Disclaimer: Joe Kowalski owns and publishes the Whitewater News, and this is a disclosure of that connection.
The Council heard the motion “That Council of the Township of Whitewater Region receive this report for information purposes as it relates to Whitewater Ontario’s proposal to provide public access to the whitewater portion of the Ottawa River using an unopened road allowance. “
CAO Trembley provided the report of the potential options, with the first being to do nothing and “continue to rely on private interests” such as Wilderness’ Tours current free access provided to the river.
The other recommended option, Option 5, was to establish a memorandum of understanding, or MoU, with Whitewater Ontario, the organization proposing the use of the unopened road access, which would include demonstration of ability to pay $150,000 in funding, a site plan, confirmation of insurance coverage, a risk-mitigation plan, and “a draft operating plan showing how the site would be constructed”.
The other three options were ‘Not recommended’ by staff, CAO Trembley said.
“Whitewater wrote us as part of that consultation back in 2019.” he said. “They submitted a proposal back in March of 2021 proposing using an unopened road allowance for public whitewater access.”
CAO Trembley said that Wilderness Tours came to CAO Trembley to confirm that they would no longer be charging for Whitewater access, which they had publicly announced in December.
“The status quo would continue, Wilderness Tours is not charging for Whitewater access, they’re just requiring check-in.” he said.
He suggested another option was to “enter negotiations” with private owners to officially solidify access.
He said the options to sell the access or the Township opening it up on their own were ‘not recommended’ citing there being ‘a cost to do so.”
“The do nothing approach costs nothing.” CAO Trembley said, saying that leaving the access’ as-is’ “covers all the bases”
Councillor McLaughlin asked if Curtis Trail was an available access.
“Curtis trail is a privately owned trail.” Planner Burton said. “McCoy shoot trail is a road allowance and is owned by the township.”
“The road is seasonally maintained, and not plowed in the winter.” CAO Trembley said.
“Can we just vote on the issue and if it passes when we can move on?” Councillor Mackay said.
“I think there are more Councillors who want to speak on the other options.” Councillor Jackson said.
“That’s what we would be doing, we’re handing over the rights to monitor.” She said. “24 hour access, late access, Whitewater would have no control over that, any issues whitewater would still be liable. Municipalities get sued. Accidents on the river could increase if we allow inflatables. There was never inflatables brough up before. Who is going to provide rescue?”
“No one has addressed the issue of the steep embankment at. In all the emails and all the calls, no one has addressed the steep embankment. I had one resident who intended to take his handicapped child – I don’t know if he used the word ‘handicapped’ – to the river. I wasn’t going to get into a big long argument on the phone, but I wondered how he is going to get that child up the road. There is implication that they will take care of cleaning.. We know that the two businesses there are upstanding in the community, they’ve been there for forty years. We don’t know how these volunteers are going to go about it. Are they voted in, are they part of a board. Whitewater Ontario is a
“This is what I feel Wilderness Tours and OWL have done: Wilderness Tours “ Wilderness Tours is not the one that’s enforcing the cost of it, that was set by River Run years ago, Wilderness Tours just continued the cost when they took over River Run. I think it’s very important that we support our businesses that have been here for a very long time. I’ve never heard of so many people having rafts in my life. I go on the Whitewater Ontario website, I see one picture of one raft and its Wilderness Tours raft. All the other pictures are kayaks and canoes. They are not in the business of the. All of the partners in their associations. Why are we entertaining inflatables? The ability to have inflatables is very concerning; the inflatables on the river currently are professional grade, they can endure running into rocks. The companies running those inflatables can be relied upon. Someone calls 911 for an accident on the river, who does the fire department call? They call Wilderness Tours.”
“I think we need to ride this out, see how it’s going to run for a few years, if there are issues say ‘please bring those issues to Council’ and see how those issues. But once you cut a tree its’ gone; once you cut access, it’s gone. How are we going to know if they are going to provide access. I would like to have a plan before I would allow our road allowance to be used. I propose that the CAO and the mayor to go into negotiations with Wilderness Tours.”
“I’ve had a front-row seat into the development of this issue.” Councillor Olmstead said, citing his position on the Kerr line. “The sport has grown and benefited greatly by four or so businesses, i think some were on the Quebec side, and now it’s down to two. I have a concern that we’ve giving access to one of the dangerous areas and one of the most dangerous sports in the world. I think there’s a seventy-foot bluff at the end. We have world-class whitewater in our region. If you ever go past Chenaux Dam and see the water in the spring, there’s a lot of power there. I’m hesitant to open it for that reason.”
“Who is going to police it? I don’t think at this point of time unfettered access is the right idea on this time. I’m not for more more government or more rules – I’m a biker, rules fly right out the window – but I’ve been to Mexico or Jamaica where there are no rules and see the danger people are put into. I get that we’re inundated with calls and there’s a lot of pressure, but I think we owe it to the businesses and the kayakers to mediate this out. The road is there to formulate a partnership; there’s never been a better time to formulate a partnership than now. If that doesn’t work then we can go with another options. I’m not comfortable for there to be an agreement for a put-in, and to have no agreement for a take-out. Should you not have an agreement for a put-in and a take-out. I don’t think the option 5 is whole-some enough for an agreement.”
“I think liability is huge, that the fact that going with Whitewater Ontario we’re relying on the volunteers of today; we don’t know where they will be tomorrow.” Jackson said. “To have an organization open up free access is unprecedented, it’s unheard of. This is an opportunity that we need to take advantage of for a few years. And not just one year, and make it an election issue this year, I think a couple of years. If someone is having an issue, they need to tell council and have an opportunity to give it to council. Don’t just jump in because we’re getting a lot of calls. I don’t want to do the ‘;squeaky wheel gets the grease’ like we did in Westmeath [referring to the Westmeath Cenotaph and the cancellation of its move to a new park]. This has only been open for two months, if it doesn’t work in two years, we can look at it again, I think that some of the people that are emailing are not thinking about the cliff. I’m not in the mood to argue with poeple, because if you say what you have concerns with, they get angry. They get very angry.”
“A lot people are saying it will bring tourism is, and it’s unfortunate . There is no more development regarding whitewater businesses; is there a kayak business that works to replace a paddle. If this area was in the States, you would see a whitewater business at every corner and all the way down the street, selling t-shirts, selling helmets. I don’t say how many businesses are going to be increased. Annie’s gas bar, yes; Shell station, yes. Anything else, they’re going right back to the Ottawa. There’s not many campgrounds available for overnight, they’ll be camping at friends and family. Nobody has answered that to me, when I asked about it, i was attacked. Get your t’s crossed and your i’s dotted. Get some assurances that it will be monitors, get assurances that there will be a few kayaks available for safety, don’t rely on wilderness tours and OWL for that. Once it’s opened up, we’re responsible, and it’s on our taxpayers.”
“I don’t mean to challenge Charlene here; well, I do.” Councillor Mackay said. “She’s a bureaucrat, and that’s what they do, they get scared. Kowalski lost people on the river; River run probably lost people.”
“I know what volunteers can do. Volunteers can use a lot.” “I saw we give these new guys a chance.”
He also questioned whether inflatable rafts were intended based on the calls he had received. “They never said one word about inflateables.’, he said.
“I don’t think we’ve had this much input on a council item since the Cenotaph.” Councillor Nicholson said. “It can’t go without being recognized. They’ve offered this free of charge since December, acknowledging the potential for vandalism and abuse. I think they do this to support and help the community. I’ve had a lot of phone calls on this issues. I’ve climbed the area that has been referred to, I’ve been on the phone with people on both sides, and it led to me to do a bit of research. How will this affect our commercial operators because you
“I did studies on Golden, BC, and CN blocked the access to Kicking Horse river. They had no say in that river but everyone who used that river would come through their town. . I’ve done research in the US, and most of it is in regards to hydro. I looked at the policy of BC and they have a recreational access policy where theyh grant access to businesses.”
“I believe our situation has very unique aspects.” he said. “It’s important that we understand the aspects of liability. I know that we can be sued. We also need to have contingencies for vandalism and theft. I think we need to look into this in more detail. I think it’s unfair to rely slowly on our private rafting companies. We don’t have resources and facilities to manage it, and I don’t want to. I’m in favour of exploring this Whitewater proposal over two years, in order to determine if they can adequately answer my questions, and only after that would I be in support of opening up the access.”
“The motion before us is option number one.” Reeve Regier said. “I think that we need to vote on and discuss that issue before we debate anything else, am I right clerk?”
Clerk Carmen Miller responded with “Yes, please.”
Mayor Moore asked if the first motion had been done, and CAO Trembley said that it was not seconded so it was not provided. Mayor Moore then restated that they needed to vote on Jacksons proposal.
Councillor Jackson interrupted. “I am not opposed to option five, I feel that it’s prudent to enter into an agreement for option one for a number of years. It does not exclude to come back to the agreement in two years time. If we vote for option five, I just want to put it out there – and i’ve had no conversations with the business – but if we go into an agreement with option five without an agreement for option one, how long will they go before they stop the access? I don’t know how long I’d leave my public access for free when all the liability and the cost lies on me.”
“I think we’re going down a wrong path with wanting to achieve public access, and we’ve done that with the two businesses. I would just hesitate.”
Councillor Olmstead asked if it would be “prudent to include Whitewater Ontario and Wilderness tours in the motion.”
“Option one is really about using open existing private access.” CAO Trembley said. “Option Two is about using our public road allowance.”
“I would personally see option one, but not putting option five away.” Councillor McLaughlin said. “Because I do understand, In my mind, you’re stopping growth and development; these kayakers, they’ve bought property here, But to go ahead with option 5, no: come back to me with costs, with a plan. I have issues with parking, I have issues with trespassing. It will have to be fenced, and what kind of fence are you gonna put up? I wanna know. I thought that the first proposal was to go over to private property and go down to the river. But now talking to these people, they just wanna use the road access only, and that’s fine, because if they’re going back onto private property, it just doesn’t make sense. I’d be totally against that. I don’t want to give them the rights to go ahead, but I want them to go and bring back a firm plan and, as Councillor Olmstead said, with some figures. For sure, we’re not going to just let someone go in there with a backhoe, And I’m sure Ivan [Burton] we have standards for this. But as Councillor Jackson said, see where this goes. I listened to all the screaming and shouting in the last elections. Let’s see where this goes, but lets not close the door on Option 5. I don’t know how to put it into motion, maybe I can put it to the CAO and he can do some magic.”
“I think once you dispose of option one, so you deal with that, you can move another motion to deal with Whitewater Ontario, but you have to deal with the motion on the table.” CAO Trembley said.
“I get the frustration, but I’m not shutting the door. “Charlene Jackson said. “One year is just not enough; it has to be two years, maybe three. It’s going to take Whitewater Ontario at least that long to come up with that solution anyways. I think that their thought is both favorable, but it’s not there yet.” I think if we put a timetable in place with everything aside. My fear is that if we shut the door, there will be no public access this summer, or any access. We want to be cognizant of that.”
“Once they are capable of doing that, we can entertain their suggestion, but they’re not ready for it right now. If someone is in agreement in three years, we can add that to the motion.”
“My understanding is that the private businesses do not want the unopened road access opened.” CAO Trembley said, saying that the two options . “Lets be honest that there are two sides to this and they do not agree on how to proceed with this. We would like both options to be available but likely they will not both be feasible. I don’t think either side is supportive of the other option, otherwise we would have brought this in December.”
“Wilderness Tours does not want to enter into the unopened road allowance opened.” CAO Trembley said. “Despite it now being free, Whitewater Ontario wants to proceed with their plan with the unopened road allowance.”
“I’m not being influenced by Wilderness tours or OWL rafting in any way. These are my concerns.” Charlene Jackson said. “yes Joe Kowalski as contacted me. I just got an email saying that I don’t know what public access is – yes, I’ve worked in treasury for years, I know what public access is. With regards to the cenotaph, you don’t satisfy everyone, the people who support it don’t come out of the woodwork until the others against it come out. “
“There’s a lot of ‘ifs’ if they satisfy those ‘ifs’ in the future, it’s much better for everyone involved.”
“I take that as a threat. There is your threat.” Reeve Regier. “I appreciate the private owner for opening access. That’s exactly what it is; it’s private access. Their land. Anyone who requests access to this land. As a private land, I would want to know who’s crossing our . What happens to the disputes when they start arising with the kayakers and the landowners. Who resolves that. The Mayor? The municipal government? I don’t wanna deal with that. The people who will lose the disputes are the kayakers and the paddlers. I look at Kowalski and the owners. When we look around this township are employed with Mr. Kowalski and dirk. These are people who set up shop around here. There’s nothing we can take for granted here. I am not one to play the election card, I could care less. We looked at this in the last election, here we are talking about it again. I guarantee if we don’t take of this this session, I guarantee that the next council will have., make a decision. I’m struggling with it, I’m not going to be in favour with item number one, I’m in favour with moving forward with a later agreement.”
“They’re going to have to come forward with assessments. I think moving forward in the future, I think public access is the future. We don’t know where Kowalski or Dirk will be going forward. Whatever decision we make here, it will be for future generations.”
At this point, the council motioned to extend the meeting by one hour, and took a five minute break at 7:44 pm. And reconvened at 7:50.
Councillor Olmstead said that he ‘did not want to shut anyone out”, and asked Councillor Mackay how long it would take to develop the area for access.
“I think it’s very flat.” Councillor Mackay said, saying some trees would also have to be removed.
“If we have to allow public access for two or three years. Am I as a business owner going t olet people continue to come through my property at all? The reason why I was trying to bring the groups together so that I can script the next few years for you if you ”
Reeve Regier asked for a recorded vote on the motion.
“I am not in favour. Reeve Regier said.
“Not in favour.” Nicholson said
Councillor Olmstead and Councillor Jackson said they were in favour.
Councillor McLaughlin asked for clarification if there was a timeframe on the motion, which CAO Trembley restated had not been seconded and the current motion was on Jackson’s original proposal.
He voted in favour.
Councillor Mackay voted against it, as did Mayor Moore.
The motion failed 4-3.
“Should no other motion comes forward, the status quo remains.” CAO Trembley said. “The private owner’s access remains.”
Councillor Mackay made a motion to address option five.
“I think it’s a good idea, I think these people have all these things to get their ducks in the row, and I think they’re gonna do a good job.” he said. “I’ve talked to all sorts of people who don’t kayak, guys my age, and they’re all for it.”
Reeve Regier clarified that the motion she was in favour for was “a signed memorandum that there would be public access to the river for years to come. It’s not a decision I’m taking lightly – we’ve heard it many, many times. I have to move forward with the betterment of this municipality, and the future of further access to the river for future generations.”
Councillor Nicholson tabled an amendment to the motion to add the contents of option one to add them to the current motion.
CAO Trembley said that that would be ‘reconsideration’ and that if the Councillor wanted to add similar language to the motion, they would need to
Councillor Nicholson withdrew his motion.
Councillor Jackson said she had ‘a few concerns of this one. I think it’s being a treasurer and all the reasons people . What is the difference between minutes of understanding and a agreement.”
“A MoU said that ‘yes, we agree to continue working with you, but these five prerequisites are what we require of you. The MOU just starts the conversation.”
Jackson said that she would like to see ‘appropriate fencing’ be added into it, and that they would ‘need to have a plan in place before they could have any access to the property to make paths, to cut down trees. I also want a memorandum of undest6anding that no commercial business is allowed to entertain on municipally owned property.”
I want it to be clear to Councillor Mackay understands that the agreement is with Whitewater Ontario, not all the people he’s spoken with. We need to understand how their group works. Do they have a yearly election? How long do they sit in terms. It is Ontario, I understand that there are some people that are locally on the group. I want some assurances that whoever that is is going to look after this memorandum of understanding. I want the signing authorities to be held responsible for the memorandum of understanding. What happens if the people who sign it today aren’t there tomorrow? What are they going to do with construction costs, grading of the road; are they going to have. I think they have to speak to MoE and MNR, I think we to have some kind of agreement before they have access to the river.”
“In addition to MOE and MNR, I’d like to include First Nations.” Councillor Nicholson said. “I’d also like there. I think there needs to me address to the put-in.”
CAO Trembley said that “Whitewater Ontario is incorporated like we are. It’s an entity, and any agreement signed will be with the entity. All discussion with organizations including Indigenous people would be including as part of the site plan process. The operational plan would also address who has access and who doesn’t have access. All of that due diligence would happen over that two year period where they have an MoU. “
“At this point I just have so many questions.” Councillor Olmstead said. “I’m starting to write them down and I’m running out of paper. I’d need to have them addressed before we could proceed. How are we going to address independent operators, policing. What happens if Whitewater Ontario dissolves? Look at how many organizations dissolve in Ontario; there’s more than are created. I’d need to have paper agreements. They’re really hard to get a handle on, what happens to the put-in, we have a take out but we have no put in. I’d need all those answered and I’d probably have a thousand more and I’d probably need to have those addressed.
“I understand and I hear all of it, but maybe our next step is to bring one or two representatives to answer questions.” Reeve Regier said. “You’re shaking your head at me, Councillor Jackson, so is that not an option for us?”
“I think we’re directing staff to do that.” Jackson said. “I think to bring them here and revisit this issue is the last thing we want to do, but I think the memorandum will come back for us to vote on and there may or may not be questions to vote on. Whether it will be a public meeting, I don’t know. But I think that’s the time to have it, that’s why I’m shaking my head.”
“I think it’s fair enough, if it’s staff bringing it forward, then they will have all our questions, but I think that until then, I’m not supporting it.
Reeve Regier also requested a recorded vote for this motion.
“I think there’s a pile of problems here.” Councillor McLaughlin said. “if we don’t have public access to put-in, why worry about taking it out. I think the first thing that should be done is show me where the public put-in is; right now, it’s privately owned. Yeah, you have no problems today, but you can’t tell the owner to sell it because they gotta use it. You gotta have public put-in before you have public take out. The problem i have with this is that it’s only 66ft [on takeout]. Have you seen the kind of vehicles . “how is an emergency vehicle going to access this?”
“If those aren’t addressed with a public program, I want access to public -put-in – if you can’t put it in, you can’t take it out. My biggest problem is emergency parking. You need to have parking. And until I get those answered, there’s not going to be a shovel put in if I don’t have any answers. They say 150,000, I dunno, I think that’s 2km, if I’m not mistaken, and not through easy access. If it had been easy access, there’s be a path put through there already. You need to have these studies, but more importantly, you need to have public put-in.”
“Is this the only place that we can open up a road allowance?” Councillor Olmstead asked, which Mayor Moore clarified that this was the only township-owned place for takeout.
Councillor McLaughlin said that by “my understanding is that it’s very steep and I don’t know the cost to restore it.”
“Whitewater Ontario looked at options I’m assuming, and this is what they went with.” CAO Trembley said. “I think there’s another takeout point further down near the park, but it’s not part of our rapids.”
Councillor Olmstead asked if they could confirm that McCoy road was the only access.
The recorded vote for option 5, for negotiations for a memorandum of understanding for the unopened road allowance on February 22 had Reeve Regier, Councillor Nicholson, Councillor Mackay, and Mayor Moore in favour.
Councillors Olmstead, Jackson, and McLaughlin, were not in favour.
Councillor Nicholson made a motion to extend the meeting, though it was said it was not necessary.
He then made a motion to direct the staff to make an agreement with ‘interested parties for a public access to put-in’.
There were no questions on his motion, and the motion was carried.
The Council then went back to the original motion to receive the report for information purposes, which was carried.
