|
|
|
|
| TODAY'S NEWS | SEARCH THE NEWSROOM | NEWS BY MINISTRY |
McGuinty Government Modernizes Animal Cruelty Laws
TORONTO, Nov. 17 /CNW/ -
NEWS
People who abuse animals will face jail, stiffer fines and a lifetime ban
on animal ownership under the strongest animal protection law in Canada.
Passed today by the Ontario legislature, the Provincial Animal Welfare
Act is the first top-to-bottom modernization of Ontario's animal protection
laws since 1919.
<<
Other key changes include:
- Creating new provincial offences including causing or permitting
distress to an animal
- Allowing the Ontario Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals
to inspect places where animals are kept for entertainment,
exhibition, boarding, sale or hire
- Requiring veterinarians to report suspected abuse and neglect, and
protecting them from personal liability for doing so
- Extending the act's coverage to zoos.
>>
The act also creates appropriate exemptions for wildlife, agriculture and
veterinary practices, and respects areas already regulated by other
legislation.
QUOTES
"Today is an historic day for our province when it comes to animal
protection. Ontario has passed legislation that will give us the strongest
animal protection laws in Canada, and bring more abusers to justice," said
Community Safety and Correctional Services Minister Rick Bartolucci
(http://www.mcscs.jus.gov.on.ca/english/about_min/bio.html).
QUICK FACTS
<<
- The Ontario Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals
investigates roughly 17,000 allegations of animal cruelty each year.
- There are estimated to be over 50 zoos in Ontario, which is more than
all other provinces combined.
- Historical quote: "The greatness of a nation and its moral progress
can be judged by the way its animals are treated," Mahatma Gandhi.
LEARN MORE
Learn more about animal welfare in Ontario
(http://webx.newswire.ca/click/?id=83d87708ce2ff9c).
Find out more about the Ontario Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to
Animals (http://www.ontariospca.ca/).
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
ontario.ca/safety-news
Disponible en français
BACKGROUNDER
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
CHANGES TO IMPROVE ANIMAL WELFARE
Upon proclamation, new legislation would amend the Ontario Society for the
Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (OSPCA) Act to better protect animals in
Ontario. These would be the first comprehensive changes to the act since it
was introduced in 1919.
Changes include:
NEW ANIMAL PROTECTION AND INVESTIGATION POWERS
- Creating standards of care for all animals
- Giving the OSPCA the authority to inspect premises, other than homes,
where animals are kept for the purposes of exhibit, entertainment,
boarding, sale or hire
- Allowing the OSPCA to seize dead animal remains or take samples for
an investigation
- Establishing the authority to retain a seized animal where charges
have been laid and where there are reasonable grounds to believe the
animal may be harmed if returned to its owner.
NEW PROVINCIAL OFFENCES
- Creating new provincial offences within the OSPCA Act including:
- Causing or permitting distress to an animal
- Training or permitting animals to fight other animals, or owning
or possessing equipment or structures used in animal fighting
- Failing to comply with standards of care for all animals
- Causing harm to a law enforcement animal
- Obstructing an OSPCA inspector or agent
- Making a knowingly false complaint to the OSPCA
- Failing to comply with an Animal Care Review Board decision.
- Creating appropriate penalties for the new offences including jail of
up to two years, fines of up to $60,000 and a potential lifetime
ownership ban.
PROTECT EXISTING PRACTICES
- Creating appropriate exemptions for wildlife, agriculture and
veterinary practices
- Respecting areas already regulated by other legislation, such as
animals for research and municipal regulation of animal control.
MANDATORY REPORTING
- Requiring reporting by veterinarians of suspected animal abuse by
veterinarians and protecting them from personal liability for doing
so.
CLARIFY EXISTING LEGISLATION
- Amending existing legislation including:
- Defining an owner or custodian to include that an adult is
responsible where a minor "owns" an animal and clarify personal
responsibility where an organization or commercial entity owns an
animal
- Clarifying the OSPCA's ability to enter premises, other than
homes, without a warrant, when they have reasonable grounds to
believe an animal is in immediate distress
- Clarifying that an OSPCA order remains in force while it is being
appealed to the Animal Care Review Board
- Enabling the Animal Care Review Board to award costs of interim
animal care, or the costs of complying with an order, to either
party involved in an appeal.
COORDINATION WITH MUNICIPAL AUTHORITY
- Without imposing on municipal by-law making authority, in the event
of a conflict between the OSPCA Act and a municipal by-law, whichever
provision affords the greatest protection to animals would take
precedence.
BACKGROUNDER
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
ANIMAL WELFARE CHANGES: SCENARIOS
>>
Upon proclamation, new legislation would amend the Ontario Society for
the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (OSPCA) Act to better protect animals in
Ontario. These would be the first comprehensive changes to the act since it
was introduced in 1919.
Here are a few examples of how the changes would have affected some
recent situations:
TYSON THE KANGAROO
Scenario: Year-old observations by an Australian tourist raised concerns
that a kangaroo was being kept in a very small cage at a London-area zoo.
Under current laws: The OSPCA could not act as the information was not
current enough to get a search warrant and they could not observe the animal
in immediate distress.
Under new law: The OSPCA could inspect any zoo or enter without a warrant
based upon reasonable grounds to believe that the animal was in immediate
distress.
A.K. THE DOG
Scenario: In Windsor, A.K. - a mixed breed puppy - had his ears crudely
cropped.
Under current laws: The OSPCA could only prosecute under the Criminal
Code. As a result, they had to determine who had cropped the puppy's ears and
whether the harm done was "wilful" as required under the Criminal Code.
Under new law: The OSPCA would only need to determine the owner of the
animal and that the mutilation occurred.
The OSPCA could charge the owner with the offence of causing or
permitting distress. The provincial penalties include the possibility of a
lifetime ownership ban.
ESCAPED JAGUAR AT BRACEBRIDGE ZOO
Scenario: A jaguar escaped from its cage at a Bracebridge-area zoo and
killed the zoo-owner's dog before being shot dead by police.
Under current laws: The Ministry of Natural Resources had revoked the
zoo's licence and removed the native species from the zoo but did not have
jurisdiction over the jaguar.
The OSPCA had no information that the animal was in distress or that it
posed a danger to others (and, ultimately, itself by being kept in a cage from
which it could escape).
Under new law: The OSPCA could inspect and determine whether prescribed
standards of care were met including, potentially, whether the jaguar's cage
was sufficient, and take appropriate action.
RABID PUPPIES SOLD AT TORONTO FLEA MARKET
Scenario: Puppies infected with rabies were sold at a flea market in
Toronto, resulting in a serious public health incident.
Under current laws: The OSPCA had no information that these puppies were
in distress and had no other ability to inspect their condition.
Under new law: The OSPCA would have the ability to inspect any premises
where animals are sold and could have detected the animals' health issues
earlier. This would also have helped them to find the source of the puppies
sooner.
DOGS LEFT IN CARS
Scenario: Each summer, the OSPCA deals with numerous public complaints
about dogs being left in cars, apparently in distress from heat and
dehydration.
Under current laws: OSPCA can respond but must be able to observe the
animal in immediate distress to take action.
If the animal was not visible (e.g., under a seat, behind heavily tinted
windows, in a trunk, in the cab of a pickup truck), they would have to obtain
a search warrant.
Under new law: The OSPCA could take immediate action with reasonable
grounds to believe the animal was in immediate distress (e.g., where an OSPCA
investigator could hear the animal in distress or the person making the
complaint had seen the animal in distress prior to the arrival of the OSPCA).
-30-
For further information: Laura Blondeau, Minister's Office, (416) 325-4973; Anthony Brown, Communications Branch, (416) 314-7772
Other news releases disseminated by this ministry
