THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON LEGAL AND CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Wednesday, November 27, 2024
The Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs met with videoconference this day at 4:20 p.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 Brent Cotter (Chair) in the chair.
[Translation]
The Chair: Good afternoon, honourable senators. Welcome to this meeting of the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs.
[English]
My name is Brent Cotter, and I am a senator from Saskatchewan and the chair of the committee. I invite my colleagues to introduce themselves, beginning with the deputy chair.
Senator Batters: Denise Batters, Saskatchewan.
Senator Plett: Donald Plett, Landmark, Manitoba.
[Translation]
Senator Carignan: Good afternoon. Claude Carignan from Quebec.
Senator Oudar: Manuelle Oudar from Quebec.
[English]
Senator Arnot: David Arnot, Saskatchewan.
Senator Klyne: Good afternoon. I’m Marty Klyne, a senator from Saskatchewan, Treaty 4 territory.
Senator Simons: Senator Paula Simons, Alberta, Treaty 6 territory.
[Translation]
Senator Dalphond: Pierre J. Dalphond from the De Lorimier division of Quebec.
Senator Moreau: Pierre Moreau from the Laurentides division of Quebec.
Senator Audette: [Innu-Aimun spoken]. Michèle Audette from Quebec.
Senator Clement: Bernadette Clement from Ontario.
[English]
Senator Pate: Kim Pate. I live here on the unceded, unsurrendered and unreturned territory of the Algonquin Anishinaabeg.
The Chair: Colleagues, welcome, and welcome Senator Moreau. I would highlight for you that Senator Klyne is with us. He is the sponsor of the bill. He is not officially a member of the committee, but I hope it would provide you comfort in him having timely opportunity to contribute to the debate if there is any.
We are meeting today in response to Speaker’s ruling of October 10, 2024, initiated by Senator Plett, who is with us, to re-examine 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, with amendment and observations.
As you may recall, the twenty-fifth report, the one dealing with this bill, was struck from the Orders of the Day and, together with Bill S-15, was returned to the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs to work with the bill to bring it into line congruent with the Speaker’s decision on the point of order.
As such, our committee has been mandated to correct the report by removing the elements that are beyond scope, making the necessary adjustments and present a new report to the Senate that respects the scope of the bill. If I may say, a small exercise in surgery, performed by lawyers, which is something of a risk, if I may say.
Given the complexity and rarity of this process, your steering committee conducted a thorough review of the twenty-fifth report to remove elements that were deemed out of scope, in accordance with the Speaker’s ruling.
This revised report was shared with all members. It contains suggested strike-through elements and amendments that are related to “Noah’s Clause.” Only one element remains highlighted, raising the question of whether it, as a short passage and an in-scope element of an otherwise out-of-scope amendment, should be retained in the revised report. That is, in the exercise of introducing the amendment that was ruled out of scope, there is a small provision that your steering committee judged worthy of consideration by the committee for inclusion in the bill as opposed to exclusion. I will come to that at such time as you like. You may be familiar with it already.
The steering committee felt, on this question at least, beyond the overall question of whether you are satisfied with the surgery that was performed to remove the out-of-scope elements, that it would be best to bring this question of the small passage that I’ve described to the full committee for your discussion and decision as to whether it should be included in the bill that we report to the Senate, or whether we should leave it out.
We will be now seeking your viewpoints on the revised report and, to the extent that you wish to comment, on the small provision that we’ve identified for you that could be included.
In light of the fact that Senator Plett was the initiator of the point of order that invited us to do this work, pursuant to the Speaker’s direction, I will invite him to speak first with respect to the decision and the report that we need to provide.
Senator Plett: Thank you, chair. It is our opinion that, clearly, that paragraph with assistance or rehabilitating following injury or other state of distress was, indeed, part of the clause that the Speaker ruled was out of scope. I’m not going to belabour this matter, Mr. Chair.
Our preference would be that it be removed, but it is certainly not a hill that we are prepared to die on or fight. It would be our request and our desire that it be deleted, but it doesn’t do a whole lot to the bill one way or the other; that is my opinion. I will simply leave it at that and accept the will of the committee.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Plett. Before I invite other comments, since you were the initiator of the bill’s returning to us in this unique way, are you able to say that you are otherwise satisfied with the excisions that have been done?
Senator Plett: Yes, I am; thank you very much. We are very happy with it.
The Chair: Any other comments on the work to excise the out-of-scope provision and maybe, at the same time, the point about the one small provision that we invited consideration of for inclusion?
Senator Dalphond: Just a question of precision: Senator Plett, would you mind indicating whether it is on page 1 where you wanted to delete something?
Senator Plett: It is the top of page 4, the highlighted portion.
Senator Dalphond: Oh, in yellow?
The Chair: It is basically a kind of enriched line that came from the out-of-scope amendment, and the question is whether it should still be kept or should also be thrown out with the rest of the bathwater, if I may say.
While you are studying it, maybe I can invite Senator Simons to intervene.
Senator Simons: I want to make certain that I am understanding this. One of the amendments that I was very keen on was taking out the line about cruelty, because it felt like a value-laden judgment in the preamble. Is that still out?
The Chair: Look at the very beginning of the material in the preamble, Senator Simons. In the preamble, the very first provision is what has now been reduced to the phrase “risk of animal cruelty,” and we took out the lines “and the risk to public safety.” The reference now is not animal cruelty but risk of animal cruelty.
Senator Simons: So that stays?
The Chair: I think this was debated in the earlier go-round extensively, independent of the introduction of “Noah’s Clause” that was ruled out of order. Senator Dalphond, are you okay?
Senator Dalphond: That’s fine.
Senator Batters: I wanted to bring up, so the committee is aware, that this is a relatively small situation that Senator Plett was discussing, but I wanted to draw everyone’s attention to what it actually would do.
It starts at the bottom of page 3 of the material that was provided. What is being proposed is to replace line 9 with the following: “with assistance or rehabilitating it following an injury or another state of distress.” What that little part would replace is the words — if you look at page 3, line 9 of the bill — “with veterinary care.” If we do not include this — what we contend is still out of scope because it is part of that larger “Noah’s Clause,” which was declared out of scope — the act would then say “with veterinary care” instead. It is not a massive distinction, and that’s what’s being involved here.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Batters.
Senator Klyne: In terms of what I’m hearing right now, I have no odds with that at all. I agree with Senator Plett’s perspective on that. In one way, I’m happy to see that something like that is in there because it would be of human nature for someone to want to offer animal welfare and care rather than being a standby.
The Chair: I’m not offering a legal opinion, but to some extent, this might be a slight expansion. It is not just getting veterinary care. This provides, as I understand the bill, an exception to the rule about no captivity. This expands it all. It expands the ability of people to retain elephants and great apes in captivity for a slightly larger purpose. In a way, I think Senator Plett would be open to that development, but as a matter of principle, we are getting rid of the out-of-scope stuff, and so it should go as well. Is that a fair description?
Senator Plett: Yes, it’s a fair description; thank you.
The Chair: Senator Klyne, does that cover your intervention?
Senator Klyne: I’m fine, thank you.
The Chair: Can I take a bit of a straw vote on whether you want to keep the original language with respect to veterinary care, or whether you would like to see that slightly enriched language that we’ve just been discussing? Is there a sentiment for its preservation in the original form or in the slightly amended form?
Senator Plett: Well, yes. Chair, I am entirely in your hands, but if you’re asking for a suggestion or a motion, I would suggest that we go with the original version.
The Chair: Why don’t we take that as a motion — that we will keep the original version — and treat the idea of voting on that so that then we’ll know what the whole package will look like?
Any other commentary on it? Senator Simons, would you like to comment on this specific point?
Senator Simons: I think the expanded wording not only is better but would actually give more peace of mind to people who own elephants, but not at the expense of derailing a convivial compromise.
I like your phrase “enriched language.” I think it actually makes the bill stronger, but this is not something about which I’m prepared to go to the mattresses.
The Chair: We are about to vote, but since you are the sponsor, Senator Klyne, are you comfortable with going back to the original wording on this?
Senator Klyne: Well, we were comfortable with it then, and I don’t see any issues with keeping it there, particularly from the perspective of Senator Plett. I am following his perspective because I agree with it.
The Chair: Seeing no opposition, let me invite your support or opposition to Senator Plett’s motion about going back to the original version of that short passage.
Those in favour of keeping the original version?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Opposed? I think it is unanimous in that respect.
Senator Simons: On division.
The Chair: On division? What a thrilling opportunity for you. Okay.
Colleagues, can we then contemplate the whole report as you have it, with the understanding, based on that motion of Senator Plett’s that was adopted, that the tiny provision that we just talked about would go back to the original version, and that would form the total report that we would adopt? All those in favour?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Senator Plett: I would say this, chair, since we opposed the bill from the start: I’m happy with it — I want that noted — but we are still not happy with the bill, so I will just simply say, “on division.”
The Chair: The report is then adopted on division. Thank you, colleagues.
We have a little bit more work to do.
Is it agreed, colleagues, that the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel be authorized to make necessary technical, grammatical or other required non-substantive changes as a result of the amendments adopted by the committee, in both official languages, including updating cross-references and renumbering provisions?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Thank you.
Is it agreed that the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure be empowered to approve the final version of the report in both official languages, taking into consideration today’s discussion and with any necessary editorial, grammatical or translation changes, as required?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Thank you.
Is it agreed that I present the new report for Bill S-15 to the Senate in both official languages?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Thank you, colleagues. That concludes our business today. Senator Dalphond?
Senator Dalphond: If I may, I would take a few more minutes to say that Senator Moreau, who is sitting next to me, will be taking over my seat on the committee. He will also be joining the steering committee of this committee. I’m sure you will be in very good hands, and you will be happy to not see me for a while, but I may be back any time I want because I am an ex officio member of all the committees. I think that this man, who was even in charge of the Department of Justice, might be a good contributor to your work in the future.
[Translation]
I’m sure you’ll appreciate it very much, and you’ll benefit from his presence. Thank you all. I was on this committee with you for seven years. I’ve really appreciated all the work I’ve done, including with the help of the people at the Library of Parliament, our clerks, who have always been exemplary, and our chairs, with whom I’ve had great pleasure working. I know I’m leaving, but I’m not abandoning you, Mr. Chair; you’re the one leaving us.
[English]
The Chair: We have no doubt. On behalf of the entire committee, Senator Moreau, welcome. After Senator Dalphond leaves, we will communicate to you our great relief that he’s gone.
More seriously, we know, Senator Dalphond, that you will have opportunities to return to this committee from time to time, but at this point, I want to thank you on behalf of all of the committee for your service here. We look forward to seeing you on those occasions when you appear back here, under the leadership, no doubt, of a different chair.
Senator Carignan: I could pay tribute to Senator Dalphond, but in camera.
[Translation]
Senator Moreau: I’m listening to Senator Dalphond’s words, and I know I’ll still be under surveillance. More seriously, you’re all aware of Senator Dalphond’s great contribution to this committee. I’m not replacing him; I’m following him with great humility. I hope to be able to contribute at a level comparable to that of Senator Dalphond. I look forward to working with all members of the committee. I can assure you, Mr. Chair, that I will fully cooperate. I want to thank the members of the committee for welcoming me to such a fine team.
[English]
The Chair: Thank you, senator. That brings this meeting to a close — a record fast conclusion, if I may say. We are such a busy committee that it is, in one respect, unfortunate.
Senator Pate, you don’t have any bills in your back pocket that you would like to examine?
Senator Pate: Sure. I told Senator Plett a second ago.
Senator Simons: I wondered if we could get a little hint of what is next. Is it the statutory repeals?
The Chair: That’s correct. We will do that somewhat unique motion concerning the non-repeal of some statutes that were about to be repealed, and a cast of thousands will arrive. We have a little bit better system for that tomorrow. Material has been prepared in relation to each of those not-to-be repealed provisions, and that has been circulated to all committee members. We will not be inviting people to present the story or the reasoning for those. Officials will be available for questioning.
The plan at this end of the table is to invite them to come in groups of five, so we can hopefully be a little more expeditious. If I may say so, from the previous time, it was a terrific learning experience about how some aspects of the government work but also a little exhausting, if I may say. We have tried to streamline it this time. I think we will still be able to do that in the two-hour session we have.
Then we are turning back to a couple of the C-bills that we have been considering, in particular Bill C-321. We will look at Bill C-321.
Senator Simons: That’s the emergency workers bill?
The Chair: Yes, it is a bill on emergency workers provisions, a private member’s bill that came from the House of Commons. We have had quite a bit of evidence on that, but the consideration was interrupted as a result of consideration of the government bills.
Then, we have a second one in that regard, and then we have a series of other Senate public bills that are still in the hopper, to which we will turn unless we get other work sent our way.
This is an opportunity for me to mention in Senator Plett’s presence that there is also the question of whether the pilot project sought by the Chief Electoral Officer will be referred to us. If it is, we will try to deal with that expeditiously. That still remains in the Senate.
Senator Simons: That’s for the — on the ballots?
The Chair: That’s correct. I hope that is helpful. We will see you all tomorrow, I hope. Thank you very much for the consideration of this bill.
(The committee adjourned.)