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.

I thank all in the House for giving me this opportunity to share my perspective on Bill 159, the Preventing Unethical Puppy Sales Act. Over the course of my few minutes together with all of you, I plan on doing a few things: discussing some of the dogs in my life, who underscore the importance of passing this legislation; describing the context and landscape within which puppies are bred currently in the province of Ontario; outlining some of the things that this bill does, some of which are good; and then also highlighting some of the shortcomings which need to be addressed if this bill is to ultimately pass.

I want to begin by dedicating these remarks in particular to two dogs—one, to Stewie, a stunning black Labrador, who was the ultimate gentleman, who ultimately passed earlier this week, on Monday, at the age of 14. Even to the very end, he won over our hearts by still doing a dance for his families. His long life and his beautiful temperament, in my opinion, are a testament to the loving care that he got from his parents. I believe that this bill aspires to deliver that same loving care to every dog in this province.

Another dog that recently passed away is Lexi, a most loving, gorgeous goldendoodle. She passed away just a few weeks ago from an aggressive form of cancer. She left us too soon. She was a true friend of everyone: to my own dog and to the many people in our neighbourhood, who will miss her and, again, are reminded through her beautiful temperament of the importance of a caring and loving environment for dogs around us.

There are many more dogs in my life, in my neighbourhood, in community, in Don Valley East. I want to make, finally, one special mention of my own pup, Petunia, a four-year-old half golden retriever, half cocker spaniel, who is convinced that she’s a sea otter because she loves to swim so much, and only wants to eat all day. Her full name is Petunia Wigglebottom, and she very much lives up to her name.

In reflecting on all of these dogs, it reminds me of the unconditional love that we feel from them. It is a reminder that for as much as they very much look after us, we need to look after them and we need to protect them. That protection begins very much at birth.

When I picked up Petunia, when we first got her four years ago and I held her in my hands, I could feel how vulnerable she was, how much she needed that protection. When I did the research to find a respectable, reputable breeder, I asked questions and I called, because there are many breeders out there that engage in unscrupulous practices. I wanted to know: What were the conditions in which she was raised? Who were the parents? Were they related to each other? These are, regrettably, questions that need to be asked, and far too often, there are breeders out there that can’t share the answers, that won’t share the answers. And so, urgent and pressing action is absolutely necessary.

Furthermore, in my own political work, I have encountered unspeakable cruelty to dogs. I’ve had people—and I won’t repeat the stories—who have done unimaginable things, just out of a perverse sense of pleasure and some desire to assert dominance over these innocent creatures.

I’ve also worked in northern and rural communities where breeding was so uncontrolled that there were packs of animals that ran around, and when I would go running, I’d have to carry some stones lest one of these unattached dogs run after or try to bite me. There were even, in some of these communities, one or two days a year where all of those unattached dogs were culled to prevent packs from forming. All of these things underscore the critical importance to take issue on this matter.

So as I review Bill 159, I must admit there are some things in this bill that are good. The bill defines a puppy mill for the first time. That is a good thing. It sets standards for record-keeping—again, something that is valuable and much needed—and it identifies a number of offences and implements fines. I appreciate all of those efforts.

There are, however, important things that are left out. For example, I find the definition of a puppy mill a bit ambiguous, missing out on important things such as the real standards for how much space or the specific steps that must be taken in order to ensure that that living environment for those pups is healthy and safe. I acknowledge that, in some cases, standards have been identified. But in order to ensure whether those standards are being met, there need to be inspections so that enforcement can take place. And what that enforcement actually looks like, how those inspections will actually take place is not clearly defined in this legislation.

Now, even assuming that this bill had everything necessary in terms of standards and definitions to protect animals, I have not yet seen any funding that is attached to this that could allow the inspections, and specifically, the increased inspections that are necessary to ensure some of the good things in this bill are actually operationalized. I understand, acknowledge and respect that there will be inspectors, and this is a good thing. I question, for example, what will be the mechanism for triggering inspections? Will they investigate proactively? Currently, we know that there is an inspection process in place and far too many puppy mills are operating without being inspected. So, will it be proactive or, conversely, will it be complaints-based?

I certainly worry about a complaints-based inspection process because that certainly hasn’t worked well in the current environment. Think, for example, about patients in health care who are reporting unfair or inappropriate billing. Far too many patients that are experiencing that don’t know how to make a complaint to OHIP, and far too many of those complaints are not actually acted upon. And we have also seen, within this process within long-term care, even where there may be proactive long-term-care inspections, those, regrettably, have failed miserably in protecting the residents of long-term-care homes and many long-term-care residences. So, of course I support the idea of inspections, but I am not convinced nor confident that this legislation enacts a robust and well-funded process.

In summary, I want to reflect on the fact that there is a lot that could be done. This legislation does move the needle in the right direction. But in my opinion, that needle could swing so much further, could offer so many more opportunities for protection, for inspection, for enforcement.

Finally, in my last moments, I want to reflect on one last dog, a beautiful small black Cavalier King Charles spaniel who goes by the name of Huey. He has been a little bit medically vulnerable, but through the tireless and most thoughtful care of his owner, Lauren, is able to live an incredible and fulfilling life. Let us give that opportunity to all dogs in the province of Ontario, especially those most vulnerable pups as they are first getting their start in life.

In summary, this bill does some of the right things, but could go much further, and I look forward to working with all members of this House to make it as strong as we can.

It’s always an honour to rise in this House to speak on behalf of the great people of Toronto Centre. In particular, today, I’m pleased to speak on Bill 159, Preventing Unethical Puppy Sales Act.

I am very pleased to see a bill of this nature appear before us. Like many who have spoken before me—this House seems to be filled with animal lovers and, in particular, dog lovers; I count myself as one of them. Having had three dogs in my life, one rabbit, two cats, three turtles and 31 tropical fish—at many different times, I’ve had a menagerie. And I can tell you, as we all know, they deserve our protection.

That’s why I think this bill is important. I look forward to seeing it go through committee and seeing what else comes from it, including perhaps some amendments to further strengthen it.

When I was contemplating what I wanted to say about the bill, I reached out to constituents on social media, as we all do sometimes. I wanted to hear from my constituents, to see what they had to say about the issue of banning puppy mills in Ontario. Very proudly, I want to let you know that many of my four-legged constituents got their humans to respond on their behalf and to let me know that they strongly support seeing the protection of animals—especially puppies being banned from abuse.

We heard from:

—Cooper, a rescue chihuahua pug and the mascot for the St. James Town Residents Council;

—Misha, a very sweet basset hound who loves hanging out at the Cherry Beach dog park and all the other east end neighbourhood parks between Corktown and St. James Town;

—Rocco, an eight-month-old goldendoodle rescued from a puppy mill, who has some health issues, but those issues that came from the puppy mill overbreeding don’t keep him down, and he just keeps on going;

—Zenia, a rescue dog from St. Lucia who lives in the Village and loves Barbara Hall Park and Riverdale Park;

—Rocky, a rat terrier adopted from the local Toronto Humane Society, who does get nervous from time to time, but she is curious and loves to go for walks around Regent Park;

—Louise, a rescue miniature pincher mix from Texas, who loves playing with her doggy friends at Toronto Centre’s off-leash dog parks.

I was very pleased to be working on the expansion and the improvement of dog infrastructure when I was at the city of Toronto as a city councillor. I count that as some of my most proud moments.

I could go on, Speaker, because 50-plus canines actually had their humans write into us, and I might just come back to it, because they’re too cute to ignore.

But I do want to get to the substance of the bill, because I think that is important and why we’re here. This bill contains several changes to the Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act that serve to protect dogs, which I support and many of us do support in this House. Some of these changes include:

—banning the breeding of 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, as well as banning the breeding of a female dog that is less than 12 months old;

—banning the breeding of a female dog for the first time before its second heat;

—making it illegal to fail to isolate a dog from other dogs or animals where there are reasonable grounds to believe that the dog is suffering from a contagious disease or is at high risk of developing a contagious disease, including failure to ensure there is no contact with objects, including food and water containers, that are used by other dogs or animals, except,

—separating a puppy from its mother or substitute mother before the age of 56 days, except as otherwise recommended by a veterinarian in writing for health reasons;

—instituting a minimum penalty for operating a mill, set at $10,000;

—instituting a minimum penalty of $25,000 if the mill operation leads to the death of a dog, or of euthanasia by a veterinarian.

This is all very commendable, and I think that this is a fantastic foundation for us to build upon, and I hope that we can do that work at committee, because I know that when the bill goes to committee, there are a number of people who still want to see improvements to the bill—sorry, we’re on second reading. But the advocates want us to do more, so I wanted to give my platform to them, as I share their comments with the House today about what more animal welfare advocates want to see in this bill and how they think that we can work collaboratively to improve this piece of pending legislation.

They pointed out that breeding that takes place in the province is done under conditions that will now be prescribed, and that the ideal breeding conditions that could lead to pure and in-demand breeds being sold by pet stores is almost non-existent. So, clearly, that is one section of the bill that could see a significant improvement, because unless we are able to name the problem, we won’t be able to fix the problem.

According to the animal rights and welfare advocates, the key piece to any statute or regulation will have to be placed on enforcement and inspection. As we all know, because we’re lawmakers, unless we see adequate investments to inspection and enforcement, then any bill is really not worth a lot if we actually cannot make it do what we want it to do.

The bill doesn’t include funding to better resource or equip provincial animal welfare services, or PAWS, inspectors, and so the question will be, who is going to enforce the standards? If the bill is not improving the enforcement and investigation, that is certainly one area of improvement.

Currently, provincial animal welfare inspectors are badly understaffed. This has been widely reported now. The CBC has recently put forth a fairly lengthy investigation where they go deeper into the story, where they go behind the scenes to be able to understand what is wrong with this system and why we see that inspections pertaining to animal welfare have gone significantly down.

Under the Ontario Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, the OSPCA inspectors issued 16,148 orders and they laid 1,946 provincial and criminal charges between 2015 and 2018, while PAWS inspectors only laid 6,970 orders and laid 667 provincial and criminal charges between 2020 and 2023. So, the animal advocates are saying the government is talking a big game about protecting animals, and they’re asking you to do a lot more.

How can we do more? How can the government work towards giving the real teeth to the legislation if there aren’t adequate staff who are properly trained and on the field to then investigate and enforce? I recognize investigation and enforcement takes time. This is not something you can do over the phone. You’ve got to go in there like the CBC investigative journalists to go and dig deeper. Then, the charges are laid, and then at some point in time, you’ve got to deal with prosecution, because fines don’t just happen.

That’s why, when the CBC did an entire investigation into the drop in cases, advocates who then spoke to them have said PAWS is so understaffed that they often show up and take action only if the media shows up and there’s a public outcry. Now, clearly that’s not a winning condition, and that’s not going to make the legislation more effective. So, we have to listen to the advocates who are part of the system of democracy that holds each and every single one of us accountable, because they’re the ones who are pushing for the change.

Ashley DaSilva, who is the founder of the Hamilton-based group Fur Warriors, said that the inspectors need more support from the province.

“As a result, she said, it can feel like PAWS will only take action when there’s enough public scrutiny.”

So we’re forcing citizens to actually go off and protest and at their own time and energy lead the charge with the media.

“She pointed to a video that appeared to show a Hamilton man whipping his dog, Merlin, and dragging the dog down a sidewalk in late June.

“It took a week for police and PAWS to remove the dog from the owner, and he now faces provincial charges. But” Ms. DaSilva “is doubtful any of that would have happened without the media attention and public pressure.”

They state, “If you don’t cause a stink, nothing happens. What happens to the dogs that don’t have videos?”—which I think is a really important question. What happens if the act of cruelty is not caught by someone who has a camera? We need to have inspectors on the ground and in the field doing their work.

“Jennifer Friedman, a former OSPCA lawyer who now practises privately, said it’s ‘troubling’ to hear the drop in charges and orders, especially given what many of her clients are telling her.

“‘There’s a great deal of frustration.... They’re hoping animal welfare services would do more.’”

Amy Fitzgerald, University of Ottawa professor and animal welfare researcher, said it’s “particularly unlikely” the drop in PAWS charges and orders was because there were fewer animal abuse incidents. She pointed to how domestic violence was rising during the pandemic.

It’s also important for us to note that PAWS does not necessarily share the calls that it receives and that inspectors may be using more discretion when issuing orders or charges. So really, you don’t have the type of scrutiny or even audit procedure that one needs to have in order to know whether or not the system can be running more effectively.

It has also been noted that PAWS needs more than its current staffing allocation of 100 inspectors to thoroughly and quickly investigate cases across Ontario. Just think of it: 100 inspectors for a province as large as Ontario. The contrast to that is that the Toronto Transit Commission has about 110 inspectors just for our transit system, which is a much smaller geography that has to be covered. It has been commented on that more inspectors need to receive additional training, and they need to think proactively on how they can prevent the matters of animal abuse.

“Michèle Hamers, campaign manager at World Animal Protection Canada, said the wording in the province’s legislation is too broad and impacts what inspectors can do on the scene. For example, the legislation defines distress as an animal being:

“—in need of proper case, water, food or shelter;

“—injured, sick, in pain or suffering;

“—neglected, abused or subject to undue physical or psychological hardship.”

She further goes on to unpack the guidelines, where she provides that “guidelines defined for various species and that only allow various animals to be kept as pets. Those steps” should and “would make the system more proactive.”

Also highlighted for us was the need for more transparency, one of the missing key drivers that led to PAWS being taken over by the privately run OSPCA. Camille Labchuk, executive director of Animal Justice, who I had the esteemed pleasure of working with when we worked on the national shark fin ban of importation and use of shark fin products in Canada, an advocate who is a leading voice on animal rights, welfare and well-being in Canada and internationally, has said this about the case of transparency when PAWS took over: Things have “gotten far, far worse.”

Ms. Labchuk says Animal Justice has filed many complains about Marineland, a theme park in Niagara Falls, but never heard back from the province. If you wanted to demonstrate that you care about animal welfare, there’s a great example right there that you can take action on. Why is Marineland still operating?

“Labchuk said PAWS should have a website, issue an annual report each year and, if it’s in the public interest, issue media releases when it issues orders, seizes animals or one of its investigations leads to charges.” Tell us what you’re doing. If you’re doing such a great job, share the news as broadly as you can.

“Labchuk also said PAWS legislation needs more regulations governing animal breeding, farms, zoos and other industries.”

It is important for us to be able to see the baseline of productivity. If we don’t know what is happening, and you have people who are saying that not enough is being done—and these are not just random people; these are people who have dedicated their existence to protecting animals and animal welfare—there is obviously room for improvement.

It’s important for us to also recognize that this government has not been treating all dogs equally. There are some dogs you want to protect and other dogs you don’t. In fact, this government moved to regulate and expand legal pen dog hunting, a practice that was in the process of being phased out. Many advocates feel that it’s unsafe for dogs and it is unnecessarily cruel to the prey of animals, who are hunted in these pens with no way to escape. And yet the government went out of their way to include a clause in Bill 91 to more deeply enshrine those types of facilities into law, in essence legalizing animal cruelty.

Two animal rights organizations have requested a review of that legislation. So there will be more to be discussed about that because that story is not going away and clearly, if lawyers have deemed that they have enough of a case to go forward, this is going to be a very costly and time-consuming process for the Ontario government once again.

There is so much more in Ontario that can be done to increase animal welfare. In February of this year, Quebec banned all non-essential and cosmetic surgeries on pets, including ear cropping, tail trimming, vocal cord removal and cat declawing. These regulations in Quebec are just a formalization of an already widespread rejection of those surgeries among veterinarian professionals.

And it’s not just Quebec. All over the world, these surgeries have been banned or actively discouraged. Ontario is now the only province in Canada that does not ban cat declawing. It’s very difficult to find a veterinarian willing to do the procedure, but it’s not because it is banned by this government but because of veterinarians’ own professional expertise and their own code of conduct and their compassion. Without a formal ban, you can still find someone—a surgeon—to do the procedure.

Quebec is by no means perfect, but Ontario could do more by following their lead and studying what they’ve done well. The Quebec legislation also bans the euthanasia of an animal by inhalation, leashing an animal without a collar, mating animals whose sizes are incompatible and feeding meat to pet pigs. All of these measures in Quebec make a lot of sense, and they have done it after consultation and review of subject matter experts.

So, clearly there is much more that can be done here, and I want to extend a massive, big thank you to all of the advocates working behind the scenes to increase animal welfare and protection in Ontario. There are countless organizations that advocate for the humane treatment of animals, for them to be safe, to be clean, to be treated when they’re sick, to be provided with the enrichment that they need to grow and learn, and given the love and care that we all know that they thrive on.

Believe it or not, your constituents will agree with you and the animal advocates if you work together to take those actions. Just as I’ve noted, many of the canines in my community had their humans write in to tell us that they support the legislation, but more can be done.

So, as I conclude, I just want to continue to give a little bit more love and a shout-out to both the canines out there, but also to the workers and the volunteers who keep Ontario’s shelters, rescues and fosters going. It’s often heartbreaking and delicate work to get an animal who has been through so much abuse and trauma, and to watch them try to be able to love and trust again.

This happened with my own dog. Her name was Tara. She was a black Lab-pit cross. She had been adopted and returned to the Toronto Humane Society three times by the time I picked her up. I don’t know what it was, but I had to take her home. When I read that she had won the award for being there the longest—at the humane society—with very little dog experience in my background, I decided to take home this 65-pound dog and I loved her to the very end.

We all have stories similar to that on why pets make the difference for you, and you can stand up for them by doing the right thing and improving the legislation.