Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

CITIES OF KITCHENER AND WATERLOO ACT, 1996

CONTENTS

Wednesday 27 November 1996

Cities of Kitchener and Waterloo Act, 1996, Bill Pr71, Mr Leadston

Mr Gary L. Leadston

Mr Bill White

Mr Berry Vrbanovic

Dr Gerhard Hess

Mr Jake Smola

Mr Randy Peacock

Ms Debra Arnold

Ms Lisa Pasternak

STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND PRIVATE BILLS

Chair / Président: Mr Toby Barrett (Norfolk PC)

Vice-Chair / Vice-Président: Mr Bruce Smith (Middlesex PC)

*Mr TobyBarrett (Norfolk PC)

*Mr GillesBisson (Cochrane South / -Sud ND)

*Mr DaveBoushy (Sarnia PC)

*Mr JohnHastings (Etobicoke-Rexdale PC)

Mr TonyMartin (Sault Ste Marie ND)

*Mr John R. O'Toole (Durham East / -Est PC)

*Mr TrevorPettit (Hamilton Mountain PC)

Mrs SandraPupatello (Windsor-Sandwich L)

*Mr E. J. DouglasRollins (Quinte PC)

*Mr TonyRuprecht (Parkdale L)

Mr MarioSergio (Yorkview L)

*Mr DerwynShea (High Park-Swansea PC); parliamentary assistant

to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing

Mr FrankSheehan (Lincoln PC)

*Mr BruceSmith (Middlesex PC)

*In attendance /présents

Substitutions present /Membres remplaçants présents:

Mr JimFlaherty (Durham Centre / -Centre PC) for Mr Pettit

Mr BernardGrandmaître (Ottawa East / -Est L) for Mr Sergio

Mr Gary L. Leadston (Kitchener-Wilmot PC) for Mr Sheehan

Also taking part /Autres participants et participantes:

Dr JamesYoung, assistant deputy minister, public safety division,

Ministry of the Solicitor General and Correctional Services

Mr TomMelville, solicitor, legal branch, Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing

Clerk / Greffier: Mr Tom Prins

Staff / Personnel: Ms Susan Klein, legislative counsel

The committee met at 1006 in committee room 1.

CITIES OF KITCHENER AND WATERLOO ACT, 1996

Consideration of Bill Pr71, An Act respecting the City of Kitchener and the City of Waterloo.

The Chair (Mr Toby Barrett): Good morning. Welcome to this regular meeting of the standing committee on regulations and private bills for this day, Wednesday, November 27, 1996.

Our first and only order of business this morning will be consideration of the following bill: Bill Pr71, An Act respecting the City of Kitchener and the City of Waterloo. The sponsor for this bill is MPP Gary Leadston, Kitchener-Wilmot, and the applicants are the Corporation of the City of Kitchener and the Corporation of the City of Waterloo.

I think both the sponsor and applicants are now at the witness table. MPP Leadston, I would ask you to make a brief introduction and please introduce the applicants for this bill.

Mr Gary L. Leadston (Kitchener-Wilmot): It's a pleasure to be here this morning. We certainly welcome the opportunity to have some dialogue and a positive outcome later on in the morning.

As you know from the accompanying material, the act is specifically an application for special legislation to regulate and prohibit the keeping and harbouring of certain classes and breeds of dogs.

The municipality I represent, Kitchener-Wilmot, and her sister city, the city of Waterloo, have experienced some rather horrendous situations with respect to a particular breed of animal. Because of that, the two municipalities came together and have developed this special legislation in hopes of addressing the concerns as they affect their municipalities.

We do have some pictures. We also have a video. I would caution anyone in the room that they're rather graphic. They've captured the essence of some of the attacks and also the aftermath. I emphasize again that they're very graphic. So for anyone who has a somewhat weak stomach, please don't hesitate to leave the room. I don't want anyone to faint on me.

I'd like to introduce the witnesses this morning. Mr Bill White is the spokesperson for the group. Perhaps you'd direct any questions to him and Mr White would then direct them to the other delegations that are with us this morning. Bill White is the city solicitor for the city of Waterloo. To Bill's left is Debra Arnold, the assistant city solicitor for the city of Kitchener. To Bill's right is Jake Smola, who is a councillor with the city of Kitchener. Next to Jake is Berry Vrbanovic, who is also a councillor with the city of Kitchener. Both these gentlemen have spearheaded the efforts, along with their respective legal departments, to bring it to this level.

We also have in attendance Lew Ayers, who is the city clerk for the city of Waterloo, and Constable Randy Peacock, an officer with the Waterloo Regional Police Services. We also have Dr Gerhard Hess, who is the past-president and currently the general manager of the Kitchener-Waterloo and North Waterloo Humane Society.

I'll turn the following over to Mr White to lead us through the preamble.

Mr Bill White: Mr Chairman, honourable committee members, as indicated, I'm here speaking on behalf of both the cities of Waterloo and Kitchener, as are the other people who are with me.

Currently the Municipal Act gives municipalities the authority to prohibit all animals except dogs. In other words, under section 210, paragraph 1, of the Municipal Act we could prohibit or regulate cats or horses or wolves or boa constrictors or whatever, but we are limited as to the prohibition of dogs in particular. We're asking for this legislation to be passed to extend our authority to dogs, particularly so we can prohibit pit bulls. We want some flexibility in the legislation, or in the authority we respectfully request you to grant us, because pit bulls are not a recognized breed. That's why we've dealt with dogs in general.

Kitchener and Waterloo have a serious and unique problem with pit bulls. Others may have pit bulls, but our area has had a particularly serious problem with the number of incidents and the number of pit bulls in our community. The legislation presently limits our staff to take reactive measures rather than proactive measures. In other words, we have authority to deal with these things after somebody's been bitten or injured or an animal has been killed or whatever, but we don't have authority to deal with the problem before it happens.

We respectfully suggest that we can't wait any longer for the first bite, or in the case of a pit bull, the disfigurement of someone or even a fatal mauling. You'll see, as our presentation continues, some of the example I'm referring to.

Pit bulls are not like other dogs. For decades they've been bred as attack weapons, and when they do attack, the damage is often horrible and it can even be deadly. You'll see that in the examples we will present to you. Another dog could be injured or savaged, a police officer could be attacked, or a child could even die or be badly disfigured as a result of these attacks.

We feel very strongly, as our municipal councils do, that there's an urgent need for this legislation now. We don't want to wait for another attack or another two attacks or whatever; we want to solve the problem in our area right now. If this might serve as a test case or whatever, that's fine, but we feel we must take this action now.

We have people here, and they've been introduced, who will deal with particular questions if you have them. I might point out that the cities of Edmonton, Winnipeg and Lachine have used similar legislation. We have contacted these municipalities and they're quite happy with the overall effect they've accomplished.

Through consultation with municipal affairs representatives, the Solicitor General's office and other government offices, I believe we've come up with a much better bill than we originally submitted, and we are ready to respond to any concerns you might have about the bill.

At this point, I would like to present councillors Vrbanovic and Smola. I'd like them to take over and indicate what's happened in Kitchener-Waterloo since January of this year in respect to the dog problems and particularly pit bull problems.

Mr Berry Vrbanovic: On behalf of the councils of the cities of Kitchener and Waterloo, I'd like to begin by thanking you for bringing this issue to your committee in such a timely manner. This issue has been of significant importance to the citizens of our two cities for a number of years. However, over the past year it has attained nearly crisis proportions.

With your indulgence this morning, councillor Jake Smola and myself, in conjunction with Constable Randy Peacock of the Waterloo Regional Police Services and Dr Gerhard Hess, general manager of the K-W humane society, will attempt to identify the uniqueness and the urgency of this issue for the residents of K-W. Councillor Bruce Alexander, our counterpart from the city of Waterloo, who has also worked on this with us, would have liked to join us today, however his teaching schedule didn't allow for it.

I would be remiss, however, if I didn't emphasize the partnership that has taken place between our two adjoining municipalities in dealing with this issue. This partnership was developed for two main reasons: First, it allowed both cities to share costs and resources thus avoiding duplication, and second, the partnership helped ensure that a resolution on either side of the residential street that divides our two municipalities doesn't create a problem for the adjoining city.

As you've been told so ably by Mr White, we are here today to request the authority to regulate and prohibit the keeping or harbouring of any class or breed of dog or any mixed class or breed of dog. As you're also aware, the intent of our council in obtaining this authority is to regulate and prohibit the mixed class of dogs commonly referred to as pit bulls.

Many of you undoubtedly question what makes pit bulls unique and why they are a problem in Kitchener-Waterloo. The person to best answer that question is Dr Gerhard Hess, general manager of the K-W humane society and a veterinarian himself. I'd now like to invite him to the table to speak to you on those issues.

Dr Gerhard Hess: I have written down a few notes on pit bull dogs. During the past year, we've had 16 people severely bitten. We have answered literally hundreds of calls from people threatened by pit bulls. Six dogs were seriously injured or killed by pit bulls, besides a number who escaped. Many people are afraid to report incidents of pit bull bites and so on because of fear of retribution by the people who own the pit bulls.

Pit bulls are different. They have a much higher level of L tyrosine, leading to a much stronger arousal state than any other breed. They have a higher level of endorphins, which makes these dogs able to withstand a much greater amount of pain than other dogs. They have much greater jaw strength than any other breed. They are able to lock on to the animal they attack and they will not let go until that piece is torn out. They have a false body signal. Any other dog, you can recognize when they're showing friendship or when they're showing an attack. You can tell what the dog is thinking, more or less, by the appearance of the dog. With a pit bull, you can't. They have false body signals and they even show pleasure on attack by wagging their tails rather than showing anger.

The breeds that would be allowed are the Staffordshire bull terrier, for instance, the one that Don Cherry has, and the American Staffordshire terrier registered with the CKC. The breeds not allowed would be the pit bull terrier and the American bull terrier or pit bull.

We have it on the advice of a number of experts. Jim Brando from Toronto animal control says: "Pit bulls don't bite, they maul. They are a time bomb." Kathleen Hunter of the Toronto Humane Society says: "It's a truly aggressive dog. It's bred to attack without provocation." Dr Roger Mugford, an animal behaviourist from Great Britain, says, "Pit bull are completely unpredictable." In the literature there are very many examples of people talking about pit bulls, and some of them who have trusted them have come to regret their decisions.

Are there any questions?

1020

The Chair: Thank you, Dr Hess. Before questions, any other comments from the applicants?

Mr Vrbanovic: There's quite a substantial presentation yet, Mr Chair.

The Chair: If you wish to continue with the presentation.

Mr Vrbanovic: Certainly we can do that. I'd like to share with you, in conjunction with Councillor Smola, the Kitchener-Waterloo experience with this mixed class of dog. As I indicated earlier, the problems with pit bulls have always existed but never in such high numbers. Having said that, previous serious incidents have occurred, one of which saw a young girl in Kitchener have the hair torn off her scalp by a pit bull.

Today's numbers, however, speak for themselves of the danger associated with this particular mixed breed. With over 16 bite-related incidents on animals and humans associated with pit bulls since the beginning of this year, many citizens in our two communities are asking, when is something going to be done? We hope the "when" is today and would now like to share with you some of these incidents.

The profusion of incidents in 1996 began on January 15 with a dramatic incident that took place over some 20 kilometres in Kitchener's east side. The incident began in an industrial part of the city's Stanley Park area, with the dog travelling over 10 kilometres to the Chicopee area, where it attacked and ultimately killed a Labrador-husky-shepherd dog in its owner's backyard. This incident occurred within 300 metres of two elementary schools. With the police chase now on, this dangerous animal travelled back towards its starting point, passing by two schools again and forcing the students to be detained within their schools during recess. The dog was finally surrounded on a four-lane arterial road where it was hit by several vehicles and fired at 15 times, with three shots bouncing off its head before it finally fell to its death.

In your compendium you will find the articles entitled "Police Kill Pit Bull after Pet Mauled," and "Deadly Pit Bull was Tough to Kill" related to this incident. I'd also now ask Councillor Jake Smola to provide the clerk, for your viewing, photographs of the attacked dog to demonstrate the very serious nature of this attack. We considered providing the photographs as slides but felt it more appropriate to share them with you in the folder due to their graphic nature.

Finally, later in our presentation Constable Randy Peacock, who was on hand for that incident, will give his first-hand account of the situation.

The second incident which I'll reference today, also found in your compendium, occurred on March 5 in the city of Waterloo. In this incident, the dog attacked a bystander who expressed concern to the dog's owner about the dog's behaviour and subsequently attempted to attack the police officers who came to deal with this issue.

I'd now like to turn to Councillor Smola to take you through three more serious incidents which have occurred.

Mr Jake Smola: The three issues I will touch on have to do with the attacks on animals and humans. On April 2, a father of a four-year-old girl beat off with a bat a pit bull who had the girl within its jaws and was throwing her from side to side. Fortune had it that the girl only had a three-inch scratch on her arm, but the end result could have been significantly more dramatic. Please refer to the article entitled, "Man Uses Bat to Save Daughter from Dog," which can be found in your compendium pertaining to this issue.

Following this incident, the dog owner gave up the dog for destruction only to go and purchase a new pit bull within days. The subsequent intimidation which occurred towards the bitten girl and her parents was severe enough that it forced the family to relocate from that home.

The second incident which I wish to outline occurred on August 7 and is referred to in the article, "Twin Cities Seeking Tougher Laws to Prevent More Attacks by Pit Bulls," which is in your compendium. In this incident, a pit bull belonging to a friend of the family attacked the three-year-old son of that homeowner. This incident was probably the most tragic to an individual, requiring 40 stitches to the young boy's face. I ask that Berry distribute the picture, and again I just bring your attention to the sensitivity of the picture. As a result of the lack of a plastic surgeon being available that day, the child had the additional discomfort associated with having to travel to the children's hospital in London for treatment.

The final incident which I'd like to touch on has to do with an attack of another dog. At this time I would like to read to you a few short excerpts from the victim impact statement of Michael and Patricia Mooney, residents of the city of Kitchener and current owners of a purebred Saluki named Yasmin which was severely injured as a result of "an unanticipated and unprovoked attack by a female pit bull" while being walked on a leash by an employee of a local animal hospital. I'd ask Berry if he could run the file footage of --

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): Excuse me. Chair, I'm more than prepared to vote for this bill. They have my support. I don't know, bringing all the graphic material in. I think we all at one time or another have had to deal with this issue in our communities in various ways, if not with pit bulls, with others. I'd rather that this video not be shown, quite frankly. You have my support. Let's end it at that.

Mr Smola: I understand. Mr Chairman, would it be proper for us to finish our presentation?

Mr Bisson: You can finish with it; I'd rather not look at that.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr Bisson. That's your wish on this. I think it is up to people if they want to watch it or not. You don't need to look at it.

Mr Leadston: If I may, Mr Chairman, I appreciate the comments from Mr Bisson, but I think the seriousness in terms of acquiring the necessary legislation for Kitchener-Waterloo -- and obviously it could be applicable province-wide. As I indicated earlier, they're most disturbing, they're very graphic, but in the same sense I think it's necessary to have some exposure to what these municipalities have been exposed to, what the citizens have been exposed to.

We are legislators and I don't think any less of any individual in this room if they step out for a few moments while the remainder of the committee has an opportunity to view the video. It was shown on television, on CKCO in the various news broadcasts. But I do think it's necessary to indicate strongly the seriousness and the gravity of the problem that these two municipalities face and that many of the municipalities in our province face with respect to this problem.

Mr Bisson: Listen, I'd be willing to bet this is going to get 100% support on both sides. I'm prepared to vote for it. I don't need to look at the video. I think it's a bit of overkill. We've had to deal with this stuff before in our communities in various ways. Many of us have sat on councils before, we understand what the council is going through. I don't think it's necessary.

Mr Bernard Grandmaître (Ottawa East): I think the bill that's before us makes a whole lot of sense for the simple reason that -- and this is a little a commercial for me and my son.

Mr Bisson: Who messed with the mayor.

Mr Grandmaître: Yes. My son, who was a councillor in the city of Ottawa, tried to pass a similar bylaw and failed, so I want to congratulate you on your courage. I realize this is a test case. But I would like to know, is this the only objection you've received? I have a letter from a Mrs Mary Zilney. Is this the only objection we've received, Mr Chair?

The Chair: Yes. Just to remind you, once the applicants have finished their presentation, we will go to questions, so could we defer that question until the applicants have finished?

Mr Grandmaître: If you were to give me a yes or a no, Mr Chair, I'm ready to vote on this piece of legislation now.

The Chair: Okay, let's pose that question to the applicants briefly, but then I do want to go ahead with the applicants' presentation. They've put a lot of work into this and I'd like to see the completion of it.

Mr White: That is the only objection, that one letter.

1030

The Chair: Okay. I'd ask the applicants to continue with their presentation. They've put work into this video and I think that anybody here could go for a coffee break if they wish.

Mr Bisson: Chair, I move that we go to the vote.

The Chair: We have a motion before us. Seconder?

Mr Leadston: No, I'd like to comment, Mr Chairman.

Interjection.

The Chair: Seconded by Mr Grandmaître. Discussion on this motion?

Mr Leadston: If it's the question of the video, I'm sure the witnesses perhaps could have that at the conclusion of the meeting for those who are inclined to view the more graphic analysis of the situation. However, I would like perhaps if the witnesses could continue with their verbal presentation. In all sincerity, I think the gravity and the seriousness of the situation has to be reflected in Hansard. Believe me, I appreciate the very strong support that obviously is in this room this morning, but I think obviously for historical and legislative reasons it's important to have the verbal comments from the witnesses reflected in Hansard.

Mr John Hastings (Etobicoke-Rexdale): I would like to suggest that we have people here wanting to present their evidence regarding this proposed private bill, to which I do have some concerns. I also want to see the video, so therefore I will not be supporting a motion to simply pass a bill without its proper scrutiny.

Mr Bruce Smith (Middlesex): I certainly tend to agree with my colleague Mr Hastings in that regard, because there are some specific questions regarding the wording and formatting of the bill that I certainly would like to pose to the legislative counsel or ministry counsel and would appreciate that opportunity in advance of moving directly to a vote on the bill.

The Chair: We have a motion on the floor to call this for a vote now.

Mr Bisson: Recorded vote, please.

The Chair: Recorded vote. All those in favour?

Ayes

Bisson, Grandmaître.

The Chair: Those opposed to the motion?

Nays

Boushy, Flaherty, Hastings, Leadston, O'Toole, Rollins, Shea, Smith.

The Chair: I turn the floor back to the applicants to complete their presentation.

Mr Smola: I would like to go back to the victim impact statement of Michael and Patricia Mooney at this time. I'm going to again take a portion of the victim impact statement. This is going back to Yasmin the dog: "The employee is walking Yasmin on the back lot of the hospital when suddenly from out of nowhere a pit bull terrier runs up and attacks Yasmin. The pit bull grabs Yasmin by the throat and tears her whole throat open, exposing her jugular vein and her oesophagus. The pit bull's jaws lock closed around Yasmin's throat and it takes three adults to pull the pit bull off of Yasmin."

If I could ask Councillor Vrbanovic to put the video in, and I just remind members that it is sensitive.

Mr Bisson: On a point of order, Mr Chair: I am more than prepared to support this particular resolution, but at this point, if we've got to start looking at videos, I'm withdrawing from the committee. I think this is a bad idea.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr Bisson. Mr Vrbanovic, will you run the video please and we'll wrap up the presentation.

Mr Smola: Upon arrival at the animal hospital, Michael says: "Our first visual impression of Yasmin is that she looks like a pound of raw ground beef. My wife gasped and immediately began to cry, as I did." After having surgery on two separate occasions and numerous checkups, Yasmin has been characterized as a full recovery despite some heavy scarring.

I'd like to read the prologue from the victim impact statement from Michael Mooney at this time: "We have noticed that since the attack Yasmin is less confident and much more tentative with people and unfamiliar situations. Whereas before, Yasmin always greeted other dogs, tail wagging and without reservation, she now either cowers if we are out for a walk or if she is inside the house and sees a dog, she snarls and barks aggressively. Yasmin is very much a changed dog as a result of this attack.

"My wife and I are set to have our first child around Christmas time. We are left to wonder how Yasmin will behave with the infant. Will she be gentle and loving as she has always been or will we have to watch her closely for signs of aggressiveness? Only time will tell. If Yasmin is anything other than gentle and loving, I know that my wife and I will both attribute it to this incident.

"As an aside, the vet bills for this incident must have totalled between $2,000 to $3,000. I am not able to give you an exact figure because the Kingsdale Animal Hospital absorbed the costs without ever being compensated by the owner of the pit bull. Speaking of the pit bull, it was captured after the attack. The local humane society has a very good idea as to who the owner of the animal is but this person will accept neither ownership of the animal or responsibility for its actions while running at large. The pit bull has been put to death, a victim of its irresponsible owner and its inherent bad breeding." It's signed by Michael Mooney.

I'd like to now turn it over to Berry for further examples of incidents with pit bulls in Kitchener-Waterloo.

Mr Vrbanovic: As the above examples have shown, there has been an abundance of incidents within the boundaries of Kitchener-Waterloo that have resulted in an impact on both animals and humans. Many of these incidents resulted in police attention being brought to the matter due to its severity. However, on April 12, police encountered an incident where they in fact were the victim. That night, police responded to an alarm at Desco Plumbing and Heating only to find three males leaving the area. One of the males subsequently stopped at a vehicle and picked up a pit bull on a leash. When officer Ben Coles ordered the man to surrender, the man ran away with the dog only to moments later release the dog, which then attacked the officer in question. The officer had to shoot the dog and was fortunate enough to only end up with a bite on his left shin.

In relation to how this whole issue relates to policing, our local police services board has opted to provide their support for our attempt to obtain this legislation. To discuss their concerns today, I'd like to introduce Constable Randy Peacock, a six-year veteran of the Waterloo Regional Police Service. Constable Peacock also serves as a member of our emergency response team and was one of the responding officers at the initial incident in January of this year.

Mr Randy Peacock: Mr Chair, ladies and gentlemen, this year in particular the Waterloo regional police have had a number of incidents involving dogs. A disproportionately large number of those incidents have involved crossbreed animals referred to as pit bulls. This year alone the department, through its officers, has destroyed four pit bulls in related incidents involving either animals being attacked, cattle, other family pets as well, one being an officer being attacked.

Further to that, in relation to the incident that was referred to earlier in January, where the animal had attacked a dog in a back yard, of which the pictures have been circulated, 15 shots were fired in the direction of the animal. I personally fired nine shots at the animal. Believing that I'm a reasonably good shot, I hit it all nine times. We shot at the head of the animal in the hope of destroying it. However, due to the breeding of the animal and the shape of the head, there's a tendency that the ammunition we're using in our service pistols doesn't penetrate the skull, and we have a concern that we then have to go to the chest portion of the animal to destroy it, the problem being, when the animal is coming at you, you have nothing but the head as a target, to be quite honest with you, and that tends to be a problem with that.

The concern earlier that was mentioned by the councillors, this particular incident took place starting at approximately 11:45 in the morning and ran throughout the noonhour, passing the proximity of two schools, which police automatically contacted and had the students retained in. Paramount was the public safety. Because this animal had just attacked a pet, we were concerned a child perhaps playing in the school yard could be the next victim. Obviously, due to the nature of this particular animal, we continued somewhat of a pursuit a little bit longer than perhaps a normal call would run, the reason being that public safety was paramount.

1040

In particular to the night of the incident that was referred to in which Officer Coles was attacked by the animal, Officer Coles personally spoke to me last week, and he no less than five times told the owner of the animal to restrain the animal so that it would not be a concern that the animal would be let loose and, obviously, attack him. After five warnings, the male party let the animal go and turned and fled, and the animal attacked the officer.

I personally this year have been involved in approximately six to seven calls involving pit bulls, whether they've bitten somebody -- in a certain case, a couple of people came to the aid of a small Maltese which was attacked by a pit bull that ran right out the residence front door and attacked this small dog on a leash unprovoked. A gentleman came to the aid of the owner of the small Maltese, and for his troubles he got both hands severely mauled by the dog. As well, when the owner came out to restrain his pit bull, it then turned on the owner, chewing him several times.

In particular, the last incident involving police where we had to destroy a pit bull was actually in the city of Cambridge, but because the service covers the region, a fellow officer on the emergency response team had to destroy a pit bull. It was running at large and had gotten loose from the farm and attacked a cattle beast. It actually had that cattle beast by the throat and had flipped the cattle beast on to the ground several times. After being wounded once by the officer, using a shotgun, it then attacked the cattle beast again and had to be shot two more times before it was put down. Under the livestock and poultry act, we have that authority outside the city.

Our concern is that, especially this year and not so much in the latter part of last year, we've had a huge, disproportionate number of dog attacks involving this particular breed or crossbreed. We're quite concerned, public safety and officer safety being paramount, that we're running into this. Realistically, we're overconcerned maybe in some respects, but one more child hurt justifies this bill proposed.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr Peacock. Does this conclude the comments?

Mr White: Yes, it does, Mr Chair.

Mr Vrbanovic: Mr Chair, there is a bit of a wrapup yet with Councillor Smola and myself, if we may.

The Chair: Yes, go ahead.

Mr Smola: Having taken you through the countless examples of incidents within Kitchener and Waterloo, we would now like to briefly take you through the stakeholder discussions which have taken place. This is, as you are aware, a cooperative effort with the cities of Kitchener and Waterloo, and both councils have fully endorsed this application. Prior to actually submitting the application, we met with representatives of the executive of the K-W Kennel Club, who provided their support for the city enacting a bylaw to regulate pit bulls, including input into regulations which may exist in the final bylaw.

The viewpoint of much of the community which we have heard is echoed in this videotape of Linda Culver, a pit bull breeder in K-W, and it's not graphic by any means.

Audio-visual presentation.

Mr Smola: Thank you, Berry. The relationship discussed by Mrs Culver which exists between irresponsible owners and the problem dogs was the focus of our discussion with the Waterloo Region Veterinary Association in September of this year. This organization concurs that typically these mixed breeds referred to as pit bulls are dangerous and are generally not owned by responsible owners. As such, they concurred that unfortunately the only way to effectively regulate them is through prohibition.

With the support of this committee today, we can move forward with our bylaw proposal and continue our efforts in obtaining additional stakeholder input. Prior to the passing of a new bylaw, both cities will form a committee consisting of the public and the abovementioned stakeholders to formulate a fair bylaw that will balance the rights of dog owners while allowing us to regulate and restrict pit bulls to ensure public safety remains permanent.

Mr Vrbanovic: In summary, we believe we have demonstrated both the uniqueness and the urgency of the situation before you today. The urgency of the situation is evident from the combined impact realized from the number of attacks in this past year in conjunction with the danger realized from the genetic disposition of pit bulls as outlined by Dr Hess. We feel the Kitchener-Waterloo area is unique in that no other municipality, to our knowledge, has had such a large number of incidents in such a short period of time. These incidents have impacted animals, law enforcement officers and the general public.

Although the death of a human has not occurred yet, we feel this mixed breed is a time bomb waiting to explode and one day we will have a citizen fatality. In this regard, as the elected representatives of the citizens of Kitchener and Waterloo, we urge you to support this application before you today.

The Chair: I wish to thank all the applicants for your presentation. Before we go to comments from representatives of the provincial government, are there any other interested parties that wish to speak to this issue? Seeing none, I would now turn the agenda to the parliamentary assistant for municipal affairs, Derwyn Shea, for comments on behalf of the government.

Mr Derwyn Shea (High Park-Swansea): I think we all agree that the evidence presented today is graphic and it is disturbing, and those of us who have served on municipal councils and at other levels of government understand the issue that's being raised before us. As my colleague Mr Hastings points out, the issue does take on another aspect to it that we should be concerned about as government, and I think all members of this committee will understand and share that exercise of our legislative responsibility.

Let me begin by saying that the government has no objection to the bill as it is presented, but it has some concerns about it in a broader sense that it wants this committee, at least would welcome this committee, to give consideration to. There are some significant issues that are presented by the bill.

First of all, there is obviously a basic shift in policy that this bill represents that the committee needs to wrestle with, and this is where one is beginning to shift away from the issue of behaviour to the issue of breed, and that is a fundamental change in legislation in the province of Ontario and we need to be aware of that.

Secondly, those of us who have served on councils will understand the old issue that you may very well move one problem from one area to another area, the checkerboarding effect. The councillors from Kitchener and Waterloo are not empowered nor do they carry the mandate to have to be worried about, in the first instance, what may happen in other jurisdictions. They are charged with the responsibility of being concerned with what's happening in their jurisdiction, and that is right and proper.

But, clearly, we have to be concerned about the ripple effect. For that reason, the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing is in fact in the process of revising the Municipal Act. We have been suggesting that will all be in place well before the 1997 municipal elections. At that time, it may be more appropriate to embrace the kinds of legislative changes requested here in a more comprehensive way that would apply to all municipalities across the province. That is at least an issue I put before the committee on behalf of the government for its consideration at this time.

The third concern that we have would reflect with section 3 in Bill Pr71, which is the issue of conflict, and that is to suggest that in case there is anything in conflict between the Municipal Act and this bill, this bill would override. In fact, it may well be that this should not be in this bill, that we should say, "No, the Municipal Act is still the empowering piece of legislation." But I put that before the committee for its consideration and amendment if it thinks it's appropriate.

I have with me today to engage in the discussion, because I think we have some questions that may be raised by members, to aid us, along with the questioning that will go on with the deputants, Jim Young, the assistant deputy minister of public safety, Solicitor General and Correctional Services; Tom Melville, as we all know, legal services from municipal affairs; and Helen McLean, the local government policy branch of municipal affairs as well. We have some other staff here if it is necessary as we go through any detailed evaluation of the bill, not to prolong it unnecessarily but to give it the appropriate consideration it is due at this point.

With that, I've given the overview of the government's position. Chairman, as far as I would be concerned, the matter is now in the hands of the committee unless you would give us the opportunity to ask Mr Young if he'd like to make any comments, particularly from the Sol Gen's point of view, if I can just ask him to take over.

1050

The Chair: Any further comments on behalf of the government?

Dr James Young: If I may, animal welfare falls under the public safety division of the Ministry of the Solicitor General and the main function as a liaison and administration of the act that controls the Ontario Humane Society. Our interest in this particular issue is because animal welfare does fall under our purview.

I think it's important to emphasize that this is a watershed decision in the sense that we are changing from a focus where we dealt with behaviour of dogs to deciding in fact that a breed of dogs will all be classified in a certain way.

There are a number of pieces of legislation that currently relate to dogs. They include the Municipal Act and the Ontario Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, which is the act that I administer. But there are two other important pieces of legislation that I would emphasize. One is the Dog Owners' Liability Act and the second is the Criminal Code of Canada. The key to that is that we have had problems from time to time, and I acknowledge the serious problem that Kitchener-Waterloo is experiencing. These kinds of problems with vicious dogs exist across the province. They certainly can involve pit bulls. It's always been recognized that they may involve other breeds of dogs as well, that vicious dogs in general can be a problem.

The approach of government in the past has been to recognize that vicious dogs exist rather than going after a particular breed, and to approach it from the problem then that if the dog is not controlled properly, the dog will be dealt with, but more importantly, that it's the dog owner who is responsible for the actions. That's certainly something we've heard a great deal of this morning, that ultimately it is the irresponsibility of the owner.

What this legislation proposes to do is to take that emphasis -- it certainly leaves responsibility with the owner, and I wouldn't suggest other than that, but it also says that it's not just behaviour that will make the difference; it's now saying that particular breeds of dog will no longer be tolerated in an area.

It goes further than that, because the penalty is not a major fine for harbouring a banned animal. It says that if it is a particular banned breed of dog, the dog will be killed and eliminated. There are those who will support that strongly, and I certainly understand that. I would suggest to the committee there will be those who are bothered by that concept as well, though, that a dog who has had no record of doing anything may in fact be destroyed simply because the dog exists.

When something happens of the nature of the dog, Holly, who was allegedly dragged behind the car, that received a great deal of publicity. That matter resulted in literally hundreds of letters being sent to our ministry about that particular animal. So I would suggest to the committee that killing dogs based on breed alone, while it will be supported by many, may not be supported by all.

It's also a further concern of ours that if the act is passed in regard to these two areas where we acknowledge they are having some problems, one of the remedies may be that dogs are moved into the outlying community and, as Mr Shea mentioned, we may end up solving a problem in Kitchener-Waterloo and creating a problem in outlying municipalities in the rest of the region of Waterloo by increasing the population of pit bulls or other vicious dogs in those particular areas.

Part of the solution to this I think is that if the philosophy of government is going to change and we're going to an area of behaviour rather than breed, and if we're going to enact legislation, perhaps the legislation should be provincial in nature and apply to all municipalities or at least give the option to all municipalities, rather than dealing with two municipalities first and then dealing with a series of private members' bills that follow.

There is consideration of changing and an undertaking by government to change the Municipal Affairs Act in the near future. There is also certainly review right now of an animal welfare act within the province of Ontario. There's been no announcement of when legislation will be forthcoming, but the whole matter of animal welfare in the province is under review.

Our ministry as well is concerned about the conflict clause. There is a body known as the Animal Care Review Board which currently reviews seizures under the OSPCA Act. We believe there may be considerable confusion then if there are municipal acts and there are seizures under your Municipal Act rather than by the OSPCA. It may result in a considerable problem as to which act overrides which act and whether appeal bodies are in place or not in place. We would suggest that there should not be a conflict clause that overrides existing acts. It would override not only the Municipal Act but also the OSPCA Act. We believe the OSPCA Act should be the act that is supreme in a case like this.

As a matter of administration, but to raise the flag, we believe there may be some problems with the actual administration of an act such as this with regard to the issue of entry. What would be asked for under POA legislation is that they would be asking for an order to go to a home on the basis of the belief that a particular breed of dog was in the home and in order to enter that home. We believe there may be some reluctance on the part of the courts to grant orders to enter on the basis of a belief that a particular breed exists. We have nothing to base that on other than a considerable amount of case law that restricts entry into private dwellings in general and searches and seizures in general. The courts are reluctant to broaden powers too much.

I think our major issue, however, if this committee wishes to proceed with this bill, is that there should be a recognition that it is a change in focus from behaviour to breed. Our suggestion is that certainly that could be done. The matter could be studied further. It could exist in broader legislation as well. Those would be the options that we bring forward.

The Chair: Thank you, Dr Young. We now go to questions from the committee members, questions directed either to the applicants or to those speaking on behalf of the government. Mr Leadston, I have a number of people lined up for questions. Did you have another?

Mr Leadston: I'd like for the record to have it clarified that this process, emanating from the councillors from both municipalities and myself and my office, started at least a year or more ago. There have been extensive meetings and dialogue with respect to both ministries.

With exception, I think everyone in this room is a servant of the public, and as legislators and as staff, I would like to think that we're on the same team, whether you're a legal counsel to the ministry of one or the ministry of the other, or whether in a municipality. The concerns that have been raised by the ADM and by the parliamentary assistant -- I respect the opinions. However, the severity of this piece of legislation came about because of some rather horrendous experiences in our municipalities. We started the process. The same explanation was given: "Perhaps you could wait until the Municipal Act is changed." Well, unfortunately, while the legal counsels, with all due respect, are communicating and networking and negotiating, the incidents continue. The incidents become far more severe. With all due respect, I don't think we can wait until the changes are made to the Municipal Act.

1100

I think this would be a prime example, to give the two municipalities the opportunity to have this legislation, to have the experience of perhaps a year or whatever period of time it takes until the Municipal Act is changed. Then you've got a foundation in terms of making any minor or significant changes to the act so that it's applicable provincially.

I don't think we can wait. The two municipalities have waited very patiently, the community has waited very patiently, and yet the incidents have continued. It's not a perfect solution, but for these two municipalities it's the solution that's at hand and that they need to address the concerns in the community.

The Chair: It is now time for committee members to ask questions. Mr Grandmaître.

Mr Grandmaître: I realize that a lot of consultation has gone on between the two ministries, and now, Mr Shea, did I hear you right that you feel so strongly about this type of legislation that's before us this morning that you're ready and willing to include it whenever a new Municipal Act is in place? Did I hear you right?

Mr Shea: What you heard me say is that the Municipal Act is being completely reviewed and overhauled and it is the minister's intent to have the new legislation in place well in advance of the next municipal election in 1997. It is further the suggestion that because this is a watershed nature of legislation -- that, as you've heard the ADM mention, it shifts from behaviour to breed -- and because it has implications province-wide, it probably ought to be given consideration for inclusion in the revised Municipal Act and therefore empower all municipalities to be able to deal with it in some enabling fashion.

Mr Grandmaître: But my question is, can we get the assurance from you this morning that municipal affairs will have this type of amended legislation included the Municipal Act?

Mr Shea: It is my understanding that this is certainly one of the areas that requires a great deal of attention and revision in the Municipal Act.

Mr Grandmaître: It will be included.

Mr Shea: It is my understanding that this will be part of the discussion and I have no reason to think it should not be reflected in one shape or another in the revised Municipal Act.

Mr Grandmaître: Could I ask the ADM how he feels about this?

Mr Bisson: You've been around, Bernie. You understand how it works.

Dr Young: I don't set government policy, first of all, member. I've been around a while too.

Mr Bisson: We know how ministries work and how government works.

Dr Young: I would want to clarify one thing. I acknowledge the act was introduced some time ago. In fact, we became only aware of it in Sol Gen a couple of months ago, so our consultation with Waterloo has been limited, to say the least, to yesterday. So we haven't had a long time to consider it. The answer is that I believe the ministry at this point in time does not have a firm policy on this matter.

Mr Grandmaître: In other words, you're telling us, "Pass this private member's bill and we'll work on it."

Dr Young: I'm not advising the committee. I'm just raising the flags, sir.

Mr Grandmaître: Thank you for raising the flags.

Mr Bisson: Let me go through it this way: What the bill does under section 1 is, first of all, give the municipality the right to prohibit the keeping of certain types of dogs within our municipalities. I understand what the ministry is saying, but quite frankly I'm on the side of the municipality on this one; I think they should have that power. There are certain types of dogs that are a problem. It is a question of the characteristics of the dog. As I said earlier, we've all had to deal with this in one way or another, if not as MPPs at least in municipal councils, where those particular types of dogs have been a problem. The problem has always been that the municipality can do nothing about it. I believe that, yes, the municipality should have the right to regulate the keeping of certain classes of dogs within the municipality.

The second part, and I move to clause (a) of subsection 1(1), basically says how dogs are to be controlled as per subsection 1(2). In other words, what you're doing under section 1 is saying, all right, we're not only able to prohibit certain types of dogs, but for certain other dogs that are accepted as being able to be part of the community -- in other words, the municipality allows them to be there -- the municipality can regulate how those dogs are to be kept: They're to be tied, they're to be kept in their yards, they're to be muzzled or whatever it might be. As such, I don't think that's a problem either. I think that makes a lot of sense because other types of dogs, for example, some of the larger breeds, you don't want them roaming the streets of our community. They may be perfectly good dogs, but sometimes kids don't know the danger, or even sometimes adults, and do something the dog doesn't understand and all of a sudden, woof, you're at the receiving end of the dog's wrath.

Where there is a problem, though, I do believe, is under subsection 1(3). I think what you should do there -- just follow me through here. I am really leery about saying, "Let this bill not go anywhere and we're going to let the Municipal Act deal with this," because Bernie and I have been around long enough to know what that means. The reality is, in all fairness to the parliamentary assistant, there are bigger fish to catch on the part of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing, and I don't think the city of Waterloo or Kitchener is going to really find itself in any kind of way being on the benefiting side of that.

I think we need to deal with it here, because in the end, if this legislation does anything, it will at least keep the government's feet to the fire, because understand something: If we pass this today, it has to come back to the House. The government House leader is going to be the one who is going to decide if this bill is actually enacted. If we let this bill die now, my sense is that you're not going to be able to get enough power; you're not going to be able to get this on the agenda of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing. They're trying to restructure a whole metropolitan city; do you think they're interested in dogs in Kitchener? Let's be true here.

I say, if anything, we have to pass this bill now with a slight amendment so that at least the bill is before the House and at the very least it keeps the government's feet to the fire. I'm not too worried about the government members on this committee, because I think they're sort of coming from where I'm at. They understand what the problem is here. But at least you're going to keep the government House leader's feet to the fire and the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing's feet to the fire, because they will have another reason why they need to do something, because this bill will be here, and the local members will be able to point that out on a number of occasions.

The only thing I think needs to be done is that subsection 1(3) is a bit sweeping. If I read subsection 1(3), if you will allow me, it says, "A bylaw passed under subsection (1)" -- which deals with the regulating and the prohibiting of dogs -- "may provide that dogs of a regulated or prohibited class, breed, mixed class or mixed breed may be seized, impounded and killed." That's sort of like dealing with it after the fact.

I would tend to err a bit on the side of the parliamentary assistant and say what this section should do is say that in the event that there's a problem, this is the power that the municipality has. In other words, we're going to prevent certain dogs from residing within our communities, we're going to give the municipality the power to regulate how those dogs are to be contained and dealt with in a municipality, but only in the event where there has actually been a problem will we give them the ability to seize and kill dogs. I'm not going to go through the argument, but I think the parliamentary assistant to the deputy minister made the argument fairly well.

I would later on move that we strike subsection 1(3) of the bill and I will write something else up that I think might be more suitable in order to give the municipality the power to dispose of a dog in the event of an incident, not just because all of a sudden the municipality says a particular dog is not allowed. With that, I thank you very much.

The Chair: Next question, Mr Hastings.

Mr Hastings: It's passing strange that at the start of this meeting Mr Bisson wanted to pass the thing lock, stock and barrel. Be that as it may, Mr Shivas from the city of Kitchener --

Mr Bisson: I always thought you were passing strange.

1110

Mr Hastings: I have the floor, thank you, unless you want it.

Could you identify for us the number of times you have exercised the bylaw -- I presume that you have -- under the Dog Owners' Liability Act to go after the owners of these animals to recover your costs for policing etc? Has there been any action taken in that area? Have there been charges laid at least, and any court cases completed by now?

Mr White: We haven't gone after anyone for costs. There have been charges laid and we have used that act, but after some bad thing has happened. After there has been a bad incident we have used that act, and that's all we had to use, and that has resulted in dogs being destroyed through a court order.

Mr Hastings: Have you in fact had 16 charges laid, then? That's the number of cases I heard from Constable Peacock, that those were the number of incidents that occurred.

Mr White: Perhaps Kitchener representative Debra Arnold could add to my answer.

Ms Debra Arnold: Dr Hess noted that there were 16 attacks to date in 1996, and I believe in most of those instances the humane society staff were able to persuade the dog owner to voluntarily submit the dog to be killed without court proceedings to seek an order for the dog's destruction. The significant difference between bringing a proceeding under the Dog Owners' Liability Act versus our proposed bill is that the Dog Owners' Liability Act is a completely reactive proceeding. I would draw to the committee's attention that in the five or so incidents that were recounted to you, those dogs had not exhibited prior behaviour that would bring forth the ability for the municipality to bring proceeding under the Dog Owners' Liability Act, so we could not take steps to prevent these attacks, whereas if we had the authority under the bill proposed and before you today, we would be able to take proactive steps to deal with the pit bull type of dog before any incident or tragedy occurred.

Mr Hastings: Two other questions and then I'll let other people get at it. Are you folks amenable to ensuring that before a dog is killed, a research lab would have an opportunity to have that creature for research and development purposes? There are many, many beneficial uses that can be made out of animal research for the enhancement of our wellbeing in terms of health care. It bothers me very much that the option is as soon as they're captured, boom, they're dead, even though they're a very dangerous type of beast, I understand.

My second concern is, are you folks prepared to consider having this bill limited, having a time frame on it in terms of two years until the municipal affairs ministry and Sol Gen can come up with more appropriate legislation that deals with this issue on a province-wide basis?

Thirdly, are you prepared to consider having this act not exceed the powers of the Dog Owners' Liability Act?

Those are the three major concerns I have.

The Chair: Do the applicants wish to divide up those questions?

Mr White: In respect to the first question, the research aspect, we'd be in the hands of the humane society. Dr Hess could respond to that.

Dr Hess: There's a policy of the Humane Society not to give up any animals for research.

Dr Hess: At the present time there is a policy by the humane society not to give up any animals for research.

Mr Hastings: That's a major problem for me then.

The next question concerns the time frame, if a two-year pilot project, whenever it got passed, would be suitable to deal with your particular problem. I'm very supportive of Mr Leadston coming here with his concern, but also balancing it out with municipal affairs' and Sol Gen's concerns regarding --

Ms Arnold: Just a final comment on the first issue, the animal research issue. I believe, and I haven't researched this, there is also, in addition to the Humane Society's policy, provincial and perhaps federal legislation governing animals used for research, which obviously we would have to comply with.

As far as putting a time period or expiry date on our bill, I suppose, without talking to my colleagues, it's possible that the bill could be repealed upon enactment of substantially similar provisions in the Municipal Act. I suppose we would be agreeable to that. I hesitate to put a time deadline on it just because the wheels of Municipal Act reform may not turn that quickly, within two years or whatever set date that might be --

Mr Hastings: There is the reverse argument that if you don't have a time frame, that means that government as a whole just lets it go on forever.

Ms Arnold: We're mindful of the difficulty that has been alluded to, the difficulty of smaller municipalities in trying to drive Municipal Act reform for the entire province, so I suppose we'd want to see substantially similar provisions in the Municipal Act amendments before we would be agreeable to our bill being repealed. That's your second question.

Mr Hastings: The third one deals with having this act supersede the Dog Owners' Liability Act.

Ms Arnold: I think the Dog Owners' Liability Act is aimed in a different way, as has been mentioned. The Dog Owners' Liability Act is aimed at behaviour, and I believe the municipalities would continue to use that act where appropriate on specific dogs of various breeds that aren't pit bulls, that haven't been prohibited, where this particular dog is a mean dog and has shown a propensity to be dangerous.

We see our bill as being proactive and taking a different direction from the Dog Owners' Liability Act, but I don't see it as a major shift in policy because municipalities have had for many, many years the ability to prohibit breeds of animals, any breed of animal. Siamese cats, hamsters, any breed of animal that a municipality wanted to, it has the authority, currently, and has had for many years, to prohibit. Our bill is simply seeking to extend that general authority to prohibit breeds of animals to include breeds of dogs. We feel that it's necessary to take a proactive stance on the danger that pit bulls pose in our municipality and not rely on after-the-fact, after-the-tragedy, after-the-injury proceedings under the Dog Owners' Liability Act.

Mr Hastings: Mr Chairman, did we get a letter of objection, and if so, are there copies available of that letter, that outlines what the other side of the coin is on this?

Clerk of the Committee (Mr Tom Prins): We did receive one letter and that was distributed out. I can get additional copies for you now if you'd like.

The Chair: Do people have copies of this letter of objection?

Clerk of the Committee: It's from Mary Zilney, August 26, 1996.

The Chair: I'm going to go on. The next question is from Mr Shea.

Mr Shea: Thank you, Chairman. We start taking a look at silos and we see various ministries involved in this: the Solicitor General, municipal affairs and the Attorney General, and it's one that we've all become familiar with in terms of one silo doing things that may not always be in concert with another. Certainly with the suggestion that is being offered here, it strikes me that there now would be a chance for municipalities to override the SPCA and some of the act that governs it, so there is some concern about how section 3 in Pr71 is applied.

But I'd like to go to a couple of questions to the deputants, and I'm not really fussed terribly in which order or who answers on behalf of the deputants. This would help me a little bit to understand.

1120

By way of preamble, I've just done a very quick review of the Dog Owners' Liability Act, and it probably wouldn't be a bad idea if we were to ask the Attorney General to give consideration again to the terms and conditions of that act. When I see that the major fine is $5,000, and one of the points being raised here has been the fact that in many cases it's less the dog and as much or more irresponsible owners, the enabling legislation simply doesn't give appropriate punitive action to bring to the attention of owners the significance of what's happening, and that should deal with things like puppy mills and a whole range of other things that municipalities should be able to respond to.

We talked about 16 incidents in Kitchener-Waterloo in the past year. Does the deputant have any sense of how that compares to the number of incidents in other municipalities? Is Kitchener-Waterloo the aberration in Ontario? Is there something specifically unique that's happening there as opposed to somewhere else that we ought to be aware of?

Ms Lisa Pasternak: I'll speak to that. My name is Lisa Pasternak and I'm associate solicitor with the city of Kitchener. I phoned around to several other municipalities: Hamilton, London, Windsor, several areas. It's hard to get hard numbers on pit bulls. They aren't often defined in licensing as pit bulls; owners will call them something else. But I specifically used the attacks, and also the numbers that you find in the humane society letter, of 50 caught running at large in Kitchener-Waterloo in 1995, and only two of those were claimed. The response was that we certainly had a problem on a scale that they do not experience.

Mr Shea: I see. So there seems to be some sense that there's something unique about Kitchener-Waterloo region as opposed to other areas of Ontario. Were those 16 incidents all involving pit bulls?

Ms Pasternak: Yes, they were.

Mr Shea: Every one was a pit bull?

Ms Pasternak: Yes.

Mr Shea: Have there been incidents with any other breed at any time?

Dr Hess: Yes, there are other breeds involved but their bites are -- they seem to be able to be chased off or they're very minor single wounds and so on. The department of health doesn't keep a register of it. The only register we have is of the ones we know personally that have gone through the humane society in some way or other.

Mr Shea: This legislation then intends to single out specific breeds or a breed. It's focused particularly on one breed and/or mixed breed. Is that the case at this point? Even though you're empowered to pick and choose, it will focus on at least one to begin with. Is that right?

Ms Arnold: If I could answer that question. The difficulty with the pit bull type of dog is that it's not a recognized breed. A pit bull is actually composed of a number of breeds which unscrupulous breeders seek to create a meaner and meaner dog. The pit bull type of dog is constantly evolving as unscrupulous breeders introduce other types of breeds into the mix to try and create a meaner type of dog.

Although there were 16 attacks in 1996, I think it is important to emphasize that there were 50 pit bulls running at large, so the potential was there for any of those dogs to attack, as the examples that have been given.

Mr Shea: Your answer, Ms Arnold, leads to the next question: If it's difficult to know the breed, and you've indicated there may be degrees and variations, how do you define which dog is killed? How do you define which one is actually prohibited and who makes that decision?

Ms Arnold: That's where the bill provides for notice to be provided to the dog owner, where the dog owner is known. As you can see from the stats, a number of these dogs are simply running at large. Notice will be provided and an opportunity for an appeal and a hearing to be conducted, and evidence put forward by the municipality by a qualified veterinarian to establish that the dog in question is a composition or a mixed breed of the certain types of breeds that make up a pit bull. We hope to have the flexibility in our bylaw to address the evolution of this type of dog, as I've mentioned, to keep up with these breeders who are breeding meaner and meaner dogs.

Mr Shea: So of two dogs at large, one may very well live and one may be executed based upon a decision of whom?

Ms Arnold: The municipality already has the authority and has had for many years, under the Municipal Act, to seize, impound and kill any dog running at large. In fact, if a pit bull is picked up running at large we don't need to go through other procedures in our bylaw if this bill is passed. We have the authority already under the Municipal Act to destroy any dog found running at large and, sad to say, that happens literally thousands of times a year.

Mr Shea: This simply, in your mind, then extends the ability to go beyond just running at large to saying, "You will not be within a municipal boundary, and further, we will have the right of access into premises if we have reason to believe that there might be a breed of that sort harboured in that premise."

Ms Arnold: This bill will not give municipalities the right to enter on to private property. We are governed by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and it is anticipated that if in certain circumstances it's necessary to obtain access to private property, we would comply in all respects with the search warrant application provisions in the Provincial Offences Act and a court order would have to be obtained to enable an officer to go on to private property. That would ultimately be subject to the scrutiny of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and we have no quibble whatsoever, obviously, with that.

Mr Shea: The powers of the bill: In your mind it's not appropriate to address the matter of owners' responsibilities and so forth. That should be posited in another bill.

Ms Arnold: Maybe I could make an analogy here with gun control laws in this country. The debate rages that there are responsible gun owners, and there are responsible dog owners. However, the federal government has seen fit to prohibit certain types of weapons, semi-automatic and automatic weapons. So no matter how responsible a gun owner might be with a machine gun, he can't have one.

Similarly, with the case of pit bull dogs, there may be a dog owner who could be extremely vigilant, extremely cautious and careful, but accidents happen: Dogs break their chains and escape. But maybe there are dog owners who could own a pit bull for many years without incident. Unfortunately it hasn't been our experience that most owners of these dogs fall into that category. Similarly to gun control legislation, we're seeking to take a proactive stance and say that these dogs cannot be permitted.

Mr Shea: The final question then, and this may go to the members of council: How extensively and fully do the members of council intend to consult with the public before passing any bylaws under these provisions?

Ms Arnold: We anticipate that public advertisements will be placed and public meetings will be held. If you've ever been to a city council meeting or a Kitchener-Waterloo meeting in particular, you'll know that there is ready and abundant access to council meetings before a bylaw is passed so that not only interested members of the public but the K-W Kennel Club, our local humane society and any other interested party will have ample opportunity to exercise their democratic rights. Let's face it, our councils face re-election every three years and they will respond to voters' wishes in drafting a bylaw pursuant to this bill, if passed.

Mr Shea: I appreciate that. I'd just like to hear from another member.

Mr Vrbanovic: Certainly it is our intent to go forward in the manner described by Ms Arnold. There has been considerable discussion and opportunity. As Councillor Smola indicated earlier, we've already had considerable discussion about what some of the ideas are for our proposed pit bull bylaw with the humane society, with the local kennel club and with the local veterinarians' association.

This issue has received incredible amounts of media attention, and by far the great majority of contact that I've had with constituents both in my ward and outside of it has been favourable towards this type of legislation. However, we feel that if we get the authority from this committee and from the Legislature ultimately, it's imperative that we approach the community one final time, in the drafting of the bylaw, to receive any additional input and concerns citizens might have in this regard.

1130

One of the things I can mention that we've had in our discussions with the various parties so far in terms of a potential draft, one of the issues being considered, is the potential for grandfathering the existing licensed animals with certain conditions, recognizing that they may very well be owned currently by responsible owners. We want to take that into a certain degree of account.

Mr Shea: I gather from your response that it is not in the mind of council to seek warrants of entry where there may be some suggestion that a breed that is prohibited is being harboured.

Mr Vrbanovic: No, It's quite clear that we don't live in a military state, and nobody's suggesting that we're going to head in that direction. This will be dealt with in the manner that if there are licensed dogs and dogs that are not permitted, it'll be handled on a complaint basis, and if it exists it'll be investigated. If there is any need to pursue matters, I would presume and only assume that it'll be handled in the manner allowed for within the laws of this province and this country.

Mr Shea: Assuming Kitchener-Waterloo is given this enabling legislation, assuming for a moment that an adjacent municipality now seeks similar legislation but with a different breed, would that in your mind pose any conundrums?

Mr Smola: Mr Chairman, if I could respond to that, I just want to go back to what we see as the process in developing our bylaw and putting in the proper checks and balances. We've gone to interested individuals and the community as well. I see the police having a representative on the policy committee formulating the bylaw as being beneficial. I also see a representative from the humane society, along with representatives from the local veterinarians' association and the kennel club and I would hope that other municipalities -- this is what we plan on doing, and of course this is all done through an open public process.

You can't have a bylaw that would be fair without having that input from the professionals who deal with dogs all the time. I think that's where we're going to be successful in developing a bylaw that will address the concerns we have with the support of those interested groups.

Mr Shea: Now could you answer my question? I understand your preamble and I appreciate that. Can you perhaps just respond to that final point about what I referred to as the checkerboarding, which I think you would understand. The fact is that Kitchener-Waterloo may very well suggest that this breed is prohibited. An adjacent municipality may say, "No, that breed is all right, but this breed is prohibited."

There are two sidebars to that. First of all the prohibition in Kitchener-Waterloo may have an impact upon an adjacent municipality, and that municipality's counterresponse may also have a problem of confusion, which is one of the reasons we seek some discussion in the committee about including all of this in an omnibus for the revision of the Municipal Act so there's some consistency across the province. You might like to respond to that.

Mr Vrbanovic: If I may, Mr Shea, I think in dealing with this checkerboard issue, we need to remember that the whole issue already is a checkerboard with respect to all other types of animals as regulated by the Municipal Act. Various cities pass different types of animal bylaws, exotic animal bylaws and so on to meet the particular needs that have been identified by that community. In many ways we're hoping this will allow us to address the particular need that's been identified in our community.

If, down the road, based on the experience of this bill and based on the wishes of this Legislature, the government decides to include those types of authorities on a broader basis for the entire province, then I think each municipality, through its elected representatives, will have the ability to make bylaws that are appropriate for that municipality and ultimately will answer to the public if they exceed their powers in any way. From a municipal perspective, where the council meetings are generally very open, it is an opportunity for the public to voice their concerns in the most effective way possible, and certainly if things stay the way they are, if no sooner, every three years when the municipal elections occur.

Mr Shea: Thank you. You've been helpful in your responses.

Mr Bisson: For the committee, just so they understand why I'm going to do what I'm going to do, it's my understanding the bill would allow you to regulate and prohibit certain classes of dogs in your municipality. You already have the right, if there's a problem with a dog, to dispose of that dog, right? If we were to strike subsection 1(3), you'd still have that right?

Ms Pasternak: Yes.

Mr Bisson: The answer is yes. Okay. That being the case, I would like to move two motions. The first motion would be --

Ms Pasternak: We're still looking at a problem after the ban is instituted: If someone insists on having a pit bull that is not a grandfathered pit bull in the city who hasn't had a behavioral problem, we could not proceed under the Dog Owners' Liability Act to have that animal destroyed as a last resort.

Mr Bisson: I understand that, but then it would go back to the point the parliamentary assistant made originally, which is a problem, and you're not going to get them to vote for it that way. My suggestion to you is that you just strike subsection 1(3). It will allow you to regulate those dogs, and you'll deal with it according to the other pieces of legislation as well. It's your call. Either you get a bill or you don't get a bill is my view.

Ms Pasternak: It partially has to do with it being Kitchener and Waterloo; we have to consult.

Mr Bisson: We have to consult with both communities. You may not have to do that after amalgamation. As they're consulting, we already have the rights in our municipalities if there's a problem to dispose of the dog; seize it, dispose of it, impound it or do whatever. All we're going to do is give them the right to regulate the classes of dogs, which I think is fine. Is there a great debate? I'm about to move a motion.

Ms Arnold: The only concern I can see as far as eliminating section 3 in its entirety is perhaps just the confusion in relation to whether the Dog Owners' Liability Act or the proceedings under our bylaw would apply to a pit bull that has attacked someone. The dog owner could come forward and say that you have to now follow the proceedings in the Dog Owners' Liability Act, that you can't just destroy --

Mr Bisson: But it would fall under the other act, though. That's the point I'm getting at. If a dog goes out and attacks somebody, you have the right now, and it doesn't matter if it's a pit bull or it's a poodle -- I hope it's not a poodle; it would be a pretty mean one -- you would have the ability to be able to, first of all, seize that dog if it has attacked and also dispose of that dog. That's the point. You don't lose that if section 3 is taken out. With that in mind, I'm going to move a motion.

I move that subsection 1(3) of the bill be struck out. That would be the first motion, and I have a second one after.

The Chair: Just a point for clarification. We're not talking about removing section 3; were talking about removing subsection (3) of section 1.

Mr Bisson: Section 1, subsection (3).

The Chair: We'll distribute this motion to the committee members.

1140

Mr Leadston: Mr Chair, I believe Ms Arnold, the witness, thought Mr Bisson was referring to section 3, but he's referring to subsection 1(3). Am I correct?

Ms Arnold: Yes.

Mr Leadston: I think Ms Arnold would like an opportunity to comment.

Ms Arnold: I must apologize. I thought we were looking at section 3 and not subsection 1(3). Could I have an opportunity to respond to that motion on that basis?

The Chair: Go ahead.

Ms Arnold: An integral part of this enabling legislation, in order to be proactive and effective, is, quite frankly, the authority to seize, impound and kill these types of dogs. I'll give you an example. A person is walking down the street with a pit bull that poses a danger to the general public; if section 3 is eliminated, we only have the authority to write a ticket, hand it to the owner and say, "Have a nice day, and I hope you make it home without your dog attacking someone." In our minds, that's not proactive legislation; that's not effective enforcement.

We need the power to take proactive steps to take that dog, just like a police officer would take a semiautomatic weapon out of somebody's hands and impound it. The person would be provided with notice, would be provided with an appeal and a hearing for a full opportunity to address whether or not this dog was in fact a pit bull, and only upon a decision being rendered would the dog be destroyed. But with the greatest of respect, it's a very integral part of this proactive bill that we have the power to seize, impound and, after notice, appeal, hearing and the proper process, pursuant to the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, that the dog be destroyed.

The Chair: We have a motion under section 1 that subsection 1(3) of the bill be struck out. All in favour?

Mr Bisson: Recorded vote.

The Chair: We're asking for a recorded vote.

Ayes

Bisson, Hastings, Shea.

Nays

Boushy, Leadston, O'Toole, Pettit, Rollins, Smith.

The Chair: I declare that motion lost.

Mr Bisson: Just to fix a particular part in the bill: If you look in subsection 1(2) it reads: "A bylaw passed under clause (1)(a) may provide that dogs of a regulated class, breed, mixed class or mixed breed must..." and it goes on. It should be added after "regulated," and I'll move a motion, "or prohibited" in order to fix it, because there are other problems, and it would be the quickest way I see to fix it. I would move that subsection 1(2) of the bill be amended by inserting "or prohibited" after the word "regulated" in the second line.

The Chair: That motion is being distributed.

Mr Bisson: It just clarifies it so that we don't have to go through the bill and make a whole bunch of other changes.

The Chair: We have this amendment before the committee. Those in favour of this amendment? Those opposed to this amendment? This amendment is carried.

Mr Bisson: Seeing that I've lost the first one, I'm trying to figure out how to get around this. There might be another idea here. I guess I'm back to the same problem. I'm going to try another motion to try to work this out in some way so that we don't get into the pitfall that the parliamentary assistant seems to be falling into. Maybe what we need to do with subsection 1(3) is to clarify that you just can't seize and kill a dog on the basis of it being a pit bull or certain class of dog but that there needs to be some sort of behaviour on the part of the dog that would lead you to want to get rid of the dog.

Mr Shea: On a point of order, Mr Chair: I can't read the writing. We're trying to work on something that may assist.

Mr Bisson: I just tabled something very quickly.

Mr Shea: Can I ask someone who can read his writing better than I can to read the words we're trying to work on here and see if this would help you.

Mr Tom Melville: I'm Tom Melville. I'm a solicitor for the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing. This is just a suggestion for discussion; I'm not taking any side on the policy. It would be an addition to section 2, perhaps, a new subsection 2(5) of the bill to the effect that in addition to the requirements under subsection 2(4), and those are the hearing requirements, no action may be taken under subsection 1(3) to seize, impound or kill a dog -- those are the severe actions -- unless the council has determined, after a hearing, that the dog is dangerous. Is this what you're getting at, putting in the idea of a behaviour requirement again? It's a policy issue for the committee to decide.

Mr Bisson: I think we've got a whole bunch of problems with this.

The Chair: Mr Bisson, do you wish to make an amendment?

Mr Bisson: I'm going to listen to what the government has to say at this point. It looks like they've got a problem.

Mr Leadston: Obviously, I don't support that. It's interesting that my colleague approximately an hour ago was quite prepared to pass the bill in its entirety without any discussion, and it's interesting to note that my good colleague and friend here is the one who seems to be -- I hesitate to use the word -- nitpicking.

The two municipalities have lived side by side, they've worked and lived very closely together, and they've worked closely on this piece of legislation. With all due respect to the solicitors from all the ministries, they're asking for the tools to do the job within their respective municipalities.

I'm not a lawyer, and with all due respect to lawyers, they are also a governing body within this Legislature and within the municipalities. They help to develop and create the bylaws and the necessary tools for the city staff and the agencies within the municipalities to carry out the functions and wishes of the elected body, the council. They're asking for these very tools. They're not asking for alterations and changes, amendments and heretofores and whereases. This is what they're suggesting they need to do a very difficult job within their municipality.

As part of a team here, I don't think we need to alter any or all of this. Obviously, I'm not supporting the amendment that's proposed by Mr Bisson.

Mr John O'Toole (Durham East): I hope you don't take my comments as frivolous, but it would appear to me you're trying to put some teeth in your bylaw in this case here.

Mr Bisson: Teeth in your bylaw? What a choice of words.

Mr O'Toole: The pun was intended. My point is that the fundamentals of this are pretty clear. You really want to be able to distinguish on the grounds of breed, period. Behaviour is presumed. You've got to recognize what the words are saying. We're either going to deal with it or not, and I'm supportive of dealing with it. We're trying to get around subsection 1(3). The problem I have is some kind of due process, which I presume has happened, because you're dealing with behaviour. That's what the whole thing is about, really: presumed behaviour.

The only real question I have, and I don't know how you can deal with it, is the disposition of the animal. Some municipal bylaws prohibit execution; they must put them up for adoption to other owners. In this case, it would be outside of the city limits of Kitchener. You'd have to give them to Toronto or whoever. Do you understand what I mean?

The public reaction to that one word "kill" is the problem for me. They do exist in the world, I guess for the wrong reasons. We're presuming that they're violent, period. Your comparison to them being a weapon is very good, but weapons aren't living creatures. Do you understand?

Has it been categorically proven that this breed and its attendant behaviour is categorically threatening for society? We've had one doctor here. I don't take any single opinion. I don't care what you call your education, there are always several arguments. I bet I could get a veterinarian who'd absolutely corrupt his opinion and be from the same veterinary college. I'm sure you've wrestled with this longer than I have, and I agree with you, but I'm not qualified to say that that class of animal is, in all cases, in all situations, predisposed to be violent.

1150

Mr Hastings: Is it assumed in here that the cost for inserting the microchip would be the dog owner's responsibility? Is that implied?

Ms Arnold: That's correct. I believe the cost is approximately -- where's Dr Hess? -- $25 or $50.

Dr Hess: It depends on where you get it done. It's $15 through the humane society and about $45 through the veterinarians, but the veterinarians don't get the chips at the same rate, so I don't want to say they're charging too much.

Mr Hastings: Ms Arnold, is it assumed that the cost of the hearings would be the responsibility of the applicant or is the municipality to cover the cost? In my estimation, if you want to place responsibility on people, the cost of the hearing ought to be attributed back to the hearing proponent. It's not specified in here.

Ms Arnold: I don't anticipate that the cost of the hearing would be charged to the person seeking an appeal of the finding that his dog is a pit bull.

Mr Hastings: That's my point, that it ought to be.

Ms Arnold: I suppose there is the authority in the legislation that council, after consultation with the public, if they saw fit in their bylaw, they could make cost provisions.

Mr Hastings: I hope you'd go in that direction.

I would like to propose, Mr Chairman, that there be a time frame placed on this bill and that section 4 of the bill read "for two years only as of the date the bill receives royal assent."

Mr Bisson: You would sunset the bill?

Mr Hastings: Yes. Or "as amendments are made to the Municipal Act or the Dog Owners' Liability Act" that would get this stuff incorporated probably into the Municipal Act whenever that would come due, however you want to make the wording to that effect. So the first amendment --

The Chair: Are you proposing a motion?

Mr Hastings: I'm moving a motion that section 4 of the bill be amended so that it says "for two years only upon the date of royal assent." That would be the one amendment: for two years only. For example, if this bill took effect, assuming the House leader reported it as of, say, January 30, 1997, it would have effect for two years, to January 1999. That looks after the sunsetting. I have some concerns about the whole thing, but I'd still want to support Mr Leadston. The other suggestion is that we look at whenever the Municipal Act would be amended to incorporate the intended changes looked at and proposed by the cities of Kitchener and Waterloo in this bill. So it's either "or" or "and." It's incumbent upon municipal affairs then to make sure that when they make the changes to the Municipal Act, this thing does get included and does get recognized.

The Chair: Is that the end of your motion?

Mr Hastings: Yes.

The Chair: To follow procedure, we are going to have to write up this motion and distribute it to the committee members. We'll recess for two minutes.

The committee recessed from 1156 to 1204.

Mr Leadston: With respect to the proposed motion, I think it's imperative that at least perhaps Mrs Arnold, the city solicitor for the city of Kitchener, have an opportunity to respond in terms of how that will impact the many months of work and effort that have gone into the preparation of this. I'd appreciate an opportunity for Mrs Arnold at least to respond and clarify any issues that may still be of concern.

The Chair: We have copies of this motion before us. Do any committee members need clarification from the applicants on this?

Mr Shea: It's pretty clear.

The Chair: Is it clear to everyone? Mr Leadston, it may not be necessary. This motion is in the hands of the committee members now.

Mr Hastings: I appreciate the work that all the staff from both cities have done. Our primary concern is that I want to recognize that work and give them some additional tools, but at the same time, we have a responsibility to ensure that the red tape dimension of this thing doesn't get out of control. I'm also trying to balance out what municipal affairs and Sol Gen might do in the next couple of years -- sooner, hopefully, but around here you learn quickly that there are no time lines. That's why I'm proposing that this thing be repealed in two years, although it doesn't say that -- actually, it does say that: "on the second anniversary of the day this bill receives royal assent."

It also signals to the other municipalities that we don't want the checkerboard features, that we recognize special problems but we also know that if other municipalities are going to approach this government for this kind of assistance, it will still have the two-year time frame in it, sunsetting it. That's what we're trying to do with other legislation around here, but it hasn't happened very often. Those are the major reasons for this proposal.

Mr Leadston: Obviously, I'm not prepared to support the motion. I think the municipalities -- and indeed it has been expressed here -- have put a great deal of time and effort into the preparation and they want the legislation to deal with an issue in their community. They don't want to have to come back in two years' time and start from scratch. They're saying that this is what they require; allow it to be an opportunity to develop a legislation process. It could be included province-wide. It has been over a year since this process has started.

The Chair: Any further discussion on this motion? All in favour? Those opposed? I declare the motion lost.

Mr Smith: During the course of the conversation this morning I heard concerns raised by the parliamentary assistant, the assistant deputy minister and in part my colleague Mr Hastings with respect to the possible implications that section 3 would suggest in terms of this act prevailing over others. I haven't heard any clarification to the contrary, so having said that, it would be my viewpoint that I wouldn't be able to support section 3 as it's included in this bill from that perspective, and in that regard, I move that section 3 be deleted in its entirety.

The Chair: I'll ask Mr Prins, our clerk, to comment on that. I'm not sure if you can declare a section --

Clerk of the Committee: Procedurally you can't move that a section be struck out. The procedure would be just to vote against it. If you don't want that section to carry, don't vote for it.

Mr Smith: Okay. Then what I will do is reaffirm my concerns, the concerns I've heard from the parliamentary assistant and others this morning, about the inclusion of that section in the bill, and I will not be supporting it.

The other item that I did have is a matter of clarification. I understand the applicants are aware of this. It's a motion that applies to subsection 2(4). It reads as follows:

I move that subsection 2(4) of the bill be amended by inserting "and" after "given" in the third line.

The Chair: Discussion on this motion?

Mr Leadston: No, I would say call the question. This is with respect to the inclusion of "and"?

The Chair: Yes.

Mr Leadston: I think it was indicated earlier that I was in agreement. The witnesses were in agreement to the inclusion of "and" after "given."

The Chair: Any further discussion on this motion?

All in favour of this motion? I declare this unanimous.

1210

Next question: Are the members ready to vote? Mr O'Toole?

Mr O'Toole: Yes, I just want to be on the record very clearly. I know I've said this before. I just want to make sure I'm not misunderstood. My most serious difficulty is with subsection 1(3), as I've stated before; more specifically, the action of being killed. I realize section 4 deals with that. Subsection 2(4) that we've just amended requires there be some process before the animal was destroyed. This may be a question to the parliamentary assistant. He has implied that the Municipal Act and other acts are being reviewed, that would deal with this situation. That was why I would be supporting the bill, hoping that the appropriate ministry would be dealing with this class of animal issue.

Putting it on the record is to say that I recognize the dilemma. I'm not convinced there's categorical proof that a class of animal can be deemed as "should be destroyed," and therefore, should not exist. That's pretty profound, very profound. I'm not convinced that I've had sufficient balanced evidence to conclude that that's the right decision.

That may sound ambiguous to you, but do you understand what my point is? You've been through a process, however prolonged that was, to determine that a certain class of animals should be destroyed, everywhere in the world really. I need to think that we should ensure that the ministry in their review is dealing with it from that point of view, whichever minister. If that's a question, could you respond to me, whether it's the PA or the deputy or whoever?

Dr Young: Normally, in reviewing the animal welfare, certainly this being an issue that is current, it would be part of the review. A ministry would look at a situation like this, try to gain as much information as possible and ultimately would put forward in the form of the bill the government's position on this issue. So yes, something like would be part of a study that is included as part of animal welfare.

Mr O'Toole: If I support this bill, if we as the government support this bill, does it now, from this date when it gets royal assent, give them power to just go around, collect up all this particular class of animals and destroy them?

Ms Arnold: Municipalities already have the right under the Municipal Act as it's currently drafted to "seize, impound and kill" -- those are the words -- any dog found running at large, and that does go on. Any dog that is on private property we cannot go on and seize pursuant to this bill or a bylaw passed thereunder. We would have to comply with the Provincial Offences Act provisions for obtaining a search warrant from a justice in compliance with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms' rights against unreasonable search and seizure.

If somebody were walking a pit bull down the street and an officer came upon that situation, yes, under this present wording the officer would have the authority to seize that dog from the owner and provide the owner with an opportunity to have a hearing, an appeal process, to challenge whether the dog fell into that category of a prohibited type of dog. That, I suppose, is the step beyond the current powers that we have under the Municipal Act to seize, impound and kill dogs found running at large.

This type of legislation has been in force for six to eight years in Edmonton, Winnipeg and Lachine, Quebec, and by all accounts has worked well. Certainly, if there is great public opposition to pit bulls being prohibited, then democratically it may prevail that for that type of dog we don't pass this type of bylaw. It hasn't been the experience of our councils or staff that there is widespread support to allow pit bulls in our municipalities. It is a quintessentially local issue that each municipality is grappling with. Other municipalities ban other types of animals. This is an issue of great concern for our municipalities, and that's why we're here today.

Mr O'Toole: I guess I'll be supporting it only because I want the ministry to be committed to a complete review. This is my last question. At the end of the day when that review that you've suggested will go forward is complete, it would override any bylaws that had been constitutionally executed?

Dr Young: Generally when legislation is brought forward, because it's the most recent, it overrides other legislation. Certainly, if our legislation was addressing this in either the same way or in a different way, I presume that we would override the existing legislation. That's correct.

Mr Shea: Could I just add to that as well for Mr O'Toole, to pick on Mr Smith's point, that if we indeed drop section 3, that also gives further weight to that taking effect.

Mr O'Toole: That was the point I was going to make, and I appreciate that.

Mr Dave Boushy (Sarnia): I think we all have some kind of reservation about this bill, but we are very sympathetic to the request. This act is not saying to the province and the municipality to go out and kill the animal. It just allows the municipality to come up with a bylaw that suits their own people. They might decide eventually not to go ahead with this bylaw, but we are allowing them to go ahead with a bylaw. They're elected people, like you and I, and they will answer to the people. They will advertise the bylaw, they'll have public hearings, and our government does encourage local municipalities to conduct their own business. That's what it's all about.

As far as the animal, I'm not concerned about a dog being killed if it means saving a human being. Why should we protect a dog on the street that may kill someone? A dog is a dog is a dog, as far as I'm concerned. A human being is a human being, and I'm willing to support this. It's about time. I think we have discussed this for two or three hours. Let's vote on it and get on with something else.

Mr Shea: I have spoken and I've given the position of the government. I have done that, and that's set aside. The comments I want to make now are personal comments and they reflect my position as a member of the Legislature.

I think a class in ethics would have an intriguing time wrestling with this one, indeed listening not only to the arguments from the council for the municipality but also to some of the comments that were made here around the chamber. I have a concern. If one presents graphic evidence to support the request that the municipality brings forward -- and I respect that. I've had to live with that in my own political life. Let there be no doubt about that. But by the same token, there is a balance in a civil society and I take a look at this. It's not just a matter of a dog is a dog and so that's just off to one side, while a human is something else and off to another side. This issue is somewhat broader than that, I would put to you.

I'm not particularly impressed with the fact that a municipality has wrestled with this for a year and therefore has a right to say: "This is what we want. Just give it to us. That's the end of the story." This Legislature is bound and under solemn obligation to wrestle with the ethics of any issue that's being put before it, and this is one that has some concern to me. You could use a graphic response to this every bit as much as the visual evidence put to us, which was tragic in its own right, and say, "You exist, therefore you must die." The fact is that what is being asked for is an identification of a breed, and because you have been born in that breed you are now to be disposed of.

The question raised just a moment by Mr O'Toole puts it right on the money: to suggest that you walk down the street now with a dog under leash, no one can take that away from you without process. Everything is to be judged by behaviour at that moment. Behaviour is where the law is positive.

You suddenly are wrestling with the issue that it is no longer behaviour, it is now breed, and there is empirical evidence, there is anecdotal evidence that has been put before us today to say the breed, because of a number of experiences, obviously is dangerous and must be separated from the community. One member or more of this committee has pointed out to us that there could be other anecdotal evidence put before us by other specialists to counter that. It's because of that that I have some concern. It is a concern unless there are safeguards for process not only for the community but also for the animal itself. Unless there is some response to that, I have some concerns about how that's applied.

1220

I will support the bill in large measure, with certain exceptions. I do not want to see section 3 remain and I will vote for its being removed from this. I would prefer to see 1(3) removed as well, but we've been losing that battle today as it goes through it, so at least I caution us with this. It is not a simple matter and this is not just a matter of regulatory change. There is a fundamental shift being proposed today, and regardless of what other jurisdictions have done, they will have to answer for their actions. I personally have to answer for mine as well. That's a personal statement. I make it very clear I am not making those statements on behalf of any ministry or the government, but those are my own views as a member of this Legislative Assembly.

Mr Hastings: I want to make some comments. I have struggled to manoeuvre with this bill so that the folks from both cities would end up with a tool that could help them. I cannot support this bill in the way it is written, even with the amendments. I've been trying to be accommodating, but I have to say to Mr Leadston that when we give this particular set of powers to this set of municipalities and blithely make statements that it's working in Lachine, Quebec, etc, I don't think we've really wrestled with the ethics.

On the other hand, we have Dr Hess saying that it's okay to kill these creatures because that's the way it is under the legislation. That's another side issue, but a big ethic as well. We should be looking at how animals can assist us in terms of saving human beings. I know that's a very controversial issue because I've seen both sides of it as well.

On the whole, I think my major concern is that we are giving so much delegated power to people today to allow them to go out on the basis of behaviour and breed, to make decisions. And don't get it in your heads that I'm suddenly in support of pit bull dogs. We've had this issue, as M. Bisson said, before us in other ways.

This is a hard issue for me to deal with. Because there is no limit on the discretionary power, there is no time frame because we don't want this municipality coming back, the same argument can be made for the next municipality that comes and asks for this legislation if it isn't made a top priority of the Municipal Act revisions and reform.

The Chair: I will ask the question again. Are members of this committee ready to vote on Bill Pr71?

Shall section 1 carry, as amended? Carried.

Shall section 2 carry, as amended? Carried.

Shall section 3 carry? All those in favour of section 3? Those opposed to section 3? Defeated.

Shall section 4 carry? Carried.

Shall section 5 carry? Carried.

Shall the preamble carry? Carried.

Shall the title carry? Carried.

Shall the bill carry? Carried.

Now I'll ask for a vote on whether the bill will carry. All those in favour of the bill, as amended? Opposed? Carried.

Shall I report the bill to the House? Carried.

I wish to thank the applicants and all parties involved and I now declare this order of business closed.

The committee adjourned at 1226.