BSL-Bill 132 update
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Candice O'Connell <mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org>
> 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.
> 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
> 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
> 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