How you can do this in a country as vast and complex as the Unite States I don't know. Indeed, I don't even know how to do it i Canada, which is so much smaller.

But, if in some way this aspect could be considered, I think it woul be very well worth while indeed.

Finally, then, Mr. Chairman, I think there is one small point I would like to bring to the attention of the committee.

In considering the form of legislation, if you could consider the fa that animals are being imported into the United States from other countries, and if there is some way you could either prohibit the inportation of these animals from Canada or something, I think the would be a major step forward in dealing with the whole overall co plex problem.

Thank you.

(The prepared statement of Mr. Hughes follows:)

I am very honored and privileged to have the opportunity to present to the committee my experience in connection with the problem of procuring animas for scientific research. I appreciate that this submission by a Canadian is unusual but I feel that the circumstances are such that our experience in Canadi will be of interest to the committee. In addition, I think it is important to state clearly at the outset that we have every reason to believe that an unknown naber of dogs and cats, both alive and dead, are transported from Ontario to diffe: ent locations in the United States for use for scientific research.

I am the general manager of the Ontario Humane Society, Inc. by public act of the Ontario Parliament, and given ample authority to enforce the laws thr protect animals, and to take appropriate action when any animal has been if treated or neglected. The society has some 46 local organizations in the Province with a combined membership in excess of 100,000.

The Society operates 25 animal shelters with a total operating budget of jas over $1 million. From these statistics you will see that the society plays a very important role in the field of animal welfare in the Province.

In the last decade the number of animals, and in particular dogs, require for various forms of scientific research and teaching, has risen sharply with the increase in research and teaching activity in the Province. A very good reaso for my submission to the committee is that research grants from the United States finance the larger part of experimentation in the Province.

I am enclosing with this submission a copy of the act of incorporation of the society. From this you will see that the inspectors appointed by the society have full police powers, and in addition, have powers of entry to property with out a search warrant and the power to seize and remove animals under certain circumstances.

The Criminal Code of Canada makes certain abuses of animals an offense Attached to, and forming part of this submission is an extract from the Crimina Code of Canada of the appropriate sections. This criminal law is enforced firmly and with success.

During the last 6 years the activities of dealers in animals for scientific research have increased parallel to the demands. During the period in ques tion a number of these dealers have been investigated by inspectors of this society, and as a result of the investigation five of the most prominent dealers have been prosecuted under the Criminal Code of Canada, and charged with willful neglect of the animals in their care. All the dealers convicted have been fined, one of them repeatedly. The dealer in question has been charged on no less than six separate occasions with willful neglect of animals, during the last 4 years. This man has been fined the maximum fine permitted by law, i.e., $500 on each occasion, and on the last occasion was sentenced to 1 days in jail.

Inspectors of this society have visited this man's premises and seized lar numbers of animals, including on one occasion, 65 dogs. Since the society has an obligation to keep seized animals for a period of up to 30 days, considera. ble expense has been incurred by the society both in the actual seizure of the animals, their transportation and subsequent care and veterinary attention.

Civil action has been taken by this society against the man concerned and judgments have been obtained for the amount of the expenses involved.

To a lesser degree, the same routine has been followed against other dealers in animals for research.

Despite the criminal action taken against these men, and despite the expensive costs that have been awarded against them in civil actions, all these men are still operating as dealers in animals for research, and supplying animals to the universities in Ontario.

I think the important point therefore, that we have learned from our experience is that the ordinary criminal law process, even supplemented by the special powers given to our society, has not been sufficient to clean up the situation in Ontario and prevent this abuse of animals from occurring and continuing to occur.

Animals, particularly dogs and cats, are procured for research from three basic sources. Dogs and cats are found at large, possibly contravening a local ordinance, but nevertheless only at large in a technical sense. These animals are picked up by persons who know that they can dispose of them to a dealer for cold cash. These men or women know perfectly well that no questions will be asked by the dealer. Purebred dogs can be, and are in my opinion, deliberately stolen, often because the person concerned knows that there is a special demand for a certain breed of dog for which the dealer will pay an unusually high amount.

Animals are purchased from dogcatchers, poundkeepers, or whatever other description is used to describe a person appointed by a local municipality, to pick up and impound dogs as a part of that municipality's animal control program. Since many of these animal control officers are not supervised in any way at all, there is the great danger that this demand will encourage the dogcatcher to impound dogs that are not breaking the bylaw, and to sell all dogs that he impounds to the dealer without waiting for the period of time stipulated by the bylaw, and therefore giving the owner his opportunity, also stipulated by the bylaw, to reclaim his dog.

Finally, animals can be purchased in the ordinary way, but this is not believed to be an important source of these animals. Universities of Ontario pay between $7.50 and $15 for any crossbred animal supplied to them by their wholesale dealer. The economics of the trade therefore, are such that it is not possible for animals to be purchased in the ordinary way, kept by an intermediate dealer, transported to a wholesale dealer and still sold at a profit. Since most dogs that are used for research in Ontario pass through two, and quite often three separate person's hands, and since almost all dogs are transported varying distances, it must be clear that the dog must be originally obtained without cost or for a very nominal amount. This simple fact precludes any possibility of the animals being obtained properly, ethically and morally. The only assumption that one can reach is that the majority of the animals used for research in this Province are obtained either improperly or by outright theft.

There are enough animals obtained in Ontario by these dealers to permit export of animals to the United States. At least two of the well known wholesale dealers in animals for research in Ontario have admitted to me personally that they do sell animals for research to other dealers in New York State. In fact, on one occasion, to be precise in August 1963, a number of dogs were intercepted at the border at Niagara Falls, Ontario, consigned to a dealer in Jamestown, N.Y. These animals were in very bad condition, were seized and subsequently destroyed.

One of the largest companies supplying biological specimens to schools has informed me that they are receiving ever-increasing demands from schools in the United States for suitable specimens, particularly cats. This trade is of sufficient concern to cause the New York State Police to allocate a trooper to investigate this trade, and this trooper has interviewed me in my office in Toronto. I have also been asked to testify to the grand jury for Erie County in the State of New York, which is holding inquiries into the overall problem.

The society has four animal shelters located very close to the international boundary on the Niagara Peninsula. These are located at St. Catharines, Niagara Falls, Welland, and Fort Erie. All four shelters are within a few minutes' drive of the international boundary bridges. All these shelters report repeated attempts by persons driving vehicles with New York State plates, to purchase dogs in abnormal numbers. These attempts have been sufficiently

numerous to warrant issuing specific instructions to all personnel employed r these shelters, warning them to be alert for this practice, and instructing them not to sell animals to such people under any circumstances.

In 1962 the Ontario Humane Society attempted to find a solution to this prob lem by negotiation with the universities concerned. A meeting was held in Toronto at which all universities in the Province were represented. At that meeting a committee was formed. The terms of reference of the committee wer to consider the present means of acquiring animals for research, and to recom mend a solution which could be submitted to the government of Ontario, which if adopted by the government, would have the effect of creating an ethical, legal, and morally proper source of supply of animals for legitimate research, and yet one which would not permit the existence and operation of unscrupulous, cruel animal dealers.

The Ontario Humane Society, at the same time, prepared a separate suba's sion to the government of Ontario, recommending the government to license dealers in animals for research and to insert safeguards in the licensing regula tions to make certain that animals were obtained properly, that adequate records were kept, that the animals would be given proper facilities and care and that any person convicted of cruelty to animals would be deprived of the license. The recommendations were obviously in more detail, but this is a general summary of them.

One might well expect that a committee consisting of responsible citizens and persons in high position in the universities of this Province would have little difficulty in agreeing on the format of the submission to the government of Ontario.

I regret to have to say that some 4 years later, and despite numerous meetings and varied drafts, that the committee has failed to agree on the form recommendation to the government. It seems incredible that responsible scientists educators, and administrators could not eagerly find a formula which would be acceptable to this society and yet which would not interfere with the legitimate source of supply. I want to emphasize again that 4 years of negotiation have produced little, if any progress. In fact, at its last meeting the committee, after

6 hours of deliberation, decided to simply recommend to the government that they should set up another committee with wider representation to "study the problem." This, despite repeated prosecutions of animal dealers who have been convicted by the criminal courts of Canada of willful neglect and cruelty to animals. This, despite the fact that these men are still the source of supply of dogs and cats to universities in Ontario. However, this exercise in futility has at least shown that the problem cannot be solved by ordinary negotiation and discussion.

It seems a strange reflection on the ethics and morality of our day that re sponsible citizens are unwilling to voluntarily regulate a trade which they have created.

It seems perfectly clear, therefore, that the only solution to this particular problem is special legislation enforced by independent inspectors.

May I emphasize once again that in some ways our experience in Ontario is a perfect miniature of the problem that exists in the United States. Despite criminal law which protects animals, and which we as a society have no difficulty in enforcing, and despite the sweeping powers given to the society to seize animals that are being ill treated, neither of these existing forms of legislation have been adequate to do anything other than to cause the dealers some temporary inconvenience. One dealer in question, testifying at his own trial, voluntarily admitted that he was earning $35,000 and $40,000 a year from selling dogs and some other animals to universities. It must be obvious that this man could well afford to pay the maximum fine of $500, and that this was only a license to continue his ways.

In our opinion, therefore, the only solution remains special legislation designed to deal specifically with this problem. There is no doubt that the demand for animals will continue to increase year by year. The demand will coincide with the increase in research, and in particular, teaching activities. The need to introduce legislation, therefore, is growing more urgent every day. Unless this problem can be solved, and solved soon, we can expect more violent differences of opinion and public exposés of what is essentially an immoral and basically dishonest practice.

There is no doubt that a section of the Canadian public is watching with great interest the attempts being made by certain Senators and Congressmen to intro

duce bills which would have the effect of controlling this particular abuse of animals. There is no doubt, of course, that any action by the United States would have a very strong immediate reaction in Canada. Certainly if the U.S. Government enacts legislation, this will encourage the Canadian Government and Provincial parliaments to consider similar legislation.

It would be entirely presumptuous on my part to urge this committee to favorably consider the bill now before the committee. I think I have made it abundantly clear however, where my sympathies and the sympathies of all Canadian humanitarians lie.

May I again express my most sincere appreciation for the privilege and honor of making this presentation to the committee.

EXCERPTS FROM THE CRIMINAL CODE OF CANADA

CRUELTY TO ANIMALS

Causing unnecessary suffering—Causing injury by negligence, abandoning, baiting, poisoning, field trials, punishment

387. (1) Everyone commits an offense who

(a) Willfully causes or, being the owner, willfully permits to be caused unnecessary pain, suffering, or injury to an animal or bird;

(b) By willful neglect causes damage or injury to animals or birds while they are being driven or conveyed;

(c) Being the owner or the person having the custody or control of a domestic animal or bird or an animal or bird wild by nature that is in captivity, abandons it in distress or willfully neglects or fails to provide suitable and adequate food, water, shelter, and care for it,

(d) In any manner encourages, aids, or assists at the fighting or baiting of animals or birds,

(e) Willfully, without reasonable excuse, administers a poisonous or injurious drug or substance to a domestic animal or bird or an animal or bird wild by nature that is kept in captivity or, being the owner of such an animal or bird, willfully permits a poisonous or injurious drug or substance to be administered to it, or

(f) Promotes, arranges, conducts, assists in, receives money for, or takes part in a meeting, competition, exhibition pastime, practice, display, or event at or in the course of which captive birds are liberated by hand, trap, contrivance or any other means for the purpose of being shot when they are liberated, or

(g) Being the owner, occupier, or person in charge of any premises, permits the premises or any part thereof to be used for a purpose mentioned in paragraph (f)

(2) Everyone who commits an offense under subsection (1) is guilty of an offense punishable on summary conviction.

PUNISHMENT

694. (1) General penalty. Except where otherwise expressly provided by law, everyone who is convicted of an offense punishable on summary conviction is liable to a fine of not more than $500 or to imprisonment for 6 months or to both. (S-1052(2).)

Senator MONRONEY. Thank you very much, Mr. Hughes.

Do you mean that these animals coming in are stolen animals or strays or animals raised by dog breeders?

Mr. HUGHES. The animals now being obtained by our dealers in Canada are being obtained from three major sources.

A number of them are being stolen, outright stolen. Now we have actually laid charges against people for dog theft where, in the one case, a tattooed animal has crept through or slipped through.

Under certain Canadian laws, certain animals have to be tattooed, and this has provided us with a secret to this problem of dog stealinga means of identification.

The reason why many more charges of dog theft are not laid is tha it is impossible to identify the stolen object, and we are not dealing with a television set or something with a serial number on it. If r were there would be more charges laid before now.

Unfortunately, the whole thing is complicated by the fact that pe ple have built up a reputation for being humanitarian by finding animals before they are lost. It is very easy for a person to say. "I found this animal. I love animals. That is why I picked it up from the street, and I am looking after it now." This complicates the thing.

We have laid charges for dog stealing in Canada.

Another sort of place is through the public pound through the bak door. Unfortunately, many of the pounds in Canada are nothing more or less than private premises of dogcatchers. They are no supervised properly, and they listen very readily to any approach in a dealer who will pay them personally so much a dog for any animal which is given over to them.

I think you will readily see the dangers of any such system in whic the dog dealer pays a dogcatcher a private sum of money for each deg that he makes available for research.

Thirdly, of course, they are obtained by purchase from legitimate sources. These are basically the animals which are obtained fro persons who want to dispose of an animal.

But our own information—and I have been involved in this inspection work for some 14 years now-is that when the dealer buys an animal from this source he rarely if ever discloses the ultimate purpose for which the animal is to be used.

I think these are the three main sources of animals which are now being exported to the United States.

I can say, Mr. Chairman, that in the charges that I have laid personally against these dealers the conditions which I have found in their camps are simply unbelievable. I have personally seen the animals cannibalizing each other, eating each other.

I have witnessed immediate post mortems of these animals in whose stomachs were almost undigested parts of other animals which have been removed from their stomachs.

I have been able to obtain criminal convictions under the crimina! law of Canada successfully despite very, very extensive defenses. And I think this proves beyond all shadow of a doubt that if you can do this and that all you can do is temporarily inconvenience these dealers, criminal law by itself isn't the answer.

Senator MONRONEY. In other words, for Canada-you are not suggesting the United States ought to it would take regulation of dealerships and revocation of licenses and that would extend to your user institutions as well?

Mr. HUGHES. Yes.

Can I say, Mr. Chairman, if Canada were to enact legislation similar to that before the committee, this would immensely improve the position of Canada.

Senator MONRONEY. I see. Thank you very much for your testimony, Mr. Hughes.

I would like to ask, if I might, Mrs. Stevens, a question. The heavy criticism that has been made during the hearings by most of the op