Federal Liberal Bill to Impact Hunting and Farming

[Ltbullken]

While there's a bun fight going on with members in the BCWF over who's feelings are butt-hurt, there are more important issues to be tackling. The Fed Libs are proposing a bill that could impact hunting and farming. The peta gang is in full swing with the happy days crowd. Maybe instead of attacking the BCWF around the actions of one person, we can be asking them what they are doing about this...

Quoting:

"Today a Liberal Member of Parliament tabled a fundamentally flawed and dangerous piece of animal rights legislation. This bill has drastic implications for farmers, ranchers, hunters, anglers, the fur industry, aboriginal communities, pet owners, and the medical research community. Not only does the bill propose to move the treatment of animals from the property section of the Criminal Code to the “public morals” section, but its terms are so broad that they could place all animal use in legal jeopardy.

This is a recycled bill that some Liberals have been pushing for over a decade, and every time they do a strong alliance of farmers, hunters, trappers, and medical researchers comes together to stop it. Both Liberal and NDP MPs have in the past introduced radical animal rights legislation. This legislation is yet another attempt at doing the same.

Read this legislation here: http://www.parl.gc.ca/LegisInfo/BillDetails.aspx?Language=E&Mode=1&billId=8122718

I strongly encourage you to inform your organization’s members and supporters of this dangerous legislation. I also encourage you to speak to Liberal and NDP MPs to inform them of your organization’s perspective on this legislation.

Please contact me if you have any questions or comments.

Sincerely,


Robert Sopuck, M.P.
Dauphin-Swan River-Neepawa
Official Opposition Critic for Wildlife Conservation and Parks Canada


Room 504, Justice Building
House of Commons
Ottawa, ON K1A 0A6
613-992-3176 (office)
Robert.Sopuck@parl.gc.ca
www.robertsopuck.ca
www.facebook.com/RobertSopuckMP
www.twitter.com/RobertSopuck"

[adriaticum]

Liberals, typically making everything illegal, unless specified by law.

[Vladimir Poutine]

While there's a bun fight going on with members in the BCWF over who's feelings are butt-hurt, there are more important issues to be tackling. The Fed Libs are proposing a bill that could impact hunting and farming. The peta gang is in full swing with the happy days crowd. Maybe instead of attacking the BCWF around the actions of one person, we can be asking them what they are doing about this...

Quoting:

"Today a Liberal Member of Parliament tabled a fundamentally flawed and dangerous piece of animal rights legislation. This bill has drastic implications for farmers, ranchers, hunters, anglers, the fur industry, aboriginal communities, pet owners, and the medical research community. Not only does the bill propose to move the treatment of animals from the property section of the Criminal Code to the “public morals” section, but its terms are so broad that they could place all animal use in legal jeopardy.

This is a recycled bill that some Liberals have been pushing for over a decade, and every time they do a strong alliance of farmers, hunters, trappers, and medical researchers comes together to stop it. Both Liberal and NDP MPs have in the past introduced radical animal rights legislation. This legislation is yet another attempt at doing the same.

Read this legislation here: http://www.parl.gc.ca/LegisInfo/BillDetails.aspx?Language=E&Mode=1&billId=8122718

I strongly encourage you to inform your organization’s members and supporters of this dangerous legislation. I also encourage you to speak to Liberal and NDP MPs to inform them of your organization’s perspective on this legislation.

Please contact me if you have any questions or comments.

Sincerely,


Robert Sopuck, M.P.
Dauphin-Swan River-Neepawa
Official Opposition Critic for Wildlife Conservation and Parks Canada


Room 504, Justice Building
House of Commons
Ottawa, ON K1A 0A6
613-992-3176 (office)
Robert.Sopuck@parl.gc.ca
www.robertsopuck.ca (http://www.robertsopuck.ca)
www.facebook.com/RobertSopuckMP (http://www.facebook.com/RobertSopuckMP)
www.twitter.com/RobertSopuck (http://www.twitter.com/RobertSopuck)"

I just went through the current wording. This is a short bill as bills go. I can find nothing that the Opposition member describes there.

[325]

I just read the bill, and the wording could be used to ban hunting and trapping, as there are some open-ended prohibitions.

[Bubba123]

I think that the definition of 'lawful excuse' needs to be defined, and include hunting and trapping.

[adriaticum]

I think that the definition of 'lawful excuse' needs to be defined, and include hunting and trapping.

What about self defense?
And other 1000 reasons I can't think of right now?

Laws that prohibit everything unless written in some book and interpreted by someone, not you, are always suspect.

What about exceptions for Aboriginals?
Why would you need exceptions for Aboriginal unless you are DIRECTLY targeting non aboriginal hunters.

[Iron Glove]

I just went through the current wording. This is a short bill as bills go. I can find nothing that the Opposition member describes there.

I just read it and agree with you.
Much ado about nothing ??
In any event, it's a Private Member's Bill and those rarely go anywhere.

[Ltbullken]

I just went through the current wording. This is a short bill as bills go. I can find nothing that the Opposition member describes there.

It is more of the slippery slope that covers cruelty. Specific mention to exempting trapping, hunting and farming (already covered under CCC and provincial laws on cruelty and hunting practices) would make this more palatable.

[Vladimir Poutine]

It is more of the slippery slope that covers cruelty. Specific mention to exempting trapping, hunting and farming (already covered under CCC and provincial laws on cruelty and hunting practices) would make this more palatable.

I see your point, but the bill specifically mentions the exemptions as it relates to current "lawful" killing of animals whether owned or not owned.

[Fisher-Dude]

I just went through the current wording. This is a short bill as bills go. I can find nothing that the Opposition member describes there.


I just read it and agree with you.
Much ado about nothing ??
In any event, it's a Private Member's Bill and those rarely go anywhere.



Of course you agree. The NDP and Liberals are the same shit, different bucket.

This legislation has always been a grave concern of people within hunting and fishing organizations who have researched legal interpretation and consulted lawyers on this. But I guess you guys know better.

[Vladimir Poutine]

Of course you agree. The NDP and Liberals are the same shit, different bucket.

This legislation has always been a grave concern of people within hunting and fishing organizations who have researched legal interpretation and consulted lawyers on this. But I guess you guys know better.

C'mon Mr W. That's not a fair assessment of the bill. It mostly deals with the finning of sharks. It also excludes all killing of animals from the provisions if said killing is now legal. Is that true or not?

[Xenomorph]

Of course you agree. The NDP and Liberals are the same shit, different bucket.

This legislation has always been a grave concern of people within hunting and fishing organizations who have researched legal interpretation and consulted lawyers on this. But I guess you guys know better.


Remind me next time to go get my feelings checked when I'm about to vote liberals again. Dafuq was I thinking?!?

[RadHimself]

in a round about way... it could be used to ban hunting and fishing....


but they'd loose ALOT in doing that

[Iron Glove]

Of course you agree. The NDP and Liberals are the same shit, different bucket.

This legislation has always been a grave concern of people within hunting and fishing organizations who have researched legal interpretation and consulted lawyers on this. But I guess you guys know better.

I think that anyone, even a "Financial Advisor" :mrgreen: can read the proposed Act ( note again it's a Private Member's Bill which historically don't do well ) and compare the actual proposed Act to the hyperbole of the Honourable Opposition Member's comments and see that the two differ considerably in context.
Hey, that's the job of the Opposition, stir the poop as much as possible, whether it's valid or not.
If the "legal interpretation" is so diametrically opposed to the intent of the proposed Act then it would be interesting to see said "legal interpretation."
Sometimes FD ya gotta take off your "Blue" blinkers and accept the fact that not everything "Red" or "Orange" is bad.

[adriaticum]

I think that anyone, even a "Financial Advisor" :mrgreen: can read the proposed Act ( note again it's a Private Member's Bill which historically don't do well ) and compare the actual proposed Act to the hyperbole of the Honourable Opposition Member's comments and see that the two differ considerably in context.
Hey, that's the job of the Opposition, stir the poop as much as possible, whether it's valid or not.
If the "legal interpretation" is so diametrically opposed to the intent of the proposed Act then it would be interesting to see said "legal interpretation."
Sometimes FD ya gotta take off your "Blue" blinkers and accept the fact that not everything "Red" or "Orange" is bad.



Michelle Zilio, CTVNews.ca
Published Wednesday, December 10, 2014 12:13PM EST
Last Updated Wednesday, December 10, 2014 12:36PM EST

A record number of private member’s bills have been passed in recent years, according to Government House Leader Peter Van Loan.
Since the 41st Parliament began on June 2, 2011, the government has passed 26 PMBs, Van Loan told reporters at his annual year-end press conference on Parliament Hill Wednesday morning. Nine were passed this year.

[Ltbullken]

The slippery slope involves incremental amendments over time to 'outlaw this' and define 'that' to be more extensive, and also 'let's include this'. It starts slow and builds until rights are taken away. It is not the big bold stroke of the pen but the many tiny changes and amendments that eventually leaves you boxed wondering, what happened?!

[Surrey Boy]

in a round about way... it could be used to ban hunting and fishing....


but they'd loose ALOT in doing that

Bad legislation reduces respect for the law. Since hunting laws are largely enforced by the honour system, it's unwise to lower their esteem.

[Fisher-Dude]

I think that anyone, even a "Financial Advisor" :mrgreen: can read the proposed Act ( note again it's a Private Member's Bill which historically don't do well ) and compare the actual proposed Act to the hyperbole of the Honourable Opposition Member's comments and see that the two differ considerably in context.
Hey, that's the job of the Opposition, stir the poop as much as possible, whether it's valid or not.
If the "legal interpretation" is so diametrically opposed to the intent of the proposed Act then it would be interesting to see said "legal interpretation."
Sometimes FD ya gotta take off your "Blue" blinkers and accept the fact that not everything "Red" or "Orange" is bad.


Everything red and orange is terrible. Everything. Your man crush on Little Pierre is perplexing as you claim to be an outdoor enthusiast. But then again, so did Photo Shoot.


Michelle Zilio, CTVNews.ca
Published Wednesday, December 10, 2014 12:13PM EST
Last Updated Wednesday, December 10, 2014 12:36PM EST

A record number of private member’s bills have been passed in recent years, according to Government House Leader Peter Van Loan.
Since the 41st Parliament began on June 2, 2011, the government has passed 26 PMBs, Van Loan told reporters at his annual year-end press conference on Parliament Hill Wednesday morning. Nine were passed this year.


Why should we let facts get in the way of Trudeau Love?

[325]

The slippery slope involves incremental amendments over time to 'outlaw this' and define 'that' to be more extensive, and also 'let's include this'. It starts slow and builds until rights are taken away. It is not the big bold stroke of the pen but the many tiny changes and amendments that eventually leaves you boxed wondering, what happened?!

you are exactly right.

[gutpile]

Nothing to worry about here folks , hell will freeze before they kill hunting !

[Vladimir Poutine]

in a round about way... it could be used to ban hunting and fishing....


but they'd loose ALOT in doing that

How exactly as it relates to this Bill?

[Iron Glove]

Everything red and orange is terrible. Everything. Your man crush on Little Pierre is perplexing as you claim to be an outdoor enthusiast. But then again, so did Photo Shoot.




Why should we let facts get in the way of Trudeau Love?

The proposed bill has about as much to do with hunting as you do to reality. :wink:
Go back in pre election posts and you'll see that I didn't like Justin but the Federal Liberals were the best overall choice of a bad lot for Canada. JMHO of course.
If you look at my comments about Private Member's Bills I said they are not enacted very often and Adria's stats proved that.
When you get the expert Lawyer's opinions on what the proposed Bill says ( beyond of course what we average folks can read and comprehend ) let me know.
You can do better FD, you can.

[adriaticum]

First possible impact of this bill

Cat and dog fur is legal (and worn) in Canada. That may be about to change

http://www.theglobeandmail.com//opinion/cat-and-dog-fur-is-legal-and-worn-in-canada-that-is-about-to-change/article29002509/?cmpid=rss1&click=sf_globe