2. By-law Harmonization-Discharge of Firearms

Harmonisation des rÈglements municipaux – DÉcharge d’armes À feu

Committee Recommendations as Amended

That Council approve the Discharge of Firearms By-law, attached as Document 1 with an effective date of January 1, 2003, as amended by the following:

1. WHEREAS a proposed, harmonized Discharge of Firearms By-law is being considered by the Emergency and Protective Services Committee and Council;

AND WHEREAS the Municipal Act permits Council to, for the purpose of public safety, pass by-laws to prohibit the discharge of firearms in defined areas of the City;

AND WHEREAS part of the Trans-Canada Trail (TCT) is located in the former Township of Goulbourn;

AND WHEREAS in the proposed by-law, the only provision applicable to that part of the TCT in the former Township of Goulbourn requires that firearms not be discharged on, over or across it;

AND WHEREAS the TCT is used year-round by members of the public engaged in any of the five approved uses of the Trail, specifically, cycling, equestrian riding, skiing, snowmobiling and walking;

AND WHEREAS the TCT, which is city-owned, has recently undergone significant upgrades and is being further promoted for public use;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Emergency and Protective Services Committee recommend to Council that the discharge of firearms be prohibited within 450 meters of either side of the Trans Canada Trail located in the former Township of Goulbourn and that the proposed by-law be amended accordingly.

2. That the shaded area defining discharge of firearms not permitted surrounding the Village of Stittsville be further squared off by extending northwards to Hwy 417 as well as southwards to Shea and Fallowfield Roads.

3. That, in addition to the existence of a registered Plan of Subdivision, staff require that an application for a building permit within that subdivision serve as an activation mechanism for the application of the discharge of firearms by-law.

4. That staff recognize that the use of blanks when used for animal training purposes would constitute a legitimate, permissible exemption.

5. WHEREAS the City of Ottawa is proposing to harmonize the Discharge of Firearms By-law(s);

BE IT RESOLVED that an exemption permit be granted to a property owner to protect his/her property from harm from wildlife, subject to staff exercising discretion based on criteria taking into account public safety, urgency of the situation, geographical considerations and any other pertinent factors.

6. That the by-law be reviewed in January 2004 and that information booths be established at all the country fairs, beginning with the Central Canada Exhibition.

Recommandations modifiÉes du Comité

Que le Comité des services de protection et d’urgence recommande au Conseil d’approuver, tel qu’amendé comme suit, le Règlement sur la décharge d’armes à feu (document 1 çi‑annexé), devant prendre effet le 1^er janvier 2003 :

1. ATTENDU QUE le Comité des services de protection et d’urgence et le Conseil envisagent l’adoption d’un règlement harmonisé sur la décharge d’armes à feu;

ATTENDU QUE la Loi sur les municipalités permet au Conseil, pour assurer la sécurité publique, d’adopter des règlements qui interdisent la décharge d’armes à feu à l’intérieur de secteurs définis de la ville;

ATTENDU QU’un tronçon du Sentier transcanadien (STC) se trouve dans l’ancien canton de Goulbourn;

ATTENDU QUE dans le règlement proposé, la seule disposition applicable à ce tronçon du STC qui se trouve dans l’ancien canton de Goulbourn stipule qu’aucune arme à feu ne doit être déchargée sur, au-dessus ou en travers du sentier;

ATTENDU QUE le STC est utilisé toute l’année par le public qui s’adonne à une ou plusieurs des cinq activités approuvées, nommément le cyclisme, l’équitation, le ski, la motoneige et la marche;

ATTENDU QUE des améliorations importantes ont été apportées récemment au STC, qui appartient à la Ville, et qu’on prend des initiatives afin de promouvoir davantage l’utilisation publique du sentier;

PAR CONSÉQUENT, IL EST RÉSOLU QUE le Comité des services de protection et d’urgence recommande au Conseil d’interdire la décharge d’armes à feu à moins de 450 mètres de chaque côté du tronçon du Sentier transcanadien qui se trouve dans l’ancien canton de Goulbourn, et que le règlement proposé soit modifié conformément.

2. Que la zone ombragée définissant la zone d’interdiction de décharge d’armes à feu autour du village de Stittsville soit agrandie en la prolongeant, au nord, jusqu’à l’autoroute 417, et, au sud, jusqu’aux chemins Shea et Fallowfield.

3. Qu’en plus d’un plan de lotissement enregistré, le personnel exige que le dépôt d’une Demande de permis de construire visant ce lotissement soit le mécanisme d’activation de la mise en application du Règlement sur la décharge d’armes à feu.

4. Que le personnel reconnaisse que l’utilisation de fausses balles pour l’entraînement d’animaux constituerait une exemption légitime et admissible.

5. ATTENDU QUE la Ville d’Ottawa propose d’harmoniser les règlements sur la décharge d’armes à feu;

IL EST PAR CONSÉQUENT RÉSOLU QU’un permis d’exemption soit accordé à tout propriétaire afin qu’il puisse protéger sa propriété contre les animaux sauvages, et ce à la discrétion du personnel, d’après des critères qui tiennent compte de la sécurité publique, de l’urgence de la situation, des considérations géographiques et de tout autre facteur pertinent.

6. Que le règlement fasse l’objet d’une revue en janvier 2004 et que des kiosques d’information soient mis en place à toutes les foires agricoles, en commençant par l’Exposition du Canada central.

ADOPTÉES,

telles que modifiées

Documentation

1. General Manager, Emergency and Protective Services Department report dated 27 May 2002 is immediately attached (ACS2002-EPS-BYL-0007).

2. Extract of Draft Minute, Emergency and Protective Services Committee 27 May 02, follows the report and contains a record of the voting.

3. The following written submissions are on file with the City Clerk:

a) The Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters (dated 7 June 02);

b) Harry and Yvonne Gliege, Ratepayers, Goulbourn Ward;

c) Louise Beggs, Goulbourn (Stittsville);

d) Bruce McNabb;

e) Richard (Dick) Blanchfield, Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunter, Zone F;

f) Paul Mussell, Past President (2000-2001), Ottawa Federation of Agriculture;

g) Selena Walker, Goulbourn (Stittsville);

h) Lynn Duffy, Goulbourn (Munster);

i) David Brown, Cumberland (Vars).

That the Emergency and Protective Services Committee recommend to Council that the Discharge of Firearms By-law, attached as Document 1, with an effective date of January 1, 2003, be approved.

RECOMMANDATION DU RAPPORT

Que le Comité des services de protection et d’urgence recommande au Conseil municipal d’approuver le projet de « Règlement municipal sur l’utilisation des armes à feu » ci‑annexé (Document 1), et qu’il prenne effet le 1^er janvier 2003.

BACKGROUND

Section 210(36) of the Ontario Municipal Act grants municipalities the authority to pass by-laws to regulate the discharge of firearms as follows:

“For the purpose of public safety, for prohibiting or regulating the discharge of guns or other firearms, air-guns, spring-guns, cross-bows, long-bows or any class or type thereof in the municipality or in any defined areas thereof. 1989, c. 11, s.7(3).”

The foregoing municipal authority provides for the application of different policies, or rules, within different areas of the City.

Federal and provincial authorities related to firearms also exist. The current federal regulations deal primarily with gun registration and with criminal issues, the latter through the Criminal Code. At the provincial level, the Ministry of Natural Resources regulates hunting issues primarily during the short periods over the course of the year when hunting is permitted. A municipal by-law is required to regulate, on a day-to-day basis and for any purpose, the discharge of firearms within specified areas of the City to provide a safe environment for all citizens of the City of Ottawa.

The new City has inherited, from the former municipalities, various by-laws regulating the discharge of firearms within defined geographical areas based on former municipal boundaries. Most of the by-laws utilize maps to demonstrate those areas, although the areas are unevenly defined and the maps are based on outdated information. Generally, those various by-laws provide for prohibitions within urban areas and based on specified distances from registered plans of subdivisions, school and recreational property, public lands and places of worship. A number of the by-laws exclude cross-bows and long-bows from the definition of a firearm, thereby permitting their discharge. The by-laws were enacted, and continue to be required, in consideration of the municipal role with respect to public safety.

All of the current Discharge of Firearms By-laws include certain exemptions from the prohibition, such as for peace officers in the performance of their duties; for persons acting in defence of life, property or livestock; for members of bona fide gun clubs, rifle ranges, and skeet clubs in specific areas; for persons firing blank ammunition for the purpose of starting or controlling certain sporting events; for persons designated to destroy vicious dogs or rodents in the performance of their duty.

Definition of Firearm

Prior to 1989, Section 210 of the Municipal Act, concerning the Discharge of Firearms, did not include bows within its definition. That section was however, in 1989, repealed and replaced by Section 210(36), which does not differentiate between guns and bows, and includes cross-bows and long-bows. That new section precipitated the differences in the definition of firearms between the various former municipal by-laws as some were enacted following the change. Further, B.B. guns and pellet guns are included within the firearms definition under air-guns and spring-guns.

The new Municipal Act, which takes effect on January 1, 2003, continues to include cross-bows and long-bows within the section dealing with the discharge of firearms. By-laws from several of the former municipalities, such as former Cumberland, Gloucester, Goulbourn and Ottawa, include both guns and bows within the firearm definition. The by-laws of the former Kanata, Nepean, Osgoode, Rideau and Vanier exclude bows in their definition of a firearm.

Discharge of Bows

In the case of the former Kanata, two separate by-laws exist: one respecting the Discharge of Firearms and one for the Discharge of Bows, the latter including an administrative process to provide for the use of bows in specified areas. Historically, the basis for the differentiation between the two involves, among other issues, a number of cases in which the noise associated with the use of guns during hunting activity caused significant concern thereby resulting in the requirement for hunters to only use bows, in certain areas.

The Discharge of Bows By-law defines the areas within the municipality in which this activity is permitted. The discharge of bows is prohibited within urban areas of the former Kanata but, is permitted in its rural areas, subject to a number of conditions. Notwithstanding those conditions, there is provision for the exemptions from the prohibition for members of a bona fide archery club in a specific area zoned for the purpose and for educational facilities, which give instruction in the use of bows.

DISCUSSION

The proposed Discharge of Firearms By-law, attached as Document 1, incorporates the basic provisions of the former municipal by-laws to establish one harmonized by-law. Such provisions include the prohibition of discharge within urban areas, registered plans of subdivisions, school and recreational property, public lands and places of worship; and, the control of discharge in rural areas. The definition of firearm within the proposed by-law is based on the current and new Municipal Act and therefore, includes cross-bows and long-bows. On that basis, the former Kanata stand-alone Discharge of Bows By-law, including the administrative process, is no longer required, although there continues to be provision for permitting discharge of bows only, within certain areas of the former Kanata in order to address the specific community issue that precipitated it. The proposed by-law also repeals the former municipal by-laws.

It is further proposed that the practice of identifying the prohibited areas through the use of maps continues. Such maps are attached to the proposed by-law as Schedules A-P, and are identified by Ward. The maps outline the boundaries within which the discharge of firearms is prohibited.

The effective date of January 1, 2003 is proposed to allow for sufficient public and agency notification.

Despite the proposed new harmonized municipal by-law, other regulations, provincial and federal, are relevant to the issue of firearms discharge and will continue to apply, as appropriate. Among those are: the Canadian Aviation Regulations, the Criminal Code, the Migratory Birds Convention Act, the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act, the Trespass to Property Act.

Discharge in Rural Areas

Only minor amendments to the existing discharge of firearms regulations currently in place in the former rural municipalities are proposed. Those minor changes, to certain of the prohibited areas of the rural municipalities as identified on the maps, are necessary to account for population and development growth that has occurred since the former municipal by-laws were enacted, in consideration of the safety of residents in the affected areas. The boundaries of the prohibited areas shaded on the maps are based on natural lines, such as bodies of water, wherever possible, as well as concession lines and roadways. The “squaring-off” of those prohibited areas will benefit the public, both firearm-users and non-firearm-users, and enforcement personnel by more clearly defining areas in which firearms may be discharged.

The proposed by-law also includes a provision whereby a firearm, other than a bow, may not be discharged within 450 metres of land on a registered plan of subdivision. That provision is based, in part, on the practice of specifying such a distance, which was incorporated into most of the former rural municipal by-laws, and is consistent with that which was provided in those by-laws with the exception of that for the former Goulbourn and Osgoode, those two specifying 500 metres. The 450-metre buffer distance will apply to registered planned subdivisions, places of worship, public halls and school property. The distance provision is new only to the former West Carleton but, it is viewed as a best practice and as necessary for public safety reasons. Further, the distance provision is intended to ensure public safety by creating an automatic buffer for new registered planned subdivisions, as they are established over time, and until the maps (Schedules A-P) can be updated.

Although bows are included in the definition of a firearm, the distance travelled by a projectile emanating from a bow commonly used in hunting and in sport archery, is considerably less than that of other types of firearms. Experts in the use of bows indicate that a 200-metre distance represents a sufficient buffer for the purpose of public safety. On that basis, the buffer distance for bows, identified by the applicable provisions of the proposed by-law, is set at 200 metres.

Exemptions

The exemptions to the discharge prohibition, outlined in the former municipal by-laws, have been incorporated into the proposed by-law, with three additions, specifically: facilities operated by or for a police force, persons discharging a bow for target practice in conjunction with an educational institution, and persons engaged in a sporting event, with prior notification and approval. The first of the three is necessary to allow the discharge of firearms for police training purposes, such as that for the Ottawa Police Service, provided at Algonquin College. The second new exemption is deemed appropriate to allow schools the ability to instruct students in the safe use of bows. The third will allow legitimate sporting events, such as archery demonstrations, to take place, in part, for public education purposes provided that specific requirements are met, such as prior written notification to the City and indemnification.

Further, prior to 2001 and by formal agreement, the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources managed a number of forested areas owned by the former Regional Municipality of Ottawa-Carleton. In 2001, the City of Ottawa assumed the responsibility for managing those Agreement Forests, which are essentially located in the rural areas of the new City and within which the discharge of firearms has traditionally been permitted. On that basis, it is appropriate to provide for an exemption from the discharge prohibition within the limits of the City-owned portions of the Agreement Forests. The only Agreement Forests in which the discharge of firearms has traditionally been prohibited are the Torbolton and Cumberland forests and therefore, those are not among the exempted areas. The recommendations with respect to the Agreement Forests are consistent with that which has been in place historically.

Benefits

In general, the proposed by-law represents one set of regulations, and one comprehensive set of maps defining regulated areas, to which the public and by-law enforcement personnel may refer, thereby reducing confusion for the public and facilitating enforcement. The expected result will be increased voluntary compliance, thereby ensuring public safety while still providing for the discharge of firearms where acceptable from the safety perspective.

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPLICATIONS

There are no direct environmental implications associated with the recommendation.

RURAL IMPLICATIONS

Rural distinctiveness recognized by the former municipal regulations has been maintained or has undergone minimal modification to help its representation in the context of the proposed by-law revisions.

CONSULTATION

Corporate

The Ottawa Police Service and the Forestry Services Section of the Surface Operations Branch of TUPW have participated in the development of the proposals and concur with the recommendations. A presentation to the Agriculture and Rural Affairs Advisory Committee was undertaken on April 23, 2002.

External Agencies

The Kemptville District of the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (OMNR), the National Capital Commission, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and the local school boards have been consulted with respect to the proposals. The OMNR, which regulates hunting and trapping related activities in the province and therefore, has an interest in the development of municipal firearms regulations, concurs generally with the proposals.

Public

A notice advertising public consultation sessions and the availability of the proposed by-law for review appeared in The Ottawa Citizen, The Ottawa Sun and Le Droit on April 19 and 26, 2002, and on May 3 and 10, 2002. Similar advertisements also appeared in community newspapers such as the West Carleton Review (April 19^th); the Weekly Journal (April 20^th); Ottawa South This Month (April 24^th); the Stittsville Signal (May 3^rdand 10^th).

Five public meetings took place as follows: Kinburn Client Service Centre, April 23^rd; Orleans Client Service Centre, April 24^th; Metcalfe Community Centre, May 6^th; North Gower Recreation Centre, May 7^th; and, the Goulbourn Municipal Building, May 13^th. Special meetings were held upon request.

Copies of the report and proposed by-law were made available at the public meetings, at Client Service Centres, and upon request.

A summary of the results of the public consultation is provided in Document 2.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

There are no direct financial implications associated with the recommendation.

ATTACHMENTS

Document 1 – Proposed Discharge of Firearms By-law: Schedules A – P included.

Document 2 – Summary of Results of Public Consultation

DISPOSITION

Emergency and Protective Services will notify the public accordingly. Corporate Services, Legal Services Branch, in consultation with Emergency and Protective Services, to process the proposed by-law to Council for enactment and the set fine orders.

DOCUMENT 1

BY-LAW NO. 2002 -

A by-law of the City of Ottawa respecting the regulating of the discharge of firearms.

The Council of the City of Ottawa enacts as follows:

DEFINITIONS AND INTERPRETATION

DEFINITIONS

1. In this by-law:

“Chief of Police” means the Chief of Police of the City of Ottawa or authorized representatives;

“City of Ottawa” means the municipal corporation known as the City of Ottawa or the geographic area of the City of Ottawa, as the context requires;

“firearm” means any class or type of gun or other firearm including a shotgun, rifle, air-gun, spring-gun, long-bow or cross-bow;

“farmer” means a person whose occupation is farming on land that he or she is entitled to occupy, and,

(a) who has livestock or poultry on the land,

(b) who is tilling or cultivating the land for crops, or

“highway” means a common and public highway, street, avenue, parkway, driveway, square, place, bridge, viaduct, or trestle, any part of which is intended for, or used by, the general public for the passage of vehicles and includes the area between the lateral property lines thereof;

“navigable water” means navigable water pursuant to the Navigable Waters Protection Act, R.S.C.1985, Chap. N-22;

“peace officer” means,

(a) a police officer as defined in the Police Services Act, R.S.O. 1990, Chap. P.15, as amended,

(b) conservation officer appointed to enforce the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act, 1997, S.O. 1997, Chap. 41, as amended,

(c) a municipal law enforcement officer appointed pursuant to section 15 of the Police Services Act to enforce the by-laws of the City,

(d) a peace officer as defined in the Criminal Code,

(e) a member of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Force, or

(f) any person appointed pursuant to paragraph 7(1)(d) of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act, R.S. 1985, c. R-10, as amended, to enforce or carry out the enforcement of the National Capital Commission Traffic and Property Regulations, C.R.C., Chap. 1044, as amended.

INTERPRETATION

2. (1) This by-law includes the Schedules annexed hereto and the Schedules are hereby declared to form part of this by-law.

(2) It is declared that if any section, subsection or part or parts thereof be declared by any Court of Law to be bad, illegal or ultra vires, such section, subsection or part or parts shall be deemed to be severable and all parts hereof are declared to be separate and independent and enacted as such.

REGULATIONS

DISCHARGE OF FIREARMS

3. (1) No person shall discharge a firearm in any area that is shown as a shaded area on any of the maps attached as Schedules “A” to “P” inclusive or on any navigable water located within or abutting the shaded areas.

(2) Despite subsection (1), a person may discharge a long-bow or cross-bow in the hatched area within the shaded area on Schedule “E”.

4. (1) In the areas that are not shaded on any of the maps attached as Schedules “A” to “P” inclusive or that are not navigable water as described in subsection 3(1), no person shall discharge a firearm,

(a) on, over or across any highway or portion thereof;

(b) on, over or across any public land within the City of Ottawa including parks, conservation areas, forestry lands formerly managed by the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and described in By-law No. 2001-439 of the City of Ottawa, school property, recreational areas, but not including,

(i) an unopened road allowance,

(ii) the forestry lands formerly managed by the Ministry of Natural Resources described in By-law No. 2001-439 and known as:

(A) Carp Hills Forest;

(B) Corkery Woodlands;

(D) Pinery-Long Swamp Forest, and

(iii) South March Highlands;

(d) on land on a registered plan of subdivision; or

(e) within 450 meters of land on a registered plan of subdivision.

(2) Despite paragraphs (c) and (d) of subsection (1) and subsection 3(2), no person shall discharge a long bow or cross bow within 200 metres of:

(a) any place of worship, public hall or school property; or

(b) land on a registered plan of subdivision.

EXEMPTIONS

5. Despite Sections 3 and 4, this by-law shall not restrict or regulate the discharge of firearms by the following:

(a) a peace officer in the performance of his or her duty;

(b) a person appointed as a municipal law enforcement officer or as an agent for the City of Ottawa or for a provincial or federal government agency for the purpose of destroying sick, injured or vicious animals in the performance of this stated duty;

(c) a farmer or his or her agent, in order to scare or destroy animals that are found in the act of killing or injuring livestock or poultry and wildlife destroying his or her property in accordance with the Migratory Birds Convention Act, 1994, Chap.22 and the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act, 1997, S.O. 1997, Chap. 41, as amended,

(d) members of a bona fide gun club, archery club, rifle range, or skeet club in a specific area, zoned for the purpose and, where applicable, only with the prior approval of the Firearms Office, Ontario Ministry of Public Safety and Security;

(e) a facility operated by or for a municipal, provincial or federal police force;

(f) a person firing blank ammunition for or in connection with lawful use in a motion picture, television, stage productions and historical displays or educational programs of a public museum;

(g) a person firing blank ammunition only for the purpose of starting or controlling a sporting event of a similar nature to foot racing, sailing or golf;

(h) a person discharging a long-bow for target practice provided that the practice is in conjunction with and under the direct sponsorship of a school board;

(i) a person or persons engaged in an archery sporting event provided that:

(i) the event lasts no more than 4 consecutive days,

(ii) 14 days in advance of the event, the sponsor of the event provides to the Director of By-law Services written confirmation that all applicable Provincial and Federal approvals have been obtained, proof of insurance satisfactory to the City’s Insurance Administrator, and an agreement to indemnify the City; and

(iii) the Chief of Police has no objections.

OFFENCES AND PENALTIES

OFFENCES

6. Any person who contravenes any of the provisions of this by-law is guilty of an offence.

FINES

7. Every person who is convicted of an offence under this by-law is liable to a fine as provided for in the Provincial Offences Act, R.S.O. 1990 Chap. P.33, as amended.

PROHIBITION ORDER

8. When a person has been convicted of an offence under this by-law:

(a) the Ontario Court of Justice; or

(b) any court of competent jurisdiction thereafter

may, in addition to any other penalty imposed on the person convicted, make an order prohibiting the continuation or repetition of the offence by the person convicted.

ADMINISTRATION

ENFORCEMENT

9. This by-law shall be enforced by the Chief of Police and the Municipal By-law Enforcement Officers of the City.

SHORT TITLE

10. This by-law may be referred to as the “Discharge of Firearms By-law”.

REPEAL

11. The following by-laws, or portions of by-laws of the old municipalities are repealed:

(a) By-law Number 12-91 of the old Corporation of the Township of Cumberland entitled “A By-law to regulate the discharge of Firearms in designated areas of the Township of Cumberland”, as amended;

(b) By-law No. 193 of 1991 of the old Corporation of the City of Gloucester entitled “A By-law Concerning the Discharge of Firearms and Other Classes of Hand-Held Weapons”;

(c) By-law 33-91 of the old Corporation of the Township of Goulbourn entitled “Being a by-law to regulate the discharge of Firearms within the Corporation of the Township of Goulbourn”;

(d) By-law Number 167-89 of the old Corporation of the City of Kanata entitled “Being a By-law of the Corporation of the City of Kanata to prohibit the discharge of guns within the City of Kanata”;

(e) By-law No. 121-93 of the old Corporation of the City of Kanata entitled “Being a By-law of the Corporation of the City of Kanata to regulate the discharge of bows within the City of Kanata”;

(f) By-law No. 96-83 of the old Corporation of the City of Nepean entitled “Being a By-law of The Corporation of the City of Nepean to regulate the discharge of guns or other firearms within the City of Nepean”, as amended;

(g) By-law No. 35-1985 of the old Corporation of the Township of Osgoode entitled “a by-law to regulate the discharge of firearms in designated areas of the Township of Osgoode;

(h) the heading preceding Section 2 and Section 2 of By-law Number 117-91 of the old Corporation of the City of Ottawa entitled “A by-law of The Corporation of the City of Ottawa respecting public nuisances”, as amended;

(i) By-law No. 7/92 of the old Corporation of the Township of Rideau entitled “Being a by-law to regulate the discharge of firearms in designated areas of the Township of Rideau”, as amended;

(j) By-law Number 63-22 of the old Corporation of the Village of Rockcliffe Park entitled “A By-law of the Corporation of the Village of Rockcliffe Park to regulate the firing or discharging of guns, pistols, air guns, etc.”;

(k) Subsection 2(m) of By-law No. 1503 of the Corporation of the City of Eastview (old Corporation of the City of Vanier) entitled “being a by-law regulating the use and care of streets”, as amended; and

(l) By-law No. 57 of 1997 of the old Corporation of the Township of West Carleton entitled “Being a by-law of The Corporation of the Township of West Carleton concerning the discharge of guns or other firearms, air guns and spring guns or any class or type thereof in the Township of West Carleton.

ENACTED AND PASSED this day of , 2002.

CITY CLERK MAYOR

DOCUMENT 2

SUMMARY OF RESULTS OF PUBLIC CONSULTATION

The most significant issues of concern identified throughout public consultation, both verbally at the public meetings and in the form of written comments (140 submitted), and the Department’s response to those issues are summarized below. Where a number of respondents is identified, that number refers to those who submitted written comments. In general, the same issues were raised verbally at the public meetings. Factors other than absolute numbers of responses on any particular issue were however, also considered in finalizing the proposals.

A. “Squaring-off” of prohibited areas on maps

The prohibited areas identified on the maps contained in the initial draft proposal were “squared-off” in an attempt to clarify and simplify, to the user in the field, the areas in which the discharge of firearms would be prohibited. The boundaries of those “squared-off” areas were based on natural lines, such as bodies of water, as well as concession lines and roadways, all recognizable and distinct features. Twenty-two respondents did not support the “squaring-off” concept in that they felt that it added to the total of each prohibited area beyond that which is required for public safety, thereby limiting hunting activity. The prohibited areas shown as shaded on the maps attached as Schedules to the proposed by-law however, remain unchanged. The “squaring-off” concept has been maintained on the basis that the 450-meter buffer distance (which applies to places of worship, public halls, schools and registered plans of subdivision outside of the shaded areas) does not apply to the shaded areas themselves and public safety continues to be a consideration in that case. Further, the total of the shaded prohibited areas of the proposal is only about 4% greater than that which was in place under the former municipal regulations.

B. Distance from registered subdivisions, and other buildings and properties

1) The initial draft by-law proposed 500 meters as an adequate buffer distance from registered plans of subdivision, schools, public halls, and places of worship. That recommendation was based in part on that which was provided in the former municipal regulations. Eighty-one of the respondents did not support the 500 meter distance but rather favoured a reduced distance as a sufficient buffer for public safety purposes based on their own experience with respect to hunter safety. The by-law has been amended to provide for a 450-meter buffer distance from the aforementioned buildings and properties, which is consistent with several of the former municipal regulations in that regard.

2) The former Cumberland and Goulbourn by-laws also provided for a buffer distance from individual dwelling units (450 and 500 meters, respectively) outside of registered plans of subdivision. Twenty-three respondents supported this additional restriction to apply to the whole of the new City.

The by-law was however not amended in that regard given that only two of the former municipalities imposed that restriction which applied to the more remote and less populated rural areas where the possibility of public safety being compromised is reduced.

Concerns about the careless use of a firearm may be addressed through provisions under the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act and the Criminal Code. Further, the Trespass to Property Act addresses the unauthorized use of private property.

C. Bows and other classes of firearm

1) The definition of firearm, as provided by the Municipal Act, includes cross-bows and long-bows. The definition of firearm in the initial draft proposal matched that of the Municipal Act and the various provisions of the by-law, such as buffer distance, did not distinguish between bows and other firearms, and applied the same distance restrictions to each. Fifty-four respondents supported a reduced buffer distance to be applied to bows in that the projectiles emanating from bows travel significantly shorter distances than those of other firearms. The proposed by-law has therefore been amended to reflect a buffer distance of 200 meters, where applicable, to apply to the use of bows where permitted. The 200-meter distance is considered by experts, such as a member of the Canadian Olympic Archery Team, as sufficient to provide for public safety.

2) Both the Municipal Act and the proposed by-law also include air-guns and spring-guns in their definition of firearm. Fourteen respondents supported the idea of excluding those two classes of firearms. In keeping with the Municipal Act, the definition in the proposed by-law remains unchanged.

D. Exemptions

The initial draft by-law provided for a number of exemptions including persons acting as an agent for the City or for a farmer for the purpose of destroying animals under certain circumstances, and persons involved in bona fide gun and archery clubs. Twenty-seven respondents supported an expansion of the exemptions to provide for legal trapping activities related to protection of property (such as roads from flooding caused by beaver dam activity) and for special sporting events, generally organized by clubs, with prior approval. The proposed by-law has been amended to provide for those exemptions.

E. Permitted areas

The initial draft proposal maintained the prohibition of the discharge of firearms in effect in the former City of Gloucester since 1991. Six respondents felt that the discharge of firearms should be permitted in certain parts of the former Gloucester. With insufficient support and rationale for such an amendment, the proposed by-law remains unchanged in that regard.

BY-LAW HARMONIZATION - DISCHARGE OF FIREARMS

HARMONISATION DES RÈGLEMENTS MUNICIPAUX-
DÉCHARGE D’ARMES À FEU

ACS2002-EPS-BYL-0007

The Director, By-law Services, Ms. Susan Jones, briefed the Committee on the by-law which incorporates the basic provisions of former municipal by-laws to establish one harmonized discharge of firearms by-law with an effective date of January 1, 2003. She noted a further proposal to continue the practice of identifying the prohibited areas through the use of maps that outline the boundaries within which the discharge of firearms is prohibited.

Responding to questions from Councillor D. Thompson, Ms. Jones indicated that the relevant maps would be made available to interested parties. During seasonal times, the maps would be advertised in the local papers: other opportunities to educate the public about the by-law would be pursued. With respect the groups consulted in the development of the by-law, Ms. Jones pointed out that extensive consultation was undertaken but that not all those consulted are listed in the report.

Councillor J. Legendre asked for the rationale for allowing the discharge of firearms in some city-owned forests and not in others. Ms. Jones said staff looked into the amount of recreational activitiy in the forests and in very densely forested areas, where there are no safety issues, discharge is permitted.

Councillor J. Stavinga asked whether the 500 meter buffer around the community of Brownsville (Goulbourn Ward) no longer exists. Ms Jones replied that if the community is not in a shaded area on the map and the area has no registered plans of subdivision, there is no buffer zone.

At this juncture, the following public delegations were heard:

Mr. Greg Thompson, a twenty year resident of Ottawa, a hunter and fisherman for over 30 years said the City has adopted the most stringent aspects of the by-law while ignoring the problem of over-abundant wildlife and the safety of humans as it relates to this. He posited the best way to control over-abundant wildlife is to allow hunting, one of the safest forms of recreation and one that is regulated by the Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR). Mr. Thompson's said his other concerns include the need to clarify the application of the by-law to navigable waterways, reducing the buffer zone to 200 metres and allowing the use of blanks for dog training.

When asked by Councillor Legendre to comment on the presentation, Ms. Jones clarified that the jurisdiction responsible for wildlife management was the MNR. She added that, while staff recognizes issues around wildlife, it cannot open up densely populated areas to the discharge of firearms for safety reasons. Ms. Jones also pointed out that, for the most part, staff have adopted what was already in place in the former municipalities. With respect to the use of blanks for training dogs, this could be done for training or obedience clubs.

Mr. Bruce McNabb, questioned the need for the by-law for the purposes of public safety. He said he was not aware of accidents that happen when people are protecting their own property by using firearms. Mr. McNabb indicated that thirty out of thirty seven properties in his area don't want a change from the present restrictions. He suggested that this area be left out, that the MNR deal with problems or that property owners have the same exemptions as tree farmers: another suggested option would be to call in when there is a problem. Mr. McNabb also pointed out that the by-law is at odds with Official Plan policies and with the provisions of "Charting a Course" that relate to trees as a "must have". Documentation submitted by the speaker is on file with the Committee Coordinator.

In response to a question from Councillor J. Harder, Ms. Jones indicated that staff have correspondence from neighbouring properties completely opposed to "call ins" as a solution and who support the by-law. She added there are alternate ways to deal with wildlife and she did not recommend this area be excluded from the provisions of the by-law.

Mr. Peter Foster, a resident of Kanata Ward, echoed the concerns expressed about the proliferation of wildlife and the impact the by-law will have in dealing with this problem. He recommended the by-law be referred back to staff to provide statistics, for public consumption, on safety concerns. Mr. Foster questioned the assertion by staff that the by-law has no environmental implications and he sought clarification on what "the MNR concurs in general with the proposal" means.

Responding to Councillor Legendre's question about the required by-law modifications to deal with a bear in someone's back yard, as in his case, Mr. Foster said he would like to see bows removed and distances revised. Ms.Jones commented on the fact that both the police and the National Capital Commission are on call to deal with animal problems; bears can be tranquilized and moved to another area. Staff don't want to send the message that, just because there's a bear on one's property, it has to be shot.

Councillor H. Kreling asked whether representatives of the MNR would comment on the proliferation of wildlife, the efforts at culling numbers and whether the proposed by-law addresses concerns. Mr. Kerry Coleman, Area Manager, said the Ministry is concerned about the rising numbers of deer and moose and the increasing number of vehicle accidents they cause. He said hunting is the tool of choice tool of choice for reducing their numbers as other methods don't work. Commenting on the by-law, Mr. Coleman said the discharge distances are somewhat excessive: the Ministry would like to see as much area open to hunting as possible, particularly for archery.

Replying to questions from Councillor Thompson about the MNR zones and where Ottawa fits in, Mr. Coleman described the following Wildlife Management Units: WMU 65, which includes Ottawa, Cornwall and Hawkesbury; WMU 64B, West Carleton and parts of Kanata and WMU 64A, west to Rideau Township. Each area has different, one week seasons for shotguns and rifles and each has a two week archery season.

Mr. John Honshorst, an archer for 10 years, expressed the view that restrictions imposed on archery would compromise the sport. He foresaw problems if existing clubs were grand-fathered and new clubs are restricted. Mr. Honshorst pointed out that archery is a low-income sport run mostly by volunteers, and clubs have no money to pursue zoning by-law changes. He spoke about the safety of archery, noting that his club hosted over 300 events in the last ten years with no incidents or injuries. Mr. Honshorst said he agreed with the need for firearms control however the discharge distances should be consistent.

Mr. David Branson, Director, Ruffed Grouse Society of Canada, called the discharge distances excessive and he pointed out the by-law will close large tracts of land. He made reference to the excellent safety record of Ontario hunters. He outlined a proposal based on setback distances which uses boundaries such as roads, village boundaries, abandoned railways and population centres.

Mr. Wayne Stephenson, a retired Staff Sergeant with the Ottawa Police and an Instructor/Examiner with the Canadian Firearms Safety Course and other organizations, said public safety is the first concern. Courses offered cover safe handling of weapons, relevant legislation and all aspects of firearms safety: firearm law violations can result in fines and/or imprisonment. Mr. Stephenson expressed the belief that laws don’t provide safety but that training and knowledge are the keys. He spoke about the fact that the wild goose situation is becoming critical for farmers. He made reference to the EPS Activity Report that lists only 16 complaints about firearms and gives no indication of any accidents. Mr. Stephenson concluded by saying the proposed boundaries were not justifiable and he requested the by-law be referred to staff form review with the MNR and with his group.

Mr. Eike Jorgensen said one impact the by-law will have is to reduce the number of hunters. He elaborated on the impact of geese on the farming community, noting that flocks are out of proportion and this should be taken into consideration. Currently, grain crops are reduced as a result of goose overfeeding and gees will gravitate to areas where hunting is prohibited. Mr Jorgensen suggested the by-law be reconsidered, with a view to opening up as much land as possible to hunters. Mr. Jorgensen felt that safety should be the concern, not just what’s convenient.

Mr. Richard (Dick) Blanchfield, representing Zone F of the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters, read from a written statement[1] covering safety issues, human/animal collisions, the short time period for hunters to remove whitetail deer over-population, the fact that existing removal permits do not work and suggesting that gun and bow hunting be split in MNR regulations and the use of realistic setbacks.

Mr. Paul Mussell, Past President, Ottawa Federation of Agriculture (2000-2001), read from a written statement[2], reiterating the need for wildlife management as it relates to farmers. He alluded to the fact that the by-law envisions 72,000 acres of land where there can be no discharge of firearms, positing this will create a wildlife refuge in Ottawa.

Committee discussion focused on a map presented by the last five speakers, Councillor H. Kreling questioning the inclusion of areas such as Petrie Island and other lands in the east end of Ottawa slated for the development of a park and ride facility and an industrial park. Mr. Jorgensen admitted that the group did not have extensive knowledge of certain areas, but they were trying to raise awareness of the large areas of land being prohibited to hunters. Councillor Kreling expressed the view that, since City staff has extensive knowledge of future proposed developments, the maps they provided are more precise than the one prepared by the delegation.

Ms. Selena Walker, a resident of Goulbourn Ward, read from a prepared statement[3] proving detailed information on hunting seasons in Ottawa and the dangerous range of shotguns and rifles. Mr. Walker felt the current restrictions were too lenient and did not provide enough for public safety. She also did not support the proposed reduction from 500 to 450 meters as exclusion zones, positing this buffer is too short for public safety. She noted the buffer should be up to 600 meters for shotguns, depending on the size of the shot and as much as 7 kilometres for high-powered rifles.

Councillor J. Stavinga, asked whether the 450 meter buffer has been integrated in the “squaring off”. Ms. Jones replied that, for the most part, this has been captured and in some cases, the by-law goes further than that. The Councillor wanted to know how staff had reconciled the safety range versus the danger range. Ms. Jones said staff looked at past activity in the former municipalities that had excellent safety records because of regulations. She reiterated her belief that the recommendations before Committee promote safety.

Ms. Lynn Duffy, a resident of rural Goulbourn, said she had serious concerns about decreasing the 500 meter buffer. She did not understand the rationale for providing buffer zones around proposed development zones but not around some residences, and the fact that discharge is not prohibited over, on or across the Trans-Canada Trail. She said the by-law is short-sighted, illogical, it provides less protection and negatively impacts on quality of life. Ms. Duffy suggested there be a 500 meter buffer around each home, that squared-off areas be revisited, that the Trans-Canada Trail have a buffer and that more public input be solicited.

In response to questions from Councillor Stavinga, the Legal Department representative, Ms. Anne Peck, said that, under the Municipal Act, the City can only regulate the discharge of firearms and cannot impose regulations about transporting firearms unloaded and encased.

Mr. David Brown, a farmer and a resident of Vars, provided a written statement[4], wherein he alludes to the “slippery slope of urban-centric by-laws which do not work in rural areas” and “the resultant decline of profitable farming…” Some of the other points covered in the document include by-law harmonization, the different views of firearms between urban and rural dwellers, discharge zones squaring off to registered plans of subdivision, the need for the preventive use of firearms to eliminate vermin, payment for loss of livestock to vermin under provincial legislation and the need for additional MNR input into the use of firearms.

Replying to questions of clarification from Councillor Stavinga, Sergeant Robertson, representing the Ottawa Police, indicated that farmers have the right to protect their property, stock and crops from vermin and do not require a permit to use firearms to do so.

Councillor Legendre wanted to know whether registered plans of subdivision have a “shelf life” or are registered forever. Ms. Anne Peck indicated that registration applies until and if a plan is de-registered. The Councillor asked if any other provision of the Planning Act could be used as an indicator of intent to develop thereby activating the buffer zone provision of the by-law. Ms. Peck said she was not aware of any other provision, noting that plans of subdivision are habitually developed rapidly. She added, in reply to a question of clarification from Chair D. Deans, that some proponents in the Councillor’s ward had to reapply for approval because the plans were not registered.

Mr. Bill Bourne, a resident of Kanata Ward, provided information on his experience as a member of a former City of Kanata committee looking into the discharge of firearms by-law.

Committee Discussion

Councillor R. Bloess asked whether the by-law contains provisions to protect the rights of existing subdivisions versus those that may not be built for twenty years. Ms. Jones thought it would be the exception rather than the rule to have subdivisions that are not developed in the short-terms, adding that common sense should prevail vis-à-vis discharging firearms in those areas.

Councillor Bloess indicated his intent to bring forward a Motion asking that staff be given the discretion to grant permits to deal with specific situations, on a public safety basis. Ms. Peck clarified that staff does have authorization, under delegated authority, to grant permits, however staff has no discretion to determine public safety.

The Committee Chair, Diane Deans, presented a number of Motions, including a Motion from Councillor Thompson to refer the matter back to staff.

Councillor Thompson said it was evident from both the delegations and the Motions put forward, that a number of items would benefit from additional staff review. The Councillor did not feel that additional public consultation was required, but some experts in this area might want additional time to review the by-law. The issue of firearms by-laws was one of the large issues with amalgamation, and, as there is no timeframe for a decision, the matter could be re-examined.

When asked to comment on the referral Motion, Ms. Jones expressed the belief all the necessary consultation has been undertaken, and staff have received over 400 comments on the by-law. The meeting venue was changed in anticipation of a large public turnout that did not materialize. Ms. Jones felt the recommendations are sound, and she asked that the Committee deal with the matter today, positing this would also be the public’s preference.

Councillor R. Chiarelli spoke against referral, as he felt the points made would not be clarified by further review. In addition, deferring a decision may contribute to public cynicism about the first public consultation phase.

Councillor Legendre said he would support referral, to give staff an opportunity to evaluate the Motions and come up with recommendations that address concerns. He pointed out that the Committee is mostly comprised of urban councillors reviewing a matter that mostly affects the rural areas. He also felt there needs to be a recognition of the legitimate uses of different kinds of weapons when determining regulations.

Councillor D. Eastman called this a very emotional issue in the rural area, and he asked that the Committee get on with making a decision and not refer the matter back to staff.

Councillor J. Harder asked whether it would be too onerous on staff to ensure they have a presence at country fairs, starting with the Central Canada Exhibition, as part of educating the public on the by-law provisions. Ms. Jones called this an excellent idea that would be implemented with the help of police and other partners: the maps will also be made available to the public.

Councillor Bloess pointed out that the ten proposed amendments reflect the Committee’s unease about certain aspects of the proposed by-law. He said he would support referral, but not further consultation.

Councillor Harder suggested that, rather than referring the matter back to staff, the recommendations be adopted and that the matter be reviewed at the end of one year’s time, to allow for public education. The Councillor expressed the belief that Council will rapidly discover what parts of the by-law work and what parts do not work.

Chair Deans pointed out that staff have been through extensive public consultation, and have met one on one with the affected councillors: in light of these facts, she expressed the belief that referral would be folly.

The Committee then considered the following:

Moved by D. Thompson

That the EPS Committee refer the Harmonization of Firearms By-law back to staff for further review and discussion, reporting back to Committee in September 2002.

LOST

YEAS (3): R. Bloess, J. Legendre, D. Thompson

NAYS (4): R. Chiarelli, J. Harder, H. Kreling, D. Deans

After further discussion, the Committee considered the following Motions:

Moved by R. Bloess

That no person shall discharge a firearm within a buffer distance of 450 metres from individual dwelling units outside of registered plans of subdivision.

LOST

Moved by R. Bloess

WHEREAS a proposed, harmonized Discharge of Firearms By-law is being considered by the Emergency and Protective Services Committee and Council;

AND WHEREAS the TCT is used year-round by members of the public engaged in any of the five approved uses of the Trail, specifically, cycling, equestrian riding, skiing, snowmobiling and walking;

AND WHEREAS the TCT, which is city-owned, has recently undergone significant upgrades and is being further promoted for public use;

CARRIED

D. Deans dissented

Moved by R. Chiarelli

That the shaded area defining discharge of firearms not permitted surrounding the Village of Stittsville be further squared off by extending northwards to Hwy 417 as well as southwards to Shea and Fallowfield Roads.

CARRIED

Moved by J. Legendre

That, in addition to the existence of a registered Plan of Subdivision, staff require that an application for a building permit within that subdivision serve as an activation mechanism for the application of the discharge of firearms by-law.

CARRIED

Moved by J. Legendre

That staff recognize that the use of blanks when used for animal training purposes would constitute a legitimate, permissible exemption.

CARRIED

Moved by J. Legendre

That distances be adjusted to better match the energy of the arm in question, specifically that distances refer to:

· Rifles

· Shotguns

· Air-powered guns (B.B. or pellet)

· Spring-powered

· Bows

LOST

YEAS (2): J. Legendre, D. Thompson

NAYS (3): R. Bloess, J. Harder, D. Deans

Moved by R. Bloess

WHEREAS the City of Ottawa is proposing to harmonize the Discharge of Firearms By-law(s);

BE IT RESOLVED that an exemption permit be granted to a property owner to protect his/her property from harm from wildlife, subject to staff exercising discretion based on criteria taking into account public safety, urgency of the situation, geographical considerations and any other pertinent factors.

CARRIED

D. Deans dissented

Moved by J. Harder

That the by-law be reviewed in January 2004 and that information booths be established at all the country fairs, beginning with the Central Canada Exhibition.

CARRIED

Moved by J. Harder

That the Emergency and Protective Services Committee recommend to Council that the Discharge of Firearms By-law, attached as Document 1 with an effective date of January 1, 2003 be approved, as amended by the foregoing.

CARRIED

D. Thompson dissented

[1] Document held on file with the Committee Coordinator.

[4] Held on file with the Committee Coordinator

SUBJECT:	By-law SERVICES – BY-LAW harmonization – discharge of firearms
OBJET:	RÈGLEMENTS MUNICIPAUX – HARMONISATION DES RÈGLEMENTS MUNICIPAUX – UTILISATION dES Armes à feu