Animal welfare a social justice issue

Residential Tenancy Act fails to protect pets while MLAS demonstrate lack of compassion

Few things can make a person feel more grimy than attending the P.E.I. legislature. The Official Opposition tries to elevate debate to the level of adults, and some Third Party members act with dignity. But the spectacle of government MLAS behaving like schoolyard children continues. And it’s clear that those who do still don’t appreciate what their job is.

I attended debate on the Residential Tenancy Act, intended to give tenants better protection in one of the most fundamental and vulnerable areas of their lives. This act has many flaws but my particular concern was that it preserves every landlord’s ability to prohibit pets arbitrarily. It requires landlords to accommodate for service animals but allows them to withhold those exact same accommodations in the same premises from tenants with pets.

The consequences of allowing this discrimination are serious, placing yet another obstacle before tenants coping with the housing crisis. It affects every senior, family, person with limited means or suffering from loneliness or depression who may be forced to choose between their beloved pets and somewhere to live. It’s causing many animals to be surrendered to the Humane Society or worse, simply abandoned.

LEGAL PRECEDENT

The Opposition introduced an amendment that would disallow blanket prohibitions on pets, while allowing for development of options for landlords with legitimate concerns. A similar structure has existed in Ontario for decades. They presented evidence, cogent arguments, and legislative solutions. They even offered to amend their own amendment. But Minister of Social Development and Housing Matthew Mackay refused to consider any of it. His only response was that he’s uncomfortable “forcing” landlords to accept pets. It seems no amount of facts, legal precedent or offers of collaboration could penetrate his personal feelings.

The minister’s lack of empathy is disturbing. He seems comfortable forcing tenants to choose between housing and their animal family members. He seems comfortable forcing people and animals onto the street because they can’t find housing. He seems comfortable forcing animals away from the families they know and love, and forcing the burden of rehoming them onto an already overwhelmed Humane Society.

His feelings are also illinformed. Pet-friendly provisions don’t force pets onto landlords, they provide both limits and tools for what they can do.

Legislation already places limits on landlords, who accept this when they choose to get into this business and relinquish certain privileges over their property. We aren’t living in the days when they could simply put a sign in the window refusing to rent to classes of people they didn’t like. If the minister is encountering landlords who think they are, he needs to correct them.

But it wasn’t just the minister who failed in his obligations as a legislator. During this debate, government MLAS ignored it all, whispering and giggling instead. That included Minister of Agriculture and Land Darlene Compton. She’s responsible for protecting animals, but instead she spent the entire time knitting. While she knitted, she smirked, muttered, sighed, and rolled her eyes. Not once did she demonstrate any concern for either the animals being discussed or the P.E.I. Humane Society — and voted against the amendment.

It shows that most government MLAS don’t understand what their role is, and don’t possess the maturity or skills to fulfil it. It shows that playing politics matters more to them than helping the vulnerable. And it shows yet again that we cannot rely on a minister of agriculture to speak up for animals.

It also exposes another reality. Animal welfare is a social justice issue. It’s deeply entwined with other social issues. But the minister of Social Development and Housing has shown that we can’t rely on him to help animals either. Whether it’s an Animal Welfare Office, director, advocate, commissioner or something else, P.E.I. needs someone whose job is to protect animals independent of business interests — because clearly no one is.

In the meantime, government MLAS need to put away their knitting and take their jobs seriously.

Pet-friendly provisions don’t force pets onto landlords, they provide both limits and tools for what they can do.