Pets.ca - Pet forum for dogs cats and humans 

-->

In the legislature, yesterday...

Dukieboy
October 28th, 2004, 10:20 AM
PIT BULLS

Mr Joseph N. Tascona (Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford): My question is for the Attorney General. Minister, on this side of the House we are strong supporters of effective legislation that protects the health and safety of our citizens. Further, we sympathize with the many victims who have been attacked by various breeds of dogs due to irresponsible pet owners.

Unfortunately, in your rush to score cheap political points, you've introduced legislation that not only raises serious questions about how it will be implemented and enforced, but also ignores a fundamental problem. According to the Canadian hospitals injury reporting and prevention program, pit bulls are not even amongst the top four breeds of dog that are responsible for the majority of dog attacks in Canada. The Canadian Veterinary Medical Association rightly says that you'll have to ban all dogs to eliminate dog bites. Is this where you're taking us, Minister?

Hon Michael Bryant (Attorney General, minister responsible for native affairs, minister responsible for democratic renewal): I do thank the member for the question. I just want to make it very clear, and this legislation makes it very clear, that we are addressing pit bulls. The ban will be applied to pit bulls and only to pit bulls. The legislation goes on to deal with responsible ownership of dangerous dogs, fines and jail time for serious incursions, but this ban only deals with pit bulls, period.

Mr Tascona: Minister, your legislation paints responsible dog owners with the same brush as those who are irresponsible. Furthermore, you haven't thought through how to implement and enforce this legislation. Most small towns, rural areas and even some cities have no formal animal control capabilities. In these municipalities, who are people supposed to call for help, who takes charge of the animal and, most importantly, who pays?

Hon Mr Bryant: Pit bull owners are going to need to be responsible for their pit bulls. Once this law passes and the transition period of three months after the law is proclaimed is enforced, there will be no additional pit bulls in the province of Ontario.

I've said before and I'll say again to the member that those who own pit bulls now will keep their pit bulls. I expect they will love them and they will muzzle them and they will leash them. And then Mother Nature will do her work and one day there will be no more pit bulls. We believe on this side of the House that that means we will have a safer Ontario, that we won't have horrible pit bull incidents.

This government is on the side of protecting Ontarians. I understand the Tories are on the side of pit bulls. Let the debate begin.

LavenderRott
October 28th, 2004, 10:26 AM
Girlfriend, I love you!!!!!

Where do you keep finding this stuff?

mastifflover
October 28th, 2004, 10:31 AM
That is great but as usual he never really answered the questions posed to him.I am sending a copy to his office and asking him for answers to the questions that were posed and to address the issue of penalizing responsible owners. And what about that mother nature comment that was just ignorant. I think I will send it to city tv and the national post as well

sammiec
October 28th, 2004, 10:49 AM
I have to agree with LavR on this one.. DukieBoy, you're amazing PLEASE keep them coming!!!

Dukieboy
October 28th, 2004, 10:55 AM
We are all in this together and I will try to monitor Hansard daily. I have written to Kormos and Churley, waiting for responses and more action in the legislature from both of them.

Schwinn
October 28th, 2004, 11:03 AM
That's great. So it appears that both the Tories and the NDP are arguing against the ban? Sorry if I seem a little daft. But this is good news. And to echo everyone else's sentiments, thank you! Hopefully, there will be an additional spin-off--public education about the REAL statistics!

mastifflover
October 28th, 2004, 11:11 AM
I copied it to all the news stations and highlighted questions asked and not answered and a couple of the other great stuff Dukieboy has posted (great work) and I figure if we keep doing it they will do a story just to get us off their backs. Everything I have sent has been polite and asking for their help so maybe we can attract more attention to the cause. I did get an email back from NOW magazine and they thanked me for my letter with facts to back up the comments and wanted to know how many pit bulls I had. I sent him back an email stating I dont own any but feel that it is every dog owners fight. He emailed me back and said I was right and maybe that is something they might consider starting an article with. So keep your fingers crossed maybe they will do something positive.

Luvmypit
October 28th, 2004, 11:32 AM
STANDING OVATION FOR MASTIFF LOVER!!!
That would be great ... send over as much contradictory eveidence you can find on Mr. Bryanst purposal.. :thumbs up

mastifflover
October 28th, 2004, 11:34 AM
i told him if he needs facts and back up email me we will help with leg work so I hope he takes us up on it.

Schwinn
October 28th, 2004, 11:36 AM
Awesome. Let us know if you need help with anything.

mastifflover
October 28th, 2004, 11:41 AM
Oh be assured I will be here asking for help. I think sending letters to maybe EYE magazine and other smaller papers and magazines like FRANK is that still published they would love this stuff they love polititan bashing. I think the problem with the big stations is they have to try and not be to contraversial

Akeeter
October 28th, 2004, 12:13 PM
M.B. has already expanded his legislation to cover 2 breeds, plus Pit Bulls. He going for More Dogs already!

LL1
October 28th, 2004, 12:16 PM
What do you mean? The Bill covers all breeds under the menacing dog provisions.

sammiec
October 28th, 2004, 12:25 PM
LL1, he's left the legilsation open to encompass any breed of dog that is considered dangerous. This includes Rotties, Dobermans, GSD to name a few. He's left the ban open to include ANY dog that attacks... yet once again he has not reviewed any facts to see that even a pomeranian has killed a child... that should be included as a dangerous breed....

LL1
October 28th, 2004, 12:31 PM
Oh I know sammiec - that's what I posted above. But the legislation would cover a Pom that was considered dangerous. My question was asking what the person meant by this: "M.B. has already expanded his legislation to cover 2 breeds, plus Pit Bulls". My understanding is there has not been any changes to the Bill yet.

sammiec
October 28th, 2004, 12:32 PM
Oh I know sammiec - that's what I posted above. My question was asking what the person meant by this: "M.B. has already expanded his legislation to cover 2 breeds, plus Pit Bulls". My understanding is there has not been any changes to the Bill yet.

Oh sorry LL... :o

LL1
October 28th, 2004, 12:33 PM
It's ok! :)

Maximellion
October 28th, 2004, 01:04 PM
Don't know if it will help but I picked up on this when Bryant was being particularly evasive during yesterday's debates:

Michael Bryant – quoted in G&M (Oct. 26) as saying:
"If passed, the amendments to the Dog Owners' Liability Act would protect Ontarians not only from these dangerous dogs, but from irresponsible owners."

In Hansard reports on Parliamentary Debates (Oct. 27) when questioned as to how this law was ever going to be enforced, Bryant responded:
“I expect they [owners of existing pit bulls] will love them and they will muzzle them and they will leash them. And then Mother Nature will do her work and one day there will be no more pit bulls. We believe on this side of the House that that means we will have a safer Ontario, that we won't have horrible pit bull incidents.”

His answer makes it clear that he has no plan for enforcing this law but is relying on the “responsible” owners to do the “right” thing. How then is this intended to protect Ontarians from “irresponsible owners”?

Mel and Max

sammiec
October 28th, 2004, 01:08 PM
he has no intention of inforcing this law, that's up to the municipalities... he can do the easy stuff and leave the enforcement up to the municipalities and wash his hands of it. He hates pit bulls and HE will be happy to see them go. This is a personal vendetta that this man has... that's all.

The small towns and rural areas has no one to enforce such a law... and large cities ie: Toronto will be crying for more money because of all the crap that they will have to deal with to enforce this.. there's no money for homeless people, health care workers, schools, TTC... but darn it they will be FORCED to come up with something to get those pit bulls outta here!

Maximellion
October 28th, 2004, 01:10 PM
Also thought someone in the media might make a bigger deal about the following fact:

Unowned/unregistered pit bulls cannot be adopted out, they must be sent to an out of province facility or euthanized or otherwise dealt with in accordance with the act. Shelters are not permitted to euthanize healthy animals without offering them to laboratories to be tested. Therefore all the healthy pit bull type dogs in the shelters at the time the legislation is announced and all the pit bulls who are disowned (whether through death, destitution or otherwise - note a responsible owner cannot transfer ownership of their pit bull, if the owner dies that is it for the dog) will end up in laboratory testing facilities.

In my mind the likelihood of euthanasia is bad enough, the even stronger possibility that these animals will be used in laboratory experiments is beyond disgusting. I would suggest a poignant hypothetical on this would make a nice lead on a news story.

LL1
October 28th, 2004, 01:24 PM
That's not what the law states. Have you read the legislation?

Shelters are not permitted to euthanize healthy animals without offering them to laboratories to be tested.

mastifflover
October 28th, 2004, 01:26 PM
I read taht and thought I was not understanding it. But where does he get off deciding that animals can be used for research. Who made him god?

sammiec
October 28th, 2004, 01:28 PM
WTF!?!? I AM FUMING!!!! I didn't see that!!! Oh Shae!!!! This man is the devil is disguse!!! What a sick freak! I'll be darned if I will let some A-hole take these dogs to a lab to be poked a proded and dissected!!
"Let's see what makes these bombs tick??" Gross. He should be so ashamed. I don't know how he sleeps at night.

This "smilie" is appropriate I think...
** sigh, I removed it so I didn't get in trouble...**

LL1
October 28th, 2004, 01:34 PM
All dogs in Ontario pounds can be sent to research - if a registered research facility makes a request by law for a dog or cat they have to honor it. It doesn't only apply to dogs listed under the ban. This happens at many Ontario shelters, but definitely not all.

Maximellion
October 28th, 2004, 01:54 PM
You are right, I did miss the exemption clause that permits an owner to make a bequest or gift of a registered pit bull (9(1)). So as long as owners make sure to make adequate provision for an existing dog they will be safe. However, once one of these dogs ends up in the pound and cannot be returned to the owner (for whatever reason) then the pound will be entitled to do the following: 1. destroy the dog, 2. transfer the dog outside of Ontario, 3. transfer the dog to an ARF (animal research facility) 4. transfer the dog in accordance with the transfer exemptions set out in 9 - but this is very vague and unclear as to which of those sections it is talking about - can the shelter make a "gift" or "bequest" or is it only going to be given the option of transferring to another pound or ARF?

The Animal Research Act also prohibits the pounds from exercising their option to "destroy the dog" if they have not satisfied their obligations towards the ARFs (s.7). This is not, I don't think, being changed.

Are you reading this differently? Or is it just my miss of 9 that you were referring to?

Mel and Max

Maximellion
October 28th, 2004, 02:03 PM
To LL1 - you seem to be reading this stuff pretty closely and I was looking at 9 a bit more and was surprised to read that people who have pit bulls prior to the legislation coming in force won't be allowed to acquire any more (by gift or bequest) unless, presumably, one of their existing pit bulls is removed from the picture (ie. total number can't change) - I presume this is to stop the "bleeding heart" pit bull lovers from opening their homes to as many of these pit bulls as they can to prevent them from suffering a horrible fate?

Those who don't have pit bulls before the legislation comes in force will only be allowed to take 1 in afterwards so even the "bleeding heart" general dog lovers will only be allowed to do so much.

Is this how you are reading it too?

Mel and Max

Schwinn
October 28th, 2004, 02:11 PM
As for why he is doing this, I don't think it actually has much to do with his hatred for the breed. I think a lot of it is trying to boost the public image of an unpopular government, and his own political agenda.

Also, I may be doing paternity leave (unless I can get my income within half of my wife's!!). I think I'll start my own business. My home will become an animal research facility. I'm going to study the behaviour of pitbulls. I'll use my sociology degree.

LL1
October 28th, 2004, 02:12 PM
Section section of which piece of legislation?


I was saying that this statement "Shelters are not permitted to euthanize healthy animals without offering them to laboratories to be tested" is not correct.

Luvmypit
October 28th, 2004, 02:14 PM
so what your saying it says is we cannot at this point go and rescue a pit bull? I dont think they can do that consiidering its not law yet. I was thinking of rescuing one. I just don't know if I should considering we have one already and we live in an apartment. I mean my pit gets his exercise just don't know how humane it would be to take on 1 more in an apartment.

LL1
October 28th, 2004, 02:15 PM
Absolutely you can adopt one right now!

Schwinn
October 28th, 2004, 02:21 PM
Until this bill becomes law, every thing is status quo.

As for having a second pit in an apartment, I'm torn. I always found it bizarre when people complained that having a certain size dog in an apartment was cruel. I mean, I've seen big dogs in apartments whose tails are always wagging because they are so happy. If they are happy, how can you say something is cruel? That being said, presuming mine is indicitive of the breed, they love to run (we affectionately call it "the run of stupid" when we let her out, and she just does circles at top speed). I think two might be a little much, depending on the size of apartment (I'm thinking anything smaller than one floor of an average size house). Again, on the other hand (I think I'm up to three here), if we are talking about waiting until the last minute, where it is a dog that has no options the next day, somethings better than nothing.

Luvmypit
October 28th, 2004, 02:28 PM
well are apartment is a good size. And are balcony is HUGE. And capone likes to play on there. I think if there gonna pass this legislation I will take on another one. Not because I want one but I would feel bad not taking one. Also we don't plan on being in an apartment for long, less then 2 years. I did hear that a one floor residence is good for these dogs because there are no stairs and they are prone to hip displaysia (I know the spelling is wrong). Our dog now gets pretty good exercise. 2 walks a day and at the very least 1.

So what does that part mean then, more that after the ban is in place you cannot adopt a pit? Thats sad. So no matter what those guys are doomed unless they get moved to another province. That sounds like a load of c r a p

mastifflover
October 28th, 2004, 02:40 PM
None of this takes effect until the third reading and it is passed into law as far as I understand it. So if anyone is considering adopting do it now. I live in a small loft with Buddy who is 155 pounds and he is a very happy boy and I think any dog would be happier in an apartment as opposed to a cage or worse ARF

Maximellion
October 28th, 2004, 02:50 PM
To LL1 - Section 7 of the Animals for Research Act says that a shelter CAN destroy IF it has met its obligations to the ARFs. The corollary to that is that they CAN'T destroy if they have not.

Mel and Max

Maximellion
October 28th, 2004, 02:55 PM
To LUVMYPIT - the other posters are correct. Until the legislation comes into effect you can adopt as many as you want (subject to your municipal by-laws - in Toronto you have a limit of 3 dogs, 6 domestics overall). Once it comes into effect (dog forbid) you will forevermore be limited to the number of pits you own at that time. If one of your dogs should die you would be able to take in another one from someone else under Section 9 but you would not be able to take in a third after the legislation passes if you only had two before.

Mel and Max

LL1
October 28th, 2004, 03:16 PM
Sorry you confused me - that's 20(7)(d)(ii)

That covers if they have had a request, as stated, they have to give the dog to them. If they have not had a request it is not an issue.

To LL1 - Section 7 of the Animals for Research Act says that a shelter CAN destroy IF it has met its obligations to the ARFs. The corollary to that is that they CAN'T destroy if they have not.

Mel and Max

Luvmypit
October 28th, 2004, 03:20 PM
Thanks guys. I hope to pick one up but only if the ban is put in place.

Schwinn
October 29th, 2004, 03:17 PM
Anyone been watching C-PAC today? I think they are bringing in the second reading.

Schwinn
October 29th, 2004, 03:19 PM
Anyone been watching C-PAC today? I think they are bringing in the second reading.

Woops! CPAC is the wrong one, isn't it? Anyone know what the Ontario Legislation station is? And anyone watching?