To the Editor,
I watched a video about a city councillor wanting to have administration pass a bylaw so that pets can be buried with their pre-deceased owners. I believe that this councillor has gone way too far in making this request just to generate tax revenues. Lack of morals is heightened here.
The video I watched just happens to be at the cemetery where I have a loved one buried. She's been there for over 40 years now. There is something morally wrong knowing that my daughter may be buried beside an animal some day.
If an immoral bylaw as such is passed, just what are the limitations that constitutes the description of a pet? A pet could range from anywhere from the size of a goldfish to the size of a horse. Yes, let's just think about this for a minute. A horse! It could be classified as a pet.
Let's keep our cemeteries for our deceased human family members. I'm sure that the City of Thunder Bay doesn't need revenues that bad where they would resort to this kind of immoral tax collection.
Ed Dunnill
