Fisheries Committee on April 2nd, 2019

[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.

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

Mr. Chair, I'm just adding that, as the welfare aspect to the bill, there could be instances where the cetacean should be taken into custody or moved to a safe area if there is a chance it could be harmed. This amendment was suggested by Ocean Wise to catch live births where the mother is in distress or injured, which could ultimately put the calf in danger.

[The Chair]

Is there any debate?

[Colin Fraser, West Nova, Lib.]

I don't know whether we can ask Ms. Klineberg for her opinion on the elements of this amendment.

[Joanne Klineberg, Senior Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice]

I don't believe I have a copy of this amendment.

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

We are suggesting that clause 2 be amended by replacing line 6 on page 2 with the following:

jury or another state of distress or because its welfare would otherwise be jeopardized; or

[Joanne Klineberg]

It seems to be a clarification. It doesn't seem as though it would change the substance of what is intended to be provided.

[An hon. member]

I would like a recorded vote.

[Joanne Klineberg]

(Amendment negatived: nays 6; yeas 3)

[The Chair]

Next is amendment CPC-1.

Mr. Doherty.

[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]

Does anybody have any questions on the proposed amendment?

Mr. Fraser.

[Colin Fraser]

I don't have a question; I just have a comment. I won't be supporting the amendment. I understand the rationale for why it's being put forward. However, I know that at the committee we heard from Ms. Klineberg on this point that this is a very specific sort of issue, and the problem is that what the criminal law tries to do is prohibit human beings from either acting or omitting to do something. This seems to go beyond that scope by criminalizing something outside of that. So, for that reason, it seems unnecessary, and based on Ms. Klineberg's testimony to the committee at the hearings, I won't be supporting the amendment.

[The Chair]

Mr. Nicholson.

[Rob Nicholson, Niagara Falls, CPC]

I just want to make it clear that when this bill comes into effect and then there is a birth afterwards, that wouldn't be caught up in this bill. There would be no offence or anything. I think that's all it is. It's just saying that if the cetacean was pregnant at the time it was kept in captivity. We wouldn't want this bill to come into effect and then six months later a cetacean is born. To me it seems it would run afoul of the wording of the bill.

Do you agree?

[The Chair]

Ms. Klineberg.

[Joanne Klineberg]

I think this amendment is fairly clear in what it's intending to do. So, with respect to the possession of cetaceans, it would make clear that, yes, the cetaceans that are born, but that had already been conceived before the coming into force, would be grandfathered in. I also think that there is a way to interpret the grandfathering clause so that it could include the unborn cetaceans as well, but this would be clearer.

[The Chair]

Mr. Doherty.

[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.

[Colin Fraser]

From the Department of Fisheries and Oceans officials who testified, I understand that it would not affect the pregnant cetaceans currently in captivity. There are none.

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

Quite the contrary, Mr. Fraser. They said that there was ambiguity around the law.

[Colin Fraser]

Yes, around the law itself. My understanding of it is that it's unnecessary because it can be interpreted quite easily to already include those that may be affected that are born after the fact. So, I don't think it's a necessary amendment, and I'm not going to be voting for it.

[The Chair]

Is there any further discussion?

[Rob Nicholson]

Can I ask for some clarification on that, Mr. Fraser? You said that there are no pregnant cetaceans at the present time. Is that what the fisheries department said? That's not my understanding. There are a number in captivity that are, in fact, pregnant now, and this is just clarification.

[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.