Bill 215 amends Manitoba’s Wildlife Act to reshape how the province responds to unlawful killing, taking or hunting of species listed as protected. It introduces a new offence provision, retools licence-cancellation and suspension mechanics, removes a statutory exemption mechanism connected to the use of poison, and broadens which animals may not be killed in the name of defending private property.
The changes shift more consequences into the criminal and administrative spheres: convictions now trigger automatic licence cancellations, mandatory suspensions (including an indefinite bar for repeat offenders), and a restructured penalty framework that judges will apply on conviction. The bill centralizes enforcement levers that regulators, prosecutors and licence issuers must operationalize if the law comes into force.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill adds a new offence provision aimed at breaches involving protected species and revises the Act’s licence rules so convictions automatically cancel licences and impose mandatory suspension periods, including an indefinite suspension for repeat convictions. It removes a statutory mechanism that previously allowed certain exemptions and expands the animals covered when killing is justified to defend private land.
Who It Affects
Hunters, trappers and commercial outfitters who hold licences for species listed in Schedule A; licence issuers and the provincial enforcement and prosecutorial agencies; and private landowners and pest-control operators because the scope of allowable lethal defence and exemption authorities is altered. Conservation organizations and animal welfare stakeholders will also see the enforcement landscape change.
Why It Matters
The bill reallocates discretion from administrative permit systems into criminal sentencing and automatic licence sanctions, raising compliance stakes for individuals and businesses. For regulators and courts, the amendments require new workflows to cancel, suspend and potentially indefinitely bar licence-holders; for landowners, the statutory list that governs defensive killing is materially broader.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill restructures the Act so that the legal response to unlawful taking of protected species has two connected tracks: criminal penalties determined at conviction, and administrative consequences tied to that conviction. Practically, that means a prosecution that results in a conviction will not only expose the defendant to fines or imprisonment decided by a judge, but will also trigger downstream licence enforcement actions set by statute rather than left to discretionary administrative processes.
Automatic licence cancellation is keyed to the Schedule A divisions referenced in the amendments. Once a conviction under the relevant Division exists, the system requires cancellation of any licences that authorize hunting, killing or taking of animals listed in those Schedule A divisions.
The statute also creates a separate suspension construct: a time-limited suspension for certain convictions and an indefinite suspension for repeat convictions, which effectively bars an individual from obtaining or holding those classes of licences going forward unless the legislation’s reinstatement path (if any) is later invoked by regulation or amendment.On operational issues, implementing these changes will require the province to update licensing databases and enforcement protocols so that criminal records can be matched to licence records, cancellations and suspensions can be applied without discretionary administrative hearings, and staff can flag ineligibility at the point of future licence applications. Prosecutors and courts will need clear charging practices because an offence that attracts statutory licence consequences raises the stakes for plea discussions and sentencing.The repeal of the Act’s exemption mechanism that previously allowed statutory authorizations for certain poison use removes a regulated channel for that control method; that will shift how landowners, pest-control companies and regulators address conflicts with wildlife.
Finally, by expanding the list of animals tied to defensive-killing prohibitions, the amendment reduces an individual’s legal ability to justify lethal actions on private land when the animal is a protected species, placing more emphasis on non-lethal options and regulatory responses.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill creates a new offence in section 36(1.1) that makes contravening section 20 (protected species rules) a punishable offence with separate sentencing consequences tied to conviction.
First-offence sentencing under the new provision carries fines from $10,000 to $100,000 or up to one year in jail, or both; second or subsequent offences carry fines from $20,000 to $200,000 or up to two years in jail, or both.
Section 37 is replaced so that a conviction automatically cancels all licences authorizing hunting, killing or taking of species listed in Division 1, 3 or 4 of Schedule A; the right to obtain or hold such licences is then suspended for one year (or two years where a penalty under clause 36(1.1)(a) is imposed).
A conviction attracting the higher penalty tier under clause 36(1.1)(b) triggers an indefinite suspension (a lifetime ban) under new section 37(5), prohibiting the person from obtaining or attempting to obtain those licences.
The bill repeals subsection 24(3) (removing the statutory mechanism that allowed exemptions to the prohibition on using poison to trap, take or kill wild animals) and amends section 46(1) to expand the animals that cannot be killed while defending private land to include any animal of a protected species; the Act comes into force on royal assent.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Repeal of poison-exemption clause (subsection 24(3))
This single-line repeal removes the statutory provision that previously allowed an exemption to the general prohibition on using poison to trap, take or kill wildlife. Practically, the repeal eliminates a regulated route for issuing permits or exemptions tied to poison use; depending on existing regulations and administrative practice, operators who previously relied on that statutory mechanism will need alternative lawful authorities or to change methods.
New protected-species offence and penalty framework
The bill inserts section 36(1.1), making contraventions of section 20 an explicitly punishable offence with two penalty tiers. The provision is structured so courts impose fines and/or imprisonment within the stated ranges, and the act’s cross-references are adjusted so the new subsection integrates into existing offence-and-penalty architecture. That linkage is important because it ties criminal sentencing outcomes directly to later administrative consequences under the Act.
Automatic licence cancellation, mandatory suspensions, and indefinite ban for repeat offenders
Section 37 is substantially reworked. Conviction under the relevant Division now automatically cancels all licences authorizing taking of animals listed in Division 1, 3 or 4 of Schedule A. A separate suspension rule then prevents the convicted person from obtaining or holding those licences for set periods (one or two years depending on the conviction and penalty imposed), while a new subsection creates an indefinite suspension for convictions that attract the higher penalty tier. These changes move licence consequences from discretionary administrative decisions to statutory mandates tied to criminal outcomes, forcing licence issuers to adopt automatic-blocking procedures and to assume a gatekeeping role at application time.
Expanded restriction on lethal defence for private land
The bill amends section 46(1) so that the list of animals a landowner must not kill in defending private property now explicitly includes 'any other animal of a protected species.' That textual change broadens the class of animals for which lethal defence is proscribed, narrowing the space where property-based justifications will succeed and elevating the importance of non-lethal responses and coordination with wildlife officers.
Coming into force
The Act declares that it comes into force on the day it receives royal assent. There are no delayed or staged implementation dates in the text, which means implementation responsibilities—database updates, guideline revisions, and enforcement training—would fall to the province immediately upon assent.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on this topic across all five countries.
Explore this topic in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Protected species and conservation groups — stronger statutory penalties and automatic licence sanctions raise the legal cost of unlawful taking and create clearer deterrents that can help reduce poaching and harmful control methods.
- Animal welfare organizations — the repeal of the poison-exemption mechanism reduces an avenue for lethal control methods that often produce non-target suffering, aligning the law with welfare concerns.
- Law-abiding hunters and outfitters focused on sustainable harvest — clearer, stricter enforcement and the removal of certain lethal exemptions can stabilize populations and protect the integrity of regulated harvests over time.
Who Bears the Cost
- Individual hunters, trappers and small-scale licence-holders — the new fines and potential jail terms substantially increase personal legal risk for convictions and can lead to loss of livelihood through licence cancellation and suspensions.
- Commercial outfitters and licence-dependent businesses — automatic cancellations and suspensions can interrupt operations and revenue, and the higher stakes in prosecutions increase commercial vulnerability to enforcement actions.
- Provincial enforcement, courts and licensing authorities — the amendments require matching criminal records to licence records, new administrative workflows for cancellations and suspensions, and expected resource needs for prosecutions, courtroom capacity and IT changes to prevent reissuance of licences to barred individuals.
- Private landowners and pest-control operators — the repeal of the poison-exemption route and the expanded protected-species rules restrict previously available lethal-control options, potentially increasing costs for non-lethal control or requiring new municipal/agency coordination.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The bill’s central dilemma is balancing stronger deterrence for unlawful taking of protected species against fairness and proportionality for individuals: placing licence-cancellation and indefinite bans on automatic footing increases deterrence but risks imposing severe, long-term consequences for convictions that may arise from contested facts, accidental events, or culturally and economically sensitive circumstances (including property protection and traditional uses). The legislation solves for deterrence and simplicity at the cost of discretion and tailored remedies.
The bill packs criminal penalties and administrative licence consequences tightly together, which creates practical and legal tension. Automatic cancellation and mandatory suspensions mean that a single criminal conviction carries effects beyond the sentence the court pronounces; that raises due-process and proportionality questions when offences may arise from disputed facts, honest mistakes, or ambiguous identification of species.
Because the statutory mechanics remove much administrative discretion, the only relief path for an individual facing a harsh or mistakenly applied statutory sanction is through the criminal appeal process or a legislative/regulatory remedy that the bill does not supply.
Operationally, the province will need to link criminal records with licence databases and update issuance workflows to enforce suspensions and indefinite bans. The bill contains no express transitional provisions for existing permits or an administrative reinstatement mechanism for those subject to indefinite suspensions, nor does it specify how records from outside Manitoba or historical convictions will be treated.
The repeal of the poison-exemption mechanism closes a regulated avenue for lethal control; without compensating regulatory detail, landowners and pest-control businesses may either shift to different control methods, face increased conflict with wildlife officers, or risk non-compliance when confronting urgent local problems.
Finally, the statutory text expands protection scope by reference to Schedule A divisions but leaves practical questions about species identification and enforcement thresholds unresolved. Prosecutors and courts will have to develop evidence standards for species identification and for distinguishing negligent from willful conduct — matters the bill leaves to implementation rather than clarification in the statute itself.
There's more to this law than the bill.
Codify Laws traces every connection across the legislative lifecycle.