CONTENTS Tuesday 7 October 1997
Ontario Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Amendment Act, 1997,
Bill 153, Ms Bassett / Loi de 1997 modifiant la Loi sur la Société de protection
des animaux de l'Ontario, Projet de loi 153, Mme Bassett
STANDING COMMITTEE ON ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Chair / Président Mr Gerry Martiniuk (Cambridge PC) Vice-Chair / Vice-Président Mr E.J. Douglas Rollins (Quinte PC) Mr Dave Boushy (Sarnia PC) Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex South / -Sud L) Mr Jim Flaherty (Durham Centre / -Centre PC) Mr Garry J. Guzzo (Ottawa-Rideau PC) Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold ND) Mr Gerry Martiniuk (Cambridge PC) Mr David Ramsay (Timiskaming L) Mr E.J. Douglas Rollins (Quinte PC) Mr Bob Wood (London South / -Sud PC) Also taking part / Autres participants et participantes Ms Isabel Bassett (St Andrew-St Patrick PC) Ms Leanne Wong, Toronto Humane Society Clerk / Greffier Mr Douglas Arnott Staff / Personnel Mr Michael Wood, legislative counsel
Tuesday 7 October 1997 Mardi 7 octobre 1997
The committee met at 1532 in room 228.
ONTARIO SOCIETY FOR THE PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS AMENDMENT ACT, 1997 LOI DE 1997 MODIFIANT LA LOI SUR LA SOCIÉTÉ DE PROTECTION DES ANIMAUX DE L'ONTARIO
Consideration of Bill 153, An Act to provide more protection for animals by amending the Ontario Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act / Projet de loi 153, Loi prévoyant une protection accrue des animaux en modifiant la Loi sur la Société de protection des animaux de l'Ontario.
The Chair (Mr Gerry Martiniuk): Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. This is the clause-by-clause deliberation of the standing committee on administration of justice review of Bill 153. The committee recognizes the member for St Andrew-St Patrick. This is a bill sponsored by her.
The first thing for the committee to do is adopt the report of the subcommittee. Could I have a motion to that effect?
Mr E.J. Douglas Rollins (Quinte): I'll so move.
The Chair: Thank you. Any discussion? All those in favour? The subcommittee report is approved.
Now, Ms Bassett, it's traditional that you might give us a general introduction to the bill for a couple of minutes and then we'll proceed to clause-by-clause.
Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): Sorry, Mr Chair, I believe this subcommittee report ought to read "Tuesday 7 October 1997" instead of "September."
The Chair: Thank you very much for pointing that out, Mr Kormos. That was incorrect. Does anyone have any objection to amending the motion to include that amendment? It is carried.
Sorry, Ms Bassett.
Ms Isabel Bassett (St Andrew-St Patrick): Thank you very much, Mr Chair. Thanks, Mr Kormos, for pointing that out as well.
I want to thank my colleague the member for Cambridge, Mr Martiniuk, and of course the other members of the committee for hearing me today. With me today is Jack Slibar, who is the head of the Toronto Humane Society. I appreciate the opportunity to address the committee today on my private member's bill. I promise you I'm just going to speak literally two minutes, if that.
First of all, where am I coming from vis-à-vis this bill? To fill you in very briefly, without going into a family history, my daughter is in her last year of vet school. We've always had dogs, cats, ferrets and everything else. My other daughter is in the OPP and so she has been very involved with making visits out in the Midland area to animals that are in distress. So I have been very involved in hearing over the years, and especially the past couple of years, about the problems that animals are in and the lack of powers that we have in the humane society act to look after and correct situations. That's what started me getting interested in presenting this bill.
Then Jack Slibar at the Toronto Humane Society and the Ontario Humane Society, working in conjunction with other humane societies, came up with the idea that the OSPCA act, which was passed, believe it or not, back in the early 1900s, has not been changed since then, other than the odd amendment. Virtually every other government has tried to change the act to a degree, but other things have seemed to supersede on the agenda. We have it come up with three amendments that we feel will protect animals and prevent abuse. It's not going to wipe out abuse overnight. I don't purport for that to happen at all.
I want to read what Marion Boyd said, because I think that sums up the realistic aims and goals of these amendments. Marion Boyd said, during second reading debate on September 11: "Passing this bill is not going end the controversy about whether it is appropriate for large animal operations...to exist. It is not going to end the controversy about using animals for medical research and other kinds of research. It won't do that. But what it will do will be to add to the ability of those who work so hard in our communities to try and protect animals from cruelty as it is currently defined to do their job and be assured that they have some of the tools required to do their job."
What are these proposed changes that are going to make it easier for agents and inspectors to do their job? The bill will create more effective animal cruelty legislation (1) by allowing inspectors and agents to carry out their duties more effectively, (2) by making people more likely to comply with an animal care order issued by an inspector or agent of the humane society, and (3) by prohibiting people charged and convicted of animal cruelty or neglect from owning animals in the future. These amendments will better assist front-line organizations such as the Toronto Humane Society in caring for abused and neglected animals. I want very much, as many people do, to see these amendments passed so that we can get on with this protection. I want to thank the Toronto Humane Society, the Ontario Humane Society and all the people involved with animals, and my colleagues on both sides of the House for their support of these amendments.
The Chair: Thank you, Ms Bassett. We'll now proceed with the clause-by-clause and we'll do it in numerical order.
Any questions or comments in regard to section 1 of the proposed bill?
Mr Kormos: Just for the sake of information, are inspectors or agents of the society peace officers by virtue of any definition?
Ms Bassett: They have the powers of police officers under the act.
The Chair: I think the question was "peace officers."
Ms Bassett: Oh. It's section --
Mr Kormos: Okay. I'm just trying to flesh this out and put it in context. Thank you kindly. I appreciate that.
The Chair: Are there any further questions of Ms Bassett in regard to section 1? Is there any discussion or comment any member wishes to make in regard to section 1? If not, I'll put the question: Shall section 1 carry? All those in favour? Section 1 is carried.
Are there questions to Ms Basset in regard to section 2 of the proposed bill?
Mr Kormos: I should indicate that I spoke with Ms Bassett and some of the staff from the Toronto Humane Society about this before we started. One concern I had was the lack of procedure with Bill 153 for the purpose of applying for a court order. There being others here far more familiar with the law in that regard, I was asking about the prospect of, let's say, ex parte applications as compared to applications on notice, and then in the event that there is an ex parte, the prospect of a judge being permitted to make an interim order to accommodate a hearing after an ex parte seizure of an animal so that there could be a full hearing on notice. I would just like some assurance. As I say, the people here from the Toronto Humane Society are very generous with their advice in that regard, but if we could have some understanding of that on the record, it could be valuable for people who might have cause to refer back to this hearing.
1540
Ms Bassett: I don't think anything has changed under my amendment from what the law was previously. People are not allowed to obstruct inspectors going in, but if an inspector is going to go in, they will still require search warrants that are going to have to be obtained under the law, as any search warrant is.
The Chair: Excuse me, I think we're dealing with section 2. I believe Mr Kormos was directing his question to section 2 and in particular to subsection 20(2), which is an application to the court, and I think his question was whether that application could be made ex parte, without the individual respondent being in attendance, or whether it would have to be made with notice.
Ms Bassett: Oh, I didn't hear that. It would have to be given with notice.
Mr Kormos: I'm not critical of this section of the bill. Obviously the bill itself permits seizure of an animal, and that process is already provided for within the bill. The issue here is ownership, being a custodian, having custody of animals for a period of time specified. I'm interested in the prospect of being able to move speedily. Obviously, this would be applicable in the case of a big corporate operator as well that might well have animals seized but that could, if it was a commercial operation, then import new animals. Let's assume what we've read about the notorious dog breeding operations. Puppy mills would be importing new puppies in short order even though the humane society just seized 50 puppies in need of protection, I guess is the phrase. So when you say that there's no ex parte, how do you deal with the issue of the next truckload that comes in tomorrow --
Ms Bassett: -- before he's been convicted.
Mr Kormos: Yes.
Ms Bassett: If he's been convicted, the judge can then say this person or operation is not allowed to own an animal again, under my amendment. If he has not been convicted while he's charged and they've taken away the first batch of animals, what happens then to prevent a second batch coming in? The lawyer says that they could then apply to the courts for an interim order saying he's not permitted to do that when the second batch of animals comes in. What we have to be sure to make clear is that the Ontario regular procedures and rules must be followed if you're making an order. There's no way around it, even in the case of an example such as the one you give.
Mr Kormos: Thank you kindly. Thank you to counsel.
The Chair: I'm sorry. I'm still somewhat confused. I thought the answer initially was that there is no ex parte order. Now I think I understand that there is an ex parte interim application provision. Is that correct? Is there an interim application ex parte?
Ms Bassett: There is.
The Chair: Okay.
Interjection.
The Chair: Possibly you might step up to the microphone, ma'am. If you could identify yourself, you're speaking on behalf of --
Ms Leanne Wong: I'm from the Toronto Humane Society. However, perhaps the legislative counsel would prefer to comment on this.
Mr Michael Wood: I'm from the office of the legislative counsel. I can make one comment; that is, that in Ontario statutes it is not necessary to set out procedure that is covered by the rules of civil procedure. If the rules of civil procedure allow for an application to be made ex parte or for an order for interim relief, then that would be sufficient.
Ms Wong: So in this case the Ontario rules of procedure do apply and they have to be followed.
The Chair: Good. Thank you very much. Does that answer your question, Mr Kormos? Are there any further questions?
Mr Bob Wood (London South): Just to make sure I've got this too, there's no deviation from the regular rules of practice that is introduced by this legislation?
Ms Bassett: Absolutely none.
Mr Kormos: I've talked about the penalty sections, recognizing that the maximum penalty for a corporation is twice the maximum monetary penalty for an individual. Obviously that's in consideration of the fact we can't send a corporation to jail, per se. We also have subsection (2), which would -- let me lay this out because I want the advisers here to confirm if this is correct or tell me where I'm wrong. Effectively, under subsection (2), we have a corporation getting fined, yet an officer or director -- and I'm not quarrelling with the proposition of an officer or director being subject to not only a fine but an actual custodial penalty simultaneously. I think we have to be clear that one doesn't bar the other, that the two are not mutually exclusive -- subsection (2) and subsections (3) and (4).
Ms Bassett: We feel that legislative counsel should comment on this.
Mr Michael Wood: I can give my opinion as counsel to the assembly on this matter. I would agree with what you have said, that under subsection 21(2) of the act, as proposed in the bill, officers and directors who are individuals can also be guilty of an offence, and since they are individuals they are subject to the penalty under subsection 21(3), in addition to the corporation being subject to 21(4) if convicted of an offence.
Mr Kormos: Thank you.
The Chair: We're dealing with section 2. Any further questions or comments before I put the question? If not, shall section 2 carry? All those in favour? It's carried unanimously.
Are there any questions of Ms Bassett in regard to section 3? I wouldn't have expected so. Is there any comment? If not, shall section 3 carry? Carried.
We're now dealing with section 4, the short title of the act. Is there any comment in regard to that section? If not, shall section 4 carried? Section 4 is carried.
I now put the question: Shall the long title of the act carry? That is the one on the front page, An Act to provide more protection for animals by amending the Ontario Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act. If there's no comment, shall it carry? It is carried.
Lastly, I ask for your authorization: Shall I report the bill to the House? Mr Kormos?
Mr Kormos: Ms Bassett has already referred to the comments Ms Boyd made during second reading debate in the House. I want to indicate to Ms Bassett, although I am sure she was confident of this, that obviously the New Democratic Party supports these amendments to the Ontario Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act.
I obviously have the greatest familiarity with the humane society down in Welland, which services a number of communities in Niagara. Unfortunately, especially a whole lot of urban dwellers have a very limited or restricted perspective of what humane societies do across the province. Clearly in agricultural, rural parts of the province -- and Niagara South, Welland county, is very much a blend of urban and rural -- the humane society's role goes far beyond, let's say, canine control, although that in itself is an important function, an important municipal function which is, as often as not, almost inevitably carried on by humane societies, when municipalities, to be very candid, are finding themselves harder and harder strapped and it seems that humane societies are among the first on the list to be called upon to suffer reduced transfers from municipal governments.
I know in the case of Welland -- and I know Bernie Webb, who is the recently retired director of the Welland Humane Society, for whom I have the highest regard, a person of integrity and a real commitment to animals welfare in general and to the welfare of the community. I make note of that because I'm fearful that the role of the humane society is oftentimes not held in sufficient regard. It's a health and safety issue for the community, first and foremost. I'm talking about the community as animals co-existing with their two-legged colleagues, humans.
I want to indicate our support for the bill. Ms Boyd is quite right, it isn't a cure-all of the ills and evils, and it isn't going to resolve some of the tensions that have existed historically and will continue to exist as the debate goes on.
I want to indicate that I don't own any animals now. Charlie the beagle died two years ago. Charlie's the first time I ever acquired a purebred dog. Unfortunately he was a beagle. I recall being referred to an animal trainer in Niagara Falls, a fellow who works for the Niagara Parks Commissions, because Charlie Ryall, who breeds Labs and does field trials with his Labs, said, "You take Charlie the beagle to my friend who works with the Niagara Parks Commission." I thought it was a wonderful idea because Charlie and I had been thrown out of the local obedience schools -- both of us had been thrown out, not just the beagle.
Interjection: Both animals.
Mr Kormos: Well, it's true about dogs and their owners. But I went to the dog trainer that Charlie Ryall had used frequently for his Labs and told him my problems with Charlie. He asked, "What breed of dog is this?" I said, "He's a beagle." He thought for a minute and he asked, "Does the dog bark?" "Yes." "The dog's trained." That's my beagle story.
Charlie used to get busted regularly by the Welland Humane Society, to the point where the humane society would simply get on the phone and say, "Your beagle's over at a house on Wilson Road, it's address 236. Go pick him up, because if we go pick him up, it's going to cost you 50 or 60 bucks," whatever it was that busted beagles get fined.
None the less, having told that story about Charlie the beagle, of whom I have fond memories and who was taken care of on a daily basis by my neighbour Joanne Bouchard, I say, good, let's let this legislation pass and let's be conscious of the incredible pressures put on humane societies across the province as they struggle with municipalities upon whom significant downloading is taking place and for whom the tax dollar is becoming more and more scarce because of that downloading. You didn't think we'd do this committee hearing without me mentioning that, did you, Ms Bassett?
The Chair: Is there any further comment in regard to the question I put, shall I report this bill to the House? If not, shall I be authorized to report to the House? All those in favour? Agreed.
There are no other matters before this committee. I thank you, Ms Bassett, for an excellent presentation.
Mr David Ramsay (Timiskaming): Do we have any sense of when we might be in a position to have a subcommittee meeting to discuss a bill that might be referred to us? Do we have any progress knowing what we're going to be doing in the intersession?
The Chair: We have the time allocation motion passed yesterday which referred Bill 160 to this committee. I hope to have a meeting tomorrow or Thursday. I understand Mr Wildman has been substituted for Mr Kormos on behalf of the third party, and has Ms McLeod been substituted for yourself?
Mr Ramsay: I don't know for whom. We're going to share those duties.
The Chair: I hope to have one tomorrow.
Mr Ramsay: If we could, that would be great, so we can get that clarified.
The Chair: If there are no other matters, we are adjourned at the request of the Chair.
The committee adjourned at 1554.