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, 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?

Can we now proceed with the clause-by-clause review of the bill?

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...