We have all heard the question: If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?
This query dates back centuries. It is central to a philosophical experiment that looks to debate the relationship between an event and the perception of an event. In essence, the argument put forward is that an event or happening is only really relevant if it is witnessed.
The corollary to this for society — or a community — is that things of importance need not only be done. They need to be seen to be done.
This is why important documents do not merely need to be signed, but, in certain circumstances, the signatures must be witnessed. That is why we have commissioners of oaths.
Similarly, justice must not merely be carried out, it has to be seen to be carried out. That is why our courts are open to the public.
Call it proof. Call it transparency. Decisions and actions taken by public bodies that have an effect on citizens have to come with an element of accountability. Public bodies and institutions that act in the name of the public good have to be seen to act in the public good.
And, for the most part, they do.
Every so often, however, an exception pops up, as one did last week in St. Lazare, when the municipal council voted to declare a dog in the town to be “potentially dangerous.” That was the action taken. The details surrounding the incident that sparked this decision, however, have not been made public. And that is not good enough.
According to the resolution approved unanimously by council at the April 14 meeting, the dog lives on Place du Soliste in the north end of the Cedarbrook area of the town. The only information provided is that the canine was involved in an incident in 2025 and that a vet was consulted in some capacity. No other details were offered.
The decision by council imposes a series of restrictions on the dog’s owner, including the requirement to keep the animal on a leash and wear a muzzle when out for a walk. Otherwise, the animal must always be kept in the house or behind a fence on the owner’s property. It cannot frequent a dog park, and it must be muzzled if any children visit the residence.
When questioned, members of St. Lazare council refused to provide any information. Was a child bitten? Was another dog attacked? Was an adult mauled? Where did this incident happen? We are left simply to assume it was serious.
No description of the dog was given either — its size, age, breed, colour.
The one piece of information in the resolution that was included was that the dog “poses a risk to public health or safety.”
This statement justifies the council’s action. Such a strong statement should also be explained. If council is taking action to protect public health and safety, it needs to be seen to being doing so by providing the context that surrounds the action. Failing to do so deprives the public of seeing what they are being protected from.
Giving the public a description of the dog and providing the details of the incident that put its behaviour under scrutiny are important elements in understanding the risk and ensuring that the steps to mitigate that risk are being adhered to. It is the philosophical equivalent of bearing witness to a tree falling. It puts you in a position to hear it make a sound. Taking action to improve public safety need not be done in the shadows. It needs to be seen to improve public safety.
Justifications to support this failure to provide details and context, like when one councillor cited caucus confidentiality, claiming it restricted him from sharing any details, shows a lack of understanding of an elected official’s role. All decisions taken by councils are discussed in caucus. The tax rate charged to homeowners is discussed in caucus. This does not protect it from being disclosed publicly. The decision to pave a street is discussed in caucus, yet somehow that information is made public.
Caucus confidentiality is a tool to keep certain things of a private nature private. Issues of public safety — and that includes context of incidents involving individual or animals that threaten public safety — need to be made public. Individuals accused of the crime of assault are made public. A dog that does the same should similarly be identified.
Brenda O’Farrell
Editor-in-chief