Senator Plett: Leader, here are some more facts.

On Tuesday, the Prime Minister’s made-up rapporteur revealed that he chose not to speak to the Chief Electoral Officer, he chose not to speak to the Commissioner of Canada Elections, he didn’t speak to the MP who left the Liberal caucus after being accused of very serious allegations, he confirmed the Prime Minister was aware of specific irregularities surrounding the nomination of that MP and he wasn’t aware his legal counsel donated thousands of dollars to the federal Liberal Party. He’s getting free media advice from Liberal and NDP strategists, which begs the question that if he’s getting free advice, why were taxpayer dollars going to paying for Navigator until he found out, of course, there were very serious reasons why he shouldn’t have used Navigator — but clearly that was only after he had hired them?

Leader, Canadians are shaking their heads in disbelief. Is there anyone with common sense left in the Trudeau government? Who will demand a public inquiry?

Senator Plett: All right. Once was enough, and I’m sure all senators agree.

Bill S-5 was adopted by the Senate and sent to the House of Commons on June 22, 2022. That was 351 days ago. For a bill that the government was in a hurry to get passed, which is why it was originally introduced here, it has been slow going. Bill C-28, which was identical to Bill S-5, was introduced in the previous Parliament in April 2021. So it has been two years — some hurry.

As my Conservative colleague in the House of Commons pointed out when he spoke to this bill a couple of weeks ago, the responsibility for its slow progress lies squarely at the feet of the current Prime Minister, who selfishly triggered a pointless and expensive election in order to try — unsuccessfully, I might add — to win back the majority that Canadians had denied him in 2019. That failed attempt, colleagues, cost taxpayers $600 million — $600 million to end up with, essentially, the same minority government Mr. Trudeau had been saddled with prior to that election.

Now, I exaggerate, of course. It is not exactly the same minority government Canadians saddled him with in 2019. It is, indeed, now an NDP-Liberal costly coalition that no Canadian voted for.

A $600-million sum — imagine if that money had been spent on the environment instead. Then again, given the government’s sorry record on the environment, it would have been millions of dollars wasted in a different way. To be sure, this government has talked big on the environment but has done precious little. It has never met a single carbon emissions reduction target, for instance, in all their years in power, targets they adopted from the Harper government after criticizing that government during the 2015 election for having those very same targets.

Carbon emissions have gone up under this NDP-Liberal government, not down, and that is despite his vaunted carbon tax, which is an absolute and abject failure and is costing Canadians dearly at the worst possible time — a time of high inflation and rising interest rates.

While the government talks glowingly about rebates offsetting the carbon tax, the Parliamentary Budget Officer has made clear that the majority of Canadians pay more in carbon taxes than they get back in rebates. Last year the Commissioner of the Environment released 10 reports on the performance of the Liberal government on protection of the environment. More than half of the reports show the government was failing to meet its targets.

Even the United Nations has weighed in. It noted in a report at the COP 27 in Egypt that Canada placed 58 out of 63 nations on environmental issues.

“Canada is back,” as Justin Trudeau claimed at the COP 21 Paris conference. Canada is back — way back in fifty-eighth position.

I will not delve into the specifics of the bill or the message. Both houses of Parliament have already spent a lot of time on this. Those efforts, collectively, resulted in a bill that had the support of all parties as well as government, industry and environmentalists when it came out of House of Commons. But then, honourable senators, in tried-and-true fashion and at the last minute during the report stage of the bill in the House of Commons, the Liberals couldn’t pass up the opportunity to do more virtue signalling. I can explain the situation no better than was done in the press release issued by the Alberta Conservative caucus on May 19, in which they wrote:

At Report Stage, the NDP put forward an amendment which encroaches on provincial jurisdiction in respect of regulating mining tailings ponds and hydraulic fracturing, which the Liberal members had opposed at the Environment Committee. Despite their opposition at Committee, the Government flipped-flopped and voted in support of the NDP amendment encroaching on provincial jurisdiction.

The NDP amendment, passed with last-minute Liberal support, is a clear infringement on provincial jurisdiction. This makes the legislation open to more jurisdictional court battles and uncertainty.

As a result, the Conservative Party will be withdrawing its support for Bill S-5.

It goes on:

Canada’s regulatory oversight framework is based upon clear division of responsibilities between the provinces and the federal government, as defined in our Constitution. The continued attempts to muddle this jurisdictional responsibility have led to a convoluted process of project approvals, duplication of costs, and uncertainty amongst investors.

The uncertainty brought about by the unpredictability of the NDP-Liberal government on energy policy has a real cost for Canadians. Canada needs to articulate a clear federal government policy if we want to attract and retain jobs and investment.

To be clear, colleagues, the NDP amendment gives the federal government the power to compel the production of information about tailings ponds and hydraulic fracturing — out of that arises the infringement on provincial jurisdiction.

The Senate had, unfortunately, adopted these amendments to the original version of Bill S-5, and the Liberal members of the House of Commons voted to remove this from the bill because they felt it was redundant. For no other reason than posturing for some environmental groups, the Liberals did a 180-degree turnaround and put this back in the bill. The Liberal position on this issue is that it’s redundant one week and essential the next week.

Alberta has already taken the federal government to court over the fact that plastic is listed in Part 2 of Schedule 1 of the bill as a substance to be regulated.

Does anyone here really doubt that recently elected Alberta Premier Danielle Smith, who has been scathing about the federal government’s energy policy, will not hesitate to challenge this aspect of the bill in court?

Honourable senators, let me conclude my remarks with these words from the Library of Parliament publication called The Division of Federal and Provincial Legislative Powers in Sections 91 and 92 of the Constitution Act, 1867.

It says:

. . . determining whether a matter falls under federal or provincial jurisdiction is not always as easy as simply reading the text of the Constitution. This is for several reasons. First, numerous policy areas have arisen over time that were not explicitly assigned in the Constitution. Second, judicial interpretation has expanded certain sections of the Constitution beyond what might be expected from a plain reading of the language and, conversely, has narrowed other sections. Courts have also interpreted some policy areas as being areas of overlapping or “concurrent” jurisdiction.

Surely the environment is one of those policy areas — that has arisen over time — that was not explicitly assigned in the Constitution. It is also well understood that the provinces generally legislate in the area of natural resources.

In 1982, section 92A was added to the Constitution and expanded the area of exclusively provincial jurisdiction around natural resources to include the exploration of non-renewable resources in the province and their development, conservation and management, as well as the conservation and management of sites and facilities for electricity production.

To be sure, there are exceptions in which the federal government can regulate. However, this last-minute amendment at report stage — that had been rejected by the House committee, and which we were told is redundant — unnecessarily opened a can of worms, and once again targets a province that this government has seemingly had in its sights since it came to power in 2015.

Honourable senators, the government’s flip-flop on this issue, and the intrusion into provincial jurisdiction that this opens the door to, is a deal breaker for us — and it should be for all senators. We are, after all, appointed to represent our regions and our provinces, as is spelled out in the Constitution. As our former esteemed colleague Senator Joyal pointed out in his book entitled Protecting Canadian Democracy:

One of the key elements of the Confederation compromise was the creation of a Senate with the necessary legislative powers to defend sectional interests.

He quotes no less a personage than our first Prime Minister — the great Sir John A. Macdonald — who wrote:

To the Upper House is to be confided the protection of sectional interests; therefore is it that the three great divisions are there equally represented, for the purpose of defending such interests against the combinations of majorities in the Assembly.

We are appointed by province. We introduce ourselves at committee by naming the province that we represent. I represent Manitoba and the western division that also includes Alberta, British Columbia and Saskatchewan. It is our duty to look after our regional and provincial interests, so I am here to defend the interests of my region.

It is incumbent upon us, as the Senate, to take a closer sober second look at how we safeguard provincial jurisdiction when it comes to federal intrusions.

The Conservative Party of Canada is and will always be there to ensure that the provinces are defended against the centralization tendencies that the Liberals and the NDP have.

With this provision of Bill S-5, the federal government is extending its powers over the mining industry. We know that the Liberals would love to force onto the provinces some of the so-called national quality standards on air or water. We cannot allow these attacks on our Constitution.

Colleagues, I invite you to join us and Senator Patterson in voting against Senator Gold’s motion — and send a clear message that the Senate rejects this Ottawa-knows-best approach, and that the Senate is proud to play its role as a defender of the rule of law and the respect of the Constitution. Thank you.

Senator Plett: Senator Klyne, of course, it’s well known that our party, I believe, is the party that’s tough on crime, even though the Liberals occasionally pretend that they are. But they repealed a number of the mandatory minimum laws that we had in place before. Would you not agree that a mandatory minimum would be more effective than increasing a maximum when that maximum will never be handed out anyway?

Senator Plett: Well, of course, I said “uncensored documents,” leader.

Leader, in a Question Period almost two years ago, I asked you for basic information about the firing of two scientists from the Winnipeg lab and the links between the lab and Beijing military scientists. I have yet to receive an answer, but that’s no surprise. If the Trudeau government is willing to defy orders from the House and take the Speaker to court to hide the truth, it obviously wouldn’t lift a finger to answer my questions.

The panel of three former judges I mentioned will ultimately decide what information is disclosed to MPs and the public. According to the memorandum of understanding, decisions of the judges are “final and unreviewable.”

Leader, why is the Trudeau government passing off its responsibility to others yet again? They are either too incompetent or too compromised to tell Canadians the truth about what happened at the Winnipeg lab.

Leader, either too incompetent or too compromised — which is it?

Hon. Donald Neil Plett (Leader of the Opposition): My question is again for the Trudeau leader in the Senate.

Leader, yesterday, you indicated that my questions about the made-up rapporteur and his report were not based in fact or truth. You might not like what I’m saying, but I’m laying out facts. It is a fact that the rapporteur admitted he didn’t have the information that CSIS has provided to Erin O’Toole. It is a fact that the rapporteur’s report doesn’t mention the Trudeau Foundation at all. It is a fact that his report also doesn’t mention Beijing’s police stations in our country. Leader, it is also a fact that diaspora groups that have endured Beijing’s interference came here yesterday to plead for a public inquiry.

Which of those facts do you dispute, leader?

Hon. Donald Neil Plett (Leader of the Opposition): Leader, two years ago, before the Trudeau government used a made-up rapporteur to cover up what it knew about Beijing’s interference in our elections, it was busy hiding the truth about a security breach at the National Microbiology Laboratory in Winnipeg.

First, the Prime Minister said that asking questions about this was racist. Then his government defied four House orders to produce uncensored documents. Next, he sued the Speaker of the House to keep the documents hidden. Now the Trudeau government has hired three former judges to oversee the work of an ad hoc group of four MPs viewing the documents.

Leader, a parliamentary committee should be doing this work. No respect for Parliament, no leadership, no common sense, no transparency and no accountability — why is it always the same story with the Trudeau government, leader?

Hon. Donald Neil Plett (Leader of the Opposition): Honourable senators, I rise to speak to the message from the House of Commons regarding Bill S-5, the strengthening environmental protection for a healthier Canada act.

As all of you are well aware and, I am sure, appreciate, my speaking time today is unlimited, so in order to ensure senators are under no illusions about precisely what we will be voting on, I thought I would begin my remarks by reading the entire message that the Speaker read to us the other day, unless somebody suggests I dispense. I might be convinced to do that.

Hon. Donald Neil Plett (Leader of the Opposition): I have one question for Senator Klyne if he would take it.

Thank you for your speech, Senator Klyne. I have just one question, and the reason I’m asking is you raised the particular issue of extending the maximum penalties from 10 years to 14 years. Would it surprise you, Senator Klyne, if I told you that yesterday at my critics briefing we asked the officials about how often the 10-year maximum had even applied? We were questioning what value there is to put 14 years, and they said that as far as they knew there was only one recorded incident ever where the 10-year maximum had been handed out.

Were you aware of that? In light of that, how do you feel about the value of a maximum when the maximum already isn’t being used now?

Hon. Donald Neil Plett (Leader of the Opposition): Honourable senators, it is a pleasure for me to rise today to speak to Bill S-241, better known by its short title as the Jane Goodall act.

For a Senate public bill, I must say that this legislation has garnered a fair amount of interest. I am sure that some of it is due to the fact that Jane Goodall has endorsed the legislation and lent her name to it, and some of it is reflective of the growing public interest in the welfare of animals in human care.

Writers have used words like “landmark” and “global leader” to describe the bill. Humane Society International has called it “some of the strongest legislation for wild animals in captivity and wildlife protection in the world.”

Although, by now, you are probably well versed in the contents of the bill, allow me to summarize what the bill does: Bill S-241 amends sections of the Criminal Code to create offences respecting the ownership, breeding and possession of the reproductive materials of exotic animals, specifically great apes, elephants and certain other non-domesticated animals referred to as “designated animals.”

Bill S-241 also amends the Wild Animal and Plant Protection and Regulation of International and Interprovincial Trade Act to require a permit for the import, export, interprovincial transport and captive breeding of great apes, elephants and designated animals.

In addition, the bill creates a legislative framework for the recognition of animal care organizations — which are organizations that meet certain standards for the care of animals, and that will be exempt from the prohibitions contained in the bill.

The bill also creates limited legal standing for animals by allowing an animal advocate to be appointed to represent the animal’s interests in the sentencing phase of a trial.

Senators, I want to make it clear at the outset that I support the intent of this bill to give greater protection to animals held in captivity in Canada. Currently, there is a patchwork of federal, provincial and municipal laws and regulations which govern the zoo industry and the private ownership of exotic animals. And, in many cases, the existing framework leaves much to be desired.

I also support the bill’s aim to address the illegal trade in wild animals and their body parts, which is driving some species closer to extinction. There is no debate over the need to stop the illegal trafficking of endangered species.

However, while I support the intent of the bill, I am very concerned that it is a clumsy effort at a noble cause which will have more negative impacts than positive ones. I believe we can and must do better.

In order to understand the scope of this legislation, it is necessary to understand that exotic wildlife in captivity in Canada falls into three categories: accredited zoos, non‑accredited zoos and private ownership.

Zoos which are accredited in Canada receive this accreditation either through Canada’s Accredited Zoos and Aquariums, known as CAZA, or through its U.S.-based counterpart, the Association of Zoos and Aquariums, known as AZA.

These accreditation associations are industry-led, non-profit organizations which set minimum standards for animal welfare, and work to promote zoos as agencies of conservation, science and education.

According to some estimates, there are currently about 100 zoos, aquariums, wildlife displays and zoo-type exhibits in Canada. These include small displays in retail stores all the way up to large institutions, such as the Calgary Zoo and the Assiniboine Park Zoo in Winnipeg.

Yet, only about 27 of these 100 zoos or exhibits are accredited, including 24 accredited by CAZA; 3 accredited by the AZA alone; and 4 accredited by both the AZA and CAZA.

The remaining 75 zoos fall into a very broad category of unaccredited zoos.

Amongst unaccredited zoos in Canada, there is a wide range in the quality of animal care. Some of them may, in fact, be eligible for accreditation and have simply not pursued it. Others would require major upgrades in their facilities, staff and operations in order to qualify for accreditation. It is a fact that without accreditation, the existing standards and regulations are insufficient for Canadians to be confident that all animals held in those zoos are provided with proper care.

Included in the category of unaccredited zoos are those commonly referred to as “roadside zoos.” These are the zoos which have often been described in this chamber during the debates on Bill S-241. In order for us to understand what we are referring to, allow me to read the definition of “roadside zoos,” according to the World Society for the Protection of Animals:

The roadside zoo is a grossly substandard, usually amateur facility that lacks trained, experienced animal care staff, proper funding and safety practices. Animals are confined to small, barren, often filthy cages, with next to nothing to do day in and day out.

First of all, that’s not always the case, but, colleagues, let me be abundantly clear: Nobody is trying to defend the existence of substandard roadside zoos. The question is how this issue should be addressed, and which level of government should be doing it.

Third, in addition to accredited zoos and non-accredited zoos, the personal ownership of exotic animals is also permitted in Canada. Exact numbers do not exist, but the results of a survey done by World Animal Protection have been extrapolated to estimate that there are about 1.4 million exotic pets in private ownership in Canada. This includes almost 500,000 reptiles, 500,000 exotic birds and over 300,000 exotic mammals such as tigers, lions, leopards, foxes, monkeys, et cetera.

As pointed out by Senator Klyne, it is estimated that there are over 4,000 privately owned big cats in Canada. However, the term “big cat” is typically used to refer to tigers, lions, jaguars, leopards, cheetahs and cougars. World Animal Protection puts the estimated number in Canada at over 7,000. This does not include the big cats in zoos and wildlife reserves; this is strictly the estimated number of big cats being held as personal pets. I personally find this, colleagues, unacceptable.

However, I intend to show you that Bill S-241 is not the way forward. It carries the precision of an elephant in a china shop or a tiger in a chicken coop. It will not get the job done, and it will make a very large mess in the process of trying.

In order to explain, I need to circle back and talk about accredited zoos. Accredited zoos are probably not the zoos that you remember visiting as a child. Those were more likely on par with today’s existing roadside zoos, where we find most of the problems in today’s industry. In contrast to roadside zoos, at the accredited zoo level the industry is driven by a deep commitment to education, conservation, science and research. This is what Bill S-241 threatens.

In my role as critic of this bill I have, so far, managed to visit 10 of the 27 accredited zoos in Canada and saw firsthand some of the great work they are doing. It honestly is very inspiring.

Let me start with the Assiniboine Park Zoo in Winnipeg where I met Grant Furniss, who was the Senior Director of the Assiniboine Park Conservancy; along with Dr. Clément Lanthier, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Calgary Zoo; and Len Wolstenholme, Senior Advisor to the Calgary Zoo.

The Assiniboine Park Zoo is an impressive facility. It is a non‑profit corporation owned by the City of Winnipeg and home to more than 150 animal species and over 80 acres to explore. The zoo is an accredited member of the Association of Zoos and Aquariums, or AZA, Canada’s Accredited Zoos and Aquariums, or CAZA, and the World Association of Zoos and Aquariums, or WAZA. In its own words:

Assiniboine Park Zoo focuses on meeting and exceeding the ever rising standards of animal care and welfare, safety, and veterinary programs and as well as demonstrating a commitment to education, conservation and research.

There is a lot packed into that statement. But I heard the same themes over and over at every accredited zoo I visited: Animals are under increasing pressure everywhere you turn due to the loss of habitat and the impacts of climate change. Accredited zoos and wildlife reserves play a critical educational role in helping to create public awareness of these challenges, giving people the opportunity to connect with animals and in conserving species at risk.

The second zoo I visited was the Calgary Zoo. I had met, as I said, Clément Lanthier and Len Wolstenholme of the Calgary Zoo earlier in Winnipeg. This was an opportunity to see their zoo’s operations from behind the scenes as Mr. Wolstenholme toured us around their great facilities.

The Calgary Zoo is owned by the City of Calgary and operated by the Calgary Zoological Society, an independent, not-for-profit organization. Last year, over 1.2 million people visited this zoo. With over 4,000 animals spread over 125 acres, you simply cannot see everything in one day. Perhaps that’s why many people take out seasons passes at the zoo; they can enjoy the animals and the environment throughout the entire year. I was able to spend an afternoon at the Calgary Zoo. There was much that I did not get to see. What I did see was remarkable.

After Calgary, my staff was able to visit the Toronto Zoo. Once again, this is a world-class facility doing impressive work on research, conservation and education regarding animal species. It was here we learned that animals in human care live 30% longer — 30% longer, colleagues — than they would in the wild when they receive proper care. With their own wildlife nutrition centre, the Wildlife Health Centre and the Toronto Zoo provides world-class care to animals who make their home there.

Following the Toronto Zoo was the African Lion Safari located near Hamilton, Ontario. This is a site that I had visited with my entire family a few years earlier. Unlike the Toronto, Calgary and Assiniboine Park Zoos, this facility is not owned by a municipality but is privately owned and operated. But if you were expecting a lower-grade operation, you would be disappointed. The conservation, research and education efforts taking place there are equally impressive, especially when you consider that none of it is being done with tax dollars.

African Lion Safari is comprised of over 750 acres, 250 of which provide animals with large areas of bush, grasslands or forest in which they can interact naturally with other animals. With 250 acres for animals to roam, that’s twice as much space as the Calgary Zoo and three times as much space as the Assiniboine Park Zoo. Almost 30 acres of the 750 total has been developed for walk-through areas and exhibits. The balance of the property is comprised of farm, bush and other habitats, including 40 acres of provincially significant wetlands which African Lion Safari maintains and monitors. It’s a conservationist’s dream.

In several of their wildlife reserves, mixed species roam and interact as they would in the wild. But in all seven reserves, it’s the people who are kept caged, not the animals — the animals roam freely over large enclosures while visitors drive through and view the animals from the safety of their vehicles. The park sees 500,000 visitors every year over the six-month period that they are open to the public. They have 50 full-time staff and hire 300 seasonal staff.

Like other accredited zoos I already mentioned, African Lion Safari has an impressive track record in conservation work. They have over 1,000 animals comprised of over 100 species. As with the Calgary Zoo, one third of their animals are endangered species. The park has been successful in breeding 30 species that are considered endangered and 20 species that are considered threatened. This, colleagues, is no small feat, and is in keeping with their vision to help maintain self-sustaining populations of species in decline, an incredible service to future generations.

The wildlife reserve is also renowned for its research and conservation efforts involving giraffes, Asian elephants, blue-throated macaws, eastern loggerhead shrikes, barn owls, bald eagles and rhinos.

In conducting their research, they have collaborated with prestigious universities such as McGill University, Queen’s University, Indiana University Bloomington, Cornell University, Auburn University, Baylor University, Tokyo University of Agriculture and Technology, University College London, University of Florida, University of Guelph, University of Melbourne, University of Pennsylvania, University of Pretoria, Western Kentucky University and many more.

And yet, colleagues, the wrecking ball called Bill S-241 threatens to destroy the great work being done by this institution.

While the Toronto Zoo, the Calgary Zoo and the Assiniboine Park Zoo are protected by this legislation, the African Lion Safari is not, even though it, too, is a fully accredited zoo.

Let me explain. Bill S-241 makes it a criminal offence to, one, own, have custody of or control a great ape, elephant or designated animal that is held in captivity; two, breed, impregnate or fail to take reasonable care to prevent the breeding or impregnation of a great ape, elephant or designated animal; and three, possess or seek to obtain reproductive materials of great apes, elephants or designated animals.

The bill then goes on to list the exceptions to this being an offence. For example, if the animal was in captivity on the day that this law comes into effect, it is not an offence for those animals to remain in captivity. Basically, it grandfathers in every elephant, great ape, big cat or other designated animal that is already in captivity. Those animals can continue to be legally kept, but not bred, until the day they die, as long as their captivity is uninterrupted.

The bill also makes an exception if the animal is being kept in captivity for the purpose of conducting non-harmful scientific research or in the best interests of the animal with regard to individual welfare and conservation of the species, providing that the person keeping the animal has a licence to do so that has been issued by the federal or provincial government.

In addition, an elephant, great ape or designated animal can be kept in captivity if it is in the ownership, custody or control of a person who is employed by a province or municipality; is appointed or employed by a provincial or municipal body or is an employee of a federal entity set out in Schedules I to V of the Financial Administration Act. That means, basically, anyone working for any level of government is exempt if they are keeping the animal as part of their duties or functions of their job.

There is a lot of uncertainty amongst the industry regarding what some of these exemptions actually mean, because the bill provides little clarity. For example, does the reference to provincial licences refer to existing licences, or will the provinces need to create a licensing authority for the purpose of this bill? What if a zoo in Ontario is already recognized by the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs as engaging in research? Will this licence be enough, or will you need another one?

Every province already has its own system for protecting animal welfare, and some provinces, like B.C. and Quebec, have well-developed zoo regulations. There is no clarity about how this bill would overlay with all of those.

However, there is one big exception to the standards introduced by this legislation. In addition to the exceptions already mentioned, the offences would not apply to anyone whom the Minister of Environment and Climate Change designates to be an eligible animal-care organization. There is a long list of requirements for an organization to be designated as an eligible animal-care organization, but if all those hoops are cleared and the organization receives the designation, it then retains the ability to keep and breed elephants, great apes and any other designated animal.

It basically gets a pass on this legislation.

However, out of the 27 accredited zoos and aquariums, there are 7 that do not have to jump through those hoops. Instead, those institutions get to bypass every one of the required steps and are named right in the bill, giving them a perpetual get‑out‑of-jail-free card. Those seven are listed in subclause 19(1) and include the Assiniboine Park Zoo, the Calgary Zoological Society, the Zoo de Granby, the Montréal Biodôme, Ripley’s Aquarium of Canada, the Board of Management of the Toronto Zoo and the Vancouver Aquarium.

You will notice, colleagues, that African Lion Safari is not included in this list. That means that even though they are accredited through Canada’s Accredited Zoos and Aquariums, known as CAZA, they will need to go through what could be a lengthy, arduous and uncertain process to see if they will be allowed to continue the great work they have been doing for over 50 years.

It was not only African Lion Safari but 18 other zoos already accredited by CAZA that were not included in the list of exempt zoos. All of them are potentially facing an existential crisis in the continuation of their work, livelihoods and conservation efforts because of one simple reason: While they belong to Canada’s Accredited Zoos and Aquariums, they do not belong to the American-based Association of Zoos and Aquariums, or AZA.

Colleagues, we need to park here for a few minutes and consider the implications of that. Bill S-241 basically turns over the accreditation standards of Canadian zoos to an American accreditation body. I find that quite disturbing. As I was told over and over by the zoos that did not make the short list in the bill, “Why would we want to turn over our accreditation standards to an American organization?”

Colleagues, if you ask Senator Klyne about this, he will claim that AZA is an international accreditation body active in 13 countries. This is only partly true. The AZA may be active in 13 countries, but the AZA American non-profit corporation’s board of directors is made up entirely of American citizens. AZA may be operating in 13 countries, but it is founded, run and controlled by Americans. It has no Canadian representation on its board of directors.

Senator Klyne will also tell you that AZA has higher standards than CAZA, and that is why they were chosen. But I asked every zoo I visited about this, even the ones which are already AZA‑accredited, and found that Senator Klyne’s view is a minority viewpoint. Even accredited zoos themselves do not agree on which accreditation is better. In fact, in many cases, CAZA clearly has higher standards than AZA.

There’s one thing that really got my attention. Last summer, the U.S. House of Representatives introduced a bill called the SWIMS Act. The purpose of that bill was to amend the U.S. Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 and the Animal Welfare Act to prohibit the taking, importation, exportation and breeding of certain cetaceans for public display and other purposes. That may not sound too outrageous to Canadians, since that is already law in Canada, but in the U.S., AZA opposed this bill, colleagues. You can go to the AZA website and look it up. Go to what they call their Legislative Education Centre and look for the part on the SWIMS Act. You’ll see that it says the following:

The . . . (SWIMS) Act would prohibit the breeding, importation, and exportation of orcas, beluga whales, false killer whales, and pilot whales. It would establish a dangerous precedent that would limit the ability of highly qualified staff in facilities like AZA-accredited aquariums and zoos to make decisions about the animals in their care.

Colleagues, the AZA is allowing themselves to be used as the standard for Canadian zoos and yet they oppose animal welfare legislation that already exists right here in our country.

It doesn’t end there.

On September 22, 2022, the President and CEO of the AZA sent a letter to its members. In part, this is what it said:

It is critically important that we are unified and speak with one voice against this legislation. This is not just about the beluga or killer whales. The identical arguments are currently being made about elephants, great apes, giraffes, big cats, and other species. We must act now to communicate to Congress that this legislation establishes a dangerous precedent by undermining the ability of highly qualified staff in AZA-accredited aquariums and zoos to make decisions about the animals in their care.

Colleagues, I don’t want to get partisan here, but that sounds like a Liberal government.

Honourable senators, it is not the AZA position that I am taking exception to. I actually think they make very good points, if you read their whole letter. It is their hypocrisy that I take exception to. Apparently, if this legislation is being introduced in the U.S., then the AZA sees it as a dangerous precedent, but if it is being introduced in our country, it is fine. I don’t think you can get more hypocritical than that. This is an organization that doesn’t even support the current Canadian standards, and Senator Klyne wants to make them the benchmark for even higher standards, which they also don’t agree with or comply with themselves.

Honourable colleagues, I want to reiterate that I am not opposed to stricter statutory and regulatory criteria for zoos, but I take great offence at giving a pass to a handful of Canadian zoos because they belong to an American organization which doesn’t even support the current Canadian standards, never mind the standards that this bill is putting forward.

When I visited zoos which are CAZA-accredited but not AZA‑accredited, I asked them, “Why have you not pursued the AZA accreditation?”

Trish Gerth, General Manager of African Lion Safari, said they actually considered accreditation through the AZA at one time. They had an AZA representative come up from the United States and do an initial review of their park, and the representative said he didn’t think they would have any trouble qualifying. However, African Lion Safari decided not to go ahead with it because they saw the need for a strong Canadian organization that was exclusively focused on Canadian legislative and regulatory environment.

I heard similar sentiment from other CAZA-accredited zoos: “Why should we have an American organization telling Canada what its standards should be?” I agree with that sentiment.

Colleagues, in his second-reading speech on this bill, Senator Klyne mentioned African Lion Safari a number of times, and each time his statements contained misinformation about this wildlife reserve. His first statement, colleagues, was this:

In addition, the Jane Goodall act bans the use of affected species in performances for entertainment as well as elephant rides unless licensed by a provincial government. This is relevant to sea lions and walruses at Marineland in Niagara Falls and to elephants at African Lion Safari near Hamilton.

He went on and said:

. . . African Lion Safari’s 16 elephants have been used for performance for entertainment purposes and for rides, resulting in an attack in 2019. CAZA banned elephant rides last year.

Let me give you some facts on that misinformation, colleagues. First, the insinuation that this legislation is somehow going to force African Lion Safari to cancel elephant rides is blatantly false. African Lion Safari, first of all, started phasing out elephant rides in their presentations and animal programs long before CAZA banned them. When CAZA made the decision to ban rides, it was with the support of African Lion Safari. Make no mistake about it: There are no elephant rides at African Lion Safari for this bill to cancel.

Second, Senator Klyne said that using elephants for entertainment purposes and for rides resulted in an attack in 2019. This, colleagues, is also false. Yes, there was an incident, but it had nothing to do with elephant performances and rides. A thorough investigation of the incident was completed by the Ontario Ministry of Labour, and African Lion Safari was never charged or found guilty of any kind of misconduct or animal abuse. The statements in Senator Klyne’s speech about African Lion Safari were misleading.

Senator Klyne also said:

. . . the Jane Goodall act would phase-out elephant captivity in Canada, similar to our country’s whale and dolphin laws. The primary reason is that our climate is unsuitable, requiring these huge, far-ranging, intelligent and social creatures to spend winters indoors.

It is regrettable that Senator Klyne did not visit the wildlife reserve before he made this statement — a reserve that has the largest herd of elephants in the country — and before coming to his conclusions about the park and about how elephants fare in Canada.

African Lion Safari is recognized worldwide for its expertise in elephant welfare. Their elephant care professionals are regularly consulted by conservation organizations worldwide for their input on issues of elephant welfare, health care management and conservation.

In 1998, African Lion Safari founded the International Elephant Foundation, or IEF, along with several international partners, which is dedicated to the conservation of African and Asian elephants. In 2021, IEF supported 20 projects in 13 countries across 3 continents to invest in elephant welfare in places like Kenya, Uganda, Rwanda, Zambia, Namibia, Tanzania, Nepal, India and Indonesia.

African Lion Safari has been an active participant in the AZA’s Elephant Taxon Advisory Group for over 30 years. They are an adviser to the Asian Elephant Support foundation, a program partner for the AZA Asian elephant SAFE program as well as a donor partner to the IUCN SSC Asian Elephant Specialist Group. In other words, they are experts. They strongly disagree with Senator Klyne’s characterization of how elephants fare in human care in Canada.

Charlie Gray is the superintendent of elephants at African Lion Safari. He has worked hands-on with elephants since 1982 and has been the Elephant Manager at African Lion Safari since 1987. Charlie is a founding board member of the Elephant Managers Association and a founding and current board member of the International Elephant Foundation. He served on the American Association of Zoos and Aquariums’ Taxon Advisory Group for the Asian elephant species survival program from 1988 to 2019. He is a world-renowned elephant expert.

Charlie told us that contrary to what Senator Klyne and other so-called experts would have you believe, the elephants in their care love the four seasons. This is partly because most of their herd of Asian elephants were born and raised in Canada and are very acclimatized to our winters. In fact, Charlie says their elephants actually prefer the cold to the heat, partly because there are no bugs. But they also love to run and play in the snow and break the ice on the lake and go swimming.

Colleagues, I think we sent every one of you a short video of these elephants playing. If you haven’t seen it or you have deleted it, please let me know. I’d love to send it to you again. Elephants are breaking the ice, running around, swimming, in the cold. They have a heated enclosure in the winter where they can come and go at will, and they do not hesitate to venture outside and enjoy the winter.

African Lion Safari has done some fascinating research regarding the ability of Asian elephants to adapt to cold climates. They are leading research in infrared thermography and have found that the species has a previously unknown ability to send warm blood to their extremities in colder conditions, which helps to explain why they can enjoy the Canadian winters.

I also found it somewhat puzzling to learn that the AZA permits elephants in captivity in the U.S. but not in Canada. They claim that this is because of the climate, yet some of the locations of elephant herds in the southern part of Canada, such as African Lion Safari, experience much warmer temperatures than many of the U.S. locations that have elephants in their care.

Colleagues, the assertion that elephants cannot thrive in human care in Canada is simply wrong and misleading. It ignores the plethora of evidence and finds its roots in emotion and not reason.

Next, colleagues, I went and visited a zoo called Parc Safari. Parc Safari is in Hemmingford, Quebec. Parc Safari, like the African Lion Safari, transcends what we normally think of as a zoo. It would be better referred to as a wildlife preserve. Spread over 152 hectares, which is the equivalent of 375 acres or one and a half million square feet, the park has over 500 animals, consisting of 97 different species. It keeps and breeds endangered species with the co-operation of zoological institutions in Asia, Africa, Europe and the Americas. Unlike roadside zoos, all the animals at Parc Safari have access to large enclosures.

Parc Safari is not a rescue centre. They do not rescue and rehabilitate injured animals. That is not their specialty. Instead, they focus on the conservation of endangered species through reproduction and, when possible, reintroduction. In fact, Parc Safari has successfully reintroduced cheetahs to Africa that were born at the park.

As the owner of Parc Safari, Jean-Pierre Ranger, noted in a media interview:

There are only 2000 to 3000 cheetahs left in the wild in Africa. If today, things are going a little better, it’s because there are institutions like mine where we do reproduction, awareness and reintroduction.

When asked what he thinks of Bill S-241, Jean-Pierre did not mince words. He called it a Trojan Horse that is the first step towards the end of all zoological institutions. You may or may not agree with Mr. Ranger, but the truth of the matter is that he has captured the precise sentiments of the animal rights movement who are big advocates of this bill.

They are not even shy about it. One headline in a vegan publication reads, “A Proposed Federal Bill in Canada Could Be the First Step to Phasing Out the Zoo Industry.” The article says:

The bill was introduced in 2020 by former senator Murray Sinclair, and it is now back in the Senate after being side‑lined by the federal election in September 2021. It has many significant new policies that could be the first step to phasing out the zoo industry in the country.

Victoria Shroff, a well-known animal-rights lawyer in B.C., wrote the following in Canadian Lawyer magazine:

In 2019 I asked a question in these pages: Is it time for animal rights in Canada? The answer has been delivered in the form of a ground-breaking animal law bill put forward in November by Senator Murray Sinclair.

She has also written that:

Bill S-218 fits with my opinion that animals need access to justice. If passed, the bill will have wide-ranging applicability for animal welfare throughout Canada as it proposes the strongest animal-protection laws ever seen in this country.

Speaking of access to justice, it would not be surprising if I, along with some of my former university animal-law students—now clinicians at our newly launched Animal Law Pro Bono Clinic run by the Law Students Legal Advice Program—ended up seeing novel types of animal-law cases if this bill becomes law.

You’re going to be sued by your dog, colleagues.

In other words, if this bill passes, you can expect that both exempt and non-exempt zoos will be litigated to death by the animal rights movement.

This, colleagues, is not a conspiracy theory. They are transparent about their plan. They plan to use the legal system to push their agenda further.

Victoria Shroff admitted in a Vancouver Sun article entitled “Are you ready to be sued by your pet?” that the animal rights movement is taking an incremental approach to advancing their agenda. She acknowledged that not everyone in the animal rights industry supports giving certain animals more rights than others because:

They think it creates a kind of exceptionalism or speciesism where animals that are more recognizable and valued will be at the top of the chain and the ones less valued, like rats and chickens, will still be human fodder. … Elephants and dolphins, ones that have language, where do you draw the line? I think we nudge open the courtroom doors to let whoever we can pass first and the rest will follow.

Whether you believe this bill will open the door to advance the extreme animal rights agenda or not, you need to realize that the animal rights groups believe that it will. They are almost giddy in their enthusiasm about the opportunities this bill will yield for them if it passes.

Colleagues, animal welfare is supported by all, but animal rights is quite another issue. It stops at nothing until all animals share the same rights as people, and this, colleagues, is the direction that Bill S-241 is pointing us.

Senator Klyne has acknowledged over and over that this legislation “. . . establishes limited legal standing for affected species . . . .” This is unprecedented in Canadian law and is being done by inventing something called an animal advocate. Even though the animal advocate’s role will only come into play during sentencing, it is clearly the thin edge of the wedge, and animal rights groups are deliriously excited about it.

Animal Justice puts it this way:

Aside from sweeping protections for many species of wild animals, Animal Justice is thrilled to see provisions that grant limited legal standing to animals when they’re being illegally held in captivity. One of the biggest challenges animals face is having their interests considered in the courtroom. . . .

Listen to this, colleagues:

But under the proposed new law, animal advocates can more easily give animals a much-needed voice in court, and fight to protect them from cruelty. Under the proposed law, in a prosecution for illegally keeping or breeding an animal in captivity, a judge could hear legal arguments from a designated animal advocacy group or an individual. This individual or organization could ask a judge to take action to protect the best interests of an animal, including sending the animal to a sanctuary, and improving their conditions.

Make no mistake about it, colleagues. Giving limited legal standing to animals will set us on a slippery slope that will eventually impact not only zoos but also agriculture. Multiple farm organizations have met with me to express their concern about this part of the bill because their legal counsel has warned them that it opens the door to extend the same legal status to non‑domesticated animals.

The simple fact, colleagues, is that the animal rights movement is not just coming after zoos, it is also coming after farms. Martin Rowe from the Culture & Animals Foundation put it this way:

It seems to me that we have an opportunity in the animal protection movement to talk about the end of factory farming and the end of the industrialized use of animals, the crop that goes to feed them, to restore watersheds, and to open up huge areas of the land for rewilding.

Jane Goodall herself, whose name is on the title of this bill, says:

It seems clear then that factory farms should be phased out and if animals are farmed, they should be allowed to be out in the fields when the weather permits.

Ms. Goodall went on to call for the phasing out of the intensive farming of crops, monocultures and agricultural chemicals. She believes we need to return to “. . . small-scale family farming . . . .”

Colleagues, Canada is currently the fifth-largest exporter of agricultural and agri-food products in the world, exporting $82.2 billion a year. We are blessed with favourable conditions for food production that far exceeds the needs of our population, which gives us the opportunity and responsibility to feed the world. Following Jane Goodall’s advice would put an end to that.

Make no mistake about it: This bill strengthens the ongoing assault on Canadian agriculture. The agenda of animal rights activists is not just to end the use of animals in zoos, but also to eventually see this spread to agriculture as well. I recognize that this bill does not directly advocate for that, but by crossing the line to give animals legal standing in court, it strengthens that movement and undeniably pushes us in that direction.

Out of the 10 zoos that I visited and spoke to, every single one of them expressed concerns about this part of the bill — even those zoos that are exempt from the bill because of their AZA accreditation. Jean-Pierre Ranger was correct; this bill is a Trojan Horse. As I said earlier, it is a clumsy effort at a noble cause which will have more negative impacts than positive ones.

After Parc Safari, I visited the Zoo de Granby, Montreal’s Ecomuseum Zoo and Parc Omega. All of these are in Quebec, and all of them are doing great work in conservation and education. Yet, only one of them gets a “get out of jail free” card: the Zoo de Granby. The rest will have to run the gauntlet set up by this bill to see if they will be designated as an “eligible animal care organization.”

Ironically, out of the three zoos, the only one that has any elephants, great apes or big cats is the Zoo de Granby — and they get the “get out of jail free” card. That is the only Quebec zoo which received an automatic exemption in this bill. Neither the Ecomuseum Zoo nor Parc Omega have these animals, and yet it is the Zoo de Granby which received the pass. The Ecomuseum Zoo is 30 minutes from downtown Montreal. It is the one and only zoo on the Island of Montreal, and, as Executive Director David Rodrigue explained to me, this zoo only has Quebec wildlife. They have no lions, no tigers, no cheetahs, no elephants and no gorillas. But they do have lynx, wolves and bears. For some reason, all of these animals are covered by the bill, even though they are native to Quebec and require neither international nor interprovincial importation.

That brings us to the question of jurisdiction. Bill S-241 attempts to legislate in two areas of federal responsibility: the exercise of federal power over international and interprovincial trade, and the exercise of federal power over criminal animal cruelty and criminal public safety matters. But it is difficult to see what this has to do with domestic species native to Quebec.

Parc Omega raised the same concerns with me about jurisdiction. Parc Omega is a safari-type zoo with large natural spaces spread out over 2,000 acres which are home to over 20 species of animals living in their natural environment. Throughout most of the park, visitors drive through the enclosures and view the animals from the safety of their vehicles. The park places a strong emphasis on reconnecting people to nature, to our history and to the customs and beliefs of the Indigenous peoples of Quebec.

One of the park’s main attractions is their wolf packs. They have five wolf packs — consisting of 5 to 13 wolves per pack, totalling to around 60 wolves. These are all of the Canis lupus species, which are protected under Bill S-241. The park has a program called “Sleep with the wolves” where you can rent a cabin, chalet or lodge for the night. We didn’t spend the night, but we spent an hour in one of these accommodations with panoramic windows. The accommodations allow you to observe a pack of wolves in their natural habitat from every angle — thanks to the lodge’s panoramic views. The wolves walk right up to the room. It feels like you could pet them on the other side of the glass. The program is so popular that there is currently a one-year waiting list to book the accommodations.

When Alain Massie, the park’s general manager, and Serge Lussier, the technical director and spokesperson, were showing me the facilities, there were no wolves to be seen. But then Serge opened a door and called to the wolves, and they began appearing like shadows in the forest at first — until they came into clear view, right up to the windows of the cabin. It was breathtaking. I can see why people want to get up close to these majestic animals.

However, the wolf falls under provincial jurisdiction. As noted by Environment and Climate Change Canada, “Provincial and territorial governments are responsible for the management of terrestrial wildlife.”

Environment and Climate Change Canada also states:

. . . the wolf is legally protected through various provincial and territorial wildlife acts. Under these acts, certain uses of Canadian wildlife are allowed under specific regulations and only with the provision of licenses or permits.

These licences or permits include the hunting and harvesting of wolves. Environment and Climate Change Canada explains:

The grey wolf is classified as both a furbearer and game animal in most jurisdictions. Aboriginal peoples have the right under the Canadian constitution to harvest wildlife for traditional use.

In other words, while Bill S-241 wants to make it a criminal offence to hold these animals in captivity, it will still be completely legal to hunt them or harvest them when they are not in captivity. The second they set foot off of Parc Omega’s yard, they can be hunted. The disconnect is somewhat mind-boggling. It makes one wonder how exactly these 800 species — there are 800 species, colleagues — came to be listed in Bill S-241.

I’m not sure who created the list. The government did not create the list. I’m not sure whether Senator Klyne created this list on his own. Senator Sinclair’s bill didn’t have that list, but now 800 species are on the list of Bill S-241.

Bill S-218 only listed elephants and great apes. Any additional species were added by cabinet:

. . . after consulting with professionals in animal science, veterinary medicine or animal care and with representatives of groups whose objects include the promotion of animal welfare, on the capability of a species to live in captivity and whether the conditions of captivity adequately accommodate the biological and ecological needs for individual animals of that species to live a good life . . . .

That was included in Bill S-218, but then Bill S-241 shows up with a list of 800 species already attached.

Colleagues, how did these species get added to the list? How are we supposed to approve a bill with 800 species written right into it when we have not had the opportunity to carry out the consultations that cabinet will be required to conduct? Are we supposed to trust that these consultations have been done by Senator Klyne — shall we take his word for it that they should all be on the list? Will we examine each of these species at committee, or will we just pass legislation that we haven’t properly vetted?

I’ll be honest; tacking a list of 800 species onto a bill that originally contained only 2 species seems more than a bit presumptuous to me. If we were to pass this bill, it would be a repudiation of our role as legislators who are supposed to provide sober second thought unless we first verify that each species on the list meets the criteria outlined in the bill.

The inclusion of the grey wolf in this bill is a perfect example of the dangers of not doing our job. The grey wolf is neither endangered nor threatened. The Wild Species: The General Status of Species in Canada report classifies the grey wolf as “secure.” Jurisdictions report stable or increasing populations, and no acute widespread threats to the species have been identified. Yet, for some reason unknown to us at this time, Senator Klyne has included this species in the bill. Was there pressure from an animal rights group to do so? Did Animal Justice insist that the grey wolf be included in order for Senator Klyne to gain their endorsement of the bill? We have no idea because this chamber has been provided with no background information, no scientific studies, no veterinary reports and no readouts from consultations. It’s opaque, and that is not acceptable.

Colleagues, believe it or not, the first draft of this speech was much longer — it really was — because there is much more that can be said and, indeed, needs to be said. While I am sorry that I have not been able to visit more zoos, by this time you are probably thankful I only made it to 10.

Let me wrap up. This bill claims to help animals, but it will do the opposite. While the bill’s sponsor regularly tells us that it is “urgent” to pass this bill — we’ve heard it here: “Plett is stalling the bill; it is urgent that we pass this bill” — on the day the bill passes into law, not a single roadside zoo will close because of it, not one. Every single animal currently in a substandard roadside zoo is grandfathered in and will have to live out its life in those conditions.

I would note that the average life span of a tiger in captivity is 22 years. Lions live for about 25 years, and elephants live for 60 to 70 years. This bill will leave animals suffering in roadside zoos untouched, while immediately threatening the future of great conservation efforts like African Lion Safari, Parc Omega and more.

How often have we heard that elephants are social animals and that animals need friends, companions and lovers? These animals will slowly die until there will be one animal all by himself or herself, with no companion.

Worse yet, on top of doing nothing to help animals that are truly suffering, this legislation will add to their suffering by requiring them to be neutered or somehow kept from breeding, thus imposing even more hardship on them and depriving them of even more of their dignity.

Furthermore, while doing nothing to help animals in roadside zoos, the bill will undoubtedly impact the great conservation work being done by 18 CAZA-accredited zoos, which were not consulted in the creation of this bill and were refused an exemption. Instead of helping conservation efforts, this legislation will create a chill for those great institutions, which will now have to be concerned about their long-term viability and their ability to carry on their vital conservation work.

Colleagues, Jane Goodall herself has endorsed zoos as important institutions for conservation. She said:

. . . there is a mistaken belief that animals in their natural habitat are, by definition, better off. Sadly, this is not necessarily true. Wild animals face unprecedented pressures today, such as habitat loss, habitat fragmentation and climate change.

Conservation is critical for future generations to be able to enjoy the wildlife that we take for granted today. This bill threatens that work by refusing to recognize the value of Canadian accreditation and by imposing American standards on Canadian zoos, even though in many cases those American standards are lower than our own.

Colleagues, something needs to be done, but Bill S-241 is not the way forward. As I said, it carries the precision of an elephant in a china shop or a tiger in a chicken coop. It will not get the job done, but it will make a very large mess in the process.

We need to defeat this bill. I encourage the government to come up with legislation that is balanced, effective and responsive to our own Canadian-accredited zoos.

For the sake of animal welfare in our nation and for the sake of the incredible conservation work currently being carried out, I would like to urge you to vote against this bill at second reading.

Reluctantly, I will not ask for a recorded vote. I will allow this bill to be passed at second reading on division, so that the three committees listed earlier today can begin their work and try to bring us a bill that makes sense for our country. Thank you, colleagues.

Hon. Donald Neil Plett (Leader of the Opposition): Honourable senators, I note that this item is at day 15, and I’m not ready to speak to it at this time. I’m kind of exhausted. Therefore, with leave of the Senate and notwithstanding rule 4-15(3), I move the adjournment of the debate for the balance of my time.