Motorized Snow Vehicles
Amendment Act, 2000, Bill 101, Mr Jackson /
Loi de 2000 modifiant la Loi sur les motoneiges,
projet de loi 101, M. Jackson
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
Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-East York ND)
Mr Joseph Spina (Brampton Centre / -Centre PC)
Also taking part / Autres participants et
participantes
Mr Allen Doppelt, counsel, legal services, Ministry of Consumer
and Commercial Relations
Mr Eric Endicott, counsel, Financial Services Commission of
Ontario
Clerk / Greffière
Ms Anne Stokes
Staff /Personnel
Ms Laura Hopkins, legislative counsel
The committee met at 1550 in committee room
1.
MOTORIZED SNOW VEHICLES AMENDMENT ACT, 2000 / LOI DE
2000 MODIFIANT LA LOI SUR LES MOTONEIGES
Consideration of Bill 101, An
Act to promote snowmobile trail sustainability and enhance safety
and enforcement / Projet de loi 101, Loi visant à
favoriser la durabilité des pistes de motoneige et à
accroître la sécurité et les mesures
d'exécution.
The Chair (Mr Steve
Gilchrist): I call the committee to order. the first
order of business would be to receive a motion. Mr Spina.
Mr Joseph Spina
(Brampton Centre): I move that the committee move into
clause-by-clause for Bill 101.
The Chair:
Any debate? Seeing none, all in favour? Opposed? Carried.
With that formality out of
the way we'll proceed immediately into clause-by-clause. Bill
101, An Act to promote snowmobile trail sustainability and
enhance safety and enforcement.
Any comments or amendments to
section 1?
Mr Dave Levac
(Brant): Excuse me, do we move into an opening statement
at all?
The Chair:
The normal modus operandi of many of the members is that on the
very first section they can indulge themselves, rather than
setting aside a formal time. You can take as long as you want, up
to 20 minutes, for any interjection.
Mr Levac:
Thank you. As the members of the committee know, and the
snowmobiling community at large knows, there were some concerns
raised regarding Bill 101, An Act to promote snowmobile trail
sustainability and enhance safety and enforcement, that were
heard mostly up in the north.
I believe that our purpose
today is to address that and I know that Mr Spina has worked very
diligently at this process and has worked very hard with the
community at large, particularly with the snowmobiling community,
to get to their needs. Maybe it's multi-faceted. My understanding
is that he had to deal with three ministries in trying to-
Interjection.
Mr Levac:
Even more, Mr Spina? Five, I hear. Five ministries, each of them
having their own desires to be fulfilled. I compliment him on his
ability to try to pull this together, and I sincerely mean
that.
We have raised some of the
concerns at committee, but mostly the snowmobiling clubs
themselves have raised some of these concerns. When it first came
out before the hearings, when I first heard about the bill, I
didn't have a large concern and then realized that there were
things being proposed that the community itself had some
difficulty with and that affected groups outside the snowmobiling
community. There were hunters and anglers and trappers, private
property owners themselves, farms.
One that we found that was
rather interesting and unique to try to tackle was
municipalities. There were areas in which snowmobiling clubs
would go through some municipal properties, leaving liability in
question, so we're going to have to address that as well.
What I've learned is that
it's a community that prides itself on it's own volunteerism, and
it's a community that has done an awful lot of work to try to
promote and enhance the sport of snowmobiling. The outside
agencies that were involved in that also pointed out the need for
the use of snowmobiles outside of just recreational use. Those
are the things that I recognized, and the number of people who
actually earn a living using snowmobiles was actually larger than
I anticipated. That being said, the education was wonderful for
me.
I will speak to individual
clauses as they come up. Through Mr Spina's co-operation, I know
some of the concerns are being addressed on the government side.
We will be proposing a couple of areas in which we need some
clarification to ensure that the bill doesn't affect the
snowmobilers and the subsequent other groups outside to the
detriment of the sport and/or their livelihood.
Those are my opening
comments. I look forward to the rest of the clauses. I'm sure
that most of them have been addressed in the amendments that have
been put forward by the government, and I compliment them for
that detailed work.
The Chair:
Any other comments? Ms Lankin.
Ms Frances Lankin
(Beaches-East York): I want to begin by saying how
delighted I am to be subbed into the committee today due to the
last minute scheduling of this bill. Unfortunately, both our
standing committee member and our critic were unable to attend
this afternoon.
Although this is not a bill
that I've heard a great deal about in my own riding in terms of
concerns from constituents-the great constituents of Beaches-East
York haven't been ringing up my phone a lot on this-it is a bill
that I have a great deal of interest in in my extended circle of
colleagues, friends and citizens in the province. I have spoken
to a number of people about it. I had the opportunity to speak a
few weeks ago directly with the federation, and of course I've
spoken to the local club that I belong to that I buy my trail
permits from and the trail wardens who are involved there.
As committee members know in
the history of this, the snowmobile clubs of Ontario have for
some time wanted to see a move to the mandatory permit and
they're very supportive of the direction of the legislation.
Their concerns I think are concerns that have been warranted,
however. For example, one of the largest issues is with respect
to the enforcement of the new provisions in the bill. The bill as
it is set out provides that those enforcement measures really are
in the hands of people like the OPP and the Ministry of
Transportation.
In terms of checking
mandatory trail permits, the trail wardens, the members of the
club, the people who do all the work, who do all the fundraising,
who do all of the trail grooming, who certainly are the life and
spirit of these communities in keeping their clubs and the
activities going and keeping the trails in shape for people right
across the province and for tourists from outside of the province
to travel through their area, feel very strongly that there
should be an enforcement role for trail wardens, for the clubs
themselves, that it is a local issue and a local initiative.
The STOP officers currently
have sworn powers that are similar to some of the other higher
levels of law enforcement, and I'm sure there must be a way for
bringing trail wardens into that. I know Mr Spina is aware of
this problem. I've spoken to him about it directly and I raised
it in a statement in the House. He's assured me that he's looking
into this. I hope that today he might be able to give not just
the committee but the snowmobile club community some assurance of
the direction that the government might proceed with respect to
this issue.
Secondly, the issue of
exemptions: There are numbers of people, traditional users of the
trails, like trappers and prospectors, as well as people who
require using the trails to have access to their cottage
property, and others where that may be the only method of winter
access into their properties; certainly intermittent use by
people who are ice angling. Those sorts of issues have been well
explored in front of the committee and I think Mr Spina is well
aware of them. But I think the opportunity for those to be set
out in regulation and for those exemptions to be granted,
monitored and controlled by local clubs under regulated
categories is very important, and I think it's critically
important that there not be fees attached to that for those kinds
of exemption permits. Again, I think Mr Spina has been quite
supportive on that issue.
Thirdly, I just want to
briefly address the issue of cost of permits. Over the last few
winters, with the conditions we've had and the much-shortened
season, I hear from local folks up north where my club is that
the cost of permits is something that is becoming prohibitive for
families who want to snowmobile together as a family, who have
multiple sleds.
I think it is an issue that
can't be addressed through the legislation. I am appreciative of
the amendment that is coming forward which changes the power of
the minister to fix the fee to a power to authorize the fees so
that the clubs, those which are most sensitive to the supply and
demand and the issue of how they set the price in order to
maintain sufficient funds for the running of the clubs, the
grooming of the trails and the upkeep and maintenance of the
equipment and the trails, but also sensitive to the number of
permits that are being sold and the affordability of those
permits to local people-I think that balances once that's
understood through the local clubs with input to the federation.
That's an important amendment that is coming forward.
1600
I would say overall, however,
that the contribution that snowmobiling makes to our economy,
particularly to our northern economy and winter tourism, is
incredible. It has been increasing over the years and it is one
that must be recognized, I believe, by greater government
investment in the expansion and upkeep of the trail system. I had
the honour and opportunity when in government, as a member of
treasury board, to look at the first proposal for the TOPS trail
program that came forward. Somewhat to the surprise of many of my
colleagues who only knew me as the southern Toronto MPP, I spoke
very strongly in favour of it because I understood what it would
mean to the northern economy.
In a small part of the world
that I visit frequently in northern Ontario, I can tell you the
number of local tourist operators that have gone from seasonal to
year-round as a result of this. Where they were only summer
operations, now with the snowmobile business that comes through
there they have been able to take the steps to winterize and to
provide that service. That has allowed them to innovatively find
the spring and fall seasons. Many of them now promote the deer
hunt and moose hunt and other activities in the spring,
ecotourism among them.
I think that my last pitch is
outside of the bill. I just wanted the government to understand
the importance of not just the investment that has already been
made, which is significant and has been for a number of years in
Ontario, but of the amazing return on the investment dollar that
we see in our economy and the need for the government to expand
and increase its investment. Thank you.
The Chair:
Ms Lankin, you're certainly welcome to the committee, joining us
whether it's at a late stage or not, and you clearly are not at a
disadvantage on the subject matter, it would seem.
Mr Spina: I
want to thank the opposition members for their kind comments and
their familiarity with the subject. I say to the member from
Beaches-East York, I know you don't have a lot of snowmobiles in
your area, but you have an influential person who lives in your
riding. I don't know if you know that.
Ms Lankin: There are a number of
us, actually, gentlemen.
Mr Spina: I
meant in the industry. He is a journalist with SnowGoer magazine,
and I teased him, "You must be the only snowmobiler in the
Beach." He and his wife live in your area and they travel a lot.
If you ever look at the back page of SnowGoer magazine you'll see
his regular column. He takes a lot of photographs and so on.
I just wanted to thank the
members, and also the members of the committee. This has been a
long process, 11 months now, since we embarked on this beginning
with the consultation back last winter from which we received
numerous pieces of information and feedback from many of the
stakeholders in the various industries. Furthermore, as a result
of that process, a number of these individuals were invited to
make presentations.
We took an unusual gesture,
and it was really to try to make this more time-sensitive. The
unusual gesture was that we went to public hearings on the
committee after only first reading, which is not normally the
case. We did that for a specific reason. We wanted the public
hearings to be more part of that consultative process rather than
waiting for it to come back to the House for second reading this
fall-a question of the amount of time available-second, different
parties tend to become more entrenched in their positions after
we get to second reading, and we felt that it was important that
the bill have as much flexibility and opportunity as it could
have to really reflect the needs and desires of the
population.
The snowmobiling and
non-snowmobiling and non-recreational users were identified as
part of this process, and I'm very happy we were able to get the
hearings that we had. In fact, there weren't as many numbers of
people who came to the committee, so with the co-operation of all
parties involved, we were able to combine some of the hearing
days so that we were able to give everybody who wanted a chance
to say their piece and at the same time reduce a bit of our
travelling costs. At any point, of course, as we all know, even
those who were concerned about taking the time and expense to
make a presentation to the committee, the committee is always
available there to try to bear the costs of that expense if the
committee agreed, and I think we've covered that off.
The reason we got into this
was twofold. One was the apparent need for sustainability of a
trail system that was maintained, as my colleagues have
indicated, largely by volunteers who commit many long hard hours
of work into maintaining these trails. However, we did have a
situation where we had a large number of users both from within
the system, from within Ontario, and from outside Ontario who
wanted to have access to the system.
At the same time, the
federation was running into essentially a shortfall of operating
funds. They had some capital dollars which had been given to them
from the northern Ontario heritage board, but those were
restrictive to that area defined clearly under government
regulations as northern Ontario. We have a lot of trails in this
province south of Muskoka-Parry Sound. We have a lot of trails,
in fact, in eastern Ontario which are substantially used trails,
both by residents of Ontario and guests to our province.
In addition to that, the
other side of it was the act called the Motorized Snow Vehicles
Act, which essentially had been barely touched since 1972, when
it was first enacted. Clearly there were elements of that
bill-the MSVA, as it is more or less affectionately or
non-affectionately known in the Ministry of Transportation-which
were out of date, were too general in nature.
Bill 101 afforded the
opportunity for the Ministry of Transportation and the Ministry
of Finance to bring a few amendments forward that basically
cleaned up some of the elements of the outdated bill. There were
some pretty fundamental elements in the bill where it was very
general in describing motorized snow vehicles. It did not define
classes of motorized snow vehicles. It did not define classes of
individuals who would be users of the trail system.
The memorandum of
understanding that existed under the MSVA with the federation of
clubs had only been amended once when the amalgamated clubs I
think took place here, and under the one federation of snowmobile
clubs for the entire province. A lot of these elements had to be
addressed: issues of safety, use of reflective materials,
helmets, headlights and lighting features. All of these kinds of
things were under the MSVA. Some of the standards had been
adopted by the industry without really being in legislation, but
it wasn't consistent. Bill 101 will allow that consistency to now
take place with those safety measures.
Some of the enforcement
measures have long been wanted by many people in our society as
general citizenry. Those were safety issues. We wanted, as a
public, to make it a safer recreational sport. Elements such as
the amendments in 101, which more closely tied the use and
operation of a snowmobile to the use and operation of vehicles
under the Highway Traffic Act, were very critical elements that
we wanted to see in the act. To some degree these could have been
enforced in the past, but it was far more difficult.
This makes it a lot easier.
If an individual has, for example, a suspended licence or is
charged for whatever reason, usually an impairment charge, that
charge not only applies to the one area of snowmobiling but also
applies to the area of the operation of a motor vehicle.
Conversely, where an individual's licence has been suspended for
a conviction under the Highway Traffic Act, they would also be
suspended from driving a snowmobile. We think this was only fair.
These vehicles, as we all know, can travel as fast as many motor
vehicles, into the 60-, 80-, 90-, 100-, 120-kilometre-an-hour
range. Frankly, a snowmobile driven carelessly or under the
influence can be as dangerous to the individual and to the public
as it would be for any individual driving a motorized snow
vehicle.
1610
So the enforcement elements
of this act also bring it closer to the Highway Traffic Act, and
I think there are very few people who actually would complain
about that. I think we all
agreed that what we did want was a safer snowmobiling
recreational sport for the province of Ontario.
Frances, thank you for
talking about the economic impact of snowmobiling, because in
1997 the snowmobile federation did an economic impact study using
a very legitimate, qualified model, which was the economic impact
model from the Fraser Institute, which is highly accepted and
highly regarded by governments at all levels. In that economic
impact study, they determined that snowmobiling was at that time,
in 1997, a $932-million industry in this province. With good
weather conditions over the last couple of winters, it could well
have broken the $1-billion mark. That is the recreational winter
sport with the largest economic impact in our province, and it
deserves the attention that I think we, as a government, should
give it.
I compliment the NDP
government of the day, in 1992, for instituting what was called
the Sno-TRAC program. At that time, it was a $20-million
investment in the snowmobiling industry to essentially create the
interconnected, province-wide, border-to-border-to-border trail
system that we have today. Sno-TRAC was what enabled the industry
to be as successful as it was in terms of its economic activity,
as I say, from border to border to border. That was a capital
investment.
What we face today, of
course, is now the ability to be able to allow that integrated
system to operate. So the capital dollars and the investment was
there to create the system, and now what we find is that we need
sustainability dollars. That will clearly not be addressed just
by this bill, or by the requirement of trail permits. However, I
will say for the record that this government recognizes the
importance of snowmobiling and the fact that the trail permits
and the fee levels, such as they are today, are probably about as
much as the market could possibly bear. They are certainly above
those of many other jurisdictions across North America. However,
those jurisdictions are in the position of having a mix of total
private sector use and a toll user-pay system versus a partially
or fully government-funded system. That makes the difference, to
a large degree, between a $150 fee in Ontario, a $170 or $180 fee
in Quebec versus a $35 fee in the state of Michigan, where it
controls the entire trail system: it owns the groomers, and it
pays the state park employees to groom the trails. But that's a
considerable government cost to the taxpayer.
What we're seeking to achieve
here is really a blend of user-pay with government-subsidized
trail systems, recognizing the value of the economic impact of
the use of the snowmobile trail system and at the same time
ensuring us, as a government, collectively that when tourists
visit this province as our guests we can count on a consistent
trail system that would be able to be delivered for the use of
our guests who come to this province. That was the reason why,
when I was the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of
Tourism, we took on the responsibility of the leadership of this
bill, but technically I think we can all appreciate the fact that
the Motorized Snow Vehicles Act is a Ministry of Transportation
bill and therefore it is the Ministry of Transportation that
essentially owns both the Motorized Snow Vehicles Act and Bill
101.
That being said, we have a
few amendments that have been put forward both from the
government and opposition benches. There are some issues that may
arise as a result of some of these amendments. I, along with
others I'm sure, would be happy to address those.
The last element, perhaps if
I may take another moment, to address was the one of traditional
users and exemptions. I know there's an amendment that talks to
that in a few moments. I know there is a commitment from the
government to exempt the traditional users. They are defined in
currently drafted exemptions, which I think is in part of the
members' package, in section 3, I believe-in the appendices, I'm
sorry. There is a section there that talks about proposed trail
permit requirements for traditional and business users, and it
identifies a number of user types.
The one thing that I
disagreed with-and we have concurrence now from the minister's
office and we hope that we can address this more specifically
when we get to the actual outlining of the regulations. In it, it
talks about a special permit being issued for exempted users of
the trail system. We felt this was too prescriptive, and we have
obtained, as of 1 o'clock today, the agreement that in regulation
the users would be identified as exempted users of the trail
system.
However, to go to the
prescriptive level of actually issuing exempt permits and
charging a nominal fee, we have concurrence from the minister's
office that they are willing to waive that. We can clearly focus,
then, on identifying those traditional users and allow the local
people-who usually know that if an individual is travelling from
point A, where they've left their vehicle, to point B, where
their cottage is, they have to access a quarter mile of trail.
Clearly, the local people know that this is in fact the case,
because they know the local people, they know the portion of the
trail that may be used. We had bait fishermen who were operators,
ice fishermen and so forth, other users who came to us during the
committee hearings, who expressed the concern that they were just
taking their anglers out to the ice-fishing huts or they
themselves would be using it to access their huts or using the
trails for their own anglers, their customers. We fully
understand that that is a very legitimate traditional user that
should be exempt.
It really must be defined as
the recreational user who is on the trail system for the purpose
of recreational snowmobiling who would be the individual who
would be bound essentially by the permit we are proposing in this
bill.
That being said, I also know
that with respect to sustainability, the revenue from these
permits, the additional users who might be brought into using the
trail system, would not address the shortfall indicated by the
Ontario Federation of Snowmobile Clubs. I do know, and I am
permitted to say, that there is a move afoot for a funding
mechanism to assist the
operations funding on an annual basis for the snowmobile trail
system that is being proposed as I speak. The mechanism by which
those dollars will flow is, at this point, something that I don't
know, but it is currently in the process of being planned by the
Ministry of Finance and Management Board to be able to determine
how much those dollars would be and how those dollars would be
channelled through to the support of this large economic impact
system to the province of Ontario.
1620
With those assurances-I share
that with the committee members and with the members of the
public who are here-I think, Chair, perhaps we can begin
clause-by-clause.
Do you need a motion to
accept-what is it?-section 1 of the bill? I think our first
amendment is in section 3, is it not?
The Chair:
Actually, we don't need a motion. Ms Lankin.
Ms Lankin: I
was just wondering if you could address one of the issues that I
raised, Mr Spina, and that's the issue of enforcement. As you
know, the federation and a number of the local clubs have been
very concerned about the authority vested in Ministry of
Transportation, OPP, STOP officers, and not in the administrative
authority of enforcement, with the clubs themselves and trail
wardens. It appears that there's not an amendment coming forward
to address that concern. Could you tell me where you're at in
your thinking with the government ministries on that issue?
Mr Spina:
This was an oft-repeated request from the various regional
presentations we had. In the bill, it clearly defines sworn
police officers and conservation officers who have the power to
enforce not just the trail permit but the other elements that
would be required when a snowmobiler is asked to produce
documentation on the trail, and I'll just address those for a
moment: a driver's licence or an operator's permit, the MTO
registration permit for the vehicle, a valid and active insurance
coverage certificate and, last, the trail permit. In the latter
section of the bill, if a police officer or conservation officer,
CO as they refer to it, pulls someone over, they're expected to
produce these documents. Then, subject to the discretion of those
officers, of course, with failure to produce those, they can
issue a ticket.
My question to the Ministry
of Transportation-when we were going through the discussions,
there was resistance to the use of trail wardens to enforce some
of these. The question came forward, if Green Hornets, as we
refer to them in Toronto, are empowered to issue tickets for
parking meters, for example, how do they do that? Of course, they
are authorized under the Municipal Act. That's a bylaw under the
municipality to be able to do that. I asked if there was an
equivalent within the provincial legislation. The apparent
equivalent seems to be the regulation. If a regulation is set
forward that would empower trail wardens to issue tickets and
enforce the acts, the various elements of Bill 101 and others,
then the regulation would be the one that would be in a position
to empower those trail wardens.
The act strictly deals with
the overriding legislation, which would therefore be the
responsibility of police officers, sworn conservation officers
and sworn special constables under the STOP program. The trail
wardens would have to be addressed under regulation, not being
sworn police officers, if we get to that stage.
Ms Lankin: A
further two questions on that. Does the current legislation, or
the legislation as we predict it will be amended today, provide
the statutory authority for the creation of exactly such a
regulation? Is the regulation-making power contained within the
bill as we speak now, or within the act as we speak? Secondly, is
it the government's intention to bring forward such a
regulation?
Mr Spina: I
think the power is there, because there are a number of
elements-in subsection 2(5), which we have an amendment to, it
talks about, "The minister may give authority to any person to
issue trail permits and to provide evidence of such issue of
trail permits and may define the duties and powers of such
person." I'm not a lawyer, but there is counsel here from MTO.
That may be sufficiently broad to empower the OFSC trail warden
to be able to enforce the bill, because it certainly talks about
defining the duties and powers of this person and providing
evidence of issue of trail permits. If there's no objection,
maybe through the Chair we might ask MTO counsel for an opinion
on that.
Ms Lankin: I
would appreciate that because, in addition to the clause you've
read, I think there has to be specific regulation-making
authority. I'm just looking down to subsection (5). I don't see
that particularly set out there. I'm wondering if we could get an
answer from legal staff to that.
The Chair:
We certainly invite the legal counsel from MTO to come forward to
the witness table. You heard the question. Perhaps I could get
you to give Ms Lankin-
Mr Allen
Doppelt: OK. My name is Allen Doppelt. I'm senior
counsel with the legal branch at the Ministry of
Transportation.
The question was, is there
sufficient legal authority in the new section 2.1 in the bill to
give the trail wardens authority to enforce the trail permits? I
don't believe the existing wording is sufficient, because 2.1(5),
when speaking about defining the powers and duties of such
person, is written in relation to the power to issue the permits
and to provide evidence of such issue of permits. I don't think
it is broad enough to cover enforcement. I think if that is the
desire of the committee, then there would have to be specific
additional power added to the bill.
Ms Lankin:
Perhaps, Mr Spina, recognizing that it would still take an act of
government to write the regulation to actually bring trail
wardens in-and I realize that may be another hurdle-while we are
working on clause-by-clause, perhaps we can stand down that
section and see if someone might be able to develop the
appropriate clause to add to, I would imagine, section 8, which
is the regulation-making
authority set out in this. If someone could do that, we could
come back to it before the end of the afternoon. If you could
give the appropriate direction to the appropriate people.
Mr Spina: If
it is the will of the committee to-I'm not sure. Allen, are there
any other elements in the bill that would authorize the
regulation to be set for trail wardens to-
Mr Doppelt:
There isn't sufficient reg-making power right now in 2.1(8). I've
looked as well at the general regulation-making powers in section
26 of the act. They are not broad enough or specific enough to
provide such authority. There would have to be an amendment to
add such a regulation-making authority.
Mr Spina:
OK.
The Chair:
I'll certainly take my direction from the members of the
committee. Mr Spina and Ms Lankin, if it is your request that
when we get to that section, we stand it down-
Ms Lankin:
We stand that down, and then perhaps Mr Spina could ask
appropriate ministry staff to draft an amendment that would
accomplish that, that the committee could come back to and look
at.
Mr Spina: I
didn't know whether the opposition had any comments on this.
Mr Levac: I
agree with that because that was what was spoken to by all the
clubs in terms of their wardens. I would assume that everyone
would agree with the fact that there were concerns issued about
teeth. They were basically saying we needed to have some teeth;
the wardens needed to have some teeth. They strictly spoke of
just the permits. They wanted no other authority; they wanted no
other responsibility beyond the permit. That's what I was led to
believe.
I don't have a problem with
standing it down.
Mr Spina: A
question really of order here, Chair. If we stand it down, would
that have to come back at a future date to committee or-
The Chair:
In theory. We do not have time allocation binding us on this
bill, which means that if we stand it down, if there was an
answer by this afternoon, we could deal with it out of sequence.
Alternatively, if it took to the next day afforded to us in
committee, which would be next Monday, we could deal with it
then. I'm totally in your hands.
1630
Ms Lankin: I
think there is the possibility of dealing with it this afternoon.
It's not a very complicated amendment, and if ministry staff
could draft an appropriate suggestion for us, that would be
helpful.
Mr Spina:
What do we need, Chair?
The Chair: I
think Ms Lankin has correctly outlined it. If the legal staff
from MTO could set their minds to the wording that would be
appropriate, or Ms Hopkins, the leg counsel-between the two of
them-and apply themselves diligently to the task, hopefully to
get an answer back to the committee this afternoon, I'm sure
we-
Ms Lankin:
When we get to that section, we can then agree to stand it down
and we could proceed.
The Chair: I
am quite prepared to stand down section 2.
Ms Lankin:
I'm glad I came after all.
The Chair:
Ms Hopkins, the legislative counsel, informs me it will be
section 9 we would be amending to do that. If the committee is
amenable, we'll proceed through to that point.
Ms Lankin:
Could I just ask Ms Hopkins-there's not a requirement to amend
subsection 2.1(8)? I haven't looked at it. So it is just in the
general regulation-making authority section, in section 9?
Ms Laura
Hopkins: Yes.
Ms Lankin:
Terrific. Thank you very much.
Mr Levac:
Mr Chairman, I just want to reiterate what you said. Because we
are not on time allocation, to stand something down does not mean
we have to get it done this afternoon. If it requires any other
permissions or any other discussions from any ministry-I know Mr
Spina said we dealt with five different ministries. One that
would affect this one might not affect the next one. If there's
something else we could stand down, we have the time to do so. I
just want to clarify that is the case.
The Chair:
That is the case, Mr Levac. We are under no legislative
constraints here this afternoon. I'm sure everyone has as their
intention the crafting of the best possible bill and getting it
right the first time. If we encounter other similar issues as we
go along, that will obviously impact on our ability to finish
today, but hopefully we can get the required amendment to section
9 by the time we get to section 9.
Ms Lankin:
We hope so.
Mr Levac:
Sure. Thank you, Mr Chair.
The Chair:
Is there any further debate on section 1, or any amendments?
Seeing none, shall section 1 carry? Section 1 is carried.
Any comments or amendments
to section 2? Seeing none, I'll put the question. Shall section 2
carry? Section 2 is carried.
Section 3. Mr Spina, I
believe you have the first amendment.
Mr Spina:
I move that subsection 2.1(1) of the Motorized Snow Vehicles Act,
as set out in section 3 of the bill, be amended by inserting "and
in accordance with" after "under the authority of."
The Chair:
Do you wish to speak to the amendment?
Mr Spina:
No. This is just cleaning up some of the terminology.
The Chair:
Any debate? Seeing none, all those in favour of the amendment?
Contrary? It carries.
Mr Spina.
Mr Spina:
I move that section 2.1 of the Motorized Snow Vehicles Act, as
set out in section 3 of the bill, be amended by adding the
following subsection:
"Limitations, restrictions
on trail permit
"(2.1) A trail permit may
contain specific limitations or restrictions on the use of the
motorized snow vehicle upon a prescribed trail."
The purpose of this was to really allow the
opportunity, if at some point we wanted to issue exemption
permits to exempted riders, for that to be able to happen.
Ms Lankin:
I had understood Mr Spina to say that at this point in time the
Minister of Transportation's office has indicated that they are
waiving the desire to create exemption permits. Therefore, I
wonder why we would proceed with this amendment to give the
authority at this point in time. If you're setting out in
regulation those groups which will be exempted, and we're not
requiring them to have trail permits with the exemptions set out,
we shouldn't at this point in time be passing this particular
provision.
Mr Spina:
I understand that. I guess what I'm wondering-and I'd seek
comments from all parties here. At this stage, if we don't issue
the exemption permits for a couple of seasons-however, we find
there are problems-then this may allow the opportunity for the
regulation to come in and maybe tighten it up.
Ms Lankin:
I agree with you. It would absolutely allow for that. But the
question is, do you want that decision-making, given the feedback
that you've heard and given the committee's concern, as I
understand it proceeding today, about that provision, do you want
that left to a regulatory power as opposed to a legislative
decision that, in fact, there will be exemption permits and/or
whether any fee may be set for an exemption permit? That's a
second issue that we'll have to contend with. I know you were a
very strong proponent of not having the exemption permits. I'm
just not sure why, at this point, the government would proceed
with that amendment.
Mr Spina:
I think it's more enabling than prescriptive. That is why I don't
have a problem with this amendment.
Ms Lankin:
Except that it enables the government to do something that you're
very opposed to, Mr Spina. There's not a logic in this that I can
follow.
Mr Spina:
What it says, if you look at the amendment, is that the "permit
may contain specific limitations or restrictions on the use of
the ... vehicle upon a prescribed trail." If at some point we
find that we want to issue an exempted permit for Ontario Hydro
users, for example, then that would allow the legislation to
empower the regulation. This amendment allows the ministry to
work with the designated authority that issues the permits to
create that.
Mr Levac:
I want to voice a concern about that, because what I heard from
the presentations was that the most they could see their way
clear to is some kind of little identifying sticker that the
person would have access to; that they basically should just be
able to show the warden or the STOP officer or the OPP, flip
something open or have a sticker on their helmet or something
that basically says, "I'm a registered traditional user, and I've
just been identified. Thank you very much." As a matter of fact,
I did hear people speaking against the idea of even having a
permit introduced, because of the concern and the fear that was
expressed.
Mr Spina:
Bureaucratic red tape.
Mr Levac:
This is the concern that was being voiced.
I can't support the
amendment, simply because it didn't speak to what the committee
heard. What the committee heard was, "Please identify us if you
have to." Most of the local people involved in that know that Joe
is with traffic or Sally is with the OPP or whatever it is. If
we're going to devolve that to that local level, they will be in
touch with that on a regular basis.
If we do anything, what I
perceive we should be doing is encouraging that communication
process that's taking place and to ensure that, "OK, don't forget
to get your little yellow sticker on top of your helmet, because
when we use that, the wardens might not even have to pull you
over, because they know that's there." Counterfeiting, of course;
games getting played, yeah. But in terms of permits, I didn't
hear anything in any of the presentations up north about
supporting any kind of permit.
So I can't support the
amendment, because it's being built in for something that might
take place later on, but I didn't hear it happening.
The Chair:
Any further debate? Seeing none, I'll put the question. All those
in favour of the amendment?
Ms Lankin:
I thought Mr Spina was going to withdraw this motion. Am I
incorrect?
Mr Spina:
Thank you very much. I will withdraw this motion.
The Chair:
My goodness.
The next motion is
amendment 3, the Liberal motion.
Mrs Marie
Bountrogianni (Hamilton Mountain): I move that
subsection 2.1(5) of the Motorized Snow Vehicles Act, as set out
in section 3 of the bill, be struck out and the following
substituted:
"OFSC to issue trail
permits
"(5) The Ontario Federation
of Snowmobile Clubs is authorized to issue trail permits and any
employee of the club may provide evidence of such issue of trail
permits.
"Additional powers may be
delegated
"(5.1) In addition to the
authority under subsection (5), the minister may delegate to the
Ontario Federation of Snowmobile Clubs powers in respect of the
administration of trail permits, including the authority to stop
and inspect a motorized snowmobile on a prescribed trail to
determine whether a driver is in compliance with subsection
(4).
"Terms and conditions
"(5.2) The minister may
attach terms and conditions to a delegation under subsection
(5.1).
"Minister may authorize
OFSC to retain fees
"(5.2) Despite section 2 of
the Financial Administration Act, the minister may authorize and
fix the fee to be retained by the Ontario Federation of
Snowmobile Clubs for each trail permit issued."
1640
The Chair:
Do you wish to speak to this?
Mr Levac:
What we're basically trying to do here is repeat what we heard
through the presentation, that the OFSC wanted basically the
responsibility of taking care of that directly.
The Chair: Thank you. Mr
Spina.
Mr Spina:
Does anybody else here want to say anything?
Mr Ted Chudleigh
(Halton): I just wondered how it related to amendment
3A.
Mr Spina:
I was going to draw that analogy. Thank you. Amendment 3A
actually summarizes in a much simpler manner where the minister
has the authority to be able to authorize all of what has been
described here. The fundamental difference is that if in three or
five years' time the Ontario Federation of Snowmobile Clubs, or
whoever, becomes another name, another body, if there's an
amalgamation with other organizations and trail systems, those
kinds of things, that would require a statutory change then,
whereas if they, as the federation, are identified in regulation,
it becomes a much simpler change, as an order-in-council change,
as opposed to having to go through a bill and all that sort of
thing. That's why we tried to keep that amendment.
We all had a problem, I
think, with the minister fixing the fee. That was a message we
all received, and that's why we felt that it was sufficient that
the minister may authorize, as I have in 3A, the fee. Then of
course, it's in there that they'll authorize the fee to be
retained by the person so authorized. So essentially the person
who would be named in the regulations would then end up being, at
this point, the OFSC. That's the reason we would vote against
this amendment and adopt ours, 3A.
Mr Levac:
Mr Spina and I had this discussion, and I guess what was
attempted here, and I think Mr Gerretsen in his discussions,
after going through the committee, wanted to make sure that the
message was clear. We understood that the OFSC's concerns were
regarding the particular section you're talking to, about the
minister having that final fixing of the fees.
They've indicated very
clearly, with the single question that was asked of them time and
time again, and as you know, I was the one who asked them that,
"Can you support the bill in its present stance regarding the
particular of fixed fees?" and they said no. So we came back with
the amendment that basically said, "OK, then we'll try to craft
it in a way that says we're not trying to remove authority from
the ministry, but we're trying to say to the OFSC that we
understand that your 30 years of volunteerism is why you've got
to the place that you have now, and that is to be able to run
this nice, smooth shop, collect your fees and not bother anybody
else." That's basically what they were trying to say.
In defence of the
amendment, what I'm trying to clarify is giving it right back to
them. If indeed it does require a change because OFSC decides to
change its name, I don't know what kind of a hurdle we would have
to go over in order just to change that particular moniker. Maybe
I'm seeking a clarification of that, because that's what I
thought I heard.
Mr Spina:
David, if we set this in legislation, then, as I indicated, it
would require a statutory change. In other words, you'd have to
change legislation down the road. Without letting too many cats
out of the bag here-not that I know a whole lot about this bunch
of cats-there is an initiative afoot to create a comprehensive
trails policy in this province.
Mr Levac:
That's fair.
Mr Spina:
There could be a multiplicity of users and a policy and
regulations that would govern the multiple use of these trail
users. If we become that precise here, then it could become very
restrictive for a more comprehensive trails policy using other
types of users of trails, whether they be cross-country skiers,
ATVers, motocross, motorcycles, those kinds of things.
Mr Levac:
I would ask if OFSC has been made aware of the amendment that
you're proposing, and are they OK with it?
Mr Spina:
Yes.
Mr Levac:
That's fair.
The Chair:
Any further debate? Seeing none, I'll put the question. All those
in favour of the Liberal motion? Opposed? It is defeated.
That takes us to the
amendment marked 3A in your packet.
Mr Spina:
I move that subsection 2.1(5) of the Motorized Snow Vehicles
Act, as set out in section 3 of the bill, be amended by
striking out "may authorize and fix the fee" and substituting
"may authorize the fee."
I think we've argued that
one to death and we've just moved that that go forward.
The Chair:
Any further debate? Seeing none, I'll put the question. All those
in favour? Opposed? It is carried.
The next motion would be
back to Mrs Bountrogianni.
Mrs
Bountrogianni: I move that section 2.l of the Motorized
Snow Vehicles Act, as set out in section 3 of the bill, be
amended by adding the following section:
"Limitation
"(7.1) The amount of a fee
for the issuance of a trail permit shall not exceed the amount of
a fee for the issuance of a class G driver's licence issued under
the Highway Traffic Act."
The Chair:
Do you wish to speak to the amendment?
Mr Levac:
Just in terms of equity, and I don't know if that discussion came
up: Mr Gerretsen said to me that he was concerned that if we are
going to make the relationship between the snowmobile licence and
the issuance of a driver's licence, one shouldn't go over top of
the other. That's basically where that came from.
Ms Lankin:
I understand any concern that is being raised with respect to the
cost of a trail permit and the potential prohibitive nature of
that cost. I've spoken to it and Mr Spina has spoken to it today
already.
However, we have talked
about the importance of the fee being set with input from the
local clubs and through the federation, with their intimate
knowledge of the cost of maintenance, what level of government
subsidy they receive-and we hope it is going to be increased-and
what they receive from their trail permits.
In a sense, this is
counterproductive to local control. While I agree with the
sentiment, if it is one to try and keep the costs down, I argue
the way that needs to be done is by a further infusion of provincial
funding, which Mr Spina spoke to earlier.
Mr Levac:
Be assured, Mr Chair, that was the intent. I can understand what
this discussion is about, but that was the purpose of the
amendment, to keep the price at least as low as or lower than.
Maybe the wording wasn't quite appropriate. I understand the
concern of Ms Lankin.
Mr Spina:
I'm not sure how much a class G permit fee is. Is it $80?
Mr Levac:
It is up to $80 now, I think.
Interjection.
Mr Spina:
It's $90? Clearly what Ms Lankin said, if we are concerned about
sustainability-in the last motion the minister has the ability to
authorize the fee. At the same time, as Frances indicated, it is
fair that we allow the users of the trail system to have the
input. This would be too prescriptive, so I would be against
this.
The Chair:
At the risk of being seen to enter the debate, I'm wondering
whether it might even be out of order, given that we've just
amended it so that someone else is setting the fee and the
minister has the power to authorize that. But now you're asking
that there be criteria applied to the actual fee that the
arm's-length group would set.
Mr Levac:
Having said that and having heard the rest of the debate, I will
withdraw the amendment to allow for the free flow of that
particular issue.
The Chair:
Thank you. That amendment is withdrawn. Back to you for the next
one.
Mr Levac:
I move that section 2.1(7) of the Motorized Snow Vehicles Act, as
set out in section 3 of the bill, be amended by adding "Subject
to subsection (7.1)" at the beginning.
1650
The Chair:
Do you wish to speak to it? Give me just one moment, Mr Levac,
please.
Since you withdrew
amendment number 4, number 5 is out of order here.
Mr Levac:
So let's continue the trend and withdraw.
The Chair:
Excellent. Thank you very much. Number 5 is withdrawn. Number 6
would be back to you again. Mr Levac or Mrs Bountrogianni?
Mrs
Bountrogianni: I move that section 2.1 of the Motorized
Snow Vehicles Act, as set out in section 3 of the bill, be
amended by adding the following subsection.
"(9) This section does not
apply to,
"(a) a person using a
prescribed trail for the purpose of hunting, fishing or
trapping;
"(b) a person using a
prescribed trail for the purpose of prospecting;
"(c) a person using a
prescribed trail for the purpose of his or her occupation; or
"(d) a person using a
prescribed trail to travel to travel to an established camp
located on lands owned by the person."
Mr Levac:
These were the groups that made presentations and identified
themselves as traditional users and probably would be open to
(e), (f), (g), (h), (i), (j) if there was anyone else that had
been identified.
Ms Lankin:
That would be my point. There are a number of people who are
missing from this list. You would either need to add them all,
and that's one of the dangers of doing this in legislation, or
add any other person who may be authorized by the minister.
My understanding is that
the parliamentary assistant has set out that there will be a list
of exempted users in regulations, and perhaps we could hear from
him directly. The appendix that we have now that sets out a
number of users, including the ones in Mr Levac's amendment, but
additional others-do we have a commitment that that will be the
minimum list of exempted users that will be set out in the
regulations?
Mr Spina:
I'd be happy to address that. I agree with you that this motion
is too narrow in scope. In the act it does, as I've indicated at
committee, give the minister to permit classes of vehicles and
classes of individual users in terms of the legislation. Then the
actual identification, as I said earlier on, would be in the
regulations, and in your package there is a proposed trail permit
requirement for traditional and business users.
I would be happy to go
through that list, which is far more comprehensive. It talks
about aboriginal persons, First Nations-a trail permit would not
be required on treaty land-licensed anglers; bait harvesters and
helpers; commercial fishermen or fishing people; crown tenants;
emergency workers-ambulance, medical personnel, search and
rescue; licensed hunters; local property owners and immediate
family if they're on their own property, of course, or if the
trail is on their property; mining workers, geologists,
geophysicists, engineers and the like; Ontario land
surveyors-
Ms Lankin:
Actually, Mr Spina, that one suggests that there would be no
exemptions. Are you now suggesting that would be added to the
list of classes of people exempted in regulations?
Mr Spina:
That's the recommendation from MTO. I'm just going through the
list of users who were identified here.
Ms Lankin:
What I wonder is if you could give us a commitment as to the
government's intent of which classes of people will in fact be
set out by regulation as being exempted.
Mr Spina:
OK. Then mining workers and the land surveyors, according to
this, are not exempt.
Police staff officers;
property owners who have allowed OFSC use of the land for a
trail; licensed trappers and helpers under a geographic
restriction, because they have a trapline under which they
operate; utility workers-Bell, hydro, TransCanada Pipelines:
those would be items that would have a proposed exemption.
Those that don't have
exemptions: one of the difficulties there, for example with
surveyors or geologists, is that there is no geographical
limitation to their licence. Essentially, when you're dealing
with anglers and hunters, they're on crown land. When you're
dealing with trappers, you have a trapline within a very
specified area for which you can designate the exemption. When
you get to the others, there would absolutely be no way of controlling it, enforcing it
or even permitting it, with a capital P.
Ms Lankin:
Just a quick question: would it also be likely that employees of
snowmobile clubs might be added to that list?
Mr Spina:
As exemptions?
Ms Lankin:
For the need for a trail permit. There was a motion before us
earlier to look at snowmobile clubs being able to issue to their
own employees. I'm assuming that's without cost. I don't
know.
Mr Spina:
I think the policy right now is fairly discretionary, because for
the most part-and I stand to be corrected-employees of snowmobile
clubs tend to be snowmobilers themselves. If they belong to a
club, I think the peer pressure would be sufficient that they
would buy a permit. If they wanted an exemption, likely the club
itself would issue a full-blown permit and just remit the
remaining portion that's owed to the federation. In other words,
they wouldn't collect the club portion of the fee.
Ms Lankin:
They have the discretion to do that, do they? That's all I'm
asking. Under the new legislation?
Mr Spina:
Well, at this point they do. That's a very valid point under the
regulation, under what the minister will authorize in terms of
the disposal of funds. So that's a good point in that context,
yes.
Mrs
Bountrogianni: Of the three days of hearing that I
attended in the north, and of course you were at all of them,
there was a very strong protest by the traditional users about
not having this simply in regulation; they didn't think that was
enough. They wanted it in the legislation. You have a much longer
list than the Liberal motion and I'd have no problem adding that
to the Liberal motion, but I just want to remind the committee of
the strong protest and feelings of discrimination from
southerners against northerners and all those things that came
out, presentation after presentation. Will simply putting it in
regulation deal with those people's beliefs and feelings?
Mr Spina:
I think it will. Again, the danger of putting it into the act
itself is that it becomes statutory. If you ever want to add
someone or delete someone or modify it, it's far easier to do it
in regulation because you can do that by order in council as
opposed to going through a statutory process. That's one of the
reasons why you need that flexibility, particularly when you
might want to leave the discretion for the enforcement of that to
the locals who know the users who would be classified as
traditional users.
Mrs
Bountrogianni: It's exactly that flexibility which
worried the traditional users, if in regulation there's a great
deal of flexibility to make none of them exempt. You see? I'm
just bringing us back to those warm nights in August when we were
up there. Basically, those presentations outnumbered the others,
at least in the three days that I was there.
Mr Spina:
I'm trying to be practical from a legislative perspective. If we
lay it down in legislation, if you forget someone or overlook
somebody at this point or you want to add somebody in a year's
time, you're going to need a statutory change. I hate to say it,
but you have to ask them to have some degree of trust in the
government to outline them in the regulation. The power of the
regulation is just as valid as the legislation but it's far more
flexible.
Mr Levac:
I don't know if there's such a thing as applying your own
friendly amendment but, to accommodate some of the concerns that
have been raised, to add an (e) to it that says, "Any other group
or individual identified by the OFSC." Is that doable?
1700
The Chair:
You can certainly amend your amendment, yes.
Mr Levac:
Then I would add that section that was copied down.
The Chair:
We have no such concept as a friendly amendment in this sense.
You would have to propose an amendment to your amendment. It
would be voted on first.
Mr Levac:
Then I'll do that, and the amendment would be "(e) any other
group or individual identified by the OFSC."
Ms Lankin:
Could I say, just for consistency in language, it may be that it
should be "any other person identified by the OFSC." That's up to
you; you're moving the motion. I would just say that I support
the intent.
Mr Levac:
"Any other person."
The Chair:
Further debate? Sorry, could we have the final wording?
Mr Levac:
"Any other person identified by the OFSC."
The Chair:
While Mr Spina composes his thoughts, taking us back to a
discussion only a couple of amendments ago about referring to the
OFSC specifically, I'm in your hands, Mr Levac. If that's the way
you want the amendment to read, I will call the vote on that
basis.
Mr Levac:
I appreciate what you just brought to my attention. I would
probably have to say something to the effect of, "Any other
person identified as a traditional user."
Ms Lankin:
It may be that there you'd want to trust the government and say,
"Any other person designated by the minister." That might be the
way to resolve the problem. I don't know.
Mr Levac:
We will get it yet.
The Chair:
Are you amenable to that change?
Mr Levac:
I'm open to that, identified by the min-istry. And this is the
Minister of Transportation this is from.
Mr Spina:
I would draw your attention to subclause (8) that says, "The
Lieutenant Governor in Council may make regulations respecting
any matter ancillary to the provisions of this section with
respect to trail permits and in particular (a) prescribing trails
or classes of trails, or parts of trails or classes of trails, on
which permits are required; (b) respecting the issuance and
replacement of trail permits; (c) prescribing the term of
validity of" these permits and so forth. It allows for the
classes of trails.
There's another section-I'm just trying to get my
finger on it-which talks about the classes of vehicles and
classes of individuals. I'm just trying to find where that is in
the act. Section 26(1)(j) of the current Motorized Snow Vehicles
Act has "designating classes of persons to whom any provisions of
this act and the regulations do not apply." That's covered under
the current MSVA, I gather, from what counsel has shown me
here.
If you're broadening the
scope of your amendment enough-I mean, we've already got that
broad scope, if you will, of designation of classes and
exemptions in either the existing act or in the amendments, so I
would be opposed to this.
Ms Lankin:
I would think we would agree with Mr Spina that the broad power
is there. We recognize that. The intent of this motion is to set
specifically in legislation those groups who came forward most
frequently and whose voices were heard most often by the
committee and that there would be an exemption set out in
legislation for those classes of people and any other class as is
designated with the amendment that Mr Levac is putting forward
and that would give reference to the existing designation powers
under the existing legislation.
The debate here is whether
or not the committee heard sufficient concern from these groups,
these traditional users, to take those concerns to heart and
actually list them in the legislation to give them a greater
sense of protection. I think that's the nature of the debate.
Mr Levac:
Ms Lankin probably wrapped up my thoughts nicely. Thank you,
Frances; I appreciate that very much. What we heard very clearly
a few times, because I know my colleague heard it from her
observations and I heard it in mine, was that there were specific
groups that said, "Sorry about the regulation idea, but we want
this in legislation." That's why it was put forward. I do
acquiesce to the concept that we had missed a few people.
That's what this amendment
is about, to try to allow for these groups to be allowed inside
the legislation to show that their concerns are seen as historic,
and in some cases, those that I may have personally missed or Mr
Gerretsen may have personally missed during the presentations
would have room to be put into that legislation to show them that
their historic use of those trails, before the trails were
actually even groomed and created-that their rights were
protected as much as the OFSC's.
Therefore, in this
particular case there will be no withdrawal of the motion. The
motion is intended to be put into legislation and then the other
sections that are being referred to still apply. This group is
being identified as one that should be in the legislation.
The Chair:
Any further debate?
Mr Spina:
My comment still stands.
The Chair:
The clerk is just asking for the final wording for your amendment
to the amendment.
Mr Levac:
"Any other person identified by the Ministry of
Transportation."
The Chair:
Leg counsel, would "minister" be more appropriate?
Interjection.
The Chair:
"Minister" would be sufficient? Thank you.
If you could formally move
that amendment now, your amendment 6.
Mr Levac:
I move that with the amendment before us, an amendment to the
amendment read, "(e) any other person identified by the
minister."
The Chair:
Is everyone clear? We are voting on an amendment to the original
motion.
All those in favour of the
amendment? Opposed?
The amendment to the
amendment fails, which takes us to the original amendment, number
6. All those in favour?
I beg your pardon, Ms
Lankin.
Ms Lankin:
I just wanted to indicate that without the amendment to the
amendment passing, I have concerns with the motion as it is set
out, first in the prescriptive nature and those groups that are
left out and, secondly, in that there is not a provision for
criteria to be applied; for example, a person using a prescribed
trail for fishing. We are not here specifying whether we are
talking about commercial fishing or if we are talking about
recreational ice angling. I believe it is appropriate to give
exemptions for use of trails for recreational ice angling, but
not 250 miles to get to the lake that you want to fish from.
I think snowmobile clubs
would have significant problems with the wording as it is set out
here. I agree wholeheartedly with the intent, but the wording is
problematic, so I'll have to vote against this.
The Chair:
Any further debate?
Mr Spina:
I couldn't have said it better myself.
The Chair:
I believe that, Mr Spina.
All those in favour of the
amendment? Opposed? The amendment fails.
Shall section 3, as
amended, carry? It is carried.
Section 4: any debate or
amendments to section 4?
Seeing none, I'll put the
question. Shall section 4 carry? Section 4 is carried.
Section 5: this would be
your amendment.
1710
Mr Levac:
I move that section 10.1 of the Motorized Snow Vehicles Act, as
set out in section 5 of the bill, be amended by adding the
following subsection:
"Municipalities not
liable
"(4) No action or other
proceeding shall be instituted against a municipality with
respect to an accident involving the operation of a motorized
snow vehicle that occurs on an unopened road allowance."
Speaking to that, we had a
presentation from, if I recall, two or three municipal employees
up north who voiced a concern that there's this class of road or
allowance, unopened road allowances on municipal property, that
would become liable for any problems if there's a connector
between a trail and it's being used traditionally as a trail. So
the municipalities had voiced a very deep concern that the
liability would be theirs.
Mr Spina: Mr Levac and I spoke
briefly about this. We have an amendment regarding the Insurance
Act which is coming up next, and I wasn't sure whether that
amendment covered or addressed this issue. We have I think legal
counsel here from the Ministry of Finance and maybe we could ask
an opinion from counsel.
The Chair:
We invite the legal counsel from finance to come forward.
Mr Levac:
Mr Chairman, just speaking to that, Mr Spina and I had that
conversation and I told him at that time that I was open to that
interpretation and would be prepared, quite frankly, to remove
the amendment if it turns out that legal counsel says the
amendment covers that off.
Ms Lankin:
You've leaving the fate here of this bill in the hands of
lawyers. Is that what you're saying? The power that we give over
to you.
Mr Levac:
I'm quite prepared to hear their interpretation.
Mr Spina:
They had control of this all along, Frances.
Mr Eric
Endicott: My name is Eric Endicott. I'm legal counsel,
actually, from the Financial Services Commission of Ontario. I
have to say the amendment regarding the Insurance Act affects the
applicability of automobile insurance and the availability of an
auto insurance policy. Municipalities in this context are not
covered under automobile policies, so that amendment would not
address this particular issue directly.
Mr Spina:
That being said, are you aware of the implication of this
particular amendment and whether in fact this would be in order
with respect to the liability that is potential, as claimed, to
the municipalities, or are you in a position to offer that
opinion? I'll give you the out.
Mr
Endicott: This obviously provides an exemption for
municipalities. It might affect the liability that would
otherwise arise for other people. In a typical motorized snow
vehicle accident there may be any number of people who are
liable. If you removed this particular actor from the liability
scene, I have to say I would want to think about that in the
provisions of how the different types of liability accrue.
With the other amendment,
of course, snowmobiles will be treated like automobiles. They
will get the protection of the restriction on the right to sue
that's under the Insurance Act. Municipalities do not have that.
They are specifically exempted, and there are complicated
provisions apportioning liability and responsibility in that
regard. In fact those issues are, if I may say, even in the
courts now somewhat uncertain. We've gotten some recent
interpretations which surprise me.
So, in a word, I can't give
a definitive answer. Obviously, if you remove liability from one
party and there are other ones, they may wind up picking up more
liability, in principle. But as I said, I would have to go back
and think about it. It is an area where joint and several
liability is already-I would say the case law is still evolving
under the Insurance Act.
Ms Lankin:
Perhaps we need also to consult lawyers from the Ministry of
Municipal Affairs. I wonder, however, with respect to this
amendment, without definitions, for example, of what an "unopened
road allowance" is-or is that definition already contained under
the Municipal Act?
Mr
Endicott: That one I wouldn't want to give an opinion
on.
Ms Lankin:
I wonder if there's a possibility to stand this down to deal with
the insurance and if someone can make a phone call to the
Ministry of Municipal Affairs and see if they have any opinion to
offer the committee with respect to this.
The Chair:
Certainly, if that's the wish of the committee. Mr Levac, I don't
know if you have any other questions you'd like satisfied from
such a phone call.
Mr Levac:
For clarification purposes: I've been informed by two municipal
employees who made presentations that they would be very hesitant
to provide permission for them to use snowmobiles if they were
not covered off against this. It being that serious, I probably
would not want to proceed until we had a clear picture of what
this means. I'm prepared to have this stood down so that we can
get those questions answered.
The problem seemed to be in
a very small number of cases, but enough that the municipality
did step forward to make comment on it, that this wasn't seen as
a trail; this was seen as a connector or a place they had to get
through in order to continue their trail service. I too would be
concerned if we were asking other people to pick up liability.
That was not the intent. Of course, not being a lawyer, I don't
know what happens in those cases.
Mr
Endicott: As I said, you shouldn't take that as an
opinion at this point. I'm just saying that at least is an open
question that I would want to look at further.
Mr Levac:
Having that opinion, it really does make sense to stand this down
until we can get a definitive answer on it and, in fairness, a
definition if it doesn't exist. The gentleman I spoke to- I
believe his name was Mr List-indicated that it was a defined
piece of property in the municipality. But having said that, I'm
quite prepared to let this sit for a bit to get it answered.
Mr Spina:
I'm not opposed to or supportive of the amendment. We all want to
do the right thing, if you will.
David, you mentioned the
connector between points in the trail system, I think, for
example, if you're going from one part of the trail to another
part and there's a connector that goes through a piece of
municipal land. Generally speaking it would seem to me-and like
you, I'm not a lawyer either-that if the local snowmobile club,
ostensibly under the sanction of the OFSC, sought from the
municipality use of that section to connect the trails, then it
becomes a piece of sanctioned trail. I'm not sure where
liabilities are there. If they're using it without the authority,
permission, sanction of the municipal government, then I'm sure
there's a whole different set of circumstances there. My concern
is that if we're trying to create something where there isn't
something, in other words, if it's a sanctioned trail, presumably
liability would be in place-I'm guessing-by the federation, the
user of the snowmobile
or the municipality. If it's not a sanctioned trail, then the
municipality, if they're concerned, would have the legal right to
walk in and shut that chunk of trail down.
Mr Levac:
I can speak to that. Mr List spoke of both options, both
scenarios. He spoke of a scenario of the piece being handed over,
if you will, to the club, but for some reason he was quite
convinced that they would still be liable, they would still be
suable under the circumstances, that it was still theirs. The
second thing: he referred to subsection 308(5) of the Municipal
Act, indicating that it was an old chestnut and it's still the
same thing and it hasn't been changed since forever, I guess, was
his comment-130 years if it's case law. You can't do it legally
unless it's a bike or a walk path. So that's what brought me to
the whole concern about the idea that the municipalities
continued to voice concern that even if it was being used as a
trail, other people still have access to it because it's-and then
he used the same thing-"unopened road allowance." He kept voicing
that they were still liable under any scenario because they can't
give this road away; they can't sell it. I couldn't quite get the
whole thing and I called him back, and he simply said, "All you
have to do is remove the liability and the municipalities will be
happy." Where that goes, Joe, I don't know. Again, I come back to
it: I don't know what the legalese is and I don't know whether we
should be at least not trying to take care of that particular
piece. I think he said there were 12 different pieces of trail
that he was aware of in the province that had that unopened road
allowance problem, 12 pieces. I don't know where they are, and I
didn't get them identified.
1720
Mr Spina:
I don't know if Laura, as legislative counsel, has an opinion on
this.
The Chair:
Mr Spina, actually, I've been keeping notes of all the various
questions that have been asked. I'd be happy to pass them to Ms
Hopkins. They are-and let me know if I've missed anything: given
that your amendment number 7 would have the effect of taking
"motorized snowmobiles" and turning them into "motor vehicles"
for the purposes of the Insurance Act, what is the case law
related to all motor vehicle use on unopened road allowance; what
happens to an unopened road allowance when it becomes a
sanctioned trail; what happens when it's used in an unauthorized
fashion; it's my understanding that the landowners on either side
of an unopened road allowance have particular rights and
responsibilities, so would this impact on them; and Mr Levac has
posed the question, what significance and relevance is section
308, paragraph 5 of the Municipal Act. Have I missed any of the
questions that relate to this amendment?
I don't know, Mr Endicott,
if it's fair to put them to you.
Mr
Endicott: Sorry. I'm not an expert on unopened road
allowances.
The Chair:
I didn't know, given your expertise in insurance, whether the
fact that this will become a motor vehicle-whether you have any
experience in that area, the case law or the statutes related to
the use of any motor vehicles in an unopened road allowance.
Mr
Endicott: I don't. I would only hasten to add that the
effect of this amendment will be to restore what was always
thought to be the case, that they were motor vehicles in any
event. This amendment is driven, I think, by what many people
certainly in the insurance industry regarded as a surprise, with
the courts holding that a motorized snow vehicle was not a motor
vehicle, since it's required to be insured under a motor vehicle
liability policy, and the definition of a motor vehicle liability
policy is one that insures an automobile. So in that sense it's
just restoring, I think, what everybody understood before. A
negligence claim with respect to an unopened road allowance is
probably the same whether it's a motor vehicle or not; there just
may be other actors involved that may have liability.
Mr Spina:
For the record, I think he's referring to amendment number 7, not
6.
The Chair:
I understand. Thanks, Mr Spina.
Is it the wish of the
committee, then, that we stand down motion 6A pending answers
from legislative counsel to the questions?
Mr Spina:
I have one other little question that's a corollary to what
you've got there. I'm wondering what the status is of someone
driving an off-road vehicle or an ATV. I'm presuming the same
kinds of things would apply, or the same kinds of problems,
perhaps, could apply to those off-road users, and by adopting
your motion it would really be for a very short, limited group of
users, as opposed to addressing a much larger issue which I think
should come under municipal affairs. If we were to bring this
into account now-I'd rather you withdraw it or we defeat it,
David, because it would become too narrow to snowmobiles. This is
a larger issue than I think we're prepared to handle at this
committee.
Mr Levac:
Having said that, I'd like to have it happen, though, so we can
get the research people to find out whether or not there is even
cause to do it. If there's cause to do it, I'd like to be able to
address that at the next meeting. That would give us time to find
out whether we want to leave it here in this bill for
snowmobilers, or do we want to advise municipalities that they
had better be looking at something broader than simply 101? So I
take your logic and I'd want to apply it.
Mr Spina:
Based on that, I'm wondering if it's in order, then.
The Chair:
I think it's certainly within the purview of the committee to ask
for the kind of feedback that you have asked for in those
questions. Recognizing the time and the less than likely
circumstance of getting an answer this afternoon, I think we will
have to resign ourselves to standing that amendment down, and
obviously the corresponding section, if that's the will of the
committee.
Agreed? Agreed. We can move
on.
Perhaps you could stay
there, Mr Endicott, because the next motion is related to
insurance.
Mr Spina: I move that section 6 of
the bill be struck out and the following substituted:
"6.(1) Subsections 12(1),
(2) and (3) of the act are repealed and the following
substituted:
"Insurance
"(1) No person shall drive
a motorized snow vehicle unless the vehicle is insured under a
motor vehicle liability policy in accordance with the Insurance
Act, and the owner of a motorized snow vehicle shall not permit
any person to drive the vehicle unless the vehicle is so
insured.
"Production of evidence of
insurance
"(2) The driver of a
motorized snow vehicle who drives or permits the driving of the
motorized snow vehicle shall, upon the request of a police
officer or conservation officer, produce evidence that the
vehicle is insured under a motor vehicle liability policy in
accordance with the Insurance Act.
"Offence for failure to
have insurance
"(3) Every person who
contravenes subsection (1) is guilty of an offence and on
conviction is liable to a fine of not less than $200 and not more
than $1,000.
"(2) Section 12 of the act
is amended by adding the following subsection:
"Application of part VI of
Insurance Act
"(6) A motorized snow
vehicle shall be deemed to be a motor vehicle for the purposes of
part VI of the Insurance Act."
The Chair:
Any debate?
Ms Lankin:
One more time, I would just ask legal counsel to give us a brief,
definitive statement of what this accomplishes, so I know I
understand what is happening.
Mr
Endicott: OK. The amendment to 6(1), which has three
subsections, is actually correcting an anomaly that exists in the
Motorized Snow Vehicles Act, which I believe requires the driver
of the snowmobile to be insured, as opposed to the vehicle
itself. This is not consistent with the way other compulsory
insurance operates in Ontario, in particular motor vehicles and
off-road vehicles. We tried to do some research to find out why
it was put on the driver rather than on the vehicle. Customarily
it's vehicles that are insured, not persons. This just puts it
into practice with what they are, because they are often issued
with motor vehicle policies as well.
Ms Lankin:
I have a question on that point. Currently, is it the correct
interpretation of the law that if a person has life insurance
they can go without vehicle insurance?
Mr
Endicott: No. They would still have to have a motor
vehicle liability policy. It is technically possible to have one
that is issued on a driver rather than on a vehicle. But as I
said, normally the requirements, if you look at the compulsory
auto act, are that the owner of the vehicle is required to be
sure the vehicle is insured.
Ms Lankin:
But this isn't creating any new obligation with respect to
insuring the operator and vehicle with respect to snowmobiling.
It's just clarifying the language.
Mr
Endicott: That's correct. That was always there; the
fine was there and so on.
The second amendment is, I
guess, probably the more important of the two, and it is to
perhaps overrule a recent Court of Appeal decision that found
that a motorized snow vehicle was not an automobile for the
purposes of part VI of the Insurance Act, which is the entire
automobile insurance regime. It provides for limited liability in
certain circumstances. It actually has other provisions that have
cost transfer with respect to snowmobiles and the like.
It was a rather unusual
decision which would remove certain protections from the owners
of snow vehicles and could result in an increase in the cost of
auto insurance. Also, frankly there was an uncertainty about what
the court meant, in terms of how it would apply in other
situations. Any time you have uncertainty, that also makes
insurers less likely to write insurance, so this really just
restores it. Once a motorized snow vehicle is a motor vehicle
under part VI, it comes within the definition of "automobile," so
it is, as was always understood, an automobile for the purpose of
and within the auto insurance system.
The Chair:
Any further debate? Seeing none, all those in favour of the
amendment? Opposed? It carries. We strike another blow for the
duly-elected Parliament.
Shall section 6, as
amended, carry? Section 6 is carried.
Mr Spina:
I move that subsection 17.1(1) of the Motorized Snow Vehicles
Act, as set out in section 8 of the bill, be amended by striking
out "who is readily identifiable as such" in the sixth and
seventh lines.
This amendment is being
proposed to address the concern that STOP officers, who also
enforce the act as special constables, may not be as quickly
identifiable as police officers even though they have a uniform
and identification. That's the only reason it's necessary. But
they have the power and the authority.
Ms Lankin:
If I may, this becomes a very important amendment, particularly
in light of the general powers we are going to give the minister
to designate trail wardens, who would have been limited by the
earlier language, "is readily identifiable." I'm appreciative and
will support this amendment for that very reason.
The Chair:
Any further debate? Seeing none, I'll put the question. All those
in favour of the amendment? Opposed? It is carried.
Shall section 8, as
amended, carry? Section 8, as amended, is carried.
I believe we all agreed
that section 9 would be stood down, unless we've had an answer.
Ms Lankin?
Ms Lankin:
Yes, I would like to request at this time that that be stood
down. Legislative counsel has drafted an amendment for the
committee to look at. She's reviewing it with the ministry lawyer
right now and will then, I assume, produce copies for the
committee.
The Chair:
That's certainly a requirement. Thank you. If it's the wish of
the committee, we'll stand down section 9. Agreed?
Mr Spina: Do you want a
five-minute recess?
The Chair:
No, just agree.
Mr Spina:
Agreed.
The Chair:
Thank you.
Mr Spina:
Till when?
The Chair:
We'll proceed with the other sections and then come back, in the
two or three minutes it will take to say, "Shall sections 10
through 13"-
Mr Spina:
Thank you. Sorry, you're the Chair, not me.
The Chair:
Is there any debate or amendments to sections 10 through 13?
Seeing none, I'll put the question. Shall sections 10 through 13
carry? Carried.
Shall the title of the bill
carry? Carried.
Now we face the logistical
issue that-
Ms Lankin:
May I suggest that we take a five-minute recess so Mr Spina might
be able to consult with legislative counsel and ministry counsel,
take a look at the amendment and see if he can give it his
blessing. That might speed us along a little bit.
The Chair:
It is certainly your right to request that, and the committee
stands recessed for five minutes.
The committee recessed
from 1733 to 1751.
The Chair:
I call the committee back to order. As the clerk has ably noted,
we can actually deal with section 9, because what we're talking
about with the amendment that has been circulated would be a new
section, 9.1.
So, let me first go back to
section 9 itself. Any amendments or debate? Ms Lankin. That's a
new section.
Ms Lankin:
Sorry. Go ahead.
The Chair:
That's OK, not that I'm psychic or anything.
Seeing none, I'll put the
question. All those in favour of section 9? Carried.
That takes us to a proposed
amendment. Ms Lankin.
Ms Lankin:
I'm going to move a new section of the bill. I'm wondering if I
might just explain to committee members what I'm going to do,
which is slightly different than the piece of paper they have in
front of them, before I actually move it. Can I have that kind of
leeway from the Chair?
The Chair:
Absolutely.
Ms Lankin:
Thank you.
Committee members will see
a draft amendment, which has been done by legislative counsel,
attempting to meet the concerns that the committee spoke of
earlier, those concerns being the authority for the minister to
designate, for example, a trail warden to have the powers of
police officers with respect to the sections of the act that deal
with mandatory trail permits and the display of the trail permits
and the offence of not having mandatory trail permits.
You'll see that there are
two key paragraphs here. In consultation with ministry counsel, I
think you will hear that there is an objection overall that the
authority to appoint trail wardens for such responsibilities
exists in other pieces of legislation, and, more particularly, if
it were to be contained within this piece of legislation, that
the second paragraph is problematic.
I intend to move this
amendment without that second paragraph and add a couple of words
to the amendment. I would ask members to listen carefully. At the
end of the first paragraph, I'm adding about six words. Just so
that you know it will be coming and you could make note of
that.
I move that the bill be
amended by adding the following section:
"9.1 The act is amended by
adding the following section:
"Enforcement
"26.1(1) For greater
certainty, the minister may designate any person or class of
persons under subsection 1(3) of the Provincial Offences Act as a
provincial offences officer for the purposes of enforcing
subsection 2.1 and exercising the powers of a police officer
under subsection 17.1(1)."
Mr Garfield Dunlop
(Simcoe North): Can you repeat that, Frances,
please?
Ms Lankin:
Yes.
"26.1(1) For greater
certainty, the minister may designate any person or class of
persons under subsection 1(3) of the Provincial Offences Act as a
provincial offences officer for the purposes of enforcing
subsection 2.1 and exercising the powers of a police officer
under subsection 17.1(1)."
If I may, let me tell you
first of all what the amendment does. It makes it very clear and
contains within this piece of legislation the regulation-making
authority or the designation authority of the minister to
designate persons to do two things: to deal with the new offence
created under subsection (2.1); that is the new subsection that
mandates trail permits, that a person must have a trail permit
and that they must display the trail permit and sets out an
offence if a person fails to comply with the provisions in (2.1).
This would allow the minister to designate a provincial offences
officer to have the power to deal with that.
The reference to the words
that I added, "and exercising the powers of a police officer
under subsection 17.1(1)," that is the new power of a police
officer to stop a snowmobile. So if you see someone zipping along
without a trail permit, you have to have the power to actually
stop them to be able to tell them that they have committed an
offence at that point in time. So that's the reference there.
Ministry counsel quite
rightly points out, as does this amendment, that the power to
appoint a provincial offences officer is already contained within
the Provincial Offences Act. Similarly, the power to name someone
as a police officer, for example, the STOP officers out there, is
contained in the Police Act. I think what we have heard from the
community out there is that they want, within their own piece of
legislation, to be able to understand what powers are and what
powers may be designated. Ordinary folk in snowmobile clubs don't
read the Provincial Offences Act and the Police Act to find out
whether or not they could be appointed.
This doesn't undermine any other piece of
legislation. It may be considered by ministry counsel, legal
counsel, to be redundant, and I understand that concern. However,
I think it gives, as the amendment says, greater certainty and
greater clarity, and it's more direct communication to the people
that we're trying to write this legislation for.
The Chair:
Recognizing the time, I invite brief comments. But rather than
cut off debate, if you'd prefer we can carry this over to allow a
more fulsome debate on the following Wednesday.
Mr Spina:
The following Wednesday, which is-
The Chair:
December 6.
Mr Spina:
We have some concerns, but that's what the Chair is calling on,
that this committee recess and we come back with-
The Chair:
Actually, the Chair is pointing out that it's 6 of the clock, and
according to our rules-
Ms Lankin:
Unless you're ready to vote on it. If you need to talk to some
folks, we've got to take some more time.
The Chair:
I sense there is a need for further debate around the table.
Seeing that we've got the other issue-
Ms Lankin:
I have a technical question. The motion is moved; it's on the
floor, and if another member subs in, that's entirely OK?
The Chair:
Absolutely.
Ms Lankin:
I won't be able to be here.
The Chair:
That's OK.
Ms Lankin:
But remember my arguments.
The Chair:
I'm sure they'll be ably supported by whomever you send.
With that, the committee
stands adjourned until Wednesday at 3:30.
