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.
3:50 p.m.
Senator Murray Sinclair
The question is not clear enough for me, sir.
3:50 p.m.
Liberal
Bobby Morrissey Liberal Egmont, PE
A concern has been raised that this bill would have implications for parts of the Criminal Code. Therefore, it would result in government having to make amendments to it, to keep it in compliance with various other pieces of legislation.
3:50 p.m.
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—
3:50 p.m.
Liberal
3:50 p.m.
Senator Murray Sinclair
The intention was to really focus upon the fact that this is a cruelty-to-animals approach, as opposed to this being simply a Fisheries Act issue.
3:50 p.m.
Liberal
Bobby Morrissey Liberal Egmont, PE
The other part I want to expand on, briefly, would be the amount of study that was done in ensuring the jurisdictional role, provincial versus federal. You touched on it briefly in your closing comments when you said that you are comfortable in the recommendation as it relates to that.
3:55 p.m.
Senator Murray Sinclair
Yes, both federal and provincial governments have jurisdiction over fisheries, and that's been true since the time of the British North America Act of 1867. The question was raised early on as to the nature of the provincial jurisdiction versus the nature of the federal jurisdiction.
The federal jurisdiction generally is to create the offence. The provincial jurisdiction is essentially to deal with licensing and the breaches of the licensing amendments or licensing provisions. Control of the resource is for the province to determine, but the criminality or the misconduct related to the taking of the resource would be an area of federal jurisdiction.
The federal government would have the authority, just as they do with respect to animals generally, to create an offence with regard to cruelty to animals, whether they're domestic animals or wild animals, but the province could issue licences with respect to the management of those animals themselves.
It's a very similar kind of jurisdictional dispute, jurisdictional overlap, so there is overlapping jurisdiction. There is no question about that, and in this case, the legislation in the bill recognizes and respects the right of provinces to create exemptions by issuing licences to operators to be able to do certain things that the lieutenant governor in council of each province would authorize them to do.
3:55 p.m.
Liberal
Bobby Morrissey Liberal Egmont, PE
So when you're referencing control of the resource, you're referencing the resource within captivity.
Am I correct?
3:55 p.m.
Senator Murray Sinclair
No, it's the resource in the wild.
3:55 p.m.
Senator Murray Sinclair
Within captivity, the province also has some degree of control.
3:55 p.m.
Senator Murray Sinclair
Yes, so they can manage, for example, the size of pens. They can define the movement of animals. They have some regulatory control, but the question of whether the taking of the animal—
3:55 p.m.
Senator Murray Sinclair
—is under federal jurisdiction. It can be a federal jurisdiction.
3:55 p.m.
Senator Murray Sinclair
If the federal government does not exercise its authority, then it's strictly up to the province to do what they want.
3:55 p.m.
Liberal
Bobby Morrissey Liberal Egmont, PE
As a third point, which I believe we got into when I addressed the question of the beluga whales, would you agree before the committee that once this bill comes into force, cetaceans born in captivity could be raised in captivity?
3:55 p.m.
Senator Murray Sinclair
Yes, provided that they are from an animal that's grandfathered into the legislation.
3:55 p.m.
Mr. Ken McDonald (Avalon, Lib.)
Thank you, Mr. Morrissey. Your seven minutes is up, I'm sorry.
Now we go to the Conservative side.
Mr. Calkins, go ahead for seven minutes or less, please.
3:55 p.m.
Red Deer—Lacombe, CPC
Thank you, Chair.
Thank you, Senator, for being here.
Senator, would you agree that people would go to a zoo or go to a national park to see wildlife for the purpose of entertainment or for intrinsic values?
3:55 p.m.
Senator Murray Sinclair
I would say not exclusively, no. People watch TV in order to see wildlife. People look at pictures in order to see wildlife. People look at videos—
3:55 p.m.
Red Deer—Lacombe, CPC
That wasn't my question.
My question to you was that we pay a fee to go to a zoo. Would you agree with that statement?
3:55 p.m.
Senator Murray Sinclair
Certainly.
3:55 p.m.
Red Deer—Lacombe, CPC
We pay a fee to go to our national parks, sometimes. Would you agree with that statement?