Ontario’s new law falls short on fully protecting animals

At first glance, the Ontario government’s proposed new animal welfare act appears remarkably bold.

Bill 136 would require most owners of animals to adhere to a prescribed standard of care. It would ban most activities likely to cause an animal distress.

For the first time, it would explicitly give authorized animal inspectors the right to break into parked cars to rescue pets at risk from extreme temperatures.

As before, inspectors would have the authority of peace officers to enter and inspect premises where animals are kept, including the right to use reasonable force in the execution of a search warrant.

Solicitor General Sylvia Jones says the province will appoint about 100 inspectors, up from the roughly 60 that had been employed.

She says some will be specially trained to monitor horses, other livestock, zoos and aquariums. This in itself is not new. In 2013, the previous Liberal government spent $1.3 million to train and operate special teams to investigate zoos, aquariums and puppy mills

Nonetheless, animal welfare groups are tentatively giving Premier Doug Ford’s government high marks.

“So far, I am encouraged by how robust the bill seems,” Camille Labchuk of Animal Justice said in an email. She warned, however, that the effectiveness of the proposed law will depend on how it is implemented.

Liz White of Animal Alliance said in an email that she welcomed the government’s commitment to train inspectors. And she supported the idea of putting enforcement — which until last year had been handled by the Ontario Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, a private charity — under full public control.

But, she said, she was disappointed that some of the biggest animal use industries continue to be exempt from cruelty laws.

Bill 136 specifies that farmers are exempt as long as they follow what are known as generally accepted agricultural practices. Such generally accepted practices include dehorning goats without anesthetic and confining chickens in crowded cages.

Hunters and anglers are also exempt. They would still legally be able to cause animals distress (by for instance shooting them) as long as they did so within the boundaries of the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act.

And those who use animals for approved scientific research — no matter how gruesome — continue to be exempt from cruelty laws.

Still, animal advocates console themselves with the fact that it could have been worse. If nothing else, Bill 136 fills a gap left by the OSPCA earlier this year when, after a warning from the courts that it was behaving unconstitutionally, it voluntarily got out of the business of enforcing animal cruelty laws.

The charity did so, it said, because the task was simply too expensive. It was also thankless. On the one hand, the OSPCA came under attack from animal advocates for being too namby-pamby. On the other, it was castigated by farmers and others for being too intrusive. It now focuses on the universally popular issue of pet adoptions.

Like the OSPCA before it, the proposed new public inspectorate is being given powers that seem, on paper, considerable. Will it do a better job of using these powers to improve animal welfare? Is the Ford government truly committed to this?

Fans of animals can only hope.