Good morning. Let us pray.

Prayers.

Resuming the debate adjourned on June 4, 2024, on the motion for third reading of the following bill:

Bill 159, An Act to amend the Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act, 2019 / Projet de loi 159, Loi modifiant la Loi de 2019 sur les services provinciaux visant le bien-être des animaux.

Good morning, Speaker, and good morning, everyone. It is always an honour to speak on behalf of the residents of Niagara and St. Catharines and, in this case, to be able to debate some of the issues with Bill 159.

Preparing for a committee to deliberate and determine the amendments, I was struck by two parallel revelations. The first is that when speaking with stakeholders for animal justice, front-line service providers, societies and shelters, the theme of government consultation for this bill—from their perspective—was consultation and submissions by force, as they were not asked by the ministry for their expertise. On their own, without prompting, they came together to submit their own reports to the ministry. The second revelation is that this is a recurring, disappointing theme of this Conservative government—the severe and considerable lack of consultations leading to decisions in a silo. This is why I know we can improve on this bill already.

Now, putting aside my latter, more high-level observation about the degree of collegiality of this government, with the legislation for Preventing Unethical Puppy Sales Act, 2023, we find ourselves at a crossroads. This legislation, now at its third reading, represents a precipice, and it’s our collective duty to ensure that when we are addressing the welfare of animals in our province, it is done right. It is a moment that demands that we listen, then act—doing those two things exactly in that order.

Bill 159 seeks to amend the Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act by imposing further penalties and measures to eliminate puppy mills, to eliminate unethical breeding, particularly those associated with unregulated and often cruel, cruel practices. These facilities exist because of a lack of enforcement, driven by large amounts of profit while at the expense of animal welfare, and epitomize the darker aspects of our relationships with domestic animals. We can all agree that puppy mills are really bad. I am a dog and cat owner myself. My dog’s name is Lucy; we call her lovely lady Lucy. She really is part of our family. We love her. She welcomes us with unconditional love. I know that many of the members in this Legislature have similar connections with their pets. It is why legislation to further reduce and ultimately attempt to remove puppy mills is just. Yet, our intentions must not be morally inconsistent with our actions.

Strengthening regulations and penalties without the proper funding for enforcement and staffing we are only accomplishing what my grandmother would have called out as, “Doing something as useful as putting a screen door on a submarine.” This is because producing puppies in a wholesale environment, which tends to mean you’re focusing on quantity first and using the least amount of resources possible, is menacingly profitable. It means if creating a disincentive is not done right, then it wouldn’t get done at all. The incentive for profit will still overweigh its disincentive to getting caught. For all of our success, it will just be like playing whack-a-mole: You knock it down in one area, and they spring up all over province.

This legislation is a reminder of the delicate interplay between the rule-making and the rule-enforcing, and if we do not address the issue of puppy mills meaningfully, there will remain pockets where suffering and neglect persist unchecked and unaddressed, which could be quite shameful.

In the role of the official opposition and as the critic for the Solicitor General, it is incumbent upon us to examine this legislation with a watchful and critical eye. The goal in principle is to enhance, to ensure that this bill not only addresses the symptoms of the problem but also tackles the grassroots causes. This is because we all must recognize that intent alone is insufficient without robust and enforceable mechanisms.

Speaker, when this legislation was coming up for third reading, I reached out to the executive director of the Humane Society of Greater Niagara, Tanya Firmage—who, by the way, I would like to formally welcome from Niagara in this chamber. Welcome, Tanya.

Tanya moved to Niagara from Kawartha Lakes, and after spending 30 years in animal welfare sheltering and investigations, holding positions from inspector to chief of humane services for the province, is now the lead in Niagara. I am glad we have that experience at the helm in Niagara.

Over Tanya’s career, she has seen some of the worst puppy mills in all of Ontario. She would describe one of the largest she was involved in, with over 300 dogs. She would go on to describe to me the deplorable conditions: dogs covered their own feces, injured, missing eyes and starving to death. They were without veterinary care—and so, so many puppies. As she told it, the triage took them over 24 hours.

The next one that came to her mind was a case when she was an inspector herself for the province, where he removed 80 dogs. Many of them were pregnant. In her words, “I will never forget how long they had to stay in our care before we could adopt them out. This person was also a repeat offender and would simply look for any and all loopholes to keep doing what they were doing.”

Speaker, with so many investigations, Tanya told me she had often had to revert to calling the CRA to report people for unclaimed income because there was nothing we could do under the legislation to stop the unethical breeding.

Tanya said it was never only about the rules but the ability to have the time and the resources to act. And like so many of her fellow investigators, it broke her heart. What that means is that we must do better than what we have been doing in Ontario. The Legislature and the Ontario government not only create the rules that regulate sectors like animal welfare; we also hold the purse strings. We have the ability to fund this sector to improve it drastically.

There’s a light at the end of the tunnel, but that by no means will happen without real substantial funding support.

Ontario has over 400 known puppy mills. Ontario humane societies’ intake of puppies surged from 788 in 2022 to nearly 1,200 last year. Humane Canada reports 10,000 puppies die in puppy mills every year. This is horrific.

The message from advocates and experts and so many compassionate dog-loving residents across Ontario about going to a shelter to adopt a dog has penetrated the public’s consciousness, but we all know that this is not enough. So let’s make sure we get it right.

When this bill inevitably passes, it doesn’t mean policy-making for animal welfare is going to stop—far from it. As Ontario’s upper chamber provides new rules and regulations, we are also beholden to resist the consequential actions of this legislation to be pushed down to the service and municipal levels without also providing the proper resources. A significant portion of the debate should focus on feedback from stakeholders, particularly the Ontario Animal Welfare Network, from experts with lived experience like Tanya and others that have their insights, drawn from front-line experience in animal rescue and rehabilitation.

We also need to revisit the amendments proposed during the committee stage. These amendments, as described earlier as forced consultation, are essential and directly aimed at closing loopholes and ensuring comprehensive protection for animals. Among these are proposals to mandate pet stores to source animals from shelters and rescue groups and to establish minimum standards of care for breeders—standards inspired by leading jurisdictions such as Quebec.

Finally, but I would say most importantly, the importance of enforcement cannot be overstated. Effective legislation is predicated on the ability to enforce it. This means adequately resourcing the provincial animal welfare services, ensuring that inspectors are not only well-trained but also sufficiently numerous to cover the vast expanse of our province. The current shortfall in enforcement capabilities is a glaring gap that must be addressed if we are to see real, lasting change.

Speaker, to fully grasp the imperative of Bill 159, it is essential to understand the historical context of the landscape in Ontario. Animal welfare organizations, including Ontario Animal Welfare Network, OAWN, have long been crystal clear about the situation for puppy mills in our province of Ontario—we have many dogs that are bred and sold. These organizations have consistently reported on the prevalence of puppy mills, and their stories are very heartbreaking to anyone that hears them.

The COVID-19 pandemic supercharged these issues. As demand for pets skyrocketed during lockdowns, breeders found themselves in an even more favourable, fruitful market, taking advantage of the situation, leading to an increase in the number of dogs entering the market under deplorable—deplorable—conditions.

Post-pandemic, we’ve seen a dramatic rise in the intake of puppies at humane societies across this province, with numbers surging from 788 in 2022 to 1,192 in 2023. This sharp increase indicates a troubling trend and underscores the urgent need for regulatory intervention.

The call for stronger legislation was hitting a fever pitch. Donna Powers, president and co-founder of Stop the Mills, emphasized that, “Dogs are simply a commodity and they’re only looking at profit. They don’t do any testing, there’s no health concerns, there’s no standards of care, there’s no quality of life.”

In a recent article by the CBC, the founder of ARF Ontario describes the bill as “required” but emphasizes that it is “long overdue.”

The Wellington Advertiser chronicled concerns from animal advocates who believe that the proposed law still falls short in some areas, particularly in enforcement and clarity of definitions. Camille Labchuk of Animal Justice echoed this sentiment, stating that the bill, “will do little to nothing to stop the abuse of puppy mills in Ontario,” cautioning against a false sense of security for the prospective pet owners.

Speaker, multiple times during second reading my colleagues raised these very concerns and pointed out that the 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, organizations and bad players to account for how they’re treating animals. In other words, the concern about impact and effectiveness is considerable and real. In the cases these questions were raised in the House, it is unfortunate that the members opposite chose to ignore them.

The legislation is imperative. Given this backdrop, Bill 159 is public policy with a moral obligation. It aims to address these long-standing issues by introducing stringent measures that prohibit the unethical breeding of dogs, mandate comprehensive record-keeping, and impose severe penalties for non-compliance. The bill’s provisions include specific definitions of puppy mills, breeding limitations and care requirements, which are critical for its effective enforcement.

It is clear that the background and necessity of Bill 159 are very clear. It is a response to a pervasive problem that has persisted for way too long, and it represents a crucial step toward ensuring the humane treatment of animals in Ontario. Our debate today must focus on strengthening this bill, making suggestions to ensure it fully addresses the issues that happened and sets new standards for animal welfare in our province.

As we debate and will debate Bill 159, the Preventing Unethical Puppy Sales Act, 2023, to its close, I will now present and fully review some of the provisions in this bill, while pointing out what experts have time and time again said is missing. I will highlight for the record what is not included in this bill, as identified by stakeholders and experts and, at multiple times throughout this debate, aspects that have been raised by my colleagues in this House.

One of the foundational elements of Bill 159 is its attempt to define and prohibit certain practices associated with puppy mills. The bill introduces specific breeding limitations:

Age and frequency restrictions: It prohibits breeding female dogs under the age of one year and limits the breeding of female dogs to no more than three times within two years or more than two litters from consecutive heat cycles.

Health and isolation requirements: The bill mandates that dogs with illnesses and environments have a specific standard in Ontario. These provisions aim to address the heartbreaking situations when dogs are overbred, kept in deep, deep unsafe conditions, and not provided with adequate medical care.

Record-keeping and traceability: Another significant provision in Bill 159 is the requirement for comprehensive record-keeping by dog breeders. This includes maintaining detailed records of each dog’s breeding history, health status and transactions related to their sale or their transfer.

Penalties for non-compliance: The bill sets forth stronger penalties for those found operating puppy mills or violating its provisions.

Financial penalties: A minimum fine of $10,000 for operating a puppy mill, with penalties increasing to $25,000 if the operation results in the death or euthanasia of a dog.

Enforcement measures: The bill grants animal welfare inspectors enhanced powers to conduct investigations and enforce the law, including authority to impose liens for costs associated with investigations.

Speaker, it is critical that these penalties are only as good as the ability to enforce them. I will repeat that: It is critical that these penalties are only as good as our ability to enforce them. We have learned lessons about long-term care and tenants’ rights, as it is simple economics. If you want to change behaviour, we need a clear disincentive for those actors by making them know they are at a big risk of being caught. This part requires substantial resources.

Bill 159 also expands the regulatory authority of the Lieutenant Governor in Council to develop further regulations related to the sale and transfer of dogs.

What’s missing, Speaker? Despite these provisions, stakeholders have raised several concerns about what’s missing from Bill 159.

Lack of clear definition of a puppy mill: Advocates argue that the bill does not provide a sufficiently detailed definition of what constitutes a puppy mill, which could complicate enforcement efforts. A more explicit definition that includes conditions of care, socialization and medical treatment is much needed to ensure effective prosecution of bad actors and offenders.

Enforcement and resource allocation: Time and time again, this point has been raised. There is significant concern about whether the provincial animal welfare services, PAWS, have the necessary resources and staffing to enforce the new regulations effectively. Historical data indicates a decline in inspections and charges under PAWS compared to the predecessor, the Ontario Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, OSPCA. Speaker, we can all agree that this is not a desirable outcome. Small or big policy tweaks will not be enough if we are not allocating the resources to get the job done.

The bill does not establish a provincial registry or licensing system for breeders, which many advocates believe is essential for tracking and regulating breeding operations. Such a system would help ensure that breeders adhere to ethical standards and make it easier to identify and shut down illegal operations.

Bill 159 does include several measures aimed at curbing unethical breeding practices and improving the welfare of dogs in Ontario. And yet, as pointed out already, to fully achieve its goals, the bill must address the gaps identified by most stakeholders. By incorporating a clear definition of a puppy mill, ensuring adequate resources for enforcement and establishing a comprehensive registry and licensing system, we can strengthen this legislation and make a significant impact on the fight against unethical breeding.

As the official opposition, we have a responsibility to be a watchful eye on legislation that is presented and passed through this chamber. In terms of Bill 159, we must not only ensure it fulfills its intended purpose, but also advocate for the necessary enhancements that will make this legislation as effective as possible. While we support the overall intent of Bill 159, we have several significant concerns that need to be addressed to ensure the bill fully achieves its goals.

One of our primary concerns is the lack of active consultation to begin with, and then later to strengthen this bill. My colleague from Toronto–Danforth, during the debate on the second reading, stood up with a clear question: “Could you tell us the genesis of this bill? Was there a particular event or a particular organization that inspired you to bring this forward?” This is a good question. The question was to the point: Who did you consult? The ministry was unable to really provide an answer. This is really, deeply problematic.

The lack of consultation is a thread that runs through the decision-making of this government far too often on too many important bills like this one. It is very disappointing when no consultation is done.

My colleague in the north, a member of this committee who participated in providing clauses for this bill—many good ones that strengthened the legislation that were turned down by this government, might I add—made good points during the debate: “Ontario’s animal welfare models and services take almost no consideration, if any, for on-reserve communities in the province of Ontario....

“We need First Nations voices to be heard at the transition council when regulations are being crafted to ensure that there are not barriers for First Nations Indigenous communities and that systemic racism does not occur.”

Speaker, that’s why I heard this time and time again: “consultation by force,” a term I heard often when speaking the experts. This is how they felt their expertise was being treated—consultation by force.

It has led to some shortfalls, like concerns about a clear, comprehensive definition of what constitutes a puppy mill. The current bill outlines certain breeding practices that are prohibited, but it does not provide a clear definition that is so, so important for effective enforcement and prosecution. As noted by the Ontario Animal Welfare Network, without explicit criteria, it will be challenging to hold violators accountable.

Additionally the bill’s reliance on future regulations to set conditions for the sale and transfer of dogs leaves a significant gap in immediate enforcement capabilities. It has been years already on revisions on how the province handles puppy mills and animal welfare. Why wait any longer?

The need for detailed regulation cannot be overstated. Human Initiative co-founder Donna Power has criticized the bill for being “pretty weak” and has pointed out that the current provisions would not significantly change the situation for the animals involved.

It is essential that the government commits to significantly increasing funding and resources for PAWS. This includes hiring more inspectors, providing them with comprehensive training and ensuring they have the necessary tools to conduct thorough investigations. Without these resources, the enhanced enforcement provisions in the bill will remain largely theoretical and ineffective.

It is also essential that we recognize that a registry would not only help in identifying and shutting down illegal operations but also in supporting ethical breeders to gain trust in our within our communities and our province.

Advocates, including Camille Labchuk of Animal Justice, have emphasized the importance of a licensing regime coupled with enforceable care standards. This approach would provide a framework for ongoing oversight and accountability, which is currently lacking. As Labchuk noted, “This bill will do little to nothing to stop the abuse of puppy mills in Ontario” without these critical elements.

The Ontario Humane Society has called for the inclusion of specific standards of care based on best practices from other jurisdictions, such as Quebec’s Animal Welfare and Safety Act. These standards should include requirements for adequate food, clean shelter, veterinary care and socialization for dogs.

Additionally, the implementation of mandatory micro-chipping for all puppies sold would add a layer of traceability, making it easier to track the origin of puppies and ensure they are coming from ethical sources.

Speaker, in Niagara, locally, if you will, the heart-wrenching experience of Mrs. Jane Thompson from St. Catharines: Mrs. Thompson recalls the day she found a frail, shivering puppy abandoned in a cardboard box outside of her local grocery store. The puppy later was named Lucky. Lucky was of a victim of a nearby puppy mill that was eventually uncovered in the south end part of Ontario.

These stories not only come from individuals, but also, organizations like the Ottawa Humane Society have been on the front lines, rescuing, rehabilitating and rehoming these vulnerable animals. Sharon Miko, president and CEO of Ottawa Humane Society, has often highlighted the increased number of puppies being surrenders to their care, many of whom are too young and sick to survive. In 2023 alone, their intake of puppies surged to 1,192, a clear indication of the rampant issue of puppy mills in our province.

The voices of animal welfare advocates have been clear and consistent. Camille Labchuk—as I’ve quoted before—executive director of Animal Justice, has articulated that while Bill 159 is a step in the right direction, it must go further to be truly, truly effective.

The Animal Justice blog on the PUPS Act also brings forward the need for a provincial registry and licensing system for breeders, which would create a framework for ongoing oversight and accountability. Such a system would not only help in identifying and shutting down illegal operations but also support ethical breeders who adhere to high standards of care.

Speaker, statistics from 2023 are telling. Humane societies across Ontario have seen a significant increase in the number of puppies admitted into their care. This year alone, intake numbers have surged to 1,192 puppies, highlighting the scale of the problem and the need for action that goes beyond policy. It also comes along with the province opening the purse strings to provide adequate resources.

Speaker, our task today is quite clear. It is time to stop puppy mills—it’s hard to say “puppy mills” when you haven’t had a coffee. It is time to stop puppy mills, but the need to get this right is paramount.

Let us remember the stories and the statistics, the dedicated advocates and the suffering of all animals. So many of us in this chamber own pets of our own. As I mentioned, we have lovely lady Lucy, a Boston terrier. My husband and I actually won her in a custody battle with my daughter after my daughter left home. She’s been the best part of our life, may I say.

So many of us in this chamber own our own pets, but in order to be just and ethical, we need to breathe consciousness into the fact of what that means and where our pets may have come from. Those can be difficult conversations, but the debate in this chamber in order to get this right should not be one of them.

Speaker, thank you for listening this morning. I look forward to continuing opportunity to help strengthen this legislation for the benefit of all Ontarians, especially our fur babies and the animals we strive to protect.

Good morning, Madam Speaker. No further business at this time.

We were honoured to have Steve Jones as a guest speaker sharing invaluable insights into his personal journey contributing to destigmatizing mental health.

As Father’s Day approaches, let’s make a concerted effort to check in with our fathers, sons and brothers. The stigma surrounding mental health often deters men from seeking help, contributing to higher rates of suicide among men.

It is critical to recognize that while women attempt suicide twice as often as men, men die by suicide three times as often. Societal expectations of toughness and just dealing with it can discourage men from seeking help, leading them to resort to destructive coping mechanisms.

Our government has improved and expanded the supports in our Roadmap to Wellness. Since 2019, we’ve invested $525 million in new annualized funding for mental health and addictions services.

I’d like to thank Minister Tibollo, MPP Gretzky, MPP Bowman and MPP Schreiner for their attendance and contributions to this event. This important topic is not a partisan one and extends across all party platforms.

Thank you to all members, staff, guest speakers and stakeholders who were able to attend, even if it was just for a brief moment. Your support truly matters.

That concludes our members’ statements for this morning.

Good morning, Speaker. This question is for the Premier.

This government knows how to spend big on vanity ads and projects that favour their friends. In fact, their fiscal plans are going to see Ontario’s deficit triple this year. Across Ontario, meanwhile, people are wondering what they’re getting for that money. Rural emergency rooms are closing, northern highways are shutting down, and schools are running out of buckets to catch the leaks.

How can the government justify spending nearly a billion dollars to break a Beer Store contract that is already set to expire?

It’s the Premier’s priorities that are completely out of whack with where Ontarians are at. If he spent some time talking to them instead of for them, he might learn something.

I want to take that Beer Store contract again, for example—even people who are looking forward to having beer in convenience stores are asking why we would ever fork over as much as a billion dollars to make it happen when the contract is going to expire anyway. They want to know why there’s no money to fix the air conditioners in their kids’ schools, but they have hundreds of millions of dollars for that.

Does the Premier think that this billion dollars is money well spent?

Interjections.

Anyway, back to the Premier: In February, we saw the loss of 300 school board positions that support children with special needs in Mississauga, in Brampton and in Caledon. A new report from People for Education found that nearly half of our schools are experiencing a shortage of educational assistants every single day.

Students with disabilities have a right to education in safe and supportive classrooms. So my question to the Premier is, why are children in Ontario being shortchanged by this government?

You don’t need to wait for a coroner’s inquest to start right now to make sure that kids don’t die at school. So my question back to the Premier is, what changes will this government be making today to ensure that no other parent has to go through what Landyn’s mom, Brenda, is going through right now?

Interjections.

The minister hasn’t even said Landyn’s name. He is not a data point; he was a child and he was Brenda’s child.

There is a theme here of a government that is cutting funding and programs that support children. We used to have a children’s advocate in this province until this government got rid of him. Families have been coming here to this place for the last six years warning about the risks and the consequences of this government’s choices.

I want to ask the Premier: Will he contradict his minister and agree that you do not need to wait for a coroner’s inquest to do right by Landyn and other kids like him?