The amendments to Ontario's Animal Welfare Act were debated in the Legislature yesterday.
It's no surprise that the McGuinty government's recently introduced amendments to Ontario's Animal Welfare Act are not only inadequate but may have far-reaching negative implications for people who keep pets, breed and show or engage in other activities involving domestic animals.
Farm animals are exempt, as are wild animals, those used for research and exotic species kept in roadside zoos. The blabber from the Fiberal side yesterday was about 'puppy mills', an abhorrent practice which is apparently undertaken by 'thousands of people' in the province. Also mentioned were those who 'train animals to fight and kill other animals'. This is also a booming industry in Ontario, according to the government.
To Mike Colle (LIB Eglinton-Lawrence) of Cricketgate fame, who, to be fair, did introduce quite a good private member's bill a few years ago to address the puppy mill question (which died on the table), the highlights of this bill are:
1. The provisions for warrantless entry, since he believes that inspections of substandard commercial breeders were not possible in the past (wrong, they just needed a warrant).
2. The ability to prosecute those who 'train animals to fight' using evidence such as structures and equipment (the latter are undefined).
3. The requirement for veterinarians to report 'abuse' - with no guidelines as to what constitutes abuse.
MPP Cheri Di Novo (NDP-Parkdale High Park) raised some excellent points in her discussion of the issue. She reminded everyone that Section 6, which gives only the OSPCA the right to use the names SPCA or Humane Society, threatens the Toronto Humane Society, which has existed for 121 years - predating the current Animal Welfare Act by decades.
Other MPPs, including Michael Prue (NDP Beaches-Greenwood), Sylvia Jones (PC - Dufferin-Caledon), Jerry Ouellette (PC Oshawa), John Yakabuski (PC Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke) supported the removal of Section 6 as it is inappropriate for the provincial government to legislate who can and cannot use a business name.
We know that the McGuinty government gave the OSPCA money during the 'pit bull' ban fiasco, something in the neighbourhood of a million dollars. They have received other substantial sums from the Fibs as well over the past couple of years. They also are historically not friends of the THS. I'm wondering if the plan is to make the OSPCA a government agency, ending their financial woes and making them accountable. It would explain the obvious preferential treatment they've received from the Fiberals since 2003.
Sylvia Jones is a new MPP, holding John Tory's former riding of Dufferin-Caledon (where he should have stayed).
I was impressed with her performance in the House yesterday. She raised some excellent points:
1. The OSPCA is a private charity. The government is giving a private charity police powers under the revised Act. This is a dangerous precedent and the provisions, regulations and training of OSPCA personnel need to be clearly defined to avoid abuse of this power by private individuals.
2. Further to the point above, there is no oversight of the OSPCA. They are not open to freedom of infomation requests, there is no independent board monitoring their activities, they are not answerable to anyone because they are a private organization. This needs to be studied with the understanding that what the Fibs are proposing here could be a very slippery slope.
3. Ms Jones raised the issue of what constitutes 'abuse' that must be reported by veterinarians. She gave the example of brushing a cat's teeth - some people do it, most don't. Would failure to brush your cat's teeth constitute abuse under the vet reporting clause?
Although the Fiberals jeered at this example (hey, they act like hooligans, it's what they do best) I thought it was a good one. We've heard that allowing a pet to become obese is abuse, so it's not much of a stretch to include dental neglect.
The thing is, before you put these kinds of ideas into legislation, you have to think things through. Do we want to give the busybodies, nannybots and AR fanatics more ammunition?
'Abuse' needs to be clearly and narrowly defined.
It was pointed out that many private member's bills, including David Zimmer's Bill to address the roadside zoo issue, have been ignored by McGuinty's cabal. There is nothing in Bill 50 to address the roadside zoo problem.
There were concerns raised about Charter issues by Opposition MPPs. I almost laughed out loud - since when does the Dalton Gang care about the Charter of Rights and Freedoms? They have shown that they do not uphold the Charter, do not respect the concept of democracy and are willing to do anything to pander to the cheap seats and get a media hit.
The warrantless entry (into a business, not a dwelling) issue was raised repeatedly. I was surprised that they didn't invoke the 'pit bull' ban, where unreasonable search and seizue, warrantless entry, presumption of guilt and other insults to the Charter were gleefully legislated by the McFiberals.
A few MPPs are confused about what 'animal rights' means, as you'll note if you read the Hansard.
To read the debate, visit this link:
Search for or scroll down to 'Provincial Animal Welfare Act.'
You can find the actual very brief piece of legislation here (PDF format):
http://www.ontla.on.ca/bills/bills-files/39_Parliament/Session1/b050.pdf
