Pecuniary interest could be linked to increase in ATV use, above sales

Editor:

The Report by Principles Integrity which found that Councillor Broderick did not have a conflict of interest in the discussion of expanded ATV use of Clearview Township roads contains errors in reasoning and reveals serious deficiencies in the investigation of underlying facts. The report states, in part: “We do not see a necessary nexus between expanding roads and trails available to ATV operators, and increased sales of ATVs.”
That view is contrary to ATV/2×2 industry analyst reports. Modor Intelligence, Allied Market Research, Linchpin, Stockhouse and Gurufocus analysts all came to the conclusion that “…government rules to allow driving ATVs and UTVs on-road is expected to increase the growth of the ATV and UTV markets size.”
More importantly, Councillor Broderick’s business is not just composed of vehicle sales. There is the service, repairs, parts and accessories and rider-related gear side of the business which requires not a single additional vehicle sale to benefit, only increased use. According to a Province of Ontario study, there is substantially more profit in service and repairs, parts and accessories and rider-related equipment than in the sale of the vehicles themselves.
The main rationale put forward by Councillor Broderick is that the expansion of access would allow Clearview residents to get substantially more use of their ATVs. It is indisputable that increased usage would increase repair, parts and service demand even if, contrary to the expectations of industry analysts, not a single additional ATV was sold. Somehow this obvious fact either evaded or was ignored by the authors of the Report.
Paragraph 53 of the Report sets out an “in the alternative” position that even if there is a direct or indirect pecuniary interest, it falls within one of the Act’s exemptions – an “interest in common” with “electors generally”.
The erroneous reasoning appears to be that Mr. Broderick’s business would only experience a positive financial impact if the expanded access created a “general uplift” in business which would benefit a “significant segment of the business community”.
Mr. Broderick posits in his motion that greater access to township roads would allow residents to access trails without the necessity of trailering and towing, and make their routine trips into town using more fuel-efficient ATVs or 2x2s rather than cars or trucks. None of the other businesses cited in the report would have a pecuniary benefit from people simply using an ATV to do what they would have otherwise have done in a car or truck. In fact, given the potential fuel savings cited as a potential benefit, gas stations, one of the businesses cited in the report as having an interest in common, could actually experience a decrease in sales.
Furthermore, at least within the Creemore business community, there was concern that significant ATV and 2×2 traffic would actually reduce business by detracting from the tourist-attracting charm of the village and reducing available parking.
Mr. Broderick has a pecuniary interest that is distinct in nature from all other electors other than several ATV sales and service business owners. He has a clear conflict of interest and should have had no involvement in this matter.

Richard Schubert, LLB,

Avening.