Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Fisheries and Oceans
Issue No. 12 - Evidence - March 28, 2017
OTTAWA, Tuesday, March 28, 2017
The Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries and Oceans, to which was referred Bill S-203, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and other Acts (ending the captivity of whales and dolphins), met this day at 6:01 p.m. to give consideration to the bill.
Senator Fabian Manning (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Welcome, everybody, and we certainly apologize for our late start, but we have to wait until the Senate rises before we can convene our meeting.
Good evening, everybody. My name is Fabian Manning. I'm a senator from Newfoundland and Labrador, and I am pleased to chair this evening's meetings. Before I give the floor to our witnesses, I would ask that the senators introduce themselves, beginning on my immediate right.
Senator Unger: Betty Unger from Alberta.
Senator Enverga: Tobias Enverga from Ontario.
Senator Raine: Nancy Greene Raine from B.C.
Senator Plett: My name is Don Plett, and I'm from Manitoba.
Senator Christmas: Dan Christmas from Nova Scotia.
Senator Gold: Marc Gold, Quebec.
[Translation]
Senator Forest: Éric Forest, from the Gulf region, in Quebec.
[English]
Senator Munson: Jim Munson, Ontario.
The Chair: Thank you, senators. The committee is continuing the examination of Bill S-203, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and other Acts (ending the captivity of whales and dolphins).
We are pleased to welcome representatives of Canada's Accredited Zoos and Aquariums here this evening, Mr. Bernard Gallant, Member of the Board of Directors, and Susan Shafer, Executive Director. Thank you for your time, and once again we apologize for our late start and thank you for your patience.
On behalf of the members of the committee, I certainly want to welcome you here and thank you for being here today. I understand you have some opening remarks, Ms. Shafer, and following those we will have questions from our members, so the floor is yours.
Susan Shafer, Executive Director, Canada's Accredited Zoos and Aquariums: Thank you very much. Good evening, distinguished members of the committee, and I want to begin by thanking you very much for the opportunity to talk to you today about this important matter and to be able to add to the discussion.
My name is Dr. Susan Shafer. I'm the Executive Director of Canada's Accredited Zoos and Aquariums. CAZA has been around since 1976, and today we represent the leading zoological parks and aquariums in Canada. We have 33 institutional members, five of which are aquariums, and we have a number of institutions that have both terrestrial and aquatic collections. Over 12 million people visit our institutions each year. In addition to our 33 member institutions, CAZA also has approximately 250 professional members.
Aquariums and zoos play a critical role in our society by the unique way that they contribute to education, research and conservation. No other organization or institution can spark affective relations between human and nature like zoos and aquariums.
Canadian accredited zoos and aquariums are part of the global community behind some of the most remarkable conservation success stories, including bringing species such as the black-footed ferret and the Vancouver Island marmot back from the brink of extinction.
If one is searching for the ethical and moral foundations for zoos and aquariums, they will find them in the transformative potential of the personal connection between humans and animals.
Through scientific research and fostering emotional connections, CAZA facilities are inspiring a new generation of conservationists who will do more research, rehabilitate more habitats, reintroduce more species and engage more people.
However, if Bill S-203 is adopted, for whales and dolphins at least, that work will stop and those connections will be severed. By criminalizing research, education and conservation activities involving cetaceans, this bill would not only end important research, but it would end the personal connection and journey that could one day help to preserve the beluga or the right whale, just as surely as they have the black-footed ferret.
CAZA promotes the continuing evolution of Canadian zoos and aquariums from what they were 50 years ago in terms of exhibitors of animals to ethical stewardship and biodiversity.
Our accreditation standards have also evolved over the years, shifting from an initial focus on operations, husbandry and safety to now reflect the principle that accredited aquariums and zoos have a vital role to play in supporting species conservation.
CAZA accreditation signals that an institution is committed to world-class standards in animal welfare, veterinary care, physical facilities, health and safety, as well as clear education and conservation strategies, not because they have to but because the institutions believe it is the right thing to do.
Canadians can also rest assured that CAZA accreditation means that a member institution can be investigated and held accountable through our established ethics and compliance procedures when concerns and issues are raised.
Through a continuous improvement model, we regularly review and enrich our standards to ensure that CAZA and its members are leaders within the zoological community and earn a social licence to operate.
In keeping with that principle, CAZA adopted the Canadian Council on Animal Care's guidelines for the care and maintenance of marine mammals as part of its standards. CAZA's guidelines were established after a 10-year study and represent the most comprehensive evidence-based framework for keeping of marine mammals in the world.
Bill S-203 would dismiss 10 years of independent research commissioned by the Government of Canada itself to create monumental guidelines, guidelines which far surpass what we have seen globally, even from our neighbours in the United States.
So you may ask yourself why, with federal and provincial oversight, accreditation is important. You may be shocked to know that other than the CCAC guidelines for the keeping of marine mammals, our country is absent a consistent, pan-Canadian approach to the keeping of exotic animals in human care. Absent formal coordination and information sharing mechanisms, we are left with a hodgepodge of policies, legislation and regulations that vary in each jurisdiction in Canada, not only in their scope but also in how they are enforced.
We disagree with the proponents of this bill on the road that they've chosen to travel on, but we do agree with them on this: cetaceans are creatures that, in our facilities, as in nature, deserve and require our respect and our continued care. That's why we have members whose chosen path involves studying, protecting and healing these animals, striving to understand and decode their behaviours, and educating others so that a new cohort of scientists and conservationists will be there to continue this journey. We urge you to keep that road open and clear for them.
I look forward to answering your questions.
The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Shafer. Mr. Gallant?
Bernard Gallant, Member of the Board of Directors, Canada's Accredited Zoos and Aquariums: Good afternoon, distinguished members of this committee. I apologize; I will have to leave at 6:45 to get to my flight because otherwise I won't be able to get home.
My name is Bernard Gallant. I have served on CAZA's board of directors for the past four and a half years, as well as on the accreditation commission for the past three and a half years. I bring with me over 30 years of experience in the zoological industry, currently serving as zoo coordinator for the Magnetic Hill Zoo in Moncton, New Brunswick, which has been CAZA-accredited since 1993.
Let me start off by thanking you all for allowing me to contribute to this important discussion, and thank you, Susan, for giving me the chance.
I would like to take this opportunity to explain CAZA's accreditation process in detail. You should know that CAZA has the only independent expert accreditation inspection process in Canada for institutions keeping exotic animals. The process to receive CAZA accreditation is a strenuous one, taking on average seven months from the time an application is submitted until the accreditation commission makes a decision. Although there are hundreds of zoos and aquariums across Canada, only 33 of those have demonstrated that they can meet CAZA's standards through the inspection process.
Each year CAZA coordinates independent periodic inspections for existing CAZA institutional members applying to renew their accreditation status, as well as any new facilities applying to demonstrate their commitment to world- class animal welfare standards.
Prior to an on-site inspection, applicants are required to submit a number of materials to CAZA, including information on financial records, policies, animal collections, programming, operational protocols and exhibits.
After these materials have been reviewed, an on-site inspection is conducted by three independent zoological experts in animal management, operations and veterinary medicine. The heart of CAZA's inspection process rests on the experience and expertise of these inspectors, bringing with them proficiency that local SPCA officials, unfortunately, do not.
These inspectors not only evaluate the welfare of animals in the care of the applicant, including whether their physical and psychological well-being is being met, but also their health care, safety and enrichment. Policies and protocols, including those on safety, security and acquisition and disposition, are also evaluated, along with financial records and recordkeeping of day-to-day operations.
Finally, the impact of conservation and educational programming is assessed to determine whether their contributions are meaningful and embody the spirit of CAZA's mission.
At the end of each inspection, an exit interview serves as the opportunity for CAZA's independent inspection team to provide an applicant with a list of concerns in areas where they are not compliant with CAZA standards and provide feedback on how to improve. The accreditation commission will only grant accreditation if they are satisfied that all outstanding concerns have been addressed and the facility is compliant with CAZA's standards. Failure to demonstrate compliance with CAZA standards results in a failure to grant CAZA accreditation.
Although CAZA accreditation is valid for five years, we do not subscribe to the notion that an institutional member should only be evaluated once during that time frame. We understand the essential requirement to have checks and balances in place to ensure the spirit and the letter of CAZA accreditation is upheld by our members.
CAZA's policy on coming into force requires all member facilities to review and meet new CAZA standards and policies within 30 days following their adoption. The policy also requires the chief executive officer to sign a letter of attestation stating that their facility is in compliance with all existing CAZA policies and standards each year. This process ensures that accredited facilities are compliant with CAZA requirements and that those that are not can be identified and dealt with through our established progressive discipline procedures.
The welfare of the animals in the care of our member institutions is our paramount concern, and every allegation against one of our accredited facilities is taken seriously and dealt with through CAZA's ethics and compliance mechanisms. CAZA has measures in place that allow for an accredited institution to be reviewed or inspected at any time within the five-year period when issued, including a potential ethics violation that could arise.
We regularly review our disciplinary mechanisms to ensure that CAZA's facilities represent a distinctive group of zoological institutions committed to a higher ethical standard, and we ask that anyone who has ever seen something concerning to submit those experiences to our national office.
I would like to thank you for your time, and I look forward to taking your questions.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Gallant and Ms. Shafer. As usual, we will go to our deputy chair for our first questions.
Senator Hubley: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, and thank you both for being with us this evening and presenting on this important issue.
You mentioned in your presentation that CAZA's belief is that this legislation would criminalize research activities. Senator Moore has been quite clear, both here in committee and in the Senate, that this will not be the case. For further certainty, he has proposed that the bill be amended to clarify that the import/export restrictions only apply to live cetaceans and reproductive materials that can be used in captive breeding. What are your thoughts on this amendment that the import/export restrictions only apply to live whales and dolphins or to materials used in captive breeding?
Ms. Shafer: In the best of circumstances, we would like to see no amendments to the legislation because we would like to see the legislation not move forward.
With respect to criminalizing the research with the cetaceans, we need to have the ability to work with populations that have been bred in captivity. The reason for this is because if we look at marine mammals that are in the wild and have been rescued, their health is the primary issue, and you may not have populations and aspects of that. So restricting the import and export of captive animals really decreases the pool of animals that are available for biodiversity and for the health of the populations.
Senator Hubley: Just perhaps further to that, are there a specific number of whales and dolphins that you require to carry out your investigations or your research?
Ms. Shafer: That would really depend on the individual researchers and what it is they are studying.
Mr. Gallant: Some of the research can be done with minimal, like one or two, depending on what they are researching, but then others need a larger group. It's kind of hard to do a thesis on the one if you are looking at population, so that's why sometimes they need a larger number, along that line.
Senator Hubley: I would like to ask, if I might, just another question on the accreditation process. You mentioned inspections, that CAZA does an accreditation inspection, and that accreditation is valid for five years, but you didn't specify whether further inspections are done during that five-year time frame. What is your policy on subsequent inspections? How do you decide when to do supplementary inspections? Is it random or complaint-driven?
Mr. Gallant: It's a little bit of both. For example, if it's a new institution and they achieve accreditation, it's not five years; it's going to be two and a half years because they are brand new to CAZA.
If we do have any kind of complaints that come in, we will do inspections and follow-ups. We take all of our complaints about any of our facilities very seriously. If there is a complaint about a certain facility, we will take that complaint, and then from there it may warrant an inspection or it may warrant just — it all depends on what the issue is.
Senator Hubley: You noted that the inspectors would be three independent zoological experts. Is that correct?
Mr. Gallant: That's correct.
Senator Hubley: And then would it be possible for, say, one aquarium to be on that inspection team for another aquarium? How do you select the number of people who are going to be doing the inspection and how independent they would be in their decision?
Mr. Gallant: Usually we look for — it's a three-person team. The first person is a veterinarian. We want somebody who will be in the medical field. The other two people will be somebody who specializes more in animal husbandry. For example, myself, I am very competent in snakes, reptiles and big cats. For me, I would be examining that part. But if it's an aquarium, we will try to have somebody who is an aquarium person. And then the third person is usually for management. Overall, are they financially sound? The thing is, we don't want a facility to turn around and shut their door because they don't have any more money. So that third person will be examining whether they are on proper financial footing.
Now, it's not just limited to those three people. If there are issues, they can contact any of the professionals within our world, basically. So if they have questions, they can contact other people and say, "Look, there is this issue we want to examine.'' We start with the three. They make the accreditation system and they bring the report back to the commission, but they can pull from any experts.
Senator Hubley: Is there any way for the public to know what has happened during an inspection, who did it and what the results were, or would it have to be CAZA deciding to voluntarily share that information? Is there a public way of people finding out what is going on after an inspection? Is there a reporting system in place and who to?
Mr. Gallant: We do have a reporting system with the commission, and we report it back to the member as to what we found and what were concerns. From that point, we give it to that member to decide what he wants to do. For example, when our institution got accredited, we publicized it. We said that we've done well and these are some of the issues. It's based on the facility if they want to share that information.
Senator Plett: Thank you to both of you for being here. First and foremost, we have been told a number of times that Bill S-203 would mostly affect two institutions, one being the Vancouver Aquarium and the other one Marineland. Are they both members of CAZA?
Ms. Shafer: Yes, they are.
Senator Plett: Thank you. I want to go a little bit further on what Senator Hubley already started with, and that is your accreditation process. I believe it would be premature for members of this committee to pass judgment on your accreditation process without fully understanding how the process works, and Senator Hubley already talked a little bit about that.
Given the diverse membership within CAZA, I imagine that no two inspections will be the same. Could you possibly explain to us or walk us through how CAZA can ensure the principles and standards are evaluated, despite the differences in size and scope of the institutions? Would you walk me through an inspection process from start to finish? You've told us who has been involved in it, but walk me through an inspection process.
Mr. Gallant: Okay. For example, if you had a zoo and you wanted to become a CAZA member, because we hold our standards very strong, it's almost a seven-month process. The first thing is we would be getting information from you for all the species that you have, the policies that you have in your facility, everything that we need. Even the financials are examined.
From there, we start looking at the size of the facility. All the facilities are of different size. We can go to our smallest member, which is a grizzly refuge that has one grizzly bear, to the size of the Toronto Zoo with thousands of animals.
The core issue that we look at is animal welfare. That is our most important thing that we want to examine and make sure is met. Are those animals in your care given the best of care? It doesn't really matter if it's a big institution or a small institution, but it's those standards and priorities that we're looking for in your facility.
Next we will start having discussions. You will submit your reports, and we will plan for a specific day. For a small institution, it may be a couple of days. Because of the number of animals that we have and the facility that we look at, we won't take that long, but the bigger institutions may take a week to even more.
When the day comes, we will go to your facility and we will start inspecting. We will have our inspectors check everything. For some people, we will look even behind every little door, nook, cranny, everything. We will examine all the paperwork and how it is in the community and what kind of reactions you are having in the community. If it's a bad one, we will take notice of that. During the visits, basically our inspectors have carte blanche to visit that place.
At the end of that inspection, we will start talking about what we noticed that should change or what doesn't meet our standards, and we will start discussing that with the CEO or their team. At that point we will start to address this, and in the fall, when the commission meets, they will have a chance to either explain why they do certain things or what their protocols are, and the commission will listen to them.
It doesn't mean that we will change our mind, because if they are violating some of our standards, we will tell them, sorry, we are either going to work with you to try to reapply to go through the process again, or if you are accepted, then during the first year for sure and in two and a half years, you would be re-examined. But at the same time, we keep an eye on how things are going.
As people visit your facility, there will be people who will not be happy with what you are doing, and we will listen to those complaints or their concerns, and then from there we will be in communication with your place to let you know that some of your standards are not quite right, so you have to bring them up. And then from there, then we keep going from year to year.
Senator Plett: Do animal cruelty complaints come to you?
Mr. Gallant: Yes, they do.
Senator Plett: Lawyers are always told not to ask a question when they don't know the answer, but I will ask a question when I don't know the answer. Marineland has had a history of a certain whistle-blower complaining time and time again. I'm assuming those complaints would have come to you. Have you found Marineland to be wanting on these complaints?
Ms. Shafer: I think the best answer would be to say that we do have an ethics and compliance committee that does review all of the complaints, and we have a very formal process that we go through with a progressive disciplinary process.
Because the Marineland situation is before the courts right now, and our process is confidential until it reaches a certain point and we are still in the investigative stages, I can't really comment on Marineland, but I hope that they are actually coming to talk to you as well.
Senator Plett: Well, they are, and I'm not wanting you to talk about specific cases, but has CAZA found Marineland wanting?
Ms. Shafer: I don't think that's something I can comment on other than to say that even publicly there is documentation that CAZA has taken action with Marineland in the past.
Senator Plett: Thank you.
Critics claim that there is no empirical evidence between education programming at aquariums and its effect on visitors. However, I personally and others at this committee as well have witnessed the transformative power of the personal connections between humans and the animals that are in care at the Vancouver Aquarium. Would you, Ms. Shafer, respond to that?
Ms. Shafer: There is definitely quite a bit of literature that talks about the benefits of a zoo educational experience, and there are also the critics who are there. As with any peer-reviewed research publication, you will always have the researcher who says these are the weaknesses with this study and identifies that. So over time, the research has gotten better.
In fact, there is a study that was just published most recently, and it's a 2017 study. It is actually a Canadian study, by the Department of Political Science and Geography from the University of Toronto and also the Alberta Institute for Wildlife Conservation, and it's about the contributions of zoos and aquariums in terms of achieving biodiversity.
It is not a study that was commissioned by anyone, and it is a very interesting study in terms of contributions that talks about biodiversity and education. I would be happy to share this with the clerk of the committee in terms of the references for the two documents that I'll mention at this time.
We also have another study that has been done by a Ph.D. researcher in Laurentian University. Her name is Chantal Barriault, and her whole thesis is on understanding the visitor learning experience with live animal exhibits. She has broken down and built upon a lot of research over the years.
She talks about different engagement levels of people at a zoo or aquarium, from an initiation, or first stage, to a transition where people are becoming more involved with the animal and with the environment, and then breakthrough, which is something I think that has been really missing from past research in terms of looking at people acquiring knowledge and whether there is any change in behaviour or change in attitude towards the species. She talks about the different levels and transitions, and the breakthroughs she explains are making linkages and exploring and extending the experience beyond the zoo: When you leave the zoo, are you taking things with you?
Those are two recent issues that we can cite as supporting the visitor learning experience. There are older studies as well, but there are critics of those, as most studies do have critics. I think that there are some valid criticisms there and I think the researchers are taking them into account when they're looking at the issues and how to quantify learning in a zoo environment.
Senator Plett: Thank you, chair. I have a few questions on the second round.
Senator Munson: There's such a philosophical debate going on here and there's passion on both sides of the issue. There are those who believe that no animal or cetacean should ever be locked up, anytime, anywhere, and then there are others who have described how it deals with education and engagement with younger people to understand how these animals live in their natural habitat and not theirs.
I'm curious because you're talking about scientific research. I'm just wondering: How much more do we need to know about these animals? There has been so much study on these animals not in their natural habitat. What are you gaining specifically that adds to our knowledge base about how these animals coexist with us?
Ms. Shafer: I think I would pose a rhetorical question, perhaps: Why would we stop medical research? Do we not know everything, and are there still things that we need to discover?
Perhaps a good example of a study that is marine mammal-related is the beluga whale study where the researcher was looking at the sounds that the beluga whales make and did the research with captive whales to get the baseline. They then went to the St. Lawrence River, where we have the population of belugas declining rapidly. There are only about 800 left and they're declining at the rate of about 1 to 1.5 per cent per year. One of the problems in the wild is that the calves are separating from the mothers and are washing up on the beaches; they're not surviving.
What has been discovered is there's actually noise pollution in the St. Lawrence. It is actually breaking up the communication between the mother and the baby, and the baseline for this was established with captivity but is now being looked at in the wild to see if there's something that can be done to prevent that.
So, would I have thought 10 years ago that that was an issue that would have to be researched? No. So I don't know what it is we don't know and what questions we would want answered in the future.
Senator Munson: Thank you. The former senator who introduced this bill obviously feels he's on the right track and doing the right thing.
Ms. Shafer: Yes.
Senator Munson: How does that make you feel? I've heard within the industry, from those who do care for these animals, that not only is it an industry, because it employs a lot of people, but some have said privately that it makes them feel like a criminal.
Ms. Shafer: I don't think I feel like a criminal, and I don't think my colleagues do, either. I do feel sad. I think it's a very emotional issue all around the table. I think that everyone would like to see the animals in the wild; it's the best place for them. But unfortunately, we have human encroachment. We have things like the shipping in the St. Lawrence that is creating problems for the belugas. We have the issue of pollution; not just noise pollution, but of other substances.
The human intervention in the world of these marine mammals, whether it's activities that promote climate change or in any of these areas, is making the natural environment that much more difficult for the inhabitants to live in. Connecting those dots for people is very important. Although it makes me feel sad and I'm sure it makes others sad in terms of having to remove an animal from the wild, it makes me even more sad that we as humans are creating situations that are harming large-scale animals.
Senator Munson: Thank you. I'll go on second round as well.
[Translation]
Senator Forest: I'm from Rimouski, in the heart of the estuary and gulf of the St. Lawrence River. We're very concerned about the beluga situation. You're right. Human activity has a major impact on the environment, and it creates adverse circumstances for wildlife preservation.
I'm concerned about accreditation. I'm sure your organization is serious. You accredit your members and evaluate yourself how well they maintain standards. I'm concerned about your independent experts. Do you have a bank of independent experts? There are three types of experts, including veterinarians who specialize in the very nature of the activity, whether it involves marine or land mammals, and others who specialize in administration. Do you have a bank of specialists, or is it always roughly the same specialists who conduct the evaluation? I'm concerned about avoiding proximity. If I evaluate a friend's activities every two years, after a number of years, I may be more accommodating than I would be without this proximity. That's my first question.
[English]
Mr. Gallant: Yes, our bank, basically, of our accreditation people and our inspectors ranges from Vancouver all the way to Moncton. That's the majority of people that we get to do an inspection. Of course, most of those people are working close to the field so that they understand what we're trying to accomplish.
One of the things that we have done also is that, on our commission, we have a veterinarian from the Canadian Veterinarian Medicine Board. That's another person that's not part of us, but we want to show that we have some transparency. So he will step in and then also with the commission discuss how we accredit somebody.
You're right in the sense that if I was inspecting yours and you would come by to inspect mine, we would be kind of like passing. But it's not as simple as that because of all of the questions we have for the accreditation team. Basically we call it the eight pillars, and this is our latest accreditation system. Those eight pillars are education, animal welfare and security. All of those eight pillars have to be met by at least 85 per cent. So when you are answering those questions, you have to make sure that they are truly doing what the standards are stating.
It's a lot harder for somebody when they go inspect, because to them it's like, "Does that animal have a place to go away from people; yes or no?'' If you say "no'' and they're failing the standard, then you're doing your job. But if you say "yes'' because you want to make sure they pass, as soon as we get a complaint, your reputation is on the line. For us, we look at ourselves as the animal welfare specialists, and we want to keep that. If we attack that part and the public doesn't trust us along those lines, then that could be a bad route.
Ms. Shafer: I have a couple of other comments that I could add to that. We do have a pool of experts that we go to around the world if there are specific areas that we feel we do not have expertise in. So we will consult with anyone around the world who has that expertise that we need. We also, especially for the aquariums because we have fewer people who are experienced in aquariums, do draw from the United States, and the expertise in the United States is quite close for inspectors.
Along the line of the transparency and the separation issues, one of the things that we're looking at in our continuous improvement process is developing technical committees that are different than the surveyors who go out and do the investigations so that there is not a conflict there. That's something we're building into the future.
[Translation]
Senator Forest: I have two more quick questions. You said there are three experts, including a veterinarian who specializes in animal health, an operator who works in the activity area itself, and another person who is responsible for administration.
You referred to your international bank. On top of that, there are animal biology experts. I'm thinking in particular of Robert Michaud, a St. Lawrence beluga specialist, and of the deer and major animal group specialists. You haven't considered supplementing your team with these types of experts. You could use an animal health specialist; operators based on the activity area, whether it's a land zoo or aquatic zoo; an administration specialist; and a biodiversity specialist. You haven't considered supplementing your team with this type of expertise?
Who pays the inspectors? Is it the owner of the establishment? Is it your association?
Mr. Gallant: It's the association.
[English]
When we choose one of our group, most of them — for myself, I've had 30 years of working in the industry. I have my degree in animal science. So there's a lot of DD. The people who are in administrative, they also have biology or some kind of animal care background. We kind of term it that way, but a lot of our experts have multiple disciplines along that line. For me, what I've been doing for the last few years is administrative, but prior to that I was a keeper, so I was working in the field with the animals and knowing exactly what we need to do for the proper care of those animals. So a lot of our inspectors wear a couple different hats along that line.
Ms. Shafer: Also with the technical committees that I mentioned, we are broadening the scope for those technical committees to bring in that extra expertise around those specific areas.
[Translation]
Senator Forest: You also understand that this debate involves a perception issue. In this field, perception is more important than reality. I think a feature of your organization, in terms of perception, is that you self-evaluate and self- regulate. That's why adding external experts is very important to make the process more credible.
[English]
Senator Enverga: Thank you for the presentation.
It was Mr. Gallant who mentioned that the CAZA accreditation is very strenuous. That's what I heard. How would you compare your accreditation with other countries, like the United States or Australia, those that have a lot of these facilities?
Ms. Shafer: Actually, with respect to Canadian standards, we have the strongest marine mammal standards in the world. That is because of the CCAC's 10-year work on the standards that were developed. Upon the issuance of those standards that were commissioned by fisheries and oceans, we implemented them into our standards immediately because we knew they were coming and we knew the process was very sound and very evidence-based. So we actually have in that area the strongest standards.
Overall with our standards, the direction that we're moving in is to become accredited as a standards organization so that we would be meeting the international standards in terms of the processes that we use to develop the standards so that there is greater transparency, public consultation and separation between the technical and non-technical inspection area.
Senator Enverga: I know you've been working with the Vancouver Aquarium and Marineland. At a certain point, did you find anything that you thought would contravene your standards? Have you found anything like that in the history of CAZA?
Ms. Shafer: Part of the accreditation process is always to elevate the standards of institutions, because animal welfare is our priority. There will be recommendations from every accreditation process that are made to the institutions of ways that they could improve things that they are doing.
In terms of not making the grade and not getting accreditation or losing accreditation, that has happened with organizations in the past. Following up on Senator Plett's comment about Marineland, I believe it was in 2010 that there were extra inspections added based on some of the issues back at that time.
So it's not a "gimme,'' if you will, in terms of an expectation that will be met. It is very serious.
Senator Enverga: So there were consultations?
Ms. Shafer: I wasn't there in 2010. I can only tell you what I found on Google. In terms of the current situations, they are being investigated right now, and it's not something that I can speak to.
Senator Gold: Thank you for being here today. I have a couple of questions that are not necessarily fully related. One clearly has to do with the welfare of animals, which is properly your first priority, and the other is research.
But before I do that, please don't misunderstand the question, but I think the setting of national standards is really important. How is your organization funded?
Ms. Shafer: We're a charity, so we can receive funds from anyone who donates to charities, but the principle funding for our organizations comes from covering the cost of the accreditations from our members, so we are primarily funded by our members.
Senator Gold: Right.
On the research side, we've heard conflicting things about the importance of research of cetaceans in captivity as opposed to in the wild. You've spoken to this as well. Can you give us some indication of the number of scientific, peer- reviewed published articles that have been produced using cetaceans in captivity, either in the Marineland setting or the Vancouver Aquarium?
Ms. Shafer: Unfortunately, I don't have that information. I could probably get it for you and provide it to the clerk, but I don't know that off the top of my head.
Senator Gold: Thank you. That would be helpful.
The other question has to do with the welfare of animals. Cetaceans are social animals, as we are. Is it correct that certain jurisdictions, including Ontario, for example, have standards of care for cetaceans and marine animals such that they must be kept in appropriate social groups for their welfare? If so, how does CAZA deal with the fact that in Marineland there's a single killer whale in captivity? What's CAZA's take on that? Are my assumptions correct? If so, how would you respond?
Ms. Shafer: They're sort of correct. The bill in Ontario actually applies to orcas. Marineland does have the singular orca and the other aquariums in Canada do not, so it's not related to the same type of bill that we're talking about today.
With respect to the orca at Marineland, it has been grandfathered in because it has been there for so long, but there will be no new orcas there. That's why that orca is alone. It is a bit of a different situation specifically focusing on that breed.
Senator Gold: Apart from the fact that it's grandfathered in or out, as an accreditation organization, you have concerns about the welfare of that particular whale and, more generally, the welfare of other cetaceans that are kept in captivity, even though they may comply with your accreditation standards, do you not?
Ms. Shafer: I can't answer for that particular whale because I have not read the history of the whale and know that particular whale as an independent creature.
The only thing I can tell you is that I am familiar with Lucy the elephant in Edmonton. Lucy is a single elephant, and elephants also are considered social animals. Lucy is not a social elephant. With the health issues that she has and the attempts that have been made historically to provide other elephants to keep her company, that has not worked. The zoo in Edmonton is not going to be adding to their elephant collection, but they're doing everything they can to make sure that individual elephant is as well socialized and well looked after as possible. I have read extensive articles about Lucy, and we brought in a specialist from Europe to do an independent evaluation of all of her health records, her maintenance and all of the animal husbandry aspects.
I do not know personally the history of the orca in Marineland, but it's something I can look into and get back to you on for sure.
Senator Christmas: Dr. Shafer, I noticed that your organization has been around since 1976.
Ms. Shafer: Correct.
Senator Christmas: As an accrediting organization, I assume that over the past 40 years you have metrics for measuring your organization's effectiveness. Do you have those kinds of metrics or measurements to determine, as an accrediting organization, how effective you are with your clients — with your 33 zoos and aquariums?
Ms. Shafer: Unfortunately, no, I don't. The organization, until just last year, only had 1.5 staff, so it was much more of a coordinating aspect and we did not do that form of evaluation. We are actually undertaking, with our growth in the last year and the commitment of — the reason why we've grown is the commitment of the institutions. They want the best standards. That is why we are undertaking this continuous improvement process, setting some metrics and looking at how we're doing things differently.
Because you're absolutely right: The trial of public opinion is something that can shift the perception very quickly. It's something, as also has been mentioned, that both sides of the argument are advocating on behalf of the animals.
Unfortunately, I don't have any statistics that I can provide for you, but I can assure you that it's something we are looking at going forward.
Senator Christmas: Can I assume, then, as an accrediting organization, that over the years, the organization had to take some corrective action or some remedial plans?
Ms. Shafer: Yes.
Senator Christmas: Can you give me a sense of how often those kinds of corrective actions are necessary or those remedial plans had to be put in place?
Ms. Shafer: Unfortunately I can't, but I have someone who has been with the organization for a long period of time, and I can ask that. We also have boxes of paper records that we can go through and see what we can find in that respect.
The Chair: We'll begin our second round.
Senator Hubley: Thank you for answering all of our questions this evening.
You talked about the role of the aquariums and zoos in conservation research and education, and then you mentioned the beluga whale. The Vancouver Aquarium has already announced that it will be phasing out its beluga conservation and research program by 2029, as well as discontinuing its beluga display. If the aquarium in Vancouver is getting out of the beluga research business, does that change CAZA's view on it? Would it be your recommendation to start the phasing-out at an earlier date?
Ms. Shafer: No, I don't believe it's within CAZA's purview to look at that. Since the Vancouver Aquarium made that announcement, the CAZA board has not met. The board could certainly look at setting policies around belugas if they were so inclined and felt the need to, but I don't believe under general circumstances it would be something that would come under CAZA's domain.
Senator Hubley: Just another note: I think California also has legislation that's banning the captivity and breeding of orcas.
Ms. Shafer: Yes.
Senator Hubley: The latter was supported by SeaWorld. You say there's only one orca in captivity in Canada?
Ms. Shafer: Yes.
Senator Hubley: So CAZA, then, would not support any more orcas being brought into captivity?
Ms. Shafer: That's correct. We have a position where we did support the legislation that was brought into Ontario specifically around that. The organization is on record as not bringing in orcas.
Senator Raine: Specifically, we're looking at cetaceans here. Does your standard call for a certain amount of space per animal?
Ms. Shafer: No. Our standards are not designed in that manner. It really is species-specific. It's too bad my colleague is gone, because he can explain in greater detail. The key things we look at are behavioural. I think he did mention: Can the animal hide if they need to hide from people or from some of their more aggressive pool mates? Are they in a position where they can adequately get their food and the proper food? It's all of those types of things. Can they move in the manner that they are meant to move? It is the number of animals and the types of animals that are in the aquarium, all of those kinds of things. I think that that question would be best answered by either Marineland or the Vancouver Aquarium, but our standards themselves are specifically on the animal health and not defining it by a certain amount of space.
Senator Plett: I have a question about the orca at Marineland. As you said, Marineland will come and testify and, I'm sure, have all the information we need on it. You are aware that they cannot bring another orca into Marineland because of legislation in Ontario, and they also are not allowed to release the orca that they have because it obviously wouldn't survive out in the wild.
Ms. Shafer: Correct.
Senator Plett: So it's a bit of a Catch-22. They unfortunately have to have this orca there that will die of old age by itself.
Ms. Shafer: Yes.
Senator Plett: Thank you. You've talked about the research that you do and how the adoption of this bill would do away with a lot of that. Can you provide for the committee some specific examples of how the research at your member facilities on cetaceans is, in fact, making a difference in the wild?
Ms. Shafer: The first one that I have mentioned already is the study by Dr. Valeria Vergara with respect to the sound and the belugas in the St. Lawrence.
The other area that we have is something that is also beluga-related, and it was a study that was done on the captive belugas. It was determined that much in the same way we age trees by the rings in them, a beluga's age is calculated by the number of rings in their teeth. Previously it was thought that the rings appeared over the course of a year in the same way that we were doing with trees, but this has been shown to be false, so the estimates of the age of belugas in the wild is probably overstated because a beluga can show two or more rings in a year. That's another example of research that was done on a captive beluga but is actually being used in terms of knowledge and informing the knowledge of the wild population of belugas.
Senator Plett: I'm from Manitoba, and up in Churchill, Manitoba, of course, the belugas are flourishing. I have had the opportunity of being in the water with belugas out there. I've had the opportunity of flying overhead and seeing thousands of them.
Ms. Shafer: That's wonderful.
Senator Plett: I saw thousands of belugas going out in the wild, and it was fascinating. You talked earlier, Dr. Shafer, about some of the issues that we have in as far as why many of these whales and different sea animals are dying off, and you mentioned the St. Lawrence Seaway.
Ms. Shafer: Yes.
Senator Plett: Do you have any stats on how many whales, how many cetaceans, are dying because of issues like the St. Lawrence or other issues that are man-made, other than hunting? Clearly we had talked about that. Some areas they are hunted, but other than that, belugas that die as a result of man-made occurrences?
Ms. Shafer: Unfortunately I don't have those statistics here.
Senator Plett: Are those statistics available?
Ms. Shafer: That is something I would have to find out. I'm not sure.
Senator Plett: Could you?
Ms. Shafer: Yes.
Senator Plett: Thank you.
Senator Munson: You don't like Bill S-203, and you made that quite clear. Is there any other mechanism, or are you satisfied with the peer review or what's in place now in having checks about what's happening in the aquarium industry and in the zoo industry? Are you satisfied with the way that you look at these issues and, if you say no to this particular bill, is there any other mechanism that might act as a balance?
Ms. Shafer: I think that science is really what we need to build our decisions upon and not emotions. The CCAC standards that were developed and brought experts together to define these things to me are the gold standard. Now, do I think that that standard should rest and not be reviewed? No. I think it is something that needs to be reviewed, and as we get more information and as we evolve, I think that the standards should be continuously reviewed. Right now, we happen to be in a grace period because they are new.
I don't think that it benefits cetaceans to obliterate, in a sense, the ability to do the research and to find out things like why calves are separating from their mothers and we're losing 1 per cent to 1.5 per cent of whales every year in the St. Lawrence.
Senator Enverga: It was mentioned about killer whales being a social animal. I know that's one orca there. I've seen it a few times with my kids. My kids really enjoy that orca swimming in that aquarium and were so happy to see other animals too at the same time. However, you say it is a social animal, but then there's only one there, and it's going to be hard to maybe put him back to the sea.
Ms. Shafer: Yes, he can't.
Senator Enverga: He can't do that, right? Would you suggest that maybe one solution is to bring a mate in for him? Would you suggest that to make that aquarium better?
Ms. Shafer: I wouldn't suggest that because I have absolutely no knowledge about that. I would leave that to the experts who do have that knowledge. I would think that would be a really good question to ask Marineland.
Senator Enverga: Even if it was a beluga from another aquarium, not from the wild, and maybe put it there?
Ms. Shafer: It would be against the law in Ontario to do that. They would have to work around the law to do that. It would have to be a question for Marineland. I don't have the expertise, I'm sorry.
Senator Enverga: Okay, thank you.
The Chair: That's it for our questioning. I would certainly like to thank Ms. Shafer, and Mr. Gallant who had to leave early, for your presentation this evening. It certainly has added much to our discussions, and I certainly thank you for taking the time and apologize again for our late start.
Ms. Shafer: Thank you very much.
The Chair: We will adjourn.
(The committee adjourned.)