I'm Presenting to the Standing Committee - Bill 132

TrishB · #1 01-20-2005, 08:12 PM

Hi all,

I've been booked to present to the Standing Committee of the Legislative Assembly. Monday, January 24th, 2005 at 4:05pm for a 15 minute presentation. They called today and left a message on my voice mail.

I have to bring along 30 copies of any printed material that I want to give them.

Any suggestions, ideas or advice would be greatly appreciated. If you are also presenting - please post it here so we all know. Hopefully there will be some of us in the audience to offer moral support.

Wish us all luck - we need it!

jas'smom · #2 01-21-2005, 11:02 AM

Good Luck wishes and prayers headed your way.!!!!!

Sargeant_C · #3 01-21-2005, 05:36 PM

WOw you are doing so much! Let us know how it goes and also know we are behind you!!!!

Ilovemypuppy · #4 01-22-2005, 07:47 AM

Best Wishes Trish..I know you'll do a great job !

macho rottie · #5 01-24-2005, 01:35 AM

Just sending you much good luck.

Thank you for all your hard work.

LikeToRun · #6 01-24-2005, 04:44 PM

Good for you Trish!

This is from today's CBC.ca front-page:

Ontario's proposed pit-bull ban slammed as 'genocide'
Last Updated Mon, 24 Jan 2005 16:27:44 EST
CBC News

TORONTO - Ontario's proposed ban on pit bulls amounts to "canine genocide," a critic told a public hearing into the potential legislation.

* INDEPTH: Pit bulls

Ontario's proposed ban would make it illegal to own, breed or sell pit bull terriers.

Cathy Prothro, president of the American Staffordshire Terrier Club of Canada, told a legislative committee that the proposed law unfairly blames pit bulls for attacks against humans by all breeds of dogs.

"For this type of racial profiling, it amounts to nothing more than canine ethnic cleansing," she told the committee on its first day of hearings.

Prothro also said there is "no scientific proof that genetics cause a breed of dog to be aggressive."

Provincial Attorney General Michael Bryant announced the government's intention to ban the dogs last fall, after a number of cases in which people were badly injured in pit bull attacks.

* FROM OCT. 15, 2004: Ontario moves to ban pit bulls

The proposed changes to the Dog Owner's Liability Act would make it illegal to own, breed or sell pit bull terriers anywhere in the province.

People who already own pit bulls would be allowed to keep their dogs, but the animals would have to be muzzled in public and spayed or neutered to prevent them from reproducing.

At the hearing, animal-rights activists pleaded with the Ontario government to drop the idea of a breed-specific ban, arguing that there's no clear definition of a pit bull.

They also said the ban unfairly punishes the animals while doing nothing to address irresponsible dog owners.

"Those owners of truly dangerous dogs of any breed will escape punishment because their breed is not targeted by this legislation," said Martha Russell of the National Capital Coalition for People and Dogs.

"What message is given to abusive and irresponsible individuals when only the dogs pay the price for their actions?"

Monday's hearing also heard from a woman who described the injuries inflicted on her five-year-old daughter by a pit bull in 1994.

"The beast left a gaping hole just under the eye so deep you could see the little bones in her face," said Louise Ellis, whose daughter needed more than 300 stitches after the attack.

"The owner said it was friendly, and it was okay to pat it."

The hearing was the first of three to be held in the coming weeks.

Bans on pit bulls have been introduced in a number of Canadian cities, with Winnipeg leading the way in 1990.

TrishB · #7 01-24-2005, 10:43 PM

Hello everyone,

The presentations went well. I was pleased to be able to meet Dawne Deeley of the Banned Aid Coalition. I also had the chance to speak to Steve Barker of the DLCC, Julie King of the Staffy Bull Club, Cheryl Smith Dog Behaviour Expert (I worked with her years ago) and many more familiar faces.

Big thanks to Joe Panaro our own RCC Vice President for coming down for moral support. It was greatly appreciated.

The vast majority of the people presenting today were against Bill 132. We were all very well represented. We need to keep the pressure up and the lines of communication open. So that later presenters may pick up where we left off / correct some statements made by those for this horrible bill.

I was also able to do a live radio interview today with CBC radio's Alan Neal. As a presenter, they wanted to hear someone that was on the front lines today. I was able to give some insight as to what we were trying to accomplish.

All in all, it's been a very full day. Please feel free to ask me any questions that you may have - I'll do my best to answer them.

Thank you all for the wonderful wishes - it worked!

TrishB · #8 01-24-2005, 10:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LikeToRun

Monday's hearing also heard from a woman who described the injuries inflicted on her five-year-old daughter by a pit bull in 1994.

"The beast left a gaping hole just under the eye so deep you could see the little bones in her face," said Louise Ellis, whose daughter needed more than 300 stitches after the attack.

"The owner said it was friendly, and it was okay to pat it."

The thing about this attack is:

The owners were drunk.
They had been dragging the dog around "Taste Of The Danforth" for hours in the hot August sun.
The dog hadn't had water for hours.
The owners were in no state to have the dog with them, nevermind assess the dog and give permission for the dog to be patted by a child.

The mother knows these details - and yet, she still chooses to blame the breed rather than the jerk owners.

Sargeant_C · #9 01-25-2005, 08:28 AM

Trish
First off congrats on taking this issue and working so hard at it! You should be proud of what you are doing.

I guess my question is and keep in mind I am supporting you all the way, Do you think there is a chance for you to win or to make changes? Or are they stuck in their decision and at times do you feel you are wasting your time fighting them.

It would be nice if dog attacks reported the whole story and not just A (fill in dog breed) ripped someone's head off. Where is the owner did not train the dog, the owner allowed the dog to run loose the owner was a lousy dog owner. Ahhh maybe someday

TrishB · #10 01-25-2005, 09:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sargeant_C

I guess my question is and keep in mind I am supporting you all the way, Do you think there is a chance for you to win or to make changes? Or are they stuck in their decision and at times do you feel you are wasting your time fighting them.

And it's a fair question. I also did an interview with CBC radio yesterday at noon (because I was one of the presenters). Alan Neal asked me the same thing.

I'll tell you what I told him: "Yes. I have to be! I have to trust in our politicial and democratic system that they will listen to reason, logic, fact and to the experts on this issue. People have to understand that we want change - we want increased public safety. Simply Bill 132 isn't going to do that in its current form. We're going to change it so that it does."

In addition, it needs to be said that I was very specific in my speech to say that the voting public is watching and listening to these hearings very closely. And if the Bill isn't altered to acknowledge the expert knowledge, they will hear it loud and clear at the next elections.

Here's my speech in case you'd like to read it (Please note, MANY other people were hammering the breed identification point, I made a reference to it, but simply, wanted to cover other areas where I felt they required attention as well so all of the issues got full air time.)

Quote:

Good afternoon Ladies and Gentlemen of the Standing Committee,

First of all, I’d like to thank the committee for the opportunity to present before you today. My name is Tricia Barrett and I am the Ontario Director of the Rottweiler Club of Canada. I am also the Chairperson of their Breed Specific Legislation (BSL) Committee. Our national breed club felt the need to have our club’s voices heard from across the country, at this meeting today. We are opposed to Bill 132. It is misguided and ill conceived.

In your report you will find the inquest recommendations into the death of Courtney Trempe. There were 36 recommendations. As we approach the 7-year anniversary of Courtney’s death – I am saddened that none of the recommendations have been implemented. Even in the proposed Bill 132, none of the recommendations have been met in the spirit of the inquest.

May I ask why?

There is a massive amount if information available on effective legislation. Why was it not utilized when this bill was drafted? Surely if the public has access to these documents, our government did as well. A Canadian study on the Feasibility and Implications of Breed Specific Animal Services condemns BSL as a viable option. You will find this report in your packages as well.

There have been several misleading and inaccurate claims during this campaign. The distinction must be made between consultation and endorsement.

Consultation is defined as:
“A conference at which advice is given or views are exchanged.”

Endorsement is defined as:
“Official approval; sanction; support.”

Several times since August 30th, Mr. Michael Bryant, our Attorney General, has been quoted as saying that he had consulted with the experts. Consultation is only a discussion – at no point does it imply endorsement or approval as he suggests. In fact, I would even question the word consultation, as it seems as though there was no exchange on the Attorney General’s part. The fact is there is not one, single expert organization that endorses this bill. As you have already heard today and will continue to hear again and again throughout these hearings – responsible ownership is the single, most influential component of any canine-safety initiative.

I will spare you the listing of each and every organization that is adamantly against this Bill. All that needs to be done is to read down the list of presenters at these hearings. Each and every expert group and organization will tell you the same thing. No to Bill 132.

I must also reference the mysterious 5000 emails that Mr. Bryant received in support of this ban. I know that he also received many, many emails against this bill and would question those numbers. Why have they not been assessed by an independent audit? Apart from that – I would ask that the Committee listen to the professional opinions of the experts presenting today and throughout these hearings. These people have come before you, many from great distances, to give you their educated opinions rather than based on impressions and perceptions.

There are no expert studies that support Mr. Bryant’s claims of increased safety. In fact, areas which have implemented Breed Specific Legislation (BSL), have found that their bite numbers went up after implementation – therefore decreasing public safety (Mr. Bryant’s success story of Winnipeg is an example of this). Many areas are now rescinding their BSL bylaws in favour of Responsible Dog Ownership Legislation that requires a high standard of ownership by all dog owners, regardless of breed. In fact, there are now many States in the US that have outlawed BSL altogether.

Most recently, New Brunswick defeated a proposal for Breed Specific Legislation at the provincial level.

“FREDERICTON - A committee of MLAs has agreed that dangerous dogs should not be regulated by breed and owners should take the blame if their dog attacks someone. Committee chairman Jody Carr says it's more important to educate owners about the potential liability of dogs and preventing accidents.
Carr says the committee concluded it would be a mistake to concentrate on particular breeds and will recommend that owners of any kind of dog will be penalized if their dog bites someone.”

In England, they had implemented BSL. It was found to be expensive, time consuming and impossible to enforce. They have since dropped all breed specific legislation in favour of more deed specific.

Here we have both national and provincial examples that have been defeated as plausible solutions to canine related injuries. That must be acknowledged and considered as to how Ontario should proceed.

During a meeting I had with Hon. Gerrard Kennedy, he made a very interesting statement: “We cannot legislate social behaviour.” This was in response to my statements regarding responsible ownership of dogs; responsibly owned, no dog would be given the opportunity to cause injury.

I would argue quite adamantly, that all legislation is intended to control and mold social behaviour. What is and is not acceptable in a society, what you may and may not do that affects your fellow man.

I own a Rottweiler. He is a large male, 115lbs, lawfully licensed here in Toronto. He is registered with the Canadian and American Kennel Clubs, a Canadian Champion, has several temperament certificates, a first level Obedience title and is currently in training to serve the public as a Search And Rescue dog. His training will be ongoing until the day he passes on.

How does this bill, protect me as a responsible dog owner, from the malicious reporting of possible menacing behaviour of my dog to the authorities? How does it allow for myself and my dog to be assessed and found innocent? How will I be protected from further harassment? How do I know that my playing, frolicking dog won’t somehow be misinterpreted as exhibiting menacing behaviour? Do I have your assurances? What are they based upon?

There have already been incidences of harassment, threats and assaults from self imposed enforcers of this proposed bill. People have been verbally and physically attacked, their dogs abused. Responsible dog owners have had to put themselves at risk by now walking at night – trying to avoid these confrontations. I cannot tell you the perils that we are now vulnerable to, due to walking alone in the dark in city streets and parks. This has been affecting all dog owners – due to the public erroneously identifying various breeds (my own included). This panic mentality has got to stop being encouraged by our government.

I must admit that I am afraid. I’m afraid for my own personal safety and that of my beloved pet. I am afraid of vigilante justice. I live in High Park because of its lovely ‘doggy friendly’ nature, well-kept trails and friendly community. How can you possibly endorse a law that will put myself, my dog and the public at risk?

The most effective legislation model available to Canada is Calgary’s. I have included a copy of it in your packages. Strict licensing and leash laws have decreased all bite incidences, across the board by 70% in the face of a dog population that has doubled. Whereas Calgary has a 90% licensing compliance rate, Toronto pales by comparison with a mere 10% - 15%.

For a bill which is entitled: “An Act to amend the Dog Owners’ Liability Act to increase public safety in relation to dogs….” I am stunned that education has been ignored. In your kits, you will find an article by Canada’s own Dr. Stanley Coren, a Professor of Psychology at the University of British Columbia, author of many books on dog behaviour and television host of the series “Good Dog”. He has been recently quoted as saying:

"Regardless of its breed, a well-socialized dog is unlikely to bite. Statistics show that simply taking a dog through a basic obedience class reduces the likelihood that it will bite by 90%, while giving one hour of instruction on "bite-proofing" to children reduces the risk that they will be bitten by over 80%. Combine both dog obedience and child education and you can reduce dog-bite injuries by 98% without banning any specific breed of dog."

How can any proposal “to increase public safety in relation to dogs” possibly ignore these staggering statistics? I am absolutely astonished. This one implementation alone, which is not covered by Bill 132, may save thousands of injuries. Which is more financially feasible? Educating owners and children? Or presiding over court cases and paying hospital fees?

The additions to the Dog Owners’ Liability Act are premature. We are not actively policing our existing bylaws, yet we are blaming those bylaws as being ineffective. Once seatbelts were installed in cars, injuries did not decrease until wearing them was enforced.

When a dog running at large injures a person – why was it running at large? Every municipality has leash laws. So it is a failure in two parts. One: that the owner allowed their dog to run at large. Two: law enforcement for not implementing, maintaining and enforcing their leash laws. If they for some reason were not able to enforce their leash laws, then that must be reviewed. Are they under staffed? Are they under funded? Are they overwhelmed? If so – there is no sense in adding to their duties. Bill 132 is not a replacement of current laws; it is in addition to existing laws.

The following are my recommendations for changes to Bill 132:

1. Strike all references to “pit bull” and any references to any specific breed being flagged within this legislation.

2. Strike the proposed text and replace it with that matching the Calgary Bylaw, which is a clearer definition. From here forward, any section referring to a specific breed of dog be replaced with the following:
“Vicious dog” means any dog, whatever its age, whether on public or private property, which has
(i) without provocation, chased, injured or bitten any other domestic animal or human; or
(ii) without provocation, damaged or destroyed any public or private
property; or
(iii) without provocation, threatened or created the reasonable apprehension of a threat to other domestic animals or humans; and which, in the opinion of a Justice, presents a threat of serious harm to other domestic animals or humans; or
(iv) been previously determined to be a vicious dog

3. The entire section of “Pit Bulls – Ban and Related Controls” be stricken from the record completely.
4. Search and Seizure
The only persons, with a warrant, that should be allowed to Search and / or Seize any animal should be as written in Section (12), Subsection 1:
A police officer, including a police officer within the meaning of the Police Services Act, a special constable, a First Nations Constable and an auxiliary member of the police force.
Subsection 2, 3 and 4 may attend with a Police Officer as stated above, however may not be able to search or seize any animal unless accompanied by a police officer with a warrant. Replace any references to any other title able to execute a seizure or warrant to “Police Officer”.
5. Warrant to Seize Dog
This section is particularly troublesome, as it does not outline any prior steps to a warrant being issued. An escalation of events must occur, with warnings, hearings and / or orders to appear before a Justice before a warrant is issued.
6. Animals for Research Act
Any reference to the Animals for Research Act be stricken. Simply – if deemed to be a “Vicious Dog”, it is not a candidate for a research animal. Technicians work very closely with research animals and therefore, cannot be put at risk by a potentially dangerous animal.
It should also be said that if this point is argued and the justification be made that the dogs are not vicious – then again, they cannot be sent to research as the only reason they would have been seized or deemed un-adoptable, would be due to questionable temperament. Therefore, the animal shouldn’t have been seized and is adoptable. Obviously, they are of stable temperament or the scientific community wouldn’t accept them – thereby disproving the very foundation of this Bill.
7. Seizure In a Public Place, Section (15)
Replace any animal descriptions / definitions for the animal in question with that defined as a “Vicious Dog” in #2 of this document.
8. Subsection 16 – Force
Match the phrasing of this section to that of section (4):
“as are reasonably required to give effect to the safe and humane seizure of the dog”. The phrase “as much force as necessary” to be stricken.
9. Delivery Of Seized Dog To Pound, (17)
Add the following: “To which the dog will be maintained in good health until such time as the court may hear the case.”

In conclusion, please – do not endorse Bill 132. Yes we need change. However it must be researched, endorsed, educated and supported.
The voters of Ontario are watching and listening very carefully to these hearings. We want effective legislation. Should this Bill not be altered responsibly, to the recommendations of the experts – our voices will be heard loud and clear in the next elections.

Please listen to our expert organizations as they present to you throughout these hearings. They are more than willing to support the government in the definition, implementation and maintenance of Responsible Ownership Legislation for Everyone. Work to protect ALL victims. Work to protect ALL owners’ rights.

Thank you

Note* When I refer them to their report or kits, I supplied the committee with a package of the documents I was referencing and my presentation, along with my contact information.

CanadianRotts · #11 01-25-2005, 10:31 AM

Trish:

You did a wonderful job presenting yesterday. I could only imagine how stressful that would be. Nicely done.

It was also interesting to see that although some of the committee members looked either tired, or just didn't 'get it' (or perhaps their minds were made up already and/or tired). It was refreshing to see Peter Kormos, MPP-NDP actually interested and asking pertinent questions, especially at the end of the day. I loved the fact that he brought up a list of 'Top 5 Most Suitable Family Dogs', with the Nanny-dog, the Staffordshire Bull Terrier on it. (It was great to see representatives of the Staffordshire Bull Terrier Club of Canada there as well....I had waited years for a pup, never came through, and swallowed 2 puppy deposits.)

Today, the hearings move to Barrie...and back into Toronto for Feb 4. I will attend that session as well.

Watching the 11:00 p.m. news last night, the hearings made the National News as well. Overall, very well represented.

Dianna

groupieindenial · #12 01-25-2005, 11:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TrishB

The thing about this attack is:

The owners were drunk.
They had been dragging the dog around "Taste Of The Danforth" for hours in the hot August sun.
The dog hadn't had water for hours.
The owners were in no state to have the dog with them, nevermind assess the dog and give permission for the dog to be patted by a child.

The mother knows these details - and yet, she still chooses to blame the breed rather than the jerk owners.

I don't understand why she wouldn't want the owners of this dog held responsible for this horrible attack on her daughter? If it were me, I would like some legal rights to drag thier butts to court, and have them deal with the ramifications of their neglect or ignorance to the responsibilities they took upon when deciding to own a dog, ANY dog. Did anyone ask her that?

I did see the news coverage last night on the tele, and I have to say that it had a positive twist. THey shnowed all the heads nodding "nay" to the comments made pro ban, and the heads nodding "yay" to the comments against BSL.

EXCELLENT SPEECH by the way!