The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Are honourable senators ready for the question?

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?

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. Senators: Question.

An Hon. Senator: On division.

(Motion agreed to and bill read second time, on division.)

Some Hon. Senators: Hear, hear.

Hon. Michael L. MacDonald: Honourable senators, I rise today to speak as the critic for Bill S-243, An Act to enact the Climate-Aligned Finance Act and to make related amendments to other Acts.

Bill S-243 is an ambitious piece of legislation for a Senate public bill. I will not spend a lot of time summarizing Bill S-243 because its author and sponsor, Senator Galvez, has already done that, and there are substantive materials on her website that provide a brief overview of the bill.

For the record, however, and to refresh your memory, I do need to mention a few things.

First, Bill S-243 sets out to achieve two broad objectives. One objective is to align the activities of federal financial institutions and other federally regulated entities with the superseding economic and public-interest matter of achieving climate commitments. Second, the bill aims to make timely and meaningful progress towards safeguarding the stability of both the financial and climate systems.

In other words, this bill attempts to protect our financial institutions from risks posed by climate change and to protect our climate from risks posed by our financial institutions.

I would note that these are not imaginary risks. The March 2023 Climate Risk Management report by the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions breaks this down into two categories: physical risks and transition risks.

Physical risks can be understood as the risks posed by severe climate-related events such as floods, storms and wildfires. These events can cause physical damage to infrastructure and properties, including those owned by financial institutions. The costs of repairing or replacing damaged assets can be substantial and could impact the financial stability of these institutions.

Transition risks arise from the process of transitioning to a low-carbon economy. As governments and regulators implement policies and regulations to mitigate climate change, industries that rely heavily on carbon-intensive activities, such as fossil fuels, may face significant challenges. This can lead to stranded assets, devalued investments and increased credit risks for financial institutions that have exposure to these industries.

In addition to physical risks and transition risks, we could add liability, reputational and market risks.

Liability risks are those faced by financial institutions due to climate change-related events. For example, if a company’s operations contribute to greenhouse gas, or GHG, emissions or environmental degradation, they may face lawsuits or regulatory penalties. Financial institutions that have invested in or provided financing to such companies could be held liable for their actions.

Reputational risks are largely public relations concerns but should not be misunderstood as insignificant. One only needs to recall the rapid slide into insolvency that was experienced by a number of U.S. banks after the public lost confidence in the viability of their balance sheets. Although climate-related reputational risk is not likely to manifest itself on this scale, it underscores the reality that public confidence in our banking institutions must be maintained. Customers, investors and other stakeholders are increasingly demanding that financial institutions align their activities with sustainable practices, and failure to do so could lead to reputational damage and potential loss of business.

Market risks are changes in consumer preferences and regulations which, in turn, lead to shifts in market demand for certain products and services. Financial institutions that are not prepared to adapt to these changes could experience decreased demand for their offerings or lose out on investment opportunities in emerging sustainable sectors.

However, these are just the risks that our financial institutions face from climate change. There are also risks that the climate faces from our financial institutions, which are also very real.

For example, as noted by Senator Galvez and other speakers, financial institutions play a crucial role in providing funding and capital to industries that contribute to GHG emissions, such as the continuation and expansion of fossil fuel projects, new oil and gas exploration and high-emission transportation. If left unchecked, these investments could prolong the reliance on carbon-intensive energy sources, further exacerbating climate change.

Inversely, if our financial institutions demonstrate a lack of support for the low-carbon transition, this will result in a diversion of capital away from low-carbon or renewable energy projects. Insufficient investment in clean technologies and sustainable infrastructure would hinder the transition to a low‑carbon economy, slowing down efforts to mitigate climate change.

Colleagues, there are more risks we could talk about, but suffice it to say that the risks are real. If our federally regulated financial institutions choose to ignore them, they do so at their peril and at ours.

It is these risks which Bill S-243 attempts to address by implementing the following seven measures.

First, the legislation establishes a duty for directors, officers and administrators to align their entities with climate commitments set out in the bill. The idea is that financial institutions should be working towards the achievement of these commitments, not against them.

Second, the Climate-Aligned Finance Act, or CAFA, establishes a requirement for various federal adjacent organizations such as the Bank of Canada, the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions, or OSFI, Export Development Canada and others to align with climate commitments.

Third, federally regulated organizations must develop action plans, targets and progress reports on meeting climate commitments.

Fourth, certain boards of directors will have to have a director with climate expertise and they will need to avoid conflicts of interest.

Fifth, the bill would establish capital adequacy requirements to ensure financial institutions can withstand potential climate change shocks or vulnerabilities.

Sixth, the bill requires that the government develop an action plan to align financial products with climate commitments. This is one of those measures that cannot be addressed in a Senate public bill, so Senator Galvez has done what we see other senators do, which is essentially calling for the government to create a framework to see it happen. This skirts the problem of introducing a Senate bill which imposes spending obligations on the government.

Finally, Bill S-243 mandates timely public review processes on implementation progress to ensure we are learning as we go and can build on our successes.

By now you should understand why I said at the beginning that this was an ambitious piece of legislation for a Senate public bill.

The problem, senators, is that, in my view, it is too ambitious. I do not quarrel with the objectives of ensuring that our financial institutions are protected from risks posed by climate change and that our climate is protected from risks posed by our financial institutions. But I do believe this is the wrong way to proceed to do that.

There are numerous reasons why I believe this, but allow me to briefly share two of them with you.

Number one: The Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions and the Bank of Canada are already working on this.

On January 14, 2022, the Bank of Canada and OSFI released a completed climate scenario analysis pilot in collaboration with six Canadian federally regulated financial institutions. This analysis was the culmination of a pilot project which had launched in November 2020 in order to: (i) build the capabilities of authorities and participating financial institutions to perform climate transition scenario analysis; (ii) support the Canadian financial sector in improving its assessment and disclosure of climate-related risks; and (iii) contribute to the understanding of the potential exposure of the financial sector to climate transition risk.

Later, in January 2021, OSFI released a discussion paper entitled, “Navigating Uncertainty in Climate Change: Promoting Preparedness and Resilience to Climate-Related Risks.” The purpose of this discussion paper was to engage federally regulated financial institutions and federally regulated pension plans in a dialogue on the risks resulting from climate change that could affect the safety and soundness of these institutions. The objective was to begin to define, identify, measure and build resilience to climate-related risks.

Following the release of the January 2022 climate scenario analysis, OSFI then launched a public consultation on draft guidelines for climate risk management in May of 2022. Those consultations led to the release of the finalized Guideline on Climate Risk Management in March of this year.

This guideline sets out OSFI’s expectations for the management of climate-related risks by federally regulated financial institutions and followed one of the most extensive consultations in OSFI’s history where over 4,300 submissions from a wide range of respondents were received.

The guideline implements three expected outcomes for federally regulated financial institutions to achieve: they must understand and mitigate against potential impacts of climate-related risks to its business model and strategy; they must have appropriate governance and risk management practices to manage identified climate-related risks; and they must remain financially resilient through severe, yet plausible, climate risk scenarios, and operationally resilient through disruption due to climate-related disasters.

The burden to achieve these goals is placed on the financial institutions, and will be assessed through minimum mandatory disclosure requirements with specific deadlines.

The impact of this guideline effectively addresses the second objective of this bill, which was to make timely and meaningful progress towards protecting our financial institutions from risks posed by climate change. Although Senator Galvez’s response to the guideline was to point out a number of deficiencies, I note that OSFI itself sees this as one step in the right direction and intends to review and amend the guideline as practices and standards evolve.

Furthermore, on the question of climate scenario analysis and stress testing, along with capital and liquidity adequacy, OSFI has noted it is likely to develop their guidance on these issues further in a future iteration of the guideline.

I do understand, however, that while this work by OSFI addresses the risks that climate change poses to our financial institutions, it does not address the need to protect our climate from risks posed by our financial institutions.

That brings me to my second point that this, too, is already being addressed.

In April 2021, 43 founding members established the Net-Zero Banking Alliance, which has since grown to represent over 40% of global banking assets totalling more than $74 trillion U.S. dollars. The number of Canadian institutions which have joined this alliance has grown to eight and includes Vancity, Coast Capital, Bank of Montreal, Bank of Nova Scotia, Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, National Bank of Canada, Royal Bank of Canada and the Toronto-Dominion Bank.

The alliance was convened by the United Nations Environment Programme Finance Initiative and represents a group of banks committed to aligning their lending and investment portfolios with net-zero emissions by 2050.

In order to join, each bank’s chief executive officer must sign a commitment statement that describes the target setting and reporting process said to be the primary catalyst for achieving the net-zero transition. All signatories must commit to transitioning the operational and attributable greenhouse gas emissions from their lending and investment portfolios to align with pathways to net zero by 2050 or sooner; to, within 18 months of joining, setting 2030 targets — or sooner — and a 2050 target, with intermediary targets to be set every five years from 2030 onwards; to focusing the banks’ first 2030 targets on priority sectors where the bank can have the most significant impact, with further sector targets to be set within 36 months; to publishing absolute emissions and emissions intensity annually in line with best practice, and within a year of setting targets disclose progress against a board-level, reviewed transition strategy setting out proposed actions and climate-related sectoral policies; and to taking a robust approach to the role of offsets in transition plans.

Colleagues, considering that the alliance represents over 40% of global banking assets, this is not to be dismissed lightly. It is a tremendous commitment that, frankly, is not likely to be achieved as quickly or as efficiently through the heavy-handed legislative process modelled by Bill S-243.

As noted in the January 2023 edition of The Sustainable Finance Law Review:

In Canada, sustainable finance has developed within the voluntary frameworks and best practices developed through the International Capital Market Association’s (ICMA) Green Bond Principles, Sustainability-Linked Bond Principles, Social Bond Principles and the Climate Transition Finance Handbook. There is broad market acceptance of the various sustainable finance instruments contemplated within these frameworks.

It continues:

Growing market understanding of the importance of environmental, social and governance . . . considerations to stakeholders has led more companies to adopt voluntary sustainability disclosure frameworks such as the Task Force On Climate-Related Disclosures . . . but also others, as part of their regular disclosure, which, in turn, has facilitated the utilisation of sustainable financing instruments. More and more companies are adopting net-zero emissions targets in line with Canada’s national commitments, including Canada’s largest banks.

Colleagues, I propose to you that what Bill S-243 wants to do is already taking place through both regulatory and voluntary means.

I would further suggest that if legislation of this magnitude were ever needed, it is imperative that it be a government bill, not a Senate public bill. This legislation would not only implement the climate-aligned finance act, but it would also amend the Bank of Canada Act, the Financial Administration Act, the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions Act, the Public Sector Pension Investment Board Act, the Business Development Bank of Canada Act, the Canada Infrastructure Bank Act, the Canadian Net-Zero Emissions Accountability Act and the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board Act.

In my view, this is a significant overreach for a Senate public bill. To attempt to impose sweeping changes on our federally regulated financial institutions through private members’ business is far from an appropriate use of Senate public bills.

However, to quote Senator Harder from his article Complementarity: The Constitutional Role of the Senate of Canada, this does not mean the bill has no purpose, for I believe it is to be primarily an exercise of exerting:

 . . . influence in the policy process through a wide range of “soft power” tools (such as public policy studies and Senate public bills).

Senator Harder went on to note:

. . . the Senate works wonders when it uses its power not to coerce but to persuade, whether through a first round of amendments to legislation received from the House of Commons, leveraging the visibility of Parliament to alert public opinion, initiating Senate Public bills, or through the publication of prescient committee reports addressing public policy.

The exercise of soft power through initiating Senate public bills is an appropriate role for this legislation, so in my view Bill S-243 has served its purpose.

In Senator Galvez’s speech on this bill, she noted that financial institutions must help finance the transition to sustainable emissions targets and that the vulnerability of the financial sector to climate change catastrophes must be addressed. As I have outlined, this process is already well under way and that continuing further with Bill S-243 would potentially delay and perhaps even hurt rather than help the ongoing process.

In light of the already-established initiatives I have outlined, and in spite of this bill’s good intentions, I don’t believe we should support it at second reading, and I don’t recommend that we send it to committee for further study. The concerns raised in this bill, albeit legitimate, appear to be already addressed and well in hand. Thank you, honourable senators.

Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.

Hon. Yonah Martin (Deputy Leader of the Opposition): Honourable senators, I rise to speak to Bill S-251, An Act to repeal section 43 of the Criminal Code (Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada’s call to action number 6).

I want to begin my speech by recalling the words of Senator Kutcher when he spoke to this bill last October. He said, “I think every member of this chamber wishes that all violence against children would stop.”

I couldn’t agree more. But of course, wishing it and achieving it are two different things. In the specific case of parents, I can’t imagine any sane or responsible parent who would wish to inflict physical violence on their child. Legislation or no legislation, it almost goes against nature. My sense is that those who have done so, maybe in a fit of pique or exhaustion, did not do so at least without feeling some huge measure of remorse. And as for those who don’t, I don’t think the repeal of section 43 is going to stop them.

I understand the appeal of this legislation, honourable senators, but I think for the most part, when it comes to parents, few need a bill or a section of the Criminal Code to stop them from beating or even laying a hand on their child. We have come a long way from the very long-ago days when it was common to hear the phrase “spare the rod, spoil the child.”

All children in Canada are protected from all forms of violence through the Criminal Code, which contains general criminal offences to protect all persons from violence, and several offences that specifically protect children — for example, the failure to provide the necessaries of life, child abandonment and several child-specific sexual offences.

In addition to protections under the Criminal Code, every province and territory has laws to protect children from family violence and abuse. These laws allow the state to act where a child is in need of protection from physical, emotional and psychological harm or neglect. Many provinces and territories also have laws and policies that prohibit the use of physical punishment of children in foster homes, child care settings such as daycares, as well as in schools.

In B.C., section 38 of the Teachers Act states that a teacher is prohibited from engaging in:

(a) physical harm to a student;

(b) sexual abuse or sexual exploitation of a student;

(c) significant emotional harm to a student.

This bill, and section 43, which it seeks to repeal, goes beyond simply parents to include teachers or anyone else standing in the place of a parent. Specifically, section 43 of the Criminal Code states:

Every schoolteacher, parent or person standing in the place of a parent is justified in using force by way of correction toward a pupil or child, as the case may be, who is under his care, if the force does not exceed what is reasonable under the circumstances.

This bill, as Senator Kutcher and others have noted, is the latest rendition in a succession of bills attempting to address the issue of corporal punishment. Senator Kutcher mentioned that former Senator Hervieux-Payette introduced the bill eight times before former Senator Sinclair took over the responsibility. I believe that Senator Kutcher mentioned other efforts going back to 1989.

I think the length of time that has elapsed between when the effort first began to the current bill we are dealing with today is a significant indication that this is not necessarily a straightforward issue. It is worth noting that as recently as 2004, the Supreme Court of Canada, in the case of Canadian Foundation for Children, Youth and the Law v. Canada (Attorney General), upheld section 43, saying the provision does not violate the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. As six of nine justices concluded, it does not, infringe a child’s rights to security of the person or their right to equality. Nor does it constitute cruel and unusual treatment or punishment.

In its conclusion, the court provided the following guidelines:

One, parents or caregivers can only use corrective force or physical punishment that is minor or “transitory and trifling” in nature. For example, spanking or slapping the child hard enough that it leaves a mark or a bruise would not be considered transitory and trifling and would not be reasonable.

Two, teachers cannot use force for physical punishment under any circumstances. Teachers may be permitted to use reasonable force toward a child in appropriate circumstances, such as to remove a child from a classroom.

Three, physical punishment cannot be used on children younger than 2 years old or older than 12 years old.

Four, physical punishment cannot be used on a child in anger or in retaliation for something a child did.

Five, objects, such as belts or rulers, must never be used on a child, and a child must never be hit or slapped on the face or head.

Six, any use of force on a child cannot be degrading, inhumane or result in harm or the prospect of harm.

Seven, physical punishment cannot be used on a child who is incapable of learning from the situation because of a disability or some other factor.

Eight, the seriousness of the child’s misbehaviour is not relevant to deciding whether the force used was reasonable. The force used must be minor, no matter what the child did.

The court ruled — the majority of the court, I should say — that the use of force must be sober and reasoned, address actual behaviour and be intended to restrain, control or express symbolic disapproval. It also must not be intended to harm or degrade the child.

I don’t think anything is served by couching this decision in inflammatory language, language such as, “While it is no longer legal to assault wives or employees — as the 1892 law allowed — it is still permissible in our Criminal Code to assault children.”

Let me be clear: Parents who go beyond the bounds outlined by the Supreme Court of Canada, those who abuse their children, deserve to be punished.

Raising children is a challenging endeavour filled with trial and error. Parents want what is best for their children. They want them to behave and be productive members of society, to understand the rules and nuances of getting along with others. Parenting is simply the act and attitude of unconditional love. Under those conditions, using corrective force that is minor in nature is a tool some parents will employ. I would suggest that all parents at one time or another consider spanking their children. Most don’t, but punishing those parents who do and sending them to jail for this will do irreparably more harm to the family.

As I mentioned earlier, section 43 also goes beyond parents to teachers as well, and the court ruled on that also. While it ruled out corporal punishment as permissible in schools, it said teachers may use force to remove children from classrooms or to secure compliance with instructions.

Honourable senators, the unfortunate fact of our society today is that you are more likely to see students assaulting teachers than the other way around. Don’t get me wrong; neither is something that you want to see or something that should be allowed in schools, but the problem of violence in schools today is a general one, and in many ways, in certain influential and vocal segments of our society, the response to it is the complete reverse of what you might expect.

Police, for instance — the usual ones you would call in response to a violent attack — are now considered to be the perpetrators of violence, sometimes by their mere presence. I’m thinking of an incident recently in an Ottawa school where a child, on Bring Your Parent to School Day, was not allowed to bring his father wearing a police uniform. Police, in general, are often not welcome in the schools nor by school boards.

Honourable senators, as I said, we are dealing with a very complex issue. It is reflective of that, that the court was split in 2004. Justice Ian Binnie argued in his dissenting opinion that the section 43 defence should not be available to teachers. Justice Louise Arbour, in her opinion, argued that section 43 was “unconstitutionally vague,” a violation of children’s security and “not in accordance with the . . . principle of fundamental justice.”

Justice Marie Deschamps argued that section 43 violates section 15 of the Charter because it:

 . . . encourages a view of children as less worthy of protection and respect for their bodily integrity based on outdated notions of their inferior personhood.

It was her view that a law that permits more than only very minor applications of force unjustifiably impairs the rights of children.

Honourable senators, while the majority ruled on the court, as it is intended in our democracy, it would be an oversight in our debates here not to recognize that there were very different and strongly argued opinions as well.

We have that here in the Senate, which we saw in the exchange between Senator Kutcher and Senator Plett. As you will have guessed from my earlier remarks, while I respect the views of Senator Kutcher and all those who have spoken to this bill since — mostly in favour — I have concerns about the bill for reasons I have articulated.

Nonetheless, I support this bill being referred to committee for further study and further debate.

Thank you.

(On motion of Senator Plett, debate adjourned.)

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Martin, seconded by the Honourable Senator Marshall, for the second reading of Bill C-241, An Act to amend the Income Tax Act (deduction of travel expenses for tradespersons).

Hon. Tony Dean: Honourable colleagues, I rise today to lend my support to Bill S-1001, An Act to amalgamate The Roman Catholic Episcopal Corporation of Ottawa and The Roman Catholic Episcopal Corporation for the Diocese of Alexandria-Cornwall, in Ontario, Canada.

This Senate private member’s bill was introduced in the Senate by our colleague Senator Clement on April 19 of this year. This was preceded by the necessary first step of the tabling of a petition in the Senate, which was undertaken by Senator Clement on April 18 of this year.

As Senator Clement has pointed out, private bills were historically used to grant divorces, but they can also amend existing acts of incorporation, which is the case here. Senator Clement launched second reading on May 3, 2023, so we’ve had over a month now to examine this and think about it.

Colleagues, this culminating proposal follows years of discussion between the Archdiocese of Ottawa and the Diocese of Cornwall, which recognized shifting and declining enrolment and the benefits of the administrative and financial efficiencies which would accrue from amalgamation. This is, of course, not unlike the process of municipal amalgamations, with which we are, perhaps, more familiar.

Prior to this, in 2020, Pope Francis announced via papal bull the canonical amalgamation of the Diocese of Alexandria-Cornwall and the Archdiocese of Ottawa, thereby creating the Archdiocese of Ottawa-Cornwall.

Colleagues, I know many of you will be wondering about the concept of a papal bull, so I’m going to grab this one by the horns and explain that a papal bull is a type of public decree, letters patent or charter issued by a pope of the Catholic Church. It is named after the leaden seal, the bulla, that was traditionally appended to the end in order to authenticate a document. Papal bulls have been in use at least since the sixth century.

Turning back to the present, colleagues, at this stage a private bill introduced in the Senate is necessary to complete the civil amalgamation. Our colleague Senator Clement has taken this on.

This bill will give legal effect to the merger of the Roman Catholic Episcopal Corporation of Ottawa and the Roman Catholic Episcopal Corporation for the Diocese of Alexandria-Cornwall. The property, liabilities and any claims of the amalgamating diocese will be the responsibility of the newly amalgamated corporation.

Here are two brief examples out of several: The property of each of the amalgamating corporations becomes the property of the corporation; the corporation becomes liable for the obligations of each of the amalgamating corporations; and any cause of action or claim against or liability of either of the amalgamating corporations that exists immediately prior to the coming into force of this act becomes a cause of action or claim against or liability of the corporation; and so on.

I know you will all want to look at the text of what is a very short bill.

As you will have gathered, colleagues, this is a relatively straightforward proposition, and Senator Clement has done her homework, including prior to joining us here in the Senate, participating in community consultations at the outset of this process several years ago. The bill has been developed with advice from our senior legal advisers in the Senate, and it is ready to move forward.

Our colleague Senator Martin is the critic, and I have no doubt that she will be a friendly one.

Colleagues, thank you. This is a straightforward bill that can be dispatched without delay. Thank you for your attention.

(On motion of Senator Martin, debate adjourned.)

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the inquiry of the Honourable Senator Plett, calling the attention of the Senate to the impact on Canada’s public finances of the NDP-Liberal agreement entitled Delivering for Canadians Now, A Supply and Confidence Agreement.

Hon Senators: Agreed.

(Notice of motion withdrawn.)

(At 5:56 p.m., the Senate was continued until Tuesday, June 13, 2023, at 2 p.m.)

Hon. Salma Ataullahjan, pursuant to notice of June 6, 2023, moved:

That the Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights be permitted, notwithstanding usual practices, to deposit with the Clerk of the Senate, no later than September 30, 2023, interim reports on issues relating to human rights generally, if the Senate is not then sitting, and that the reports be deemed to have been tabled in the Senate.

Hon. Marty Klyne: Honourable senators, pursuant to rule 5-10(2), I withdraw this notice of motion.

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.

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

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