I'm not a service dog trainer or a board member of a service dog organization, nor am I affiliated with any service dog companies' operations. I am an end-user.
Upon my release from the CAF in 2016, I relocated to British Columbia. This is where my difficulties began with other service dog providers, local businesses, government agencies, and local, civic and provincial governments. This is when the roadblocks to having a service dog began daily.
At that time in B.C., the government was lobbied by a single service dog provider, ADI/IGDF, and the new service dog act was implemented exactly at the same time that the Alberta act was implemented. Alberta and B.C. have nearly identical acts. All of these organizations were part of the CGSB process and did not disclose this to the B.C. government or the CGSB.
I was being excluded entry to public buildings and most services because my service dog was not from ADI or IGDF. All your witnesses have gone on to praise how good the B.C. test is. I would like to point out that my service dog was required to pass this test when it was a puppy to see if it would actually be entered into the program. The test in B.C. to certify your service dog costs $200. However, the B.C. test is an obedience test. It does not assess my service dog's ability to do what it was trained for. Those veterans or the public who get a service dog from ADI/IGDF preferred member providers are not required to pay this fee.
The former speaker of the house of the B.C. legislature and current MLA Linda Reid is the president of BC and Alberta Guide Dogs, an ADI/IGDF member organization, and MLA Scott Hamilton was on the board of directors of PADS, the Pacific Assistance Dogs Society. Both were involved with the committee making sweeping changes to the act in B.C. Subsequently, these two providers were the only approved providers in B.C. under the act. There are currently three. The director of corporate policy for B.C., Toby Louie, wrote the act and wrote policy for PADS as well.
As you can see, there is a huge conflict of interest, as no one involved with these service dog providers recused themselves from any debates or work on this act. This is a perfect example of how these service dog providers insert themselves into government policy.
The current Minister of Public Safety in B.C., MLA Mike Farnworth, has stated that the service dog act in B.C. is voluntary. However, if someone wishes to be afforded all the benefits of the act, they need to have a service dog ID card for B.C. On the back of this card, it states, “is in possession of a certified guide dog or service dog and is granted access rights to public places and tenancy rights”. The Canadian charter already affords us these rights. The Province also states that it does not certify service dogs; however, on the front of the ID card, it says, "certified by the Province of British Columbia".
This past Christmas my service dog became ill and suddenly died. Currently I am second-guessing whether to get another service dog—second-guessing because of the predatory behaviour of service dog providers and the restrictions in B.C. Many service dog providers in this country are predatory to some degree and are only looking to advance their agendas. If the veteran is the purpose for these psychiatric dogs, it is the veterans who are consistently stuck in the middle of the fight between providers. Ten years ago, there were only about eight service dog providers in Canada. There are now about 132, so yo you tell me it's not about the money.
One of the biggest difficulties facing veterans is the misuse, misinformation, and downright dishonesty in the terminology used by this unregulated industry in Canada. Phil Ralph of Wounded Warriors Canada stated in his testimony that their standard falls in line with ADI, which is accredited. Ms. Forbes also stated that national service dogs were accredited by Imagine Canada. I would like to point out that Imagine Canada only accredits charitable organizations' operations; they do not accredit production, standards, or training of service dogs. Sheila O'Brien was asked about ADI accreditation and stated that ADI is reviewed peer to peer, not by an independent third body. There are no internationally accredited providers anywhere.
This is misleading not only to the public but also to governments, and when MPs, MLAs or MPPs use this language, it only reinforces the misinformation.
Service dog providers in Canada have inserted themselves into all levels of government to press their agendas, and some MPs—even on this committee—through advocacy, whether directly or indirectly, are not doing the veteran a service. On the contrary, it's a disservice.
Our member of Parliament for South Surrey—White Rock, MP Findlay, is the treasurer and a direct board member of BC & Alberta Guide Dogs, which is an ADI member, pressing to make their standard—which isn't published or available to the public—the law of the land.
Phil Ralph also referred to the ADI standard. Nowhere in the act is there a standard for B.C. In fact, the only standard available on the ADI site is a code of conduct for member organizations. The ADI/IGDF standard is proprietary, and they do not release this to the public or to anyone. It's for their members only.
The director general of policy and research at VAC, Ms. Garrett-Baird, stated that the CGSB study failed because members could not come to consensus. I would have to disagree with this assessment completely. The fact that the CGSB was shut down for a time and investigated because of this process is alarming. The service dog industry cannot be relied upon to make a national standard. There is too much animosity among providers for them to play nice in the sandbox, and there is too much money to be lost with these personalities.
Currently the Human Research Standards Organization, which is accredited by the SCC, the Standards Council of Canada, is working on the development of a national standard. VAC was invited to participate in the study but stated that they were not able to participate. This leads me to believe that the department plans to do something different. VAC needs to stay out of this independent process completely and allow it to proceed unimpeded.
MP Wagantall asked a question last week: Where did Wounded Warriors get the professional ability to determine whether or not they comply with standards, and how is Wounded Warriors qualified to do that? This question was not answered by Mr. Cousineau, so I'm going to answer it now: Wounded Warriors Canada is not qualified to determine compliance of standards. Wounded Warriors Canada is not a service dog provider. It has no trainers or master dog trainers. It only provides funding to third party providers, and it is not in a position to oversee or front a standards process.
I would like to thank the member for North Island—Powell River for mentioning my difficulties of being homeless with my service dog. On January 1, 2016, the B.C. legislature put into force the B.C. Guide Dog and Service Dog Act. This act does does not recognize any service dog teams or providers who were not trained or who were not affiliated with the ADI or IGDF, and it is in complete violation of the veterans charter of rights, the Canadian Human Rights Act and the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.
This act prevents me from obtaining housing in B.C. and continues to be a huge barrier for veterans who need housing, as well as a barrier to accessing public spaces. I am not allowed access to any provincial offices, to travel on board passenger decks of BC Ferries with my service dog or to take public transit. This is one of the main driving forces that forced me, in May 2018, onto the streets. It was because I don't fit the criteria for the B.C. Guide Dog and Service Dog Act.
Mr. Cousineau stated that the B.C. act has been upheld by the Canadian Human Rights Commission when in fact it has failed several times, with human rights complaints against BC Ferries, residential tenancy, denial of access at Costco, and also my own denial of public access. However, because the B.C. commission makes everyone sign NDAs, none of these cases can be discussed.
The B.C. act states that the B.C. Human Rights Code will prevail over the service dog act, and it has on several occasions. That clause allows the act to get around any human rights violations, so the act is in complete misrepresentation of what it is meant to be providing.
Anyone.... I'm just about done.