by SUSAN MANN
Jack MacLaren’s private member’s bill to curb the enforcement powers of the Ontario Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals was defeated during its second reading vote in Ontario’s Legislature Thursday.
MacLaren, the Progressive Conservative MPP for Carleton-Mississippi Mills, says it was a pretty close vote and he is disappointed. “We wanted it to pass and so did all of our supporters.”
Ontario Agriculture Minister Ted McMeekin voted against Bill 47. It would force the provincial agriculture ministry to spend an additional $4 to $6 million a year while delivering less and that doesn’t include added costs to municipalities, the police and courts, which could be as high as $15 million, he says in Hansard, the official verbatim report of debates in the provincial legislature.
“No one wants the government to spend money ineffectively but that’s what Bill 47 would require,” he says. The bill would have significantly reduced the ability of veterinarians to report abuse and neglect, he adds.
MacLaren say that’s not true. “He was in error on that point. We didn’t change any of the Act as it pertains to looking out for the animal’s welfare or stopping their abuse or neglect.”
All they were concerned about is “how is the law enforced and who’s enforcing it and are they qualified and properly trained,” he says, noting he’ll try again to introduce a bill at a later date.
McMeekin says there may be ways to improve the current OSPCA Act or its implementation and he’s committed “to pursuing this dialogue with our farmers.”
Tom Black, president of the Ontario Landowners Association, is disappointed Bill 47 didn’t pass second reading and get sent to committee for review. “I’m flabbergasted we couldn’t get three parties to agree on something as simple as fixing the OSPCA.”
Passing the second reading of the bill “would have put it in committee stage where everyone could have had a whack at it to try and make it better,” he says.
Black was at the legislature Thursday for a rally supporting the bill and to watch the outcome of voting.
MacLaren says about 75 people turned out for the rally outside of the Ontario Legislature to support the bill. There was also a rally opposing the bill. Black says there were about 25 mostly young girls off to the side in opposition.
“I wouldn’t have been too worried if it didn’t pass third reading,” Black says, noting private members’ bills aren’t usually successful. But sending the bill to committee would have brought the matter to the forefront to study “where we go with this and how we fix it. That would have put some pressure on getting it fixed.”
Black notes MacLaren’s bill wasn’t too drastic and just proposed putting the OSPCA leadership under government authority so there could be accountability. Currently “there’s no accountability,” he explains. “They’re absolutely independent of government. They’re a charity with police powers.”
During Thursday’s debate, Black says all MPPs there agreed there’s a problem with the OSPCA and it needs to be fixed. But by defeating the bill at second reading some politicians are saying they’re not going to fix it, he notes.
In an earlier interview, MacLaren said he thought the bill had a chance of passing second reading and would be sent to committee for review because the Liberals have a minority government. His proposed Bill 47 was a reworked version of an earlier bill he introduced that many farmers and municipal representatives said wouldn’t work.
Alison Cross, OSPCA senior manager of marketing and communications, couldn’t be reached for comment. BF
Comments
You mention there were people opposing the bill at Queen's Park, and identify as "mostly young girls." Are you implying that those opposing the bill are not to be taken seriously because they were "mostly" female and young? I can't think of any other reason why the reporter would feel it was necessary to include this detail. Ridiculous biases like this do not lend credibility to your organization.
Thank you for the comment about the young girls. Since I was one of them I will accept it as a compliment. It does beg this question though. How does it feel to have your butt whipped by "young females"? Those "young females" which numbered around 30 were the reason Bill 47 was defeated. Along with thousands of others who were violently opposed to the Bill who send letters to, called and emailed MPPs. This Bill would be beneficial to the farmers who are afraid of having the care of their livestock scrutinized and left animals virtually without protection. By the way there were no where near 75 supporters there. You didn't even have one full bus. More like 20. Maybe you need to clean your glasses. Still I do like that you thought I was a young female. Thank you.
If those supporters (which were only about 20, I know because I was there) had actually read the bill and understood how it stripped all protection of animals, I am sure that most of them would not be in support.
BTW, there were men at the protest against the bill as well. And not all the young WOMEN (calling females of voting age "girls" shows how backward and sexist this "reporter" is) were young. There was an even mix of all adult age groups. Again, distortion of the facts to diminish the relevancy of the protesters.
Too bad you didn't mention the supporter who appeared drunk and tried to taunt the group opposed by flaunting her supporting sign and fell down of her butt. If that is the intellect of supporters, I think Mr. MacLaren should really try harder to find good representatives of his constituents.
And if you spoke to the protesters, you would have learned that they too want to fix the OSPCA but not by taking away all protection for animals and making it easier for abusers. Again, it would be nice to have stories to have balance so that your readers can benefit from learning that actual issues at play.
Young girls tend be viewed as the weakest members of our society (my daughter proves otherwise). Is Mr. MacLaren saying that he was defeated by a small group of society's weakest? What does that say about him?
McMeekin needs to realize it is supposed to be the farmers he is working for not ospca. time to get rid of the liberals.
Does that mean that whatever the farmers want McMeekin should automatically support even if it is totally wrong? The only ones who don't seem to understand this is the farmers and those who have chosen to jump on their bandwagon out of spite for OSPCA.
The distortion of the facts in this piece continue the parade of half-truths that fill this debate.
From the "OSPCA officers have no livestock background" canard, to the delusion that court fines benefit the OSPCA (General Revenues, anyone?) we now get the "cute little girls with their signs".
I appreciate the window into a world with a different-coloured sky...
You are entitled to your opinion, but not your own facts.
Message not compliant with guideliness.
Post new comment