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 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?

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?

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 rise to talk about Bill 159, preventing unethical puppy sales. We know this is a serious problem and that, in these cases, the dogs are treated simply as commodities, and it’s all about profit. We do see this happening also with seniors, I have to say, with housing and long-term care, that there’s a lot of that mixed in there as well—profit taking. According to advocates, the key piece to any statute or regulations will be on the enforcement and inspection end. I will come to talk about how that’s happening on the ground right now a little bit later.

We do know that provincial animal welfare inspectors are badly understaffed right now. We also know that the abuse of animals doesn’t begin and end with puppy mills but also with other animals that are bred illegally and sold and not kept well.

One of the things that really struck me right away with this bill—and I think there are ways to improve the bill and I think that requiring licensing is one of those ways. But I’m struck by the contradiction with the section of Bill 91 that slipped in this thing about train and trial areas, which had been actually outlawed in 1997. There were only 24 of these areas left in the province, and then all of a sudden, in a bill that was about something completely different, we have a section that allows that business to expand again. It’s a very cruel business that traps coyotes, foxes, rabbits and uses them as bait and trains the dogs to rip them to shreds. It does seem like a contradiction that some animals we care about and other animals we’re prepared to let them be ripped to shreds. It struck me as a favour to somebody, because it had nothing to do with anything else in the bill at the time.

I’d like to look a little bit at what’s going on in Thunder Bay. Robin Ratz, founder and board chair of Murillo Mutts—Murillo is a small community in Thunder Bay–Atikokan, and it’s a specialized rescue facility. She says:

“‘Unfortunately, I guess my question would be is “What are the consequences, or how are they going to find out about these puppy mills?”‘”

And: “She said there are multiple puppy mills in the Thunder Bay area, including one that Murillo Mutts had a ‘really bad experience’ with last Christmas.

“A local resident had obtained a dog from a breeder, only to find out that the pup was extremely ill.

“‘In order for us to assist people like that, we have to have them surrender their animal to get care without our vet. Unfortunately, the puppy was too sick, and died. The breeder ended up contacting our rescue, and she had a second sick puppy and promised she would get it to the vet. The next day, she called and acknowledged she had no money to pay for vetting, so we brought that puppy into care as well. Between the first dog and the second dog, fees, stuff we had to throw out because it was parvo [virus], we lost about $7,000 worth of stuff.’”

This is a volunteer rescue organization.

“She questions whether the government’s proposed crackdown goes far enough, pointing to a clause in the new legislation that would prohibit breeding a female dog excessively.”

The question is: “‘How are you gonna tell that a dog’s been bred more than three times in two years?’ she asked. ‘I don’t really think it’s going to stop. It’s going to take a lot of people getting those $25,000 fines.... It usually takes an outcry before anything happens, and by then how many animals have already suffered, and how many people, like I said, at the hands of an unethical breeder?’”

So there are definitely people in the Thunder Bay area making a living off of puppy mills.

“‘It’s just wrong to do that to an animal. Some of them just over-breed them, and they live in horrible conditions ... the laws don’t protect the dogs, so they just keep going on.’”

Further: “She recalled a local situation where provincial animal welfare services was informed about pups in distress, and visited the breeder to give advice but left all the dogs behind.”

I’m going to get into a case where there was an attempt to bring in supports to deal with the abuse of animals. This is what the ministry says: “Generally speaking, the most urgent calls are responded to on the same day, where possible, but there may be times when it takes longer to respond due to when the call may have been received or because an inspector is already responding to other urgent matters.”

This is a story that took place in Rossport, Ontario. It was a case where there were seven dogs in a house. Some of them had escaped, and there was constant barking, and so many, many people tried to reach the provincial animal welfare officers.

On September 2, OPP officers came and tried to help with the dogs. There was a “public safety issue of unattended aggressive dogs running at large and attacking each other.

“The Ontario Animal Protection Call Centre was called by numerous residents” the next day, September 3, “as the dogs in question had been left unattended in high heat for over 24 hours. The call centre staff in Sudbury could not locate Rossport when I called, despite the community having a unique postal code, and was triaged as an emergency.”

Let’s just think about this for a minute. Because the person at the end of the call for provincial animal welfare officers was in Sudbury—that’s about 12 hours from Thunder Bay and 10 hours from Rossport, and they had no idea where Rossport is. Anybody who has travelled on the North Shore of Superior would know Rossport. It’s what’s called an unorganized community, but it is very much a community and clearly a community that cared, because so many got on the phone to try and address this issue.

So on September 3, they called the OPP again and “were told the OPP would not respond as animal welfare was the responsibility of the animal welfare service. The humane society was also called and the resident was told they would not respond outside of Thunder Bay city boundaries.” Rossport’s about two hours outside of Thunder Bay so it doesn’t qualify. “As it was, the two OPP officers who responded on September 2 ... did an admirable job in capturing the aggressive dog running loose in the community....

“The situation was a total breakdown for the protection of animals that were in distress and constituted a public safety situation in an unorganized community. As Rossport does not have bylaws or enforcement officers to deal with these situations, residents must rely on provincial agencies to deliver their mandated duties....

“By not having an officer respond on September 3, they are not going to be able to view first-hand the conditions the dogs were left in (it’s like having the police show up 48 hours after a murder and allowing the scene to be sanitized).”

The other piece of this was that when they did finally reach someone, the officer said, “Well, the next day is a statutory holiday. Today’s the 4th. We’ve got a statutory holiday, so we’re just not going to come.” I can’t actually imagine anybody coming all the way from Sudbury to Rossport.

So there is a problem of not having animal welfare officers where they’re needed throughout the region.

Now, the next letter I’m looking at is from somebody who works for PAWS. He’s on leave for mental health stress, and that stress has come from not being able to rescue animals he knew were in distress. So cumulative post-traumatic stress disorder is what he’s dealing with.

He says, “Ontario public service ... has been nothing but incompetent due to me and my children having to go without pay for months at a time due to ... lack of communication with other entities.”

So, apart from the specific incidents that he’s talking about, the bulk of what he’s talking about is that this changeover from the OSPCA to PAWS has not resulted in better care; it’s resulted in worse. What we know is that the cost for PAWS is actually quite a bit more than it was before, but we’re seeing fewer results, we’re seeing fewer charges, and we are seeing traumatized workers.

So partly, he writes, “It has taken OPS a year to pay employees back for expenses” and the process at this time still had not taken place. “In Thunder Bay, where I was based since 2014, veterinarians and boarding facilities will not work with animal welfare services now because they don’t pay their bills or the processing times are ridiculous” and “this is province-wide, and their stats and information sent to the government are made up.”

Now, obviously, something like this letter is hearsay, but it does suggest that there are problems in the service that need to be addressed and need to be addressed at the Solicitor General’s level.

He goes on to say, “They were pushing inspectors to write more orders, seize more animals, and lay charges.... I’ve been doing this since 2014 and many others who were let go at the beginning because they spoke out against upper management on the legalities....” Again, I won’t go into that too much, because it’s a specific case.

But he does go on to say, “The government states they care about their staff and their first responders, but it seems to be all talk. It’s said by the remaining staff we are not saving any animals, just processing dead bodies.

“I waited five months for a warrant which, as per the legislation, I didn’t even require because the senior staff didn’t know what they were doing. I had to tell my senior investigator how to lay a charge which I had to send mine to him for approval, but they didn’t know ... how to write one....

“The warrant never came, and my partner was let go because he questioned the managers,” but he says he “was one of the best inspectors in the province.”

The point is, it’s funny that they “could write warrants in” their “sleep before ... and they were always approved by the senior justice of the peace at the courts and didn’t need a five-month approval process where animals go on suffering and dying of starvation. And yes, this is still ongoing” now. He was “finally given the approval and went to the property, and I walked into a barn full of dead and emaciated pigs. It haunts me to this day, the pain these animals suffered needlessly.”

I met that gentleman. He did come to our office, and those are stories that are very hard to hear, because he already knew that this was taking place and because of mismanagement—who knows what—he wasn’t given the means to actually address the problem and now has to live with what he saw and the pain and suffering of those animals.

“Other advocates have voiced frustration about PAWS since it was created in 2019, taking over for the Ontario Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals....

“In animal abuse cases, some enforcement tools at their disposal include orders, provincial charges or criminal charges.

“But according to data obtained by CBC Hamilton through a freedom-of-information request, PAWS investigations are leading to far fewer orders and charges compared to when the OSPCA oversaw animal welfare.

“Ross, from the Ministry of the Solicitor General, didn’t give possible reasons for the drop in the number of charges ... but said the team is ‘highly trained,’ and some requests fall under the jurisdiction of police or local bylaw enforcement.”

But we saw in the case of Rossport that, in fact, there wasn’t really coverage. There wasn’t anything there to support those animals or help the people who were aware of what was happening to those animals to do something about it, because there was also no food and water for them.

From 2015 to the end of 2018, the OSPCA conducted 64,000-plus investigations and issued 16,000-plus orders, and laid almost 2,000 provincial and criminal charges. From 2020 to June 30, 2023, I believe this is, PAWS conducted at least 70,000 investigations, almost 7,000 orders, but only laid 667 provincial and criminal charges.

Now, it’s pretty clear to me in reading about the Rossport case—it’s laid out in quite a bit of detail—that charges would have been warranted in that case, but there was nobody there to actually follow through again and look after the animals.

PAWS has an annual budget of roughly $21 million, far more than the $5.75 million budget of the OSPCA. That is really the question: Why is PAWS, with a vastly larger budget, issuing fewer orders? The data suggests the province needs to provide more support for animal welfare services and be more transparent—so it might not be about more money, it might be about money better spent.

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

What needs to change? Coulter says that PAWS needs far more than its roughly 100 inspectors to thoroughly and quickly investigate cases across Ontario. She noted that the Toronto Transit Commission has more inspectors, with 110. But the TTC is located in Toronto, so if you compare that to having 100 inspectors over the entire province, you can see why the law is not being applied even as it is without even this new law in place. She added that more training and protective measures for inspectors are also needed. I think that’s probably a good place to stop.

I do want to note and thank the member from Kiiwetinoong for his comments on the situation in First Nations communities with dogs and the lack of access to veterinary care. I was really pleased to hear about Matawa’s pilot project, and I hope that part of that pilot project is training community members to be able to give vaccinations. We know that having fully trained veterinarians available to go to communities as often as needed is difficult, even though we will be getting more veterinarians trained in Thunder Bay. One of the suggestions that’s come to our office is that if more community members could be trained to administer those vaccinations—obviously they can’t do spaying which requires a different level of skill and training, but to at least give the vaccinations, then they could be eliminating the spread of parvovirus and other parasites and problems.

In regard to the bill itself, it’s a step forward. I would like to see it have more teeth, and I’m hoping that when it goes to committee that will be possible, and that the idea of having licences for dog breeders is really thoroughly considered and hopefully put in to the legislation before it comes back for third reading. I think there’s a very practical aspect to having those licences, in that, if you go to a place, it’s easy to see a licence, it’s very quick to determine whether it’s a legitimate facility or not.

I think I’ll stop there. Thank you for the time and the opportunity to speak to this bill.

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.

I certainly share that sentiment, that we don’t deserve the love and kindness that our dogs give us, which is evidently always unconditional.

Yes, I do agree with the increased fines and the steps that have been taken to better delineate offences directed towards animal cruelty. I just want to give this legislation the best chance at success, at succeeding in its overall goal and premise. If we actually want to protect dogs, we need to have the framework in place to ensure that there is adequate enforcement and the right inspection framework in place, and I’m worried that I’m not quite seeing that yet.

That’s a good question. I guess when I take a look at those who buy their dogs through breeding associations, through breeders, they’re registered through the kennel club. They do a really good job of that. Their animals have to be registered. The parents’ and the females’ lineage has to be documented.

So again, as I said in my remarks, really what we’re talking about here are the bad actors. They’re unethical. They’re clandestine. They hide in the weeds. To find them and ferret them out and fine them is what we need to do, so let’s not make it punitive to the good actors; let’s let them continue to self-regulate, like they do a wonderful job of doing.

Again, I think this bill highlights the minimum fines and raises them. If we can hurt them financially, I think that’s the most important part here. If we hurt them financially—that’s why they’re doing it anyway.

I think one of the great things we did in this House recently was pass the modernization of the vet act. We can talk a lot about puppy mills, and I think it’s important, and I’ll digress a little bit, but I think adding more spots for veterinarians and, more importantly, creating an environment that will allow our veterinary technicians to do a better job of animal care will go a long way in helping dog owners, pet owners, manage their companion animals very well. I think it complements what we’re trying to do here.

To not do this bill would hurt the good work we did in the modernization of the vet act, and I stand convinced that that’s going to create some great results. At the end of the day, I would recommend a good dog. Check out the parentage, check out the lineage, make sure animal health is in order and genetic abnormalities aren’t there and you’ll have a good friend for a long, long time.

That being said, my primary care and concern is the ethical treatment of these animals, the care, whether it’s making sure animal nutrition—we provided, in my former life, feed, animal nutrition, for exotic animals at the Toronto Zoo. Done properly and ethically and managed in the best way possible with good management practices, it’s done very well. It’s when it’s not done well, so as long as the zoo is following the letter of the law and practising good animal health behaviour and animal nutrition standards, I’ll continue to support them.

I think it’s great we’re debating this bill and talking mostly about our puppies and our dogs and a bit more about the bill. It’s a good way to end the week, and I love everybody’s story about their dogs and their pets and how much affection they have for them.

I have to give a shout-out to Kealey, my black Lab who’s watching at home I’m sure right now. Somehow she has this uncanny knowledge of when I’m going to be home about five minutes before I get home. Whatever day, whatever time, she’s at the front window before the car is visible—well before. I don’t know how that works.

A shout-out to Jackie who was our other black Lab who remained a puppy well into her teens. She lived to 15; we lost her a few years ago. That’s why we got Kealey. Kealey was a bit of a surprise. I’m going to talk about my first dog in a second, but I want to talk about the bill.

There are good things in this bill with regard to puppy mills and with regard to the fines here. I think animal health is very important. We all agree on this. We all have affection for the animals whom we’ve domesticated. I want to juxtaposition that later in the debate to some things that we have to turn our minds to.

I will be supporting this bill, so let me just put that on the record right now. There are very good things in this bill. It could be a bit stronger. A lot of what will make this bill work is what happens outside of here with regard to enforcement.

Here’s the story about my first dog. I’ve got to do this quick. I don’t have too much time—I could go on all afternoon. I was working in the grocery store, managing a grocery store in Kanata. This beagle wandered into what was called the “car pickup” and didn’t want to leave. I guess it sensed food, and it wanted to hang around. So I called the SPCA. Well, it was in the evening and they weren’t open; they weren’t available. No one was there to pick up the dog—and I didn’t have the money. So I take the dog home. I took the dog home for four days and became attached to the dog I think, because when I eventually found the owner, which is another story altogether, and the dog went home, apparently I fell into a slump and my family was all worried about me.

About two months later, my dad says, “I’ve got something I want to show you.” I said, “Sure. Great.” He says, “We’ll go out next week, midweek, and I’ll show you.” One week passed and we missed it, another week passed—three or four weeks, and he finally says, “We’re going to do it this morning.” So I get in the car with him. We’re driving south of the city in Ottawa and he stops at the bank machine. “What the heck is he doing?” I’m thinking.

We’re driving to this place called Patterson’s Berry Farm. They have pumpkins and berries, and this is around Halloween time, and the only thing I can think of is, there’s a picture on my parents’ fridge of my dad with a pot-bellied pig at Patterson’s Berry Farm, and I think, “Oh, my God, he’s bought a pot-bellied pig.” That’s all I could think. I got out to the farm, and it’s pumpkin time. All the moms and dads are out there with their kids, and my dad’s with his kid. The kids were like five and six with the pumpkins. I’m a 37-year-old. I’m there with my dad—I feel a little awkward because I’m older that most of the kids, but I feel like one of the kids. My dad says, “Come with me.” So he takes me around to this barn and we go in the door. He pulls out a little collar and says, “I never bought you a dog”—when I was a kid, and so I had to go into the pen and the dog came to me. She got the little collar so I could pick her up a couple of weeks later because it wasn’t time for her to leave.

Anyway, her name was Marty. So Marty and I were very close. We shared many baguettes, bags of Cheezies and other foodstuff that you’re not supposed to feed dogs. We had a relationship that was really built a lot on food and a common affection, lots of naps together. She was quite an amazing dog. We used to joke—the last dog, Jackie, thought she was a puppy. Jackie thought everybody else was a puppy, but Marty thought she was a person, because she would be looking at whoever was talking in a group.

Anyhow, she was about 10 years old, and she kept getting sick. Eventually, I went to the vet and the vet said, “We can’t do much for her. Bring her back on Monday.” She hadn’t been eating and she was sick, so I got her into the car. I went, “We’re going to the cottage,” because she loved the water. So we’re driving to the cottage. She’s lying in the back. She hasn’t eaten anything for days and days. We stop at Dairy Queen. We get ice cream cones. The dog pops up in the back seat, ends up having an ice cream cone.

We got her to the cottage. I picked her up out of the car and I carried her down to the beach. She went for a little swim. She got pretty tired, so I brought her up, put her on the front porch. She stayed there for the weekend and was visited by all the family—dozens of people. And then we brought her to be put to sleep. She was very close to my mother-in-law—we spent a lot of time at her home when our kids were young—so my mother-in-law, my dad, who had bought the dog, and I were there when she was put to sleep. So it was very crowded in that little veterinary office.

And that’s how much—I’m not telling you a story that’s uncommon or unusual. We have this affection, because we get so much affection from them and there’s so much love. You can pet them; they’re ours, and in a sense, they’re free—they’re free to roam in the domain of our homes, our backyards, the fields where we can take them to do that.

So, in some ways, it’s easy to do this. It’s easy to do this bill because of the affection that we have for animals, and the cruelty that we see is something that hurts us, and sometimes more than when we see the same kind of thing happening to people. I can’t explain the phenomenon.

I can remember when—look it up; I’m not going to go through the story because we’ll be here until midnight: Bam-Bam the deer. It was a deer a family had taken in, and the ministry had to come in and take it away because they had it in a cage, and you can’t cage wild animals, right? Go and check it out. It’s an interesting story. Or if you want, one day, I’ll buy you a beer and tell you the story—or a glass of wine.

Here’s the thing, and the member from Toronto Centre brought this up: animals in pens. I’ll start with penned dog hunting. Why did we open that up again? Two decades ago, we closed it down. The animals that are affected, that it’s cruel to, well, they’re not our domesticated pets, but they’re still animals. It’s not a right practice. I don’t think we should be doing it. I don’t think the government’s ready to revisit it. It’s not the right thing to do. And I’m not saying this to criticize the bill or—it’s just, I really don’t think it’s the right thing to do. I think most reasonable people would think the same way, especially if we thought of them the same way—coyotes and other animals—if we thought of them as our pets. They’re still animals.

The second thing is—I want to bring this up—another penned animal. Marineland: I think it’s important that we bring that up. There have been 17 whale deaths in Marineland—I think I’ve got the number right—and there have been more undersea mammals that have died. As a matter of fact, there have been more mammals that were transferred out of Marineland, more whales that were being transferred out of Marineland that died. And at the same time they were being transferred out, the ministry said—the ministry has been investigating since 2020, four years. The ministry said that, essentially, the sea mammals, the marine mammals, were not doing well because of poor water quality—poor water quality.

Again, penned animals: You can’t pet a whale—well, at least maybe not safely, a killer whale.

Why is that? It’s not right. And the ministry won’t disclose—it doesn’t appear as though we’re enforcing, and then it comes back to this enforcement in this bill. I don’t want to—we raised the fines in long-term care a couple of times, our government, your government. “We’re going to be harder. We’re going to fine people when things go wrong.” Things go wrong; nobody gets fined. That’s the thing about this bill: If it’s going to work, you’ve got to put money into it. You’ve got to have enforcement.

So, I guess what I’m trying to say out of the bill is, we all love our pets. And we should. And we’re really lucky to have them and they mean really important things in our lives. They’re part of our family. But there are other animals that are equally worthy of our consideration, who we don’t have a relationship with, but they are beings. They exist. And penned dog hunting—just not right. I mean, if you put this bill up and you had a picture of penned dog hunting, you’d go, “What? This doesn’t make sense. You’re doing this and you’re doing this?” It’s not right.

Marineland: I know why we’re having a problem with Marineland. It’s because it means jobs. And that’s important. I think it’s important. But it’s time for us to say, “Well, we’re going to be good and right and stop this practice, and we’re going to make sure people have jobs.” Yes, it’s a problem. It’s not unsolvable. It takes two groups of people to get together to do that. I think it’s the right thing to do. I think it’s reasonable.

What’s happening at Marineland is cruel. It’s not just the fact that whales or other sea mammals, marine mammals have died; it’s the fact that they’re penned in, just like Bam-Bam the deer couldn’t be penned in and the ministry rushed in—I won’t go into the story right now. It’s the law. It’s a rule, right? How come you can’t keep a deer in captivity, but you can pen in a coyote or a whale for show, make them do tricks? I mean, it’s 2024.

Anyway, to the minister: I’ll support the bill. I congratulate him for bringing it forward. But let’s think about these other things, because they’re not right. We shouldn’t be doing them, and we should revisit whatever decisions that we’ve made on that.

I thank you for your time. I know it’s late in the afternoon, but I thought that needed to be said.

I very much enjoyed the honourable member’s comments. We could all go through the painstaking moments when we take our dogs to the vet for that final time. Just when you think you’re a tough, big, old guy, you sit down and you break down and you cry like a baby, but, you know, it’s good because you love them.

The business of this act, to me, the punitive fines that these unethical bad actors—their unethical behaviour is really bad. Do you agree—are the minimum fines, $10,000 to $25,000, enough? Should they be more?

And the next part is—when I spoke, it was about the bad breeding practices, which, to me, is the absolute worst part. What they end up creating in this world are dogs that just don’t have a chance in life. Do you agree that we go far enough in this bill in those particular measures?