Further more I would like to take this opportunity to dissect the above statement from Levac.
"This Bill is not aimed at responsible pet owners who have a snake, for example, said Levac,"
Fair enough, and although the bill is not "aimed" at responsible pet owners, and has good intentions (as it appears) its still subjective, and applicable to EVERYONE. Ergo this statement has little/no merit.
"It is aimed at those who abuse and exploit their animals, and at animals that pose a threat to public safety should they escape.
What can be described as an animal that poses a risk to the public. An animal that has the ability to bite? An animal that carries a stigma of fear and unease regardless of its tame nature? Something that causes people anxiety and concern? And who is going to identify these animals?? (read on)
The Bill gives the Ministry the power to make a list of animals that would be subject to these provisions, and I am sure the Ministry will engage in wide public consultations when determining which animals should be included."
I'm sure they will... Notice that there is no concrete expression of the intentions of this Bill. They plan to create provisions, restrictions and regulations governing animals they have yet to announce. And the funny part is that the bill has been carried. This is as arbitrary as creating a federal statute that allows the crown to arrest, convict and sentence citizens to an undetermined penalty for charges that have yet to be decided.
Any good opposition would be able to pick this proposal apart. But this is politics, and we can't always rely on good opposition.
Reply With Quote