Top Stories

The Toronto Sun's Peter Worthington wades into the fray

(Continued from home page) Largely unnoticed in Bill 50 is the revision of Section 10 in the old act that says no society, association or group "established after the 30th day of May, 1955," shall function as an animal welfare or cruelty prevention organization "unless it is incorporated and becomes affiliated" with what then was the Ontario Humane Society and is now renamed the Ontario Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (OSPCA).

Thus, animal welfare bodies in business prior to 1955, seemed to escape domination by the OSPCA, which has been rent asunder in recent years by controversy, weak finances, mass resignations, internal feuds, etc.

Section 10 in the new act is revised to say only groups affiliated with the OSPCA shall "use the name 'humane society' ... or 'spca' or the equivalent of any of those names ..."

Giving the OSPCA control over the name "humane society" (which it has dropped and no longer uses) has caused alarm among some, who believe it gives the OSPCA undue power to threaten and intimidate.

The Toronto Humane Society (THS) has feuded over the years with the OSPCA. Although it has been in existence for 121 years and is a beloved Toronto institution, the THS feels vulnerable with this amended clause.

"It means that if we break our affiliation with the OSPCA, or they kick us out for any reason, by this new law we could lose our name -- a name that has meant goodwill and trust for generations, and is essential to our fundraising," says Tim Trow, president of the THS.

"Donations from the public and gifts are our only source of funds. We get no grants, no handouts from government."

Last week Trow wrote to Rick Bartolucci, Ontario's minister of community safety, urging the removal of the inflammatory section from Bill 50. He called it "an insurmountable conflict of interest because the Ontario SPCA will become both regulator and fundraising competitor to its 32 affiliates."

He said Bill 50 will "upon enactment, strip the names and identities of other charities amongst the 235 Ontario animal protection charities registered with the Canadian Revenue Agency."

The THS depends on the OSPCA for inspectors in animal abuse cases. Other than the police, they are the only ones licensed to carry out investigations and lay charges. There's rarely disagreement when abuses are found. But Trow accuses the OSPCA leadership of hiring private detectives to check up on the THS, including surreptitious interviews of staff.

"The OSPCA has a poor record with saving animals, and always needs money, and would love to get its hands on THS fundraising abilities," says Trow.

"Put bluntly, our name is our greatest asset. If we had to change our name after 121 years, it would be devastating.

"Last year we had an enviable record for saving animals - 75% of our dogs and cats were adopted; our euthanasia rate was 6 %. The OSPCA won't tell how many it adopts and how many it kills." (The euthanasia rate at the Toronto Animal Services -- the pound, in other words -- is roughly 50%, a far cry from the THS' s 6%).

Those who think the OSPCA would never move against the THS might consider what's happening in Burlington. In 1974 Animal Aid was formed after the Burlington Humane Society (affiliated with what is now the OSPCA) quit in 1970 over a dispute with the city's animal shelter program to sell animals for research.

Animal Aid took over the role, and the name, of humane society and ever since has functioned as such. In 1999, the Hamilton SPCA decided to include Burlington, to form a joint SPCA, even though it has no shelter in Burlington. Local people still depend on the present BHS.

The Hamilton-Burlington SPCA has threatened to sue the BHS, but until the new OSPCA Act, there was nothing to prevent Burlington using the "humane society" name.

Jolene Regan, president of the all-volunteer BHS, says the membership approved, and "Burlington Humane Society" became their legal name, filed with Industry Canada and incorporated in 2006.

"We have good working relations with the city and with the city's animal control shelter," says Regan. "Hamilton's interest in Burlington is because we're a relatively affluent community for fundraising."

Like Burlington, the Mississauga Humane Society is volunteer-based, and unaffiliated with the OSPCA, which has a reputation of being dogmatic and dysfunctional, a view shared by the THS leadership.

Regan is concerned the Hamilton SPCA has a "zero-kill" policy -- it will not put down any animal. This means it will not accept most sick or injured animals but directs them to the city's Animal Control Services, which shares the same building with the HSPCA.

It's cruel to keep some animals alive, says Regan. "You try to help them all, but some can't be saved."

In other words, the HSPCA accepts healthy animals for adoption, while sick or unwanted animals go to Animal Control for execution.

Like the THS, Regan worries that the wording on the new SPCA Act gives the OSPCA a weapon to prevent the use of the name "humane society."

A spokesman for Bartolucci says the controversial wording in Bill 50 is mere "modernizing of the language and not intended to change the existing situation." The intent is to have better control over cruelty and abuse of animals, and not to prevent people caring for animals.

He didn't think banning organizations from using the word "humane society" unless they were affiliated with the OSPCA, posed a danger to, say, the Mississauga and Burlington humane societies, which are independent (as are the Marathon, Collingwood and Picton humane societies). Or Toronto, which is affiliated but which the OSPCA envies and resents.

If the ministry believes this, it doesn't understand the issue.

To avoid a snakepit of future controversy, before the next reading of Bill 50, the words "humane society" should be removed from the sentence that says the OSPCA has sole disposition on who can use that name.

It's ludicrous, when one thinks about it. Both the OSPCA and Hamilton have abandoned the "humane society" identification for themselves, but want to prevent any except those affiliated with them from using it.

Bartolucci is to be commended for updating the act, but he should familiarize himself with the OSPCA's turmoiled history, and that in the past it has proved unreliable in dealing judiciously with power.

[Back to Home Page]