Go Back  RCU Forums > RC Airplanes > M.A.A.C.
Reload this Page >

Is oujr Provincial Government helping R/C!!!!

Notices
M.A.A.C. Discuss Model Aeronautics Association of Canada policies, decisions & any other MAAC related topics here.

Is oujr Provincial Government helping R/C!!!!

Old 04-23-2007, 11:36 AM
  #1  
gelcoat-RCU
Thread Starter
My Feedback: (206)
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Ste Julie, QC, CANADA
Posts: 64
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default Is oujr Provincial Government helping R/C!!!!

For years R/C clubs have had their ins and outs with one of the Quebec Provincial government administrative agency called "La Commission pour la protection des Terres Agricoles du Québec" (CEPETQ), the administrative agency responsible for the protection of agricutural land. The issue has always been the so-called unauthorized use of agricultural land for activity for which an exemption would not have been granted under the provincial regulation. Over the past year or two several clubs (at least 5 ) have come under the Commission's hatchet and advised to cease and desist or otherwise. It would appear that this government agency has set stringent goals of protecting the land to the square inch regardless of the dire needs of the R/C modelers and the serious health and safety issues that compell clubs to resort to rural space.

Recently, one club, The "Brossair" club, located in the Borough of Brossard in the city of Longueuil has been targetted by the CEPETQ after enjoying 24 years of flying at the same site. Benefitting from the unquestionnable support of the property owner and the full and active collaboration of the Borough council of Brossard, CEPETQ still stood firm on their decision to close the club down. Logic and reason was not even recognized; principle and letter of the law prevailed. The young and the elders, the in-betweens, the gents and the ladies practicing this wonderful hobby were relegated to their home backyards without any compassion and in full disregard to the great good procured to the community and the aeronautical industry.

ENOUGH is ENOUGH.

Brossard has got the ball rolling on a campaign to reach the heasds of governments and inform them that this class free family activity needs their undivided attention and favorable support.

Let this video clip tell the rest of the story:

> http://www.mgertech.com/CFCF-BROSSAIR.wmv

We need your whole support morally, and ....even otherwise to bring this issue to a favorable outcome.

Jean B.
Old 04-23-2007, 12:24 PM
  #2  
Donovan Dow
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Ottawa, ON, CANADA
Posts: 79
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default RE: Is oujr Provincial Government helping R/C!!!!

Afternoon Jean

Have you spoken to your Maac zone director?

cheers
don dow

http://www.rideauflyers.com/
Old 04-24-2007, 12:10 AM
  #3  
Jim_Purcha
My Feedback: (8)
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 1,915
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default RE: Is oujr Provincial Government helping R/C!!!!

Good evening, the CEPETQ had already closed down two or three other clubs. You're been there for 27 years. Good lord. I feel for you, the Winnipeg Radio Control Club moved from Seine River Park a few years back due to highway reconstruction (through the runways), but at least the City of Winnipeg and the Club came to an agreement on a new site. But to kick the club out for now apparent reason. Nice field, it doesn't look like you're bothering anyone.

I agree get the MAAC Zone Director in on this one for support.
Old 04-24-2007, 11:06 AM
  #4  
dr_wogz
My Feedback: (3)
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Pointe Claire, QC, CANADA
Posts: 2,015
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default RE: Is oujr Provincial Government helping R/C!!!!

http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/m_5708387/tm.htm

Gelcoat, go here. i started a thread about this. And i'm a member at Brossair!

There is also one on that canadian forums site..

Thi si stotally not cool. Yes, Steve Woloz is involved, as well as Bob Forest. We have support, and apparenly MAAC is making a request on our behalf, as we have a lawyer all lined up. We jsut need to pay him!

I expect this to grow into a large movement!
Old 04-27-2007, 03:10 PM
  #5  
byrocat
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Aurora| Ontario, ON, CANADA
Posts: 85
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default RE: Is oujr Provincial Government helping R/C!!!!

Here's the link to the RC Canada thread...
http://www.rccanada.ca/bb/viewtopic.php?t=32816

Old 04-30-2007, 11:03 AM
  #6  
dr_wogz
My Feedback: (3)
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Pointe Claire, QC, CANADA
Posts: 2,015
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default RE: Is oujr Provincial Government helping R/C!!!!

Despite a rainy sunday , and teh local French CBC cancelled, we still had a pertty large turn out. We also had a meeting, to plan teh next round..



Meeting Topic : Recommended Strategy to use in Defending our Flying Fields April 29, 2007

Suggested Action Plan

Meeting Location : Club Bross Air Brossard Que



Persons Present :



Club Bross Air : Pascal Forget : JEAN GABRIEL Roumy ; Jean Francois Levesque

Club Lafayette : Maurice Dugas ; Denis Peloquin

Club Monteregie : Jean Chevalier



MAAC : Steve Woloz ; Bob Forest



JEAN Blaquiere



Subject: Strategy in defending our flying fields : & Des nouvelles de l'UPA ( Pascal Forget )



Following In depth and knowledgeable presentation by Pascal Forget we were advised that the CPTAQ is a branch of Quebec Government that was almost unaccountable to others and had the power to enforce ( to the letter ) laws set out in the 1980’s, which laws were originally established to protect farmlands from being lost or used for purpose other than farming and which laws are not totally up to date with current farmland utilisation.



Pascal advised us that having been to hearings in front of the commission, the only way in which we might have a chance to make our point is have a professional report made by an environmental expert in which the report could clearly demonstrate that:



1: the presence of our flying field had no negative impact on the farmland where we were located ; ( eg no negative impact on dairy cows by being frightened by low flying model planes )

2: that we did not pose any threat to the community in which we fly;

3: That the land occupied by our flying field is so infinitesimally small in comparison to the total available farmland in which our filed is located that its impact was insignificant and did not pose any threat whatever to the farmland output in the region.

4: there was no other sight in the region that was more suitable to relocate our field



Two different quotes from experts had professional fees in the range of $ 3,000. to obtain this report.



Once a favorable report of this type would be produced, it was suggested by Denis Peloquin, who has a lot of experience in government negotiations , that our best chance of success would be to try to have a joint meeting with members of government representing four different sectors:

Environment; Agriculture; Industry and CPTAQ



We should try to negotiate an understanding with them to protect and retain our fields rather than go about head bashing and criticizing the CPTAQ about inconsistencies in these same farmland areas in which they permit golf clubs etc etc ;

it is recommended that an all out war like approach be used only as a last resort when all other tactics have failed .



If you read the attached recap made by Paccal ( in French ) the outlook does not seem too encouraging. However, we have no choice but to stand up and fight to defend our rights.



Additional thoughts that were put forward:



We should obtain delays in all hearings and then try to present all cases in one consolidated and more organized position
We should use funds presently be collected at MAAC for obtaining these kinds of professional environmental reports
We should try to enlist the sympathy and understanding of large corporations since closure of our flying fields would discourage youth to become acquainted with the fun and pleasure of modeling which ultimately can and will lead to a career in the aerospace industry.
When meeting with media of any sort, our message should always be positive and avoid trying to shoot down the CPTAQ. we need to win them over. Provoking an outright war would hurt our position with them today.


Steve



Steve Woloz

MAAC St-Laurent Zone Director

( Phone: (514) 944 8241

: Regular Email: [email protected]

: Wireless Email: [email protected]

http://www.maac.ca/



Bonsoir * tous,



*UPA: Union des Producteurs Agricoles



Le président de l'UPA nous a donné le nom et téléphone de deux personnes * l'UPA de St-Jean-Valleyfield:



Paul Caza et Jean Hogue 450 454-5115



Le président de l'UPA est très sympatique * notre cause. Mais il dit qu'il ne peut rien pour nous, tout au plus peut-être que une personne de l'UPA pourrait venir appuyer notre demande auprès de la CPTAQ (ce qui n'aurait probablement aucun impact sur la décision finale de la CPTAQ).



Le président de l'UPA confirme que le chef de la CPTAQ envoie parfois promener la Ministre de l'Agriculture, et que l'UPA eux-même ont des démêlés avec la CPTAQ. Il dit que la CPTAQ est un organisme autonome et indépendant du gouvernement qui peut faire * sa tête.



Donc en bref le président de l'UPA confirme que le CPTAQ est dirigé par des gens qui sont hors de contrôle et qui appliquent la Loi * la lettre.



Il nous souhaite bonne chance et nous réaffirme toute sa sympathie. Il conclut en nous recommandant de ne pas dépenser trop d'argent en frais d'avocats et en procédures, parce que selon lui la CPTAQ a la Loi de son côté.



En bref, il y a un gros problème avec la CPTAQ au Québec, nous ne sommes pas les seules victimes, et c'est * Québec qu'on va régler le problème.

Peut-être qu'un front commun avec des gens puissants qui ont de l'argent et qui ont aussi des problèmes avec la CPTAQ pourrait / devrait être envisagé.

L'UPA et les grosses compagnies agroalimentaires telles que Saputo ont elles aussi intérêt * ce que la Loi soit assouplie et * ce que la CPTAQ soit plus encâdrée par les membres du gouvernement, élus démocratiquement.



Le club BrossAir va quand-même demander audience auprès de la commission, mais nous allons faire traîner les choses en longueur.



J'aurais aimé vous apporter de meilleures nouvelles, mais autant savoir * quoi s'en tenir avec la commission.



Je crois que nous devrons commencer dès maintenant * chercher d'autres sites pour nos trois clubs.



Ou bien trouver le moyen de faire changer le zônage de vert * blanc pour des terres en friche en Montérégie. C'est faisable, la preuve en est le Quartier Dix30 * Brossard.



Merci, et bonne fin de soirée.





Pascal




Old 04-30-2007, 11:51 AM
  #7  
donkey doctor
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Lake Cowichan, BC, CANADA
Posts: 1,341
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default RE: Is oujr Provincial Government helping R/C!!!!

Hello; If that happened in BC, it could all be undone if you had an aboriginal club member who felt that his "first nations" rights are being compromised. Then you would see the various government arms fall all over themselves, trying to "help".

Seriously now, you have a big problem there, but a sideways solution might work, to solve it.
Old 09-10-2007, 10:21 AM
  #8  
dr_wogz
My Feedback: (3)
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Pointe Claire, QC, CANADA
Posts: 2,015
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default RE: Is oujr Provincial Government helping R/C!!!!

Latests update
(From our club secretary)

-------------------------------------------

Club BrossAir so far has only received a preliminary report from CPTAQ indicating that if nobody requests a hearing with them they will issue a ruling having the effect of closing our field.

The club and the city of Brossard have delayed the hearing as much as they could, and now the hearing is scheduled for October 2nd, 11am, at the CPTAQ office located at 25 Lafayette St. , 3rd Floor, Room 1, in Longueuil J4K 5C7

The city of Brossard will send its lawyer, Ms. Véronique Landry, she can be reached at 405 923-6300. The club will also attend, but so far our Lawyer has advised us not to use all of our ammo during the hearing and to keep some for the appeals tribunal.

In the invitation letter, the CPTAQ says that during the hearing, other people interested may present their observations if they so desire. I therefore understand that everybody should show up on that day, and I think it would be appropriate for MAAC to make a presentation. If dozens of people show up, maybe they will realize they are stepping on a lot of toes.

It is also my understanding that the CPTAQ folks that will be present don't understand a damn word of english.

I will also ask the Brossard Air cadets to send their captain.

Regards,

Pascal Forget
Former secretary, BrossAir club


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Meeting with the Club Lafayette re CPTAQ Sept 8/07

Location: Club Lafayette

Present : Maurice Dugas; Jean & Dianne Chevalier; Denis Peloquin; Luc Bergeron; Bob Forest ; Steve Woloz ; ( 12 Persons in Total plse see attached List in scanned file ( CPTAQ) for full listing)



Note:

Hearing for this club ( Club Lafayette ) to occur Oct 3/07 with Tribunal Administrative Du Quebec ( TAQ)

Hearing for (Monteregie de Napierville) to occur Nov 30/07 with TAQ as well.

Club Brossair: fighting against CPTAQ using defer / delay tactic

TAQ stands for Tribunal Administrative de Quebec / is court of appeal in Quebec one level higher than CPTAQ; Lafayette and Brosssair already lost their case in first round against CPTAQ and are now allowed to go to second level of defence by requesting a hearing at an appeals tribunal, the TAQ



following our meeting today; the following has emerged



1 Strategy points to present in hearing:


1.1 Safety


Nature of our pastime is such that for reasons of safety, urban sprawl and industrialization , our hobby pastime cannot be practiced anywhere but in farm lands away from homes and buildings. Thus our clubs must move away from densely populated areas and only practical location is uninhabited farmlands ;



1.2 % Utilisation of land


1:Our flying fields occupy less than 1/10 of 1 % of total arable farmland in this region. Thus our flying fields pose no serious threat to farmland output;



2: Within the possible “green” farmland areas, there is evidence of many fields that are not being used at all, just growing weeds, so before attacking flying fields as reducing agricultural production, they should first assure that vacant land becomes productive;



3: Frequently there is hay or corn grown around the perimeter of our flying fields, which the farmer harvests at the conclusion of the season; thus even our flying fields themselves are productive



1.3 No Permanent Impact


1. Our flying sites typically are not permanent installations or structures ( buildings; parking lot; access roads) ; just temporay and can be easily removed and land can easily be restored to original condition Thus no negative permanent impact to land.

2. In addition, our flying fields do not cause soil contamination

3. In addition the presence of our clubs typically improve the land appearance and also prevent their use as garbage dumps, which might otherwise happen if left vacant

1.4 Homogeneity


The activity of flying model airplanes falls into the 11 subcategories of admissible activities that farmlands may be used for within a broad context of interpretation; this is a tricky point and is better explained by our professional advisor, Luc Bergeron Director General of BH Environnement who sat in our meeting and who will represent us at the tribunal. ( please see his business card included in attached CPTAQ scanned file )



1.5 Social Benefits


This law creates negative pressure on membership in our clubs, as is evidenced by declining enrolment . However there are social and societal benefits from our hobby/ pastime , and for this reason we must appeal to the TAQ to protect these benefits and rights, summarized below.

1. Our hobby and the flying fields we require provide a place for retired people, no longer working, to have pleasant recreational activity

2. Our hobby and the flying fields we require provide a place for youth to be busy and off streets away from drugs

3. Our hobby and the flying fields we require provide a place for fathers to play with their children and thus helps build and maintain family relationships

4. Due to the parallel between model airplanes and full size aircraft, our hobby is a career builder for youth considering a future occupation in the aerospace industry ( which is experiencing a terrible shortage of skilled personnel ); thus our hobby and the flying fields we require are essential for the pursuit of this career builder.



1.6 Other points :


1. If the government tries to suggest that we close down many clubs and group many into one ,our rebuttal is that over congestion poses safety hazards to fliers;

2. Over congestion will reduce available flying time per member ( while waiting for frequency )

3. Typical club size is 40 members, and thus there are not large groups that may, according to CPTAQ guidelines, damage the land;

4. Since maximum transmitter range from ground to models in air is approximately 8 miles, our clubs must be spaced apart a minimum of this distance and more. Thus our fields do not pose over congestion; and in fact fall within the homogeneity guidelines.

5. There is jurisprudence of other small runways for 2 passenger planes being set up in farmland area

6. So why can’t model planes have equal benefits; the reason for allowing such small regional landing strips is to reduce time lost for individuals to driving to more concentrated flying fields; having more; but small flying fields dispersed throughout the province falls within the same logic of reducing lost time in travel due to longer access time.

2 Lesson to be Learned


This meeting of the CPTAQ ADHOC committee was most productive. This is inspite of the belief that we must have a designated leader, without whose presence it was believed that the committee might not function. In fact quite the opposite has become obvious from this most productive brainstorming session. Teamwork, common goals and commitment have allowed us to progress well to this juncture. We feel well prepared to go to the October 3 meeting. For this reason, there are no regrets for requesting the resignation of the initially suggested individual who publicly stated that “ I know all that there is to know ….. etc etc. ’



3 $ 300 Check Received from Club Montergie (Napierville)


At the conclusion of this meeting, Jean Chevalier, president of the club Monteregie de Napierville, presented me, to fwd to MAAC; with a check of $ 300 payable to MAAC for the CPTAQ defence fund. ( see attached Photo JPG #194; All photos courtesy Bob Forest) Money was raised by a voluntary contribution from individual members of this club. Thank you Jean and Dianne for your efforts.



4 Funds Requested to Win the Battle


It was unanimously requested by all persons attending this meeting that a portion of the monies contributed to the “ save our fields “ defence fund be remitted to this CPTAQ committee to pay professional fees to go forward in this most critical issue. The group wishes to use the professional services of Luc Bergeron, an environmental consultant, www.bhenvironment.com; ( see business card in attached scan file CPTAQ) for this purpose.



Luc has estimated that his professional fees will be $ 2,500 for this initial work which will include :

· Prepare for the Oct 3/07 case for Club Lafayette , including his presence at the meeting today ( September 8 ,2007)

· Being present at this hearing of October 3, 2007

· Coaching and assisting Jean Chevalier and his designated representative for the second Nov 30/07 hearing for the Club Monteregie (Napierville )

· In addition to writing up a brief summary / synopsis of the hearings

· In addition to accepting us allow this information to become the property of MAAC and be allowed to be circulated as guidelines to other MAAC persons confronted with similar issues

Thus the committee is requesting for an immediate acceptance and granting of these quoted amounts, to be dispersed immediately upon receipt of invoices from Mr Bergeron for work completed re this case.





Steve Woloz

MAAC St-Laurent Zone Director

( Phone: (514) 944 8241

: Regular Email: [email protected]

: Wireless Email: [email protected]

http://www.maac.ca/

Old 09-11-2007, 01:26 AM
  #9  
4*60
My Feedback: (41)
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Shuswap, BC,
Posts: 1,751
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default RE: Is oujr Provincial Government helping R/C!!!!

4. Due to the parallel between model airplanes and full size aircraft, our hobby is a career builder for youth considering a future occupation in the aerospace industry ( which is experiencing a terrible shortage of skilled personnel ); thus our hobby and the flying fields we require are essential for the pursuit of this career builder.


Perhaps 1.5.4 should include a visit and presentation from a Bombardier representative in favour of retaining the use for model fields. Anyone have any influence there?

---------------------------

Also I have not read through all this but our federal government and probably Quebec would like to cut down on greenhouse gases. Keeping the commute short to model fields assists with that. The loss of these fields adds to greenhouse gases which is not what is wanted in this day and age.????
Old 09-11-2007, 02:56 PM
  #10  
dr_wogz
My Feedback: (3)
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Pointe Claire, QC, CANADA
Posts: 2,015
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default RE: Is oujr Provincial Government helping R/C!!!!

Our biggest (from Brossair) is being "consolidated" into one feild. Another contention, is the feild they are leaving alone (which is jsut another 10 minutes down teh road) is an all grass feild, and no shelter. Brossair has a paved runway, and an enclosed shelter. We plow, and run a wood stove in the shelter, so it's really really warm!! We're a little disgruntled, that they are closing a better feild..

Oh yeah, adn we continually get teh SAE heavy lift team in from Concordia.. McGill & UQAM probably come by too. We even have a special clause in our constitution for the local air cadets..
Old 10-02-2007, 09:54 AM
  #11  
byrocat
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Aurora| Ontario, ON, CANADA
Posts: 85
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default RE: Is oujr Provincial Government helping R/C!!!!

Any status on the October 2 meeting?

Yes, I realize that the government body will probably want to hold more meetings, but what was the torunout like and the basic reactions of everyone involved?
Old 10-04-2007, 12:01 PM
  #12  
dr_wogz
My Feedback: (3)
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Pointe Claire, QC, CANADA
Posts: 2,015
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default RE: Is oujr Provincial Government helping R/C!!!!

I had planed to attend teh meeting, to make sure we had numebrs behind us.

But, teh meeting was to be behind closed doors. That is, it was deemed better to put off teh 'show' as to use it at a alter date. So, it was only a few delegates who met with the CPTAQ.

As it stands. their answer is firm,a dn teh same as we got in teh srping. "non"

We do have alawer workign for us.. adn we are doign what is asked, when asked..
Old 10-05-2007, 04:22 PM
  #13  
Jason Holdaway
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Strathroy, ON, CANADA
Posts: 139
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default RE: Is oujr Provincial Government helping R/C!!!!

here's a scenerio: The farmer uses the landing strip to launch his video camera equipted RC airplane to check his crops for weeds etc. 100% farm use!
Old 10-09-2007, 01:39 PM
  #14  
dr_wogz
My Feedback: (3)
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Pointe Claire, QC, CANADA
Posts: 2,015
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default RE: Is oujr Provincial Government helping R/C!!!!

I wish it werre that easy!!!

No, despite the city of Brossard in full support, as well as teh farmer, teh CPTAQ don't wanna hear of it. The farmer sites security as a main reason fro us being there.. We've gone after peple illegally dumping on the road side, patrol teh corn crops (no marijuana) and we get teh local univercityies commign by to test their 'heavy lift' vehicles.

We are in the town of Brossard, and have made many attempts to get 'Brossardonians' to join, as well aas teh local Air cadet squadron. Here, everyone wins, except teh CPTAQ do't see it. They see the $$$ from developed land!!

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.