July 27, 2008
Susan Sourial Vice-Chair/Clerk
Standing Committee on Justice Policy
Room 1405, Whitney Block
Queen’s Park, Toronto ON M7A 1A2
Facsmile 416-325-3505
Dear Ms Sourial and Honourable Members:
RE: Animal Welfare Act, 2008 (Ontario)
I am writing to express my personal views about Bill 50, which purports to improve animal welfare in Ontario.
I think we are all in agreement that animal welfare should become a greater priority than it has been in the past. No normal person, even if they are not interested in or fond of animals, wants them to suffer at the hands of callous individuals.
However, in view of the current government's past failure to address animal-related issues in any meaningful or constructive manner, I am apprehensive about what is being proposed.
The McGuinty government's noxious dog ownership ban has not improved animal welfare but has led to inhumane treatment for dogs. It has also not served to control the tiny minority of negligent or criminal dog owners.
This was entirely predictable and clearly articulated during the House debates and Committee Hearings into Bill 132 by MPPs, expert organizations and individuals (including those who had tried it and found the idea to be unworkable and expensive). However, despite overwhelming opposition at Committee and on the part of dog owners and experts from across the province, DOLA was amended using a whipped vote.
I hope that won't happen with Bill 50.
I have had the luxury of reading the Hansard of the proceedings to date, which was not possible in 2005 in advance of the deadline for a written submission. This makes a world of difference.
There have been some excellent presentations, such as those of Michael O'Sullivan and Dr Bessie Borwein.
Mr O'Sullivan provided many facts about the OSPCA and some of the pitfalls if the current wording of the Bill is not revised.
Dr Borwein educated the Committee on the important distinction between Animal Welfare and Animal Rights. I'm glad someone did, because the interchanging of these terms by Committee members was disturbing and indicated a lack of understanding of the huge difference between these concepts.
As Dr Borwein explained, the animal rights movement seeks to completely eliminate the association between humans and other animals. It seeks to end pet ownership, the raising of livestock, animal research, hunting, fishing, and all other longstanding customs related to animal husbandry. It purports to believe that all animals including humans are equal. Its goals and methods, however, indicate the opposite - that humans are superior to other animals and have the right to control and influence or even end those animals' lives to suit their purposes, be they practical or ideological. Any political philosopher worth his salt can easily refute the animal rights agenda and also highlight the lack of background knowledge and hypocrisy of most of its proponents today.
Let's just say that it is a well-funded, creeping threat to those of us who actually value animals and advocate for their welfare. For example, several presenters at this Committee spoke on behalf of well known animal rights organizations - well known to those of us who study the subject, that is.
On researching the OSPCA, I find disturbing evidence of possible infiltration by the militant animal rights movement. I'm no consipiracy theorist, but I sometimes wonder whether the House itself has been infiltrated, since policies such as dog breed bans are lobbied for and supported by the animal rights movement. It's their baby, in other words, as is the oft-repeated but unfounded mantra about pet overpopulation, the advantages of sterilization and all the rest. Changing ownership to 'guardianship' as the ASPCA now advocates is a classical animal rights tactic but typically, one that hasn't been thought through to its logical conclusion by those who do not research these issues but buy into the deliberately presented cute puppy and kitten aspect of things.
So, I urge you to pay attention to Dr Borwein and the others who explained this distinction so well.
PRIVATE POLICE FORCE
Obviously, many people are concerned about the granting of full police powers to OSPCA inspectors. The definition of a 'peace officer' is overbroad, as pointed out in last week's Superior Court ruling around wiretapping without a warrant.
Can you get more overbroad in your definition of 'peace officer' than minimally trained, internally appointed, unvetted employees of a private charity which is not accountable, has no public governing body and is immune to inquiries by the Ombudsman and to Access to Information legislation? How do people feel about their receiving public money to carry out a shadowy mandate, when their bylaws are a closely guarded secret, even from their affiliates, according to one witness?
Understand that I have no particular bone to pick with the OSPCA. I have sent them substantial donations in the past and I applaud their determination to crack down on animal abusers and neglecters. It looks to me upon perusing their website as if the OSPCA may have undergone an ideological realignment, which often happens these days when Board positions become available at animal welfare agencies.
I am opposed to the plan to create a private police force in Ontario. I take issue with the disbursement of significant public money to such an organization.
I wonder, in other words, whether the tail is wagging the dog.
PROPOSED SOLUTION
Here's what I suggest to improve matters. I won't nitpick the weaknesses in the wording since others have done that far more eloquently than I can.
If the government is serious and if there is finally the political will to improve animal welfare in Ontario, then inspection and enforcement should be a police function. I would set up a special Division within the OPP, an Animal Crimes Unit as it were, to handle this aspect of the issue.
This unit would be accountable, transparent, well trained, effective and most importantly objective, with proper funding and resources already in place to allow for thorough investigations based on a clear rule of law.
The OSPCA would then revert to being a humane organization, doing adoptions, fundraising, educational outreach programs and other things that contribute to animal welfare in Ontario.
If current inspectors qualified, I see no reason why they couldn't become part of this unit, which could even be headquartered at the deluxe new facility in Newmarket.
The thought of a group that is immune to public scrutiny being able to enforce an ideology subjectively on an ad hoc basis is chilling indeed, as is the vision of their fundraising to support it.
You will say that the OSPCA already had police powers. This law would grant them more powers than the police with the warrantless entry provision. Perhaps they had some powers in the past; however, Ontario has changed dramatically since 1919 and even since 1990.
There's a war being waged under the radar across this continent between animal welfare advocates and militant animal rights groups who want to eliminate the relationship with our beloved animals - forever.
As for the continuing comments by Committee members about the lack of legislative tools with which to address the abhorrent but rare practice of organized animal fighting in Ontario, I would like to point out that The Criminal Code, Sections 446 and 447 speak to this issue (and others) quite comprehensively. I reproduce those sections for you here:
Criminal Code
PART XI: WILFUL AND FORBIDDEN ACTS IN RESPECT OF CERTAIN PROPERTY
Cruelty to Animals
Causing unnecessary suffering
446. (1) Every one commits an offence who
(a) wilfully causes or, being the owner, wilfully permits to be caused unnecessary pain, suffering or injury to an animal or a bird;
(b) by wilful neglect causes damage or injury to animals or birds while they are being driven or conveyed;
(c) being the owner or the person having the custody or control of a domestic animal or a bird or an animal or a bird wild by nature that is in captivity, abandons it in distress or wilfully neglects or fails to provide suitable and adequate food, water, shelter and care for it;
(d) in any manner encourages, aids or assists at the fighting or baiting of animals or birds;
(e) wilfully, without reasonable excuse, administers a poisonous or an injurious drug or substance to a domestic animal or bird or an animal or a bird wild by nature that is kept in captivity or, being the owner of such an animal or a bird, wilfully permits a poisonous or an injurious drug or substance to be administered to it;
(f) promotes, arranges, conducts, assists in, receives money for or takes part in any meeting, competition, exhibition, pastime, practice, display or event at or in the course of which captive birds are liberated by hand, trap, contrivance or any other means for the purpose of being shot when they are liberated; or
(g) being the owner, occupier or person in charge of any premises, permits the premises or any part thereof to be used for a purpose mentioned in paragraph (f).
Punishment
(2) Every one who commits an offence under subsection (1) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.
Failure to exercise reasonable care as evidence
(3) For the purposes of proceedings under paragraph (1)(a) or (b), evidence that a person failed to exercise reasonable care or supervision of an animal or a bird thereby causing it pain, suffering, damage or injury is, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, proof that the pain, suffering, damage or injury was caused or was permitted to be caused wilfully or was caused by wilful neglect, as the case may be.
Presence at baiting as evidence
(4) For the purpose of proceedings under paragraph (1)(d), evidence that an accused was present at the fighting or baiting of animals or birds is, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, proof that he encouraged, aided or assisted at the fighting or baiting.
Order of prohibition
(5) Where an accused is convicted of an offence under subsection (1), the court may, in addition to any other sentence that may be imposed for the offence, make an order prohibiting the accused from owning or having the custody or control of an animal or a bird during any period not exceeding two years.
Breach of order
(6) Every one who owns or has the custody or control of an animal or a bird while he is prohibited from doing so by reason of an order made under subsection (5) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.
R.S., c. C-34, s. 402; 1974-75-76, c. 93, s. 35.
Criminal Code
PART XI: WILFUL AND FORBIDDEN ACTS IN RESPECT OF CERTAIN PROPERTY
Cruelty to Animals
Keeping cock-pit
447. (1) Every one who builds, makes, maintains or keeps a cockpit on premises that he owns or occupies, or allows a cockpit to be built, made, maintained or kept on such premises is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.
Confiscation
(2) A peace officer who finds cocks in a cockpit or on premises where a cockpit is located shall seize them and take them before a justice who shall order them to be destroyed.
R.S., c. C-34, s. 403.
As you can see, the sections also contain a provision to deal with spectators at these barbaric contests.
The previously mentioned and totally unnecessary DOLA amendments (2005) contain a clause which expressly prohibits the training of 'pit bulls' to fight. To wit:
6. Except as permitted by this Act or the regulations, no person shall,
(a) own a pit bull;
(b) breed a pit bull;
(c) transfer a pit bull, whether by sale, gift or otherwise;
(d) abandon a pit bull other than to a pound operated by or on behalf of a municipality, Ontario or a designated body;
(e) allow a pit bull in his or her possession to stray;
(f) import a pit bull into Ontario; or
(g) train a pit bull for fighting.
If there were such a thing as a 'pit bull', which was disputed even by the lead counsel for the Attorney General in open court at Remedy in June, 2007, this might be easier to enforce. Perhaps that's the problem.
Why this prohibition wasn't applied to dogs in general is a mystery, since many fighting dogs today aren't related to the breeds named in Ontario's law.
Don't think I'm just flogging a dead dog here by mentioning the ownership ban.
I bring up Bill 132 because when coupled with Bill 50, it illustrates what seems to be a developing pattern on the part of this government for either superficial research efforts or the deliberate promotion of the animal rights agenda - I'm not sure which.
CONCLUSION
I suggest that this Bill be withdrawn, redrafted and presented again for debate and public consultation.
I further suggest that the issue should be examined in greater detail with a view to creating more protection for the animal-owning public and their animals than the current iteration affords.
I appreciate this opportunity to express my views on Bill 50 and hope that something can be developed that will enhance the lives of animals in this province but in my opinion, Bill 50 as presented is definitely not it
Thank you for your kind consideration.
Sincerely,
Name
Address
Phone
Email
Recent Comments