Hon. Dennis Glen Patterson: Thank you, minister. Your government provides itself on making decisions based on science, as it should. However, your February 10, 2023, decision to reduce turbot quotas in fishing areas 0A and 0B by 9.25% was made due to a lack of scientific data as opposed to basing it on current reports on actual stock levels. These areas are off the coast of Nunavut, and I was very concerned that multiple offers from the Nunavut fishing industry over the years to conduct stock assessments were made and yet ignored by your department.

Minister, will you commit to allowing the Nunavut fishing industry to conduct the science going forward as you have recently agreed to do with the Atlantic Groundfish Council?

Hon. Dennis Glen Patterson: Minister, you said that there was a vessel not available from Greenland that resulted in the absence of data on the turbot stock. As I said, the Nunavut fishing industry was willing to conduct those stock assessments, and those offers were rejected by your department. This has resulted in a $15-million estimated loss per year for our fledgling and developing fishery in Nunavut. Wouldn’t it only be fair that the Nunavut fishing industry be considered for compensation by your department for this loss?

Hon. Dennis Glen Patterson: Honourable senators, it’s always difficult to be the last one to speak during a long day, but this is the last time I will rise today — I promise — to speak to Bill S-241, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Wild Animal and Plant Protection and Regulation of International and Interprovincial Trade Act (great apes, elephants and certain other animals), perhaps more commonly known as the Jane Goodall act. Of course, it’s difficult to say anything critical or even ask questions of a bill associated with such a beloved icon as Jane Goodall, but I hope we won’t be governed by emotion in dealing with this bill.

I would like to be clear that I do not support unaccredited roadside zoos or keeping animals in private homes under inhumane conditions. However, I do have serious concerns about this bill, and I hope that those concerns are carefully studied once this bill makes it to committee.

My first concern has to do with amendments to the Criminal Code proposed in this bill. I am always concerned when I see proposed amendments to the Criminal Code, especially when they appear in public bills, because even small changes can have impacts, whether consequential or unintentional, on other parts of the code and on future judgments. It’s therefore important that any changes are thoroughly studied. While I know that this bill was originally drafted by former Senator Sinclair before being introduced by Senator Klyne, it should not be lost on us that senators do not enjoy the same level of support that a federal department does when drafting a bill. We do not have the legal brain trust made available by the Department of Justice.

To be specific, I question what significant impact a clause such as clause 2 of the bill, which creates an “animal advocate” under section 445.2(1) of the Criminal Code, would have in the future. Colleagues, as someone who has seen the devastating impact of animal welfare and animal rights advocates on the subsistence and commercial seal harvesting in the North and Atlantic Canada, this provision strikes fear in my heart.

A January 15, 2022, blog post by Shannon Nickerson, Communications and Development Manager at Animal Justice, pointed out how Animal Justice Canada lawyers Kaitlyn Mitchell and Scott Tinney intervened in the Supreme Court case of British Columbia (Attorney General) v. Council of Canadians with Disabilities. According to the blog post, in their intervention, these lawyers argued to our highest court that:

. . . animals are highly vulnerable members of our society, and argued that courts should give animals better access to justice by granting them public standing more easily, allowing them to have their cases heard.

I’m not making this up. This case was dismissed and the appeal closed by the court but without any ruling on animals as equivalent to vulnerable persons with disabilities. However, it does beg the question I ask: Would the creation of an animal advocate entrenched in law in the Criminal Code, as proposed in this bill, then be a step on the way to recognizing animals on the same footing as vulnerable Canadians? Would this definition recognize new rights for animals, such as the ability of an advocate to bring forward a case on behalf of an animal? Would this not then be a roundabout way to accomplish the very thing that Animal Justice lawyers attempted to attain through their Supreme Court of Canada intervention?

There are others who strongly advocate for animals to be recognized as persons. Rebeka Breder, an animal rights lawyer in B.C., describes her firm, Breder Law, as acting “. . . exclusively for advancing the rights and welfare of animals, both domestic and wildlife.” She has been advocating for and monitoring pro-personhood cases for years.

I found a fascinating paper on this subject. Angela Fernandez, a professor in the Faculty of Law of the University of Toronto released a paper on animal law fundamentals entitled Animals as Property, Quasi-Property or Quasi-Person. In her leading sentence, Professor Fernandez states:

The property status of nonhuman animals, and the correlative felt need to transform that status to some form of personhood, has been a mainstay of animal law scholarship for the last twenty-five years.

When I read that, and then read the word “advocate” and the words “animal advocate,” I can’t help but get worried. The word advocate in legal terms refers to a person working on behalf of another person. Quoting the definition found in the law edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica, it is “a person who is professionally qualified to plead the cause of another in a court of law.”

What path then does the legal recognition of an animal being entitled to a legal advocate set us on as a society? I do not believe that it is a large leap in logic to start with recognizing animals as people entitled to a legal advocate to recognizing animals as vulnerable persons with a diminished capacity to bring their own cases forward to then getting back around to the idea that harvesting meat is murder.

Another question we should examine from a legal standpoint is how this bill encroaches on provincial jurisdiction. This will be an issue that committee must study. We must acknowledge the authority of provincial and territorial governments to make animal welfare laws and subsequent regulations.

I want to point out, honourable colleagues, as someone who lives in a region where hunters are valued and admired, we are deeply offended that the seal hunt is still considered by some to be inhumane and a needless practice. For years, animal rights advocates have railed against the harvesting of seals for food, clothing and the culling of seals for population control in support of endangered fish stocks. While there is now some change in that position as it applies to subsistence hunting, there are still biases towards non-Indigenous seal hunters who have been doing this for generations as a form of sustenance and income. These opinions are all predicated on a more extreme approach to animal rights. How likely would it then be to assume that people would push to confer both legal and moral personhood on animals once they see an opening?

I want to quote the position of the Fur Institute of Canada on this bill. Last fall, the institute noted:

This Act, championed by anti-sustainable use and pro-animal rights groups, will undermine science-based wildlife conservation and the sustainable harvest and trade in furs and seal products in Canada. This will disproportionately impact rural, remote, Indigenous and coastal communities, undermining traditional economies and ways of life.

I hope the committee will hear from the Fur Institute of Canada, which I believe is a credible organization. It was founded in 1983 by Canada’s wildlife ministers as a collaboration between government harvesters and other sectors of the fur trade. It is the country’s leading expert on humane trap research and fur bearer conservation, and is the official trap testing agency for the Government of Canada and all provincial and territorial governments.

I want to also quote the Elephant Managers Association, who signalled its opposition to Bill S-241 noting the following:

The EMA feels that the proposed bill will negatively impact the efforts of animal care organizations doing important conservation work such as African Lion Safari (ALS).

They further note that, in their view, the Jane Goodall act will effectively discontinue the ability of organizations like African Lion Safari to continue their important work. Research conducted with animals under human care and trained to cooperate voluntarily in procedures provides opportunities to obtain samples and data in a controlled environment that would not be as readily possible in the wild. As a result, the population of animals in North American zoological facilities plays a critical role in the survival of their wild counterparts.

Likewise, the International Elephant Foundation, in an in-depth letter to senators last fall, made the following definitive statement:

There are a number of misconceptions regarding ambassador elephants in human care. The first is that elephants cannot thrive outside of the environment of their range countries, citing cold weather and space availability. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Given these complicated arguments, I would hope that this bill is thoroughly studied, and given its criminal law provisions, hopefully studied by our Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee.

My other concern is less existential. I’m concerned that the bill makes reference to the standards that must be met in order for an organization to be designated as an eligible animal care organization under the bill. Those seeking to be designated as eligible animal care organizations and are so exempt from certain prohibitions under the bill must meet “the highest professionally recognized standards and best practices of animal care.” I can accept that, but I would be interested in exploring — and having the committee explore — whether it is correct to discount the standards established by Canada’s Accredited Zoos and Aquariums, or CAZA, as this bill does. Much emphasis has been placed on meeting the American standards, both in speeches from colleagues on this bill and in exclusive reference made to the Association of Zoos and Aquariums.

Since its inception in 1976, CAZA has worked to develop accreditation standards that have since become recognized as among the best in the world. Here at home, they serve increasingly as a benchmark for quality animal care and welfare. Today, governments at all levels have incorporated these standards into their regulatory frameworks, either directly by making CAZA accreditation a requirement for licensing or by referencing them in the regulations. Why does this bill not respect this good Canadian work?

Honourable senators, I agree that animals should not be forced to live in inhumane conditions, but I do believe that there are some very important questions and issues that certainly need to be thoroughly studied and addressed in committee. Thank you.