SPEECH BY JON GERRARD, LEADER OF THE LIBERAL PARTY, ON BILL 5:
Delivered June 22, 2000 in the Manitoba Legislature

Hon. Jon Gerrard (River Heights): I rise Mr. Speaker, to speak to Bill 5, the Bill which deals with the additions or changes to The Wildlife Act, The Wildlife Amendment Act.

I rise to indicate first of all, that while I support measures to end hunting in small enclosures called pens, I do not support this bill.

The ending of hunting within small enclosures called pens could have been done, I believe, under the existing legislation. So this bill really was not necessary. Secondly, it is quite clear that when you look carefully at the bill, it is a very poor piece of legislation.

Let us begin with some of the fundamentals. We have heard from many of the NDP speakers on this bill about the importance of and the role of this bill in ending penned hunting. Yet, within neither The Wildlife Act right now, nor this bill with its amendment, is there a definition precisely of what a “pen” is. So, if that is the goal, there should have been a definition of a “pen”.

There is, under the Act, “a shooting preserve”. It is possible that this is what the proponents of this measure are referring to in terms of a “pen”. But I would put on the record the definition of shooting preserve here means “land that is privately owned and maintained and on which wildlife that has been raised in captivity is kept in captivity or released for the purpose of hunting.”

Now, I would suggest that it is quite possible to have wildlife which was not raised in captivity put in a pen and it would fall outside the definition of what is a shooting preserve. So the first point would be that the definition of a shooting preserve is not adequate, it is not appropriate for what the Minister is trying to do in terms of a pen.

Now, it would seem to me in the context of what most citizens of Manitoba understand in terms of a pen, they are talking about a small enclosure within which animals cannot escape easily or run away. One of the fundamental issues here is: Is the Minister going to ban hunting within any enclosure? If an enclosure is 80 acres, 160 acres, a square mile, a First Nations community of many miles square or kilometers square, or a township or a larger area, is the Minister going to ban hunting? Is the Minister going to call this a pen or not?

At least the citizens of Manitoba should have on the table a clear understanding of what is meant by a pen when we are debating this bill, and the government has not given us this information. So that is a pretty important point.

The next point that I would raise is the definition here of “exotic”. Now, “exotic” under this act is “wild by nature and not indigenous.” Well, let us, first of all address the issue of what is indigenous and what is not. Species move around the globe. The House Sparrow did not originate in Manitoba, but it is rather plentiful here. The starling was not indigenous; the ring necked pheasant was not indigenous. There are many, many more birds which we consider normal “wild” populations of species within Manitoba and yet are not considered indigenous. The Member for Emerson (Mr. Jack Penner) mentions that the white-tailed deer may not be indigenous to Manitoba.

But the issue here, in a sense, is when is something indigenous and when is it not. It is not defined in the Act. How long does a bird or an animal have to be here before it is considered indigenous? This becomes quite important in terms of how the act is interpreted, and how people and citizens throughout Manitoba are regulated under the act.

The definition “wild by nature” is put there clearly to differentiate what is a domesticated species from what is a wild species, but it is important to remember that all of the species which are domesticated now were wild once. Indeed, where and how long does something need to be in a domesticated state before it is considered domesticated as opposed to wild?
Where does the bison fall? Where do a lot of animals and birds fall that have been in captivity for some time? Clearly, it would not be immediately coming in from the wild, but certainly there are species which have been domesticated for several generations. We need to understand, with this act, where they will fall. I suggest to the members opposite that this act is really deficient in not providing basic information about what it will cover, what it will do, for the citizens of Manitoba. There is a problem in terms of definitions.

I would take this a step further and go to the definition of “hybrid”. Now, hybrid in a traditional sense is the first-generation cross between two species, but when we are getting into the era, where we are now, of understanding and being able to look carefully at genes and genetic linkages, where we are involved in things like biotechnology, cloning sheep and so on, the word “hybrid” may take on a different definition. Indeed the act refers to a hybrid descendant. Now, is this just the first F1 generation hybrid? Is this further animals descended from the first generation hybrid? Is this any animal with some genetic material from an exotic animal? If we now did DNA assays on species and found that there was genetic material from a wild animal, would this now classify that species as a hybrid?

What we need is more clarity, more precise definitions so that citizens in Manitoba in considering this act will be able to make a clear decision and know what we are talking about and what the government is really trying to regulate.

I think it is important in looking at the Act to understand as well that under The Wildlife Act,“HUNTING” is not restricted to shooting - pointing the gun and pulling the trigger - at an animal. Hunting, as defined under this act, is much broader. I will quote from the Act. It says, hunting means “chasing, driving, flushing, attracting, pursuing, worrying, following
after or on the trail of, searching for, shooting at, stalking or lying in wait for wildlife, whether or not the wildlife is then or subsequently captures, killed, taken or wounded.”

“Hunting” under this Act does not include some activities such as stalking, attracting, or searching in the course of trying to take pictures, but it does include as hunting, flushing, chasing, driving or worrying a wild animal while you are taking pictures. That would be considered hunting. The definition under this act of what is hunting and what is covered is
really much broader than just taking a gun out and shooting. This needs to be considered very clearly in understanding what the purpose of the bill is. Let us face it, if we have got animals which are wild by nature which are in some form of enclosure, and you go in there to worry them, to vaccinate them, or to draw blood samples, then in fact you are hunting them. Is that
the goal of the legislation, to ban these sorts of “penned hunting” where there is an animal in an enclosure where it has some trace perhaps of DNA material from an animal which is wild and not indigenous?

So, I would suggest to the member’s opposite that this bill has a lot of problems and that it really needs to be considered much more carefully. While many of these aspects would be considered in the regulations, the Bill itself should provide a much clearer picture of the direction that the government wants to take Manitoba rather than having something which is as
broad and general as this Act.

Now, I have listened and I have read the impassioned speeches from the members opposite about banning penned hunting. As I said, I agree it is time to end the hunting of animals within small enclosures using guns where someone is shooting at animals purely for the purpose of sport. But I suggest that this bill affects a lot more than the hunting of penned animals and that the members should speak to the larger changes that this bill is trying to introduce.

The members have not provided any justification for including eggs, sperm, embryo or body parts of animals. Presumably, that is not because the members are primarily interested in banning the penned hunting of sperm or eggs or embryos or body parts? Frankly, if you have got exotic animals, as is now the practice in some domesticated animals, and are involved with artificial insemination, then this bill might be used to ban artificial insemination in wild animals. Is that the government’s intention?

The implications of what the members are trying to accomplish need to be understood and clarified. The government members in their speeches to date, have barely scratched the surface of the sorts of things which are covered in this act. The purpose of this act goes far beyond what is traditionally viewed as “penned hunting”. The government should outline its purpose honestly and forthrightly instead of just pretending that this is a bill solely about ending the hunting of animals in small enclosures.

Please give us more information as to the real intent of this legislation? Certainly, the government has caused much anxiety among many who have exotic animals, and many who have farms with bison or various other “wild” animals.

It is time to proceed in a more rational manner with this legislation. Do the consultations first and explain more clearly what is the purpose of this legislation.

If the government really wants a bill which ends the hunting of wild animals in small enclosures, then this could and should have been done in a more focused fashion. If the government wants an “omnibus” bill that is going to regulate all aspects of the handling of wildlife, then it is important for the government to explain why it needs all these measures and what are their intent.

One of the implications of the reference to eggs and sperm and body parts and so on in an era when we are dealing with biotechnology is that this bill may be intended to regulate biotechnology issues in relation to wild animals. Is this the government’s objective? If so, we should consider and debate this. If the government’s goal is to regulate biotechnology
which may involve in some fashion exotic animals, then the government should be open with citizens and tell us its intentions. Do not try to pretend that this is just about penned hunting.

This Chamber and the people of Manitoba deserve a bill which is much clearer, and which is much more precise and to the point and which is focused solely on ending penned hunting in small enclosures. If that is the government’s objective, and the government feels it can not do this under existing legislation, fine. We would support you. But, this is an omnibus bill, and the reason for many of the measures to be included is unclear. I will not support Bill 5 as it presently is written. I oppose it.