Ending the Captivity of Whales and Dolphins Act

How it changed on the way

99% of the text as introduced was changed or removed by the time it became law (708 words introduced, 884 passed). A committee amended it.

substantial changeintent narrowed

The introduced bill imposed outright prohibitions on importing or exporting cetaceans and limited captivity exceptions, while the final law replaced the import/export ban with a permit system and added new provincial licensing exceptions for research and welfare. Penalties were changed from a mix of indictable and summary offences to summary conviction only, and a non-derogation clause for Aboriginal rights was added.

• Import and export of cetaceans changed from total prohibition to a permit system for specific purposes.

  Before: “No person shall import into Canada or export from Canada a cetacean, including a whale, dolphin or porpoise — whether living or dead — or sperm, a tissue culture or an embryo of a cetacean.”

  After: “No person shall, except under and in accordance with a permit issued pursuant to subsection 10(1.1), import into Canada or export from Canada a living cetacean, including a whale, dolphin or porpoise, or sperm, a tissue culture or an embryo of a cetacean.”

• New exceptions added allowing captivity under provincial licence for research or the cetacean’s welfare.

  After: “(c) is authorized to keep a cetacean in captivity in the best interests of the cetacean's welfare pursuant to a licence issued by the Lieutenant Governor in Council of a province or by such other person or authority in the province as may be specified by the Lieutenant Governor in Council.”

• New clause added stating the Act does not abrogate Aboriginal or treaty rights.

  After: “, the Fisheries Act and the Wild Animal and Plant Protection and Regulation of International and Interprovincial Trade Act shall not be construed so as to abrogate or derogate from the protection provided for existing aboriginal or treaty rights of the aboriginal peoples of Canada by the recognition and affirmation of these rights in section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982”

How precisely it is written

mixedChallenging the law: ModerateDisputing a charge: Moderate

The bill uses clear definitions and fixed penalties but relies heavily on subjective welfare tests and open-ended licensing powers. This mix creates black-and-white rules for some acts while leaving others open to argument over intent and approval.

Open to argument

• “if it is in the best interests of the cetacean’s welfare to do so”

  The phrase sets a subjective standard that invites disagreement over what counts as welfare.

• “on such terms and conditions as the Minister thinks fit”

  This grants the Minister unlimited discretion without objective criteria.

• “authorized to keep a cetacean in captivity in the best interests of the cetacean’s welfare pursuant to a licence”

  Again uses the same subjective welfare test and leaves licensing authority undefined.

• “for the purpose of providing it with assistance or care or to rehabilitate it following an injury or another state of distress”

  The terms 'assistance', 'care' and 'distress' are undefined and open to interpretation.

Clear-cut

• “liable to a fine not exceeding $200,000”

  Sets a clear numerical maximum penalty.

• “cetacean includes any member of the cetacean order, including a whale, dolphin or porpoise”

  Provides an explicit inclusive definition.

Discretion. Provincial cabinets or unnamed provincial officials may issue licences for captivity and performances, while the federal Minister alone decides permit terms for imports and exports.

Challenging the law itself. The repeated 'best interests' and 'thinks fit' language could support a section 7 Charter vagueness or overbreadth claim because the prohibited conduct is not clearly demarcated in advance.

Disputing a charge under it. An accused could readily dispute whether a cetacean was held for welfare, rehabilitation or research, or whether a licence was properly issued, because those questions turn on subjective judgments rather than objective facts.

Read by a language model from the royal assent text; every quoted phrase appears in the bill. A reading of the drafting, not legal advice.