Thank you for allowing us time to speak with you today.
The Canadian Kennel Club was established in 1887. It is an organization that has supported dogs and their owners throughout Canada, promoting ethical breeding practices and breeder accountability for well over one hundred years. Included in its’ mandate/objects is the following commitment: -
Co-operating with governments at all levels in Canada in the development of legislation, which will effectively control the activities of irresponsible dog owners and breeders without unduly restricting responsible owners and breeders;
And also
Promoting the knowledge and understanding of the benefits, which dogs can bring to Canadian society and the means by which these benefits can most effectively be enjoyed;
As a national organization, we take these responsibilities seriously and work regularly with Municipalities, Provincial governments and federal staff to further responsible dog ownership in Canada.
Today we hope to offer supportive input to your proposed Amendments to Bill 50 – the Provincial Animal Welfare Act. At a time when pet ownership is rising to never before known numbers in North America, it is commendable that this government is reviewing existing legislation and considering necessary amendments to support responsible ownership and to respond to situations where there is notable irresponsibility. We commend your forethought and thank you for moving forward.
There are areas of the current proposed amendments that, if reworked, would better support improved care and monitoring of companion animals. Section 11 (1) Perhaps our most significant concern with this amendment is the lack of the addition of an independent oversight committee. A self-policing organization with no separate and independent review mechanism lends itself, even if unwittingly, to public criticism and the impression of nepotism or worse. With the addition of such a committee, the Province would be in a position to better support the decisions of the OSPCA through a credentialed and independent structure. This would offer the OSPCA the impartial response required for this type of government funded organization and would assure Ontarians that their rights and privileges associated with pet ownership are being taken seriously with due diligence being paid the decision making process. The Canadian Kennel Club is willing to support this independent structure and offers its’ resources, at no cost to the Province, to assist in the development of the mandate and structure as well as offering to take a seat on the committee at the Province’s discretion.
While we understand the challenging nature of an SPCA inspector’s duties, it is unclear to us, as specialists in dog breeding and animal care, why the decision was taken to provide all “powers of a police officer” to individuals not trained to assume this role. While this degree of decision-making may have been required in decades where the police presence in areas such as rural Ontario was meager, this is no longer the case and the training and competence of our police forces is among the best in the world. Given that fact, unless the Province is intending to provide an equal level of training to all of its’ OSPCA inspectors, it is recommended that those duties requiring a policing presence should remain with the police. Both from a safety and an evidentiary standpoint, these trained professionals are in a much stronger position to respond to the legal and potentially dangerous situations surrounding search and seizure, situations that are not every day occurrences and that are better handled by those with professional training and experience. Limited policing powers may be necessary but the full powers of a police officer provide an over reaching mandate that will not serve to better protect either Ontarians or their animals.
Section 11 (4) We commend you for requiring that inspectors now provide to those citizens with whom they are dealing evidence of his/her appointment and urge you to delete “on request”. With emotional situations where animals are involved and serious decisions being taken by the OSPCA, it should be a matter of course for the agent to professionally identify him/herself in every case.
A mechanism to deal with dog fighting and those that support and encourage it is well placed in this amendment. We would encourage you to go one step further with the addition to Section 11.2 to define animal fighting equipment and structures so that there is no mistaking the seriousness of the offense and the evidence of its’ existence is made clear to inspectors
Given the relative ease of obtaining a search warrant using technology as outlined in this document, it is recommended that “without a warrant” be limited to extreme situations where an animal’s life is at stake and the time necessary to obtain a warrant not available. In all other cases, a warrant should be necessary. It is important to note that many boarding facilities throughout this province are private premises on private residential property – not incorporated businesses. These facilities run from the homes and buildings of private citizens. Warrant-less search and seizure should not be possible in these cases.
Section 12.1 (3) The ability to care for animals is a highly specialized process. Many of our companion animals are being treated by veterinarians for illnesses that even a decade ago were undiagnosed because no treatment was available. To ensure that an animal’s life is not compromised, it is recommended that at the end of this clause, there should be additional wording: -
“ . . . he or she may, in addition to any other action he or she is authorized to take under this Act, supple the animal with food, care or treatment by a veterinarian.”
Section 15.1 Given the abundance of purebred dogs in society as well as the increasing awareness of the general public in the area of identifying pets for the purposes of repatriation should they become lost or stolen, it is recommended that the Act acknowledge the existence of and make provision for examination of the animal for the evidence of a tattoo and/or microchip prior to assessing the animal found or seized as having no owner.
Section 15 (2) ( c )& ( d ) add to the end . . .based on industry rates
In clarifications of the Bill’s intent, it notes that Section 1 of the Act is amended to clarify that if the owner or custodian of an animal is a minor, the minor’s parents or guardians are deemed owners for the purposes of the Act. It is recommended that this be taken one step further and that the Bill be amended to note that if a minor is deemed to have offended (whether or not he/she is the owner) under this Act, that the parents/guardian be held responsible for damages incurred.
In summary, the Canadian Kennel Club is appreciative of your efforts as a government to better support animals in a safe and humane environment in the Province of Ontario. We recommend an annual report be required to be presented to the legislature providing the government and the citizens of the province a full accounting of the activities of a Society so heavily funded by government. We have provided today our thoughts on moving this legislation forward in an even more positive way, increasing accountability of citizens and of the government in an effort to improve our society. In the addition of an independent oversight committee, the limitation of policing powers for those not fully trained to perform policing functions, the limitation of situations not requiring a warrant to only those that are critical and the clarification of the areas as outlined in this presentation, this Act will be strengthened in a way that will meet the objectives of this government, of the OSPCA and of the agencies and entities with whom you are working to better support Ontarians.