Bill S-203 (Historical)

Ending the Captivity of Whales and Dolphins Act

An Act to amend the Criminal Code and other Acts (ending the captivity of whales and dolphins)

This enactment amends the Criminal Code to create offences respecting cetaceans in captivity. It also amends the Fisheries Act to prohibit the taking of a cetacean into captivity and the Wild Animal and Plant Protection and Regulation of International and Interprovincial Trade Act to require a permit for the import of a cetacean into Canada and the export of a cetacean from Canada.

Cruelty to Animals

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am really honoured to submit this petition on behalf of the students of Forest Run Public School and residents of Ontario within the riding of the hon. member for Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill. This petition is very close to my heart, because Bill S-203 is the bill that bans the keeping of cetaceans in captivity. I was honoured to be one of the movers of that effort, along with a number of wonderful senators.

This orca whale has been held in solitary confinement since 2011 at Marineland in Niagara Falls. Her name is Kiska. She needs to be moved to a more suitable and healthy location.

We forget sometimes in this place that petitioners do not have to be 18 years and older. Petitioners can be under 18 as long as they are Canadian citizens, and it is inspiring to see young people mobilizing to bring their voices to this place.

The petitioners ask us to do what is needed to move Kiska to a safe and healthy natural facility.

Animal Welfare

[Leah Taylor Roy, Liberal, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am presenting this petition today on behalf of the students of Forest Run Public School and residents of Ontario who have brought to my attention the plight of Kiska, the orca whale, who has been held in solitary confinement, in poor health, in a concrete tank since 2011 at Marineland in Niagara Falls.

These students, teachers and others in our province want to ensure that Kiska is moved to a more suitable and healthy location. The ideal location would be the Nova Scotia whale sanctuary, and they ask that we support that project. Until it is ready to accept whales, they ask us to help Kiska have a better life, where she can live in a facility that can rehabilitate her and ensure her interaction with other orcas and cetaceans.

To achieve this, they ask the Government of Canada to remove the grandfather clause in Bill S-203, which allows Marineland to retain ownership of Kiska and possibly use her for entertainment purposes.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank the teachers, the principal and the students at Forest Run Public School for their hard work in advocating for Kiska, for putting forward acts of artistry and for the petition, which received over 700 signatures.

Ending the Captivity of Whales

[Leah Taylor Roy, Liberal, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the plight of a 45-year-old female has been brought to my attention by Judith Goldberg, a principal in my riding. Teachers and students at Forest Run school are passionate and determined to do something about this situation. They have created art and a website, and ultimately circulated a petition.

This female has been kept captive for over 40 years. Pregnant five times, each time she lost her child and was left to mourn on her own. She lives alone in a concrete space with little room to move about. I visited the school and spoke with some of the students. One young boy looked at me, confused, and pleadingly asked, “What if someone did that to us?”

The 45-year-old female is named Kiska. She is an orca whale, a sentient being like us. She is highly intelligent and sensitive, and is currently being held captive at Marineland.

In 2019, the House passed Bill S-203 to end the captivity of whales, but Kiska was not released. Her misery was grandfathered in. She could live somewhere, such as the Nova Scotia Whale Sanctuary, and have decades left if we do not allow her to die first due to her confinement. Judith and her students know it is wrong for us to condone this in 2022. It is past time for us to do the right thing.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

I now call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 29 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans.

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2) and the motions adopted on October 19, 2020, and April 21, 2021, the committee is meeting on its study of the state of the Pacific salmon.

I would like to advise members that I will be carving out about 10 minutes towards the end of the meeting to do a little scheduling information.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, pursuant to the House order of January 25, 2021, and therefore members can attend in person in the room and remotely by using the Zoom application. The proceedings will be made available via the House of Commons website. So you are aware, the webcast will always show the person speaking, rather than the entirety of the committee.

For the benefit of our witnesses, I would like to outline a few rules to follow.

Members and witnesses may speak in the official language of their choice. Interpretation services are available for this meeting. You have the choice, at the bottom of your screen, of “Floor”, “English” or “French”. With the latest Zoom version, you may now speak in the language of your choice without the need to select the corresponding language channel. You will also notice that the platform's “raise hand” feature is now in a more easily accessed location on the main toolbar, should you wish to speak or alert the chair.

For members participating in person, proceed as you usually would when the whole committee is meeting in person in a committee room. I believe everybody is here by Zoom, so I don't need to go through that.

I'll give a reminder that all comments by members and witnesses should be addressed through the chair.

When you are not speaking, your mike should be on mute.

Now I would like to welcome our witnesses for today.

We have, from the Watershed Watch Salmon Society, Aaron Hill, executive director; from the Tl'azt'en First Nation, Darren Haskell, president of Fraser Salmon Management Council; from the Pacific Salmon Foundation, Jason Hwang, vice-president; from the B.C. Wildlife Federation, Jesse Zeman, director of fish and wildlife restoration; and from the Government of British Columbia and no stranger to this committee, Fin Donnelly, parliamentary secretary for fisheries and aquaculture.

I'd like to welcome Mr. Donnelly back to this committee and thank him for his hard work in the past in making sure we passed Bill S-238, which dealt with shark fin importation, and of course Bill S-203, which dealt with captivity of whales and dolphins. Mr. Donnelly played an important role in getting that passed, not only in this committee but through the House as well.

Welcome back, Mr. Donnelly, to familiar territory, except you're not in the committee room as usual.

Diabetes Awareness Month

[Nick Whalen, Liberal, St. John's East, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to have this opportunity today to rise and speak in favour of Motion No. 173 to create November as diabetes awareness month. People at home might be wondering why I have an opportunity to speak to this motion, given that it is close to the hearts of so many members of Parliament. I am sure they would be interested to know that my own private member's bill was preempted by work that was already being done by the House of Commons Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage.

I have had the opportunity to share my private member's bill with a number of members in the House. The member for Surrey—Newton and I were able to work together to make sure that his Sikh Heritage Month bill made it to the Senate and was passed by both Houses in time for declaration prior to the rising of the House.

I was able to work with the member for Cumberland—Colchester, on a couple of occasions, to make sure that his private member's bill for the repatriation of indigenous artifacts was also able to get through the House and be called into law.

People might be aware that in the last few weeks, the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands was able to get Bill S-203, on preventing the captivity of whales and dolphins, through the House by my offering my slot to her on one occasion, and with one of the members from the New Democratic Party.

Therefore, when the member for Brampton South asked if I could help with providing an opportunity to get to second reading on her private member's bill, I was more than happy to help.

One of the reasons is that I have a close connection to diabetes in my family. Just over three years ago, my cousin Jimmy Grouchey passed away from complications of type 1 diabetes, alone in his home in Arizona. Both of my parents come from large post-World War II families. My mom had nine siblings growing up, and my dad had four siblings and two half siblings. The family we were closest to were the Groucheys, because we shared a summer home together. We would vacation together in the summertime, where Jimmy, Christina, David, Jennifer, Jon, Dan and I would have a really great time.

People with diabetes have to manage their disease, and certainly when they are living on their own, complications can result. Jimmy was always a go-getter, fun-loving and free-spirited. With the moratorium on the cod fishery, like many Newfoundlanders, he moved abroad to pursue his career. He had different careers, in sociology, as a patent agent, and in 2009, he became a nurse. He worked in North Carolina and then finally in Arizona.

Lack of awareness about this disease and the complications associated with it can be devastating for families. Jimmy passed away from that. He would have turned 50 on Monday of next week. I wanted an opportunity to tell Jimmy's story and share with the House that families can be affected by this. It is not just statistics; they are individuals and families like mine.

Our government recognizes the impact that diabetes has on roughly three million Canadians who live with it and the 200,000 new cases that are diagnosed each year. I would like to thank the member for Brampton South for her work in bringing this forward to the House. It is important to recognize and raise awareness about it.

By having awareness of diabetes front and centre, fewer people will succumb to the complications. Fewer people will allow themselves to get to the point where they develop type 2 diabetes. More people can have access to prevention methods. More people will have access to care. While friends may not be aware that they have type 1or type 2 diabetes, the month itself will provide an opportunity to have that discussion, to let people know some of the symptoms of someone who might be in an insulin crisis and how to provide them with the help they need.

Our government has been supporting various measures. In 2016-17 alone, we invested $47 million in diabetes research. We recently announced a $30-million partnership with the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation. There are various members in the House who have helped to coordinate the multi-party caucus that led to this. It is not just those on this side of the House who are in favour of diabetes research.

When the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation comes to the Hill, members from all parties are present to listen to the stories of the ambassadors selected for their work in their cause across the country. It is great to meet those 10-year-olds, eight-year-olds, children of all ages who come from our ridings across the country to Parliament Hill to advocate for their cause. I am happy to participate with members on this side of the House, and I am sure that members from all sides of the House are happy to do so as well.

Also, in partnership with organizations in the private and non-profit sectors, as well as other levels of government, we are testing and scaling up interventions in communities across the country to prevent chronic disease, including diabetes. These interventions focus on common risk factors such as unhealthy eating and on physical activity.

Our government will continue to strongly support healthy living and diabetes prevention, including healthy eating, physical activity and smoking cessation. In thinking about my own health, I remember when the member for Brampton South had an opportunity to encourage some special medical testing on the Hill last year for members of Parliament, through the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation.

I had the opportunity to go to this mobile trailer, which provided heart rate monitoring, blood glucose level monitoring and a survey questionnaire, and members of Parliament who had a chance to participate had a deep dive into their health. The results of that were very interesting, and I learned a lot about what I could do to make myself healthier, but also how I could help my kids lead healthier lives as well. They are both far fitter than I am, and when we go jogging they are often about a minute a kilometre ahead of me, but they get me out. We also try to make sure we maintain an appropriate balance of carbohydrates, fats and proteins in our diet. I would like to thank the member for Brampton South for the opportunity to have that extra teaching here on the Hill.

According to the Canadian Chronic Disease Surveillance System, supported by the Public Health Agency of Canada, over three million Canadians, or 8.6% of the population, have diagnosed diabetes. Diabetes is a chronic disease that occurs when the body loses its ability to produce or to properly use insulin, a hormone that controls blood glucose levels.

Canada is famous for its role in the early work on determining that lack of insulin is the cause of diabetes, as well as treatments to provide insulin to people who are suffering with diabetes so they can have that cure. Canada is the perfect place to recognize November as diabetes awareness month. It is probably long overdue; it probably should have happened at the same time when the cure was found.

I am thankful for the work of the member for Brampton South. I encourage all members of this House to support this private member's motion. It would provide Canada an opportunity to yet again raise public awareness, encourage additional research and funding for diabetes, and remember family members like Jimmy Grouchey, a family member of mine who passed away just over three years ago and who would be turning 50 next week.

Fisheries Act

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise today to speak to Bill C-68, which would amend the Fisheries Act. I will be splitting my time with my good colleague and friend from South Okanagan—West Kootenay.

It has been a positive week for our oceans. Monday, Bill S-203 was passed, which would end cetaceans in captivity. There was also an announcement to ban single-use plastics, although we are waiting for the details. It has been a progressive week.

Now we have Bill C-68, an opportunity to fix the gutting of the Fisheries Act under the Conservatives. I am glad this place has an opportunity to do even more work to ensure that aquatic environments are safeguarded, which should be our priority as parliamentarians.

The bill would restore protections for all fish across Canada, protections that were previously removed by the Conservatives six years ago. This could have been changed sooner. We wish it had been done sooner, but we are glad it is being done now and we welcome changes to this bill.

Fish stocks are in decline in many parts of the country, as we know, especially on the west coast. It is due, in large part, to the negative impacts of human activity on fish habitat and the health of water bodies overall. Bill C-68 would put back into place legal protections needed to conserve fish habitat and the aquatic environment in a manner consistent with the minister's mandate to restore lost protections and introduce modern safeguards to the Fisheries Act.

With respect to the specifics, Bill C-68 would first and foremost compel the minister to consider any effects that decisions under the Fisheries Act might have on the rights of indigenous peoples of Canada and authorize agreements to be made with indigenous governing bodies. It is so important that the work we do embeds these protections and the rights of indigenous communities.

Pacific salmon are a primary food source for culture and the economy of indigenous peoples and people in coastal communities. The government has taken steps to help incorporate the rights and traditions of indigenous peoples to support their economic and cultural sustainability. I am very proud of the determined and continued stewardship of the indigenous communities in our country, especially on the west coast and in my riding. We really need their input and local knowledge to do this work; it is absolutely essential.

I want to share with the House a couple of comments.

Nuu-chah-nulth Tribal Council president, Dr. Judith Sayers, said that while Bill C-68 may not be everything Nuu-chah-nulth would like to see, it was a fulfillment of the Liberal promise to undo the damage the previous government did to the act. She said that habitat restoration was critical for their fisheries to remain sustainable so they may continue to exercise our rights and that the inclusion of indigenous wisdom was a start to recognizing their laws and knowledge systems. She did highlight, though, the need for co-management and the need to work toward that.

Eric Angel, the fisheries program manager for Uu-a-thluk, which is a Nuu-Chah-Nulth fisheries program, said:

The changes to the Fisheries Act under Bill C-68 are the most important amendments to federal fisheries legislation in a hundred years. Nuu-chah-nulth are very concerned that these proposed changes become law. The restoration of habitat protection that was stripped out of the Fisheries Act under the Harper government is absolutely critical. We are facing a crisis on the west coast with the destruction of salmon habitat and we desperately need this legislation to be able to force government to do a better job of looking after fish habitat. The proposed act also contains some small but important steps towards recognizing the laws and traditional knowledge systems of First Nations.

It is important to move forward with this. We know water is sacred. We, as parliamentarians, are coming to better understand that. We have a commitment to improve the ecology, especially the habitats that surround indigenous communities in coastal communities, as well as their important rights, ensuring their local knowledge and leadership in their traditional territories are respected. They have taken the lead on water issues. In my riding and many indigenous communities, the bill would directly and positively affect them.

Bill C-68 would also modernize measures to protect fish and fish habitat in ecologically significant areas and establish standards and codes of practice, a public registry and create fish habitat banks initially by different projects. This bill would also allow the minister to establish advisory panels and to set fees, including for the provision of regulatory processes, and allow the minister to make regulations for the conservation and protection of marine biodiversity.

We are happy to see clauses that build greater oversight over what companies do to fish habitats. It would allow the minister to stop companies from putting down anti-salmon breeding mats and protect the stock of coastal salmon.

The New Democrats are pleased to see that after so many years of trying, the bill would prohibit the import and exportation of shark fins. We have been working incredibly hard to ensure this practice is a thing of the past.

I want to thank my colleague and friend, the hon. member for Port Moody—Coquitlam, for his tireless efforts to make this happen, both in Bill C-68 and through Bill S-238. I also want to thank the members of the fisheries and oceans committee, who have taken the time to look at the issue closely.

The fact remains that shark populations, both in Canada and abroad, are at significant risk. My office has heard from many ordinary citizens, as well as conservation experts, who feel strongly about the effort to protect shark populations from needless slaughter. We have spent enough time over several parliaments looking at the issue and this is a critical juncture for us to act.

Along the same vein, this bill would further enshrine the ban on the capture and captivity of cetaceans, which I mentioned earlier. I am so grateful to the House for its support of Bill S-203 on Monday. It shows that the House is an active participant in changing the dialogue on marine conservation, and also on animal rights. I am pleased this bill gives us an opportunity to reaffirm that participation.

Bill C-68 would strengthen the enforcement powers and establish an alternative measures agreements regime, which includes $284 million over five years to enforce the protection of habitat wherever fish are present. This bill would allow the minister to stop or limit fishing for a period of 45 days to address the threat to the proper management and control of fisheries so the conservation and protection of fish is maintained.

Bill C-68 goes beyond just restoring the protection and habitat that were removed in the changes to the Fisheries Act in 2012. It goes as far as to include all fish in the definition of “fisheries”, and would include the rebuilding of depleted fish stocks in the Fisheries Act.

All that said, the latest suite of amendments proposed by the Senate presents some setback to the work that the House has been doing. The biggest thing that comes to mind are the changes that touch heavily on third-party habitat banking.

The creation of habitat banks has been poorly executed in the past, where first nations, municipalities and conservation organizations saw damage accumulated in their territory or watershed and the habitat bank in a neighbouring first nations territory or watershed. Therefore, it was disappointing to see these amendments, calling for the proposal of third-party banking. There was no consultation with indigenous groups, which mostly oppose it.

While I am happy to see the Liberal government is listening to some of these concerns and has proposed to remove these amendments, I am disappointed in the Liberal government for not taking the opportunity to really make a difference in protecting water flows, both upstream and downstream.

Back in the spring of 2018, when Bill C-68 was before the fisheries and oceans committee, the hon. member for Port Moody—Coquitlam proposed several amendments to strengthen the bill. These amendments included proposals that explicitly recognized that the quantity, timing and quality of water flows were vital to ensuring the free passage and the protection of fish and fish habitat. These important amendments were passed by a majority vote during the clause-by-clause review.

The Senate has not taken the issue of water flows seriously. It proposed that the addition of upstream protection was unimportant and that companies that obstructed the flow of water should do the bare minimum required to conserve populations. This was something the industry wanted. We worked with conservation groups to find a solution to water-flow issues, but the Senate only listened to the lobbyists, who cannot be bothered to be proactive partners in conservation.

What is more, the Liberals are on board with this amendment, despite the expert advice of the Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat, which pointed to the absence of legal protections for environmental flows, resulting in a situation where fisheries resources, fish habitat and the supporting freshwater ecosystems may not be consistently protected across Canada.

I am sure I could speak for a lot longer on this, but this is a great step. I have to commend the government for working together with us to repair so much of the damage left by the previous government. However, if we are to walk the path to restoration, it will take many more steps.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to once again be here to talk about the Senate amendments to Bill C-68.

I would be remiss if I did not talk about what we have witnessed over the last three and a half years, this week and last night, with the egregious affront to our democracy. It is pertinent to this discussion, because what we have seen with Bill C-68, Bill C-69, Bill C-48 and Bill C-88 is the government's attempt to subvert democracy to pass legislation that is really payback for the assistance the Liberals received in the 2015 election.

Last night, we had the debate, or the lack of debate, on Bill C-69. There were hundreds of amendments from the Senate, and the government forced closure on that debate without any debate whatsoever. Even the Green Party, in its entirety, stood in solidarity with the official opposition to vote against the government on this. That says something.

Bill C-68 is the government's attempt, in its members' words, to right the wrongs of the former Conservative government in amending the Fisheries Act in 2012. The Liberals said that the Conservatives gutted the Fisheries Act. The bill would replace the wording for HADD, the harmful alteration, disruption or destruction of fish habitat. However, we studied this. We consulted on this, and not one example was given. When pressured yesterday, throughout the last week and throughout the last year, not the minister nor anyone from the government was able to provide one example of where the 2012 changes to the Fisheries Act by the previous Conservative government led to the harmful alteration, disruption or destruction of fish habitat. As a matter of fact, despite the government's assertions that changes to the Fisheries Act are necessary to restore the lost protections for fish and fish habitat, the government's response to Order Paper Question No. 626 showed that the government had no record of harm or proof of harm to fish or fish habitat resulting from the 2012 changes.

On November 2, 2016, the then Minister of Fisheries and Oceans appeared before the fisheries committee and stated that “Indigenous people have expressed serious concerns with the amendments made to the [Fisheries Act]” and that his department was “holding face-to-face meetings with various indigenous groups and providing funding so that they can attend these meetings and share their views on the matter”. However, according to the government's response to Order Paper Question No. 943, DFO did not undertake any face-to-face consultation sessions in relation to the review of the changes to the Fisheries Act in the 2016-17 fiscal year.

The Liberals have stood before Canadians in the House and have been disingenuous. They continue to use the same eco-warrior talking points we see from Tides, Greenpeace and the World Wildlife Fund, which is essentially an attack on our natural resource sector, whether that be forestry, fisheries, oil and gas, mining or agriculture. That is what Bill C-68, Bill C-88, Bill C-48 and Bill C-69 are attempting to do. They want to shut down anything to do with natural resources.

In the Senate right now, Bill C-48 is being debated. It deals with the tanker moratorium on the west coast, yet we have double and triple the number of tankers on the east coast, but it does not matter. We do not see groups like Greenpeace, Tides and the WWF protesting those ships and oil tankers from foreign nations that have far more egregious human rights issues than what we have here in our country.

Dirty oil is flowing through our eastern seaport, but there has not been one mention of that by the government. Instead, it wants to shut down anything to do with western Canada's economic opportunities, and that is egregious and shameful, and that is why we are here today.

The Senate amendments with respect to Bill C-68 were decent amendments. They folded into Bill S-203, the cetaceans in captivity bill, and Bill S-238, the shark finning bill.

For those who are not aware of the shark finning bill, it would ban the importation of shark fins, with the exception that they must be attached to the carcass. Shark fin is a delicacy in some Asian cultures and is used in soup and medicinal products. We asked officials at committee if shark fin in any form could be imported into our country, and they replied that it could be imported in soup. That was their testimony. When pressed further on this, they said, “soup is soup”.

The whole intent of Bill S-238 is to stop the importation of shark fins so that shark fin soup may be stopped or that at least the fins would be imported into the country with the entire carcass used. That is a fairly reasonable thing to ask.

The other Senate amendments to Bill C-68 that are important are with respect to the inshore fishery. We heard time and again that the inshore fishery is important to Atlantic fishermen. Adjacency and the inshore fishery are the same thing, but the language is different on either coast. It is important to our coastal communities and fishermen who depend on fishing for their livelihood.

Another important Senate amendment is with respect to third-party habitat banking. I went into great detail about what third-party habitat banking means in terms of fish habitat. That was a reasonable amendment put forward by a Conservative, and all senators agreed with it.

Interestingly enough, before the Senate finished studying the bill, the minister directed our fisheries committee to study third-party habitat banking. Prior to the fisheries committee getting a chance to study it, the Liberals scrapped any of the third-party habitat banking amendments brought forth by the Conservative Party and agreed to by independent senators. It was an exercise in futility.

Senator Wells, who appeared before committee just the other day, said that by all accounts, it appeared that the only people who were interested in protecting fish and fish habitat were those around the table, and the only people who were against protecting fish and fish habitat with respect to third-party habitat banking were the officials. That is odd.

I want to talk again about why we are here. I spoke at length about the influence of third-party groups at the highest levels of our offices. I will remind the House that the former chief adviser to the Prime Minister, Gerald Butts, was the president and CEO of the World Wildlife Fund. The Prime Minister's new director of policy is a former top executive at Tides Canada.

Why is this important? It is important because these are the very organizations whose mandate is to shut down Canada's resources every step of the way and to tarnish Canada's natural resource sector on the world stage.

It says right on their own websites that they were going to use celebrities, their media and their influence to tarnish Canada's oil and gas and forestry to attack and landlock our resources. They have now permeated every office in this government.

In 2015, 114 third parties poured $6 million into influencing the election outcome, and many of those parties were funded by the U.S.-based Tides foundation. The World Wildlife Fund is deciding fisheries policy on the east coast.

As the shadow minister for Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard, I went to meetings with the former fisheries minister, and there were no fisheries stakeholders there. The table was surrounded by environmental groups. We are placing a higher priority on these environmental groups than we are on the stakeholders who make their living and depend on our natural resources for their economic well-being.

Late last night, I took another phone call about another mill closure in my riding of Cariboo—Prince George. I know that colleagues understand our economic plight in western Canada. We have seen a lot of emotion over the last weeks and months about the plight of the west. The reality is that we are losing our jobs, and we do not have other opportunities. It is not that we are against the environment, unlike what a parliamentary secretary said yesterday, in response to Bill C-88, which is that the Conservatives blame the Liberals for putting such a high priority on the environment. That is not true. We blame the Liberals for putting such a high priority on environmental groups, not on the stakeholders, indigenous peoples and our local communities that depend on our natural resources for well-paying jobs to provide for their families.

There are hundreds of workers in my riding and adjacent ridings, and thousands of workers across the province of British Columbia, who are waking up today to more work curtailment and job closures. That is shameful.

When the House hears our emotion and concern when we raise the issues, it is not that we are against the environment, as much as the Minister of Environment would like people to believe that. It is that these policies the government has put forth have shaken the confidence of industry. They have a real impact. They may not impact those members of Parliament from downtown Toronto or in major urban centres, but they impact rural Canadians, and that is the truth.

I am going to close by reminding the House that this House does not belong to any of us who are in here. We are merely vehicles to be the voices of the electors. There are 338 members of Parliament in this House. Last night, we saw one courageous Liberal who stood against what her government was doing. We have been placed here to be the voices of those who elected us.

Despite saying in 2015 that they would let debate reign, the Liberals have time and again forced closure and time allocation on pieces of legislation. In doing so, they have silenced the voices of the electors who have put us here.

I would like to move the following motion, seconded by the member for North Okanagan—Shuswap:

That the motion be amended by deleting all of the words after the word “That” and substituting the following:

“the amendments made by the Senate to Bill C-68, An Act to amend the Fisheries Act and other Acts in consequence, be now read a second time and concurred in.”

Bill C-68—Time Allocation Motion

[Jonathan Wilkinson, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

Mr. Speaker, let me once again provide some context for the hon. member. The bill was introduced over a year ago. It has gone through 10 days of debate in this chamber and eight days of debate at the standing committee associated with this chamber. In the Senate, there were 12 days of debate and nine days of committee debate. That is 39 days, in total, associated with debate.

After hearing all of the various perspectives, after adjusting the bill and taking account of some of the considerations that were brought forward, Canadians are now expecting us to act.

I would also say that I have enjoyed the very productive and co-operative working relationship with the former fisheries critic from the party opposite with respect to a number of elements of the bill. We are very proud to incorporate Bill S-203 and Bill S-238, relating to cetaceans in captivity and shark finning, to ensure that they are passed through the House and done in a manner that is appropriate. I have been very happy to work with the former fisheries critic from that party.

Third Reading

[Fin Donnelly, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I may have been a reluctant politician, but I quickly realized the importance of changing public policy. I have always believed that if we develop an ethic of care and stewardship for the planet and our environment, that ethic will naturally extend to all living things, including our neighbours.

I brought that approach to my 17 years of public service, 10 years federally and seven years locally, through six campaigns. This job is special, demanding but amazing.

I have had the good fortune to meet world leaders, national figures, celebrities and community heroes, like the Dalai Lama, Dr. Jane Goodall, Alexandra Cousteau, Rob Stewart, Alex Trebek, Rick Hansen, David Suzuki, Sam Waterston and Kevin Estrada to name a few.

I have participated in some incredible events, from witnessing an exoneration ceremony of powerful Tsilhqot'in leaders drumming on the House of Commons floor to taking part in a once-in-a-lifetime Canada C3 trip to deliver homemade, all-natural garden-care products by students from Parkland Elementary School to the prime minister in 2010.

I have had some proud moments, like the passing of my motion calling on the government to recognize its sacred obligation to look after veterans and their families, which passed unanimously, to co-founding the all-party oceans caucus in 2012, which I hope will continue in the 43rd Parliament.

I have led effective campaigns, like banning the importation of shark fins to Canada, which hopefully will become law very soon; my wild salmon campaign, where Captain Kirk, William Shatner, joined me to save wild salmon by transitioning west coast salmon farms to closed containment; celebrating a win, seeing the Kitsilano Coast Guard Station finally reopen; and rewarding case work.

Here is just one example. Karin in my office worked hard for 10 years, my entire career as an MP, to reunite Kabondo with his wife Emmerence. They were separated during the Congo civil war in 1998. Emmerence moved to Canada and saved enough money from her cleaning job to visit the refugee camp where he was in 2014. Finally, in 2018, the family was reunited 20 years later in Canada. I thank Canada. There were sad cases, like the tragic circumstances of little Alan Kurdi and his Syrian family.

Through it all, it has been a team effort: my family, my wife Lynda, my parents Val and Cy, my brother Liam and all my relatives and close friends, like Doug Radies. I had my NDP team: from Dawn Black, the member who passed the torch to me, to leaders like Jack Layton, Nycole Turmel, Tom Mulcair and now the member for Burnaby South.

I want to mention my teammates, current and former: my roommate, the incredible member for Vancouver Kingsway, whose quick wit and sense of humour is matched only by his generosity; my seatmate, the unstoppable member for Edmonton Strathcona; the ever-talented member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley; the knowledgeable and so-connected member for Victoria; the inspiring, youthful member for Sherbrooke; the dean of our caucus, the member for Windsor West; and all my colleagues.

I also want to mention my good friends: the mayor of Vancouver, Kennedy Stewart; B.C. premier, John Horgan; my amigos, Malcolm Allen and Jack Harris; amazing formers like Megan Leslie, Libby Davies, Chris Charlton, Joe Comartin, Denise Savoie and Jean Crowder; and the incorrigible Pat Martin, who once had to leave his seat during a vote because of an underwear sale at the Bay. I still laugh at that today.

There was our dear friend, Paul Dewar. I want to mention my political heroes, John Cashore and Dave Driscoll, local champions like Diane Thorne and Selina Robinson, community heroes like Elaine Golds, Ruth Foster, Rod MacVicar, Natalie Thomas and Fred Soofi, and first nation leaders, Shawn Atleo, Bob Chamberlain and Grand Chief Stewart Philip.

I also want to mention Legion Branch 263 and Branch 119 and my amazing campaign team, Tania Jarzebiak, Cheryl Greenhalgh, Alex Ng, and Anne Ladouceur, and my hard-working executives. There are so many incredible volunteers. There is my wonderful staff, Karin Kreuzkamp, Roberta Webster, Nick Watts and Andrew Christie, and Brynn, Mark, Coree, Sophia, Melissa, Melanie, Matt, Nicole, Natasha, Noah and Dan.

I want to mention those who helped me and working people, Jim Sinclair, Mark Hancock, Paul Moist, Ivan Limpright, Tom Dusfresne, John Baile, Geoff Devilin, Keegan Gordon, Marcel Marsolais and Kenny Neuman.

There is our team in the lobby, Rob and Jeremy, Christian, Anthony, Chuck, Audrey, Dominic and the whole gang.

There is my Rivershed Society of B.C. family and all the ENGOs that do such amazing work across our country. There are Oceana, HSI, PSF, DSF, WWF, West Coast Environmental Law and the scientific heroes like Dr. Kristi Miller-Saunders, Alex Morton and Brian Riddell.

I say to the Prime Minister, I welcome him to paddle the Fraser with me any time. I say to the member for Beauséjour, get well soon. It has been a pleasure working with him. I want to mention my oceans caucus co-chairs, the member for Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, and you, Mr. Speaker, the member for Simcoe North, true gentlemen.

There is the member for Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, with whom I traded many a verbal joust. By the way, you still owe me, my friend. There is the Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard, and the parliamentary secretary. I enjoyed working with them and their staff. There is the Minister of Environment and Climate Change, to whom I say, a swim any time.

I say to the leader of the Green Party, good job on Bill S-203. I want to acknowledge Senator MacDonald for working together to save sharks.

I thank all the security guards for keeping us safe, especially during the 2014 shooting in Centre Block. I say a special shout-out and thank you to Sergeant-at-Arms Pat McDonell and former sergeant-at-arms Kevin Vickers.

I say thank you to the clerks, pages, interpreters, committee staff, bus drivers, cafeteria staff, mail room staff, custodians and maintenance team.

Finally, to all those who are running again, I wish them the best of luck. May the 43rd Parliament come together to make Canada an even better place to live, work and raise a family. Please, please work hard to transition our country as fast as possible to a low-carbon future. Be bold. Make tough decisions. Co-operate. Put us on a path to a sustainable future.

I will be working to heal and protect the Fraser watershed, one of the most biologically diverse watersheds in North America and one of the most magnificent areas in all of Canada. To the next MP for Port Moody—Coquitlam, Bonita Zarrillo, I wish the best of luck. I look forward to seeing her here in the House of Commons.

Hych'ka O'Siem.

Fisheries Act

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Madam Speaker, I have to get back to where I was. I was on a roll too.

Instead of listening to experts, the Liberals thought they knew best. Bill C-68 proposed to restore the lost protections by returning to the previous definition of harmful alteration disruption and destruction of fish habitat, or HADD, as I mentioned in my earlier comments.

The act would also require the minister to take into account indigenous knowledge and expertise when provided, and all decisions would have to take into account the possible impacts on indigenous rights. The bill would allow for the establishment of an advisory panel and for members to be remunerated, and provides no guidance on or limitation to its use.

Bill C-68, under the part with respect to the prevention of the escape of fish, would prohibit the fishing of cetaceans with the intent to take them into captivity. This was captured under Bill S-203.

The Liberals believe that the bill will restore lost protections and incorporate modern safeguards. They think it will provide certainty for industry. They say it will provide strong and meaningful protection of fish and fish habitat. However, we know they are wrong.

When we introduced changes to the act in 2012, we did so because the former Fisheries Act was not working. The legislation was way past its best before date, a line, by the way, which the former fisheries minister used when he was describing the changes to it. The legislation was past its best before date and no one was happy with the way things were working. We acknowledged that so we made some changes.

Our common sense approach improved fisheries conservation, prioritized fish productivity, protected significant fisheries and reduced the regulatory burden on industry and communities. Again, it did not lessen any of the regulations. They were still there. They were still in place. I will go back to the Mining Association of Canada's comment that it actually increased some of the areas where under section 35 they could be found in contravention.

In 2012, the Conservative government undertook a rigorous review of and revisions to the Fisheries Act. This review was commenced for a number of reasons, and primarily that the broad scope of the definition of “fish habitat” included entire watersheds and extended the reach of the federal government into watersheds and land use planning, in which the Department of Fisheries and Oceans did not have expertise.

As a matter of fact, I believe a witness said that by the definition under the former Fisheries Act, a puddle in one's backyard could be deemed a fish habitat. Even a septic pipe that burst and led to a large pool of water in one's backyard could be deemed a fish habitat.

There was a lack of discretion for what was important fish habitat as it relates to fish productivity and what was less important. The House will not get any argument on this side that all fish are important. We must do whatever we can to ensure that we are growing fish for today and for the future.

We do incredible work on the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans by putting our partisan stripes aside. All members of that committee are able to work together to try to find common ground.

I know that might be foreign to some people in this House. I know that some members who are not on that committee from the government side are laughing and heckling at me right now. However, I can say with all honesty that our colleagues from all sides of the House are committed to finding whatever solution we can, whether it is the northern cod study, the Atlantic salmon study, the aquatic invasive study that we just completed, or our steelhead study that we have done.

We did a study on abandoned and derelict vessels that was proposed by one of our NDP colleagues. In the last sitting, it was proposed by a Conservative colleague for us to review and revise, to look at how Canada deals with its derelict vessels. In the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, that authority was not happening. Many times, communities, and in some instances individual Canadians, were left to try to deal with rusting and derelict vessels that were left in their waterways.

We do great work, and we all are focused on one thing: the protection of our coastal communities. It is not just our coastal communities, but those families who depend on our fisheries for their livelihoods and for sustenance. We are committed to trying to find a way, working through our committee, to having a full understanding of how certain pieces of legislation come through and how the government continues with its mandate.

All members, if they were polled, would say it is absolutely shameful when we have bureaucrats and officials come before us and they promise to be better. At one of my very first meetings, I walked into the committee like a bull in a china shop. It had a bit of a reputation as one of those committees that spun its wheels and never got anything done. That is what I heard, but little did I know. I met my colleague from Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa and learned of the great work he had done previously and the history that he has. I met some of my Liberal colleagues and heard from them first-hand about what goes on in their communities, and some of the concerns coming from the Rock or the east coast and from Vancouver.

I take offence on this, and some of my colleagues from the Rock know where I am going with this one. When the surf clam issue took place, the seven MPs from the Rock for the most part were silent. I am looking at my friend across the way and I know he was not. However, for the most part, the members from the Rock were silent during the whole surf clam issue. The issue was that the former fisheries minister awarded a lucrative surf clam quota to a sitting Liberal MP's brother, a former Liberal colleague. As well, we found out down the way, it was a company that was being led by the former minister's wife's first cousin. We managed to get a stop to that.

I bring that up to point out that we do great work in these committees. They are supposed to be at arm's length and masters of their own destiny in terms of the work that they do. However, on Bill C-68 on the Fisheries Act, we saw a letter that came from the minister, not asking but ordering the committee to immediately undertake a study on the changes to the Fisheries Act.

Going back to my speech, as I mentioned, there was a lack of discretion in terms of important fish habitat as it relates to fish productivity and what is less important. I got off track, but I want to reiterate that all fish are important. The inconsistencies led to difficulties in assessing an appropriate level of regulatory effort that was proportional to actual importance.

I met with front-line officers, who said that previously the act was harder to enforce. It was challenging. They needed to have some consistency. The Conservative changes made it, not easier for the proponent to get away with what they were doing, but it did make it easier because it was black and white as to what was wrong and what was right. It made it easier for the front-line officers to enforce the Fisheries Act.

Further, the lack of knowledge regarding fish populations allowed for all water bodies to be considered as fish habitat until proven otherwise, and as I mentioned, even puddles. One of the witnesses said that technically, under the former definition, a puddle could have been considered a fish habitat.

Before we introduced changes, all fish and consequently all fish habitat, regardless of economic or social value, received protection under the Fisheries Act. This created a system that was impossible to manage and impediments for most minor work. Farmers looking to improve their land or deal with flooding or other issues, or municipalities looking to install a drain, had to go through a bureaucratic process that made doing one's taxes look easy.

To top it off, there were the inconsistencies between departments. Depending on which DFO office someone went to, it could make someone want to give up on the whole process entirely.

With the restoration of “harmful alteration, disruption or destruction of fish habitat”, HADD provisions, the government is putting it back in place. It means that Canadians will once again need to deal with a set of unenforceable guidelines that will hinder the development and truly do nothing to increase fish stocks or protect valuable habitat.

We heard numerous members, over the course of our previous discussions on Bill C-68, as well as this one, talk about the restoration of lost protections. Again, they used terms such as “gutted”. To me, that is fairly offensive. I think all members of Parliament in this House sign up to do the best that we can, given the portfolios and the files we have. Some of the language that we get from across the way is quite offensive.

It is interesting. Liberals are always the ones who stand up and say that Conservatives are the most divisive bunch. They are fearmongering and they are pitting Canadians against Canadians. Do not even get me started on Liberals using reconciliation on things such as the surf clam project. Liberals stood in the House and said that it was all under the guise of reconciliation, when we knew it pitted first nation against first nation and non-first nation against first nation.

I will go back to this issue as well. The government was trying to deal with the southern mountain caribou issue that we have in British Columbia, and some of the consultations, or lack of consultation, that the Liberals have done. They basically mandated the provincial government to immediately do something, or the Liberal government was going to do a section 80, I believe it is, under the Species at Risk Act. That essentially sent fear throughout our whole province. I urge Canadians, if they get a chance, to Google the southern mountain caribou issue in the province of British Columbia. If Canadians want to see a bungled PR mess, that is it right there. The Liberals have now walked back on it.

However, this all goes back to what we were saying, that the Liberals were not listening to local stakeholders who are on the ground. Liberals believe that they know best and so this is what they are going to do. Again, I will go back to this. If we looked at the letters and requests to the minister to take action, they all came from groups that receive money from foreign-funded groups.

There is no one here who would want to see a species die off. I stood and very clearly stated my message during this whole process that the promise and trust have been broken. At one point, our federal representatives did not want to chime in, although they were the ones who were directing it. They wanted the provincial government to be front and centre, taking all the heat at all the town hall meetings.

Trust has been broken by the Liberal government time and time again. It uses terms like “reconciliation”. Just last week, a member of a first nation called me and said that “reconciliation” is not a buzzword. Unfortunately, the government and the Prime Minister have used it time and time again, and it is shameful. They do things like the surf clam and the southern mountain caribou, and do it under guise of reconciliation. If they want to do something under the guise of reconciliation, how about ending all of the boil water advisories or the suicide epidemic in first nations communities from coast to coast to coast?

Last week, the missing and murdered indigenous women's commission came out with some recommendations. The government knew that this report was coming, but did it budget anything to act on any of the findings? There was nothing.

When we talk about Bill C-68, we are talking about trust. Time and again, the government has broken the trust of Canadians. It promised to have only small deficits and that it would balance the budget by 2019. We are in 2019. Liberals always like to blame those who came before them. It is quite shameful. They have been in government now for four years. It is about time that they take some leadership and ownership of the problems they have created themselves.

We have heard a number of members opposite talk about the restoration of lost protections. We know from the recounting of testimony from witness after witness that there were no lost protections from the previous government's changes.

The former minister of fisheries and oceans said, “Canada is uniquely blessed with an abundance of freshwater and marine coastal areas that are both ecologically significant and linked to the economic prosperity of Canadians.” I could not agree more on this. Canada has the longest coastline in the world. What I do not agree with is the assertion that protections were lost.

The Liberal changes to the Fisheries Act would lengthen the regulatory process, provide unclear and weaker rules to establish and manage ecologically significant areas, and simply put, return us to a destabilization that will prove to be cumbersome and unmanageable. The former minister noted that he wanted to re-establish public confidence, and yet the amendments he proposed to the bill would do nothing. The bill we got back from the Senate had some good amendments that strengthened the bill to a certain extent, and yet the Liberals gutted them again.

Bill C-68 would make it harder for proponents wishing to develop property and will weaken transparency through the creation of more bureaucratic red tape. Farmers looking to improve their land, and municipalities looking to install drains, are going to be faced with a lengthy bureaucratic process that is going to make it harder to respond to critical incidents. There have been flooding incidents in our communities. In 2017, there were massive wildfires, as everyone knows, and it would make it harder and harder for farmers to recover from natural disasters.

The minister hoped his bill would help to protect middle-class jobs in coastal communities. He actually said that. However, just after introducing the bill, the surf clam process took place. I have spent a lot of time in Grand Bank and several coastal communities meeting with fishing organizations and indigenous communities from all across our country, and they are fed up. They are fed up with the government's virtue signalling and while doing whatever it can to make it harder for them to prosper.

A chief of a first nation called me last week. He told me, “I just want the government to get out of the way so that I can lead my community to prosperity. I want the government to get out of the way. When I need their help, I want them to be able to act and act quickly, but I need them to get out of the way, because if there are poverty or social issues in my community, that is on me.” He said, “I am a forward-leaning leader within my community and I want to lead my community to prosperity.”

Unfortunately, the government's pandering to third party groups is making it harder. He said, “I for one, and our community for one, are tired of being the poster child for some of these third party groups.” Some of them I named earlier in this speech.

That brings me back to Edgar, a good friend I met during the surf clam project. I remember his words. He said that the minister's decision to arbitrarily take that surf clam quota away shook his life, shook his foundation, shook his community, the Grand Bank community. It is a community that has had a fishing history for over 400 years. I remember the mayor telling me that the scars of the industry run right straight through the middle of this community.

That is an example of how the government has lost the trust of Canadians. I bring this up because Bill C-68 is another example, and Canadians are weary. They are distrustful that in the eleventh hour of the final session for this government, it is bringing this measure forward, just as we saw with other pieces of legislation.

We are sitting to midnight now. Why are we sitting to midnight? The government House leader says we are sitting to midnight now. Canadians expect us to work. I do not have a problem sitting to midnight, but why are we sitting to midnight? It is because of the Liberals' failure to make progress with legislation. There has been no real priority.

Let us speak about priorities. Two weeks ago we heard from the government's independent leader in the Senate as to why softwood was not negotiated in the new NAFTA, but was there a priority? Today a Liberal member from the Lower Mainland in Vancouver stood up and touted his government's great record on job creation and low unemployment numbers in our province, all while layoff notices and job losses are mounting. That is shameful.

Just last night Canfor, the largest employer in my province and Canada's largest forestry producer, announced sweeping job curtailments throughout the province of British Columbia. Hundreds if not thousands of Canadians are out of work, and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard is clapping. That is shameful. I urge the parliamentary secretary to come to my riding. A tone-deaf, muted response was all I got last week to my comments about softwood not being a priority.

There was another response from the Liberals last week in response to my comments about softwood not being a priority. It was that Canadians should be reassured because the job numbers are up and the Liberals stand with the forestry workers. When are they standing with them? Are they standing with them when they are looking for work? Are they standing with them when they are worried about how they are going to make ends meet because they lost their livelihoods? Are they standing with them when they have to go to the bank because the bank is foreclosing on their house?

That is shameful. That goes to—

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to stand in the House and speak to the Senate amendments to Bill C-68.

I listened intently as the minister did whatever he could, every step of the way, to disparage the previous government while trying to prop himself and his department up along the way. This comes from a minister who took credit for a Coast Guard vessel just last week on social media. He said that the Liberal government did this, but it was our former Conservative government that did it. It is very disingenuous for a minister to use his time to continue to slander and disparage the previous government.

I have said time and again, very publicly in this House and at committee, that consecutive governments, including Liberal governments, should take blame for where our fisheries stocks are. When questioned as to why our fisheries stocks are at critical levels, there are bureaucrats who have been in their positions for 20-plus years who have consistently told every government that they promise to do better. It is quite shameful that this minister would stand up here and trumpet that the Liberals are moving the ball. I will provide proof in my speech that they are not.

Today we are here to talk about the Senate amendments to Bill C-68, which is essentially a flawed piece of legislation. We saw that it was flawed when it was first introduced. Unfortunately, again the government put time allocation on the bill. I believe at that time it was the 40th time that the Liberal government did that, the same government that is led by the member for Papineau, who, during the 2015 campaign, said that his government would let the debate reign and would not resort to parliamentary tricks, such as invoking time allocation.

Here we are today, and I think it is now over 70 times that time allocation has been used. We have not seen time allocation on this bill up to this point, but the day is still early.

I will return to the Senate amendments. Early last week, the Senate sent back 15 amendments to Bill C-68 on about four different topics. As mentioned earlier, they cover inshore fisheries and habitat banking. Bill S-203, which is the bill that would end keeping whales in captivity, was rolled into Bill C-68, as well as Bill S-238, which is the shark finning bill put forward by a Conservative senator. I will get back to this shortly.

It was interesting when the department was before our committee recently regarding Bill S-238. The officials mentioned that while we would be banning shark fins unless the fin is attached to the shark carcass itself, the importation of shark fin soup was still going to be permitted. The department has committed to getting back to us and double-checking that, but the comment we received from the official when he was asked and pressed on it was that “soup is soup.”

Here we are now, talking about the Senate amendments to Bill C-68. Bill C-68 was introduced early last year and, as mentioned, is a piece of flawed legislation. During the 2015 campaign, the Liberals promised to restore the definition of “harmful alteration, disruption or destruction” of fish habitat. From this point, I will refer to that as “HADD”. I mention that for the Canadians watching from coast to coast to coast, as well as for those in the gallery, which is full once again today.

As the Liberals put it, they wanted to restore the lost protections implemented by our previous Conservative government. As a matter of fact, I will use the term that our minister just used, that the Conservatives “gutted the Fisheries Act”. That is what he was saying, and that is shameful. That is the same eco-warrior language, shamefully, that the government used in 2015 to tarnish any of the great work that our previous Conservative government did. As well, cabinet ministers and members of the current government have used this language to disparage some of our natural resource companies, such as mining and oil and gas, and, again, our former Conservative government.

The fisheries committee did an extensive study on the so-called “lost protections” in the changes that were made in 2012 to the Fisheries Act under our previous Conservative government. Not one group and not one witness could provide any evidence that there were lost protections that resulted from the changes in 2012—not an academic, not an environmental group, not a scientist. I will get into that more throughout my speech.

Not surprisingly, the government has capitalized politically with these environmental groups and the public at large with this proposed legislation. The Liberals have positioned themselves as the defenders of the environment, and restoring the imaginary lost protections has garnered positive support through various media outlets. This is the same government that continues to approve the dumping of millions of litres of raw sewage into our waterways, yet here they are defending their actions, standing up and disparaging those who are opposing what they are saying. They continue to this day to approve the dumping of millions of litres of raw sewage into our waterways. Canadians should be paying attention.

We oppose Bill C-68 because of the HADD provisions, but there are some positive aspects of the bill. It potentially has some good points. We have always said that Bill C-68 is a bill that we will repeal and replace, and that we will bring stakeholders around the table and build a piece of legislation that truly represents the intent of Bill C-68.

On the 15 reasoned, responsible amendments that the Senate sent back, the Senate did its job. It attempted to fix an omnibus piece of legislation that should have probably been split into two or three different bills, and there is another broken promise.

I believe it was in the Liberal 2015 campaign, and probably it was the same day when the member for Papineau said that he was not going to resort to such parliamentary tricks as omnibus bills. Well, here we are, and Bill C-68 is one of those. He has not let the debate reign. Time allocation has been seen time and time again.

The amendments focused on changes to the Fisheries Act, such as the owner-operator fleet separation, which, as my hon. colleague across the way mentioned, the fisheries committee has heard about time and again. The bill also talks about habitat protection and habitat banking, and it rolls in Bill S-203 on cetaceans in captivity and Bill S-238 on shark finning.

Bill C-68 introduced habitat banking as a means by which companies could restore waterways affected by development. As an example, when I was in aviation, we built one of Canada's largest runways. To be good neighbours, we noticed during our environmental assessment that there was a potential area for waterfowl or the western spadefoot toad.

Therefore, we had a toad rodeo. We looked to find how many toads were in that certain area that was designated or that could be environmentally sensitive. We also looked for the water fowl that could be present in those wetlands. To be good neighbours, we worked with Ducks Unlimited Canada, the conservation group. We are not the experts in this. We needed somebody to tell us what would be more appropriate, and we wanted to make sure that if there was going to be displacement, it would be within our region. We worked with Ducks Unlimited and other local groups. We found an area that was suitable, and we committed and purchased that area. That is an example of what habitat banking is.

There are concerns with moving down the way in terms of habitat banking, as well as, let us say, carbon credits. It is very similar to carbon credits.

As I was running for election in 2015, I was interested to find that we have offshore companies, European companies, that were buying up huge swaths of agricultural land in my riding. They were literally showing up to a farm and offering suitcases full of money. Many of our farmers are long-time generational farmers and do not have that next generation coming in. Who can blame them, if they have this opportunity present itself? The companies told a good story. Very quickly after purchasing the land, they mowed under all that agriculture potential. They were buying it for carbon credits to be applied in other countries. We cannot create more land; we are not able to do that. We put a stop to that.

Therefore, the habitat banking provisions that the Senate tried to fix with its amendments dealt with third party offset payments and they would keep the restored habitat closed. Habitat banking is a market-oriented approach to environmental conservation. As a matter of fact, we are starting to see this more and more. When I was in aviation, “carbon credits” was the buzzword. It was carbon credits this and carbon credits that. Every passenger who was flying on an airline had an opportunity to buy carbon offsets as part of his or her ticket. A habitat bank is now the next generation of a very similar type of market-oriented approach to environmental conservation. A habitat bank is defined in the bill as “an area of a fish habitat that has been created, restored or enhanced by the carrying on of one or more conservation projects within a service area and in respect of which area the Minister has certified any habitat credit”.

A habitat credit, before being amended at committee, was defined in the bill as “a unit of measure that is agreed to between any proponent and the Minister under section 42.02 that quantifies the benefits of a conservation project.” In plainer language, the old version of the bill stipulated that the proponents, and only the proponents, can offset the adverse effects on fish or fish habitat as a result of conservation work being done by the proponent. That leaves out important third party conservation groups and indigenous groups.

I do not know of too many mining or forestry companies that are experts in conservation projects. If a mining operation leads to deleterious effects on fish habitat, for example, that mining company may offset the impacts of those effects through a conservation project, like moving affected fish to another pond. Other examples include the construction of a salmon ladder, preservation of a wetland, as I described with our airport, or any other measure that creates, restores or enhances a fish habitat. Ensuring that proponents offset their impacts on fish habitat is necessary for environmental conservation. We all agree with that.

There is not a single compelling reason to restrict habitat banking solely to proponents. When we say that only a proponent can create a habitat bank, we are excluding first nations groups and conservation specialist groups like Ducks Unlimited or wetlands advocates. We are also excluding municipalities, among other prospective participants. These stakeholders all want to be on the front lines of habitat restoration and enhancement, and they should be. Not all proponents have the expertise, resources or knowledge to build a physical offset.

We all know that the balance of power in the Senate rests on the independent side, which we know is the government side. Under the amendment passed by our senators, proponents would now be able to purchase the credit rather than designing and building their own physical offset. The offset must still be created, but now it could be created by a group with a specific conservation expertise. In these cases, the proponents would essentially be funding the construction of an approved physical offset. The proponents would say, “We understand that our project has displaced fish, wildlife or aquatic species, and we will work to make amends. However, we are not the experts on this, so let us partner with an approved group to get this done.”

It is a win-win for industry and the environment. Companies do not have to divert their attention from the core aspects of their business and creating the jobs that come with it; all they have to do is buy the credit for the habitat bank established by a third party group. With a new market for the credits, there is an incentive for third parties to get into the habitat banking game, thus leading to additional biological protections.

The second amendment the Senate sent back on this issue relates to the offset payments. This amendment would allow the Department of Fisheries and Oceans to collect and offset payment in lieu of establishing and offsetting a habitat bank. The purpose of introducing this tool, as argued by the Canadian Wildlife Federation and others, was to provide the flexibility in areas where an appropriate offset project is not available or cost-effective. That makes sense.

As an alternative to purchasing credits, proponents could pay into a habitat protection fund, for example the environmental damages fund, to offset any impacts their project may have. Under this amendment, funds would need to be spent as close as practicable to where the work, undertaking or activity is located, or at least within the same province where such work occurred. If the displacement or impact is taking place in a region such as Cariboo—Prince George, I would like to see that habitat banking take place right in my riding. I would have to say that it has to be done there. We do not want to see these other companies coming in and doing something similar to what we mentioned earlier with the carbon credit program. If that displacement is taking place in an area such as Cariboo—Prince George, then an appropriate project should be found in the same region. I would suspect there are a lot of conservation projects that could benefit from this type of program.

Adding these parameters to the system was imperative to ensure equal treatment among all provinces, territories and, hopefully, if administered accurately by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, among watersheds as well.

This amendment does not mandate how the government should collect or spend the money. It simply establishes a structure by which private sector funds, determined and accepted at the discretion of the minister—again, it is all about this minister having all the power—can be used to support restoration projects in Canada. It makes sense to me.

The third amendment on habitat banking shares the spirit of the second, but it is entirely distinct among the three, and here is how. Bill C-68, in both its current and former iterations, specifies that certified habitat credits must be used within a service area. A service area is defined in Bill C-68 as “the geographical area that encompasses a fish habitat bank and one or more conservation projects and within which area a proponent carries on a work, undertaking or activity.”

The broadness of that definition was concerning. As currently written, a service area could technically be considered the whole country. For discussion purposes, let us say that SNC-Lavalin, working on a project in Quebec, is deemed to have done some damage to fish or fish habitat or is looking to buy some habitat banking credits, but it also does work in Vancouver, Toronto or other areas. It could apply those habitat banking credits to those areas, not necessarily the area in which it is making the displacement.

That is incorrect, and the third amendment sought to fix that. The intent of this amendment is to ensure that the benefits of an offsetting habitat bank remain local in comparison to the work, undertaking or activity. “Local” would be either as close as practicable to the area, or within the same province. The general idea is that the closer to the affected area it is, the better. A mining project in St. John's should not be offset by a habitat bank in northern Ontario or Vancouver Island, or vice versa.

This amendment maintains that it needs ministerial flexibility while protecting the local fish populations and providing certainty to industry about where credits can be used. Habitat banking benefits should remain as local as possible, as a guiding principle. If that is not practical, then the benefits should at least remain in the province where the work was carried out.

Late last night, the government set forth and gave notice of its amendments to the Senate amendments. Unfortunately, late last night the government responded by removing the new habitat banking provisions. The government said that it “respectfully disagrees with amendment 11 because the amendment seeks to legislate in respect of third-party, or market-based, fish habitat banking, which is beyond the policy intent of the Bill that is to provide only for proponent-led fish habitat banking.”

Is the government kidding? What a bunch of hogwash. The government put the habitat banking provisions into the bill. To say that the amendments to the habitat banking are beyond the policy intent is absolutely absurd, unless, of course, this bill is nothing more than just a cover and a piece and is not really intended to actually do anything but is just another thing for Liberals to stand up and say, “We did it”, getting all the support from the third party groups that supported them in 2015. I will say more on that later.

Let us go back and look at the absurdities of the bill from the beginning. On restoring lost protections, the minister stood and said that the former Conservative government gutted the Fisheries Act. Bill C-68 started with the Liberal campaign promise in 2015 to restore lost protections. After forming the government, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans asked the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans to investigate the so-called lost protections.

After an extensive study, an 86-page report to Parliament was issued. To my colleagues who are in the House, and the packed gallery, how many lost protections were found? There were none. Zero. Not one witness came before the committee and said that the 2012 amendments to the Fisheries Act by the former Conservative government resulted in lost protections. As a matter of fact, what we heard was that they gave some assurances or some consistency to the application process. We also had some proponents who said that it actually made things tougher, but at least they knew the steps in the process they had to go through.

It is shocking that these guys, time and time again, stand in the House and use the same old talking points. Canadians are not going to be fooled. I think I just saw a poll that ranked the Prime Minister and the Liberal government at 15% in terms of environmental protection. Our hon. colleague from Saanich—Gulf Islands scored the highest, and I think our leader was next. Way down the list was the member for Papineau, our Prime Minister.

After that extensive study and an 86-page report, not one lost protection was found. The dissenting report we issued said the following:

Contrary to the Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard's correspondence to the committee dated June 29, 2016 whereby the minister directed the committee to undertake a study investigating the 2012 changes to the Fisheries Act and any resulting lost protections,

I thought committees were supposed to be at arm's-length and masters of their own destination. How many times has a minister or parliamentary secretary stood in the House and said, “Madam Speaker, committees are on their own to do whatever they want”? Probably they even had their hands on their hearts. It is crazy. It just adds to the hypocrisy of those across the way.

The report continues,

witnesses who appeared before the committee were unable to provide any scientific or legal proof of harm resulting from asserted lost protections under the Act as a result of the 2012 changes. This fact was noted on page 33 of the committee report, which states, “The preceding paragraphs in this section indicate the differing testimony heard with no scientific or legal evidence provided to show whether the 2012 changes broadened or reduced the circumstances under which section 35 applies.”

In some cases, witnesses like the Mining Association of Canada expressed that the 2012 changes to the Act actually increased habitat protections. They said, “...the 2012 changes have in practice broadened the circumstances in which the section 35 prohibitions apply and increased the circumstances in which an authorization and offsets are required.”

The CFA also added that, “...it is the CFA's position that a complete revert to reinstate all provisions of the Fisheries Act as they were would be unproductive [and] reestablish the same problems for farmers, and...provide little improvement [in conservation]”

I have just gone through the Senate amendments as they apply to habitat banking. I could go on at length about inshore fisheries, and I will do that later in my speech.

I will talk about Bill S-203, which is ending whales in captivity, which was rolled into this bill, and some of the concerns Conservatives have. Previously, when a southern resident killer whale was in jeopardy and in need of rescuing, there had to be an order in council from the Lieutenant Governor of British Columbia. The Lieutenant Governor of British Columbia and the province do not have the mechanisms in place to respond quickly to that request. When every minute counts when trying to save the life of a resident killer whale or a cetacean, we need to have a tool in our tool box to act quickly. In that regard, Bill S-203 was flawed at that point. That was a serious concern the Conservatives had. The Senate amendments took that away, and that power now rests with the minister in this House, which I think is the right way of moving forward.

While there are still concerns about Bill S-203, we believe that the amendments from the Senate give us some assurances that some of the main concerns we had were addressed. However, in Bill S-203, there were some differences in the translation from French to English. In legal terms, one could argue that the intent may not be the same. That was brought up at committee, and the legal team and officials could not answer questions as to whether those discrepancies in the translation from French to English could have serious consequences down the road.

Bill S-238 is the shark finning bill. As I mentioned, a Conservative senator put forward Bill S-238. It is similar to the bill my hon. colleague from Port Moody—Coquitlam put forward earlier in this session, which was voted down, but I am glad to see that Bill S-238 has been rolled into Bill C-68. Again, there are concerns as to how Bill S-238 could be prescribed down the road, but I believe in my hon. colleague's intent and in the spirit of the bill.

As was mentioned earlier, when the officials were before committee during the study of BillS-238 talking about the practice of shark finning and the importation of shark fins, shark fin soup is apparently still allowed to be imported. Shark fin soup can come in, because “soup is soup”, which is a quote from one of the officials. They committed to get back to the committee as to whether that was true. I have yet to hear if they got back to the committee.

My hon. colleague talked about the intent of Bill C-68. It is important for Conservatives to state our concerns about the bill once again. They were mentioned previously, and I have expressed some of them. Bill C-68, from a policy perspective, is a piece of legislation that makes Canadians feel good.

It is interesting that after the Senate amendments beefed the bill up, the minister and the Liberal government watered it back down, just as senators were trying to beef things up and do their job. The Senate does great work. It sent the bill back to us with some good amendments, yet the minister and the government are scrapping a good portion of them.

As I said, Bill C-68 was payback for all the third-party groups that supported our Liberal colleagues across the way. Well, they supported anyone but the Conservatives. This leads me to my next point, which is relevant, because it goes to the crux of Bill C-68.

Bill C-68 can be grouped with Bill C-69, the Liberals no pipeline bill, and Bill C-48, the oil tanker moratorium act. Recently, six premiers from across the country wrote the Prime Minister to say that the bills represent one of the largest threats to national unity we have seen, that the threat to our national economy is real and that the damage these bills would do to our economy, jobs and investments is profound.

Why do I bring this up? As I mentioned, Bill C-68 is payback for all the support the Liberals got in the 2015 election. What support am I referring to? In 2015, 114 third parties poured $6 million into influencing the election outcome. Many of those parties were funded by the U.S.-based Tides Foundation. The new director of policy was a top executive there. The Prime Minister's former chief adviser, Gerald Butts, was previously the president of the World Wildlife Fund, another Tides-sponsored organization.

Another Tides-sponsored organization is Leadnow. As noted in an article, it is a “non-profit society that was created in 2010 with the goal of bringing to Canada a model of on-line, political campaigning and movement organizing that began in the U.S. behind President Barack Obama.”

The article states:

During Canada’s 2015 federal election, Leadnow ran a strategic voting initiative called Vote Together. Leadnow claims to have defeated 25 Conservative incumbents.

Leadnow targeted me, but it did not win. However, it was successful in 25 Conservative-held ridings.

The article continues:

From Leadnow's 2010 Business Plan, it is clear that as far back as 2010, Leadnow has been focused on defeating the Conservative government. Leadnow's “Investor Package” states that Leadnow intended to "offer tangible support to parties that adopt their policies, and use tools like strategic voting to “swing elections” to reflect Canada's progressive majority.”

Why am I bringing this up? What is the relevance? This goes back to 2008, when a group of radical American anti-fossil-fuel NGOs created a tar sands campaign. It was geared, as quoted in a column in the Financial Post, to landlocking “the Canadian oil sands by delaying or blocking the expansion or development of key pipelines” by “educating and organizing First Nations to challenge construction of pipelines across their traditional territories” and bringing “multiple actions in Canadian federal and provincial courts.” These NGOs wanted to raise the negatives, including by recruiting celebrity spokespeople, such as Leonardo DiCaprio, to “lend their brand to opponents of tar sands and generat[e] a high negative media profile for tar sands oil.”

The column states:

[T]he Rockefeller Foundation, the Hewlett Foundation, and the David and Lucile Packard Foundation... along with environmentalist charities, poured hundreds of millions of dollars into the U.S.-based Tides Foundation

Why did the they do that? It was to do whatever they could to target our natural resources.

I say this because fish is a natural resource, and Bill C-68 is another bill, along with Bill C-69, the no pipelines bill, and Bill C-48, the tanker moratorium, that targets our resource sector.

I will bring members back to the earliest days of this sitting where the Prime Minister stood and said that Canada would become known more for our resourcefulness than our resources.

Make no bones about it; these groups have infiltrated our government at the highest levels. Gerald Butts, president and CEO of the World Wildlife Fund, was a chief adviser to the Prime Minister. He brought with him former campaigners. Marlo Raynolds, chief of staff to the environment minister, was a past executive director for the Tides-backed Pembina Institute. Zoë Caron, chief of staff to the Minister of Natural Resources, was a former WWF Canada official. Sarah Goodman, on the Prime Minister's staff, was a former vice-president of Tides and now holds potentially one of the most powerful positions as director of policy in the PMO. It is concerning at every step of the way.

I will bring members back to question period when the Minister of Democratic Institutions said that one side of the House likes to cheat and the others are doing everything to protect our democracy. We have seen time and again, going back to 2015, where we have all of these groups that were funded to take on our former prime minister Stephen Harper and the Conservatives to defeat them and they propped up this Prime Minister, then the member for Papineau, and he made all of these promises. What do we see? We see now that he is following through on those promises to the environmental groups, the NGOs.

I have had fisheries groups and first nations say to me that when they want to get in to see the minister, they have to go through environmental groups. I do not think there is a government that has had more lawsuits against it from first nations than any other than the current government. On marine protected areas, the government is doing what it calls consultation. I will get into the consultation on Bill C-68. The Liberals like to say it is consultation. They will stand in the House and they are disingenuous to Canadians who are listening in. We have the proof. I talked a little about how the foreign funding has influenced our highest offices of the government, and that is what we are seeing in our pieces of legislation. Bill C-68 is no different.

As part of the economic action plan in 2012, and in support of a responsible resource development plan, our former Conservative government put forward changes to the Fisheries Act. They were geared at strengthening the act and removing unnecessary bureaucratic red tape. They were geared at making that process manageable so that proponents knew the steps that had to be taken. It was not letting them off the hook. We heard testimony from the Mining Association of Canada that it actually increased areas to which its members could be found negligible and fined. Our changes supported a shift from managing impacts to all fish habitats to focusing the act's regulatory regime and managing threats to the sustainability and ongoing productivity of Canada's commercial, recreational and indigenous fisheries.

Now, instead of listening to experts, the people who actually use our waterways and fish our rivers, lakes and oceans, the government turned a deaf ear to practicality and pushed forward, through the use of time allocation, legislation that will affect lives and do little to enhance the deterioration of fisheries in Canada. I said that in a previous speech. At that time, I believe it was 23 out of 25 of our core fisheries that were at very serious levels. Why was that? The fisheries management plans were not done. We do not manage fisheries to grow more fish. We manage fisheries to extinction.

I would put our team up against that team any time. Our member of Parliament for North Okanagan—Shuswap, our member of Parliament for Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa and our member of Parliament for Red Deer—Lacombe all had previous careers in this. We hunt. We fish. We live off the land. We are farmers. We are conservationists at heart. Bill C-68 actually made things harder with some of the changes that we did.

One of the Liberal members who was on the committee at the time, who himself is a farmer, said that if he had a flood on his property, the changes that the former Conservative government had done would actually make it easier for him to respond. If a community or a municipality had a road that was washed out, it actually allowed workers to go in, without skirting any of the rules or regulations, work within the prescribed timelines and schedule to actually get the work done and respond quickly.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the minister's reference to my sponsorship of Bill S-203. I was also the mover of the amendment that led to the water flow provisions on habitat. I agree with the member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford that it is a shame to see those lost.

I want to make this one point in 10 seconds: This bill has to pass. I wish I had not lost my section on water flows, but we have to move Bill C-68 through.

Does the hon. minister think we have time to move the amendments through the Senate and back to this place?

[Jonathan Wilkinson, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

Madam Speaker, I want to acknowledge the member for Port Moody—Coquitlam and the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands, who were the original sponsors of both Bill S-203 and Bill S-238, which have now been incorporated into Bill C-68.

With respect to the question on aquaculture, last week we brought forward framework documents to develop and consult on how we assess risk on a go-forward basis. We concurrently implemented an additional step in the precautionary approach with respect to testing for strains of PRV and for specific illnesses that may exist within the net pens. The results will feed directly into the risk management framework that we have developed over the course of the last number of months.

As I said, we are inviting comment over the coming couple of months on the risk management framework to ensure we get this right in moving through the scientific process to make those determinations.

[Jonathan Wilkinson, Liberal, Minister of Fisheries]

moved:

That a Message be sent to the Senate to acquaint Their Honours that, in relation to Bill C-68, An Act to amend the Fisheries Act and other Acts in consequence, the House:

agrees with amendments 1(b), 1(c), 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 12, 13, 14 and 15 made by the Senate;

respectfully disagrees with amendment 1(a) because it is contrary to the objective of the Act that its habitat provisions apply to all fish habitats throughout Canada;

proposes that amendment 3 be amended by deleting “guaranteed,” and, in the English version, by replacing the word “in” with the word “by”;

proposes that amendment 9 be amended by deleting section 35.11;

respectfully disagrees with amendment 11 because the amendment seeks to legislate in respect of third party, or market-based, fish habitat banking, which is beyond the policy intent of the Bill that is to provide only for proponent-led fish habitat banking.

Mr. Speaker, it is with great privilege that I rise today to speak to Bill C-68, an act to amend the Fisheries Act, which will restore lost protections to fish and fish habitat and incorporate modern safeguards into the law.

Before I highlight how Bill C-68 brings forward important improvements to the Fisheries Act, I would like to thank my predecessor, the Minister of Intergovernmental and Northern Affairs and Internal Trade, the member for Beauséjour. It is due to his leadership that we are here today debating this bill which, once passed, will fulfill a promise we made to Canadians in 2015 and will ensure that our fisheries are sustainable for future generations. We all wish the minister, our friend, a very speedy and full recovery.

On this note, I would also like to extend my thanks to Senator Christmas, who is the sponsor of the bill in the other place, for his work on moving Bill C-68 forward, for his commitment to the protection of fish and ensuring that the voices of indigenous peoples are well represented. I note that he made a number of amendments that will strengthen the indigenous components of the bill that we will be accepting.

I also want to thank the other place as a whole, in particular the committee, for its study of this bill.

Today, I will begin with an overview of the bill itself, and then I will speak to the amendments proposed by the Senate.

In summary, we will be respectfully rejecting the amendments in relation to the definition of fish habitat, as well as rejecting the three amendments related to third party habitat banking.

On a minor amendment, I have already sought the agreement of Senator Christmas to make a technical change to one of his amendments so that the language reflects what is already in the bill with respect to indigenous rights.

Canadians elected a Liberal government because they knew that the Liberal Party had a plan for growing the economy and for protecting our environment. Today, we are debating an important part of that plan. Bill C-68 will restore lost protections to fish and fish habitat and ensure that the government has the tools to manage our fisheries so that they are sustainable and healthy for future generations.

The previous government gutted the Fisheries Act, made cuts to science and reduced the number of fisheries officers. These are not the types of actions Canadians want and that, in part, is why those members are sitting on the opposite side of this chamber. The Conservatives have no plan for the environment and no plan to protect our fish and fish habitat. On the other hand, this government does have a plan and that plan is working.

Bill C-68 amends the Fisheries Act to fulfill our government's commitment to better protect Canada's freshwater and marine fisheries, helping to ensure their long-term economic and environmental sustainability. The amendments we are making will modernize the act. These amendments include a new purpose clause and considerations when making decisions under the act that will provide a framework for the proper management and control of fisheries and for the conservation and protection of fish and fish habitat, including by preventing pollution.

Factors to consider when making decisions with regard to potential harm to fish include the application of a precautionary approach and an ecosystem approach, community knowledge, indigenous knowledge, and social, economic and cultural considerations.

As well, key to the proposed changes to the act are the new requirements for stock rebuilding, which will introduce legally binding commitments to implement measures to manage Canada's major fish stocks above levels necessary to promote their sustainability.

Maintaining healthy stock levels and rebuilding those that have been depleted is critical to coastal communities and to their economic viability. That is why our government in the fall economic statement announced an investment of $107 million over five years and $17.6 million per year ongoing to support the implementation of these stock rebuilding provisions. There are a number of important fish stocks that have shown declines in recent years, which is why we have committed these funds to accelerate our actions to ensure sustainability. Over the next five years, this government is committed to making major fish stocks subject to the provisions on rebuilding.

Furthermore, key to the government's commitments are the measures for the protection of fish and fish habitat with respect to works, undertakings or activities that may result in the death of fish or the harmful alteration, disruption or destruction of fish habitat, or HADD. First, we have expanded the scope to apply to all fish and fish habitat. Second, we have removed reference to serious harm, which, as many in the chamber know, was put forward by the previous Conservative government when it gutted the act in 2012. This new Fisheries Act will restore the application to HADD and would prohibit causing the death of fish by means other than fishing.

The new habitat provisions will also address major projects so that the proponents know which projects require permits. In response to industry concerns, we have also established codes of practice to guide best practices that minimize the impact on fish and fish habitat for smaller and routine projects. This will be especially critical for farmers and those in the agricultural industry who often undertake minor, routine works that relate to water.

Finally, the proposed Fisheries Act would enable ministerial regulations for the purposes of conservation and protection of marine biodiversity as well as the addition of other vital new tools, such as fisheries management orders, to quickly address threats to the proper management and control of the fisheries and the conservation and protection of fish.

Also, upon royal assent, the amended Fisheries Act will include a number of greatly needed updates, such as empowering the minister to establish advisory panels, set fees under the act and enter into agreements with indigenous governing bodies. Most importantly, the proposed legislation introduces a non-derogation clause as well as protections for indigenous knowledge when such information is provided to the government.

Bill C-68 also, very importantly, preserves the independence of our inshore fish harvesters by enshrining into law policies that support fleet separation. The legislation recognizes that when making decisions under the act, the minister can take into account social, economic and cultural factors, and the preservation and promotion of an independent inshore commercial fishery in Atlantic Canada and Quebec.

These amendments are critical if we want to ensure that our stocks are sustainable for future generations and for the communities from coast to coast to coast who depend on our fisheries and on the health of our oceans.

Under the former Conservative government, there was no plan to rebuild our depleted stocks, just like the Conservatives had no plan to protect our oceans. It is under this government that we have now successfully protected over 8% of our marine and coastal areas, up from less than 1% under the former Conservative government. We now have a clear path to achieving our 10% target by 2020.

Canadians know that this government has a plan that will protect our oceans all the while ensuring that our communities continue to benefit and that our economy continues to grow.

This bill is a testament to meaningful engagement and consultations, and we heard from many Canadians, from coast to coast to coast. Consultations were extensive and public, on key issues for industry, non-governmental organizations, provinces and territories, and indigenous peoples across Canada.

During the fall of 2016, the department participated in more than 90 meetings with indigenous groups, communities and organizations, and resource management boards established under land claims agreements.

In the spring of 2017, there was a second phase of public engagement. During this second phase, Fisheries and Oceans Canada provided approximately $900,000 to 89 indigenous groups to support their participation and engagement. The department also held over 70 meetings with indigenous peoples and nine more meetings with resource management boards, who, in turn, provided more than 170 written submissions.

The government has listened and has been responsive to many of the concerns that have been raised during parliamentary review. Both the House of Commons Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans and the other place have provided robust and very constructive recommendations, as well as amendments that have been supported by the government. With regard to some concerns raised by industry, particularly regarding the adoption of the amendment deeming water flow fish habitat, the government was responsive to concerns raised that the new definition's application could be unnecessarily broad and that the core intent was already captured in the bill. Consequently, the government agreed to the removal of the deeming water flow fish habitat provision from proposed subsection 2(2).

Industry also expressed concern about the provisions for the permitting of major projects under the proposed act. The government recognizes that regulatory certainty is important to industry and to Canadians and that designated project regulations may capture portions of projects that are not related to fish and fish habitat. Not all works, undertakings or activities that form part of a designated project require permits under the Fisheries Act, as many have no impact on fish and fish habitat. This is why we have introduced amendments from the government on designated projects, which gives the minister the ability to identify and make the final determination on which works, undertakings or activities will require a permit.

The intent of these amendments is to bring clarity to project proponents on which projects require a permit, and to avoid duplication with the federal impact assessment process. Providing greater certainty and cutting red tape while ensuring that fish and fish habitat are protected is very much the intent of this legislation.

This government, through Senator Harder, also proposed important amendments that were adopted by the other place that relate to two Senate public bills: Bill S-203 and Bill S-238. Bill S-203 is commonly referred to as the ending captivity of whales and dolphins act. Bill S-238 is commonly referred to as the ban on shark fin importation and exportation act. These two bills respond to increasing public concern about the well-being of cetaceans held in captivity in Canada solely for public display, as well as concerns about the impact and the nature of the practice of shark finning. I am pleased to say that the government shares these concerns and is demonstrating leadership on these issues.

This government believes that the practice of keeping whales in captivity solely for the purpose of public display should be phased out.

I believe that the amendments proposed to Bill S-203, and the coordinating amendments in Bill C-68, will help us effectively phase out and restrict the captivity of whales.

Bill S-238 proposes to amend the Fisheries Act to prohibit the practice of shark finning and to amend WAPPRIITA to prohibit the import and export or the attempt to import or export into and from Canada of shark fins or parts of shark fins that are not attached to a shark carcass.

The intent of the proposed amendments to Bill C-68 related to shark finning is consistent with the legislative policy objectives of Bill S-238 to address the practice of shark finning, which is the practice of removing fins from sharks and discarding the carcasses at sea. There is no doubt that shark finning and the illegal trade in shark fins have had a devastating impact on global shark populations. In fact, over 63 million sharks are killed every year, many for the global shark fin trade.

Canada has demonstrated international leadership on the conservation and management of sharks and was one of the first countries to develop a national plan of action in that regard. Canada continues to work with its partners, including regional fishery management organizations, to adopt effective management measures to regulate the capture of sharks in both the Atlantic and Pacific oceans.

Without these amendments in Bill C-68, Bill S-238 is likely not going to pass due to the short time remaining in this sitting. This amendment will ensure that shark finning and the export and import of shark fins will be banned in Canada.

I would now like to turn to the proposed changes from the other place to Bill C-68.

The first amendment that we will be respectfully rejecting was made by Senator Poirier in relation to the definition of “fish habitat”. Senator Poirier's amendment would change the definition of “fish habitat” from “water frequented by fish and any other areas on which fish depend directly or indirectly to carry out their life processes, including spawning grounds and nursery, rearing, food supply and migration areas” to “any area on which fish depend directly or indirectly to carry out their life processes, including spawning grounds and nurseries, rearing, food supply and migration areas”.

The original text of “water frequented by fish”, in addition to “areas on which fish depend directly or indirectly on”, increases the scope for the application of the fish habitat protection provisions. By removing “water frequented by fish”, this amendment goes against the objective of the bill to provide greater protection to fish and fish habitat across Canada. Therefore, we will not be supporting this change.

With regard to another proposed amendment, as part of the changes initially proposed, the government introduced provisions that would allow for proponent-led habitat banks. The department has been encouraging proponent-led habitat banking since 2013. Bill C-68 would enshrine this policy approach into law and provide new incentives to use habitat banking credits to offset impacts on fish and fish habitat caused by human activity. This represents an important evolution in the implementation of measures to help improve the conservation of fish and fish habitat.

Some stakeholders and senators have argued that we should go further, by expanding habitat banking to third parties and to allow cash payments in lieu of offsetting. Expanding habitat banking to third parties would allow any organization to earn credits through restoration or conservation projects. These credits could then be sold to project proponents that do not wish to create their own offsets prior to project development.

Payments in lieu of offsetting would allow project proponents to pay a fee up front instead of investing in offsetting projects prior to development. The intention is that revenues from these payments would be dedicated to aquatic habitat restoration. Third party habitat banking has its merits and is currently practised in some countries, including the biodiversity banking and offsets scheme in Australia and the wetlands mitigation banks in the United States.

However, there are important considerations and actions that we need to undertake prior to establishing third party habitat banking and fees in lieu of offsetting regimes here in Canada. First, it is the government's view that in order to offset the residual impact from a project, conservation projects created to acquire habitat banking credits need to benefit the specific fish populations and areas that would be affected by that project.

Second, this government believes that where aquatic species at risk are present, opportunities to undertake conservation projects involving the creation, restoration or enhancement of the habitat of aquatic species at risk should be given priority.

Third, in the freshwater and inland areas of Canada, provinces own the land and are responsible for resource management. In some cases, indigenous communities or governments may be responsible for resource management. Since habitat banks could certainly implicate these lands, the creation of a habitat bank requires that implicated stakeholders be consulted regarding the area in which the bank would be created. Consultation with other federal departments, provinces, territories, indigenous groups and landowners would be necessary to establish agreements to authorize these transactions. Due to these considerations, the proposed amendments to Bill C-68 to expand habitat banking would require regulatory initiatives that would, if not properly designed, present risks to the conservation community, indigenous groups and other land or rights holders.

In summary, although third party habitat banking and fees in lieu of offsetting are schemes that have significant potential for application in Canada, those in comparative jurisdictions are based on complex and lengthy legislative and regulatory framework development. The current proposed model is inadequate in this regard and would likely result in unintended consequences in its current form. Further, any such provisions certainly would require significant consultations with provinces, territories and others.

Due to the legal complexity and public policy considerations that the government would need to address prior to establishing and implementing such regimes in Canada, we will not be adopting the habitat banking amendments proposed by the other place. However, going forward, the department will commit to evaluating the performance of proponent-led habitat banks and to assess offsetting policies adopted elsewhere, including third party habitat banking and payment in lieu of offsetting.

Additionally, in light of the discussions on third party habitat banking as they relate to Bill C-68, I have asked the House fisheries committee to study this issue. This government has always been of the view that polluters should pay. It simply should not be free to harm our environment. I believe there is significant merit in further examining third party habitat banking.

I would also note that the Canadian Wildlife Federation, which proposed these amendments through Senator Wells and which does great work advocating for the protection of wildlife habitat, has indicated its support for the removal of the these amendments at this time. It understands that more work needs to be done before we can move forward fully in this area. In addition, we are making a technical amendment to an amendment made by Senator Christmas to ensure that the language used with respect to section 35 rights, as well as aboriginal treaty rights, is consistent with language used in the rest of the bill. I have spoken to Senator Christmas about this amendment and he has agreed to this change.

Bill C-68 is restoring lost protections that Canadians elected this government to do. Changes in this bill will help rebuild fish stocks and in turn support the communities that depend on them.

When the Conservatives were in government, they did the opposite. They watered down fish and fish habitat protection when they gutted the Fisheries Act in 2012, and they made deep cuts to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans by slashing the operating budget by $100 million. They also made staff cuts to critical areas, such as the Pacific region habitat management program, which helped support the management of our wild salmon.

I am proud to be part of a government that is taking the right approach when it comes to protecting our environment and our fish stocks. That is why last fall, in partnership with the Government of British Columbia, I announced $142 million to create the B.C. salmon restoration and innovation fund to support the B.C. fish and seafood sector, and to ensure the sustainability of wild Pacific salmon and other B.C. fish stocks. This government has also invested in science, small craft harbours across the country and whale research. As many Canadians know, it was this government that invested $1.5 billion in the oceans protection plan that has supported research, opened new rescue boat stations, increased Coast Guard capacity and restored coastal habitats. Canadians can count on this government to make the right investments in our environment while growing our economy and creating good middle-class jobs.

This bill has also been before both chambers for over a year now. The Conservatives will say that their move backward in 2012 to reduce protections may not have had a negative impact on the environment; they will argue that their changes were somehow merited.

Canadians know not to wait until stocks collapse before taking action. Canadians know that the Conservatives do not support science or a precautionary approach. That is why, under their watch, they muzzled scientists and made dramatic cuts. Canadians know that Bill C-68 will help protect our fish and fish habitat and is an important piece as we move forward with a plan that will protect our biodiversity, oceans, and ensure our fisheries are sustainable for future generations.

It is truly time to get on with passing Bill C-68. In response to the message from the other place, we are accepting many amendments, while rejecting just three amendments and amending one. Again, the Canadian Wildlife Federation that originally proposed the habitat banking amendments, through Senator Wells, has indicated its support for the removal of that amendment. I would also note that Senator Wells was one of just three senators who voted against the bill, effectively against the very amendments he put in at third reading. Further, as I had indicated, Senator Christmas supports the minor technical amendment that we are proposing.

I certainly hope that all members in this chamber can join with me in ensuring quick passage of this bill, so that our fish and their habitat can be assured of the protection they so desperately need.

Ending the Captivity of Whales and Dolphins Act

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a great honour to speak today during the final hour of debate after several years of work on a bill that is important to the world's whales.

I am particularly honoured to rise this morning because we are at the point that most members in this place appear ready to see this legislation pass. The legislation was first brought forward in the last few days of the Senate sitting of 2015. It has been, to put it mildly, a long haul.

The hon. member just raised concerns, and I think all concerns by my colleagues in this place are legitimate. However, it is important for anyone watching this debate to recognize that the bill is based on science.

Many scientists testified as to why it is critical that we stop keeping cetaceans in captivity. We understand why. They are obviously not akin to livestock, for instance. Cetaceans require the ocean. They require the space. They require acoustic communication over long distances. The scientists who testified before the committee who made the case so strongly made it based on science.

Yes, Canadians care. Yes, the school children who wrote to us in the thousands were not moved by the science; they were moved because they see movies and nature films and they understand that whales, dolphins and porpoises are of a different character than other animals.

I would reassure my friend that we could not just substitute the name for another species. Bill S-203 is firmly tied to the Fisheries Act. I do not think we would find any horses in the wild in the ocean. We have tied it down legislatively in such a way that others should not worry that there will be a creeping effect.

In the time remaining, I want to say how grateful I am for the non-partisan spirit. It has been my entire honour to be the sponsor of this legislation in the House. I am enormously grateful to my colleagues.

I mentioned the scientists. Let me thank Dr. Visser, who testified at committee, coming in by Skype from New Zealand in the days right after the Christchurch killings. It was an emotional time for everyone. I would also like to thank Dr. Naomi Rose, and from Dalhousie University, Dr. Hal Whitehead. Phil Demers, a former whale trainer at Marineland, offered excellent real-life testimony as to the cruelty of keeping whales in captivity.

Certainly Senator Wilfred Moore and Senator Murray Sinclair have done an enormous amount to help. So too has the government representative in the Senate, Senator Harder.

I also want to thank the Minister of Fisheries and his predecessor for taking companion elements in Bill S-203 and embedding them in Bill C-68. Bill C-68, the reform of the Fisheries Act, remains before the Senate.

I want to take a moment to urge all colleagues in the other place to move Bill C-68 through. I also urge everyone here, if there are amendments, to move Bill C-68 through, because the Fisheries Act is critically important on many scores, as well as being companion legislation to Bill S-203.

Again, in a non-partisan spirit, I want to thank the hon. member for Port Moody—Coquitlam, who we will miss in this place, and the hon. member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley. I also want to mention his constituent, Ben Korving, who put forward the legislation regarding zero-waste packaging. I pledge, as leader of the Green Party, to take on Ben Korving's motion and make sure that it does not die in this place, because those members made a sacrifice to allow Bill S-203 to pass before we rise at the end of June.

I also want to thank the hon. member for Beaches—East York, a Liberal, and my friend from Courtenay—Alberni, who was gracious in his praise earlier.

Everyone pulled together on this. The member for Charlottetown, the parliamentary secretary, helped enormously.

I would once again like to thank my Bloc Québécois colleague, the member for Repentigny.

I know that there were Conservative colleagues who did what they could.

I cannot tell members how important this legislation is. I will close with a few words that we have not heard in this place before. They are from the book of Job. They are found in chapter 41, verse 1.

Behold, Behemoth,
which I made as I made you;...

He is the first of the works of God;...

Can you draw out Leviathan with a fishhook
or press down his tongue with a cord?
Can you put a rope in his nose
or pierce his jaw with a hook?...
Will traders bargain over him?
Will they divide him up among the merchants?...

On earth there is not his like,...
He sees everything that is high;
he is king over all the sons of pride.

To everyone in this place, let us think for a moment. We behold Leviathan. He belongs in the wild. He will never again be placed in a swimming pool in this country.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Red Deer—Lacombe, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting that I rise today to speak to Bill S-203, which on its surface seems to be popular and appeals to the emotional drives behind it. Like many Canadians, I have gone and seen cetaceans in captivity at places like SeaWorld and the Vancouver Aquarium; and at places like Marineland, where personally I have never been. I just want to put this in context.

This bill is designed to shut down one business in Canada. There is only one business in Canada actively pursuing or using cetaceans right now for the purpose of entertainment. That is what I want to talk about in this bill.

I am not against the notion that, if Canadians are by and large against having cetaceans in captivity, we can have that conversation. Of course we can have that conversation. It is the approach that this piece of legislation is taking that concerns me. It concerns me because I am a hunter and an angler. I am a guy who grew up on a farm and used animals every day at every stage and walk in my life. I am a guy who represents two areas of my constituency. One area hosts the Ponoka Stampede and one area hosts the Canadian Finals Rodeo in Red Deer.

I am also a conservationist. I have a zoology degree. I am pretty sure the guys who are laughing at me right now probably do not. I am going to ask that they just sit and think about this for one second. Many scientists appeared before the committee in the Senate and the committee in the House of Commons. They were people with not just bachelor of science degrees in zoology but with Ph.D.s. They were very concerned by the precedent that this piece of legislation would set. I asked the question in the committee whether we could end cetacean captivity in Canada in a simpler way, such as by just ending the permits of this particular business. We could do that by making a small change to the Fisheries Act and to the plant and animal transfer act.

However, this bill would change three things. It would change the Criminal Code of Canada and would do some interesting things. The bill is not about how humans handle animals or about the welfare or treatment of animals in people's care. The bill would, for the first time ever, make it a criminal act in Canada to keep an animal in captivity. That is the first time in our legislation anywhere that having an animal in captivity would be considered an illegal act. It would be illegal in the Criminal Code of Canada to breed animals, and these particular cetaceans—

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a huge honour to speak today in the House of Commons. With this bill and with the support of my hon. colleagues, Canada is on the cusp of making history and ending cetacean captivity and making sure it is a thing of the past. Not only is this important to me, but it is important to the people of my riding, to people right across this country from coast to coast to coast, to countless environmental stewards who have fought hard on this issue, and certainly to the Nuu-chah-nulth people and indigenous people across this country.

I have heard from many of them. Many Nuu-chah-nulth people see the orca, in their language the kakaw’in, as a spirit animal and as an animal that is a reflection of their ancestors. To think of their ancestors being held in captivity is certainly something they do not want to see happen again.

If we pass this bill, it would do a couple of things. First, it would give us credibility and legitimacy to take it even further, to push for a global ban on having cetaceans held in captivity. We know that cetaceans held in captivity suffer in a way that is not justifiable. Bill S-203 is a reasonable, balanced piece of legislation.

Let us look at the life of a captive whale, dolphin or porpoise. In captivity, conditions are spartan and prison-like. Cetaceans suffer confinement, isolation, health problems, reduced lifespans, high infant mortality rates, sensory deprivation and trauma from transfer to other parks and calf separation. Given the evidence, captive facilities cannot provide for their social or biological needs. They need to roam widely and dive deep in order to thrive. The range of captive orcas is only 1/10,000th of 1% the size of their natural home range, and 80% of their time is spent at the surface, looking for food and attention from their trainers, who make the choices for them when they are held in captivity. Captive-born animals are often forcibly weaned and shipped to other facilities, away from their mothers and the only companions they have ever known. It creates unnecessary trauma. It is cruel.

Let us compare that to wild cetaceans. They spend approximately 80% to 90% of their time under the water. They have the freedom to make their own choices, sometimes travelling up to 100 miles per day, following food and the members of their family. Many of these species, like the orcas, live in complex societies with their own cultures and dialects, maintaining close ties with family and friends. Some remain in family groups for life. For wild orcas, their pod is critical to their survival.

I want to add that I am excited that we just had a baby orca in the pod off Tofino, witnessed by my good friends Jennifer Steven and John Forde. It is another reminder of the importance of our orcas being able to roam freely in the wild and knowing that a baby orca will not be taken and put into captivity. It is a relief to all of us.

We know that keeping cetaceans is cruel, given the scientific evidence about their nature and behaviour. They are intelligent, social and acoustically sensitive marine animals.

New Democrats believe in the power of research, and we know that the continued study of cetaceans can be done ethically in the wild. There, scientists can get a realistic view of their natural behaviours without causing a lifetime of pain and suffering.

Our party also understands the need for legislation to be measured, and Bill S-203 does balance a fair transition for the two remaining facilities that hold captive cetaceans. It grandfathers in existing animals and gives the zoo and aquarium community a long phase-out period. It is not asking these facilities to close overnight. Certainly we will not be supporting the movement of cetaceans or sale of cetaceans anywhere from those facilities.

There are a few people we need to thank today. First of all, we need to thank the hundreds of thousands of Canadians who brought their voice to all elected officials, whether in the House of Commons or in the Senate, calling for this legislation to be passed; the environmental groups and animal rights organizations for mobilizing people; and indigenous communities for raising their concerns, which led to the bill and today's debate.

Also, there are people in the House whom we need to thank, for coming together and showing this is not a partisan issue; it is a moral issue. First, I want to thank my colleague from Skeena—Bulkley Valley. He had a very important piece of legislation to end zero-waste packaging, with which we hope the government will move forward. It made some announcements today in response to my motion, Motion No. 151, around phasing out single-use plastics. I would like to congratulate the government on that first step, and I look forward to seeing more momentum and movement, especially around industrial-use plastics, and rethinking how we use plastics.

I thank my colleague from Skeena—Bulkley Valley because his bill was supposed to be in the House today, and he gave up his spot so we could move forward with this piece of legislation, knowing the only way we could save it was for it to be in the House today. I also want to thank Terrace's Ben Korving. He is the one who helped my colleague from Skeena—Bulkley Valley bring the bill forward on zero-waste packaging through a contest held in his riding to ensure Canadians' voices were heard in the House. We have not lost sight of Ben's work. We have ensured the government heard the proposal that Ben brought forward. I want to thank them both.

In that same spirit, I want to thank my colleague and friend from Saanich—Gulf Islands for the considerable work she has done on this issue and the stewardship she has shown by taking on this bill, working with us to find a path forward and showing a non-partisan approach when it comes to ensuring we do the right thing for cetaceans, which do not have a voice. We are their voice and this is an opportunity to demonstrate what we are going to do to look out for them.

I want to thank my colleague and friend from Port Moody—Coquitlam, the former vice-chair of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans, who helped move this bill through committee and worked very hard on it. I also want to thank my friend and colleague, the chair of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans, the member for Avalon, who has done some great work to help ensure the passage of this bill. I really mean that, because without his help, working with all of us in the House, we would not have got this done. I commend him for his work on that.

This bill would not have made it this far without the courageous and bold efforts of Senator Wilfred Moore. We sometimes raise concerns about the Senate, and I certainly have my doubts right now on a number of pieces of legislation, so I will take it away from the Senate and give it to a human being who is a huge champion, and that is retired senator Wilfred Moore. He has been a champion of this bill. He tabled this bill in the Senate and stayed on this bill even beyond his retirement, showing his dedication and commitment, and we owe him a round of applause. I thank him for being completely committed and devoted to seeing this through.

I thank Senator Murray Sinclair for taking on and championing this bill in the Senate, bringing the really important wealth of indigenous knowledge and his connections across this country and ensuring those voices were also heard in the Senate.

In closing, I hope this bill passes very quickly. I thank the hundreds of thousands of Canadians who have been the voice of cetaceans, which do not have a voice, and look forward to Canada having legitimacy and credibility on the international stage when it comes to fighting for cetaceans and ending the captivity of whales internationally. I hope that is the next step for our country.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am rising in the House to speak to Bill S-203. Despite good intentions, this legislation is flawed in its current form. It should come as no surprise that there are many issues with this bill. In the short time it has been before the House for consideration, one of the major problems identified is an English-French language conflict in the text of the bill.

As we all know, Canada is a bilingual country. Our two official languages are French and English, and all legislation drafted and passed in Parliament reflects this. Anyone who has ever read these documents knows that the English text is on the left side, while the French text is on the right. We also know that Canadian laws and legislation must be applied in the same manner for all Canadians, regardless of language. This is fundamental for ensuring a fair justice system, which is key to our democracy. Otherwise, it would be grossly unfair and inhumane for a state to subject its citizens to different laws and penalties based on the language they speak. I hope in this place, and across Canada, we can all agree on that.

That is why I believe the mistake in Bill S-203 was an unfortunate oversight made by the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans. Issues like this are more likely to happen when legislation is rushed through the process without being subject to a thorough study. As members may know, Bill S-203 was given only two meetings before it was pushed ahead without amendment.

It began on March 18, 2019. In a meeting of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans, the government member from Miramichi—Grand Lake identified an important and significant language conflict in the text of Bill S-203. The following is a quote from the Evidence, as the member questioned a department official on this issue:

Another thing that would need to be clarified for me is clause 4 of Bill S-203 to prohibit the importation to Canada of living cetaceans as well as cetacean tissue or embryos, subject to a special permit. Apparently the English text of the clause refers to permits issued pursuant to proposed subsection 10(1.1) of WAPPRIITA [the Wild Animal and Plant Protection and Regulation of International and Interprovincial Trade Act] while the French version of the text is silent on the type of importation permit required. That sounds very odd. I wouldn't know of any other piece of legislation in which the French version would be different from the English version.

The departmental official replied, “I am not completely sure about the two clauses you are referencing. I haven't done a comparison of the English to the French so I don't have a response for you on that.” In response, the member asked, “Do you think we should clarify that?” The departmental official replied, “It would be important to make sure that the intent in both the English and the French is the same.”

Interestingly, it was a member of the current government, from a bilingual province, who flagged this critical language concern. It is also interesting how the department official stressed the importance of getting the language right.

The story does not end there. It continues.

On March 26, 2019, the Honourable J.C. Major, a former Supreme Court justice, penned a letter to all members of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans. He, too, identified the same language conflict as the member did. However, rather than merely stating his concern, he elevated the issue to be a constitutional matter. In addition to that, he informed the committee that this part requires amendment.

This is what the Honourable J.C. Major wrote to the members of the committee in his letter:

I have reviewed the proposed Section 7.1 which is scheduled as an amendment to Bill S-203 of the Wild Animal and Plant Protection Regulation of International and lnterprovincial Trade Act (WAPPRIITA).

In addition I have reviewed the French to English and English to French review certified by...ABCO International which on review concludes that the wording of Section 7.1 between the French and English version is starkly different. The question raised is whether the difference is so material that compliance is affected. In my opinion the differences are material and confusion is inevitable and an amendment is the only remedy that will clarify the intent and purpose of Section 7.1.

Canada, by virtue of the Federal Government's legislation, confirmed by the Supreme Court of Canada and evidenced by the Charter of Rights, is officially bilingual. In addition, under S.18 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms (Part 1 of the Constitution Act 1982), both English and French are made equally authoritative.

Given that both languages are authoritative and that differences between the French and English drafting of Section 7.1 are materially different, it is apparent that revisions by way of amendment of that section would by its uniformity confirm Parliament's intention as the section would then be clear to parties affected by it and invaluable to the judiciary.

The latter consideration is important as explained below as case law is replete with decisions evidencing the difficulty the courts in all provinces have from time to time reconciling statutory conflicts and either succeeded in doing so or entering an acquittal.

Section 7.1 of Bill S-203 is an enforcement provision under the Act. Given the conflict in the English and French versions of the proposed legislation its passage without a clarification amendment would, in the event of an illegal violation and subsequent prosecution, present a dilemma to the court. An obvious example being that an application under the English version would be required to meet the conditions set out in s. 10(1.1) whereas an application adhering to the French version would not. In the result the same law would be different depending on the site of the application. Should a charge be laid under the proposed Section 7.1 the difficulty described would be left to the court then to attempt a reconciliation of the conflict in the language and if not possible to strike down the section and order an acquittal.

The foregoing is a brief response to the difficulties that are inevitable if there is no amendment clarifying the intent of the legislation.

It is of value to consider the unequivocal recommendation number 35 of the Uniform Law Conference of Canada which concluded “the English and French versions of a bilingual Act must be identical in substance”.

My observation is that the member and the former Supreme Court justice both share the same concern: There is a language conflict in the bill's text. That common ground should be encouraging. However, what happened next in the committee at clause-by-clause was anything but. My party brought forward two amendments. One would make the English text read the same as the French, and the other would make the French text read the same as the English. Both amendments were rejected by the government, and Justice Major's legal opinion was ignored.

My second observation at committee was about the four government amendments that the member for Miramichi—Grand Lake suddenly withdrew at clause-by-clause. The withdrawals came as a surprise to the opposition members, because they were sensible amendments. Their intent was largely to coordinate Bill S-203 with the Liberals' own Bill C-68, which I can understand. Both bills share overlapping objectives, and if both were to pass, their implementation could clash or create confusion. In short, it made little sense for the member to make those withdrawals, especially when the changes were responsible ones that the Conservatives were prepared to support.

Here we are then. This is the second hour of third reading of Bill S-203. This bill is flawed. A former Supreme Court justice was called in. Bill S-203 is a constitutional challenge in waiting, and the scariest thing is that this bill is about to come into force.

This is as good a time as any to remind all members of the House that it is our responsibility as parliamentarians to ensure that the bills we pass are constitutional and legally sound.

Given the government's majority position, this decision ultimately weighs on the Liberal government to do what is right. It must act in the best interests of Canadians. That action is passing legally sound and constitutional legislation.

So here we are, at the second hour of third reading debate. The bill, in its current form, is flawed. A former Supreme Court justice has weighed in on the constitutionality, and those changes needed to be made. Now is a good time to remind all members of the House that it is our responsibility as parliamentarians to ensure that all laws we pass are constitutional and legally sound.

Given these reasons, I hope the government reconsiders its position on Bill S-203.

[Ken McDonald, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

Mr. Speaker, as the chair of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans, I am proud to speak in support of Bill S-203, an act to amend the Criminal Code and other acts, also known as the act for ending the captivity of whales and dolphins.

I also realize that I am speaking to the bill two days after World Oceans Day. Canada has the longest coastline in the world, and this past weekend, Canadians across the country raised awareness and celebrated our magnificent oceans. I took part in two community cleanups in Conception Bay, where I live.

While our oceans are vast and full of life, we also recognize the peril many of our ocean friends and marine ecosystems face due to threats from climate change and, of course, pollution. More than ever, we must work together to ensure that our oceans are clean and healthy for the many species that call them home, and to support our communities that depend on them.

Let us imagine whales and dolphins, which are used to having the ocean as their playground or feeding ground, being put in a cage not much bigger than a large outdoor swimming pool. Let us imagine the effect this would have on their ability to survive and flourish if they ever were released again. Let us imagine ourselves being put in a room which is 10 feet by 10 feet and being told that is where we have to live out the rest of our days. It certainly would have drastic effects on anyone, or on any animal, for that matter.

The bill has been strongly supported by my constituents of Avalon, and several members of the House have also supported the bill moving forward. I would like to thank the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands, who has been strongly advocating for the bill to move forward in the House, and all the other members who have spoken on the necessity of the bill for the protection of our whales and dolphins.

As many members know, the bill comes to us from the Senate, first by retired senator Wilfred Moore, who originally brought the bill forward in 2016, and then sponsored by Senator Murray Sinclair. The work of these senators cannot go without mention. I would like to thank them for their leadership when it comes to the protection of our oceans and the species that call them home.

Whales and dolphins are part of our Canadian wildlife, and we are very lucky to have them live in our waters. In Newfoundland and Labrador, whales are a major tourist attraction. We see many visitors each year and if they are not coming to see the icebergs, they are coming to see the whales.

Canadians know how important it is to preserve our marine wildlife. That is why our government is not only supporting Bill S-203, but through Bill C-68, making amendments that also strengthen the bill.

Over the years, we have come to learn more and more about the nature of whales and dolphins and the conditions required for their livelihood. Research has told us that these animals undergo an immense amount of stress when taken into captivity, and this stress persists throughout their life. That is why Canadians and this government support the bill banning the captivity of whales and dolphins.

I want to thank the House leadership team, especially the member for Waterloo, for working so hard to get the bill through the House at this time. Again, I commend the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands, Senator Moore and Senator Sinclair for their leadership on the bill and this issue, which is important to so many Canadians. I support the bill and look forward to its passage.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very proud to speak to this important issue today.

I want to thank the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands for bringing Bill S-203 to the House. The bill looks at the reality of phasing out the captivity of dolphins, whales and porpoises.

The riding that I represent, North Island—Powell River, is along the ocean, and these are beings that we live with. That interaction is very important to us. I think of the times I have spent watching this wildlife engage with us in their free natural state. It is important that we are talking about this issue here today.

I also want to take this opportunity to thank my caucus colleague, the member for Port Moody—Coquitlam, for his dedication to the country's oceans, rivers and streams. His commitment to protecting the wildlife that lives within them has resonated with people across Canada. He will not be sitting in the House with us much longer, so it is important to acknowledge the work he has done on files like this one.

I also want to take this opportunity to thank the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley. The member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley has always had a special place in my heart because he represents the area where I grew up. I really respect his connection with the communities in that largest of ridings in British Columbia.

A couple of weeks ago, the member came to my riding to talk about his private member's bill on zero waste packaging. That issue is a huge concern in my riding. Packaging made of plastic takes so long to deteriorate and we know the impact it is having on our oceans.

Without that member's work we would not be standing here today debating Bill S-203. I understand that he is working with the minister right now to push forward his important piece of legislation around zero waste packaging. It deals with an important issue to make sure we do not fill our landfills with plastics anymore.

If it were not for the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley accepting a letter from me, the member for Courtenay—Alberni, the member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, the member for Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, our colleague from Victoria and Laurel Collins asking him to give up his spot on today's private members' hour, we would not be debating this bill today. I want to acknowledge that and thank him for continuing to work so hard on his zero waste packaging legislation. He will not give up, which is something that I appreciate deeply about the member.

Bill S-203 proposes to phase out the captivity of whales, dolphins and porpoises in Canada, except in situations like rehabilitation or rescue.

New Democrats will always support the ethical and useful research of these beings in the water, but the research can take place in the wild. Scientists in the wild environment can get a realistic view of the natural behaviours of these animals without causing a lifetime of pain and suffering, which we know is the reality when they are held in captivity.

What we have heard from scientists is that these beings suffer in confinement. They suffer a sense of isolation, serious health problems, reduced lifespans, high infant mortality rates, sensory deprivation, as well as trauma from the transfer to other parks and calf separation.

This bill speaks to an important issue where we can get it right and do the right thing. Given the evidence, captive facilities cannot provide for these beings' social or biological needs.

Keeping them in captivity is cruel. They are intelligent social animals. They are acoustically sensitive marine beings that spend their time in the vast oceans. They dive deep down to places many of us will never see.

When we look at their freedom in the wild, to swim freely, to dive deeply, when we think about their confinement, it is so much less. We have heard it is less than 1% of the range that they are used to. Can members imagine that? None of us in this place can imagine being in our environment, doing the things that we do, and suddenly being put into a small box and told that we have to be successful and perform for other people. We cannot ask these beings to do that.

It reminds me of what Maya Angelou said, “When you know better, do better.” This is an opportunity in this House to move forward because we now know better, so it is time for us to do better.

Unlike many issues, this really is not a partisan issue. It is a moral issue. It is a bill that is supported by science. We know that whales, porpoises and dolphins in captivity suffer in a way that cannot be justifiable. We know that this bill, Bill S-203, is a reasonable one. It is a balanced piece of legislation. It grandfathers the process and it gives zoos and aquariums time to phase out this practice. This is the right thing to do and I hope everyone in this House takes the opportunity to support this.

When we think about the grandfathering process out of captivity that Bill S-203 proposes, we know it will do important things. It will ban live captures under the Fisheries Act, except for rescues when some being out there needs help. Currently, captures are legal if they are licensed. We all need to pause and take a moment to think about what that means. We know that the last capture that happened was belugas near Churchill in 1992, so it is a practice that is not being implemented. However, the fact that it is still there is very concerning, and this bill would remove it.

Bill S-203 also bans imports and exports, except if licensed for scientific research. This is a hard one, but we want to see an open water sanctuary. We want to see the process happen in a way that is best for the whale, the dolphin or the porpoise. We want to make sure it is under the Wild Animal and Plant Protection and Regulation of International and Interprovincial Trade Act. These are important factors that this bill can bring forward.

Finally, this bill would ban breeding under the animal cruelty provisions of the Criminal Code. This is also very important.

Right now there is a bill before the Senate, Bill C-68, that would prohibit the captures but it would not restrict imports or exports by law nor would it ban breeding. This is why we need this bill. This is why I will be supporting it. This is the action that needs to be taken to complete what is happening already.

Twenty marine mammal biologists from around the world released a letter supporting Bill S-203. They said, “At a minimum, the maintenance of odontocetes”, in other words, toothed whales, dolphins and porpoises, “in commercial captive display facilities for entertainment purposes is no longer supported or justified by the growing body of science on their biological needs.”

We know it is the right thing to do and it is time to make sure that people have the opportunity to see these beautiful animals in the wild, to respect what they need and to create a new relationship. Keeping them enclosed is not the right way to go.

When we look at the wild, we know that dolphins, whales and porpoises travel up to 100 miles daily feeding and socializing with other members of their pods. The pods can contain hundreds of individuals with complex social bonds and hierarchies. That is their natural state. In captivity they are in small enclosures and unable to swim in a straight line for any distance. They do not have the ability to dive deep. Sometimes they are housed alone or housed with other animals they are not naturally used to being with. When we look at that isolation with this concern in mind, we know this is the right thing to do.

I look forward to seeing support from all members in this House. We can do the right thing. Today is the day and I look forward to seeing a positive vote.

The House resumed from May 10 consideration of the motion that Bill S-203, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and other Acts (ending the captivity of whales and dolphins), be read the third time and passed.

Animal Welfare

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the second petition is one that I am very happy to say is related to supporting my bill, Bill S-203, to ban the keeping of whales and dolphins in captivity.

These petitioners are hoping the House will pass this bill before the end of June. Thanks to the kind auspices of the hon. member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley—and I also want to thank the member for Courtenay—Alberni and the hon. minister of fisheries—the good news is that this bill will come before us on Monday for the second hour of report stage. I am thankful for the opportunity to present this petition, and I hope we have good news soon.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Number one, I just want to say that even though we may not get this motion.... I mean, with getting those first-hour and second-hour debates, I'm fighting to try to find a second hour for getting Bill S-203 through, for example—which is widely supported—on ending the keeping of whales in captivity.

The goal of what we all worked on here, as far as I was concerned, was to get a good chance at procedure and House affairs committee to talk about it and work on it and to try to do it together. I'm happy about that. That's one reason for optimism: We're talking about it here.

The other is that Canadians want it, but I don't think.... When I'm knocking on doors, people don't say, how is it that the Speaker doesn't have control over who gets recognized in question period? It doesn't come up. They do say, how can you stand it when people all around you are yelling all the time and banging on their desks? That doesn't look right. I know we've all had this experience of school groups coming in, and they took the kids out because they they didn't want them to see that. They were horrified.

We want high voter turnout. We want a healthy democracy. We want respect for the institution. We would also rather that people didn't think the fact that we are politicians means we were a subclass of human beings, somewhere below—I don't know—the paparazzi. I mean, I was a lawyer and now I'm a politician. It just doesn't get worse. Where do I go from here?

It would be nice to feel we have done something that our voters wanted us to do to elevate the discourse and make them proud of what they see, as Canadians, happening in Parliament.

We know the mechanics that can make that happen, so I think if we work for our constituents in the way that they would like to have the House be more respectful, have our work be more productive.... And for me, the single biggest issue—and there are a number of places that aren't even in this motion where I'd love to see the change—is to reduce the power of the back room over the conduct of what happens on the floor.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Red Deer—Lacombe, AB]

It's Bill S-238, but that's fine. Bill S-203 is a whale of a story.

[Paul Gillis]

I would say that the policy intent behind Bill S-203 is to prohibit importation and exportation of shark fins.

Oceans Act

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague, the member for North Okanagan—Shuswap, who spoke on this topic for over an hour on Friday. It was fish Friday. Fish was even served in the lobby, and he spoke eloquently for over an hour on Bill C-55 and Bill S-203, which is on ending the captivity of whales.

I was back in the riding talking about species at risk, in particularly the issue we have with the southern mountain caribou. Members might wonder why I am bringing up this issue. It is because my colleague across the way wants to talk about consultation and how it has been thorough.

He would probably stand up and say that the consultation on the southern mountain caribou issue in the province of British Columbia was been thorough as well. I can tell members that what has been very thorough and robust is the attendance at these town halls done by the Province of British Columbia, and the reason attendance has been robust is that there has been no consultation. Here is an issue that is going to have detrimental impacts on our province in terms of industry and our way of life.

I also want to say at the very beginning that nobody wants to see a species such as the southern mountain caribou become extinct, or our chinook or our Atlantic salmon or our northern cod. One of the challenges we have with the current government is that its members stand up and say that they have consulted Canadians thoroughly, from coast to coast to coast, but indeed they have not. Why would the minister be getting protests outside his door by angry fishermen, angry groups, and have to be spirited away under the protection of security?

When we stand up on this side to talk about consultation, even the NDP members are in agreement with us that consultation is not there.

I will bring members back to earlier today, and for those in the gallery and for Canadians just tuning in to the debate, it has been 71 times that we have voted on time allocation. This is closure of debate. It has happened 71 times to this point under the current government.

I will bring members back to day 15 of the member for Papineau's campaign to be our Prime Minister. It was day 15 in the 2015 election when he stood up and said that under his government, we would be the most open and transparent government in the history of our country. Well, we have seen where that has gone.

He also said that he would run small deficits and then all of a sudden balance the budget in 2019. Well, where are we now? We have huge debt.

One of the other things he said was that under his government, they would not resort to parliamentary tricks and tactics such as omnibus bills, invoking closure or using time allocation. He would let the debate reign, because after all it was not about us as parliamentarians, but about the people who voted us in and got us here.

With that, I have to bring members back to today. I will remind those in the House who are checking their iPads and checking their messages and not really paying attention to the debate that this is not about them and it is not about the Prime Minister; this is about the electors who voted for 338 members of Parliament here to be their voice. When the government invokes time allocation and closure on debate, it is saying that the voices of those who elected members of the opposition and many others do not really matter.

We have seen that time and time again, and it is usually when Liberals do not like what they are hearing. It is usually when valid points are being brought up. We now see it again. We are sitting at 71 time allocation motions. I said 59 earlier, but my great colleague from Courtenay—Alberni reminded us that it is 71 times. I do not think that is letting the debate reign.

I also want to talk about consultation.

Liberals stand and talk about consultation. Throughout the southern mountain caribou exercise, a slide was brought out and then taken down very quickly. The slide said “consultation versus engagement”. That prompted me to think about this a little more. Liberals in government—and perhaps we on this side too, as elected officials—throw the terms “engagement” and “consultation” around as though they are interchangeable. The reality is that they are not. They are vastly different. Depending on the underlying motivation and the process, they come at different solutions.

In consultation, I would tell you, Mr. Speaker, that I have a great idea and ask you what you think about it. You may say that the hon. colleague from Cariboo—Prince George has a great idea, but there are some ways it could be tweaked to make it better. I would respond by saying that these are great ideas and I would think about them. However, with engagement, I would go to you, Mr. Speaker, and say that we have a problem and I would really like your help to try to figure it out. You and I would go back and forth in a transactional kind of dialogue, and I would take your thoughts, ideas and concepts, say that I think we have come up with a solution, and tell you what it was and away we would go.

I am probably going to elicit some boos from that side of the House, because in terms of what I just said about consultation versus engagement, it is engagement that Canadians truly want, especially those in fishing and coastal communities and first nations that depend on the fisheries for their sustenance. When we levy a policy such as what is found in Bill C-55, we are not consulting Canadians on what we should be doing but engaging Canadians from the grassroots on the issue. However, the problem with that is that at times, they cannot tell us what they want to protect.

Mr. Speaker, you just gave me a three-minute warning, but I think I have 11 minutes. It is three minutes until question period. That is going to ruin the video. Let the record show that I am splitting my time with question period, with 338 members of Parliament, unlike our colleagues across the way, who would not allow that.

Whether it is Bill C-55, the Fisheries Act, the northern cod study, the Atlantic salmon study or the aquatic invasive species study—which we will never get to, because our friends on the fisheries committee continue to delay it—Canadians are looking for engagement on policy that is going to impact them.

I have tried to change my vocabulary, my use of “consultation”, since that southern mountain caribou fiasco we dealt with in the province of British Columbia, and I now use “engagement”.

It is not an engagement. It is really just a check in a box to say that my colleagues across the way have talked about it. I wonder if it is because they do not believe Canadians are smart enough to come up with an idea. After all, we live in coastal areas and depend on the water, so maybe we are not smart enough to come up with a solution to the problem. Maybe they are worried the problem is that Canadians are too smart and will figure it out.

I have listened to a number of fishers, fishing organizations and first nations. They are concerned about the lack of consultation on Bill C-55. Our hon. colleague across the way is saying that the amendment that came back from the Senate is redundant and is way too much. After all, it would listen to Canadians, who time and again said that they were not consulted enough. They said that they were not being engaged enough.

We should always strive to be better. Bill C-55 is core legislation under the Liberal government. Now the Liberals say that time has dithered away, and I think my hon. colleague mentioned that there were only 25 sitting days left, and that is why there is an urgency to push it through. However, there are serious concerns with Bill C-55, which is why that amendment came forward. What they are essentially saying, which is no different than time allocation, is that because it is a Conservative amendment, it does not really matter. That is wrong.

With that, I will cede the floor and pick it up after question period.

Ending the Captivity of Whales and Dolphins Act

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to join the debate on Bill S-203, for which I have received a fair volume of correspondence from constituents in my riding of Calgary Shepard, whom I am pleased to represent. A lot of them were sent to me on behalf of various organizations across Canada that have been promoting Bill S-203 as a solution to cetaceans in captivity.

Before I continue on with the bill, I want to make one mention. The member for St. John's East had the best observation regarding a Senate bill I have ever heard in this chamber when he said it did not take advantage of creative acronym design. It has been four years and I will give him that. How acronyms are created with certain bill is probably one observation I have not made, so I will give him kudos for that one, but not for the content of what he said, especially on the oceans protection plan, which is a $1.5-billion plan, with very little spending so far. The Coast Guard ships that have been built are still in dock in Nanaimo with no crews to service them and make them ready for use in the field. I have not seen any actual spending of the dollars associated with the plan. That is the first part of my reply to what he mentioned.

With respect to the substance of the bill, I feel the need to provide an introduction. I have been writing back to my constituents who have been writing to me on Bill S-203, and I have had some back-and-forth conversations with a few of them on disagreements over some of the technical aspects of the bill.

One thing I want to mention is that the bill broaches a certain area of provincial jurisdiction—animal welfare laws, typically—by going after the Criminal Code. It is a way for Parliament to make a judgment call about a certain practice in Canadian society. In this case, it is the captivity of cetaceans.

I share the same concern that a lot of my constituents have and that a lot of members of Parliament in this chamber have expressed over the necessary protection of whales, dolphins and other aquatic animals, which is that nobody wants to see them suffer. The member for Sherbrooke brought up an example of what happens in the Russian Federation. Of course, there are examples all over the world of abhorrent animal husbandry and captivity practices that most of us would say are brutal and should not be happening. Unfortunately, they do, because people use animals for entertainment purposes and to generate an income.

With respect to some of the historical aspects, as I think another member mentioned, there have been no live captures since 1992, although it is true that beluga whales and bottlenose dolphins have been imported from foreign sources.

It has been reported in various CBC articles and other media that parts of this bill seem to be veering into areas of provincial jurisdiction over animal welfare laws. Ontario has already banned the captivity and breeding in captivity of orcas, which is one of the concerns I had with the bill going the route of amending the Criminal Code. Perhaps it is more of a process issue that I have.

Going back to the previous debate we had earlier today on Bill C-55, with respect to the intent of a bill like this one, Bill S-203, I do not think many members disagree with the principle of the matter; rather, it is the execution we have concerns with.

There are a few scientists I am going to quote, some of whom provided testimony at committees and some who of whom provided feedback through correspondence that the member for Cariboo—Prince George and I have received.

I want to mention that this is a very unusual bill, because it has received review at over 17 committee meetings in an eight-month period. It was tabled way back in 2015 and has been on the public record for quite a long time. It has been debated for quite a long time. It had what I would say was a difficult process through that other place, the Senate chamber, with several senators expressing deep concern over the technical aspects of the bill in its interaction between provincial laws and federal jurisdiction over the Criminal Code. That area is where I am going to express some of my concerns as well.

The provinces are responsible for passing animal welfare laws. In this chamber we have pronounced ourselves on matters affecting what I would also think are areas of at least partial provincial jurisdiction, as in the bestiality bill the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice mentioned earlier. I do not think there is anything wrong in going the route of the Criminal Code, but in this case in particular the member for North Okanagan—Shuswap mentioned that it could potentially criminalize individuals that the law did not intend to criminalize, such as the booking of travel vacations or some service provision in tourism.

I do not think that was the intent of the law. However, I have seen before, as I mentioned in the House on Bill C-55, that with regulations passed by officials, written by officials and confirmed through the gazetting process that the Government of Canada has, the intention is typically lost. Nice words are shared by officials about the intent of the bill when the members of Parliament and senators express their will by passing a piece of legislation, but then the actual execution is not there.

Sometimes this debate among officials lasts well over a decade, two or three decades of quibbling over exactly what the law permits one to do and to whom it can apply. I think the concerns expressed by the member for North Okanagan—Shuswap on our side are that the lens with which the Criminal Code will be applied may be broadened by officials in the departments at a later point, far beyond the lifespan of any member here, or at least our elected lifespan. I wish all members good heath.

I think there is a concern there about that mission creep, about going after individuals or applying the law to individuals whom we had not intended it to be upon. That is why many amendments were moved at committee by the opposition side to try to improve and clarify this particular piece of legislation, of course not to obstruct it. Attempting to amend a piece of legislation is never about obstruction. It is about an improvement to the bill, especially when the intent is there. The technical aspect, the delivery of the bill and its execution, is perhaps lacking.

I want to mention the scientists. The member for Cariboo—Prince George previously made comments about an email from Dr. Laura Graham, a professor at the University of Guelph. I am going to read the quote, and then perhaps I can express some of my thoughts on the scientists' view on the impact that this bill would have.

The member for Cariboo—Prince George said:

Her speciality is endocrinology and reproductive physiology of wildlife species, including looking at factors that can impact the welfare of wildlife species managed by humans and using science to solve some of the challenges wildlife managers face as they work toward optimizing the welfare of animals in their care.

Thereafter, that information can be used in the general practices of the Crown when it is managing wildlife populations on behalf of Canadians. I am going to read a direct quote from the correspondence that the member for Cariboo—Prince George read, so that I can remind the chamber of what Dr. Laura Graham said:

As an expert in endangered species physiology I can tell you that this bill is short-sighted and will do irreparable harm to critical research on the marine mammals listed under SARA, including the Salish Orca. Over 90% of what we know about marine mammal biology is based on research on individuals under human care. And we need these captive animals to develop research techniques that can be applied to free-ranging animals.

The discussion goes on from there. The quotations given by this particular specialist, I think, are really important to keep in mind.

Many members have said that the economic operations of the aquariums, and those operations that save marine mammals and then perhaps keep them temporarily in captivity so that they can nurse them back to health, typically have some research component. It is never a purely economic operation.

Again, I could be wrong in the case of Marineland, which seems to be the best example being used. I am a member from Calgary, after all, so I do not head out to Toronto too often. However, on this particular piece of legislation, I think the intent is there but the execution is lacking. As I read from the scientist, I think there will be harm done on the research side of things that we were not able to fix at committee. In eight months and 17 committee meetings, we were not able to reach that mechanical fixing of the bill.

That is why I will be voting against this piece of legislation, just as I have been telling my constituents that I would. I implore all members to look at that fact and to vote against this particular law.

[Nick Whalen, Liberal, St. John's East, NL]

Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill S-203, an act to amend the Criminal Code and other Acts, also known as the act for ending the captivity of whales and dolphins.

The bill proposes changes to three acts: the Criminal Code, the Fisheries Act and the Wild Animal and Plant Protection and Regulation of International and Interprovincial Trade Act, an act whose name did not advantage of creative acronym design.

I want to begin by first stating that I am indeed, like Canadians across the country, in favour of the bill and I know this government supports this bill.

I actually deferred my opportunity to speak on my own private member's motion, Motion No. 196, and work with the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands in order to help advance this important legislation before the session ends. Who knows, maybe I will not get the opportunity to speak on my motion, but I know this is very important to Canadians. Seeing it so close to the finish line, it felt like it was the right move to make. I am honoured by the small role I may have been able to play in advancing the common good across party lines and between the other place and this place.

I also want to highlight the Liberal members of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans, who passed the bill unamended at committee.

The bill has progressed thanks to their leadership and is now even closer to being passed after years of debate in the Senate.

There is no doubt, as we have come to learn more about the living needs of whales and other cetaceans, that keeping them in captivity is simply the wrong thing to do.

Support for a ban on keeping whales in captivity has grown and is continuing to grow, not only in Canada, but around the world.

Canadians can see some of Canada's most majestic marine animals in their natural habitat all around Newfoundland and along all our coastlines from St. John's, Newfoundland, and Vancouver Island to the Arctic and Chaleur Bay.

We know from research on these animals that living in captivity is far from being in their best interest and that is why Canadians across the country have shown continued support for the banning of whales in captivity.

I would also like to add that while the banning of whale captivity is not yet in legislation, the practice has been in place for years in Canada, and our government continues to support this.

Licences for the capture of live cetaceans are issued only by the Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard for scientific research or rehabilitation.

In the past 10 years, as we have heard, only one licence has been issued for the rehabilitation of a live-stranded pseudo-orca calf.

Our government has also taken notice of the growing concern to ensure cetaceans are not being captured for the sole purpose of being kept for public display. That is why our government introduced Bill C-68, which is currently before the committee in the other place, and we hope will be reported out of the committee next week. It contains amendments that would prohibit the captivity of whales and would allow the minister to put in place regulations to ban the import and export of cetaceans.

Today, there are only two facilities in Canada that house cetaceans: Marineland in Niagara Falls, Ontario, and the Vancouver Aquarium in British Columbia.

Marineland is a commercial facility with approximately 60 cetaceans. Most are belugas with one being a killer whale.

The Vancouver Aquarium is a not-for-profit facility and has one cetacean at its facility, a 30 year-old Pacific white-sided dolphin that was rescued from the wild and has been deemed to be unfit for release back into the wild. The Vancouver Aquarium works with Fisheries and Oceans Canada to rescue and rehabilitate marine mammals in distress.

We know we must do more to keep protecting cetaceans. That is why we need to send a clear message through legislation that whales do not belong in captivity. Today we are debating the importance of keeping whales in the wild, but I also want to emphasize the importance of ensuring their marine habitats are protected.

Over the past few years, the government has made real investments to protect and conserve our marine environment. In 2016, the Prime Minister announced $1.5 billion dollars for the oceans protection plan, which has since funded 55 coastal restoration projects, helped to address threats to marine mammals from vessel noise and collisions, increased our on-scene environmental response capacity and much more.

As part of budget 2018, this government also announced $167.4 million for the whales initiative, which has further funded recovery plans for endangered species, such as the southern resident killer whale, the beluga whale and in my area of the world, the North Atlantic right whale.

Our government continues to take action to protect our environment. We recently announced new standards for marine protected areas to ensure that ecologically significant areas are not disturbed by oil and gas exploration. This measure was introduced in response to the recommendations of an independent expert advisory panel on marine protected areas. This announcement was well received in Canada and around the world.

Our move toward protecting important marine environments will help ensure a good future for a healthy ocean and the health of marine species such as whales and dolphins. However, I really cannot say enough about the oceans protection plan; infrastructure; coastal restoration; the abandoned, derelict and wrecked vessels programs; arctic marine protection; science and research and the pilotage review.

In my riding of St. John's East, there is an institute called the Marine Institute. I had the good fortune to be there in September 2011 with the minister of fisheries and oceans and the Canadian coast guard at the time, now our good friend from Beauséjour who is on leave, the former minister of veterans affairs, now the Minister of Indigenous Services, and my good friend and colleague the member for Avalon to announce important work that is being done to restore marine habitat in Avalon using expertise that comes from the university in my riding, the Marine Institute.

We announced a program to re-establish the eel beds in Placentia Bay to increase that habitat. That is where lots of species, including scallops, shrimp, cod and whales, start their lives. It is important to protect these areas to improve the health and ability of our oceans to be fully functioning in certain areas where they have become damaged due to industrial activity.

This particular project is small in comparison to the overall total. It is about $7.4 million. Although it was announced on my wedding anniversary, my wife was not too upset. We had an opportunity to celebrate later. The money is actually already being spent. Last summer, scientists were able to go into Placentia Bay, do the diving and begin that restoration work in Placentia Bay that will pay dividends for years to come.

It is wonderful to work with the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands on this. As we did a little social media earlier, a lot of people came back to me and asked some important questions on how our government can be supporting industrial activity in the oil and gas sector and at the same time support environmental protections. They felt that it was counterintuitive or perhaps even contradictory. That could not be further from the truth.

The only way the government can move forward, protect the environment and fund the transition of our economy to a clean economy is with economic growth from our traditional sectors in resource development. We must continue to work on the demand side, and this means the purchasing decisions made by consumers and how they engage in their daily lives, and at the same time allow our natural resources sectors to engage in environmentally responsible development so that we can tap into export markets.

We cannot allow countries that do not have good environmental records to capitalize on oil and gas profits from their exports and not allow our industry to thrive. That is why our government, at the same time it is doing all this great work to help whales in the wild and help prevent whale captivity, is also funding the Trans Mountain expansion and has recently approved, with many conditions, continued exploration for two projects on the northeast coast of Newfoundland and Labrador for oil exploration. ExxonMobil and Equinor now have the opportunity this summer and over the course of the next decade to drill exploratory drills in our waters, subject to conditions that protect the right whales and protect our oceans. We will use this prosperity to fund things like the oceans protection plan.

In closing, let me say that I am very pleased to be here today to join with Canadians from coast to coast to coast who have come out in favour of ending the captivity of whales. Whales have been kept in captivity for too long, and that has to change.

Whales do not belong in captivity; they belong in the wild. I encourage all members to support this legislation.

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise to speak to Bill S-203, an act to amend the Criminal Code and other acts, ending the captivity of whales and dolphins.

The proposed bill amends the Criminal Code to create offences respecting cetaceans in captivity. It also amends the Fisheries Act to prohibit the taking of cetaceans into captivity and the Wild Animal and Plant Protection and Regulation of International and Interprovincial Trade Act to require a permit for the import of a cetacean into Canada and the export of a cetacean from Canada.

The bill seems to be falling under the same umbrella, the same mode of operation of the government. It is being rushed through the House.

I was not able to attend the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans the day the bill was debated clause-by-clause, where amendments might be considered and brought back to the House. It is my understanding that even the Liberal government drafted and put forward four amendments to the bill. The Liberals could see the bill was flawed. They drafted corrections to a bill that had been out there for a lengthy period of time. However, when it came time to debate those amendments, the Liberals drew them back. It was speculated that they did that because of pressure from outside groups behind closed doors, under cabinet confidence, something the public cannot have access to, to withdraw those amendments.

That is a concerning factor for me. As the deputy shadow minister for Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard and a member of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans, we seem to see a trend recurring over and over again. The government promises consultation and claims to consult with locals and the people who are affected by changes to laws or regulations, the businesses, the aquariums, the fishermen. After the Liberals have done all that supposed consultation, they go behind closed doors where they appear to be lobbied by foreign interest groups, special interest groups. That lobbying seems to have more effect than the open and transparent consultation process that should take place with an open and transparent government, which, unfortunately, seems to be lacking right now.

Bill S-203 has been rushed through the House of Commons, without study. In the short time members of Parliament have had the bill, many issues have been flagged. These issues range from constitutional concerns to practical considerations that have been simply overlooked. This happens when legislation is rushed through and not carefully considered. Had the members been given more time to review and study the bill, many of these problems could have been solved with simple amendments. These amendments would benefit cetaceans, Canadians and stakeholders alike.

Another major issue was flagged recently in Bill S-203, which could impact hundreds of thousands of Canadians and their vacation plans over time. As it currently reads, Bill S-203 could negatively impact Canadian travel and tourist industry. More specifically, Bill S-203 could negatively impact travel agencies and Canadian vacationers who travel abroad and visit captive cetaceans in other countries. It has been argued that this is not the case, but the legal advice cannot irrefutably dissolve this. They cannot say for certain that this is not the case. It will take a court decision to say whether it is the case.

I have a letter from Marineland that raises the concerns in great detail and I will quote from that letter:

There was considerable discussion at the House of Commons Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans with respect to the prohibition on using cetaceans in performances for entertainment purposes and the broadness of the legislation. The section reads:

“(4) Every one commits an offence who promotes, arranges, conducts, assists in, receives money for or takes part in any meeting, competition, exhibition, pastime, practice, display or event at or in the course of which captive cetaceans are used for performance for entertainment purposes unless such performance is authorized pursuant to a licence issued by the Lieutenant Governor in Council of a province or by such other person or authority in the province as may be specified by the Lieutenant Governor in Council.”

A plain reading of the legislation offers no ambiguity. 'Every one' means every human being in Canada commits an offence when they do any of the following “promotes, arranges, conducts, assists in, receives money for or takes part in.”

Travel agents in Canada promote and receive money for selling such excursions to constituents of yours who then 'take part in' and many end up 'promoting' the experience on their own social media in Canada.

The exemption that is proposed in the section will not apply to the shows that today travel agents in your communities are actively promoting and receiving money from, nor will it apply to your constituents who take part in these shows and may promote it by encouraging others on social media to participate in similar shows in the future.

Department of Justice lawyers were not able to refute Marineland of Canada's contention that travel agents who 'promote' and 'receive money from' selling tickets to such shows occurring outside of Canada will not be criminally charged for doing so.

While Marineland of Canada is not concerned about this clause of the legislation impacting our facility, as we simply will not offer such a show for entertainment purposes, we believe this clause highlights the perils of using Private Members' legislation originating in the Senate to amend the Criminal Code of Canada.

We've reviewed travel agency offerings throughout Canada and have found that there are travel agents in every single Canadian province that promote and sell tickets to, and therefore receive money from, captive swim with the dolphin experiences and captive cetacean shows that will be covered by S-203.

The Department of Justice lawyer suggesting it is unlikely these people, or Canadians who urge their friends on Facebook to swim with the dolphins on their next trip, will not be prosecuted does not go far enough in addressing what is clearly a flaw in S-203.

Every single Canadian has a positive obligation to comply with all relevant sections of the Criminal Code at all times, and simply stating that while an act might be illegal, because the person breaking the law is unlikely to be prosecuted, is not OK.

If members pass S-203 with the current wording contained in the 'entertainment prohibition', you will be criminalizing the actions of vacationers from your riding who head south and participate in these lawful activities and the travel agents in your riding and Province who sell these excursions.

Is it truly the intention to leave Canadians in a position where posting about their lawful experience in another country can become a criminal offence if they encourage others to swim with dolphins when they go on vacation?

Is it truly the intention to criminally charge travel agents in your riding for selling vacations to Hawaii, Mexico, Cuba, the Bahamas and including an excursion that involves swimming with dolphins or a captive cetacean show?

As it is currently written, that is what the legislation would do and what members would be endorsing if they voted in favour of it. It will certainly be of interest—

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada and to the Minister of Democratic Institutions]

Madam Speaker, I rise today to join this important debate on Bill S-203, an act to amend the Criminal Code and other acts with regard to ending the captivity of whales and dolphins.

Both I and my constituents in Parkdale—High Park have anticipated this piece of legislation for some time since it moved from the Senate to this House. Now that it has returned from the fisheries and oceans committee without amendment, I am pleased to stand and speak in favour of this bill. It is important to highlight the important work that was done by a unanimous fisheries and oceans committee to get it back before this House expeditiously.

Before I speak to the substantive elements of the bill, I want to add my voice to the voice of the leader of the Green Party and thank the Senate sponsors for this bill, the now retired Senator Wilfred Moore and Senator Murray Sinclair, who carried the bill forward after Senator Moore's retirement. I want to thank as well the House of Commons sponsor, the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands, who commenced this debate today. All of these individuals have been tireless advocates for this legislation, and their activism and advocacy has helped carry Bill S-203 to this point we are at this afternoon.

The bill itself seeks to prohibit the taking of a cetacean into captivity and will amend the Criminal Code to create offences respecting cetaceans in captivity. It will also amend other acts to require a permit for the import of a cetacean into Canada and the export of one from Canada.

I want to begin by tracking our government's progress on the commitment to promote animal welfare rights in Canada and abroad. This is an important issue to me and the constituents of my riding of Parkdale—High Park, as I frequently hear from them about the work we must all do collectively to ensure the welfare of animals. Since 2015, we have made progress on this commitment.

In my role as Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice, one of the pieces of legislation I have had the privilege of working on is Bill C-84, an act to amend the Criminal Code in relation to bestiality and animal fighting. That bill will make important amendments to our Criminal Code to change the definition of bestiality and expand the animal fighting provisions to capture more of this conduct and ensure offenders are brought to justice.

This week is indeed a momentous week in this chamber, because it was only this week that Bill C-84 received third reading and was then sent to the Senate. I, along with many others, look forward to its study and its eventual passage there. In the same week that we dealt with Bill C-84 in this chamber, we are dealing today with Bill S-203. It has been an important week for animal rights in this country.

With the help of stakeholders such as farmers, industry groups, provinces and territories, and veterinarians, our government has also been active on ensuring proper and humane animal transport. Federally, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, the CFIA, administers the enforcement of regulations related to animal transport, and plans are under way to modernize the regulations and humane transport provisions of the health of animals regulations. These have not been updated since the 1970s. The need to reduce animal suffering during transportation is clear.

In 2017, we also announced an investment of $1.31 million to an entity known as the Canadian Animal Health Coalition, the CAHC, to help ensure the safe transportation of livestock, develop emergency management tools for the livestock industry and improve animal care assessments.

We have also been engaged with stakeholders on the topic of animal welfare during the slaughter process. The stakeholders in my riding of Parkdale—High Park have spoken to me repeatedly about the need to ensure that animals are handled humanely at all points of their lives and that the high standards we expect regarding animal treatment are upheld. I absolutely agree with their sentiment that this kind of protection must be a priority, which is why I currently serve as a member of the Liberal animal welfare caucus.

Let us get back to the bill before us, Bill S-203.

Scientists agree that whales, dolphins and other extraordinary marine mammals like them should not be kept in captivity or bred in captivity, and that doing so amounts to cruelty.

Additionally, it is well documented that the live capture of cetaceans and their transport to a foreign habitat harms the natural habitat where the cetaceans originate. At a time when oceans are under increased threat from a number sources, such as habitat destruction, coastal pollution, overfishing and global warming, which all harm these cetaceans, we can scarcely afford to be keeping them in captivity.

We must also think about the difficult living conditions for cetaceans that live in a confined space, such as an aquarium, without the social contact and normal activities most cetaceans in the wild would enjoy. Those that live in captivity suffer from a higher rate of physical health issues and a lower life expectancy.

As well, calves generally suffer from a much higher mortality rate and a lack of emotional connection to others of their species as a result of the limited space when they are in captivity.

Therefore, where we may have seen whales, dolphins and other cetaceans in an aquarium as a form of entertainment in bygone years, in many cases we now realize that it actually amounts to animal cruelty. Thus, our government firmly agrees that the capture of cetaceans for the sole purpose of being kept for public display should be ended.

Importantly, while the banning of whale captivity is not yet in law, the practice has been in place for some years now, which is a good sign. Bill C-68, which was mentioned earlier in today's debate in one of the questions by a member opposite, was introduced by our government. It is currently in the Senate and passed in the House in June of last year. It includes amendments to end the captivity of whales unless for rehabilitation. This legislation now before us is the next step, the next important step, in ensuring the safety and security of these intelligent and complex creatures.

Presently, as was mentioned by the Leader of the Green Party, there are two aquaria in Canada that are holding cetaceans: the Vancouver Aquarium, in British Columbia, and Marineland, in Ontario. The Vancouver Aquarium, which is a not-for-profit institution, currently has a Pacific white-sided dolphin, which was rescued from the wild and deemed not releasable, as well as five belugas on loan to aquaria in the United States. The Vancouver Park Board has not permitted the aquarium to hold cetaceans captured from the wild for display purposes since 1996, but it does work with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans to respond to cetaceans in the wild requiring rescue and rehabilitation. Marineland holds the remaining balance of cetaceans, including one orca.

The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans retains the authority to issue a licence for the capture of live cetaceans. However, only one such licence has been issued over the past decade, and that was for the rescue and rehabilitation of a stranded Pseudorca calf. No licence has been issued for the purpose of displaying a cetacean publicly in over 20 years. As stated earlier, it has been the practice of successive Canadian governments that cetaceans not be captured or placed in captivity unless for rehabilitation.

It is also important to note the elements of Bill S-203 that relate to the protection of the rights of indigenous peoples, some of which feature whales and dolphins as a key component of their culture and traditions. These provisions were not initially part of the bill, but through the significant consultation process that took place while Bill S-203 was being studied in the Senate, the bill was sufficiently and appropriately altered.

It is essential to consider and address the needs of indigenous peoples. This is something I have heard frequently from the knowledgeable, engaged constituents of my riding of Parkdale—High Park and literally from people right around the country. They have always echoed to me that we in this place, as legislators, must apply an indigenous lens to all the legislation, government or otherwise, that comes before us. I am pleased to see that this is in fact exactly what was done in the Senate when it engaged in those consultations.

This legislation complements our government's work, which I have outlined. We are committed to the recovery and protection of marine mammals. This commitment is evident through another investment we have made, which is a $1.5-billion investment in what is an historic oceans protection plan that would help restore our marine ecosystems, in partnership with our indigenous partners.

As well, there has been a five-year $167-million investment in the whales initiative, which would take concrete steps to help endangered whales and reduce the impact of human-caused threats. Our latest announcement was $61 million for measures in support of the southern resident killer whale population off the coast of British Columbia.

Bill S-203 is one aspect of the support our government is giving to marine animals and their habitat. Bill S-203 is also supported by some significant leaders in the field of marine science and animal welfare, including Humane Canada and Animal Justice. Even the former head trainer at Marineland, Mr. Philip Demers, has expressed support for the measures in this bill.

What I think we are seeing here with Bill S-203 is the proper and necessary evolution of rights protections for animals in this country. It is a bill whose time has come. It is a bill I am very proud to support on behalf of my constituents and as a member of the government. I urge all members to do the same.

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada and to the Minister of Democratic Institutions]

Madam Speaker, I thank the leader of the Green Party for her contribution to today's debate and for her contributions every day in the House. They are always welcome and always to the point.

I want to ask her about an important aspect she mentioned in her comments today on Bill S-203. It is the notion of the sentient nature of so many of the creatures that exist on our planet. For a long time, even when many of us were much younger, we learned about dolphins, but a bit less about whales, and that sentient nature. Perhaps the member could elaborate on how that science and evidence is developing and what the next frontier holds in further protections, beyond whales and dolphins, with respect to the animal kingdom and the species that exist on this planet.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

, seconded by the member for Windsor—Tecumseh, moved that the bill be read the third time and passed.

She said: Madam Speaker, I thank those members who are applauding this historic day. I speak for myself and for many Canadians from coast to coast to coast when I say we are very grateful for the assistance of the hon. Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard, the assistance of the hon. Minister of Environment and Climate Change and the assistance of their parliamentary secretaries in assisting this bill to get through this place after its long, long, long gestation in the Senate. We are extremely grateful for that support to expedite the passage of this bill so that it can receive royal assent before this House adjourns for the summer and the election.

I am only going to canvass briefly the elements of the bill; I think we are all very familiar with it.

It was started in the Senate, where it was sponsored by an absolutely terrific Canadian who would make the case that we should change mandatory retirement at age 75 for members of the Senate.

Senator Wilfred Moore of Nova Scotia brought this bill forward in 2015. On his retirement, it was taken up by another magnificent and inspiring leader within this country, former jurist Senator Murray Sinclair. All of their work and all of the witnesses in the long hearings before the Senate made the same point over and over again: In the 21st century, we simply know better than to think cetaceans belong in captivity. We can no longer pretend that the entertainment value of these magnificent, sentient creatures in swimming pools anywhere in Canada is acceptable.

Parallel to our efforts on Bill S-203 is a very good bill, Bill C-68, from the former minister of fisheries, the hon. member for Beauséjour. It is is currently before the Senate, and we certainly hope will pass soon. To him, I once again want to underline my deep thanks for all of his work as minister of fisheries.

Bill C-68, would make it illegal to take a cetacean into captivity in Canadian waters. Bill S-203, finishes that piece and makes it comprehensive by adding that we will not breed cetaceans in captivity, nor will we buy cetaceans from other countries and keep them in captivity.

We are listening to the science and taking the appropriate actions.

I want to thank other people who have played a significant role in seeing this largely non-partisan effort, supported by thousands and thousands of Canadians, come to this point.

I want to thank the hon. members for Courtenay—Alberni, New Westminster—Burnaby, Beaches—East York and Pontiac; the Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard; the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard; the members for West Nova, Avalon, and Charlottetown, and the member for Repentigny from the Bloc Québécois. There was help from members on all sides of the House, including the party that did not support the bill; there are individual members of that party who were very helpful.

The NGO community has been very helpful in assisting the process by networking with good scientists and also making sure the community of Canadians concerned with cetaceans received assistance. That community includes Animal Justice and its spectacular lawyer, Camille Labchuk; the Humane Society of Canada; Humane Society International; Ontario Captive Animal Watch; Animal Alliance of Canada; World Animal Protection; and The Whale Sanctuary Project. Assistance also came from scientists Dr. Lori Marino; Dr. Ingrid Visser, who testified by video link all the way from New Zealand; Dr. Naomi Rose; Dr. Hal Whitehead, of Dalhousie University; and Phil Demers.

All of these scientists, NGOs, individual elected Canadians and those from the unelected other place worked diligently and did their homework with one aim only: to end a practice that we all know is wrong.

It is a great honour for me to have overseen this private members' bill. It is a great honour.

I am surprised by the tremendous support that this bill has received across Canada. At this time, I would like to say just one thing: thank you.

I thank everyone involved and am in their debt, as are our wonderful free whales. Although it was certainly an accident of fate and Parliament that the bill was brought forward by Senator Wilfred Moore, I will say once more “Free Willy”.

The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill S-203, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and other Acts (ending the captivity of whales and dolphins), as reported (without amendment) from the committee.

[Fin Donnelly, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Chair, in answer to the question from Mr. Arnold, I don't believe that anyone is requesting that this committee rubber-stamp anything. I think there have been a good debate and a good discussion certainly through the upper House. When we heard the debate at second reading, we heard all parties speak in favour of this legislation. I don't think there is any issue with the questions of debate or witnesses. I think it's time to take a position.

The issue here, as we know, is that we are up against the clock to get this through. As for the chances of even getting it through, even if this does get through committee, it will still have to go back to the House for third reading. It will be on the September schedule, and then the issue will be whether we can move it up fast enough to actually be voted on in the House. That is going to be difficult.

I would again implore the members to consider that, as we did with Bill S-203, and hopefully expedite this thoroughly studied bill.

[Fin Donnelly, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

It's at the will of the committee. The preference would be to expedite this as quickly as possible. Time is of the essence. The longer this takes.... You can look at Bill S-203. This is following a similar path, but it's behind, and in terms of this being brought back for third reading, it's critical that it get through committee. Assuming it does get through committee, it's still going to face an uphill challenge. The more committee hearings we have, the longer it takes.

I will remind the committee that this has been through the Senate for a couple of years. Senator MacDonald has spent much time on it, and the committee hearings had many witnesses. This has, I think, been studied and looked at, and testimony has been given on this bill. I would urge the committee to move this as quickly and expeditiously as possible.

Of course, it's at the will of the committee as to whether you call witnesses. At this point, I would encourage us to have as few meetings as possible to really give this bill the best chance of trying to get through Parliament before we rise in June.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Before we get into the agenda items, I want to get one piece of business out of the way. Everybody has the budget for Bill S-203. Can we get approval to adopt that budget?

It is moved by Mr. Finnigan.

(Motion agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), we continue our study of the migration of lobster and snow crab in Atlantic Canada and the impact of changes to lobster carapace size.

We have a good many witnesses today, some by teleconference, some by video conference and one in person, with a lot of names up next to him but they're all either on the screen or on the phone.

Mr. Fitzpatrick, welcome. As you're an independent owner-operator fish harvester, you have lots of company, but they're just not here with you.

From the Coldwater Lobster Association we have Bernie Berry, President; and Heather Mulock, Manager. They're on teleconference.

From the Prince Edward Island Fishermen's Association, we have Bobby Jenkins, President; Pat O'Neill, Interim Executive Director; Melanie Giffin, Marine Biologist and Program Planner; and Laura Ramsay, Research and Liaison Officer.

From the Gulf of Maine Research Institute, we have Andrew Pershing, Chief Scientific Officer, by video conference.

From the Fisheries and Marine Institute of Memorial University of Newfoundland, by video conference, we have Arnault Le Bris. I believe he was here the other day. We got interrupted so often that we never actually had a meeting.

Welcome back again sir, even by video conference.

We'll start off with statements. We'll do the one by teleconference first.

I believe, Mr. Berry, you're going to do the statement. You have seven minutes or less.

Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to speak to Bill C-88. Despite the use of time allocation, I appreciate that the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons earlier today said she would make efforts to give me a chance to speak and has done so. Even with abbreviated debate, I am therefore able to speak to this legislation.

I am also able to speak to what happened to this legislation when the Northwest Territories Devolution Act was brought forward in the 41st Parliament in 2014. It was something everyone wanted to support, but there were many measures with that act that were offensive to the foundational principles of self-government and respect for treaties.

In fact, the Mackenzie Valley Land and Water Board, the Gwich'in Land and Water Board, the Sahtu Land and Water Board and the Wek’eezhii Tlicho Land and Water Board, all of which were the result of treaty negotiations between the Crown and those nations, were callously, carelessly, disrespectfully and completely violated with the notion that we could replace them with something described as more efficient.

I protested those changes at the time, as did the previous NDP member of Parliament for the Northwest Territories, Dennis Bevington. We tried quite hard to persuade the 41st Parliament that it was wrong to change the law in this way.

Subsequent to the changes being made, a number of the boards that were impacted went to court to challenge what had just happened. The notion of a superboard was deeply offensive to the principle that had been there, which was that the land and water boards represented fifty-fifty decision-making between first nations and the federal government. It would have reduced the self-government that the Northwest Territories Devolution Act was supposed to respect. It would have taken away rights and reduced the scope of review by those various boards.

Earlier today in debate I heard a Conservative member say that Bill C-88 was another effort by the Liberal government to interfere with development, to thwart development and to drive investment away from Canada.

I am saddened by that kind of commentary. I agree with a number of criticisms of the Liberal government. There are a lot of measures being taken that I find far short of what is required, particularly when looking at the climate crisis, and far short of what is required when looking at the need for thorough environmental assessment. There was a commitment in the election to undo the damage that had been done by the Harper administration in a number of areas, and so far the Liberal government has done really well in some areas and less well in others.

It did extremely well in undoing discriminatory legislation towards trade unions, and that was done relatively quickly by the former member of cabinet responsible for labour issues.

The Liberal government did an extremely good job on a piece of legislation that is still before the Senate, Bill C-68, to repair the Fisheries Act. Bill C-68 not only repairs the damage that was done by the previous prime minister and his government and not only brings back protections for fish habitat. It also expands and improves other protections for habitat. It is an extremely important piece of legislation and I hope it passes quickly.

It is also complementary to a piece of legislation that I hope will be passed here. Earlier today in the House, the hon. member for Avalon, the chair of the fisheries committee, presented the report, and Bill S-203 is now back before the House. I hope we move to report stage and third reading expeditiously.

Bill C-68, which I am referencing, is also complementary in saying that we are now going to ban the taking of cetaceans into captivity in Canadian waters.

Again, all of these bills speak to undoing the damage done by the previous government, but Bill C-68 goes beyond that with more progressive measures.

Unfortunately, Bill C-69 is also before the Senate. I hope it will be amended and sent back here quickly. The Minister of Transport did an excellent job of repairing the former Navigable Waters Protection Act. There are some innovative changes to energy regulations. Unfortunately, the middle piece of legislation in that omnibus bill, the one on environmental review, does not undo the damage of the previous government, but rather keeps it in place.

However, this legislation is excellent in that it would actually undo the damage the previous government had done. It would set back in place the integrity of self-government, of decisions for land and water boards that reflect the negotiations under self-government agreements and treaties. Now that we are debating this bill at second reading, I would certainly like to see this bill in committee so that it could receive one or two additional amendments.

As was mentioned on the floor of the House earlier today when we started second reading debate of Bill C-88, given the content, the context and the need to take a step further and be more progressive than merely repairing, we should say that this bill operates under the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. That would be a very welcome amendment and, assuming this bill gets to committee and we are in a position to put forward amendments during clause-by-clause consideration, it is one that the committee can expect to hear from the Green Party.

I certainly support this bill, including the provisions to allow moratoria on drilling to affect such decisions based on evidence. I do hope the bill passes. I would like to see it pass with an amendment to ensure that it operates under the terms of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

Fisheries and Oceans

[Ken McDonald, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 20th report of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans, entitled “Bill S-203, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and other Acts (ending the captivity of whales and dolphins)”.

The committee has studied the bill and has decided to report the bill back to the House without amendments.

I wish to thank everybody, staff and members of the committee, for their participation. I especially want to recognize Senator Moore who originally brought this bill to the other place and, of course, the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands who sponsored it here in the House.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Mr. Chair, I'm sure this is just an oversight on the part of the drafter, but I believe it's important to allow businesses and marine research organizations a chance to comply with the new law after it has been passed. I know that Marineland has asked for more a year, but I think 12 months is a reasonable time frame.

As you heard from the Marineland testimony, they are concerned about cetaceans that are currently pregnant and those that could be pregnant just before this bill becomes law. The intent here is to ensure that the owners of cetaceans that become pregnant prior to passage of Bill S-203 are not considered to commit a crime simply by owning, having the custody of, or control of a cetacean that is born to a cetacean that was lawfully pregnant before the act.

We propose that Bill S-203 be amended by adding after line 3 on page 4 the following new clause:

Coming into Force

7. This Act comes into force on the first anniversary of the day on which it receives royal assent.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Mr. Chair, it's funny you should ask. This amendment adds a greater degree of precision in determining who may make the determination and assessment of animal welfare by specifying it must be a competent scientific team operating on a federal mandate. It adds species conservation, writ large, as an additional ground for approval consistent with the principle of animal welfare.

We are suggesting that Bill S-203, in clause 5, be amended by replacing line 23 on page 3 with the following:

interests of the cetacean's welfare, as determined by a panel of veterinarians and marine scientists designated by the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, to do so; or

(c) conservation efforts relating to the protection of a vulnerable species.

(Amendment negatived)

(Clause 5 agreed to)

(Clause 6 agreed to)

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Well not really, because I thought the argument was pretty straightforward in terms of the French language issue that we had in terms of clause 4, but I'll go through it.

Mr. Chair, as you heard during the testimony previously, there is some confusion in clause 4 between the French and English. What we are suggesting now is that Bill S-203, in clause 4, be amended by replacing, in the English version, line 9 on page 3 with the following:

with a permit, im-

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Mr. Chair, this amendment adds a greater degree of precision in determining who may make the determination and assessment of animal welfare by specifying it must be a competent scientific team operating on a federal mandate. It adds species conservation, writ large, as an additional ground for approval consistent with the principle of animal welfare. The amendment proposes that Bill S-203, in clause 5, be amended by replacing line 23 on page 3 with the following, “interests of the cetacean's welfare, as determined by a panel of veterinarians and marine scientists designated by the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans—”

[Rob Nicholson]

The amendment is that Bill S-203, in clause 4, be amended by replacing, in the French version, line 8 on page 3 with the following:

7.1 Il est interdit, sans licence délivrée en vertu du paragraphe 10(1.1) ou contrairement à celle—

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Mr. Chair, in this version we're only adding the word “knowingly”. Again, we're just trying to avoid catching people who unwittingly attend events that include proscribed activities. I will bring us back to the testimony we heard previously with Justice Sinclair. In his final answer to the question I asked, he said, “I think so,” in terms of reading this piece of legislation.

I also asked Ms. Klineberg about that, and her comment was similar, in terms of ambiguity. Also, in terms of viewing, or knowingly selling or gifting animals to facilities outside of our country that participate in this, it would seem reasonable to not authorize the export of the animal. We're saying that there's ambiguity, and reasonable concern that Canadians could unwittingly take part and attend events that may be in contravention of S-203.

With that, Mr. Chair, we propose that S-203, in clause 2, be amended, by replacing line 18 on page 2 with the following:

(4) Every one commits an offence who knowingly promotes, ar-

We're inserting one word: “knowingly”.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Mr. Chair, we've heard, from testimony, concern that someone visiting a show with cetaceans present could be unwittingly breaking the law. This amendment and CPC-3.1 are just two different ways to deal with this concern. If the committee has a preference as to which amendment works better, I will move the appropriate amendment and withdraw the other.

With that, we propose that Bill S-203, in clause 2, be amended, by replacing lines 18 to 27 on page 2 with the following:

(4) Every one commits an offence who promotes, arranges, conducts, assists in, receives money for or takes part in any meeting, competition, exhibition, pastime, practice, display or event at or in the course of which captive cetaceans they own, have custody of or control are used for performance for entertainment purposes.

(4.1) Subsection (4) does not apply if the performance is authorized pursuant to a licence issued by the Lieutenant Governor in Council of a province or by any other person or authority in the province that may be specified by the Lieutenant Governor in Council.

(Amendment negatived)

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Mr. Chair, essentially, on CPC-2, we're looking to broaden the definition of the research to include conservation work. Ex situ conservation literally means off-site conservation. It is a process of protecting an endangered species outside its natural habitat by, for example, removing part of the population from a threatened habitat and placing it in a new location, which may be a wild area or within the care of humans.

With that, I propose that Bill S-203, in clause 2, be amended, by replacing line 14 on page 2 with the following:

Conducting scientific research or participating in an ex situ conservation program pursuant to a licence is-

(Amendment negatived)

[Colin Fraser]

The official from the department indicated that Bill S-203 would not affect pregnant cetaceans currently in captivity; that is what I'm saying.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

With regard to Mr. Fraser's comments, I will say that this paragraph deals with the exemptions to the law. That is why we want to be specific because there was some ambiguity with this Bill S-203 around cetaceans that are born after this bill comes into force. This just offers, as Ms. Klineberg says, some clarity around that.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

This amendment creates an additional exemption to Bill S-203 that is consistent with the subclause 3(a) exception, but recognizes the birth of a new cetacean to a captive cetacean that was lawfully pregnant prior to the passage of Bill S-203. I know that legal officials told us that they didn't think there would be an issue, but no one could actually say with any certainty that this would not happen. So, the amended clause 2 would read, after line 12 on page 2:

(d) comes to own, have the custody of or control a cetacean that is born to a cetacean that is kept in captivity and pregnant on the day on which this subsection comes into force.

[The Chair, Mr. Ken McDonald (Avalon, Lib.)]

Good afternoon, everyone.

Welcome to your fisheries and oceans committee meeting this afternoon, pursuant to the standing order of reference of Friday, February 1, 2019, Bill S-203, an act to amend the Criminal Code and other acts, in regard to ending the captivity of whales and dolphins.

We have some witnesses here today, in case there are any questions as we go through.

From DFO, we have Mr. Burns, who is the director general of fisheries resource management. We also have, from the Department of the Environment, Ms. Caceres, who is the manager of international biodiversity for the Canadian wildlife service. From the Department of Justice, we have Ms. Klineberg, who is senior counsel with the criminal law policy section.

Before I start, I have a short statement to read, based on some things that happened over the past few days. I want to let all members around this table know that I was advised, as chair, that there was an article published yesterday morning about this bill. Within this article there were details that address the amendments package that was distributed to members of this committee in confidence.

I would just remind all members that any confidential documents that are circulated and the information that is within them are to remain confidential until they are moved or made public by this committee. They are not to be seen by any journalist, member of the public or other parliamentarian who is not entitled to have access to them. I want this simply to serve as a reminder to all members of this committee.

We'll start clause-by-clause consideration.

Pursuant to Standing Order 75(1), consideration of clause 1, the short title, is postponed.

(On clause 2)

On amendment CPC-0.1, Mr. Doherty.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

It being 3:55 p.m., pursuant to an order made on Monday, March 18, 2019, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion to concur in the instruction to the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans concerning the consideration of Bill S-203.

Call in the members.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, any effort to go travelling, pursuing Bill S-203, is a transparent attempt to kill the bill.

We went through years of hearings in the Senate. The bill is now before the committee. We hope for its speedy passage so that Canadians can celebrate the House coming together to do something for animal welfare by ensuring that these sentient creatures, these cetaceans, are no longer tortured by being kept in captivity. Therefore, the request for permission to travel across the country is again a transparent attempt.

[Dr. Martin Haulena, Chief Veterinarian, Ocean Wise]

Thank you.

Good evening, everyone. Thank you for inviting me. I appreciate the opportunity to address Bill S-203.

I'm Dr. Martin Haulena. I'm head veterinarian at the Vancouver Aquarium, as well as at our national marine mammal rescue centre, both part of Ocean Wise. Ours is the only rescue centre in Canada able to rescue, rehabilitate and release marine mammals, including cetaceans, the taxonomic group of animals that includes all whales, dolphins and porpoises.

I'd like to use a recent example of our work to explain my concerns about Bill S-203 in its current form, and its potential impact on our efforts to save endangered whales in Canada. Last summer, I spent the better part of the month in the San Juan Islands, located between Vancouver Island and Washington state, taking part in a rescue effort for a small killer whale known as Scarlet, or J50, according to the naming system for killer whales, off the west coast.

J50 was four years old, a member of the critically endangered southern resident killer whale population. Based on her emaciated body condition, she was very sick. Veterinary intervention with free-ranging animals isn't something we ever take lightly, but time is running out for this group of whales. There are only 75 of them left, as has been mentioned a few times. Based on what we know about them and their environment, we understand that environmental threats, including pollution, underwater noise and lack of prey, are causing their decline. The Department of Fisheries and Oceans is also taking actions to address those issues, but for this population of whales, the time needed to reverse the impact of these threats—

[Andrew Burns, Legal Counsel, Marineland of Canada Inc.]

Good evening. On behalf of Marineland I will focus on three issues of concern, for the committee's consideration.

In its present form, this bill violates the Charter of Rights and is unconstitutional.

First, Bill S-203 does not provide for a proclamation date. It becomes law immediately after royal assent, and many otherwise lawful activities will immediately become criminal offences.

Specifically, proposed paragraph 445.2(2)(a) makes it a criminal offence to own, have the custody of or control a cetacean that is kept in captivity. The bill does include an exception in relation to cetaceans that are kept in captivity at the coming into force of proposed paragraph 445.2(2)(a) and that remain continuously in captivity thereafter. The offence provision therefore does not apply to whales presently alive at Marineland.

The bill goes on to create another exception, permitting the holding of cetaceans, subject to the issuance of a licence issued by the province in which the cetaceans are held. The bill does not, however, provide any period of time for a licensing regime to be implemented prior to the Criminal Code offence being created upon royal assent.

These provisions of the bill give rise to a serious practical problem arising solely from the natural reproductive cycle of the beluga whales living at Marineland. This issue was clearly and directly raised in my testimony to the Senate committee considering this bill on May 16, 2017, when I stated:

But if a beluga whale is pregnant prior to the date of the bill coming into effect and gives birth after the bill comes into effect, the birth of that beluga whale triggers the commission of a criminal offence.

“Birth” is the operative word.

With respect, this is not about whether proposed paragraph 445.2(2)(b), prohibiting breeding prior to the law coming into effect, constitutes a crime after; it is an issue under proposed paragraph 445.2(2)(a) as to when Marineland comes into possession, ownership or control of a new baby beluga whale.

We are not arguing, as is suggested by Senator Moore or the DOJ lawyer, that somehow proposed paragraph 445.2(2)(b), concerning breeding, is relevant. What we are saying is that proposed paragraph 445.2(2)(a) is relevant. Marineland comes into possession, ownership or control of a new baby beluga whale at birth—presumably—after royal assent, assuming the bill is passed into law this spring.

The Supreme Court of Canada and Criminal Code subsection 223(1) address directly and clearly this issue in relation to the birth of human children. Under subsection 223(1), a child becomes a human being within the meaning of the Criminal Code when it has completely proceeded, in a living state, from the body of its mother.

The birth of a beluga whale will be interpreted no differently. To suggest otherwise is to state that beluga fetuses have greater rights under the law than human fetuses. A new baby beluga whale is a new and separate entity on the date of its live birth, not one day before.

It is acknowledged by the DOJ lawyer that this act provides that no new whales will be allowed to be born following royal assent to this bill.

Consequently, when the currently pregnant beluga whales give birth in 2019 and 2020, Marineland and, arguably, all the staff and independent marine mammal veterinarians who aid in the deliveries and care for newborn beluga whales will unavoidably and immediately be committing a criminal offence. This cannot be otherwise avoided by Marineland. The gestation period for whales is approximately 16 months. Whales are already pregnant. Pregnant mothers cannot be moved or disturbed without risking their lives. They certainly cannot be transported to another jurisdiction without killing them.

With respect to the “breeding” provision prohibition under proposed paragraph 445.2(2)(b), the whales are self-organized at Marineland into family groups—more than 50 whales. There are no free pools. Assuming the bill passes, Marineland is being told to tear family groups apart and separate mothers, fathers and children in 24 hours. That is impossible, and no one wants that to happen.

Surely, it was never the intention of the drafters of this bill that Marineland would be rendered totally incapable of complying with the Criminal Code, automatically becoming guilty of Criminal Code offences and left in continuous possession of illegal whales born in 2019 and 2020. It also cannot be suggested that the drafters of this bill intended to create a situation that forces the attempted abortion of baby beluga whales or the euthanasia of pregnant mothers as an alternative to criminal conviction.

We believe a simple, reasonable solution that will have no impact on the purpose or intent of the bill is to amend the bill to provide for a realistic proclamation date. However, if the bill is passed in its present form, it will create a statute which, by its terms, makes compliance impossible and the consequence a criminal conviction. Such a statute violates the principles of natural justice and violates section 7 of the charter. The bill, in its present form, is unconstitutional.

The second issue, which, again, does not impact the stated purpose of the bill, arises as a consequence of the very broad wording of proposed subsection 445.2(4). The issue here is not Marineland's compliance but broad effects on average Canadians. The wording creates a criminal offence for everyone who takes part in a show that is purely for entertainment purposes. This includes swimming with dolphins. While this may not violate the Criminal Code when posted to Facebook by a Canadian who has swum with dolphins on vacation, it will demonstrate the violation of Canadian law and will certainly impact “good character” clauses in employment contracts in the academic sector, the public sector and other settings.

In addition, promoting or receiving money for such shows implicates every major airline in Canada that promotes resorts or swimming with dolphins. Travel agents who book these types of events will be receiving money for doing so, which is expressly prohibited. These offences occur in Canada. At least one major Canadian company owns Atlantis, Paradise Island, which operates under Bahamian law and offers swimming with dolphins. Receiving money from this will be criminal.

This appears to go well beyond the stated purpose of the bill, ending captivity of cetaceans in Canada.

[Clinton Wright, Executive Vice-President and Chief Operating Officer, Aquariums, Ocean Wise]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good evening, honourable members of the committee.

I am Clint Wright, chief operating officer of Ocean Wise, which includes the Vancouver Aquarium.

Thank you for inviting me. I appreciate the opportunity to comment on Bill S-203.

I'd like to acknowledge that we are on the ancestral lands of the Algonquin people.

I don't think that I need to tell you, the members of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans, that there are many species of cetaceans in trouble in Canada and around the world. When it comes to the state of our oceans, we're racing against time.

When the Vancouver Aquarium appeared before the Senate committee to discuss this legislation in 2017, we talked about our efforts to win that race. We've been at the forefront of conservation-based research in the Pacific, the Arctic and the Atlantic since 1956. Our collective body of work has contributed to the protection and recovery of wild cetacean populations in Canada through input into significant policies, regulations and best practices.

Central to the conversation, as it was then, is our unwavering commitment to animal welfare. It is the reason that I, as a marine biologist, have dedicated my life to studying and safeguarding our vulnerable ecosystems.

In the 62-year history of the Vancouver Aquarium, a lot has been gained and a lot has changed. We lead one of the longest-running killer whale research studies in the world. The expertise we've gained over five decades of working directly with cetaceans has enabled us to be nimble in providing support to Fisheries and Oceans Canada on emergent cetacean rescues.

Having connected more than 45 million people to cetaceans so that they would take steps to protect what they've learned to love, the Vancouver Aquarium made a decision last year to no longer display cetaceans. It has also been nearly 30 years since the last wild-caught cetacean was brought to Vancouver, a practice that no longer exists at accredited facilities in North America.

This brings me back to the topic of Bill S-203. As it is currently worded, the legislation will have unintended negative consequences and prevent us from doing our best for sick, injured and endangered whales, dolphins and porpoises in Canada.

My concerns are threefold.

First, the provincial approval requirement from the lieutenant governor and other provincial bodies adds a layer of complexity in the event of an emergent cetacean rescue, when DFO calls on the Vancouver Aquarium marine mammal rescue centre for support to save a stranded, injured or ill cetacean. Time is of the essence in these scenarios, and often these rescues take place in front of the public. We've learned through experience that added delays are problematic.

The same is true for acquiring provincial approval to conduct research during a rescue as part of the veterinary care and rehabilitation. Again, it adds another layer of complexity, delaying urgent care to a very sick animal.

Second—also on this point—to the best of our knowledge, there is no provincial legislation in B.C., hence a provincial cabinet would not be able to provide authorization or delegate authority. As the federal department that oversees ocean protection and cetacean welfare, our partners at DFO are likely the best ones to speak to the federal permit process.

Third—and perhaps even more troubling in my view—the bill does not adequately provide for the protection and care of endangered species and populations. As in the case of J50 and the southern resident killer whales, which Dr. Haulena will speak to in greater detail, or the belugas in the St. Lawrence estuary, extraordinary measures to save species may soon be needed.

I would like to see the bill amended to include an exception for ex situ conservation programs.

It's impossible to predict what the future will hold, but based on recent history, there is a growing need for this work. I urge this committee to consider amendments to Bill S-203 so that this critical work can continue now and into the future.

Thank you.

[Dr. Laura Graham, Director, WRG Conservation Foundation, As an Individual]

I would like to thank the committee for this opportunity to voice my concerns about Bill S-203, to ban cetaceans in captivity.

Specifically, I want to make sure the committee is well informed on the critical role that scientific research on cetaceans in captivity plays in the advancement of the management and conservation of captive and wild cetacean populations.

My background is in wildlife physiology and captive breeding for endangered species. That is the area on which I will focus. One of the areas that I am an expert in is developing non-invasive hormone techniques to use in wildlife to assess reproduction and welfare. I collaborate with various zoos and aquariums with their captive population to develop and validate these techniques, then we can apply them to the captive population. We can also adapt them for use in wild populations. Think of home pregnancy tests for women, where we just measure the hormone in the urine. In this case, we're collecting urine or feces from the species in a non-invasive way.

I want to point out a couple of examples where this is critical to advancing our knowledge about cetaceous species, including our critically endangered cetaceous species.

Article one, which I have provided you, is an example of these techniques that have been developed in dolphins. These non-invasive hormone techniques, which have been developed for some cetaceous species in aquariums, in collaboration with aquariums, have provided some critical information.

This includes critical information on our own southern resident pods of orca on the west coast that are listed as endangered under the Species at Risk Act. They are the most polluted mammal on the planet and for several years have been declining in numbers, as you all know.

Various measures have been taken to reverse the population decline, including reduced tourist activity based on the unsubstantiated assumption that tourism-associated stress is negatively impacting their recovery. The decline has continued. Everybody's seen the viral picture of the mother carrying her dead calf around for weeks.

A colleague of mine has used our non-invasive hormone techniques that have been developed in captive animals to study this particular population of orca. His study has determined that the female orcas are actually getting pregnant, but they are losing their calves. They are losing the fetus or their newborn to malnutrition. That is not something that you can get just from observational studies.

As far as the tourist boats go, the study has indicated that the stress hormones of this particular population actually are at their lowest during the peak tourism season. This is in article two, which I have provided for you, that was published by Sam Wasser in 2017.

These orcas are getting pregnant, but they are losing their fetus or newborn because of malnutrition. Using the information that came from this study, we are now able to pinpoint the most important threat to the survival of this orca population: the declining salmon stocks. I want to emphasize that we would not have this technique to use on this critically endangered population without having captive orcas to study the hormone patterns for the species.

Another example would be the St. Lawrence beluga. Again, like the orcas, its population is declining for unknown reasons, although various measures have been undertaken to try to attempt to reverse this decline, including reducing tourism activity. It would be possible for us to do a very similar study to what was done with the southern resident pod of the orca; however, we would need to have a captive breeding population of belugas to validate the techniques. This proposed legislation would obviously prevent us from carrying out this research.

I have focused just on two examples, because they're of immediate Canadian concern and that's my research area of expertise.

The previous speaker was also talking about some of the field research, so I want to remind everybody that much of the techniques used for that field research were developed and validated on captive populations under captive conditions.

Indeed, the vast majority of what we know about cetacean biology is based on research in captive populations and is critical for rescuing cetaceans in dire straits. I'm glad the Vancouver Aquarium is going to be here because they can talk about their contribution to the conservation and management of wild cetaceans and how their research has been critical to that. I have provided the open letter from the list of scientists, in defence of the research done by Vancouver Aquarium when they were attacked by the anti-captivity people, and I strongly encourage you to read it.

A great deal has been suggested about the reduced welfare of cetaceans in captivity and there's no doubt some institutions should definitely be closed. However, in modern accredited zoos and aquariums, great strides have been made to maximize the welfare of animals in their care using science. For example, in the proposed legislation, there's a ban on cetaceans performing for the public under the assumption that it's stressful, yet research, which is article three that I have provided to you, has indicated that dolphins do not act stressed in anticipation of training and performance.

Another investigation comparing wild dolphins to captive dolphins actually indicated that captive dolphins were healthier than the wild dolphins. That is in article four, which I have also provided to you.

In my extensive experience, accredited zoos and aquaria are far more eagerly pursuing research into animal welfare than most other animal industries, including the food and companion animal industries. Another example of the research would be article five.

The CCAC has developed guidelines for the care and use of marine mammals that could be implemented as regulations to ensure that the highest standards of welfare are met in captive cetaceans and allow science to continue to guide the evolution of these standards. Indeed, colleagues of mine in the U.S. are currently doing a scientific study involving more than 300 captive cetaceans held in seven nations to determine the factors that are critical to improved cetacean welfare, with the aim of improving it around the world.

Vancouver Aquarium was going to participate in this international study until the Vancouver parks board banned them from housing beluga, so Canada will not be part of this international effort.

In conclusion, I want to dedicate my testimony to the critically endangered cetacean species I already mentioned, the vaquita. There are fewer than 10 left and the population is expected to become extinct in a few weeks, as the fishing season peaks. We could have saved them. If we had started years ago when the population started to crash, we could have learned more about them and we could have set up a captive population. We could have saved them from extinction, but now they're going to be gone forever and that is shameful and unforgivable.

Thank you.

[Blaine Calkins]

I'm never terribly concerned about the blatantly obvious—well, the intended—consequences of legislation. I don't mean “blatant” in a pejorative way. The problem that I have as a legislator is always the unintended consequences of legislation and what those might actually be.

I have a question for you as the department officials. Would there be a way to achieve the result of ending the captivity of cetaceans without S-203? Certainly, every one of those organizations, like the Vancouver Aquarium and Marineland—and I'm not advocating for this—must get permits somewhere from somebody in order to continue on with their operations. Why would it not be a matter of just revoking those in perpetuity, instead of having to create legislation that I'm afraid will eventually lead to the end of rodeos, captive breeding programs and a whole host of potentially beneficial things?

I feel like we're swatting a fly with a sledgehammer here.

[Joanne Klineberg]

No. I'm only able to say that, from a federal criminal law point of view, if Bill S-203 is not enacted, there would not be a requirement under federal law for the aquarium to obtain a licence from the provincial government in order to be able to engage in scientific research, which is something that they would be required to do after this bill, if it is enacted. The only provision of the Criminal Code amendments that I see affecting scientific research is the requirement to obtain a licence.

[Pat Finnigan, Liberal, Miramichi—Grand Lake, NB]

Another thing that would need to be clarified for me is clause 4 of Bill S-203 to prohibit the importation to Canada of living cetaceans as well as cetacean tissue or embryos, subject to a special permit. Apparently the English text of the clause refers to permits issued pursuant to proposed subsection 10(1.1) of WAPPRIITA while the French version of the text is silent on the type of importation permit required. That sounds very odd. I wouldn't know of any other piece of legislation in which the French version would be different from the English version.

Would you care to comment on that? Why is that?

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

We know that Marineland argued that Bill S-203 will criminalize the births of beluga calves, separate from orcas that are currently in gestation. We've heard a clarification from Senator Sinclair that the law is not intended to apply retroactively. It's consistent with the bill's purpose of a phase-out and it's consistent with the charter's prevention of retroactive criminal law.

Can you confirm Senator Sinclair's interpretation as a valid interpretation and now clarify it in our Hansard, should the courts require that?

[Joanne Klineberg]

From what I understand, Marineland is the one facility where breeding takes place. In Ontario, in 2015, the legislature made amendments to their animal welfare legislation that specifically prohibited the breeding of orcas, which is one type of whale. They put in place a number of other regulations setting out standards of care for other marine mammals, including cetaceans.

So, yes, if Bill S-203 does not pass, there will be a ban. There is a ban already in Ontario with respect to the breeding of orcas but not other whales.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Okay.

Can you confirm that if Bill S-203 doesn't pass that the breeding and trading of live cetaceans will continue to be lawful in Canada?

[Adam Burns]

The provisions in Bill C-68 that sort of parallel the objectives of Bill S-203 are entirely within the scope of the Fisheries Act. As I mentioned earlier, it would basically prevent the minister from authorizing, essentially, the capture of a cetacean from Canadian fisheries waters for public display purposes—which we haven't done since the 1990s—as well as provide the government with a regulation-making authority that could then be used to close the door on the import of any new animals brought in for those purposes as well.

I think your question, then, relates to provisions within Bill S-203 that are outside the scope of the Fisheries Act. Really, the one point would be about the captive breeding, which the Province of Ontario has exercised jurisdiction on with regard to orcas and the captive breeding of orcas.

In terms of the import restrictions of WAPPRIITA, one could view the regulation-making authority proposed in Bill C-68 as being similar to that, assuming that the appropriate regulations were made.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, all, for your testimony. Maybe I'll start with Fisheries and Oceans.

Can you tell us the difference between Bill S-203 and Bill C-68? What would Bill S-203 prohibit that Bill C-68 would allow?

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Right, but the purpose of Bill S-203 is to say that those types of performances.... We as a nation are saying that we're passing this legislation because that type of performance is not in the best interests of the cetacean. Is that correct?

[Carolina Caceres]

I'm not a lawyer, but if I understand Bill S-203 correctly, it would be up to the minister to determine whether that transfer is in the best interests of the cetacean's welfare.

[Carolina Caceres, Manager, International Biodiversity, Canadian Wildlife Service, Department of the Environment]

What I could speak to is WAPPRIITA. You're talking about the export and then the conditions around export as potentially....

My role in Environment and Climate Change Canada is in relation to WAPPRIITA. When I look at Bill S-203—and if I understand your question correctly—it says that there shall be no authorization of exports of a living cetacean, and the exceptions proposed are for “conducting scientific research” or “keeping the cetacean in captivity if it is in the best interests of the cetacean's welfare”.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

However, it is saying that it prohibits the import and export unless it is authorized by the Minister of Environment and Climate Change for scientific purposes and if it's in the cetacean's best interests. Isn't it the whole purpose of Bill S-203 to say that these types of performances are not in the best interests of the cetaceans? Could one argue that?

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

I'm going to go back to Mr. Burns' comment where he said, “Bill S-203's proposed amendments to WAPPRIITA would prohibit the import and export of a live cetacean or its reproductive materials unless authorized by the Minister of Environment and Climate Change for scientific research purposes or if it's in the cetacean's best interests.”

That comment alone, coupled with that paragraph in the piece of legislation, would then lead a reasonable person to believe that if the Vancouver Aquarium is transferring its last dolphin to another organization that does have performances or does conduct performances for entertainment purposes, it would then be in conflict of the law and committing an offence.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Okay. Does S-203 permit educational shows?

[Joanne Klineberg]

Well, the sponsors of S-203 have indicated that they are approaching it through the lens of the keeping of cetaceans in captivity.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Bill S-203 does not express any of that, correct?

[Churence Rogers, Liberal, Bonavista—Burin—Trinity, NL]

Mr. Burns, you spoke about amendments in Bill C-68 and said that they could achieve similar objectives to Bill S-203. Can you expand on this and compare the changes in the Fisheries Act through Bill C-68 with the changes being proposed here through Bill S-203?

[Adam Burns, Director General, Fisheries Resource Management, Department of Fisheries and Oceans]

I think it's just me.

Good afternoon.

I would like to thank the committee for the invitation to speak to Bill S-203, an act to amend the Criminal Code and other acts (ending the captivity of whales and dolphins), also known as ending the captivity of whales and dolphins act.

This bill proposes amendments to the Criminal Code, the Fisheries Act, and the Wild Animal and Plant Protection and Regulation of International and Interprovincial Trade Act, WAPPRIITA.

Before I address the substance of Bill S-203, it's important to review the number and location of cetaceans held in captivity in Canada. To my knowledge, there are two facilities in Canada that hold cetaceans in captivity, the Vancouver Aquarium in British Columbia, and Marineland in Niagara Falls, Ontario. The Vancouver Aquarium has one cetacean in captivity, a 30-year old Pacific white-sided dolphin. It was rescued from the wild and deemed non-releasable. In January 2018, the aquarium announced that it would no longer display cetaceans at its facility.

The majority of Canada's cetaceans in captivity are located at Marineland in Ontario. My understanding is that it has approximately 61 cetaceans: 55 beluga whales, five bottlenose dolphins and one orca or killer whale. In 2015, the Province of Ontario enacted legislation banning the possession or breeding of an orca whale; however, the prohibition provided for an exception for the possession of the orca currently in captivity at Marineland.

With that context in mind, my remarks this afternoon will focus on Bill S-203's proposed amendments to the Fisheries Act. I will let my colleagues from the Department of Justice and Environment and Climate Change Canada respond to your questions concerning the bill's proposed amendments to the Criminal Code and WAPPRIITA.

Having said that, I will briefly outline the bill's proposed amendments.

Bill S-203 proposes amendments to the Criminal Code that would make it a criminal offence to own or have custody of or breed a cetacean, or possess its reproductive materials. Cetaceans currently in captivity would be grandfathered under the bill. There's an exception to the captivity prohibition for cetaceans that are injured and require assistance, care or rehabilitation, or when captivity is deemed to be in the animal's best interests as determined by provincial authorities. The bill's prohibition on breeding or possessing a cetacean's reproductive materials would not be grandfathered.

The bill's proposed amendments to the Fisheries Act would prohibit the moving of a live cetacean from its immediate vicinity for the purpose of captivity unless it is injured or in distress and in need of care.

Bill S-203's proposed amendments to WAPPRIITA would prohibit the import and export of a live cetacean or its reproductive materials unless authorized by the Minister of Environment and Climate Change for scientific research purposes or if it's in the cetacean's best interests.

With that as an overview of the bill, I will now turn my attention to the proposed Fisheries Act amendments in Bill C-68.

The capture of cetaceans from the wild falls within federal jurisdiction, and specifically falls under the authority of the Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard. The committee may want to consider how the provisions in Bill C-68, which was approved by the House, and is currently in the Senate, addressed the objectives of Bill S-203; that is, phasing out the captivity of cetaceans while building in exceptions for the rescue and rehabilitation of those animals.

The government introduced Bill C-68, an act to amend the Fisheries Act and other acts in consequence, on February 6, 2018. Included in the amendments were provisions related to the captivity of cetaceans. Specifically, Bill C-68 contains a prohibition against fishing for a cetacean with the intent to take it into captivity, except where authorized by the minister for animal welfare reasons.

It's important to note that as a matter of policy, Fisheries and Oceans Canada has not issued a licence for the capture of a live cetacean for public display purposes since the early 1990s. The proposed amendment will simply codify the department's long-standing practice.

In addition to the cetaceans in captivity provision, Bill C-68 contains a new authority to make regulations with respect to the import and export of fish. Cetaceans are defined as fish for the purposes of the Fisheries Act. The department's view is that this regulation-making authority would give the government more discretion to determine the circumstances under which cetaceans could be imported into and exported from Canada. For example, there could be an import prohibition where the purpose is to keep a cetacean in captivity.

By way of exception, import or export could be permitted where the purpose is to transfer the cetacean to a sea sanctuary should those facilities be established in the future. There may also be circumstances where the captivity of a cetacean is deemed necessary to conserve or protect the species.

Like Bill S-203, Bill C-68 contains a non-derogation clause affirming that none of the proposed amendments affect the existing aboriginal and treaty rights of aboriginal peoples protected by the Constitution.

Minister LeBlanc, the former minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard, acknowledged that the amendments to the Fisheries Act proposed in Bill C-68 related to the fishing for cetaceans with the intent to take them into captivity were inspired by Bill S-203 and in particular by the work of now retired senator Moore.

That concludes my remarks. I thank you once again for the invitation to speak on S-203 and will be happy to take your questions.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Chair, congratulations. I have not spoken to this committee with you as chair, so I hope it won't offend you that, before I begin to put this amendment forward, I have to state on the record the various reasons that I so regret that every committee was asked to pass the identical motion that requires me to show up at committees at clause-by-clause.

It is true that, in fact, at this very moment, I should be at the fisheries and oceans committee, where the bill I am sponsoring, Bill S-203, is being presented and witnesses are being heard. I can't be in two places at once, so I presented what I could and ran here, because I believe this bill is very important, but so is the bill before the fisheries committee now on ensuring that whales and dolphins aren't kept in captivity.

If it weren't for the motion passed by this committee, I could have brought forward the amendments I have before you now at the report stage. The effect of the motion that was originally put forward by Harper's PMO, and then repeated by this Prime Minister's PMO, is that I have to be in two places at one time. I'm sure it's taking years off my life, and I don't mean that rhetorically; I mean it literally.

Despite the fact that I don't welcome this opportunity, I do appreciate that the individuals around this table aren't responsible for what's happened to me.

With good will, I will put forward my amendment, which is to speak to the issue of how we define “indigenous governing body”. This, of course, is found in the definitions section at clause 2. The current definition, as in the legislation at first reading, would exclude governing bodies that fall outside the Indian Act and the colonial system that was established for how indigenous nations govern themselves.

This, of course, was brought to the committee by Jennifer Wickham, the executive director of the Witsuwit'en Language and Culture Society. We do know from the Delgamuukw case, for example, that Witsuwit'en land is unceded and that they have been extraordinarily courageous—as all indigenous peoples have—in hanging onto culture, tradition and language in the face of oppression and colonialism. In the case of Witsuwit'en, for example, there is a still unbroken lineage of hereditary chiefs, and the hereditary chiefs and the traditional hereditary government on unceded land are not included under the Indian Act, so hereditary chiefs and governance such as that on Witsuwit'en territory would be excluded from being able negotiate to get access to funding and so on.

I'm hoping that this amendment will meet with your approval. It merely extends the definition of “indigenous governing body”, as found at clause 2, with the words “including a traditional hereditary government of unceded lands that is not provided for under the Indian Act”, etc.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Julie Dabrusin]

Mr. Nantel, we already voted on the amendment.

I'm bringing it back to NDP-1, on clause 2, noting that it applies to NDP-10 and NDP-11.

(Amendment negatived)

This brings us to PV-1.

I am happy to see you here with us, Ms. May. I saw that you had to speak to Bill S-203.

[Senator Murray Sinclair]

I realize that you were in the House and listening to the statements. Let me just repeat what I said earlier.

Bill C-68 does that, but it does it by amending the Fisheries Act. It's a Fisheries Act offence and therefore not a Criminal Code offence; it doesn't place this activity into the cruelty to animals provisions of the Criminal Code; Bill S-203 does. This is palatable and is something you can do. You can have two pieces of legislation arising from the same incident, creating separate offences under separate legislation.

The other thing Bill S-203 does, which Bill C-68 does not do, is prohibit the sale of cetaceans. It prohibits the sale of parts of cetaceans and controls international trade.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

I'm going to also say that I'm not a lawyer, nor am I a biologist. I have some questions that, hopefully, you can help me with.

Bill C-68 was passed in the House of Commons on June 20, 2018. It bans the capture of cetaceans in Canadian waters, unless the animal is in distress or in need of care. Why do we need Bill S-203?

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Agreed. We know this bill shouldn't be a partisan issue. It's a moral issue. It's supported by science. Cetaceans in captivity suffer in a way that's not justifiable. Bill S-203 is a reasonable, balanced piece of legislation. We believe that as well. An amendment would likely push this bill in terms of the timeline. It wouldn't get passed.

Can you agree that delay might push this out?

[Senator Murray Sinclair]

Yes. The Criminal Code changes that are necessitated by this bill are addressed in the bill, so the particular provisions that would need to be amended are the very first part of Bill S-203. It addresses the fact that the definition of cetacean would need to be amended. Section 445 of the Criminal Code would need to be amended, and various exceptions—

[Murray Sinclair, Senator, Manitoba, ISG]

Thank you.

Thank you, Dr. Visser, for that. You have filled in a number of details.

I also want to thank the members of the committee for inviting me to be here to speak to this bill, which I took over sponsorship of after it outlived the career of Senator Moore, who retired while it was still in second reading.

We have essentially developed a bill in the Senate, which is an amendment to the Criminal Code, that makes captivity of cetaceans a criminal offence. If you look at it from that perspective, you'll see that there were some consequential amendments that had to be made such as those relating to exemptions as well as those relating to amendments to the Fisheries Act, all of which are set out in the bill.

The bill is a simple and straightforward one. It works from the presumption that placing these beautiful creatures into the kinds of pens that they have been kept in is inherently cruel and that, therefore, the Criminal Code amendments relating to cruelty to animals should be made applicable.

There are a number of consequential amendments that relate to that, such as the ban on the breeding of the animals, a ban on the import and export of parts of animals and the animals themselves, but essentially the bill is a straightforward Criminal Code amendment provision, and I think it very clearly addresses that.

I also want to just point out that the indictable offence and summary conviction offence penalties that are in place are in keeping with the Fisheries Act itself when it comes to the amounts of fines that can be imposed and the potential term of incarceration that can be imposed for an alternative to the fine, so I don't see that as being particularly out of line.

In addition to that, I also want to comment on correspondence that's been shared with members of the committee, I believe—it has certainly been shared with me—relating to concerns about the potential charging of Marineland, which is the only company in Canada that continues to deal with these animals in this way, that they might be subject to prosecution because some of the belugas that are in captivity right now are pregnant and may give birth afterwards.

The reality is that a pregnant beluga today would give birth after the bill is enacted, and Marineland would still be protected, because the beluga that is born would be part of the beluga that is inherently grandfathered into the legislation, if that is the right word for a pregnant beluga, but the reality is also that no one is going to prosecute someone who legally has the mother that gives birth to the whale after the legislation has been enacted or while the legislation is being enacted.

Those provisions that relate to the impregnating of whales will be for those that are impregnated following the passage of the legislation. I think we need to recognize that will be a particular offence that will be caught by the legislation.

The other question that has been raised has been: How does this bill work in conjunction with Bill C-68, which has already been passed by the House? Allow me to point out to you that Bill C-68 makes it an offence under the Fisheries Act to fish for cetaceans, but it doesn't make it an offence to breed them, and it doesn't make it an offence to sell the embryos or the body parts. It also doesn't make it an offence to trade internationally in the various parts of the animals. Those are amendments that are contained in Bill S-203, so there is a very distinct and clear separation here.

The third area I want to comment upon is the fact that the question has been raised as to whether this is provincial jurisdiction or federal jurisdiction. Provincial jurisdiction in the area of fisheries has to do with the licensing aspect of the business and not with regard to the criminality or the misconduct of individuals in the taking of the animal or the fish. In this case, this is very clearly a Criminal Code provision and a consequential amendment as a result of the Criminal Code amendment, so this very clearly falls within federal jurisdiction. It allows for exemptions to occur when they are subject to a provincial licence, and provincial licensing authorities are not impacted by this bill in any negative way.

I didn't really come here in order to spend a lot of time going through the bill with you because the bill is pretty straightforward. I commend to you the evidence from all of the expert witnesses who testified at the hearings, particularly the testimony of Dr. Visser. Someone raised the question, for example, of whether jobs might be affected by the closing down of Marineland. Marineland has enough beluga whales in existence to probably continue for another 30 years, so no jobs are going to be lost as a result of this in the immediate future.

My view would be that this amendment is necessary because, in the long run, our society will be much better off if we start to treat other creatures of this existence in the same way that we ourselves feel that we should be treated.

Thank you.

[Fin Donnelly, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate your giving me the floor, just momentarily, to thank members of the fisheries committee. For me it's been nine years of a lot of work. I've enjoyed working at this committee with all colleagues. I think we've looked at, reviewed and passed some good reports over the years—for me, three Parliaments. I am looking forward to the work continuing. I know we're looking at Bill S-203 today. Hopefully, that will move along quickly.

I'm turning it over to my colleague Mr. Gord Johns, member of Parliament. He's the new critic for fisheries and oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard for the New Democrats. I wish him well. I will watch from the sidelines.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Mr. Ken McDonald (Avalon, Lib.)]

Good afternoon, everyone.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Friday, February 1, 2019, Bill S-203, an act to amend the Criminal Code and other acts (ending the captivity of whales and dolphins), I'd like to welcome everybody here this afternoon, especially our guests: the Honourable Murray Sinclair, senator; Elizabeth May from Saanich—Gulf Islands; and, by video conference, Dr. Ingrid Visser, founder and principal scientist, Orca Research Trust.

We'll start off with our presentations very shortly. I'd like to recognize Mr. Gord Johns as a new member of the committee.

I thank Mr. Donnelly for his time and experience that he's shared with us at this committee.

Mr. Donnelly.

[Fin Donnelly, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

That's great. Thank you.

Mr. Chair, I want to use a couple of minutes to bring up an issue. I know that we're going to run out of time.

It was mentioned that the committee would get to discuss Bill S-203 in early February. It didn't happen, for whatever reason. We went on our riding weeks, and it's now February 20. Because of votes this evening, it seems that we won't get to discuss Bill S-203 in committee business—if that was possibly what was going to happen—which means that, again, we're not going to be able to discuss this topic this week. The earliest we can get to it now is the end of February.

Colleagues, we are running out of time on this bill. This comes from the Senate. I will remind you that first reading was on December 8, 2015. Second reading and referral to the Senate fisheries committee was on November 23, 2016. They held 17 committee meetings and heard from 40 witnesses. The committee report was adopted on April 26, 2018. It passed third reading on October 23, 2018. Here we are in 2019, and it looks like we're moving into March before we can even discuss it.

As you know, we're running out of time to get this in front of Parliament, hopefully to be voted on before we rise in June. I would implore us to consider this and to make some time—which won't be this week—for it next week. We have a lot of awesome witnesses, and this is a very important topic, but we also have to look at how we deal with this proposed legislation.

I've probably just used the five seconds I had left to encourage my colleagues to consider this for next week.

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands for bringing this issue forward in the House.

We agree that the capture of whales and dolphins for the sole purpose of being kept for public display should be ended. While the banning of whale captivity is not yet legislation, in practice it has been in place for years.

We put forward legislation that includes putting an end to the captivity of whales unless it is for rehabilitation. We supported Bill S-203 at second reading. We look forward to the work the committee is going to do on it.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, on February 1, this place happily passed Bill S-203 at second reading. It started in the Senate with Liberal Senator Wilfred Moore and then went to Senator Murray Sinclair. It is not yet before the Standing Committee on Fisheries. We need it to be there. In this place, we need to let Canadians know, before the next election, that we will not tolerate the keeping of whales and dolphins, sentient beings, in conditions that amount to torture.

Does the Prime Minister stand with us? Could we get this passed before the next election?

[Fin Donnelly, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Chair, before we get going, I want to ask a question of the chair.

Bill S-203 passed, on division, on Friday. What is your understanding of when it will come to committee?

[Nathaniel Erskine-Smith]

My last question picks up on this idea of a bigger conversation and Bill C-84 as a first step. I want to actually note that this is a non-partisan issue, because I've had conversations with Michelle Rempel, with Len Webber, with Murray Rankin, members of all parties who care about ending animal cruelty. They want to have conversations around a table to say, “Let's make this a non-partisan issue. Let's bring stakeholders from all sides in and let's hammer out some consensus to move forward in a more significant way.”

You can maybe get a glimpse of what that could look like around this table, where we're focused on these two specific concrete provisions. But we're not able to talk about how we can better protect animals beyond the confines of these two specific provisions, as far as it goes, and so we get a piecemeal approach. We get Bill S-214 on cosmetic testing. We get Bill S-238 on shark finning. We get Bill S-203 on cetaceans in captivity. We get Bill C-84, which focuses on two specific provisions in the Criminal Code.

I guess the fundamental question I have is in terms of thinking of a way forward. Do you think it would be useful to strike a special all-party parliamentary committee to look at animal protections more broadly, to make recommendations to the government so we can see a piece of government legislation that implements much broader reform, where consensus has been forged across party lines and across a broader set of stakeholders?

I'll go around the table as well. Ms. Labchuk.

Ending the Captivity of Whales and Dolphins Act

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would first like to thank those members who spoke this afternoon, especially the member for Vaudreuil—Soulanges, the member for Salaberry—Suroît and the member for the Pontiac. I am very pleased to have the support of the NDP and Liberal members for this very important bill.

The bill comes to us from the Senate. Occasionally that happens, that a bill originates from the Senate. In reply, a huge thanks to retired Senator Wilfred Moore from Nova Scotia, who brought the bill initially forward in 2016. I also want to extend my deepest thanks to Senator Murray Sinclair, who took up the bill and ensured it complied with concerns about the rights of indigenous people as it moved forward. It is very important that the bill has had the review it had by the Senate and that it comes to us finally.

As many people will know, it was held up for an unconscionable length of time and prevented from having a vote by a handful of senators. It is here now and we want to get it passed into law before the House rises in June and an election is called. We want to be able to say, and I hope the Conservatives will want to say this as well, that we are really pleased that we took this step to stop the cruel torture of cetaceans in Canada.

I forgot to thank my friend from Cariboo—Prince George, and I did not intend to overlook his speech, for his kind words toward me. I want to assure him that it is true that there are only two facilities in Canada that still have cetaceans in captivity. However, I am so pleased to say that Vancouver Aquarium already took a voluntary step to ensure that it would not keep whales and dolphins in captivity any longer. The current population count in Vancouver Aquarium facility is one dolphin.

Marineland in Niagara, Ontario still has 50 to 60 belugas, five dolphins and one orca. We are very concerned for the fate of those animals. However, I also want to ensure it is on the record that the goal of the legislation is not to harm any particular business; it is to encourage it to transform, not to be dependent on keeping animals in cruel conditions in order to have a business. As I mentioned, Vancouver Aquarium plans to remain as it has always been, a place where families in the Vancouver area and tourists from all around the world want to visit. Unlike Marineland, it is not a purely commercial activity.

Vancouver Aquarium, as the hon. member for Cariboo—Prince George mentioned, does a lot of stellar research. In fact, Dr. Peter Ross used to run the chemical contaminants program for our oceans within the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. When that program was demolished by the previous government, he was able to continue his research within the Vancouver Aquarium. It also houses the ocean wise program. It has made a transformational change and is not dependent on keeping whales and dolphins in captivity.

Marine Land could do the same. That would be wonderful and it could transform itself into an amusement park. It should consult with the people who run Cirque du Soleil to imagine what kind of entertainment can be offered by human acrobats, using the swimming pool as the base of a theatre.

In any case, I digress. Bill S-203 is ready for passage. It has been thoroughly studied, but we need to take it to committee, as the member for Pontiac has said. I hope, indeed I pray, for continued support from all members on the Liberal benches as well as the New Democratic Party. I hope the Conservatives will change their current view and that we will get the bill passed. There is abundant scientific evidence, evidence from veterinarians, from those who study marine mammals in the wild and marine mammals in captivity. We know that for cetaceans, captivity is torture and it is time we put an end to it.

[William Amos, Liberal, Pontiac, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to the issue of Bill S-203, which has a stated objective of ending the captivity of whales and dolphins, while allowing some exceptions for rescue and rehabilitation. I support the bill's moving forward to be studied by a committee. As MP for Pontiac, I call upon members of this chamber to move forward quickly so that this can be studied, because Canadians are expecting more action on this issue. We need to do a better job of protecting our whales and our dolphins.

Banning whale and dolphin captivity would demonstrate a concrete step toward international leadership on this key animal-welfare issue. It would bring Canada into step with countries like France, India, Chile, Costa Rica, Switzerland and various U.S. states where there are strict restrictions. Canadian values are evolving. They are changing. As scientific understanding evolves, so do Canadian values and so does our appreciation for those sophisticated creatures with which we share this planet. Canadians understand that whales and dolphins are complicated, intelligent beings and that the breeding in captivity of these species has no place in Canadian society.

One of the leading conservationists of the past two generations, Dr. Jane Goodall, whom I had the good fortune of meeting in Parliament in 2016, has said that the phasing-out of captive cetacean programs is the natural progression of humankind's evolving view of our non-human animal kin. This is an issue that has been raised by my constituents as embodying, yes, a scientific dimension, but also an important moral dimension. Bill S-203 has attracted tremendous support from the public as well as politicians of all parties, and it is clear that it is an opportune moment for the bill to be sent to committee and studied further.

As the member for Pontiac, I am proud to urge my colleagues in the House of Commons to move forward with this bill quickly and send it to committee because it is an innovative measure to protect whales and dolphins. Prohibiting the captivity of cetaceans is an important step toward international leadership on animal welfare. Canadians have been showing their growing opposition to keeping cetaceans in captivity. Today, the only facilities where cetaceans are still kept in captivity are the Vancouver Aquarium in British Columbia and Marineland in Ontario.

Fierce debate continues over issues such as mortality rates and longevity, especially of whales and dolphins while they are in captivity. The most conclusive data, as I understand it, are for orcas. Their annual mortality rates are significantly higher in captivity than in the wild. The mortality data related to live captures are relatively straightforward. Capture is undeniably stressful and, in the case of dolphins, results in a sixfold increase in mortality risk during and immediately after capture.

Live captures, particularly of dolphins, continue around the world in regions where very little is known about the status of populations. For smaller stocks, live capture operations are a significant conservation concern. These are issues that we have to take seriously. Even for those stocks not currently under threat, the lack of scientific assessment or regard for welfare makes the proliferation of these operations an issue of global concern. Therefore, it is good and it is appropriate that Canadian legislators are examining putting an end to cetacean captivity.

In the case of Bill S-203, to achieve this objective the bill proposes amendments to a series of statutes, namely the Criminal Code, the Fisheries Act and the Wild Animal and Plant Protection and Regulation of International and Interprovincial Trade Act, which tends to be called WAPPRIITA.

The capture of live cetaceans falls under federal jurisdiction. Although the Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard has the authority to issue licences for the capture of live cetaceans for the purpose of public display, no such licence has been issued since the 1990s.

Bill S-203 proposes to amend the Fisheries Act to prohibit moving “a live cetacean...from its immediate vicinity with the intent to take it into captivity.” This translates into making it illegal to capture or take a wild cetacean with the goal of keeping it captive. An exception is made when the animal is captured to help it.

As mentioned in the first hour of debate, the amendments to the Fisheries Act proposed in Bill S-203 are substantively similar to those introduced by the government in Bill C-68. In drafting Bill C-68, great care was taken to include the intent of Bill S-203, which is to end the capture of cetaceans from Canadian fishery waters for public display purposes.

Like Bill S-203 before us today, Bill C-68 includes provisions that would prohibit the capture of cetaceans and would allow for changes to import regulations to stop the import of cetaceans.

One of the important things for committee members as they study Bill S-203 is to examine what is the best legislative path forward, given the measures proposed in Bill C-68 and those proposed in Bill S-203. I look forward to following that process carefully.

There is one particular aspect that would merit an in-depth study, specifically the amendments this bill seeks to make in relation to WAPPRIITA, the Wild Animal and Plant Protection and Regulation of International and Interprovincial Trade Act.

WAPPRIITA forbids the import, export and interprovincial transportation of species it applies to unless those specimens are accompanied by the appropriate documents, licenses and permits. In all cases, the act applies to plants or animals, alive or dead, as well as the parts and any derived products. What is most important to understand about WAPPRIITA, which is the domestic statute that enables us to fulfill our international obligations under the CITES convention, is that it is a conservation-focused statute. We need to make sure that the objectives of that statute are consistent with Bill S-203. That is going to be an important discussion to have at committee.

The other thing we need to take into account is that this debate speaks to Canadian values.

I have had the wonderful opportunity to observe cetaceans in their natural environment, not just in eastern Canada, but also in western Canada, the Pacific and the St. Lawrence River. I know just how many Canadians have been touched by this experience.

My two young children have loved that experience, and they cannot even contemplate how cetaceans could be kept in captivity.

My wife, Regina, spent a summer with Dr. Paul Spong on Vancouver Island at his research station on Hanson Island studying the A5 pod. She was forever changed by that experience.

Most Canadians will recognize just how important it is to all of us that we do right by these species that are so special. Let us be conscious of the fact that these are some of the most highly sophisticated, most incredible beings on earth. When they are in captivity, they demonstrate absolutely abnormal behaviours. We need to make sure that Canadian legislation respects that these are incredibly sophisticated beings with complex social relations, and they deserve to be in the wild.

I appreciate this opportunity to urge the House to move this legislation forward for study in committee.

[Anne Minh-Thu Quach, NDP, Salaberry—Suroît, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Bill S-203 seeks to phase out cetacean captivity in Canada. Canadians everywhere, whether from Quebec, the Prairies or Vancouver, are increasingly opposed to keeping dolphins, killer whales and belugas in captivity.

The NDP would like to see this bill go forward because it has the support of scientists and ordinary Canadians alike. Canada can take an important step toward protecting vulnerable marine mammals and putting an end to the inhumane treatment of these highly intelligent creatures.

An Angus Reid survey conducted in May 2018 found that twice as many Canadians believe that keeping these mammals in captivity in Canadian aquariums should be prohibited compared to those who think it should be allowed.

Bill S-203 sets out a three-pronged approach to phasing out captivity. First, under the Fisheries Act, it prohibits the capture of live animals, except for the purpose of rescue. At present, such captures are legal if they are authorized. The last time cetaceans were captured in Canada was in 1992, when some belugas were captured near Churchill.

Second, it prohibits imports and exports, unless authorized for the purpose of conducting scientific research or to ensure the animals' welfare, for example, by transferring it to an open water sanctuary. It prohibits this under the Wild Animal and Plant Protection and Regulation of International and Interprovincial Trade Act.

Third, it also bans breeding under the animal cruelty provisions of the Criminal Code, subject to summary conviction and a $200,000 fine unless provincially licensed for scientific research.

Bill S-203 was studied by the Senate Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans for months. During this time, the committee heard from the world's foremost marine mammal experts that keeping animals in captivity cannot be justified given the scientific knowledge available on the biological needs of cetaceans.

These marine mammals are intelligent, social and sensitive to noise. They need to move freely and to dive deeply to thrive.

I was surprised to learn how far a whale travels to feed and socialize. It is about 100 miles a day. When we consider the size of pens, it is understandable that these animals must feel constrained, to say the least.

The scientific literature on the nature and behaviour of cetaceans tells us that it is cruel to keep them in captivity. They are intelligent marine mammals, very social and sensitive to sound. They need plenty of space to swim and dive deep.

Captive orcas live in the equivalent of one-ten-thousandth of 1% of their natural habitat. That is infinitesimal. They do not have enough space to swim in a straight line or deep underwater. It is even worse when they are forced to entertain tourists all day long. The animals get bored, and that makes them frustrated and aggressive.

Captive whales and dolphins are imprisoned and isolated. They suffer from health problems, they die younger, and their infant mortality rates are higher. They suffer from sensory deprivation. Transfers from one aquarium to another and mother-calf separations are traumatic. In other words, the evidence shows that the social and biological needs of cetaceans cannot be met in captivity.

Now that we know so much about cetacean ecology and biology, we cannot condone an economic model that is harmful to these animals' health.

The benefit of Bill S-203 is that it gives the parks and aquariums time to adapt to this new reality. The bill does not threaten the animals that are already in parks like Marineland or the Vancouver Aquarium. On the contrary, these animals can live several decades, and I hope that they will one day be able to retire to a sanctuary.

In addition, the bill does not eliminate the rescue program. It allows for rescue and rehabilitation efforts of cetaceans that have washed ashore, for example.

However, there must be absolutely no breeding of these animals in captivity, under the current conditions. There is no proof that this provides any kind of scientific benefit. As I already mentioned, captivity has some very harmful effects on these marine animals.

Jane Goodall, who was invited to testify before the Senate committee last fall, said that the current permission of Vancouver Aquarium's breeding programs on-site and at SeaWorld with belugas on loan, is no longer defensible by science. She also said that this is demonstrated by the high mortality rates evident in these breeding programs and by the ongoing use of these animals in interactive shows as entertainment. Lastly, she said that the phasing out of such programs is the natural progression of humankind's evolving view of cetaceans as equals.

This should not be a partisan issue, but rather a moral issue informed by science. Since it was introduced in December 2015, the bill has been stalled repeatedly by the Conservatives, so much so that my colleague from Port Moody—Coquitlam and other members spoke out publicly, calling on the Senate to stop dithering, put it to a vote and send the bill to the House of Commons.

We in the NDP believe that the government should support ethical and useful research on cetaceans, that is, research done in a natural environment. There, scientists can get a realistic view of their natural behaviours without causing a lifetime of pain and suffering. Cetaceans in captivity endure unjustified suffering.

Bill S-203 is a reasonable, balanced piece of legislation. It allows exemptions for animals that are already in captivity and provides for a lengthy transition period for the zoo and aquarium community. No one is asking those facilities to shut down overnight.

This is the right thing to do, and it is time to act.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise to speak to Bill S-203, an act to amend the Criminal Code and other acts in order to end the captivity of whales and dolphins.

This bill would amend the Criminal Code to create offences respecting cetaceans in captivity. It would also amend the Fisheries Act to prohibit the taking of cetaceans into captivity and the Wild Animal and Plant Protection and Regulation of International and Interprovincial Trade Act to require a permit for the import of cetaceans into Canada and the export of cetaceans from Canada.

There are two facilities in Canada that have cetaceans in captivity. My comments will focus primarily on the one in my beautiful province of British Columbia, the Vancouver Aquarium.

Essentially, this bill would shut down the important research work done by professionals at the Vancouver Aquarium.

I listened to my colleague's passionate speeches on this important bill. I have listened to the leader of the Green Party, and while I know that her intentions are good, I am afraid her concerns are perhaps misstated.

The Vancouver Aquarium is an established not-for-profit marine science centre that has contributed to groundbreaking conservation research for over six decades. Research at the Vancouver Aquarium is conducted by world-class scientists, biologists, veterinarians, animal care technicians and scholars.

For over 60 years, scientists at the aquarium have delivered insights into a natural world. Situated on the shoreline of Stanley Park in British Columbia, the aquarium is ideally positioned to conduct research that provides real-world relevance. The knowledge acquired through these initiatives contributes to improved animal care, increased understanding of the biology of diverse species and effective conservation planning.

I have to also admit that I have spent a couple of nights in the Vancouver Aquarium. Another part of what the Vancouver Aquarium does is educate the next generation coming through our school systems.

I will share a secret. I am absolutely terrified of snakes, so camping out in the middle of the night with an anaconda, probably a 30-foot anaconda, in a tank a mere 12 feet away was of some concern for me, but my son and daughter, who took part in those overnight trips at the Vancouver Aquarium, both came away understanding more about what we could do to help our wild animals, beaches and oceans than they could have by reading a textbook any day.

Vancouver Aquarium researchers explore a wide range of topics, including veterinary sciences, nutrition, life history and habitat needs. Ocean Wise, a not-for-profit organization, whose vision is a world in which oceans are healthy and flourishing, conducts its research at the Vancouver Aquarium.

The Vancouver Aquarium leads the only marine mammal rescue centre in Canada, with a skilled team able to rescue stranded whales and dolphins. The aquarium has been rescuing and rehabilitating whales and dolphins along B.C.'s coast for over 50 years, with the intention to release healthy and recovered animals back to their natural habitats. The only cetacean currently in professional care at the aquarium is a rescued Pacific white-sided dolphin that had been deemed non-releasable by government authorities due to her inability to survive alone in the wild.

Those that stay in care are there because they must, for their survival, and are cared for at the highest standards, as per the Canadian Council of Animal Care guidelines. They also, in turn, contribute immensely to scientific research, as they accord scientists the opportunity to study their social interaction, their interaction with underwater acoustics and their communication with each other. It is in accredited aquariums that we have learned about cetacean physiology, their mechanisms and interactions that operate within them as a living system.

Team members of the Vancouver Aquarium have learned about their hearing and acoustic ability. They have learned much about their diet and their energy requirements, their lung mechanics and pulmonary function. They have tested field equipment such as hydrophones, mark-recapture bands and non-invasive attachments for satellite tags and cameras.

Research with animals at Vancouver Aquarium often carries on into the field. In the St. Lawrence Estuary, Vancouver Aquarium's scientists are measuring the acoustic communication of beluga whales to learn how we can mitigate the impact of underwater noise on that endangered population. They are studying the endangered killer whales, using images taken from a drone to measure and assess changes in the whales' length and girth and to determine if they are not getting enough fish to eat. All of that study starts at the Vancouver Aquarium.

Accredited aquariums and zoos have a unique expertise that is needed to save species that are at risk. This is not the time to be phasing out facilities and expertise that can help wildlife in an unknown future.

We have only begun to scratch the surface of what we can do with species survival programs and reintroduction projects for species at risk. Zoos and aquariums offer critical elements in these efforts that other stakeholders simply cannot.

Around the world, accredited facilities have helped save species such as the black-footed ferret, the California condor, and at the Vancouver Aquarium, the Panamanian golden frog. Vancouver Aquarium's marine biologists, veterinarians and scientists contribute to research on killer whales, narwhals, beluga whales, harbour porpoises, etc., because they have the necessary elements—veterinarians, biologists, husbandry experts and facilities—always trained and always ready. Programs like these take time to develop, and expertise is gained through experience.

The Marine Mammal Rescue Centre is the only hospital of its kind in Canada and now rescues, rehabilitates and releases more than 150 or more marine animals a year. These are wild animals that are found stranded or severely injured and are rescued under government permits.

I know my colleague from the Green Party will not like what I have to say and I accept that, but I am not alone in my belief that the work of science is extremely important to the protection of species at risk.

Just a few weeks ago, I received an email from Dr. Laura Graham, a professor at the University of Guelph. Her specialty is endocrinology and reproductive physiology of wildlife species, including looking at factors that can impact the welfare of wildlife species managed by humans and using science to solve some of the challenges wildlife managers face as they work toward optimizing the welfare of animals in their care.

I would like to read a direct quote from her correspondence. She said:

As an expert in endangered species physiology I can tell you that this bill is short-sighted and will do irreparable harm to critical research on the marine mammals listed under SARA, including the Salish Orca. Over 90% of what we know about marine mammal biology is based on research on individuals under human care. And we need these captive animals to develop research techniques that can be applied to free-ranging animals.

Dr. Graham, along with her colleague Dr. Sam Wasser, used a non-invasive method of monitoring hormones in the Salish orcas and determined they were losing their pregnancies due to a nutritional deficit.

Dr. Graham wrote:

And if this research hadn't been done and these orcas were managed according to demands of animal activists, we would have instigated restrictions on how close tourist boats can get to them and then watched with stupid looks on our faces as they slowly starved to death. And although there is a clause for research in Bill S-203, it is meaningless.

I have no doubt that those in favour of this bill have the best intentions at heart, but if they truly cared about the survival of the species, if they wanted to ensure their survival and not just pander to the demands of animal activists, they would look closely at this bill and come to the realization that science is important and we need to continue the life-saving research that groups like the Vancouver Aquarium and scientists provide.

As I have said, there are provisions within Bill S-203 that will interfere with the good work and accomplishments we have talked about today. As such, I look forward to seeing the bill go to committee, but I will not be voting for it.

The House resumed from November 29, 2018, consideration of the motion that Bill S-203, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and other Acts (ending the captivity of whales and dolphins), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Opposition Motion—Affordable Housing

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my concern is only that, through inadvertence on the part of the larger parties, I nearly missed Bill S-203 moving to Private Members' Business a few weeks ago because the House saw the clock at 5:30 p.m. at 5:15 p.m. My concern is to make sure the member whose business is on the agenda for today and his or her seconder are present. Then, absolutely, it would be wonderful to see the clock at 5:30 p.m., because as I see it, it looks like 5:30 p.m.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I apologize. I had both Bill S-203 and the late show. Now I'm back.

This amendment is very similar to the one that Rachel just put forward. It deals with the question of instances of an indigenous governing body, so that we are able to ensure that people who are in what might be considered urban indigenous groups.... Other things that might not be covered under the act we think will be all right, with the exception that I propose changing the word “aboriginal” to “indigenous”.

This was a particular suggestion of the Native Women's Association of Canada. We want to ensure that we are recognizing the indigenous status of a particularly vulnerable group that is disproportionately represented in our correctional system.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Ending the Captivity of Whales and Dolphins Act

[Fin Donnelly, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak in support of Bill S-203, an act to amend the Criminal Code and other acts (ending the captivity of whales and dolphins).

The bill was first introduced in the Senate in 2015. It has taken three long years to get it here, and I fully support its quick passage into law. The purpose of the bill is to phase out the captivity of cetaceans: whales, dolphins and porpoises in Canada. There is an exception for rescues, rehabilitation, licensed scientific research, or if it is in the best interest of the cetacean.

Keeping these incredible creatures confined is cruel. This is a moral issue, but it is informed by science, and I hope all members of the House will support this legislation. The study of cetaceans is important, but New Democrats believe research on cetaceans can be conducted in an ethical manner in the wild where they belong. There, scientists can get a realistic view of their natural behaviours without causing a lifetime of pain and suffering.

Science has proven that they suffer in captivity. Let us have a look at what the Animal Welfare Institute reports about their natural behaviour compared to when they are in captivity.

In the wild, cetaceans can travel up to 100 miles a day, feeding and socializing with other members of their pods. Pods can contain hundreds of individuals with complex social bonds and hierarchies. In captivity, they are housed in small enclosures, unable to swim in a straight line for long or dive deeply. Sometimes they are housed alone without opportunities for socialization, or they are forced to live with incompatible animals and even species with which they would not naturally have close contact.

In the wild, cetaceans spend approximately 80% to 90% of their time under water. They have the freedom to make their own choices. In captivity, they spend approximately 80% of their time at the surface, looking for food and attention from their trainers, who make the choices for them.

In the wild, they are surrounded by other sea life and are an integral part of marine ecosystems. They have evolved for millions of years in the oceans, and in most cases, they are the top predators. In captivity, cetaceans are in artificial environments that are sterile or lack stimulation. Tank water must be treated or filtered, or both, to avoid health problems for the animals, although they may still suffer from bacterial and fungal infections that can be deadly. Other species, such as fish, invertebrates and sea vegetation cannot survive these treatments, so display tanks are as empty as hotel swimming pools.

In the wild, cetaceans live in a world of natural sound. They rely on their hearing as we do on our sight. Echolocation is their main sensory system, and they use sound to find mates, migrate, communicate, forage, nurse, care for young, and escape predators. In captivity, cetaceans must listen to filtration systems, pumps, music, fireworks and people clapping and yelling daily. Their concrete and glass enclosures also reflect sounds, so a poorly designed enclosure can make artificial noises worse. Echolocation is rarely used, as a tank offers no novelties or challenges to explore.

In captivity, it must be horrific for these animals. Cetaceans are intelligent, emotional and social mammals. Orcas, in particular, are highly social animals that travel in groups or pods that consist of five to 30 whales, although some pods may combine to form a group of 100 or more.

Canadians witnessed their extraordinary human-like behaviour this past summer, as we watched the grieving ordeal of the mother orca, J-35 Tahlequah, who carried her dead newborn calf for about 1,600 kilometres over 17 days. She empathetically held on, diving deep to retrieve her calf each time it slid from her head. Jenny Atkinson, director of the Whale Museum on San Juan Island told the CBC:

We do know her family is sharing the responsibility of caring for this calf, that she's not always the one carrying it, that they seem to take turns. While we don't have photos of the other whales carrying it, because we've seen her so many times without the calf, we know that somebody else has it.

This type of grieving behaviour is not unique to killer whales. Dolphins and other mammals, including gorillas, are known to carry their deceased young in what is widely believed by scientists to be an expression of grief.

Sheila Thornton, the lead killer whale biologist for Fisheries and Oceans Canada describes it. She said:

Strong social bonds between the families of orcas drive much of their behaviour. The southern residents share food, a language, a culture of eating only fish and an ecological knowledge of where to find it in their home range.

Bill S-203 is an important piece of proposed legislation that would grandfather out captivity in three ways.

First, it would ban live captures under the Fisheries Act, except for rescues. To be clear, the bill would not interfere with rescues. In fact, it would allow for research if the cetacean is unfit to return to the wild.

Second, it would ban cetacean imports and exports, except if licensed for scientific research or in the cetacean's best interest. An example of that exemption would be a transfer to an open water sanctuary under the Wild Animal and Plant Protection and Regulation of International and Interprovincial Trade Act, or WAPPRIITA.

Third, it would ban breeding under the animal cruelty provisions of the Criminal Code, subject to a summary conviction and a $200,000 fine unless provincially licensed for scientific research.

It is important to note that government Bill C-68, which is currently in the Senate, prohibits cetacean captures except for rescues and authorizes the regulation of imports. However, Bill C-68 would not restrict imports or exports by law or ban breeding.

Bill S-203 would also ban cetacean performances for entertainment. Currently, two Canadian facilities hold captive cetaceans. The Vancouver Aquarium holds one dolphin and has publicly committed to not hold any new cetaceans following the Vancouver Park Board ban. Marineland in Niagara Falls, Ontario, holds 50 to 60 belugas, five dolphins and one orca. Since 2015, it has been illegal to buy, sell or breed orcas in that province.

For these facilities, a change brought on as a result of Bill S-203 would be felt gradually. Marineland, for example, could keep its current whales and dolphins, many of which should live for decades, and in that time it could evolve to a more sustainable model, perhaps with a focus on conservation. The Vancouver Aquarium, for instance, could retain its current residents for research and may even acquire new whales and dolphins through rescue and rehabilitation.

Phil Demers, a former head trainer at Marineland, said this about the bill:

As a former Marine Mammal Trainer, I believe the bill to ban cetacean captivity and breeding in Canada is imperative and long-overdue. I have witnessed the physiological and emotional consequences captivity imposes on these magnificent beings, and those who care for them. No living being should be forced to endure what I’ve witnessed, and it’s my hope that this bill will finally put an end to these cruel practices.

It is about time. Canada is behind other jurisdictions on this issue. The United Kingdom, Italy, New Zealand, Chile, Cyprus, Hungary and Mexico all have banned or severely restricted these practices. Companies have begun ending their partnerships with other companies that keep cetaceans in captivity. Air Canada, WestJet, JetBlue, Southwest Airlines and Taco Bell have all recently ended their association with SeaWorld Entertainment, which operates a total of 12 parks in the United States.

In a letter to the Vancouver Parks Board, Dr. Jane Goodall said:

The scientific community is also responding to the captivity of these highly social and intelligent species as we now know more than ever, about the complex environments such species require to thrive and achieve good welfare. Those of us who have had the fortunate opportunity to study wild animals in their natural settings where family, community structure and communication form a foundation for these animals’ existence, know the implications of captivity on such species.

In 1977, I received the honour of a lifetime when the Squamish nation bestowed me with the name Iyim Yewyews, meaning orca, blackfish or killer whale, a strong swimmer in the animal world. They gave me this name for the work I was doing to conserve, protect and restore the watersheds, our marine environment and the natural world, which includes these whales.

I encourage all members to get on the right side of history and pass this important bill.

[Robert Sopuck, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak on Bill S-203.

I am opposed to this bill. The bill is fundamentally flawed. I was interested to hear the previous two speakers conflate this particular bill with environmental conservation and the conservation of whales. This has nothing to do with conservation or the environment.

Any population ecologist worth their salt only considers the numbers of individuals who are in the population. With this particular bill, even though the previous speakers tried to conflate it with environmental protection, the only thing that counts are the numbers of cetaceans that are out there, the population size.

This bill will do nothing for the conservation of cetaceans or, indeed, the understanding of the natural world. This particular bill, in my view, is an emotional reaction to a problem that simply does not exist.

In terms of cetaceans, I know that the government is always pointing out the problem populations, and quite rightly so, the southern killer whale, the Atlantic right whale, the belugas in the St. Lawrence. I am pleased to say that in Manitoba, off the Churchill estuary, we have a population of beluga whales of 55,000 individual animals. Studies have shown that population is stable and/or increasing.

Obviously, interacting with cetaceans in the wild is desirable, but many Canadians simply do not have the opportunity to do so. I was interested in the parliamentary secretary's comments about the Arctic and narwhals. I think I am one of the few people in this House, apart from the member for Nunavut, who has actually seen narwhals and experienced their beauty in the wild. It is something that very few people will see. They are remarkable creatures.

Many Canadians, however, do not have the opportunities that people like myself or those in the science community have had. Viewing cetaceans in captivity may be the only opportunity for many to understand cetaceans. Again, if the only place a person from an urban area who does not have a chance to get out in the wild and view cetaceans can learn about cetaceans is in captivity, obviously there are communication tools that various facilities will use to inform the visitors about cetaceans, cetacean conservation and the issue of the endangered species, for example. These are very important communications tools.

Regarding Ontario, I have been advised that there was a lengthy public debate in Ontario, which included the creation of an independent and international scientific advisory panel. They produced a very comprehensive report. There was the creation of a technical advisory group, composed of stakeholders from across the country. There were public hearings. I have been advised that provincial legislation has been passed that expressly permits keeping marine mammals in humane care, and creates and implements stringent regulations regarding the care and treatment of marine mammals.

The member for Saanich—Gulf Islands talked about the issues of animal cruelty and so on, and it reminds me of the debate we had on Bill C-246. The slippery slope is alive and well when it comes to this type of legislation. Who knows where it will lead, to rodeos or medical research? Who knows where this will lead once a bill like this is passed?

In terms of Marineland, again the founder of Marineland, John Holer, who is sadly now deceased, spoke to the Senate committee on May 16, 2017. Some of the takeaways from his testimony were that Marineland employs over 100 people year round and 700 during the operation season; Marineland has employed over 50,000 people in its 56 years of successful operation; Marineland does not seek or rely upon any public funding; Marineland annually commits approximately $4 million a year to advertising, reaching more than 15 million people across Canada and the U.S.; and Marineland attracts close to a million visitors yearly to the Niagara region.

Obviously, the entire regional economy benefits from this tourism opportunity. Also of tremendous importance, thousands of special needs children, at least 3,500 per year, visit Marineland through special programs, including events like Autism Day.

What is important is looking at the population of cetaceans. I go back to the point that this particular bill has nothing to do with environmental conservation. Nobody should be led to believe that it does.

However, the humane holding of cetaceans in captivity, following veterinary-approved codes of practice, is a conservation tool that can be used to educate Canadians about cetaceans.

I recall, for example, the great debates that we had on Bill C-246, the animal rights bill, a private member's bill that a Liberal member of Parliament tabled. Thankfully, a number of people in the government caucus voted against that bill, despite the protestations of the member who introduced the bill that it would not affect any of the animal-use communities.

The animal rights movement is clever in how it pushes forward legislation or policy change. The process is to start with something that seems innocent and then keep going and going, and pretty soon who knows what will be banned? For example, once we ban cetaceans from captivity, what is next? Let us look at beluga whales for example.

There are 55,000 beluga whales in the Churchill River estuary during the summer months. They are hunted by Inuit people from Arviat further north. Taking a few and putting them in captivity would mean nothing to the population of beluga.

Right now, however, polar bears are allowed to be held in captivity. Winnipeg has a world-famous, multimillion dollar polar bear exhibit. The number of polar bears is less than half that of beluga whales. What is next? This can go on and on.

Some people have a real antipathy towards zoos in general or animals in captivity, but this is how these campaigns start and this is the reason I will be actively opposing this legislation.

In terms of cetaceans, and as someone who has been to the Churchill River estuary and seen beluga whales, I have also been fortunate enough to see narwhals, which are incredible creatures. I can certainly understand the attachment people have to these beautiful creatures. Again, we admire them because we are taught about the beauty of nature and wildlife in facilities that are responsible and effective. However, without these facilities, many Canadians would never see such creatures.

The parliamentary secretary talked about the conservation of cetaceans. I want to tell him and the government caucus about the devastating effect that the new marine mammal regulations will have on the community of Churchill.

As I said, in the estuary in the summertime beluga whales are there in the thousands. As soon as a boat is launched, they swim up to it and there is nothing that can be done about it. These ridiculous marine mammal regulations that the government is insisting on enforcing would potentially kill this $10 million industry.

I made a statement about Churchill earlier in the House today. Ecotourism is a $10 million a year industry, employing 300 people. But the community of Churchill is on the ropes economically, and the whale and polar bear watching industries are the lifeblood of that particular community.

In the new marine mammal regulations, there is a minimum distance requirement of 50 metres. In the Churchill River estuary, which is not a very large area, there could be 30,000 beluga whales. How can they be avoided? Interestingly enough, the marine mammal regulations do not apply to large vessels that may be plowing up and down the estuary. They can plow through belugas willy-nilly, pardon the pun.

In terms of the ecotourism industry in the Churchill area, the very gentle environmental “use” this industry makes of the Churchill River estuary is the ultimate in sustainability, yet the government is promulgating marine mammal regulations that could potentially put that industry out of business.

I heard about the situation with humpback whales in Conception Bay. The operators there offer people the opportunity to slip into the water and swim with the whales. That would be completely banned under the new regulations. I have been told that the operator in Conception Bay lost $60,000 in business.

None of these regulations will have any positive impact on cetacean populations whatsoever. I guarantee there has been no scientific proof that these marine mammal regulations will improve the situation of cetaceans in Canada. All they will do, as the Liberal government has done over and over again, is to hurt remote rural communities. I find that unacceptable.

[Sean Casey, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard, Lib.]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill S-203, an act to amend the Criminal Code and other acts, also known as the act for ending the captivity of whales and dolphins, or as we have heard, the Free Willy bill. It was introduced in the other place by the hon. Senator Wilfred Moore on December 8, 2015, and following his retirement was carried by Senator Sinclair.

The bill proposes amendments to the Criminal Code, the Fisheries Act and the Wild Animal and Plant Protection and Regulation of International and Interprovincial Trade Act. Because I only have 10 minutes, I will refer to that statute from here forward as WAPPRIITA.

The goal of these amendments is to end the captivity of cetaceans; that is, whales, dolphins and porpoises in Canada. Indeed, the stated objective of Bill S-203 is to gradually reduce and eventually do away with the practice of holding whales, dolphins and other cetaceans captive in Canadian facilities.

Bill S-203 proposes amendments to the Criminal Code that would make it an offence to hold cetaceans in captivity. It proposes an amendment to the Fisheries Act that would prohibit the capture of a cetacean in order to take it into captivity. Finally, Bill S-203 proposes to amend the WAPPRIITA to prohibit the import of cetaceans into Canada and the export of a cetacean from Canada.

Bill S-203 is a response to growing public concern about the well-being of cetaceans. We now have a greater understanding and awareness of the nature of these animals and the living conditions they need to be happy and healthy. There is clearly growing support for the protection of whales and other marine mammals in Canada and around the world.

Since its introduction, Bill S-203 has undergone significant changes. Our colleagues in the other place, particularly through the consultations and study done by the standing committee, have sent us a bill that deserves our full consideration.

Bill S-203 also now includes provisions that affirm the rights of indigenous peoples, many of whom feature whales as a central part of their culture and traditions.

In order to enable certain critical conservation and research activities to continue, Bill S-203 includes provisions that would create exceptions where an animal is in need of rescue or rehabilitation. Cetaceans currently in captivity at Marineland and the Vancouver Aquarium would also fall under the exception clauses; that is, these facilities would not be closed down, leaving animals that have never known another home with no place to be cared for.

We are surrounded on three incredibly wide-ranging coasts by spectacular oceans. These waters are home to 42 distinct populations of whales.

All of these animal species and many more are facing major threats. Global warming has affected water temperatures, and that is affecting the food supply. Illegal, unreported, unregulated fishing, accidental by-catch and entanglement in commercial fishing nets, declining food availability, noise pollution, habitat pollution and even collisions all pose a threat to cetaceans.

The conservation and protection of marine mammals in the wild, including cetaceans, has become a whole-of-government priority in Canada. This priority has been underscored by the increasing threats facing three endangered species of whales, the southern resident killer whales on the west coast, the North Atlantic right whales on the east coast, and the St. Lawrence estuary beluga in Quebec.

The government's commitment to recovering and protecting Canada's whale species is reflected in the support provided through the $1.5 billion oceans protection plan announced by the Prime Minister in 2016, the $167.4 million whales initiative announced as part of budget 2018, and the recent announcement of $61.5 million for measures in support of the southern resident killer whale.

Fisheries and Oceans Canada has been coordinating with other federal departments and provincial and territorial governments to advance other initiatives, including reducing vessel strikes and entanglement of the North Atlantic right whale, reducing contaminants affecting the St. Lawrence estuary beluga, and introducing amendments to the marine mammal regulations that establish minimum general approach distances for whales, dolphins and porpoises in Canadian fisheries waters.

Bill S-203's focus is on the capture of wild cetaceans for the purpose of keeping them in captivity as an attraction, and the ongoing holding and/or breeding of cetaceans in captivity. As I have said, there are only two facilities in Canada that hold cetaceans in captivity, Marineland in Niagara Falls, Ontario and the Vancouver Aquarium in British Columbia.

Marineland is a commercial facility that has approximately 60 cetaceans, including beluga whales, dolphins and one orca or killer whale. The vast majority of cetaceans held at Marineland are belugas.

The Vancouver Aquarium is a not-for-profit facility. It has only one cetacean at its facility, a 30-year old Pacific white-sided dolphin that was rescued from the wild and deemed non-releasable. Earlier this year, the Vancouver Aquarium announced that it would no longer display cetaceans and would focus instead on its work on conservation and rescuing stranded and injured whales and dolphins. The Vancouver Aquarium works with Fisheries and Oceans Canada to rescue and rehabilitate marine mammals in distress.

The Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard only issues licences for the capture of a live cetacean when the purpose is for scientific research or rehabilitation. In the past 10 years, only one such licence has been issued for the rehabilitation of a live stranded Pseudorca calf. It has been a matter of public policy for more than two decades that wild cetaceans not be captured and placed in captivity unless the goal is to rescue, rehabilitate and release them.

Provincial and territorial legislative regimes in this area continue to evolve. In 2015, Ontario banned the buying, selling or breeding of orca whales. The province also amended the Ontario Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act to increase protection for other marine mammals held in captivity.

This bill was debated in the other place, so we have debated the amendments to the Fisheries Act that the government introduced in the spring and summer.

My colleagues may have noticed that some of the amendments put forward in Bill C-68 would achieve the main goal set out in Bill S-203: ending the captivity of cetaceans. Bill C-68 would do that without impeding the government's ability to do important scientific research.

Bill C-68 also includes provisions that protect the rights of northern indigenous peoples to export cetacean products, such as narwhal tusks.

Bill C-68 would prohibit capturing a cetacean with the intent to take it into captivity. Exceptions are made for the minister to authorize an exception if a cetacean is injured, in distress or in need of care.

The bill also proposes a regulation-making authority with respect to importing fish, including cetaceans. This regulation-making authority would allow the government to determine the circumstances under which a cetacean could be imported to or exported from Canada. For example, these movements may be permitted for purposes of repopulation or conservation. They may be prohibited if the intent is to display cetaceans in aquariums. These regulatory tools could also enable the government to authorize the import and export of cetaceans to sea sanctuaries should those facilities be established in the future.

The former minister of fisheries, oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard has acknowledged that the amendments to the Fisheries Act proposed in Bill C-68 as they pertain to keeping cetaceans in captivity were inspired by Bill S-203, and in particular the bill's sponsor, retired Senator Wilfred Moore.

There is no doubt that this government and Canadians from coast to coast to coast support the ban on the captivity of cetaceans for the sole purpose of display. That is why I look forward to supporting this bill to committee and participating in the debate that will occur there and hearing from witness testimony.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, Newfoundland and Labrador also has spectacular whales in its offshore, the humpbacks and minkes. We are a country with three oceans, so we have a wide variety of whale species here.

The member is quite right. The taking of whales from the ocean and putting them into captivity is cruel. The trade does involve countries like China. We have heard rumours about the belugas currently held at Marineland, and there are over 22 belugas there. There is speculation and concern it may be getting ready to sell them and trade them to China.

The international trade in whales is a profitable one and whales die in the process.

Again, the hon. member raised the documentary movie Blackfish. I think that was Senator Moore's inspiration for bringing forward Bill S-203. He was so deeply disturbed by the story of Tilikum, the captive orca, that he wanted to ensure Canada was not part of this trade. It is simple legislation as far as it goes. It is clear, it would do the right thing and it would do them for the right reasons.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

, seconded by the member for Drummond, moved that Bill S-203, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and other Acts (ending the captivity of whales and dolphins), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

She said: Mr. Speaker, I am honoured this evening to speak to Bill S-203 at second reading stage. This bill would put an end to the captivity of whales and dolphins.

This bill already has quite an interesting history in the other chamber. It was introduced in the Senate by Senator Wilfred Moore, from Nova Scotia, who is now retired. After the senator retired, the bill received the support of Senator Murray Sinclair.

I am very honoured to have this bill in my hands to take through the House. However, I would like us all to regard this bill as being in our collective hands. It is best that we not see this as a partisan issue or for anyone's particular credit. It is about time that we took the actions that are put forward in this legislation.

We have learned a lot about whales and dolphins over the decades. It happens that one of the pivotal stories that changed how humans have thought about whales had a link to my own riding. There is a story of a whale, an orca that was wrongly named Moby Doll, instead of Moby Dick, because when humans first took this whale into captivity, they wrongly assumed that they had a female whale. This story goes back to the effort to kill the whales to study them back in the 1950s. Killer whales are carnivores. They will eat seals but are extremely friendly toward human beings and not a threat in open water.

Saturna Island is one of the perfectly gorgeous small islands that I am honoured to represent here. I represent Saanich—Gulf Islands, Saanich being the anglicized word for WSÁNEC nation. These islands are the unceded traditional territory of indigenous peoples. The islands were scattered and in WSÁNEC traditional creation myths, the islands themselves had life and had been peopled and had been scattered. One of those scattered islands is Saturna, which to this day has the most astonishing land-based whale watching one can experience.

In any case, the scientists and other people from Vancouver aquarium came up with the idea of capturing and killing a whale. They harpooned the killer whale, held it for a period of days and realized that the whale was intelligent. The taking of Moby Doll was the beginning of scientists' realization that whales are not big fish. Rather, the whales reminded them of ourselves. The whales are sentient beings. In the Sencoten language, I was mentioning that we are all related. In Sencoten language, the phrase for human beings is the “human people” and the word for whale translates as the “whale people”. We are very connected.

That connection with whales has led science in different directions. Moby Doll did not survive. They did not know how to feed it. It was already injured. However, we learned a lot from that one contact. We learned that whales are our relatives. They are sentient beings and they are intelligent

Over the years, this has led us to greater research. What are the needs of whales? They are social creatures. We now know that the southern resident killer whales in the Salish Sea are acutely endangered. However, we have also learned a lot about what their needs are in the wild. They need a lot of space. They need to be able to swim in the wild. They have social needs. They have physical needs and bio-physical needs. They need to be in the wild. In the meantime, our fascination with them is for an obvious reason. They are fascinating.

The keeping of whales in captivity has become a form of entertainment. However, the science increasingly makes us understand that what might seem to be simple entertainment and a simple pleasure is actually animal cruelty, because these animals cannot be held in a swimming pool without significant cruelty and real pain and a loss of social contact and normal activities. As the science points out, cetaceans suffer from confinement, isolation and health problems. Confinement reduces their life span, their calves have much higher mortality, and the deprivation to their senses constitutes trauma, and when they are moved from place to place, kept in captivity or bred in captivity and separated from their calves, they suffer.

We saw this in the wild this summer when one of the southern resident killer whales in the Salish Sea gave birth to a dead calf or one that died immediately thereafter. That mother whale pushed that calf through the waters for 17 days while grieving. Even scientists who wanted to say they could not anthropomorphize this or assume that the whale was actually grieving realized, when this has gone on for 17 days, that the mother was grieving the loss of her calf. Imagine those kinds of sentient, emotional connections and then deciding to keep whales and dolphins in a swimming pool, thinking they would be fine.

We have taken steps in this country very recently, thanks to the former minister of fisheries, currently the Minister of Intergovernmental and Northern Affairs and Internal Trade, who shepherded Bill C-68 through the House. It is now before the Senate. It quite rightly, and for the first time, banned the capture of whales in open water. However, what Bill C-68 does not do is deal with this additional large risk of keeping whales in captivity, breeding them in captivity, selling them, importing them and having a trade in whales and dolphins. That is what this bill would end. The bill would end the keeping of whales and dolphins. This step has already been taken by the United Kingdom, Italy, New Zealand, Chile, Cyprus, Hungary and Mexico. They have either banned or severely restricted the keeping of whales in captivity.

I also want to acknowledge the leadership in this regard of the Vancouver Aquarium. That aquarium, by the way, has a phenomenal science program. I love touring it and talking to its scientists. They are doing a lot of the heavy lifting on issues like plastics in our oceans, but they kept whales in captivity for entertainment and have pledged to stop doing that. They have said they will stop voluntarily.

This bill is supported by numerous leaders and marine scientists, including the Humane Society internationally and in Canada; The Jane Goodall Institute; Animal Justice; and the former head trainer at Marineland, Phil Demers, who has appeared at press conferences with members in this place.

Whales are still being kept in captivity in Canada. We do not want to put the one institution that keeps whales in captivity out of business. There are lots of other ways to maintain a tourist attraction with the great facilities present in that institution. There are display and trained seal operations, one can imagine. I think of the Cirque du Soleil. We used to think circuses needed animals, that we needed to see an elephant lumbering through, and we now know that one of the most successful, economically profitable, off-the-charts successful circus is Cirque du Soleil.

Cirque du Soleil does not use a single animal; only humans. The circus is nevertheless quite famous and has been very successful. The same is possible in Marineland, in Ontario. They could have a kind of Cirque du Soleil that would actually be a circus of the sea.

I am not going to give professional tourist advice, but I want to make it really clear that this is not about shutting down a tourist attraction. This bill is about ending animal cruelty. We cannot pretend anymore that we do not know this is cruelty. That is very clear from scientists around the world, and I am really pleased to know that this bill has so far been supported and seconded officially by members of the other parties in this place.

This is why I hope we can make this a non-partisan effort and collectively and collaboratively end keeping whales and dolphins in captivity, phase out and end the trade in whales and dolphins and ensure that Canada joins other progressive countries from around the world in protecting our whales in the wild. That must be done. We have three species right now of critically endangered whales: the right whales in the Atlantic, the belugas in the Saguenay and, as I have mentioned, the southern resident killer whales of the Salish Sea.

Much more needs to be done to protect whales in the wild, but we cannot as a country continue the practice of holding these animals of intelligence and with complicated communication systems. Their ability to communicate songs over wide distances in the open ocean is impossible when they are kept confined essentially in swimming pools. No matter how much affection may appear between a trainer and a whale, these animals are being kept in ways that harm them, that kill them and that deny them their ability to be what they are: magnificent creatures, leviathans. One of the great texts of the Bible to describe a non-human species is the description of leviathan, one of God's great creations. Masters of the oceans, they cannot any longer be kept in captivity.

To all my colleagues in all parties in the House, I say that it is time to put an end to this cruel practice of keeping whales and dolphins in captivity. This must stop immediately.

Now is the moment that we begin the second reading process of this bill. Please, I urge my colleagues, let us get it expeditiously to committee. Let us get it expeditiously back for report stage and third reading. Let us ensure that when we go back to our electorate in each one of our ridings across the country, we are able to say that we did one thing this year that we are really proud of. Let us say we ended the practice of keeping whales and dolphins in captivity, that we did something our children want us to do, that we did something for the wild beings of this planet.

In honour of Senator Wilfred Moore, I would like to end my remarks by saying that it is time we free Willy.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I should mention at some point while I have the floor that I have to be in House for a bit of private member's business, the introduction of second reading of Bill S-203.

I know my amendments don't need me here, because they're deemed to have been moved. I'd appreciate it if the Liberal members of the committee would argue my amendments for me in my absence and convince themselves that they're really good while they do it. I'll try to keep my absence to a minimum.

In PV-11, what we're looking at right now is the existing amendment. The existing language talks about opportunity. I'm trying to ensure with this amendment that we respond to the witnesses, many of whom pointed out that an opportunity that can't be used, an opportunity that doesn't provide for meaningful human contact, isn't a real opportunity.

I've brought in this language of “meaningful human contact” and “a reasonable opportunity”, instead of just “opportunity”.

Animal Welfare

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have three petitions on three different issues to present today.

The first is in support of a bill that will be debated at second reading later today, Bill S-203, to prevent the keeping of our whales in captivity and to prevent the cruelty that exists as a result of that.

[The Chair]

Does the committee want Bill S-203 to not be designated non-votable?

We need a mover.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

I appreciate your analysis enormously. Bill C-68, of course, would prohibit the taking of whales and dolphins in the wild in Canadian waters, but it doesn't prohibit keeping them in captivity if they come from overseas or if they've been bred in captivity. The purpose of Bill S-203 is very clearly not to keep cetaceans in captivity in Canada. The amendment in Bill C-68, which we really welcomed, is totally consistent, but it applies, as you said, only to one part of the same topic. It doesn't accomplish the same ends. Taking this forward would be great.

If it had been known to Senator Wilfred Moore, the originator of this bill in the Senate, that the then Minister of Fisheries was on the verge of banning the taking of whales and dolphins in captivity, he would have left that section out of Bill S-203. However, it proceeded from the Senate in advance of when the minister put forward Bill C-68 for first reading.

It would certainly create unwanted complexities for the government to try to change that one section now that it's in the Senate, just as it would create unnecessary complications for Bill S-203 to try to remove that. The only real question is whether there is any incompatibility. There isn't. They work together toward one of the same purposes, but Bill S-203 is toward a rather different end and we'll have to see how it does in committee.

While I have the microphone, I'd just say that I consulted with senators Wilfred Moore and Murray Sinclair, who took the bill forward through the Senate. In terms of which committee you might direct it to, it appears most logical that it go to the fisheries committee. I just wanted to make that suggestion while that was under review.

[David Graham, Liberal, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

If C-68 and S-203 both passed, would they create a contradiction in law?

[David Groves, Committee Researcher]

I'm happy to discuss any of the bills that the committee has before it, but as Mr. Graham has mentioned, I'm going to focus my comments on one bill in particular, which is Bill S-203. It is my assessment that all three of these bills could be declared non-votable, but Bill S-203 I feel requires a bit more elaboration.

Bill S-203, an act to amend the Criminal Code and other acts, ending the captivity of whales and dolphins, is a Senate public bill that seeks to accomplish three goals: one, to prohibit the keeping of a cetacean—which I have learned is a whale or a dolphin or other animals in that family—in captivity; two, to prohibit the catching of a cetacean so as to keep it in captivity; and three, to prohibit the import and export of a live cetacean.

In so doing, the bill would make amendments to the Criminal Code, to the Fisheries Act and to the Wild Animal and Plant Protection and Regulation of International and Interprovincial Trade Act. Of note for the committee, it would amend the Fisheries Act by adding section 28.1, of which subsection 28.1(1) would read as follows:

Subject to subsection (2), no one shall move a live cetacean, including a whale, dolphin or porpoise, from its immediate vicinity with the intent to take it into captivity.

Proposed subsection 28.1(2) reads:

A person may move a live cetacean from its immediate vicinity when the cetacean is injured or in distress and is in need of assistance.

I have flagged this proposed section in particular because there is another bill before Parliament that would make a similar amendment to the Fisheries Act. This is Bill C-68, an act to amend the Fisheries Act and other acts in consequence. It's a government bill.

Bill C-68, which was passed by the House and is currently at second reading in the Senate, has a number of stated goals, one of which, as described in its summary, is to:

prohibit the fishing of a cetacean with the intent to take it into captivity, unless authorized by the Minister, including when the cetacean is injured, in distress or in need of care

To achieve this goal, Bill C-68 would add section 23.1 to the Fisheries Act, which would read as follows:

23.1(1) Subject to subsection (2), no one shall fish for a cetacean with the intent to take it into captivity.

(2) The Minister may, subject to any conditions that he or she may specify, authorize a person to fish for a cetacean with the intent to take it into captivity if he or she is of the opinion that the circumstances so require, including when the cetacean is injured or in distress or is in need of care.

To summarize, Bill C-68 would prohibit the fishing of a cetacean with the intent to take it into captivity. Bill S-203 would prohibit the moving of a live cetacean with the intent to take it into captivity. Both would achieve these goals by making amendments to the Fisheries Act.

Normally, this subcommittee evaluates public members' bills on four criteria that were established in a report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, which you're all familiar with. Standing Order 92(1)(a), however, states that when considering Senate public bills, such as Bill S-203, the only criterion is whether the bill “is similar to a bill voted on by the House in the same Parliament”.

As echoed in House of Commons Procedure and Practice, “the only ground on which such a bill can be designated non-votable is its similarity to a bill voted on by the House in the same Parliament.”

This is simply to say that while there may be some similarities between the issue before the committee today and issues that have arisen around private members' bills over the last year, Bill S-203 has not been assessed on the basis of those criteria that the committee was applying in those circumstances. This is a different test.

Per the standing order, the only question is whether Bill C-68 and Bill S-203 are similar enough that Bill S-203 should be declared non-votable.

As I mentioned earlier, there is a clear similarity between the bills. Both of them would amend the Fisheries Act to prohibit the capturing of a cetacean for the purposes of keeping it in captivity. It could, therefore, be argued that they are similar and thus that Bill S-203 should be declared non-votable.

However, there are differences. Preventing the capture of cetaceans is only one of three goals in Bill S-203, which also seeks to prohibit the keeping of cetaceans and the importing and exporting of cetaceans. These are unique to Bill S-203. Bill C-68 is only interested in the act of capturing a cetacean. Bill C-68 also makes a number of other changes to the Fisheries Act that have nothing to do with cetaceans, which are the sole focus of Bill S-203.

As such, it is my assessment that these bills are partially, rather than completely, similar. The bills overlap in one aspect, but not in all aspects.

In the past, assessments of how votable a bill is have been conducted with the purpose of this committee in mind, which I understand to be to provide members with the fullest opportunity possible to use their private members' time effectively, so that if a bill or a motion would have little or no effect because of similarity, members should be given the opportunity to replace it with something that would be meaningful.

In this case, it is my assessment that there is enough difference between these two bills that were Bill S-203 to advance and become law, it would have a distinct effect. Both bills prohibit capturing, and in this respect Bill S-203 would be redundant. However, Bill S-203 would go further in prohibiting the keeping of cetaceans and the importing or exporting as well. As such, the committee could decide that this bill should be declared not non-votable.

Having said that, this assessment is not binding on the subcommittee. I'm here for your assistance. The issue of whether a partial similarity between items is so substantial that a private member's item would have little or no distinct effect—in other words, the issue of how similar is too similar—is not apparent from the text of the Standing Orders. The standing order simply says “similar”, and my assessment is based on past decisions of the subcommittee and my understanding of the subcommittee's purpose. This is different enough to be declared not non-votable.

I'm happy to answer any questions you have.

[David Graham, Liberal, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Does that sound good?

May I continue?

On Friday, when I starting learning about Bill S-203, I called David to let him know that I would like a very full explanation of Bill S-203 because I've been having, from both sides, on my side, a debate about where this should go. I honestly don't know, and I'd like to hear the full analysis from the analyst on how to deal with Bill S-203. I appreciate that Elizabeth is here to talk about it as well.

[David Graham, Liberal, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

In that case, I move:

That Bills S-215, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (sentencing for violent offences against Aboriginal women) and S-240, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (trafficking in human organs), not be designated non-votable.

If we pass this motion without opposition, we can continue the discussion on Bill S-203.

[David Graham, Liberal, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

I know that there are questions concerning Bill S-203.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

I'm not a member of this committee.

However, I'm here as a result of Bill S-203.

I'm responsible for this bill in the House of Commons of Canada.

I'm here in case there are any questions. I'm here only to make sure that there aren't any issues.

I'm interested in the other bills, but I'm not involved in them.

Ending the Captivity of Whales and Dolphins Act

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

seconded by the hon. member for Repentigny, moved that S-203, an act to amend the Criminal Code and other acts (ending the captivity of whales and dolphins), be read the first time.

Mr. Speaker, I am very proud to rise today to speak to this important bill, which was passed by the Senate.

Bill S-203 would ban the keeping of whales and dolphins in captivity. It comes to us from the Senate. I wish to once again publicly thank Senator Wilfred Moore, now retired, of Nova Scotia, for bringing this bill forward in December 2015 and Senator Murray Sinclair, who carried the bill forward from there. It has now received approval in the Senate.

I would ask all members in this place to work collaboratively and co-operatively to see the bill reach royal assent before the fall election of 2019. It would do what many scientists have told us must be done, which is to protect these extraordinarily evolved sentient creatures from captivity that amounts to animal cruelty.

(Motion agreed to and bill read the first time)

Message from the Senate

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate has passed the following bills: Bill S-203, an act to amend the Criminal Code and other acts (ending the captivity of whales and dolphins); Bill S-238, an act to amend the Fisheries Act and the Wild Animal and Plant Protection and Regulation of International and Interprovincial Trade Act (importation and exportation of shark fins); and Bill S-240, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (trafficking in human organs).

It being 6:30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business, as listed on today's Order Paper.

Endangered Whales

[Nathaniel Erskine-Smith, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am proud to support Motion No. 154, introduced by my colleague, the member for New Brunswick Southwest. Her advocacy on such an important topic is certainly to be commended.

On a personal note, my family used to travel out east to Nova Scotia every summer to visit my uncle, aunt, and cousins, and we would usually camp for an extended period of time in Cape Breton, and along the way to Nova Scotia. We would enjoy different adventures along the way, including whale-watching. As a kid, I was able to see beluga whales and humpback whales in the St. Lawrence at Tadoussac, and I would like to think that others will continue to have that same opportunity. I would like to think that our government will take sufficient action so that I would be able to travel with my wife and my son, Mackinlay, out east to Nova Scotia and go whale-watching as well.

I want to thank the hundreds of constituents who have written to me about the importance of protecting our whale populations here in Canada. Many constituents, for example, wrote to me requesting that our government act to protect the southern resident killer whales and to take emergency action. In their letters, they noted that there is a large risk of southern resident orca extinction in this century if conditions remain unchanged. In their words to us as representatives, and to our government, they say, “The extinction of these whales, and many other endangered species in Canada, is a tragedy that you have the power to prevent.”

Many constituents have also written to me in support of Bill S-203, which would put an end to the captivity of cetaceans, and I look forward to supporting that legislation when it comes to the House. Senator Sinclair recently spoke eloquently on this topic, saying, “Cetaceans possess intelligence, emotions, social lives that include extremely close bonds to their families, complex communication skills and roaming lifestyles.”

I would put it this way: We should treat all animals that think and feel with respect and compassion, and that means giving adequate consideration to how human activities affect animal habitats and lives.

There are a number of whales addressed in this motion, and I want to address each in turn, beginning with the North Atlantic right whale. Many of us remember the epidemic of whales dying along the coast last year. For the first time ever, the North Atlantic right whales' calving season has produced no babies, and this is after almost 20 whales died off the east coast.

Dr. Moira Brown, from the Canadian Whale Institute, has stated:

The population decline since 2011 demonstrates that right whales do not have the capacity to sustain low birth rates and high death rates for very long. If mortality rates remain the same as between 2011 and 2015, with so few breeding females alive, the species could become functionally extinct in less than 25 years.

Others have noted that there are only 100 breeding female right whales left, and 17 scientists wrote last year to our Prime Minister, noting:

What is required now is bold and swift action to reduce fishing gear entanglements and ship strikes. We urge you to take seriously the warning signs of an impending extinction.

As my colleague from New Brunswick Southwest noted in her remarks:

As early as 2007, a study conducted between the Grand Manan Basin and the Roseway Basin determined that reducing vessel speed from 12 knots to 10 knots reduces the risk of a ship strike by 30%, and that in beautiful Bay of Fundy, shifting the shipping lane by four nautical miles to the east reduces the risk of a vessel collision by 90%.

The government proposed a recovery action plan in 2016, and this motion would be incredibly important to assess the actions under that plan.

With respect to the St. Lawrence estuary belugas, the very belugas I was able to see as a kid, the Department of Fisheries notes that, “before 1885, there were as many as 10,000 belugas in the St. Lawrence Estuary and Gulf. In the 1980s, when regular monitoring began, the population was estimated to be around 1,000 individuals.” Today, that population is estimated at only 900. Commercial whaling, just as it depleted the right whales, has also depleted the beluga whales population severely. Although whaling for belugas has been banned since 1979, there has been no noticeable recovery in the population.

A number of factors are to blame for the decline of the species, such as reduced food sources, disturbance by humans, and habitat degradation, but principally ship strikes and entanglement in fishing gear. There is a recovery strategy under the Species at Risk Act for the beluga whale, posted and developed in 2012. Again, this motion is about assessing these plans and what further actions need to be taken.

With respect to the southern resident killer whale, this is the species about which I received so many letters from constituents. My constituents repeatedly noted they were concerned that there are only an estimated 76 southern resident orcas remaining in the Salish Sea waterways, down from 98 in 1995.

A number of organizations—Ecojustice, the David Suzuki Foundation, and World Wildlife Fund, among others—noted that faced with declining stocks of Chinook salmon, their primary source of food, and acoustic and physical disturbance from vessels, which interferes with their ability to hunt and communicate, the southern residents are at serious risk of malnutrition and starvation.

Our government has again taken some actions here. Most recently, in the last day, our government took action to reduce fishing of the Chinook salmon to ensure that there is adequate food supply for the southern resident killer whales. Of course, in the oceans protection plan, a $1.5 billion investment in the health of our oceans and the safety of those who use them, there was a specific reference and focus on three species of endangered whales: the right whale, the beluga, and the southern resident killer whale. Scientists are going to review how effective our current measures are and report their findings to the public, and there will be continued consultations in terms of the best way forward for protecting these species.

More specifically, under that oceans protection plan, we have seen new science funding to develop and test technologies that alert vessels to the presence of whales, lowering the risk of collisions. DFO has noted that in response to requests from a number of stakeholders for better ways to protect whales, DFO researchers will work with partners to develop and test various technologies able to detect the presence of whales in near-real time, such as underwater microphones, coupled with networks that track whale sightings. The goal is to capture near-real time information on whales in specific areas and on whale location.

The department recently hosted a meeting of Canadian and international experts to discuss various technologies, and the group will continue to do work to improve measures to protect whales. Again, there is $3.1 million for research projects, including for the University of British Columbia, to examine the effect of changes to the supply and quality of Chinook salmon, their source of food, and Ocean Wise will study the impact environmental stressors are having on whales, such as noise and limits on prey.

The minister has said that we are going to make a series of decisions that may necessarily represent some disruption for certain sectors, but will be guided by scientific advice and our solemn responsibility to ensure the protection and recovery of southern resident killer whales.

Why this motion in particular? The motion calls for the fisheries committee to study the situation of endangered whales, to identify steps that could be taken to continue efforts to protect and conserve the whale populations, to identify immediate and longer-term improvements that would limit the impact of human activities on each of these species, to call expert witnesses to find a balance among competing claims, and to present a final report by the end of 2018.

ln a letter of support for this motion, Rick Bates, CEO and executive vice-president of the Canadian Wildlife Federation said that a study undertaken by the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans “will benefit all efforts to conserve our endangered whales by producing an all-party examination of the situation and how it can be improved.”

Dr. Moira Brown from the Canadian Whale Institute notes that if mortality rates remain the same as between 2011 and 2015, with so few breeding females alive, the right whale could become functionally extinct in less that 25 years if we do not take action.

Michael Broad, president of the Shipping Federation of Canada, said the organization supports the overall objectives of this proposed motion and is strongly interested in bringing forward industry's perspective on risk management actions.

Why is this important, for me in particular, and why am I standing up? It is important. Canadians in my riding and across the country have called for strong conservation measures to protect our whale populations. While the government's actions to date are important and welcome, it is also important to assess whether the government's actions are sufficient to meet our goals. That is certainly the work of the fisheries committee.

Finally, it is important to maintain pressure to produce even stronger action. My hope is that when the study is undertaken and the report is delivered by the end of the year, we can identify where there are successes and where we need to continue to move on this issue. My hope is that the report will provide clear evidence of the need for further action and that the government will heed that call.

We have an opportunity to do what is right. Rare in this House, we also have an opportunity to do what is right in a non-partisan way. I fully expect all members in this chamber to support this motion, and I fully expect the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans to produce a unanimous report to address this timely and important topic.

On a final note, oceans protection is important to all of us. I know plastics are a serious issue to that end. I want to invite all members and all constituents in Beaches—East York to attend a screening provided by the Water Brothers on July 10 in my riding at the Fox Theatre at 7 p.m. I hope to see all my constituents there.

Fisheries Act

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by acknowledging we are on the traditional territory of the Algonquin people, and express gratitude to them for their generosity and patience. Meegwetch.

I also want to thank the hon. member for Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook for sharing his time with me, and acknowledge this shows a spirit of respect toward opposition benches from the current Liberal government. I am grateful for the opportunity to speak, although I still must object to the use of time allocation and reducing time for debate in this place. However, the respect shown in shortening time but still allowing a member such as me to have at least one crack in second reading to this very important legislation is appreciated. It is particularly appreciated when I stand to speak, with shared time from a Liberal member, with the intention of attacking Liberal legislation, which I have done recently with shared time.

Today is a different occasion. Bill C-68 would repair the damage done to the Fisheries Act under former budget implementation omnibus bill, Bill C-38, in the spring of 2012, as the hon. member for Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook was just referencing. This bill goes a long way. Within the ambit of what the Minister of Fisheries can do, it would repair the damage done by omnibus budget bill, Bill C-38, in relation to the Fisheries Act. I want to speak to that, as well as the one aspect where it would not fully repair the damage.

This is definitely a historic piece of legislation. The Fisheries Act was brought in under Sir John A. Macdonald. Canada has had a fisheries act for 150 years. That act traditionally dealt with what is constitutionally enshrined as federal jurisdiction over fish, and some people may wonder where the environment landed in the Constitution of Canada and the British North America Act. Where was the environment? The fish are federal. The water is provincial if it is fresh water, and federal if it is ocean water, so there has always been a mixed jurisdiction over the environment.

Over fish, there has been no question. Fish are federal. In the early 1980s, this act received a significant improvement, which was to recognize that fish move around and they cannot be protected without protecting their habitat. The Fisheries Act was modernized with a real degree of environmental protection. It had always been a strong piece of environmental legislation, because if we protect fish then we tend to protect everything around them.

In this case, the Fisheries Act was improved in the early eighties by a former minister of fisheries, who by accident of history, happened to be the father of the current Minister of Fisheries. It was the Right. Hon. Roméo LeBlanc. We use the term “right honourable” because he went on to be our Governor General. He amended the Fisheries Act in the 1980s to include protection of fish habitat, requiring a permit from the federal Minister of Fisheries if that habitat was either temporarily or permanently harmed or damaged. This piece of legislation is the significant pillar upon which much of Canada's environmental regulation rested.

What happened in Bill C-38 in the spring of 2012 was a travesty that remains in the annals of parliamentary history as the single worst offence against environmental legislation and protection by any government ever. It was followed up with a second omnibus budget bill in the fall of 2012, Bill C-45, which took an axe to the Navigable Waters Protection Act. In the spring, Bill C-38 repealed the Environmental Assessment Act and replaced it with a bogus act, which I will return to and discuss. Bill C-38 also repealed the Kyoto Protocol Implementation Act, the National Roundtable on Environment and the Economy, and gutted the Fisheries Act.

Rather than go on about that, the hon. member who was just speaking referenced the changes made. I can tell people some of the changes that were made, and I was so pleased to see them repealed. When one opens a copy of Bill C-68, the first thing one sees is subclause 1(1), “The definitions commercial, Indigenous and recreational in subsection 2(1) of the Fisheries Act are repealed.” This is not a scientific thing. This is what Bill C-38 did to our Fisheries Act. Fish were no longer fish. They were only fish if they were commercial, indigenous, or recreational. That language came straight from a brief from industry. It did not come from civil servants within the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. It came from the Canadian Electricity Association. That is repealed.

This bill would bring back protections for habitat. It goes back to looking at some of the foundational pieces of how the Fisheries Act is supposed to work, and then it goes farther.

I have to say I was really surprised and pleased to find in the bill, for the first time ever, that the Fisheries Act will now prohibit the taking into captivity of whales. That was a very nice surprise. It is proposed section 23.1. I asked the minister the other day in debate if he would be prepared to expand this section with amendments, because over on the Senate side, the bill that was introduced by retired Senator Wilfred Moore and is currently sponsored by Senator Murray Sinclair, and I would be the sponsor of this bill if it ever makes it to the House, Bill S-203, would not only ban the taking of whales into captivity but the keeping of whales in captivity. I am hoping when this bill gets to the fisheries committee. We might be able to expand that section and amend it so that we can move ahead with the protection of whales.

This bill is also forward-looking by introducing more biodiversity provisions and the designation of areas as ecologically sensitive, work that can continue to expand the protection of our fisheries.

I will turn to where there are gaps. Because I completely support this bill, while I do hope for a few amendments, they come down to being tweaks.

Where does this bill fail to repair the damage of Bill C-38? It is in a part that is beyond the ability of the Minister of Fisheries to fix. That is the part about why Harper aimed at the Fisheries Act, the Navigable Waters Protection Act, and the Environmental Assessment Act.

There was not random violence in this vandalism; it was quite focused. It was focused on destroying the environmental assessment process so that we would no longer be reviewing 4,000 projects a year. Of those 4,000 projects a year that were reviewed under our former Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, most of them, about 95% of them, were reviewed through screenings that were paper exercises, that did not engage hearings, and so forth. However, it did mean that, at a very preliminary level, if there was a problem with a project, a red flag could go up, and it could be booted up for further study.

There is a reason that the Fisheries Act habitat provisions were repealed. They were one of the sections listed in our former Environmental Assessment Act under what was called the “law list”, where a minister giving a permit under section 35 of our former Fisheries Act automatically triggered that the decision was subject to an environmental assessment.

Similarly, why did the former government take a hatchet to the Navigable Waters Protection Act? Like the Fisheries Act, it is an act we have had around for a long time, since 1881. It was not an act that had impeded the development of Canada or we would never have had a railroad. Since 1881, we have had the Navigable Waters Protection Act. The previous government took a real axe to it. The current Minister of Transport has gone a long way toward fixing it under one portion of Bill C-69.

This is why. Navigable waters permits also were a trigger under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. Do members see where I am going here? This was synchronized action. It was not random.

The current government has pledged to fix all of the damage done by the previous government to environmental laws. Where the failure to fix things is evident is in what is called the “impact assessment act” in Bill C-69. It has abandoned the concept of a law list altogether. It has abandoned the concept of having permits and environmental assessments required whenever federal money is engaged. In other words, the Harper imprint of going from 4,000 projects reviewed a year to a couple of dozen will remain the law of the land without significant improvement to Bill C-69. In particular, the decisions the Minister of Fisheries makes should be subject to an EA, just as the decisions of the Minister of Transport should be subject.

In my last minute, I want to turn our attention to something I hope the Minister of Fisheries will take up next, because he is doing a great job. I hope he will take up looking at open-pen salmon aquaculture. It must end. It is a threat to our wild salmon fishery on the Pacific coast. It is a threat to the depleted wild Atlantic salmon stocks on the Atlantic coast, where I am originally from. There is no Atlantic salmon fishery because it has been destroyed. However, there are still Atlantic salmon, which could restore themselves if they did not have to compete with the escapement of Atlantic salmon from fish farms in Atlantic Canada, and the destruction of habitat by those farms. On the west coast, these are not even indigenous species that are escaping and threatening our wild salmon.

Let us close down open-pen fisheries, give aquaculture to the Minister of Agriculture, have fish in swimming pools on land, and let the Minister of Fisheries protect our coastal ecosystems.

Bill C-68—Time Allocation Motion

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Saanich—Gulf Islands for her support of the legislation. As I have said many times, we would be open to working with her and with all members of the House with respect to specific suggestions that would improve the legislation.

I agree with the member that the inclusion of the provisions around taking of cetaceans for captivity was inspired by the work done by the Senate, by Bill S-203, and former senator Wilfred Moore from the province of Nova Scotia. My colleague from Saanich—Gulf Islands, having studied law at Dalhousie University as did Senator Moore, would understand the importance of getting the right balance in legislation that keeps up with what we think is the widely held sentiment of Canadians.

With respect to the member's specific suggestion of those amendments, I would be happy to work with her to see how the intent of Bill S-203 and the substantive elements of that bill could be incorporated into amendments in the Fisheries Act. I look forward to having that conversation with her and with any other colleague.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to say on the record parenthetically that I find the use of time allocation, as happening almost on a daily basis these days, to be quite shocking. I know that when in opposition, the Liberal Party promised not to use time allocation. It seems things were so bad under the previous government that being less bad is good enough for the Liberals. I do not think that is good enough really. However, I cannot resist the opportunity to ask the Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard a question about his quite excellent legislation.

I am glad Bill C-68 is before us. We need it desperately. However, is he open to an amendment on a particular section that I was pleased and surprised to see, which is the barring of taking cetaceans into captivity? Would the minister be open perhaps to adding language so the bill that is now stuck in the Senate, Bill S-203, could have key elements incorporated into Bill C-68, in other words not just capturing but keeping or importing?

Animal Welfare

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to present two petitions. They are e-petitions.

The first one deals with support for a bill that is making its way here from the Senate, Bill S-203, on banning holding whales and dolphins in captivity.