Legislative Assembly of Ontario

JAPANESE CANADIAN CULTURAL CENTRE ACT, 1997

CITY OF SCARBOROUGH ACT, 1997

CONTENTS

Wednesday 3 September 1997

Japanese Canadian Cultural Centre Act, 1997, Bill Pr84, Mr Turnbull

Mr David Turnbull

Mr Roy Kusano

City of Scarborough Act, 1997, Bill Pr78, Mr Newman

Mr Dan Newman

Ms Jasmine Stein

Mr Don Mitton

Ms Ainslie Willock

Ms Liz White

Mr Robert Gardiner

Ms Karin Eaton

Mrs Ann White

Mr Howard Noseworthy

Ms Christine Mason

Ms Debbie Hunt

Ms Nathalie Karvonen

Mr Robert Scott

STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND PRIVATE BILLS

Chair / Président

Mr Toby Barrett (Norfolk PC)

Vice-Chair / Vice-Président

Mr Marcel Beaubien (Lambton PC)

Mr Toby Barrett (Norfolk PC)

Mr Marcel Beaubien (Lambton PC)

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South / -Sud ND)

Mr Tony Clement (Brampton South / -Sud PC)

Mr Carl DeFaria (Mississauga East / -Est PC)

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and The Islands / Kingston et Les Îles L)

Mr Ernie Hardeman (Oxford PC)

Mrs Helen Johns (Huron PC)

Mr Gerard Kennedy (York South / -Sud L)

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie ND)

Mr Tony Ruprecht (Parkdale L)

Mr Derwyn Shea (High Park-Swansea PC)

Mr Frank Sheehan (Lincoln PC)

Mr Bill Vankoughnet (Frontenac-Addington PC)

Substitutions / Membres remplaçants

Mr Peter L. Preston (Brant-Haldimand PC)

Mr R. Gary Stewart (Peterborough PC)

Mr David Turnbull (York Mills PC)

Also taking part / Autres participants et participantes

Mr Michael A. Brown (Algoma-Manitoulin L)

Ms Shelley Martel (Sudbury East / -Est ND)

Clerk / Greffière

Ms Rosemarie Singh

Staff / Personnel

Ms Laura Hopkins, legislative counsel

The committee met at 1009 in committee room 1.

JAPANESE CANADIAN CULTURAL CENTRE ACT, 1997

Consideration of Bill Pr84, An Act respecting Japanese Canadian Cultural Centre.

The Vice-Chair (Mr Marcel Beaubien): I'd like to bring the meeting to order. Before we start with the business in front of us today, I'd like to make a brief announcement. The Chair of the committee, Mr Barrett, will not be with us for the next few weeks, probably for the next couple of months, I would imagine, due to medical reasons.

Mr Derwyn Shea (High Park-Swansea): Would it be appropriate for us to express our best wishes to him?

The Vice-Chair: Certainly. On behalf of the committee, we can certainly undertake to send Mr Barrett a card.

The first order of business is Bill Pr84, An Act respecting Japanese Canadian Cultural Centre. The sponsor of the bill is Mr Turnbull. Could Mr Turnbull and the applicant please come forward.

Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): Good morning. I want to present Bill Pr84. This act will enable municipalities to pass certain bylaws allowing property tax exemption on the property and allow the municipalities to revoke that if it ever became necessary. I would like to ask the representatives of the Japanese Canadian Cultural Centre to give a brief presentation on the requirement for this.

The Vice-Chair: First of all, could the applicants introduce themselves, please.

Mr Roy Kusano: My name is Roy Kusano. I am a director of the Japanese Canadian Cultural Centre. To my left is Sid Ikeda, who is the president of the cultural centre, and to his left is Laura Oda, the brand-new executive director of the centre.

The Vice-Chair: Welcome. Do you have any comments that you wish to make on the bill?

Mr Kusano: First of all, I wish to thank you, on behalf of the centre and my colleagues here, for the opportunity to appear before you. I trust that the materials we filed, which we worked out in cooperation with legislative counsel and the clerk, are satisfactory to you and are fairly self-explanatory. To the extent that there are any questions arising out of those materials, any of the three of us will be happy to respond to them.

The Vice-Chair: Do we have any interested parties wishing to make comments on this bill? If not, Mr Hardeman, do you have any comments you wish to make?

Mr Ernie Hardeman (Oxford): I just want to say on behalf of the ministry that we do not register any objections to the bill. It meets all the criteria set out for this type of exemption. They have the commitment of the school board and the municipality in support of it, so we would not object.

I would point out, however, that in light of the changes the government is making in education funding, it may very well turn out that when that is completed, the school boards will no longer be in a position to cancel taxes. As the process is presently proceeding, the part of the education tax that will be on the property would be set by the province. So it is quite possible that in the future, these types of bill would be null and void as they relate to the education portion of the tax. I just want to make sure the applicants recognize that this is in the offing. Although we do not object to the bill now, that may very well, in the near future, change the impact it will have on you.

Mr Kusano: We appreciate the concern and the comments.

The Vice-Chair: Any questions from the committee members?

Mr Tony Ruprecht (Parkdale): I am familiar with the Japanese Canadian Cultural Centre. They have outgrown the necessary requirements of their activities and have done really outstanding work not only for Japanese Canadians but for the broader Canadian community. One of the major objectives is to ensure that the Japanese culture is not only maintained by Japanese Canadians but that other Canadians as well get to be beneficiaries of their great traditions.

We are very much in favour of this exemption, but as we have indicated on previous occasions -- and this goes for all members who are trying to cut through red tape and having unnecessary deputations made to this committee. In the past, all parties have made recommendations to the Chair to try to work out some kind of process whereby deputants no longer have to appear before this committee or any other committees for this kind of purpose. I wonder, as our discussion has repeated itself on so many occasions, what has been accomplished or where we stand in terms of these kinds of issues, where I'm sure other cultural centres that would also like to be tax-exempt will appear over and over again in front of this committee.

Sometimes, as you realize, Mr Chair, they don't come just from Toronto. They come from outside Toronto. Appearing here and doing the necessary preparations take time and effort and money. I'm just wondering whether we could shortcut all this and find out from you what is the latest on that issue.

The Vice-Chair: Mr Ruprecht, that's a very good point you bring up today. It was brought up a couple of months ago, I think. I'm fairly new, the new kid on the block here on this committee, and was put in this position to take over for Mr Barrett because of his condition. There has been no discussion, but as Vice-Chair I certainly would be willing to undertake having discussion among committee members. I agree with your position that it seems redundant in some cases to have people come from Toronto or other locations in Ontario to go through a process which I don't think we really need to go through in 1997.

I'm sure we would need some feedback from the ministry on this particular matter, but I'm certainly willing to undertake some discussion and see how we can deal with this in the near future.

Mr Ruprecht: Mr Chair, I appreciate very much that you are going to be the caretaker, the man who is going to run with this ball. I'm just reminded that this has been an issue since 1991 and every Chair has said they are going to do something. I'm looking forward --

The Vice-Chair: I'll give you an undertaking that within a month you'll get an answer from me one way or the other that either we will do something or we won't do anything. Is that fair?

Mr Ruprecht: Can you imagine that within a month -- and I hope only that you're going to --

The Vice-Chair: No, I said I'd give you an answer. I'll give you an answer as to whether we'll be doing anything or not. Is that fair?

Mr Ruprecht: I see.

The Vice-Chair: We'll do something. I'll get back to you. Any other questions?

Mr Shea: There are two questions I want to direct to the parliamentary assistant. I preface my comments by saying that I too support the bill that is before us and I want to thank Mr Turnbull for his eloquent presentation of the bill; I appreciate it. Not only is the Japanese Canadian Cultural Centre well known to this municipality for the contribution it makes and that it enriches the life of our community; it is a way to assist it to continue in that kind of outreach into the community of not only Japanese Canadians but of Metropolitan Toronto and beyond. I encourage that. There are a couple of sidebars to that, though, that are of concern to me that are indirectly related to the Japanese Canadian Cultural Centre. They are more generic.

A question I raise first of all deals with process. It picks up on the point we have discussed in this committee in the past when I occupied a different position, which I am delighted to say I no longer occupy. I'm so pleased that Mr Hardeman has to carry that now.

1020

It is my understanding that the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing is reviewing the Municipal Act. It is going through a review of legislation and regulations. In my recollection, there was an undertaking from the ministry that it would be bringing back to this committee -- I would think by now it would be in the next few months' time -- some indication of changes that might take place in the Municipal Act and, case in point, how to deal with this issue precisely where there may be all-party agreement, and I don't mean "party" here, but in terms of school boards, municipalities and so forth, even though we have now found a way to effectively reduce much of that layering, so that we'd only have to have two letters of permission and perhaps not even that in the future. The parliamentary assistant has just alerted us to what that may mean in terms of the education side. So we may have found a way to streamline that already, but we need to hear from the staff of the ministry.

Could I ask the parliamentary assistant, Mr Chair, if he is at this moment aware of where we are in terms of those changes and whether the ministry is currently reviewing this process in light of the streamlining and amalgamations and so forth, and/or could he undertake to report back to the committee within, say, the next month or so about where we're at, what the timetable might be, to address the concerns if there are other applications of this sort? We see at least four, five or six every year, and we might indeed be able to short-circuit that procedure.

The Vice-Chair: You certainly may, Mr Shea, and I like your timeline of a month; I like that figure.

Mr Shea: I got you off the hook too, Mr Chair.

Mr Hardeman: Mr Chair, as it relates to this issue and expediting it along, I think we would all recognize that it is the taxing policy, not a municipal jurisdiction, we're presently involved in, particularly as it relates to both school boards and the municipalities. The municipalities could not make decisions through the Municipal Act as it reflects to education funding. Whether charitable organizations should or shouldn't pay taxes would be a taxing policy that would have to come from the Minister of Finance and the treasury.

I have corresponded with the minister to see if we could get some direction as to whether there is any policy coming forward that would change the need for these types of bills.

Mr Shea: I understand the subtlety of the parliamentary assistant's response. They are the words I probably would have used. Nevertheless, I want to perhaps rephrase my question. It is not the issue of whether municipalities should have the right to forgo taxes or give grants in lieu. That is not the issue. The issue for me is the process.

Right now the process requires an applicant to come to the Parliament of Ontario. Notwithstanding the fact that the applicant may well at this moment in time carry the imprimatur of the local council, the Metropolitan council, the local school board and the Metro school board, they still have to come to the Parliament of Ontario for the final laying on of hands. It's that process I'm asking the parliamentary assistant to speak to the minister about, whether that can be truncated so that where we may say an applicant need only apply to those funding or responsible jurisdictions and where they wish to waive or give grants in lieu, that's good enough for the Parliament of Ontario; they don't need to come here also to have a pat on the head and have us say, "Well done." I think the point raised is that this may be an unnecessary step. That's the only question I'm asking the parliamentary assistant to take back to the minister for consideration. I thought that may be what was under review.

The second question --

The Vice-Chair: Before you go on to the next point, Mr Shea, I think we'll give Mr Hardeman a direction that we need a reply by October 3. You said a month. Is that fair?

Mr Shea: Mr Hardeman has my absolute support and admiration and I know he will respond as quickly as he can. He is a man of honour and I don't need to pin him down with an exact date.

The Vice-Chair: All right, if you're satisfied with that.

Mr Shea: The second question I have for this issue, again to the parliamentary assistant, is about the increasing number of tax-free properties in some municipalities. Metro is one case in point that I'm most familiar with. It doesn't just involve historically and constitutionally tax-free units such as churches and so forth; it involves the Royal Canadian Legion, cultural centres.

What I'm concerned about is whether the ministry is of the opinion that municipalities ought to have a self-imposed cap of maximum dollar values tax-free that could be imposed within their municipality, whether there is any merit to that or whether we are of the opinion that municipalities will be prudent and need no such guidelines in terms of capping to make sure they don't go beyond that. Some municipalities don't have to worry about this to any degree at all. There are others such as Metro, it may well be Ottawa, London, Windsor etc, that are certainly under other considerable pressure for tax-free or grants in lieu.

I wonder if the parliamentary assistant has any comment about that or whether there would be any merit, if not in capping or in asking municipalities to consider capping, in having at least a requirement for public disclosure annually of all properties that are exempted and the value that they are exempted to at that point. Has there been any consideration or discussion of that?

Mr Hardeman: The member brings up an interesting scenario and I think it relates to the first question. The options would be to put into the Municipal Act giving the municipalities the authority to grant tax exemptions without approval of the provincial Legislature. That would eliminate the need to come to this committee. But then your suggestion in the second question is that that should not be an unlimited authority; there should be a limit set as to how many of those tax exemptions they should give and how public they should be about granting those tax exemptions.

The ministry has been looking at some of those options, but at the present time the authority of municipalities is limited as to who they can grant tax exemptions to, recognizing that every time they grant someone a tax exemption, they charge someone else more tax. There is a need, I believe at this point in time at least -- the ministers and ministries in the past have seen a need to make sure it was controlled, who they gave tax exemptions to, and this was the process that was deemed to be the most appropriate. We are looking at alternatives to see if there are better ways to meet the same need.

Mr Shea: I would think, and I appreciate the response of the parliamentary assistant, that the interaction of the actual value assessment may provide a remarkable moment to be able to introduce some of these refinements. It is enabling legislation for municipalities, but the concept of public accountability is equally important. I simply leave those comments with the parliamentary assistant for his guidance to the minister and conclude my comments by saying I am absolutely supportive of the application that is before us today. I speak very highly of it and I hope we will unanimously support the recommendations.

The Vice-Chair: Any other questions from committee members? If not, are the members ready to vote? Can we collapse the votes on sections into one? Agreed?

Shall sections 1 to 11, inclusive, carry? Carried.

Shall the preamble carry? Carried.

Shall the title carry? Carried.

Shall the bill carry? Carried.

Shall I report the bill to the House? Agreed.

Thank you very much, sponsor and applicants.

Mr Kusano: Mr Chairman, on behalf of the centre and my colleagues here, I thank you and the committee and the province of Ontario very much.

1030

CITY OF SCARBOROUGH ACT, 1997

Consideration of Bill Pr78, An Act respecting the City of Scarborough.

The Vice-Chair: The next order of business is Bill Pr78. Mr Dan Newman is the sponsor. I see you're already at the table, Mr Newman. Could you introduce the applicants, or do you wish the applicants to introduce themselves?

Mr Dan Newman (Scarborough Centre): I will, Chair. I am here today with Jasmine Stein, a solicitor with the city of Scarborough, and Don Mitton, manager of the City of Scarborough Animal Centre.

I'd like to begin by saying that it is a pleasure to be here before the committee today as the sponsor of Bill Pr78. I don't want to take up too much of the committee's time because I know there are a number of individuals who want to make deputations here today. I would like, however, to take a few moments to provide the committee with the background behind the bill I am sponsoring.

When I was elected in June 1995 as the member for Scarborough Centre, I never would have imagined that perhaps the most pressing issue I would face would be leghold traps within my riding, but that is why I am here appearing before the committee today. My constituents have asked me to be here; my constituents have made this the most important issue in Scarborough.

The committee may find it hard to believe, but let me assure you that I am not exaggerating when I tell you that leghold trapping in Scarborough has been the issue I have heard the most about from my constituents. My office has received more calls and letters on this issue than on Bill 26, Bill 103, Bill 104, Bill 136 or anything our government has done.

Back in December 1996 my office started to receive calls from constituents concerned that an area resident was trapping and killing foxes in the middle of our community. Stories came in about residents, some children, who could hear the cries of dying foxes caught in the trapper's leghold traps. Several reports came in about residents seeing this trapper walking down the street with a dead fox slung over his shoulder. This is in Scarborough, in an area full of domestic pets and little children. Not long after this, I met with local Scarborough councillor Harvey Barron from ward 1 and some area residents who asked me to take this issue to Queen's Park so that the city of Scarborough could be granted the ability to introduce a bylaw to ban the use of leghold traps within its boundaries.

I don't want the committee to misunderstand me, because I certainly understand the importance of trapping to a number of communities across this province. As the former parliamentary assistant to the minister responsible for native affairs and now as the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Health, I have had the opportunity to travel to many rural and northern parts of this great province and I have been able to see at first hand the differences that exist in those parts of the province versus my part in Scarborough. This private bill does not approach any issues for northern or rural Ontarians. It only addresses the issue of leghold traps within the boundaries of the city of Scarborough, an urban environment. Just what the city of Toronto currently has is what the people of Scarborough want.

There are a number of presenters speaking here today who will be able to shed more light on this issue and to speak to more technical matters, but I felt it was important to address you today on behalf of my constituents to give you a chance to see why this issue is of importance to them and why this piece of legislation needs to be passed by the Legislature.

This issue goes to the heart of people's concerns. All of us, no matter which political party we belong to, can understand their concerns. This issue is more important than cutting taxes, more important than amalgamation; it is about the safety of their children, their pets and their communities. To stand against this bill is to tell my constituents that their safety is not important. I look forward to hearing from the deputants before you today.

The Vice-Chair: Thank you. Now we're ready to entertain the comments from the applicants.

Ms Jasmine Stein: My name is Jasmine Stein. I am a solicitor for the corporation of the city of Scarborough. I will try to keep my comments brief in light of the number of speakers you have before you today.

The bill we are presenting is very simple and straightforward in its purpose and intent. It has primarily one important objective, that is, to remove the potential danger these leghold traps pose to public safety, most particularly to small children and domestic pets. It is the city of Scarborough's position that the use of these traps is unnecessary and inappropriate in an urbanized environment. They serve no purpose which cannot be achieved by other means which present less risk to children and domestic animals and which present a more responsible and ecologically sound approach to resolving wildlife conflicts. We do not believe that this bill is overly restrictive or unduly prohibitive to wildlife management but will promote and encourage alternative means of wildlife management which will protect public health and safety and at the time maximize humaneness and safety for wildlife.

I have had an opportunity to review some of the issues raised by the OFMF in their submission in opposition to the bill. I'd like to address briefly some of those issues and then turn the floor over to Mr Mitton, who can speak in more detail from an animal control perspective.

The federation has expressed concern that the passage of this bill may involve the spread of rabies. As a result of various programs currently going on in the city of Scarborough, rabies has been virtually eliminated in the city's wildlife population. We believe that these programs will continue to be effective in the control of rabies and that banning the use of leghold traps will not result in an increased risk of rabies; nor do we anticipate that the city's budget for the removal of nuisance animals will be impacted to anywhere remotely near the extent the federation suggests. The fact that Holland pays in excess of $30 million per annum to control its muskrat population simply is not a valid comparison. We do not anticipate a higher incidence of nuisance and problem animals if this ban is imposed as there are other effective means of controlling these populations.

It has also been suggested that the authority of the city of Scarborough to legislate trapping on private lands is a legal question, as this falls within provincial jurisdiction. Clearly we readily acknowledge this, and that is exactly why we are here today.

It has also been suggested that under the international agreement on trap standards before the European Union involving Canada, leghold traps are considered to be legal, humane and appropriate for use in fur management programs. I would like to make it perfectly clear that we are not here to ask you to make leghold traps illegal and we are not suggesting that there are not circumstances where their use may be appropriate. What we are asking for is that the use of leghold traps in the city of Scarborough be prohibited. We acknowledge that there may be some circumstances where the use of leghold traps is appropriate and a viable option. However, we do not believe this to be the case in the city of Scarborough. We believe their use is not appropriate in an urbanized environment such as Scarborough.

The city of Scarborough fully understands its responsibilities with respect to control of nuisance wildlife and towards public health and safety. We believe that a humane and effective balance can be achieved through the implementation of the city's wildlife management strategy without the use of leghold traps. The use of these leghold traps poses a potential risk to domestic animals and young children which is unacceptable and which the city of Scarborough would like to see eliminated.

Those are my comments. I'll turn the floor over to Mr Mitton at this point.

1040

Mr Don Mitton: I'm Don Mitton. I'm here today, in my capacity as the manager of the City of Scarborough Animal Centre, to voice our support for the bill before you. The City of Scarborough Animal Centre is the division within the city of Scarborough responsible for animal control and pet adoption. Although the primary focus of the animal centre relates to domestic pets, our resources are called upon frequently to address citizens' concerns regarding conflicts with our wildlife species.

Prior to 1994, the animal centre provided citizens with the opportunity to borrow live-capture traps. The number of wildlife captured and euthanized using this method frequently exceeded 1,000 animals per year. This program appeared to have no significant impact on the wildlife population, as subsequent litter sizes increased to meet the environment's carrying capacity. Due to this program's ineffectiveness and philosophical difficulties in supporting the number of animals euthanized, a strategy was implemented in 1994 which takes a more ecological approach towards resolving wildlife conflicts.

The Scarborough Animal Centre, through its trap loan program, captured and euthanized 1,416 wildlife in 1985. It is interesting that in the same year, 38 rabid animals were confirmed in the city. The Ministry of Natural Resources introduced a limited trap, vaccinate and release program in a large area of Scarborough in the same year. Skunks and raccoons were captured in live-capture traps, vaccinated for rabies and released at the capture site. A more extensive program was undertaken in 1987. Between 1987 and 1991, the Ministry of Natural Resources captured 3,221 skunks and raccoons. They estimated that this was approximately 60% of the population. The rabies vaccine used was found to be almost 100% effective in stimulating antibody response. Although the trap, vaccinate and release program is costly, it is a very cost-effective means of rabies control when considering the high cost of treating human exposure. The Ministry of Natural Resources data for this period between 1987 and 1991 indicate the capture of 2,365 cats. Trapping methods other than live-capture traps would have resulted in injury and perhaps death for a significant number of these pets.

The Ministry of Natural Resources also immunizes a great proportion of the resident fox population. This is performed by hand distribution of oral rabies vaccine bait in areas frequented by foxes. Annually, several thousand of the baits are placed in Scarborough.

These ongoing programs in Scarborough have resulted in the virtual elimination of rabies in our wildlife population.

Looking Ahead: A Wildlife Strategy for Ontario, the product of a Ministry of Natural Resources working group, recommended a number of strategies. One of the recommendations relating to human-wildlife conflicts stated: "Greater emphasis should be placed on public education and extension programs in dealing with problem wildlife. Tolerance of minor nuisances should be encouraged." With this in mind, the Scarborough Animal Centre developed a wildlife policy statement which was adopted by the city of Scarborough council in January 1994.

The wildlife strategy encourages an ecological approach towards urban wildlife management. The key to this strategy is the elimination of unwanted denning sites. This is performed by the property owner following an assessment by animal centre staff. In a vast majority of cases, the animals choose other denning sites which will not result in conflicts with the property owner. Removal of the animal is only considered when recommended prevention methods have failed. Further, trapping will not be performed when there is a possibility that young, unable to survive on their own, would be separated from their mothers. In 1996, of the 139 wildlife handled by the animal centre, only nine were not injured or ill, and all the traps utilized by the animal centre are Tomahawk live traps which do not injure the animals.

We believe that the Ministry of Natural Resources rabies vaccination programs have proven to be very effective and that the issue of rabies control by the use of leghold trapping is not germane to Bill Pr78, An Act respecting the City of Scarborough. Further, human-wildlife conflicts can be resolved in a manner which does not pose safety concerns to the citizens and domestic pets in Scarborough. The animal centre asks the standing committee on regulations and private bills to approve the city of Scarborough council's request that Bill Pr78 be enacted. Thank you.

The Vice-Chair: Thank you, Mr Mitton. Now for interested parties, I'll start in the order listed on the agenda. I call Ms Ainslie Willock to come forward, please. Before you start, I would like to caution all the presenters that I will allow two minutes for your presentations, because we have a number of presenters. Is that satisfactory?

Ms Ainslie Willock: I think that is a little brief, but I'll do my best, if someone could let me know when I'm almost at my two minutes.

Mr Chair and standing committee members, thank you for this opportunity to speak on this important issue. I am a director of the Animal Alliance of Canada and the Canadian Alliance for Furbearing Animals. I am also a member of the Canadian General Standards Committee on Mammal Trapping. I've worked on the leghold trap issue for over 10 years.

In December 1996, I received calls from Scarborough residents who were upset that a fox had been heard screaming in a leghold trap. Dick Singer of the Scarborough Mirror writes:

"The cries of the trapped fox shattered the quiet of the Cliffside community, disrupting the Saturday afternoon routine. The animal had been screaming some time before a neighbour called me to ask what could be done.... The fox was caught in a leghold trap. With each tug, the heartless steel trap dug deeper. The animal's gyrations made it impossible to help. The police and humane society were called. Eventually, two officers arrived, but the fox ripped free and bolted. We investigated the compost bed where the animal had been. There, among the leaves, we discovered two leghold traps, an animal's carcass and fruit. Then Peter, a young resident, stepped on a trap. It clamped on his boot and he screamed in pain."

Residents don't want their children to witness such cruelty again. They want to know that their wildlife, pets and children are safe from leghold traps. That's why we're here today.

This would be a simple request, one that has already been granted by the province to the city of Niagara Falls and the city of Toronto, except that trappers and fur interests want to ensure that leghold traps continue to be used. They will give you every reason to convince you that leghold traps are necessary.

They say that leghold traps prevent the spread of disease. Yet MNR rabies expert Dr Rosatte states in a letter to me which is part of a package to this committee, "MNR scientists believe that the best strategy to manage fox rabies in Ontario is through oral vaccination with vaccine baits and not through removing animals from the population by trapping." Dr. Rosatte also told me that he does not use leghold traps and that he monitors the effectiveness of the vaccine through examining road-killed foxes and foxes incidentally caught in live box traps for raccoons. The incidents of rabies in wildlife has been dramatically reduced by the vaccination program. It's a fact that trapping animals doesn't control rabies; vaccination programs do.

Fur interests will tell you that leghold traps are economical for municipalities to use and necessary to control human-animal conflicts in an urban environment. The reality is that the city of Toronto and the city of Scarborough both have written letters stating that they have saved money by implementing new wildlife policies. Rather than trapping animals, the cities encourage an ecological approach to wildlife conflicts. Property owners are encouraged to modify their environment to eliminate conflicts by reducing or eliminating food and shelter opportunities. Jim Bandow, general manager of the animal control services for the city of Toronto, states, "There has been no activity in the city that could have been more effectively done with leghold traps."

Trappers will tell you that leghold traps are humane and that an international agreement on trap standards between Canada and Europe will allow for leghold traps. They won't tell you that Europe has banned the use of leghold traps in Europe and that the so-called standard is designed to avoid an international trade dispute.

The fox in Scarborough cried out in pain for a long time while residents tried to get someone to help. The fox was subject to great stress as the public tried to help it, such stress that it pulled itself free of the trap. This is a photo of a trap; it was just taken a few days ago in the city of North York. The same trapper is trapping up in North York, and the residents up there are outraged, and I predict that the same thing is going to happen up in North York. Also, a picture of a blue jay caught in a leghold trap; the trap was set for the fox and it got a blue jay. Again, this picture was just taken a few days ago.

I was going to set the trap off for you, but the two minutes I don't think allows for that.

The Vice-Chair: I'll give you three minutes.

Ms Willock: You'd like to see that? I'd love to do it for you. I will do it for you, then. I'll do it at the end.

Foxes can be live-trapped in an urban environment, and the Toronto Wildlife Centre is here to speak to you about alternative traps for certain circumstances.

We don't need or want leghold traps. The real issue is that trappers want to use leghold traps in urban environments. They want to use them because they are economical and light and easy for a trapper to use. We don't think of cities as trap-lines, but to a trapper our city ravines provide perfect shelter and a food supply for wildlife. They want to trap wildlife in the city and sell their skins to the fur industry for profit.

Trapping animals doesn't solve any perceived wildlife problem; it just creates a space for another animal, animals that trappers are more than willing to trap in a leghold trap.

Trapping animals doesn't control rabies or human-animal conflicts and is an outmoded approach and simply doesn't work. Trappers are out of touch with the rest of society. We know that when people see an animal struggling in a leghold trap their instinctive response is to help the animal. Their next instinct is to ban the trap. Even in an urban environment, trappers refuse to admit that there is a problem using leghold traps.

1050

I respectfully ask this committee to listen to the urban animal experts and the wishes of Scarborough residents and ban the use of leghold traps in their community to protect children, pets and urban wildlife. Leghold traps have no place in our cities. We commend Scarborough residents, Harvey Barron, councillor for Ward 2, and Scarborough council for passing a resolution to ban leghold traps. I'd like to thank Dan Newman, MPP for Scarborough Centre, and his staff for working hard to bring forward Bill Pr78 to enable Scarborough to ban leghold traps, just as the city of Niagara Falls and the city of Toronto have done.

Would you like me to set it off?

The Vice-Chair: Sure, for demonstration for the committee.

Ms Willock: This is a soft-patch coyote trap, a padded trap similar to the one being used by the trapper in the city of Scarborough and North York. It's slightly larger because it's designed for a coyote rather than a fox.

The Vice-Chair: Thank you very much for your presentation, Ms Willock.

The next interested party is Ms Liz White.

Ms Willock: Any questions?

The Vice-Chair: I'm sorry; we'll do the questions after, if you don't mind.

Mr Newman: On a point of order, Mr Chair: I know you've ruled that the presenters can only have two minutes, but given the fact that many of these people have taken time off work to be here today and travel to Queen's Park and have really taken the effort to be here, I'd request that all presenters be given an adequate amount of time to present their case, either for or against the bill.

The Vice-Chair: Mr Newman, we have 11 presenters and it is now 11 o'clock. I have given Ms Willock more time than the two minutes. I would like to have the presenters keep their presentation to around three minutes. I'm not going to be very strict on the enforcement of the ruling, but we do have only an hour left.

Mr Newman: Just the fact that there are 11 presenters tells you how important this bill is.

The Vice-Chair: Yes, thank you.

Ms Liz White: Good morning, everybody. My name is Liz White. I'm a director with the Animal Alliance of Canada. You have a package of material. It's the one with the little animals in the square. It has attachments to it, including the letter from Dr Rick Rosatte, who is with the Ministry of Natural Resources, who states quite clearly what his opinions are vis-à-vis rabies and the vaccination program, as opposed to the trapping argument with rabies.

I very much thank the committee for providing us with this opportunity to come and talk to you today. Animal Alliance recommends to the committee passage of Bill Pr78. I don't know whether this makes it more difficult, but I'm none the less going to raise it: I think there's another thing that needs to be added and I don't know whether this is the bill to do it, so you can instruct me on that at some point. Body-gripping traps, as in conibear traps and neck snares, are also not appropriate devices to be in the city and are also dangerous to pets and to children and to animals that get trapped in them. I think it would be worth while looking at an amendment to the legislation to include those. Whether we can do that in this bill, I don't know.

The second thing is that I think the bill needs to be clear as to what the offence is and the amount of the offence. Either that or it's attached directly to the piece of legislation that will go through the city of Scarborough. Anyway, those are my recommendations.

I just wanted to touch very briefly on a couple of topics which others -- so I won't dwell on them. I wanted to point out that Murray Monk, who is the president, I believe, of the Ontario Fur Managers Federation, wrote in a letter to the committee that passing a bylaw would give the city back its reputation as the rabies capital of the world; the implication is that there would be a spread of rabies in the city of Scarborough and very serious health hazards resulting from that.

The information that has been presented to you today indicates that it has turned out to be entirely the opposite scenario, that the trap-and-vaccinate program and the aerial drop of rabies oral vaccines for foxes has worked to the point where there have been virtually no reported cases in Metropolitan Toronto, not just in the city of Scarborough. Although the program they have developed -- and it is a Ministry of Natural Resources program -- has been supported by a number of urban municipalities and rural municipalities that are participating in the program, it is none the less the Ministry of Natural Resources' own program that it has developed, that has worked in a much more effective way than previous programs that have been around to address rabies. I encourage you to take a look at that particular issue carefully with regard to the human-animal conflict issue.

We're constantly faced with this problem of people concerned about animals and their impact on their environment. We've worked very hard with the Ministry of Natural Resources, with the Ontario Wildlife Working Group a number of years ago, with Ministry of Natural Resources staff now and with a number of municipalities -- it's my program that I work with -- in trying to get people to look at human-animal conflicts differently, that you don't always have to go and shoot the animal or trap the animal or even remove the animal from the environment.

In many situations, the best response to the situation is to simply leave the animal there. We dealt with the pictures. The reason the trapper was asked to come in and remove foxes from the area in North York is that people had seen these foxes out during the day, and because they had seen the foxes out during the day there was an automatic assumption that these animals had rabies. There was no basis for the assumption, and in fact the foxes were, as far as I could tell from conversations with people, of very little bother. But there was this paranoia.

I think we need to go through a much more in-depth education program, and the city of Scarborough had demonstrated that. They've sat down and thought about what the policies were, put the policies forward, had public discussion, had it submitted to council, and this has resulted in, guess what? Saving of money. I think that's what everybody around the table is interested in. We've talked about it, about trying to reduce budgets. The end result of teaching people how to survive in their own environment means the city doesn't have to go out and trap the animals in the same way that it did before. That's true in the city of Toronto, it's true in North York, it's true in the city of Etobicoke, it's true in much of Metropolitan Toronto, and it's true in many urban environments where there has been an active approach to try and change how people relate to animals and begin to teach people how to understand their behaviour. The city of Scarborough doesn't need to have the leghold trap because they don't bother trapping most of the time, and for those animals they do, they use live traps.

We've had much discussion. I sit on the Canadian General Standards Board trapping committee. Howard Noseworthy, who's with the Ontario Fur Managers Federation, has also sat, and we've had many lively discussions about leghold traps. The fact is that animals trapped in urban environments are quite different from animals trapped in rural environments. In some situations, padded traps do cause less injuries. Those are the results of some of the studies that have been looked at. In the wild, an animal may simply lie down and wait. They may struggle, but they may lie down. In an urban environment, where they are on the edge of a ravine where people are walking their dogs, people are walking and children are playing, there is a perpetual stress on those animals. What you find is that they thrash and run and try and get away and yank on their limbs, and as you'll see by some of the pictures that are going to be presented today, there are more injuries. In an urban environment, it's our view that leghold traps, certainly in those sorts of circumstances, are simply cruel and there's a great deal of suffering.

I would urge the committee today to pass the bill, and if there's a possibility to amend it to improve it, I would appreciate that. I don't know whether that's possible.

The Chair: Thank you, Ms White.

The next interested party is Mr Robert Gardiner.

1100

Mr Robert Gardiner: Thank you, Mr Chair, and members. I am speaking today as president of the Canadian Association for Humane Trapping and chair of the trapping committee of the Canadian Federation of Humane Societies.

The Canadian Association for Humane Trapping has been involved in finding better ways to trap since about 1945. I'm the president and have been a director since 1972. I've been involved in the research of the federal-provincial committee for humane trapping, at the current research situation at the Fur Institute of Canada. I've been a member of the Canadian General Standards Board, attending over 40 meetings on trap design and standards, and the International Standards Organization. I'm a director of the Fur Institute of Canada and I'm involved in trapper education, regulations and trap research in that organization.

The Canadian Association for Humane Trapping is not opposed to trapping. We work with trappers and governments to find every possible way to make traps more humane. The Canadian Federation of Humane Societies has 110 members of animal welfare organizations across Canada and over 200,000 members of that. They are opposed to the trapping of fur and for recreation, but they work for all humane trapping improvements. I was involved in the drafting of the Canadian wildlife guidelines, the International Union for the Conservation of Nature's statement for improved trapping and various other initiatives.

The International Union for the Conservation of Nature passed recommendation 1,825. Some 135 world governments followed the policy that was promoted, primarily by Canada, to say that non-target animals should be released without injury; traps should be regularly visited; members should ensure that the most humane and selective techniques available are employed in the capture or killing of wild animals; and the 135 world governments agreed that there should be a goal of eliminating as soon as practical the use of inhumane traps throughout the world. They also adopted a wildlife policy that said people should protect wild animals from cruelty and avoidable suffering.

Just another perspective we have in Canada is our Criminal Code. Clause 446(1)(a) says that every person commits an offence who wilfully causes or, being the owner, wilfully permits to be caused unnecessary pain, suffering or injury to an animal or bird. That's been construed in several cases, including Regina v Menard, which says that when they defined this kind of cruelty in the Criminal Code they intended to prevent causing injury to an animal or pain or suffering that could have been reasonably avoided for it, taking into account the purpose and the method used.

The Canadian wildlife guidelines came up with what the provinces should be legislating. In article 7.7 of that, they said legislation regulating uses of wildlife should be enacted and enforced to conserve wildlife populations and ensure that all uses are sustainable and that the uses of wild animals are humane. There should be penalties for enforcement and they should be an effective deterrent to illegal use of wildlife. They go on, in article 7.10, to make other provisions about humane use.

There are various policies, if anyone wants to follow up, of the Canadian Veterinary Medical Association, the Canadian Nature Federation and the Canadian Federation of Humane Societies about the kind of selective trapping that the city of Scarborough is working on.

Some recommended international trapping regulations promoted by CAHT said that only box-type live holding traps and other ISO-approved holding devices not dangerous to children or pets should be used to trap animals within 400 metres of a residence. Such live holding traps must be set in sheltered, protected sites and must be tended at least once every 12 hours, including the early morning, which is the most important time.

There are various public opinion polls that show that in general about 80% of Canadians disapprove of the use of the leghold trap. For instance, the national Angus Reid poll showed that.

The federal-provincial committee for humane trapping in 1981 said that 17 of 21 species should not be used in leghold traps. Ed Philip, an NDP member, brought forward Bill 59, which would prohibit traps other than box traps in municipalities. I thought that was passed into law in Ontario. I just haven't had time to look that up since I got involved in this last night.

However, I was involved in and drafted Bill 154 on behalf of Ed Philip. It was introduced and was in fact passed by the Conservative government in 1985, with the cooperation of the Ontario Trappers' Association. It removed the leghold trap from land for 13 species. The only exceptions were wolf, fox, coyote, bobcat and lynx. There are various other provisions in there. Those have been picked up across Canada. There are 12 trapping regulations across Canada that significantly remove use of the leghold trap.

I concur with the earlier comments about rabies control. Leghold trapping does not improve rabies control, whereas the other modern systems do, as used in the city of Toronto and the city of Scarborough. Jim Bandow's work in the city of Toronto is well known across North America and highly regarded.

The bill before you is a good first step and I certainly support it, but I recommend that you look at the city of Toronto provision which defines the leghold trap and a snare. More important, look at the legislation you approved for the city of Ottawa because it has the best bylaw. Their bylaw number 253/79 defines a killer trap, a leghold trap and a snare. It says: "No person shall use, set or maintain any leghold trap, killer trap or snare in any area within the city that is not enclosed in a building or structure, unless such use is otherwise authorized by or under the direct supervision of the Ministry of Natural Resources of Ontario." There's a $5,000 fine that's levied there, and importantly, they can have a prohibition order to stop anyone from trapping if they're in breach of that.

The resolution that came forward from the city of Scarborough itself called for regulating body-gripping traps, including leghold traps. It's a hugely important consequence. People seem to think that leghold traps are the big problem, but when you're in an urban area, you have to think about children and pets, and body-gripping traps can do much more damage than a leghold trap can. A leghold trap will only break a limb, fractures, ligament damage, that sort of thing, in most cases, whereas the body-gripping trap is a killing trap.

The Ministry of Natural Resources of Ontario in 1990 issued a memorandum by its wildlife director pointing out that of 144 trappers who attended the Ontario Trappers' Association convention that year, about one half of the trappers no longer set leghold traps on land.

The Vice-Chair: Would you wrap up your presentation, Mr Gardiner, in the next minute.

Mr Gardiner: Okay. I've got a host of research that would show the types of injuries that are done, but to give you a quick example, steel-jawed traps in coyote would cause injury to their ligaments about 95% of the time; a joint subluxation, which is tearing of the joint, 38% of the time; fractures 91% of the time. If you're interested, I have statistics on raccoon and fox and other items like that.

The Ontario statistics are well known across the world for capturing of untargeted species such as dogs and cats. Refer to Milan Novak's research on that. About one in 10 captures on a trap-line would be domestic animals, and small mammals might be from one in 10 to five in 10; it depends on the trapper and where it's set. For anybody who wants to get involved in municipalities in trapping, look at Alternative Traps by Tom Garrett from the Animal Welfare Institute. There are several other recommendations I can make, but I'll close with these following recommendations:

The City of Scarborough Act should be passed, but follow the model for the city of Ottawa because you'll get much better legislation for an urban situation. Put in body-gripping traps, a penalty and the right for prohibition.

The provincial Game and Fish Act should prohibit body-gripping traps, leghold traps or neck snares within 400 metres of a residence.

Amend the Municipal Act to allow all municipalities to regulate use of traps within their boundaries.

There should be twice-daily inspection in urban areas, especially in the morning.

The Ministry of Natural Resources should focus on urban trapping as an issue that is separate from rural trapping.

The Vice-Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Gardiner, for your very informative presentation, and by the way, I think I gave you nine minutes. The next interested party is Ms Karin Eaton.

1110

Ms Karin Eaton: I'll make mine short. Mr Chairman, members of committee, thank you very much for allowing me to come and add my voice to those who support a ban on leghold traps in Scarborough. I come here as a resident of Scarborough, and in particular of Scarborough Bluffs. I come here because I was appalled through the local media to discover that leghold traps were licensed. I had no idea that in this day and age in an urban setting they were licensed. My children, who are grown up, who are quite extremist in this area, were shocked and so are my neighbours.

Let me tell you just a little bit about our neighbourhood. Those of us who live there feel very privileged. We have discovered a very special part of the city. We think we live in the best part of the city, in fact. It's a part of the city where nature and the urban environment blend very well. We have beautiful parks, some of them natural; some of them are manicured. We have ravines, we have the magnificent bluffs and we have the lake at our feet. In that, we have beautiful manicured homes, very carefully kept gardens and lovely homes. We're very proud of our area and we're very proud of living in harmony with nature.

Everybody who lives in the area knows the family of foxes that lives at the Hunt Club. We were distressed when one of them was run over on Kingston Road. Even at the Scarborough Civic Centre there's a family of foxes that has been raised there by a fox mother that had damaged her leg, and so she chose to stay in that environment, where she felt safe, I assume. On the Internet they keep a regular update on this family. This is the kind of caring community we are.

You'll find rabbits that live in the shrubbery around the city of Scarborough. I'm lucky enough to work in one of these idyllic office situations right in a park. It's a natural park, Harrison estate, and it overlooks the bluffs. When I look out of my office window, what I see is a park and birds and butterflies and squirrels, and one day this spring I saw a fox running across the park. The person on the other end of the phone whom I was speaking to in a stuffy downtown office was kind of surprised when I yelped and said, "Oh, there goes a fox." It lifted my day and it lifted his day. This is the kind of environment we really appreciate and honour as we live there.

But let me tell you it's much more likely that I'll look out of my office and see people walking across the park. This is a people place and this is what our neighbourhood really is. There are people who walk their dogs, and children and families. There are joggers and there are cyclists. We're a community of friendly and caring and warm people and we are distressed when we hear anybody or anything in distress. We don't want this happening in our neighbourhood.

We live on the edge of the city of Toronto. We're right there, and in the city of Toronto they have banned leghold traps. In January, these borders are going to blur. It's time perhaps to start thinking about equalizing this ban across Metro. But for myself, I'd just like to say that all remnants of rural life have disappeared except for a few fruit trees that are still in some of our front yards, and we're an urban setting and a neighbourhood of caring people who love the animals and who really would like to support this bill on behalf of all the residents.

The Vice-Chair: Thank you very much for sharing your comments with the committee, Ms Eaton.

The next presenter is Mrs Ann White.

Mrs Ann White: I thank the Chairman and the committee for allowing me to come here and add my voice to those who are in favour of banning the leghold traps. I have very few words to say, really. It's just to repeat what I said in my letter. I think the committee members have a copy of my letter, where I said:

"With this letter, I would like to add my voice and support to the application mentioned above. Not only are such traps cruel and painful, but their use within a community of families with children and pets presents a great danger. A bylaw to prohibit the use of these traps within urban and suburban boundaries is necessary."

I've lived in Scarborough for 21 years. I raised three daughters, who are now grown, a dog and three cats, and I just cannot imagine that anybody would use leghold traps within a community and neighbourhood where children can walk and run around. You cannot always control them. The pets might get into these traps. Even though the gentleman earlier on mentioned that leghold traps might only -- he said "only" -- cause a fracture on the leg, I think it's just too much; it's just too bad.

There's no need for this, but I add my voice to Liz White's, who mentioned that an education program for the whole population might be a very good idea. Perhaps that could be started with children in the schools so people and families learn to live with wildlife, rather than eliminate it or catch it or disfigure it.

I want to thank you again and I hope this bill goes through.

The Vice-Chair: Thank you for your comments, Ms White.

The next interested party is Mr Howard Noseworthy.

Mr Howard Noseworthy: Thank you, Mr Chairman. The Ontario Fur Managers Federation wishes to speak in opposition to Bill Pr78.

By way of introduction, I would say that my name is Howard Noseworthy. I am the general manager of the Ontario Fur Managers Federation. I am a member of the Canadian General Standards Board committee on the development of humane trap standards, and was a member of the working group which developed the Canadian killing trap standard approved by the Standards Council of Canada for use within Canada earlier this year. I am also a member of the working groups developing Canadian restraining and submersion trap standards.

I have served and continue to serve as a member of the Canadian advisory committee to the International Organization for Standardization technical committee 191, developing international trapping standards, and was a member of working group IV developing performance criteria for these standards.

As past president of the Canadian National Trappers Alliance, I sit on the CNTA committee monitoring and advising on the implementation in Canada of an agreement on international humane trapping standards, a tripartite agreement between Canada, the Russian Federation and the European Union.

I can say without fear of substantive contradiction that Bill Pr78 is redundant and unnecessary in its scope and intent. A prohibition of the use of leghold traps within the city of Scarborough will not improve trapping or animal welfare. It will undermine the sustainable harvest of wild furbearer populations and the ability to control problem animal populations.

The tenet of the bill, to ban all limb-restraining devices for the capture of animals, contradicts the indisputable fact that all these devices are not the same in design or in operation. An analysis of restraining traps by national and international committees charged with the development of trap standards has led to the conclusion that box and cage traps are just as likely as limb-restraining devices to cause injury to animals and are equally in need of standardization.

Traps are neither inherently good nor bad. To adequately control wild animal populations particularly in problem situations in urban areas, a variety of devices is necessary. There is no single magic trap that is good for all species. Neither are all the traps targeted by Bill Pr78 bad. There is simply a range of devices, some better, some worse, which are employed in the harvest and control of wild animals.

What makes Pr78 redundant and unnecessary is the fact that what it attempts to do is already being done on a provincial, national and international basis, and being done in a far better manner than unilateral action by a single city.

The Game and Fish Act and regulations in Ontario restrict the type of traps that may be used, the species for which they may be used, the frequency with which traps must be checked, who may use these traps and in what situations. Trapping in Ontario is already highly regulated and well controlled.

The new Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act currently before the Legislature attempts in part to give landowners the right to hire agents of their choice to control problem animal populations on their own property. This right of choice to deal with problem animals in a timely and less cumbersome manner than at present is undermined by Bill Pr78.

Canada is the first country in the world to develop standards designed to ensure that traps are both humane and efficient. A Canadian killing trap standard was approved earlier this year, and restraining and submersion trap standards are likely to be completed by the end of the year. These standards are being developed with the input of regulators, animal welfare organizations, trappers and other wildlife professionals. With all due respect to the architect of Pr78, I cannot imagine that he has more insight into the humane treatment of animals in trapping situations or more expertise in the necessary control of animal populations through the use of traps than have the almost 40 organizations and experts who have combined their resources to develop a trap standard which serves as a model for the world.

1120

Canada was instrumental in the successful completion this year of a tripartite agreement on international humane trapping standards and has attached a declaration to this agreement which says in part, "Based on the results of testing already available, the use of conventional steel-jawed leghold restraining traps shall be prohibited ...commencing...1999."

Rather than throw the baby out with the bathwater, the agreement recognizes that replacements must be found for the devices that will eventually be banned. The agreement takes the sensible and necessary approach that we cannot ignore the control of problem furbearers even if we wish to change a particular tool of that control. In keeping with the intent to develop a level playing field for the determination of what is best and a true effort at ongoing improvement, the international agreement provides time for the development of replacement devices.

Bill Pr78 flies in the face of already stringent Ontario regulations governing trapping, the right of landowners to protect themselves and their families from problem animal populations, Canadian scientific and technical standards developed by a multiplicity of experts and an international agreement to which Canada is signatory. It does so without considering the potential ramifications for human health and safety and without having considered a preponderance of the evidence that trapping in Ontario is already well regulated.

Bill Pr78 is potentially harmful to the Canadian standards process and to the implementation of an international agreement. It is potentially harmful to the uniform humane treatment of animals in trapping situations. More than anything else, Bill Pr78 is redundant and unnecessary and should be withdrawn.

The Vice-Chair: Thank you very much for your presentation, Mr Noseworthy.

The next presenter is Ms Christine Mason.

Ms Christine Mason: Thank you for allowing me this opportunity this morning to address the issue of Bill Pr78. My name is Christine Mason. I am employed by the Ontario SPCA, commonly known as the Ontario Humane Society. My position is that of wildlife coordinator. I deal every day of my life with native wildlife in this province from a rehabilitation point of view.

I'm here to speak to committee today to let you know that the OSPCA strongly supports the city of Scarborough's application and this private member's bill concerning the use of leghold traps. A lot of what I wanted to say has already been said, so I'm just going to be very brief.

Leghold traps inflict pain and suffering. Don't let anybody else tell you any differently. I know from personal experience over the years, having removed both wild animals and domestic animals from leghold traps, and have seen first hand the injuries they have inflicted. To my right we have inspector Deborah Hunt, who has been working as an inspector with our organization for several years. She is going to speak to you on some of the charges she has laid against various individuals within the confines of Scarborough, North York and Toronto in general concerning leghold traps and body-gripping traps. She too will be able to address the pain and suffering aspect of leghold traps. By the way, "restraining device" is just a nice name for a leghold trap. Sometimes, if you give something a different name, it somehow deflects what this particular piece of apparatus actually does.

Leghold traps are unnecessary in many, many cases, in fact in all cases, as there are alternative trapping systems available, such as the live box trap. I would dispute the previous speaker's claim that the box trap can sometimes be more cruel or inflict more pain and suffering than the leghold; it cannot. I do not think so.

Our organization across the province: We are a provincial organization. We have a network of shelters and affiliated organizations from one end of the province to the other. All of us receive numerous, numerous calls concerning wild and domestic animals caught in leghold traps and other trapping systems. If you wish us to provide the statistics, I could do that later on. I didn't bring them with me.

Each time this occurs, there is public outrage which demands an end to the use of these traps. I'd just like to briefly say that if there were to be a referendum in this country tomorrow around either the trapping systems or the use of the leghold, there would be a resounding victory -- in other words a "yes" victory -- that the trap must go. You would probably get a 98% majority, not 51%. I don't think anybody in this room could dispute that, regardless of which side of the fence they're on.

Debbie has laid several charges over the years. She will address those.

I'd like to respond to some of the comments contained in the mission statement of the Ontario Fur Managers Federation. I won't go any further into the rabies issue. As somebody who works with wildlife on a daily basis, it is incumbent upon me to be as up-to-date about the rabies problem in this province as I can possibly be for my own safety and the safety of my co-workers. I did attach a one-page copy from the Rabies Reporter; it's the June 1997 issue. There has not been a reported case of a rabid fox in southern Ontario since November 1996, and that had nothing to do with the trappers. All of that was due to the Ministry of Natural Resources vaccination program.

Despite the international agreement on trap standards that several people here have alluded to, leghold traps can never, ever be called humane; I don't care how many pads you put in them. In addition to that, under the Game and Fish Act an animal may legally be left in a leghold trap for 24 hours. Can you imagine the mess that leg will be in after 24 hours? It's also noteworthy that there's no "closed" season. That means that foxes may even be trapped during the breeding season.

In closing, we would like to indicate our very strong support. We urge you to pass this private bill.

Ms Debbie Hunt: Hello. My name is Debbie Hunt. I'm an inspector with the Ontario SPCA-Ontario Humane Society. My job is to investigate cruelty and neglect of animals and possibly charge those who wilfully cause pain and suffering, or injury, to an animal. Over the six years of doing this job, I have seen and dealt with often very unpleasant situations. I've had several cases involving animals caught in leghold traps and I'd like to comment on a few.

A few years ago in Scarborough I dealt with a case involving a nine-month-old kitten that had been caught in a leghold trap. The family had found their kitten, which by the way dragged itself back home near their deck. The kitten had blood all over its leg and was in a very bad way. The little girl was in tears when I went over to the house, she was so upset. The owners had promptly rushed their cat to a veterinarian, and I'd like to now read the veterinarian's report: "This note is to certify that I examined and treated above-described pet. In my opinion, injuries are consistent with a leghold trap and that such injuries would inflict considerable pain."

The cat luckily survived, and the man we believe set this leghold trap had placed it in his backyard. His yard had not been fenced, nor were his neighbours' yards. How lucky a child had not wandered into that man's backyard.

The cat I just spoke about had been lucky. However, in the rest of the cases I've dealt with, the animals were found suffering terribly and others had died a slow, agonizing death.

Another incident in Scarborough: A man had placed a conibear trap -- a body-gripping device trap -- in his backyard in a residential area in Scarborough. Children, approximately 10 of them, had lost their ball and they went looking for their ball. They jumped this man's fence and they discovered this cat in this trap, crushed and dead. The body was taken to a veterinarian and the post-mortem revealed that the cat had been well cared for, a family pet, and had five near-term foetuses inside her. The vet report indicated this animal had suffered terribly.

1130

Many of the children had been so upset -- in fact, two of them had nightmares after the incident. According to their mothers, they kept asking: "Why do people have to be so mean? That poor kitty." The mothers stated to me, "What can I say to a six- and seven-year-old about something like this?" They had been so upset about their children having to go through something like this.

An individual was charged, pled guilty and, after it had been agreed that it would be too much for the children to testify, it was agreed that the accused would pay a $500 donation.

Another case involving a leghold trap: An individual set a leghold trap, catching a raccoon. He knew it was in there and let it stay in there till it died. The individual was charged as well. He pled guilty for causing unnecessary pain and suffering and was ordered to pay a $300 fine, resulting in a conditional discharge. I'd like to show you the pictures of that raccoon, its foot mangled in the trap, its bones sticking out of its leg. I can't imagine the pain and suffering that animal went through.

A case I had a year ago was one of my most upsetting ones. I'll read my statement briefly. This is what I prepared for my crown brief, which would have been submitted to the crown for the case I had charged the individual on:

"Having received a complaint of a live raccoon in a leghold trap, I arrived at an address in North York. I proceeded to the backyard of this address and to my right I saw a raccoon in a leghold trap. The animal was still alive. As I approached the animal closer, I saw its right leg was caught in the trap. The leg was horribly twisted and its bones protruding. I also saw the raccoon had chewed its toes off and it looked exhausted and in a great deal of pain. I called for backup and another inspector came in and assisted me. We restrained the raccoon with a catch pole but could not open the jaws of that leghold trap. I pulled the stake trap out of the ground and removed the raccoon with the leghold still attached to its leg. The raccoon was making several unpleasant sounds which were very upsetting.

"We transported it to an animal clinic. The raccoon was taken to the examining table and restrained again. At that time we attempted to free its leg. It took two men to push down the springs of that leghold trap so I could open the jaws. At that time blood started to spurt out of the animal's leg. We had to put the animal down. The vet's report states that the animal had suffered a great deal. It had fractured both tibias and the bone was totally exposed. The animal had chewed off its own toes in an effort to free itself."

I'd like to show you the pictures of that raccoon and that leghold trap. I'll never forget that helpless animal. I couldn't budge the jaws of that trap. The animal was screaming in pain. I wondered how and why we allow people to use these barbaric traps, licensed or not. The accused pled guilty and was ordered to pay a $1,000 donation, resulting in a conditional discharge.

I'd like to show you, finally, a picture of a fox that had been caught in a leghold trap. Please look at the injuries to its legs.

In closing, I urge you to pass this bill prohibiting the use of leghold traps in Scarborough. Having a piece of paper saying you're licensed to use this trap does not take away the pain and suffering these animals experience and the agonizing death they go through. I thank you for your time.

The Vice-Chair: Thank you, Ms Hunt, for your presentation.

The next presenter is Ms Nathalie Karvonen.

Ms Nathalie Karvonen: Good morning, everyone. My name is Nathalie Karvonen. I'm the executive director of the Toronto Wildlife Centre. I'm also a biologist. The Toronto Wildlife Centre does primarily wildlife rehabilitation, as well as public education surrounding wildlife issues. We deal with about 30,000 phone calls a year from members of the public regarding issues related to urban wildlife. We work with veterinarians, we work with the animal control in the municipalities, we work with the Metro Toronto Zoo, the Ministry of Natural Resources, as well as the Ontario Provincial Police.

I wanted to address several different points. I certainly am very concerned as well about children encountering these traps, but because I don't work with children, I can't comment on those situations. But we do work with wildlife 365 days a year, and one of the things that is very important to remember with these leghold traps is that there are a lot of non-target animals caught in these traps. Certainly it is very upsetting when the traps catch the animal they were originally intended for, but we have to remember that a lot of other animals, such as birds like the blue jay that Ainslie showed you a picture of earlier, get caught in these traps. At our organization, we actually receive a lot of owls which are caught in leghold traps. I'm sure Christine has the same situation as well. Also, we talked to the owl foundation in St Catharines. They also get a lot of owls which are caught in leghold traps. I'm sure everyone would agree that this is probably a situation where the person was not trying to catch a nuisance owl in their area.

Another very important point to address which has been mentioned a couple of times is the issue of nuisance wildlife situations. We spend a lot of time talking to members of the public about nuisance wildlife situations. Any form of trapping is not generally a solution for these situations. You need to look at the underlying causes for the situation which is happening. We usually spend about 20 minutes to half an hour talking with an individual about whatever the situation is but, for example, if it was simply a fox in an area, especially an area which has good habitat for foxes, there will always be foxes in that habitat.

We need to talk to people about what may be attracting them to their specific property, what types of things they can do on their property to encourage the foxes to stay away if they are very concerned about them being in the area, and just general education about foxes, what their diet is normally like. There's a very low incidence of foxes attacking people or pets. They're very small animals. If you've ever seen a fox up close, it's a skinny little animal with a lot of fur.

Generally, people are afraid of rabies, which has been mentioned before. Like Christine, we also have to keep very current on rabies information in Ontario. Our Ministry of Natural Resources is doing an excellent job dealing with rabies in Ontario. This is something we talk to the public about a lot, because there are lots of myths out there surrounding rabies.

It's really important to remember that there hasn't been a documented case of a person contracting rabies in Ontario for over 60 years, and that was when a child was bitten by her kitten. So this isn't a rampant disease. It certainly is a disease we have to be concerned about, but we need to put it in perspective. I don't think we would advocate putting leghold traps out to catch kittens because the last documented case of rabies in people was caused by a kitten.

Another important issue I wanted to address is public tolerance of leghold trapping with respect to wildlife. A couple of residents have come up and illustrated that point really well. We deal with residents all the time who are calling about wildlife. An example of foxes in Scarborough, because we seem to be talking about foxes primarily today, is a fox on the Scarborough U of T campus that many students on the campus know, and it tends to hang out most commonly near the nursery school on campus. The teacher in the nursery school is actually doing a wonderful job. She has taught the children in the nursery school all about red foxes, she's taught them about their habitat and behaviour. The children in the school know this fox by sight, but they also know to respect it. It's a wild animal; they shouldn't go near it, just as they shouldn't go near a dog or a cat or any other animal they don't know.

Several months ago, this fox was injured and was brought into Toronto Wildlife Centre to be treated. The children were so concerned that they wrote to us constantly; they called us almost every day to check on the fox. They had a little fund-raising campaign and they raised $50, which they donated towards the care of the fox. The fox was released back on the campus, because that was his home habitat, and they are now sending us follow-up pictures of the fox. We have a lot of pictures of this fox. They continue to be very concerned about the fox's welfare.

We need to keep in mind that there are a lot of people who love wild animals in Scarborough. I was actually raised in Scarborough. I lived there for 23 years on the edge of the Rouge Valley, which I might argue is just as good a place as the Bluffs, which I'm very familiar with as well. I love the Bluffs too; my aunt lives there.

I would strongly urge you to pass this bill. I think there are a lot of really good alternatives to dealing with wildlife problems in urban habitats. A lot of this has touched on the rabies issue, that this isn't even advocated by the Ministry of Natural Resources as any kind of rabies control method.

The Vice-Chair: Thank you very much for your presentation, Ms Karvonen. We're not going to discuss the value of living on the Bluffs or somewhere else this morning.

Mr Shea: Actually, we are going to.

The Vice-Chair: Okay, later on. There will be time allocation.

The next presenter is Mr Robert Scott.

Mr Robert Scott: Thank you very much for allowing me to speak on this very important issue. I speak on behalf of my wife and daughters and many other people who live in the Scarborough Bluffs area.

We were quite shocked when we found out that these leghold traps are being used. We couldn't believe it. The city of Scarborough is 15 years old. This is the wrong place and the wrong time to be using leghold traps. Leghold traps are a serious danger to children, pets and anyone else who happens to be stepping in the wrong place at the wrong time.

We don't have to use leghold traps. They're cruel and horribly restrictive devices for any kind of research or rabies prevention. There are other ways of doing research and preventing rabies, such as live trapping and vaccination programs.

In conclusion, we support this bill. We hope the city of Scarborough and the whole Metropolitan Toronto area would be permitted to ban the use of leghold traps.

1140

The Vice-Chair: Mr Scott, thank you very much for your brief presentation. Do we have any other interested party wishing to address the committee? If not, I'll go to the parliamentary assistant, Mr Hardeman, for his comments.

Mr Hardeman: I too will be very brief. Obviously, the legislation falls in the purview of the Ministry of Natural Resources and I'm informed by the ministry that it is neutral on the issue. They would not oppose the passing of the bill, so it is up to the committee to make the decision as it sees fit.

The Vice-Chair: For the committee members, we'll start with questions. Mr Shea has already indicated that he had a question.

Mr Shea: I am strongly supportive of Pr78 and I thank Mr Newman for bringing it to the committee for processing. I do have some questions I'd like to ask.

Time is brief, so I'll try to focus on a couple of them. Maybe I could ask Liz White and Ms Stein if they could just come back to the microphone for a moment. Mr Noseworthy might be ready to come up in a moment. I want to ask him a couple of questions as well.

The Vice-Chair: Why not come up immediately, so you're readily available, Mr Noseworthy.

Mr Shea: I just may want to ask questions as we go along. Then I have a question of the parliamentary assistant, because I know he wants to deal with a couple of issues here as well.

The question I want you to respond to, Ms White, is -- a couple of points. First of all, we've talked about leg traps today. This involves you as well, Ms Stein. The resolution that went before Scarborough city council does not refer to leg traps specifically; it speaks about body-gripping traps, including leghold traps. That's the way it was phrased.

The legislation that's come before this committee doesn't read that way. I'm picking up on the point I think Ms White was raising, and I'd like some explanation on that. I'd like to know, did the city of Scarborough see the wording of the legislation that is before us and agree to it, and if so, why do we find ourselves with this conundrum where we have a municipal resolution that is passed which is broader than the one that's before me today? Can you explain that? What's happening?

Ms Liz White: The process city council follows is that staff are directed to seek private legislation. The actual wording of the legislation does not go back to council.

Mr Shea: I understand that, nor should it. But were you consulted as the wording went through? You can understand my problem as you read the legislation. The legislation reads, "permit its council to pass bylaws prohibiting setting or using leghold traps." But the resolution that went through city council was, "to prohibit the using, setting or maintaining of body-gripping traps, including leghold traps." I'm picking up on this because it's a point that's raised by Ms White. I'd like some rejoinder for that.

Ms Liz White: I think what may be at the nut of it is that people don't always understand the difference between a leghold trap -- a body-gripping trap is just a general description of a type of trapping method, as opposed to the specific type of trap within that method you're using. I think that may be the conundrum.

We looked at the city of Ottawa's legislation. That's why we talked about including conibear traps and neck snares as a possibility, because they are equally dangerous to children and pets, as was certainly fairly clearly demonstrated by the OSPCA inspector, as being more inclusive.

My concern with the piece of legislation from the city of Ottawa is it provides a massive exemption through the Ministry of Natural Resources for the use of traps and I don't think that's appropriate. We are trying to deal with a prohibition in a particular geographic urban environment, period. We are not talking about trapping all over Ontario.

So, Mr. Shea, there might have been a mix-up with the terminology because I think a lot of people are not clear as to what that means.

Mr Shea: Would the terminology be more appropriate for this legislation as contained in the city of Scarborough's resolution? Let me just make sure you are very clear what I am asking so there is no misunderstanding.

Ms Liz White: Yes.

Mr Shea: The legislation that is before me says "setting or using leghold traps."

Ms Liz White: Right.

Mr Shea: Would it be more appropriate to change that to "body-gripping traps, including leghold traps"?

Ms Liz White: It depends on how you look at what a body-gripping trap is, whether you consider it a trap that grips the body to hold the animal or grips the body to kill the animal, because we are dealing with two separate types of trapping systems.

Mr Shea: You understand my conundrum.

Ms Liz White: I understand your conundrum.

Mr Shea: My difficulty is that I have before me a piece of legislation written in a way that does not reflect --

Ms Liz White: I would recommend to the committee, I would suppose, that to simplify the situation for the committee today it should pass Pr78, possibly as is, and look at the possibility of introducing another private member's bill that deals with the other aspects of that piece of legislation.

Mr Shea: Then let me ask for the record, Ms Stein, is what is before us, in your opinion, in keeping with the intent and spirit of the council of the current city of Scarborough or not?

Ms Stein: Yes, I certainly believe it's in keeping with the intent and spirit of the council of Scarborough. What has happened here is in the course of drafting the legislation and going through various drafts, what we decided on was to use the definition of leghold traps which is consistent with that in the Game and Fish Act. It may be that body-gripping traps are something that could be considered at a later time. Certainly we wouldn't have any trouble including them in this legislation. I think that would also still be consistent with the city's resolution.

Mr Shea: Then on behalf of your municipality you register no objection with the wording of Pr78 as it is before the committee today.

Ms Stein: No, I don't.

Mr Shea: You were at some pains to discuss this as a public safety issue as well. Did your medical officer of health give any consideration to that argument and suggest that there may be within his or her purview recourse to legislation to prohibit?

Ms Stein: I have no comments from the medical officer of health.

Mr Shea: Well, you are a solicitor for the municipality. What would have been your opinion had the MOH asked you? Would that be within his or her mandate to declare these traps a public health hazard?

Ms Stein: It may be. Again, I really can't speak for the medical officer of health.

Mr Shea: Ms White, just a final question for you in terms of the bylaws to make sure I am very clear. The city of Toronto does have this exclusion.

Ms Liz White: That is correct.

Mr Shea: Niagara Falls has the exclusion?

Ms Liz White: That's correct.

Mr Shea: And Ottawa has an exclusion?

Ms Liz White: Yes.

Mr Shea: Any other municipalities, to your knowledge?

Ms Liz White: Not to my knowledge. I went through a fair number of bylaws in the last few days and I think those are the three.

Mr Shea: And Ottawa is more extensive than the other two?

Ms Liz White: Ottawa is more extensive in its definition of what is prohibited but the problem is that there is a major loophole in the bylaw through which a truck can drive with regard to exemptions from the legislation. I have very great concern about that loophole because it allows these traps to be set on the basis of a recommendation by the Ministry of Natural Resources. The trapper that we are talking about today is licensed by the Minister of Natural Resources and thereby the loophole exists.

1150

Mr Shea: Perhaps I could just ask Mr Noseworthy a question. Just as he's coming up, Liz, I'll ask you one more question. Mr Noseworthy, because I'd like him to make a response to this, has indicated that there are different kinds of traps and that in fact the Game and Fish Act and regulations restrict the type of traps that may be used and the species for which they may be used. To your knowledge, are the animals sophisticated enough to know which trap they should go to? I don't mean that unkindly.

Ms Liz White: No, I understand that. I think the pictures that were shown, taken just recently in North York, are quite indicative that in fact they are not selective. Although Mr Noseworthy will tell you that it's in the setting of the trap and the trapping systems that tend to preclude types of animals from the traps, it isn't 100%. Therefore we have animals like blue jays getting into the traps, animals like people's cats. If you talk to anybody who has dealt with this particular trapper in any urban environment in which he traps, they will tell you that that trapper catches other than what he has set the traps for by virtue of the density of cat and dog populations in the neighbourhood, and other species.

We're talking about a trapper who is on a tiny property. We're not talking about two acres or five acres or 10 acres; we're talking about a typical urban lot. That's what we're talking about. To think that you can set this device in that lot and not impact on people's kids and on people's pets and other people who are wandering through the ravine is not rational.

Mr Shea: I appreciate that. I don't mean to cut you off but I know there's no time and I'd like to go to Mr Noseworthy for a moment for a response to that.

In terms of the urban trapping, on what setting are these traps placed? Are they placed on private property, with or without permission of owners, placed in public lands, with or without the permission of the municipality? Can you explain that for me, please?

Mr Noseworthy: Certainly. Generally speaking, in urban trapping situations the traps will be placed on private land. That is the nature of the urban environment. It may be the trapper's own property or it may be someone else's property with the permission and at the request of the landowner. This is commonly done throughout Ontario where, for instance, golf courses, other organizations, other clubs, this sort of thing, have property which they may wish to protect perhaps from beaver. Some people may wish to have their pets protected from animals such as coyotes, or livestock perhaps on the fringes of urban areas.

Mr Shea: It's done by permission of the owner, is it?

Mr Noseworthy: A trapper cannot legally set his traps on private property without the permission of the owner. In terms of licensing trappers in the province of Ontario to trap on private land, the trapper must have written permissions before he can even qualify to get a licence in those situations.

Mr Shea: That was a very straightforward, honest and carefully worded response and I appreciate that.

The final question I want to ask you both: Some issue has been raised about the success of oral vaccination. Will you elaborate on that? Is it a successful program? Let's say, in an urban area like Metropolitan Toronto, how is it done and what measurement do you use to show it's effective?

Ms Liz White: The process for vaccinating foxes is quite different from that for raccoons. They're harder to trap, as we know. They're harder to catch in box traps. Generally speaking, what the ministry has developed is a little cube with the vaccine in it which they drop around where they know generally the foxes are. That's indeed what's happened in all of Metropolitan Toronto and beyond Metropolitan Toronto. In fact, I think the Ministry of Natural Resources would itself say that program has been highly effective. Southern Ontario used to be known as the rabies capital of the world, and in many situations for a number of species that they have been working on, that is beginning to change. The fact that Metro has not had a reported case and complaint for a number of years now is indicative of how effective that program is. I think the fact that the leader of the program, Dr Rick Rosatte, who is actually responsible for implementing the program on the ground, says exactly the same thing is really indicative of where the Ministry of Natural Resources is on the rabies issue.

Mr Shea: Chairman, that completes my questions of these deputants. I would like to ask the parliamentary assistant one quick question, and that is, with the issue of amalgamation, the city of Toronto currently has this legislation in place. Will you indicate to me, if we were not to pass this legislation today, what would be the relationship of that piece of legislation to, let's say, Scarborough? Would we still find a portion of the new city of Toronto with some controls governed by its local neighbourhood council and another part of the same city not with those controls? Is that what I would see?

Mr Hardeman: My understanding would be that the issue of granting authority to pass the bylaws would not exist, so the part of the new city that would be formerly Scarborough would not have the ability, through the legislation that Toronto has presently, to pass a bylaw for that area. But I think we also need to recognize that in the new city of Toronto, in its restructuring process, the existing bylaws stay in existence until they're changed. So the bylaw that presently exists in Toronto would stay in place.

Mr Shea: For that reason, Chairman, I certainly hope this committee will support the passage of Bill Pr78 and do so today, if we can.

Very quickly, I live on the finest ravine land in Metropolitan Toronto.

The Vice-Chair: Thank you, Mr Shea. Make it quick.

Mr Shea: I wanted to declare that interest. I also with some embarrassment had to discover, as she was chatting, that the Toronto Wildlife Centre is the recipient of personal contributions I have made. I want to put that on the record. I don't do that with any degree of embarrassment in terms of conflict, but let it be on the record that I'm saying that straight out.

I strongly support Bill Pr78, where it's at. I think we can do some refinement of it later. I am concerned about the argument of trapping within the urban environment. I do believe it is --

The Vice-Chair: Mr Shea, with all due respect, I think I have to cut you off. I've given you enough time. I'll now go on to Mr Brown.

Mr Michael A. Brown (Algoma-Manitoulin): I have some questions and I'm not sure really who I should direct them to.

The Vice-Chair: You can ask the presenters to come forward.

Mr Michael Brown: Basically, I'm surprised that the Ministry of Natural Resources doesn't have somebody here who can help us directly with the questions I have. The Ministry of Natural Resources does license trappers. I do not understand what would happen in the case of a complaint against a licensed trapper in the community. Would the animal control in the municipality contact a conservation officer of the ministry or contact the ministry somehow to indicate there was a problem with a licensed trapper? How does that work?

Mr Noseworthy: Are you asking the process by --

Mr Michael Brown: Yes, I'm asking what happens. How does it work? If there's a problem with a licensed trapper in an urban environment, what happens? Seeing as the ministry is the licensing agent, how does that work?

Mr Noseworthy: Would there be a specific example of the problem? Are you suggesting the type of problem whereby the trapper would be breaking the requirements of his licence and in effect breaking the law?

Mr Michael Brown: Yes.

Mr Noseworthy: Then I would expect that he would be dealt with the same as any other person who was in violation of a permit that they had to trap.

Mr Michael Brown: I'm interested in what the practice in the municipality has been, in this particular municipality, in Scarborough. Have animal control or the humane society contacted the ministry directly and said, "Look, this is a problem"?

Ms Liz White: I think the difficulty is that people don't know who to call. I think it's a real problem. When we were dealing with this situation, the same trapper in North York, the same problem, it was very difficult to find out who one actually talks to. The problem is that we have a conflict of values. That's what we have. I don't think the trapper is doing anything contrary to his licence, what is legally allowed for him to do being a licensed trapper. The problem is, it's being done in view of people who see it and find it offensive, and they want to complain. I think the problem is that we have a clash of values, and the ministry really licenses on the basis of the practice, not on the values. What we see with Bill Pr78 is Scarborough saying, "This is not a value we want in our community." It's not that the person is necessarily doing anything illegal under the Game and Fish Act; it's a clash of values, and that's what Bill Pr78 is about. That's what I think.

1200

Mr Noseworthy: If I may, the ministry and the trapper often find themselves in a no-win situation through no fault of their own. If a private landowner has a problem with an animal and they don't know where to turn, they typically turn to the Ministry of Natural Resources. The ministry will oftentimes advise them of a licensed trapper in the area who can take care of their problem for them. The ministry has done its job and the trapper attempts to do his by dealing with the problem wildlife. The ministry and the trapper satisfy the concerns of the one landowner. Then perhaps a neighbour phones the ministry and complains because of the trapping activity that is taking place. Both the ministry and the trapper in those sorts of situations are in no-win situations.

Mr Gardiner: If I may say, the person who gets called could be the humane society, it could be the animal control person of a municipality, it could be the wildlife control centre, it could be the provincial conservation officer, it might be the trapper. Often it's just a nuisance animal control company that's in private business to do that. We really respect the work of trappers in Ontario, their progressive, humane improvements of many regulations and their ways of being trained to do that job properly.

I'd like to promote the fact that trappers are people who know how to do it much better than homeowners. But this concept in Scarborough of having legislation that keeps the dangerous traps away and uses the traps that cause less injury, pain and suffering is very important. In Ontario it's quite legal to use a leghold trap on land in the city for wolf -- you're not going to see wolf in Scarborough -- fox or coyote perhaps. It could be bobcat and lynx, which you'll seldom see in this area, but you do sometimes.

You have to remember that leghold traps can be used under the water, in streams where kids are wading, for muskrat, beaver, there's a few otter around, and for mink. They can be a land-set right beside the side of the stream as long as the animal is submerged. This is truly a legislative problem in urban areas. That's why I hope both that the province will look at urban trapping situations in greater detail than they have before on a municipal-wide basis, and in municipalities watch out for what have been called body-gripping traps. Maybe a better, more precise term would be killing traps, because they tend to be traps that try to kill a small animal. It could be a dog, a cat or whatever. That's why I hope the legislation will get that amendment to be more specific.

The Ottawa legislation said it's under the direct supervision of the Ministry of Natural Resources. I hope that was intended to mean it's not just a trapper out there doing it but under the ministry's direct supervision, because they do trap as well.

Mr Michael Brown: You've just raised another issue that I hadn't considered, and that is the nuisance animal control private companies that I would suspect are not trappers licensed by the Ministry of Natural Resources.

Mr Gardiner: Some may be and some may not be.

Ms Liz White: Actually, I can answer that. That is an issue that will be dealt with under Bill 139, which is the amendments to the old Game and Fish Act. Bill 139 will look at licensing wildlife removal companies. In fact you're right; they are not licensed. But to my knowledge, and I deal extensively in urban environments, I don't know a wildlife removal company in the city of Toronto, Metropolitan Toronto, Ottawa or a number of other large southern urban environments that uses leghold traps. They generally use box traps of a variety of sorts; maybe not well, but they use them. They're not using leghold traps, to my knowledge.

The Vice-Chair: I will have to proceed. Are you done, Mr Brown? I have three more members who wish to ask questions.

Mr Michael Brown: I'm just not certain that I'm becoming much more clear about exactly how to proceed. One of my problems, and Mr Shea raised this, is the difficulty of the amalgamation and what this means after the city of Scarborough is swallowed by the megacity.

Mrs Helen Johns (Huron): Please.

The Vice-Chair: It's a figure of speech.

Mr Michael Brown: Well, when that happens, the bylaws need to be sorted out. Perhaps, Mr Newman -- I'm trying to be helpful -- this would be better as an amendment to the City of Toronto Act; I can't remember the bill number. That would solve the problem not just for the next three months, because that's what we're talking about, but for the long term, and it would be clear. I mention it because we also have a new replacement for the Game and Fish Act out there. I'm just trying to figure out legislatively how we can accomplish what the people in this room are trying to do in a way that we're not all back here in January trying to figure it out.

The Vice-Chair: Mr Brown, with all due respect, we're here to consider one bill that's in front of us this morning, and we have to maintain the discussion --

Mr Michael Brown: I understand that, Mr Chair, but I also understand there's a context.

The Vice-Chair: But I don't think we want to get into a discussion with regard to amalgamation.

Ms Johns, you had a question? I'll go on to you, briefly.

Mrs Johns: Mr Newman has lobbied us extensively. As a member from rural Ontario, I would like to comment that I'm going to support this bill because it relates strictly to Scarborough. I think that's an important aspect about how I am talking about this. Urban trapping is a very different thing. The last speaker spoke about making it province-wide or municipality by municipality; I would never support that. I'm supporting this bill today because it's strictly relating to one area, talking about specific trapping methods, and in effect that is an urban riding.

Ms Shelley Martel (Sudbury East): Two quick questions and then some comments. First, Mr Noseworthy, in your presentation you talked about Canada as attaching a declaration to the international humane trapping standards agreement, which says in part, "Based on the results of testing already available, the use of conventional steel-jawed leghold restraining traps shall be prohibited...by... the end of the full field-testing season commencing October 1999...." Just so I am clear, is this what we're talking about with respect to the city of Scarborough, what they're trying to deal with, or are you talking about a completely different trap in this context?

Mr Noseworthy: The city of Scarborough would be more inclusive in the types of devices it would wish to ban. That's why I said in my presentation that all these devices are not the same in their operation. There is a whole range of devices -- hundreds, potentially thousands of different devices -- in use worldwide commonly referred to as leghold traps or restraining traps. Some have steel jaws, some have padded jaws, some are in fact snares. One developed in North America is called an egg trap. It's very specific, for use with raccoon only. That is a large portion of the concern of the Ontario Fur Managers Federation, that this particular legislation is far too inclusive of far too many devices.

Ms Martel: Your argument is that we're only looking at dealing with banning one as per this declaration.

Mr Noseworthy: I pointed out that Canada has agreed to this ban on the use of standard steel-jawed leghold restraining traps. I would suggest that the concern that has arisen in the city of Scarborough has come from the use of standard steel-jawed leghold restraining traps, but that the bill is far more inclusive in that it would preclude the use of devices some of which cannot be shown to have ever caused any problems within Scarborough.

1210

Ms Martel: Second, and this is for the PA, in Mr Noseworthy's brief he said the act "would have the effect of undermining the scientific management of wild animal populations and the scientific control of problem animal populations." Can you tell me what the MNR's view about this is? Maybe I can say that I believe I heard Ms White earlier say that MNR staff, particularly Mr Rosatte --

Ms Liz White: Dr Richard Rosatte, the biologist in the rabies unit.

Ms Martel: Was I clear in hearing you say that he disputed that this would undermine in any way MNR's ability to continue scientific testing management of the population?

Ms Liz White: The implementation of the rabies program.

Ms Martel: It was strictly with respect to the rabies program.

Ms Liz White: Yes, but I would point out that the Ministry of Natural Resources also brought forward the Ontario Wildlife Working Group document which looked at human-animal conflict situations. A recommendation out of that document was that there be a move to ecological management of human-animal conflicts and a push to educate people and to minimize the need to remove the animals, in whatever manner, from the particular situation; that is, to essentially leave them where they are and educate people as to the type of animals they are living with.

Mr Hardeman: As I read it from the letter, in the opinion of the writer of the letter a certain amount of this type of trapping is necessary for the scientific control and management of wildlife. After further consideration and looking at the issue in the city of Toronto and other areas, where the ability to prohibit this type of trapping already exists, they do not deem it appropriate to pick this one out and say it should be allowed in Scarborough but should not be allowed in the city of Toronto. The extension of this prohibition was not what they were recommending, but it was not, in their opinion, appropriate to stop that extension at the edge of Toronto and not have it in Scarborough.

Ms Martel: I appreciate that, but it was not actually my question. My question was that there has been a specific comment raised that the effect of allowing this bill to pass will be to undermine MNR's efforts to continue scientific testing of wildlife populations etc. Does the ministry have a view on that point one way or the other?

Mr Hardeman: I can't speak to whether they have a further view on that. We would be quite prepared to have them comment directly on that issue.

Ms Martel: Maybe I can make a couple of comments. The issue for me is not whether trapping is well regulated in the province, either under the current act or under the proposed legislation, and it is also not an issue for me whether Canada should have a role or to question Canada's role in developing international standards with respect to ensuring that traps are humane and efficient.

The issue I see before me is, does the city of Scarborough have the right to determine what is appropriate in dealing with human-wildlife conflict management within the city's borders? That is what I am going to address, because that is the issue that I think is before this committee. If that's the issue, I believe council and the residents do have the right to determine what they think is appropriate with respect to how they manage human-animal conflict within the city boundaries and that allowing the council to prohibit the setting and the using of leghold traps is well within the right of this committee. This is what we are being asked to do, and I support that.

A couple of arguments: It has been made clear to the committee that trapping does not control rabies. I won't go into the MNR specialist's review of that issue. Clearly, the MNR vaccination program is having much more positive effect in dealing with rabies, and the removal of animals from the population by trapping is not the direction they are heading. We also heard evidence of that at MNR estimates last week.

Third, the city of Scarborough, it has been made clear to us, has seen a reduction, not an increase, in costs with respect to dealing with human-animal conflict management, primarily around their decision in 1994 to put a strategy in place that deals with public education.

I am also very cognizant of the fact that the city has already made it clear to us that they only rarely use traps now, and if they were to use traps, it would not be a leghold trap, it would be a live trap. That is already the policy and practice that has been in place.

I strongly feel that the city does have a responsibility to deal with the security of domestic animals and of children and they have a legitimate right to come to this committee and ask us to help them in undertaking that effort.

We have seen that the city of Toronto already has legislation in place, and has for 19 years. As they said to us in the letter that was in the brief, there has been no negative effect on their ability to control problem animal populations in their 19-year experience. I think that gives us some evidence of what we can expect in Scarborough.

Seventh, they have also promoted public education and have also seen a substantial drop in intervention by the city or city officials in human-animal conflicts, so again I don't think there has been any undermining whatsoever of the city to control problem animal populations.

I'm sorry we don't have a better response from MNR with respect to whether they can continue to deal with scientific management of wild animal populations, but I haven't seen any evidence to suggest otherwise, even though St Catharines, Ottawa and Toronto have had this in place. It's certainly not an issue that was ever raised at MNR estimates as a priority for the ministry either, as a concern of theirs, so I'm going to have to assume that the MNR can still do that, and quite successfully and effectively, even if this bill is passed.

I also asked specifically about the declaration, because I feel, although I appreciate what you've said, Mr Noseworthy, that the legislation is more restrictive. It seems to me that Canada, by signing the declaration, is moving part of the way there to dealing with this issue. I have to assume that there is some support by Canadian officials at an international level to deal with what kind of traps we're going or not going to use. I appreciate your concern that this is more restrictive, but I think we are moving partway there just by Canada signing that declaration, so I'm taking that into account here.

Finally, I do not think this represents the thin edge of the wedge. That's the final argument I would like to make. We have three other cities that have had this legislation, Toronto for some long time now. We have over 700 municipalities, although that will be less under this government by the time they're finished. I don't see any evidence of a major move being made by municipality after municipality to do this. We have a specific concern that was raised in Scarborough and a specific way that council wants to deal with it. I will be supporting the passage of the legislation.

The Vice-Chair: Mr Hardeman, briefly.

Mr Hardeman: Very briefly; it's a question. We've heard considerable debate about the situation in Ottawa and the type of law they have. For clarification, do they have different legislation that allows them to pass a bylaw or are we referring to the bylaw they passed?

Mr Gardiner: They do have separate legislation. It's the City of Ottawa Act. I don't have an copy of that handy, but in the wording of their bylaw they refer to section 2 of the City of Ottawa Act, 1979.

The Vice-Chair: Are the members ready to vote? Can we collapse sections 1 to 4 under one vote?

Mr Shea: I have one comment.

The Vice-Chair: We'll take them after.

Does that carry, to collapse sections 1 to 4? Agreed.

Shall sections 1 to 4 carry? Carried.

Shall the preamble carry? Carried.

Shall the title carry? Carried.

Shall the bill carry? Carried.

Shall I report the bill to the House? Agreed.

Before we adjourn, I would like to thank all the presenters, the sponsors and the applicants, certainly the committee members, and last but not least, all the Legislative Assembly staff. Mr Newman, I would like you to convey to your constituents that I was quite fair in the time allocation.

This meeting is now adjourned.

The committee adjourned at 1219.