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.
5:10 p.m.
Joanne Klineberg
It's because part of what constitutes the crime might be happening in Canada and another part might be happening abroad.
5:10 p.m.
Conservative
Mel Arnold Conservative North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC
It's the promotion. That's why I was focused on the word “promotes” that's in the bill, since the promotion would be taking place in Canada. It is taking place in Canada. We brought up websites, as we were sitting here. The promotion is taking place in Canada and “promotes” is in the bill. Should there be an amendment to remove that word?
5:10 p.m.
Joanne Klineberg
That will be your decision. I can only tell you what the possible legal outcome of such interpretations might be.
5:10 p.m.
Conservative
Mel Arnold Conservative North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC
It would take a court case and a legal decision to clarify that?
5:10 p.m.
Joanne Klineberg
If there were ever to be a prosecution, yes.
5:10 p.m.
Conservative
5:10 p.m.
Joanne Klineberg
Right.
5:10 p.m.
Conservative
5:10 p.m.
Joanne Klineberg
In my experience, I would consider it very unlikely.
5:10 p.m.
Conservative
Mel Arnold Conservative North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC
Okay.
I'll move on to another subject. Where's the line drawn between what animals can be held in captivity and what animals can't be held in captivity? What are the criteria?
5:10 p.m.
Joanne Klineberg
As a matter of federal criminal law, the criteria is what Parliament, in its wisdom, decides they should be. Scientifically, that might be a question better asked to the scientists, in terms of what level of scientific confidence can we have that being in captivity is sort of inherently harmful to the well-being of particular types of animals. That's more of a scientific question.
5:10 p.m.
Conservative
5:10 p.m.
Mr. Ken McDonald (Avalon, Lib.)
Thank you, Mr. Arnold. Your time has expired.
Now, we're back to the government side for five minutes or less.
Go ahead, Mr. Morrissey.
5:10 p.m.
Liberal
Bobby Morrissey Liberal Egmont, PE
Thank you, Chair.
To DFO, the Vancouver Aquarium will be appearing later today. Can you briefly address the work that DFO has been doing with that aquarium?
5:10 p.m.
Director General, Fisheries Resource Management, Department of Fisheries and Oceans
I think there are a number of interactions that in particular our Pacific region has with the Vancouver Aquarium. One of the things that I can highlight is that they are a partner of ours in a program that is within my area of responsibility related to marine mammal response programs, so they do assist the department in terms of marine mammals in distress and going out assisting with the response on those animals.
Certainly, the folks from the aquarium would be able to speak in more detail to some of the other interactions they would have with DFO, in terms of DFO science and what have you, but that is one area that I can highlight.
5:10 p.m.
Liberal
Bobby Morrissey Liberal Egmont, PE
Thank you.
I want to go to Ms. Klineberg. Should there be concerns regarding the Criminal Code aspect of the bill, as it relates to the ability to do research work?
5:10 p.m.
Joanne Klineberg
I think from a criminal law point of view, the only answer I can give to that question is that, as drafted, what the legislation seems to do is, in respect of cetaceans, to require that if there is going to be scientific research done, that a licence has to be obtained from the provincial government.
5:15 p.m.
Liberal
Bobby Morrissey Liberal Egmont, PE
Then it would not impede or impose on the ability to do research.
5:15 p.m.
Joanne Klineberg
I think ultimately that would come down to what sorts of mechanisms each province would put in place, in order to assess whether or not—
5:15 p.m.
Joanne Klineberg
Right. Just the requirement to obtain the licence.
5:15 p.m.
Liberal
Bobby Morrissey Liberal Egmont, PE
I have a general question because a lot of discussion has been debated for some time. There appears to be a strong consensus-building within the country concerning whether we should continue to keep the cetaceans in captivity for this particular benefit, which is public performance-driven. If the bill is passed, would cetaceans be better protected as a result of the bill, even with some of its concerns, than no bill?
5:15 p.m.
Joanne Klineberg
I think I can only respond by pointing to what the law will prohibit.
5:15 p.m.
Joanne Klineberg
Right. The law—in particular the Criminal Code amendment— grandfathers all of the cetaceans that are currently in captivity. From the day that the legislation would come into force if it's adopted, all of the cetaceans that are alive and in captivity will be allowed to be kept. Until they die naturally or authorization is given for them to be exported, that's where they will reside until they die.