I’d like to thank the member from Kiiwetinoong for an excellent lead-off to the opposition debate on Bill 159.

As I begin my remarks, I think of the Humane Society of London and Middlesex, who are engaged in a wonderful campaign. It’s called New Home, New Hope. They’ve been at their current location at 624 Clarke Road for 120 years, and they’re currently moving to 1414 Dundas Street. Unfortunately, it’s just outside of my riding, but it’s very close to the border. But within this brilliant plan, they’re going to have outdoor spaces, play areas. Right now, the cages that are in their current space don’t meet industry standards. It’s an old building; there’s old plumbing, there’s an old HVAC system. The capacity is 175 to 200, and the new location will have about 400.

What’s also really brilliant and revolutionary about this plan is that it really looks after the skills pipeline. It is in partnership with post-secondary institutions such as Fanshawe, so allowing training of vet techs, experiential learning, local leadership capacity.

I wanted to start off with this because the Humane Society of London and Middlesex has asked this province for $1.5 million, and it’s fallen upon deaf ears with this government, despite all of the spending that we saw in budget 2024. As it turns out, the city of London has contributed twice the amount that was asked of the province. They’ve contributed $3 million. The federal government has stepped up, but unfortunately, the province is really a laggard when it comes to funding these amazing initiatives.

What’s brilliant about it is that it will also include pet training classes, adoptions and an education centre where children will be able to take school visits. As I said, it will really look after that skills pipeline of people entering veterinary medicine. They will have seasonal camps, but also there will be a companion animal hospital that will support shelter animals as well as provide affordable vet services. It will be building the spaces that people need, whether it’s saying goodbye to a pet, which will be accessible from a certain door as opposed to the people who are entering to adopt a new family member, which will be from a separate door—because can you imagine those two people crossing paths? It doesn’t make much sense, Speaker. But unfortunately, this government has not yet chosen to acknowledge that funding request, and it really is such a pity because I believe it’s a very worthy cause, a very worthy organization. I hope this government will reconsider that.

As we look at Bill 159, there are some good measures that do come forward within Bill 159, including making certain practices illegal, such as breeding a female dog more than three times in a two-year period or breeding more than two litters from a female dog’s consecutive heat cycles; breeding a female dog that is less than a year old or failing to keep a dog with a contagious disease away from other dogs or animals; failure to keep a dog’s environment sanitary and free from the accumulation of waste; and also separating a puppy from its mother before the age of eight weeks. These measures do make a great deal of sense, Speaker. We see a few guidelines here having a minimum penalty of $10,000. However, if any infractions result in the death of a dog, it could be a fine of up to $25,000.

Now, what I will say is that these are good places to start, but many animal care advocates are asking for a great deal more from this government. They don’t believe that this goes far enough. In fact, this legislation has been called toothless. It has been said that these baseline fines are simply not enough to tackle and address the issue that this legislation in Bill 159 purports to try to solve or to try to combat.

Animal Justice has written, “One of the biggest failures of the PUPS Act is that it does not require dog breeders to be licensed.” So Bill 159 is to prevent these unethical puppy sales, but the government is not making sure that these people will even have to be licensed. So how is this going to be enforced? How will these be overseen? How will this be regulated if there is no licensing?

“Without a licensing regime,” the quote goes on, “there is no way to keep track of who is breeding dogs and where they are operating, which makes animal cruelty law enforcement nearly impossible. Without the ability to cancel a licence, authorities have little ability to shut down a problematic breeder.”

But what’s also important for us to recognize within this debate of the Preventing Unethical Puppy Sales Act is that these activities and these puppy mills, it’s not as though this is happening in broad daylight. This is not something that people are doing obviously. These puppy mills are being kept behind closed doors. They’re in places like barns; they’re in places like basements. They’re away from the public view, otherwise people would report them. It’s very rare for puppy mills to be caught and charged under current law as it stands, and I don’t know that Bill 159 will actually solve that.

Animal Justice goes on to state that these puppy mills, despite these fines, will continue to force dogs to produce litter after litter of puppies in deplorable conditions. They won’t have access to regular exercise, socialization and veterinary care. It doesn’t solve the problem that it sets out to do.

I’d also like to quote from Humane Initiative co-founder and president, Donna Power, who said this legislation is “pretty weak.” Donna goes on to state, “They’re selling it to the public like it’s the second coming, but they acknowledge to us, they know it’s not where it should be by any means.” That the legislation could bring about an end to the puppy mills is “simply not true,” she said.

Now, Camille Labchuk, who is the Animal Justice executive director, stated, “This bill will do little to nothing to stop the abuse of puppy mills in Ontario....

“Stating otherwise could provide a ‘false sense of security’ for people perusing online marketplaces for new four-legged family members....”

So, Speaker, here are experts in the field who want to be involved in the consultation on this bill, and they’re saying it doesn’t go far enough. Will Bill 159 provide licensing for people who would breed dogs? It doesn’t seem so. Labchuk and Power are both making that call. They’re asking for this to be included in Bill 159. Include a licensing regime with enforceable care standards.

Puppies are big business in Ontario, and they’re big business for breeds which are often popularized through either social media or contemporary media. I remember back when I was in high school; I think there was a re-release of 101 Dalmatians. Well, suddenly and immediately, every little person wanted to have a Dalmatian. However, not everyone knew about what that breed’s requirements were, what its character was like or what was necessary to make sure it was a happy, healthy animal. Dalmatians require a great deal of exercise. They’re very energetic animals. People had viewed that movie and thought that they were cute and they were spotted—which, yes, both of those things are true—however, they also do require a great deal of physical exercise, and when that is not provided, we see behaviours within that breed which are often deeply problematic, which is no fault of the animal itself, it’s a fault of the lack of knowledge of the owner and the purchaser.

Now, I will also point out that both Labchuk and Power talk about an inquiry that was made to the province about data on investigations. The province has simply ignored that request for investigations of this activity, and I find that curious. Should the province identify that this is a problem they want to solve, they should be able to also provide the backup to that.

Now, from my area, the London area, Laurie Ristmae, who is the founder of ARF Ontario and is also the executive director of the East London Animal Hospital, has stated—repeating what I’ve just said—“The breeds that are showcased in movies and on TV and that become popular, become very overbred and have physical issues and physical deformities that are just wrong, that can’t be fixed” because the market unfortunately responds to the demand. Breeders will see that breeds such as Dalmatians become very popular, and they want to be the ones who are able to sell them—able to make that profit. Unfortunately, they may choose to do so in a way that is cruel, that is unfair, that is unethical to those beautiful little animals.

The government has said that it’s going to bring on more provincial animal welfare services inspectors to enforce these rules, but I will also point out that in the CBC’s coverage, CBC News found PAWS inspections were leading to significantly fewer orders and provincial and criminal charges when compared with animal abuse and neglect calls, which had been dealt with by the OSPCA, the Ontario Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. So that’s interesting, that the government is changing its tune and is now saying, “Yes, we’re going to hire more inspectors” because it has been discovered that there have not been enough inspections and there has not been enough enforcement. And yet, we see through Bill 159—is there going to be more enforcement? I’m not certain, if there’s not a licensing regime in place.

Labchuk is also quoted in this article. Camille Labchuk has stated, “How can inspectors ever go in and inspect a puppy mill to see if they’re complying with the laws if we have no idea where they are?”

The city of London has been very proactive on this issue. Back in 2018, they enacted an updated business and licensing bylaw. It banned pet shops from actually using animals that were obtained from some unethical places. They banned pet stores “from selling cats and dogs that weren’t obtained from a municipal animal shelter, a registered humane society or shelter, or a prescribed rescue group.” That way they made sure that the animals that were in those places being adopted, with all those young people with their fingers and noses pressed to the glass wanting to get that little furry animal home—that those were the ones that were being rehomed, that were ones from shelters. And that makes a good deal of sense, Speaker, because it pulls the rug out from those unethical players within the market.

As I also look at this legislation, it reminds me of other legislation that this House has seen, in particular the opening up of training and trialling areas in the province. I think about how it was a past Conservative Premier, Mike Harris, who made new licences for training and trialling areas illegal.

Also, I think of the testimony of Rick Maw and Wayne Lintack, who were former conservation officers who talked about training and trialling areas and how that was cruel towards wildlife, in particular coyotes. You see, training and trialling areas are where dogs are trained how to track and hunt coyotes, but these areas are pens. They are massive areas that there is no escape from. These coyotes are often tracked down, they are cornered, and they are ripped apart by these dogs who are learning how to hunt. In fact, those officers spoke about how they uncovered a coyote trade ring where these coyotes were caught illegally, stuffed into a small room in a barn and sold off to other hunters to be used in training and trial areas. Animal Justice and Coyote Watch Canada have said, “These operations subject captive animals to horrific physical and psychological distress, and also create an unsafe environment for the dogs who are trained to chase these animals being used as live bait.”

Ontario is an outlier when it comes to these sorts of what some would call very barbaric and anachronistic practices because no other province allows these training and trialling areas to use live animals as bait—except for Manitoba, which, in that case, uses live game birds. In fact, fox and coyote penning is banned in most US states. So it seems antithetical that this government is saying that they’re standing up for animals with Bill 159, the Preventing Unethical Puppy Sales Act, and then in the other case are allowing training and trialling areas where coyotes will be ripped apart and savaged, basically tortured, which—in a more balanced way—also does put those dogs who are being trained to hunt at risk themselves, because of course those coyotes are going to defend themselves in their last moments.

Really, Speaker, as we look at this legislation with Bill 159, it does do some things which are positive steps. I don’t think that the legislation goes far enough. I think that we need to listen to experts within the field who are stating that baseline fines are simply not enough. This legislation, on its own, is toothless. This legislation requires a licensing regime and enforceable standards of care. I think, if we are going to tackle the problem that is puppy mills, we need to make sure that we are able to not only know where they are, find where they are, but make sure they stop operating. These places operate under the cover of shadow. We need to make sure that everybody is licensed in order to breed dogs, so that we can make sure they’re doing it in a way that is ethical, in a way that is responsible and in a way that cares for animals properly—such as this bill purports to do. But as it stands right now, it doesn’t quite make the mark.

Thank you to both my colleagues for their remarks this afternoon on the legislation before this House. My question is to the member from London North Centre. I am a dog owner, as many will know. Does the member agree that regulating record-keeping and the sale and transfer of dogs would be beneficial to the welfare of our furry friends?

Questions?

A question for my friend from Kiiwetinoong, whose opinion I like to hear when there’s a bill that affects First Nations communities, with respect to consultation: Has there been, in your opinion, enough consultation around this bill prior to the government bringing it forward?

Thank you to my colleague from University–Rosedale for the question.

What animal advocates have indicated within this bill—they believe that baseline fines are not enough. The $10,000 for an infraction, the $25,000 for the loss of a dog’s life: While they are a start, we need to make sure that there’s a licensing regime in place; that all places that are going to foster and breed dogs are overseen by the province so that we can make sure that the care standards that are within Bill 159 are actually being enforced in all those places.

We need to shine a light into those places where these dogs are coming from and making sure they’re doing the right thing. We need these standards of care to be enforceable, and part of that is making sure we know exactly where this activity is happening.

I do believe it’s important that regulations are in place to make sure that we know exactly when these animals are being sold, who they’re being sold to. But first and foremost, we need to make sure that we have regulations in place ensuring that the people who are breeding these dogs are doing so in an ethical way, a responsible way and a transparent way by disclosing their location. We should not be in a situation where we don’t know where this business activity is happening, because it’s happening in cramped places. It’s happening in basements. It’s happening in barns. It’s happening under the cover of night. And we won’t be able to address this problem unless we know where this activity is happening.

You know what to do, government.

But this bill is toothless in other ways. It is toothless in making sure there’s a licensing regime and that there is enforcement. So it’s a step in the right direction, but it’s not a very big step.

Meegwetch for the question.

Like any other time when we talk about legislation here in Ontario, there is—at the best of times, we get very minimal or very scattered consultation. At the worst, we get no consultation. And when I was speaking with some of the First Nations from Matawa, there was absolutely no consultation in the work that they’re trying to do. They bring such valuable information on the impacts on-reserve—I guess rez dogs on reserve, pets that we have. I think it’s important to say to this government that whenever there is legislation coming through that’s going to have an impact in Ontario, you should speak to First Nations. Just because of that jurisdiction-on-reserve issue, that doesn’t mean that we are not part of Ontario. We need to come together as people to be able to address these things.

But that’s a great question.

Remarks in Anishininiimowin.

Thank you to the member from London North Centre. I thank you for your remarks. I know that we share the same kind of concern about the unethical puppy sales act. I want to learn a little bit more of your response, that we should ban breeding of female dogs at too young of an age.

Thank you to the member from Mississauga–Malton for the question. I’ve outlined in my presentation the things that this bill does well, but I think there are a great many things this bill is missing. There are so many opportunities within this bill to make improvements. I believe that there needs to be broader stakeholder engagement. I’ve mentioned a number of different voices which you need to be listening to, to make sure that you’re actually adequately standing up for animals, for their protection here in the province.

As well, I’m hoping that the government members will have listened to my appeal for funding for the Humane Society London and Middlesex and their new location at 1414 Dundas Street. It’s a brilliant plan. I’ve invited the minister there. I’ve spoken and sent letters to the finance minister as well. I hope that you will engage with them and make sure that they get the funding that they have requested, which was $1.5 million.

So the government should know that they have a problem, that there is not enough enforcement, that they’re not looking after animals in a really solid, thorough way. But part of this, I strongly believe, as well, is knowing where those puppy mills are and making sure that they are licensed, making sure that there are inspections, making sure that we’re going in proactively to make sure that bad things aren’t happening. Really, the government should have learned its lesson with long-term care, where they cancelled inspections and were only going in and doing spot inspections prior to the pandemic, and we see what happened to our treasured seniors.

Thank you very much, Madam Speaker.

Currently provincial animal welfare inspectors are badly understaffed. The member referenced this. A CBC investigation found that inspections were significantly down since the law was changed. Now, under the OSPCA, inspectors issued between 16,148 orders and laid 1,946 provincial criminal charges. That was between 2015 and 2018. However, since the PAWS law has been passed, PAWS inspectors only laid 6,970 orders and laid 667 provincial and criminal charges between 2020 and 2023. That’s a significant reduction in holding people and organizations to account for how they’re treating animals.

What does the member say, and how does this bill address this really serious issue around enforcement?

I’m very happy to stand up and have the opportunity to speak about this act, and seeing as I have the floor, I want to tell a story that’s unrelated but—well, somewhat related, but personal to me.

I articled in the Ottawa crown attorney’s office, and when I was an articling student there, there was an animal cruelty case in Ottawa that sort of took the media by storm. It’s interesting because in animal cruelty cases, they are unusual by being almost universally the only cases that are identified by the name of the victim as versus by the name of the accused. That doesn’t happen with person-on-person violence. So this was the Breezy case.

In this situation, a very violent and disturbed young man had a black Lab puppy. One of the things that’s sort of sadly interesting about animal cruelty is its connection to domestic and family violence, and animals being used as tools of intimidation. He had a habit of being quite abusive to his mother, and on this day, his mother wouldn’t let him in the house because she was scared of him.

The dog, Breezy, was in the backyard of their home, so he took the puppy and he went around the front of the house where there was a big picture window, and his mother was in the living room, and he proceeded to—the dog, Breezy, should have died. He beat her with a large construction shovel, raising the shovel over his head and bringing it down on her skull. He was wearing steel-toed boots and he kicked her multiple times with it. And finally, when she stopped trying to get up, he took her body and he threw it, up and over, into an empty renovation bin.

The first officer on scene had the presence of mind—she thought the dog, Breezy, was dead. She had the presence of mind to take a photo from the top of the garbage bin—like, one of those ones that’s about six feet down. It was empty at the time and you could just see this tiny, little black body in a pool of blood. Miraculously, she didn’t die. She should have died. I don’t know how she lived, but she lived.

Anyway, it attracted an enormous media storm and a large petition movement calling on the Ottawa crown’s office to treat this case appropriately. I had been agitating to be part of this case before the petition had even happened, after we first got the file, and I was one of the first people to see the file. I was an articling student at the time.

What was really interesting about this case was, less than a year before that, the federal government had brought in new Criminal Code legislation. So prior to this amendment, animal cruelty had been only what’s called a summary offence, which is the lowest grade of offence. So here, we have summary and indictable, similar to the States’ misdemeanour and felony. Very recently—I think it was only maybe six months, maybe a year before that—Parliament had voted to amend the animal cruelty provision in the Criminal Code to make it a hybrid offence, which means it is subject to election. So the crown, in assessing the case, can choose to proceed by indictment or by summary conviction.

Luckily, there’s a crown in Ottawa, who I actually have talked to about this bill—I’ve remained in contact with her; her name is Tara Dobec. She is, by far, one of the biggest champions for not just criminal prosecutions but also provincial prosecutions regarding animals. I went to her and basically said something along the lines of, “Tara, can you please assign yourself to this case and can I please be part of it?”

It became obvious that the accused was most likely going to plead guilty, but the issue is that we were going to be and became the—it was the first case in all of Canada where the crown proceeded by indictment, so we were in completely uncharted territory, legally.

When you’re preparing for sentence, usually speaking, you prepare your sentencing charts. You do your sentencing research to look at similar cases and see what consequences they have got. But hither to this point, sentences for animal cruelty in Canada were laughable—absolutely laughable, insulting. We knew that defence counsel was going to bring us cases that had a similarly laughable sentencing regime and we were going to argue that because that was the standard, we should apply the standard now.

Our issue became how to make an argument on sentencing that would encourage the judge to completely disregard all prior sentencing law in this brand new world that we were in. We also wanted—because when you’re looking at sentencing cases as part of research, you want the judge’s decision on sentence to include as much obiter comment and facts as possible, because then that case becomes a seminal case in prosecuting these offences elsewhere.

What I did at the time was I ended up—I went through, in painstaking detail, all of the Hansard debates about this change to the legislation in the federal Parliament, and it was fascinating because what they were talking about, their reason for doing it, was all to do with domestic and intimate partner violence and family violence. In some ways, they had overcome the opposition of some people who had that “it’s just an animal” attitude by saying, “Even if you think it’s just an animal, it’s also connected to this other extremely dangerous aspect in society.”

Then we went back, and we looked at the few other cases where Parliament had gone from summary to hybrid, and we prepared, I think, possibly the most comprehensive sentencing casebook that we’ve ever been part of, and almost 10 years ago now—it was June 2014—that individual was sentenced. Not only was it the first time in Canada where the crown proceeded by indictment, but it was also the first time in Canada for the accused to receive the maximum sentence. He received two years less a day on the animal cruelty alone, which was an unheard-of sentence at the time, and honestly remains, I think, probably one of the proudest moments in my legal career, and I was still articling at the time.

It’s fascinating; as somebody who has prosecuted, formerly, SPCA offences myself on many occasions, the fact that I’m standing in the Ontario Parliament now, becoming part of the Hansard debate on a law that is concerned with animal welfare, feels like a very full-circle moment to me. I will be very excited to see the first successful prosecution under this new legislation.

To talk again briefly about the legislation, I know I have spoken to some people who are not as big of a dog lover as I am that may question why we are doing this, and—frankly, I think it’s a misattributed quote, so I don’t really want to attribute in to Gandhi because I don’t think it’s actually accurate, but there’s that statement that we judge a society’s humanity on the basis of how it treats its most vulnerable. I will not say that we are close to any measure of perfection or even adequacy as far as that measurement goes, but every step forward is in itself a positive impact.

When we talk about puppy mills, particularly, they are an endeavour that is motivated by greed. It gives an opportunity for people who are lacking in ethics, lacking in kindness, compassion, morality, to keep dogs, a very loving and gentle animal, in often appalling circumstances in order to operate with very low overhead and generate puppies that can be sold for the profit of the operator.

When we look at how you prosecute this and why there needs to be a specific offence—because there are arguments that, “Okay, we already have a distress provision, so why not proceed under a distress provision?” The issue here is—it’s not akin to what happened federally, but one of the arguments that I literally made in convincing that judge to give that sentence, two years less a day, was I said, “The very fact that Parliament voted on this, that Parliament voted to make this a hybrid offence and give the crown the opportunity to proceed by indictment, is sending a clear measure that the people of Canada, as meted out by the representative democracy, are saying that this particular offence”—in that case, animal cruelty; in this case, the operation of puppy mills—“is a particularly negative, pernicious behaviour that the government wishes to call out, name, shame in a very specific fashion.” That is part of the reason why this is so important: It is a clear message from this government to say that this is conduct that is not acceptable in Ontario society.

There’s also a significant amount of, what I would say is almost a consumer protection aspect to this. Now, I will be honest: I do not come from the supportive side of the “Adopt, don’t shop” logo. I own a purebred dog that I paid for, and I am far more likely to support the idea of, “Buy, own, possess your dog in a responsible and ethical manner.” Supporting ethical breeders is something that I’m happy to endorse versus the idea of just continually trying to deal with the overflow of unwanted animals that we’re seeing right now. Frankly, that overflow of unwanted dogs is in large part coming from puppy mills because they can simply churn out any number of litters and tack a multi-thousand-dollar price tag onto them and rake in the money. They rarely pay taxes or anything like that.

A lot of these dogs—never mind the parents of these dogs—are coming inbred, poorly socialized, riddled with disease, riddled with parasites. There is a statistical correlation between mill dogs and bite incidents, lack of socialization. So you have people who have failed to do their research properly to find the flags of a puppy mill and have bought these animals, brought them to their home—often at a fairly significant personal expense and emotional investment—only to find out that they have bought a dog that is ill, that in many cases they may now be just as in love with as any member of their family, but facing thousands of dollars in veterinary costs and a great deal of emotional distress. So by punishing these types of bad actors, we’re also protecting the Ontarians that wish to welcome a dog into their life, but want to do so responsibly.

I also want to briefly address the member from Kiiwetinoong’s concerns. I agree with some of what he said about the state of dogs up in the north; it’s considerably different than it is in the rest of southern Ontario, and a lot of that is to do with the lack of access to veterinarians. I’m pleased that our government has been providing more supports to OVC to open up more opportunities for veterinarians to train, but in a lot of these fly-in communities that wouldn’t be able to support a veterinarian themselves, he’s right: There is very little access to basic veterinary care or surgical services.

However—and I’ll pull out a little bit of the lawyer stuff—as I said, I prosecuted these types of offences. Although it changed from SPCA to PAWS, the framework remains the exact same, and what is key to understand with PAWS offences, as well as with offences under Bill 159, is that these are what are called strict-liability offences.

I’ll do a little mini-class on that. Strict liability implies that when you are dealing with this offence, there’s no mens rea to it—so there doesn’t need to be any intention to commit the act. The crown, the prosecutor, merely has to prove that the act itself was committed, and that is on the highest standard of proof, which is beyond a reasonable doubt. Unlike an absolute-liability offence, in a strict-liability offence, the accused person has the opportunity to raise one of two defences, even though there is no mens rea component, and those two defences are mistake of fact and due diligence.

I think that is what would, frankly, operate to mitigate that member’s concerns about animals on northern reserves, because while we get to the point that the crown has, for example, proven that you have violated a section of the new Bill 159—we’ve made it past the actus reus; we’ve made it past the burden of proof of beyond a reasonable doubt—however, the accused then has the opportunity to raise their defence. I think that in the case of a lot of northern dogs—and I don’t want to be seen to be making a sweeping legal statement here; this is just an interpretation of one person, in no way binding. What I anticipate would happen is—the assessment of due diligence is essentially whether or not a reasonable person in the same situation would have taken all possible steps to prevent the event from happening.

I personally believe that, in the event of northern dogs being born in the conditions in which they are being born, it would be fairly easy for a person, if it had moved to charges, which I don’t think it would, but if it had moved to charges for the person to be able to show a due-diligence defence, because the court would be obligated to take into consideration the fact that that person had no realistic access to veterinary services, no realistic access to spay and neuter services, that we have a massive overpopulation in those areas.

So I understand the member’s concerns. In fact, that was something that initially occurred to me when I was looking at this legislation in the context of a PMB, but as somebody who has prosecuted this, I believe that were it to ever get to the point of charges, which I would find incredibly unlikely, that due diligence defence, essentially, would operate to prevent the type of people in his community or the Matawan community from actually bearing any responsibility legally for this.

I don’t know if that put his mind to rest at all, but I certainly understand his concerns. I raised them myself, and that is my own answer to my own concerns.

Ultimately, I am very, very pleased to be seeing this today. It’s a very small step, but right before I started my election campaign, I lost my dog. He was only three, and I lost him after a 10-month battle with terminal illness. I won’t say how much I spent on him because it appalls many people, but if time or money or tears or trips to the vet would have saved him, he would still be here; ultimately I lost. But it offends me on a deep moral level to see other people treating dogs like throwaway items that can be used and abused and profited from in any way.

I realize that we have a lot of distance to travel when it comes to animal welfare, but I am still in a position where I will celebrate the taking of this particular step and I am really looking forward to seeing, from the sidelines now, the first time that charges are laid under this new provision. I will be following with great excitement whatever provincial prosecutor first takes the reins on this and follows a prosecution to its conclusion. I think it will be a landmark day, and while specific deterrence and general deterrence are not always the strongest of sentencing principles, when you have offences that are motivated by greed, as a puppy mill operation is, the knowledge that conviction can happen and that the financial consequences of such can be swift and drastic I do think will have a significant impact on the perpetrators of this type of offence.

I also hope that it will give some support or some relief to our animal welfare inspectors as well, because part of what this does is it gives them a much clearer framework under which to actually lay charges rather than the more sort of amorphous area that is general distress provisions. So I am hoping that they will find it easier to investigate and lay charges against perpetrators, and I am hoping that—as I said, I’m looking forward to hearing the stories of the first provincial prosecutors who pursue prosecution under this offence.

Ultimately, I’ll be voting for it, and I’m proud to be a part of it.

Further questions?

I recognize the member from Waterloo.

I was listening to the member opposite, and I was thinking about what the president for the Ontario Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals said, that the PUPS Act “is a welcome and important step towards protecting dogs from unethical breeders and addressing the issue of puppy mills throughout our province.”

So my question is very simple to the member opposite: Do you agree with the president of the Ontario Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals—yes or no?

Thanks to the member from Kitchener South–Hespeler for making the very important connection between domestic violence and animal mistreatment. I attended an event once where a woman very clearly told us that she specifically stayed in that relationship because of her dog. The dog, in the end, actually saved her life, because she was facing one more beating and the dog intervened. She got out of there with the dog at the end of the day. But it’s an important connection to be made. If people are willing to mistreat animals, they’re often willing to mistreat a human being.

I do want to say, I don’t think we deserve dogs, personally. I know we’re both dog lovers. I much prefer their company to people, I must tell you as well, which shouldn’t surprise too many people.

But according to advocates, the key piece of any statute, of any law, is the enforcement. So how willing is the province to resource and equip PAWS animal welfare inspectors to enforce these standards? Because this is the key piece.

It’s now time for questions.

I appreciate the member’s comments about domestic violence. I will be very enthusiastically looking forward to hearing some of the experts that testify before our upcoming IPV committee. But one of the reasons that I think this does something is that when you look at the framework of how these prosecutions work, the crown doesn’t, in fact, prosecute these; municipal prosecutors do, who are funded by municipalities, not by the province.

Animal investigations and prosecutions are extremely time-consuming and difficult. They attract media attention. They drag on for days and days and days. When you are a busy provincial prosecutor just trying to get through your HTA cases, frankly, these can fall behind. That further discourages our hard-working animal welfare inspectors.

By tacking on a very, very high fine, it significantly focuses and increases, I think, the desire and motivation for provincial prosecutors to prioritize these types of offences. So that is how I think this will have a significant impact.

I did a lot of, at the time, SPCA prosecutions. The very last one I did before leaving the crown was a cat-hoarding case. That was six days of trial on cat hoarding alone with a single, self-represented defendant. I ended up getting a three-year prohibition. I don’t even know if I got a fine. So that was six days of trial that I didn’t end up being able to spend on the HTA offences that, frankly, fill up the municipality’s coffers.

By having these very high fines, as somebody that operated as a provincial prosecutor, I would feel much more comfortable taking six days of provincial court trial time knowing that I would be getting a very significant fine as a result. So I think it has a huge impact.

If I could snap my fingers and dispense money to all these institutions, I would. However, I must say that, with all due respect to London, I would be advocating for the Humane Society of Kitchener Waterloo and Stratford Perth first, which is also planning on doing a similar expansion. I’ve done what I can. I think the issue with these types of projects is they tend to sort of fall between ministries.

But I really appreciate the work that these organizations do, both London and the Kitchener-Waterloo and Stratford-Perth humane societies. We would be quite lost without them.

Thank you to the member for Kitchener South–Hespeler for her remarks about this bill.

I actually want to echo something that was said earlier in this debate by my colleague the member for London North Centre. He and I are both big fans of the London humane society. We both got our cats from the London humane society and are very excited about the move of the new home of the humane society in London.

This is a big undertaking. It requires significant support from the public and from other levels of government. The municipal government has stepped up. The federal government has stepped up. Londoners have stepped up, but there has been no commitment from the province.

I’m hoping, in the context of the initiatives that have been brought forward by this government to support animal welfare, that this is something that would be considered. So I’m asking the member if that would be the case.

I want to thank my colleague for her comments. I appreciated her lived experience, both as a prosecutor and as a pet owner. Like the members of this House, dogs are mostly good listeners, but they have their own minds as well, so they often make their own decisions, despite what we say.

Interjection.

I also appreciate that it was a little like going back to law school, hearing about strict liability, absolute liability, obiter dicta—all terms that take me back to my law school days.

But my question to the member is the importance of the minimum sentences: In her experience as a crown prosecutor, how does she think that these minimum sentences or fines are going to make this bill more impactful?

I would like to thank the member for Kitchener South–Hespeler for bringing up the very real issue of the link between domestic violence and abuse of animals, and it was a relief to hear that Breezy was okay.

My question is about how this bill could be improved and strengthened. We have been approached by animal welfare and animal rights advocates who are very concerned about the care of wild animals in captivity. We’re talking the care of animals in roadside zoos, in very small—or the care of a wild animal that’s owned by a private individual. They’re very worried that these animals just don’t have the kind of protections that a cat or a dog would have.

Is there interest from this government to strengthen this bill in committee to ensure that wild animals in captivity have basic standards, welfare standards, as well?

I think the first part is the fact that this bill is drawing the issue of puppy mills out into the daylight. These are things that operate on private property; in dark and locked-up barns; in cramped circumstances; in fetid, unbelievable conditions. And unfortunately, a lot of people really have no idea what a puppy mill even is. So the fact that the government is actually choosing to spend time and debate time on this issue, I think, forces people to even type into Google “What is a puppy mill,” which would get a lot farther as far as even not supporting them.

But the other part that I touched on briefly is that even for those who may not feel a particular affiliation with animals or with dogs, there is a very significant consumer protection angle here, as well, which is the fact that people spend thousands and thousands of dollars on mill dogs that they bring home that are disease-ridden, full of parasites, inbred, unsocialized, prone to bites, and then often dropped off at our humane societies that are absolutely crippled under the load of pandemic dogs. So that’s why I think this is important.

However, I can say to the member that I meet and hear from the same people, and the government, I know—as I look over at a member in particular—has a number of extremely active supporters of increasing those types of standards. So that issue is far from lacking in champions on both sides of this House.