Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Standing Committee on Economic Development and Infrastructure is pleased to provide its report on Bill 16, an Act to Amend the Dog Act, and commends it to the House. Thank you.

Introduction

The Standing Committee on Economic Development and Infrastructure is pleased to report on Bill 16, An Act to Amend the Dog Act.

The interest in and response to this Bill from both within and outside the Northwest Territories was unprecedented. The committee held public hearings on Bill 16 in Yellowknife, Hay River and Inuvik between January 13 and 19, 2011, and in Fort Smith on February 10, 2011. All of the public hearings were very well attended. The committee would like to thank all hearing participants, as well as everyone who sent in written submissions.

The committee’s clause-by-clause review of the bill took place on February 23, 2011. During this review, the committee passed 12 motions to amend the bill. The Minister concurred with all of these amendments. Following the clause-by-clause review, a motion was carried to report Bill 16, as amended and reprinted, as ready for consideration in Committee of the Whole.

Locally Accepted and Traditional Practices

The most controversial and debated provisions of Bill 16 were the two clauses providing exemptions for locally accepted and traditional practices. The first occurred in proposed Section 3, which sets out dog owners’ duty of care to provide adequate food, water, care, shelter, ventilation, space and protection from heat and cold. Proposed subsection 3(2) provided that a dog owner did not fail in his or her duty of care by treating a dog “in accordance with generally accepted local or traditional practices of dog care, use and management.”

The second of these clauses occurred in proposed Section 4, which prohibits permitting or causing distress to dogs. Proposed subsection 4(3) provided that the prohibition on permitting or causing distress to dogs did not apply if the distress resulted from activities carried on “in accordance

with generally accepted local or traditional practices of dog care, use and management.”

An overwhelming number of presentations and written submissions argued that the two clauses were loopholes that would allow dog abuse to go unpunished, and recommended that the exemptions be removed altogether. Some also took offense to the clauses as they felt they suggested that cruelty to dogs was condoned in traditional Aboriginal societies, which the committee heard clearly was not the case. Instead, the committee heard that although as in any society there were always some people who abused dogs, this was not an accepted norm; rather, most people respected the working dogs they depended on to survive, and cared for them accordingly.

Some people supported the exemptions out of concern that traditionally accepted Aboriginal dog care practices, though not cruel, are different from what Southerners are used to and might be misconstrued as abuse. The concern is that this might result in harvesters being punished or prevented from carrying out traditional activities on the land. As an example of different cultural perspectives on dogs, some people mentioned that practices such as dressing a dog in a sweater or carrying it around in a small bag might also be considered cruel and disrespectful. However, of the people who supported keeping exemptions for local and traditional practices, many were concerned that the wording that appeared in the bill was too vague and would not necessarily be interpreted in keeping with their intent.

During the clause-by-clause review of the bill, the committee and Minister agreed to three amendments to the bill related to this issue.

The first amendment removed the “locally accepted and traditional practice” wording from proposed Section 3, which sets out dog owners’ duties of care, and replaced it with a clause providing that a person does not fail in his or her duty of care by treating a dog in accordance with a municipal bylaw. This amendment is intended to reflect the fact that some communities have bylaws which set out standards of care for dogs, often in more detail than this bill provides, and to defer to those locally set standards.

The second amendment replaced the “locally accepted and traditional practice” wording from proposed Section 4, which prohibits causing or permitting distress, with more specific provisions modeled on the Manitoba Animal Care Act. This section provides an exemption for “accepted activities,” which are harvesting and protection of people from wildlife. Regulations may provide for additional “accepted activities” and may also prohibit specific practices and procedures. Accepted activities must be carried out in a manner that is either consistent with generally accepted

practices and procedures or that is otherwise reasonable in the circumstances. Accepted activities must not be carried out in a manner that causes undue suffering.

The third amendment provided the regulation-making authority for “accepted activities.”

Injurious Heat and Cold

Proposed Section 3 of the bill places a duty of care on owners to protect their dogs from “injurious heat and cold.” During the public review process, there was a great deal of discussion about the difference between breeds such as the Canadian Eskimo Dog, which is well adapted to the northern climate with thick fur and fat layers, and other types of dogs which are now common in the Northwest Territories, but are much less able to withstand the cold. It was generally agreed that “injurious heat or cold” could mean very different things depending on the type of dog.

During the clause-by-clause review of the bill, the committee and Minister agreed to an amendment to specify that “injurious heat or cold” must be interpreted “having regard to the physical characteristics of the dog.” The intent was to provide clear direction to those interpreting and enforcing the act that they must consider an individual dog’s adaptability to heat and cold, rather than, for example, determining that a specific temperature constitutes “injurious” heat or cold in all cases.

Mr. Speaker, I would now like to pass the committee report over to my colleague Mr. Bromley.