
Ontario economy in general would be suffering if we don't have as
many visitors.
Mr Cariou: I agree with that. I
think partially you can make up on volume what you lose in price.
You sell more permits or you get great compliance at a lower rate
and therefore you neutralize-
Mr Brown:
The Henry Ford thing.
Mr Cariou:
You're robbing Peter to pay Paul, that kind of thing. That's
right, the Henry Ford thing.
The Chair:
Mr Christopherson.
Mr
Christopherson: Thank you Mr Cariou. I want to follow up
on exactly that same issue that showed itself at the outset and
is going to continue to be an issue all the way through: the
price of the permit.
I would like to point out,
however, how impressed I am with the fact that you've done
something that very few do, especially from the business side of
things, which is to say, "Maybe there's a share of this that we
ought to be responsible for," as opposed to always saying that
somebody else should pay it. You recognized that the clubs
shouldn't be expected to bear the whole thing and then mentioned
that on the tourist side, if your industry's going to be a
beneficiary, then maybe there ought to be something there. I
credit you for raising that.
It may be beyond your own
personal experience, but do you know how the northern American
states fund beyond the permit fees? Do they only maintain to the
level of permit revenue or is there actual state or federal money
that comes in on top of that?
Mr Cariou:
I can't tell you for sure, sir. I know in Minnesota it's $16 for
a seasonal visitor pass. I do believe there is an allocation from
the state of Minnesota through the collection of gasoline taxes
to, I would assume, affiliated clubs in the state to pay for the
grooming of trails. That is my belief.
The situation in Wisconsin
I do not know of. Manitoba is certainly a similar system to what
we have. The fees are just substantively lower than they are in
Ontario.
Mr
Christopherson: So in Manitoba they must provide support
from general revenue funds.
Mr Cariou:
I do not believe there is any support from the general revenue
funds in the province of Manitoba. The clubs just charge much
less than the OFSC charges.
Mr
Christopherson: Somewhere, though, the dollars-you say
they have trails comparable to ours?
Mr Cariou:
Generally comparable. I'm not an avid snowmobiler. I think you
would need to ask an avid snowmobiler that. I know that issue was
brought up in the media scrum about this last year, where some
people said the trails aren't the same. People from Manitoba
responded, yes, they are. I think the snowmobilers could answer
that question better than I could.
Mr
Christopherson: There were earlier presenters, not
specifically from your industry, who raised the question of the
fact that tourism has gone down, that you've lost customers.
Mr Cariou:
Yes.
Mr
Christopherson: You've raised that here. Is there any
question in your mind that you have lost some business and that
you're not anywhere near maximizing the potential because of the
permit fee? Can you say that categorically?
Mr Cariou:
I could unequivocally say there is no question in my mind
business is down. Some of our members have closed as a result of
a loss of business and it is largely due to the fact that the
snow conditions over the past years have been crappy in the
northwest on a relative scale. Yes, I definitely would say
that.
Mr
Christopherson: Good. Thank you very much.
The Chair:
Mr O'Toole?
Mr
O'Toole: Unless Mr Spina-he never puts his hand up so
I'm not sure if he wants to-
The Chair:
He's probably not as magnanimous.
Mr
O'Toole: Anyway, I appreciate your comments and I'll be
brief to allow Mr Spina to raise his hand to speak.
You mentioned that fees are
an inhibitor or barrier.
Mr Cariou:
Yes.
Mr
O'Toole: I like to simplify it down into "Reducing taxes
creates jobs."
Mr Cariou:
Yes.
Mr
O'Toole: That's kind of our whole theory, so I think
that message has been heard. That's one of our main planks, I
suppose.
I want to ask one
off-the-wall, totally: when you get a user-pay system, do you
think it will impact the volunteer interest in participating for
free? Meaning the trail groomers, trail wardens. Do you not think
in a year's time they'll be expecting at least some stipend for
their work since they're paying 150 bucks or whatever?
Mr Cariou:
That would speculation on my part, but that could be a
possibility.
Mr
O'Toole: Yes. Thank you.
The Chair:
Very briefly, Mr Spina.
Mr Spina:
Gerry, good to see you. Thanks for coming forward.
Just a question on the
tourism issue: is it probably not more accurate to say that the
adoption of the $300 non-resident resolution that the federation
put forward at their convention last September, and the rumour of
that being in place for this year, was far more prevalent than
the actual standard $120 or $150 fee as a deterrent?
Mr Cariou:
That didn't make the OFSC any friends, I'll tell you that.
Mr Spina:
I'm asking you, though, Gerry, if the rumour of that was probably
more of a deterrent to coming to Ontario than the fee itself.
Mr Cariou:
I think, Joe, that it has been consistent. Three to four years
ago, I was with the local tourism marketing agency in 1995 and
1996. At that time it was also an issue. I don't really know if I
can answer that question. I think that had something to do with
it, but I know permit fees are too high. This is what I'm hearing
from people when I'm trying to get them to come to this area.
Something we should be able to do down there, if these people are
contributing through expenditures, perhaps some of the tax
revenues that are going to be gained through that anyway, even
though taxes may be lower than they have been, could be used to
offset. We have a
conundrum. We need a good product to get the people here, but are
we putting a price point in from them that is a barrier that we
cannot overcome?
Mr Spina:
Would a one- or three- or five-day permit help that?
Mr Cariou:
Those are required. I do believe there needs to be more
flexibility. In northwestern Ontario, people want to come in for
the day from Manitoba, perhaps come as far Kenora and go
back.
Reciprocity was great. I
think the local clubs may tell you there was reciprocity in this
area, I believe in 1998 and 1999. It was a locally negotiated
thing for just the Kenora Sunset Trail Riders area. That worked
very well.
I can tell you that last
year when we told people from Manitoba that did not exist, we had
to duck.
Mr Spina:
Thanks, Gerry. Good to see you again.
LAKE OF THE WOODS BUSINESS INCENTIVE CORP
The Chair:
Our next presentation will be from Lake of the Woods Business
Incentive Corp. Mr Carlson, good afternoon. Welcome to the
committee.
Mr Grant
Carlson: Good afternoon. I have two additional people
with me.
The Chair:
They're certainly welcome. If you could introduce them for the
purposes of Hansard.
Mr
Carlson: Michael Kraynyk, president of the Sunset Trail
Riders, and Christine Dodd, marketing officer with LOWBIC. We'd
like to thank you for this opportunity to present.
What we have done at Lake
of the Wood Business Incentive Corp this summer is to organize
what we called a snowmobile stakeholder committee. We brought
together people representing various groups in the area. We had
STR, Sunset Trail Riders; city of Kenora; Kenora and District
Chamber of Commerce; tourism organizations, including Sunset
Country and Tourism Kenora; police members; and members of
LOWBIC.
We formed this committee to
study ways of bringing the various stakeholders together to
address current issues relating to snowmobiling in the city of
Kenora area. As well, we looked at some aspects of Bill 101 and
how they might affect snowmobiling in the city of Kenora and
surrounding areas. One thing we agreed to focus on most was the
tourism aspect and another idea we had brought together was
forming partnerships between the local snowmobile club and
various other groups, to both help bring their costs down and
increase our ability to bring tourism to Kenora.
1430
With the partnership idea,
we believe that the basis of having pristine, well-groomed trails
lies with the local snowmobile club, with the OFSC trails.
Through the committee, several areas that the STR required
assistance on behalf of the city were identified. These included
curb grading, snow removal issues, storage of groomer equipment
and various other general trail maintenance issues. The city and
the STR are now in the process of identifying those areas where
the city can help the club. They'll be doing those for no cost in
return for the volunteering that the club performs to help bring
tourism and to make the area enjoyable for local riders.
Another idea that was
discussed and will be implemented is that the STR is going to be
using city property for hosting a sno-cross event later this
year. This will bring revenues not only to the city but to the
club and local merchants. It will also increase knowledge of
Kenora as a snowmobile tourism destination.
LOWBIC itself, in
conjunction with the STR, is working on an agreement-through
Christine, we're working on that-whereby LOWBIC would help to
coordinate permit sales, do some accounting, administration
functions for the STR. The reason we believe this is necessary
and important is that it will allow the volunteers of the STR to
concentrate on trail maintenance, which is their number one
priority.
Our committee believes that
the way we have been operating co-operatively should be an
example to other clubs in other regions of the province on how to
have a co-operative approach to snowmobile issues.
The second main focus that
we had in relation to Bill 101 was the short-term trail
permits.
Just some stats I have
here: in the 1996-97 season, there were 171 one-day visitor
permits sold by the STR. In the 1997-98 season, there were 74. In
1998-99 we had 0. For the 1999-2000 season, we had 367. There are
two mitigating factors on the one-day permit sales: for the
1998-99 season, as Gerry and others had talked about, there was a
trail reciprocity agreement with Manitoba and the STR. In the
1999-2000 season, this agreement wasn't renewed. Permit sales
increased accordingly because of increased trail monitoring and
also an ad campaign taken out by the OFSC to encourage people to
buy the permits.
Even though they did
increase last year, there still were problems with the tourists
visiting the region. We have a survey attached at the end of the
package I've given you, which Christine had done last year. Just
a couple of examples of some of the camps she had spoken with:
one camp saw its revenue drop by $1,000-plus a week over the
1998-99 season. Another had seen a loss, at the time of the
survey, in the range of $3,000 to $4,000 over the winter before.
The operators did state that this was a direct result of the lost
reciprocity agreement with Manitoba and the cost of the
short-term trail permits. As Gerry has told you before, this has
resulted in some tourist operators announcing they'll no longer
remain open in the winter.
Another number, supplied by
Tourism Kenora, showed a drop in snowmobile tourism inquiries
from Manitoba for the 1999-2000 season over the 1998-99 season,
when there was reciprocity-just for January and February. These
were packages that were sent out to people on snowmobiling. It
went from 22 packages sent out in 1998-99 down to seven for
1999-2000.
The committee, with a lot
of discussion that we carried out over several weeks, had some
recommendations for this committee just for the setting of
short-term prices. First, we believe that the setting of prices
should remain with the OFSC. We believe the user-pay system is an
ineffective way to deal with the cost of maintaining the OFSC
trails. We believe the government should recommend that the
day-permit price be set at $25 for a weekend or three-day pass,
subsequent days costing $10.
We also would recommend
that permit prices be set for longer intervals than just yearly,
as they're done now. It leads to a lot of confusion among tourist
operators. People are trying to market, "How much is it going to
be this year?" People are calling; they don't know. Reciprocity
agreements should only be considered if the snowmobile clubs are
compensated for the loss in permit revenue. We believe this is a
government issue as visiting snowmobile tourists inject an
estimated $1 billion into Ontario's economy in the winter, as
well as the taxes paid by tourists on gas, supplies and other
necessities.
Trails still require
maintenance with reciprocity in effect. STR has estimated in the
past that they stand to lose up to $7,500 in income each winter
with reciprocity. With the lower permit prices on the other side
of our border with Manitoba, STR is in a somewhat unique
situation compared to other Ontario clubs.
One other recommendation we
have if Bill 101 does pass is that the OFSC would lower seasonal
permit passes. We believe that with the increased volume that
would result, hopefully they could manage to do what they're
doing now and bring a little bit of a lower cost to the people
who use it.
Tourism issues: as
previously stated, in Manitoba it's $20 for a four-day pass; in
Minnesota it's $16.
I can speak on a few
questions that the committee had about funding. Minnesota
gasoline tax revenues are used for funding the trails. They do
not have a mandatory permit for the local clubs. It's just a
user-pay if they want to pay the local clubs, otherwise they just
pay the state permit price.
In Manitoba there is no
funding out of general revenues.
In North Dakota, once again
it's not mandatory for permits. If you've been down there in the
last two years, there's nowhere to drive anyway.
A couple of other examples
with tourism last year, just to reiterate: one hotel alone last
year lost approximately 20 room rentals when the people from out
of province heard about what it would cost them for the trail
permits here. In the Kenora region, snowmobile tourism is an
increasingly required business during the otherwise slow winter
months. It is hoped that by having an excellent trail system with
short-term permit prices in line with our neighbours to the west
and south, the region will enjoy increased winter tourism. If
these tourist camps all close up in the winter, if gas stations
etc aren't having longer winter hours, what's going to happen is
we're just going to lose the tourists anyway because there'll be
nothing for them to come here to do. The trail system aside, they
need the amenities.
Some ideas we had on
government funding: we believe the government needs to continue
to invest capital in the trail network of Ontario. Prior funding
is having a positive effect on the trail system. At the same
time, the committee felt that trail funding given by the province
should be earmarked directly toward local clubs as operational
dollars to cover expenses. For example, the STR spent $30,505 in
trail operating expenses for the 1998-99 season.
Current 50-cent-dollar
funding means that the local clubs have to work very hard to
match the funds. It forces them to spend their valuable time on
fundraising and permit sales instead of being out maintaining
trails. It causes strain on the volunteers and takes them away
from their priority of building and maintaining trails.
Another point was that new
sources of funding could be explored. An example would be, as I
talked about, in Minnesota the gasoline tax monies, or directing
a portion of monies raised by the government through taxes paid
by snowmobilers directly toward funding snowmobile trail
development. In 1998 a study indicated that the government
received $63 million in tax revenue. At the same time they had
invested $14 million through the Sno-TRAC program.
Another thing we talked
about was with trail users. Again I'll defer to many of the
comments that people before me have given. This wasn't our
primary mandate that we looked at, but the committee believes
that all recreational users should contribute to the maintenance
of OFSC trails if they're using them.
1440
However, we believe that
groups such as trappers, commercial fishermen, prospectors, work
crews and others who use the trails in the course of their work
should be exempted, as they traditionally have been. Our idea
there is that to eliminate confusion a special permit could be
issued by the MNR when licences or crown land work permits are
issued that would identify the snowmobile as being used for
non-recreational use only. Then through the normal system that
will be up and running with Bill 101, if they are found being
used recreationally, the standard fines or permit fees or
whatever would apply. We believe this would be an easily
administered and enforced system.
Just one comment on
enforcement. The committee believes that recognized law
enforcement officers should carry out enforcement of Bill 101.
These officers are paid. They are mandated by the province to
deal with non-compliance with the sections that are covered, such
as the Motorized Snow Vehicles Act, the Highway Traffic Act and
the Trespass to Property Act. In a lot of cases, police officers
are looked upon as being more impartial and neutral than members
of a club or organization might be.
In conclusion, we'd like to
thank you for giving us this opportunity to present. We have the
two attachments there: the interviews that were given with the
four lodges last year and also one page at the end on where the
snowmobile inquiries, which the printed material was sent to,
originated from for the last few years.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
We appreciate the degree of detail in your presentation. The
appendices I'm sure will be of value to all the members.
That gives us about four
minutes, and this time I'm going to make the executive decision
to give all the time to Mr Christopherson. We'll do it in
rotation any time we have four minutes or less in any
presentation.
Mr
Christopherson: Thank you for your presentation. What
struck me, by the time you got to the end of your presentation,
was that there seems to be a very high degree of consensus and
agreement about what should happen. The only one who seems to be
out of step is the government, because virtually all the
presentations are hitting on the same notes, with very minor
variations. I would hope that if that continues through the rest
of the day in the hearings, the government takes note of that.
It's unusual to have so many different perspectives on any given
subject have so much agreement on things that are good and things
that need to be changed about the proposed bill.
There are at least two
issues I'd like to pursue. I believe you said rather definitively
that Manitoba does not provide any funds out of general revenue;
it's just what comes from the permits. Is that correct?
Mr
Carlson: That's what I have been led to believe. I have
talked to them.
Mr
Christopherson: Have you been on the trails personally
in Manitoba?
Mr
Carlson: Somewhat.
Mr
Christopherson: How do they compare, in your
opinion?
Mr
Carlson: Some regions I would say are below what we
have; some regions are very comparable. It depends where you go
and the club that is there. For example, from here to Falcon
Lake, once you get into Manitoba, you do notice that the trails
aren't as wide as here. I only had an opportunity to go there
once last year. On a couple of corners it was a little dangerous,
so I like how we have the wider trails here. If you get up to an
area like Lac Du Bonnet, it's really nice and wide open. They're
on the Can-Am trail system up there. As I said, it depends, but
some areas are very comparable.
Mr
Christopherson: The reason I raise that, of course, is
that the fees are so dramatically different that something has to
give. Either they don't have the same quality of trails, or that
is sufficient money to maintain the kind of trails we want and
there's excess money being paid, I guess along the lines of the
presenter who suggested there was a bit of a tax grab here. But
this circle is not squaring out. What's your sense of where
things are?
Mr
Carlson: Having originally come from Winnipeg-I moved
here a couple of years ago-and the way that the two provinces
differ in registration and whatnot, I know that Manitoba's price
for registration of snowmobiles is higher than Ontario's. There
is a mandatory permit there. I haven't actually sat down and done
it myself, but what I have heard from having talked to people,
they say that in the end when you factor in taxes, registration,
permit prices etc, you're looking at basically almost a horse
apiece on the price. I can't say for sure that that's true, but
that's what I have been told, and in fact some people even say
it's more expensive in Manitoba. Granted, some people might think
the permit is very high in Ontario, but I would say there are
probably some circumstances that mitigate why it is higher here
compared to Manitoba; mandatory permit might be one of them.
The Chair:
Our time is up. Thank you very much, all three of you, for coming
forward today. I appreciate your taking the time to make a
presentation.
NORTHWESTERN ONTARIO SNOWMOBILE TRAILS
ASSOCIATION
The Chair:
Our next group is the Northwestern Ontario Snowmobile Trails
Association, if they could come forward, please.
Mr Brown:
Mr Chair, while they're coming up, could I just ask that our
researcher look into the various schemes in Minnesota, Manitoba,
Michigan, New York, Ohio, North Dakota-and in Quebec, no
doubt-just to see what other jurisdictions are doing? Obviously
we're going to need to be competitive here.
The Chair:
Thank you. That would be quite appropriate.
Mr
Christopherson: A comparison of the revenue and expenses
and also the quality of the trails.
Mr Brown:
She may have trouble doing that.
Mr
Christopherson: Well, you can do a comparison if you say
one is 15 feet wide and the other is only seven feet wide.
The Chair:
Might I suggest that if there is a posted standard for that,
we'll have the researcher bring the standard.
Mr
Christopherson: As much as they can get.
Mr Brown:
Just so that we have a base here.
The Chair:
An excellent suggestion. Thank you very much.
Mr Russell, I take it? Good
afternoon and welcome to the committee.
Mr Brian
Russell: Good afternoon. My name is Brian Russell. I
live in Rainy River, Ontario, the other side of the lake. I'm
here on behalf of the Northwestern Ontario Snowmobile Trails
Association, of which I am the vice-president. Rainy River is a
small town across the lake where the stated population is 1,000,
but I think that includes every dog and alley cat, so I'm from a
little town.
I'm here to speak in favour
of mandatory OFSC permits. I wish to thank this committee for
giving me the opportunity to speak, and the Harris government for
their interest in the winter wonderland sport of snowmobiling.
Not only am I from a small town, but I am also a baby boomer, so
I hope you'll bear with me.
My presentation today
revolves around four main topics or points: (1) the OFSC must
maintain full authority on permits; (2) "mandatory permits" means
mandatory and easily
enforceable; (3) exemptions for trappers and workforce people;
(4) OFSC wardens must have authority under the Motorized Snow
Vehicles Act to enforce mandatory permits.
NWOSTA is a district
association within the Ontario Federation of Snowmobile Clubs
representing district 17. There are 13 member clubs within
NWOSTA. To name them briefly, they are the Atikokan Sno-Ho Club,
the Dryden Power Toboggan Club, the Ear Falls White Knight
Riders, the Emo Borderland Snowmobile Club, the Fort Frances
Sunset Country Snowmobile Club, the Ignace Otters Snowmobile
Club, the Kenora Sunset Trail Riders, the Mine Centre/Seine River
Lost Toboggans, the Nestor Falls-Lake of the Woods Riders, the
Rainy River Wildlands Snowdusters Snowmobile Club-I meant to
mention that I am the vice-president of that one as well-the Red
Lake District Trail Masters Club, the Sioux Lookout Ojibway Power
Toboggan Club, and the Vermilion Bay Sno-Drifters snowmobile
club.
All of the 13 members are
still trail-building clubs. That of course is why it's a little
more expensive here-we're still building trails-and most are
relatively new, the notable exception being Atikokan, which is
not only our elder statesman of 33 years, but in many cases our
founding father. I know they were very instrumental in creating
the Rainy River club.
1450
NWOSTA was set up as a
buffer between OFSC and the member clubs to assist in speeding up
the endless paper trail, handling of trail permits, construction
of a regional map and to highlight important dates, deadlines
etc, essentially for the club secretaries. Of these 13 member
clubs, one, namely the Vermilion Bay Sno-Drifters, will be making
a presentation here today. The remaining 12 will be sending in
written submissions.
Did I tell you that baby
boomers are survivors? We were here before snowmobiling and lived
through the era when snowmobiling was called skidooing. Trails
were very limited, and grooming meant combing your hair. My
mother of 95 years, on the other hand, was here before the
automobile, roads, drivers' licences and registration plates.
I'll leave that with you for a moment and carry on.
NWOSTA understands that
mandatory trail permits are a consideration under Bill 101 to
promote snowmobile trail sustainability and enhance safety and
enforcement. We also understand users, such as trappers and
workforce people of whatever type, could obtain a limited-use
permit to allow unrestricted access to designated sections of
trail. "Mandatory permits," then, means that anybody cruising an
OFSC trail, whether on private or crown land, must have a valid
OFSC trail pass to help maintain said trails, much like a vehicle
needs a licence plate.
One of the points the OFSC
feels very strongly about is that the OFSC has final authority on
the design, cost, distribution etc of all trail passes. The
reasons are obvious. First, all present land use forms are signed
between the land owner and OFSC with the local club as the
custodian. Second, over the years we have relied on volunteerism
not only to build trails, maintain groomers and equipment and
groom trails, but to run a wide variety of special events to put
money into the clubs' coffers to keep things running. In our own
case in Rainy River, even mandatory trail permits would not mean
club sustainability without special events and heavy
volunteerism. NWOSTA and its member clubs feel this crucial
volunteerism would be jeopardized if the government took over
control of the trail permits. Once again, here in Rainy River,
some of the events the Wildlands Snowdusters put on to raise
money for the snowmobile club include turkey shoots-for those who
still have a valid gun licence and stuff-skeet shoots, various
types of snowmobile races, dances, garage sales, swap meets,
fishing tournaments etc. So you see, the volunteer base is
absolutely crucial.
Baby boomers have seen OFSC
and its 17 associated districts, or 281 clubs, develop 49,000
kilometres of groomed trail in Ontario, along with associated
well-recognized trail passes. Truly, this is incredible. On the
other hand, my mother has seen the ever-expanding development of
highways and roads. The biggest difference between the two is
that the snowmobile trails were largely built by
volunteerism.
For mandatory trail passes
to have an impact, they must be easy to enforce. Trained OFSC
club wardens must have the authority to enforce the revised
Motorized Snow Vehicles Act. It must be realized that the Ontario
Provincial Police already have their plates full and we can't
expect them to put much priority on OFSC trail pass
enforcement.
One of the other problems
that constantly comes up with non-trail-pass snowmobilers is that
they say they don't use the OFSC trail, but often travel beside
it for navigational purposes. When this occurs across farmers'
private land, they often kill winter wheat or the like by not
travelling on the trail. This results in irate farmers who come
down on the local club and in some cases forces yet another trail
reroute. If all trail riders had a permit or special pass, this
problem would virtually disappear.
In conclusion, I'd only
like to say that we, the member clubs of NWOSTA, see snowmobiling
as our sport and we're proud of it. We've come a long way and
would like to share our sport with local families and tourists
alike. It would appear that easily enforceable mandatory trail
passes, within reason, would not only be fair to everyone but
would certainly enhance our sport and the tourism trade that goes
along with it.
Thank you for your
time.
The Chair:
Thank you very much, Mr Russell. You've left us just over six
minutes for questioning. This time we'll start with the
government benches.
Mr Dunlop:
Thank you very much, Mr Russell. I come from southern Ontario,
the Orillia area. It's on the maps with quite a number of trails,
but a lot of our members will go north in a lot of cases. We have
quite a large membership in most of our clubs. I'm curious: in
the 13 clubs that you
mentioned are in NWOSTA, how many memberships would that
represent, just roughly?
Mr
Russell: There were a little over 3,500 last year, as
close as I can recall.
Mr Dunlop:
So in each of the 13 clubs that would be around 250, 275 members,
on average?
Mr
Russell: No, within our area the bigger clubs would be
Fort Frances, Kenora and Dryden. We have smaller clubs-like Rainy
River itself, which had 66 members last year, but you have to
remember we had three bad years of snow too. That number would
normally be roughly double that. I'm sure that's true of the
other clubs as well; their number of trail passes last year-in
the last three years, in fact, we've had some pretty poor snow
conditions and of course we've lost a lot of trail riders because
of it.
Mr Dunlop:
I guess my point is, I'm just trying to figure out, in the huge
geographic area that you cover and the population not being very
dense, how much of an impact that is on maintaining a club
properly, as compared to some of the clubs in, say, north-central
Ontario, where there would be maybe not as large a geographic
area but they would have a lot of members because of the
population itself.
Mr
Russell: Within the OFSC there is a funding formula. I
forget exactly how it goes, but it cranks out a number so that
the building clubs and the smaller clubs such as ours-there are
four factors. In fact, the vice-president of the OFSC just
happens to be here and he could answer that question very
directly. But through the funding formula, the smaller, more
remote, especially building clubs, would retain more of the trail
pass monies than the clubs that are very strongly established. Of
course, the trails are all in place and they're not expanding,
and they have a higher density of traffic on them.
1500
Mr Dunlop:
With 13 clubs and 3,500 members, I guess the other question I
should have asked is, how many kilometres of trail does that
actually include? I guess that would be part of the funding
formula as well. I know I'm not making myself very clear here,
but I'm looking at how hard it is to operate a club in the
area.
Mr
Russell: It's tough. There are a lot of miles of club
here. Rainy River itself has a little over 350 miles of TOPS
trail. For a club of 66 members, that's stretching it out.
Mr Dunlop:
That's my point. OK.
Mr
Russell: Of course, beyond that we also have local club
trails, and believe it or not, we get around them, albeit not too
many times in the last couple of years because of such a lack of
snow. In fact, a couple of times last year we just pulled our
drag right in half.
Mr Brown:
Thank you for a most interesting presentation. Just to help the
committee out, this year you were paying how much for trail
permits?
Mr
Russell: The early bird price this year, as next year,
is $120; $150 after December 1.
Mr Brown:
How much do you pay in registration for each snowmobile? Do you
pay every year?
Mr
Russell: When you buy a new sled, it's $15 for the first
year, and then up here we get the break where it doesn't cost us
anything per year after that.
Mr Brown:
I'm just trying to sort some of this out in my head. We drive our
cars for $37 a year in vehicle registration in northern Ontario;
$74 in most of the rest of the province. We've heard a lot of
testimony before you came up about the price of permits being a
deterrent to the sport and a deterrent to visitors to the area.
What is your view on pricing at the moment?
Mr
Russell: Well, there are always going to be people
saying the price is too high. I mean, the price of groceries is
too high; certainly the price of gasoline is too high. I guess,
in that same vein, you could certainly say the price of a trail
pass is too high. That's life these days, isn't it?
Mr Brown:
I guess I'm just trying to determine the price point. As you say,
to some people any price is too much, and it really doesn't
matter to others. What I'm trying to get at is, do you believe we
are at that price point where you can't increase the user fee any
more, or, if we reduce the user fee slightly, would we have more
revenues because we would have more people using the system? I'm
just wondering where that balance is, in your view.
Mr
Russell: I would say we are at the maximum right now. It
may even be too bad. We went through the $100. For some reason,
$100 seemed to be a magic number. Then we went from $100 to $120.
However, we're at $120, and that's probably as close to maximum
as we're going to get. But then again, that gets determined at
the AGM of the OFSC, which is later this fall. As you well know,
it's a democratic society, and it depends on how the vote
goes.
Mr Brown:
I well know that.
Mr
Russell: That's what we're all here about, isn't it?
Mr Brown:
David knows it better.
The Chair:
Mr Christopherson.
Mr
Christopherson: Mr Russell, I want to continue that same
line of thinking. You make the point in the closing part of your
presentation, "It would appear that easily enforceable mandatory
trail passes, within reason, would not only be fair to everyone,
but greatly enhance the sport and the tourism trade that goes
along with it." If you were here earlier-I don't know if you were
or not-and heard some of the presentations, you heard just about
everyone, but certainly quite a number of people, very
emphatically, unequivocally say that at the current rate of the
permits, tourism industry has been lost, dramatically, some would
argue. What's your sense of all that?
Mr
Russell: I don't know if I would say "dramatically."
Living right in a border town, we used to sell a lot more trail
passes, especially to Americans from Minnesota, but that's across
the river. The fact is, in Rainy River we probably have the most
easily accessed trail to Minnesota, just across the river. That
trail is always in place, at the latest, in mid-December, and
it's groomed. We groom the river all the way out to Oak Island.
The unfortunate thing is that as the prices go higher, a lot of
these people will just go down the river and they can ride beside the trail, or at
least so they say, and there's nothing wrong with that, and they
just don't buy a trail pass. There's not much we can do about it,
because if you ever try to catch them, they're definitely not
going to be on the trail.
But we still have a few
Americans coming over. We're at the point where there are going
to be more and more simply because they're tired of their trails.
They've been there, done that and are looking for something new.
More than anything it's probably going to take a couple of good
years of snow, and I would truly expect to see them back.
Mr
Christopherson: What percentage of usage on your local
trails do you think is US tourists?
Mr
Russell: On our actual trails?
Mr
Christopherson: Yes.
Mr
Russell: Other than the one out to Oak Island, very
little. Other than that, I'm sure it would be less than 10%.
Mr
Christopherson: And if you included-sorry, which one was
it? Oak-
Mr
Russell: Out to Oak Island.
Mr
Christopherson: That's halfway between Kenora and Rainy
River here, across the lake, out on Lake of the Woods.
Mr
Russell: No. Up and down the river to Oak Island, that's
very heavily used, not only by the Minnesotans and the
Manitobans. They also come in by the Can-Am trail through the
northwest angle to Oak Island. So there's a lot of traffic.
Mr
Christopherson: Do you think any kind of reciprocity
agreement can work? I know it has been proposed and pushed by
some presenters, and I believe at least one said it really wasn't
very practical. Can you just give us your sense of that?
Mr
Russell: It would be tough to do, I would think.
Certainly a licence plate on your car is a reciprocity agreement,
right? You drive your plate from province to province or through
the States or whatever. But in the case of a snowmobile trail,
and in this case a private snowmobile trail owned by the OFSC,
the more riders you've got on it, the more grooming you've got to
do, and the more grooming you've got to do, you've got to have
income from somewhere. If there were reciprocity, where would the
income come from for all this extra grooming, assuming it did
bring an influx of people, which I'm sure there would be, if we
had full reciprocity. There would be an influx then, guaranteed.
You can be darn sure that everyone from Minneapolis and Manitoba
would be just flocking here to ride the trails.
Mr
Christopherson: Thank you, sir.
The Chair:
Thank you, Mr Russell. I appreciate very much your presentation
and your answers to the questions from various committee
members.
Our next presentation is
from Mr Jeff Ferguson, if he is here. No response to that. The
clerk has not found him, so we'll move on to Mr Rod Bergman. Is
Mr Bergman in attendance? Well, that's one way to make up the
time we've gone over in presentations.
1510
VERMILION BAY SNO-DRIFTERS
The Chair:
The next presentation will be from the Vermilion Bay
Sno-Drifters, a group mentioned in Mr Russell's presentation.
Good afternoon. I take it you're Mr Bethune.
Mr Jim
Bethune: I would be Mr Bethune.
The Chair:
Welcome to the committee.
Mr
Bethune: I can partly answer a question that was
directed to Brian regarding the price of our permits. When the
highway washes out, MTO will go out and fix the highway. When our
trails wash out, they're washed out. It's up to volunteers like
ourselves to find the money to replace culverts, bridges,
whatever. I thought that was an important feature to that
question. We're just out in the woods with a washout, and
dependent on people finding washouts in the first place.
Anyway, good afternoon. My
name is Jim Bethune and I am representing the Vermilion Bay
Sno-Drifters snowmobile club as their president. I thank you for
allowing an individual from the club level to supply some input.
I am here today speaking in favour of mandatory OFSC permits, and
I thank the government for expressing an interest in supporting
organized snowmobiling in this manner.
Vermilion Bay is a
community of just over 1,000 people located approximately an hour
east of Kenora. It is also the first location on the way to
Dryden. The Sno-Drifters club is a small one, having sold 111
permits last season.
For three decades,
snowmobile trails have gradually become linked and made more
elaborate by the 281 OFSC member clubs who voluntarily, year
after year, trim the trails for the next winter season. These
individuals are left with a feeling of accomplishment at the end
of the day, and that in itself is a recreational outing. These
people also use and abuse their own sleds, chainsaws and
equipment, all for the benefit and enjoyment of the permit
holder. This gives people the opportunity to appreciate the
winter season, whether it be to a nearby lake to enjoy an
afternoon of ice fishing or just a scoot to do some sightseeing
and exploring.
A buddy of mine has a cabin
just west of here, and back in the early 1980s he would invite me
out for a weekend now and then. We would set out with some
general maps to get an idea of where we were, so as not to get
lost. After a few hours of riding, he would ask me if I knew
which way to go to get home, and inevitably I was wrong. It was a
lot of fun, and was the foundation of where snowmobiling got some
of its roots-or routes. Now, the main trail to Manitoba
coincidentally passes through this area on the very paths we
travelled on 20 years ago.
Nowadays, the volunteers do
such a fantastic job of signing these trails and staking the
lakes that it's virtually impossible to get lost. Last winter, my
wife and I rode from our doorstep to the Quebec border without
having to take any
detours due to lack of connections. In fact, one of the most
tremendous feats is that in Thunder Bay, at one of the busiest
intersections, there is a road crossing where, when a snowmobiler
pushes the button, all traffic comes to a stop and allows them to
cross the street and continue on the trail. A snowmobiler can
literally go to Canadian Tire, do their grocery shopping at
Safeway or even go to a convention at the Landmark Inn, all at
that intersection. Had it not been for the co-operation of
private landowners, a sled would not even get there from here
without being trailered from Kakabeka Falls, approximately 20
miles west of Thunder Bay. Over the course of time, through
friendships and acquaintances, private land-use permission was
granted to clubs, and to this day this effective harmony allows
for safe passage from one territory to another.
If you think that is
special, check out the Timmins area. Who needs a car when you can
get just about anywhere in the Timmins area on your sled?
As you can tell, the local
network of trails continues to be a valuable community resource,
providing economic benefits to our region but, even more, a
recreational, social and healthy outlet to the great outdoors.
Our club apparently was the first in this area to hold a poker
derby. I understand that was quite a major event, with people
coming from miles around to participate. Most clubs now run a
poker derby in an effort to subsidize providing safe, smooth
trails for their permit holders.
We have been informed that
our club provided some of the best trails in the area last
season, and I think we can boast the greatest percentage increase
in permit sales for the entire province. The Sno-Drifters' first
annual permit sales blitz in October of last year, which offered
prizes, was an overwhelming success. The local members have been
telling us that they are truly looking forward to this year's
event.
The Vermilion Bay
Sno-Drifters got its beginnings riding on so-called turkey
trails, but in recent years the club went on a mission connecting
us not only with Kenora but also with Ear Falls, nearly 100
kilometres to the north. The route to Dryden is currently on ice,
but a land trail is in the works, which again will likely involve
the co-operation of private landowners.
I brought with me a picture
I'd like to show, a little bit of the history of the club. In
1996, the Sno-Drifters did a lot of opening up of trails. I don't
know if people can see what I have here. I'll just bring it
around.
Mr
Christopherson: I can pass it around if you like while
you're talking.
Mr
Bethune: Fine. Thank you.
The Sno-Drifters were
extremely proud of their effort in developing trails. That was
actually hanging in one of the company offices. I picked it up
this morning to bring it along.
As with any club, ours is
still evolving. Some of the pioneers who got the ball rolling
doing most of the back-breaking labour are now putting their feet
up and allowing new blood to step up to the plate. This allows
for renewed enthusiasm and ideas, of which I am presently a large
part. One of our new directors is a bush pilot, which is
extremely advantageous, as he can fly over our trails inspecting
for flood damage, some of which we will have to address again
this fall before the snow flies. Another of our directors
formerly worked with the Ministry of Natural Resources, and this
is extremely helpful when it comes to applying for work permits.
As you can see, we are a well-diversified group which maintains
more than 200 kilometres of trails.
Of the 281 community-based
snowmobile clubs in Ontario, 13 are in our district; namely, the
Northwestern Ontario Snowmobile Trails Association, or NWOSTA.
Because of our clubs' unity, we are a strong league and have
developed varying degrees of friendships with one another. This
bond is getting stronger all the time, and we truly believe in
one another and the direction we want to go. Morale is good.
Coincidentally, my wife, Shirley, is the dedicated volunteer
secretary for NWOSTA. Our district has an elected volunteer
governor who represents our area at OFSC meetings, which are held
several times throughout the year to share ideas on the needs of
the various districts.
On June 25, 1999, the
Vermilion Bay area received 104 millimetres of rain, creating
major washouts of highways and also, of course, our snowmobile
trails. Our trail north toward Ear Falls sustained more than
$40,000 of damage. How could a small club of 111 permit holders
possibly deal with such an expense?
Five water crossings
required extensive work. Four of the crossings were completed
with our volunteers working with Abitibi-Consolidated and O.J.
Pipelines. The club's monetary contribution was largely supplied
by the OFSC.
One of the water crossings
was a bridge that was donated to our club by the Dryden Power
Toboggan Club. The bridge was essentially a pulp trailer. The
Dryden club provided pressure-treated lumber to prepare a wood
deck and several volunteers to do the decking, all of whom
brought their own tools and supplies, including generators,
compressors, impact wrenches and so on. This is a clear example
of the unity, co-operation and friendships established between
volunteers in this district.
One of the water crossings
was a group of large timbers which were cabled together. The
water rose so high that the bridge floated downstream about 100
feet. The Ministry of Natural Resources informed us it would take
at least a year of working with the federal Department of
Fisheries and Oceans to get a new water crossing at that
location. We needed a way north a lot sooner than that, so we
looked at another alternative. We spoke to the local foreman of
the CNR regarding the possible development of our own railway
crossing. This crossing would avoid the water crossing
altogether. The foreman supplied us with some direction, but told
us not to hold our breath. Having no alternative, we pursued this
venture. After three months of negotiating with CNR and Transport
Canada, we got the go-ahead. We were informed that we were
pioneers, as this was the first CNR crossing in Canada specific
to snowmobiles only.
1520
What could possibly be a
better way than this for keeping the trails open and operating?
Who better than the OFSC knows and understands where we have been
and where we are going? Who better than the OFSC knows where
permit revenues should be allocated each year? The OFSC and
member clubs must continue to play the lead role in controlling
our own destiny. The OFSC is extremely well structured, and it is
obvious that they should be the ones to determine the allocation
of permit revenues.
My wife is the
secretary-treasurer of our club, and she really knows how to make
those dollars work. She is not the least bit intimidated by
paperwork and has learned about every possible trail improvement
fund available through the OFSC.
One of our local businesses
who sells gas and meals indicated that he has never seen so many
transients on snowmobiles. I believe that our trails are on the
verge of being invaded by cross-border traffic, and I'm not
certain that this is why our volunteers are involved.
The OFSC is doing a
phenomenal job of governing snowmobiling in Ontario. All we need
is the power to enforce permits on our trails, no matter where
they are in this province. Nobody likes to pay for things if they
don't have to, but all of the much-needed infrastructure cannot
tolerate freeloaders.
It is very important to
note that we must accommodate traditional users. In fact, in many
cases, trappers, cottagers, ice fishermen and other outdoor
enthusiasts are the ones who established the trails in the first
place. Provided these individuals are riding in their primary
area, they should be exempt from having to purchase a permit
while riding OFSC trails. Because the clubs care about the OFSC
trails, the police, conservation officers, STOP officers and
volunteer trail wardens all must have the authority to patrol and
enforce the mandatory permits.
By making the permits
mandatory in Ontario, it would make snowmobiling become more
official and it would be a professional step a positive
direction.
Thank you very kindly for
your expressed interest in hearing our sincere views regarding
the betterment of our recreation.
The Chair:
Thank you very much. You've left about four minutes this time.
The last time I gave that to one group; it was Mr Christopherson.
This time it will be to the government. Mr O'Toole? Mr Spina?
Mr
O'Toole: Thank you very much for a very positive
presentation. It's good to hear that. I commend the tone of
co-operation and trying to move forward in a positive way. You're
right: you'll never get unanimous agreement on anything, even in
a democracy.
You mentioned, and I just
took a little note of your statement here, "I'm not certain that
this is why our volunteers are involved." This is the
cross-border issue. That has come up in the fees and other areas.
Of course, the overarching theme here is tourism has a ripple
effect in the economy. How do you think they should handle the
fee for visitors or tourism, whether it's in the States or
Manitoba? Because that rate will determine a lot of the outcomes.
If it's too high, you'll get none and everybody else suffers; if
it's too low, you'll get too many and you'll have too much work,
too many washouts, whatever. What's your sense of how to manage
that?
Mr
Bethune: It's a very, very difficult subject of price
and infrastructure. Like you say, the better it is the more they
will come. The best example of that is: my wife and I did ride
out to the Quebec border. In the Timmins area, we noticed how
extremely overrun the trails are. They're probably the best
trails that we have witnessed in this province, but at the same
point, there's a lot of traffic, and it's probably nothing
compared to the northern states and stuff like that. We're
relatively new at this. We only moved here four years ago from
Manitoba. We were Winnipegers, stubble-jumpers, as many would
call us.
Mr
O'Toole: The fee mentioned before was sort of a weekend
or a family pass. Do you think that would encourage it? Is that
the right thing to do? Your volunteers will be working harder via
that regulation.
Mr
Bethune: I think, largely, the reason I did mention the
fact that the volunteers weren't necessarily involved to develop
tourism was that most of the clubs started just so we could get
to your lake or, like you say, ice fishing and stuff like that. A
lot of the people are trying to develop it for their own
community, in some of the more central locations. As far as fees
go, it is a very, very tough point.
Mr
O'Toole: I'll just mention one more thing. Just from the
energy that you exhibit here and the pictures etc, all the
volunteerism, do you think by having inordinately high fees some
of the people doing the volunteer work would perhaps expect, but
not in a selfish way, to be paid, the volunteer STOP people etc.
Do you think if they see lots of people and lots of revenue that
they're going to start saying-that may have a detrimental effect
on the casual, the recreational snowmobiler. That would be my
concern. That's the most important issue here, the fee itself and
the whole exemption regulation, in my view.
Mr
Bethune: I definitely agree. The volunteers, like
ourselves, also buy a permit, so I think you're right. It gets to
a point where, why would I pay $120 for a permit and then be
expected to go out slashing trails and maybe even, like I say,
even using our own equipment? I know we have a lot of people at
our own district meetings, and unfortunately permit price does
come up as an issue.
We also have the
vice-president for OFSC, and he is very well-versed in
emphasizing the fact that we have so much infrastructure that
hasn't got a hope of getting any attention without the dollars.
If we needed a bridge to go across a rapidly running river, it
wouldn't happen if the permit were only $40 for each member. We
could double the permit price and still not get all the
infrastructure in place over a short term.
Mr
O'Toole: Just quickly, how much does your club get to
retain of the $120 or $150 fee?
Mr
Bethune: I believe it's 80% of the money.
The Chair:
Thank you very much for taking the time to make your presentation
on behalf of your club.
Our next presentation would be by the Lake
Superior-English River Bait Association. Is there a
representative from the group here? Seeing no takers, is Mr Ian
Clark here?
KENORA TRAPPERS COUNCIL
The Chair:
I know the group after that is definitely here: the Kenora
Trappers Council. I see we have four representatives listed. If
one or more would care to come forward, we are eager to hear what
you have to say.
Good afternoon, gentlemen.
Welcome to the committee. We've got 20 minutes for your
presentation. Perhaps you could introduce yourselves for the
purpose of Hansard.
Mr Clarke
Anderson: I'm Clarke Anderson, president of the trappers
council.
Mr Ken
Maw: I'm Ken Maw, vice-president.
Mr
Anderson: The reason for our presentation is that the
trappers have a lot of concern with Bill 101, mainly because
we've always had a good relationship with the local snowmobile
club. But a lot of trappers are apprehensive that now they're
going to have to pay the permit fee.
I'll read my brief here. As
well as the brief, we have a copy of the letter we wrote to Mr
Joe Spina and also a page from our minutes from November 1995,
when the president of the snowmobile club came to our meeting
when we were negotiating how we were going to deal with the
snowmobile trails on our traplines.
In this area, most trappers
have been co-operating with the local snowmobile club. However,
because they feel Bill 101 will end their right to continue to
travel their trapline trails without a permit, their mood is
changing and trappers are starting to resent the establishment of
groomed trails on their traplines.
1530
It is the opinion of the
directors of the Kenora Trappers Council that this good
relationship should continue. Snowmobile clubs have enough
challenges without the trapping councils opposing the operation
of their current trail system and any proposals to expand their
systems. We want to co-operate and not be confrontational, so I'd
like to explain our position.
As it is, substantial
portions of the trail system in this area are located on
traditional trapping trails, winter roads that trappers were
using and historical portages between lakes. Often, parts of
these trails are cleaned out and in use by trappers with their
quads or their snow machines several months before the groomers
are able to treat the trails. That's been especially the last few
years where our winter snow has been scanty and the ice has been
bad for much of the winter.
During negotiations to
establish these trails, we were assured by the president of our
local snowmobile club, at that time Don Cameron, at a meeting on
November 25, 1996, that the trappers would not be expected to
have trail permits while using groomed trails on their traplines
or while travelling to and from their traplines with
snowmobiles.
Parts of the trail system
in this area follow portages between lakes, which is the only
feasible route from one lake to another. We have been told that
it is not really possible to charge people to cross a portage.
This evidently is something in the Public Lands Act. It is the
feeling of some trappers in our organization that if they are
forced to pay a full permit fee, they should be seeking payment
from snowmobile clubs for the time and effort that they're
putting into establishing these trail systems.
Our brief is really quite
short. In conclusion, the Kenora Trappers Council, which
represents a large portion of the active trappers in the area,
doesn't support any arbitrary imposition of trail fees on
trappers who are working their trapping grounds or travelling to
and from their trapping area.
Thank you. If you have any
questions we'd be happy to try to answer them for you.
The Chair:
I am sure my colleagues will. You've certainly left us lots of
time for questions. I'm going to give a couple extra minutes to
the Liberals, because they haven't had an all-in-one shot so far.
But we've got about four minutes for the others and six minutes
for you, Mr Brown.
Mr Brown:
Obviously, we've heard this afternoon from other groups
representing trappers, making the same point that you do. It's a
point that I seem to see a large consensus around the table
on.
One of the things I want to
question you on is, how do you think that could work? There was a
suggestion that a large geographic area surrounding a trapline
could be defined and there could be a sticker put on the machine
to indicate that it was a trapper's machine. But if the trapper,
for example, wanted to go to Quebec, as the gentleman before you
did, he would have to pay the trail permit. Would a system like
that, arrived at locally with the local snowmobile club, seem to
be appropriate to you for an exemption?
Mr
Anderson: I think it would be. Most of the trappers I've
spoken to are worried about just trapping on their own traplines,
but if they're going to go fishing out of Clearwater Bay or
somewhere else, I don't think they have a problem with buying a
permit.
Mr Brown:
I suspect that many of your members happen to be members of the
local snowmobile club in any event. Would that be so?
Mr
Anderson: I'm not. I have no snowmobile trails on my
trapline, but I think a lot of them are.
Mr Maw:
Yes, a lot of them are.
Mr Brown:
That they would use recreationally anyway. You're really the
first, but one of the things that has been running through my
mind for a while is the question of quads or ATVs that also would
be using snowmobile trails in the off-season. Would your members
use that with their ATVs now quite extensively?
Mr
Anderson: In the early part of the season they do,
before the snow gets too deep. A lot of times they are using it
on their traditional trapping trail and they're cutting out windfalls and
maybe trapping the beavers and draining beaver dams that are
obstructing the trails.
Mr Brown:
Just so I get that in my head, in this part of the world you
would start using the quads, going out to get ready in
October?
Mr
Anderson: Yes, early October.
Mr Brown:
I'm from the south; I'm from the Chapleau area.
Mr
Anderson: Not as south as some.
Mr Brown:
Manitouwadge, you know. I'm just trying to get a sense.
One of the things I think
the government needs to be considering when they're talking about
all of this is the issue of ATVs on those very trails. I'm sure
the parliamentary assistant knows, but that's a piece of the
puzzle that is about to become more complicated and probably
fairly significant.
I don't have any more
questions specifically for you but I really appreciate your
coming out and speaking to us today. It's people like you who
make our job a little bit easier when you come out and make your
point very clearly to us.
Mr
Anderson: We appreciate the chance to have our
input.
Mr
Christopherson: Thank you, gentlemen, for your
presentation. Could I just briefly turn your attention to the
copy of the letter that you sent to Mr Spina dated June 8 of this
year, three paragraphs down, middle of the paragraph: "The trails
up here are predominately on crown land, which is supposed to be
for the use of all citizens." There's been some reference to
that. We don't have the issue of crown land and its use come up
as often in southern Ontario. Just to give me a broader sense of
things, can you expand on that? I don't think we've quite done
that this afternoon. It has come up in a lot of presentations. So
maybe just right from scratch in terms of the crown lands, how
the trails have developed there, whether there has been any
enforcement along the way, and why you see that as different from
public lands. Then maybe you could give your thoughts on how one
would go about enforcing someone who is exempt because they claim
they only go on crown lands versus someone who maybe says that
but actually is using it intermittently. How would the
enforcement work? Just a quick lesson on all of that would be
very helpful, certainly for me.
Mr Maw:
Ninety percent of the land up here is crown land, and of course
our traplines are on totally crown land, or almost totally. There
are some mining claims and the odd chunk of private land that's
within the trapline.
Mr
Christopherson: May I ask a question? I'm sorry to
interject, but I want stay with you. Obviously, there's a permit
that you have to get. Is it the federal government that issues
that permit to use the crown land?
Mr Maw:
No. What we do is buy a trapping licence, and that gives us an
authority to trap fur-bearers on a designated piece of land.
They're called registered traplines. They are registered by the
MNR, the Ontario government, and you're assigned to that
particular area to trap. Most of it's crown land. Up in this part
of the country it's pretty well all crown land. In southern
Ontario, where you're talking about, there is quite a bit of
private land within the boundaries of the traplines.
I'm not sure where you want
me to go from there.
Mr
Christopherson: You make the statement that it's
predominantly crown land, which is supposed to be for the use of
all citizens. Obviously I would take from that that you're
arguing therefore that it ought to be exempt from any kind of
permit if you have even recreational use. With trappers we've
talked about a total exemption of some sort or some variation of
that because of the work they do. Here I'm gathering, though, if
we're talking recreational use, your suggestion is that if they
are only using that part of the trail that's on crown land,
people ought not to be charged for that part of the trail because
that's all they use. Or am I misinterpreting?
Mr Maw: I
guess what we're dealing with there is that we're concerned about
how the public land can be turned over to the snowmobile club
since public land is meant for everybody. That's the third
paragraph you're referring to?
Mr
Christopherson: Yes.
Mr Maw:
The main thing here is that there was one comment-it was in the
local paper-where Ontario citizens were called outlaws for using
the trails.
Mr
Christopherson: Who would say that?
Interjections.
Mr
Christopherson: I just want to be accurate, that's
all.
Mr Maw:
We, as trappers, took offence to that-
Mr
Christopherson: I'm not surprised.
Mr Maw:
-because we're using the crown land. The trails on a lot of the
traplines in this part of the country were trappers' trails. The
club came to the trappers and said, "Do you mind if we use them?"
They had no objections to them using them, and all of a sudden
we're told we had to buy permits to use our own trails, and
they're automatically the snowmobile club's trails even though
the trappers used them for eons. A lot of trappers took offence
to that, and understandably so. In fact, it was 1993 when the
club went to some of the trappers and asked permission to use the
trails. Here's the letter from one of the trappers, saying they
had no problem with it, and they were advised that they would
never have to pay a fee on these trails. Then all of a sudden
they're groomed, and the next thing is we're paying for a permit
to use our own trails. We're already paying royalties for our
fur, we're paying for a licence to trap there and we're also
paying tax on our gas to get there and use them. So the trappers
were getting a little concerned.
1540
Mr Spina:
Clarke and Ken, thanks for coming and thanks for your letter,
Clarke. I respect your opinion. David was being diplomatic enough
not to bring my name forward as the person who used the word
"outlaws." I respect your opinion on that.
You had two recommendations
in your letter to me and to us in general, one that "trapping be
included in multiple uses of trails, with trapper participation
in the establishment
and maintenance of the trail system being recognized." I think
that's a valid recommendation. I certainly respect your opinion,
where you said to David just a few moments ago that the trappers
had a trail, the snowmobile club asked for permission to use the
trail, said you would not have to pay a permit fee for it, but if
it's an OFSC-sanctioned trail through the local club, then of
course it demands a permit fee, but the OFSC currently provides
exemptions through the local clubs. I don't think we see anything
changing, other than that the exemption would frankly make it
even safer for you, because it would be laid out not just in the
classes of regulations and legislation but also in the
regulations themselves, so that it would be clearly identified.
That would protect you within the written word, if you will,
rather than just a handshake agreement. We certainly respect that
comment. We've taken it into account.
The other, "We recommend
that trappers should neither be denied access nor forced to pay a
fee for the use of the trails on crown land," I think ties
together with that. The issue of public access to crown land
really alludes more to the comment Mr Christopherson made. MNR
has had to play a very prominent role in the discussions around
the formulation of the legislation as it's been presented now and
also in the discussions of the regulations surrounding it, for
the very specific reason that under the crown lands act it is and
must be accessible to all citizens of the province.
Where it starts to deter
from that, or where it changes from that general policy or
becomes very specific, is that whenever anyone-and it's not just
snowmobile clubs-uses crown land for a specific purpose, they get
a land use permit, as you are aware, and that LUP allows them to
use that land. Now, it can't be exclusive to those users, but
there are points where the LUP is issued that it is enforceable
currently under the trespass act. Certainly MNR can enforce it
where the area designated under the LUP is not being used in the
way it describes.
It's those kinds of things
that we're arguing with. If you have any comments on that, we'd
certainly welcome them.
Mr
Anderson: Are you suggesting that the trails might be
under an LUP to use them?
Mr Spina:
Currently, whenever they are on crown land, the snowmobile clubs
apply to MNR for LUPs for where the trail system goes.
Mr
Anderson: I don't think you can get an LUP on a portage,
though.
Mr Spina:
No, and it's not 100% of the trail system. They have to pick
certain areas of the trail that they can accurately describe to
put into the LUP, and that's where it is the most enforceable, I
suppose, for lack of a better way to describe it. It's these
kinds of issues we are trying to work through with MNR. MNR is
clearly at the table in ensuring that public policy is protected
and, at the same time, people have the access to multiple uses of
the system.
Mr
Anderson: I can understand the need for money for the
snowmobile clubs. But around here, the portage is really the only
feasible route from one lake to another. You may have high, rocky
hills on this side and a cliff on the other side and-
Mr Spina:
That's the only access from one lake to the other.
Mr
Anderson: -you've only got one access. So if someone who
isn't a trapper or isn't interested in riding on the trail wants
to come, he pretty well has to go on the groomed trail to get to
the other lake.
Mr Spina:
Yes. You're thinking of a recreational user.
Mr
Anderson: Yes, or traveller, miner, whatever he's out
there for.
Mr Spina:
OK. Thank you.
The Chair:
Thank you, gentlemen, for coming forward this afternoon. We
appreciate your presentation here today.
Mr
Anderson: Thank you for coming to Kenora.
The Chair:
Oh, it's our pleasure. It's probably the sixth or seventh time
this committee has come up in the last five years.
IAN CLARK
The Chair:
I believe our 3:50 presenter, Ian Clark, is now here. Good
afternoon, sir. We are actually ahead of ourselves. You aren't
late; we're early.
Mr Ian
Clark: That's a change for the government.
The Chair:
Indeed. You're certainly welcome to the committee. We have 10
minutes for your presentation.
Mr Clark:
OK. I just got there, so I didn't hear all the things. I myself
am in a situation where I live at Blindfold Lake, which is about
15 miles southeast of here. To get to Lake of the Woods I have to
cross the snow machine club's trail, but the portage that goes
from Blindfold Lake to Route Bay, for example, has been there
from logging since before the war. I'm under the impression that
I'm going to have to spend $150 to join the snow machine club,
whether I want to or not, to go out ice fishing maybe five or six
times a year. It'll be $150 for the club, roughly $150 for
insurance-300 bucks. Simple math: six times $50 for each ice
fishing trip. I'm not going to be registering the snow machine
any more, and I know there are a lot of people who aren't going
to. If it was 50 bucks for ice fishing registration or something
like that, I wouldn't bat an eye. But I don't have time to ride
around on a $10,000 toy. In the wintertime, I plow snow most of
the weekend. If I do get a chance to go, I usually go fishing. I
just have a small machine, and I'm not out there joyriding. Are
there going to be any exemptions for this kind of situation?
The Chair:
Perhaps, since Mr Clark has posed a question, Mr Spina, if
you-relatively briefly.
Mr Spina:
In the legislation, Mr Clark, there is a clause that addresses
the opportunity to create classes of permits and also to make
some of those classes exempt. This was specifically put into the
bill to be able to address the issue of traditional use of trails
or users of traditional trails, whatever way you want to put
it.
Mr Clark: Who is going to make
the decisions whether or not they're exempt: each individual
club, the government?
Mr Spina:
That's what we're in the process of working out now. That's why
we're having these hearings, so that we hear people's concerns
and when we go back to draft those regulations, we can take into
account those people. I would suggest to you that you come pretty
damned close to our idea of an exemption of a traditional trail
user.
Mr Clark:
I've spoken to lots of guys in the snow machine club, and they
don't have a problem with us if we're out there cutting firewood,
ice fishing or whatever. So I don't see why the government should
have, or anybody else for that matter. There's a lot of crown
land up here; it's not like southern Ontario. To give control of
all this crown land to one snow machine club-you know, where is
it going to stop after that? Are we going to have to belong to
the Canadian Automobile Association to drive down the highway?
Where it is going to stop?
Mr Spina:
Heaven forbid.
1550
Mr Clark:
They must have a good lobby group to even get this bill on the
table. They must be putting a lot of pressure on the government.
But where does it stop, if these guys get their way with this
one? That's all I've got to say.
The Chair:
You asked the question, would it be the snowmobile club, the
government? Who do you think would best be in a position to
determine exemptions? Are you comfortable with the local club, or
something a bit more regional or for the whole province?
Mr Clark:
I would think it would have to be regional because every
situation is different in each thing. But there has to be a set
of guidelines, I guess, from somebody. I don't know which one
would be-like I said, we've never had any trouble with the club
here before, if we phoned them and said we're going here or
there. So it's not a problem; as long as you're not out joyriding
on their trails, they don't care.
Mr
Christopherson: Just to probably muddy the waters for
you, but as much as Mr Spina, as the parliamentary assistant, is
saying that there are clauses for regulations, so far none of us
have seen paper one. So all the questions you pose, we have the
same questions. All we have right now is the government pointing
to the law that will allow cabinet to make the decision on the
recommendation of the minister at a cabinet meeting which does
not have the public or cameras or anyone watching. So we're
slowing getting a little more participation on the part of the
committee in these regulations, but we in the NDP are certainly
pushing for an opportunity for you to see the regulations and
have comment before all of this is etched in stone. Because, as
you know, trying to change things after the fact is extremely
difficult. Just to be fair.
Mr Clark:
Will the Ministry of Transportation have on record who has
registered snow machines, say, in the last five years or four
years? It should be on file somewhere, right?
Mr Dunlop:
Yes.
Mr Spina:
Yes.
Mr Clark:
What would happen if you went back to that list and sent a survey
out to everybody who has a registered snow machine and asked them
this question: do they want this to go through or not? Do they
want the registration put right on to the snowmobile club or do
they want to have the option to join or not join that
organization? Because we're automatically going to become members
of the snow machine club when we register the machine. Is that
right or am I off base there?
Mr Spina:
No, the intention of the bill and the mandatory permit issue is
to say that if you are a user on the system for recreational
purposes, you would pay a fee on their system. Now, the OFSC has
traditionally granted exemptions, either been forced to or
co-operatively, to certain users of the trail system, either
directly or through the discretion of the local snowmobile club.
I don't see that we're here to change that other than if we're
able to put it in and define it in regulation. Then what that
does is, it in fact protects the individual now in law to have a
right to be on that trail system as an exempted user.
Mr Clark:
So that when we went to register our machine, we'd be paying a
different fee then?
Mr Spina:
No, if you pay your registration fee, which is exempt right now
for northern Ontario, with MTO-I'm talking your ownership, that
$15 fee-that's got nothing to do with the other. You just go to
your snowmobile club, and where they're saying verbally to you
now, "It's OK, Ian. You can use that chunk of trail; we're not
going to hassle you," they issue you-perhaps what we're looking
at is a special permit. You throw it on your machine. You don't
pay anything for it but it clearly identifies you as an exempted
rider in that area.
Mr Clark:
OK.
Mr Spina:
That's the way they're kind of looking at implementing it.
Mr Clark:
That wouldn't be a bad thing. And then you know who's out there
and who isn't.
Mr Spina:
Sure.
Mr Clark:
So when they set this up, are they going to be able to have spot
checks on crown land to stop people and check for these
permits?
Mr Spina:
They have that authority now under the constitution of the OFSC
and with the land use permit agreements with MNR. The difference
is that this would put it into legislation. But again, it would
only be enforceable within certain areas where the LUP is in
place.
Mr Clark:
So it won't be on all crown land, then; it's just going to be
designated areas.
Mr Spina:
Designated trails.
Mr Clark:
I have a problem when people stop me out in the middle of nowhere
and start asking silly questions.
Mr Spina:
You can be out in the middle of nowhere and not have to worry
about that, Ian. Like the unorganized snowmobilers that made a
presentation earlier today, if you're not on an OFSC trail, you
don't have anything to worry about.
Mr Clark: OK, good. I've been
asked some questions before. I don't know, it's supposed to be a
free country. I'll ride around, as far as I'm concerned, where I
want to ride around.
Mr Spina:
I've been on the trail and I've been off the trail, sometimes not
intentionally, but I understand. I was born and raised in Sault
Ste Marie. I know that's southern Ontario from here, but at least
it's northern Ontario for the guys in Toronto. I've been out on
the trails. In fact, I cracked up in Ignace two years ago.
The Chair:
And hobbled around Queen's Park for some time after that.
Mr Spina:
We don't want to talk about that.
The Chair:
Do you have any other closing comments, Mr Clark?
Mr Clark:
What's the time frame on this? When is this going to come into
effect?
The Chair:
This is the first day of hearings. We've committed to five days
for hearings. I said at the start of this afternoon's session
that it's somewhat of a unique circumstance. We only started
doing it this past spring for the first time in the history of
Parliament that we hold hearings after first reading, which is
basically just the introduction of a bill. It's before,
traditionally, the parties have hardened their positions and
pretty well decided where they're going to be on the bill, as Mr
Christopherson suggested earlier. By going out before we come
back to the Legislature for second reading, none of us have to
take any hard or fast positions. There's no right or wrong. We
can listen to people who are directly affected by the bill, such
as yourself, and take those comments back and make the changes.
I'm pleased to say that all of the bills that have done that so
far-I think Mrs Bountrogianni would back me up even on things as
significant as the new mental health act-saw significant changes
as a result of going out after first reading, and probably a far
more pleasant working environment during the debates and back in
second and third reading because of that.
It's important for us to
get views up front from people like yourself. We hope in those
five days we'll be able to reflect enough changes so that when
the bill then goes to second reading, all parties will be in
support of it. As Mr Christopherson, the House leader for one of
the three parties, suggested, the better the job we do here now,
the faster this bill could sail through the Legislature, with
all-party support potentially.
Mr Clark:
So this could be in action this winter?
The Chair:
It's a possibility, yes, but normally when legislation is passed
you would give adequate notice. I would think in a case like the
snowmobiling season almost being upon us now, that probably would
not be a reasonable course of action. You would probably see the
ministry give a full year. We can't say that because there's no
guarantee what day it would go through the House at all. All we
can control is when it goes back to the House after these
hearings, and that would be September 25.
Mr Clark:
OK. Thanks for your time. I don't have any more questions.
The Chair:
Just in the interest of fairness, because I don't want anybody to
have come in late and been missed, we had three individuals or
groups whose names I'm going to call one last time: Jeff
Ferguson, Rod Bergman, and the Lake Superior-English River Bait
Association. Have any of them come in belatedly? They
haven't.
Mr Brown:
I have a couple of more inquiries that perhaps the researcher
could look into.
The Chair:
Please. This is the appropriate time.
Mr Brown:
I wonder if there's an estimate of what revenue the province gets
from registration fees for snowmobiles and the amount of revenue
dollars we receive from the sale of gasoline and other petroleum
products for snowmobiles. I don't know if there is, but if we
could find that out, it would be helpful.
Mr
Christopherson: Further to that, Chair, maybe an inquiry
with the OPPA as to whether they have taken a position with
regard to enforcement: who should do it and what resources it
takes to do it adequately.
The Chair:
Indeed.
Mr Brown:
The other thing, if we can keep Lorraine busy, would be if the
OFSC has any estimate of how many riders are on its trails who do
not at present buy trail permits; in other words, how many
offenders there are out there, in their estimation. I'm trying to
figure out how big a problem it is we're trying to solve.
The Chair:
If at the same time you want to do the math as to what that would
mean in lost revenue, it might be appropriate to find out how
many registered users there are as well.
Mr Brown:
That would be useful to know. Many of the registered users would
not be using the trails.
The Chair:
The second-last presenter commented that there were a number of
different revenues to the province from trapping, over and above
the licences. I wonder if you could get an idea of what the
various fees and licences are that trappers pay. I would
appreciate that, personally.
Mr Spina:
Would it be worthwhile to indicate the ministries that have been
present in the internal discussions in drafting the report which
is available? I'd be happy just to list the ministries that were
involved in these discussions to date.
The most obvious, of
course, were the Ministry of Transportation, the Ministry of
Tourism, the Ministry of Natural Resources-I've got to think
through all the ministries here-the Ministry of Health, the
Ministry of Northern Development and Mines-
Mr
Christopherson: Solicitor General.
Mr Spina:
Solicitor General. We have had the superintendents from the OPP
present at many of our meetings.
The Chair:
Did you have municipal affairs?
Mr Spina:
Yes, municipal affairs. I think that runs the gamut pretty well.
Those are the main ministries that were involved in the
discussion about all of the possibilities, all the options and
all of the elements that should be addressed or at least discussed in the
process of developing this bill.
Mrs
Bountrogianni: Given that we're summarizing, Lorraine,
I'd like to remind the committee about my inquiry for Penny Todd
on how safety would be enforced under this bill.
Mr Spina:
Yes, there are elements in there that address that. We do need
more detail, and that's in process.
To address David's
question, the OPP is just trying to come to grips with how this
may or may not impact on them, mostly financially. There was a
budgetary allocation in the spring budget. It's a question of
whether some of those dollars would be allocated toward this or
whether it comes out of some other source. Those are all things
that are currently being explored.
Mr
O'Toole: To follow up on the trapping and licensing
exemption consideration, I'm just wondering, because they're all
licensed, would it be important to first know the number of
regions that would be affected by this and then the number of
trappers? Then you could deduce what the revenue cost is. Since
they're all licensed, it would be fairly simple to get that
number.
Mr Spina:
It has been discussed and it's available.
The Chair:
We're not normally that free-form in our discussions, but having
had a few minutes freed up by having two presenters not show up,
we have taken not only your comments but will have the
legislative researcher pulling up all the background data that
makes us even more fluent on this subject in the next couple of
days.
I want to thank everyone
who took the time to come out to the hearings, both the
presenters and interested constituents, people who have an
interest in hunting, trapping and snowmobiling. You will see on
the Internet all the bills and changes listed, but I'm sure we
could arrange to send copies of the final legislation and any
regulations out to anyone who is registered with the clerk.
With that, the committee
stands adjourned until tomorrow in Thunder Bay.
