Worldwide investigation finds significant wildlife crime, including in Canada
BOB WEBER
THE CANADIAN PRESS
A Canadian at the head of an international body fighting wildlife smuggling says a three-week investigation resulted in more than 1,300 seizures worldwide — including some in Canada.
“Wildlife crime is a worldwide phenomena,” said Sheldon Jordan, head of Environment Canada’s wildlife enforcement and chairman of the wildlife crimes working group for Interpol, the international agency that co-ordinates law enforcement.
“We’re all destination countries, but we’re all source countries as well.”
Working with law enforcement in 43 countries, Jordan’s group mounted Operation Thunderbird, which ran from Jan. 30 to Feb. 19.
Speaking at a meeting in New York on Friday, he said the operation was designed to provide a snapshot of what was happening in the illegal trade of wildlife and forestry products.
So far, he said, investigations have led to 89 individuals being jailed with terms ranging from several days to seven years.
In Canada, the hides of polar bears and other animals were seized, as was walrus ivory.
Elephant ivory was found coming into the country. So were hundreds of kilograms of illegal shark parts.
The list from other countries includes 60 tonnes of illegal wood, 4,700 birds, 100 wild cats — including jaguars and ocelots — and 1,240 reptiles. Investigators found 25 tonnes of meat and wildlife parts and more than 37,000 individual processed animal parts and derivatives.
Jordan said Operation Thunderbird was mostly designed to gather and collate information on investigations that were already occurring.
“We got the world together and reported what we were doing on wildlife crime for three weeks,” he said.
Even without special efforts, about $6 million worth of illegal shipments were seized during that time.
“This gives you a little bit of a taste of what was going on during a three-week period,” Jordan said. “This is just a snapshot of what was happening.”
A UN report suggests the total value of illegal worldwide trade in wildlife and forestry products is more than $1 billion a year. That puts it fourth on a list of organized crimes, behind only drugs, counterfeiting and human trafficking.
JOANNA SMITH
THE CANADIAN PRESS
OTTAWA — When Justice Minister Jody Wilson-Raybould turned to the provinces to help make the constitutional case against a bill on genetic testing, it is unlikely Ontario legislator Mike Colle was the one she hoped would view it as a call to action.
But it was indeed Colle, a Liberal first elected to the Ontario legislature in 1995, who took WilsonRaybould’s recent efforts to drum up opposition to the bill as a cue to ramp up his own efforts to support it.
Wilson-Raybould wrote to the premiers this week about whether they think Bill S-201, designed to prevent anyone from having to undergo genetic testing or disclose the results of such tests in order to get insurance, strays into provincial jurisdiction.
“I think it’s really appalling that they’re hiding behind this provincial jurisdictional, constitutional excuse for not ... ending discriminatory practices in provinces,” said Colle, who is pushing similar legislation at the Ontario legislature. “It’s just mind-boggling to me.” The proposed federal legislation is back up for debate in the House of Commons next week. A final vote on the bill could come as early as March 8.
The federal Liberal government put forward amendments last month that supporters of the bill — including Liberal MP Rob Oliphant, who has been shepherding S-201 through the House — say would “gut” it.
The federal government is taking the position that it would be better to simply add genetic characteristics as a prohibited ground of discrimination under the Canadian Human Rights Act, which would keep it within the federal realm.
Three of the four constitutional experts who appeared recently at the justice committee, however, argued the bill would not go too far.
The insurance industry has come out strongly against other elements of the proposed legislation, which would make it illegal for anyone to require a person to undergo genetic testing, or disclose test results, as a condition of signing or continuing any other good, service, contract or agreement, such as an insurance policy.
Breaking the law could mean a fine of up to $1 million, or five years behind bars.
The Conservatives and the New Democrats are expected to vote against the Liberal amendments, while the Bloc Quebecois is supporting them.
Oliphant said many of his Liberal caucus colleagues have expressed their support for the private member’s bill in its original form.
It is too early to tell whether enough Liberal MPs will reject the amendments and vote to pass S-201, but Wilson-Raybould’s letter suggests the Liberal cabinet is gearing up for a showdown with the backbench on a significant piece of legislation.
Colle is leaving chance.
He has asked Ontario Premier Kathleen Wynne and Attorney General Yasir Naqvi to express their support for Bill S-201, and is urging voters in the province to contact their MPs and tell them to vote for the bill next week.
“I hope our response to this is that we want the federal government to do something,” said Colle, who has long argued that one of the reasons for his own private member’s bill in Ontario is that federal legislation is coming anyway.
Writing to the premiers Wednesday, Wilson-Raybould said she had received letters of dissent from Quebec, Manitoba and B.C., but suggested there are still others who have not made their opposition public.
Her spokesman, David Taylor, confirmed those letters came after the federal government invited provinces to share their views.
Ontario would not reveal its position on the bill this week.
Clare Graham, a spokeswoman for Naqvi, said the provincial government reviewed S-201 when it was before the Senate committee on human rights in February 2016, but “declined to make a formal submission.”
Jim Cowan, the retired senator who first introduced the private member’s bill, said Ontario Health Minister Eric Hoskins was supportive when he met him last May.
“There was no indication of any jurisdictional concerns,” said Cowan.
Maria Babbage, a spokeswoman for Hoskins, did not respond to a request for comment about the meeting.