Results from clause by clause today

[Saradog]

Report from a person who attended the clause by clause today
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
February 10, 2005 at Queen’s Park.

5 Liberal: David Zimmer & 4 others (all yes men)
2 PC: Joe Tascona & Norm Miller
1 NDP: Peter Kormos

Summary:
I. All of the PC and NDP amendments were voted down by the Liberals. These include

1. All proposals re striking breed specific legislation, including all purebred American Staffordshire Terriers, Staffordshire Bull Terriers, and American Pit Bull Terriers, registered with Canadian Kennel Club, American Kennel Club, United Kennel Club, and American Dog Breeders Association.

The Breed specific clauses remain.

2. All proposals re mandatory spaying and neutering, education in dog training, dog bite prevention strategy, establishing a dog bite registry.

Tascona, Miller and Kormos all made very forceful arguments for these amendments.

II. The Liberal amendments, all of which were voted in, are:

1. changing “a member of a class of dogs” to “a dog” that has an appearance and physical characteristics that are substantially…

Legally, this sets a lower standard (or test) for what constitutes a “pit bull.” There was considerable argument from Tascona & Kormos about this.

2. Adding, for the determination of a “pit bull,” the following clause:

In determining whether a dog is a pit bull within the meaning of this Act, a court may have regard to the breed Standards established for Staffordshire Bull Terriers, American Staffordshire Terriers, or American Pit Bull Terriers by the Canadian Kennel Club, the United Kennel Club, the American Kennel Club, or the American Dog Breeders Association.

So now they are using purebred definitions to define the so called “pit bull.” Tascona questioned as to why the “pit bull terrier” in the definition of pit bull type dogs was not included in this determination, concluding that it was because there was, in essence, no way to define a “pit bull terrier.”

The word “may” was objected to by both Tascona & Kormos, as “may” is subjective, open to interpretation, and provides no authority for decisions. The big contradiction here was in defining a “pit bull” by purebred standards, and then being unable to define one of the breeds named as a “pit bull type” – a “pit bull terrier”.

Lawyers can go to town on this one.

3. There was lengthy legal discussion around the next Liberal amendment, which was to do with naming “Proceedings – Part IX of the Provincial Offences Act” in Bill 132. It has to do with enforceability, and who will enforce the “offences” and who will determine the “penalties.”

I won’t get into this one right now – the government lawyers were questioned and had the usual blah blah answers.

4. The Liberals approved an amendment re “standard of proof” as follows:

Findings of fact in a proceeding under this section shall be made on the balance of probabilities.

Here we had more legal arguments as to the confusion in the Bill re standards of proof – i.e. “balance of probabilities” being the test in civil litigation, and “beyond reasonable doubt” the test for criminal offences. “Balance of probabilities” is a less onerous standard than “beyond reasonable doubt”. There was much discussion from the opposition about statutes and what test was in what statute, etc etc which I will not get into now. Suffice to say that it opens up yet another legal quagmire.

5. “Onus of proof”

The Liberals added:
If it is alleged in any proceeding under this section that a dog is a pit bull, the onus of proving that the dog is not a pit bull lies on the owner of the dog.

Kormos referred to this as “sucking and blowing.” Tascona emphasized how this could become the legal game of “call your own expert”.

6. The next liberal amendment was reinserting a section of the Bill they had inadvertently left out, called “slovenly” by Kormos. It is the section entitled “Precautions of Dog Owners,” stating that a dog owner has to exercise reasonable precautions to prevent bites, attacks, menaces, etc.

7. Now this one is a dilly. Take Note of this new addition to the Bill, as approved by the Liberals:

19.(1) A document purporting to be signed by a member of the College of Veterinarians of Ontario stating that a dog is a pit bull within the meaning of this Act is receivable in evidence in a prosecution for an offence under this Act at proof, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, that the dog is a pit bull for the purposes of this Act, without proof of the signature and without proof that the signatory is a member of the College.

Well, this means I could “purport” to be a vet, sign a document saying a fluffypoopoo is a pit bull within the meaning of this act, and they would not have to verify my signature and prove that I am indeed a member of the College.

Tascona & Kormos went to town on this one.

So that is it, in my abbreviated, opinionated version. The bill is actually worse now than it was, in terms of definitions and legal clarity.

[twodogsandacat]

What about those having a dog that looks like a pit bull? How do we get a determination one way or the other? Do we have to put up with the individuals that have no clue every single day? My mix could look like one, as he is a Rhodesian mix, those that know Rhodesians say they can definitely see the Rhodesian those that don't say pit. But once somebody asked if my purebred English Pointer was a pit.

[bluntman]

Under our current law's, vets do not have the authority, by law to determine the breed of a dog. So what the heck is this?

19.(A)A document purporting to be signed by a member of the College of Veterinarians of Ontario stating that a dog is a pit bull within the meaning of this Act is receivable in evidence in a prosecution for an offence under this Act at proof, in the absence of evidence to the contrary.

Under the animal pedigree act, It is an offence for any person to determan the breed of a dog, other than a authorized kenel club. Vet's have very little breed spacific training, dogs are dogs, there not much diference from there standpoint, just like a doctor, the color of your skin means nothing, we are all human.

A lot of lawyers are going to make money from this peice of crap bill, and we will have to pay for both sides, ours, and the governments.

[Dukieboy]

Oh dear. Things are not good.

[kigaro]

wow... the revision is more obfuscated than the original.

[mastifflover]

This bill is going to cost a fortune in legal fees because there are so many loopholes. I think they will pass the thing because they really don't care about facts. The only good thing is that if everybody that recieves a ticket contests it just from constitutional issues alone let alone the bogus wording and so wiggle room they have created themselves a legal nightmare. A lawyer we work with was reading it after I gave him the it does not only affect pit bulls speech he has a rottie, he said that it is so full of loopholes and is not specific enough about anything really, any decent lawyer will win against this. I told him Clayton Ruby is on the ant-BSL side and he said he will make mincemeat out of it. He also said MB is a media hog and is actually a jerk besides this bill so it does not surprise him. " He will do anything to further his political career, his legal career was nothing out of the ordinary" So we are not working against a great legal mind nowhere near Ruby' s stature. I also suggested he volunteer some time to the cause. A little pro bono is good for your resume. He said he will consider it, I will keep bugging him.

[pitbulliest]

I'm confused here..so what is happening at the moment...? Has the bill gone through? Is this officially a pitbull ban in Ontario?

I'm getting confused...

[Saradog]

pitbulliest, Bill 132 is not law yet. It has to pass third reading and be proclaimed before it's law. However, with a majority government it is unlikely that it will not pass third reading, and proclamation is rubber stamp.
Keep checking the www.ontla.on.ca website for the text of the amendments, under Committees/Legislative Assembly/Hansard.
We've got to make non-dog people understand that any reduction of our civil rights that goes unprotested is a blow against democracy.

[pitbulliest]

So if it does become law, which it most likely will..then what happens? We take it to court? What's the chance of us winning? And what actually happens if we win? What happens if we lose? Sorry but I have all these questions which I really need answers to or I won't sleep

[seeker]

Originally Posted by pitbulliest

So if it does become law, which it most likely will..then what happens? We take it to court? What's the chance of us winning? And what actually happens if we win? What happens if we lose? Sorry but I have all these questions which I really need answers to or I won't sleep

First off , I am NOT a lawyer but from what I understand from reading the above information is that there are even more loopholes now with the added amendments than there was before . Typical of a govenment to make a law that is open to legal battles as long as you have the cash . It allows their lawyer and judge buddies to keep the cash rolling in and provides more work for the lawyer turned politician turned back to lawyer once their time in power is over .
Bryant is such an "a".

[babyrocky1]

I BELIEVE THAT AFTER THIRD READING THE BILL PRETTY MUCH AUTOMATICALLY RECIEVES ROYAL ASCENT. IN MOST CASES AFTER THAT IT TAKES EFFECT IN 90 DAYS BUT THE REGULATIONS ARE NOT IN PLACE IN REGARDS TO HOW IT WOULD ACTUALLY WORK SO I HAVE NO IDEA. I WOULD ASSUME THAT THE MUZZLING THING WOULD BE PRETTY QUICK. IN SHORT IT LOOKS REALLY BAD. I HOPE SOMEBODY CAN DISAGREE AND OFFER SOME HOPE! IM AT A LOSS :sad:

[twodogsandacat]

I am pretty sure this will have to go to a higher court. The DLCC will take it there and they will continue to receive contributions from myself (I have cut back my United Way gift to the bare minimum to do so - good work Dalton). Courts deal in fact and will if deemed necessary act accordingly. The facts do not support BSl.

Of course..... as Dalton indicated when he was elected. The MPPs should be free to vote as they see fit. I have already let my MPP know I will 'dog' him on this issue and I would hope he looks at facts rather than party lines. Any Liberal not wanting to go against Dalton can simply....not show up for work that day.

We will know very soon how this goes.

Good Luck.