Pets.ca - Pet forum for dogs cats and humans 

-->

Update...

pitbulliest
November 14th, 2004, 10:31 PM
I was wondering, what is the latest update on the bill. When is it going to go into second reading, and what is currently going on? I've been hearing pieces of this and that, but I'm not exactly certain as to what the entire deal is at the moment. Can someone please update me?

Also, very important question here: Does anybody know if there will be another demonstration happening in Toronto any time soon? I heard the HS is going to organize one but that hasn't happened yet. If anyone has any information, please post here.

Thank you. And keep your heads up guys. We're lookin good :thumbs up

Schwinn
November 15th, 2004, 08:53 AM
As of right now, the bill has only gone through first reading. There was a debate about second reading which has been on the agenda for several days, and it is my understanding it is to continue this afternoon.

babyrocky1
November 15th, 2004, 12:41 PM
I called the NDP last week and asked them point blank if they considered pit bulls to be ID the woman Howard Hamptons secretary said that the evidence that they had been receiving suggests that they are not. I asked her when the bill would be debated. She thought this week sometime but it is a stratagy of the libs to not give opposition parties much warning. I believe that Peter Kormos will finally be speaking, apparantly he had to wait for the concervative (who as you all know did a great job) and Ive never been a fan, because they are the official opposistion and go first. Hopefullly the Liberals turn is over but maybe they get to speak each time it goes to another reading, I guess our best chance to be heard will be if the opposition partys can get the bill to proper hearings. keepfighsting the good fight every one Thank god i have you guys cause some of my neighbours suck!

Schwinn
November 15th, 2004, 01:40 PM
I called the NDP last week and asked them point blank if they considered pit bulls to be ID the woman Howard Hamptons secretary said that the evidence that they had been receiving suggests that they are not.

What is that in relation to? I don't recall hearing anything.

Everytime it is re-introduced by the liberals, they get to stand up and talk about it first, then the other parties get to discuss.

Loki
November 15th, 2004, 09:56 PM
I got a call from a friend who was watching it on TV, and let me listen in over the phone.
Please, bear in mind my reception wasn't the greatest.
Obviously, the Liberal mpps defended it.
It seemed like the NDP and PC representatives were all pushing for 3 week public debates. Kormos spoke, and read a bunch of emails. Many opposition Mp's mentioned Bryant's appearance on City.( One of them took the pitbull test, circled the pitbull, and told Bryant " I'll leave it on your desk, so you know what it is that you are banning.")

A few mentioned that Bryant was intentionally misleading the people.
The GSD attack on the little boy was mentioned, and an MPP said " don't you want to protect this child too?"
One MPP said "What you need to do is withdraw this right now."
The real Winnipeg stats were read and compared to Bryant's claims.
A couple opposition mpp's gave the stats from their ridings ( High GSD/Rotty/Lab, pretty low pit bull numbers).
They also mentioned something about a Staffordshire show @ Queen's Park.
( I think they said on the 17TH)
They also read the breed description of the Staffordshire ( ie child friendly), and compared it to a chihuahua ( Not so child friendly).
They said that discussion would resume tommorrow at 13:30.
Sorry, if this isn't very detailed. I was listening to TV through a phone, waddaya want from me!

Oh yeah, and they mentioned that the Mcguinty family pet was a pitbull named Tory, and said that there is actually an old petition with his paw-print on it.

I'm assuming that this is the most current debate, and not a repeat.
http://www.ontla.on.ca/hansard/house_debates/38_parl/Session1/L085A.htm#P464_99581
This is not the complete session( actually just a few comments), it continued at 6:45, but I can't find the link.

babyrocky1
November 15th, 2004, 10:14 PM
What is that in relation to? I don't recall hearing anything.

Everytime it is re-introduced by the liberals, they get to stand up and talk about it first, then the other parties get to discuss.
Schwinn Im not quite sure what your question is sorry.

Yes that was the most recent debate on that Loki. I liked how they mentioned a different attack and said dont you care about that boy? But I think they should have mentioned the chesipke bay retreaver(not sure of the spelling ;) ) just incase that evil LITTLE man decides to add GSD's to the chopping block.

Loki
November 15th, 2004, 10:28 PM
I liked how they mentioned a different attack and said dont you care about that boy? But I think they should have mentioned the chesipke bay retreaver(not sure of the spelling ;) ) just incase that evil LITTLE man decides to add GSD's to the chopping block.

Actually, it worried me a little too when GSD/Rotty numbers popped up a couple times. I think someone even made an implication of that sort. (ie if PB numbers are lower than GSD, aren't we banning the wrong breed).

The whole situation really sucks, but alot of truth is starting to get out there.
I really hope that opposition gets the public trial.

Schwinn
November 15th, 2004, 10:38 PM
I understand your concern, but I don't think they are suggesting that they should be banning a different breed, I think they making a point about banning the pitbull, and the way Bryant is on the war path.

babyrock:I was referring to this statement. I wasn't sure what you were referencing--

"I called the NDP last week and asked them point blank if they considered pit bulls to be ID the woman Howard Hamptons secretary said that the evidence that they had been receiving suggests that they are not."

Loki
November 15th, 2004, 11:22 PM
I understand your concern, but I don't think they are suggesting that they should be banning a different breed, I think they making a point about banning the pitbull, and the way Bryant is on the war path.



I agree with you completely. I guess I'm just used to Bryant's out of context quotes. I cringe any time I hear bite stats, and he is in ear-shot.
It really did make him look like he did no research at all ( although he really doesn't need too much help looking foolish).

babyrocky1
November 16th, 2004, 12:21 AM
to Schwinn As far as the conversation with the NDP secretary goes Im not sure what your asking me but I was commenting on the upcoming debate. For myself I really wanted clarification as to were each party stands. It is the oppositions job to oppose period so I guess I wanted to feel them out to see if they were with us all the way. Thats why even though I was told they wanted public hearings etc. The real test if they were on side for me was if they would actually make a statement that they believed the pit bull was not inheritantly dangerous.
I hope this answers your question If your asking me what evidence she was refering to She didnt give me specifics on that question but judging by the debate and how well it went they definately did thier home work with alot of help from hundreds of e-mails
:thumbs up

Schwinn
November 16th, 2004, 08:45 AM
to Schwinn As far as the conversation with the NDP secretary goes Im not sure what your asking me but I was commenting on the upcoming debate. For myself I really wanted clarification as to were each party stands. It is the oppositions job to oppose period so I guess I wanted to feel them out to see if they were with us all the way. Thats why even though I was told they wanted public hearings etc. The real test if they were on side for me was if they would actually make a statement that they believed the pit bull was not inheritantly dangerous.
I hope this answers your question If your asking me what evidence she was refering to She didnt give me specifics on that question but judging by the debate and how well it went they definately did thier home work with alot of help from hundreds of e-mails
:thumbs up

Yup, that clears it up. I must have misunderstood. (Actually, I did). I had thought you refering to some incident or something. My bad. :)