I live at the base of PKOLS. I have a dog. I am also a lawyer and feel compelled to look at this debate (debacle?) from a legal perspective. Our laws (including municipal bylaws) are meant to protect fundamental rights and reflect societal needs and values. Saanich’s People, Pets, and Parks strategy falls short. Whatever your views on the strategy, the lives and well-being of many members of our community are impacted, and a change this big deserves due process of the law.
I have written a legal summary and sent it off to Saanich council analyzing these legal concerns. Here are the highlights. First, PKOLS is an important location in the history of the WSANEC Nation, but the strategy is entirely missing any discussion of First Nations consultation needed as per the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act. Second, the biggest change, moving from “off leash and under control” to “on leash” could infringe on Charter rights. The restrictions may impact life and liberty rights under section 7 of the Charter.
Also, seniors and those with disabilities, many of whom struggle with handling a leash, will be limited to tiny off-leash areas for their dog walks. For those not familiar, other than dog parks (think less running and walking and more dog talk), off-leash trail space is basically cut down from all Saanich parks to a less than two-kilometer trail in PKOLS – yikes! There is just one disabled parking space at the trailhead. Age and disability are protected grounds under section 15 of the Charter, and also under the BC Human Rights Code, and the needs of these park users are not sufficiently considered in the strategy.
As rights may be infringed with these changes, Saanich needs to demonstrate any infringement is reasonable and proportional. If the bylaw changes happen as is, Saanich may be hard-pressed to do so.
But good news – the strategy is not yet law. Saanich can undertake updated and inclusive consultation to ensure the changes are reasonable, including on-the-ground interaction and statistical analysis of actual park users. They can implement the plan in phases, so changes are as minimal as possible. How about an initial trial with education and enforcement of the more precise definition of “under control”? And they absolutely must address the unique needs of vulnerable groups and consult with First Nations. Come on Saanich, let’s give due process a chance.
Kim Willey
Saanich
