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.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think when reading clause 4 and we talk about the ownership show, it basically makes sure that the dog is without any distress. I think that really speaks to the whole problem. An animal in distress is an animal in distress, period. I’m convinced that good judgment will prevail in this particular case. I think that I put my faith in the judgment of the courts if someone does bring forward a charge, an ill-directed charge and a charge that I think has fair and unreasonable interpretation of what distress means. I think any decent northern judge, which I believe in the quality of the bench we have here, but I think anybody here, living here long enough would know what reasonable activity and distress is.
I’m not proposing a new definition by any means, but I know it’s an ambiguous term that someone is going to say that that dog shouldn’t have been outside and it was under duress, or that dog ran too long in a race, or was out chained up too long and it’s duress. I think that I’m convinced common sense will prevail. So I think I’ll have to vote accordingly.
The one thing I would say, though, in all honesty, is as a measure of courtesy I would have appreciated finding out this amendment would have come forward a little sooner than it being dropped on my desk and told to vote one way or the other. I mean, I would have liked to have had more time to hear my colleagues who feel that no change should happen to the act and I certainly would have enjoyed a little more time to take the consideration into seeing the deletion of this. So I would say to the mover, I’m still disappointed on the shortness of how this was now dropped on my desk without any sort of full understanding or impact of this particular motion. The reason I sort of say that is I’m going to have to lean towards the amendment as proposed, because I think at the end of the day common sense should prevail and I think our bench will make sure that that’s a reasonable interpretation, regardless of the activity, whether it’s hunting, trapping, fishing, or even just being tied up outside.
Thank you. Any other Members wish to speak who haven’t already spoken? Okay. Because of my confusion I will go to the mover of the motion to close, because there was some confusion. So I’ll allow the mover of the motion to officially close and I have the discretion to do that. Thank you, committee. Once again my confusion is just gotten straightened out. We don’t go back to the mover of a motion in Committee of the Whole a second time for concluding discussion and debate on a motion. To the motion. Mr. Beaulieu.
