I'll speak quickly to that as well.
I've seen legislation that also includes the word “interfere”, and interference is a very broad brush. What defines interference? I don't know if there should be some discussion about including that or not. It would boil down to interpretation.
If I'm doing my job correctly, and I'm preparing a dog for the work that we're going to do, you'd be very hard pressed to intimidate my dog. Arguably, the more you do that, the more you'll elicit drive and behaviour out of my dog. You'll solicit a response out of my dog. I think that's where the bill is very good, that it covers things like service dogs.
I think, when you look at Diane's dog, and I'm going to use those dreaded words: she's a beautiful dog. That said, she's a passive dog, not that a service dog doesn't have a big heart, but a service dog's drive for work, I would argue, is equally as large as its heart. I look at Diane's dog and I think that she's the most beautiful, gentle creature I can imagine. Could I easily intimidate that dog versus a dog who we have trained with intimidation techniques and tactics to be somewhat inert to that or to respond to it directly?
I think it's going to impact our nature of service dog less, but may impact Diane's nature of service dog considerably more, as a much more passive, gentle, open, and receptive animal. Let's face it; a service dog trusts his handler, trusts the family of the handler, and outside of that pack—because that's truly how dogs operate, it's pack hierarchy—you're not really welcome. You're not really accepted. I think Diane's Lucy here has a much bigger pack and is much more receptive to other creatures entering that pack.
I think it's great legislation because it will encompass things like that. This is where you could have, in your definitions, perhaps specific to this particular section of the code, what “injure” specifically defines because I don't know if that would be included or not.