August 5, 2008 BY FAX

Standing Committee on Justice Policy

Rm 1405, Whitney Block,

Queen’s Park

Toronto, Ontario M7A 1A2

Attn: Jeff Leal, MPP

Vice-Chair

Dear Sir:

Re: Bill 50, Provincial Animal Welfare Act, 2008

The total amount of suffering in the natural world is beyond all decent contemplation. During the minute it takes me to say these words, thousands of animals are running for their lives, whimpering with fear, feeling teeth sink into their throats. Thousands are dying from starvation or disease or feeling a parasite rasping away from within. There is no central authority; no safety net. For most animals the reality of life is struggling, suffering and death.

- Dr Richard Dawkins

Introduction

That is the natural world; there is nothing humans could or should do to interfere. Our only control is over ourselves. Bill 50, Provincial Animal Welfare Act, 2008 on its surface appears to be an effort to provide some measure of protection for animals, mostly by controlling the actions of humans.

Despite the fine words of the Preamble, this Act fails to address the baser instincts of humans to control themselvesinsofar as animals are concerned. It fails in its stated purpose; it fails in light of the large swath of animalsthat will see no benefit from this proposed law.

Essentially, this Act confers a modest increase in authority and responsibility for the Ontario Society for the Protection of Animals (OSPCA), but it does not give them the responsibility, or even the right, to act on behalf of the greatest number of Ontario’s animals. Their authority is limited to not much more than the family pet.

Our first concern is for the wide array of animals who will receive no protection under this Act: animals in roadside zoos; feral and stray animals; wildlife; farming and exotic animals. Second, the purpose of the Act appears to be: protection of the financial interests of farmers, hunters, corporations – with the added benefit that some animals will receive some minor measure of protection beyond what is already available for them.

Comments by Section

S.11.1(1) – / The first problem here is that reference is made to undefined prescribed standards. These need to be outlined more fully – before seeking public comment.
The second problem is the exclusion of veterinarians from the application of this Act. We do recognize that the Veterinarians Act has certain remedies concerning the actions/inactions of veterinarians; but they should not be excluded from also facing penalties under this present Act.
S.11.2(1) – / This is not sufficient, given the vague definition in the Preamble of ‘distress’. More clarity is required.
S.11.2(6) – / (a)It is unacceptable that no protection is afforded for wildlife, nor any mandate to assist a wild animal in distress. We hope the Committee does not need to be reminded that this group of animals represents by far the majority of Ontario’s animals. Even if one believes that hunting is a socially or morally acceptable pursuit, this Act does nothing to demand of those hunters that they do so in a manner that will not create unnecessary and undue suffering.
(b)It is unacceptable that agricultural animals can continue to be cruelly treated. There are many independent studies that show treatment of farm animals can be barbaric – yet this constitutes ‘generally accepted practices’, seemingly endorsed by this Act.
(c)This clause pertaining to entry without warrant is too vague to be of any value.
S.11.4 – / The various clauses of this section are contradictory, and weak. Inspectors should have authority to enter premises as and when they deem it necessary. As written, Inspectors must essentially knock politely on the door, during hours convenient for the possible perpetrator. However, inspectors have no right of entry to a dwelling without the consent of the occupant – apparently, even solid evidence of Act contraventions occurring inside the dwelling will not force open that door if the occupant declines. That is futile.
S.18.1(2) – / Penalty should be a minimum of $1,000, to maximum of $5,000, plus imprisonment.
S.22.(1) / As above, it is disingenuous to promote legislation that will be enforced by regulation without public debate on those regulations. As provided in your documentation, this Section is meaningless.
However, it is clearly the expectation of the Act’s drafters that the Lieutenant Governor-in-Council will issue regulations (or choose to remain silent) with the intent ofreinforcing the lucrative hunting industry, factory farming, roadside zoos, circuses, animal testing, etc.
Most important is clause (d) which provides for exempting anyone from this law, seemingly at whim. If this law is to be valuable, it must have force, it must have consistency, and it must have standards that are transparent and accountable.

General Comments

Your material states:

… The offences of causing or permitting distress to an animal do not apply in respect of native wildlife and fish in the wild, generally accepted practices or agricultural animal care, management or husbandry or other classes of animals or activities prescribed by regulation. The offences of causing or permitting animal to be in distress do not apply to veterinarians …

Let us first say that we oppose ‘recreational’ hunting and fishing. We can accept subsistence hunting and fishing; but the very notion that society should sanction the idea of going out to nature for the sole purpose of killing some of it, makes a mockery of the first two points of your Preamble.

While we realize there is not any chance that the government would have the temerity to ban hunting outright, the treatment of animals by hunters should at least be regulated. At this point, a hunter is limited to the number of animals s/he can kill; but there is no limit on the number they can injure and maim. Essentially, this law requires people to take appropriate actions to care for Fluffy and Rover, and then lets them freely go out into the wilderness (or publicly accessed recreational areas!) and maim whatever they like.

This Act does nothing to prevent an individual from killing or maiming stray or feral animals.

This Act relieves the OSPCA from any obligation or authority to address the horrors of factory farming.

This Act does not assist the animals in roadside zoos, or privately held non-native species and exotics.

Conclusions

This proposed legislation is toothless. It is ‘feel good’ legislation, drafted to make it seem as though the OSPCA is a useful body (a point we do not concede) and that somehow the wording of this Act will make the lives of animals better. In very limited circumstances, it might. But for all the large issues – those that cover the 95% + of Ontario’s animals who are not pets or livestock – this legislation does nothing.

It is clear to us that this Act serves but one purpose: optics. Its intent is to give the illusion of taking decisive and compassionate action, in order to mollify the bunny-hugger crowd, while ensuring that those who stand to make money from the exploitation of animals are well-protected: farmers, hunters, fishers, entertainers (zoo keepers), and researchers. In that regard, we have no illusions about the value of this law, the purpose of this Committee, or the likelihood of any submission made to the Committee improving the legislation toward its stated purpose.

It is ironic that a group such as People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) can have far greater benefit than those we elect to protect our interests. As you will know, PETA is widely seen as a comical organization, repeatedly derided by media and government (although not necessarily this one). And yet their persistence and tenacity has managed to bring about a great number of improvements in the lives of animals and, dare we say, society as a whole. They are effectively doing the job that governments don’t have the will or moral fortitude to do.

The legislation is drafted to protect the financial interests of several groups; it is not drafted to protect animals. It clearly respects the monetary goals of corporations, industry, agricultural combines, government – and relieves them of any significant liability under this Act. Nothing contained in the Act requires any of those groups to have regard for the distress, suffering, or lives of animals.

While this Act doesn’t appear on the surface to create any new harm, it does, in fact, do just that. Passage of this Act will cause the government to pat itself on the back and take this issue off the stove altogether. The Act is too weak to be of any value, it contains too many mindless exemptions and not enough penalties. And it relieves the OSPCA of responsibility for most of Ontario’s animals.

It is better that this Act simply be defeated than to be passed as written. It will do more harm than good.

All of which is respectfully submitted.

Paul Harris, Co-Founder
Southwestern Ontario Wildlife Coalition
47 Wellington Street, RR 3
Denfield, Ontario N0M 1P0
Copy: / Animal Alliance of Canada / Ontario Wildlife Coalition
Hon Deborah Matthews / Hon Donna Cansfield
Mike Colle, MPP / John Tory, PC
Maria Van Bommel, MPP / ZoocheckCanada
Hon Dalton McGuinty / Howard Hampton, MPP

Southwestern Ontario Wildlife Coalition Submission – Bill 50, Provincial Animal Welfare Act, 2008

Page 1