Honourable senators, I rise today to speak to Bill S-241, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Wild Animal and Plant Protection and Regulation of International and Interprovincial Trade Act, which relates to great apes, elephants and certain other animals. This is more simply titled the Jane Goodall act.

I want to speak briefly on the process and the timeline of the bill and add my support for the bill receiving further study at committee. As you will recall, the bill has three key goals: first, to protect wild animals in captivity; second, to improve public safety; and third, to promote wildlife conservation.

The bill, in the absence of meeting new requirements, would prohibit the acquisition and breeding of over 800 species at roadside zoos, including for big cats, bears, wolves, many primates, seals, sea lions, walruses, crocodiles, anacondas, venomous snakes and more. It would also phase out elephant captivity in Canada. With our cold weather, it’s not hard to see why keeping them in captivity is not the best practice for elephant welfare.

For those wild animal populations currently in captivity, the bill would grandfather — or grandparent — them in, and they would remain in place. New captivity breeding and exports would require permits from the federal or relevant provincial government, with only the federal government able to authorize transport across boundaries. Such licences could be granted for animals’ best interests regarding individual welfare and conservation or for non-harmful scientific research, and there would be conditions applying.

The bill would also ban performance for entertainment and elephant rides unless licensed by a provincial government, also subject to potential conditions.

In addition, Bill S-241 would create a transparent and accessible legal framework for animal care organizations, such as high-quality zoos, aquariums and sanctuaries which must meet five criteria in order to obtain a federal licence to breed or relocate individuals of affected species. These five criteria include the following: first, administering the highest professionally recognized standards and best practices of animal care; second, providing whistle-blower protection; third, refraining from activities that misrepresent or degrade captive wild animals, such as performances for entertainment; four, acquiring wild animals in a manner that does not harm wild populations; and five, maintaining any other standards established by the minister following expert consultations based on the best available scientific veterinary animal care or animal welfare information.

Our former colleague Senator Sinclair introduced the Jane Goodall act two years ago. Senator Klyne, our sponsor of this new version, spoke to Bill S-241 in March of this year. We have heard eight speeches on the bill since then, with debate time totalling over two and a half hours.

Colleagues, this makes Bill S-241 the most debated non-government bill at this stage in the Senate in this Parliament. To put it simply, we could describe here the zoo bill moving at a snail’s pace. I’m just checking to see if you were listening there.

Our debate will soon benefit from a critic’s speech as we move forward to the first vote. I acknowledge and appreciate that our friend and critic Senator Plett has been visiting many zoos in preparation, as he has indicated, but in considering the bill, we will also need to hear the views of animal scientists and other experts. This includes the world-renowned Dr. Jane Goodall and many other scientists and experts eager to contribute, including representatives of animal welfare organizations.

As with any other bill, the appropriate venue for fair and open consideration of evidence is a committee study; a study would help us wrap our arms around the key issues, and there are some big ones that this bill lays out.

As Senator Cordy noted on October 4, our committees are available to hear from witnesses now, and we should take this opportunity while we can. For that reason, I’m in favour of moving this bill expeditiously to a second reading vote and committee study. The Jane Goodall act continues the good work of this chamber for wild animals, and that includes the work of Senator MacDonald on shark fins and that of former senator Wilfred Moore and Senator Sinclair with Bill S-203, the Ending the Captivity of Whales and Dolphins Act.

If passed, this bill would create the strongest legal protection in the world for wild animals in captivity. I would also note that the greater protection for wilder animals in captivity is reflected in the Minister of Environment and Climate Change’s mandate letter, as is attention to wildlife trafficking, reflecting Canadians’ democratic support for these policies.

We know from correspondence and social media that many Canadians and people around the world, including young people especially, are following the Senate with a close interest in the Jane Goodall act. The public is wondering about next steps, as are some of us in here. As such, this bill is an opportunity to demonstrate to Canadians and members of Parliament the Senate’s thoughtful work and collegial process.

Before his retirement, Senator Sinclair spoke to this chamber again of his vision for a Senate that becomes Canada’s council of elders. To realize this, he told us we should bring greater fairness and transparency to our debates and decisions on behalf of Canadians. Let’s live up to that ideal, colleagues, in our deliberations on the only legislation that Senator Sinclair singularly authored. It has since been further developed by Senator Klyne, who has our thanks. I add my voice to those of many colleagues eager to move to our first vote and a committee study on the Jane Goodall act. Thank you for your attention.

I do have questions, if Senator Dean would take a question or two.

I will do my best.

Thank you, Senator Dean.

It struck me as a bit odd that Bill S-241 basically turns over the accreditation standards of Canadian zoos to an American accreditation body known as the Association of Zoos & Aquariums, or AZA.

There is currently a bill, Senator Dean, before the U.S. House of Representatives called the SWIMS Act. This bill would prohibit the breeding and the importation and exportation of orcas, beluga whales, false killer whales and pilot whales for the purpose of public display in the U.S. This is very similar to rules which Canadian zoos and aquariums are already required to abide by. The U.S. is not, however.

The AZA, Senator Dean, is opposing this bill in the U.S.

Senator Dean, can you tell me why you would want to turn over the accreditation standards of Canadian zoos to an American accreditation body that does not even support the existing Canadian standards?

I could simply say, Senator Plett — thank you very much for the question — that the AZA is considered to have higher standards than its Canadian counterpart. The proponents of the bill and those who support it were very much in favour of adopting the AZA standards. I have no idea why the AZA takes this position, if indeed they have so. I can’t help you on that.

On the question of why the AZA is mentioned in this bill, it offers the highest standards available, and that’s what the proponents were looking for.

Well, of course, there are people saying that AZA meets a higher criterion. CAZA, Canada’s Accredited Zoos and Aquariums, are strongly denying that, and there is no evidence of any kind that AZA, in fact, does that. I want to continue, at least if for no other reason than getting this on the record, and I will speak to this in due course.

The AZA is vehemently opposing the SWIMS Act and is warning its members that if this legislation passes, it will soon be extended to include animals such as elephants, great apes, big cats and other species. They are urging their members to act now to communicate to Congress that this legislation establishes a dangerous precedent. This is AZA — the organization that is so much better than CAZA — warning their representatives in the U.S. that they do not want this to happen to elephants, big cats — something that Jane Goodall is coming into Canada to promote, but not the U.S.

Senator Dean, can you explain to me why we would turn over our accreditation standards that are not superior — that some people are telling you are superior but are not superior — to an organization that not only doesn’t support our own current standards but is actively opposing the requirements opposed by zoos by Bill S-241?

Thank you, Senator Plett, for the follow-up questions. They are very good ones. My sense is this: The bill is at second reading. We are here to discuss the principles of the bill and its goals and objectives, and I have tried to outline those for us today. I would welcome submissions from the AZA and its Canadian counterpart and experts in this matter to come to committee, debate, explore and educate us on these very questions that you raise.

Perhaps the best thing for us to do is to get to a second-reading vote, get us into committee, and then we can wrap our arms around these sorts of details. I would like to be able to answer those questions today but I can’t. I think they can be adequately answered at committee, so let’s move this thing along and explore those and other issues together in the way we should.

Thank you very much for raising these questions with me today.

One final question, maybe more of a comment than question: You mentioned in your speech that I was travelling around to different zoos and aquariums, and I indeed have done that. I have been in Kelowna at the kangaroo zoo, the Calgary Zoo, the Assiniboine Park Zoo, Parc Safari, Granby, here at Parc Omega.

Every speaker in this chamber has the absolute right and, in fact, the duty to say the things that they believe, and so I’m not wanting to take anything away, but it seems there is always something being alluded to that somebody is maybe delaying this legislation. Do you not think that the proper way as well would be, though, Senator Dean, for both the critic and the sponsor to do what I have been doing and visit all of these zoos before we go to committee so that we have all the information that we can have before we go to committee? Because, indeed, I think over the years it has been shown here that I indeed support most of — if not all — legislation going to committee. I believe that is where this chamber does its best work, at committee.

I’m going to do that, but not before I have visited as many zoos and aquariums as I think will help to educate people here about the zoos. Is Senator Dean’s time up?

Are there others wanting to ask questions? I will finish.

Senator Dean, do you not think that it’s appropriate to find as much information as we possibly can before we take it to committee so we can all speak with as much knowledge as possible?

We all have to do what we have to do, and you must do that, too. I am sure I will not be able to discourage you from that. I would say again that I think it’s important that we get this to committee. I’m happy for you to visit as many zoos as you wish, obviously.

Maybe you want to join me.

On this matter, I can tell you that I am much happier sitting here and hearing long questions than providing lengthy answers. You must do whatever you wish. I am not going to return to my snail’s pace analogy, but yes, we do what we do. I believe that the place for technical questions and to examine the detail of a bill is at committee, but I don’t discourage you from going wherever you like and looking at whatever you would like to look at.