Evidence of meeting #135 for Fisheries and Oceans in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was animals.

A recording is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Chair  Mr. Ken McDonald (Avalon, Lib.)
Blaine Calkins  Red Deer—Lacombe, CPC
Ingrid Visser  Founder and Principal Scientist, Orca Research Trust, As an Individual
Murray Sinclair  Senator, Manitoba, ISG
Adam Burns  Director General, Fisheries Resource Management, Department of Fisheries and Oceans
Carolina Caceres  Manager, International Biodiversity, Canadian Wildlife Service, Department of the Environment
Hal Whitehead  Professor, Biology Department, Dalhousie University, As an Individual
Laura Graham  Director, WRG Conservation Foundation, As an Individual
Clinton Wright  Executive Vice-President and Chief Operating Officer, Aquariums, Ocean Wise
Andrew Burns  Legal Counsel, Marineland of Canada Inc.
Martin Haulena  Chief Veterinarian, Ocean Wise

4:25 p.m.

Senator Murray Sinclair

No. It's just like going to the United States and driving drunk down there: you are or may be committing an offence down there—or you may not be—but that fact does not mean you can be prosecuted in Canada for doing it down there, unless you are subject to the extraterritorial provisions.

4:25 p.m.

Conservative

Todd Doherty Conservative Cariboo—Prince George, BC

What about posting and promoting it in your social media?

4:25 p.m.

Senator Murray Sinclair

I don't think that simply posting your experience in another jurisdiction is promoting it.

4:25 p.m.

Conservative

Todd Doherty Conservative Cariboo—Prince George, BC

Okay. How about a Canadian organization that then divests itself of the cetaceans it has to another group, another organization? Is that act aiding and abetting as well? Under this piece of legislation, would they then be breaking the law?

4:25 p.m.

Senator Murray Sinclair

No, because the legislation specifically grandfathers those animals that are in captivity at present. So it would allow Marineland, for example, to get rid of its existing stock, if it wishes, because those animals and its possession of those animals are not subject to this legislation.

4:25 p.m.

Conservative

Todd Doherty Conservative Cariboo—Prince George, BC

Marineland or Vancouver Aquarium, I think, still have some—

4:25 p.m.

Senator Murray Sinclair

It would be whatever they have in their possession, yes.

4:25 p.m.

Conservative

Todd Doherty Conservative Cariboo—Prince George, BC

But selling that or gifting it to a different organization would not be breaking the law as well?

4:25 p.m.

Senator Murray Sinclair

As far as I can read this bill, that's right.

Dr. Visser.

4:25 p.m.

Founder and Principal Scientist, Orca Research Trust, As an Individual

Dr. Ingrid Visser

I was just going to comment that Vancouver Aquarium has only one animal.

4:25 p.m.

Conservative

Todd Doherty Conservative Cariboo—Prince George, BC

Okay.

4:25 p.m.

Mr. Ken McDonald (Avalon, Lib.)

The Chair

Mr. Doherty, your time is up.

That concludes our first hour with witnesses. I would like to thank Dr. Visser for appearing by video conference from New Zealand. I know other people mentioned it and offered our support and condolences with regard to the activities that took place. On behalf of everybody here on the committee and on behalf of Canadians, please accept our sincere condolences and our support as you deal with the recent activities.

Mr. Sinclair, thank you for appearing before committee.

We'll just suspend for a couple of minutes to change out our witnesses and get going on our next hour.

4:25 p.m.

Senator Murray Sinclair

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, and thank you for allowing me to be here. If anybody has any questions that I can answer outside of the committee meeting, I'll be glad to do so.

4:25 p.m.

Mr. Ken McDonald (Avalon, Lib.)

The Chair

Thank you. We'll suspend for a couple of minutes.

4:33 p.m.

Mr. Ken McDonald (Avalon, Lib.)

The Chair

Okay, we'll start again.

I'll welcome our guests. From the Department of Justice, we have Joanne Klineberg, senior counsel, criminal law policy section. From the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, back with us again, we have Adam Burns, director general, fisheries resource management. From the Department of the Environment, we have Carolina Caceres, manager, international biodiversity, Canadian wildlife service.

Welcome to all three of you. We'll start off with your opening statements of seven minutes or less.

Ms. Klineberg, would you like to go first?

4:33 p.m.

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.

4:35 p.m.

Mr. Ken McDonald (Avalon, Lib.)

The Chair

Thank you.

There's a bit of time to spare, which is always good.

We'll now go to the government side with Mr. Rogers for seven minutes or less, please.

March 18th, 2019 / 4:35 p.m.

Liberal

Churence Rogers Liberal Bonavista—Burin—Trinity, NL

Thank you, Mr. Burns, for that information and clarification of some of the key points here.

I have a few questions. The main concern raised about captivity of cetaceans relates to their well-being. Are there measures other than legislated ban on captivity of cetaceans that could be implemented to ensure the well-being of captive cetaceans?

4:40 p.m.

Director General, Fisheries Resource Management, Department of Fisheries and Oceans

Adam Burns

I can start, and I'll probably pass it to my colleague from the Department of Justice.

Within the scope of the Fisheries Act, our mandate doesn't really fall within the scope of regulating activities that occur within an aquarium. As I mentioned, for example, the Province of Ontario has enacted legislation banning captive breeding of orcas and even the holding of orcas, as I understand it, with the grandfathering of the one currently in captivity at Marineland. In terms of Fisheries and Oceans Canada, it would fall outside the scope of the Fisheries Act.

4:40 p.m.

Joanne Klineberg

If I understand your question correctly, nothing prevents a person who has possession of an animal from doing their utmost on their own to adhere to the best scientific standards and so on and to do whatever is in their power to take care of the animal.

If I'm reading between the lines of your question, I think the question is, what can governments do, and what types of laws are there that apply to these types of situations?

In the area of animal welfare, as Senator Sinclair hinted at in his testimony, there is overlapping federal criminal jurisdiction and provincial jurisdiction over animal welfare, so there are laws in all the provinces, including, obviously, Ontario and British Columbia, which are the two provinces that have facilities that house cetaceans, that are general animal welfare legislation.

In much the same way that provinces have legislation for the protection of the welfare of children, these provinces have jurisdiction and they have legislation over the protection of the welfare of animals as well. But again, just because a matter might be approached through a provincial lens doesn't necessarily mean that there isn't federal jurisdiction in the area of criminal law, so there are, at present, offences in the Criminal Code that prohibit causing unnecessary pain, injury or suffering to an animal. Those would apply to pretty much any animal, so they're already in place, but those offences require proof that a particular animal was made to suffer pain or injury through the actions of individuals.

4:40 p.m.

Liberal

Churence Rogers Liberal Bonavista—Burin—Trinity, NL

I'm curious if legislation is always necessary to bring about the change we want.

Vancouver Aquarium is appearing later today, and I know they have concerns regarding the Criminal Code aspects of the bill making it more difficult to do their research.

Do you have any comments on how they could potentially be affected by this bill?

4:40 p.m.

Joanne Klineberg

I appreciate your earlier question. I only know legislation, so that's why I give you that answer. All I can tell you, again, is that, when I look at the legislation and I read what it says in terms of the scientific research, it says that, though generally it would appear to be something that would be prohibited by the legislation, it is nonetheless an activity for which a person could obtain authorization from their provincial government in order to be engaged in that activity.

4:40 p.m.

Liberal

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?

4:40 p.m.

Director General, Fisheries Resource Management, Department of Fisheries and Oceans

Adam Burns

In essence, C-68 would create two provisions.

In no particular order, the first would eliminate the ability for the minister to issue a licence for the taking into captivity of a cetacean for public display purposes, for example. Whales would no longer be able to be captured in Canadian waters for those purposes. Again, that hasn't been authorized since the 1990s anyway, but it would put that into legislation.

The other change is that it would give the government a regulation making authority regarding import and export. That would, in essence, give the government the ability to implement a regulation that would prohibit the importation of a whale or dolphin for public display, as well as the export of those animals for those purposes. As I understand it, it's a fairly broad-ranging regulatory power that would be given to the government in order to close the door to new animals being brought into the country or animals leaving the country.

4:45 p.m.

Liberal

Churence Rogers Liberal Bonavista—Burin—Trinity, NL

Thank you for that, because you just answered the second question I had for you on that as well.