Question has been called.
---Carried
Mr. Ramsay.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move that this committee recommends that the Government of the Northwest Territories immediately begin developing comprehensive animal protection legislation for introduction early in the life of the 17th Assembly. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Ramsay. A motion is on the floor. The motion is being distributed. To the motion. Mr. Ramsay.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Briefly, I’ve got this motion here today. Throughout our public hearing process and through comments through e-mails and phone calls that I’ve received on the proposed amendments to Bill 16, overwhelmingly people are saying across the Northwest Territories that it’s time the government move forward with comprehensive animal protection legislation.
My personal belief is it’s long overdue. The amendments to the Dog Act are long overdue. It’s a step in the right direction, but what we’ve heard is the society is not accepting of cruelty to animals in any way, shape or form, and this government has got to take action to protect animals of all variety in our Territory. Again, I don’t think we have to look too far to find a piece of legislation that might work or help us out in getting legislation here, and that’s in the Yukon. Mr. Menicoche talked about some high-profile incidents here in the Northwest Territories in the last number of years that have caused us a great deal of embarrassment on the national and international stage when it comes to abuse of dogs and animals in our Territory. We certainly need to get with the times.
The reality is it’s just not acceptable anymore to be abusing animals and we have got to move forward with this legislation. I know it’s late days in the life of this government but this has got to be part of the transition plan for the next government and has to be introduced early in the life of the 17th Assembly. With that, Mr. Chairman, I certainly look forward to hearing any other comments on this from other Members. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Ramsay. To the motion. Mr. Bromley.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I’d like to thank my colleague, Mr. Ramsay, for bringing this forward. It’s been a disappointment that we haven’t got to this. Early indications from the Ministers involved were that this would be coming forward. They later backed off on that. Apparently we have some limitations in our ability to draft legislation quickly and we certainly do have a lot of legislative needs. I can understand that, but I was, and I know many of our public were, disappointed that those early indications of commitments were not able to be met.
I think this does capture the comments we heard during our public consultations. We were not seeking consultations on the animal protection legislation but in my experience the majority of people speaking did mention that the Dog Act improvements were a good start but they definitely wanted to see comprehensive animal protection legislation. This is a step towards that and I think we want to be sure and follow up with this and make sure it’s profiled to the 17th Assembly as called for in this motion. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Bromley. To the motion.
Question.
Question has been called.
---Carried
Are there any more comments on Committee Report 7-16(5)? Is committee agreed that we have concluded consideration of Committee Report 7-16(5)?
Agreed.
Is committee agreed that we move along to our second item, Bill 16, An Act to Amend the Dog Act?
Agreed.
We’ve agreed to consider Bill 16, An Act to Amend the Dog Act. I will now ask the Minister responsible for the bill, the honourable Minister responsible for MACA, Minister R.C. McLeod, to introduce the bill.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I am here to present Bill 16, An Act to Amend the Dog Act.
In the past several years there have been a series of well-reported incidents about the abuse of dogs. These incidents fall far outside the traditional ways of managing dogs and dog teams. The abuses are also against modern standards of care.
The amendments we are seeking are measured responses that take into account the experiences of other jurisdictions as well as a unique northern approach to make legal solutions for the kind of dog abuse problems we are facing.
Further amendments proposed, as a result of public consultations and after consideration by the standing committee, are improvements to the department’s proposed amendments and help to clarify aspects that were not clear.
Both the department and the standing committee have heard from many groups and individuals during the development of this bill, and we appreciate the time and effort that has been taken to provide us with comments and feedback.
To date, all of the complaints about animal abuse that we know of deal with dogs. Through lessons learned and from the amended Dog Act, the government can decide later if broader animal welfare legislation is needed.
I look forward to hearing comments from the Members and answering any questions. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Minister McLeod. I’d now like to ask the chairperson for the Standing Committee on Economic Development and Infrastructure, which reviewed this bill, to make the comments. Mr. Ramsay.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I’ve covered a lot of ground on my comments already, but again, I think it was a challenge for the committee to come to some consensus on what the amendment should be. At the end of the day, there was a lot of debate and discussion about what they should be. My feeling is there probably still is and there always will be, but that’s the nature of what we do. Fortunately, Mr. Chairman, we live in a society and a place where we can get out and listen to the public and take what we hear and try to put that into place in legislation that’s being proposed. The public hearing process allows us to do that, and it’s the committee’s duty to take what they hear from the public and utilize that information in the legislation that we have.
Again, I want to thank everybody that was involved in the amendments to Bill 16, and again thank the Minister and his staff for the work they did and the committee members for their work both in committee meetings and at public hearings and as well as our staff that I pointed out earlier, Ms. Knowlan, Ms. Tumchewics, Ms. Langlois and Ms. MacPherson. Thank you very much.
Thank you, Mr. Ramsay. I will now go to the Minister responsible for the bill and see if he would like to bring witnesses into the House. Minister McLeod.
Yes, I would, Mr. Chairman.
Is committee agreed that we allow the witnesses into the House?
Agreed.
Thank you, committee. Sergeant-at-Arms, if I can please get you to bring the witnesses into the House.
Thank you. Minister McLeod, can I please get you to introduce your witnesses for the record?
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have with me today Mr. Mike Aumond, deputy minister of Municipal and Community Affairs; Laura Gareau is the director of corporate affairs at MACA; also we have with us today Ms. Kelly McLaughlin, legislative counsel, Department of Justice. Thank you.
Thank you, Minister McLeod. On that, I will open the floor to general comments on Bill 16. Detail? Is committee agreed that there are no comments on Bill 16?
Agreed.
Can we now proceed with the clause-by-clause review of the bill?
Agreed.
We will defer the title and the bill number and we will begin our clause by clause. Clause 1.
---Clauses 1 through 3 inclusive approved
Clause 4. Ms. Bisaro.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to make a motion. I move that clause 4 of Bill 16 be amended by deleting proposed subsections 4(3), 4(4) and 4(5).
Thank you, Ms. Bisaro. The motion is on the floor. The motion is being distributed. The motion has been distributed. The motion is in order. To the motion. Ms. Bisaro.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just to help out my colleagues. It is on page 3 of the bill. It is at the top of the page.
I wanted to make this motion because I believe... I know this is a recommendation from committee. I sat in on many of the committee meetings. I attended the public hearings here in Yellowknife. I did not travel with the committee to other communities, but I got a pretty good sense, I think, of where people sit in terms of the clause that talked about traditional practice and use of dogs in traditional practices.
It is my belief that we don’t need these three sections in the act. It references using dogs in the course of an accepted activity. I was struck by one of the presenters at the hearing here in Yellowknife, an Aboriginal man who has lived here for a very long time, all his life actually. He spoke and said, “Abuse of dogs is abuse of dogs. There is no reason, whether you are using your dog in a traditional practice or other. It is abuse of the dog and it shouldn’t be. That, in the course of normal activities, Aboriginal people do not mistreat their dogs.” I would say, in the course of normal activities, regular and non-Aboriginal people don’t mistreat their dogs either. I really feel that these three clauses are all related to the accepted activity notion and I just don’t think it needs to be in the motion. Thank you.
Thank you, Ms. Bisaro. Next on my list is Mr. Menicoche.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. If the committee had gone to our small, remote communities and spoke with Aboriginal people, they would see a need for sections 4(3), 4(4) and 4(5). I would be remiss if I did not speak against this amendment and will not be supporting this motion, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Menicoche. Next on my list is Mr. Ramsay.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I certainly respect my colleague’s view of this. I also respect the fact that the committee’s wish was to get rid of the traditional and locally accepted practices, clauses that were in the original amendments, ones that the committee had actually asked for and the department brought forward amendments that contain that wording, local and traditionally accepted practices. The committee asked for that and we got it in spades.
When we went out to public hearings, we heard, again, overwhelmingly that we shouldn’t be allowing for any exceptions to the abuse, neglect or cruelty to dogs. If folks are in accordance with the legislation, they have nothing to fear. There should be no exceptions. We heard this from not only from Aboriginal people; we heard it from non-Aboriginal people and Aboriginal people at public hearings across the Northwest Territories. I found myself in a very difficult position being the chair of the committee and having a committee that... Again, I respect the process.
The motion here to amend the Dog Act by taking out these clauses that reference acceptable practices which give people an exception, in my mind, another loophole, it just isn’t on with the public that I heard. That is the way I see things. We want to put forward the best piece of legislation we can. In fact, wording to this effect is contained in the Manitoba Animal Protection Act. There have been protests on the steps of the Manitoba Legislature asking for the resignation of the Agriculture Minister in Manitoba based on the fact that convictions are hard to come by. People are not being convicted under that legislation.
Mr. Chairman, that is the problem that we have. That is why we went to the amendments for our Dog Act so that when people are neglecting, abusing or mistreating dogs, they are going to be charged and convictions will happen. That just wasn’t the case under the old Dog Act. I thank the Member for Frame Lake for bringing forward the motion. I will be supporting the motion. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Ramsay. Next on my list is Mr. Bromley.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will be supporting this amendment as well. I have to say it was almost unanimous, the input I heard people speaking very clearly to not try and define these sorts of activities, that abuse and cruelty was certainly not acceptable in any situation. I have to stress again that these were people from all walks of life and certainly included the most respected of Aboriginal leaders who represented the essence of tradition and traditional practices. Again, they spoke in a very clear way that helped me tremendously in discerning what is appropriate here and for which I am very appreciative of, as I said before.
I think some other amendments that we have incorporated are a good effort to try and make sure that this doesn’t go beyond what we wanted, that it serves all people and it has been my experience that people enforcing this legislation are typically long-term Northerners who have a strong grounding in understanding of our society. Legislation is a blunt instrument, but it does tend to reflect the overwhelming trends in our society and the best thinking that we can capture in legislation. I think that’s what we’re dealing with here, and again the comments have been very clear to me. On that basis I will represent those people that I’ve heard from directly and support this proposed amendment. Mahsi.
Thank you, Mr. Bromley. To the motion. Minister McLeod.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. When putting together this act we depended a lot on feedback we got from standing committee, and standing committee had moved a motion to include this and we respect that so we’ve included it. Therefore, we will be voting against the motion. Thank you.
Thank you, Minister McLeod. To the motion. Ms. Bisaro.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Just in hearing the comments from the Minister I did want to point out that my experience in observing at committee meetings was that the committee was literally divided on whether or not these three sections needed to be in the act. The decision was that it would come to the floor of the House and that we would discuss it and debate it here, but to the Minister agreeing that this is the will of the committee, I guess I would have to disagree with it. I think it was the will of half of the committee and I think you have to take that into consideration. Thank you.
Thank you, Ms. Bisaro. Mr. Ramsay.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Going back to my earlier comments where I had stated that the committee had asked the Minister for...
My apologies, each Member only gets to speak once to the motion, except for the mover of the motion. She’s already done it twice. She was mover of the motion. Everybody gets to speak once, except for the mover of the motion. She closed debate so we’re theoretically done. Because we went to Ms. Bisaro, that would have been closing the debate on that. I’m going to confirm that that’s correct. Okay, it was my error. Anybody who has not spoken who wishes to speak can be put on the list. Otherwise, the debate is concluded. Anybody who hasn’t spoken who wishes to speak. Mrs. Groenewegen.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am going to vote in favour of the motion as put forward by Ms. Bisaro. There was a lot of discussion and controversy over whether or not this clause that people have named a loophole, they’ve named it all kinds of different things. In fact, after listening to so much of the discussion around this particular clause, it’s my opinion that there’s a colossal misunderstanding and people taking extreme positions on what these things mean.
I think it boils down to the difference between the way that a pet dog is treated and the way that a working dog is treated. Both can be treated with respect and in a way that is humane. A lot of the debate, like I said, that I heard was extremes on both sides of that topic and I don’t think that we need to have any provision in there for traditional, or as the Manitoba clause reads, I don’t believe that we need to have that in there. I think that we can agree and the legislation should clearly state that all dogs that will be affected by this new legislation, we’re hoping all dogs don’t go to heaven, but...
---Laughter
...at least not anytime soon. Anyway, I will be voting in favour of the amendment as brought forward by Ms. Bisaro in this motion. Thank you.
Thank you. Next on my list is Mr. Yakeleya.
Mr. Chair, it’s been indicated before that the committee did not go to the smaller communities to hear some discussion around this work. We went to the larger centres. We certainly heard very passionately from the larger centres that we went to, but we did not go to the predominantly smaller communities of Aboriginal people, we did not get their view, really get their view and their definition of this clause. When we did talk about it in committee it was the majority of Members that wanted to go with this section of the legislation. So I’m going to, and this is what we worked out in terms of a compromise, so for myself I’m going to go with the motion on what’s in the legislation. I’m not going to be supporting this motion.
Thank you, Mr. Yakeleya. Next on my list is Mr. Hawkins.
