In last Friday's testimony at Committee (which became available yesterday afternoon), conflicting statements were presented.

Hugh Coghill, speaking on behalf of the OSPCA, said this about the Board resignations while engaging in some apparent damage control: 

So there was a clarity brought to that issue that it was used previously-and I would say, sir, not by you, to be fair, but other people had indicated that it was such a mess that the entire board resigned en masse, which brought disfavour to the OSPCA, which we showed was clearly not the case. So that's just a clarity issue for you.

Yet Mr Carl Noble, who presented directly after Mr Coghill, had this to say during his introductory remarks:

Mr. Carl Noble: I'm Carl Noble, and I thank you for the opportunity to appear before you. I propose to use my time slot to briefly introduce myself and my experience with the OSPCA; then I would like to provide some examples of what I think needs serious improvement; and I conclude with five brief recommendations that I believe would improve the legislation and the thrust of what we are trying to achieve.

Our family has had a farm on the Bruce Peninsula for over 40 years. I am a retired professional firefighter and spent 25 years on the North York Fire Department, 17 of those years as a captain of the rescue and salvage unit. I was on the executive of the Ontario Women's Hockey Association for 28 years, as well as nine years on the Canadian Hockey Association. I have spent 16 years in municipal politics, the last six years as mayor of the town of South Bruce Peninsula. I was elected to the board of the Ontario Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals for eight years and was one of the 29 directors who resigned en masse from the board over the direction it was going. I can assure you I have spent the last 40 years in close proximity to people and animals, both those in normal life and those who are in great distress.

*

Our old friend and staunch ally Peter Kormos (NDP-Welland) had some fun at Committee on Friday.  He managed to get the representative of the College of Veterinarians pretty flustered with some good questions: 

Mr. Peter Kormos: But you argue that there's justification for requiring a warrant for the OSPCA officer entering a vet facility.

Ms. Susan Carlyle: Yes.

Mr. Peter Kormos: Because the urgency may not be so great as to require a warrantless search?

Ms. Susan Carlyle: Yes. When it is urgent, that is exactly where we would like them to come in and make sure that everything's okay, but where it is not, then we feel that the college can handle it.

Mr. Peter Kormos: But where it is urgent, you want the OSPCA to have warrantless search?

Ms. Susan Carlyle: No. We want it with a warrant.

Mr. Peter Kormos: So if it's urgent, though, that implies-

The Acting Chair (Mr. David Zimmer): I'm sorry; I missed your answer.

Ms. Susan Carlyle: With a warrant. We understand that they should be able to come in, but with a warrant.

Mr. Peter Kormos: But urgency implies immediacy.

Ms. Susan Carlyle: True.

Mr. Peter Kormos: So why would you argue that the SPCA officer should get a warrant if there's an issue of urgency in a vet's office, but not a warrant if there's an issue of urgency in any other operation? I don't understand.

Ms. Susan Carlyle: I'm sorry; I don't understand the question. I'm only arguing that-

Mr. Peter Kormos: You think it's okay to have warrantless searches of non-veterinary offices if the issue is urgent?

Ms. Susan Carlyle: Yes.

Mr. Peter Kormos: Why, then, should you get a warrant if there's an urgent issue in a vet's office?

Ms. Susan Carlyle: Because of the definition of " distress." If there is a situation of immediate distress, we would like the OSPCA to come in, but with a warrant, in order not to come in on somebody's say-so when they don't understand what they're doing.

Mr. Peter Kormos: But getting a warrant, that's precisely the point: They're coming in on somebody's say-so; they'r e swearing before a justice of the peace they have reasonable grounds to believe that-

Ms. Susan Carlyle: But it's fast to get a warrant.

Mr. Peter Kormos: Oh, is it?

Ms. Susan Carlyle: It should be.

Mr. Peter Kormos: In Peawanuck? Attawapiskat?

Ms. Susan Carlyle: Maybe not.

Mr. Peter Kormos: Timmins on a Sunday afternoon?

Ms. Susan Carlyle: Maybe not. I agree.

Mr. Peter Kormos: But then what's good for the goose is good for the gander. We can't have it both ways. If warrantless searches aren't justified for a vet, why are warrantless searches justified for other animal caretakers?

Ms. Susan Carlyle: I think that goes back to how often veterinarians would realistically be involved in animal abuse, whereas the public may be more often.

Mr. Peter Kormos: Don't we trust trained SPCA officers to use their discretion?

Ms. Susan Carlyle: We do.

Mr. Peter Kormos: A very interesting position for the veterinarians to take-or their college, rather. Yes ma'am. Thank you kindly.

Fascinating stuff - and it's all in Hansard.

Unfortunately, the vets in Ontario appear to be more concerned about covering own their rears than in standing up for what's right and defending their clients.

They did the same thing over the dog ownership ban - agreed to go along with it and provide ID certificates, as long as they weren't identified and were held immune from liability.

We're pretty much on our own, people.

Thank Dog for old-time politicians (and crafty lawyers) like Pete Kormos and a few others - a very few others.