---

THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON LEGAL AND CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS

EVIDENCE

---

Ottawa, Thursday, June 13, 2024

The Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs met with videoconference this day at 11:49 a.m. [ET] to study Bill S-15, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Wild Animal and Plant Protection and Regulation of International and Interprovincial Trade Act.

Senator Mobina S. B. Jaffer (Chair) in the chair.

[Translation]

The Chair: Hello, honourable senators. Welcome to this meeting of the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs.

[English]

I’m Mobina Jaffer, a senator from British Columbia and the chair of this committee. I invite my colleagues to introduce themselves.

[Translation]

Senator Carignan: Hello. Claude Carignan from Quebec.

[English]

Senator Plett: Senator Don Plett, Landmark, Manitoba.

[Translation]

Senator Dalphond: Pierre Dalphond from Quebec.

[English]

Senator Klyne: Good afternoon. Marty Klyne, senator from Saskatchewan, Treaty 4 territory.

[Translation]

Senator Oudar: Manuelle Oudar from Quebec. Welcome.

[English]

Senator Simons: Paula Simons, Alberta, Treaty 6 territory.

Senator Pate: Kim Pate. Welcome. I live here in the unceded, unsurrendered territory of the Algonquin Anishinaabeg.

[Translation]

Senator Clement: Bernadette Clement from Ontario.

[English]

Senator Cotter: Brent Cotter, senator for Saskatchewan.

[Translation]

Senator Gold: Marc Gold from Quebec.

[English]

Senator Tannas: Scott Tannas from Alberta.

The Chair: Thank you. Before we begin, I would like to ask all senators and other in-person participants to consult the cards on the table for guidelines to prevent audio feedback incidents. Senators, we have very competent interpreters with us, so please respect the guidelines. Thank you for your cooperation.

Senators, we are meeting to resume clause-by-clause consideration of Bill S-15, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Wild Animal and Plant Protection and Regulation of International and Interprovincial Trade Act. We are pleased to have officials once again to assist our examination.

To the officials, thank you for being so diligent, and for always coming to our meetings on this subject and other subjects. The committee appreciates it.

From the Department of Justice Canada, we welcome Aleksander Godlewski, Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section; and Joanna Wells, Senior Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section.

From Environment and Climate Change Canada, we welcome Stephanie Lane, Executive Director, Legislative Governance; and Basile van Havre, Director General, Canadian Wildlife Service.

Thank you again for always agreeing to join us.

Senators, we are resuming debate on the amendment to clause 1 that was proposed by Senator Simons, labelled PS‑S15-1-4-5.

Senator Simons, you have the floor if you wish to speak on the debate.

Senator Simons: Thank you very much. As currently drafted, the offences that would be added to the Criminal Code by this bill — unlawful possession of an animal in captivity, unlawful breeding or unlawful involvement of an animal in a performance or a ride — would be punishable on summary conviction by a fine of up to $200,000.

While that might prove to be an appropriate sentencing range for the purposes of punishing the convicted offender, it does not entirely address the issue that the bill is intended to combat — which is the potential cruelty to animals and the risk to health and safety from the improper, impermissible captivity.

Therefore, this amendment that I propose would empower a sentencing court to make an additional order compelling the offender to carry out actions in the best interests of the animal involved in the offence, as well as any other animals of the same species or closely related species that are in the offender’s possession.

These orders would be available to the sentencing court in respect of the criminal offences established in this bill, but also in respect of the existing offences set out in section 445.2 of the code regarding cetaceans — which, as we are aware, serve as a template for this bill and set out substantially similar offences.

These judicially ordered actions would be at the offender’s cost. These orders would be available whether an offender received a sentence within the range set out in the relevant provision or a discharge under section 730 of the code, and they would be available on the court’s own motion or on the motion of the Crown.

What can a sentencing judge order an offender to do under this amendment? The court may require the offender to do the following: first, modify the physical conditions in which the animal is kept; second, modify the social conditions in which the animal is kept — that is to say, take an animal that is in animal solitary confinement and provide them with companionship; third, relocate the animal to another facility or sanctuary; or, fourth, forfeit ownership of the animal and surrender it to animal welfare authorities named in the order.

I know that we heard from witnesses before this committee that there are already forfeiture procedures in the code which could apply to these new offences, and that is true. There is a general sentencing power to make a forfeiture order regarding property involved in a crime, and it would apply to conviction under these offences.

However, the forfeiture provisions set out in the code are very limited in what they allow a court to do, and are not really intended to ensure the welfare of the property, as it were, involved in the offence. It’s one thing to make a forfeiture order with regard to a stolen car or the contents of a meth lab. It’s entirely different when you’re dealing with the welfare of a sentient animal. The court is essentially limited to ordering that the property be forfeited to the Crown, and that may not be the appropriate action here.

I think the amendment proposed is superior to what is already available for the purpose of taking into account the best interests of the animals in captivity. It may or may not always be possible or advisable to forfeit the animal — or animals — involved in the offence. We do not want the Crown prosecutor to suddenly have to share office space with six elephants.

I think these amendments are alive to the wide variety of nuance that you could imagine coming up with unlawful animal captivity, especially now that the “Noah Clause” has been added to the bill. I think this is a sensible amendment that provides for the welfare of the animals, and not just for the punishment of those who may have been abusing them.

Senator Plett: I have a couple of questions for the officials and then one for the chair. Let me start by asking a couple of questions of the officials.

First of all, Senator Simons has already alluded to the “Noah Clause.” Of course, that was all part of Bill S-241. Clearly, when the government decided to introduce Bill S-15, they made a decision not to include this portion of Bill S-241.

Can you tell me why they decided not to include this in the bill in the first place?

Aleksander Godlewski, Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice Canada: I won’t speak to the decision of the government, but what I will say is that, as Senator Simons noted, there are existing provisions in the Criminal Code that provide for some of these outcomes. Bill S-15, as drafted, was drafted to rely on those provisions.

Senator Plett: I find it difficult when we have government officials here and they say, “I will not speak on behalf of the government.” How are we supposed to get our questions answered?

Senator Simons gave me that answer. I didn’t need that from you. You’re here representing the government. Why did the government not put this in? You need to have an answer for that. You’re representing the government here. I would like to know why this wasn’t included in the bill.

Mr. Godlewski: The bill, as drafted, was drafted to rely on the existing provisions that are in the Criminal Code that allow for some of the outcomes that this provision would allow for.

Senator Plett: In one of your views — and I’m not sure to whom I should address this question — does this amendment expand the scope of Bill S-15?

Joanna Wells, Senior Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice Canada: Thank you, senator, for the question. Perhaps I can jump in.

What this does is to provide a specific sentencing provision with respect to what a judge would do in this situation. As Mr. Godlewski indicated, many of those powers are already available. To the extent that it does something different, it could be interpreted as expanding the scope. As has been indicated, it provides a specific sentencing regime, but judges already have broad powers on sentencing.

Senator Plett: This is almost like Question Period. I ask a question and I don’t get an answer. Yes or no: Does this expand the scope of Bill S-15? That’s a very simple yes-or-no question. I would like a yes-or-no answer. Does it expand the scope?

Ms. Wells: I’m looking to the chair to see if she wants me to continue. I’m happy to do so.

I don’t think it’s as simple as a yes-or-no answer, from our perspective. What I can tell you is that it provides, as Senator Simons indicated, a specific sentencing procedure for judges when making sentences under offences both for cetaceans and for animals that would be captured under Bill S-15.

Senator Plett: Let me raise this point, then, Madam Chair, if I could, because clearly we’re not getting the answers to our questions.

Chair, at the last meeting, both Senator Batters and I asked that we either have officials here who would speak to the constitutionality of this particular amendment, or a written statement by someone who would speak to it. I haven’t seen the written statement, and I don’t see anyone else at the witness table other than the people whom we had here last time. I don’t want to be disrespectful to our witnesses, but they all indicated that they couldn’t speak to the constitutionality of it.

Senator Batters and I were quite clear that, if we are dealing with something like this, we have the right to know whether this is constitutional. Here we are, some weeks later, and we haven’t received an answer.

This will open things up for all the points of order that I will have in the chamber on this bill about how we were told, previously, that what Senator Klyne was doing expanded the scope. You ruled against that, and the government members of this committee all supported you in that. That already is one point of order. We respectfully asked that something be provided to us, and we haven’t received it.

As I promised, I will try not to disrupt the movement of this, but I want to certainly have it on the record that I believe this is entirely out of order, and that we are moving forward with a bill that we have asked, respectfully, to have — Madam Chair, you’re going to rule on something I’m saying here while you’re paying no attention to what I’m saying. This is how you ruled on my previous point of order. I would at least appreciate your attention when I am addressing you personally.

The Chair: With the greatest respect, I am listening to you, but the clerk informed me that, on June 7, a letter was distributed about this issue to all the members. I just asked him to get the copy that was distributed to everybody on this issue.

Senator Plett: Thank you. I’ll leave it at that, Madam Chair. I am on the record saying that I believe this whole thing is entirely out of order because it has gone way beyond scope, and I’m asking a question again today about whether it expands the scope. I’m not sure whether they have received talking points since the last meeting, but we’re not getting the answers we want.

I have nothing further to add, but, of course, I will be voting against the amendment.

The Chair: Senators, has everybody seen this letter that was distributed to your offices? No?

The clerk is just getting the copies done.

Senator Plett: I have not seen that, Madam Chair, and neither has my staff.

The Chair: Thank you. We will distribute it to everybody.

[Translation]

Senator Carignan: I am trying to understand the amendment. It states: “a person convicted of an offence under subsection 445.2(2) or (4) or 445.3(1)”. If I look at that offence, it involves “[possessing] an elephant or great ape that is kept in captivity”. Here, we are giving the court the power to “[modify] the physical conditions in which the animal is kept”, which means that the person would still be committing an offence; to “[relocate] the animal to another facility or sanctuary”, which means that the animal would still be kept in captivity; to “[modify] the social conditions in which the animal is kept”, which means that the person would still be committing an offence under subsection 445.3(1); or to “[forfeit] ownership of the animal”. I’m not sure this is constitutional because there are elements of disguised expropriation.

I don’t see the logic of this amendment. It gives the court the power to order corrective actions that would allow the accused to continue committing an offence. That doesn’t make any sense to me.

[English]

Senator Dalphond: I’ll be brief.

The scope of the bill is a parliamentary issue. It’s a legislative issue. It’s a bit unfair to ask our officials, who are representing the Department of Justice, on the drafting of bills — if this is, according to our rules, to go that far. That’s the first point.

Second, there’s a distinction to be made between adding the “Noah Clause,” which extended the scope of the bill, and having additional remedies here to those that are already provided in the Criminal Code. We are not expanding the scope of the bill. We are just outlining some specific remedies that will be added to those that are in the code. This is not beyond the scope.

We have to just make a few nuances, but, that being said, as we have discussed previously, the constitutional issue was raised. We referred to the Supreme Court decisions about arms and the confiscation of arms, and Senator Cotter politely said something like, “It is a red herring.” I think that’s the words he used, if I quote him properly. But the main issue here is that this amendment provides the judicial authorities with some alternatives to being in a situation where an illegality exists.

Senator Carignan is right to say the animal will remain in captivity, but those that are in captivity now are grandfathered, so we are talking about other animals that will be coming and should not be in captivity.

What do we do? Do we send them to the slaughterhouse, or do we try to find a way to accommodate the situation?

That’s what is being provided here. The judge could order the owners to do things. It could be transported to a bigger place where the conditions are better.

For me, I think it makes sense and fits in the logic of this bill. Otherwise, it will be subject to debates in court. “Judge, can you do it or not? Is it inherent or is it clear?” So that will be clear.

Thank you. I will support it.

Senator Plett: I thank Senator Dalphond for agreeing with what I said here a few weeks ago: The “Noah Clause” expands the scope of the bill. I appreciate it, Senator Dalphond, that you have put that on the record.

Senator Dalphond: Good lawyers changed my words.

Senator Plett: I don’t think I did. I think if we check the transcript, it will be clear. Nevertheless, I do have a question.

Yes, Senator Dalphond is correct. We have facilities that are grandfathered, but there are not many facilities in Canada that we are grandfathering here. What happens if we have to relocate a 12,000-pound elephant to another facility? What facility does Senator Simons suggest that we relocate that animal to? We don’t have another facility in our country, and we have laws that prevent us from transporting that animal out of our country.

Here we have a penalty that I would suggest is impossible to enforce because there’s no place the animal can go.

Senator Simons: With respect, there are three possible things that could happen to this hypothetical elephant. Senator Plett will recall that I did not support the inclusion of the “Noah Clause.”

Senator Plett: I understand that.

Senator Simons: But now that it’s in there, you can imagine, for example, that somebody has a private chimpanzee which they are not supposed to have. We could require that chimpanzee to be moved to a zoological park where it would be properly cared for.

If some rich billionaire in Toronto has a chimpanzee that they dress up in pyjamas, we could hypothetically fine them and make sure the chimpanzee went some place more appropriate for a chimpanzee to live.

The thing is that we cannot imagine every possible permutation and combination. This just recognizes the fact that animals are not chattels in the same way that bits and bobs of physical matter are, and it’s not just enough to say that there’s forfeiture — that we’re actually looking after the humane care of such animals as would come in.

Again, hypothetically, you could imagine a scenario where somebody has a roadside zoo where they are maltreating a tiger, and to say, “All right, the tiger is forfeited,” this gives some suggestions of what could happen, or simply a situation where the zoo needs to make amendments to what it’s doing. This allows for that.

If that answers questions, maybe we can —

Senator Plett: Well, it answers my question. Senator Simons, thank you. You answered part of my question, and you answered it favourably for a part using a chimpanzee — using a small animal that we are allowing right across the country to be in captivity. But we are dealing with a couple of animals here that are more difficult to do this with. This is a widely encompassing amendment. To relocate a chimpanzee to another zoo, the debate is not between you and me, Senator Simons. I just don’t want this to get into debate. I want it on the record, again, to say that I believe it is impossible to completely do everything you are asking here when we are talking about some of the animals, because there is no other place to relocate an elephant.

The scope of the bill is elephants and great apes. The “Noah Clause” has added a whole lot, and that’s why you say this amendment is necessary. I understand that. The scope of the bill is elephants and great apes. You are putting an amendment here that says to relocate the animal to another facility and possibly forfeit the ownership of the animal when it is impossible to do that.

Senator Simons: That would be one possible option.

Senator Plett: I understand, and yours is also another scenario. But thank you for your answer. I’m not going to belabour this. I got this now. In closing, I find this unacceptable. It says June 6 on the letter. I understand that. It appears to me that a few senators have seen this before. Now we see this while we are in the middle of clause-by-clause consideration. It is another indication of how this particular committee has operated for the duration of this bill, and how it continues to operate. I’ll leave it at that.

[Translation]

Senator Carignan: Senator Simons, I can’t tell you what to do, but I think it is possible to sometimes overdo things. I think that is what you’re doing with this provision. The Criminal Code already provides for the power to make orders to ensure that some of these objectives are met.

I don’t think it would be wise to move forward with this amendment. I think that you’re giving tools to people who would challenge the constitutionality of these provisions under the Charter.

As I was saying, I’m raising a red flag and I will be voting against the amendment for the reasons that I explained, because I don’t think it’s a good idea.

[English]

Senator Batters: First of all, weeks ago at this committee, both Senator Plett and I asked to have a constitutional expert from the Department of Justice be here to answer questions about this. I find it shocking that, in probably three weeks, we couldn’t scare up one constitutional expert from the Department of Justice to come down here when they had notice that we needed this information.

I made substantial arguments at the last committee meeting where we dealt with this, talking about all the ways this — in my mind — fell within provincial jurisdiction because of the very specific parts that go outside of the scope of criminal law matters, and instead deal with very particular matters that seem to fall within the animal welfare aspect, which is provincial jurisdiction. When you’re talking about modifying physical conditions in which the animals are kept, as well as relocating animals to another facility, modifying social conditions or forfeiting ownership and surrendering animals to the animal welfare authority named in the order, those all potentially seem to be matters that would very likely be within provincial jurisdiction.

And then we get this — I wouldn’t even call it a letter. I don’t know what this is. It is a series of several paragraphs. It is not framed as a letter. I don’t know who wrote it. It doesn’t directly address the questions that I wanted answered about this amendment, or if those powers that are talked about here could be under provincial jurisdiction; it is just a very general statement.

Could we please know who prepared this? It is not phrased as a letter, so I don’t know. Is this just a matter of different statements from some of the legal authorities whom we heard from previously at this committee? It doesn’t seem to be something that is from the Department of Justice, and, if it is, I would like to know more information. It would be helpful to have officials who can answer questions rather than just have some of these general statements that in no way answer my questions about this particular amendment.

The Chair: Thank you, Senator Batters.

Senator Batters: Can I have my question answered, please? What is this? What is this constitutional framework for the criminal law, dated June 6? It is not a letter. I don’t know who prepared this. What is this?

Ms. Wells: I can answer some of those questions. Thank you.

In the department, we framed this as an undertaking to provide the committee with more information about the constitutional framework. It was prepared by the departmental officials. Both Mr. Godlewski and I had a hand in preparing it. We consulted with our constitutional section as well. It is a joint effort prepared by the department in an effort to provide what we are able to provide to the committee in our role about the framework that a judge or court would use in determining whether or not something falls within the criminal law power under the Constitution.

Senator Batters: But at the last meeting, both of you indicated that constitutional aspects were not within your purview to answer. That’s why I asked to have a constitutional expert here today to testify. I imagine you have many constitutional experts in the Department of Justice who could have come here to answer questions.

Like I say, this is not at all answering any of the questions. It is just a general statement saying these types of things are federal, and these types of things are provincial. It says in here the provinces legislate with respect to animal welfare largely based on their jurisdiction over property and civil rights. As I just articulated here, there are several aspects of this amendment which seem to fall directly in that.

I see nothing in these several paragraphs that were prepared that deal with that at all. In fact, I have no comfort from these several paragraphs provided here that these things don’t fall within provincial jurisdiction, and there’s no one to answer those questions today because the two of you told me last time that you couldn’t answer those constitutional questions.

Ms. Wells: It is absolutely true; we continue to be criminal law experts and not constitutional law experts. Decisions about which departmental officials appear at committee are not made by Mr. Godlewski or me. They are made at higher levels. I’m happy to convey back to the department the concerns that were expressed, but this is not something we have control over. We are here because we were asked to appear.

Senator Batters: I understand it’s not your purview, however those higher up — this is a government bill which has been massively amended by the government sponsor of this bill. The Senate government leader sits here, so I don’t know if his office has a hand in helping us to get the most appropriate officials here, or if the minister does, but whoever does didn’t do it properly. We don’t have the appropriate officials to be able to answer questions about this.

We are the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs. We’re supposed to be applying sober second thought to legislation. Here we’re trying to have sober first thought, which is not going so well. When we have these types of matters and we can’t even get an answer about this, how can we possibly properly consider this amendment?

Senator Cotter: I have two observations to make. The first is that this reads very much like giving the court the discretion — not requiring it — to essentially administer a probation order with respect to a person who is found guilty. It is much more specific than just the general category of probation orders which probably would apply in any event. But this is sort of a unique situation with respect to animals and their circumstances.

It seems to me, while reading, that this is actually a fairly constructive, animal-focused, discretionary authority given to judges.

Senator Plett is right that we can’t identify every circumstance that might arise, but I’m inclined to repose some confidence in the judges who might say, if there is only one location for an elephant, they will not be trying to relocate the elephant because, as Senator Plett said, that would be impossible — we would have had to use one of these other ones or none at all. The judges would make that decision in sentencing.

If you think about this as a probation order — a power given to a judge to sanction consequent upon a finding of criminal guilt — the last four paragraphs of this message are perfectly clear: This is clearly within the authority of the federal government to articulate language around the criminal law and sentencing.

If it is the case that you say this is property and civil rights, a judge imposing a probation order that implicates anybody’s property would be unconstitutional, and nobody believes that. Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you. Senators, is it your pleasure —

Senator Plett: We’re not finished debating.

The Chair: I did not see your hand. You don’t need to jump like that.

Senator Batters: Thank you. With respect to the comments that Senator Cotter just made, probation conditions would be with respect to people, talking about where they’re relocated to and conditions they need to be held under and that sort of thing. This is about animals. When we are considering this type of an amendment, we have to remember the fact that the “Noah Clause” is now in place in this bill with respect to our consideration. We are not merely talking about great apes and elephants here, and all of these types of conditions that could apply to just great apes and elephants. We are also talking about all other animals aside from a very few exceptions that cabinet could decree to be dealt with. You have to consider it with respect to that.

This could even prevent things like potentially rodeos, horseback riding and things like that. That’s the kind of consideration we are making here. We have to remember that’s as wide-ranging as this is. This is not just dealing with great apes and elephants anymore, but it allows cabinet to decree all kinds of other animals, and we have to consider that.

Senator Plett: Further to that, Senator Cotter is correct that a judge will make a decision, but then why wouldn’t we let a judge make a decision on the entire scope?

With animal cruelty, we are already there. If somebody gets charged with animal cruelty, a judge can make a decision in that regard too. We don’t need this amendment at all. If we aren’t going to include everything in the amendment, then we don’t need the amendment.

The other thing is, as Senator Batters pointed out, nobody’s name is on this document. We just had a document handed to us. Then, we asked who developed the document, and we are being told that the officials right here helped develop the document. They can’t give us a constitutional opinion when they are sitting here, but apparently they can if they help write a document, yet their names are not on it. Nobody is accepting responsibility for it.

Our officials say they don’t decide who comes here. I appreciate that and fully respect it. They are doing what they were asked to do by whoever is in charge, but we have been told, Madam Chair, that it would have been possible to get a constitutional expert here. Our witnesses basically said that it would have been possible. Why wasn’t it asked for? Who made the decision not to have constitutional people here to answer our questions when we knew the questions were there? Was that decision made by the steering committee, by the chair or by the government? Who made the decision not to have the people here whom we legitimately asked for three weeks ago? Instead, we have a document with no names, and nobody is accepting responsibility other than to say, “We helped with some of the crafting of it.” I want to know why we don’t have the officials here whom we asked for, because we were told a minute ago that it would have been possible. Did the chair ask for those officials not to come? Did the steering committee ask for those officials not to come? I know the committee didn’t. Why don’t we have them here?

The Chair: Well, I don’t know why we don’t have them here, but the steering committee and I did not make that decision.

Honourable senators, is it your pleasure to adopt the motion?

Some Hon. Senators: No.

Some Hon. Senators: Yes.

The Chair: We’ll do a roll call vote.

Vincent Labrosse, Clerk of the Committee: The Honourable Senator Jaffer?

Senator Jaffer: Yes.

Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Batters?

Senator Batters: No.

Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Carignan?

Senator Carignan: No.

Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Clement?

Senator Clement: Yes.

Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Cotter?

Senator Cotter: Yes.

Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Dalphond?

Senator Dalphond: Yes.

Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Gold?

Senator Gold: Abstain.

Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Klyne?

Senator Klyne: Yes.

Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Oudar?

Senator Oudar: Yes.

Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Pate?

Senator Pate: Yes.

Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Plett?

Senator Plett: No.

Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Prosper?

Senator Prosper: Yes.

Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Simons?

Senator Simons: Yes.

Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Tannas?

Senator Tannas: Yes.

Mr. Labrosse: Yeas: 10; nays: 3; abstentions: 1.

The Chair: I declare the motion in amendment carried.

Honourable senators, we will now proceed to clause-by-clause consideration. Shall clause 1, as amended, carry?

Some Hon. Senators: No.

Some Hon. Senators: Yes.

The Chair: We’ll do a roll call vote.

Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Jaffer?

Senator Jaffer: Yes.

Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Batters?

Senator Batters: No.

Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Carignan?

Senator Carignan: No.

Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Clement?

Senator Clement: Yes.

Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Cotter?

Senator Cotter: Yes.

Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Dalphond?

Senator Dalphond: Yes.

Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Gold?

Senator Gold: Yes.

Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Klyne?

Senator Klyne: Yes.

Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Oudar?

Senator Oudar: Yes.

Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Pate?

Senator Pate: Yes.

Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Plett?

Senator Plett: No.

Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Prosper?

Senator Prosper: Yes.

Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Simons?

Senator Simons: Yes.

Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Tannas?

Senator Tannas: Yes.

Mr. Labrosse: Yeas: 11; nays: 3; abstentions: nil.

The Chair: Honourable senators, clause 1, as amended, is carried.

We now proceed to clause 2, labelled MK-S15-2-4-9. This is an amendment moved by Senator Klyne for clause 2, on page 4, after line 9.

Senator Klyne: This motion was distributed earlier and received. I move:

That Bill S-15 be amended in clause 2, on page 4, by adding the following after line 9:

“designated animal has, for the purposes of subsections 6(2.1) and 10(1.1) and (1.2), the same meaning as in subsection 445.3(10) of the Criminal Code. (animal désigné)”.

I want to reference to colleagues that this is part 2 of 4 of the “Noah Clause.” We have already added that measure to the Criminal Code, where the definition of “designated animal” and the factors for designation are contained. The “Noah Clause” will be mentioned in a couple of these other motions ensuing. I just want to reference that the “Noah Clause” amendment answers the joint request of the Jane Goodall Institute of Canada and nine of Canada’s leading animal welfare non-governmental organizations, or NGOs, and zoos.

This amendment adds the same definition mentioned in reference to the Wild Animal and Plant Protection and Regulation of International and Interprovincial Trade Act, or WAPPRIITA, being the wildlife trade statute, with complementary measures as regards import and export. The actual addition of “designated animal” to the relevant measures of WAPPRIITA as regards import and export will fall in part 3 of 3. I invite senators to support this amendment.

Senator Plett: Well, this is a consequential amendment. We opposed the last one, so I’m not going to belabour it and I’m not going to ask for a recorded vote. At least, I personally won’t ask for a recorded vote; somebody else might. I’m certainly opposed to it, and, if we vote on it, it will at least be on division. That said, maybe other senators will want a roll call vote.

Regardless, it is a consequential amendment.

Senator Batters: I am actually hoping for this: Maybe after a few weeks of considering the massive implications of having designated animals be determined by cabinet by decree and not Parliament — and not dealing with the legislation that we’re considering, but instead by cabinet just determining on their own, including this very government that we’re dealing with right now, which has acted many times in quite an activist way.

There are really minimal limitations as to what can be considered a designated animal. I just want everyone to think about this as they are considering everything: This could apply to horses, rodeo animals and other kinds of animals. When you’re thinking about that — and, potentially, some of you might be going to the Calgary Stampede, or those watching might be — consider how this very clause could be used in the future to basically outlaw and make it criminal for those types of activities to occur.

For that reason, it’s undoubtedly wishful thinking, but I’m hoping that senators might have had some cause to actually consider that and reflect upon that — provide a little bit of their own sober second thought on this and what they voted for a few weeks ago, and reconsider it. As a result, I think I would like to have a recorded vote on this for that purpose.

Senator Plett: I trust they won’t go to the Calgary Stampede.

The Chair: Honourable senators, we will go to a roll call vote. I don’t see anybody else wishing to speak.

Senator Plett: I said “on division” would be good.

Senator Batters: But I said I wished to have a recorded vote.

Senator Plett: Oh, I apologize.

Senator Batters: That’s okay.

Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Jaffer?

Senator Jaffer: Yes.

Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Batters?

Senator Batters: No.

Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Carignan?

Senator Carignan: No.

Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Clement?

Senator Clement: Yes.

Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Cotter?

Senator Cotter: Yes.

Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Dalphond?

Senator Dalphond: Yes.

Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Gold?

Senator Gold: Abstain.

Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Klyne?

Senator Klyne: Yes.

Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Oudar?

Senator Oudar: Yes.

Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Pate?

Senator Pate: Yes.

Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Plett?

Senator Plett: No.

Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Prosper?

Senator Prosper: Yes.

Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Simons?

Senator Simons: Abstain.

Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Tannas?

Senator Tannas: No.

Mr. Labrosse: Yeas: 8; nays: 4; abstentions: 2.

The Chair: I declare the motion, as amended, carried.

Honourable senators, shall clause 2, as amended, carry?

Senator Plett: No.

Some Hon. Senators: No.

Some Hon. Senators: Yes.

The Chair: We’ll do a roll call vote.

Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Jaffer?

Senator Jaffer: Yes.

Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Batters?

Senator Batters: No.

Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Carignan?

Senator Carignan: No.

Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Clement?

Senator Clement: Yes.

Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Cotter?

Senator Cotter: Yes.

Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Dalphond?

Senator Dalphond: Yes.

Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Gold?

Senator Gold: Yes.

Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Klyne?

Senator Klyne: Yes.

Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Oudar?

Senator Oudar: Yes.

Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Pate?

Senator Pate: Yes.

Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Plett?

Senator Plett: No.

Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Prosper?

Senator Prosper: Yes.

Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Simons?

Senator Simons: Yes.

Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Tannas?

Senator Tannas: Abstain.

Mr. Labrosse: Yeas: 10; nays: 3; abstentions: 1.

The Chair: Honourable senators, clause 2, as amended, is carried.

We’ll proceed to clause 3. Senator Klyne, please go ahead.

Senator Klyne: Thank you, chair. In reference to what was —

The Chair: For reference, please go to MK-S15-3-5-4.

Senator Klyne: In reference to Senator Plett’s observation that this, too, would be another consequential amendment, I can read it if you’d like.

The Chair: Does anybody want it read?

Senator Batters: Doesn’t it need to be read in to properly propose it?

Senator Klyne: I move:

That Bill S-15 be amended in clause 3, on page 5, by replacing line 4 with the following:

“living elephant, great ape or designated animal.”.

While I’m at it, I will relay to colleagues that this is part 3 of 4 of the “Noah Clause.” This amendment adds a reference to designated animals in WAPPRIITA, being the wildlife trade statute, with complementary measures as regards import and export.

My next amendment on this subject is more extensive; it’s going into a different clause —

Okay, all right. Thank you very much.

The Chair: Anybody? Senators, there’s no further debate.

Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?

Senator Batters: No.

The Chair: Is that on division? It’s on division.

Shall clause 3, as amended, carry?

Senator Batters: No.

The Chair: Is that on division?

Senator Plett: No, it’s for a vote. Isn’t there another amendment on clause 3? Maybe it’s the same one.

The Chair: No, the next one is on —

Senator Plett: Sorry, I’ve got them in here twice.

The Chair: No problem.

Shall clause 3, as amended, carry?

An Hon. Senator: No.

The Chair: On division?

We’ll do a roll call vote.

Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Jaffer?

Senator Jaffer: Yes.

Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Batters?

Senator Batters: No.

Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Carignan?

Senator Carignan: No.

Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Clement?

Senator Clement: Yes.

Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Cotter?

Senator Cotter: Yes.

Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Dalphond?

Senator Dalphond: Yes.

Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Gold?

Senator Gold: Yes.

Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Klyne?

Senator Klyne: Yes.

Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Oudar?

Senator Oudar: Yes.

Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Pate?

Senator Pate: Yes.

Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Plett?

Senator Plett: No.

Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Prosper?

Senator Prosper: Yes.

Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Simons?

Senator Simons: Yes.

Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Tannas?

Senator Tannas: Abstain.

Mr. Labrosse: Yeas: 10; nays: 3; abstentions: 1.

Senator Plett: Maybe we could have Senator Tannas, for the record, speak loud enough so that we can all hear what he is doing. I’m sure the people in Calgary want to know how he’s voting on this.

Senator Tannas: Sure, okay. Abstain.

The Chair: Honourable senators, clause 3, as amended, is carried.

Shall clause 4 carry?

There are no amendments to clause 4. Is it on division, senators?

Senator Plett: No.

The Chair: We’ll do a roll call vote.

Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Jaffer?

Senator Jaffer: Yes.

Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Batters?

Senator Batters: No.

Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Carignan?

Senator Carignan: No.

Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Clement?

Senator Clement: Yes.

Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Cotter?

Senator Cotter: Yes.

Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Dalphond?

Senator Dalphond: Yes.

Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Gold?

Senator Gold: Yes.

Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Klyne?

Senator Klyne: Yes.

Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Oudar?

Senator Oudar: Yes.

Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Pate?

Senator Pate: Yes.

Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Plett?

Senator Plett: No.

Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Prosper?

Senator Prosper: Yes.

Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Simons?

Senator Simons: Yes.

Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Tannas?

Senator Tannas: Yes.

Mr. Labrosse: Yeas: 11; nays: 3; abstentions: nil.

The Chair: Moving on to clause 5, we have amendment MK‑S15-5-5-26 from Senator Klyne. It’s that Bill S-15 be amended in clause 5, on page 5, at line 26.

Senator Klyne: Yes, chair, thank you. I will reference again that this is a consequential amendment. The proposed amendment states:

That Bill S-15 be amended in clause 5,

(a) on page 5,

(i) by replacing line 26 with the following:

“phant, great ape or designated animal if the importation or exportation is”,

(ii) by replacing lines 29 to 31 with the following:

“(b) for the purpose of keeping the elephant, great ape or designated animal in captivity in the best interests of that elephant’s, great ape’s or designated animal’s welfare.”;

(b) on page 6,

(i) by replacing lines 4 to 6 with the following:

“(a) to possess an elephant, great ape or designated animal that is kept in captivity in the best interests of that elephant’s, great ape’s or designated animal’s welfare;”,

(ii) by replacing line 8 with the following:

“breeding of an elephant, great ape or designated animal that is kept in”,

(iii) by replacing line 12 with the following:

“breeding of an elephant, great ape or designated animal that is kept in”,

(iv) by adding the following after line 13:

“(1.3) For greater certainty, a person does not require a permit issued under this section to possess a designated animal that is kept in captivity for the purpose of

(a) providing that animal with assistance or rehabilitating it following an injury or another state of distress;

(b) protecting property or public safety in accordance with any applicable law of Canada or a province or with an Aboriginal or treaty right recognized and affirmed by section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982; or

(c) trapping activities carried out in accordance with any applicable law of Canada or a province or with an Aboriginal or treaty right recognized and affirmed by section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982.”.

Colleagues, I would just add a final clarification. This can only potentially apply to wild animals — I’m referring to the “Noah Clause” — not domesticated animals, like rodeo and stampede animals.

Senator Plett: Is that a legal opinion?

Senator Batters: First, I’m not sure what definition he’s using because there’s no such definition. It just says “non-domesticated” undefined. The only exception is “farming for food.” That’s it.

In the last few weeks, the government’s position seems to have become a lot clearer. Previously, the Senate government leader was at our clause-by-clause meetings and indicated that the government didn’t have a position on either the “Noah Clause” or this massive blowing apart of this government bill. It had previously been defined as great apes and elephants, and now has been expanded to add “designated animals,” which is extremely expansive in its inclusion. Previously, the Senate government leader said that the government didn’t have a position on it and that he was abstaining on these types of things.

Today, he may be abstaining on those certain consequential amendments dealing with designated animals, but when the vote comes to the actual full clause, which then has that amendment incorporated into it, the Senate government leader has been voting “yes.” That means that he supports it. That means that the government supports it, which is quite shocking, given that this was a confined government bill which is now massively expanded. Previously, the government has said that they weren’t taking a position on it, and now he clearly is because he’s voting “yes” to all of these clauses.

Senator Plett: To add to that, clearly, rodeo horses will be captured by this bill, and so will farm horses. If the government chooses for it to be captured by this bill, the amendments that we have will allow the government to do that, because it only exempts farm animals used for feed. That’s the only exemption. We are giving the government the right to add whatever they want. As Senator Batters has rightly pointed out, the government is sitting right in this room voting in favour of this.

I don’t know how anybody can say this will not include them — and I say this respectfully; Senator Gold can shake his head if he wants, but he’s been voting for this, which says the government supports this. Senator Klyne is saying that it will not include rodeo horses. It’s directly an untruth that it won’t include them because it will include them if the government decides that it will include them.

I’ll leave it at that. That’s definitely the danger for even somebody’s horse on his farm. If the horse isn’t to be used for feed, it could be included in this.

Senator Gold: It’s only because my name has been mentioned in these comments. Although members of the committee will be well aware of what I’m about to say, for those who are watching — so that you understand the context — on numerous occasions, government representatives or leaders will either oppose a particular amendment or, as in the case of the “Noah Clause” amendments, as I’ve explained before, the government has not taken a position on the “Noah Clause” amendments and others. That is why I abstained. However, even when the Senate committee passes an amendment which the government opposes, when it comes to the vote on the actual clauses of a government bill, the government, out of respect for the work of the Senate committee — even if it disagrees with the conclusion of the Senate committee — will vote in favour of the government bill.

For those who are watching, there is no contradiction in the fact that I voted in favour of the clause, notwithstanding that the government continues not to have a position on some of the amendments which have been passed by this Senate — the work of which this government respects.

Senator Klyne: I want to seek some clarity here. I wasn’t sure if I heard Senator Batters correctly. She referenced “non‑domesticated animals,” but what I had said is it could only potentially apply to wild animals, not domesticated animals, like rodeo animals.

Senator Plett: Also for the purpose of those people watching, I would ask Senator Gold to give me references of where any government, other than his government, has done exactly what he’s doing here: not having a decision on government bills.

I understand that they will have this on private members’ bills, where the government may occasionally oppose a private member’s bill. However, I have not, in my time, seen a government stickhandle around the way Senator Gold has on this issue — abstaining on one, voting for another, opposing another, and saying that it is normal for government leaders to do that. It is not normal for government leaders to do that.

If Senator Gold has clear examples of where any government other than his has done this, I would ask him to table those times when this has happened because I do not recall that happening.

Senator Gold: Forgive me for delaying this even further. Certainly in my time and my predecessor’s time, during the tenure of this current government, committees have voted amendments that the government has opposed, but that has not, and would not, preclude this government from continuing to support the work of the committee and show respect to it by voting in favour of the government — or the clause of the government bill, if the Senate has amended it.

And I stand by that answer.

Senator Plett: Are you suggesting, Senator Gold, that because we are opposing something, we don’t have respect for this committee? Because that’s what you just said.

Senator Gold: No, I did not, Senator Plett, and this is a distraction from the work of this committee, with all due respect. I’m simply saying that when the government, in this case, abstains on an amendment, or even sometimes opposes a motion, that is a separate question from whether or not — after the Senate committee has pronounced, and out of respect for the work that Senate committees do, the government will continue to support its bill when the clause is voted on as a whole, and that’s what I was saying.

Senator Batters: First of all, dealing with the non-domesticated issue, Senator Klyne, that’s actually from your own definition of “designated animal.” I didn’t define it. You did in your very lengthy “Noah Clause.” It says, “. . . designated animal means an animal of a species designated under section 445.4 or a non-domesticated subspecies of that species.”

It continues on after that. That was your definition. It has other points where it talks about non-domesticated animals. Nowhere in it is that further defined.

Dealing with this issue of the government leader and his stances that he’s taken here, first of all, I’m recalling this: Prior to Senator Gold being the government leader, when he was the government sponsor of the bill — I believe it was Bill C-46 — dealing with impaired driving, I brought forward an amendment to delete the part of that bill dealing with random alcohol testing. Senator Gold, as sponsor of that bill — and then that particular clause passed the Senate committee — brought forward a motion in the Senate to have that amendment that I made be deleted from the bill, and then it actually passed the Senate despite that motion. Then, the government did not accept that amendment of mine, but that’s what happened in the past.

In this sort of situation where we have the government leader at our committee abstaining at one part and then having — the reason that this is so unusual is that we actually have the government sponsor of the bill who has brought this massive amendment that really changes the entire scope of this bill, and to have that done is the part that’s so unusual. The government abstains on that because they say that they are not taking a position.

Normally, if the government sponsor of a bill were doing something so outside of what the government wanted to happen, they would probably find a new sponsor of the bill, not just continue on with everything seeming like it’s going normally. That would be the normal course of events.

The Chair: I see no more debate. Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion in amendment?

Some Hon. Senators: No.

Some Hon. Senators: Yes.

The Chair: Okay. We will do a roll call vote.

Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Jaffer?

Senator Jaffer: Yes.

Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Batters?

Senator Batters: No.

Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Carignan?

Senator Carignan: No.

Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Clement?

Senator Clement: Yes.

Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Cotter?

Senator Cotter: Yes.

Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Dalphond?

Senator Dalphond: Yes.

Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Gold?

Senator Gold: Abstain.

Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Klyne?

Senator Klyne: Yes.

Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Pate?

Senator Pate: Yes.

Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Plett?

Senator Plett: No.

Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Prosper?

Senator Prosper: Yes.

Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Simons?

Senator Simons: Abstain.

Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Tannas?

Senator Tannas: Abstain.

Mr. Labrosse: Yeas: 7; nays: 3; abstentions: 3.

The Chair: Honourable senators, I declare the amendment carried.

Senators, the next amendment is BC-S15-5-5-27, and it is moved by the Honourable Senator Clement that Bill S-15 be amended in clause 5.

[Translation]

Senator Clement:  

That Bill S-15 be amended in clause 5,

(a) on page 5, by replacing line 27 with the following:

“(a) in connection with a scientific research program for conservation purposes or with a”;

(b) on page 6, by replacing line 10 with the following:

“gram for conservation purposes; or”.

Honourable senators, this is my third and last amendment, and it is related to another proposed amendment to the Criminal Code that was adopted at a previous meeting.

This amendment seeks to limit the scope of scientific research authorization unless it is connected to conservation.

I will go back to the testimony that I quoted when I presented the first amendment. I quoted a letter dated April 2, 2024.

[English]

— Animal Justice, the Toronto Zoo, Assiniboine Park Conservancy, Wilder Institute/Calgary Zoo, Humane Canada, Humane Society International, World Animal Protection, Zoocheck, the Granby Zoo and the Jane Goodall Institute. I quote:

We also believe the public interest would be better served by clearly defining “conservation science” as referenced in the Bill. The intent of the bill is to end the breeding of legislated species unless there’s a conservation benefit but this needs to be defined. Conservation science and research work being done with non-domestic animal species in human care must clearly connect to improving the long-term viability of species in the wild. Most are seeing significant declines in populations; many are threatened or nearly extinct in their traditional ecosystems. In this world with rapidly changing human development, habitat loss and climate, they face a very dim or potentially a non-existent future.

[Translation]

I want to first point out that the amendment to the Criminal Code was adopted, so, in order to keep things consistent, we also need to adopt this amendment. Basically, a permit could be issued under this legislation, but issuing that permit would be considered a criminal offence under the Criminal Code, so I think we need to be logical and consistent and support this amendment.

[English]

The Chair: Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion in amendment?

Some Hon. Senators: No.

The Chair: On division?

Senator Plett: No.

The Chair: Okay. Let’s have a roll call vote.

Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Jaffer?

Senator Jaffer: Yes.

Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Batters?

Senator Batters: No.

Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Carignan?

Senator Carignan: No.

Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Clement?

Senator Clement: Yes.

Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Cotter?

Senator Cotter: Yes.

Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Dalphond?

Senator Dalphond: Yes.

Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Gold?

Senator Gold: Abstain.

Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Klyne?

Senator Klyne: Yes.

Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Pate?

Senator Pate: Yes.

Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Plett?

Senator Plett: No.

Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Prosper?

Senator Prosper: Yes.

Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Simons?

Senator Simons: Yes.

Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Tannas?

Senator Tannas: No.

Mr. Labrosse: Yeas: 8; nays: 4; abstentions: 1.

The Chair: I declare the motion in amendment carried.

There is another amendment: DNP-S15-5-6-13.

Honourable senators, shall clause 5, as amended, carry?

Some Hon. Senators: No.

Some Hon. Senators: Yes.

Senator Batters: Recorded division, please.

Senator Plett: No. Vote.

Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Jaffer?

Senator Jaffer: Yes.

Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Batters?

Senator Batters: No.

Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Carignan?

Senator Carignan: No.

Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Clement?

Senator Clement: Yes.

Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Cotter?

Senator Cotter: Yes.

Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Dalphond?

Senator Dalphond: Yes. For those of you listening in Calgary, yes.

Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Gold?

Senator Gold: Yes.

Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Klyne?

Senator Klyne: Yes.

Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Pate?

Senator Pate: Yes.

Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Plett?

Senator Plett: No. For those who are listening in Calgary, some of us support you and your rodeo.

Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Prosper?

Senator Prosper: Yes.

Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Simons?

Senator Simons: Yes. For those of you listening in Calgary, I hope you have water soon.

The Chair: Senators, let’s not add anything.

Senator Plett: I agree.

The Chair: You added it.

Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Tannas?

Senator Tannas: Abstain.

Mr. Labrosse: Yeas: 9; nays: 3; abstentions: 1.

The Chair: Clause 5, as amended, is carried.

Honourable senators, shall clause 6 carry?

Some Hon. Senators: No.

Some Hon. Senators: Yes.

The Chair: Is that on division, senators?

Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Jaffer?

Senator Jaffer: Yes.

Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Batters?

Senator Batters: No.

Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Carignan?

Senator Carignan: No.

Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Clement?

Senator Clement: Yes.

Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Cotter?

Senator Cotter: Yes.

Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Dalphond?

Senator Dalphond: Yes.

Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Gold?

Senator Gold: Yes.

Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Klyne?

Senator Klyne: Yes.

Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Pate?

Senator Pate: Yes.

Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Plett?

Senator Plett: No.

Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Prosper?

Senator Prosper: Yes.

Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Simons?

Senator Simons: Yes.

Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Tannas?

Senator Tannas: Yes.

Mr. Labrosse: Yeas: 10; nays: 3; abstentions: nil.

The Chair: Clause 6 is carried without amendment.

Honourable senators, shall clause 7 carry?

Some Hon. Senators: Yes.

Some Hon. Senators: No.

The Chair: On division?

Senator Plett: No.

The Chair: Okay. We’ll do a roll call vote.

Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Jaffer?

Senator Jaffer: Yes.

Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Batters?

Senator Batters: No.

Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Carignan?

Senator Carignan: No.

Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Clement?

Senator Clement: Yes.

Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Cotter?

Senator Cotter: Yes.

Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Dalphond?

Senator Dalphond: Yes.

Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Gold?

Senator Gold: Yes.

Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Klyne?

Senator Klyne: Yes.

Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Pate?

Senator Pate: Yes.

Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Plett?

Senator Plett: No.

Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Prosper?

Senator Prosper: Yes.

Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Simons?

Senator Simons: Yes.

Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Tannas?

Senator Tannas: Yes.

Mr. Labrosse: Yeas: 10; nays: 3; abstentions: nil.

The Chair: Honourable senators, clause 7 is carried.

Honourable senators, shall clause 8 carry?

Some Hon. Senators: No.

Some Hon. Senators: Yes.

The Chair: We’ll do a roll call vote.

Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Jaffer?

Senator Jaffer: Yes.

Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Batters?

Senator Batters: No.

Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Carignan?

Senator Carignan: No.

Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Clement?

Senator Clement: Yes.

Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Cotter?

Senator Cotter: Yes.

Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Dalphond?

Senator Dalphond: Yes.

Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Gold?

Senator Gold: Yes.

Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Klyne?

Senator Klyne: Yes.

Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Oudar?

Senator Oudar: Yes.

Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Pate?

Senator Pate: Yes.

Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Plett?

Senator Plett: No.

Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Prosper?

Senator Prosper: Yes.

Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Simons?

Senator Simons: Yes.

Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Tannas?

Senator Tannas: Yes.

Mr. Labrosse: Yeas: 11; nays: 3; abstentions: nil.

The Chair: Honourable senators, clause 8 is carried.

We’ll now proceed to clause 9. I understand Senator Simons has an amendment: PS-S15-9-8-15. It is moved by Senator Simons that Bill S-15 be amended in clause 9, on page 8.

Senator Simons: I move the following amendment:

That Bill S-15 be amended in clause 9, on page 8,

(a) by replacing line 12 with the following:

“(a) any of sections 11.1 to 11.3; or”;

(b) by replacing lines 15 to 17 with the following:

“subsection 22(1).”.

To translate that, if you look at “Offence” in the bill, under amended section 22.01(1) of WAPPRIITA, it says:

Every person commits an offence who contravenes

(a) any . . . sections . . .

(b) any provision . . .

(c) a term or condition of a permit issued under subsection 10(1), (1.1) or (1.2).

Here is the potential concern with that. As it stands right now, WAPPRIITA has the regime for the suspension and cancellation of permits issued under the act, and the minister may suspend or revoke a permit or any portion of it for any reason, including where a permit holder violates a term or condition of the permit.

This is a standard legislative approach to allow permits and licences to be handled administratively outside the criminal regime. But there has been no indication that the current system of the act has proved insufficient in holding permit holders to their obligation.

The concern is to create a criminal offence without parliamentary oversight because it is being handled differently. This amendment to the bill would remove proposed paragraph (c) of section 22.01(1) of WAPPRIITA, which would make it an offence to contravene a term or condition of a permit issued under the act. A violation of the act itself or any regulation would still be considered an offence. That is not touched by this amendment.

It is a question of how much confidence we want to have in any proposal to subject persons to potential imprisonment for the violation of a rule that will be created on a case-by-case basis by a minister or an administrative official acting in their stead. My staff has conveniently provided me with this quote from John Paul Salembier’s Regulatory Law and Practice, third edition:

The potential for discrimination is inherent in any subdelegation that permits rules to be established on a case‑by-case basis. Subdelegation that allows for discrimination under a permitting regime is particularly objectionable from the point of view of the rule of law because since the procedural requirements relating to the publication of regulations are avoided, the existence of any such discrimination may never become known.

In other words, I think there is a risk that similar persons in similar situations may be treated differently under discretionary powers, and that no one should risk jail or prison time for that differing treatment unless there is a strong justification, which I don’t think has been provided by the bill before us. That’s the gist of the amendment. I would love to have the officials weigh in on whether they think that is a reasonable analysis.

Stephanie Lane, Executive Director, Legislative Governance, Environment and Climate Change Canada: I can speak to that. As Senator Simons noted, there are already provisions that allow for the minister to vary a condition of a permit. This was added as a proposal to expand the abilities for enforcement officers to look at specific terms and conditions of permits, and treat those as offences. They are regulatory offences under WAPPRIITA, and they were included in the section for less serious offences. The terms and conditions of permits were not considered the more serious offences under WAPPRIITA.

Mr. Godlewski: My colleagues from Environment and Climate Change Canada spoke very well on that. I would only add one minor thing: If we are talking from a broader perspective, this would not be the only place where there would be an offence for failing to comply with a permit in Canadian law more broadly. One example is the Species at Risk Act, which has a provision where there is an offence for failing to comply with a permit. There are other examples as well. The Species at Risk Act offence is punishable by both summary conviction and indictment, and is subject to a series of potential penalties. That would be the only thing that I would add.

Senator Gold: The government cannot support this amendment, respectfully. My understanding is — and I would ask the officials to confirm — that the amendment proposed would apply much more broadly than just to permits issued for elephants and great apes; it would also apply to the violation of other permits under WAPPRIITA, and could have an impact on other permits issued by the Minister of Environment. In the government’s view, the bill’s penalty structure does not raise any concerns, and, as I believe the officials just noted, it is very common to have significant penalties in regulatory regimes so as to encourage compliance with the obligations. Again, if you could confirm, officials, as you have done, that it is quite common for there to be administrative provisions that allow for the removal of permits, but if that mechanism is not appropriate for the removal of permits to allow offences for violations — this is not without precedent, and the government opposes the amendment. If I got anything wrong, please correct me.

Ms. Lane: That is correct that it will apply to other permits as well. It is a new provision that would include — in the less serious offence provisions — the contravention of a term or condition of a permit.

Senator Gold: Thank you.

Senator Plett: I find this humorous, and it’s completely unrehearsed. I was wondering why we supported the amendment. Obviously, it’s because the government leader is opposed to it, I guess. It’s a good enough reason for us to support it.

This amendment, in our opinion, effectively removes the impact of additional offence created under WAPPRIITA, as Senator Simons has rightfully expressed concern over this in committee. We believe it is a good amendment. We are certainly supportive of it. But if the government doesn’t want it, the government will get their way. I’m not quite sure what they want nowadays, but we are supportive of it.

The Chair: Anyone else? I don’t see any further debate, so we’ll do a roll call vote. I’m not voting.

Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Batters?

Senator Batters: Yes.

Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Carignan?

Senator Carignan: Yes.

Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Clement?

Senator Clement: No.

Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Cotter?

Senator Cotter: No.

Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Dalphond?

Senator Dalphond: No.

Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Gold?

Senator Gold: No.

Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Klyne?

Senator Klyne: No.

Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Oudar?

Senator Oudar: No.

Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Pate?

Senator Pate: Yes.

Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Plett?

Senator Plett: Yes.

Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Prosper?

Senator Prosper: No.

Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Simons?

Senator Simons: Yes.

Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Tannas?

Senator Tannas: Yes.

Mr. Labrosse: Yeas: 6; nays: 7; abstentions: nil.

The Chair: Senator Simons’ amendment is defeated.

Honourable senators, shall clause 9 carry?

Some Hon. Senators: No.

Some Hon. Senators: Yes.

The Chair: We’ll do a roll call vote.

Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Jaffer?

Senator Jaffer: Yes.

Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Batters?

Senator Batters: No.

Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Carignan?

Senator Carignan: No.

Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Clement?

Senator Clement: Yes.

Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Cotter?

Senator Cotter: Yes.

Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Dalphond?

Senator Dalphond: Yes.

Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Gold?

Senator Gold: Yes.

Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Klyne?

Senator Klyne: Yes.

Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Oudar?

Senator Oudar: Yes.

Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Pate?

Senator Pate: Yes.

Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Plett?

Senator Plett: No.

Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Prosper?

Senator Prosper: Yes.

Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Simons?

Senator Simons: Yes.

Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Tannas?

Senator Tannas: Abstain.

Mr. Labrosse: Yeas: 10; nays: 3; abstentions: 1.

The Chair: Honourable senators, clause 9 is carried.

Honourable senators, we will proceed to clause 10. Shall clause 10 carry?

Senator Plett: Chair, are there any other amendments between this clause and clause 15?

The Chair: I have one more amendment from you.

Senator Plett: That’s clause 11? Oh, I apologize. Go ahead, chair.

The Chair: Shall clause 10 carry?

Some Hon. Senators: No.

Some Hon. Senators: Yes.

The Chair: We’ll do a roll call vote.

Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Jaffer?

Senator Jaffer: Yes.

Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Batters?

Senator Batters: No.

Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Carignan?

Senator Carignan: No.

Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Clement?

Senator Clement: Yes.

Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Cotter?

Senator Cotter: Yes.

Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Dalphond?

Senator Dalphond: Yes.

Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Gold?

Senator Gold: Yes.

Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Klyne?

Senator Klyne: Yes.

Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Oudar?

Senator Oudar: Yes.

Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Pate?

Senator Pate: Yes.

Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Plett?

Senator Plett: No.

Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Prosper?

Senator Prosper: Yes.

Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Simons?

Senator Simons: Yes.

Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Tannas?

Senator Tannas: Yes.

Mr. Labrosse: Yeas: 11; nays: 3; abstentions: nil.

The Chair: Honourable senators, clause 10 is carried.

Honourable senators, there is a new clause.

The following is moved by the Honourable Senator Plett.

Senator Plett: This deals with the coming into force. I move:

That Bill S-15 be amended on page 9 by adding the following after line 40:

“Coming into Force

11 This Act comes into force on a day to be fixed by order of the Governor in Council, but that day may not be earlier than the first anniversary of the day on which it receives royal assent.”.

Senators, as I said, this amendment establishes the coming‑into-force date.

This legislation carries very significant impacts on zoological institutions, which have hundreds of thousands of visitors a year. The scale of operation requires time to prepare and pivot. This amendment will give both the industry and the government an opportunity to plan and adapt to those changes.

I would note that Bill S-241 had a coming-into-force date of 180 days, and Bill S-218 — the original Jane Goodall bill — had a coming-into-force date of one year. So Jane Goodall thought one year was the right amount.

I believe the original one-year time frame is a reasonable length of time to provide the industry with the opportunity to transition their business plans. Considering we are only dealing with two species, it can currently take up to three years just to get a permit to move these animals.

I would also note that there is no urgency in passing this legislation, as all of the great apes in Canada are currently in approved facilities and only one zoo in Canada has long-term plans to retain its elephant herd population. Therefore, I believe this is a reasonable amendment under the circumstances.

I would be surprised if our government supported something I’m suggesting, but hope springs eternal. I hope they will be able to support this.

Senator Klyne: Colleagues, I will oppose this amendment and ask you to do the same.

Very quickly for the record, Bill S-241 was coming into force right away, and six months for only a few species.

This amendment would delay coming into force for a minimum of one year, and leave it to the discretion of the executive to bring into force any of the bill’s measures relating to captive wildlife. With the timing results of a federal election being unpredictable, this amendment therefore creates the possibility that Parliament would not, in fact, provide any legal protections for captive wildlife. As we have heard from independent witnesses, that would be a disastrous missed opportunity in terms of preventing animal cruelty and protecting public safety where Canada, in fact, has the opportunity to lead the world with Bill S-15.

In addition, even a one-year delay would risk responsible breeding or a fire sale of exports of social and emotional creatures such as elephants. We have heard uncontested evidence that, in 2021, African Lion Safari did not hesitate to try to break up two mother-daughter pairs of elephants who normally stay together for life, offering them to a Texas zoo for $1 million each. Given an extra year to organize with a prohibition looming, how might such an organization deal with their $17 million in elephants?

I urge you in the strongest possible terms to please vote against this amendment.

Thank you.

Senator Batters: I may have some further comments later, but I have a question for Senator Klyne on this. You mentioned that Bill S-241 did have a longer coming-into-force date — I think you said six months — for a few species. What were those species? Were they great apes or elephants?

Senator Klyne: I cannot recall, but I do recall that in my speech there was some reference there.

Senator Batters: Could you please see if perhaps someone could find that out for you? Because if it is great apes and elephants, that is what this bill is actually about.

Senator Klyne: My full recollection right now is just wolves. There were some others associated, but wolves were part of the few species.

Senator Plett: Senator Klyne is mistaken when he suggests that giving owners a minimum of one year for coming into force will in any way incentivize bad behaviour — things such as stocking up on animals that are to be banned. I would argue, as I did on my earlier subamendment, that incentivization is actually the opposite. Bill S-15 diminishes the value of the listed species. It does not increase that value. Therefore, there is no incentive to try to stock up on animals. Owners will be faced with impending criminal liability for their animals and may wish to divest themselves of these as soon as possible — and this takes time. People will not just be able to get rid of their animals. There won’t be room for them.

For those who want to keep their animals, the legislation will require changes to their animal care since breeding will no longer be permitted. It may require changes to holding facilities and ranges. Animals will need to be separated or other interventions taken to prevent breeding. Additional veterinary expenses are likely to be incurred. To ensure a smooth transition — for the sake of the animals — one year is, indeed, a very narrow window.

Owners of the listed species will need to determine if they will qualify for a federal permit or a provincial licence to provide them with an exemption. For some, this might be an easy calculation, and for others — again — this will take significant time. There is no upside to enacting this legislation quickly, and there is a significant downside for the animals and the owners. Owners will need time to determine if they want to continue keeping these animals — knowing that the market for them is about to be reduced to almost zero — or if they need to find a new home for them.

Senator Tannas pointed out at committee that when it comes to additional species being added, this legislation could easily cause far more harm to the animals than help. Owners, the industry and the animals will benefit from a one-year window. If we’re concerned about the animals, the animals will benefit from a one-year window. Rather than creating an incentive to acquire more of that species, a change in legal status creates an urgent incentive for people to divest themselves of animals before the government shuts the door completely.

I’m happy that Senator Klyne believes that, clearly, there will be a change of government coming up. I support that. I would support it at the earliest opportunity. But to try to pass this legislation, he admits to wanting to rush this through so that this government can do this really quickly. This is a government that is in a minority situation. We could have an election call tomorrow. We have a budget vote coming up. The government could fall on that budget vote. I don’t think we want to have the coming into force here in the next couple of days. The weakest of the argument is that we could have an election coming up so let’s rush this through. If this is good legislation, then surely a government — if there is an election — would agree that this is good legislation, and would enforce it.

There is no downside and only an upside to waiting the year. We are making it very difficult. We have heard from witnesses right here how difficult it is to get permits to do anything.

We’re creating legislation here that is going to cost thousands of animals to have to be moved somewhere, and we’re not wanting to give people time to do anything. Let’s just rush this through as fast as we can. Let’s not confuse ourselves with facts. Let’s just move it through quickly.

Again, as I said, hope does spring eternal. I hope that senators will at least realize that there is no immediate urgency, and that we can at least consider this very sensible amendment. Thank you.

Senator Gold: The government does not support this amendment. We believe it arbitrarily postpones the implementation of the act and delays, therefore, the phasing out of captivity of the species targeted, ultimately extenuating the suffering of such animals.

The Chair: Senators, I see no other speakers. Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion in amendment?

Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.

Some Hon. Senators: No.

The Chair: We’ll do a roll call vote.

Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Jaffer?

Senator Jaffer: No.

Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Batters?

Senator Batters: Yes.

Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Carignan?

Senator Carignan: Yes.

Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Clement?

Senator Clement: No.

Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Cotter?

Senator Cotter: No.

Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Dalphond?

Senator Dalphond: No.

Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Gold?

Senator Gold: No.

Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Klyne?

Senator Klyne: No.

Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Oudar?

Senator Oudar: Yes.

Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Pate?

Senator Pate: Yes.

Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Plett?

Senator Plett: Yes.

Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Prosper?

Senator Prosper: Yes.

Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Simons?

Senator Simons: Yes.

Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Tannas?

Senator Tannas: Yes.

Mr. Labrosse: Yeas: 8; nays: 6; abstentions: nil.

The Chair: Honourable senators, I declare the motion carried.

Shall clause 11, as amended, carry?

Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.

The Chair: Do we need a roll call vote? No.

Senator Dalphond: Madam Chair, before you proceed to the title, I would like to revert to clause 1. In the French text, I would like to correct the three lines that should not be there.

The Chair: Honourable senators, are you willing to go back to clause 1?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

Senator Dalphond: The amendment is just to correct the typo in the French text.

The Chair: Couldn’t that be done at steering?

Senator Dalphond: No. We have to remove words.

Senator Plett: I’d like to remove some words too. Go ahead.

Senator Dalphond: Well, to me, it’s no more than a mistake. In your case, it’s different.

It’s in clause 1, on page 3. It doesn’t affect the English part; it relates to the French part of the bill.

I move:

That Bill S-15 be amended in clause 1, in the French version of paragraph 445.3(5)(d.1) added by previous decision of the committee, by replacing “un éléphant, un grand singe ou un animal désigné” with the following:

“un animal désigné”.

If you compare the English and the French, the words “elephant” and “great ape” are found in the French version; and, in the English version, you find only the words “designated animal.” To avoid any kind of inconsistency, I suggest that we remove them from the French text.

The Chair: Is any clarification needed, senators?

[Translation]

Senator Carignan: Is it the English version that is incorrect or the French version?

Senator Dalphond: The French version.

Senator Carignan: Why are you saying that the French version is incorrect?

Senator Dalphond: Because the English version refers only to the designated animal, while the French version refers to elephants, great apes and designated animals.

Senator Carignan: Should we not also list elephants and great apes? That would mean that the English version is incorrect.

Senator Dalphond: No. I think that the English version is correct, because that is already covered. This is set out in paragraph (3). We are talking about paragraphs (3) to (5.1).

[English]

The Chair: Is there any other need for clarification? I see none.

Honourable senators, will Senator Dalphond’s amendment carry?

Senator Plett: His changing of this? Yes.

The Chair: I don’t hear any nays, so your amendment is carried.

Senators, I see that it’s almost 1:40 p.m., so we will adjourn clause-by-clause consideration of this bill for now.

Senator Batters has a motion.

Senator Dalphond: We have finished all the provisions. Now we should be reverting to the preamble and the title?

The Chair: Next time, yes.

Senator Carignan: And observations.

The Chair: Yes, and observations. We will do that next time.

Senator Dalphond: If we are ready to proceed further, I’m going to withdraw the observation that we should wrap it up today.

The Chair: There are still a lot of amendments to the preamble.

Senator Dalphond: Okay, fine.

The Chair: We will adjourn clause-by-clause consideration of this bill for now.

Senator Batters has a motion.

Senator Batters: Thank you. I move that Senator Brent Cotter be chair of the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs effective August 19, 2024.

The Chair: And Senator Clement seconds it. Any debate, senators?

Senators, I see that there is no debate, so I declare the motion carried.

Senator Cotter, congratulations.

Senator Cotter: Thank you.

The Chair: Senators, we will continue with this next week. Thank you very much for all your hard work, and I’ll see you next week.

(The committee adjourned.)