In the blog preceding this, I attached the press release from Mr. MacLaren's office which identifed some key areas he wishes to address. Below are excerpts (indented and italic) from the actual Bill, with my comments to follow. However, before ANY discussion ensues, there are certain incontroversible facts that must be taken into consideration when reading the proposed amendements - not the least of which is those reading the Bill must keep in mind that Mr. MacLaren is himself a farmer and as such, carries some understandable preconceptions and prejudices respecting animal rights. Further, the assumptions made (i.e. splitting the investigation functions between the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, the police and a much depleted OSPCA) are speculative ONLY and there have been no actual discussions between the parties he mentions.
FACT 1: According to the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs ("OMAFR"), Mr. MacLaren has not to date had ANY discussions with that department respecting his proposal that OMAFR be assigned the responsibility of investigating alleged cruelty or neglect to farm animals. Lynn Perrier, founder of RAAW spoke directly to Minister of Agriculture Ted McMeekin regarding Bill 47 and OMAFR's stance on whether they would be ready, willing and able to take on the proposed new responsiblities. She said "Mr. McMeekin said not only would he not support such an arrangement, he had not seen the Bill nor discussed it with MPP Jack MacLaren."
Shared responsibilityHowever, even IF OMAFRA agrees to take on these extra responsibilities, Mr. MacLaren's proposed amendment includes the following with respect to that role:
1.1 Responsibility for the prevention of cruelty to animals in the Province is shared in accordance with this Act between the following persons and entities:
1. The Society.
2. With respect to farm animals, the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs.
3. The Ontario Provincial Police and all municipal police forces.
3. Section 3 of the Act is amended by adding the following subsection:
Consultation
(2) In pursuing its objects with respect to farm animals, the Society shall consult with, and where appropriate defer to, the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs and local police forces.
(3) An inspector or agent to whom a matter is assigned under clause (1) (a) or (2) (a) shall investigate the matter by means of observation or, with the consent of the owner or custodian of the animal in question, may examine the animal in order to determine whether the animal is in distress."with the consent of the owner or custodian of the animal in question" is the crucial phrase here. In essence, if someone reports a case of neglect or cruelty, Mr. MacLaren is proposing that OMAGRA inspectors are only given egress IF the owner or farmer in question agrees to that inspector actually entering on the premises and investigating! It is hardly rocket science to speculate that someone who has abused an animal or is keeping an animal (or animals) in a manner that is causing cruel and unnecessary suffering, is HARDLY going to invite inspectors in.
Then there is the proposed amendment below:
13. (1) If a justice of the peace or provincial judge is satisfied by information on oath that there are reasonable grounds to believe that an animal is in distress and that a veterinarian has examined the animal and recommended certain actions be taken, the justice of the peace or provincial judge may order the owner or custodian of the animal to,
...Given the inspector is allowed on the premises and determines there is an animal in 'distress" (Mr. MacLaren also wants to strike the language "abused or neglected" for the less straightforward and softer term "distress"), the inspector must THEN apply to a Judge or Justice of the Peace for a ruling that the animal must be treated, removed or euthanized (whatever the course of action). In the interim, that animals (or animals) is left to suffer.
FACT 2: The OPP have not been consulted about their proposed role in cruelty to animals investigations. As stated previously, this in itself is absurd. Apart from the reality that OPP (and municipal police forces) have limited resources, it is a fact that such resources go first to deal with their mandated responsiblities before dealing with any animal-related complaints or reports. Further, no police force currently sanctions or demands that their officers and personnel receive training in how to deal with animals - and as such- it is highly improbable that officers would know how to read a situation or, indeed, how to judge whether an animal is in distress or in an untenable situation.
There is also the factor that the OPP and municipal police forces are ALREADY involved if there is some belief that property or persons might be in danger and can and have accompanied OSPCA officials on raids and other investigations already. It is in that respect, moot.
I would also point out that in today's Toronto Star, there is an article which outlines how cash-strapped the entire provincial police infrastructure truly is - and that "Taxpayers are digging deeper into their wallets to cover the rising costs of policing — and that means governments must team up to stem demands for higher wages and benefits, says the Ontario Association of Police Services Boards." Given that the cost of policing is already significantly higher than government has anticipated, it is highly questionable whether the OPP or any other municpal police force will see monitoring animal calls as a priority.
There are a myriad of other concerns raised by the proposed Bill - all of which bode ill for Ontario animals. for instance, another amendment is proposed as set out below:
Choice of veterinarianAgain, unacceptable. An unaffiliated third party vet with no connection or relationship with the individual in question is the only choice on a rational and realistic basis. Certaintly, there needs to be an "arm's length" clause which would preclude the vet from literally investigating him or herself.
15. (1) Where, under sections 11.4 to 14, a veterinarian is authorized to accompany an inspector or an agent of the Society or is permitted or required to examine an animal or provide advice or recommendations for the care, treatment, removal or destruction of an animal, the owner or custodian of the animal shall select the veterinarian or approve the choice of veterinarian.
More on this to follow in the coming days. While I am hopeful the Bill will be dead in the water and will receive little or no support from other members, it is crucial to be cognizant of the implications of such a Bill.
Thank you so much for this excellent explanatory article. The populous of Ontario needs to understand the horrific implications of this proposed legislation and take action. This article brings much needed transparency to the realities of this proposed legislation. Thank you so much.
ReplyDeleteGreat article. This propoesed legislation will turn back the clock on protection for animals.
ReplyDeleteSo as it stands you people like a private, unacountable police force in Ontario. Presently the OSPCA Act gives the OSPCA warrantless entry on to peoples property, for your information this has been struck down by the courts as this is a charter violation. The OSPCA needs a lot of fixing, Bill 47 is trying to do this.
ReplyDeleteannonymous-what Bill 47 and Jack Maclaren is trying to do is to appease people like you how become to violently opposed to having someone entering "Your Land" and investigating what you are doing...people who have nothing to hide, hide nothing....it is people like you who are enraged that you are being held accountable to a higher standard of ethical and humane treatment of animals and the OSPCA is right there enforcing these laws. Bill 47 is a vindictive attempt to retaliate against the OSPCA, who is a responsible, legal, and much needed agency with highly trained investigators to come in an rescue animals from abuse and neglect. This bill does not serve AT ALL the Animals of Ontario.....it only serves farmers like Jack Maclaren and the areas he lives in....the Biasness of this bill is outrageous
DeleteActually, I also believe the OSPCA needs to be overhauled - and there needs to be an impartial, non-government party to whom people can turn in cases where the OSPCA has itself been vindicative, incompetant and wrong (of which there are MANY cases). However, Bill 47 is NOT the way to do it - it is actually worse than the current OSCPA as it stands. I do agree that a lot of individuals are seekign a way to avoid any "interference" with their businesses. In short, Bill 47 NEEDS to be killed and killed for good but then serious, unbiased parties must start taking about how to deal with the OSPCA as it now stands.
DeleteBill 47 is using the issues within the OSPCA as an excuse to close the door on cruelty investigations and treatment of animals as anything other than a commodity.
DeletePeople need to factor humane care into the costs of doing business when animals are involved, and if they fail to do so and the OSPCA steps in and deems it necessary, then YES, the person or entity that the animals were seized from should foot the bill.
"Farmers", or people who own land zoned Agricultural, should not be allowed to partake of the benefits that agricultural zoning and tax rates offer, as they are not using the land for farming practices, and not selling products related to human consumption of food. Companion animals have different needs, both in the way they live and their needs for proper socialization, grooming, and health care and should not lumped in with the same standards as those raised for food. They should face the same zoning restrictions as anyone else who wishes to operate a licensed kennel to house dogs (and/or cats), Municipal building and health codes, and be open to inspection at any time. Municipalities need to recognize this and stop creating loopholes that allow farm properties to operate under lesser standards.
Bill 47 is a front to weaken our Animal Welfare Legislation, which is already weak. Don't allow it to be passed!
Anonymous, I absolutely believe the OSPCA needs an overhaul and have written to that effect many times. My own horrendous experience with them leaves no question in my mind that there is much that needs changing; starting with firing the entire upper management staff. I also believe there should be an overseer, one, however who is independent of the government. To suggest otherwise, leaves animals at the mercy (which we know would be merciless) of political will. Bill 47 is NOT, however, the answer. As noted above, it would leave Ontario animals in a WORSE position than the rather bad one they currently maintain. Simply by disagreeing with this violently partisan and obviously prejudicial Bill is NOT the way to go; I would and have said repeatedly like to see the entire OSPCA looked at seriously - but not in the way Mr. MacLaren recommends
ReplyDelete