|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
BSL-Bill 132 update
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Candice O'Connell <mailto:nccpd@sympatico.ca> > To: > Sent: Sunday, November 07, 2004 1:58 PM > Subject: INFORMATION BULLETIN NO. 2004-03 > > Permission to cross post > > November 7, > 2004 ; > > > INFORMATION Bulletin No. 2004-03 > > bill 132 - update > > On November 4, 2004, Michael Bryant, Attorney General, moved for > second reading of Bill 132 and opened debate. Anyone wishing to read > the transcript of the debate can find it at > http://hansardindex.ontla.on.ca/hans.../38-1/l084.htm at para. > 1600 > <http://hansardindex.ontla.on.ca/hansardeissue/38-1/l084.htm%20at%20para.%201600>. > Debate will continue on November 15th. Bryant has promised that > public hearings will be held. > > As mentioned previously, Bill 132 is a seriously flawed piece of > legislation and it is essentially that we take every measure to ensure > that it is defeated. Clearly, we must deal with the issue of all > dangerous dogs but there are more effective measures that can be > implemented. > > After meeting with other organizations and individuals at a NOAH > meeting on November 1, 2004, the NCCPD has decided to take action in > accordance with the following: > > 1. The NCCPD is organizing a peaceful demonstration to take place > on November 28, 1:00 to 4:00 p.m. The theme of this symbolic walk is > "BARKING UP THE WRONG TREE". > > The walk will start at Provincial Court House at 161 > Elgin Street, proceed to Parliament Hill and then on to the > Supreme Court of Canada. We will have several speakers and > participants will receive information on the ramifications of > Bill 132 and planned challenges by the Dog Legislation Council > of Canada if the legislation is passed. We want to make > demonstration a huge success and send a message to the > Government that the legislation is unacceptable. A copy of the > demonstration flyer is on the NCCPD website and can be > downloaded. Please help to spread the word about this event by > passing the information on to your friends, relatives, and those > on your e-mail lists. If you are out of town but within driving > distance, see if you can organize a bus trip to Ottawa. > Remember parking is free everywhere downtown on Sundays. > PLEASE LEAVE YOUR DOG(S) AT HOME. > PLEASE MARK NOVEMBER 28TH ON YOUR CALENDAR. > THIS LEGISLATION THREATENS ALL DOG OWNERS. > > > > 2. The NCCPD will launch a mass e-mail campaign. Every few days, > the NCCPD will select on or two MPPs and send an e-mail to the members > and supporters providing the names and e-mail address of the MPPs to > be targetted. We will also provide sample text which can cut, pasted > and sent in an e-mail to the selected MPPs. People may also opt to > provide their own message or comments. We will ask everyone to cross > post and disseminate widely. > > We have been told by a reliable source that the MPPs are divided on > Bill 132 and that many are nervous about the ramifications of passing > this legislation, particularly those with political aspirations. In > addition, we have been advised that if sufficient pressure is applied > on the MPPs, including those in the Conservative and NDP parties, this > legislation can be stopped. > > The NCCPD believes that it is essential to take the above action to > demonstrate to the Ontario Government that it is unacceptable. We > believe that there are better alternatives to deal with dangerous > dogs, including those proposed by the National Companion Animal > Coalition, see copy on the NCCPD website. > > VOLUNTEERS ARE NEEDED - PLEASE HELP! > > The organization of a demonstration is a huge undertaking and we need > your help in several areas as follows: > > 1. Walk Marshals: These are volunteers that help ensure that the > participants are walking where they should. They will also provide > information or assistance to the participants if needed. The City of > Ottawa is providing police assistance to direct traffic and implement > road closures if the turnout is high. > > 2. Logistics: We will be setting up tents, tables and a public > address system at the Supreme Court Building on Wellington. We will > need people to help set up and tear down. Tippet Richardson has > donated a truck to transport everything. > > 3. General: We will need people to hand out information, get > signatures on a petition, accept donations, etc. > > OTHER ACTIONS > > There are two MPPs that have put polls on their respective websites > seeking views about breed banning. Please visit these websites and > register your opinion. > > 1. John Yakabuski, at > http://www.johnyakabuski.com/survey/poll.asp. When last checked there > were 1875 registered votes with approximately 78% voting against the > ban and support more owner responsibility. > > 2. Bob Runciman, acting leader of the opposition has a poll at > http://www.lgprovpc.ca/. Scroll down to the bottom left and register > your opinion. > > RAMIFICATIONS OF BILL 132 > > The following was sent in a previous e-mail but it warrants > repeating. The legislation goes beyond banning breeds. > > 1. It broadenspolice powersso that, with or without a > warrant, police may enter a person's home on hearsay or a > complaint from a neighbour and seize a dog, regardless of > breed. 2. The legislation fails to include "with > provocation" as part of the criteria for determining if a > dog's behaviour was inappropriate, regardless of breed. > The owner is left with only the defense of having > exercised due diligence should an incident occur. > Subsequently, a criminal could conceivably break into your > home and if your dog defends you or the property, you > could be fined. A fine of up to $10, 000 is being > considered. 3. You may be fined if your dog is accused > of menacing behaviour. Menacing behaviour could merely be > a dog barking and bobbing along its fence line. There is > no definition for menacing behaviour in this Bill. 4. > Section 19 states that it is incumbent upon the owner to > prove the lineage of his/her dog. There is no means for > an owner to prove that dog of an unknown breed mix is a > certain breed mix. This would be subjective at best, > require the owner to hire a veterinarian to appear in > court, something veterinarians do not have the time to do, > and then hope that the testimony given by that > veterinarian is better than the testimony heard from the > Crown's expert witness.5. If you read between the lines, > Mr. Bryant's "solution" for the volume of restricted dogs > that would be surrendered to local animal control > facilities is to broaden the scope of the Animal Research > Act. > > > 6. Mr. Bryant's Bill C-132 discriminates against responsible pet > owners in this province. > > Finally, we will keep you posted as information becomes available. > > Best regards, > > > Candice O'Connell > > Chairperson > |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Oops!
Sorry I didn't realize this was already posted!
|
|
|