Moved the adoption of the report.

He said: Honourable senators, I rise to speak to the 25th report of the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee. It was presented by former Senator Jaffer on June 20, 2024. The report deals with 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. This bill is a government bill whose sponsor is Senator Klyne. Senator Plett is the bill’s critic. The bill was much debated in committee and substantially amended before its return to this chamber.

As experienced senators will know, it is my duty to present the report, including amendments to the bill, with an explanation of the purpose and effect of each amendment. This rule assumes that you have an encyclopedic memory of the bill when it was referred to the committee, prior to any amendments. Everything I say next will be natural to you. I confess to lacking that quality of memory, so I will take a moment to give you a sense of the bill in its original form and then provide an expansion of the amendments in that context.

The bill is referred to colloquially as the “Jane Goodall bill,” although as some of you having received emails last evening, it could be called the “Cher bill.” As its original preamble made clear, the bill seeks to expand protection for and regulation of wild animals in captivity by prohibiting the keeping in captivity of certain wild animals, specifically great apes and elephants; preventing their breeding in captivity with certain exemptions; and subjecting violators to sanctions set out in the criminal law. As well, the bill would establish a regime under the authority of the Minister of the Environment for the issuing of permits to keep great apes and elephants in captivity for specific purposes related to an animal’s welfare, conservation or for scientific purposes; and second, for the establishing of the terms under which the animals may be imported, exported and transported.

The original bill was 10 pages long and would generate amendments to both the Criminal Code and the Wild Animal Plant Protection and Regulation of International and Interprovincial Trade Act to achieve those objectives. The bill was referred to committee on March 19, 2024, and the committee began its study on April 10. In all, the committee spent 20 hours and 30 minutes on the bill during 12 sessions, of which 5 were for clause-by-clause consideration. Forty-eight witnesses appeared, we received 33 written briefs and, most days, our 12‑member committee swelled to 14 voting members.

In total, 23 amendments to the bill were proposed; 15 were adopted, 13 to the bill and 2 to the preamble. Amendments were proposed by Senators Klyne, Plett, Clement, Batters, Simons, Dalphond and myself. Debate on the bill was “dynamic,” shall I say, and then senator Mobina Jaffer, serving as the chair of the committee, acquitted herself well in guiding us through its consideration.

I turn now to the amendments adopted by the committee. I think it will be more helpful if I describe the amendments and their implications rather than reading them out to you.

First, with respect to the preamble, Bill S-15’s original preamble stated that Parliament recognizes that public opinion regarding the captivity of certain non-domesticated animals has evolved. The Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs amended the preamble to remove that statement.

As originally drafted, the preamble also stated that:

. . . Parliament is of the view that the science establishes that certain animals, particularly elephants and great apes, should not, because of the cruelty it represents, be kept in captivity;

The committee removed the reference to “science” and the specific focus on elephants and great apes for a reason that will be evident shortly. It also amended the language to add a reference to the risk to public safety in addition to the risk of cruelty.

These amendments to the preamble align with other amendments to the bill adopted by the committee.

Turning now to the substance of the bill, I will begin with clause 1. The most significant amendment to the bill — introduced by Senator Klyne, the sponsor, at clause-by-clause consideration — was the introduction of a “Noah Clause.” The “Noah Clause” language is intended to make reference to Noah’s Ark, and you will see the significance of it as I try to describe it. The “Noah Clause” would authorize the Governor-in-Council — which is cabinet — to designate other non-domesticated species of animals in captivity, such as non-native big cats, to be subject to the same protections and prohibitions as elephants and great apes that are outlined in Bill S-15. The non-domesticated species that could be identified are open-ended, hence the reference to Noah and the ark.

This amendment would allow the Governor-in-Council, by regulation, to restrict or prohibit the captivity, importation or breeding of these other types of animals without passing another bill or bills similar to Bill S-15. These designations, under the structure of the amendment, would be based on the best available scientific, veterinary, animal care or animal welfare information and would be subject to several criteria related to animal characteristics while kept in captivity.

Animals used in farming for food purposes in Canada would be exempted and cannot be designated.

Clause 1 also amended and added other exceptions related to the possession of future designated animals, such as lawful captivity to protect property or public safety and for trapping activities.

Finally, the wording of the exception pertaining to the authorized possession of an elephant, great ape or designated animal in the context of veterinary care was amended to allow for captivity when the animal is kept for the purposes of providing it assistance or rehabilitation following an injury or other state of distress.

Furthermore, the committee amended clause 1 to add two additional mechanisms related to transparency and accountability when designating animals in captivity.

First, the Minister of the Environment and Climate Change would be required to give public notice six months prior to their recommendation on the designation of new species to give an opportunity for stakeholders to make representations and allow the industry to adapt. Second, mandatory consultations must take place with representatives of the zoo industry, wildlife biologists, animal care experts and provincial representatives responsible for animal welfare, as well as representatives of persons or groups who hold Aboriginal, Indigenous or treaty rights recognized and affirmed by section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982.

In amending this clause, the committee also added two reporting obligations for the minister related to the consultations undertaken and any evidence supporting the proposed designation of new species. There is a requirement to then table this report before each house of Parliament and to make it publicly available on the department’s website.

In addition, the committee amended clause 1 to specify that the use of an elephant, great ape or designated animal for conveyance — in other words, as a means of transport — would constitute a criminal offence. Their use for entertainment in a performance is already prohibited by Bill S-15. This amendment would aim to explicitly ban elephant rides in Canada.

As I mentioned, the original bill listed a few exceptions authorizing possession, breeding, impregnating or allowing the natural breeding of legislated species, including when it is in the best interests of animal welfare or in connection with a scientific research program or conservation program.

Reflecting concerns that the current wording of “scientific research” was too broad, the committee amended clause 1 to clarify that the scientific research program must be conducted for conservation purposes, emphasizing the connection of the research with improving the long-term viability of species in the wild.

With respect to the definition of “great ape,” the committee replaced the original definition to specifically list the species that fall under this definition. The new definition specifies that a great ape means any species of the genera Gorilla, Pan or Pongo, including gorillas, bonobos, chimpanzees and orangutans.

Another section regards court orders in the best interests of the animal. The offences created in Bill S-15 are punishable on summary conviction and carry a fine of up $200,000. In addition to the existing forfeiture and sentencing provisions in the code, the committee amended clause 1 to specifically authorize sentencing courts — this is not a requirement but a power that the court could use — to order that the offender at their own expense carry out certain measures that are in the best interests of the animal involved in the offence or any other animals of the same or closely related species in the offender’s possession. These measures could include but are not limited to the modification of physical or social conditions in which an animal is kept, an animal’s relocation to another facility or sanctuary or forfeiting ownership of the animal and surrendering it to a welfare authority.

There are a series of consequential amendments to align the bill with other elements of the Wild Animal and Plant Protection and Regulation of International and Interprovincial Trade Act and the relevant administrative permitting process that is captured there.

Finally, with respect to other amendments, the committee amended clause 11 — we’re now past clause 1 — establishing a coming-into-force date of one year after the date the bill receives Royal Assent. This delay would allow the industry to adapt their operational facilities to comply with the new criminal and regulatory regime for elephants and great apes in captivity.

Let me conclude: The committee engaged in vigorous, robust debate and discussion, something that seems to happen when a 14-person committee meets. Following lengthy clause-by-clause consideration of the bill and amendments — as I mentioned, there were 23 proposed amendments, with 13 adopted during clause‑by‑clause reading under the leadership of the then-chair of the committee, former Senator Jaffer — the bill was adopted by the committee in this amended form. Thank you.