The Senate proceeded to consideration of the first report of the Standing Committee on Ethics and Conflict of Interest for Senators, entitled Consideration of an Inquiry Report from the Senate Ethics Officer, presented in the Senate on November 21, 2023.

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

(Motion agreed to.)

(At 9:40 p.m., pursuant to the order adopted by the Senate earlier this day, the Senate adjourned until Tuesday, November 28, 2023, at 2 p.m.)

Hon. Rosemary Moodie: I resume my discussion around Bill C-35. I left off when I was talking about the section that ensures accountability that the federal government must take going forward.

It is a stake in the ground that holds Ottawa accountable, and it is how, through the agreements, Ottawa will work with the provinces to keep them accountable.

Reading from clause 7(1):

Federal investments respecting the establishment and maintenance of a Canada-wide early learning and child care system — as well as the efforts to enter into related agreements with the provinces and Indigenous peoples — must be guided by the principles by which early learning and child care programs and services should be accessible, affordable, inclusive and of high quality . . . .

The following paragraphs detail what is meant by this. Paragraph (a) tells us that federal investments must support the provision of equitable access to high-quality care with a preference for expansion in public and not-for-profit spaces. These services must be licensed, built on evidence-based practices and respond to the varying needs of children and families.

Paragraph (b) tells us that the federal investment into child care must contribute to making child care more affordable for all families.

Let’s talk about paragraph (c). Paragraph (c) tells us that federal investments must support access in rural and remote communities and the expansion of services for children with disabilities, official language minority communities and children from other marginalized groups. It reiterates the obligation for federal investments to respond to the varying needs of families, this time adding respect and the value of diversity.

I want to pause here because paragraph (c) is extraordinarily important. What it says is that the federal government must invest in child care services for children with disabilities. It is clear from paragraph (c) that the federal government must invest in rural and remote communities to ensure greater access there. It is also clear from paragraph (c) that the obvious intent of this bill is that the federal government must invest in child care services for official language minority communities.

That is an obligation that will be placed into law should this bill be given Royal Assent. It is a certainty that every family who is in a community where their official language is in the minority can expect that, by law, the federal government will ensure that its investment will allow for greater access to child care spaces so that their language, their culture, their identity can be passed down to their children and their children’s children.

This paragraph, colleagues, ensures that no one is left behind. It commits Ottawa to ensuring that funding in perpetuity for these groups continues, as is reflected in the agreements. By placing these elements within the guiding principles, it makes clear the intent of Parliament that these groups receive federal funding to ensure proper access to high-quality child care that meets their needs.

I am now moving on to paragraph (d). This paragraph tells us that federal investments should contribute to high-quality child care that supports the social, emotional, physical and cognitive development of young children by ensuring a strong workforce. Indeed, all governments have recognized the core role of the workforce, and developing this workforce is an important dimension of the agreements that are already in place and will be an ongoing part of the work of building a strong Early Learning and Child Care, or ELCC, system going into the future.

In subsection 2, we are told that the federal investments and agreements with Indigenous peoples must be guided by the Indigenous Early Learning and Child Care Framework. As I said at second reading, Canada has co-developed an Indigenous early learning and child care system with Indigenous communities and governments. This subsection has the effect of ensuring that Canada will continue to make investments based on this framework and in collaboration with Indigenous peoples.

Finally, subsection 3 tells us that the federal investments must be guided by the Official Languages Act, or OLA. As we know, colleagues, one of the purposes of the Official Languages Act is to:

support the development of English and French linguistic minority communities in order to protect them while taking into account the fact that they have different needs;

This is just one purpose. Section 7 tells us that the federal investments must be guided by the entire act. In fact, we know that this quasi-constitutional act aims to ensure the respect and substantive equality of both official languages throughout and across Canada.

This is very important. By including the OLA in section 7, Bill C-35, therefore, creates an obligation for investment to not only focus on official language minority communities now but to also consider the future development and evolution of both official languages in Canada in line with the OLA.

In summary, we see in section 7 the rules of engagement, and we can understand that there are specific obligations that Canada must respect when working with provinces to make investments in child care. Section 7 decides where the money goes, and it tells us that investments in high-quality, affordable and inclusive care that meets the needs of families through funding in public and not-for-profit places is non-negotiable.

Paired with section 8, which tells us that the Government of Canada commits to maintaining long-term funding for ELCC through agreements with provinces, territories and Indigenous peoples, we have a guarantee of an ongoing funding commitment based on the rules of engagement already outlined in section 7. Therefore, whether you need care that is culturally sensitive and in the language of your ancestors, whether you are a parent with a disabled child in urban Vancouver or rural northern B.C., whether you’re an anglophone in Quebec or a francophone outside of Quebec, sections 7 and 8 of Bill C-35 guarantees that the federal government will continue to work toward making sure that one day you have access to affordable and high-quality care that meets your needs.

Colleagues, I have spoken at length about the bill, but I would like to take a moment to turn toward our work at committee and to specifically speak to why, in my opinion, the bill has come back to us unamended.

First of all, it is my belief that our study was robust. We met with child care workers, economists and academics. We met with community leaders and Indigenous governments. We heard from parents with children with disabilities and parents who did not currently have access to child care in the language of their choice. What we heard is that more progress is needed and is needed faster. What we heard was that Canadians believe in the benefits of Canada-wide ELCC and that fee reductions have been an important step forward. Yet, space creation and workforce development are still crucially needed.

I want to thank, once more, all the witnesses for their voice and for their time, even those with whom I did not agree. Many amendments were proposed by witnesses and during clause by clause. Nevertheless, the bill has come back to us unamended, and I want to speak to this.

Colleagues, we are building and expanding a significant and immensely complex social program, one that hinges on relationships and negotiation and one that is based on collaboration and shared vision. In this exercise, the federal government has many partners it has to work with to see this through, and I think we need to be patient as we work to build our child care system, especially when doing important things like training workers and building spaces, among other critical steps.

It also means that as federal legislators, we have to remember that Canadians want Bill C-35 to be adopted. For them, it means a guarantee that ELCC is here to stay. They are looking for this certainty.

Consider Jennifer Nangreaves, Executive Director of the Early Childhood Development Association of Prince Edward Island, who told us:

The position of the ECDA is we are absolutely in support of Bill C-35. The importance of having federal commitment to the Canada-wide early learning and child care system, no matter the government in power in the future, will allow for true system building across the country. Having access to predictable, appropriate and sustained funding instead of what we’ve been doing in the past, with grants here and there, will provide stability and predictability that will allow for strategic and long-term investments so that provinces, territories and Indigenous peoples can reach their goals in achieving a high-quality, accessible and affordable early learning and child care system.

Her words resonated with me. Canadians are looking to this bill for certainty. They are looking to Parliament for certainty. We must remember this as we deliberate today.

I believe that the committee in the other place did a strong job in amending this bill and strengthened it significantly. I’m also aware of the political tensions in the House of Commons and know that amending the bill would perhaps lead to delays in its adoption, which would create greater uncertainty for Canadians. Therefore, for every amendment, I weighed whether or not the uncertainty was worth the proposed change. I will say, honourable colleagues, that none of the amendments brought forward resolved substantive issues or challenges that I felt warranted delaying the adoption of this legislation for many months.

Therefore, I argued and voted against all the amendments that were tabled, and the majority of the committee seemed to have agreed.

Honourable senators, I want to acknowledge one concern that was heard from official languages minority communities. Many felt that they needed to be included in section 8 of the bill to ensure they continue to receive long-term funding. It is their concern that without this inclusion, the courts would assume that Parliament meant to exclude them from ongoing funding commitments despite section 7, as I outlined.

Colleagues, with all due respect, I do not agree with this concern, but I acknowledge it. I believe, as I have argued, that the rules of engagement are outlined in clause 7 — the founding principles — and that these are very clear indicators of what Parliament intends for ongoing funding to include.

Nevertheless, I have worked with the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne, or FCFA, du Canada, as well as with Senator Cormier and Senator Moncion, to craft a statement that clarifies this without a shadow of a doubt, and I will read it now:

I am aware of the ordinary principles of statutory interpretation and the relevant case law on language rights. In particular, I’m aware that the Supreme Court of Canada, in Caron v. Alberta, refused to recognize the existence of language rights because of the absence of explicit guarantees in the relevant constitutional and legislative texts.

Consequently, as sponsor of this bill, I wish to express a clear intention that the text of clause 8 implicitly includes a guarantee of long-term funding for early learning and child care programs and services for official language minority communities.

It is my understanding that as Bill C-35 is currently drafted, the intention has always been for francophone communities to continue to be part of federal-provincial-territorial discussions, within the framework of funding agreements.

I’d like to emphasize this point: Protecting the interests of official language minority communities and other minority groups is not mutually exclusive. Often, communities intersect, and individuals are at the intersection points of several minority groups.

To conclude, I will make a clear clarification regarding terminology used in the bill on the issue of official language minority communities. I would like to acknowledge that there are indeed two different terms used in Bill C-35 that refer to official language minority communities. I assure you that despite the two different terms used, they do respect the spirit of the Official Languages Act.

I want to thank Senators Cormier and Moncion, as well as the FCFA, for their partnership and their collaboration. I look forward to continuing to work with you to ensure every child can learn and grow in the language of their families.

Honourable colleagues, thank you for your attention and your hard work. I look forward to hearing from other speakers, and I look forward to seeing this bill become law. Thank you. Meegwetch.

Senator Cormier: Thank you. Would Senator Moodie take a question?

The Hon. the Speaker: Is leave granted, honourable senators?

Hon. Jim Quinn: Thank you for your speech, Senator Moodie. My question goes back to clause 8. You acknowledged that there was concern with clause 8 in terms of courts in the future, perhaps, not interpreting funding as — in the case that you quoted — being guaranteed and locked in, and funding is the subject matter of clause 8.

In your statement, you made it clear that you agree that there needs to be the guarantee that funding be ongoing. My question is this: If that is the case, why wouldn’t we make it explicit? There are new systems being developed. Why would we want to put future generations at risk of having a court review a case, make a determination that it is not explicit and, therefore, not be in favour of locking in funding for those minority groups, not just in New Brunswick but across the country?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

Hon. Elizabeth Marshall: Senator Moodie, thanks very much for your speech. I was hanging on to every word you were saying because, early in your speech, you were talking about no one being left behind. What I’m hearing from people in the community — not just in my home province of Newfoundland and Labrador, but also a number of other provinces — is that there are many families who are not able to access the $10-a-day daycare. It’s available to some families, but it’s not available to other families. Then, in other instances, not only is the $10-a-day daycare not available, but there’s also no daycare available, and families are struggling to arrange daycare or child care for their children.

I know that in my own province — CBC Radio had several articles on it — there are doctors who cannot return to work because they don’t have child care. Did that issue come up during your study of the bill?

The Hon. the Speaker: I’m sorry, Senator Moodie; your time for debate has expired.

Are you asking for five more minutes?

Hon. Jane Cordy: Senator Moodie has answered all the questions. Honourable senators, I rise today at third reading to speak in support of Bill C-35, An Act respecting early learning and child care in Canada.

I want to thank you, Senator Moodie, for your very detailed speech explaining Bill C-35 and its importance as a social contract.

I also want to thank you for your hard work in sponsoring this bill in the Senate. I want to thank the members of the Social Affairs Committee for your very thoughtful and important questions and comments when we studied this bill.

This bill is a first step toward the federal government’s commitment to facilitating a Canada-wide early learning and child care system, and a ten-dollar-a-day child care program. It sets out the government’s commitment to maintaining long-term funding relating to early learning and child care to be provided to the provinces, territories and to Indigenous communities.

Along with these commitments, the bill will also establish the National Advisory Council on Early Learning and Child Care. As a grandmother and former elementary school teacher, I have seen first-hand how important early learning and accessible, quality child care is to young Canadians and their families.

Honourable senators, it is essential that children be given the best possible start to set them up for a lifetime of learning.

Canadian families from every corner of the country experience barriers to accessing inclusive, culturally appropriate, high-quality child care. Too few child care spaces and rising costs have left many families struggling to find affordable care for their children.

We heard from a wide variety of witnesses from across the country at the Social Affairs, Science and Technology Committee. The committee heard that disparities have persisted in Canada when it comes to access to high-quality and culturally appropriate child care for Indigenous families, lower-income families, new Canadians, language minority communities and those living outside urban areas.

Bridging these gaps is going to take time, successful planning and financial support. I believe Bill C-35 will go a long way toward helping families to find affordable and quality care.

The federal government has shown its support to the provinces, territories and to Indigenous communities with their commitment of funding through the signed funding agreements. To unlock the federal funding, the provinces and territories have agreed to submit action plans and progress reports at the beginning of each fiscal year for the duration of the agreements.

I believe the progress reports will be beneficial to governments and, more importantly, to young families.

In 2021, my province of Nova Scotia signed the Canada – Nova Scotia Canada-Wide Early Learning and Child Care Agreement – 2021 to 2026, which provides a commitment to creating 9,500 new child care spaces and moving to ten-dollar-a day child care by 2026. Under the agreement, the federal government will commit $123 million this fiscal year, $143 million for the next fiscal year and $169 million for the 2025-26 fiscal year.

This funding will be essential to developing strategies to meet the needs of all families with young children, but particularly for Indigenous communities and French-speaking communities in my province of Nova Scotia.

Honourable senators, one of the major hurdles provinces and territories are facing when it comes to creating spaces is the labour shortage in the early child care sector. We heard from several witnesses at committee about how difficult it is to find and retain — and the retention part is important — qualified, dedicated and motivated staff.

Jobs in the child care sector have traditionally been filled by women — and they have traditionally been low-paying jobs with few benefits. As such, there has been very little incentive for young people to pursue careers in this industry.

Provinces and territories must find solutions to attract and to retain high-quality staff. In the case of Nova Scotia, this means staffing 9,500 new spaces by 2026. This must include higher wages and better benefits for employees if we are to retain high-quality staff, not just for the immediate future but for the long term.

As Taya Whitehead, Board Chair of the Canadian Child Care Federation, said:

We encourage mechanisms to ensure that child-care funding remains predictable, sustainable and sufficient in each province and territory based on the community needs and objectives of the agreements.

Bill C-35 aims to be the mechanism to ensure predictable, sustainable and sufficient financial support from successive federal governments in the future.

Honourable senators, I support Bill C-35. It is an essential piece of legislation to ensure future funding and support from the federal government beyond the current agreements which end in 2026.

Honourable senators, it is not often that we can have agreements of any kind arranged between the federal government and the provincial and territorial governments. This early childhood agreement has happened because governments at all levels have rightfully recognized that early learning and child care in Canada must be a priority.

I believe this is an opportunity not to be taken lightly. Canadian families need the supports that Bill C-35 will provide to ensure long-term access to inclusive, culturally appropriate and high-quality child care. I will be supporting Bill C-35.

(On motion of Senator Martin, debate adjourned.)

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Gold, P.C., seconded by the Honourable Senator LaBoucane-Benson, for the third reading of Bill C-48, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (bail reform), as amended.

And on the motion in amendment of the Honourable Senator Carignan, P.C., seconded by the Honourable Senator Seidman:

That Bill C-48, as amended, be not now read a third time, but that it be further amended in clause 1 (as amended by the decision of the Senate on October 26, 2023), on page 3, by replacing lines 11 to 13 with the following:

“cused has, within five years of the day on which they were charged for that offence, been previously convicted of or been serving a sentence of imprisonment for another offence in the commission of which vio-”.

Some Hon. Senators: Question.

Some Hon. Senators: Yea.

Some Hon. Senators: Nay.

Hon. Marty Klyne moved second reading of Bill S-15, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Wild Animal and Plant Protection and Regulation of International and lnterprovincial Trade Act.

He said: Honourable senators, today is a great day for animal welfare in Canada. I’m thrilled to rise as sponsor of Bill S-15, new government legislation to protect elephants and great apes in captivity. This bill is one of the strongest animal welfare bills in Parliament’s history.

Thank you to the government — especially Minister of Environment and Climate Change Steven Guilbeault; the Government Representative, Senator Marc Gold; and Parliamentary Secretary Julie Dabrusin — for their efforts to bring this bill forward. I note that the introduction of Bill S-15 fulfills a 2021 government election and mandate letter commitment to introduce legislation to protect wild animals in captivity. That promise to Canadians followed the introduction of the Jane Goodall act on this subject in 2020 by our former colleague, the Honourable Murray Sinclair, Chair of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, together with MP Nathaniel Erskine-Smith, the bill’s House sponsor.

I trust this government bill can build on the Senate’s recent successes to protect animal welfare. These include Canada’s whale and dolphin bill captivity laws, adopted through the leadership of Senators Moore, Sinclair and Harder; Senator MacDonald’s shark fin ban; Senator Boyer’s efforts to prevent animal abuse and dog fighting; Senator Stewart-Olsen’s work to ban animal testing for cosmetics; and Senators Galvez and Dalphond’s amendments to Bill S-5 to phase out animal toxicity testing, which became law in June.

As government legislation, Bill S-15 can move through this chamber and our committees with far greater priority and expediency than our related Bill S-241, the current version of the Jane Goodall act. As you know, I am also the sponsor of that bill, which was debated extensively at second reading over 14 months and stands referred to three Senate committees. Legally, and although drafted differently, Bill S-15 is essentially a piece of Bill S-241 and, as such, has already received this chamber’s strong support in principle.

I will speak more about the relationship between the two bills. For now, let us focus on the animals. For elephants and great apes in captivity, Bill S-15 provides the enhanced legal protection they deserve, according to their scientifically established characteristics and needs. Elephants and great apes are self-aware, highly intelligent, emotional and social. They love their friends and families, mourn their dead and use tools. Great apes can even learn and communicate in American Sign Language, sometimes teaching the skill to each other. In many ways, these remarkable creatures are very much like us.

Yet, in Canada, possession of these creatures does not require a licence or a justifiable purpose. Therefore, as with the Jane Goodall act, Bill S-15 would prohibit new captivity of elephants and great apes, including breeding, unless licenced for individual welfare, conservation or science. Also like Bill S-241, this bill would prohibit the use of these species in performances for entertainment, which have occurred in recent years with elephants in Canada and may be ongoing.

Bill S-15 can and should achieve the world’s first nationally legislated phase-out of elephant captivity. Over 20 captive elephants live in Canada at four locations, with most located at African Lion Safari near Hamilton, Ontario. Zoo de Granby and Edmonton Valley Zoo have already pledged to phase out keeping elephants.

A grandfathered phase-out is recommended by scientists and other independent experts due to elephants’ serious health, behavioural and reproductive problems in captivity. In North American zoos, elephant deaths outpace births at a rate of two to one, meaning their captivity does not have conservation value. Other considerations include the fact that all Canadian zoos with elephants have individuals taken from the wild; the need to keep these huge, wide-ranging creatures indoors for much of the Canadian winter; the ongoing risk of cruel separations of mother-daughter pairs in commercial transactions; the use of bullhooks in Canada, which are implements used to control elephants through pain and fear; and the use of elephants in recent years in Canada for rides and performances for entertainment.

With elephants, Bill S-15 reflects changing social attitudes, which have evolved with our increasing scientific knowledge of these creatures. As Senator Sinclair said in debating the whale bill, we do not stand in judgment of those activities in the past, but we are seeking to establish appropriate policy and laws based on current knowledge going forward.

With respect to great apes, Bill S-15 upholds Canada’s sanctuary, conservation and science programs for chimpanzees, gorillas and orangutans. Great apes face exploitation in captivity in other countries and the risk of extinction in Africa and Asia. Bill S-15 can send a message to the world about the need to safeguard these species, humanity’s closest living relatives, who share up to 98.8% of our DNA. Indeed, Bill S-15 would offer great apes some of the strongest legal protection in the world that could, for example, include conditions of licensing based on evolving scientific information about their well-being — not to mention that the continuation of captive great ape conservation and science programs at high welfare standards is important to Dr. Jane Goodall, world-renowned scientist, conservationist and UN Messenger of Peace, as her team continues to work with local communities to save great apes in the wild.

Approximately 30 great apes live in Canada at four locations, with chimpanzees at Fauna Sanctuary near Montreal, gorillas and orangutans at the Toronto Zoo, and gorillas at the Calgary Zoo and Zoo de Granby. I commend these organizations for their excellent work and commitment to the well-being of the great apes in their care.

As I mentioned, in 2020, our former colleague, the Honourable Murray Sinclair, laid the foundation for Bill S-15. He authored and introduced the original version of the Jane Goodall act, Bill S-218, proposing to protect captive elephants, great apes and potentially other wild species. In speaking to that bill, Senator Sinclair urged us to understand our connection to nature and to respect our fellow creatures. He said:

In many Indigenous cultures, we use the phrase, “all my relations” to express the interdependency and interconnectedness of all life forms and our relationship of mutual reliance and shared destiny. When we treat animals well, we act with both self-respect and mutual respect.

I am grateful for Senator Sinclair’s wisdom and guidance in advancing Bill S-15, as well as the Jane Goodall act. At this time of roadside zoos, mass extinction and climate crisis, I take to heart his view that this bill will advance reconciliation with the natural world, a goal of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission’s report. In sponsoring Bill S-15, I hope both science and Indigenous knowledge will inspire senators and MPs to prioritize this bill for Royal Assent sooner than later and before the next election.

Before getting into the details, thank you to the Canadian animal welfare NGOs whose dedicated work over the years has opened hearts and minds to compassionate legislation like Bill S-15. Thank you to Humane Canada, Animal Justice, World Animal Protection Canada, HSI/Canada and Zoocheck.

In co-developing Bill S-241, which contains the policies in Bill S-15, thank you as well to the Jane Goodall Institute of Canada, the Toronto Zoo, the Wilder Institute/Calgary Zoo and Zoo de Granby.

Many such voices are eager that measures in the Jane Goodall act be considered in conjunction with Bill S-15, such as the ban on big cats at roadside zoos and as pets and the animal care organizations’ framework for excellent zoos, aquariums and sanctuaries. I am confident that our process will afford that opportunity, and I understand the government is open to potential amendments with the benefit of evidence presented on Bill S-241.

Indeed, in my view as sponsor, as we debate Bill S-15 at second reading, the legislation is consistent with considering such amendments at later stages, particularly as both bills amend the same two statutes regarding wildlife captivity.

Colleagues, I will speak to you today about five subjects relating to Bill S-15: first, the bill’s legalities; second, elephant captivity in Canada; third, great ape sanctuary, conservation and science programs in Canada; fourth, potential amendments to Bill S-15; and fifth, the process ahead for this bill and our related but different bill, Bill S-241, the Jane Goodall act.

Legally, Bill S-15 would amend the animal cruelty section of the Criminal Code, as well as the Wild Animal and Plant Protection and Regulation of International and Interprovincial Trade Act, referred to as the WAPPRIITA. This is a wildlife trade statute administered by Environment and Climate Change Canada.

The bill will prohibit new captivity of elephants and great apes, including breeding, unless licensed for individual welfare, conservation or science. Like Canada’s 2019 whale and dolphin laws, Bill S-15 authorizes the federal and provincial governments to potentially license breeding for these purposes, while cross-border transport is exclusively federal.

Whether or not licences should be granted by the environment minister and for what purpose is a question of fact and ethics. Based on the recommendations of independent scientists and other experts, my view is that licences should not be granted for new elephant captivity in Canada.

In considering the merits of a conservation or science program under the bill, such programs should hold the promise of significant contributions to the species’ long-term survival in the wild. Notably, captive breeding has played a role in over half of the cases where extinction has been prevented for birds and mammals.

In addition, Bill S-15 would prohibit the use of affected species in performances for entertainment, which have occurred with elephants in Canada in recent years. No potential licences will be available for such performances. Unlike Bill S-241, Bill S-15 does not explicitly prohibit elephant rides, which have also occurred in recent years. This may be an amendment to consider.

As with Canada’s whale and dolphin laws, the penalty for illegal breeding or performance for entertainment would be a summary conviction and a fine of up to $200,000. Unlike Bill S-241, Bill S-15 does not contain new sentencing measures to provide for the potential relocation, with costs, of wild animals involved in these offences.

Constitutionally, Bill S-15 exercises the federal criminal power over animal cruelty and the federal trade and commerce power over international and interprovincial trade. Federal animal cruelty offences have existed in Canada since 1892, and international trade restrictions are already in place for endangered species on conservation grounds.

As well, provinces have long enacted complementary property and civil rights laws to seize captive animals in distress, as well as patchwork municipal ownership restrictions. Bill S-15 would establish strong, sound and uniform national restrictions for the species at issue.

For senators looking to take a deep dive into the legal aspects of this legislation, I refer you to my written brief to our Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee on Bill S-241 dated September 7 of this year.

An important point is that the legalities of Bill S-15 are the same as those of Canada’s federal whale and dolphin captivity laws — that is, the “Free Willy” bill — studied at our Fisheries and Oceans Committee and adopted by Parliament in 2019. Those amendments to the Criminal Code and the Fisheries Act serve as the legal model for Bill S-15.

The Senate overwhelmingly endorsed the whale and dolphin measures in a standing vote on Bill C-68. That government fisheries bill, sponsored by Senator Christmas, contained the then-Government Representative Senator Harder’s amendments to secure a vote on the whale measures, as well as Senator MacDonald’s shark fin ban. The Senate voted in favour of Bill C-68 with 86 “yeas,” 3 “nays” and 2 abstentions.

In the Senate’s debate on Bill C-68, Senator Harder said:

. . . I hope the amendments in Bill C-68 will stand as an example of the results that can be achieved when the government and the Senate work together to deliver the best possible public policy results for Canadians. . . . I hope it can be a model going forward in a more independent, positive Senate. . . .

I note as well that Canada’s whale and dolphin captivity laws have worked well. Bill S-203, Senator Moore’s and Senator Sinclair’s Ending the Captivity of Whales and Dolphins Act, together with Bill C-68, ended the breeding of beluga whales and the import of wild captured belugas and dolphins to Marineland in Niagara Falls, Ontario. Those laws also resulted in a charge in 2021 for Marineland’s allegedly illegal use of dolphins in a performance for entertainment purposes.

Today, the Vancouver Aquarium no longer holds captive whales and dolphins, and a whale sanctuary currently in development in Nova Scotia provides hope for a better life for some of Marineland’s more than 30 remaining belugas.

Since the passage of Canada’s whale bill in 2019, France has banned whale and dolphin captivity, as has the Australian state of New South Wales. The United States Congress is considering similar legislation with the “SWIMS Act.”

With Bill S-15 building on the whale bill’s success, the time has come to protect additional wild species in captivity, starting with elephants and great apes and considering other priorities like big cats.

Colleagues, I focus now on the need to phase out elephant captivity in Canada. As Senator Sinclair told us in 2020, Asian and African elephants are the largest land animals in existence. Elephants are intelligent and highly emotional, with excellent memories and a strong sense of empathy. They experience the world primarily through smell and hearing. In fact, their sense of smell is five times stronger than a bloodhound’s.

Elephants use low-frequency sounds to communicate over several kilometres, with pitches inaudible to humans. They can hear storms hundreds of kilometres away and change their routes days in advance to intercept rain. They have home ranges of between 400 and 10,000 square kilometres.

Socially, elephants are matriarchal, living in herds of adult females with adolescents and young. Older females keep the knowledge that allows the herd to survive. During drought, the herd will follow a matriarch for days to a drinking hole no one else knows about, trusting her.

Elephants are also altruistic. They try to revive sick or dying individuals, including strangers, lifting them with their tusks to get them on their feet. Elephants mourn their dead, standing vigil over dead matriarchs.

Honourable colleagues, 23 captive elephants live in Canada. African Lion Safari near Hamilton holds 17 Asian elephants, the largest group in North America, with at least two born in the wild. The Edmonton Valley Zoo is home to a lone Asian elephant named Lucy, born in the wild. In Quebec, Parc Safari has two African elephants, both born in the wild. Zoo de Granby has three African elephants, of which two were born in the wild. Obviously, removing elephants from Africa and Asia for display in North American zoos is counter to elephant conservation.

At the expense of being repetitive, the Edmonton Valley Zoo and Zoo de Granby have committed to phasing out elephants. In 2011, Toronto City Council voted to send the Toronto Zoo’s three remaining African elephants to a sanctuary in California, a journey paid for by Bob Barker.

In 2014, three Asian elephants in Calgary were relocated to a warmer climate in the United States. Between the early 1990s and 2012, over 22 U.S. zoos shut down their elephant exhibits or announced phase-outs.

In urging an elephant phase-out in Canada with Bill S-15, I rely on two letters from 23 independent scientists and other experts in support of this policy. The letters are signed by global leaders in their field, such as Dr. Joyce Poole. They write:

Scientific and experiential evidence indicates that the use of elephants as performers, riding objects, and exhibit specimens can be physically and psychologically detrimental to these highly intelligent, sensitive, and self-aware animals. Confinement, restraint, travel, harmful training practices, exhibition, isolation, noise, performing, and exposure to the public while living in unnatural environments can adversely affect elephants’ health and welfare.

Elephants are not suited to any form of captivity, as no captive facility can fulfil the basic biological, social, spatial, cognitive and intrinsic requirements of elephants. The keeping of elephants in captivity in Canada should be brought to an end, with every effort made to ensure those elephants that remain in captivity are provided with the best possible conditions to meet their welfare requirements and ensure their well-being for the remainder of their lives.

Senators, both of these expert letters are available on the websites of the three committees studying Bill S-241. The second letter responds to arguments made against Bill S-241 by the International Elephant Foundation. This is an organization whose board is largely comprised of zoo executives, including from African Lion Safari. The second expert letter responds to arguments made against the bill by the Elephant Managers Association, also with a board composed of zoo staff.

In the second response letter we received from independent experts, I highlight four of their conclusions.

First, there is not a single case of captive elephants boosting conservation or wild populations through the import of wild elephants required to sustain North American zoos.

Second, elephants kept in Canada must spend most of their time indoors in the winter to avoid frostbite and hypothermia.

Third, reproductive and other research at African Lion Safari has not had conservation value for wild elephants.

And fourth, captivity has been shown to cause brain damage on elephants.

I trust we will hear from these experts in a committee process.

A 2019 New York Times article is also eye opening. It states:

[A] 2012 Seattle Times investigation found that 390 elephants had died in accredited zoos in the previous 50 years, a majority of them from captivity-related injuries and diseases.

Still, the biggest threat by far has proved to be the preternaturally low birthrate of captive elephants. . . . One of the more disturbing manifestations of zoo-elephant psychosis is the high incidence of stillbirths and reproductive disorders among pregnant mothers. Even when births are successful, there are often instances not only of infant mortality but also of calf rejection and infanticide, something almost never witnessed in thousands of studies of wild elephant herds . . . . [I]n essence, the trend has been that for every new birth in captivity, two elephants have died.

I also note on the record some problematic recent events at African Lion Safari. Like many others, I found it disturbing that in 2021, African Lion Safari offered elephants for sale to a Texas zoo. That transaction — later cancelled — would have broken up two mother-daughter pairs who normally stay together for life. Elephants named Emily and Nellie were offered for $2 million with a $200,000 bonus if Emily had a calf that lived over 60 days. We can imagine the distress caused by those cruel separations.

In addition, in 2019, an elephant attack left a trainer with serious injuries following elephant rides. CBC reported on the incident:

Born in Burma, the Asian elephant was ridden for 25 years by visitors to African Lion Safari . . . .

But on June 21, 2019, Maggie lunged at her handler as the last rider was dismounting. . . .

Despite everything we know in recent years, elephant performances for entertainment have occurred. You can watch YouTube videos of elephants in a stadium dunking basketballs, painting, standing on their hind legs, kneeling, doing funny walks, shaking their heads and other circus-style tricks.

In addition, some elephant trainers use bullhooks to control their elephants. A bullhook is a sharp baton that gains compliance through pain and fear. The Association of Zoos & Aquariums, or AZA, announced a phase-out of bullhooks in 2019.

Around the world, we have seen developments to limit elephant captivity. In 2019, the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, or CITES, which is the international regulator of trade in wildlife, banned sending wild African elephants to zoos. The next year, in Pakistan, Justice Athar Minallah held that animals have constitutional rights and protections under the Quran. He ordered a lone zoo elephant moved to a sanctuary after being held in chains for 35 years. Last year, the lone elephant at the Bronx Zoo, Happy, lost a case for her relocation before the State of New York Court of Appeals, 5-2. Still, she made it that far.

Senators, this progress for our fellow creatures reminds me of the words of Martin Luther King Jr.:

The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends towards justice.

With Bill S-15, Canada can lead the way for elephants with the first legislated phase-out of their captivity in the world. Like Senator Sinclair, I believe sanctuary options in warmer climates should be considered for Canada’s remaining elephants. When it comes to elephant captivity, senators, we must follow the science; the truth will set them free.

I turn now to great apes.

First, chimpanzees, our closest living relatives, native to the forests and savannahs of tropical Africa. Chimps form lifelong family bonds and friendships. They feel happiness, sadness, fear, despair and grief. They may greet each other by kissing, and young apes laugh when tickled.

In 1960, Dr. Jane Goodall was the first person to observe chimps making and using tools. This prompted the anthropologist Louis Leakey’s famous telegram:

Now we must redefine tool, redefine man, or accept chimpanzees as human.

As Senator Sinclair told us, chimpanzees live within complex societies, forming political alliances to achieve their goals. Male chimps even fawn over infants when vying for power. Like humans, chimps can be violent, but they also take care of elderly relatives and grieve their dead.

However, humans have treated our closest relatives atrociously. Since 1900, humans have reduced chimpanzee numbers by between 70% and 80%, with numbers still plummeting. In captivity, chimpanzees have been exhibited at roadside zoos and circuses, owned as pets, exploited in TV and films, sent to outer space and used in military and biomedical research. Experiments on chimps have involved food deprivation, electric shock, surgery and exposure to radiation, chemical weapons and diseases.

In Canada, six chimpanzees live at Fauna Sanctuary near Montreal, with 17 others having passed away over the years, in the relative peace and comfort of the sanctuary after lives of devastating trauma.

The heroes behind Fauna, led by founder Gloria Grow, rescued these chimps from laboratory research, the entertainment industry and unsuitable zoos. The best-selling book The Chimps of Fauna Sanctuary, by Andrew Westoll, tells their story. Consider this passage about the death of their beloved chimp Tom, who was captured from Africa before being sold into laboratory research. Despite what Tom endured, he went on to mentor young males and help Fauna’s most damaged chimpanzees to recover. He is remembered as a loving and wise leader. After his death, it was said:

. . . a small measure of solace might be found in the simple lesson that the chimps of Fauna sanctuary have been teaching Gloria for more than a decade now: that no matter what kind of trauma we’ve been through, we all have the capacity to recover and to help others heal.

Senators, Bill S-15 will allow Fauna to continue their inspiring work with licences available for the best interests of chimpanzees in need.

I turn now to the gorilla and orangutan conservation and science programs at the Toronto, Calgary and Granby zoos.

Gorillas are the largest primate inhabiting central Africa. They live in family groups led by a silverback. In the wild, gorillas are critically endangered with three subspecies having lost between 70% and 80% of their population in the last 25 years.

Orangutans inhabit the Asian islands of Borneo and Sumatra. Covered in shaggy red fur, they are relatively solitary. However, the relationship between a mother orangutan and her offspring is extremely close, a maternal bond thought to be the most intense of any in nature with the possible exception of humanity.

Orangutans are also critically endangered: 80% of their habitat has been wiped out, and the Sumatran population numbers less than 14% of mid-20th century numbers.

The Toronto, Calgary and Granby zoos are part of the AZA’s Species Survival Plan for gorillas, with a new birth in Calgary this year. As well, the Toronto Zoo is part of such a plan for Sumatran orangutans with a new birth last year and 13 orangutans raised since 1974. Operating at the highest standards, these programs aim to manage healthy, genetically diverse and demographically stable populations for the long-term future as a fallback for conservation efforts in the wild to safeguard the existence of the species.

In addition, since 2011, the Toronto Zoo has participated in 60 gorilla and orangutan studies with universities, including York University, the University of Toronto and Laurentian University. Calgary Zoo veterinarians have presented their findings on gorilla medical conditions at veterinary conferences. Last year, the Calgary Zoo announced a partnership with two West African conservation organizations, supporting graduate research projects in Nigeria to help save Cross River gorillas with only 300 remaining.

Dr. Jane Goodall supports the continuation of the Toronto, Calgary and Granby Zoos’ interrelated AZA great ape conservation and science programs, as does Bill S-15.

Excellent zoos are helping to save endangered species in Canada and around the world, including great apes, and in doing so, they have my full support.

Senators, I turn now to potential amendments to Bill S-15. I understand the government is open to some changes with the benefit of evidence presented on this bill and Bill S-241. It is fortunate that we will be able to study both bills in tandem and that we have the first kick at the can with an “S” bill starting in the Senate. I guess that’s a great thing.

With Bill S-15, our task is not sober second thought; it’s enthusiastic first thought. As sponsor, I commend the government on their strong record of considering and accepting Senate amendments, including those to the “save the whale” bill, to pass the shark fin ban and to phase out animal toxicity testing.

Bill S-15 is a milestone to celebrate as a government-initiated animal welfare bill that can achieve the world’s first elephant captivity phase-out. However, we may consider an amendment or two to make permanent the elephant ivory and rhino horn regulations announced by Minister Guilbeault this week.

Congratulations to the minister on that achievement to severely restrict trades in elephant ivory, rhino horn and hunting trophies of those species with narrow exceptions as antiques.

Other topics to consider for an amendment in conjunction with Bill S-15 may include banning elephant rides; authorizing judicial relocation of captive wild animals involved in illegal breeding or performance at sentencings for these offences with costs; banning big cats at roadside zoos and as pets; exploring the animal care organization framework in Bill S-241 for excellent zoos meeting the highest standards; and providing a mechanism to extend legal protections to additional captive wild species by cabinet decision.

At the same time, we need to be mindful that for wildlife captivity legislation in this Parliament, the hour grows late. We must move quickly with two words on our mind: Royal Assent. Fortunately, with the government procedural features of Bill S-15, the beacons of hope are lit.

Colleagues, I turn to my final subject: the process ahead for Bill S-15 and our related but distinct Bill S-241, the Jane Goodall act. As you know, neither the whale captivity bill nor the Jane Goodall act have advanced quickly or easily through Parliament.

When the “Free Willy” bill received Royal Assent in 2019, that event concluded the longest process to pass a bill in Canada’s parliamentary history. The bill’s three-and-a-half-year journey included 34 months of debate and study in the Senate, compared to 8 months in the House of Commons. The Senate process involved a hoist amendment proposing to kill the bill at second reading, 16 committee hearings, six months of report-stage debate — compared to the normal period of several days or weeks — and a filibuster at third reading.

In this Parliament, Bill S-241, the Jane Goodall act, has been the most-debated bill at second reading with 17 speeches and well over five hours of debate prior to our second reading vote in June. Most of those speeches were in strong support of the bill, and I am grateful to the senators who spoke for our fellow creatures. However, the critic entered our debate to oppose the bill after 14 months on the condition the bill would be referred to multiple committees. Thus Bill S-241 became the first non-government bill in Parliament’s history to be referred to more than one committee — and not two committees but three: the Environment, Legal and Agriculture Committees.

On this point and as a strong supporter of the agricultural sector, I would emphasize that neither Bill S-15 nor Bill S-241 contemplate nor make proposals regarding agriculture. These bills do not contemplate game farms but pertain to captive wildlife only.

However, I welcome all three committees’ studies and have provided written briefs to each. Unfortunately, the Environment Committee’s first two meetings to study Bill S-241 have been cancelled due to the Senate sitting. Still, I know our chair, Senator Galvez, is eager to be under way.

In Bill S-15, government procedural features may finally ensure the wildlife captivity legislation receives a fair, timely and transparent hearing in a path to Royal Assent in this Parliament.

For my part, procedural dynamics with Bill S-241 are water under the bridge. However, I urge this chamber not to tolerate similar dynamics going forward with Bill S-15. We have lost valuable time, and it is imperative that committee hearings begin at the soonest opportunity. I urge senators who wish to speak to this bill to please do so on an expedited basis. Then let’s see how far the holiday spirit can carry this bill before we break.

I trust everyone in this chamber wants to do the right thing for the magnificent creatures with whom we share this earth. I believe that if we follow science and Indigenous knowledge, we can achieve this goal together in Canada, our great nation of nations.

I conclude with a quote from my inspiration on this bill, the Honourable Murray Sinclair:

. . . I want to remind you that we are all connected — not just you and me, but all life forms of creation. This understanding imposes responsibilities. . . .

Senators, we live in a time of great challenge, with the natural world in peril. However, we also live in a time of great hope, with social values increasingly reflecting a moral and spiritual awakening. We can yet save this beautiful planet, along with Indigenous cultures and knowledge and the sacred and innocent animals who deserve our compassion.

Senators, I ask for your help in taking a small step towards fulfilling this vision with Bill S-15. Thank you, hiy kitatamihin.

(On motion of Senator Martin, debate adjourned.)

[Translation]

Some Hon. Senators: Hear, hear.

Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.

An Hon. Senator: No.

The Hon. the Acting Speaker: Are you asking for five more minutes?