April 2008 was the first reading of Bill 50 in the Ontario provincial government. The Bill seeks to amend the OSPCA Act with some disturbing and scary consequences.
This Bill morphed out of Zimmer's Zoo Bill, which seemed to die on the table. Rick Bartolucci introduced Bill 50 instead, however there is no mention of zoo's in the OSPCA Act amendments. I agree, there needs to be some strengthening of existing laws for roadside zoo's. There currently isn't any regulation for roadside zoo's and there should be in my opinion.
WTD was given some background about the OSPCA:
the Ontario SPCA, the provincial umbrella organization (not local branches & affiliates) is created or "called forth" under the Ontario SPCA Act which gives it a mandate and it's inspectors and volunteer agents "any of the powers of a police officer" to enforce that mandate.
The Ontario SPCA has received over 7.5 million in provincial funding within the past 2 years.
The Ontario SPCA is created, mandated, empowered and receives funding from the province. Technically it should be considered a "provincial governmental organization". The Ontario SPCA would then fall under the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman and the Freedom of Information Act which would begin to address accountability and transparency issues.
The province does not consider the Ontario SPCA a "governmental organization", it labels the Ontario SPCA a private charity.
The Ontario SPCA is thus a legislated enforcement agency AND a private member advocacy group which results in conflict of interest and a lack of accountability and transparency.
In 1989 Ontario Federation of Agriculture (OFA) president Brigid Pyke formally asked the province to remove police powers from the Ontario SPCA.
In 2006 twenty nine out of 36 Ontario SPCA directors publicly resigned asking the province to remove police powers from the Ontario SPCA.
Bill 50 INCREASES Ontario SPCA police powers, granting the right to warrantless entry (other than a home). The issue of oversight and accountability is not addressed. Legislation is in the hands of inspectors and volunteer agents who are often unfamiliar with accepted and responsible animal practises.
Bill 50's wording is subjective. What is "adequate"? Who decides?
Inspectors may attend properties with uniformed, armed police officers. Why this intimidation? At whose cost?
Four days of committee hearings began on Monday. The first day of the hearings proved interesting to say the least.
A presentation by Michael O'Sullivan was excellent. Mr O'Sullivan made a second presentation later on behalf of someone else which is also worth reading. I encourage you to read through all the presentations. You will likely be alarmed as I am at some of the allegations. Here is Mr O'Sullivan's presentation in it's entirety:
HUMANE SOCIETY OF CANADA
The Acting Chair (Mr. David Zimmer): Tony Kenny? Tony Kenny? The Humane Society of Canada-are they here?
Interjection.
The Acting Chair (Mr. David Zimmer): If you don't mind starting; your slot was at 11:15-
Mr. Michael O'Sullivan: No, not at all.
The Acting Chair (Mr. David Zimmer): -but if you could start now. Thank you very much for your co-operation.
If you'll introduce yourself for the record, you'll have 15 minutes, and I'll give you three minutes' notice. If you want to leave time for questions at the end, that's your opportunity.
Mr. Michael O'Sullivan: Certainly. I had a question as well. Robert Burr, who's scheduled to speak at 2 o'c lock for the Burr Foundation-
The Acting Chair (Mr. David Zimmer): Yes, I've been made aware of that. I'll deal with that at the end of the morning.
Mr. Michael O'Sullivan: Thank you.
My name is Michael O'Sullivan, and I'm the chairman and CEO of the Humane Society of Canada. Thank you for giving me this opportunity to speak with you on behalf of our organization.
To fill you in a little bit on our work, we have concern for companion animals, farm animals and horses, laboratory animals, wildlife and environmental issues. We carry out our programs by providing financial and logistical support to a network of humane organizations as well as wildlife centres and shelters. We also appear before committees like this for stronger laws, we carry out undercover investigations, and we also promote respect for animals by speaking to children and helping them with school projects.
A little bit of my own background: I became involved in working with humane societies as a volunteer when I was 11 years old; I turned 54 yesterday. Obviously, I started out with a lot more hair on my head and a less grey beard. In any event, I headed up the Toronto Humane Society, I headed up the Windsor/Essex County Humane Society, I founded the Canadian office of the World Society for the Protection of Animals and was its regional director for 10 years, and for the last 16 years I've headed up the Humane Society of Canada. I've been an inspector, worked with police at all levels, including the RCMP and Interpol, looking at issues and helping them in court, preparing cases and giving evidence, and have been classified as an expert witness in court.
We have great concern over this bill, because it would be easier for me to enumerate to you all the animals that won't be protected rather than the ones that will be protected.
The mechanisms: I've watched and worked with the OSPCA over the last 40 years. Individually, I think there are some wonderful people working there and they do tremendous work under very difficult circumstances. I think that over the years the government has let them down badly in terms of the resources that they've made available for them to do the job, and the result is that I believe the OSPCA should still continue to enforce the law, but not under the structure that currently exists.
With respect to the powers that they're asking for, in many cases they already have those powers. In the case of veterinarians, under the Veterinarians Act, professional misconduct is specifically set aside if a veterinarian reports a case of animal abuse. So that authority already exists. In fact, over the years, veterinarians have traditionally resisted being controlled by humane societies. So even if you were to amend the act to let them do it, they're already required to do it now and they'll have to amend their own act in any event.
I'm a bit concerned that under the act veterinarians' offices and facilities for the very first time will be exempted from inspections by OSPCA inspectors, and I don't understand the rationale. Right now, under the current act, the only facility OSPCA inspectors cannot go into is a registered research facility where there are laboratory experiments being conducted. We don't agree with that either. Neither humane societies, researchers or farmers should be allowed to have voluntary self-supervision. In a perfect world, everything would be voluntary. That's not the world we live in.
My father was a farmer, I've worked on farms, I hold a bachelor of science in agriculture from the University of Guelph and I understand farmers very well. You're going to hear from them that OSPCA inspectors are not qualified to look at farm animals. Let me tell you something. Talk to any farmer and he thinks the farmer down the road is not qualified to tell him how to care for his farm animals. And that's okay, but it's like telling a police officer, "You can't investigate allegations of a certain offence because we don't think you have the proper training to do it." It just doesn't make any sense. There needs to be a greater supervisory role.
Under the current act, it says that the OSPCA approves inspectors, but the appointment is left up to the Attorney General, as it should be with police powers. Under the new act, it will be the society that appoints inspectors. It's my respectful submission that you can't have a charity with police powers that appoints itself and supervises itself. Right now, if there is concern about whether or not an investigation goes forward, starts at all or cruelty charges result, the buck stops with the chief inspector as to whether or not it goes forward. That' s not the way civilian concerns are expressed to other police forces. There's a police commission, you make a report to the police commission, and there's an investigation about whether or not the charges should have gone forward.
You need greater co-operation with crown attorneys. I've sat in court and listened to people-say, Regina v. Whoever-charged with cruelty to animals. You could hear a pin drop in the courtroom. The judges look at the clerks, the clerks look at the police. Nobody knows what to do. You need specially trained crown attorneys, you need judges who understand that cruelty to animals leads to violence towards people. No less than the FBI regards cruelty to animals as one of the three primary indicators of future criminal potential. This is very serious. So animals deserve protection in their own right, as well as for the sake of society.
The current provisions as they exist now actually undermine the Criminal Code because they provide exemptions for animals used in research, they provide exemptions for performing animals, animals in zoos and circuses, the racing industry, farm animals. You can't have those exemptions when the Criminal Code is silent on those types of animals. In fact, farm animals under the Criminal Code since 1892 always carried a heavier penalty if you were convicted of cruelty to animals. Traditionally, it was an indictable offence with five years. As you know, many of you supported the amendments to the Criminal Code at the federal level where they've increased the penalties. You've acknowledged that if there are stronger laws to protect animals, they should take precedence by section 21, which says that if you have municipal bylaws that provide stronger protection, then those bylaws have to take precedence. In a similar fashion, you have to do the same at the federal level. The Criminal Code overshadows anything you want to do here and you can't provide less protection under the law than already exists under the federal Criminal Code.
With respect to the use of the name SPCA or humane society, it's my respectful submission you don't have the authority to do it. The federal trademark through Industry Canada, the charitable status that you get from the federal government, all trump what you want to do here at a provincial level. You can't say to the directors of a humane society, who have moral, legal and fiduciary obligations that they applied for and were granted permission to use, that all of a sudden they're now subordinate to an outside agency which has all of the authority and absolutely none of the responsibility or the obligations or the liability of running a charity. You simply can't do it. The current structure of the Ontario Humane Society is based on its affiliate members. Four of the seven directors can't even sit on their own board of directors, and yet they sit on the board of the OSPCA. We believe the reason this section was included is because they regard organizations like ours and others as competition for fundraising. That's the reason this section is in there. You'll hear from them that the reason they did it was because these organizations can't carry out investigations unless they're OSPCA inspectors-absolutely untrue. The previous speaker from the World Society for the Protection of Animals carried out investigations which created a bill to protect zoo animals; they're not a law enforcement agency. We carry out investigations; we're not a law enforcement agency. It's like saying to a reporter, "You can't investigate an allegation of a crime because you're not a police officer."
1100
With all due respect, I think the intention of the bill is a good one. I think the mechanism leaves a lot to be desired. We're prepared to help you with that, but I would seriously urge the committee that there be more widespread public consultation before this gets third reading. I would hope that you would recommend that before the Legislature reconvenes on September 22.
I'd be pleased to answer any questions you might have.
The Acting Chair (Mr. David Zimmer): We've got a little more than two minutes per party. We'll start with Mr. Dunlop.
Mr. Garfield Dunlop: Thank you very much. Do you actually have a written submission here this-
Mr. Mike Colle: You've got the wrong rotation.
The Acting Chair (Mr. David Zimmer): Sorry?
Mr. Dave Levac: You did the wrong rotation. You did him last time.
The Acting Chair (Mr. David Zimmer): Oh, I'm sorry.
Mr. Garfield Dunlop: That's all right.
The Acting Chair (Mr. David Zimmer): My mistake. Ms. DiNovo.
Ms. Cheri DiNovo: Thanks, Mr. Chair.
Thank you so much for that. I thought that was succinct and to the point and addressed exactly what some of our major concerns are with this very poorly written piece of legislation. We hope that it's tightened up. We hope that sections are removed that shouldn't be there. We hope that some of the original intent of Mr. Zimmer's bill is brought back to life.
Thank you very much for all the work that you do. I also really appreciated the insight about federal laws and regulations and the fact that at a very rudimentary legal level, whoever drafted this bill didn't take that into consideration. It shows, again, the lack of foresight, the lack of thought, the lack of, I would say, any sort of legal rigour in drafting this bill and, at the end of the day, unfortunately, despite its protestations to the contrary, the lack of concern for the safety of animals, which is what we're all here about.
So thank you very much. As you could hear, they're fightin' words from our team, and we'll continue to fight for the welfare of animals. Thank you.
Mr. Michael O'Sullivan: Thank you.
The Acting Chair (Mr. David Zimmer): Thank you very much. Mr. Colle, a little more than two minutes.
Mr. Mike Colle: Just a few points of clarification. You say right now that there is no need to have further authority given to the OSPCA because they can investigate.
Mr. Michael O'Sullivan: That's correct.
Mr. Mike Colle: I've been involved in trying to stop and close down puppy mills for 10 years. Right now, most OSPCA officers cannot enter the properties of these puppy mill breeders because they would be charged with trespassing. If the puppy mill barn is at the back of the farm, how does an officer, or how would a member of your association-your association would have no power whatsoever. You have no legal power whatsoever. Can you trespass?
Mr. Michael O'Sullivan: I appreciate what you've said, and I need to be very candid and very open about this. Because of the lack of training of OSPCA inspectors, we believe they ought to have the six weeks at Aylmer, the same as the rest of the police. They ought to be properly funded.
Most OSPCA inspectors, quite frankly, will spend the first five minutes of a conversation with you telling you why they can't do anything to help animals. I'm not kidding-that's 40 years of experience.
To answer your question specifically, that's where the undercover aspect comes in. I would go in and say, "I'd like to buy a puppy from you." I look around, I see what's what, I go back out, I swear out the information, and you get a search warrant.
Mr. Mike Colle: Yes, but that is very ad hoc. It gives you no-
Mr. Michael O'Sullivan: It's perfectly legal.
Mr. Mike Colle: It gives you no authority to investigate-
Mr. Michael O'Sullivan: Perfectly legal.
Mr. Mike Colle: But very ad hoc, and certainly not under any statute do you have the power to investigate as a citizen or as an officer, right? As an OSPCA officer or a police officer, you can't enter unless you have-even a police officer would have difficulty justifying the entry.
The other thing I just want to mention to you is-
Mr. Michael O'Sullivan: Sorry, if I could interrupt for one second: Right now, there is a writ of mandamus which has been filed against the Quebec government because they're responsible for the enforcement of the provincial welfare act, and it's specifically after a puppy mill operator where a former staff member and other concerned citizens brought the evidence to the attention of ANIMA Quebec, which is the government agency, and they simply ignored it. There's an example.
Again, WSPA is another good example. They produced enough information and documentation to get a private member's bill on zoo regulations. They're not a law enforcement agency.
Mr. Mike Colle: First of all, we do not have that authority right now. That's why we're strengthening this legislation. That's why, right now in Ontario, if I notice that there's breeding of animals to fight-and they're being trained to fight all over Ontario and kill each other-whether they be poultry or dogs, there is no authority in any provincial statute right now to stop that. So this bill has the authority, through provincial legislation, to finally put a sanction on that, because right now, it's not on any federal-you talk about federal law. Show me in the federal Criminal Code where it's illegal to do that.
Mr. Michael O'Sullivan: Sure; not a problem.
The Acting Chair (Mr. David Zimmer): Thank you. Mr. Dunlop, about two and a half minutes.
Mr. Michael O'Sullivan: It's under section 4-
The Acting Chair (Mr. David Zimmer): Excuse me; we' re going to move to Mr. Dunlop now.
Mr. Garfield Dunlop: I just want to say that we take your words under advisement and I really appreciate some of the things that you brought out here this morning. No one could agree more with the one comment that you made: that before this ever goes to third reading, this bill needs a lot more consultation. I agree with that and I appreciate those comments.
Mr. Michael O'Sullivan: I'll be glad to follow up, sir, later on, and explain.
Mr. Mike Colle: Sure.
I urge you to contact your MPP directly to discuss any concerns you have about the amendments to the OSPCA Act. This Bill is past second reading and will be up for vote in the fall session of legislature.
